Download our Silver Linings Playbook Spoilercast or Watch the Youtube Video:

Silver Linings Playbook Trailer:

Up next time: Something…

Of course, I cheated a bit since this review is written after the 2013 Academy Awards.  However, he absolutely deserved to be nominated with his role here as Captain Whip Whitaker.

The movie trailer is a bit deceiving because we expect Denzel to be, well, Denzel.  Calm.  Cool.  The Man.  However, he plays an atypical character from what we normally expect.  Whitaker is a self-destructing drunkard who can save a plane full of people but cannot save himself.

In fact, we are first introduced to him in a hotel room snorting a line of cocaine right before piloting a plane.  The plane experiences mechanical failure and Whitaker miraculously steers it to a “safe” crash landing.  Unfortunately for him, the government investigates the crash and can possibly learn he illegally had alcohol in his system during flight.

The crash landing sequence is an exciting rush to watch.  It’s not as exciting given we know everyone mostly survives.  Yet it is still suspenseful.  Through it all, we get to see Whitaker as the hero (or as typical Denzel) calmly do his best to land the plane.  One of the best moments was when he nonchalantly tells a stewardess to tell her son she loves him through the black box in case they do not survive.

The majority of the film deals with the aftermath of the crash.  Denzel’s Whitaker is a conflicted character, hating himself and his life. At times, we find him amusing to watch as he blunders around the screen.  And we pity him because that one heroic moment showed how great of a man he could be.

Like Liam Neeson, Denzel sometimes finds himself in movies that are not deserving of his talents.  I suppose it’s because he just the variety of roles and wants to have fun.  But every now and again, we get a movie like this that truly allows him to shine.

Download our Zero Dark Thirty Spoilercast or Watch the Youtube Video:

Zero Dark Thirty Trailer:

Up next time: Silver Linings Playbook

Jackman stars as Jean Valjean, an ex-convict attempting to start a new life after prison.  However, his name and checkered past hinder any hope he has of making a living.  As a result, he breaks his parole and assumes a new identity.  His stern and  former jailer Javert continues to hound him, never believing a man can change.

Who knew Wolverine was a great singer?  Sure, I knew Hugh Jackman won a Tony award, yet I never heard him sing.  I liked Jackman well enough as an actor.  However, seeing him in this musical, I have a whole new appreciation for his talent.  Jackman imbues Valjean with a melancholy, noble spirit.

Anne Hathaway though is the outstanding performance despite only being on screen for less than a quarter of the film.  Her soul crushing “I Dreamed a Dream” clinches her the supporting actress Oscar.  The extreme close-up during her song is very effective to convey her vast pain and sadness.

On the other hand, Russell Crowe is the weakest of the troupe.  It feels as if the producers needed another big name to fill-out the cast, and they just chose Crowe rather than the best musical actor.  He’s actually a decent singer.  And he’s a more than capable actor.  Acting while singing is something he’s yet to master though.

Another weakness of this film adaptation is that it does not feel much like a film adaptation.  Certainly, it was an excellent choice to have the singing recorded live, allowing the actors to truly act at the same time.  Additionally, the extreme close-ups to see the raw emotion on the actors’ faces works at times.  Unfortunately, the big numbers in this musical do not seem any larger than what they would have been on stage.  Why bother with making a film if there is not much going to be different with it?

Although filled with great performances, Les Miserable ultimately fails to take advantage of its larger canvas.  But for a few scenes, the staging and choreography are not anything special compared to what could have been seen in the theater.

Download our Django Unchained Spoilercast or Stream it:

Django Unchained Trailer:

Up next time: Zero Dark Thirty

Download our Les Miserables Spoilercast or Stream it:

Les Miserables Trailer:

Up next time: Django Unchained

Download our Les Miserables Spoilercast or Stream it:

Les Miserables Trailer:

Up next time: Django Unchained

I am an unabashed fan of Peter Jackson’s work on The Lord of the Rings as well as the novels upon which they were based.  I loved them, and felt they captured the same things my own imagination did when I read the books.  As far as genre films go, I can’t think of many I like so much.  The Hobbit films took a kind of strange path going through some staff and rights issues before reason won the day and Peter Jackson was named director.  The somewhat more troubling thing is that in the Quest for More Money (thanks Spaceballs) a decision was made to split The Hobbit into three separate movies.  That feels like a stretch, since the Hobbit was shorter than any one of the novels that comprise the Lord of the Rings.  Anyway, I don’t care, gimme more more more.  I’m a little worried about this one, but excited as hell anyway.

Review
Yeah, it was probably a little overlong.  Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an excellent fantasy movie that has a few flaws that keep it from being as great as its forebears.  The biggest issue it has is that’s basically an extended edition.  For a guy like me, that’s not so bad, but for a general audience some of these scenes have to feel very tacked on.  That said, it’s a beautiful movie that’s just as fun at times as the Lord of the Rings film.

You have here just about everything you need for a fun fantasy film.  Thirteen Dwarves with ridiculous headgear, a strange wizard, and a kindly hobbit who’s barely been out of his yard on one side of the ledger.  On the other a giant dragon who stole the Dwarves’ home, some warg riders, plus the general peril of the road.  The Hobbit uses these (well not the dragon, much) to great effect.  The action is very good– though quite a bit more lighthearted than Lord of the Rings– and usually pretty exciting.  There’s also a fair amount of lighthearted humor throughout.  The biggest difference is in tone as the source material was a children’s book.

There will be some challenges for some audience members.  The movie takes a long time to get going…  There’s a lot of Dwarvish singing, so if that’s not your thing, be weary.  The bigger issue is with pacing.  They have added quite a lot to the basic plot of the novel, to create backstory and lend a measure of grandness that the source material largely lacked.  Some of these changes work pretty well, but others really feel tacked on and add detail where none was necessary.

I’ve conceded that I went into The Hobbit heavily biased, and I did like the movie.  It’s probably not as good as any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but I didn’t care.  I had a lot of fun, and was able to enjoy most of the added content.  I do feel that the movie needed a better edit as I think it could have been a better movie if it was thirty minutes shorter.  To be fair, some of the added scenes could be set up for what will happen in the rest of the trilogy, and will make more sense when we can see the rest of the movies.

3 1/2 Stars.

Download our The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Spoilercast or

Watch our hangout on youtube:

Read our Reviews:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Trailer:

Up next time: Les Miserables

Download our The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Spoilercast or

Watch our hangout on youtube:

Read our Reviews:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Trailer:

Up next time: Les Miserables

So, then, in the interest of what interests me (predictably), I’ve compiled a list of my predictions. But wait! There’s more. I have picked who I think will win, who think should win, and the ever-illustrious Upset – the nominee who could surprise us all and take the win!

(By the way, I’m totally stealing this format from some article I read a few years either on Yahoo or CNN or something, so if anyone notices, help give me props where props are do, because I can’t remember where and can’t seem to find it…)

On to it then. Yes?

BEST ACTOR:

Bradley Cooper: Silver Linings Playbook

Daniel Day-Lewis: Lincoln

Hugh Jackman: Les Miserables

Joaquin Phoenix: The Master

Denzel Washington: Flight

Who Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. Because, I mean, come on. Day-Lewis could be cast as paint drying and I’d be captivated by his performance.

Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. Duh. He played the most famous president in American history. More famous than Washington. More famous than Kennedy. More famous than Van Buren.

The Upset: Hugh Jackman might pull a cat out of the bag. He was truly masterful as Jean Valjean, singing and bearded and sad and whatnot.

BEST ACTRESS

Jessica Chastain: Zero Dark Thirty

Jennifer Lawrence: Silver Linings Playbook

Emmanuelle Riva: Amour

Quvenzhane Wallis: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Naomi Watts: The Impossible

Who Should Win: Quvenzhane Wallis. Has a child actor ever won best actress? I don’t know and I’m too lazy to look it up on Wikipedia, but Ms. Wallis was absolutely outstanding in Beasts.

Who Will Win: Emmanuelle Riva. Full Disclosure: I have not see Amour (to be rectified this weekend), but from what I’ve heard her performance as a woman suffering from a stroke is great.

The Upset: Jennifer Lawrence. Maybe? You never know. You don’t. You don’t know! Jennifer Lawrence is awesome and she should’ve been nominated for The Hunger Games. Speaking of, why the hell wasn’t The Hunger Games nominated for stuff???

BEST DIRECTOR

Michael Haneke: Amour

Benh Zeitlin: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Ang Lee: Life of Pi

Steven Spielberg: Lincoln

David O. Russell: Silver Linings Playbook

Who Should Win: Benh Zeitlin. This being his first feature film, Zeitlin captures so much of post-Katrina New Orleans – no shot is wasted.

