Thursday, February 27, 2014

American Hustle (2013)

7 of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  Not a fan of David O. Russell, Self-proclaimed Jennifer Lawrence burnout


            Two bombastic, splashy films came out at the end of December 2013:  “American Hustle” and “The Wolf of Wall Street.”  Entering the awards season race so late can really hamper your chances of winning, and both films tried to overcome that by marketing themselves as a brashly funny look at the corruption that pervades the upper echelons of American culture.  Of the two, “American Hustle” definitely made the bigger splash.

            Loosely (very loosely) based on the Abscam operation of the late 1970s to early 1980s, the film follows two con artists who team up with the FBI to uncover politicians who are taking bribes.  The two con artists, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), are being forced to help the FBI in order to avoid jail time for a previous loan scam they were caught running.  The duo have a contentious relationship with their handler, FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper).  Because this plot needs more complications, Irving and Sydney are also lovers, which irritates Irving’s crazy wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence).  Oh, and Irving really likes Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), one of the main politicians they are bringing down.

             It’s a complicated plot, one of those twisty heist/con movies where you need to pay very careful attention to figure out what actually happens.  On top of that, director and co-writer David O. Russell decides to layer on interweaving relationships, broad characters, period style cinematography, and then make the whole thing move at a blistering pace.  It’s a frenetic style of filmmaking that often serves to undercut what Russell is trying to achieve.  There’s simply too much going on; when one part starts to work another part jumps in and destroys the momentum.  I keep comparing this film to “The Prestige.”  That’s another twisty film with intertwined relationships, but it gives itself some room to breathe, leading to a more satisfying payoff.

            The movie plays best when its focused falls on the characters.  As written, they are all more of a caricature than a full character.   They’re mildly fleshed out through narration, but most of the heavy lifting is left to the actors.  The performances fall into two camps:  the grounded approach that Bale, Adams, and Renner bring and the frenzied approach that Cooper and Lawrence bring.  In a film this broad, a grounded character goes a long way towards selling the crazy that’s happening around them.  The scenes with Bale, Adams, and Renner are the best in the film, and their performances are largely to thank.  Adams is the standout as a slippery character you can never quite figure out, and Renner is the big surprise.  While he is normally an adequate actor, he really shines here.  Cooper and especially Lawrence are chewing the scenery, giving their scenes a cartoonish sheen that undercuts the urgency of the plot.   Bale gets a thankless role as the sane one of the bunch, and you don’t realize how good he is until he gets paired up with Lawrence.

            The period setting is played up here, and you can tell the set and costume designers had a ball doing this film.  If anyone is missing velvet suits, here’s your chance to see a ton of them.  The hair is spot-on too.  Bale’s comb-over made for a funny running gag, and couldn’t tell if Cooper was wearing a wig or not.  Those were some tight curls.

            “American Hustle” is certainly fun, there’s no denying that.  Unfortunately, underneath the glossy sheen is an unfocused mess which makes the whole thing ultimately forgettable.

Other Notes:
Ø  I really wish the rest of the movie had been more like the first scene.  That was great stuff, and Cooper hadn’t gone full blown crazy yet.
Ø  Lawrence’s accent was atrocious.  It would actually come and go in the course of a sentence.
Ø  I felt really bad for Carmine Polito.  Renner and Bale killed their last scene together.
Ø  This film might as well have stared Amy Adam’s sideboob.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Pompeii (2014)

5 of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  Kit Harrington looks good in leather, this is my first Paul W.S. Anderson film

            Kill a horse and she’s smitten.  Express your desire to kill an entire city?  Then it’s love.  That kind of ridiculously hilarious storytelling pervades “Pompeii,” but if you’re willing to meet the film halfway, then there’s fun to be had.

            “Pompeii” tells the story of Milo (Kit Harrington), a gladiator who is brought to Pompeii by his owners to battle the reigning champ Atticus (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje).  The two gladiators become friends, and Milo catches the eye of the daughter of a wealthy merchant named Cassia (Emily Browning).  Cassia is also being pursued by the Roman Senator Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland), who thwarts the young lover’s attempts to be together as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius destroys the city.

