Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

       Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol delivers exactly what it promises; an old fashioned, edge of your seat, popcorn munching roller-coaster ride.  I’ve said before that not all films have to be intellectual masterpieces.  Sometimes, just a well crafted adrenaline ride is all you need for a good time at the movies.  This is one of those.

Tom Cruise returns as IMF super spy Ethan Hunt.  The opening scene of a government team breaking him out of a Russian prison sets the stage for the introduction of all the characters on the new team and also sets the action tone of the movie.  Simon Pegg’s Benji is brought out of his lab rat role in previous MI films and adds comic relief as a newly minted field agent.  Paula Patton combines seductiveness and toughness as Jane, the film’s eye candy.  Up and comer Jeremy Renner as analyst Brandt (rumors that he may take over the franchise from Cruise) who has a secret past of his own rounds out the team.

The villain of the story is Michael Nyqvist, playing the rogue scientist Hendricks, who is obsessed with blowing up the world through orchestrating a nuclear war.  He feels that only the fittest would survive and make the human race stronger (very 80’s Bond plot).  Hendricks blows up the Kremlin and is able to frame the IMF team in the process.  Eager to avoid a war with Russia, the American government institutes ‘Ghost Protocol’ and disavows the entire team.  So, not only is Ethan and team trying to save the world, but they are on their own while doing it.  

Let’s be honest though, the plot is there to showcase the spectacular stunt scenes...and spectacular they are.  The one they play so over and over in the trailers that you would think you would be numb to it in the film takes place on the world’s tallest building; the Burg Khalifa in Dubai.  Reportedly Tom Cruise insisted on doing the stunts himself and not only that, but his stunt man was too afraid of heights to do it himself.  I’m not sure whether to respect Cruise’s courage or think he should be committed (I still remember the Oprah couch jumping incident).  Regardless, the trailers don’t prepare you for the intense arm rest clenching and vertigo from the scene.  Kudos to the stunt coordinator on this as it is one of the best cliff hanger scenes I’ve ever seen.

Like most of these types of movies, the action takes the IMF team around the globe to exotic locales.  This one doesn’t disappoint.  Paula Patton makes a strong impression while seducing an Indian billionaire in Mumbai (played by Indian Bollywood star Anil Kappor).  In fact, all the characters bring their action A performances.  Simon Pegg struck just the right tone of comic relief, but still indispensable as the laptop tech geek who can walk into any building and take over it’s elevators, cameras, and security systems.

There were many other spectacular stunts that are not getting the attention of the Dubai tower scene.  The scene were Benji leads Brandt through an air ventilation system by making him wear a magnetic suit that he controls from his laptop was unique, but it worked.  The fight scene in a space age parking garage where they battled atop of moving platforms was equally effective and nail biting.  The Director Brad Bird (whose previous credits were all animated films) did a great job and was a risky yet inspired choice to helm the film.  

The film was fun and time well spent.  I won’t rate it as one of the top films of the year, but i will rate it as one of the top films I had fun at this year.  If you go with that mind set then I highly recommend it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

This is a hard review for me to write as I am a huge Guy Ritchie fan.  I really respect what he tried to do with a unique take on the Sherlock Holmes mythos.  I also have huge amounts of respect for Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.  All that being said, I can’t say I enjoyed this film.  Maybe it’s just my hang up as the first one was popular enough to produce this sequel.  Still, there is something inherently unsatisfying about this film.  I feel it valued style over substance and action over plot.  There are lots of cool visuals and stunning action sequences, but the story left me less than impressed.

Guy Ritchie made his name on his hard edged style of movie making and I respect that.  I think it was a bold move to adapt the usually stuffy Sherlock Holmes character with a hip and more action adventure take.  All these great ingredients still needed to be brought together in a coherent format, which neither of these films do.

Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law return as the original dynamic duo of crime fighting.  This time around Holme’s most notorious adversary Moriarty (Jarred Harris) is the villain.  Moriarty is Holme’s intellectual equal in every aspect, but even more formidable as he is not encumbered with morality or  conscience.  As Holme’s investigation into the mysterious Moriarty deepens, it leads him around Europe as he uncovers a plan that has world devastating consequences.  Holme’s enlists the aid of his once constant companion Dr Watson, who is newly married with plans of retiring from his life of adventure.  

Watson’s involvement became confusing to me as I never really bought how Holme’s talked the newlywed onto the case and I never understood why Moriarty was fixated with him.  It was an odd plot device that I didn’t feel worked.  Downey’s eccentric interpretation of Holmes, while at times interesting, seemed a little over the top  and went to the excess merely for comedic value.  I liked the interpretation, but moderation would have made it more effective.

It was fun to see pre-WWI Europe which gave a sense of foreboding as Moriarty attempted to orchestrate the start of the war.  We know that no matter what the outcome of the movie, the war will indeed happen, so there is actually suspense in the inevitability of it.

A few interesting supporting characters were introduced, not the least interesting was Holme’s domineering older brother Mycroft Holmes (played by Stephen Fry who looks nothing like Holmes).  You can see that eccentricity runs in the family.  Also introduced was the enigmatic gypsy fortune teller Simza (Noomi Rapace).  Her main contribution was adding a female lead to an almost all male cast.  

There are some positive things to say about this film and I know many who have enjoyed this Guy Ritchie franchise.  For me, the dazzle and edge was not enough to make up for a rather mundane story line rife with cliche plot devices (does anyone still find it that amusing when men dress up as women for a disguise?).  I’ll still go see Guy Ritchie films, but this is not one that I will be repeating

I give this film ** stars

Shame

        Shame is a movie I have mixed feelings about.  It is an indie film that deals with the uncomfortable topic of sexual and pornography addiction, but it is in no way a gratuitous movie.  The film is rich and textured, yet does not so much follow a story or plot.  This is more of a character profile of a modern man in the 21st century.  He lives in a society where instant gratification is available with 24 hour convenience and a click of a button.