Who Will Win: Michael Haneke. I think the Academy will give Haneke the award for making a film mainstream audiences can watch (as opposed to his other films which are most definitely not for your average moviegoer). I’m not saying it’s right; I’m saying it’s what they’re going to do.

The Upset: Steven Spielberg. What??? Spielberg as a Left Field Candidate??? Yes. That’s right. Lincoln was a great film, but directorial-wise, it was no Saving Private Ryan (which Spielberg won the award for in 1998). Still, we’re talking Spielberg here and he is well-loved.

BEST FILM

Amour

Argo

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Life of Pi

Lincoln

Silver Linings Playbook

Zero Dark Thirty

Who Should Win: Beasts of the Southern Wild. This post-Katrina fantasy tells the story of a “hushpuppy who lived with her daddy in the bathtub.” It is, at times, difficult to watch because it doesn’t flinch from real emotion and real pain, but it is an incredible story about the survival of a poverty-stricken girl.

Who Will Win: Lincoln. As in-depth as it gets at the busy politicking during the Civil War to pass the 13th Amendment and abolish slavery, Lincoln is masterful and reminds us that we can do good things.

The Upset: Zero Dark Thirty. Despite all the controversy regarding the waterboarding scenes, this one might sneak its way to the Oscar.

That’s all the predictions I’m going to do. (The rest of the awards don’t matter and we all know it! No…I kid, I kid. Kind of.) I am a little peeved that The Hunger Games didn’t get any nods because I thought it was a very good movie – particularly Jennifer Lawrence’s performance. Anyway. I digress.

Download our Killing Them Softly Spoilercast or

Watch our hangout on youtube:

Read our Reviews:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Killing Them Softly Movie Trailer:

Up next time: The Hobbit

Download our Killing Them Softly Spoilercast or

Watch our hangout on youtube:

Read our Reviews:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Killing Them Softly Movie Trailer:

Up next time: The Hobbit

Vulture.com posted an article about some things that didn’t make the final cut in Django Unchained.  Some pretty interesting stuff, and sounds like we might get treated to an extended edition some day.

Review
Andrew Dominik’s Killing Them Softly is an experimental crime film with misguided aspirations for making political commentary.  Set in New Orleans (an admittedly interesting setting for a movie like this) Killing Them Softly follows a trio of remarkably incompetent wannabe criminals who try to pull a heist off on The Mob.  The Mob calls in Brad Pitt to get to the bottom of whatever happened and take care of it.  Some parts of it work pretty well, while others are a complete mix.  This makes for a decent but very uneven film.

This movie was very experimental.  I’ll try to recount some of the experiments without spoilers– if that turns into some weird reading I apologize.  The most obvious was the use of extreme slow motion for some of the violence in the movie.  Truly extreme slow motion with the firing of just a few rounds spread out over a couple of minutes.  It was a pretty interesting way to do it as far as I’m concerned.  Another was a long scene shot from the point of view of a character under the influence of narcotics– putting his altered state and sense of time on the screen for the audience.  This one was fairly interesting, but I think it dragged on way too long.  Another remarkable experiment was with the movie’s soundtrack, much of which was comprised of speeches by Presidents Obama and Bush (the Younger).  I think the value of experimental choices like these is going to vary for each audience member.  For me they didn’t make this movie much better than it would have been without them.

Killing Them Softly is absolutely full of dialogue– and not slick Quentin Tarantino dialogue, but extremely realistic dialogue full of the kinds of things people really say to each other.  It makes for a lot of meandering which may bother some people, but I thought it was one of the strong points of the film.  James Gandolfini is really excellent here, playing a hit man who’s coming apart like a cheap suit.  He’s as broken as his situation and it all works right.  Similar nods go to Scott McNairy and Ray Liotta who blend into their troubled characters seamlessly.  The performance that didn’t work for me, and this was a surprise, was Brad Pitt’s turn as slick hit man.  This was a character that would fit in a Tarantino or Richie movie but felt incredibly out of place to me here surrounded by flawed/pitiful characters.  Pitt was fine, I guess, but I didn’t buy the role altogether let alone his portrayal.

There is a fairly strong political undercurrent to this movie that totally didn’t work for me.  The aforementioned clips from Bush and Obama are designed to create some kind of context and form a kind of socio-economic backdrop for the setting.  This is combined with some of the rhetoric throughout the movie.  I’ll talk about this in much greater more spoilery fashion in our podcast, but basically I think the filmmaker is trying to take you to a specific conclusion, all-the-while unwittingly arguing the other side’s case.  Anyway, I think it ultimately took away from the rest of the movie and contributed to the general hit-and-miss affair Killing Them Softly turned out to be.

2 1/2 stars.

Review
Life of Pi is the story of a young Indian boy who goes through an incredible story, and then recounts it to a writer who is looking for a novel.  It is a beautiful spectacle of a movie– a stunning series of fantastic visuals with a vivid color palette.  There’s some excellent acting and a very challenging theme to explore.  There’s also some ineffective storytelling technique in play and a sort of generalized “miss” that I can’t quite pin down… But which keeps this very good movie from being great.

Let’s start with the bad– there’s one big problem with this movie, and I believe it can be blamed on the novel.  That’s the framing of the movie as the recounting of Pi’s story to a writer.  I haven’t read the book, so I’m not sure if it worked there, but in the movie it added exactly nothing– except maybe a performance that I didn’t care about from Rafe Spall.  It was an extraneous layer, in a movie that could have just gone ahead with a standard narration and been just as good… Or I guess better.

Despite the annoying framing device, Life of Pi is a good movie and absolutely stunning to look at at times.  The colors were bright and vivid and fantastic, and yet felt somehow real at the same time.  The Bengal Tiger, Richard Parker,  was an incredible achievement and never felt like CG.  Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see Life of Pi in 3D, but from what I’ve heard Life of Pi is a movie that got 3D right.

The star of this show is Pi himself, played by four different actors.  His story is what the whole shebang is about, and it sure is one helluva story.  More impressive to me, though, was that all four actors did a great job.  In particular Suraj Sharma, who gets the most screen time, is great in a challenging role (in many of the same ways Castaway was).  All the more impressive because he had no experience acting.  Child actors are always a risk for movies, but Ang Lee gets the most out of everybody who’s in the movie (except for Rafe Spall, I shouldn’t keep dissing the guy, but he didn’t do much with a framing mechanism I didn’t like in the first place… So there, or something).

I’d like to watch Life of Pi again.  Maybe in 3D this time.  It wasn’t as great as I’m sure fans of the book hoped, but it is an interesting and beautiful adventure.

3 stars.

Expectations

So, Peter Jackson is going to tell the story of The Hobbit in three movies when it only took him three movies to recount The Lord of the Rings.  This will be a bloated movie much like The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions.

Review

I saw the movie in 24 fps and not the HFR version.  I would like to see the 48 fps one, but I am not sure I can muster enough willpower to sit through The Hobbit again.  It’s not bad.  I rather enjoyed the return to Middle Earth and seeing some old friends again.  However, it’s just an unnecessarily long movie.

The Hobbit is, of course, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The story revolves around a younger Bilbo Baggins who has been chosen by Gandalf the Grey to join a company of dwarves as they seek to reclaim their homeland from an evil dragon.    Apparently, the dragon is familiar with the scent of most living things except hobbits, given that they rarely venture out of their homes in the Shire.  That makes Bilbo the ideal candidate to be the group’s burglar.  …and somehow he gives Gandalf courage, I guess.

Seeing Middle Earth (or New Zealand) again is always an enjoyable experience.  The magic is still there even after we re-visit the Shire and Rivendell.

Martin Freeman is great as the bumbling Bilbo who gradually proves himself more than capable as an adventurer.  Some familiar faces like Ian Mckellen from the Lord of the Rings also make fun appearances.  Richard Armitage serves admirably as the Aragorn-type character with his role as Thorin, the leader of the dwarves.

The overall story is fun, and more lighthearted than The Lord of the Rings.  The world is not quite on the verge of ending, but we see hints of what is to come with a dark force lurking in Middle Earth.  The Hobbit’s tale is more episodic than The Lord of the Rings.  It’s more fairy tale than epic fantasy.  Still, it is a grand movie experience.

On the other hand, Peter Jackson needs an editor who can keep him grounded.  He’s an amazing director, and there are fantastic moments in the movie.  But he needs to learn to let go of some scenes.  An early scene in the Shire that hearkens back (forward?) to Lord of the Rings should have been cut or left for the final movie.  There’s some random battle between rock giants where the party is caught in the middle.  Some of the scenes added to tie the story better to the Lord of the Rings could have been left out of this film.  Meeting Gollum and seeing how Bilbo obtains the one ring should be a sufficient enough tie-in.

