Django Unchained

         Quentin Tarantino’s latest effort ‘Django Unchained’ is all that one expects from him.  Tarantino is obsessed with the schlocky genres of his youth and not only creates great works of art out of these forgotten formats, but relishes trying to cross the line of decency doing it.  His work is nostalgic, ultra-violent, action packed, cool, and surprising... incredibly funny.  If you are a Tarantino fan, then ‘Django Unchained’ doesn’t disappoint even if I don’t feel it’s his best effort.  This time Tarantino visits the Spaghetti Western genre in what can only be called a ‘Southern’ as most of the action takes place in the pre-Civil War South instead of out West. 

Christoph Waltz is cast as bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz.  He is hot on the trail of three fugitive brothers he has never seen, so he frees a slave who once belonged to the brothers so he can have someone identify them.  Django (Jamie Foxx) is that slave, but once free, Django has an agenda of his own; to free his still enslaved wife, Broomhilda (played by the stunning Kerry Washington).  Despite himself, Schultz is moved by Django’s plight and promises to help Django find his wife if Django agrees to help him track down bounties over the winter.  Django agrees and proves to be a natural at bounty hunting and, despite society still not accepting him, finds his niche.

Once Django and Schultz track Broomhilda’s whereabouts to a Southern plantation owned by a malicious man named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) the fun starts.  Schultz hatches a plan to rescue Broomhilda, where they must go in under the guise as slave traders and negotiate her release.  Of course, it can’t be that simple and there are the trade mark twists and turns that mark every Tarantino film.  The situations are painfully tense, gruesomely gory, and incredibly funny all at the same time.  Who else can do that as good as Tarantino?

Much of the film is an exercise in revenge anger and white guilt.  Tarantino relishes too much in using words and setting up situations that would leave him reviled by the general public if he were anyone but Tarantino.  Many of the situations are exaggerated with no basis in historical truth, but hey, as Tarantino says, he is God when he is writing,  he can create anything he wants.  Just like ‘Inglorious Basterds’ didn’t follow WWII facts closely (or at all), ‘Django Unchained’ follows it’s own path.  It’s still a great ride.

There are so many things that are fun in Tarantino movies.  Most of the soundtrack could have been taken right out of a 70’s Western as well as the retro fonts used in the credits.  The rest of the music would seem to be wildly inappropriate, but Tarantino makes it work.  Who would have thought you could play rap music while riding horses in the mountains and have it fit perfectly?  It’s also enjoyable to try and recognize actors from the 70’s and 80’s that Tarantino is obsessed with sprinkling throughout his films.  Everything from Tom Wopat as the Marshall to Don Johnson as Big Daddy.  I think I even spotted Bruce Dern in there.  Michael Parks is a supporting actor that Tarantino uses frequently in his films and I don’t know how this guy isn’t more famous.  Probably one of the best unrecognized actors out there.  He plays two roles in the film ‘Kill Bill’ and you would never know he was the same actor.  One of the most gifted artists out there.

If you like Quentin Tarantino and/or Spaghetti Westerns, go see this film.  You will have a lot of fun.  It’s a tribute to the past genre while stepping over boundaries in a modern way as only Quentin can do.  Like I said, it’s not his best work, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good film.  Despite how I described this film, it’s also not a bad romance story.  Christoph Waltz proves himself again and Jamie Foxx might want to try to find more Western roles as he makes a great cowboy.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi947037209/

I give this film ***1/2 stars

This is 40

  Judd Apatow is one of my preferred comic writer/directors.  He is able to combine gross out humor with stories that have heart and substance.  His style reminds me of Director John Hughes’ style from the 80’’s.  Instead of finding comedy with teenage angst he finds it in mid-life crisises and ennui.  I consider ‘The 40 year old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ to be two of the best comedies produced in the last decade, both by Apatow.  He is able to examine the mundane and make us laugh and appreciate what’s right in front of us.  He also helped launch the careers of people like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.  ‘This is 40’ is definitely an Apatow film, but he is more focused on the heart than the comedy (not to say there aren’t several Apatow moments in the film, it just has a more somber tone than his other films (Funny people may be the exception).

‘This is 40’ is a “sort of sequel” to ‘Knocked-up’.  Pete and Deb, the bickering married couple from that film, take center stage in this one.  There is really no other connection or reference to ‘Knocked up’ other than that.  It takes place 5 years later as both of them are turning 40 (Deb still insists she is 38) and coming to grips with the difficulties of marriage and family life.  This is an examination of the reality of marriage that is rarely told in the story books. How does love survive when the passion fades, and the bills mount, and the kids enter adolescence?  Can you truly feel passionate about someone who has no problems asking you to examine their rectum or is able to carry on a conversation with you while you are sitting on the toilet?  We laugh at these scenes while at the same time realizing how hard it is to keep the flame going when they know about that side of each other.  We all strive for closeness, but is it possible to be too close and still keep the flame of love alive?  

It’s not all seriousness, and Apatow is a master at finding the hilarity in supporting characters.  Jason Segal plays Deb’s personal trainer Jason.  He’s that guy all men hate as you know he just does his job to try and hit on women, and probably yours.  For some reason, women always seem completely unaware of their intentions. Jason Smigel plays Pete’s equally miserably married confidante Barry.  They bond over cycling and coffee shops, continually discussing how rough their marriages are.  And then there is Deb’s lead sales girl in her boutique store, played by Megan Fox.  Who knew that Megan Fox had comic timing?  I have never been a fan of hers, but she was actually very funny in this.  I have new respect.