Brandon (played by the newest coolest actor on the planet, Michael Fassbender) is a New Yorker who shuns intimacy, but feeds his desires compulsively with pornography and prostitutes.  Brandon doesn’t fit the stereotype of what we would think a sex addict would look like.  He is charming and handsome and makes an above average living as an exec for a generically large corporation.  He is able to make married women swoon with just a glance and his low key cool persona makes him irresistible in the after work bar circuit.  The scene on the subway where Brandon seduces a woman (Lucy Walters playing an unnamed character) is completely without dialogue, yet one of the more powerful seductions I have ever seen on screen.  There is no physical contact between the two, yet you know that mentally, she has totally given herself to this stranger on the train.  Fassbender is able to convey seduction with just a look.

Brandon’s life begins to spin from his control with the arrival of his mentally unbalanced sister, Sissy (aptly named character played by Carey Mulligan) who needs a place to stay.  The film shows that they are both emotionally damaged and are antagonistic towards each other even as they are being supportive.  It’s interesting as we never are allowed to see the source of their emotional baggage.  It’s just there for us to see and make our own conclusions. She threatens the life of solitude that he has set up for himself.

As Brandon’s addiction grows worse, it begins to intrude upon his professional life.  Massive amounts of porn is found on his work computer and Brandon’s married boss begins to take an interest in Sissy.  The secret life intrudes upon his normal life. Brandon makes attempts at normalcy but can’t seem to make it work.  His date with an attractive co-worker (Nicole Beharie) goes astray when their conversation reveals that Brandon doesn’t see the reason for marriage or even relationships.  It seems it is a revelation for Brandon as well.  It is an intriguing conversation and it doesn’t really judge.  Like I stated earlier, it’s just profiles his life.

The director, Steve McQueen (not the actor) is an exciting new British director making a name for himself on the indie circuit.  This is McQueen’s second team up with Fassbender after the film ‘Hunger’.  His vision in ‘Shame’ is much more coherent than ‘Hunger’, but still lacks what I would call a story.  If you’re going to see this film for sexual thrills you will be in for a disappointment (even though it is very graphic).  The tenor of the film is voyeuristic, yet not arousing.  If you are going to see this film for full frontal Fassbender nudity, well that you will get.  No answers are given, no lessons are learned.  Epiphanies seem to happen, but nothing is really changed or resolved.  

I give this film ** 1/2 stars.  I feel I should give it more due to it’s boldness, but I won’t.

Young Adult

       Whatever becomes of the beautiful, self centered, most popular girl in school after high school ends?  The one that everyone hated, yet envied.  The one who casts aside her small town constraints for the bright lights and big city to become the metropolitan everyone knew she was destined to become?  Young Adult, the latest movie by Jason Reitman (who has already eclipsed his more famous director father Ivan, in terms of film making quality), provides a character profile into the disturbingly self-centered world of the high school princess who is past her glory days.

Charlize Therone, one of the most beautiful women in films today (and our favorite South African import), takes on this quintessential American caricature flawlessly.  Charlize plays Mavis Gray, a writer who has achieved some level of success as a writer of a once popular series of Young Adult novels.  Even though she is a ghost writer, her success is enough to ‘wow’ her hometown who view her as a big city success and the height of sophistication.  After Mavis’s divorce, she decides to relive her glory days and returns to her hometown with plans to rekindle romance with her high school boyfriend.  

Charlize could have played Mavis over the top, but this was a very restrained performance of a woman who never grew up past her glory days.  A woman who still feels like the princess she was in high school even though everyone else in her life has moved on with their lives (as mundane as they might be).  The director, Jason Reitman, is able to capture her depression and loneliness along with her feelings of superiority.  She returns to the small town she hates to validate her self worth.  She tries to be understood, but no one can relate (or tries to).  Even her parents think she is just being dramatic when she confides to them that she thinks she is an alcoholic. It was a funny scene, but sad as we realize that her parents are out of touch with her and would rather gloss over uncomfortable issues than deal with them.  She no longer has any human connection that she desperately seeks.

She runs into Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswald), while on a binge at a local bar.  Even though he instantly recognizes her, she cannot recall the nerdy handicapped classmate whose locker was right next to her’s for their four years of high school.  Matt’s character is there for comic relief, but their connection develops into some of the more poignant moments in the movie.  He is the unthreatening nerd who she is able to confide all her secret plans to break up her ex-boyfriend’s marriage.  He is her voice of reason, despite being totally enamored of her.  He lives the pain of the unpopular and abused, yet still retains his innate goodness despite his anger.

Mavis plans to seduce her ex-boyfriend, Buddy Slade (played with boyish charm by Patrick Wilson).  Buddy is a new father and blissfully happy in his role of family man.  He adores his comparatively plain jane wife and lives for his new born daughter.  Mavis cannot believe he is happy in his suburban life and seeks to rescue him from it.  When Buddy tells her he is happily married, she tells him not to worry “It’s something she can help him get past”.  