I look forward to the rest of the series.  However, I cannot figure how Jackson will drag this out to two more movies.  I hope by the third film, I do not grow tired of the story.

Argo Weekly Take Spoilercast:

Download our Life of Pi Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Up next week: Killing Them Softly

I wasn’t impressed from the trailers for the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. In fact, I laughed during the dwarves’ song because it was just too much. We’ll see how the movie plays out. I do not have high hopes.

Review:

The good thing about The Hobbit is that it has moments of awesome; the bad thing is, in a movie two hours and forty-six minutes long, those moments are rare. It is clear, though, that Peter Jackson loves Middle-Earth and had, at least cinematography-wise, a strong desire to return viewers to that lush, realized world. Whether or not Middle-Earth can itself withstand three more three-hour films is another thing.

The Hobbit, as a story, just isn’t as epic as The Lord of the Rings. It is a more mundane, and in a lot of ways, more human story; filling in the tale with multitudes of flashbacks and footnotes of Middle-Earth will not make the telling stronger nor more interesting. Indeed, The Hobbit suffers greatly simply because it just doesn’t get to the point soon enough: forty-five minutes goes by before Bilbo finally finally finally decides to get on this little adventure with Gandalf and the dwarves. It felt like Jackson was reintroducing viewers to a world that was already familiar.

That familiarity is part of the problem, too: to much of the time the heroes’ journey through panoramic scenes of snow-capped mountains and lush forests and grasslands felt too much like Frodo’s journey in LOTR, in look and scope. Again: this should not be a sick-epic film. It is The Hobbit. Treating it as if it had the world-crushing epicness of LOTR robs the film of its tension, and of its smaller-scale heroics (i.e. Bilbo mercifully letting Gollum live.) The nods and winks to the previous films were a little much too.

All that said, The Hobbit isn’t a total waste of time. Martin Freeman as Bilbo captures perfectly the hobbit’s hopefulness and heroics, but it is Andy Serkis as Gollum who steals the show in the eight minutes he has on screen. The riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum is glorious – both funny and terrible.

The Hobbit isn’t a great film and, as far as prequels go, it relies too much on the same visuals of the LOTR films to feel fresh or to keep the viewer interested for three hours. Its good moments, however, are worth the watch and, though I go into the next two films even more warily, I still go.

Review
Steven Spielberg’s (or should I say Daniel Day Lewis’) Lincoln is a remarkable political biopic.  Based on a portion of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, Lincoln manages to infuse a historical story of politics with both remarkable humanity and an impressive measure of tension and excitement.  I had feared Spielberg’s tendency towards sentimentality might work against this film, but it actually fits perfectly here; hits all the right buttons to make the characters accessible to the audience.

If I had no space to say anything else about Lincoln, I would choose to write about Daniel Day Lewis’ absolutely amazing portrayal of Abraham Lincoln.  It’s no secret that I think Daniel Day Lewis is probably the best actor in films today, and loved him in movies from There Will be Blood and Gangs of New York to In the Name of the Father.  The thing that makes him so incredible is the fact that nothing that made his Abraham Lincoln so amazing felt borrowed from any of his other performances.  Lincoln is obviously not Daniel Plainview, and you never felt like the same guy might be playing both characters.  Daniel Day Lewis simply disappears into Lincoln: we get to see this man, famous for his ability to tell a story telling stories, telling compelling stories.  He’s an actor that has used the force of his voice to get your attention, and yet here he takes on the voice that is described in the historical record: high pitched and reedy.  It’s a performance incredible to watch, and if everything else had broken down, Lincoln still would have been worthwhile just for it.

Luckily, everything else most certainly does not break down.  There are other notable acting performances, particularly that of Tommy Lee Jones who plays radical abolitionist, Thaddeus Stevens.  There is a hilarious portrayal of three lobbyists (played by James Spader, John Hawkes, and Tim Blake Nelson), who facilitate the vote on the 13th amendment.  They provide comic relief and heart to a movie that might have otherwise felt too serious.  They also serve to illustrate Lincoln’s willingness to use the political machine to achieve his goals.  It’s an impressive film achievement because it’s all enjoyable and, dare I say it, exciting.

It’s not quite a perfect movie.  For me, Sally Field wasn’t quite on the same, uh, train as the rest of the actors here.  She was very very theatrical as Mary Todd Lincoln, and it just didn’t fit all that well.  Some people probably liked it, but it wasn’t for me.  Spielberg also has a major misstep at the end of the film, in my opinion.  I won’t spoil it here, but check the podcast, we talked at length about it.  Anyway, I pretty much loved this movie, and highly recommend it.

4 1/2 Stars.

Killing Them Softly looks to be a Guy Ritchie type movie where we get to follow the zany antics of stupid criminals.  I expect sharply written dialogue and fast paced movie.

Review

Boy, was I wrong!  This movie is such a piece of pretentious garbage despite its illustrious cast.  How can a crime movie with Ray Liotta, Brad Pitt, and James Gandolfini go wrong?

The movie kicks off when two bumbling idiots decide to rob a mob-run card game.  Brad Pitt’s character Jackie Cogan comes to make an example of them by “killing them softly.”

To be fair, there are some good moments in this movie. Some of the jokes and lines are amusing. Some scenes like a drive by shooting are interestingly depicted. And I think the story as a concept would have worked well in a movie.

However, the biggest failing is that much of the movie feels improvised. Let me tell you how bad it was by recounting my first year on my high school speech team. I participated in an event where me and a partner would act out a scene from a play. Being our first time doing it, we were not comfortable with our lines. So, we chose to improv it, thinking we were better than we were. We completely and utterly failed. I really felt bad for the judge having to watch our stilted dialogue that went nowhere.

That’s exactly how I felt with this movie. Whether it was actual improvisation or not, the dialogue seemed to wander and scenes dragged on forever. There’s only a few filmmakers who can accomplish good dialog that does not seem to have any relation to the overall plot. The director and writer of Killing Them Softly is no Quentin Tarintino. I could listen to Tarintino’s characters go on about what quarter pounders are called in France or about Superman’s dual identity. That’s because the dialogue is written with a good rhythm. The dialog in Killing Them Softly is like listening to someone aimlessly strumming his guitar with no direction.

And the final crime committed by the movie is trying to have some big message, to be more important than it actually was. Throughout the movie, we hear excepts from the McCain and Obama campaign for the 2008 presidential election. I thought they were going to amusingly wrap up the plot of the movie with the election somehow. Nope. It’s all just to setup one stupid line to end the movie. I am sure the filmmaker thought some profound statement was being said. It just comes off as a failed punchline after all that setup.

Go watch a Scorcese, Tarintino, or Guy Ritchie film instead.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of my favorite recent-ish films. The tone, the cinematography, the music (my god, the music!), and the performances of both Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck were just fantastic. Andrew Dominick gets my benefit of the doubt for this gangsterish film. (Sidenote: he’d get it anyway because I freaking love gangster films, so yeah, I’m really excited to see this!)

Review:

Killing Them Softly is violent. Not just violent in the beat-the-shit-out-of-you-sorry-Ray-Liotta-way; it is violent in the way aren’t-we-all-just-capitalist-pigs-is-that-ham-I-smell-way. And, if you’ll pardon the expression, it tends to really hit you over the head with it too.

When criminals are so dumb that they say things like “We’re not the only smart ones around” you know things aren’t going to end well for them. For the two losers who rob a card game played by members of a corporate mafia, well, it’s pretty clear from the get-go somebody is gonna pay. Cue Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt who, unsurprisingly, is kickass): he takes care of things when things need taking care of.

So that’s the gangster element. And it’s awesome and violent and hilarious and messy.

The other part of the film is also as interesting. First of all, it is a gangster film set in New Orleans. This new setting – as opposed to say, ahem, Boston (Scorcese, I’m looking at you!) – is a breath of fresh air. The film plays out at the same time of the 2008 presidential elections, and hearing speeches from Barack Obama as well as earlier speeches from George W. Bush is a poignant reminder of where this country was four years ago, where we are now, and where we might be headed.

Killing Them Softly isn’t afraid of meandering either – another new angle on the gangster film. Perhaps the best performance is put in by James Gandolfini as Mickey, a depressed hitman hired by Cogan to do some of the dirty work. Mickey – a mean, raging alcoholic – rambles on about loneliness, doing hard time, having nothing, etc., and it is absolutely captivating to watch him fall apart.

Although it isn’t quite as masterful or engrossing as The Assassination of Jesse James…, Killing Them Softly is another high mark for Andrew Dominick and crew and a fine addition to the gangster film.