I give Apatow credit as it is difficult to find comedy in such an over worked premise as a bored married couple.  A lot of the film works because of the quality of the actors, but you can’t deny Apatow’s talent at seeing the humor in tedium.  Everyday things that we would find annoying and frustrating in everyday life, we laugh at endlessly here.  Who would have thought a family’s failing business and the prospect of losing their house could be funny?  Somehow Apatow finds the humor.

This is a quality movie, but definitely not one of Apatow’s best.  Witty and insightful, but somehow still missing the mark that would make it a classic movie like ’40 year old Virgin’.  This would be a good date movie for married couples.  It reminds us that, while passion is important, it is only part of what love is about and how important family is in surviving life’s struggles.  No matter how frustrated you may be with your life.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1234741017/

I give this film ** 1/2 stars

Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher, based on Lee Child’s novels (use that word loosely), is an incredibly mediocre action film despite its’ impressive cast and director.  I’m not sure why Cruise feels he needs a new franchise at this stage in his life, but this is an obvious attempt to start one.  To be honest, I didn’t know they still made action films like this.  It’s an exercise in loner machismo fantasy, which I’m all for in principle, but falls incredibly short of the mark.  Remember Stallone’s ‘Cobra’ or Schwarzenegger’s ‘Commando’ back in the 80’s?  Well, it’s like those, but lacking the in depth character development (I tried to infuse that sentence with sarcasm in case you missed it).  

Jack Reacher plays an ex-military investigator who drops off the grid after becoming disgruntled.  He wanders from adventure to adventure showing up only when needed as no one is able to find him.  Owning only the clothes on his back, but surprisingly clean cut, he shows up during a crisis and is able to do what he wants without consequence because ‘he has nothing to lose’.  He is self-proclaimed brilliant with an eidetic memory and is instantly able to change the course of an investigation by bursting into any police captain’s office.  

In this case, Reacher is attracted to a case where a gunman caught after a random shooting spree turns out to be a former military sniper Reacher tried to put away in Iraq yet failed.  Reacher swore someday that he would make the sniper pay, but his curiosity is piqued when the gunman’s sole request after getting caught is ‘Get me Jack Reacher’.  He has faith that Jack Reacher will find the truth despite his personal animosity for him.  

Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo play the by the book District attorney and lead detective respectively.  Of course, Reacher’s rogue ways drive them crazy, but they can’t deny his greatness (slipping in sarcasm again). Helen, the sniper’s Public Defender and for plot twist also the D.A.’s daughter (isn’t that a conflict of interest) is played lustfully by Rosemund Pike.  She is an actress who is much too good to playing a mere eye candy role, but I feel that most of the actors in this film were above this material.  Most of the film, she spends more time trying to resist her feelings of lust towards Reacher than trying to defend her client.  In fact, almost every woman in the movie is instantly mesmerized by Reacher’s sheer manliness.  I never knew an unemployed middle-aged drifter could be so attractive to such a wide variety of women.  

I will say that the unravelling of the crime itself was interesting.  There were some major jumps at logic and going down certain investigative paths that seemed improbable, but it was still a clever paradigm shifting discovery.  Again, for a loner with only the clothes on his back, it stained credulity at how seriously people took him and how much access he was given to highly sensitive information.  He entered every situation by bursting unchallenged through office doors and got out of every difficult situation by beating someone up.  

The villain is played by the great German director, Werner Herzog, playing a Russian mobster who does evil stuff just to show how evil he is. Misshappen and  crippled, because ugly people are always the bad guys. I wasn’t even exactly sure what the goal of his evil plan was, but it had to be evil because he liked doing evil.  Again, a great artist who lowered himself to be in this film

This is a pure macho fantasy that will appeal to any military obsessed, camouflage wearing over weight nerd living in his parents basement or to any loner with survivalist fantasies.    The action was strictly by the numbers and not even that well done.  Say what you want about Cruise, but he is better than this.  I predict this will not become the franchise that was hoped for (thankfully).  See this movie if you want to see a lot of guns fire and some mildly intriguing plot twists.  ‘Movie hint’:  you can always tell a film will be bad by the trailer when you see all these quotes saying how ‘Tremendous’, ‘Must not miss’, or ‘Spectacular’ the movie is.  If the quotes go by incredibly fast and you can’t read who the quote belongs to because the font is too small to read, then you know they aren’t credible sources and the film will probably be a dud.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1921754905/

I give this film * 1/2 stars

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson’s ‘The Hobbit’ is a movie I don’t really feel qualified reviewing.  The J.R. Tolkein books were something I never really connected with as a child.  I admired and respected the creativity, the scope, and the grandeur of the world Tolkein created, but it never resonated with me like with its’ legions of fans.  To me, it was always just that tedious reading assignment from my high school British Literature class.  If you enjoyed the ‘Lord of The Rings’ trilogy, then this is a welcome and respectable prequel addition.  If you didn’t enjoy it, at least you know what to expect.

In the book series, “The Hobbit’ was almost a children’s tale, whereas ‘The Lord of The Rings’ expanded upon the world created in ‘The Hobbit’ and made the themes much darker and  mature.  The movie version of ‘The Hobbit’ continues ‘The Lord of the Rings’ dark atmosphere and admirably continues the franchise.  It’s been said that Tolkein created ‘The Lord of the Rings’ as a metaphor for World War II.  Whether you believe that or not, it definitely is a more violent and war based story than ‘The Hobbit’.  This film is more of an epic quest than an epic battle.