Again, this film had all the elements that could have made this an over-the-top silly ‘chick flick’.  However; a combination of skillful directing by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) and a smart script by Diablo Cody makes this a memorable if small film (it has an indie vibe to it).  I thought that the ex-stripper Diablo Cody would be a one hit writing wonder after the success of her indie film ‘Juno’.  She strikes again with this incredibly thoughtful and observant film and proves that she does have a voice worth listening to.  Diablo doesn’t lay it out for you.  She doesn’t allow us to make easy judgements or have tidy resolutions.  She has a deep understanding of the feminine psyche and can critique it while at the same time respecting it.  I greatly admire her talent and I will see anything she puts forward in the future.

This is a small, yet very well crafted film with lots of thought and emotion.

I give this film  **** stars

The Descendants

        There are different kinds of actors.  What I consider a true actor is someone that can transform themselves believably into different characters.  They can take on a persona or physical attribute that makes you forget that they are who they are.  Gary Oldman is one of these, as well as Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci.  These are all great actors, but there is something even higher and that is a Movie Star.  Their on screen presence, glamour and force of personality becomes the focus of the performance.  We never forget who they are. Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Katherine Hepburn; these are all Movie Stars. Add George Clooney to the list because he is a Movie Star.  That doesn’t mean he doesn’t give powerful performances, but we are aware that it’s Clooney that we are watching and his image fills box office seats.

The Descendants is a role for a more mature Clooney, still handsome and charming, but a less glamourous and more sophisticated character.  Clooney plays Matt King, a neglectful husband whose wife is in a coma as a result of a boating accident near their home in Waikiki.  Matt isn’t intentionally neglectful, but he has become complacent and distracted with the travails everyone faces in life.  A busy career, care taking of his family’s trust, troubled children who are constantly in trouble, and just the ennui of any family.  The King is a large family who are descendants of some of the original Western settlers of Hawaii.  As a result, they own large amounts of land that makes their net worth staggering, but Matt, the lawyer in the family, has been entrusted with guarding the fortune and leads a comparatively modest life administering the family assets.  he doesn’t believe any of the money should be touched and lives only off of his lawyer salary.

Matt’s marriage is troubled and with the accident that has left his wife in a permanent coma, he is forced to come to grips with his strained relationship with her and his true feelings.  He is also forced to come to a rapprochement with his two young daughters who spent the majority of their time with their mother while he worked.  I usually don’t care for child actors, but Shailene Woodley, as his in rehab/boarding school 17 year old daughter Alexandra, gave a performance that was as powerful and nuanced as Clooney’s.  She could have played it over the top and overly dramatic, but she managed to hit just the right notes of a troubled girl torn between loyalties to her two parents.  I feel in some ways she stole part of the movie from Clooney.  However, Clooney shined brightly in this and conveyed the emotion of someone who loved and hated his wife simultaneously. Their relationship caused him pain, but she was someone he loved and was at the core of a family he cherished (a big stretch for the eternal bachelor Clooney, but he captures it perfectly).

While Matt is facing the problem of the Government forcing him to sell back his land, he is also dealing with discovering his wife’s infidelities.  Despite the strained marriage prior to the accident, Matt becomes obsessed with who his wife was sleeping with.  Alexandra, who was aware of the affair all along, is more determined than even her father to find the man and prods him along when his resolution falters.  

Matt eventually finds the man (who happens to be married and has a family) and confronts him.  Matthew Lillard playing Brian Speer(in the first role I’ve ever seen him in outside of teenager movies), gives a painfully good performance of being confronted by the husband of the woman with whom he was sleeping.  His performance runs the gambit from terrified, to guilty, to defiant, to angry and then back through them all again.  I love to see actors like this evolve from their previous teen drama/comedies to become fully realized actors.  Brian’s innocent (but not naive) wife is played by Judy Greer with an equal level of complex emotions and subtlety.

The movie is heavy and emotional despite the light background of the paradise of Hawaii, but as Matt points out in the beginning of the film, that just because they live in paradise they suffer the trials of life the same as anyone else.  Clooney’s conversation and reconciliation with his comatose wife is some of his most powerful acting to date and I’ll be amazed if it doesn’t earn him an Oscar nomination.  Clooney is at a point where he can pick and choose his film projects and he has a rather good track record in recent years  (Up in the Air).  I like this Clooney much more than I like the slick  ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ Clooney and definitely much more than Jo’s boyfriend Clooney on ‘Facts of Life’.  He is a Movie Star in every sense of the word and delivers powerful, mature, and impactful performances.  

This is just a good film

I give this film **** stars  (more for performances than the actual movie)

Immortals

        Immortals is just one of those movies.  You get exactly what you expect.  It’s like an incredibly giant piece of chocolate cake.  You know it’s not good for you and you know you shouldn’t eat it, but you go ahead and do it anyway.  And just like a rich dessert, you feel slightly queasy afterward.  

Immortals is a Greek epic film that desperately wants to be the movie ‘300’.  It values style over substance and visual over story.  I have to admit that it is an optic feast of style and coolness, but alas it isn’t anything that we haven’t seen before and it wasn’t done anywhere near as well as ‘300’ (the Frank Miller masterpiece).  Whenever you have a film try to copy another film’s success it rarely provides anything satisfying.

The story recounts the quest of the mad King Hyperion (played psychotically by Mickey Rourke [he really has found his acting niche as the creepy tough guy]) to retrieve a magical bow that he will use to release the Titans (it helps to have an understanding of Greek Mythology to understand some of the motivations here).  He seeks to reignite the war between the Titans and the Olympian Gods.  Hyperion will raze every town necessary in order to acquire the bow.  He will even commit sacrilege against the Gods by pillaging one of their temples in order to acquire the virginal Oracle (Freda Pinto with an Indian accent that didn’t seem out of place) who can direct him to the bow. 