            This film can be broken down into two parts.  The first half is a “Gladiator” rip-off, right down to the “the man who is making me fight killed my family” thing.  The second half is a basic disaster film.  The stories feel a bit separate, probably because they stick closely to the tropes of two different genres.  The through-line is the forbidden love of Milo and Cassia.  If their relationship was strong then the film probably would have held together, but Harrington and Browning never develop a spark.  We’re told they love each other, but in reality they hardly see each other, and their early scenes are some of the most poorly written moments of the film.  They do look good together, though.

            Both gladiator and disaster genres are filled with action, which at least gives the sensation of forward progress in a film where the ending is inevitable.  A fight breaks out about every five minutes, and even if it they aren’t the most clearly edited sequences, they do look good.  That’s about the best thing I can say about this film:  It looks good.  The sets and clothing are well designed, and once the eruption starts the destruction is rendered with some decent CGI work. 

            Your enjoyment of the film will be largely dependent on how you approach it.  I went in ready to laugh at what I thought would be an overdone mess filled with cheesy dialogue and ludicrous plot points.  It delivered.  I could fill this review with a list of every plot point that made me chuckle, but I’ll leave you with my example from the first paragraph.  I refrained from laughing out loud because many of the people in the theater were enjoying it as the action-romance story the filmmakers intended it to be.  A woman next to me had several audible reactions to the film, and she was not watching it for the same reasons I was.

            So keep an open mind with this film.  If you like hollow action-romances or so-bad-it’s-funny movies, then put this one on your guilty pleasure shelf and pull it out sometime on a rainy afternoon.  You could do far worse.

Other Notes:
Ø  Kit Harrington ("Game of Thrones") really needs to do something set in modern time.  He’s in serious danger of getting typecast.
Ø  Friends never live.  Never.
Ø  The exchange between Cassia and her friend about Milo’s muscles was epically bad.
Ø  That last kiss brought the heat!

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Her (2013)

9 of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  I basically live on a computer


            When I was twelve my parents brought home a new computer that came with a game I had never hear of:  The Sims.  I sat down to play it and became immersed in its world, carefully creating each sim and constructing a life unique to each one.  Their triumphs were my triumphs, and their failures were my failures.  An attachment grew, and I looked forward to playing in their little worlds.  Perhaps because of this experience I intuitively accepted and understood the relationship at the center of “Her.”

            Set in the near future, Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is going through a divorce that has put him in a rut.  He works and he goes home, where he splits his time between video games and porn.  His friends gently encourage him to get out more, but are sensitive enough to know that his mourning period will only be over when he is ready for it.  On a whim, he buys a new operating system that boasts a new level of artificial intelligence.  That it has a voice and a personality is impressive, but it’s ability to learn and change is what truly sets it apart.  The operating system gives itself the name Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and a movingly realistic examination of human relationships begin.

            Amy Adams and Chris Pratt are excellent as friends of Theodore, and Rooney Mara as Theodore’s ex-wife is delightfully complex.  But Phoenix and Johansson carry this film, and they never hit a wrong note.  Samantha Morton was initially cast as Samantha, and performed the part throughout shooting.  It wasn’t until editing that writer/director Spike Jonze recast the part, reportedly with Morton’s blessing.  It must have been a difficult situation for everyone involved, and I feel the need to thank Morton for handling it so well.  I’m sure she gave a fine performance, but Johansson’s voice has an intimate note that allows the film to work almost effortlessly.

             Jonze wrote and brought to life this intricate examination of love, which Adam’s character describes as “a form of socially acceptable insanity.”  We fall for someone (or something) and the world becomes a little bigger, a little brighter, and ultimately better.  But we also wonder about it.  What will others think of it?  Is it actually good for us?  Is it sustainable as both parties change over time?  This and all the other nooks and crannies of a relationship are portrayed here, which allows the viewer to connect to the offbeat relationship in a very personal way.