The story follows a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who is reluctantly recruited by the wizard Gandalf I(an McCellen) to aid a troupe of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their mountain home from the dragon Smaug.  Along the way we are given insight to the world laid out before us in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and introduced to characters and things that will be major players in that future story.  In some ways, I almost wish Peter Jackson would have followed suite with the books and made this a more kid friendly story, but who am I to argue with success?  Peter Jackson is doing just fine without my advice.  

Even though we visit familiar characters and locales, Jackson does a great job at making it all seem fresh.  There is the same excitement and sense of adventure as from the ‘LOTR’ trilogy without any of it seeming recycled.  Even though Frodo makes a brief appearance, he was not missed as Bilbo more than filled the role of reluctant hero.  The troupe of dwarves, led by the King-in-waiting, Thorin  (Richard Armitage), provided both comic relief and at the same time infinite respect for their courage and determination.  They are fierce warriors in a land of giants.  

The dwarves story of exile from their fortress mountain kingdom by the dragon Smaug provides the basis of the story.  I wish they would have delved more deeply into the history of the dwarves as, the little bit we did see, I found it very compelling.  Especially their estrangement from the etherial elves who abandoned them in their time of need.  The strained relationship was hinted at in ‘LOTR’, but only elaborated upon a little in this story.  And of course, we are introduced to Gollum (Andy Serkis), keeper and guardian of the ‘precious’ ring.  Once again, the special effects used to create Gollum are impressive and Andy Serkis’s performance deserves Academy notice, even though he will always be overlooked because visually his character is digital.  They once overlooked super hero movies for the Academy Award and Heath Ledger changed that.  Maybe there will be hope for digital characters in the future.

Overall, if you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed.  The film is respectable in its’ epic scope and story telling.  If you are not a fan like me, you will admire the achievement and complexity of story telling, but occasionally you will look at your watch to see when this thing ends.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

I give this film *** stars

Life of Pi

          Life of Pi is a unique movie which I’m surprised was only rated PG.  It is definitely not a children’s movie despite being based on a children’s book and having a PG rating.  The subject matter is powerful and at times abstract and some of the scenes of violence are quit intense.  Overall, it was an intriguing spiritual journey, yet one that I found over rated.  Reviews have compared it to Avatar, but I found the only similarity was the use of the occasional phosphorous scenery.  If I had to compare it to another movie, it would be a more metaphorical version of ‘Castaway’ with Tom Hanks. 

The film centers on an Indian boy named PI (Ayush Tandum) whose family has decided to sell their zoo and move to Canada for a new life.  On the ship voyage across the Pacific they encounter a violent storm which capsizes the boat and only Pi and a Bengal tiger survive by making it to the life boat.  Pi is adrift in the middle of the Pacific in a life boat with a wild tiger facing starvation.  Not an attractive scenario given that Pi is probably viewed as food.

The majority of the film takes place on the life boat with Pi and the Tiger (named Richard Parker [interesting story behind the name]) trying to find a way to co-exist in the face of death and starvation.  What I admire about this film is that they didn’t try to humanize the tiger as most films would.  Richard Parker is not one of our jungle friends.  He is a predator.  Not good or evil, rather it’s just what he is.  Pi believes he can see the tiger’s soul in it’s eyes, and he very well might be able too, but that doesn’t mean that the tiger will act like a human.

The early scenes of Pi trying to survive are intensely realistic and terrifying given the tiger’s ferocity.  I made the mistake of taking my 11 year old niece and it was a little too much for her.  Slowly, the two develop a way to co-exist, but with the proper fear and respect that the tiger could kill him at any moment if he lets his guard down.  These were some of the more poignant scenes in the film as the mutual respect slowly established itself.  The two are adrift for longer than one would think possible, but Pi develops survival skills that keep both himself and Richard Parker minimally fed.

As the weeks pass, the film transcends into abstraction.  The director Ang Lee was obviously influenced by Avatar in his use of phosphorus colors at night and utilizes the Ocean’s full color palette and beyond.  It’s as if as Pi becomes more delirious from his journey, we participate in his delirium.  From here, we begin to lose track of what is reality and what is metaphor.  The voyage into Pi’s spiritual revelations are laid out before us to interpret.

My major issue with this film is that towards the end Ang Lee feels the need to spell out what all the symbolism means as opposed to letting us come up with our own answers.  When you paint by the numbers with spirituality, it loses something, I think.  I did like that the answers weren’t necessarily as clear cut as a typical Hollywood movie would portray.  It’s safe to say that there will not be any Richard Parker stuffed tiger animals as Charlie is portrayed the way a tiger actually is and not the way we want them to be.

As I stated earlier, don’t go expecting a kid friendly PG film because, despite the rating, it is violent and intense.  The suffering that Pi and the tiger endure being adrift at sea is very real. I am glad that it was made and it was an interesting spiritual exercise, but don’t go expecting the epic they are trying to bill it as.  

http://www.fandango.com/movie-trailer/lifeofpi-trailer/145722/2260842587

I give this film *** stars.