Having read and loved the book by Yann Martel, I am greatly looking forward to this film. I also think Ang Lee is a director capable of making interesting and wonderful films in various styles and genres. Life of Pi is definitely one of the most anticipated films of the year for me.

Review:

It’s been called the “unfilmable film.” Director Ang Lee (Lust, Caution; Brokeback Mountain; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) is a brave soul, then, to take on such a task. And he mostly nailed it.

As with any movie adaptation, however, parts of the book have been cut, scenes have been whittled or condensed into one, etc. Martel’s argument that animals are happier in zoos than in the wild is particularly missed. Yet, despite missing or condensed scenes, Life of Pi is a treasure of a film: the many breathtaking visuals is worth the price of admission. It is epic in scope – what movie couldn’t be that claims it will “make you believe in God” – but never feels so.

The framing device of Pi relating the story to a journalist many years later is the film’s weak point. It was also the book’s. Here, it runs toward heavy sentiment, which is a polite way of saying Life of Pi really really really wants you to cry. 

Whether or not the film, like the book, succeeds in its stated mission is up to the viewer/reader, but the survival of Pi, a Muslim-Christian-Hindu, alone on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, is as incredible, unbelievable and inspiring as it sounds.

Admittedly, I thought this was going to be a new Jungle Book movie when I first saw the previews.  :)

I thought the movie would be okayish.  It looked to be beautiful, given it was directed by Ang Lee.  My take is that it will be the Jungle Book mixed with Cast Away.

Review

Yeah, this movie is pretty much like Cast Away except there’s a tiger instead of a volleyball.  It’s a bit better than Cast Away though with stronger visuals and a more ambitious theme.  I am not as enamored with how it attempts to communicate its theme though.

The story is told in a series of flashbacks by Pi, an Indian professor living in Canada.  An author approaches him to tell his story, specifically where he is lost at sea with a tiger named Richard Parker.  Pi’s family runs a zoo in India.  Due to the destabilizing changes in the Indian political environment, his family chooses to relocate to Canada, intending to take their animals and sell them abroad.  Unfortunately, the freighter is sunk by a storm, and Pi is left adrift at sea with a dangerous tiger as his unwelcome passenger.

The visuals are gorgeous and do merit going to see them in 3D.  The images invoke a more fantastic setting than real life.  Pi undergoes a journey much like Odysseus to return to civilization.  He overcomes his fears and uses his wits to stay alive.

Both the older and younger Pi are portrayed very well by their respective actors.  The younger one especially does a great job since he’s pretty much acting with CG animals.  The effects on the animals are very impressive and lifelike.

The story is enjoyable, even the sequences with the younger Pi.  Again, it’s a credit to the acting and directing that we can enjoy watching a solitary performance for the bulk of the movie.  However, the ending was very rushed.  The story could not devise a good way to end the movie, so it just abruptly ended it.

I remarked on the ambitious theme earlier.  I would have enjoyed the movie more had it kept the story simpler.  In the end, it chooses to introduce the possibility of an unreliable narrator.  Perhaps what we saw was not quite what happened.  I think this ties into earlier story elements introduced where the younger Pi chooses to adopt several religions.  Most religions tell the same story but with different trappings.  Both versions of Pi’s story tell the same thing at their core.  Does it matter which really happened?

At least, that was my take away from the film.  It’s okay to pose this question, but it just did not fit with the tone of most of the movie.  It is a worthwhile film to see for visuals alone, yet it falls short in part of it’s story-telling.

Lincoln Weekly Take Spoilercast:

Download our Lincoln Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Up next week: Life of Pi

Spielberg’s recent movies were not up to the same level as his past great films.  Most of his PG-rated films are filled with a high degree of what I call Spielberg-sappiness. That is, he tries very hard to tug at your emotions.  It’s not a bad thing to do of course.  It’s why we go to movies.  When Spielberg does it, at least, in recent movies, he does it with a heavy hand instead of surgical precision.  If the audience can blatantly see the attempt though, it’s akin to knowing how a magic trick works.  The wonder and illusion is dispelled.

So, it was with some trepidation that I went into Spielberg’s latest movie Lincoln.  It could be a great movie, perfectly timed with the 2012 U.S. elections.  Or it could be as disappointing as the bickering among the U.S. political parties.

Review

Lincoln is easily my favorite movie of the year.  Spielberg wisely reins himself in to give us the ultimate portrait of one of the greatest U.S. presidents.  Daniel Day-Lewis should walk away with an Oscar for his performance, playing a very human Lincoln.  The movie shows how government really needs to get things done, by being the more conniving and dastardly than your opponent.

Rather than following the typical biopic trope of showing us highlights of Lincoln’s life from birth to death, Spielberg chooses to focus on one key, and perhaps best, part of his life–the passing of the 13th Amendment.  The Civil War still rages on with the casualty rate rising on both sides.  The Union is winning, and the Confederacy seems ready to talk peace.  However, Lincoln realizes the only chance he has to end slavery is to do it before the southern states return to the Union.  He begins to play a dangerous game where he attempts to win enough votes to pass the new amendment while stalling the end of the war.  Lincoln does everything within his power, short of giving outright bribes, to obtain the votes.

As I said, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a great performance as Lincoln the man and not Lincoln the icon.  His Lincoln is heavily burdened by holding the country together with his sheer force of will.  And at the same time, he has to handle his family ordeals at home.  The first lady is near mad with grief after the loss of their first child, and they worry about the possibility of their other child enlisting with the troops.

Spielberg directs the movie more like a stage play than a typical movie.  For the most part, he lets the actors and writing do their jobs to tell the story with little of the Spielberg-sappiness.  There is one part in the very beginning that concerned me the movie was going down the wrong path.  We are introduced to Lincoln sitting in the rain talking to a group of soldiers.  They begin to quote the Gettysburg address, initiated by a white soldier and finished by a black one.  Fortunately, he holds back for much of the remainder of the movie.  For being a two and half hour movie about politics, the movie is engaging throughout and perfectly paced.  Somehow Spielberg still creates tension during the vote on the amendment when we already know the outcome.

Spielberg returns to form with this movie, bolstered by an amazing job by Daniel Day-Lewis and the rest of the cast.  Anyone jaded by recent U.S. politics, regardless of political affiliation, should go see the movie as a salve.  It is a movie worthy of showing one of the proudest moments in U.S. history.

After the high bar set by Casino Royale, I was, admittedly, disappointed in Quantum of Solace.  However, I hoped Skyfall would follow the Star Trek rule in that every other movie will be the good one.  And based on the initial reviews, this may be the best Bond yet.  Curse the Brits for getting Skyfall earlier than the U.S. though.

Review

Daniel Craig’s Bond returns with a movie on par with Casino Royale and in some cases surpassing it.  The action is tighter, and this is the most Bond-like movie of the three starring Craig.

In many ways, this is very similar to The Dark Knight Rises.  Our hero is older with some questioning whether there’s a place for him.  Bond returns after a brief hiatus, out-of-shape and not as sharp with a gun.  He sets out to find the villain Silva (Javier Bardem) who obtained a list with the identities of the undercover agents around the world.  One-by-one, he’s killing them, taunting Judi Dench’s M along the way.

M is very much in the spotlight with this film, and Judi Dench does a fantastic job playing the gruff MI-6 leader who has almost a motherly relationship with Bond.  Like Casino Royale, Skyfall’s story is a very personal one for the characters, which heightens the suspense.  With some exceptions, most of the Bond movies before Craig’s iteration did not focus on the central characters as, well, characters.  Including Bond, they were all fairly one-dimensional.  In Skyfall, the plot has a very emotional impact on the characters.

Javier Bardem’s villain is memorable, partly because the portrayal is completely unexpected.  He shows up only half way through the movie, and we are told by other characters that he is utterly evil.  We are expecting a character akin to the one he played in No Country for Old Men.  Rather, when he finally appears, it’s just…different.  He’s amusing at first, then the movie slowly reveals how twisted he is.

Sam Mendes does a great job directing, and I certainly hope he returns for another one.  Bond movies have always been able style.  However, Mendes infuses the movie with a very unique style that is both an homage to past movies as well as touch of his own.  Bond’s initial introduction, for instance, is both sudden and cool.  His shadowy silhouette is announced by the familiar blaring of the theme music.  Bond does not request a martini shaken.  Rather, we see him receive a Martini with him simply thanking the bartender for doing it perfectly.

Skyfall certainly ranks up there as one of the best Bond movies ever.  We are definitely very fortunate to have Mr. Craig for two more movies.

