Nebraska

Where to start with a film like ‘Nebraska’?  An incredibly poignant and almost poetic tribute to rural midwestern life in America.  For those of us who are from or had relatives who lived in this slice of Americana, it is remarkable how perfectly this film captures the tone and feel of day to day life in the midwest.  This is a quiet, even ponderous film, of a life that is often parodied, but rarely fully illustrated.  Shot in stark black and white that only enhances the colorlessness and monotony of rural life, Nebraska both mocks, yet fully realizes and fleshes out people and situations we all know.

Hollywood legend Bruce Dern gives the performance of his career (I’ll be surprised if he isn’t nominated for an Oscar), as the elderly and losing it Woody Grant.  Woody is convinced that the Publisher Sweepstakes letter he received in the mail claiming he has already won a million dollars is real and sets off to the home office in Nebraska to claim his winnings.  Will Forte (in a rare dramatic role), plays David, Woody’s  down on his luck  stereo salesman son.  While David is dealing with the break up of his girlfriend and his dead end job, he must also confront the mental decline of his father.  Having lost his driver’s license years ago, Woody tries to walk via interstate to Nebraska from Billings, Montana.  Of course, he never gets far before he is brought back to his family by the authorities. 

David leads an ordinary and commonplace life that lacks passion of any kind.  The film captures perfectly the grayness of a rural and economically depressed life.  David realizes that his time with his father is coming to an end and recognizes the misguided passion that Woody’s million dollar obsession has ignited within him, perhaps for the last time.  David, against the entire family’s advice, decides to drive his father to Nebraska to fulfill his dream.  

Like any Odyssey, the story is in the voyage, not the destination.  The dialogue is minimalist and the conversation shallow as is the way of elderly midwesterners. Conversation is more of a tool of ritual and comfort than the actual conveying of ideas.  However, as Woody’s age and confusion causes his conversational filters to loosen, David comes to see his father as a person and learn about the events that shaped his life and brought him to where he is today.  Rarely are they attractive revelations, but David gains an understanding of his father as a human being rather than his parent.

On the journey to Nebraska, father and son make a stop in Woody’s hometown where, despite being gone for decades, Woody is greeted like he just left the previous week.  All the old friendships as well as the old rivalries and grudges still exist and time has done very little to diminish them.  When the townspeople learn of Woody’s mission to collect a million dollars, he becomes the talk of the town.  David’s insistence that it is not true only serves to deepen the belief that Woody is now a millionaire.  A small town boy made good.  We slowly see family and friend’s excitement turn to envy and then covetous.  Everyone wants a piece of the pie and the imaginary million dollars brings out the worst in everyone.  It is an uncomfortable look at small town and  family  relations and politics.  We uncomfortably watch with both amusement and revulsion as we see the vulturous intentions that lie just below the surface of most relationships. 

Whether Woody and son reach Nebraska is irrelevant.  Whether or not Woody has a million dollars waiting for him is not important. This film was not about having a tidy emotional payoff at the end.  As I stated earlier, this is about the journey and the discovery.  This is about a father and son gaining a new perspective of each other at the end of a father’s life.  A deepening of the understanding that we are all human with virtues and faults (mostly faults) as we traverse life. 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi130983961/

I give this film *** stars

Thor: The Dark World

“Thor: The Dark World” is part of the continuing Marvel storyline that has been dominating film for the last several years.  All of the films are interconnected, yet each stands on their own.  The critics have not been too receptive to this installment of Thor, but the fans are giving it high ratings.  I fall somewhere in the middle.  While I thoroughly enjoyed it, I walked away wishing it had been more than it was.  This incarnation takes a sharp directional turn from Kenneth’s Branagh’s more Shakespearean take on the Norse God of Thunder.  Director Alan Taylor (of Game of Thrones fame), strives to create a world that feels more like ‘Lord of the Rings’ than anything else.  It is a satisfying exploration of the kingdom of Aesgard as well as the other 9 realms, but it loses the magic of a God walking among us that we experienced in the first film.

Chris Hemsworth takes on the mantle of Thor, but once again Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal of Thor’s evil stepbrother Loki steals the show.  He did not have anywhere the screen time desired given his popularity, but the fraternal bickering between the two was the highlight of the film.  Tom Hiddleston has taken what was a minor villain in the comics and elevated him up to one of the all time great screen villains.  A man torn between two worlds, yet completely reveling in his malevolence.  What makes Hiddleston’s performance so brilliant is that he is able to portray Loki’s inner conflicts without ever letting go that he is evil.  His occasional softening of Loki never dulls his diabolical edge.  

Heavyweight superstars like Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, and Natalie Portman, reprise their rolls, but none seem invested and there is nothing new and exciting they bring to the table.  I will confess, that Rene Russo displayed some badassery in terms of action moves, but other than that, she was a flat character. If anything, the surprise of this film for me was Jamie Kennedy reprising her role of Sif.  A character that seemed stiff and wooden in the last film, gained a fresh perspective and depth in this one.  A secondary plot that seemed to be leading her to be a love interest for Thor was abruptly dropped right as it was getting interesting.  More is the pity, as the supposed torrid romance between Thor and Natalie Portman’s ‘sexy’ astrophysicist,  Jane Foster, seemed wooden and forced whereas Thor and Sif seemed to exude a real chemistry.

The villain also seemed generic.  The evil Dark Elf Malekith (an unrecognizable Christopher Eccleston) is reawakened by a force in which he wants to plunge the universe into darkness.  Grandiose, but seen countless times in every sword and sorcery fantasy genre that I can remember.  The evil elves had all the depth of the Storm Troopers from ‘Star Wars’.  There existence was just there so Thor would have a mass of people to pound on.