Skyfall

        I have mixed feelings about the newest Bond film ‘Skyfall’.  It does reaffirm my personal bias that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever (my apologies to the Sean Connery purists) and I deeply admire what the director Sam Mendes was trying to do in this film.  This was an attempt to reinvent Bond and at the same time take him back to his roots.  After 50 years, how many times can you have a chase scene through a third world bazaar and have it still seem fresh?  While all the ingredients for a Bond film are there; exotic women, creepy bad guys, cool gadgets, and cool espionage stuff, it definitely had a different feel and pace from a typical Bond film.  I’m not going to say it succeeded as I did not enjoy it as much as ‘Casino Royale’, but it was a far cry better than the previous ‘Quantum of Solace’.

This film is as much about M (Judi Dench) as it is about Bond (Daniel Craig). She is more of a co-star than a supporting character.  Bond’s loyalty to M is tested after she makes a call that almost kills him.  The presumed dead Bond seeks to find a peaceful retirement in obscurity until a Julian Assange style villain named Silva (Javier Bardem, my favorite Spanish actor) starts outing the identities of British undercover agents.  Bond’s sense of loyalty to country overcomes his bitterness towards M and he returns to track down the effeminate villain.

Has Bond lost his edge though?  He is challenged by a body that is wracked by physical abuse as well as deep seated psychological issues.  M’s competence is also called into question.  Is she simply too old to do the job? Dench captures both the strength and frailty of a character refusing to accept her approaching retirement. We are used to seeing Bond as a superhero, not as a human being with weaknesses and foibles that prevent him from being the super spy we know and love.  Can we still accept Bond as a super spy without the ‘super’ in front of it?

Javier Bardem’s Silva is an excellent villain.  Highly effeminate, yet lethal in his desire to kill M.  I won’t go into the backstory, but M’s past has caught up to her and she must face the consequences of what she has done.  While it is clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, the line is crossed often and not always comfortably.  

Of course, there are the beautiful Bond women.  They always seem to come in pairs.  Bond’s fellow agent Eve is played by the beautiful English actress,  Naomie Harris.  I don’t know how she isn’t more famous than she is as I have noticed her for a long time.  Not just her beauty, but her acting ability as well.  She seems relegated to small parts (Pirates of the Caribbean, Miami Vice, 28 Days Later), but she has always made an impact on me.  I’m glad her roles are expanding.  I hope to see her as an A-lister some day.  The Femme Fatale is Sévérin played by  Bérénice Marlohe.  She is a relatively obscure French actress without many credits outside of France, but she has an exotic beauty befitting a Bond girl.  Her screen time was unfortunately far too short.  The final addition is a fresh faced young Q (Ben Wishaw).  He is not the old curmudgeon we knew and loved (RIP Desmond Liewelyn), but he brings a sardonic wit and sarcasm that quickly wins us over.

The film also explores Bond’s mysterious past without giving up too much of it which would take away the Bond mystique.  I’m not sure how true it was to the book, but it’s always interesting to see the backstory.  It also provides a canvas to throw in a lot of nostalgic and fun callouts to the past Bonds. 

       ‘Skyfall’ is a film that seeks to freshen up the franchise without losing what makes Bond... Bond.  Like I said, I admire the attempt, but I’m not sure it hit the mark as satisfyingly as Casino Royale did.  You be the judge.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi17081369/

I give this film *** stars

Flight

      Flight is a powerful movie that solidifies (as if he wasn’t already) Denzel Washington as an A-list actor and a Movie Star in my humble estimation. This entire film relies on Denzel’s powerful acting to make the emotional impact work.  In the hands of a lesser actor, this would be a role that would tempt one to over act, which would actually diminish the force of this character.  What Denzel is able to convey with just his eyes and minor facial expressions is more emotionally moving than anything a stage thespian could convey.  The title is misleading, because this film is more about a man’s battle with his personal demons than anything to do with flying.

Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is an airline pilot who  has a problem with drugs and alcohol.  He lives a hard life of narcotic ups and downs, but he is able to function in everyday life.  In fact, he is a great pilot.  This becomes evident when he miraculously crash lands a plane after a severe mechanical malfunction saving almost everyone on board.  He is worshiped as a hero until his hospital toxicology reports come back showing that he was legally drunk when he was flying the plane.  What starts out as media worship turns into a media circus as the investigation is taken to the airwaves and the court of public opinion.  

Out of all the lives that were saved, five people did die.  Even though his landing was nothing short of miraculous, the prosecutors need someone to blame for the deaths.  A drunk pilot is the perfect scapegoat for the plane manufacturer and airline.  The media smells blood in the water and goes after Whip with a vengeance. Whip escapes the media frenzy and hides out on his grandfather’s abandoned farmhouse to try and deal with his problems.  His life crosses with a woman named Nicole (Kelly Reilly) who is dealing with her heroin addiction.  She is his hope and conscience while at the same time being a mirror to what he has become.  She is perfectly cast as she is beautiful, but her eyes are full of hurt and vulnerability.  Her life is out of her control and she is desperately trying to claw her way back up.  Unfortunately, Whip is an anchor, threatening to drag her down.

Denzel does a great job portraying a man who realizes he has a problem, yet at the same time can lie even to himself that he can handle it.  He disposes of all the liquor in his house only to completely restock it a day later.  He thinks he is above AA meetings, because that is for people who can’t handle their problems.  He is trying to come to grips with his alcoholism all the while facing  the possibility of life in prison.  Not an easy task. The film evolves from a plane disaster movie to a character study and Denzel does it adeptly.

