2017 NOTE - Unfortunately, I haven't kept up with this page in the past couple of years. I think I'll eventually take all of these down, but in the meantime, feel free to check out my thoughts on some movies between 2013-2015!
Everest - ***
September 29, 2015
Note: the review does contain some spoilers. If you’re not remotely familiar with the true story which Everest is based on, I’d stop reading. But I’ll try to be light on specifics.
Don’t be fooled by the marketing: Everest is not meant to be a traditional action movie. Vertical Limit it is not. Instead, it provides a glimpse into the lives of people whose entire well-being is defined by pushing the limits of their body and psyche for the chance to proclaim what only few can: “I climbed to the top of Mt. Everest.” Think A Perfect Storm on a mountain. That it’s based on true events keeps the story a little more grounded in reality; slow motion races against an avalanche (read: Cliffhanger) are replaced with characters motionless, slowly freezing to death, realizing little can be done to change their fate. And while there is some personal drama, the film’s content with emphasizing the climb more than the climbers. By the end, I wondered how so many willingly put themselves in such danger, and if I ever could? That the film does a reasonable job answering that question is its biggest strength.
Jason Clarke plays Rob Hall, a guide for Adventure Consultants, one of many tourist companies responsible for helping their clients reach the top of the world’s largest peak. His clients include a range of experienced to amateur climbers, from Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin), to Yosuko Namba (Naoko Mori), to Doug Hansen (John Hawkes). The film begins right at the start of the expedition, as the soon-to-be climbers fly in from all over the world to immediately begin their journey. But first, there’s “acclimatization” a month-long preparation of ensuring your body and mind are ready to reach heights that “are literally killing you every second.”
Everest marks a rare time when the exposition of the film serves as its strongest component. Even at nearly 40 minutes before they actually start to climb, the film is quick and deliberate by establishing the rules of the mountain and the ascent. By the time they’ve trekked up the final hill to the peak, the film earned its climatic moment, as we witness firsthand the horrific conditions the dozens of climbers were subjected to in order to finally saying “I did it.” Unfortunately, climbing the mountain is only half the battle, as getting back down – amidst extremely cold weather and a powerful and unexpected blizzard – proves to be the hardest part of an already demanding journey. Climbers are separated, lost, abandoned, all having no idea if they’ll ever make it back down.
Technically, the film is flawless. The photography is beautiful – using some real-life Everest footage as well a summit in Italy as a stand-in for the real beast. Though I didn’t see it in IMAX, the film takes advantage of the term ‘big screen epic’, its breathtaking images and sound design effectively creating a realistic atmosphere. Dario Marianelli’s score perfectly captures the ‘man vs. nature’ theme, and in a perfect world, it’d be a contender in the race for Best Original Score. I could go on, but kudos to director Baltasar Kormakur for ensuring that we’re never taken out of the moment once we’re on the mountain with flashy action scenes or slow-motion cuts. Had someone like Michael Bay directed this film, I can’t even imagine what would have occurred.
Overall, Clarke does a great job as Hall, though at times I wonder if his actions are more a composite of many real-life individuals. Not only does he arguably have the most to lose (leaving behind a pregnant wife), but he is also the voice of reason in almost every occurrence (against some other cocky guides) and the first one to question the behavior/safety of everyone else in his sight. There’s nothing wrong with our protagonist being a hero, but the movie sometimes hammers too hard that everything Hall does is for the benefit of others (either through his dialogue or someone else’s) when others seem content with ignoring it. The rest of the cast all serve their roles well; John Hawkes puts a layman’s face to the movie as Doug, whose motivation for wanting to climb the mountain is to inspire the kids in his community to go for their dreams. Emily Watson makes a mark as Helen, a woman whose role in the team is both the most critical and yet the most powerless. Others are just as effective.
Still, once they reach the top of the mountain, and the blizzard hits, the energy fizzles. At times, it was difficult to identify characters since they were so many, walking in different groups (often changing), and some wearing similarly-colored gear. That added to the overall chaos of the expedition, but it also makes the audience play catchup when you’re trying to keep track of where the characters happen to be at any point in time. And since by that point there were so many established, we quickly leap from one climber to another, just as we’ve finally caught up to the moment. And a scene near the end involving one of the characters’ fates sticks out like a sore thumb. Yes, it’s in there because it clearly happens, but it’s brushed over so quickly, and leaves a sour taste of privilege considering the “camaraderie” feelings the movie spent nearly two hours instilling.
I liked Everest a lot. It’s extremely well-made, has pulse-pounding scenes and boasts a very strong cast lead by Clarke. The film touches upon many possible explanations to the disaster: bad luck, overcrowding, competitiveness between the guides, etc., but doesn’t place the blame at anyone’s feet. And while not all of the characters resonate with you when the film is over, I think that it illustrates the larger point Kormakur’s trying to make. He’s paying respect in a different way: these people live on the mountain, and we’re dropped right into that moment that is both horrifying yet their most fulfilling. Their last moments and tragic deaths play second fiddle to the achievement they felt when reaching the top of the mountain. And what an achievement it must have been.
Note: the review does contain some spoilers. If you’re not remotely familiar with the true story which Everest is based on, I’d stop reading. But I’ll try to be light on specifics.
Don’t be fooled by the marketing: Everest is not meant to be a traditional action movie. Vertical Limit it is not. Instead, it provides a glimpse into the lives of people whose entire well-being is defined by pushing the limits of their body and psyche for the chance to proclaim what only few can: “I climbed to the top of Mt. Everest.” Think A Perfect Storm on a mountain. That it’s based on true events keeps the story a little more grounded in reality; slow motion races against an avalanche (read: Cliffhanger) are replaced with characters motionless, slowly freezing to death, realizing little can be done to change their fate. And while there is some personal drama, the film’s content with emphasizing the climb more than the climbers. By the end, I wondered how so many willingly put themselves in such danger, and if I ever could? That the film does a reasonable job answering that question is its biggest strength.
Jason Clarke plays Rob Hall, a guide for Adventure Consultants, one of many tourist companies responsible for helping their clients reach the top of the world’s largest peak. His clients include a range of experienced to amateur climbers, from Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin), to Yosuko Namba (Naoko Mori), to Doug Hansen (John Hawkes). The film begins right at the start of the expedition, as the soon-to-be climbers fly in from all over the world to immediately begin their journey. But first, there’s “acclimatization” a month-long preparation of ensuring your body and mind are ready to reach heights that “are literally killing you every second.”
Everest marks a rare time when the exposition of the film serves as its strongest component. Even at nearly 40 minutes before they actually start to climb, the film is quick and deliberate by establishing the rules of the mountain and the ascent. By the time they’ve trekked up the final hill to the peak, the film earned its climatic moment, as we witness firsthand the horrific conditions the dozens of climbers were subjected to in order to finally saying “I did it.” Unfortunately, climbing the mountain is only half the battle, as getting back down – amidst extremely cold weather and a powerful and unexpected blizzard – proves to be the hardest part of an already demanding journey. Climbers are separated, lost, abandoned, all having no idea if they’ll ever make it back down.
Technically, the film is flawless. The photography is beautiful – using some real-life Everest footage as well a summit in Italy as a stand-in for the real beast. Though I didn’t see it in IMAX, the film takes advantage of the term ‘big screen epic’, its breathtaking images and sound design effectively creating a realistic atmosphere. Dario Marianelli’s score perfectly captures the ‘man vs. nature’ theme, and in a perfect world, it’d be a contender in the race for Best Original Score. I could go on, but kudos to director Baltasar Kormakur for ensuring that we’re never taken out of the moment once we’re on the mountain with flashy action scenes or slow-motion cuts. Had someone like Michael Bay directed this film, I can’t even imagine what would have occurred.
Overall, Clarke does a great job as Hall, though at times I wonder if his actions are more a composite of many real-life individuals. Not only does he arguably have the most to lose (leaving behind a pregnant wife), but he is also the voice of reason in almost every occurrence (against some other cocky guides) and the first one to question the behavior/safety of everyone else in his sight. There’s nothing wrong with our protagonist being a hero, but the movie sometimes hammers too hard that everything Hall does is for the benefit of others (either through his dialogue or someone else’s) when others seem content with ignoring it. The rest of the cast all serve their roles well; John Hawkes puts a layman’s face to the movie as Doug, whose motivation for wanting to climb the mountain is to inspire the kids in his community to go for their dreams. Emily Watson makes a mark as Helen, a woman whose role in the team is both the most critical and yet the most powerless. Others are just as effective.
Still, once they reach the top of the mountain, and the blizzard hits, the energy fizzles. At times, it was difficult to identify characters since they were so many, walking in different groups (often changing), and some wearing similarly-colored gear. That added to the overall chaos of the expedition, but it also makes the audience play catchup when you’re trying to keep track of where the characters happen to be at any point in time. And since by that point there were so many established, we quickly leap from one climber to another, just as we’ve finally caught up to the moment. And a scene near the end involving one of the characters’ fates sticks out like a sore thumb. Yes, it’s in there because it clearly happens, but it’s brushed over so quickly, and leaves a sour taste of privilege considering the “camaraderie” feelings the movie spent nearly two hours instilling.
I liked Everest a lot. It’s extremely well-made, has pulse-pounding scenes and boasts a very strong cast lead by Clarke. The film touches upon many possible explanations to the disaster: bad luck, overcrowding, competitiveness between the guides, etc., but doesn’t place the blame at anyone’s feet. And while not all of the characters resonate with you when the film is over, I think that it illustrates the larger point Kormakur’s trying to make. He’s paying respect in a different way: these people live on the mountain, and we’re dropped right into that moment that is both horrifying yet their most fulfilling. Their last moments and tragic deaths play second fiddle to the achievement they felt when reaching the top of the mountain. And what an achievement it must have been.
Interstellar - ***1/2
November 7, 2014
I’ve tried to keep specifics to a minimum, but please do not read this unless you are willing to have some elements of the story revealed.
After already tackling the dream world, and with the third chapter of the Batman trilogy closed, Christopher Nolan heads into outer space with Interstellar, a setting where some of our greatest directors have gone and left their marks. Like his previous outings, the movie is another example of pure adrenaline-based storytelling, but this time there’s no superheroes or dream shifters, just a guy who loves his kids and is willing to travel to the world and beyond in order to save them. And though I think there are some hiccups along the way, Interstellar is a must-see in that it blends pure excitement with theories of a world that may not be so far off.
The film begins in the not-too-far future, where much of the Earth has already died off and the rest face extinction within a generation or two. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a former NASA pilot, is now a widowed father and farmer, whose job to produce corn is one of the world’s most important roles. Instead of global warming we have massive dust storms. Agriculture remains one of the few sustaining elements of survival. Upon a series of supernatural events, Cooper discovers an underground hideaway containing the last remnants of NASA, led by Professor Brand (Michael Caine) and his daughter, physicist Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway). To avoid getting bogged in exposition, Cooper learns that he’s humanity’s last hope and is needed to pilot a shuttle to an unknown galaxy to explore potential planets that could serve as the next habitat for our continued survival. Soon Cooper, Brand and the rest of the team are blasting off into space to encounter danger, black holes, time travel and more, but not after a painful series of goodbyes to his children, knowing he has to make a promise he likely cannot keep.
In the few reviews and comments I’ve read, there seems to be one of two threads: 1) This is Nolan’s 2001!, or 2) Stop comparing this to 2001! Both are fair to make. But while Kubrick’s masterpiece is (admittedly) a major influence on this work, Nolan’s underlying themes of human relationships in the context of space travel and infinite danger are more present than in the that film. If anything, I’d argue that the film shares more in common with dramatic stores of loss and heartbreak than sci-fi spectacles like Gravity and 2001.
From a technical and visual standpoint, Interstellar is spectacular. The film explores the grandest of sets within every sequence of their travels. Breaking away from the tightly confined boundaries of Gotham City streets, Nolan (like with Inception) creates multiple worlds, balancing them effectively with claustrophobic-like scenes in the space shuttle. Credit is due to cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and Production Designer Nathan Crowley for their work in allowing the film’s look and feel to not solely be defined by its visual effects (which are still top notch). And in an IMAX theater, every sound – from the effects of rockets blasting to Hans Zimmer’s operatic score – pulsates in a way that heightens the tension of every turn of events. This is a movie that demands to be seen in a theater or not at all.
McConaughey is on a roll with his performances in True Detective and Dallas Buyers Club. His work here combines the best of both performances: an intellectual with more than meets the eye combined with an emotional backstory worth rooting for. Like The Joker in The Dark Knight, our investment in the character is much more fleshed out dramatically by the actor’s portrayal. The rest of the cast (some Nolan repeats) do fine work, though a few characters like Topher Grace’s don’t serve much of a purpose (if I had to guess, most of their screen time was probably cut). A special shout out to Mackenzie Foy whose performances as Cooper’s young daughter is so important that if played incorrectly could have ruined the core of the story.
Yet when it was all over, and the rush of the film had subsided, I felt underwhelmed by the third act and especially its conclusion. The film builds up several scientific themes and elements yet ultimately seems to bank its lasting impact on the most simplistic of outcomes. And while on a character-based level, that approach works, it’s almost disappointing for a movie that seemed to aim to reach a much broader scope. What bothered me most though were the distracting instances where characters were uttering vague half-truths and outright lies for no other reason than to serve a purpose later. For a film about the future of civilization and saving mankind, it’s almost shocking how much unnecessary manipulation and omission took place by nearly every character at one point or another. And while all were patched up with brief dialogue or explanation, one can argue that Nolan crosses the border into cheating when it comes to some of his reveals.
Still, what I love most about Christopher Nolan films is that even though his ambitions increase with every picture he churns out, his skills as a director and a storyteller have always been able to keep pace. And with Interstellar, Nolan truly swings for the fences both scientifically and philosophically, and the work deserves all of its praise it’s getting from critics, audiences and other filmmakers. As a movie-going experience, I enjoyed every second of the film. As a grander statement of love empowering all, not as much. Nolan has done well when tackling basic tenets of the human condition amidst the backdrop of all the action, like good vs. evil with The Dark Knight, image and obsession with The Prestige¸ even power and social class in The Dark Knight Rises. Yet with this film, some of the character relationships (like between Caine/Hathaway, the second father/daughter arc…) suffer when they’re put ahead of the grander ideas and vision. Still, we need films like Interstellar to challenge our thinking and push the boundaries of storytelling, because the alternative of every filmmaker playing it safe is no fun . So please Chris, keep swinging.
I’ve tried to keep specifics to a minimum, but please do not read this unless you are willing to have some elements of the story revealed.
After already tackling the dream world, and with the third chapter of the Batman trilogy closed, Christopher Nolan heads into outer space with Interstellar, a setting where some of our greatest directors have gone and left their marks. Like his previous outings, the movie is another example of pure adrenaline-based storytelling, but this time there’s no superheroes or dream shifters, just a guy who loves his kids and is willing to travel to the world and beyond in order to save them. And though I think there are some hiccups along the way, Interstellar is a must-see in that it blends pure excitement with theories of a world that may not be so far off.
The film begins in the not-too-far future, where much of the Earth has already died off and the rest face extinction within a generation or two. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a former NASA pilot, is now a widowed father and farmer, whose job to produce corn is one of the world’s most important roles. Instead of global warming we have massive dust storms. Agriculture remains one of the few sustaining elements of survival. Upon a series of supernatural events, Cooper discovers an underground hideaway containing the last remnants of NASA, led by Professor Brand (Michael Caine) and his daughter, physicist Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway). To avoid getting bogged in exposition, Cooper learns that he’s humanity’s last hope and is needed to pilot a shuttle to an unknown galaxy to explore potential planets that could serve as the next habitat for our continued survival. Soon Cooper, Brand and the rest of the team are blasting off into space to encounter danger, black holes, time travel and more, but not after a painful series of goodbyes to his children, knowing he has to make a promise he likely cannot keep.
In the few reviews and comments I’ve read, there seems to be one of two threads: 1) This is Nolan’s 2001!, or 2) Stop comparing this to 2001! Both are fair to make. But while Kubrick’s masterpiece is (admittedly) a major influence on this work, Nolan’s underlying themes of human relationships in the context of space travel and infinite danger are more present than in the that film. If anything, I’d argue that the film shares more in common with dramatic stores of loss and heartbreak than sci-fi spectacles like Gravity and 2001.
From a technical and visual standpoint, Interstellar is spectacular. The film explores the grandest of sets within every sequence of their travels. Breaking away from the tightly confined boundaries of Gotham City streets, Nolan (like with Inception) creates multiple worlds, balancing them effectively with claustrophobic-like scenes in the space shuttle. Credit is due to cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and Production Designer Nathan Crowley for their work in allowing the film’s look and feel to not solely be defined by its visual effects (which are still top notch). And in an IMAX theater, every sound – from the effects of rockets blasting to Hans Zimmer’s operatic score – pulsates in a way that heightens the tension of every turn of events. This is a movie that demands to be seen in a theater or not at all.
McConaughey is on a roll with his performances in True Detective and Dallas Buyers Club. His work here combines the best of both performances: an intellectual with more than meets the eye combined with an emotional backstory worth rooting for. Like The Joker in The Dark Knight, our investment in the character is much more fleshed out dramatically by the actor’s portrayal. The rest of the cast (some Nolan repeats) do fine work, though a few characters like Topher Grace’s don’t serve much of a purpose (if I had to guess, most of their screen time was probably cut). A special shout out to Mackenzie Foy whose performances as Cooper’s young daughter is so important that if played incorrectly could have ruined the core of the story.
Yet when it was all over, and the rush of the film had subsided, I felt underwhelmed by the third act and especially its conclusion. The film builds up several scientific themes and elements yet ultimately seems to bank its lasting impact on the most simplistic of outcomes. And while on a character-based level, that approach works, it’s almost disappointing for a movie that seemed to aim to reach a much broader scope. What bothered me most though were the distracting instances where characters were uttering vague half-truths and outright lies for no other reason than to serve a purpose later. For a film about the future of civilization and saving mankind, it’s almost shocking how much unnecessary manipulation and omission took place by nearly every character at one point or another. And while all were patched up with brief dialogue or explanation, one can argue that Nolan crosses the border into cheating when it comes to some of his reveals.
Still, what I love most about Christopher Nolan films is that even though his ambitions increase with every picture he churns out, his skills as a director and a storyteller have always been able to keep pace. And with Interstellar, Nolan truly swings for the fences both scientifically and philosophically, and the work deserves all of its praise it’s getting from critics, audiences and other filmmakers. As a movie-going experience, I enjoyed every second of the film. As a grander statement of love empowering all, not as much. Nolan has done well when tackling basic tenets of the human condition amidst the backdrop of all the action, like good vs. evil with The Dark Knight, image and obsession with The Prestige¸ even power and social class in The Dark Knight Rises. Yet with this film, some of the character relationships (like between Caine/Hathaway, the second father/daughter arc…) suffer when they’re put ahead of the grander ideas and vision. Still, we need films like Interstellar to challenge our thinking and push the boundaries of storytelling, because the alternative of every filmmaker playing it safe is no fun . So please Chris, keep swinging.