            The movie would have been a 9.5 or 10, but the last scene is a bit trite.  The sentiment has been portrayed better.

Other Notes:
Ø  If Samantha Morton had remained the voice of Samantha, then this film would have had two actresses playing characters that shared their first name (Amy Adams plays Amy).  Anyone else think that’s weird?
Ø  The high-waisted pants looked ridiculous, but the band collared shirts were awesome.
Ø  This is one of my favorite movies of the year.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

RoboCop (2014)

4.5 of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  Likes “The Killing,” Not seen the original “RoboCop"


            He’s part robot, part cop, part regular guy, but the last part isn’t important enough to be in the title.  “RoboCop” is a big budget remake of the 1987 film of the same name.  I understand that film is a classic, but I wasn’t aware anyone was clamoring for a remake.  Considering how lifeless this one is, I doubt the filmmakers were even that interested.

            Set in near future Detroit, police officer Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) unsuccessfully goes after a well-connected gun dealer.  The dealer tries to kill Alex, and the attempt leaves him clinging to life.  At the same time, a massive company called OmniCorp is trying to sell the American public on the idea that robots can patrol the streets better than cops.  It’s worked abroad and made lots of money, but America is too “robo-phobic” to allow them here at home.  Hoping to sway public opinion, OmniCorp offers to save Alex by making him into a human-robot hybrid designed to act like their preexisting robot line.  Alex’s wife agrees, unaware that the company is more interested in selling their product than in saving Alex’s life.  Once Alex wakes up in his new robot body, these differing goals come to a head.

            It’s a pretty dense setup, and as clunky as I think my summary is, the film doesn’t do it any better.  It starts with what appears to be a slanted news program à la Fox News or MSNBC explaining how great OmniCorp robots are and how we should use them here at home.  They go back to this program multiple times throughout the movie to swiftly explain plot points, but the segments always feel separate from the rest of the movie.  Samuel L. Jackson tries his best as the host of the program to keep them entertaining, but exposition-filled monologues get old fast.  Alex’s setup doesn’t fare much better.  A series of oddly edited scenes establish that he’s a good cop and a loving husband/father.  Then he’s almost killed and the movie actually starts.

            As poor as the setup is, the plot never really gets much better.  It’s efficient, but often laughable.  Characters do dumb things.  Themes are explicitly stated.  The ending is inevitable.  They tried to throw in some twists to keep things interesting, but they’re either too easy to figure out or too absurd to make any sense.  This is the first screenplay credit for writer Joshua Zetumer, and it shows.  Although I must give him credit for working in some good one-liners for a little 80’s flair.

            The characters are all either inconsistent or underwritten, really holding back the few decent performances in the film.  Gary Oldman is the standout as the conflicted scientist who creates Alex’s robot body, and Joel Kinnaman delivers a solid performance as Alex.  Kinnaman also plays a cop on AMC’s “The Killing.”  Having seen both performances, I feel that he brought a lot from that role to flesh out Alex.  Michael Keaton as the CEO of OmniCorp goes over the top, and I wonder why no one looking at dailies noticed that Keaton and Oldman seem to be in two different films.

            The look of the film really makes it into something watchable.  Its visuals are detailed in a way the rest of the film isn’t.  When we see the explosion that nearly kills Alex, his body doesn’t just get engulfed in flames.  You can track him as he is blown off the screen.  All the action sequences are shot with that level of detail, which makes them all the more thrilling.  So as mindless counterprogramming to all the Valentine’s Day movies, this isn’t all bad.

Oh, and the RoboCop suit looks really cool.