Denzel isn’t the only one who turns in a great performance.  Don Cheadle plays the union lawyer assigned to represent Whip.  Don plays the consummate professional  who must defend a man he dislikes intensely.  Someone who offends every morale fiber that he has.  Once again, a subtle performance that could have been played over the top.  John Goodman does play Whip’s drug dealer Harling over the top, but in this case it fits.  Harling is big hearted and affable and seen as welcome relief by Whip.  Harling is a big part of Whip’s problem, but his friendship and support is never in doubt which makes it harder for Whip to see how truly damaging Harling is.  Goodman brings heart and good humor to a role that is ultimately one of the more damaging aspects of Whip’s life.

The crash scene at the beginning is truly edge of your seat stuff, but that is over in the first 15 minutes, so don’t go expecting this type of movie.  From beginning to end, this is a movie that examines the battle a man has with himself.  I predict that Denzel will be nominated for another Academy Award for this. It will be well deserved.  He is an actor who truly knows that less is more.  The clip I have linked below is a good example of how Denzel can convey a man whose world is closing in around him in which he is unable to lie his way out.  It’s all done through the eyes and  facial expression.  It takes an accomplished actor to do this.

I recommend this film despite being a little heavier than the trailers would lead one to think. 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1517462553/

I give this film *** stars.

Man with the Iron Fists

        There are a certain group of directors. whose love of 70’s karate and grind house B movies, have spilled over into their film making.  In some cases, they base their entire film making style in paying homage to these films that they loved so much in their youth.  Quentin Tarantino, the most notable in this fraternity (who once famously wanted to release rats during a premiere to recreate the feel of a grind house movie theatre), describes them as a group of ‘unique individuals’.  Others, such as Robert Rodriguez and Eli Roth, have achieved their own levels of success by somehow elevating this horrible movie style beyond just nostalgic reproductions to a true art form.  Making his directoral debut and anointed by this exclusive club, is RZA.  I really admire RZA as an artist.  He is the front man for the hip hop group The Wu Tang Clan.  He came from an impoverished inner city background to become one of the foremost hip hop producers of the 90’s.  In a hip hop world that glamorizes shallowness and image, RZA’s work is reflective and spiritual.  He is a thinker and writer who dabbles in Buddhism.  He has sought to expand his art beyond hip hop and ‘The Man with the Iron Fists’ marks his first foray into Hollywood.

For all the respect I have for RZA, I will say that, where his peers have transcended the B-movie format, he embraces it.  This film is a flashback to my early childhood of watching dubbed kung fu flicks on the late night TV movie shows or on the network Sunday matinees.  The acting is poor, the plot  basic, and the special effects and wardrobe are cheesy at best.  In this world, knowledge of different exotic types of kung fu is what is necessary to win battles.  Chop house films were like the Asian version of American superheroes and I loved them despite their poor quality.

The plot involves the pursuit of a caravan of gold by rival Chinese gangs and an English adventurer (a paunchy Russell Crowe) in feudal China.  A treasure chest of gold escorted by the imperial guard settles in a small town for a night of rest. The local blacksmith (RZA) is in high demand as the interested parties need weapons to prepare for the upcoming violence in order to capture the gold.  The side story of how an african-american ends up being a blacksmith in feudal China was improbable, but so was the plot of this movie.  Throw in a brothel run by the beautiful Madame Blossom (Lucy Liu) because you had to find some way to have sex in the midst of all this violence and you have all you need to know about this movie.

You can appreciate RZA’s love of this genre.  The film does not try to be anything that it’s not.  It’s a retro throw back and you can tell that as a boy RZA probably wanted to be in a kung fu film.  Given this low bar of quality, i will still say that I had things about the film that could have been better given it’s limitations.  The movie couldn’t decide what it was about.  I think if it would have focused on RZA as the blacksmith and how he became the ‘Man with the Iron Fists’, it would have been much more coherent.  Separate plot lines seemed to take the story in different ways.  Russell Crowe, as the English adventurer Jack Knife. was one of the film’s high points despite the distraction of his girth.  He brought a level of class to this cheese fest, but even his story was underdeveloped and confusing when it occasionally came to the forefront.

. This movie was bad, but in many ways it was meant to be bad.  I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed those movies as a kid, so in that regard; mission accomplished.  Even the film credits were done in the 70’s fashion which caused pleasant nostalgia.  I enjoy seeing artists like RZA extend themselves beyond their comfort zones and take a risk in their expressions.  In the parlance of the film: “His Tiger style kung fu is strong”.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3669665049/

I give this film * star (but that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it)

Argo

       As the years go by, I gain more and more respect for Ben Affleck.  Initially, I thought he and Matt Damon got lucky with ‘Good Will Hunting’ (the film that launched their careers), but as time passes, I realize that many times people make their own luck.  Affleck has proven himself a good actor and, now as he transitions into the director role, he has proven himself a more than a capable director (‘Gone Baby Gone’ and ‘The Town’).  In ‘Argo’ he takes on both the lead acting and directing roles and produces a thoroughly riveting human story based on the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979.