Despite my complaints, I did enjoy the more in depth look at Aesgard.  The cinematography was stunning with probably one of the more beautiful funeral scenes in recent memory.  Truly a funeral befitting Gods.  I also enjoyed a glimpse at the All Father Odin’s darker side.  Anthony Hopkins always does a great job, but I feel something was lacking.  Tom Hiddleston gave a full force performance where it seemed the elder thespian Hopkins was just doing another roll.  He gave little if any visceral performances.

I found myself less and less invested in the complex Doomsday story line (it’s an action film, let’s not try to make Armegeddon too complex).  What kept my interest were the continued dynamics between Thor and Loki as well as enjoying all the cameos and future set-ups that Marvel is known for.  Once again, stay for the after credit clips as they prepare us for the upcoming 'Guardians of the Galaxy' film next summer.  A fun time at the movies and a worthy expansion of the cinematic Marvel universe, but it will not rank among the best superhero movies out there.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi714582041/

I give this film *** stars.

Gravity

          I  try not to use the term ‘Masterpiece’ lightly.  It is a term that is highly overused (myself included) when describing film or art.  That being said, I have full confidence that ‘Gravity’ is a visual and cinematic masterpiece and will garner numerous academy awards this season.  It is a stunning visual and operatic journey of space exploration and a tribute to the people who have courage beyond measure.

I do not like watching movies on a TV screen.  The cinematic experience is a communal experience that needs to be seen in a theater to appreciate it’s full intended effect.  ‘Gravity’ is a must-see in the cinema.  Preferably on an IMAX screen and in 3-D for which it was designed.  So many movies just convert to 3-D to increase their ticket prices.  This one was designed to be seen in 3-D and with the full expanse of an IMAX screen.  To view this on a small screen or, even worse, a TV screen would dramatically reduce its’ impact.  This is visual film making at its’ finest.

Director Alfonso Cuarón has always made thought provoking and visually adventurous films (see the under appreciated ‘Children of Men’).  The Mexican born director seamlessly integrates live action, CGI, and animation to achieve a total suspension of disbelief.  The viewer completely lives the experience of being in space.  He balances between operatic scores and complete vacuum filled silence to produce a mesmerizing work of art.  The ability to feel the music is as important as the visual effects.  Complete synchronicity of the senses.

For all intents and purposes, this is a two person movie.  It deals with the struggle for survival of astronauts Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) after their shuttle and mission crew are wiped out by an errant satellite debris field.  With limited resources and dwindling oxygen supplies, they struggle to make their way to the international space station, which is so close, yet so far away when you are in a continuous orbit.  Their situation is made all the more difficult as their communications with Earth have been knocked out. Space is silent and still, yet lethal as they work together to cling to life and find a way back home.

No matter how dire their situation, the audience, and the astronauts themselves, never fail to be awed by the incredible grandeur of viewing earth from space.  This is where the big screen and Dolby speakers become important as much of the movie’s impact relies on the visual journey.  I haven’t seen a movie so visually impactful since ‘Avatar’.  It far exceeds Stanley Kubrick’s vision in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey.  Astronaut Ryan Stone becomes the center piece of the film.  She is not a career astronaut, rather a scientist needed for her skill set to fix the Hubble telescope.  She is the layman with whom we empathize.  We feel her terror and panic and awe as if we were there with her.  I’ve never been overly impressed with Sandra Bullock as an actress.  even when she won her Oscar for ‘The Blind Side’.  I have gained a new respect as her performance is of the highest caliber in this film.  She is able to have the audience physically feel her range of emotions mostly through facial expressions.  Her background story causes the audience to invest themselves even more in her survival.  It’s a pleasure to watch someone perform at this level.

I know many people are turned off by space movies or science fiction in general, but this movie is neither.  It takes place in the here and now and is about people that we know caught up in extraordinary circumstances.  This film is probably as close as any of us will ever get to going into space and experiencing what it is like.   While action packed, it is not an action film.  It’s just a work of art for all the senses and a tribute to the spirit of the men and women who explore the impossible accomplishment of space.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2518132249/

I give this film **** stars.

Kick Ass 2

         Okay, there are some movies not meant to be liked by the critics.  ‘Kick Ass 2’ is one of them.  The original ‘Kick Ass’ was a cult hit that was based on a cult comic that explored the premise: out of all the millions of comic book fans, over several generations, isn’t it odd that no one has ever even tried to be a super-hero?  ‘Kick Ass’ follows the life of nerdy teenager Dave Lizewski (Aaron Taylor Johnson) as he tries to live out his super hero fantasy.  The film was a parody, as was the comic, and went for the laughs, but it was also an R- rated, ultra violent, painfully politically incorrect, and had a surprising amount of emotional depth for a film that portrayed itself as a joke.  The film did a modest amount, but exploded on the DVD/Blu-ray market to gain cult status.  Of course, in the movie business, success breeds sequels.

‘Kick Ass 2’ tries to recapture the magic, but falls short of the first one.  ‘Kick Ass’ success was due, in part, to it’s uniqueness, but how does one replicate uniqueness (borders on being an oxymoron).  That’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film and I am no where near as disillusioned with it as the critics.  I felt this was a valid attempt and I had fun, even though it is a shadow of the previous one. 

We revisit Kick Ass after he has hung up his tights and is trying to survive his senior year in high school.  His mentor/side kick Hit Girl (the delightful Chloe Grace Moretz who hit a growth spurt since the last film) has given up her father’s dream for her to be a super hero and is attempting to integrate into something that she finds more frightening than mafia criminals; becoming a high school freshman.  Their roles reverse and Dave becomes Hit Girl’s mentor in the savage land of high school.  Both are bored with their high school life, but realize that they have to get on with their lives.  To make their decision more difficult, costumed vigilantes, all who were inspired by Kick Ass and Hit Girl, start appearing and taking to the streets.  The most notable of these is the intense Colonel Stars and Stripes, played by an almost unrecognizable Jim Carrey.  He is both comedic and sympathetic.  In fact, all of the heroes are ridiculous, but once their stories are revealed they are surprisingly moving.