I’ve been let down by the Spielberg juggernaut many times. I’ve also had my preconceptions as a moviegoer totally obliterated. It is strange to me that the man who directed such crap films like Hook and frivolous, brainless romps like Indiana Jones can also make masterpieces like Munich or Saving Private Ryan. Love him or hate him, there aren’t many directors with the sort of wide-ranging oeuvre as Spielberg. From the previews, Lincoln looks like a lesser film, in line with his more recent output; although, Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor and just might pull off playing the 16th President of the United States.

Review:

Lincoln is an interesting glimpse into the politicking and maneuvering of a nation at war with itself. It reminds you that although it may sometimes seem as though your elected leaders have given up their morality and their intent to work for the people, they have, in the long run, a greater good in mind (see: Tommy Lee Jones’s surprisingly stirring performance as Congressman Thaddeus Stevens). It is a film that looks at racism head-on, unflinchingly; it is truly sickening that many of those same prejudices still exist today and the film reminds us of that at almost every turn without ever seeming self-righteous, as if it itself were above such notions. Even Lincoln, as he tells his wife’s confidant and former slave Elizabeth Keckley, that he isn’t sure what will happen when her people are freed.

There are moments of real fire. After his Cabinet has bickered for too long over whether or not to push for the 13th Amendment or entreat with the Confederate emissaries, Lincoln slams his hand and gives them one hell of a speech. Indeed, Daniel Day-Lewis is spectacular as Abraham Lincoln. He is humorous, sentimental, hard as stone, and even a little mad at times, yet never once was I reminded, even remotely, of Day-Lewis’s past performances so completely did he inhabit the 16th President (or, at least, his interpretation of him).

The film, however, isn’t perfect. There are some questionable directorial choices – superimposing Lincoln giving a speech over a candle flame is the most notable for its absurd cheesiness. The end is lengthy and melodramatic and not at all emotionally touching. It tends to lean toward sentimentality and pure cheese in dealing with Lincoln and his family (particularly that of Mary Todd, played by Sally Field).

Still, Lincoln is a film worth seeing, a film that sheds some light (however Hollywooded it might be) on a pocket of American history that changed the nation forever.

It’s weird, because it’s like another of my favorite things: Star Wars.  One of the first things I remember was begging my brothers to use the VCR to put Star Wars on.  I have loved, just loved, unquestioningly loved Star Wars since before I can remember.  This makes Star Wars like the Bears.

And like the Bears looking like they’ll take a special season and somehow never, ever, ever recover, Star Wars did this to me from 1999-2005 with the release of the now-infamous prequels.  I just rewatched these movies with my wife, who hadn’t ever really seen Star Wars, and with the partial exception of Episode III, they deserve the infamy.  I went to see Phantom Menace in the theater several times, I’m ashamed to say.  I was trying to like the damn thing.  I mean, really, really trying to like it.  I’ll admit the first time I saw it I definitely liked it.  I was overwhelmed by Sith, and double bladed lightsabers, and blasters, and starfighters and stuff.

Well, I was fooling myself.  Upon later watching the defects in my defend-Star-Wars-at-all-costs planetary shield grew and grew. Jar jar was a disaster.  Midichlorians, or however you spell it, basically ruined The Force.  That kid who played Anakin.  Eesh.  The way Lucas wrote Anakin, hoooboy.  The creepy love story between Natalie Portman and a 10 year old. Man oh man.  It’s a bad movie, and I think Episode II was even worse– not sure that’s true but I can never forgive the love scenes.  Never.  Episode III, at least, was sorta goodish.

It’s the kind of thing that shakes a guy’s faith, you know?  George Lucas has been dragged through the mud enough.  Do I think he lost his way?  Yeah, I do.  Did he lose the magic that made the original trilogy so fantastic?  Oh yeah he did.  Is he a bad guy?  Kinda doubt it a lot actually– especially since he just gave ridiculous sums of money to charity.  And there’s the other thing– I still love Star Wars.  If I kind of ignore the prequels I still love everything about it.  George Lucas, no matter what else he did, didn’t ruin my childhood… He gave it to me, in fact.  But, given all that, after the prequels I thought my chances of seeing my faith restored in Star Wars were slim to none.  Who would do it, if not George?  And if George did it, what are the chances that I’d love it?  Probably not great– Red Tails anybody?

Then something happened.  On October 30, it started coming out that Disney had acquired Lucasfilm from George Lucas… Not only had they bought Star Wars, but they were planning on releasing Episode VII in 2015.  My first reaction was abject terror at the prospect of Jar Jar Binks and some Disney Princess together at last for a jaunt through the galaxy all “for the kids.”  But, as the news settled in, I started to realize this might not be a bad things.  Disney, after all, owns both Pixar and Marvel and treats both brands with respect and allows them the autonomy needed to produce the quality films that their audiences demand.

Suddenly, A… New, anyone? Hope started to form deep in my soul.  Maybe Disney is going to save Star Wars for me.  Maybe Episode VII will be a return to form as far as it goes.  At this point, I’m hotly anticipating Episode VII and consuming whatever news and rumors come about.  I’m not sure my Bears are going to recover from this game (yeah, it’s going that bad) this season, but maybe Disney will buy the franchise or something… But I need something to turn things around, just like Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm may have done for Star Wars.

Review
Skyfall is a good action movie with a remarkable villain (excellently played by the remarkable Javier Bardem) and a compelling story about the choices leaders have to make.  The Daniel Craig bond also completes his journey from real person with feelings to heartless cold blooded assassin.

Sam Mendes is one hell of a director and it shows through here.  The action in Skyfall is top notch somehow capturing a combination of all the modern conventions (slick martial arts) with some vintage Bond action (a fist fight on top of a train being something I at least think I saw in a Bond movie before).  More than that though, Mendes manages to work in all manner of homages to classic Bond without ever making it cute or overly silly.

Daniel Craig is good in his third Bond movie, but I thought this show was being stolen by Judy Dench as M.  And indeed it was, Dench was great from beginning to end, but 30 or so minutes into the movie Javier Bardem appears and uh, re-steals the show from Dench.  Bardem is superb as the villain here, and unsettling in a completely different way than his No Country for Old Men villain– which speaks to his great range.

The plot in Skyfall is nothing particularly special, but also lacks any really awful holes that ruin the experience.  There’s some decent humor.  A desultory Bond-girl appears, played ever so briefly by Berenice Lim Marlohe– thanks for stopping by.  In the end, there’s not much else to say about Skyfall.  It’s a helluva fun Bond movie.  For me it wasn’t as good as Casino Royale but don’t let that stop you from going to watch.

3 1/2 stars

Vodka Martini. Shaken, not stirred.

Review:

Skyfall, the latest in the Daniel Craig reboot of 007,  is a stronger outing than Quantum of Solace but never quite catches the cool and resolve of Casino Royale. There are a lot of interesting things about this particular Bond film – from semi-surrealistic fight scene atop a building in Shanghai to the relationship of M, the head of England’s spy agency MI6, and our International Man of Mystery – but the film feels haphazard at times as if, by a twist of the hand, the whole thing might collapse.

Let’s talk about the interesting things first.

1) The relationship of M and 007, even from earlier Bond movies, is intriguing and, in its own way, rather sweet. M has created Bond to be a master spy and in so doing has, at least in part, created a monster: a hyperaware killing machine who, for better or worse, loves ‘em and leaves ‘em. What’s particularly fascinating about Skyfall is Bond’s revelation that he may indeed more the monster than the man; indeed, even the  villain is a mirror-image of Bond, Spock with a goatee, if you will. Near the end, when Bond and M escape to the countryside there are several moments where you realize just how deep M’s roots have sunk in Bond.

2) Director Sam Mendes always captivates his audiences. His films – from American Beauty  to, well, to this latest film – are, from a cinematographic and camera-shot view, continually fresh and inviting no matter the subject; however, in Skyfall there were times the film felt too easily table-of-cards-ish.

Unfortunately, Skyfall does not live up to the hype it has been receiving. While it is certainly a good movie and even a fairly strong movie as far as Bond films go, it suffers from its Jason Bourne influence worn too prominently on its sleeve as well as typical cliche action film stuff (the campyness was fine, ok!).

Download our Wreck-It Ralph Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Up next week: Lincoln

Download our Cloud Atlas Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Up next week: Wreck-It Ralph

Review
Wreck-It Ralph is a movie about a character of the same name who is the bad guy in a fictitious video game called Fix-It Felix, Jr.  Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) is the bad guy and he’s tired of always being the bad guy.  That’s the setup of this bad-guy-as-not-a-bad-guy story that by and large works extremely well, but isn’t the amazing game changer that something like Toy Story was.