Gone Girl - ***1/2
November 3, 2014
In a film that focuses so much on the whimsies and ambiguity of love and marriage, perhaps Gone Girl’s greatest strength is its pure technical precision. This shouldn’t be surprising – given that David Fincher is at the helm – but the film had ample chances to delve into cheesiness or over-the-top satire, but for the most part, Gone Girl hits its mark. That is not to say Gone Girl doesn’t have much to say about a lot of things – our culture’s obsession with celebrity and the media’s all-too-eager ability to indulge us, for one – but the film is at its best when it stays grounded in the central story, building tension and mystery in nearly every scene. As a reader (and fan) of Gillian Flynn’s novel, my hopes were high for the film adaptation. Primarily, I was hoping that Fincher and Co. could avoid some of the book’s third-act flaws which weigh down the book’s otherwise wonderful setup and buildup. And with a few subtle but important changes, I think it does just that, and may offer a more rewarding experience for those disappointed with the book’s ending. That is not to say that the film doesn’t have its own flaws, but as both an adaptation and a stand-alone piece of work, Gone Girl delivers.
Gone Girl centers around Nick Dunn (Ben Affleck) on the morning of his 5th anniversary to Amy (Rosamund Pike); the marriage is fading and it’s apparent to nearly everyone in his life - including his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) – that Nick and Amy are hardly the lovebirds they might have been at the onset of their relationship. When Nick returns home, the house is in shambles and Amy is missing. Detective Boney and Officer Gilpin (Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit) arrive to investigate the specifics of her disappearance. From the very get-go, something seems off. What is Nick hiding? What do the detectives suspect but hesitate to officially speculate? Who is the creepy guy (Neil Patrick Harris) helping to volunteer to find her? And what is the story behind Amy – whose recollections of a wonderful marriage gone bad appear throughout the film via flashback and voiceover narration?
From that point, the film is as much of an exploration into a troubled marriage as it is a traditional whodunit, yet elements of both are equally as effective. This can largely be attributed to Gillian Flynn’s screenplay – which she wrote herself – a story rooted in darkness from an author who has clearly done her homework on police procedurals. But credit is due to the story’s pacing as it hops between multiple viewpoints without undermining either one. Unlike the book, we’re not inside Nick’s head, so balancing Amy’s inner-thoughts with Nick’s actions is a tough feat, but it’s where Fincher deserves the most credit. These two characters are wholly developed and (save a few moments in the last act), their actions are consistent with the way their personalities have been presented.
David Fincher is known for extracting top-notch performances out of his cast, and this is no exception. Ben Affleck is the perfect choice for Nick – a relatively likeable guy on the surface but hiding his own demons. Rosamund Pike is also terrific in a role that is likely to earn her an Oscar nomination. And the supporting cast – everyone from Tyler Perry as Nick’s cocky lawyer to Carrie Coon to Kim Dickens – brings their A-game. If there’s a downside, it’s that Emily Ratajkowski’s character is very underutilized. As the catalyst to so much of the film’s events, an extra couple scenes were needed to give more context to Nick’s actions. And then there’s that controversial third act, which people seem to either admire for its realism or abhor for its lack of realism. I’ll avoid any spoilers but I will say that I think the film fares better than the book here; including certain murky details make for more convincing motivations. Whether this was a conscious choice by Flynn or outside pressure I’m not really sure, but the ending of this film didn’t rub me the wrong way nearly as much as the book did.
It’s likely Gone Girl will be a major player come Oscar season next year. It’s a brisk 2 and ½ hours that allows you to guess at every turn what might happen next. Scenes pile on top of each other like a stack of clues that might eventually tumble onto itself. Like Fincher’s previous movies, nothing is included by accident, and there’s not a wasted scene in the film. There may be some unrealistic twists and turns throughout, but I think Flynn’s story is more about delving into the darkest moments of the human psyche, and showing what people may do under the most desperate situations. And who better to show us darkness than David Fincher?
In a film that focuses so much on the whimsies and ambiguity of love and marriage, perhaps Gone Girl’s greatest strength is its pure technical precision. This shouldn’t be surprising – given that David Fincher is at the helm – but the film had ample chances to delve into cheesiness or over-the-top satire, but for the most part, Gone Girl hits its mark. That is not to say Gone Girl doesn’t have much to say about a lot of things – our culture’s obsession with celebrity and the media’s all-too-eager ability to indulge us, for one – but the film is at its best when it stays grounded in the central story, building tension and mystery in nearly every scene. As a reader (and fan) of Gillian Flynn’s novel, my hopes were high for the film adaptation. Primarily, I was hoping that Fincher and Co. could avoid some of the book’s third-act flaws which weigh down the book’s otherwise wonderful setup and buildup. And with a few subtle but important changes, I think it does just that, and may offer a more rewarding experience for those disappointed with the book’s ending. That is not to say that the film doesn’t have its own flaws, but as both an adaptation and a stand-alone piece of work, Gone Girl delivers.
Gone Girl centers around Nick Dunn (Ben Affleck) on the morning of his 5th anniversary to Amy (Rosamund Pike); the marriage is fading and it’s apparent to nearly everyone in his life - including his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) – that Nick and Amy are hardly the lovebirds they might have been at the onset of their relationship. When Nick returns home, the house is in shambles and Amy is missing. Detective Boney and Officer Gilpin (Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit) arrive to investigate the specifics of her disappearance. From the very get-go, something seems off. What is Nick hiding? What do the detectives suspect but hesitate to officially speculate? Who is the creepy guy (Neil Patrick Harris) helping to volunteer to find her? And what is the story behind Amy – whose recollections of a wonderful marriage gone bad appear throughout the film via flashback and voiceover narration?
From that point, the film is as much of an exploration into a troubled marriage as it is a traditional whodunit, yet elements of both are equally as effective. This can largely be attributed to Gillian Flynn’s screenplay – which she wrote herself – a story rooted in darkness from an author who has clearly done her homework on police procedurals. But credit is due to the story’s pacing as it hops between multiple viewpoints without undermining either one. Unlike the book, we’re not inside Nick’s head, so balancing Amy’s inner-thoughts with Nick’s actions is a tough feat, but it’s where Fincher deserves the most credit. These two characters are wholly developed and (save a few moments in the last act), their actions are consistent with the way their personalities have been presented.
David Fincher is known for extracting top-notch performances out of his cast, and this is no exception. Ben Affleck is the perfect choice for Nick – a relatively likeable guy on the surface but hiding his own demons. Rosamund Pike is also terrific in a role that is likely to earn her an Oscar nomination. And the supporting cast – everyone from Tyler Perry as Nick’s cocky lawyer to Carrie Coon to Kim Dickens – brings their A-game. If there’s a downside, it’s that Emily Ratajkowski’s character is very underutilized. As the catalyst to so much of the film’s events, an extra couple scenes were needed to give more context to Nick’s actions. And then there’s that controversial third act, which people seem to either admire for its realism or abhor for its lack of realism. I’ll avoid any spoilers but I will say that I think the film fares better than the book here; including certain murky details make for more convincing motivations. Whether this was a conscious choice by Flynn or outside pressure I’m not really sure, but the ending of this film didn’t rub me the wrong way nearly as much as the book did.
It’s likely Gone Girl will be a major player come Oscar season next year. It’s a brisk 2 and ½ hours that allows you to guess at every turn what might happen next. Scenes pile on top of each other like a stack of clues that might eventually tumble onto itself. Like Fincher’s previous movies, nothing is included by accident, and there’s not a wasted scene in the film. There may be some unrealistic twists and turns throughout, but I think Flynn’s story is more about delving into the darkest moments of the human psyche, and showing what people may do under the most desperate situations. And who better to show us darkness than David Fincher?
Boyhood - ****
August 7, 2014
If you scroll through this page and my scattered movie reviews, I’ve tried my best to replicate my film-reviewing days at The Pitt News, providing subjective opinions on the movies while also doing my best to include historical context and analysis. Enter a movie like Boyhood, one that for weeks was being hailed by critics as one of the greatest films ever made, the most unique approach to film-making ever, etc. At first, more was spoken about the production of the film and its experimental filming style than the actual movie itself. And though I love so many Richard Linklater movies (the Before trilogy and Waking Life probably my favorites), I tried to block out all the noise, not wanting the behind-the-scenes mechanics of the movie to play into my overall opinion. And though I tried my hardest, I failed.
Boyhood begins with a six-year old Mason (Ellar Coltrane), a bright, playful kid who lives with his mom, Olivia (Patricia Arquette) and older sister Sam (Lorelei Linklater) in Texas. His dad, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) is a loving father, but not around nearly as much as he should be. From there, we follow Mason and his family for the next 12 years, as they move from home to home, struggle to struggle. For those of you who don’t know – the film was shot over a 12-year period, with all of the actors returning each year to film a little bit at a time, wrapping up last summer. The result is essentially a series of vignettes that form a time capsule of Mason’s development from child to college student.
The premise sounds like the final result would be jarring and convoluted, but it’s the entire opposite. By only spacing out Mason’s growth by one year at a time, both the aesthetics and the narrative flow naturally without ever being distracting. It’s not until I watched it for a second time – re-watching Mason as a six-year old – when I thought to myself “Wow, they pulled this off”. As a result of that approach though, there isn’t much of a plot to speak of; Linklater throws us into a particular series of moments each year, with characters, locations and motivations either sliding away or entirely disappearing. It’s not difficult to realize that his goal is to reflect what it’s actually like to grow up, when your friend in 3rd grade might be a complete ghost by 6th grade, or your interests in junior high are laughed off in high school when you’re thinking about the grander picture.
Breaking down nearly every aspect of this film, I’ve yet to find a way where its approach backfires. The acting – especially from Patricia Arquette – is a revelation, as each person had to factor in a year’s worth of events off screen each time they returned to film, to create characters that developed naturally from year-to-year. As Mason, Ellar Coltrane does a very solid job spouting Linklater’s philosophical diatribes on everything from technology, to girls, to the meaning of life. As he grows older, he begins to question his place in the world, and what his life is going to be like once he's forced to make decisions on his future. It's not unlike what most children go through, especially ones that plan on leaving the nest the first second they can. Lorelei Linklater – the director’s daughter, as you probably guessed – is much more natural than I would have thought, especially in the later years. She comes to play an important role as the big sister, and the Sam/Mason relationship is one of the highlights of the film. In a single day, she could ditch him at school but still defend his life choices, since that’s often what a big sister does.
Ironically, what makes Boyhood so unique is that Mason’s story itself is not unique. Few of us in life have had extremely dramatic moments like you see in the movies. We live relatively boring lives, and the sum of each of our days slowly shapes our personality, which continues to evolve as we grow older. That’s what you see here. Presumably, most of Mason's biggest milestones in life happen off screen. The movie had so many chances to cop out, to insert cliché events to infuse more drama, and it smartly avoids this at every turn. And this isn’t a film where you can expect to see memorable moments of cinematography. Boyhood looks plain and ordinary, most scenes filled with characters in static positions doing nothing but talking, not unlike other Linklater projects. The focus is always on Mason and his family’s development, and not the settings or scenery around them. And though the title is "Boyhood", the movie focuses just as much – if not more – on motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood, even familyhood (if only that were a word). Both parents have flaws that come through in the raising of their children, but never once is their authenticity of loving parents ever questioned.
And that’s what some movies need to be. It’s ok to be entertained, to be frightened, to be driven to laughter, to be on the edge of your seat. And while at times very funny, sad, and even suspenseful, Boyhood is a movie that reminded me: of what my childhood was like, and what challenges my family faced as I worked my way through elementary, middle and high school. I couldn’t help but compare my life to Mason’s in some way, shape, or form in nearly every scene. Or compare Olivia to my own mom, both single mothers whose motherly duties consisted mostly of keeping the family afloat when the deck was stacked against them. I imagine I'm not alone in that, as most people will see a piece of themselves - however small - in Mason. But after its nearly three-hour running time, I didn’t walk out of the theater jumping in excitement, or proclaiming this was the best movie ever made.
I called my mom.
If you scroll through this page and my scattered movie reviews, I’ve tried my best to replicate my film-reviewing days at The Pitt News, providing subjective opinions on the movies while also doing my best to include historical context and analysis. Enter a movie like Boyhood, one that for weeks was being hailed by critics as one of the greatest films ever made, the most unique approach to film-making ever, etc. At first, more was spoken about the production of the film and its experimental filming style than the actual movie itself. And though I love so many Richard Linklater movies (the Before trilogy and Waking Life probably my favorites), I tried to block out all the noise, not wanting the behind-the-scenes mechanics of the movie to play into my overall opinion. And though I tried my hardest, I failed.
Boyhood begins with a six-year old Mason (Ellar Coltrane), a bright, playful kid who lives with his mom, Olivia (Patricia Arquette) and older sister Sam (Lorelei Linklater) in Texas. His dad, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke) is a loving father, but not around nearly as much as he should be. From there, we follow Mason and his family for the next 12 years, as they move from home to home, struggle to struggle. For those of you who don’t know – the film was shot over a 12-year period, with all of the actors returning each year to film a little bit at a time, wrapping up last summer. The result is essentially a series of vignettes that form a time capsule of Mason’s development from child to college student.
The premise sounds like the final result would be jarring and convoluted, but it’s the entire opposite. By only spacing out Mason’s growth by one year at a time, both the aesthetics and the narrative flow naturally without ever being distracting. It’s not until I watched it for a second time – re-watching Mason as a six-year old – when I thought to myself “Wow, they pulled this off”. As a result of that approach though, there isn’t much of a plot to speak of; Linklater throws us into a particular series of moments each year, with characters, locations and motivations either sliding away or entirely disappearing. It’s not difficult to realize that his goal is to reflect what it’s actually like to grow up, when your friend in 3rd grade might be a complete ghost by 6th grade, or your interests in junior high are laughed off in high school when you’re thinking about the grander picture.
Breaking down nearly every aspect of this film, I’ve yet to find a way where its approach backfires. The acting – especially from Patricia Arquette – is a revelation, as each person had to factor in a year’s worth of events off screen each time they returned to film, to create characters that developed naturally from year-to-year. As Mason, Ellar Coltrane does a very solid job spouting Linklater’s philosophical diatribes on everything from technology, to girls, to the meaning of life. As he grows older, he begins to question his place in the world, and what his life is going to be like once he's forced to make decisions on his future. It's not unlike what most children go through, especially ones that plan on leaving the nest the first second they can. Lorelei Linklater – the director’s daughter, as you probably guessed – is much more natural than I would have thought, especially in the later years. She comes to play an important role as the big sister, and the Sam/Mason relationship is one of the highlights of the film. In a single day, she could ditch him at school but still defend his life choices, since that’s often what a big sister does.
Ironically, what makes Boyhood so unique is that Mason’s story itself is not unique. Few of us in life have had extremely dramatic moments like you see in the movies. We live relatively boring lives, and the sum of each of our days slowly shapes our personality, which continues to evolve as we grow older. That’s what you see here. Presumably, most of Mason's biggest milestones in life happen off screen. The movie had so many chances to cop out, to insert cliché events to infuse more drama, and it smartly avoids this at every turn. And this isn’t a film where you can expect to see memorable moments of cinematography. Boyhood looks plain and ordinary, most scenes filled with characters in static positions doing nothing but talking, not unlike other Linklater projects. The focus is always on Mason and his family’s development, and not the settings or scenery around them. And though the title is "Boyhood", the movie focuses just as much – if not more – on motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood, even familyhood (if only that were a word). Both parents have flaws that come through in the raising of their children, but never once is their authenticity of loving parents ever questioned.
And that’s what some movies need to be. It’s ok to be entertained, to be frightened, to be driven to laughter, to be on the edge of your seat. And while at times very funny, sad, and even suspenseful, Boyhood is a movie that reminded me: of what my childhood was like, and what challenges my family faced as I worked my way through elementary, middle and high school. I couldn’t help but compare my life to Mason’s in some way, shape, or form in nearly every scene. Or compare Olivia to my own mom, both single mothers whose motherly duties consisted mostly of keeping the family afloat when the deck was stacked against them. I imagine I'm not alone in that, as most people will see a piece of themselves - however small - in Mason. But after its nearly three-hour running time, I didn’t walk out of the theater jumping in excitement, or proclaiming this was the best movie ever made.
I called my mom.
Book Review: The Fault in Our Stars - ***
|
Originally posted on Goodreads May 28, 2014
"The Fault in our Stars" is a welcoming addition to young-adult drama, a unique story of two teens plagued by a set of circumstances that neither deserve. I went in knowing absolutely nothing about the book, avoiding reading any reviews and ESPECIALLY the trailer to the upcoming film adaptation. And when the book begins smack in the middle of a cancer support group - I was glad I did. This is a book that should be read from start to finish without any worry of specific spoilers. So to be as vague as I can, "Fault"'s primary strength is its protagonist Hazel, a strong girl, who never lets her physical condition define her. Green takes special care in giving us this character, a girl broken in so many ways but never defeated, aware of her surroundings but never wanting pity or embellishment. How she meets and takes an interest in Augustus Waters, the one person who sees through the word that everyone uses to describe her is completely natural and unforced. The plot that follows is enlightening, reminding me of some of the best young adult dramas I've read in my lifetime. And Hazel is extremely smart too, so her narration reads like that of an adult, one whose sixteen years of experience on this Earth has given her more wisdom than those who have lived double or triple. The book tackles so many topics with grace: sickness, love, death, forgiveness, loss, etc. I'm hoping that the upcoming film can do this book justice. That said, there are a few faults within "Faults" (hardy har har). Sometimes the dialogue is a bit too slick and distracting, and even these smart teens speak like overly-sophisticated adults at times. It might not have been as noticeable if it weren't so frequent, but at times you begin to sense that Green wanted to make sure Agustus always came equipped with the best response, albeit not necessarily the most natural one. And the parents of the children (with maybe the exception of Hazel's dad) sort of mesh together into one composite character. This is Hazel and Augustus’s story, but at times it would have been nice to flesh these characters out a bit more. This is a minor complaint, and I must say that it was refreshing that every one of the parents are incredibly supportive of their children (no physical or mental abusive parents in this one). Minor points aside, this is a book that should be read. It teaches us that a person's experiences define us more than the hands that we are dealt, and that while love does not conquer all, it certainly can make a dent. |
|
Book Review: The Leftovers - ****
|
originally posted on Goodreads on May 15, 2014
I can't recommend “The Leftovers” any higher; what an amazing, thought-provoking book. The novel focuses on how the world (specifically the residents of a small town) would react to The Sudden Departure, the formal name given to a world-wide event where millions vanished from the Earth without a trace. The book takes place years after the event, where the dust has settled, but individuals still struggle to continue their normal lives individually, and others have formed into various groups that have interpreted the Sudden Departure as a religious sign that the End of Days is soon to come. When I first picked up the book, I was a little shocked at the subject matter, considering who the author was. Tom Perotta has quickly become the “King of Suburbia” in his writing, and so it made sense that he kept the focus to the residents of Mapleton, particularly to one family. Because essentially, there could be a million Mapletons in the world. Each character Perotta writes about is genuine and real, and as a reader, I could place myself in each of their paths and realize that any one of those could be a realistic path for a person to take after such a non-explaining event like this one. Like “Little Children” and “Nine Inches” (haven’t read any others yet), Perotta engages you with his way of getting inside his characters head, all of them hiding something, either because of their motives or because of pure shame. That may have been the best part about “The Leftovers”; each character portrayed a public version of themselves that was almost a mirror image to what they were actually feeling, and the book gave us nearly 400 pages to watch their genuine beliefs surface. Bottom line: everyone in this book felt real, and by the end, I was frightened, since his post near-apocalyptic world didn’t look too far off base. |
Her - ****
January 16, 2014
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Scarlett Johansson
Written and Directed by: Spike Jonze
There were at least four moments I experienced while watching this film when I thought for sure the movie was going to end; instead, it kept going. Usually I’d fault a film for doing this (should have quit while it was ahead!) but in the case of Her, this serves as the film’s biggest strength.