The rise of of super heroes enrages Chris D’Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse [does everyone from the new generation have hyphenated names?]), whose gangster father Kick Ass killed in the last film.  He decides to assemble his own team of super villains in response to the super hero teams forming.  Once Kick Ass decides to return to being a super hero, Chris reveals himself as The Motherf****r’, the world’s first super villain.  He is bent on avenging his father and killing all superheroes, especially Kick Ass.

The purpose of this film is to lampoon comic clichés, but it doesn’t sacrifice intensity, violence, and heart as the laughs roll out.  They are edgy laughs that borders on uneasiness, but never fully crosses that line (I suppose much of that depends on your temperament).  This movie is designed for comic fanboys as much of the humor relies on a comic book reader’s understanding on what exactly is being lampooned, but much of the humor is universal and if you are a person who doesn’t really connect with the super hero universes, it humorously validates one’s perception of the whole thing as ridiculous.

Overall, it is a sequel that doesn’t quite live up to the first one, but few sequels do.  It is a good time for those who liked the first one.  Be prepared to have your parody mixed with all the R-rated humor and violence that comes with those types of movies.  Watching the trailers it has the appearance of a kid friendly movie, but it is far from it.  

WARNING: EXPLICIT TRAILER

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1509927193/

I give this film ** stars

Blue Jasmine

I have love/hate relationship with Woody Allen.  I think most of his films are over hyped and pretentious and I’m not terribly fond of him personally.  He also grinds out film after film, most of which I find forgettable.  However, sprinkled among his huge body of work, he does produce fantastic and even inspired works.  Films like ‘Vicky Christina Barcelona’ and ‘Midnight in Paris’ are truly great works of art and make up for self indulgent films like ‘To Rome with Love’.  His latest film, ‘Blue Jasmine’ is one of his great films and I’m going to predict that Cate Blanchett will receive an Oscar nomination for this powerful performance of a fallen New York socialite.  Her portrayal is both sad and comic, which is not an easy feat to do, but Cate Blanchett takes us through all her emotions one by one and sometimes simultaneously.  Woody is even able to pull out a credible performance from Andrew Dice Clay.  Anyone who has the ability to do that deserves respect.

The film opens with Jasmine, a once wealthy socialite, flying to San Francisco to ‘temporarily’ move in with her blue collar sister while she struggles to find a foothold after her husband (Alec Baldwin) was convicted of fraud and promptly killed himself.  The government seized all her assets and now, the Park Avenue socialite, finds herself with no money or friends.  Somehow still flying first class, Jasmine rambles on and on about her troubles to a nodding elderly woman.  Despite the tragedy, Jasmine clings to hope and reveals all her life details to anyone who will listen.  Even to herself if no one is around.  She desperately tries to cling to a lifestyle that doesn’t exist anymore.  Cate Blanchett strikes just the right balance between snobbish and sympathetic.  Ginger (Sally Hawkins), her working class sister takes Jasmine into her single mother apartment and you can feel Jasmine’s revulsion at how her sister lives despite saying the required mannered compliments of her ‘homey’ space.  Andrew Dice Clay and Bobby Cannavale play Ginger’s ex-husband Auggie and current boyfriend Chili respectively.  They are in perfect comic form as the antithesis of everything that Jasmine find appealing in men.  Crude, low class, and rough yet despite their good hearts you can sense Jasmine’s unease in their presence.

Of course, despite being medicated with Xanax and a myriad of other forms of socialite medication, Jasmine must determine a course for her life.  Despite her forced optimism, you can sense her life is unraveling.  Jasmine’s present state of mind is better understood as the film weaves in flashbacks from her previous life and the events that led up to where she finds herself now.  She lived in a cocoon of denial as she instinctively understood that her husband was crooked, but actively tried not to know, in order to preserve her idyllic life.  Her life was a house of cards, but one for which she was suited. You can feel her misery as she enters a work force for which she is ill suited for by temperament alone. 

Woody is able to find comedy in this tragedy, but never from a mocking point of view.  Just the contrary, you can feel the great sympathy evoked from this character, especially in scenes involving her estranged son.  Even the side story of Ginger’s infidelities shows that not all is perfect in her life either.  Woody shows that everyone has problems, but some are just able to deal with them better than others.  Andrew Dice Clay and Vinnie Cannavale play obnoxious louts Auggie and Chili perfectly, but at the same time you love them for it. Their very existence offends Jasmine.  The scene where Chili asks Jasmine if she would like to go out with his 5’4” mechanic buddy was one of the movie’s priceless comedic moments.   I don’t want to leave out Alec Baldwin’s small role either as Jasmine’s deceased husband.  Baldwin really doesn’t get the credit he deserves as an actor.  He plays the super rich hustler husband perfectly. His eternal and relentless drive causes him to fool even himself as the authorities close in on his crumbling empire. 

It’s hard to see the disintegration of someone’s life as a comedic movie and I would be doing a disservice to this film if I labeled it a comedy.  This is a portrait of a woman that is both comedic and tragic.  An examination of a modern riches to rags fable reminiscent of Bernie Maddoff’s ex-wife.  This is the best performance of Cate Blanchett’s already impressive body of work.  It’s still too early to say this, but I do hope she gets the Oscar for this role.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2545264921/

2 Guns

‘2 Guns’ is a slick, stylish, and fun buddy action flick.  I didn’t go in with high hopes as I thought the pairing of Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg seemed odd and forced, but one of the things I really liked about this film was their chemistry.  It is surprisingly good and they play off each other very well.  It is based off of Steven Grant’s graphic novel of the same name and is the story of two undercover agents from different agencies who don’t realize the other is undercover.  In the beginning, each think they are setting the other up while trying to take down a Mexican drug kingpin.  It’s a fun premise, but one that could have gone quickly south had it not been for the chemistry between the two lead actors.