Into this tableau, we are introduced to a downtrodden peasant whose mountainside village is fleeing the onslaught of Hyperion’s armies.  Theseus (Henry Cavill [the man who will portray Superman next year]) is a scrappy young mamma’s boy with a spray tan, lot’s of coconut body oil, and apparently lots of time to spend on a Bowflex.  He does not care for the aristocracy in his village and is ultimately cast out after defending his mother’s honor.  It’s is not until he comes across the virginal Oracle (I don’t mean to keep using the word virginal but they did in the movie so I feel compelled to do so here) that he realizes that he has a greater destiny of opposing the evil King Hyperion.  The Oracle’s visions of his future guide his path that will lead to glory or despair.

The plot becomes less coherent and contrived from there.  The movie focuses excessively on the super hero like Greek gods and their epic slow motion battles.  Manly men do manly things as are wont to happen in Greek mythology and of course the Good Theseus finally meets the Evil Hyperion.  

I don’t mean to dwell on ‘300’ while doing a review of another movie, but the envy of that film in this was palpable.  Where ‘300’ was ground breaking, this film just felt recycled.  It’s the same lack of satisfaction you get when you realize you are eating a Hydrox cookie instead of an actual Oreo.  

If you want to go and be mesmerized by style and ambience  (even if a lot is creepy), then go right ahead and enjoy your dessert.  There’s nothing wrong with that; chow down.  But, if you are going expecting a main course then feast elsewhere.  This movie provides no nutritional value.

I give this film * 1/2 stars

Tower Heist

            I always approach movies with an ensemble cast with caution.  Of course there are exceptions, but most major star ensemble casts seem to produce mediocre movies that celebrate stars getting together over story line.  Tower Heist is no exception.  I will confess that I had fun, but it is an easily forgettable movie despite its’ good moments.  If you are looking for just a pleasant diversion then the movie is good enough.

                The movie’s story line fits right into the current ‘Occupy Wall Street’ and Bernie Madhoff news cycles.  It’s about the underpaid working guys getting taken advantage by the rich Wall Street guy.  Pure revenge escapism for the tough economic times we are in.  Ben Stiller plays Josh Kovaks, the affable manager of an exclusive apartment building in downtown Manhattan.  The building runs with the high tech security and precision of a military base, but Josh has an affection for all his quirky employees and richly eccentric tenants.  He even plays online chess with the wealthiest tenant, Arthur Shaw (played with left wing contempt of the character by Alan Alda).  The trouble starts when Arthur Shaw is arrested by the FBI for shady financial dealings and the staff comes to realize that Josh trustingly invested all their pensions in one of Shaw’s portfolios.  Their money is nowhere to be found.  Josh loses his job after aggressively confronting the unrepentant Shaw.

                Josh is positive that Shaw has a stash of hidden money in his apartment that the FBI hasn’t found.  Josh feels that his knowledge of the building makes him the ideal person to break in and find the money and thus return all the money that was lost to his friends.  He recruits others who were fired and even the evicted tenant Mr. Fitzhugh (played with wide eyed timidity by Mathew Broderick) to help him in his plan.  The one thing that is missing is a real criminal, so he finds the only one he knows, who also happens to be a childhood acquaintance, by the name of Slide (Eddie Murphy).  Even after all these years, Eddie Murphy can make me laugh doing the exact same things he has been doing for the last 30 years.  His character provides most of the energy and big laughs throughout the movie.  I wonder how many of his rants were ad-libbed because they seemed so effortless and spontaneous. 

                Arthur Shaw is straight out of the Wall Street Villain cliché handbook and the other characters, while enjoyably quirky, did not provide any surprises to the movie.   Even Tea Leoni, as  the FBI agent  leading the case against Shaw, is played generically and she is only in the movie to provide an unlikely love interest for Josh.  I want to spot light supporting actor Michael Pena who is quickly coming on my radar as a comedic actor to watch.  I first became aware of him in the film ‘Observe and Report’ (hilarious if not weird), but I enjoy everything he is in.  His character, Enrique Dev’Reaux, is understated but a perfect sidekick compliment to Josh.  Gabourey Sidibe as the Jamaican maid proves that she is not a one shot wonder in terms of acting ability.

                I laughed often and sometimes even hard, but the movie is incredibly predictable and there really is no doubt how everything will be resolved.   This is straight Hollywood cookie cutter movie making, but I enjoy my Chips Ahoy like everyone else on occasion.

I give this movie ** ½ Stars



The Rum Diary

The Rum Diary

I approach this review with caution.  There is no actor I respect more than Johnny Depp.  I will see any movie that he is in whether it looks like something I want to see or not.  Depp’s literary idol and personal friend was the late Hunter S. Thompson and he has been trying to get this movie made since before he was Captain Jack Sparrow.  It finally got made, but this movie will only find a niche market as it takes a certain type of person to appreciate Hunter S. Thompson (and that kind is rapidly disappearing). Thompson harkens back to the age of the hippie counter culture of the early 1960’s and his stories glorify excessive drug abuse and anti-establishment behavior.  The characters don’t really connect to modern sensibilities and there is very little that seems noble about a story that derives most of it’s nobility from drug abuse and poverty.

The Rum Diary is about a down and out writer, Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp), who departs the fast-paced capitalistic society of late Eisenhower era New York City for the pristine sunshine and beaches of Puerto Rico.  Paul fits right in as a writer for the local San Juan Star newspaper run by the downtrodden editor, Lotterman (veteran character actor Richard Jenkins is always a pleasure).  It’s a newspaper circling the drain and staffed by a ragtag group of reporters and writers who have reached their wits end and given up on life.  They spend their days drinking and getting high as they see their lives unraveling, but have no drive to stop it.  Puerto Rico is shown as the last stop for people who have no more options in life (a little insulting and arrogant I thought).  Thompson sees nobility in this type of despair and self abuse.