Other Notes:
Ø  Every time Alex walked up to his son, I wanted Kinnaman to say “Hey little man.”
Ø  The sounds that the RoboCop suit makes when it moves or when someone touches it was a nice addition.
Ø  Jackie Earle Haley never gets to play a nice guy.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

8 of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  Previously seen “How to Survive a Plague,” lover of the term McConaissance, soft spot for Jennifer Garner
Ron Woodroof was a hustler long before he was diagnosed with AIDS.  He worked, drank, entertained women, frequented rodeos, did copious amounts of drugs, and loved every minute of it.  A boisterous soul oozing unearned self-confidence, Woodroof makes a captivating centerpiece for this well-executed biopic.
            Set in 1980s Dallas, Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey) struggles with his diagnosis:  he is abandoned by his friends and quickly discovers that the drugs the doctors are doling out aren’t doing much good.  Upon finding a doctor in Mexico who has worked out an effective regimen of alternative medicines, Woodroof recognizes his own salvation and a prime opportunity to cash in.  He brings the drugs from Mexico to the US to sell, in the process teaming up with a transgendered woman named Rayon (Jared Leto).
            The prejudices of the setting exert itself at every turn.  People are afraid of this disease, and in their fear try to write it off as something only other people can get (in this case homosexuals).  Woodroof initially shares these views, and a large portion of this film deals with his growing acceptance of the people he meets on his journey.  This and other cookie-cutter elements of the plot weigh the film down at times.  Watching it, one never shakes the feeling that the writers were following a formula, albeit it an effective one.
It would be easy to make this a downer, but the filmmakers took a decidedly varied tone.  Its serious backdrop is alleviated by several light moments, and it even delivered some laughs.  The tone is a reflection Woodroof and Rayon; they enjoy life, even if they do have AIDS.  This makes the tonal shifts seem natural. 
            Where the movie shines is in its performances.  The film revolves around three main characters:  McConaughey’s Woodroof, Leto’s Rayon, and Jennifer Garner’s Eve.  A weakness in any of these portrayals would have doomed the film, but all three are of such high quality that they elevate the material past what it is on the page.  Leto and Garner take advantage when they get meaty scenes, and you don’t realize until you are out of the theater how underwritten the roles are.  McConaughey is so effervescent that I still can’t tell you if it was helped by good writing or not.  McConaughey and Leto deserve the Oscar buzz they are getting, and I wouldn’t have minded Garner getting the same kind of attention.
            The buyer’s club of the title refers to how Woodroof sold the drugs once he got them into the country.  The drugs aren’t technically illegal, “just unapproved” he explains, but it does seem to be illegal to sell them.  The buyer’s club is a way around this, allowing Woodroof to sell memberships and then hand out the drugs for free to his members.  It’s briefly explained in the movie, although I still don’t entirely understand how the system worked.  This, the problems with the drug AZT, and all the other issues surrounding the AIDS crisis are glossed over in favor of telling Woodroof’s story, which would normally be fine if it hadn’t been released so soon after the spectacular “How to Survive a Plague.”  This documentary laid out the problems in a comprehensive and understandable way, while delivering a highly entertaining and affecting story.  Comparing the two movies is hard to avoid, and “Dallas Buyer’s Club” is definitely the runner-up.
Other Notes:
Ø  Much was made of McConaughey’s and Leto’s weight loss for their roles.  While it may not have been necessary, there was something unsettling about seeing how frail they were.  It definitely helped the film.
Ø  Garner delivered a line late in the movie that was so perfect it made me hold my breath.
Ø  The costumes/set design may not have been flashy, but they were pretty excellent.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

The Lego Movie (2014)


8 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Legos were one of my favorite toys, I have no children


            A lot of movies boast to be entertaining for all ages, but very few pull it off.   At best, these are normally innocuous romps in worlds we inherently understand, delighting kids and lulling adults into a warm familiarity that is soothing but not really entertaining.  “The Lego Movie” seemed ripe to hit that spot, so when the belly laughs started I was as surprised as anyone.

            Emmet (Chris Pratt) is a construction worker that is perfectly happy to spend his days following the rules that are laid out for him, but his life is turned upside down when he learns of a prophecy that claims that he is the Special, the one person that can stop the evil Lord Business (Will Ferrell) from using the superweapon Kragle to destroy the world.  Sound familiar?  Well, it’s supposed to.  Helping Emmet is love interest/master builder Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) and the wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman).