I’m not going to say this was a fantastic storyline or a complex narrative.  Edward James Olmos plays the villainous drug lord Papi Greco stereotypically, Bill Paxton plays the evil CIA agent Earl generically (although I must admit his role was fun), and Paula Patton is the requisite eye candy thrown in for the gratuitous nudity.  Of course, for a buddy movie to work there has to be the witty banter.  In some movies it works and in others it doesn’t.  In this case, it really works.  Denzel is in top cool form as DEA agent Bobby Trench and Mark Wahlberg is just a little too old to be playing the young cocky Navel special agent Michael Stigman, but he gets away with it.  

I have to say, I went into this a little leery as the Black and White buddy comedy has been done to the point of cliché.  Lethal Weapon and 48 hrs set the bench mark and every lazy writer since has recycled it to the point of eye rolling.  Also, it just has a pulpish vibe to it and hyper violent films adapted from graphic novels rarely succeed.  I was happily proven wrong and right at the same time.  Every cliché in the book is in here, but the ‘2 Guns’ unapologetically makes it work through sheer force of on screen charisma and chemistry.  I don’t care if I found the plot twists implausible or the situations forced and stiff.  This is just a great pop corn shoot ‘em up with two actors in top comedic and action form.  I feel like I should write a longer review, but like I said; it’s a basic and formulaic film, so I’m not sure what else to say other than ‘Have fun’.

I give this film **1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1587915033/

The Wolverine

Has anyone ever owned (or reprised) a role more than Hugh Jackman with the character that put him on the map; The Wolverine?  This is the 6th time we have seen Jackman as this character in films and the 44 yr old actor has never looked better.  In the beginning X-men movies, Jackman was only occasionally shirtless, now it’s his natural state.   James Mangold takes on the Director’s chair with this take of a story loosely adapted from the iconic ‘Wolverine” mini-series of the 80’s by Chris Claremont and Frank Miller that is widely acknowledged as the definitive Wolverine story.  I very much respect trying different things with the same character.  Mangold attempts to take Wolverine away from the super hero genre and towards a more reflective and thoughtful direction.  However, Wolverine is a super hero and the film is actually at it’s worst when it goes down the path of super heroics.  This film is a dark and introspective take on our favorite X-man and I applaud the risk.

The film opens serenely and beautifully on a quiet sunny day in 1940‘s Japan.  As the camera slowly pans out, we realize that a prison camp is nestled in this idyllic scene and off in the distance 2 large planes  tranquilly approach.  It slowly dawns on us that they are B-29s and the camp is in the city of Nagasaki.  Wolverine, aka, Logan is a POW (of course shirtless) and a young Japanese guard named Yashida attempts to free the prisoners as he realizes the impending doom.  It turns out Logan rescues the guard and creates an eternally grateful and awestruck Japanese soldier.

Flash forward to the present, we find Logan wandering homeless in the Canadian wilderness, essentially a hermit haunted by the ghost of Jean Grey, the woman he loved and was forced to kill in the last film.  Jean’s beautiful etherial presence is an odd choice and I’m not sure it worked effectively, but it didn’t detract from the film.  After starting a bar fight, Logan is confronted by a young japanese martial artist name Yukio who tells Logan that her master Yashida is dying and wishes to thank Logan for saving his life all those years ago.  Wolverine agrees and is wisked off to Japan.

As it turns out, Yashida has since become a billionaire as head of the largest company in Asia. Yashida’s true wish is not to thank him rather to transfer Logan’s ‘curse’ of immortality to himself.  Helping Yashida is a beautiful (if vacant) doctor.  Svetlana Khodchenkova plays the physician and also lethal mutant named Viper like a runway model. In this case, I felt this insertion of a super villainess character (who is nothing like the comic book version) was gratuitous.   The rest of the film becomes a story of international intrigue as Logan becomes immersed in a family struggle of Shakespearean proportions.  Yashida is willing his company to his grand daughter, the lovely Mariko (Tao Okamoto).  This transfer of power upsets everyone and makes her a target of everyone from family to the Japanese Yakusa mobs.  Wolverine being Wolverine takes on the role as her protector.

The Director Mangold seeks to further distance himself from the superhero realm by having Wolverine’s healing power taken away, making him vulnerable.  Wolverine must deal with pain and limping after a fight like anyone else.  Mangold has an obvious love for showing us different aspects of Japanese life and many of his scenes and filming techniques are reminiscent of Japanese film makers like Akira Kurosawa, but ‘hey’ Chris Claremont did the same thing in his comic book series, so why not?  Like I said, it doesn’t really fit the super hero mold, but that made it all the more intriguing. There is obvious connection between Logan and Mariko, but it is never developed to the level it was in the comic book series.