Kemp crosses path with a local kept woman name Chenault (played with arian protestant beauty by Amber Heard).  Chenault’s benefactor is a local developer named Sanderson (played with equal arian disdain by Aaron Eckhart).  It is Sanderson’s goal to develop the island into a tourist paradise at the expense of the local proletariat.  The story is straight out of the Marxist handbook, while much more impactful in the sixties, almost seems cliche and hollow (if not naive) in today’s world.  Sanderson strikes up an unlikely friendship with Kemp and hires him to write favorable articles about his plans for developing the island.   

Kemp continues to dwell in his  bottom feeder world as he makes friends with his fellow journalists.  Each of his friends are a character study in trying to out despair the other. The King of rock bottom is Moburg (played by another actor I revere, Giovanni Ribisi).  Moburg is a borderline street person who shows up to the newspaper offices only occasionally to collect his paycheck.  Moburg is so drug addled that he spends his day trying find extreme new ways to get high.  His performance is meant to be comic relief  (and it is often amusing), but glorifying this type of extreme drug abuse, while not necessarily offending my sensibilities,  I don’t find it appealing in a protagonist.  Ribisi is a fantastic actor and I have great admiration for his performance here despite my misgivings. Chenault’s character is played generically sexy.  She struggles with living a life of privilege (or is she a bored and spoiled socialite) and Kemp tempts her from her kept lifestyle by his supposedly more noble life of hangovers and hovel living.  

I have no problem with political movies that have agendas I don’t agree with.  As long as they are good, I can still enjoy them. The Motorcycle Diaries (semi-interesting that both these movies have ‘diary’ in the title) is a perfect example of a film that isn’t about Marxism directly, but it definitely gives it a sympathetic nod.  It was a fantastic and beautifully made film in which I didn’t necessarily agree with its’ politics, but admired the film greatly.  The Rum Diary not only does not make it’s case, but it is just downright boring.  I find nothing noble about people wallowing in self degradation and addiction and I find nothing inherently evil about other people striving to develop impoverished areas through Capitalism.  As far as I’m concerned it’s a social argument that’s long over (except maybe in California).  

Johnny Depp still remains one of my favorite actors and this film does show case some of his incredible talent.  I admire his devotion to getting a pet project made.  Other than that, this will be a quickly forgotten film that might only find life in a niche DVD market, much like the other Thompson/Depp collaboration; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  I considered this as a 2 hour waste of time that I will never get back.  At the very least, they could have show cased the beauty of Puerto Rico.   A missed opportunity.

I rate this film * star.

I gave it a star because I’m giving the film the benefit of a doubt for the several times I drifted off.

The Tree of Life

        I consciously passed on going to see The Tree of Life as I knew that it was an ‘art’ film.  A colleague of mine urged me to see it as, while he can’t say he enjoyed it, he was interested in my take on it as he was still thinking about it days later.  I think that is as good a description as any for the movie.  

The Tree of Life is a highly abstract movie and like viewing any work of abstract art, how one describes it says more about the viewer than what the film may or may not be trying to say.  Let me say that Terrance Malik’s creation is an incredibly beautiful visual and auditory odyssey (it even says in the beginning credits that it is best viewed at high volume).  If you are looking for a coherent storyline then you will be disappointed.  What you can take from the montage of images is that this is the story of Jack (played in adulthood by Sean Penn), a troubled man in the modern world trying to come to grips with his childhood and troubled relationship with his authoritarian father (played by Brad Pitt).  The story is non-linear and is more a series of images and feelings set to music and poetry.  It captures moments rather than a story from growing up in Waco Texas in the 1950’s.

The movie opens with news of the death of Jack’s younger brother (we assume it’s from Vietnam, but it never explicitly says so).  For the first 30 minutes of the movie we live the moments of a grieving mother and a father full of regret.  The movie then takes a unique turn and for the next 30 minutes gives us a visual opera of the birth of creation.  This is the most abstract part of the movie, but at the same time the most riveting.  The imagery of the birth of creation, to the creation of the earth, to the arrival of life is some of the most incredible cinematic artistry I have ever seen.  The power of the images are only heightened by an incredible operatic movie score.  Much like an abstract painting, you are not always sure what you are looking at, but you know when it  touches and moves you.  Words are not always effective (and sometimes a hinderance) in trying to describe it.  It must be experienced to appreciate it (or dismiss it).

The images are filled not only with the fire and power of creation, but also the rhythms of life.  The movie records rhythm from the very core of the universe to the smallest creature that begins to evolve on Earth.  The camera follows the formation of life as it it struggles to leave it’s primordial ooze and survive on land.  While this unfolds following our belief in evolution, there is definitely a feeling of God or something majestic in the grand design of it all.  I couldn’t avert my eyes during the odyssey.

As the creation montage ends and one is still reeling from what they just saw we witness the birth of Jack.  We feel the insignificance of his birth after witnessing the grand design, but we realize his part in the tapestry of life and he fits seamlessly into the rhythm of existence.

The next part of the movie doesn’t really tell a story per se, rather it paints a portrait of feelings and memories.  There is no individual significance to each of the moments portrayed, but as the film progresses you begin to see the pattern in the tapestry of his life and there is a certain majesty to it’s commonness (How’s that for an assessment of a piece of art?  Pretentious and contradictory).  There is nothing extraordinary about Jack’s life.  It was probably the experience of countless others from the time period, but it fit perfectly into life’s grand design.  