As a big video game fan, I was eager to see how Disney made use of the many video game licenses they managed to get ahold of and while they did get some mileage– particularly in the bad guys anonymous segments– ultimately I thought they were somewhat underused.  The movie takes places mostly inside one fictitious kart racing game called Sugar Rush.  The setting was fine, I supposed, but I went into the movie expecting a kind of video game travelogue with Ralph and company jumping from game to game… It probably made more sense in terms of writing a serious story focused on characters to do it the way Wreck-It Ralph did, but I was a little disappointed in the movie’s lack of scenery changes.

On the topic of characters, these characters were written well enough but they were not incredibly nuanced or three-dimensional.  The bad guy, Ralph, wanted to be a good guy, the spunky misfit “glitch” girl racer (very well voiced-acted by Sarah Silverman) wanted to fit in with everyone else.  Oddly enough the most interesting character to me was the villain, whose identity I will keep secret as it’s a spoiler.

Wreck-it Ralph is a very good animated kids movie that certainly won’t cause adults to claw their eyes out in boredom or anything.  It wasn’t quite up to my expectations, I guess… But I still thought it was more than good enough to recommend.

3 1/2 stars.

I’m pretty sure that from the bugged-out eyes and the splutterings of “What, whaa, hmm, huh?” from my friends that I’m alone here when I say I don’t really care for animated films. Toy Story? It’s okay. Wall-E. Didn’t care for it. The only thing I remember from The Little Mermaid is “Le Poisson! Le Poisson!” I hardly ever watched Saturday morning cartoons as a kid (although, I confess, I did really love Thunder Cats and G.I. Joe and a few others, but I was, you know, nine…not that you can only enjoy an animated film as a youngster, but for me, I lost a taste for them). A lot of people seem to be excited for Wreck-It Ralph and, for what it is, it does look good. If I wasn’t a Weekly Taker would I go see this movie? No. Never.

Review:

Wreck-It Ralph asks the question: where do your heroes and (more importantly) villains go after you stop playing them for the night? All day, Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) wrecks an apartment building and you (as Fix-It Felix, which is actually the name of the arcade game – Ralph is just the villain, you see) must fix Ralph’s mess. At the end of the day, when the arcade’s lights are turned off and its customers long gone, Ralph returns to his dump while Felix and the apartment building tenants live their happy lives without them. Well, Ralph wants more. He wants an apartment for himself; to get this, he’s told, he’s got to get a medal. He goes about getting one by running off to other video games (by way of Central Station where all video game characters meet).

The movie has enough kid glee to entertain the younger crowd, but also has enough “adult” jokes (which seems to be a requirement now for any animated film) to please us older folk. Besides the humor, there are also consequences to characters’ actions and interesting twists that, if easy to see, are nonetheless satisfying. It is Sarah Silverman as Vanellope – a glitch in the racing game Sugar Rush – who steals the show. Obviously, one shouldn’t expect her crass, offensive and oftentimes hilarious stand-up routine, but even so she gets a lot of moments to shine here.

Wreck-It Ralph‘s nostalgia for arcade games of a bygone era and spin on the hero vs. villain trope is matched by a strong, well-told story that is both humorous and meaningful.

Review
Well, Cloud Atlas basically delivered on my expectations.  It’s movie full of stunning visuals and incredibly constructed set pieces.  Parts of it work incredibly well, and some of the acting is  simply fantastic.  Unfortunately some scenes don’t really work, and this movie really struggled to keep the many threads of Cloud Atlas coherent.

Cloud Atlas is actually six different stories in six different places and times, with each of the six stories tied together thematically and in some cases directly.  In an interesting film-making choice, the Wachowskis chose to use the same actors in each of the six stories.  This is a little controversial I guess, because as the characters ethnicities become inconvenient makeup is used to transform them into the appropriate ethnicity.  It’s occasionally jarring, to be sure, and while kind of an interesting idea I’m not sure it was the best choice.  Since the story is a rumination on connections between humanity through generations and time, and the idea that a soul transcends the existence of the body it probably made sense… But I guess it was too distracting at times– I wonder if it might not have worked better if they just used the same actors but didn’t apply the makeup, I dunno.

I’m not too interested in requiring a film adaptation of a book to be “faithful” to the source material.  They are different mediums and have different requirements.  Besides, I support artistic license and what not.  All that said, this is one of those times I’m going to complain about changes from the book.  The structure of the book is interesting in that five of the six stories are split in half.  The one that occurs earliest, followed by each subsequent story until the story that takes places farthest in the future forms the (Python!) “Middle of the Book.”  Then the story works back in time telling the final half of each of the stories and forming a sort of mirror.  The movie chose instead to just thread everything together how they saw fit, jumping back and forth between stories sometimes second by second.  I think this was probably confusing for people who didn’t read the book, and it also allowed the filmmakers to make a little too obvious the connections from story to story.  I feel like it might have worked a lot better to structure it exactly like the book was.

Anyway, a lot of things work great in Cloud Atlas.  First and foremost is Tom Hanks.  Tom’s not in as many big movies these days, and it makes it easier to forget just how great of an actor he is.  He plays several major characters in this film and is absolutely compelling in each of them (and it should be noted they’re not similar roles either).  Also excellent are Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae,  and Hugo Weaving (who performs a disappearing act so convincing into one of his roles that was barely able to recognize him).  The film is generally entertaining, with The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish being the most fun and An Orison of of Sonmi~451 being the most affecting.

An ambitious film to be sure, Cloud Atlas is good, but not the masterpiece I was secretly hoping for as a fan of the novel.

3 stars.

Download our Variety Take – Biutiful, Indie Game the Movie, Drive Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take  Indie Game the Movie
Dustin’s Take   Biutiful
John’s Take      Drive

Up next week: Cloud Atlas, Wreck-it Ralph,, Skyfall, oh my!

Drive is one of those movies with a big cast and a bunch of critical buzz that didn’t catch the public’s interest apparently.  I don’t know much about it, to be honest, other than that it has a bit of the old ultraviolence and is about a wheelman or something.  I’ve also heard Ryan Gosling is pretty awesome in it, so there’s that.  Some people wanted him to get an Oscar nomination for it, so I’m interested to see if he’s really all that.

Review

I think Dustin should have reviewed this one.  Slow burn.  Whole movie.  Takes a long time to get going, and when it does it’s pretty much all in slow motion.  I’m not criticizing it really, but it is a weird movie.  Strange style, with emotions blunted almost like The Royal Tenenbaums and a whole bunch of really violent material captured in something kind of like A History of Violence in slow motion to up the gruesomeness even more.

The cast of Drive is basically brilliant.  Ryan Gosling as the driver delivers a very understated and yet still nuanced performance.  There’s a scene in particular where he renders a small smile and it feels just as warm as it’s supposed to.  Also, Bryan Cranston appears in one of the major supporting roles and is simply excellent.  Between this movie and Argo last week I’m glad to see he has serious roles in addition to the paycheck roles like Total Recall.  Carey Mulligan, an actress I’m not familiar with, is convincing as the female interest and Ron Perlman is sufficiently menacing as one of the “bad guys.”  Albert Brooks, and I can’t quite believe I’m writing this, is utterly awesome in this movie.

Plot-wise, this movie is fully competent.  It’s basically a classic heist movie, where the lead gets caught up in something significantly bigger than intended.  The dialogue is good, and the plot didn’t have too many gaping holes.  Not a huge amount of driving in this movie, strangely enough.

Danish film director, Nicolas Winding Refn, is at the helm of Drive and certainly this movie doesn’t lack for stylistic flair.  At times I wonder if it’s a little too much.  There are scenes in this movie that are really just scenes in a movie.  Life doesn’t look or feel like some of these scenes.  It doesn’t ruin the movie, but at times I caught myself taken out of the moment, and more than anything else I’m hoping Mr. Refn learns balance.  Overall, Drive was a good but not great movie.

3 1/2 Stars.

Expectations

I was pretty excited going into the movie.  The initial reviews were highly positive, and the overall concept spoke to me.  I am a huge video game fan, so imagining a Toy Story-like movie with cameos from classic games fueled my anticipation.

Review

The student has become the master.  Disney Animation one-ups Pixar with the best animated movie of the year.  Wreck-it Ralph has a heartwarming story that will create lots of nostalgia for video game lovers.

Wreck-it Ralph is set in an arcade where the video game characters, like in Toy Story, come to life after the users leave for the night.  The characters can interact across games by traveling via the electrical cords.  The main character Ralph is the villain of his game Fix-it Felix, a fictional game inspired by Donkey King; however, Ralph wants to be more than a villain.  He wants to be the hero who wins a medal and accolades.  So, since he cannot be the hero in his own game, he jumps games to succeed elsewhere.