Of course, there does have to be super hero moments and with the exception of an incredible fight on top of a speeding 300 mph bullet train, the scenes are generic and not worthy of what the film was trying to accomplish.  Overall, I enjoyed the film immensely, my only critique is that they could have done much better.  If you are going to commit to taking the character and tone in a different direction, commit all the way.  Lest you walk away thinking you missed out on your fix of super hero coolness, as always, make sure you stick around until after the credits.  We are assured this is far from the last time we will see The Wolverine.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1660725529/

Pacific Rim

        I have to confess, I completely enjoyed this film.  And just because I enjoyed it doesn’t mean it was good or had any redeeming value.  This is the definition of a guilty pleasure.  This is what ‘The Transformers’ should have been.  If I were a 14 yr old adolescent, I would be seeing this movie over and over again.  It’s giant monsters versus giant robots in epic city leveling confrontations.  What is not to love?  It brought me back to my Saturday morning ‘creature features’ movies with classics such as Godzilla vs Megalon, only with incredible special effects and actual production value.  It is adolescent nerd Nirvana.

A brief synopsis; in the near future, Earth is being invade through an inter-dimensional rift at the bottom of the ocean.  From out of these vortexes comes giant building size monsters called ‘Kaijus’ bent on destroying the nearest coastal cities it can find.  In response, humans build equally massive robots called ‘Jaegers’ (German for ‘Hunters’) that are so large it takes two pilots to operate who are linked through a telepathic bridge called ‘drifting’.  At first, this seems to be working and the pilots of these robots are treated like rock stars throughout the world.  Then it becomes apparent that the monsters are coming forth from the abyss more frequently and each more powerful than the last.  The human robots are being defeated faster than they can be built.  Humanity begins to become aware that they are facing extinction. C’mon, my inner kid is going nuts over this.

The special effects are what really makes this film work.  Throughout the entire film, I found myself whispering; “cool”, no matter how lame the dialogue or how improbable the plot line.  The pilots of all the robots are video game square jaw generic and the down and out protagonist’s story is almost cliché.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t some real actors in this film giving respectable performances.  Idris Elba (this guy can do no wrong in my book) plays the resistance commander Stacker Pentecost (love the name btw). Many people don’t realize that Idris is British because he usually uses an American accent in movies, so it almost seems fake when he uses his actual accent.  He reeks the manly gravitas and authority necessary for a global commander.  Charlie Day (of ‘It’s Always Sunny’ fame) and Burn Gorman play the comic relief as the scientists racing to find a way to stop the onslaught of monsters into our world.  Each providing welcome lightness in an, at times, overly dark film.

Director Guillermo Del Toro is someone I have followed since his days as an indie film maker.  He always has a unique, and slightly macabre, vision that is often under appreciated due to his low budgets.  His ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ was a masterpiece that went widely unnoticed due to it’s creepiness, but sticks in my mind as an incredibly powerful and unique artistic vision . ‘Pacific Rim’ is a big budget film that fits Guillermo’s strengths.  It allows him to utilize his love of monstrous and exotic creatures even if it does not allow him to fully display his skill as a story teller.

If you are able to put aside your disbelief, this movie can be a fun ride.  Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of engineering or physics knows that it’s impossible to have robots or creatures this big as they would collapse under their own weight.  Who cares?  Take whatever kids you have in your life, grab a big bucket of popcorn and a ‘Big Gulp’ soda, go to your nearest multiplex theater, and have fun watching a matinee movie.  Prepare to say ‘awesome’ as often as the kids as you watch this (even if you have to roll your eyes at it’s cheesiness just to keep up appearances).

I give this film **1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi513124633/

The Lone Ranger

I so wanted ‘The Lone Ranger’ to be good.  I was skeptical when I saw the trailers, but the movie disappointed even more than I expected.  I want to know which movie execs watched this and said: ‘Yea! that’s what we want to release’.  This is a painful 2 1/2 robbery of time out of my life.  This is an overblown film that couldn’t decide whether it wanted to be a comedy or action film.  I don’t blame the actors as there is a lot of talent in this film and given the right direction, there could have been a lot of great performances.  This movie was painful from start to finish.  It was a gamble to begin with as there are few people under the age of 45 who were clamoring to have this movie made.  They could have done something great and re-introduced an American legend to a new generation.  The opportunity was squandered

Let me start off speaking politically, which is something I rarely do.  For people who know me, I am extremely liberal on some things and conservative on others.  I must confess that I am getting fatigued by Hollywood’s insistence at portraying all W.A.S.Ps as evil, bumbling, misguided idiots and every other ethnic group as suffering, noble, and oppressed.  I find this very racist as it portrays a homogenous and non diverse view of all people.  Good and evil can be found in all shape, sizes, and colors (and sexual preferences). To deny this shows a lack of character on the writer’s (and Director’s) part and denial based on racial and political perceptions.  This movie has several scenes mocking Protestant spirituality while glorifying Indian and Chinese spirituality.  Whether you believe or not, all are worthy of one’s respect.  To continually wallow in self criticism and mockery is an exercise in guilt and self hatred. The political portion of the review is over.

The team that brought us ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ tried to recreate the same magic with this horrible film.  It is a revisionist, apologetic re-telling of the famous radio show of the 30’s that later became a beloved iconic show of the 50’s.  The Lone Ranger actually pre-dates Superman going as far back as 1933.  One could argue that he was the first superhero.  He was always portrayed as strong, confident, and despite what Hollywood thinks, egalitarian.  This version portrays the Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer) as a bumbling, ‘fish out of water’, eastern dandy, whom Tonto (Johnny Depp doing his ‘Captain Jack Sparrow playing Tonto’) must constantly put up with.  I loved the new Tonto look and Depp does a fantastic Jay Silverheels (the original Tonto) impression.  The problem is that the director went too much for the comedic and did not focus on the friendship.  

The story is basically the same as previous incarnations; a group of 7 Rangers set out after the evil Butch Cavendish gang.  They are ambushed and only John Reid survives.  He makes a mask from his slain brother’s vest and sets out for justice with the aid of Tonto, his spiritual guide.  William Fitchner is almost unrecognizable as the Butch Cavendish.  You may not know William Fitchner’s name, but you know the face.  He is probably one of the best and most consistent utility actors out there.  He shows some great acting skills in this and was one of the few highlights of the film for me.  