The film somehow takes a premise – one that on the surface is incredibly risky – and not only sustains it for a two-hour running time, but continues to find ways to explore new angles. Writer/director Spike Jonze clearly considered all aspects of what might complicate a relationship between a man and his computer, and tackles nearly every facet of it. The result is a film so moving and powerful, one that speaks volumes of not only a love story between two ‘people’, but also our society’s evolving relationship with technology, and how it continues to affect our everyday interactions.
The first scene of Her sets the scene of a future that isn’t that far off. Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is a love-letter writer, using his writing talents to help bridge relationships between strangers who otherwise couldn't do it themselves. In reality, he's a soon-to-be-divorced loner, whose only real friend is apartment-mate Amy (Amy Adams). When he learns of a new Operating System (OS) that has the ability to not only communicate in real time with its owner but also develop naturally and learn intuition, Theodore decides to purchase one. His result: Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), who comes equipped with a programmed personality but with a mind that can operate a million times faster than ours. It's not difficult for Theodore to eventually develop feelings for Samantha given her pre-programmed "perfectness" and quick-witted ability to be everything he could dream of, but things become complicated when Samantha's intuition creates her own curiosity, and she begins to question the motives of her existence, falling for Theodore in the process.
Despite what may seem as an implausible setup, Jonze takes the premise very seriously, and avoids delving into fantasy or over-the-top science fiction. If Suri had a heart, is this really that far-fetched? He also considers the global implications of Theodore's story - at one point a character makes a reference that there are many people out there who have feelings for their OSs like he has. And perhaps because our world has evolved so much technologically, Theodore's never really considered an outcast or shunned for his actions. He's accepted. But beyond Theodore's personal journey, the film goes to great lengths to develop Samantha's as well, which surprised me the most and elevated the story beyond what could have been a much simpler execution. If artificial intelligence can really develop to this level, how would the computers of the world react? Does intuition lead to curiosity, fear, angst, desire, confusion? Jonze makes a global statement that there is are serious repercussions to trying to create the 'perfect assistant', and the film's final thirty minutes offer a somber but realistic view of a scenario where the 'right' brain of a computer isn't that far away from separating from its 'left' side.
This review will be written only hours before the Oscar nominations are posted, and it’s a shame that at least one of the lead actors will not be among them. Joaquin Phoenix adds another amazing role to his resume, he wonderfully takes Theodore through the whole spectrum of love and heartbreak (in many times, two feelings at once). Amy Adams’s role isn’t as meaty as her role in American Hustle, but she offers a good ying to Samantha’s yang, a true friendship in the midst of so much suffering around them. Scarlett Johansson is getting much praise as the voice of Samantha, and she should. She’s given a tough role: a fictionalized operating system that evolves, learns, breaths and feels, and it’s a well-rounded performance. We don’t need to see her to appreciate the impact. If the Academy loosened up on its viewpoints on voice actors, she’d be alongside the Supporting Actress nominees tomorrow.
I had to double check my facts last night but this is indeed only Spike Jonze’s fourth directed film. And though I enjoyed his three previous films (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Where the Wild Things Are), they were either conceived by the mind of Charlie Kaufmann or based on a very popular written work. This time, it’s all Jonze, and he delivers in every way. The film is a unique love story that sheds a light on a future that probably isn’t far away. I’d urge those turned off by the film’s premise to reconsider. The amount of depth and insight Her offers into a modern relationship is striking in its accuracy. Her is the best film I’ve seen in years, a true masterpiece.
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Scarlett Johansson
Written and Directed by: Spike Jonze
There were at least four moments I experienced while watching this film when I thought for sure the movie was going to end; instead, it kept going. Usually I’d fault a film for doing this (should have quit while it was ahead!) but in the case of Her, this serves as the film’s biggest strength.
The film somehow takes a premise – one that on the surface is incredibly risky – and not only sustains it for a two-hour running time, but continues to find ways to explore new angles. Writer/director Spike Jonze clearly considered all aspects of what might complicate a relationship between a man and his computer, and tackles nearly every facet of it. The result is a film so moving and powerful, one that speaks volumes of not only a love story between two ‘people’, but also our society’s evolving relationship with technology, and how it continues to affect our everyday interactions.
The first scene of Her sets the scene of a future that isn’t that far off. Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is a love-letter writer, using his writing talents to help bridge relationships between strangers who otherwise couldn't do it themselves. In reality, he's a soon-to-be-divorced loner, whose only real friend is apartment-mate Amy (Amy Adams). When he learns of a new Operating System (OS) that has the ability to not only communicate in real time with its owner but also develop naturally and learn intuition, Theodore decides to purchase one. His result: Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), who comes equipped with a programmed personality but with a mind that can operate a million times faster than ours. It's not difficult for Theodore to eventually develop feelings for Samantha given her pre-programmed "perfectness" and quick-witted ability to be everything he could dream of, but things become complicated when Samantha's intuition creates her own curiosity, and she begins to question the motives of her existence, falling for Theodore in the process.
Despite what may seem as an implausible setup, Jonze takes the premise very seriously, and avoids delving into fantasy or over-the-top science fiction. If Suri had a heart, is this really that far-fetched? He also considers the global implications of Theodore's story - at one point a character makes a reference that there are many people out there who have feelings for their OSs like he has. And perhaps because our world has evolved so much technologically, Theodore's never really considered an outcast or shunned for his actions. He's accepted. But beyond Theodore's personal journey, the film goes to great lengths to develop Samantha's as well, which surprised me the most and elevated the story beyond what could have been a much simpler execution. If artificial intelligence can really develop to this level, how would the computers of the world react? Does intuition lead to curiosity, fear, angst, desire, confusion? Jonze makes a global statement that there is are serious repercussions to trying to create the 'perfect assistant', and the film's final thirty minutes offer a somber but realistic view of a scenario where the 'right' brain of a computer isn't that far away from separating from its 'left' side.
This review will be written only hours before the Oscar nominations are posted, and it’s a shame that at least one of the lead actors will not be among them. Joaquin Phoenix adds another amazing role to his resume, he wonderfully takes Theodore through the whole spectrum of love and heartbreak (in many times, two feelings at once). Amy Adams’s role isn’t as meaty as her role in American Hustle, but she offers a good ying to Samantha’s yang, a true friendship in the midst of so much suffering around them. Scarlett Johansson is getting much praise as the voice of Samantha, and she should. She’s given a tough role: a fictionalized operating system that evolves, learns, breaths and feels, and it’s a well-rounded performance. We don’t need to see her to appreciate the impact. If the Academy loosened up on its viewpoints on voice actors, she’d be alongside the Supporting Actress nominees tomorrow.
I had to double check my facts last night but this is indeed only Spike Jonze’s fourth directed film. And though I enjoyed his three previous films (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Where the Wild Things Are), they were either conceived by the mind of Charlie Kaufmann or based on a very popular written work. This time, it’s all Jonze, and he delivers in every way. The film is a unique love story that sheds a light on a future that probably isn’t far away. I’d urge those turned off by the film’s premise to reconsider. The amount of depth and insight Her offers into a modern relationship is striking in its accuracy. Her is the best film I’ve seen in years, a true masterpiece.
Inside Llewyn Davis - ***
January 6, 2014
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, John Goodman, Garrett Hedlund, Justin Timberlake
Directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen
Written by: Joel & Ethan Coen
Inside Llewyn Davis opens with a close-up of our title character (Oscar Issac), singing a folk song to a small crowd in a music café. The song is a few minutes long, and we almost never cut away from him as he performs his passionate take on a rather classic song, and by the time it's over, we know almost as much as we need to know about Llewyn Davis, and he hasn't yet uttered a single line of dialogue. That scene sets the stage for the rest of the movie, a sweet comedy/drama that boasts the strongest soundtrack in years.
Llewyn Davis is a struggling musician in the early 1960s, trying his best to maintain a solo career after unfortunate events broke apart his duo act. He'll sleep anywhere that has a free couch. He'll bum money off friends and family if he needs to. His life consists of hopping from one gig to the other, and his manager does little to promote his work. But his music is everything, and nearly every person he associates himself with are fellow musicians, including friends and couple Jim and Jean (Justin Timberlake and Carey Mulligan). The movie's plot consists of nothing more than following Llewyn around for a few days, after two major things happen: 1) he accidentally loses his friend's cat, and 2) a former love interest gives him some startling news.
During his travels, he encounters a number of interesting characters, including Roland Turner (John Goodman), a jazz musician with absolutely no filter in his insults, Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham), a music producer who may have the ability to propel Llewyn's career further than just nightclubs and random gigs, and others. Most of these people come and go with limited screen time, but hang around enough for Llewyn to perform another song on his guitar, the item he most likely cares about more than anything. Even the characters with more screen time like Jim and Jean seem to be stepping stones in Llewyn's life, Jean more-so than the rest simply because of the circumstances that place her and Llewyn together. Oscar Issac carries the film the entire way through though, and I imagine that in a less crowded year, he'd be a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination.
It's no surprise that one of the most praised aspects of the movie is its soundtrack, which is top-notch. My count was nearly a dozen songs performed throughout the film, nearly all folk songs reminiscent of Bob Dylan and other artists of that era. Maybe it's because half of my Ipod consists of music like this, but I loved nearly every song interruption and waited for the next. And the fact that Issac, Timberlake and the others performed the songs live adds to its authenticity. But Llewyn's story shines most when he's performing, and underneath his great passion for music is a funny but sad character, one who's slowly coming to terms with the fact that he may have to give up the one thing that keeps him going.
I smiled a lot during Inside Llewyn Davis, and had a few good laughs, especially those scenes involving the cat. I appreciated its accurate portrayal of a struggling artist, even if the most interesting aspects of him come from his music and interaction with a feline more than anything else. I don't think the Coen brothers were shooting for the hilariousness of Fargo or The Big Lebowski when they filmed this, which is fine. It's a very basic story with a compelling lead character, and that's just enough. The film is deservedly getting tons of praise and being called one of the Coen brothers' best, but I'm not in that camp. To me, this is a homage to an era of great music, using the story of an insightful artist as a medium to hear some great tunes.
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, John Goodman, Garrett Hedlund, Justin Timberlake
Directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen
Written by: Joel & Ethan Coen
Inside Llewyn Davis opens with a close-up of our title character (Oscar Issac), singing a folk song to a small crowd in a music café. The song is a few minutes long, and we almost never cut away from him as he performs his passionate take on a rather classic song, and by the time it's over, we know almost as much as we need to know about Llewyn Davis, and he hasn't yet uttered a single line of dialogue. That scene sets the stage for the rest of the movie, a sweet comedy/drama that boasts the strongest soundtrack in years.
Llewyn Davis is a struggling musician in the early 1960s, trying his best to maintain a solo career after unfortunate events broke apart his duo act. He'll sleep anywhere that has a free couch. He'll bum money off friends and family if he needs to. His life consists of hopping from one gig to the other, and his manager does little to promote his work. But his music is everything, and nearly every person he associates himself with are fellow musicians, including friends and couple Jim and Jean (Justin Timberlake and Carey Mulligan). The movie's plot consists of nothing more than following Llewyn around for a few days, after two major things happen: 1) he accidentally loses his friend's cat, and 2) a former love interest gives him some startling news.
During his travels, he encounters a number of interesting characters, including Roland Turner (John Goodman), a jazz musician with absolutely no filter in his insults, Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham), a music producer who may have the ability to propel Llewyn's career further than just nightclubs and random gigs, and others. Most of these people come and go with limited screen time, but hang around enough for Llewyn to perform another song on his guitar, the item he most likely cares about more than anything. Even the characters with more screen time like Jim and Jean seem to be stepping stones in Llewyn's life, Jean more-so than the rest simply because of the circumstances that place her and Llewyn together. Oscar Issac carries the film the entire way through though, and I imagine that in a less crowded year, he'd be a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination.
It's no surprise that one of the most praised aspects of the movie is its soundtrack, which is top-notch. My count was nearly a dozen songs performed throughout the film, nearly all folk songs reminiscent of Bob Dylan and other artists of that era. Maybe it's because half of my Ipod consists of music like this, but I loved nearly every song interruption and waited for the next. And the fact that Issac, Timberlake and the others performed the songs live adds to its authenticity. But Llewyn's story shines most when he's performing, and underneath his great passion for music is a funny but sad character, one who's slowly coming to terms with the fact that he may have to give up the one thing that keeps him going.
I smiled a lot during Inside Llewyn Davis, and had a few good laughs, especially those scenes involving the cat. I appreciated its accurate portrayal of a struggling artist, even if the most interesting aspects of him come from his music and interaction with a feline more than anything else. I don't think the Coen brothers were shooting for the hilariousness of Fargo or The Big Lebowski when they filmed this, which is fine. It's a very basic story with a compelling lead character, and that's just enough. The film is deservedly getting tons of praise and being called one of the Coen brothers' best, but I'm not in that camp. To me, this is a homage to an era of great music, using the story of an insightful artist as a medium to hear some great tunes.
The Wolf of Wall Street - ****
December 29, 2013
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Terence Winter
To summarize The Wolf of Wall Street in a review is like recalling a specific series of events from a night of debauchery, vague recollections of booze, drugs, and sex all blended and held together by a hilarious series of voiceovers from our lead protagonist. The entire film plays out like a three-hour party, one so wild that you actually begin to question whether or not this could possibly be based on true events. But what makes The Wolf of Wall Street unique – and ultimately sets it apart from the regular ‘rise and fall’ type story – is that every opportunity that the film has to begin its descent toward its destined conclusion, it doubles down. It takes its central theme of excess and give us just that: excess.
Given its three-hour running time, you’d think the film would take its time, but we’re quickly thrown into the stock market world of flashing lights, stock ticker screens, buying low and selling high. For Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), this lifestyle instantly is seen as his true calling, and with a little guidance from his first boss (Matthew McConahughey), Jordan is handed the primary secrets that any successful stock broker needs to thrive (cocaine and a lack of a conscience among them). Unfortunately, Jordan’s career ends just as quickly as it begins, with Wall Street’s biggest crash since the 1920s occurring and nearly every major broker being thrown on the street. Soon after, Jordan discovers the world of ‘penny stocks’ (junk stocks that allow for easy manipulation), and with the help of his neighbor and friend Donnie (Jonah Hill), Jordan starts his own company, ready to put all of his tricks into action. The result: Stratton Oakmont, which quickly stems from a small group of people working out of a garage to a multi-million dollar mega success.
Jordan’s rise from young naïve ambitious worker bee to CEO is interesting but is scant on many specifics. Scorsese is much less interested in the mechanics of finance and more focused on what amenities come with an enormous amount of money. We’ve seen this before in tons of other movies but not to this degree: the drugs, sex and alcohol aren’t simply a bi-product of all of their success, they’re the sole catalyst to sustaining it. Sure, Jordan is an extremely greedy and unethical charlatan, but he’s also completely unapologetic. He’s so engrossed in sustaining the lifestyle he’s become accustomed to that everything in his life takes a backseat. And The Wolf of Wall Street certainly doesn’t glorify these people, but they are all certainly entertaining. Even when the scheme begins to pile on itself, and we’re waiting for the inevitable takedown, these guys still want to party.
And that’s another element that most probably won’t expect from a Scorsese film: Wolf is outright hilarious. I can’t recall laughing so much in the theater this year, and scene after scene the film delivers some of the most outrageous uses of drugs or sex in a film, ever. A particular scene (I won't say what, but everyone who's seen it knows) is pure genius, and may go down as one of Scorsese's most memorable scenes. And everything we see is grounded in Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance, which – dare I say – may be his best ever. Jordan Belfort is an animal, a glorified sociopath, and his larger-than-life persona is mostly what kept Stratton Oakmont on top, even in the midst of so many investigations. Jonah Hill is just as great, and it’ll be a sad day if he doesn’t receive a nomination come Oscar time. The two leads together have such amazing chemistry together, and the best scenes in the movie are when they’re both on screen. The rest of the cast shines, as everyone brings their A-game for the legendary filmmaker, and even a few of the bigger names (who have little more than extended cameos) make an impact.
In the end, Scorsese succeeds most in giving us a glimpse of a lifestyle and tempting us into wondering what it would be like to experience it ourselves. It barely touches the other side of the coin (these victims to Jordan’s schemes lost millions of dollars, their homes, retirement, etc.) because it doesn’t need to. If there’s a downside, it’s that I don’t expect The Wolf of Wall Street to have the same longevity that his other films have (I can watch Goodfellas or Casino any time it’s on TV, period), simply because I imagine most people won’t want to watch this a second or third time. It’s just so much. I on the other hand await the opportunity, where the ‘wow’ factor is placed on hold and I can simply relish the fact that Scorsese has created another masterpiece, one so bold in its antics and daring in its presentation that’s it’s impossible not to be entertained.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Terence Winter
To summarize The Wolf of Wall Street in a review is like recalling a specific series of events from a night of debauchery, vague recollections of booze, drugs, and sex all blended and held together by a hilarious series of voiceovers from our lead protagonist. The entire film plays out like a three-hour party, one so wild that you actually begin to question whether or not this could possibly be based on true events. But what makes The Wolf of Wall Street unique – and ultimately sets it apart from the regular ‘rise and fall’ type story – is that every opportunity that the film has to begin its descent toward its destined conclusion, it doubles down. It takes its central theme of excess and give us just that: excess.