As the movie draws to it’s final chapter all the moments and people of Jack’s life are drawn together and we share with Jack his feelings of forgiveness, love, and release.  These moments are as abstract as the creation of the universe, but treated with equal awe and wonderment.

It’s difficult to review a movie that does not necessarily have a traditional storyline.  It’s hard to strike a balance where you will either sound like a pretentious bohemian poser or an unsophisticated dolt.  The movie doesn’t easily lend itself to review.  I will say that whether you like or dislike the film, Terrence Malik must be respected for his vision and artistry.  Unlike some works of abstract art that is dismissed for it's banality, one can feel the power and force of this work.  I’m not sure I can recommend it to anyone, but I have to admire and applaud the craftsmanship.

I rate this film **** (strictly for form, not enjoyment)

Real Steel

       I’m a little late reviewing this movie as I was not highly motivated to go see it.  Before I get into the criticisms of this movie (and there are many), let me start off by saying that I did have a good time and enjoyed myself.  This movie targets the same demographics as the Transformers series, but unlike the Transformers, there is a story and characters we cared about.  If I had to describe this movie, it would be Transformers meets Rocky meets Rokem’ Sokem’ robots (the child hood game).  

The story takes place in the near future where robots have taken over in the boxing ring as the public constantly wants bigger and badder entertainment.  Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a once fighter who had a title chance before robots took over.  He is now a small time boxing promoter trying to scrape by in underground robot fighting.  His life is a mess and he continues to spiral downwards with no end in sight.  When Charlie hits rock bottom, he discovers that an estranged girlfriend of his died and his  9 year old son Max (Dakota Goyo), whom he barely knows, suddenly comes back into his life.  Through a series of questionable legal maneuvers (only in the movies), Charlie finds a way of making money by agreeing to take care of his son for the summer until his deceased wife’s wealthy sister can take care of him.  Charlie plans to leave Max in the care of his girlfriend (Evangeline Lilly), but Max forces Charlie to take him along by confiscating his keys (I rolled my eyes too).  What follows is a no holds bar foray into the world of underground robot boxing.  I didn’t know they would even let a 9 year old into those type of clubs, but hey, it’s a movie.  As the stakes are raised, Charlie and Max must assemble a robot that will take them to the ultimate robot championship, while finding each other in the process (I know, I’m wincing as I write this).

Again, I enjoyed this movie, but I also felt that the enjoyment was manipulated and not organic. This was cookie cutter film making.  The movie followed the underdog genre as close as a paint by numbers landscape painting kit.  Like a paint by numbers set, you appreciate the picture after it’s done, but there is no satisfaction and just a bit of guilt for how uninspired it is.

One thing I never overcame was Hugh Jackman.  He was supposed to play a down and out over the hill man hitting rock bottom, but frankly, Hugh is just too good looking for this role.  He is as clean cut and chiseled as he has ever been and he flashes his charming smile more often than George Clooney at a Sports Illustrated photo shoot.  He looks like a guy at the top of his game as opposed to a bottom dweller.  They throw in a 5 o’clock shadow, but even that is emaculately groomed. Then of course the thing I hate the most; precocious kids.  I’m not sure why writers consider obnoxious know-it-all kids to be endearing, but Max really was annoying.  And I never bought how a 9 year old can navigate the adult world better than any adult.  Especially the underground world, where any kid would be wetting his pants dealing with shady characters and brutal situations.  Max has no problem talking smack to leather clad mohawked drug addicts.  Max just proceeds along teaching his father wholesome family values while dwelling in cesspools of humanity.

I will say that I am thankful they tried to develop the characters, but it was just all so contrived that not only could I predict what was going to happen in the next scene, I could almost predict what the next lines of dialogue would be.  

The villains were generic rich bad guys and I’m still not quite sure how the down and out father and son team managed to score a world title fight with a few months, but of course they did.  I’m not going to give any plot spoilers other than if you’ve seen any Rocky movie then you’ve seen this.  I even read somewhere, that some of the choreography was taken directly from Rocky IV  (Sugar Ray Leonard was a consultant for the rest).

This would be a great movie to take any kids in your family and have everyone enjoy it, but if you are looking for something even marginally sophisticated, then move on.  There’s a lot of emotional heart-string tugging and a lot of vibrating bass in the soundtrack to give the film the illusion of gravitas, but it’s about as heavy as a helium balloon.

Fun, but I can’t recommend anything other than a family outing.  

I give this film **stars

Ides of March

Ides of March is an intriguing movie of how the political process works in America.  The movie follows the final days of a close Democratic primary battle in Ohio.  The thing I really liked is that this movie had little to do with political ideology.  This could very well have been a movie about a Republican primary. It illustrates how little ideology has to do with how campaigns are run and the compromises and back room deals that even the most idealistic candidate must make in order to win.

The film follows the campaign of Governor Mike Morris (played presidentially by George Clooney) as he campaigns to win the Ohio primary, a must win State if one wants to win the Presidency.  The story is told through the perspective of a young, up and coming, and idealistic press secretary; Steven Myers (played by one of my new favorite actors, Ryan Gosling).  Gosling is in his element here and delivers another knock out performance.  Like Tom Cruise, Gosling can act with intensity, yet Gosling doesn’t have to demonstrate it over the top like Cruise.  You can sense the power behind his subtle facial expressions. Gosling had no trouble holding his own with veteran actors, Clooney, Giamati, and Hoffman.  No dismissive accomplishment when you consider Clooney had a mullet and was appearing on bad sitcoms when he was Gosling’s age.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays Myer’s boss, Paul Zara and the great Paul Giamatti plays the opposing press secretary, Tom Duffy.  Again, political ideology is not the focus of this film as it takes place almost entirely in the Democratic circle.  Republicans are barely mentioned.  Myers lives and breathes the campaign and is the one person who is not a realist among the ensemble.  He truly believes in Gov. Morris and is able to justify his spins to the press as what is necessary to propel his righteous candidate to the White House.  What he doesn’t know is that political story spinning to the press is the least of the evils that must be done in the game of politics.  His boss Paul warns him that he must be careful in idolizing great men as, like anyone, they will invariably disillusion you. 