I was hoping to see some sort of transformation of John Reid into the legendary Lone Ranger, but they couldn’t let go of the bumbling fool with teeth-way-too-white for the time period angle.  The Lone Ranger was played as the consummate buffoon trying to be Dudley-Do-Right. The Director was more concerned about making political anti-gun statements than trying to capture the essence of the legendary lawman. Jokes were cracked often and frequently inappropriately (one traumatic mass slaughter scene had some sardonic quips between Tonto and the Lone Ranger that were offensive given what just occurred).  Most of the bad guys were generic evil and the pyrotechnics seemed out of place given the time period.

Helena Bohnam Carter was just weird as the local Madame Red Harrington.  It seemed like no one told her that she wasn’t in one of her husband Tim Burton’s films.  The whorehouse scene seemed like a cross between every Tim Burton film and Moulin Rouge.  The joke of The Lone Ranger and Tonto playing health inspectors fell flat (did they even have those back then?).  Tom Wilkinson (another of my favorite utility actors) was wasted as the evil railroad Baron.  Ruth Wilson played the long lost love Rebecca Reid uninspirationally.  

There are a myriad of issues I have with his film.  Only a few of which I have listed.  I suppose my biggest issue was just the total and utter lack of chemistry between The Lone Ranger and Tonto.  It was a legendary friendship and bond that inspired almost every other big screen and pulp fiction camaraderie that followed from Batman and Robin to Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.

If you are in the mood for another Hollywood revisionist mockery of iconic American stories, then go for it.  Judging from the box office take this weekend, it looks like I’m not the only one who is growing tired of it.  This is a film that had all the parts to be great and it was squandered in the attempt to create a big box office repeat of Pirates of the Caribbean.  I mourn the 2 1/2 hours I have lost from my life.

I give this zero stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3207308313/

World War Z

Brad Pitt is a movie star, no way around it.  By sheer force of screen presence, he is able to elevate a zombie movie to summer blockbuster fare.  This is not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film on its’ own mertis.  In fact, it’s probably the most impressive zombie film since Danny Boyle’s ’28 Days Later’ (bias alert: Danny Boyle can do no wrong in my book).  It’s just that, as I watch this film, I kept wondering if it would have the draw if Brad Pitt wasn’t the centerpiece.  Drawing it’s inspiration from the Max Brooks novel ‘World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War’, it varies from the source material’s multi perspective story telling and rests the entire vantage from Brad Pitt’s character, Gerry Lane.

Gerry is a family man living in Philadelphia.  Retired from his job as a globe trotting UN inspector, he has settled down into domestic bliss with his wife Karin (played generically by Mireille Enos) and his two daughters.  His idyllic life is thrown into a tail spin when he gets caught in downtown gridlock with his family.  He immediately senses something is wrong as people begin fleeing in a blind panic (police included).  The zombies are invading and multiplying exponentially as it only takes a bite to turn a person into a zombie within minutes. Gerry and his family barely escape Philly with their lives.  Fortunately, what is left of the government needs Gerry’s talents to help locate the source of the zombie infection, so he and his family are wisked away to a military flotilla where he realizes the true global scope of the problem.

Zombie movies mirror our fear of a global panademic that could someday happen, which scientists love to tease us with.  It’s also the terror of dealing with something that is unstoppable and can't be reasoned with.  The speed and ferocity with which these zombies attack also lends itself to our heightened sense of uncontrolled terror.   One scene especially, in the walled off city of Jerusalem, where the zombies act with the persistence of an ant colony to climb over each other to get over the wall is especially chilling.  

This movie is an exciting ‘race against time’ film and has all the explosions and excitement needed for a summer block buster.  I will say, I found the back story on all the troubles it took to get this movie made more interesting than the film itself.  There had been several rewrites and even the last 40 minutes of the film was reshot because it was considered not ready for release by the studio heads.  It’s also interesting that in the book, the contagion started in China.  Due to current politically correct issues and the desire not to alienate the Chinese government or audiences, the movie has the contagion starting in South Korea.  I guess they don’t care about offending Koreans.  

This is a fun popcorn matinee if you still like your monster movies.  Despite the rewrite of the ending, I felt the movie lost it’s way and fizzled with an unsatisfying finale.  Still, that doesn’t mean the entire roller coaster ride was a waste. Lot’s of fun and excitement.  Brad Pitt can still rock as a lead in an action movie as he approaches 50 years old.  I’m glad he and his production company, Plan B, finally got this movie made, but it’s nothing I’ll be renting anytime soon.

I give this film ** stars

 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3545146393/

Man of Steel

         The long awaited arrival of a rebooted Superman has arrived.  After the mega successes of The Dark Knight series and almost all of the Marvel comics franchises, the fanboy public has been clamoring for an up-to-date take on The Man of Steel after the disastrous 2006 ‘Superman Returns’ (in fairness, it wasn’t that bad, but they just tried to redo the classic 1978 version with Christopher Reeves.   Trying to carbon copy the past is never a recipe for success in the super hero world).  Given the success of the Batman franchise, Warner Bros brought on Christopher Nolan and David Goyer as the production and writing team.  The square jawed Dudley Doo-Right characters who wear their underwear on the outside of their costumes no longer cut it in today’s grittier world.  The public likes their super heroes dark and with a bit of existential angst. 