Animal Logic, the animation company responsible for “Happy Feet” and “Walking with Dinosaurs 3D,” deserves the praise being bestowed upon it.  Stylish, detailed, and plot specific, the animation choices were spot on and expertly executed.  It’s a world of jerky movements and clunky constructions, just like I imagined in my own Lego worlds.  Every time the characters stood on the knobs of the bricks I felt a surge of pure joy.

            The plot chugs along at a quick pace, repeating major points to ensure it doesn’t lose the youngest members of the audience.  These instances make it lose some momentum for the adults, but there is always a steady dose of humor to keep everyone happy.  Pop-culture references abound, but what’s truly astounding is the breadth of humor on display here.  Puns, farce, slapstick, and sight gags meld together in many scenes, producing some truly rapid-fire laughs that would require multiple viewings to catch them all.

            As funny and flashy as the movie is, it’s the characters that really elevate the material.  Drawing on well-known tropes, each character falls right into place.  It helps the story move along at its blistering pace while allowing the writers to poke fun at what we expect to see from them.  Batman (Will Arnett) is the best example of this, portrayed as a cocky, self-obsessed showboat. 

            The movie takes a narrative chance near the end, and while it didn’t work for me the movie maintained enough humor to see it through.  The fact that this movie was willing to be that clever and to take that kind of chance proves that you don’t have to shoot for the lowest common denominator to delight us all.


Other Notes:

Ø  The Piece of Resistance was a brilliant name.  So many puns.

Ø  Liam Neeson was well used as a double-personality cop:  "Release the Kragle (Kraken)!"

Ø  The Band-Aid joke was my favorite.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

12 Years A Slave (2013)


6.5 of 10

 Personal Bias Alert:  desensitization to violence, previous knowledge of history

            “12 Years a Slave” takes an unflinching look at American slavery.  How it worked, how people operated in the system, and how people took advantage of it.  Unfortunately, it never achieves more than that.

             The story, based on the autobiography of the same name, tells the experience of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man who is kidnapped and sold into slavery.  We follow him as he is transported south and shuffled between a series of “masters” who each approach the treatment of their slaves with varying levels of depravity. 

The performances are universally solid, with exceptional work from Michael Fassbender and Sarah Paulson as particularly chilling owners.  Ejiofor is the undeniable star here, adeptly playing a man who’s beaten but not broken.  Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano (giving the weakest performance of the bunch), Paul Giamatti, Lupita Nyong’o, Brad Pitt, and Alfre Woodard also star.

            Director Steve McQueen (“Hunger,” “Shame”) shows every bit of the violence that occurs, from the flesh flying off a woman’s back as she is whipped to a paddle breaking in the middle of a beating – the man continues the beating with the broken paddle.  It’s truly cringe-worthy, daring the audience to turn away from the screen and in doing so turn away from the reality of what slavery really was.  If nothing else, depictions such as this makes writing off American slavery as “our peculiar institution” impossible.

            The technical aspects of the movie are spectacular, with the sets, costumes, and makeup working together to make the movie as realistic as possible.  Cinematographer Sean Bobbitt continues his impressive year with this and the previous “The Place Beyond the Pines” and “Byzantium.”  The shots here are deceptively intricate, drawing attention to the environment surrounding the characters without being obviously showy.

What’s missing from the film is a sense of Solomon himself.  McQueen brings his usual rigorous level of detachment to the proceedings, inhibiting the audience from emotionally connecting to Solomon.  It’s an odd choice for a film that focuses on one man’s experience of slavery, and robs the ending of the emotional impact it should have had.