What we don’t realize is the depths of amorality that Steven is capable of when pushed.  The director does a credible and capable job at revealing the change in Steven as his illusions crumble around him. You see that no matter who you are, ideals will eventually give way to reality in politics.  Steven becomes more adept and ruthless than either he or the audience thought he was capable.  The young intern Molly (played seductively by Evan Rachael Woods) is the catalyst that starts Steven’s downward path (or correct path depending on your point of view).  As a scandal breaks out when the Governor is accused of having an affair with the young intern, all chaos and panic breaks loose in the campaign.  Paul mentors young Steven; a candidate can start a war or drive the country to bankruptcy, but his campaign can’t survive an intern scandal (or something to that effect).

All the players, including the idolized Governor Morris, start to show their true talents in politics as they make compromises and back room deals in order to keep the campaign alive.  Each person, including the young and naive Steven, try to orchestrate Machiavellian moves in an escalating game of one up-manship.  Not only are they fighting their opponents in the other camp, but they soon turn on each other.

The film is powerful and flows like a suspense and intrigue movie.  It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know or haven’t heard or suspected about politics, but to see it laid out before us is truly sobering.  We see that ultimately, the person who wins has had to put his ideology on the back burner to achieve his position.  Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter; all that matters is winning.  It’s a tough pill to swallow, but one that makes us realize why things really never change significantly, no matter what we are promised on the campaign trail.  I give this movie top marks for superior acting performances from a superior ensemble of actors.

I give this movie ****stars

50/50

      Inspired by the true life illness of the film’s writer Will Reiser, 50/50 takes us on a journey through cancer that is as comedically touching as it is heartrending. This film could have gone overboard by making a depressing film about a 27 year old who discovers he has a rare aggressive form of cancer or it could have been an inappropriate obtuse comedy making light of one of the most serious things that could happen to a person.  Instead, the film blends the two resulting in a spiritually uplifting, yet sobering film of a tragedy that could happen to anyone.  The film’s script and pacing is nothing technically impressive, but the talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ana Kendrick, and Angelica Houston bring nuanced and powerful performances that leave us emotionally drained as well as immensely amused.  The film illicits tears from both laughter and tragedy.  Not an easy mix.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a twenty-something NPR writer who is living the life of any young person in Seattle.  He has a semi-serious relationship with a beautiful girl named Rachael ( the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard), a hilariously obnoxious best friend (Seth Rogan playing Kyle [Seth is writer’s Will Reiser’s real life friend who he based this character on]) and a life of coffee and political debate that is progressing just as it should at his age.  The one thing detracting from his ideal life is a prominent back ache that won’t go away.  Adam reluctantly goes to have it checked out. The scene where Adam learns of his illness from an indifferent and distracted Doctor begins the journey that makes us realize this isn’t just a typical movie.  The director and the incredible acting of Gordon-Levitt captures the roller coaster of emotion through tight camera shots as opposed to dialogue.  Adam learns that he has a 50/50 chance of survival. The scene becomes more powerful as Adam tunes out the doctor’s medical ramblings and his emotions turn inward.  I was never a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a child actor on ‘3rd Rock from the Sun’.  I thought he would grow up to be another failed cliche Hollywood child actor.  I was completely wrong. I feel he has already turned in an impressive body of work and I don’t even think he has hit full stride yet.  His work on ‘500 Days of Summer’ was inspired and his role in ‘Inception’ shows that he can hang at the blockbuster level.  I’m looking forward to what’s next from him.

Back to the film; Adam turns to his girlfriend Rachael for support.  She says she will stick with him as that is what society demands of us, but she is too distracted by her artistic self-centeredness to be of any real support and becomes more distant instead of closer.  Adam’s obnoxious best friend Kyle does his best to keep Adam’s spirits up, but really isn’t able to express the true emotional support needed.  However, throughout all of Kyle’s bluster you can see his true depth of emotion and affection for Adam even if he can’t demonstrate it.  Angelica Houston plays Adam’s mother.  She is so overbearing that Adam reluctantly tells her in anticipation of her reaction.  She is already caring for Adam’s Alzheimer suffering father and this is another burden threatening to break her.  Ms. Houston could have played the overbearing mother comedically over the top (and she does), but she also infuses her character with an incredible strength, that despite Adam’s reluctance, he comes to rely on.

Adam joins a cancer group in the hospital and they all sit around each week receiving their chemo therapy.  This group imparts comedy as well as wisdom as long suffering cancer patients.  Veteran actors Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall bring emotional depth to their comedic roles.  They try to brighten Adams outlook, but behind their goofiness you can see the sadness in their eyes that cancer as struck someone so young as Adam.  As bad as cancer is for them, it is something they realize comes often during the later years in life.  It breaks their heart to see young Adam so ill even as they struggle with their own diseases.  