Given its three-hour running time, you’d think the film would take its time, but we’re quickly thrown into the stock market world of flashing lights, stock ticker screens, buying low and selling high. For Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), this lifestyle instantly is seen as his true calling, and with a little guidance from his first boss (Matthew McConahughey), Jordan is handed the primary secrets that any successful stock broker needs to thrive (cocaine and a lack of a conscience among them). Unfortunately, Jordan’s career ends just as quickly as it begins, with Wall Street’s biggest crash since the 1920s occurring and nearly every major broker being thrown on the street. Soon after, Jordan discovers the world of ‘penny stocks’ (junk stocks that allow for easy manipulation), and with the help of his neighbor and friend Donnie (Jonah Hill), Jordan starts his own company, ready to put all of his tricks into action. The result: Stratton Oakmont, which quickly stems from a small group of people working out of a garage to a multi-million dollar mega success.
Jordan’s rise from young naïve ambitious worker bee to CEO is interesting but is scant on many specifics. Scorsese is much less interested in the mechanics of finance and more focused on what amenities come with an enormous amount of money. We’ve seen this before in tons of other movies but not to this degree: the drugs, sex and alcohol aren’t simply a bi-product of all of their success, they’re the sole catalyst to sustaining it. Sure, Jordan is an extremely greedy and unethical charlatan, but he’s also completely unapologetic. He’s so engrossed in sustaining the lifestyle he’s become accustomed to that everything in his life takes a backseat. And The Wolf of Wall Street certainly doesn’t glorify these people, but they are all certainly entertaining. Even when the scheme begins to pile on itself, and we’re waiting for the inevitable takedown, these guys still want to party.
And that’s another element that most probably won’t expect from a Scorsese film: Wolf is outright hilarious. I can’t recall laughing so much in the theater this year, and scene after scene the film delivers some of the most outrageous uses of drugs or sex in a film, ever. A particular scene (I won't say what, but everyone who's seen it knows) is pure genius, and may go down as one of Scorsese's most memorable scenes. And everything we see is grounded in Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance, which – dare I say – may be his best ever. Jordan Belfort is an animal, a glorified sociopath, and his larger-than-life persona is mostly what kept Stratton Oakmont on top, even in the midst of so many investigations. Jonah Hill is just as great, and it’ll be a sad day if he doesn’t receive a nomination come Oscar time. The two leads together have such amazing chemistry together, and the best scenes in the movie are when they’re both on screen. The rest of the cast shines, as everyone brings their A-game for the legendary filmmaker, and even a few of the bigger names (who have little more than extended cameos) make an impact.
In the end, Scorsese succeeds most in giving us a glimpse of a lifestyle and tempting us into wondering what it would be like to experience it ourselves. It barely touches the other side of the coin (these victims to Jordan’s schemes lost millions of dollars, their homes, retirement, etc.) because it doesn’t need to. If there’s a downside, it’s that I don’t expect The Wolf of Wall Street to have the same longevity that his other films have (I can watch Goodfellas or Casino any time it’s on TV, period), simply because I imagine most people won’t want to watch this a second or third time. It’s just so much. I on the other hand await the opportunity, where the ‘wow’ factor is placed on hold and I can simply relish the fact that Scorsese has created another masterpiece, one so bold in its antics and daring in its presentation that’s it’s impossible not to be entertained.
American Hustle - ***
December 21, 2013
Starring: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner
Directed by: David O. Russell
Written by: Eric Warren Singer, David O. Russell
American Hustle may suffer from the weight of its own expectations. An incredibly talented director on a hot streak (Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter both great films), five Oscar nominees/winners in the wings, and an extremely entertaining (if ambiguous) trailer are only a few of the reasons why the film is one of the most anticipated movies of the year, at least for me. And while American Hustle serves up an entertaining two hours, those expecting the best film of the year (or even O. Russell's best movie) may be disappointed.
The film is loosely based on "ABSCAM", a 1970s FBI operation centered on taking down corrupt government officials for bribery and other offenses. After getting nabbed for fraud, con artist Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his mistress Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) are forced by FBI Agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) to help orchestrate a number of higher-level scams. The ultimatum is simple: give us four busts, and you go free. If not, go to jail. One of their first targets is Camden, NJ Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) whose primary goal of helping his town may bust open a number of questionable decisions. But after a number of meetings, the potential of the takedown grows, as DiMaso sees the potential to go much larger, taking down federal officials and not just small-time locals. Also in the picture is Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), Rosenfeld's unstable wife whose isolated loneliness might finally be taking a toll on her, and everyone around her.
By this description, you'd probably think American Hustle is an intense drama - a morality play of Shakespearean proportions- con men conning con men, good guys doing bad things and bad guys doing good. And while it certainly contains many of those elements, the tone is much lighter, with so many comedic elements sprinkled throughout every scene that it's tough to take either the plot or the characters very seriously. The film's primary scam is constantly brushed aside to give us another funny scene further showcasing how off-the-wall these people really are. That may be its point, to skirt above the surface and just shine a light on some very good actors portraying some unlikeable people, but it lacks a certain amount of tension that may have elevated the film beyond just entertaining.
The film examines nearly every relationship these characters have with one-another: Rosenfeld's forced inferiority to DiMaso who constantly has the upper hand; DiMaso's attraction to the mysterious but very flawed Sydney; Sydney's pure hatred for Rosalyn's manipulating tactics. There's no doubt that O. Russell is more interested about the relationships of the principals rather than the plot itself, but the problem is that not all characters are equal, and so certain scenes drag much more than they should.
Given the laundry list of A-list actors in the film, there's no surprise that one of its key attributes are the performances. Its four leads all received Golden Globe nominations, and I'd expect at least one or two to receive Oscar nominations when the time comes. It’s tough to pick a favorite among their performances; each has their moment in the sun and add depth to what could have otherwise been a bunch of flat, uninteresting characters. You can tell Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper are having fun, chewing up nearly every scene they’re in (especially together), and are spot on with their comic timing in making a number of scenes funnier than they may have otherwise been. Amy Adams’s character is the most broken, and in a sense she’s really playing about three characters rolled up into one. I’d say the most moving portrayal though comes from Jeremy Renner, who really personifies the saying ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’. You never doubt Carmine's authenticity (if not his lack of bad judgement), but may be the only character in the film not purely motivated by greed. Jennifer Lawrence is fine, but her Rosalyn is more of an afterthought, a character serving only a minor purpose in the film.
American Hustle succeeds in being a smartly-written film, filled with witty dialogue, great performances and an interesting real-life story to springboard into something more. But certain decisions make me scratch my head, and wonder what the film could have been if it just played it straight on a few occasions. The film has so many genuinely effective scenes, so why also throw in so much over-the-top goofiness (like a distracting cameo and a scene with an unrealistic telephone beating)? And in the end, maybe the problem is that American Hustle is too clever for its own good.
Starring: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner
Directed by: David O. Russell
Written by: Eric Warren Singer, David O. Russell
American Hustle may suffer from the weight of its own expectations. An incredibly talented director on a hot streak (Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter both great films), five Oscar nominees/winners in the wings, and an extremely entertaining (if ambiguous) trailer are only a few of the reasons why the film is one of the most anticipated movies of the year, at least for me. And while American Hustle serves up an entertaining two hours, those expecting the best film of the year (or even O. Russell's best movie) may be disappointed.
The film is loosely based on "ABSCAM", a 1970s FBI operation centered on taking down corrupt government officials for bribery and other offenses. After getting nabbed for fraud, con artist Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and his mistress Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) are forced by FBI Agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) to help orchestrate a number of higher-level scams. The ultimatum is simple: give us four busts, and you go free. If not, go to jail. One of their first targets is Camden, NJ Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) whose primary goal of helping his town may bust open a number of questionable decisions. But after a number of meetings, the potential of the takedown grows, as DiMaso sees the potential to go much larger, taking down federal officials and not just small-time locals. Also in the picture is Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), Rosenfeld's unstable wife whose isolated loneliness might finally be taking a toll on her, and everyone around her.
By this description, you'd probably think American Hustle is an intense drama - a morality play of Shakespearean proportions- con men conning con men, good guys doing bad things and bad guys doing good. And while it certainly contains many of those elements, the tone is much lighter, with so many comedic elements sprinkled throughout every scene that it's tough to take either the plot or the characters very seriously. The film's primary scam is constantly brushed aside to give us another funny scene further showcasing how off-the-wall these people really are. That may be its point, to skirt above the surface and just shine a light on some very good actors portraying some unlikeable people, but it lacks a certain amount of tension that may have elevated the film beyond just entertaining.
The film examines nearly every relationship these characters have with one-another: Rosenfeld's forced inferiority to DiMaso who constantly has the upper hand; DiMaso's attraction to the mysterious but very flawed Sydney; Sydney's pure hatred for Rosalyn's manipulating tactics. There's no doubt that O. Russell is more interested about the relationships of the principals rather than the plot itself, but the problem is that not all characters are equal, and so certain scenes drag much more than they should.
Given the laundry list of A-list actors in the film, there's no surprise that one of its key attributes are the performances. Its four leads all received Golden Globe nominations, and I'd expect at least one or two to receive Oscar nominations when the time comes. It’s tough to pick a favorite among their performances; each has their moment in the sun and add depth to what could have otherwise been a bunch of flat, uninteresting characters. You can tell Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper are having fun, chewing up nearly every scene they’re in (especially together), and are spot on with their comic timing in making a number of scenes funnier than they may have otherwise been. Amy Adams’s character is the most broken, and in a sense she’s really playing about three characters rolled up into one. I’d say the most moving portrayal though comes from Jeremy Renner, who really personifies the saying ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’. You never doubt Carmine's authenticity (if not his lack of bad judgement), but may be the only character in the film not purely motivated by greed. Jennifer Lawrence is fine, but her Rosalyn is more of an afterthought, a character serving only a minor purpose in the film.
American Hustle succeeds in being a smartly-written film, filled with witty dialogue, great performances and an interesting real-life story to springboard into something more. But certain decisions make me scratch my head, and wonder what the film could have been if it just played it straight on a few occasions. The film has so many genuinely effective scenes, so why also throw in so much over-the-top goofiness (like a distracting cameo and a scene with an unrealistic telephone beating)? And in the end, maybe the problem is that American Hustle is too clever for its own good.
Out of the Furnace - ***1/2
December 12, 2013
Starring: Christian Bale, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Zoe Saldana, Willem Dafoe
Directed by: Scott Cooper
Written by: Scott Cooper, Brad Ingelsby
While Hollywood has certainly pumped out its fair share of revenge flicks, none are quite so morbid as the story within Out of the Furnace. And while I doubt it will achieve blockbuster status, films like this tend to gain traction over time, since they offer such a realistic and unflinching portrayal of both its characters and the settings that surround them.
The film focuses on Russell and Rodney Baze, two brothers living in Braddock, Pennsylvania, a poverty-stricken wasteland that never really recovered from its mill-closing days, and has been hit even harder since the Great Recession. Russell is your regular blue-collar worker, accustomed to his clock in-clock in routine at the mill, not pretending that life will offer anything superior. Rodney's a returning war veteran, shaken and disturbed from his experiences overseas that returning to a steady nine-to-five seems like an impossibility. Following a series of unfortunate events, both Russell and Rodney are thrown into dangerous environments, nearly every positive aspect of their lives stripped away, either over time, or in Russell's case, in an instant. And this is all takes place before Rodney gets mixed up in an underground fight club, duking it out with fellow locals and slowly working up the fighting ranks through a local bookie/hustler (Willem Dafoe). Rodney's fighting eventually lands him in contact with Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), a vicious no-fearing thug whose deep and intense growl would likely frighten a young child into months of nightmares. When Rodney eventually goes missing, Russell is tasked with trying to find him, much against the wishes of the local and state police, who insist that DeGroat and his kind run on their own set of rules.
Nearly every character in Out of the Furnace is broken in some way, either physically or emotionally. The film takes its time addressing both, as well as the differences between the repercussions of your personal actions vs. the impact of your surrounding environment. Braddock, Pennsylvania (a town that I could walk to from my house) serves as a central character in the story, as we're constantly reminded that - unlike most likeable heroes in films - there's not much these guys can do to avoid a life of brutal labor at best or dangerous criminal activity at worst. Cooper doesn't shy away from showing the broken glass windows, the destroyed infrastructure, the littered streets, which serves the story well since we're always kept within the confines of the characters' environment.
Out of the Furnace takes its time establishing the Bazes' story, and allows things to develop without constantly needing to throw action in our way (even though the film has plenty of those scenes). This contrast with the typical action film is likely its distinguishing factor, since Furnace is more interested in showing us how Russell slowly accepts his burden and less interested in racking up the body count. It's a self-reflective picture, and the violence is a bi-product of the characters' dark choices vs. the driving element of the story. The film's last twenty minutes though do feel a bit rushed, and I imagine a scene or two may have ended up being cut that may have further set up its climatic moment.
The film boasts an amazing cast, led by Christian Bale's intense and moving portrayal of Russell, a man who seems content with the way the dice have landed but can't help getting caught up in the gritty lifestyle that he tries to avoid. The role was Bale's first since The Dark Knight Rises, and it's no surprise he signed on, given his ability to do a lot while saying little. Casey Affleck is just as strong as Rodney, and while at first I didn't buy Affleck as the tough street fighter, his intensity convinced me that no matter how small the guy was, those who felt they had nothing to lose are truly the most dangerous, in all settings. Harrelson shines as DeGroat, a villain that borders on being so over-the-top in his cruelty but realistically so, since a man who instills that much fear couldn't have done so unless he really banged some people up along the way. The rest of the cast all have minor roles, though all do a very good job with their small amount of screen time.
There are several other small subplots within the film - Russell's relationship with his ex-girlfriend (Zoe Saldana), his friction with a local police officer (Forrest Whitaker) - though the focus remains on the brothers. In fact, I'd argue that they're co-leads, as Affleck may have more screen time in the film's first hour than Bale. Out of the Furnace is a very personal story, and Cooper shows a tremendous amount of respect for his characters and material by allowing the film to develop on its own without any artificial action scenes thrown in for filler. It's a slow-moving film, methodical in many ways, and doesn't pretend to be anything different. There are a few missteps along the way in the final thirty minutes, but the film's restraint is ultimately its greatest asset, slowly stringing us along so that we are finally in Russell's head, and maybe even asking ourselves: what would we do?
Starring: Christian Bale, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Zoe Saldana, Willem Dafoe
Directed by: Scott Cooper
Written by: Scott Cooper, Brad Ingelsby
While Hollywood has certainly pumped out its fair share of revenge flicks, none are quite so morbid as the story within Out of the Furnace. And while I doubt it will achieve blockbuster status, films like this tend to gain traction over time, since they offer such a realistic and unflinching portrayal of both its characters and the settings that surround them.
The film focuses on Russell and Rodney Baze, two brothers living in Braddock, Pennsylvania, a poverty-stricken wasteland that never really recovered from its mill-closing days, and has been hit even harder since the Great Recession. Russell is your regular blue-collar worker, accustomed to his clock in-clock in routine at the mill, not pretending that life will offer anything superior. Rodney's a returning war veteran, shaken and disturbed from his experiences overseas that returning to a steady nine-to-five seems like an impossibility. Following a series of unfortunate events, both Russell and Rodney are thrown into dangerous environments, nearly every positive aspect of their lives stripped away, either over time, or in Russell's case, in an instant. And this is all takes place before Rodney gets mixed up in an underground fight club, duking it out with fellow locals and slowly working up the fighting ranks through a local bookie/hustler (Willem Dafoe). Rodney's fighting eventually lands him in contact with Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), a vicious no-fearing thug whose deep and intense growl would likely frighten a young child into months of nightmares. When Rodney eventually goes missing, Russell is tasked with trying to find him, much against the wishes of the local and state police, who insist that DeGroat and his kind run on their own set of rules.
Nearly every character in Out of the Furnace is broken in some way, either physically or emotionally. The film takes its time addressing both, as well as the differences between the repercussions of your personal actions vs. the impact of your surrounding environment. Braddock, Pennsylvania (a town that I could walk to from my house) serves as a central character in the story, as we're constantly reminded that - unlike most likeable heroes in films - there's not much these guys can do to avoid a life of brutal labor at best or dangerous criminal activity at worst. Cooper doesn't shy away from showing the broken glass windows, the destroyed infrastructure, the littered streets, which serves the story well since we're always kept within the confines of the characters' environment.
Out of the Furnace takes its time establishing the Bazes' story, and allows things to develop without constantly needing to throw action in our way (even though the film has plenty of those scenes). This contrast with the typical action film is likely its distinguishing factor, since Furnace is more interested in showing us how Russell slowly accepts his burden and less interested in racking up the body count. It's a self-reflective picture, and the violence is a bi-product of the characters' dark choices vs. the driving element of the story. The film's last twenty minutes though do feel a bit rushed, and I imagine a scene or two may have ended up being cut that may have further set up its climatic moment.
The film boasts an amazing cast, led by Christian Bale's intense and moving portrayal of Russell, a man who seems content with the way the dice have landed but can't help getting caught up in the gritty lifestyle that he tries to avoid. The role was Bale's first since The Dark Knight Rises, and it's no surprise he signed on, given his ability to do a lot while saying little. Casey Affleck is just as strong as Rodney, and while at first I didn't buy Affleck as the tough street fighter, his intensity convinced me that no matter how small the guy was, those who felt they had nothing to lose are truly the most dangerous, in all settings. Harrelson shines as DeGroat, a villain that borders on being so over-the-top in his cruelty but realistically so, since a man who instills that much fear couldn't have done so unless he really banged some people up along the way. The rest of the cast all have minor roles, though all do a very good job with their small amount of screen time.
There are several other small subplots within the film - Russell's relationship with his ex-girlfriend (Zoe Saldana), his friction with a local police officer (Forrest Whitaker) - though the focus remains on the brothers. In fact, I'd argue that they're co-leads, as Affleck may have more screen time in the film's first hour than Bale. Out of the Furnace is a very personal story, and Cooper shows a tremendous amount of respect for his characters and material by allowing the film to develop on its own without any artificial action scenes thrown in for filler. It's a slow-moving film, methodical in many ways, and doesn't pretend to be anything different. There are a few missteps along the way in the final thirty minutes, but the film's restraint is ultimately its greatest asset, slowly stringing us along so that we are finally in Russell's head, and maybe even asking ourselves: what would we do?