Zack Snyder has been tapped as director and his ‘Man of Steel’ delivers a thoughtful and action packed if not always satisfying film.  Henry Cavill, with an impressive american accent and a Bowflex body, is spot on as the modern Superman.  There was a time when it was considered slumming for a major movie star to do a super hero movie.  Most just did it for a large paycheck, whether it was Marlon Brando or Jack Nicholson.  Now, the stars clamor to get in these vehicles as they are huge and respected box office draws.  While Henry Cavill is relatively unknown to American audiences, the supporting cast of Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishbourne, Michael Shannon, and Amy Adams are all Oscar level actors who are in top form in this film.

There is much to admire in ‘Man of Steel.  Russell Crowe gives a compelling performance as Jor-el.  He is the voice of reason on the doomed planet of Krypton, who sends his only son to earth in order to survive. The first twenty minutes of the film showcases a world every bit as impressive as the one in ‘Avatar’, yet is more reminiscent of the classic ‘Dune’.  I hope in subsequent sequels there is a chance to explore the world that was Krypton because it is an intriguing piece of science fiction in it’s own right.   For those of you who are comic nerds, it takes obvious inspiration from the John Byrne series ‘The World of Krypton’.

Once on earth, David Goyer avoids the linear time lines and introduces us to Clark Kent as a drifter trying to discover his purpose in the world.  Whether working on an oil rig or busing tables, we see his childhood through a series of flashbacks with the eerie dreamy quality of a Terrence Malick film.  Clark, at the behest of his adoptive father, tries to keep who and what he is hidden.  However, he can’t help being a hero and when disaster happens he is always there to help, leaving people to wonder what they have witnessed.

Amy Adams did not strike me as a great choice for Lois Lane, but she does a fantastic job as a Pulitzer prize winning reporter trying to uncover the source of these miraculous rescues.  The clues lead her around the world and once she finally meets the mysterious Superman, she is able to track him back to his origins in Smallville.  While she is often rescued, she is no damsel in distress and comes to Superman’s rescue almost as much as he to hers.

Where I think the film took a wrong turn were the over abundance and over blown action sequences.  They came fast and furious and often left one off balance.  In fairness, Superman is a hard character to portray.  His omnipotence is difficult to capture on screen (or even the comic page for that matter).  The sheer mass of the destruction was so constant and huge that it soon became tedious.  Sometimes less is more and this film definitely tried to go for the more.  How often can a building explode or collapse before you start saying ‘Okay, been there, done that’?

Michael Shannon does a great job playing well... Michael Shannon.  He has an unparalleled bad guy demeanor (in fact, I can’t think of a single film where he hasn’t played a bad guy).  HIs General Zod is a welcome change from the typical Lex Luthor stories.  How do you challenge someone who is omnipotent?  Have a villain who is equally omnipotent.  Nobody does psychotic better than Michael Shannon.

Despite my criticism, I feel this was a worthwhile movie and I’m glad it was made.  Superman is back and up-to-date and ready to start down a new franchise.  Warner Bros is going to try and compete with Marvel’s ‘The Avengers’ franchise, by coming out with ‘The Justice League’.  The Superman movie is the first step in this direction.  Upon writing this, I read that both ‘The Avengers 2’ and The Justice League’ are scheduled to come out in the summer of 2015.  That will surely be a battle of the summer blockbusters.   Despite my loyalty to Marvel, I can’t wait to see what Warner Bros comes up with, especially with Zac Snyder and David Goyer at the helm.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1226090265/

Before Midnight

     

     I didn’t think they made films like this anymore.  A movie that tells a story strictly through dialogue.  A cinematic canvas that is painted through the art of conversation and stripped away of everything else. No soaring movie scores, no special effects or clever camera shots.  We are merely voyeurs in the lives of two people as they discuss things that are universal to all people.

     I’m a big fan of director Richard Linklater’s ‘Before’ series that has spanned more than 20 years in the life of Jesse and Celine.  In 1994 (hard to believe that was almost 20 years ago) the indie film ‘Before Sunrise’ was an unlikely hit (it cost $35,000 to make). It was the story of an American named Jesse (a 22 yr old Ethan Hawke) who has a chance meeting with a young French grad student (the enchanting Julie Delphi) on a train bound for Vienna.  Jessie’s plane is scheduled to take off at sunrise the next day and he convinces Celine to spend the evening exploring Vienna with him.  What follows was probably one of the most thoughtful and romantic films of the the 90’s.  A film head and shoulders above the teen age romance genre it was marketed as.

Almost 10 years later in 2003, Richard Linklater revisits Jesse and Celine running into each other in Paris in ‘Before Sunset’.  The characters are not as innocent and naive as they were in the first film, but the spark and memory is still there.  What follows is a rekindling of a more mature romance that is every bit as captivating as the original.  

And now, in 2013, we visit the lives of Jesse and Celine on vacation in southern Greece.  Together 10 years with the beginnings of a family, we explore a much more   world weary couple, but no less connected.  The dialogue is straightforward and honest and delves in topics that movies rarely discuss.  Despite what blockbusters would have us believe, there is drama in everyday life and intrigue in feelings of the mundane.  Once the ‘honeymoon’ is over in our relationships, the conversations become unobstructed from the filter of star struck endorphins.  Where ‘Before Sunrise’ was all about connection and falling in love, ‘Before Midnight’ explores what happens after you fall in love.  Love is powerful, but not always as shiny once the realities of day to day life set in.  

Hopefully you have seen ‘Before Sunset’ before reading this and you know that Jesse has decided to move to France to be with Celine. Ten years later they have settled down and are vacationing in the south of Greece with their twins.  Jesse feels guilt that he is missing the life of his son from his first marriage as he sends him back home to Chicago after staying with him over the summer.  Celine adores Jesse’s son and senses Jesse’s unhappiness over missing major parts of his life.  She begins to fear they are moving in different directions as, additionally, her professional career begins to take her on a path that Jesse doesn’t like.

The opening conversation around the open air table at the house of a writer friend they are staying at is everything a pretentious New Yorker dreams of.  It’s nothing but good food and good conversation and the director does an incredible job making you feel you are right there and part of the meal time interaction.  Four couples sit around the table, each with their own perspective on life.  The conversation flows and is extremely warm and gratifying.  As the film progresses, we gain a deeper understanding into both Jesse and Celine’s feelings and how, despite their love, forces might pull them apart.

All three ‘Before’ films feature exotic european backdrops that aren’t necessarily breathtaking, but enhance the story.  We don’t see much of Greece until Celine and Jesse take a long walk into town to spend their last night of vacation in a luxury hotel in the local village.  The last act of the movie in the hotel room is also the showcase conversation.  The conversation is brutally raw between the two despite their love for each other.  The dIrector does a great job at capturing the ebb and flow of arguments between couples.  We live the conversation with them and all the while there is a sense of deja-vu as I would venture to say that everyone has been a part of such conflicts at some point in their lives.

The dialogue is continuous, in some cases for up to a half an hour.  It flows naturally and organically. So much so, that I wonder how much of it is scripted and how much is improv.  The conversations wander from topic to topic much as a normal conversation would.  It’s often difficult to tell where the conversation started considering where it ends up.  If it was scripted, I’m amazed that the actors were able to memorize such a continuous block of dialogue.  And so naturally at that.

Much like life, director Richard Linklater does an incredible job at capturing people at different points in their lives.  From the young idealism of youth to the more world weary realism of middle age.  It is fascinating to see this journey in real time over the course of twenty years.  Both the actors and director say they plan to do one and maybe even two more films, both at 10 year intervals.  

If you couldn’t tell, I loved this film.  It is definitely one of the best I’ve seen this year.  Be prepared that this film is entirely dialogue and derives it’s purpose from the art of conversation.  It’s candidness and honesty is something rarely seen in today’s films.  I recommend this film whole heartedly and I thank Richard Linklater for making a film that most studios wouldn’t consider bankrolling.  This is a work of art.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4031948313/

I give this film **** stars.

After Earth

       ‘After Earth’ is an interesting film (interesting, not great) on several levels.  Not the least of which is how they chose to market it.  This is an M Knight Shyamalan film, but Columbia pictures made a conscious choice not to promote him as the Director.  There was a time when M Knight Shymalan’s name would have been top billing like a Martin Scorcese, a Steven Spielberg, or a Quentin Tarantino.  A series of box office flops have put into question M Knight’s bankability.  It’s a shame, because I still view him as an inspired filmmaker despite his string of set backs.  Unfortunately, this film will not help him with his box office credibility.

‘After Earth’ features the extremely likable (and bankable) father/son team of Will and Jaden Smith.  They say nepotism is a bad thing, but in this case I can forgive as the two have a strong on screen chemistry that is a pleasure to watch.  Still, their star power is not enough to save this well meaning and well intentioned film.  It misses it’s mark even though there are several things I enjoyed about the movie.  If I can be presumptuous, what made M Knight’s films memorable was not the movie themselves, but the payoffs at the end.  Most of his films trudged along slowly, but the surprise twists at the end of ‘The Sixth Sense’, ‘Unbreakable’, or even to a lesser extent ‘The Village’ were so powerful and visceral that it left an impact that audiences long remembered.  A long wind up that delivered a powerful punch.  Unfortunately, ‘After Earth’ is all wind up with no knock out punch.  

The story takes place 1000 years after the population of Earth, for reasons not fully explained, has abandoned the Earth and relocated to a planet called Nova Prime.  The planet’s greatest military leader , Cypher Raige (Will Smith), is returning home from an extended tour of duty to spend more time with his 13 year old son Kitai (Jaden Smith).  During a trip, their spacecraft is damaged by an astroid storm and they are forced to land on the quarantined planet Earth.

The two are the sole survivors of the crash, but Cypher is gravely injured. Their only hope for survival is for Kitai to cross over 100 kms of rough terrain to reach the broken tail section of the space craft that contains the distress beacon.  This is where the film is turned over to Jaden who does a great job at playing a scared boy who is trying to prove himself worthy to be his father’s son.  Thanks to the advanced technology of Kitai’s suit, Cypher is able to virtually travel with Kitai on his journey and offer his guidance, as well as share his fear.  We’ve all seen dangerous landscape adventure movies before and this film offers nothing new.  The Earth has evolved since humans departure to be a dangerous landscape (think Avatar) where all things are hostile to human survival. It’s not like there is anything wrong with the film, it’s just a ‘been there, done that’ feeling throughout.  

The true foundation of this film is the father/son relationship between the stern and stoic Cypher and the emotional and guilt ridden Kitai (the movie explains the guilt ridden part).  Jaden is not just Will Smith’s son.  His turn in ‘The Karate Kid’ shows that he has the family talent and even though he possesses many of Will’s mannerisms, he definitely has his own presence.  He has extremely expressive eyes and where Will excels at bravado, Jaden’s strong suit is introspection. You can feel his emotions through his expressions.  It’s interesting to see that talent in someone his age.  I hope he has a long career in front of him.  

Like I stated earlier, this is not a bad film.  It’s impressive on many levels and for M Knight Shymalan fans, you can see him employ some of his favorite film techniques on a Science Fiction palette.  Great visuals and an intriguing human story of a father and son trying to connect.  Unfortunately, as a Summer Blockbuster, it lacks the visceral excitement necessary to compete.    This would have been much better off if it was released early in the Spring or during the Christmas holiday where these type of films tend to do better.  

I like this film, but can only give it ** stars.  (sorry M Knight, I still think you are the greatest).

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3916539417/