Some of the most poignant scenes are between Adam and the hospital psychiatrist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick).  Anna is only 24 years old and Adam is her 3rd patient ever.  Her earnestness and frequent professional missteps are charming.  She struggles to maintain calm and professionalism, but her inexperience does not allow her to keep that objectiveness.  You sense that both Adam and Katherine are trying to keep their emotional distance, but they can’t and you see both their walls crumble as their therapy progresses.

Whatever qualms I have about the television style pace in the beginning of this movie are quickly forgotten by the third act.   As Adam faces life and death, the acting rises to powerful and emotional levels by which only the hardest hearts couldn’t moved.  The gambit of emotions where you laugh, cry, stare transfixed, and squirm uncomfortably in your chair show the true talent of the Director, Jonathan Levine and show that all of these actors are the real deal.  It’s a small film with many flaws, but has a big emotional impact.

I give this film *** 1/2  stars

Drive

      Drive is a film about which I’m not sure how I feel.  It is nothing what I expected, but it held my interest the all the same.  Seeing the trailers, I expected something along the lines of ‘The Transporter’ or maybe even something akin to Steve McQueen’s 1968 classic ‘Bullit’.  The film didn’t resemble either of those two.  Reading some other reviews, many critics compared it to Clint Eastwood’s ‘Man with no Name’ Spaghetti Westerns due to the lead character’s mysterious personage.  I see what they are talking about, but as the film progressed, I thought what it was most comparable to was the hit TV series of the 1980’s, ‘Miami Vice’, but not in a bad or cheesy way.  The film is highly stylized and it values  visual aesthetics over dialogue.  This sounds like a bad thing, but artistry in films does not always have to come from the story.  A skilled film maker can sometimes paint a vivid and intriguing atmosphere with a minimalist dialogue or plot.  Sometimes the viewer gets a more satisfying experience by filling in the story themselves while being swept along by the film’s beauty.

The hero of the story is simply known as Driver (Ryan Gosling).  He drives for hire, whether as a stunt driver for movies during the day or as a getaway driver for heists at night.  He is mysterious and his impassive face betrays no hint of his past or where his life is heading.  He is the best and anyone who meets him knows it.  Ryan Gosling is someone I have raved about this year (and it seems he is in almost every movie this year as well).  He is an incredible actor whose choice in roles are very odd yet respectable, but they haven’t made him a household name yet.  Many of the movies he has done I have not liked, but I really respect his incredible talent.  I feel he was snubbed for an Oscar nomination in ‘Blue Valentine’ and I feel his work in ‘Lars and the Real Girl’ should be required viewing in any acting class (it was too small and quirky of a film to catch national attention, but if you get the chance, see it).  This movie, once again, demonstrates his ability.  Under a lesser actor, the character of Driver would have all the depth of a cardboard box.  Gosling infuses worlds of meanings into an emotionless character who usually responds with monosyllabic responses. The camera lingers on his emotionless face and the audience project their own feelings onto him as they try to decipher what’s going on behind his stoic eyes.

As I stated earlier, this is an exercise in style.  The visuals are not a typical action film palette of quick change jerky camera angles or 360 degree pivots.  The film takes it’s time and allows you to take in the nuances, right down to the subtle creak of Driver’s gloves.   I sometimes think that European directors make unorthodox choices when they try to do action films (this time not in a good way) and the Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn is no exception.  The movie is oddly paced to say the least and the soundtrack is completely inappropriate to what we are seeing on screen.  Where Quentin Tarantino is able to skillfully choose unorthodox music that fits perfectly, the music in this film felt overly synthesized and a throwback to 1980s genre films.  I felt it really detracted from the film.

Back to the story; Driver lives a solitary life of driving for hire.  It is not until his neighbor Irene (the vulnerable Carey Mulligan) and her son enter his life that he begins to soften.  The imminent release of her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), from jail changes their dynamic and Driver attempts to retreat back into his life of solitude.  Unfortunately, Standard brings his troubles back to his family and when Driver realizes the whole family is in jeopardy, he offers his driving services for a heist to help Standard square away his mob debt.  The heist goes horribly wrong and Driver finds himself in a situation where the mob is after him and Standard’s family.

Albert Brooks (Defending Your Life) does a great job playing out-of-character as a local mob boss.  Brooks is known for his comedic acting, but he plays the gangster Bernie Rose as an affable, yet definitely slimy and sinister person.  Ron Pearlman plays his partner with equal menace.  If we are talking sheer acting, then I want to spotlight Driver’s down-on-his-luck employer, Shannon (Bryan Cranston).  Once I thought Bryan Cranston would be a pigeon-holed comedic actor due to his work as the bumbling father on ‘Malcom in the MIddle’.  His work since then has been nothing short of extraordinary.  He made a dramatic name for himself on the ground breaking TV show ‘Breaking Bad’ and he further proves his abilities in this film.  Shannon was once a former stunt man himself, but since falling on the wrong side of the mob he is a broken man who runs a garage repair shop and helps Driver find driving gigs.  He is a tragic character for, while he tries to look out for Driver, his loser nature causes nothing but problems.  He can’t help himself, it’s who he is.  

In deference to the critics, I can see the connection that could be made to the Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Westerns, but other than the silent loner who saves the day for ordinary people from oppressive bullies plot, I did not see much more in common.  Sergio Leone’s movies were almost operatic in nature  (the Ennio Morricone soundtracks certainly helped).  Drive does not have that feel.  It’s more of a fashion show.  Striking camera shots and daring (yet realistic) choreography.  Don’t go to this film if you are expecting an action movie.  This movie doesn’t spoon feed you the story, it makes you add your own meaning and dialogue.  It’s worth seeing, but is not necessarily a satisfying movie going experience.

I give this film *** (because I give credit for uniqueness)