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - ***
December 8, 2013
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson
Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Written by: Simon Beaufoy, Michael deBruyn
Movies like Catching Fire - the second installment of the amazingly popular Hunger Games trilogy - are handed to filmmakers on a silver platter. You have a very interesting premise (fighting to the death in a confined space), a young lead just coming off of an Oscar win for Best Actress, and total leeway with your budget. All that is required is to make a competent film that pleases both the book's core audience as well as the larger film-going public. On that front, Catching Fire certainly succeeds.
The film officially begins about a year after the first film ends: Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) won last year's Hunger Games, defying the Capital by 'tricking' the world into believing they were a young couple in love, willing to sacrifice themselves together in suicide than have one victor emerge. Now, as the infamous victors, Katniss and Peeta must travel through the other eleven districts, playing 'lovers' on a Victory Tour, paying homage to their fallen tributes and portraying a life of pure bliss. Unfortunately, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) informs Katniss that revolutionary attitudes are brewing from her acts, and her entire family is threatened if she doesn't take the lead to help calm the storm. The stakes are raised even further when Snow announces that this year's Hunger Games will be fought by existing victors, effectively throwing Katniss and Peeta both back into another death match.
I'm summing up about 80 minutes of film in one paragraph, as Catching Fire certainly takes its time setting up both Katniss's baggage she must carry for herself, her family and her entire district, as well as the hints of an uprising in Panem. The book however skirts around the themes of government oppression and other dystopian themes, so the first hour comes across as almost elementary, a Cliffnotes version of the future and what a revolution may look and feel like. Nearly all the players return, like the unpredictable Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and overly peppy Effie (Elizabeth Banks), as well as a few newcomers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright my favorites). Still, there's a sense the film is just going through the motions before it throws us back into the Games.
Taking us back into the arena is both the film's greatest asset and its Achilles' heel. The Games were certainly the best parts of the first film, so by the time the 24 new tributes stand on their platforms, waiting for the horn, I felt a rush of excitement, since we finally get to see Katniss in action again. Unfortunately, once the initial action at the cornucopia wraps up, the rest of the Games feel...outdated. Sure, Suzanne Collins throws some neat new tricks at the tributes in the book, which the film adheres to nearly step-for-step, but the entire spectacle loses its steam within ten or fifteen minutes, since nearly everything we're watching had already taken place in the last film: forming an alliance, discussing who's taking the first watch, nearly dying and recovering, etc. It's like watching Season 2 of Survivor.
So why I am recommending the film then? Well, I'd sum up Catching Fire as an "A" film based on a "C" novel, one executed so well that you have to wonder what the filmmakers could have created if the trilogy were true adult fiction as opposed to young adult entertainment. And it also helps that all the actors - starting with Jennifer Lawrence and working down - add depth to their characters and avoid the stiffness that often surfaces in the books. And everything from the production design of the new arena to the music to the cinematography are top notch, and I appreciated the effort taken to make the film good, and not just fodder for the book's fans. Still, Catching Fire could only reach so high, so we're left watching a solid second installment, but one still chained down by the limitations of its source material.
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson
Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Written by: Simon Beaufoy, Michael deBruyn
Movies like Catching Fire - the second installment of the amazingly popular Hunger Games trilogy - are handed to filmmakers on a silver platter. You have a very interesting premise (fighting to the death in a confined space), a young lead just coming off of an Oscar win for Best Actress, and total leeway with your budget. All that is required is to make a competent film that pleases both the book's core audience as well as the larger film-going public. On that front, Catching Fire certainly succeeds.
The film officially begins about a year after the first film ends: Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) won last year's Hunger Games, defying the Capital by 'tricking' the world into believing they were a young couple in love, willing to sacrifice themselves together in suicide than have one victor emerge. Now, as the infamous victors, Katniss and Peeta must travel through the other eleven districts, playing 'lovers' on a Victory Tour, paying homage to their fallen tributes and portraying a life of pure bliss. Unfortunately, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) informs Katniss that revolutionary attitudes are brewing from her acts, and her entire family is threatened if she doesn't take the lead to help calm the storm. The stakes are raised even further when Snow announces that this year's Hunger Games will be fought by existing victors, effectively throwing Katniss and Peeta both back into another death match.
I'm summing up about 80 minutes of film in one paragraph, as Catching Fire certainly takes its time setting up both Katniss's baggage she must carry for herself, her family and her entire district, as well as the hints of an uprising in Panem. The book however skirts around the themes of government oppression and other dystopian themes, so the first hour comes across as almost elementary, a Cliffnotes version of the future and what a revolution may look and feel like. Nearly all the players return, like the unpredictable Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and overly peppy Effie (Elizabeth Banks), as well as a few newcomers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright my favorites). Still, there's a sense the film is just going through the motions before it throws us back into the Games.
Taking us back into the arena is both the film's greatest asset and its Achilles' heel. The Games were certainly the best parts of the first film, so by the time the 24 new tributes stand on their platforms, waiting for the horn, I felt a rush of excitement, since we finally get to see Katniss in action again. Unfortunately, once the initial action at the cornucopia wraps up, the rest of the Games feel...outdated. Sure, Suzanne Collins throws some neat new tricks at the tributes in the book, which the film adheres to nearly step-for-step, but the entire spectacle loses its steam within ten or fifteen minutes, since nearly everything we're watching had already taken place in the last film: forming an alliance, discussing who's taking the first watch, nearly dying and recovering, etc. It's like watching Season 2 of Survivor.
So why I am recommending the film then? Well, I'd sum up Catching Fire as an "A" film based on a "C" novel, one executed so well that you have to wonder what the filmmakers could have created if the trilogy were true adult fiction as opposed to young adult entertainment. And it also helps that all the actors - starting with Jennifer Lawrence and working down - add depth to their characters and avoid the stiffness that often surfaces in the books. And everything from the production design of the new arena to the music to the cinematography are top notch, and I appreciated the effort taken to make the film good, and not just fodder for the book's fans. Still, Catching Fire could only reach so high, so we're left watching a solid second installment, but one still chained down by the limitations of its source material.
12 Years a Slave - ***1/2
November 19, 2013
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Lupita Nyong'o
Directed by: Steve McQueen
Written by: John Ridley
On a standard rate of one or two a year, certain theatrical films are released that provoke so many emotions that they're hard to shake once you leave the theater. Anger, fear, guilt, sorrow, sympathy, horror: these are a number of reactions that immediately jump out when I think of 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen's powerful true-story account of Solomon Northup, a free man kidnapped and sold into slavery in the 1840's south. This is a film that you experience more than you watch, and McQueen's method of injecting discomfort at every turn is all the more effective because it literally prevents you from turning away, even in those moments when you wish you could.
I'll start by putting an end to the Django Unchained comparisons - these are two entirely different genres, storytelling ideas, tones, etc. that just happen to share the same subject matter. The former was my #1 movie of last year, but make no mistake - 12 Years a Slave is much more brutal, and McQueen's film is likely to have more lasting impact than Tarantino's, if only because it's the first film I can recall seeing that sucks you into slavery without other elements (in Django's case, over-the-top revenge violence and humor) even considered let alone displayed.
Chiwetel Ejiofor stars at Solomon Northup, a free black man living in New York who is deceived, drugged and kidnapped under the promise of work in Washington, D.C. When he wakes up, he's in shackles, and the rest is a 12-year journey from slave ship to auction to plantation to plantation. He meets a number of characters (free and enslaved) along the way, including first owner William Ford (Cumberbatch) and his sadistic "overseer" Tidbeats (Paul Dano), before being resold to Edwin Epps (Fassbender). Epps is a man who lives and breathes pure evil, one whose cruel treatment of his property is justified by Biblical verses, and enhanced by alcoholism and his wife (Sarah Paulson), whose sadism is matched by that of her husband's.
The rarity of Solomon - and why his story is unique to many other slaves he encounters - is that his life was once as free as his masters', and in addition to being subject to these atrocities, knows that there are friends, a wife, and children who are waiting on him, likely basing their entirely livelihoods on his eventual escape. This allows Solomon to stand out in a number of ways - his ability to read, write and play the fiddle among them - which both earns him the respect of one owner and the scorn of another. And the entire film is shown in long, dry scenes that play out often in one long consecutive take, never submitting to the easy-way-out of cutting away where most other films would. There are three scenes in particular that McQueen chooses to just leave a static camera on our protagonist so that we see what he sees, we watch what everyone else watches, or we hear what they hear, with no room for interpretation. These scenes are the most powerful, and the cinematography - combined with a perfectly-placed score from Hans Zimmer - accentuate Solomon's story without needing any surrounding dialogue to explain the unexplainable. It's a technical masterpiece, which sounds odd given the subject matter, but how McQueen uses sound, images and silence plays a specific role in our experience. And nearly every decision he makes is the right one.
The most powerful aspects of the film come from its actors though, and I imagine Chiwetel Ejiofor will be practicing his Oscar speech for the next few months. His performance is among the best of the decade, and nearly every word, every facial expression, every cry on screen matches the tone of the story and is filled with authenticity. There's no scenery-chewing here, and some of his most powerful moments are when he's just sitting still, observing and reacting to the events around him. He's matched scene for scene by Lupita Nyong'o, whose Patsey - a very young and talented female slave - earns the lust of her slave owner and suffers ten times more than Solomon does, given that every aspect of her well-being is destroyed by not one, but two individuals who she is powerless to defend herself against. Michael Fassbender also gives a solid performance as Epps, though is granted much more screen time than he deserves. There's nothing more to Epps than love of abuse and power, and he joins the worst-of-the-worst criminals to ever be portrayed on film.
Still, the film is not perfect, and despite certain heart- and gut-wrenching scenes, there's still a general sense that there is much more to Solomon than we are allowed to see. In some ways, Solomon is placed in the center of a number of events but doesn't directly experience them, or so much time passes between scenes that key parts of Solomon's development are left up to imagination. This isn't a complaint as much as it was a distraction, and the film may have benefitted if it allowed certain parts of the narrative to flow more naturally without immediately throwing us into the next tragic event occurring on the plantation. Granted, twelve years is a long time to cover in one film, but adding even twenty or thirty minutes might have removed any noticeable jumps in the story. Finally, the previews include a number of famous faces, but many of these are nothing more than a few minutes of screen time. A couple (Paul Giamatti, for example) are fine, but others (Brad Pitt, Alfre Woodard) are distracting, which makes you wonder why lesser-known actors couldn't have been cast (or in the case of Woodard's scene, cut out altogether).
Still, movies like 12 years a Slave are necessary to make, and one needs to applaud McQueen and Ejiofor's courage for never dumbing down the images needed to evoke the horrors of slavery. I can name a number of films that have shown people tied up and whipped, but never in a way so unsettling that we're forced to witness lash after lash, a near-dead body falling to the ground, blood-soaked and empty of any sense of hope. And while any film is limited in its ability to do more than give us a glimpse into its characters or subject matter, 12 Years taps into the human psyche and reminds us that this horror took place, and was not only legal but universally accepted. Perhaps in your own backyard.
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Lupita Nyong'o
Directed by: Steve McQueen
Written by: John Ridley
On a standard rate of one or two a year, certain theatrical films are released that provoke so many emotions that they're hard to shake once you leave the theater. Anger, fear, guilt, sorrow, sympathy, horror: these are a number of reactions that immediately jump out when I think of 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen's powerful true-story account of Solomon Northup, a free man kidnapped and sold into slavery in the 1840's south. This is a film that you experience more than you watch, and McQueen's method of injecting discomfort at every turn is all the more effective because it literally prevents you from turning away, even in those moments when you wish you could.
I'll start by putting an end to the Django Unchained comparisons - these are two entirely different genres, storytelling ideas, tones, etc. that just happen to share the same subject matter. The former was my #1 movie of last year, but make no mistake - 12 Years a Slave is much more brutal, and McQueen's film is likely to have more lasting impact than Tarantino's, if only because it's the first film I can recall seeing that sucks you into slavery without other elements (in Django's case, over-the-top revenge violence and humor) even considered let alone displayed.
Chiwetel Ejiofor stars at Solomon Northup, a free black man living in New York who is deceived, drugged and kidnapped under the promise of work in Washington, D.C. When he wakes up, he's in shackles, and the rest is a 12-year journey from slave ship to auction to plantation to plantation. He meets a number of characters (free and enslaved) along the way, including first owner William Ford (Cumberbatch) and his sadistic "overseer" Tidbeats (Paul Dano), before being resold to Edwin Epps (Fassbender). Epps is a man who lives and breathes pure evil, one whose cruel treatment of his property is justified by Biblical verses, and enhanced by alcoholism and his wife (Sarah Paulson), whose sadism is matched by that of her husband's.
The rarity of Solomon - and why his story is unique to many other slaves he encounters - is that his life was once as free as his masters', and in addition to being subject to these atrocities, knows that there are friends, a wife, and children who are waiting on him, likely basing their entirely livelihoods on his eventual escape. This allows Solomon to stand out in a number of ways - his ability to read, write and play the fiddle among them - which both earns him the respect of one owner and the scorn of another. And the entire film is shown in long, dry scenes that play out often in one long consecutive take, never submitting to the easy-way-out of cutting away where most other films would. There are three scenes in particular that McQueen chooses to just leave a static camera on our protagonist so that we see what he sees, we watch what everyone else watches, or we hear what they hear, with no room for interpretation. These scenes are the most powerful, and the cinematography - combined with a perfectly-placed score from Hans Zimmer - accentuate Solomon's story without needing any surrounding dialogue to explain the unexplainable. It's a technical masterpiece, which sounds odd given the subject matter, but how McQueen uses sound, images and silence plays a specific role in our experience. And nearly every decision he makes is the right one.
The most powerful aspects of the film come from its actors though, and I imagine Chiwetel Ejiofor will be practicing his Oscar speech for the next few months. His performance is among the best of the decade, and nearly every word, every facial expression, every cry on screen matches the tone of the story and is filled with authenticity. There's no scenery-chewing here, and some of his most powerful moments are when he's just sitting still, observing and reacting to the events around him. He's matched scene for scene by Lupita Nyong'o, whose Patsey - a very young and talented female slave - earns the lust of her slave owner and suffers ten times more than Solomon does, given that every aspect of her well-being is destroyed by not one, but two individuals who she is powerless to defend herself against. Michael Fassbender also gives a solid performance as Epps, though is granted much more screen time than he deserves. There's nothing more to Epps than love of abuse and power, and he joins the worst-of-the-worst criminals to ever be portrayed on film.
Still, the film is not perfect, and despite certain heart- and gut-wrenching scenes, there's still a general sense that there is much more to Solomon than we are allowed to see. In some ways, Solomon is placed in the center of a number of events but doesn't directly experience them, or so much time passes between scenes that key parts of Solomon's development are left up to imagination. This isn't a complaint as much as it was a distraction, and the film may have benefitted if it allowed certain parts of the narrative to flow more naturally without immediately throwing us into the next tragic event occurring on the plantation. Granted, twelve years is a long time to cover in one film, but adding even twenty or thirty minutes might have removed any noticeable jumps in the story. Finally, the previews include a number of famous faces, but many of these are nothing more than a few minutes of screen time. A couple (Paul Giamatti, for example) are fine, but others (Brad Pitt, Alfre Woodard) are distracting, which makes you wonder why lesser-known actors couldn't have been cast (or in the case of Woodard's scene, cut out altogether).
Still, movies like 12 years a Slave are necessary to make, and one needs to applaud McQueen and Ejiofor's courage for never dumbing down the images needed to evoke the horrors of slavery. I can name a number of films that have shown people tied up and whipped, but never in a way so unsettling that we're forced to witness lash after lash, a near-dead body falling to the ground, blood-soaked and empty of any sense of hope. And while any film is limited in its ability to do more than give us a glimpse into its characters or subject matter, 12 Years taps into the human psyche and reminds us that this horror took place, and was not only legal but universally accepted. Perhaps in your own backyard.
Captain Phillips - ***1/2
November 4, 2013
Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Written by: Billy Ray
I’ve tried to be light on spoilers, but these are based on real events…
I'm not sure what planet I was inhabiting during the real Maersk Alabama hijacking in 2009, but when I first saw the trailer for Captain Phillips, I was surprised at how little I remembered from its real-life story. Still, the movie looked intriguing, and so I promised not to dig back into the archives and revisit any of the facts. And I'm glad I didn't;Captain Phillips is a tense film from the moment the cargo ship leaves the port, and knowing exactly what would happen next would likely have tainted my experience and eliminated some of the suspense. And while the film advertises itself as a thriller at sea, it also doesn't shy away from some of the political themes which underpins the main story.
Tom Hanks stars as cargo ship captain Richard Phillips, presumably on his thousandth trip around the world, hauling anything from food aid to equipment on its voyage around the African coast. He's manning a different crew, but his routine seems to be the same. The ship's latest potential threat? Pirates, and lots of them. Phillips and his crew take several precautionary steps, and the film runs through the basics of the 'worst-case scenario': shut the ship down, hide yourselves, use your knowledge of the ship to maintain the advantage over the pirates. But one of the crew
members states the obvious: "we don't carry guns on this ship." The second we hear that line, the film sets the tone for an immediate tense showdown between armed pirates and sophisticated but unarmed crewman.
The four Somali pirates, led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi, a newcomer who gives an effective, nuanced performance) aren't the skilled robbers you see in heist movies; they're young, inexperienced and naive. But they're also against the ropes (the movie provides a brief glimpse into the life of Somalia) and unpredictable, and so Phillips and his crew must take their threats seriously. During the film's first hour, the crew and the pirates play a typical cat-and-mouse game; the pirates desperately try to reveal the whereabouts of the hiding crew members, and Phillips does his
best to stall, buying time until the US/UK military can jump in and assist. Nearly every scene has a claustrophobic feel, and there are extended shots of long corridors or tightly-crammed quarters representing not only an area of a ship but perhaps key points of survival. Eventually the film escalates into violence, and a split-second decision by Phillips takes the remainder of the film off the primary ship. Where they end up and what happens I won’t spoil, obviously.