The highest points in the film happen when Ralph interacts with “real” video game characters with which fans are familiar.  I felt bad seeing Q-bert down on his luck because his game was unplugged.  The support group for video game villains is just hilarious.  I am surprised at how many characters they were able to get, especially the Street Fighter ones.  Zangief easily steals the show even though he was only briefly seen.

It’s unfortunate we were not able to spend more time with the actual video game characters.  A good part of the movie is spent in fictitious game settings created for the express purpose of the film.  Still, Wreck-it Ralph is very enjoyable without the cameos.  Ralph himself is very likable as a character.  You will be cheering for him in the end.  A central part of the story is his relationship with another misfit, Vanellope, who is a character in a cart racer.  Their interaction is hilarious as Vanellope enjoys poking fun at Ralph.  The bond they develop through the course of the movie is touching.

With video games’ vast history, the possibilities for sequels are endless.  The filmmakers need to consider switching the setting to perhaps the characters inhabiting a console instead of the arcade.  The arcade will limit the types of games with which the characters can interact.  Perhaps Wreck-it Ralph and Sugar Rush are downloaded as classic games on someone’s Xbox?  Regardless, I am eagerly awaiting the next movie.

Expectations

Cloud Atlas looked to be a fun, high-concept movie.  I have heard several comments praising the book with its unique story structure and theme.  So, I was definitely wanting to enjoy the movie more than I did.

Review

Unfortunately, the movie fails to execute its concept, unable to effectively juggle its various stories and characters.  I learned later that the movie deviates heavily from the book’s structure, and it would have been better served as an anthology of stories instead of attempting to simultaneously weave the stories together.

Cloud Atlas follows six stories, each set in a different time period with two even going into the future.  The movie uses a company of actors to play different characters in each time period.  The implication is that the characters may share the same souls across time, sometimes crisscrossing with each other again and again.  The six tales center on the themes of freedom and love.

As I mentioned, the movie attempts to tell each of the stories at the same time.  However, this leads to the movie feeling very disjointed.  I was able to follow the story well enough, yet the editing was not well done.  There are a few scenes that naturally transition into one another.  The rest of the cuts feel highly arbitrary though.  Literally, there might be one sentence said or a few seconds of a scene, and then we are off into another timeline.  It is just a mess.  I wonder if there was a different cut of the movie that mirrors the more chapter-based book structure.

Each moviegoer will find different stories more appealing.  I enjoyed only a few of them, namely the ones set in the future.  And the movie’s structure becomes frustrating since it will cutaway just as things become interesting.

Having the same actors play different characters might have worked better on a stage instead of the big screen.  The make-up between the characters is sometimes absurd including an oddly-looking Asian Jim Sturgess or a female Hugo Weaving.  It’s very distracting to the story.

It is not a terrible movie.  Everyone can find something to like in this movie.  As a whole though, it is ultimately disappointing.  Cloud Atlas seems like it should have been a HBO mini-series.  That would give each story its due without the overall story being bloated.  In fact, it would not have been impossible to get these same actors for such a project.

I am a hobbyist programmer with dreams of making my own game.  However, I do not seem to possess the discipline to work 100% on my own game.  It’s a lot of work!  Indie Game the Movie at least will offer me some insight into the world in which I wish I worked.  I am looking forward to learning more about the game design process.

Review

Indie Game the Movie makes the case for saying video games are their own form of art.  The developers profiled in the documentary put themselves through intense, grueling emotional and psychological torture as they try and finish their games.

The documentary profiles the birth of three games: Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Fez.  If you’re a gamer, especially one with an Xbox, you should be familiar with these names.  All three went on to perform well on Xbox Live in terms of sales and critical acclaim.  While the movie does delve into some aspects of game design, its focus is on the sacrifice the developers make.  Braid was made by one guy.  Super Meat Boy was done by just two friends. 

I mentioned earlier that making games was a hard task.  It’s clearly demonstrated in this documentary how difficult it is, especially without huge resources commanded by the larger studios.  I found it very compelling though to watch them overcome their various obstacles.

What solidifies games as art here is the fact that each of the developer’s primary goal was not to make millions of dollars.  Sure, they want to sell a lot of their games and make money.  But they all were most interested in ensuring players understood what they were striving to communicate in their games.  By designing a level in a certain way, will it illicit the anticipated reaction from the players?  Or will it just frustrate them?

As we all know, each of the developers went on to do rather well with their games.  Still, it was great to watch them react as they learned of their success.  If you’re any type of gamer, I highly recommend this movie.  As technology and programming become more accessible, more games will be made in this fashion.  We’ll still get the Halos and Call of Duty games.  However,  the barrier for entry is diminishing rapidly for hopeful game designers.

David Mitchell is easily one of my favorite writers. When I first read Cloud Atlas a few years ago, I fell in love with the mixture of literary and science fiction and thriller and comedy. It remains to this day one of my favorite books. I’m dubious, however, of the film adaptation. I wonder if a three-hour film can pull off a 600-page book about interconnectedness written in a palindromic style. The preview is both inspiring in its audacity and worrisome in its structure.

Review:

It is totally cliche and, to be honest, I even hate saying it but: the book is better. Better by a wide margin.

Here’s the thing: the backdrops of the movie – from Adam Ewing’s 1800s Pacific Journal diaries to the wonderfully imagined future of Somni-451 – are great and translate to the screen because, in the book, Mitchell does a magnificent job of bringing visually each of these very different locations, pasts, presents, and futures. Even jumping from the 1970s to a post-apocalyptic tribe isn’t as jarring as what doesn’t work in the film.

And that’s this: Having the actors portray several characters throughout the various stories was perhaps an interesting idea on paper but on the screen many of the characters were flat. What’s so distressing about this is that, in the book, that wasn’t the case; naturally, Mitchell had more time and words to get deeper into a character (not to mention that each character had half of his/her story told before moving on, whereas the movie is constantly jumping.)

Speaking of jumping and shifting: while the backdrops did not jar as much as one would think, the tension of the film suffered greatly. There was never a moment to root for anyone Cloud Atlas.

But all of this is comparing the movie to the book which I don’t think is fair, even if it is based off it. A film is a different entity than a novel. On its own terms, Cloud Atlas misses the mark: from “Ol’ Georgie” (the devil in the post-apocalyptic future) who, instead of seeming threatening is just absolutely hilarious for all the wrong reasons to the congratulatory self-righteousness of Adam Ewing and his wife upon the realization that “slavery is bad.”

There are some good things to the film, however, and, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, it never feels overly long. Particularly of note is the Luisa Reyes story set in the 1970s which, with its noirish leanings, manages not to only be interesting but has perhaps the film’s most tense moments.

Ultimately, Cloud Atlas is an ambitious undertaking and one that, should it have been pulled off, could’ve been the best movie of the year; what it ends up being, however, is a mess with some really cool scenes.

I had heard things about this film tangentially and, when it came available on Netflix for streaming, I knew I wanted to schedule a time to watch it, so I’m happy we Takers Three have done this Special Variety Take. I’m not sure what to expect – I never do from foreign films because, unlike Hollywood, a lot of the time there is something wholly unexpected and wonderful (either in a pleasant or harrowing way) about them. I did enjoy Babel and 21 Grams, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s English-language films, and Biutful looks no less amazing.

Review:

One of the choices that makes the  Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed Biutiful so captivating is his use of space. Set in Barcelona, the film makes the city – with its narrow alleys and cramped apartments, its streets lined with shops and bustling crowds and industrial neighborhoods – part of the narrative. The camera weaves through the city. There also a lot of close shots of Uxbal (played brilliantly by Javiar Bardem) and the other characters in the film; indeed, one has the feeling there is no room to move in this story.

This cluttered, close world is also what makes the story at the heart of Biutiful more powerful: while earning a living by organizing illegal immigrants – both Chinese and African – to manufacture and sell purses and drugs on the streets of Barcelona and raising his two kids after his bipolar and reckless wife disappears, Uxbal learns that he has terminal prostate cancer and only a few months to live. Then things go really wrong: the Africans are arrested and the Chinese suffer an even worse fate.

Uxbal also has the gift/curse of seeing the dead. Although Biutiful never explicitly reveals whether or not this gift/curse is real or just an effect of Uxbal having grown up orphaned, it adds yet another layer to this multi-layered film.  It certainly adds an element of horror near the end of the film as the dead hang from the ceiling of his apartment.

Biutiful juggles a lot – the seedier side of Barcelona, the speculative forces of death, memory, raising children, etc. – but it handles all of these things adeptly and powerfully that, in a lesser director’s hands, would most probably collapse at the slightest huff-and-puff. When the end does come, and all the weight is lifted, you feel it and, no matter his faults, wish Uxbal well.