Suspenseful docudramas are tricky for a variety of reasons. For one thing, for anyone alive at the time or knows history, we know the resolution.  Suspense is strongest when one doesn’t know the outcome.  Also, it’s difficult to tell a political story without the prism of your political beliefs seeping through.  I feel Affleck succeeded in traversing both obstacles.  His ability to create suspense and tension so thick that you could cut it with a knife was impressive. In regards to politics, Affleck is a well-known Hollywood activist, but he managed to stay fairly objective with only a few moments of his personal bias showing through.  It was a well crafted and informative tale about a CIA mission to secretly rescue hostages that has since been declassified.

The Iranian hostage crises was not the first major news event I remember, but it was the first one I remember following with interest.  Night after night, the saga of American citizens being held hostage in a foreign land captured the attention of our nation like nothing else I had remembered before.  It spawned entire news shows (Nightline started because of the crisis) and it ultimately was one of the major factors of Carter’s defeat in the Presidential elections.  It was a different time that had a different national mood and Affleck did a superb job at capturing the feeling of the era.  The country was demoralized after the Watergate scandal, rocked with a gas crisis and a floundering economy, and for the first time America began to have a sense of feeling they were declining as a world economic and political power.

The story of six hostages who escaped the siege was one I vaguely remember.  At the time, credit was given to the Canadians, and while they were definitely a huge factor, it was a CIA operation hatched by one agent that ultimately was the blueprint that rescued them.  Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) was tasked with coming up with a way to rescue the hostages as their time was running out.  The hostages had taken refuge at the Canadian embassy and the Canadians were getting ready to recall their ambassador.  The hostages were about to be stranded and at the mercy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Out of a sea of bad idea’s, Agent Mendez’s plan to go in as a Canadian film crew and incorporate the hostages as part of his film crew seemed to be the least ridiculous (not that it didn’t sound ridiculous).  This was a plan that had to be completely plausible and able to hold up to scrutiny, so Agent Mendez went to Hollywood to find a movie to start up that would be printed in all of the industry publications.  Alan Arkin and John Goodman play Hollywood insiders who sign on with Affleck to help him with his plan.  Half the fun of this movie was seeing the process of how a movie gets backing in Hollywood (even if it’s an imaginary one).  After leafing through endless scripts, the team settles on a Sci-fi movie called ‘Argo’.  Their logic was that Iran offers exotic cityscapes that would be plausible for a movie company seeking it out for a film.  Hopefully, the Iranian government would accept this logic as well.

As I stated earlier, we all know the outcome, but Affleck did a great job in illustrating the emotional trials of six people who know they may be discovered and hanged at any moment.  The dynamics of the group interaction was the heart of the film and we lived their fears and pressures right along with them.  It also painted a picture of another part of the world very different than our own.  A modern world, yet one where people are still hanged in public for political beliefs.  A world where rule of mob is stronger than rule of law.  It’s a sobering reminder of the liberties we enjoy even while we sometimes complain about the lack of them.

This is a good piece of docu-history.  It takes those of us who remember back in time to see a story that was not commonly known and it would be a good education for those too young to remember  exactly what the nation went through.  Affleck is evolving as a director and I would be surprised if this isn’t nominated at Academy time.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1537319449/

I give this film *** 1/2 stars 

Cloud Atlas

       Cloud Atlas is a film that defies adequate description.  I can’t say whether one will like or dislike it as it is beyond the goal of approval.  Without trying to sound overly dramatic, it is one of the most incredible epic spectacles I have ever seen.  That being said, I’m not even sure if I will ever see it again. It’s not a film that requires a second viewing as I think one will become more lost as they try to figure it out further.  I’m not even sure if my review will do it justice, because it is like nothing I have ever seen produced.  I now view the Wachowski brothers (well brother and sister) and Tom Tykwer, who all directed this film, as true artists and genius visionaries.  

If you read the various audience reviews, you see a lot of anger.  Confusion breeds frustration.  This is not a film for someone going in expecting a nice understandable linear story.  It is a non-linear 3 hour epic pondering on the nature of karmic existent or in other words; the Meaning of Life.  I say this knowing full well how pretentious that sounds.  This film reminds me of the intellectual version of those 3-D computer generated images where you can’t see the form until you stop trying to see the picture and just let your eyes go.  Once you are able to do that the picture begins to appear, but always seems elusive.  Apply that same concept to one’s attempt to understand this film.  Just let go and enjoy the ride.

If I must condense this film to a description, I will say that it is an examination on how we are all connected and the actions of kindness or menace by an individual will cause ripples that can be felt across generations and impact lives in the past, present, and future.  It is also an exercise in Karma as it shows that we are destined, across lives, to repeat mistakes until we make the choice to learn from them even if we aren’t conscious of the lesson.  The film features 6 intertwined vignettes starting from the 1800’s and going so far into the future that we can barely understand the concepts being discussed.  We witness everything from a dying man on a frigate in the South Seas to a reporter uncovering a story in 1970‘s San Francisco.  We witness a servant clone who yearns for freedom in a japanese anime style version of the future in a place call neo-Seoul.  We view even farther into the future where mankind has reverted back to savagery and speak of things we barely understand.  What they all have in common are people seeking to escape oppression and having their lives profoundly affected by acts of kindness.  Even when we don’t understand the nature of what they are talking about, we understand the universal yearning for freedom and kindness.

Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant, Jim Sturgess, and Xun Zhou appear as people of different races, ages, nationalities, and even sexes (sometimes they are not even human) as we see them in their different incarnations across time.  The make up special effects are so incredible and the acting is so good that one doesn’t always realize which actor is which.  We see the soul of one man transformed across time from a killer to a man who finds salvation through his choices.  He reaches a symbolic Nirvana as the film progresses.  Others have their own spiritual journeys, both positive and negative, and it is up to the viewer to determine what it means.  I was not always sure what the commonality or connecting thread was, but there were deja-vu moments and connection throughout, whether it’s a reoccurring birthmark or a melody that strikes a chord of recognition.

I think the worst thing a viewer can do is go in and try to figure the film out.  Much like the 3-D images, you will only become more frustrated the harder you concentrate.  Let go and live the film moment to moment.  I was never once bored during the 3 hour marathon. I was riveted as each scene unfolded and just enjoyed the spectacle as it revealed itself.  Go to a coffee house afterward and try to piece the meaning together.  Don’t worry, the film will be mulling in your head for hours if not days afterward.  This is why philosophical art house discussions were made.   You will be able to endlessly quote any philosopher you want as I’m sure something they said will apply to this meditation on the meaning of life.

I’m not going to recommend this movie to anyone as I understand why this would not be many people’s cup of tea.  If you think you can intellectually let yourself go over a course of 3 hours without an obvious path for your mind to travel down, then you may be profoundly affected by this film.  I truly believe you have to see this in a theatre as it is the only way to become lost in the spectacle.  Regardless, it is a magnificent piece of film making.  One that has moved me more than any film in my recent memory.

I give this film ***** stars (the most I’ve ever given).

Seven Psychopaths

      Seven Psychopaths is my kind of film; weird, twisted, and thoroughly entertaining.  Writer and Director Martin McDonagh, who brought us ‘In Bruges’, returns to bring us this quirky film about  psychopaths and... dog kidnapping??

Drunk and perennially writer’s blocked Marty (Colin Farrell) has a life that is going no where.  His career is stalled and his girlfriend is at her wit’s end with him.  His eccentric friend Billy (the always delightful Sam Rockwell) comes up with an idea for a script called ‘Seven Psychopaths’.  Marty likes the idea, but wants to do a different type of psychopath film.  He wants to do a non-violent film about psychopaths.  The brain storming is hilarious as they explore different types of characters from the Buddhist psychopath before finally settling on a Quaker psychopath.  The movie melds back and forth between what is really happening and the stories that Marty is trying to flesh out.

Things are looking up for Marty as his creative fires have been reignited, until Billy’s side job of kidnapping dogs and collecting reward money goes astray.  Billy and his elderly friend Hans (played equally delightful by Christopher Walken) make fairly good money scouring the parks for unattended dogs and kidnapping them.  They collect reward money from the grateful owners and judging by the amount of dogs in their warehouse kennel, they make more than a fair amount.  As bad luck would have it (or is it bad luck), they kidnap the dog of a deranged mobster named Charlie (Woody Harrelson).  

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Billy as placed an advert in the paper asking for psychopaths to show up at their apartment and tell their stories in order to inspire Marty.  Seemed like a good idea at the time.  Collin Farrell is known for comedy, but his reactions to Billy’s antics are priceless and I’ve gained new respect for his ability to stretch himself as an actor.  The film is rated R graphic, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider it violent.  It has a goofiness to it in the midst of some dark and somber story telling.  It’s an odd mix.  Part of the joy of this movie is trying to realize what is actually happening and what is part of the script that Marty is try to flesh out.

The movie is a mish mash of plot lines that constantly interconnect, but never trip over themselves.  Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell, and Woody Harrelson almost play their roles to parody level, but not quite.  There is enough weight to their quirkiness where the audience is laughing, albeit uncomfortably at times.  It was also engaging how the film treated itself as a storyline as well.  It often telegraphed what was going to happen through Marty’s screenwriting.  It’s something you have to see on screen to understand as I am challenged to describe exactly how they did it.

This is a fun small film.  You have to like quirky independent films, but if you liked ‘In Bruges’ then this is right up your alley.  Great job to Martin McDonagh on another one of his films that I thoroughly enjoyed.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1273668633/

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

Looper

       Looper is a solid and intense science fiction film with equal parts action and mind bending plot; just the way a good science fiction film should be.  In the year 2074, because of technology, it is extremely difficult for the mob to get away with killing people.  The solution is to send a mark 30 years into the past where a hit man is waiting.  Clean and efficient with no traceable evidence.  Of course the mob hates loose ends, so they ‘close the loop’ by eventually sending the hit man back in time where their earlier selves kill them.  Since the marks are hooded, the hit men never know it’s their future selves they are killing until they see the big gold payout attached to the body.  The hit men know that their services are no longer required and they will have 30 years to enjoy their wealth until the mob sends them back to be murdered by themselves.  Sounds complicated?  It is.

We are introduced to Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who lives a fairly successful life of a mob hitman.  He is professional and dispassionate in his killing assignments and at night he lives a life of fast cars, night clubs, and drug addiction.  All is going as well as expected until one of his marks arrives from the future without a hood.  Joe recognizes the mark as his older self.  Old Joe (Bruce Willis) uses young Joe’s hesitation to escape.     Fearing time paradoxes and mob retribution, Joe scrambles to find his older self in order to kill him.  I’ve probably lost most of the readers at this point, but for sci-fi lovers, this is as cool as it gets.