Captain Phillips’s primary strength relies on its casting, as everyone is either entirely new or relatively unknown. This works to the film’s advantage; much like Paul Greengrass’s United 93, choosing to fill your ‘true story’ film with megastars robs the story of its authenticity. The exception of course is Tom Hanks, who gives his best performance since Castaway as a practical, but not necessarily brave ship captain. Richard Phillips isn’t perfect, and the film doesn’t portray the title character as an action star. He’s an ordinary man who wants to see his family again, scared, and completely uncertain about how the course of events will resolve. It’s a tough role to play but even tougher to remove the “Oh that’s Tom Hanks” mentality, but he pulls it off flawlessly. He’s nearly a lock for a Best Actor nomination. Paul Greengrass is also an expert in generating and maintaining suspense. Even during the film’s perceived quieter moments, there’s always tension, as each of the pirates is one sentence away from totally snapping. The film’s one major downside though comes at the beginning. The opening scene with Hanks and his wife (played for some reason by Oscar-nominee Catherine Keener) is so forced and could have been easily cut. The strength of Phillips’s character emerges on the ship, and showing a married couple discussing their son’s future career while driving on the highway wastes more time than it does provide interesting exposition.
Most of all though, this is another example of a film showing how people simply go too far in pursuit of their goals. Phillips points out late in the movie that the pirates could have made out with a good amount of money and not had the entire heat of the U.S. military behind them if they just walked away while they were ahead. But taking enormous risks means either a huge reward or huge drawback is in store. The film takes this basic concept and stretches it into two hours, and it succeeds, ending with such a perfect closing scene, an emotional payoff so satisfying that I wanted to buy another ticket, just to have a chance to watch the final five minutes again.
Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi
Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Written by: Billy Ray
I’ve tried to be light on spoilers, but these are based on real events…
I'm not sure what planet I was inhabiting during the real Maersk Alabama hijacking in 2009, but when I first saw the trailer for Captain Phillips, I was surprised at how little I remembered from its real-life story. Still, the movie looked intriguing, and so I promised not to dig back into the archives and revisit any of the facts. And I'm glad I didn't;Captain Phillips is a tense film from the moment the cargo ship leaves the port, and knowing exactly what would happen next would likely have tainted my experience and eliminated some of the suspense. And while the film advertises itself as a thriller at sea, it also doesn't shy away from some of the political themes which underpins the main story.
Tom Hanks stars as cargo ship captain Richard Phillips, presumably on his thousandth trip around the world, hauling anything from food aid to equipment on its voyage around the African coast. He's manning a different crew, but his routine seems to be the same. The ship's latest potential threat? Pirates, and lots of them. Phillips and his crew take several precautionary steps, and the film runs through the basics of the 'worst-case scenario': shut the ship down, hide yourselves, use your knowledge of the ship to maintain the advantage over the pirates. But one of the crew
members states the obvious: "we don't carry guns on this ship." The second we hear that line, the film sets the tone for an immediate tense showdown between armed pirates and sophisticated but unarmed crewman.
The four Somali pirates, led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi, a newcomer who gives an effective, nuanced performance) aren't the skilled robbers you see in heist movies; they're young, inexperienced and naive. But they're also against the ropes (the movie provides a brief glimpse into the life of Somalia) and unpredictable, and so Phillips and his crew must take their threats seriously. During the film's first hour, the crew and the pirates play a typical cat-and-mouse game; the pirates desperately try to reveal the whereabouts of the hiding crew members, and Phillips does his
best to stall, buying time until the US/UK military can jump in and assist. Nearly every scene has a claustrophobic feel, and there are extended shots of long corridors or tightly-crammed quarters representing not only an area of a ship but perhaps key points of survival. Eventually the film escalates into violence, and a split-second decision by Phillips takes the remainder of the film off the primary ship. Where they end up and what happens I won’t spoil, obviously.
Captain Phillips’s primary strength relies on its casting, as everyone is either entirely new or relatively unknown. This works to the film’s advantage; much like Paul Greengrass’s United 93, choosing to fill your ‘true story’ film with megastars robs the story of its authenticity. The exception of course is Tom Hanks, who gives his best performance since Castaway as a practical, but not necessarily brave ship captain. Richard Phillips isn’t perfect, and the film doesn’t portray the title character as an action star. He’s an ordinary man who wants to see his family again, scared, and completely uncertain about how the course of events will resolve. It’s a tough role to play but even tougher to remove the “Oh that’s Tom Hanks” mentality, but he pulls it off flawlessly. He’s nearly a lock for a Best Actor nomination. Paul Greengrass is also an expert in generating and maintaining suspense. Even during the film’s perceived quieter moments, there’s always tension, as each of the pirates is one sentence away from totally snapping. The film’s one major downside though comes at the beginning. The opening scene with Hanks and his wife (played for some reason by Oscar-nominee Catherine Keener) is so forced and could have been easily cut. The strength of Phillips’s character emerges on the ship, and showing a married couple discussing their son’s future career while driving on the highway wastes more time than it does provide interesting exposition.
Most of all though, this is another example of a film showing how people simply go too far in pursuit of their goals. Phillips points out late in the movie that the pirates could have made out with a good amount of money and not had the entire heat of the U.S. military behind them if they just walked away while they were ahead. But taking enormous risks means either a huge reward or huge drawback is in store. The film takes this basic concept and stretches it into two hours, and it succeeds, ending with such a perfect closing scene, an emotional payoff so satisfying that I wanted to buy another ticket, just to have a chance to watch the final five minutes again.
The Counselor - ***
October 29, 2013
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: Cormac McCarthy
^--Just take a few moments to re-read the credits to this movie. By all accounts, this should have been a masterpiece and a frontrunner for best picture. And while The Counselor certainly offers an entertaining 110 minutes of film, a part of me left the theater thinking that the movie should have been better. Much better.
At its core, The Counselor is a writer's movie; the director, actors and crew are just along for the ride. Penned by Cormac McCarthy - who moviegoers more likely associate with No Country for Old Men and The Road - the film's script contains some of the most outrageous violent, sexual and philosophical discussions in film this year. In this movie, people don't just have sex and die; they have sex and die with style, the type of flair that can only have originated in an author's mind. The Counselor certainly gives us a few scenes that its audience is likely to discuss in the car on the way home.
After an opening scene, in which we learn how crazy in love the counselor (Michasel Fassbender, whose protagonist is never given a name) and his girlfriend Laura (Penelope Cruz) are for each other, the film propels us right into its central drug score. The Counselor - an otherwise moral defense attorney - has no problem getting his hands dirty with the likes of Reiner (Javier Bardem) and Westray (Brad Pitt). Also (sort of) involved is Reiner's sexpot Malkina (Cameron Diaz), who perhaps has more authority in the scheme than anyone else realizes. Most of the details are vague, but we learn early that the counselor seeks to gain millions involving an illegal shipment of cocaine with Mexico's ruthless drug cartels. The motivations are murky at best: he wants to buy the most expensive engagement ring for his girlfriend that money can buy, apparently so much so that he's willing to put his entire personal and professional well-being in jeopardy for it. But I digress.
A series of unfortunate events places the counselor in hot water. To its credit, The Counselor makes terrific use of the 'unintended consequences' device; rather than screwing up, it's pure coincidence that lands the counselor in a situation to have to fend for his life. On a cerebral level, I appreciated that; nothing bothers me more than movies where smart people do dumb things for no apparent reason other than to move the plot forward. Here, the characters behave in the exact way that we'd expect in a situation like this. From there, it's not a matter of if bad things are going to happen, but rather when and how bad. The film contains a few action scenes, but the suspense is mostly gained from the characters not knowing what's around them, if they're being watched, and whether or not making a wrong turn will result in their demise.
Still, the film is not without its sour spots. While everyone in the cast does a terrific job (even those who don't have much to do like Cruz and Pitt), Diaz's Malkina smacks of inauthenticity. I partly blame McCarthy's screenplay - which never really seems sure how to handle this character when she's by herself or interacting with others - but Diaz also shares some responsibility. In the right role, Diaz can be a very effective dramatic actress (think Vanilla Sky), but her character here borders 'campy', and her presence in each scene almost jolts you out of the suspense, since you're so focused on what over-the-top soliloquy she might say next. Finally, while I admire a good monologue as much as the next person, a couple conversations in this film drag on. On the surface, that's fine, but when time and swiftness can serve as the difference between life and death, you'd think one of the characters would just tell the other to hurry up and get to the point.
Oh, and did I mention Ridley Scott directed this? You would have thought a Ridley Scott movie would have more of its appeal and foundation built by the director's motifs. I imagine that he saw a solid script, a great cast, and was more on hand to move the production forward in the smoothest way possible. And for the most part, he did just that. This is a competent film, intelligent and entertaining. And thoughThe
Counselor doesn't achieve the greatness I would have expected, the A-list cast, director and writer offer a nice twist to the genre.
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: Cormac McCarthy
^--Just take a few moments to re-read the credits to this movie. By all accounts, this should have been a masterpiece and a frontrunner for best picture. And while The Counselor certainly offers an entertaining 110 minutes of film, a part of me left the theater thinking that the movie should have been better. Much better.
At its core, The Counselor is a writer's movie; the director, actors and crew are just along for the ride. Penned by Cormac McCarthy - who moviegoers more likely associate with No Country for Old Men and The Road - the film's script contains some of the most outrageous violent, sexual and philosophical discussions in film this year. In this movie, people don't just have sex and die; they have sex and die with style, the type of flair that can only have originated in an author's mind. The Counselor certainly gives us a few scenes that its audience is likely to discuss in the car on the way home.
After an opening scene, in which we learn how crazy in love the counselor (Michasel Fassbender, whose protagonist is never given a name) and his girlfriend Laura (Penelope Cruz) are for each other, the film propels us right into its central drug score. The Counselor - an otherwise moral defense attorney - has no problem getting his hands dirty with the likes of Reiner (Javier Bardem) and Westray (Brad Pitt). Also (sort of) involved is Reiner's sexpot Malkina (Cameron Diaz), who perhaps has more authority in the scheme than anyone else realizes. Most of the details are vague, but we learn early that the counselor seeks to gain millions involving an illegal shipment of cocaine with Mexico's ruthless drug cartels. The motivations are murky at best: he wants to buy the most expensive engagement ring for his girlfriend that money can buy, apparently so much so that he's willing to put his entire personal and professional well-being in jeopardy for it. But I digress.
A series of unfortunate events places the counselor in hot water. To its credit, The Counselor makes terrific use of the 'unintended consequences' device; rather than screwing up, it's pure coincidence that lands the counselor in a situation to have to fend for his life. On a cerebral level, I appreciated that; nothing bothers me more than movies where smart people do dumb things for no apparent reason other than to move the plot forward. Here, the characters behave in the exact way that we'd expect in a situation like this. From there, it's not a matter of if bad things are going to happen, but rather when and how bad. The film contains a few action scenes, but the suspense is mostly gained from the characters not knowing what's around them, if they're being watched, and whether or not making a wrong turn will result in their demise.
Still, the film is not without its sour spots. While everyone in the cast does a terrific job (even those who don't have much to do like Cruz and Pitt), Diaz's Malkina smacks of inauthenticity. I partly blame McCarthy's screenplay - which never really seems sure how to handle this character when she's by herself or interacting with others - but Diaz also shares some responsibility. In the right role, Diaz can be a very effective dramatic actress (think Vanilla Sky), but her character here borders 'campy', and her presence in each scene almost jolts you out of the suspense, since you're so focused on what over-the-top soliloquy she might say next. Finally, while I admire a good monologue as much as the next person, a couple conversations in this film drag on. On the surface, that's fine, but when time and swiftness can serve as the difference between life and death, you'd think one of the characters would just tell the other to hurry up and get to the point.
Oh, and did I mention Ridley Scott directed this? You would have thought a Ridley Scott movie would have more of its appeal and foundation built by the director's motifs. I imagine that he saw a solid script, a great cast, and was more on hand to move the production forward in the smoothest way possible. And for the most part, he did just that. This is a competent film, intelligent and entertaining. And thoughThe
Counselor doesn't achieve the greatness I would have expected, the A-list cast, director and writer offer a nice twist to the genre.
Gravity - ****
October 8, 2013
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Written by: Alfonso Cuaron, Jonas Cuaron
When I first caught a glimpse of the teaser trailer for Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, I applauded its effectiveness, providing a solid 60 consecutive seconds of the film without any damaging spoilers, or frankly, any context. About a month later, I sat in an IMAX 3D theater, watching the breathtaking film in its entirety, amazed at how every scene, every shot, every second of the movie contained pulse-pounding suspense from start to finish. The film immediately brings you into its world (or, out of this world) and never lets up, earning every moment of its 90+ minute running time.
Beware the hype: at least that's what I tell myself when I read critics/audiences gushing over a new release. I avoided reviews at all cost (I didn't want anything spoiled) but I couldn't avoid the buzz the film was already generating: for its lead actress, spectacular effects and new approach to filmmaking. To that end, I expected a really good movie but my expectations were surpassed. The buzz is well-grounded and accurate: Gravity represents a new type of filmmaking, a movie so unique in its approach that I imagine it will be ripped off a hundred times before someone else 'gets it right'. Regardless, on its own merits, I can't recall a film that has maintained such a high level of suspense throughout, not to mention within the boundaries of the story presented here.
The film contains little exposition, avoiding any unnecessary character buildup and instead throwing us right into the crux of the story. Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a bio-medical engineer, who - along with space regular and all-around fun guy Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) - currently are in the final stages of repairing a faulty space telescope. Only minutes from being finished, Stone and Kowalski get wind from Mission Control that an explosion from a nearby Russian satellite has sent an insurmountable amount of debris orbiting the Earth at extremely high speeds. The second that you hear the words "MISSION ABORT", the film's non-stop action and suspense kicks into gear, and without giving anything else away, sends Stone and Kowalski floating into space, miles away from their recently-destroyed capsule.
Alfonso Cuaron is a fabulous director, and he keeps improving his resume with each film he releases. His entry within the Harry Potter series set the bar high, proving that you can enter Hogwarts without the cheery gimmicks of Chris Columbus. Children of Men remains one of the most underrated films of 2006, a film more remembered today for its splendid cinematography than its dystopian view of the future. But here, Cuaron has the chance to follow his original vision from start to finish, with groundbreaking use of visual effects, cinematography and music, each adding to the overall experience of the film but never once distracting us from the story, which often happens with visually-driven movies of this nature. The sound effects are perfect too, and I'm sure Gravity will clean up at the technicals come Oscar time.
The praise of Sandra Bullock's performance is flooding in, with talks of a guaranteed Oscar bid mentioned in every review. She will get an Oscar nomination and it's well deserved. This is a terrific performance, with Bullock often speaking little or to no one, using pure body language to convey her terror, hope, confusion and relief at various points throughout the film. Without this human element, the film's technical achievements would essentially amount to nothing. George Clooney is good as, well, George Clooney, but this is Bullock's show from start to finish. It's the most effective performance of her career, and towers over her previous Oscar-winning turn in The Blind Side.
There are a number of other metaphorical and spiritual themes present in the film too, proving that Cuaron's subject matter has depth beyond the rather simple premise. The film never shies away from providing an accurate portrayal of what it's like to float in space, be trapped in a box, or drift within the confines of a 'temporary' home. Gravity wants us to experience every type of conflict imaginable for our lead character, while also never giving us a moment to reflect on what we're seeing until the credits have already rolled. I'm not surprised that the movie took four and a half years to produce, but I'm thankful that it didn't falter, when the film could have copped out in so many ways. Gravity will stand the test of time as a groundbreaking film, not only within the sci-fi genre but also with its powerful use of combining a world of visuals with an isolated protagonist.
Note: Given my inability to see depth perception, I can't comment specifically on the 3D component of the movie. I did see it in IMAX 3D, and while some of the effects are lost on me, the film doesn't contain the poorly-lit, nausea-inducing components that many other 3D movies throw at you. So while I'll take everyone else's word that 3D is worth it, I definitely concur that this is a film meant for theaterical viewings. Don't wait until it's on DVD or you'll be missing half of the experience.
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Written by: Alfonso Cuaron, Jonas Cuaron
When I first caught a glimpse of the teaser trailer for Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, I applauded its effectiveness, providing a solid 60 consecutive seconds of the film without any damaging spoilers, or frankly, any context. About a month later, I sat in an IMAX 3D theater, watching the breathtaking film in its entirety, amazed at how every scene, every shot, every second of the movie contained pulse-pounding suspense from start to finish. The film immediately brings you into its world (or, out of this world) and never lets up, earning every moment of its 90+ minute running time.
Beware the hype: at least that's what I tell myself when I read critics/audiences gushing over a new release. I avoided reviews at all cost (I didn't want anything spoiled) but I couldn't avoid the buzz the film was already generating: for its lead actress, spectacular effects and new approach to filmmaking. To that end, I expected a really good movie but my expectations were surpassed. The buzz is well-grounded and accurate: Gravity represents a new type of filmmaking, a movie so unique in its approach that I imagine it will be ripped off a hundred times before someone else 'gets it right'. Regardless, on its own merits, I can't recall a film that has maintained such a high level of suspense throughout, not to mention within the boundaries of the story presented here.
The film contains little exposition, avoiding any unnecessary character buildup and instead throwing us right into the crux of the story. Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a bio-medical engineer, who - along with space regular and all-around fun guy Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) - currently are in the final stages of repairing a faulty space telescope. Only minutes from being finished, Stone and Kowalski get wind from Mission Control that an explosion from a nearby Russian satellite has sent an insurmountable amount of debris orbiting the Earth at extremely high speeds. The second that you hear the words "MISSION ABORT", the film's non-stop action and suspense kicks into gear, and without giving anything else away, sends Stone and Kowalski floating into space, miles away from their recently-destroyed capsule.
Alfonso Cuaron is a fabulous director, and he keeps improving his resume with each film he releases. His entry within the Harry Potter series set the bar high, proving that you can enter Hogwarts without the cheery gimmicks of Chris Columbus. Children of Men remains one of the most underrated films of 2006, a film more remembered today for its splendid cinematography than its dystopian view of the future. But here, Cuaron has the chance to follow his original vision from start to finish, with groundbreaking use of visual effects, cinematography and music, each adding to the overall experience of the film but never once distracting us from the story, which often happens with visually-driven movies of this nature. The sound effects are perfect too, and I'm sure Gravity will clean up at the technicals come Oscar time.
The praise of Sandra Bullock's performance is flooding in, with talks of a guaranteed Oscar bid mentioned in every review. She will get an Oscar nomination and it's well deserved. This is a terrific performance, with Bullock often speaking little or to no one, using pure body language to convey her terror, hope, confusion and relief at various points throughout the film. Without this human element, the film's technical achievements would essentially amount to nothing. George Clooney is good as, well, George Clooney, but this is Bullock's show from start to finish. It's the most effective performance of her career, and towers over her previous Oscar-winning turn in The Blind Side.