Review: It’s oh so pleasing when a movie delivers on its promise, and that’s just what Argo does.  It’s a period piece, a travelogue, and a spy thriller all thrown into one and it delivers on each count.  Argo tells the just recently declassified story of a joint CIA-Canada operation to smuggle six US State Department employees who escaped the embassy while Iranian militants stormed it in 1979.  The event was popularly known as The Canadian Caper but details of US involvement were classified so the heroics of CIA “exfiltration” expert Tony Mendez were until recently unknown.  It’s a great story, and though surely embellished for the silver screen, I’m happy it’s now been so well told.

The most striking features of this film relate to how it looked.  Set either side of 1980 the movie felt so on about the period.  The way everything looked, and in particular the actors felt like the old Polaroids that were always laying all over my house when I was growing up– shaggy hair and thick-rimmed glass all over the place.  Then there’s Iran, a place that’s been so long opposed to us now that it seems foreign and exotic like few places can and this movie tries to give a look and it really worked for me.  I couldn’t take my eyes off of Tehran any time it was on the screen.

Argo has a large cast, and everybody pretty much delivers.  It’s nice to see Bryan Cranston in a role where he isn’t hamming it up all over the place.  Affleck is fine but not great in the film.  The rescuees themselves really shine in minor roles that have to feel realistic to be watchable.  I find that I always like almost anything that John Goodman or Alan Arkin do and their work in Argo is no exception.  The only thing that really didn’t work for me with the characters was some of the dialogue.  The screenwriter worked overtime to try to give the pros in the movie biting vulgar dialogue, I guess to make them feel aggressively professional or something like that.  It was pretty funny sometimes, and while pros do talk like that sometime, it’s not every sentence so that whole thing felt a little overwrought to me.  There were also some scenes designed to characterize Affleck’s Mendez that I think were unnecessary and distracted from the film overall.

I really liked this movie and I’d say it’s one of the better movies this year.

4 stars.

Argo Weekly Take Spoilercast:

Download our Argo Spoilercast or

Stream it:

Charlie’s Take     REVIEW
Dustin’s Take      REVIEW
John’s Take         REVIEW

Up next week: A Surprise Variety Take!

I loved both Gone Baby Gone and The Town, the first two films directed by Ben Affleck (though I still think Gone Baby Gone is the stronger of the two), and from the previews I’d seen of Argo, it looked like another win for Former Bennifer. It’s also a piece of history I’m interested in – the Iran hostage crisis – and that, as a wee pup undergrad, did a paper on (sort of: the paper was actually on Ronald Reagan, but I did some research into Jimmy Carter’s presidency to understand the elections of 1980 and read then about the overthrowing of the Shah government, etc.).  So, to say I was excited for this film is perhaps a bit of understatement. I expect it to sate all my senses.

Review:

Argo is a smart, intense film based on a nugget of history classified until 1997. After the Shah government is overthrown in Iran and the American Embassy in Tehran is stormed, Tony Mendez – a CIA specialist – is called in to help get six Americans who escaped to the Canadian Embassy out. Mendez’s idea? Go in as a Canadian film crew making a fake Sci-Fi movie – the six Americans would fly out as part of the film crew. As Bryan Cranston (who, for the first time this year, isn’t hamming it) says, “This is the best bad idea we’ve got.”

The film certainly mixes some of that tried-and-true Hollywood dramatic license over historical accuracy, but what makes Argo engaging - beyond the fact that this actually happened - is its exploration of character. In particular, Tony Mendez – whether elements were fictionalized or not – is a complex study: here he is working to save six people he doesn’t know with, in true CIA fashion, one helluva WTF idea, while at the same time going through a separation with his wife and missing his son’s birthday. There is a moment on an airplane when Mendez is looking out the window and you feel all of that – it’s moving.

The six Americans who escaped the Embassy and are now hiding under the Canadian flag are also interesting studies of people under intense stress and fear for their lives. How each of them react toward the situation – again, whether fictionalized or not – is engaging to watch. The crisis also takes a toll on the Canadian ambassador and his wife, though both handle handle themselves and their affairs with grace and courage.

Argo missed an opportunity, however, to explore the conflicted nature of Sahar, an Iranian woman employed by the Canadian Embassy. Despite a clear love and loyalty for her people and to the Revolution, she continues helping hide the escapees  and even puts her own life in danger – but for reasons unexplained. After the graphic-novel-like opening of the film – which tells the atrocities committed by the Shah regime who had been placed there by the American government several years earlier – it is not difficult to understand Iranians’ outrage and the Islamic Revolution and therefore makes Sahar’s decisions all the more complex.

If Argo falters at all, it is when it decides to go Hollywood. There is a chase scene near the end of the film that is right out of a cliched action movie. Thankfully, however, the chase is anticlimactic and, for that reason perhaps, isn’t as awful or cliche as it could’ve been. Argo also suffers from Too Many Endings Syndrome (TMES): the airplane, the press conference, the return home, Sam Gamgee at his door, “I’m back.” Although there were a lot of submerged FEELINGS about his wife and son and leaving them, etc. that layered Mendez’s character with some depth, there was a lack of actual son and actual wife in the film; what happens at the end of the film doesn’t really matter to viewer because that wasn’t the story you were invested in.

Still, Argo illuminates an interesting (and, at the time, horrifying) moment in American and Iranian history. It also shows that two governments – in this case, the American and Canadian - can work together to a successful conclusion. It is also, in its way, a critique of American interventionism in that part of the world, relevant and worth taking a closer at especially after the recent attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

Ben Affleck looks to continue his transformation into a talented director after Gone Baby Gone and The Town.  The movie, centered on the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979, looks like it might have a similar tone to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  That is, it will not be an action-oriented spy affair.  Rather, it likely will be a deliberately paced story where the focus will be on the human drama.  The heroes will be needing to outsmart their foes instead of shooting their ways out of Iran.

Review

Argo is an incredible, tension-filled movie, further validating Ben Affleck as a director.  Who knew walking to an airport gate would be so intense?

The movie revolves around the Iran Hostage Crisis where the a handful of American Embassy workers actually escape to the Canadian Ambassador’s home.  Unfortunately, they are on the verge of being discovered, and it’s up to Ben Affleck’s CIA character, Tony Mendez, to devise a plan to get them out of the country.  He concocts an elaborate cover story for them involving a fake science fiction movie that would be shot in Iran.

Despite the story being set decades ago, the story sadly still feels contemporary given the recent tragic loss of American lives at the U.S. Embassy in Libya.  Affleck’s recreation of the U.S. Embassy being stormed in Iran is a harrowing experience.

The movie splits time between Affleck’s CIA character and the American Embassy escapees.  The escapees provide the most drama as the group reaches a boiling point while essentially being trapped for days on end.  Although “free,” the danger is clearly taking a toll on them emotionally.  Watching Affleck develop the group’s cover story via a fake movie is the fun part of the film.  It’s much like watching the Ocean’s Eleven team prepare for their big con.  We enjoy the dramatic irony as the CIA heroes pull a fast one on Hollywood as they gear up for their real objective in Iran.

Affleck also takes the opportunity to enlighten a movie audience that perhaps does not know the back story behind how today’s Iran came to be.  In a bold choice, the movie uses a comic-book style introduction to summarize the events leading up to the Iranian Revolution.  It’s a much needed reminder, not just for the movie’s story, but also current events.

From the acting to the directing, Argo is an amazing movie.  It should be talked about again when awards season arrives.

This movie works incredibly well because the relationship between Officers Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Zevala (Michael Pena) it completely realized.  First credit here has to be go to the actors themself.  I’ve never been a huge Gyllenhaal fan, but this is his best performance as far as I’m concerned.  It has all of the nuance you’d want, but doesn’t seem over-emoted or predictable.  The reason for this, I think, is because Michael Pena is absolutely fantastic in End of Watch.  He forms the perfect other half of the relationship and the chemistry between the two actors renders the entire thing believeable.

Second credit for the relationship central to the film has to go to David Ayer’s screenplay.  The dialogue is realistic and by turns both affecting and hilarious– and despite the sheer volume of it, I never found it boring or repetitive.  From a film making standpoint this movie has some other strong points.  Some of the action is very well done, the violence shocking, and the tension at times was nearly unbearable.  That said, for some reason the film has an almost-realized found footage aspect.  I’m not sure about you, but found footage is pretty much played out as far as I’m concerned… And in this movie, it’s like they couldn’t quite decide if it was found footage or not.  It was used in maybe 85% or more of the footage, so too much to be just an enhancement to individual scenes.  And yet, at times End of Watch went omniscient when it had to.  Anyway, the found footage did nothing for this film.

I went in expecting a regular cop drama type of movie, and got a lot more than I bargained for.  A weird use of found footage style is the only thing that really didn’t work in this movie.

4 stars