Without a true investment in Solomon’s story, the film is left without a sense of purpose.  Does it exist simply to point out that slavery is wrong?  To shed light on how horrific it truly was?  To make some larger point about how humans, specifically Americans, treat each other while professing to believe that all men are created equal?  The first point has been made before, and most of the movie’s audience already agrees.  It certainly succeeds at the second point and hints at the third, but does so without bringing anything new to these discussions.  We all have access to the information presented in this movie, and a person’s knowledge on the subject largely depends on how willing they are to seek it out.  And if a person is unwilling to seek it out, wouldn’t they just avoid this movie?

Other Notes:

Ø  Despite all the violence, the most horrifying scene for me was when Mrs. Epps stopped the slave’s forced midnight dance to offer them something to eat.  The dancing scenes were always creepy, but the way this scene escalated revealed much about the Epps relationship and left you knowing that things would only get worse.

Ø  Many of the actors listed as stars actually have very little screen time.  Giamatti appears very briefly while Paul Dano, Brad Pitt, and Alfre Woodard only have small roles.  If these people qualify as stars, then Garret Dillahunt should be included as well.

Ø  McQueen provides steady employment:  Fassbender, Bobbit, and editor Joe Walker have worked on all three of McQueen’s feature films.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Lone Survivor (2014)


5.5 out of 10
Personal Bias Alert:  Taylor Kitsch will always be Tim Riggins to me
            You can never be sure what you’re going to get from writer/director Peter Berg.  He’s helmed the well-received “Friday Night Lights” (which led to the television series of the same name), the mixed-bag “The Kingdom,” and the ridiculous “Battleship.”  “Lone Survivor” falls into the mixed-bag category, feeling very similar but somewhat lesser than “The Kingdom.”  The action is intense, the narration is sappy, and the characters are slightly thicker than cardboard.
            The film follows a small team of Navy SEALs on a mission to kill a high-priority Taliban leader.  The mission gets off to a shaky start when they find the target has a larger security force than anticipated, but they aren’t deterred until they are accidentally discovered by an unarmed group of locals.  Soon the team finds themselves pinned down by enemy fire and fighting just to get back home.  Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster star as the four-man SEAL team.
            As mentioned, the movie shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses as one of Berg’s previous films “The Kingdom.”  Both follow a team of military personnel attempting to do their jobs in environments where the enemy is only hazily defined.  Until someone raises their weapon, you can’t really be sure what side they’re on.  Give Berg credit for the nuance he brings to these situations; the non-American characters are never pigeonholed as either friend or enemy.  They are allowed to have varying opinions on America’s role in their country, and even more impressively are allowed to form opinions on the individual Americans they meet that are independent from their larger beliefs.
            In contrast, the American characters feel like military hero archetypes.  They have wives/girlfriends waiting for them!  They’re competitive!  They haze the new guy!  These are fine traits to have, but when you give them to everyone the characters end up feeling like undifferentiated blobs.  The actors give it their best, but they’re also weighted with clunky dialogue and narration.  The scene where they formally haze the new guy is cringe-worthily clichéd.
            But let’s get real.  This is an action movie, and the action is pretty good.  The bullets and broken bones the characters endure are felt by the audience.  The shootouts are well staged, managing to feel both hectic and confusing without being disorienting.  Unfortunately, it all feels repetitive and drawn out.  The first time the characters crash down a hillside is brutal, but when it happens a second time the fates of the characters are already a foregone conclusion.  Everyone is battered, shot up, and barely on their feet.  Perhaps if the characters had been drawn better the second leap would have played as a heroic last gasp, but instead it feels like the filmmakers were drawing out the inevitable.  You call a movie Lone Survivor for a reason, right?
            Other Notes:
Ø  Unless you make them into realistic characters, the presence of well-known actors will take me out of the movie.
Ø  As I sat through the new guy hazing scenes, I tried desperately to figure out why I recognized the actor who portrayed him (Alexander Ludwig).  He played Cato in The Hunger Games.
Ø  Taylor Kitsch pulled off his part well.  I still can’t figure out if the role of Tim Riggins just fit him perfectly, or if he really is that good of an actor.  This movie makes me lean towards the latter.