There are a number of other metaphorical and spiritual themes present in the film too, proving that Cuaron's subject matter has depth beyond the rather simple premise. The film never shies away from providing an accurate portrayal of what it's like to float in space, be trapped in a box, or drift within the confines of a 'temporary' home. Gravity wants us to experience every type of conflict imaginable for our lead character, while also never giving us a moment to reflect on what we're seeing until the credits have already rolled. I'm not surprised that the movie took four and a half years to produce, but I'm thankful that it didn't falter, when the film could have copped out in so many ways. Gravity will stand the test of time as a groundbreaking film, not only within the sci-fi genre but also with its powerful use of combining a world of visuals with an isolated protagonist.
Note: Given my inability to see depth perception, I can't comment specifically on the 3D component of the movie. I did see it in IMAX 3D, and while some of the effects are lost on me, the film doesn't contain the poorly-lit, nausea-inducing components that many other 3D movies throw at you. So while I'll take everyone else's word that 3D is worth it, I definitely concur that this is a film meant for theaterical viewings. Don't wait until it's on DVD or you'll be missing half of the experience.
Prisoners - ***1/2
September 24, 2013
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis
Directed by: Denis Villenueve
Written by: Aaron Guzikowski
Everyone involved in the making of this movie - from the extraordinary cast to esteemed Cinematographer Roger Deakins - deserves credit for creating one of the smartest, most tense thrillers since David Fincher's Zodiac. Unfortunately, their talents and hard work are abandoned in the film's final act, and so Prisoners ends as a really good film, but one that could have achieved greatness if the script would have just stayed the course on its convictions, as opposed to going the "Hollywood Way". Still, about 75% of this movie is a HELL of a movie.
The film takes place in suburban Pennsylvania, where two couples (Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello and Terrence Howard, Viola Davis) sit down with their kids for a cold Thanksgiving dinner. It's an ordinary day, and neither family realizes that their lives are about to be thrown upside down. That's until their daughters go outside to play but never return. The next several scenes set the tone for the rest of the film, as both sets of parents search the house, block and neighborhood for their daughters which seemed to have disappeared without a trace.
Enter Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a troubled (but skilled, apparently) detective who is assigned to find the missing girls and investigate the several clues that indicate that this was a planned abduction. The first trail of bread crumbs leads them to Alex (Paul Dano), a mentally-troubled young adult with the IQ of a ten-year old. Loki captures him, and proceeds in a two-day long interrogation of the kid, but after 48 hours of non-incriminating evidence, the police are forced to let him go. Then - as anyone who saw the trailer knows - Jackman's Keller Dover decides to take matters into his own hands, kidnapping Alex and holding him in captivity until he provides the information necessary to save his daughter's life.
This all transpires in the film's first third, as every second of its 2.5 hour running time cruises by on its tension and crisp editing. The film has the difficult job of balancing Jackman's moral dilemma with Gyllenhaal's police investigation, but each is treated with equal focus and care so that there is never a moment when we wish the narrative would switch places. Unfortunately, Howard and Davis (as the other parents) are kept at bay for most of the film's second act: this is Jackman's and Gyllenhaal's movie. Both give terrific performances; Jackman's particularly carries an intensity that he was probably hoping to release after starring in the terribly-overrated Les Miserables, and has a legitimate shot of a Best Actor nomination. Gyllenhaal is much more subdued, but Loki has his own set of troubles. The script makes the smart decision of not digging too deep into his character (when you're searching for a kidnapper 24 hours/7 days a week, is there time?). Prisoners also is a fascinating character study, showing good people doing bad things, and (potentially) bad people in a sympathetic light. On nearly every case it works, as I'm sure every parent that saw this film over opening weekend engaged in discussions about whether or not they would take the same approach that Hugh Jackman does. How far would you go to try and save your child's life? What if you're 99.99% sure that the person you believe is the kidnapper is in fact the one you're looking for. Does the 0.01% doubt play into your actions? The film asks many questions like this but doesn't provide us with any concrete answers, which allows the characters to develop in their own ways.
Unfortunately, there's that final thirty minutes, when all of tension leads us in a direction that the audience may or may not have expected. I won't give away any specific details, but once the film wrapped and all of the pieces were put together, I was disappointed. To see such smart storytelling and prestigious film making take such an unoriginal turn tainted some of the experience for me. Prisoners prided itself on staying above the fray of Hollywood cliches and cop outs, but couldn't avoid them completely by the time the film was over. As a script writer, I admired how the writer/director kept the story moving along, with scene after scene of anticipation. As a viewer, the amount of manipulation that took place during certain scenes stood out as amateurish and predictable. But you know what - the hell with it. This is a really good film, and despite not ending with the same intensity as the film begins, it's still worth seeing, just to confirm that movies of this genre can terrorize you, both in the theater and long after you've exited.
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis
Directed by: Denis Villenueve
Written by: Aaron Guzikowski
Everyone involved in the making of this movie - from the extraordinary cast to esteemed Cinematographer Roger Deakins - deserves credit for creating one of the smartest, most tense thrillers since David Fincher's Zodiac. Unfortunately, their talents and hard work are abandoned in the film's final act, and so Prisoners ends as a really good film, but one that could have achieved greatness if the script would have just stayed the course on its convictions, as opposed to going the "Hollywood Way". Still, about 75% of this movie is a HELL of a movie.
The film takes place in suburban Pennsylvania, where two couples (Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello and Terrence Howard, Viola Davis) sit down with their kids for a cold Thanksgiving dinner. It's an ordinary day, and neither family realizes that their lives are about to be thrown upside down. That's until their daughters go outside to play but never return. The next several scenes set the tone for the rest of the film, as both sets of parents search the house, block and neighborhood for their daughters which seemed to have disappeared without a trace.
Enter Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a troubled (but skilled, apparently) detective who is assigned to find the missing girls and investigate the several clues that indicate that this was a planned abduction. The first trail of bread crumbs leads them to Alex (Paul Dano), a mentally-troubled young adult with the IQ of a ten-year old. Loki captures him, and proceeds in a two-day long interrogation of the kid, but after 48 hours of non-incriminating evidence, the police are forced to let him go. Then - as anyone who saw the trailer knows - Jackman's Keller Dover decides to take matters into his own hands, kidnapping Alex and holding him in captivity until he provides the information necessary to save his daughter's life.
This all transpires in the film's first third, as every second of its 2.5 hour running time cruises by on its tension and crisp editing. The film has the difficult job of balancing Jackman's moral dilemma with Gyllenhaal's police investigation, but each is treated with equal focus and care so that there is never a moment when we wish the narrative would switch places. Unfortunately, Howard and Davis (as the other parents) are kept at bay for most of the film's second act: this is Jackman's and Gyllenhaal's movie. Both give terrific performances; Jackman's particularly carries an intensity that he was probably hoping to release after starring in the terribly-overrated Les Miserables, and has a legitimate shot of a Best Actor nomination. Gyllenhaal is much more subdued, but Loki has his own set of troubles. The script makes the smart decision of not digging too deep into his character (when you're searching for a kidnapper 24 hours/7 days a week, is there time?). Prisoners also is a fascinating character study, showing good people doing bad things, and (potentially) bad people in a sympathetic light. On nearly every case it works, as I'm sure every parent that saw this film over opening weekend engaged in discussions about whether or not they would take the same approach that Hugh Jackman does. How far would you go to try and save your child's life? What if you're 99.99% sure that the person you believe is the kidnapper is in fact the one you're looking for. Does the 0.01% doubt play into your actions? The film asks many questions like this but doesn't provide us with any concrete answers, which allows the characters to develop in their own ways.
Unfortunately, there's that final thirty minutes, when all of tension leads us in a direction that the audience may or may not have expected. I won't give away any specific details, but once the film wrapped and all of the pieces were put together, I was disappointed. To see such smart storytelling and prestigious film making take such an unoriginal turn tainted some of the experience for me. Prisoners prided itself on staying above the fray of Hollywood cliches and cop outs, but couldn't avoid them completely by the time the film was over. As a script writer, I admired how the writer/director kept the story moving along, with scene after scene of anticipation. As a viewer, the amount of manipulation that took place during certain scenes stood out as amateurish and predictable. But you know what - the hell with it. This is a really good film, and despite not ending with the same intensity as the film begins, it's still worth seeing, just to confirm that movies of this genre can terrorize you, both in the theater and long after you've exited.
Fruitvale Station - ***1/2
August 20, 2013
Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Octavia Spencer, Melonie Diaz
Written and Directed by: Ryan Coogler
SPOILER ALERT: This movie is based on actual events that took place in 2009. It’s pretty difficult to discuss the movie without discussing what happened, so I’d ‘x’ out if you’re looking for a completed untainted movie experience.
Sometimes a film can gain so much hype that it falls on the weight of its own expectations. When Fruitvale Station hit theaters, it arrived with an enormous amount of buzz, one of the biggest surprises of Sundance and pre-Oscar talks for all of its primary awards. I approached the film with skepticism (let us not forget the disaster that is Beasts of the Southern Wild..) but Fruitvale Station delivers on every front. The film is an emotional powerhouse, a movie that makes nearly every correct decision in ways that could have so easily gone wrong. My knowledge of the actual events was minimal, and even now I’ve tried to withhold reading anything more until after I’ve finished my review. As of now though, I admire writer/director Ryan Coogler so much for showing restraint, a trait that many other mainstream and indie films sometimes find impossible to avoid.
The film follows Oscar Grant (Michael B. Jordan), an ex-con and drug dealer, on New Year’s Eve 2009. From the first scene, Oscar isn’t viewed as your model citizen: he’s a liar, a cheat, a drug dealer, and he has a temper that you quickly learn has the potential to land him in trouble. Still, he’s clearly a loving father to his daughter Tatiana and in love with his girlfriend. Oscar's day is largely uneventful, as he visits family, runs errands, and spends as much time with his daughter as possible. His few interactions involve trying to regain employment after getting fired for being late one too many times, a mid-afternoon drug run, and an encounter with a stray dog. It's not until the evening - when a series of tragic events unfold - that the film really draws you in. I'll stay light on details, but a celebratory draw into the New Year quickly turns violent in more ways than one - first with another crew, and then with transit police officers - and the result is a memorable set of sequences that earns the emotions it tugs. I can understand why the movie has been perceived so well; it touches upon many global themes even while remaining entirely in Oscar's point of view. Still, the film is more honest in its approach to topics like drugs, race, and fatherhood than so many other movies of recent memory.
Michael B. Jordan's performance is stellar: he never overplays a beat and he does a great job making Oscar Grant a real person and not a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination come January. Melonie Diaz and Octavia Spencer are effective too; despite her Oscar-winning performance in The Help, Spencer still hasn't hit 'star' status, so her turn as Oscar's caring but practical mother isn't distracting to the story. The only missteps for me were the casting of the two police offers. Neither were stars, but I immediately recognized both, which pulled me out of the film's most pivotal scene. Both do a good job, but I just wish there would have been two unknowns in those roles, since it was not the right time to have the audience playing the "what movie is this guy from?" game.
It's easy for a film like this to seem preachy - but in my opinion, the filmmakers avoid this every step of the way. But to that point, does it matter? Does Oscar making a series of bad decisions in his life justify what happened? To me, taking us through an ordinary day shows that - yes, this can happen to any of us. Not this series of events necessarily, but a normal day that turns disastrous and deadly after one interaction gone wrong. I would encourage everyone to read about the actual events that transpired (which I've now done, since my review is over), but you don't need to know every fact or fiction about the movie to still find it effective. And I won't comment on the outcome of the story after the film is over - you can read thousands of articles, blogs and comments on that. That's all secondary. Yes, I watched this movie knowing that certain events were likely exaggerated or even fabricated, but it didn't bother me. The fim's core message worked on so many levels that it was easy to set aside the "Based on a true story" meme that often plagues so many movies of this genre.
Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Octavia Spencer, Melonie Diaz
Written and Directed by: Ryan Coogler
SPOILER ALERT: This movie is based on actual events that took place in 2009. It’s pretty difficult to discuss the movie without discussing what happened, so I’d ‘x’ out if you’re looking for a completed untainted movie experience.
Sometimes a film can gain so much hype that it falls on the weight of its own expectations. When Fruitvale Station hit theaters, it arrived with an enormous amount of buzz, one of the biggest surprises of Sundance and pre-Oscar talks for all of its primary awards. I approached the film with skepticism (let us not forget the disaster that is Beasts of the Southern Wild..) but Fruitvale Station delivers on every front. The film is an emotional powerhouse, a movie that makes nearly every correct decision in ways that could have so easily gone wrong. My knowledge of the actual events was minimal, and even now I’ve tried to withhold reading anything more until after I’ve finished my review. As of now though, I admire writer/director Ryan Coogler so much for showing restraint, a trait that many other mainstream and indie films sometimes find impossible to avoid.
The film follows Oscar Grant (Michael B. Jordan), an ex-con and drug dealer, on New Year’s Eve 2009. From the first scene, Oscar isn’t viewed as your model citizen: he’s a liar, a cheat, a drug dealer, and he has a temper that you quickly learn has the potential to land him in trouble. Still, he’s clearly a loving father to his daughter Tatiana and in love with his girlfriend. Oscar's day is largely uneventful, as he visits family, runs errands, and spends as much time with his daughter as possible. His few interactions involve trying to regain employment after getting fired for being late one too many times, a mid-afternoon drug run, and an encounter with a stray dog. It's not until the evening - when a series of tragic events unfold - that the film really draws you in. I'll stay light on details, but a celebratory draw into the New Year quickly turns violent in more ways than one - first with another crew, and then with transit police officers - and the result is a memorable set of sequences that earns the emotions it tugs. I can understand why the movie has been perceived so well; it touches upon many global themes even while remaining entirely in Oscar's point of view. Still, the film is more honest in its approach to topics like drugs, race, and fatherhood than so many other movies of recent memory.
Michael B. Jordan's performance is stellar: he never overplays a beat and he does a great job making Oscar Grant a real person and not a hero. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination come January. Melonie Diaz and Octavia Spencer are effective too; despite her Oscar-winning performance in The Help, Spencer still hasn't hit 'star' status, so her turn as Oscar's caring but practical mother isn't distracting to the story. The only missteps for me were the casting of the two police offers. Neither were stars, but I immediately recognized both, which pulled me out of the film's most pivotal scene. Both do a good job, but I just wish there would have been two unknowns in those roles, since it was not the right time to have the audience playing the "what movie is this guy from?" game.
It's easy for a film like this to seem preachy - but in my opinion, the filmmakers avoid this every step of the way. But to that point, does it matter? Does Oscar making a series of bad decisions in his life justify what happened? To me, taking us through an ordinary day shows that - yes, this can happen to any of us. Not this series of events necessarily, but a normal day that turns disastrous and deadly after one interaction gone wrong. I would encourage everyone to read about the actual events that transpired (which I've now done, since my review is over), but you don't need to know every fact or fiction about the movie to still find it effective. And I won't comment on the outcome of the story after the film is over - you can read thousands of articles, blogs and comments on that. That's all secondary. Yes, I watched this movie knowing that certain events were likely exaggerated or even fabricated, but it didn't bother me. The fim's core message worked on so many levels that it was easy to set aside the "Based on a true story" meme that often plagues so many movies of this genre.
The Place Beyond the Pines - ***
August 11, 2013
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes
Directed by: Derek Cianfrance
Written by: Derek Cianfrance, Ben Coccio, Darius Marder
Fresh off my panning review of Only God Forgives comes The Place Beyond the Pines, another Ryan Gosling movie but one so unique in its storytelling and approach that it's easier to forgive it for some of its shortcomings. The movie reunites Gosling with Derek Cianfrance two years after their indie hit Blue Valentine, and the result is a film that aspires to the highest level of drama even if it doesn't always reach it. Still, the movie works on many levels and is worth the 140-minute investment, despite a few bumps along the way.
Where Blue Valentine centered around a troubled marriage, Pines ' focus is on troubled fathers - and fatherhood in particular. Gosling plays Luke Glanton, a motorcycle stunt driver who has just discovered that he fathered a child with one-night stand, Romina (Mendes). It's no surprise that Romina has kept the child a secret - she is in a new, loving relationship and Luke is unstable, both emotionally and financially. Still, Luke has the best of intentions for his son, and vows to Romina that he will take care of her and their child. And after working a short-lived job as a local mechanic, Luke turns to robbing banks, a stint which quickly lands him on the wrong side of the law, particularly with Officer Avery Cross (Cooper). Avery is smart, honest and idealistic in a way, expecting his background and education to propel him through the ranks quicker than he might deserve. His wife (Rose Byrne) isn't a fan at his chosen line of work, especially with a son of their own now in the picture.
There are several movies that rely too much on coincidences, but Cianfrance uses this technique in a realistic way. And I don't want to give any details away about how the characters in this movie find themselves in similar situations, but I will say that the film takes some BIG chances, and almost every single one of them payoff. The linear but non-traditional storytelling had the potential to sink the story, but great acting from Gosling and Cooper, crisp editing and a consistent score help keep the plot moving so that its central themes are never lost and we remain interested in the characters. Bradley Cooper especially shines, coming off another great performance in Silver Lings Playbook, except this time relying more on reacting to the unfolding events as opposed to a character flaw that existed from the onset of the story. And Gosling, though having less to do, is more than consistent as Luke. It's an admirable performance, and Gosling accepting the role clearly shows that he's more interested in a good script than a showy role.
It sounds like I loved the film, and during the first 90 minutes I really did. Unfortunately, the third act - which takes us in a different direction than we may expect - falls flat compared to the two preceding stories. I understand why the script goes this way, and its not the shift in focus that particularly bothered me; it's more that the storyline is much less interesting and the film feels more compelled to wrap up the plot than to let the characters follow their natural course. Still, I admire Cianfrance for remaining consistent with the message, and even if I would have preferred a different direction for the end, that misdirection isn't enough to bog down the rest of the film. I would urge you to watch this movie if for no other reason than to see how - despite the traditional storytelling styles of Hollywood movies - sometimes a strong story can emerge, even without having to resort to overly stylistic methods.
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes
Directed by: Derek Cianfrance
Written by: Derek Cianfrance, Ben Coccio, Darius Marder
Fresh off my panning review of Only God Forgives comes The Place Beyond the Pines, another Ryan Gosling movie but one so unique in its storytelling and approach that it's easier to forgive it for some of its shortcomings. The movie reunites Gosling with Derek Cianfrance two years after their indie hit Blue Valentine, and the result is a film that aspires to the highest level of drama even if it doesn't always reach it. Still, the movie works on many levels and is worth the 140-minute investment, despite a few bumps along the way.