Abe (a haggard Jeff Daniels) is the mob boss during young Joe’s time, who has been sent from the future to oversee the Looper program.  He considers his assignment to be slumming it in the past.  Once he realizes the entire program is in jeopardy by the escape of old Joe, he turns the pressure on young Joe in heavy mob fashion.  Everyone is out to get old Joe including young Joe.  The stakes have been raised as the amount of ‘closing the loop’ hits have dramatically increased due to someone in the future named ‘The Rainmaker’. This mysterious figure singlehandedly is wiping out the entire  Looper program.

Through a series of accelerated flashbacks (or are they flashforwards), we see the arc of Joe’s life that leads to the point where he is sent unhooded into the past to face his younger self.  We see that he has been redeemed by the love of woman (Quing Xu) and has transformed from a drug addicted mafia thug to a purposeful man who wishes to preserve the life he has made for himself.  Of course this brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘your past catching up with you’ as he struggles to find a way out of his inevitable death by his own hand.
For two men who don’t look that much alike Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon Levitt are made up to be plausibly the same person at two different stages of their life.  We sympathize with Old Joe as he appears to be a man redeemed, but when Old Joe starts to systematically track down children born on a certain date and kill them, we start to wonder who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.  The young Joe who we revile is suddenly  thrust into the role of protecting these kids for reasons even he doesn’t fully understand.  

Young Joe eventually finds the pattern of Old Joe’s killing spree and locates the final intended victim on a farm.  Suffering from injuries and drug withdraw, a young Joe is confronted with obvious suspicion from a woman named Sara who owns the farm (an enchanting Emily Blunt trying her best to channel an American redneck accent.  I won’t say she failed as I definitely bought her being American, but there was something slightly off with the accent).  Sara is fiercely protective of her young son, who Joe is convinced his older self is coming to kill.  As Joe grows closer to the boy, he realizes the true scope of who and what the boy is and the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together.

Time travel movies are inherently flawed as changes in the past will affect the future in ways that we are not able to comprehend (aka The Butterfly Effect or Chaos Theory or whatever you want to call it).  This film tackles these complexities as well or better than any film I have seen.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt solidifies himself in my estimation of  being one of the best actors of the new generation of actors coming forward. Not only does he capture a mob persona realistically, but he is able to mimic Bruce Willis, a man he looks nothing alike, well enough to suspend our disbelief. If he is not A-list yet he soon will be.

This is just a good science fiction movie through and through.  It probably won’t win any awards, but Sci-fi geeks will have a great time and spend days trying to unravel paradoxical events with their other geek friends at the next Star trek convention.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi481994009/

I give this film *** 1/2 stars (really enjoyed it)

End of Watch

End of Watch is arguably one of the best cop buddy movies I have ever seen.  A raw, gritty, and emotionally charged ride along with two patrol cops in one of the roughest precincts in Los Angeles.  The film is more about the bond between the two officers than the action that surrounds them.  It is simultaneously intense and touching and impossible not to walk away from this film emotionally drained.

The style of this film is interesting as it is shot all through hand held cam corders and dash board cams.  An interesting (and inexpensive) movie effect started by “The Blair Witch Project’ and one I thought lost after the annoying and vertigo inducing ‘Cloverfield’.  In this film it works surprising well, giving an air of real time urgency.  The story follows the lives of hot shot patrolmen Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Zavala (Michael Peña) who are living a life of young gun glory in the mean streets of Los Angeles.  Their modest fame takes a sinister turn when, after a routine traffic stop, they run afoul of a Mexican drug lord who puts a contract out on their heads.

Again, the plot is definitely riveting and intense, but the true draw of this movie is the relationship of the two cops.  Some of the most meaningful dialogue is shot through the patrol cruisers dashboard cams (facing inward) and much of the conversation is bickering.  Despite all the fighting and insults, you can sense the deep fraternal love they have for each other and you know each would die for the other.  It takes skilled actors to strike the right balance and both of Gyllenhaal and Peña deliver.  I have been a fan of Peña since the dark comedy ‘Observe and Report’.  It’s nice to see him starting to get top billing and showing that he can do a variety of roles.  I predict he will be a major player in the future.

A shorn Gyllenhaal plays the tough cop Taylor convincingly (much to my surprise).  He and Zavala’s friendship transcend their diverse racial backgrounds.  Their cultural differences are a source of friction and amusement and provides some of the film’s best dialogue.  There is nothing more uniting than when we can enjoy and laugh at our differences instead of trying to ignore them in a politically correct world.  The two friends are unfiltered in their mocking of each other and constantly try to one up each other to the point of friction, but just as quickly as the irritation builds it burst with fits of laughter when one or the other realizes he has been bested.

However; don’t expect a light hearted cop buddy movie like ‘Lethal Weapon’.  The scenes of violence are intense and terrifying (given gritty realism and horror by the filming technique).  We get insight into the lives of gang members who are  directed by the drug lord with killing the two hero cops and instead of humanizing them, it leaves us feeling dirty with the evil in which they live their lives.  It’s also interesting to see how different law enforcement agencies operate in silos and they don’t always know what the other is doing.  Federal authorities are portrayed as mysterious and enigmatic.  The relationship dynamics with other policemen are the same as you would find in any work place environment.

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1050649881/

Overall, I highly recommend this film.  It’s an intense an powerful movie that works more due to the relationship between the two buddies than as an action film.  Well done and performances to be proud of.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars.