Her

‘Her’ is a film that reminds me why I like movies so much. It’s a film that challenges as well as entertains us.  Spike Jonz writes and directs this fantastic film that is so intimate it could be done as a one man show if they ever decide to take it to Broadway.  This film is an in depth examination on what it means to be in a relationship and it even challenges what a relationship is.  Is it something that is shared or is it something that we feel within ourselves.  No easy answers and no judgements.

In the very near future, Theodore (played to nerdy perfection by Joaquin Phoenix), a lonely romance writer, is having difficulty with the break up of his marriage.  Being a techie at heart, he decides to try a new Siri like operating system that is supposed to be the pinnacle of Artificial Intelligence to help him organize his cluttered life.   Upon activating the system and after a few basic benchmarking questions, the voice of Samantha (with a crush inducing voice by Scarlett Johanssan) springs to life.  Instantly engaging and uplifting, Samantha sets out to learn more about Theodore in order to better customize herself (itself?) to his needs.  Samantha is excited about her capacity to grow and learn.  Despite understanding that Samantha is an operating system, the shy Theodore becomes instantly charmed.

In any other type of movie with this subject matter, we would be going down science fiction corridors.  There would be demonic computers threatening to take over the world and races against the clock.  Spike Jonz wants none of that.  This is a close and intimate examination about connection and what it means be close.  The science is just there to provide the platform to examine these things.  As Samantha grows and learns, her and Theodore’s conversations become more personal.  Her questions are more direct about what Theodore is feeling as well as an awakening that Theodore is understanding her as well.  The scene where they finally consummate their relationship (akin to phone sex) could have been a disaster or incredibly cheesy had it been handled by a lesser director.  Samantha is no idealized version of a woman (which ironically makes her all the more ideal), she develops hopes and dreams and insecurities like anyone else.  

In today’s world, we constantly debate the isolating and dehumanizing effect of technology in our world.  We lament how Facebook and texting are taking us away from human contact.  This film takes the concept of technology to the next level and shows a world where technology can meet all our emotional needs.  We want to think it’s dehumanizing, but what truly are the differences between the way Theodore falls in love with his computer and the travails of a normal relationship?  Is a relationship something that happens between two people or is it the emotional experience that we live within ourselves? No matter how close and intimate we feel with someone (or something), we never fully know or understand the object of our affections.  Is love forever or is it something that changes and morphs as we change and evolve as people?  We cling to those moments in the past as we fail to realize that two people can evolve in different directions, no matter how pure their intentions or strong their love. Again, no easy answers, just questions that are posed.  

This is my pick for movie of the year.  It might get a few nominations, but it is too small and quiet a film to make any significant splash at the Oscars.  Joaquin Phoenix continues to top himself with every performance, but the real reason this film works is that the audience falls in love with the voice of Scarlett Johansson’s Samantha, just like Theodore.  The audience truly feels the isolating intimacy between the two and becomes lost in it.  Even though this film could technically be considered Science Fiction, it is far from it.  This is more about the human condition our capacities for love than anything else.  This film is a joy from start to finish.

The linked trailer captures the tone of the film perfectly.  I highly recommend this film for anyone who wants an antidote for all the big blockbusters that come out around holiday time..

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4112492569/

I give this film **** stars

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/