Where Blue Valentine centered around a troubled marriage, Pines ' focus is on troubled fathers - and fatherhood in particular. Gosling plays Luke Glanton, a motorcycle stunt driver who has just discovered that he fathered a child with one-night stand, Romina (Mendes). It's no surprise that Romina has kept the child a secret - she is in a new, loving relationship and Luke is unstable, both emotionally and financially. Still, Luke has the best of intentions for his son, and vows to Romina that he will take care of her and their child. And after working a short-lived job as a local mechanic, Luke turns to robbing banks, a stint which quickly lands him on the wrong side of the law, particularly with Officer Avery Cross (Cooper). Avery is smart, honest and idealistic in a way, expecting his background and education to propel him through the ranks quicker than he might deserve. His wife (Rose Byrne) isn't a fan at his chosen line of work, especially with a son of their own now in the picture.
There are several movies that rely too much on coincidences, but Cianfrance uses this technique in a realistic way. And I don't want to give any details away about how the characters in this movie find themselves in similar situations, but I will say that the film takes some BIG chances, and almost every single one of them payoff. The linear but non-traditional storytelling had the potential to sink the story, but great acting from Gosling and Cooper, crisp editing and a consistent score help keep the plot moving so that its central themes are never lost and we remain interested in the characters. Bradley Cooper especially shines, coming off another great performance in Silver Lings Playbook, except this time relying more on reacting to the unfolding events as opposed to a character flaw that existed from the onset of the story. And Gosling, though having less to do, is more than consistent as Luke. It's an admirable performance, and Gosling accepting the role clearly shows that he's more interested in a good script than a showy role.
It sounds like I loved the film, and during the first 90 minutes I really did. Unfortunately, the third act - which takes us in a different direction than we may expect - falls flat compared to the two preceding stories. I understand why the script goes this way, and its not the shift in focus that particularly bothered me; it's more that the storyline is much less interesting and the film feels more compelled to wrap up the plot than to let the characters follow their natural course. Still, I admire Cianfrance for remaining consistent with the message, and even if I would have preferred a different direction for the end, that misdirection isn't enough to bog down the rest of the film. I would urge you to watch this movie if for no other reason than to see how - despite the traditional storytelling styles of Hollywood movies - sometimes a strong story can emerge, even without having to resort to overly stylistic methods.
Only God Forgives - *
August 3, 2013
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas
Written and Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
….well I sure hope so. Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest dive into surrealism is far less successful than 2011’s Drive, which featured some exciting action scenes centered around an 80s-music filled trip into a stunt driver’s crazy experiences. Drive was light on dialogue and heavy on style, but for the most part the tone worked, though I remember feeling that it could have been a better movie by the time it was over. Only God Forgives on the other hand doubles down on all Drive’s faults without providing anything in return, the least of which being Ryan Gosling’s bland performance. Why he was cast in the movie remains a mystery; anyone could have played this role. It only required a few lines of dialogue and a dead-pan facial expression.
I won’t go too far into the details of the plot, since I imagine the storyline was the least of the film’s concerns. Ryan Gosling plays Julian, who manages an underground Bangkok boxing club with his brother. When his brother attacks and kills a young prostitute and is subsequently killed by the girl’s father, so begins Julian’s revenge plot, which must go down as the least-deserving avenged victim in cinematic history. No one in this movie was interesting, had any depth, or was worth watching. I wouldn't call it a cat-and-mouse per se, since there wasn’t so much back-and-forth as there were instances of random characters showing up in random places during random scenes. Everyone – from Julian, to his psychotic mother (Kristin Scott Thomas, who shows up in Thailand to help find her son's killer), to the cops to the killers had no arc or motivations behind any of their actions. Instead, Refn throws in little tidbits that I guess were supposed to make them more deserving of our time. Look – Ryan Gosling has to tie himself down so he doesn’t pounce on hookers and instead prefers to watch! That’s cool. Or, look – the main bad guy also is a singer, so let’s throw in a couple random shots of him singing karaoke to an engrossed audience. The story is so anti-climatic from start to finish, that I really wonder how this script was ever greenlighted. Take any scene out of the film and it changes nothing. And while not all films propel a story through dialogue, scene after scene of people standing still and staring quickly becomes repetitive and highlights the film's poor pacing.
There are a few notable positive things to point out, I guess. Like I said in my Spring Breakers review, Cliff Martinez’s score is effective, though sometimes it misses the mark since it belongs in a more-deserving movie. The movie’s color scheme – which probably alienates some – actually worked for me, and I think if nothing else, Refn shot Thailand in a beautiful way. And there is the occasional scene here or there that makes you believe that the film is going somewhere, but it’s usually followed with a dud only seconds later.
I hate to bash this movie; I really wanted to like it. I admired Drive even if I didn’t particularly enjoy it all that much, but Only God Forgives is nothing but lipstick on a pig. Sure, the movie may look and sound cool, but I can only take so many shots of Ryan Gosling staring at a blank wall, or cringeworthy dialogue that neither makes sense or is relevant to the story. It’s like a David Lynch movie on steroids, masquerading as unique crime drama and without any restraint. And I don’t accept the premise that this is supposed to be a fantasy – I saw no hint that the film wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, at least on some level. So instead we’re left watching people hunting each other down, killing everyone in sight, and without the slightest bit of consequence. By the end of the movie I was hoping for a nuke to just wipe the whole city out, just so everyone got the fates that they deserved.
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas
Written and Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
….well I sure hope so. Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest dive into surrealism is far less successful than 2011’s Drive, which featured some exciting action scenes centered around an 80s-music filled trip into a stunt driver’s crazy experiences. Drive was light on dialogue and heavy on style, but for the most part the tone worked, though I remember feeling that it could have been a better movie by the time it was over. Only God Forgives on the other hand doubles down on all Drive’s faults without providing anything in return, the least of which being Ryan Gosling’s bland performance. Why he was cast in the movie remains a mystery; anyone could have played this role. It only required a few lines of dialogue and a dead-pan facial expression.
I won’t go too far into the details of the plot, since I imagine the storyline was the least of the film’s concerns. Ryan Gosling plays Julian, who manages an underground Bangkok boxing club with his brother. When his brother attacks and kills a young prostitute and is subsequently killed by the girl’s father, so begins Julian’s revenge plot, which must go down as the least-deserving avenged victim in cinematic history. No one in this movie was interesting, had any depth, or was worth watching. I wouldn't call it a cat-and-mouse per se, since there wasn’t so much back-and-forth as there were instances of random characters showing up in random places during random scenes. Everyone – from Julian, to his psychotic mother (Kristin Scott Thomas, who shows up in Thailand to help find her son's killer), to the cops to the killers had no arc or motivations behind any of their actions. Instead, Refn throws in little tidbits that I guess were supposed to make them more deserving of our time. Look – Ryan Gosling has to tie himself down so he doesn’t pounce on hookers and instead prefers to watch! That’s cool. Or, look – the main bad guy also is a singer, so let’s throw in a couple random shots of him singing karaoke to an engrossed audience. The story is so anti-climatic from start to finish, that I really wonder how this script was ever greenlighted. Take any scene out of the film and it changes nothing. And while not all films propel a story through dialogue, scene after scene of people standing still and staring quickly becomes repetitive and highlights the film's poor pacing.
There are a few notable positive things to point out, I guess. Like I said in my Spring Breakers review, Cliff Martinez’s score is effective, though sometimes it misses the mark since it belongs in a more-deserving movie. The movie’s color scheme – which probably alienates some – actually worked for me, and I think if nothing else, Refn shot Thailand in a beautiful way. And there is the occasional scene here or there that makes you believe that the film is going somewhere, but it’s usually followed with a dud only seconds later.
I hate to bash this movie; I really wanted to like it. I admired Drive even if I didn’t particularly enjoy it all that much, but Only God Forgives is nothing but lipstick on a pig. Sure, the movie may look and sound cool, but I can only take so many shots of Ryan Gosling staring at a blank wall, or cringeworthy dialogue that neither makes sense or is relevant to the story. It’s like a David Lynch movie on steroids, masquerading as unique crime drama and without any restraint. And I don’t accept the premise that this is supposed to be a fantasy – I saw no hint that the film wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, at least on some level. So instead we’re left watching people hunting each other down, killing everyone in sight, and without the slightest bit of consequence. By the end of the movie I was hoping for a nuke to just wipe the whole city out, just so everyone got the fates that they deserved.
World War Z - **
July 28, 2013
Cast: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos
Directed by: Marc Forster
Written by: Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof
You’ve got to give director Marc Forster credit for doing something new: despite the dozens of zombie movies that have been released over the past decade, this is the first to star Brad Pitt. Apart from that, there’s not much to brag home about with World War Z, even with one of the largest budgets in recent memory, and certainly one for this genre. The behind-the-scenes troubles that plagued the movie’s production over the past two years were more interesting for me than the final product, which is disappointing. That’s not to say there aren’t several things to like about the film: the action scenes were competently shot, there were definitely some moments of suspense, and the film brings (at least attempts to) a new twist to the end-of-the-world zombie apocalypse. Still, by the time it was over, I just shrugged my shoulders, feeling as if the whole was less than the sum of its parts.
Brad Pitt plays Gerry, the everyday family man, loving father and husband, who gets thrown into the center a zombie invasion in Philadelphia, just hours after it had begun halfway across the world. The zombies in this film are of the 28 Days Later variety, fast and furious as opposed to the walk-and-mumblers. Before Gerry can even think, swarms of the undead are terrorizing the city, chewing everything and everyone that comes in their path. Turns out Gerry isn’t you regular 9-5 guy either, as he and his family’s immediate rescue becomes a national security priority, leading the protagonist and his family through a few deadly chase scenes in the slums of the city until they’re transported to a vessel off the east coast. Good news: Gerry’s family can stay aboard. Bad News: Gerry has to head out into the field to discover the source of the outbreak. From there, Gerry and his crew hit up such hot spots as South Korea, Israel and Wales, and what transpires is an attempt to explain both the source of the outbreak as well as a potential cure, both items which barely pass as credible (yes, I understand this is a zombie movie!). No spoilers here, but I couldn’t help but roll my eyes several times during the last ten minutes of the movie.
Notice I didn’t mention that World War Z was based on a best-selling book of the same name, since – apart from a few minor references – is nothing like the unique oral history that Max Brooks created to provide a glimpse into the lives of many people and cultures and how each may react to a situation where they’re forced to defend themselves against an ever-increasing population of the undead.
Like I said, the film definitely contains a few ‘edge-of-your-seat’ moments, but I’ve always found the scariest take on zombies/demons were those that used real people, even if they exhibited extraordinary powers and strength. The formerly-mentioned 28 Days Later was always the scariest for me, but there were many others that captured the apocalyptic feel without blowing a huge budget on special effects. Even films like Shaun of the Dead had tense moments sprinkled throughout 90+ minutes of comedy. But just like I am Legend, it’s hard to sit in a theater scared of something that is so obviously computer-generated. I know you sacrifice scenes like thousands of zombies scaling the Israeli walls, but the heart of zombie fear comes from the simplest things: do you kill a loved one who just turned? Do you run away or try to hide? Maybe I’m being nitpicky, but the films that captured the micro vs. the macro components of zombie invasions have always resonated more. World War Z isn’t a bad movie, but it’s one that seemed to evoke all the wrong emotions.
Cast: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos
Directed by: Marc Forster
Written by: Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof
You’ve got to give director Marc Forster credit for doing something new: despite the dozens of zombie movies that have been released over the past decade, this is the first to star Brad Pitt. Apart from that, there’s not much to brag home about with World War Z, even with one of the largest budgets in recent memory, and certainly one for this genre. The behind-the-scenes troubles that plagued the movie’s production over the past two years were more interesting for me than the final product, which is disappointing. That’s not to say there aren’t several things to like about the film: the action scenes were competently shot, there were definitely some moments of suspense, and the film brings (at least attempts to) a new twist to the end-of-the-world zombie apocalypse. Still, by the time it was over, I just shrugged my shoulders, feeling as if the whole was less than the sum of its parts.
Brad Pitt plays Gerry, the everyday family man, loving father and husband, who gets thrown into the center a zombie invasion in Philadelphia, just hours after it had begun halfway across the world. The zombies in this film are of the 28 Days Later variety, fast and furious as opposed to the walk-and-mumblers. Before Gerry can even think, swarms of the undead are terrorizing the city, chewing everything and everyone that comes in their path. Turns out Gerry isn’t you regular 9-5 guy either, as he and his family’s immediate rescue becomes a national security priority, leading the protagonist and his family through a few deadly chase scenes in the slums of the city until they’re transported to a vessel off the east coast. Good news: Gerry’s family can stay aboard. Bad News: Gerry has to head out into the field to discover the source of the outbreak. From there, Gerry and his crew hit up such hot spots as South Korea, Israel and Wales, and what transpires is an attempt to explain both the source of the outbreak as well as a potential cure, both items which barely pass as credible (yes, I understand this is a zombie movie!). No spoilers here, but I couldn’t help but roll my eyes several times during the last ten minutes of the movie.
Notice I didn’t mention that World War Z was based on a best-selling book of the same name, since – apart from a few minor references – is nothing like the unique oral history that Max Brooks created to provide a glimpse into the lives of many people and cultures and how each may react to a situation where they’re forced to defend themselves against an ever-increasing population of the undead.
Like I said, the film definitely contains a few ‘edge-of-your-seat’ moments, but I’ve always found the scariest take on zombies/demons were those that used real people, even if they exhibited extraordinary powers and strength. The formerly-mentioned 28 Days Later was always the scariest for me, but there were many others that captured the apocalyptic feel without blowing a huge budget on special effects. Even films like Shaun of the Dead had tense moments sprinkled throughout 90+ minutes of comedy. But just like I am Legend, it’s hard to sit in a theater scared of something that is so obviously computer-generated. I know you sacrifice scenes like thousands of zombies scaling the Israeli walls, but the heart of zombie fear comes from the simplest things: do you kill a loved one who just turned? Do you run away or try to hide? Maybe I’m being nitpicky, but the films that captured the micro vs. the macro components of zombie invasions have always resonated more. World War Z isn’t a bad movie, but it’s one that seemed to evoke all the wrong emotions.
This is the End - ***1/2
July 23, 2013
Cast: Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, James Franco
Directed by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Written by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Watching "This is the End" is sort of like going to a high school reunion, hanging with old friends whom you may not have seen in awhile but can easily hop back into a conversation with as if you hadn't ever separated. The film is outright hilarious from start to finish, most of its humor derived from inside jokes that only the cast or its diehard fans will be able to comprehend. I love Seth Rogen, and at least appreciate the rest of the well-rounded cast, so it wasn't difficult to slide right into their brand of humor and laugh along their 100+ minutes of apocalyptic comedy.
Seth Rogen plays...well, Seth Rogen, who invites his longtime pal Jay Baruchel to Los Angeles to stay at his house and attend the biggest party of the year at James Franco's house. After a quick trip for some fast food and a few bong hits, they're off to the party which contains the most cameo-ridden guest list in the history of film. All the regulars are there: Michael Cera, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill, and even Harry Potter's Emma Watson. Most aren't around long enough before pure chaos ensues, and in case we forgot about some of the attendees, they're brought back full circle so we can witness their deaths. Once the first draft of the end of the world is over, the surviving people: Rogen, Frankco, Baruchel, Hill, Robinson, and Danny McBride, are all forced to take shelter and ride out the wave of destruction outside the Hollywood Hills.
The remaining hour or so focuses on the group's attempts at survival, showcasing how completely out of touch and ill-equipped they all are at handling even the simplest of tasks (the scene arguing over who gets what food may have been my favorite). Still, what could have run dry after a few scenes remains fresh throughout, as the film throws in zombies, an exorcism, a giant dragon, and an acid trip all within a relatively short period of time. The actors spend plenty of time arguing, mostly about themselves, and it's easy to see why these six excel at improv. Even Emma Watson gets to join in on the fun, breaking her sweet young girl image with a few F-bombs and some axe wielding.
The movie is no doubt a one-joke show, but Rogen and co-writer/director Evan Goldberg never run out of ways to poke fun at themselves and their public images. Franco in particular takes the most heat for his self-absorbed persona and his attachment to his prior films' key props. But most of all, Rogen and Goldberg know comedy better than anyone, and successfully blend it with the many other genres the film touches: action, drama, horror, and even some good-old fashioned sentimental drama. The only misfires come from Danny McBride - whose humor, though bringing a nice dark twist to things - seems out of place at times when its laid on so thick. Still, everyone on the screen looks like they're having fun, and that's the best way to guarantee your audience will join in for the ride.
Cast: Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, James Franco
Directed by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Written by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Watching "This is the End" is sort of like going to a high school reunion, hanging with old friends whom you may not have seen in awhile but can easily hop back into a conversation with as if you hadn't ever separated. The film is outright hilarious from start to finish, most of its humor derived from inside jokes that only the cast or its diehard fans will be able to comprehend. I love Seth Rogen, and at least appreciate the rest of the well-rounded cast, so it wasn't difficult to slide right into their brand of humor and laugh along their 100+ minutes of apocalyptic comedy.
Seth Rogen plays...well, Seth Rogen, who invites his longtime pal Jay Baruchel to Los Angeles to stay at his house and attend the biggest party of the year at James Franco's house. After a quick trip for some fast food and a few bong hits, they're off to the party which contains the most cameo-ridden guest list in the history of film. All the regulars are there: Michael Cera, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill, and even Harry Potter's Emma Watson. Most aren't around long enough before pure chaos ensues, and in case we forgot about some of the attendees, they're brought back full circle so we can witness their deaths. Once the first draft of the end of the world is over, the surviving people: Rogen, Frankco, Baruchel, Hill, Robinson, and Danny McBride, are all forced to take shelter and ride out the wave of destruction outside the Hollywood Hills.
The remaining hour or so focuses on the group's attempts at survival, showcasing how completely out of touch and ill-equipped they all are at handling even the simplest of tasks (the scene arguing over who gets what food may have been my favorite). Still, what could have run dry after a few scenes remains fresh throughout, as the film throws in zombies, an exorcism, a giant dragon, and an acid trip all within a relatively short period of time. The actors spend plenty of time arguing, mostly about themselves, and it's easy to see why these six excel at improv. Even Emma Watson gets to join in on the fun, breaking her sweet young girl image with a few F-bombs and some axe wielding.
The movie is no doubt a one-joke show, but Rogen and co-writer/director Evan Goldberg never run out of ways to poke fun at themselves and their public images. Franco in particular takes the most heat for his self-absorbed persona and his attachment to his prior films' key props. But most of all, Rogen and Goldberg know comedy better than anyone, and successfully blend it with the many other genres the film touches: action, drama, horror, and even some good-old fashioned sentimental drama. The only misfires come from Danny McBride - whose humor, though bringing a nice dark twist to things - seems out of place at times when its laid on so thick. Still, everyone on the screen looks like they're having fun, and that's the best way to guarantee your audience will join in for the ride.