Steve Jobs

         I have mixed feelings about the film ‘Steve Jobs’.  Let me start off by saying that this is a cinematic work of art (as i always expect from Director Danny Boyle) and I predict it will garner Michael Fassbender an Oscar nomination.  My struggle comes with from what perspective one views this film.  If you are enjoying it for it’s cinematic artistic value, then I have no qualms.  A truly beautiful and innovative film.  If one is looking for historical accuracy, then the film takes dramatic license to uncomfortable heights.  Much has been challenged in terms of historical accuracies in this film, but even Job’s closest friends have said that they have captured a sliver of Job’s essence.  If you are comfortable with those qualifiers then go and buy a ticket and watch an Oscar worthy film.

While Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 hours) is the Director, Aaron Sorkin (The Newsroom) is the screenwriter and loosely adapts Walter Isaacson’s definitive biography of Steve Jobs.  The story is used to examine Steve Jobs, the human being, by focusing on three pivotal moments in Job’s career.  The first act is in 1984 as Jobs launches the original Mac.  The second act is Job’s unceremonious departure from Apple and his start up of Next.  The third and final act is Job’s triumphant return to Apple and his launch of the iMac.  Aaron Sorkin’s reliance on sharp, combative, and confrontational dialogue permeates the film and is the cause for much of the factual inaccuracies.  In reality, many of the confrontations never happened and one of the most pivotal scenes, where co-founder Steve Wozniak confronts Jobs before the launch of the iMac, never occurred from Wozniak’s own account.  This is where accuracy must be forgiven if one is to enjoy this film.  Again by Wozniak’s own recollection, it does capture the essence of Steve Jobs as an acerbic and driven man who cared about his vision above all else.

The heart of the film was Job’s denial of his parentage of his daughter Lisa and his ongoing financial support of his ex-girlfriend.  As a society, we tend to deify accomplishments of giants and celebrities like Jobs, and this film focuses on Job’s very human failings.  Yes, Jobs made a ‘dent in the universe’, but at what cost?  His uncompromising drive and vision caused him to be derelict in other parts of life that many might consider the most important. Despite our awe at all that Jobs accomplishes, we feel pity for what he has shut out of his life in terms of family relationships and the respect of his friends.  As Steve Jobs is known to have said, it’s not that he doesn’t want to be liked, it’s that he is indifferent as to whether he is liked.  

Michael Fassbender was actually the second choice for this role behind Christian Bale.  While Fassbender may not have strongly resembled Steve Jobs, all was forgiven early by the power of his performance and the artistic integrity of this film.  After the credits roll, i could not imagine Bale doing better in this role despite the fact that he more closely resembles Jobs.This is not your typical biography, if one can even call it a biography.  It’s the artful execution of the story that allows me to forgive the inaccuracies in Sorkin’s screenplay.  I highly recommend this film.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3176640537?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_6

Bridge of Spies

'

         ‘Bridge of Spies’ is Steven Spielberg’s best work since ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and will most assuredly put both Spielberg and Hanks in the race for the Oscar once again.  I don’t say this lightly as I’m one who is fatigued by glory and deference piled upon successful Hollywood Directors and Actors.  I feel that often their work is given a pass when it is mediocre or sub-par.  Further, having grown up with Cold War stories my whole life, I have begun to grow fatigued over what I thought was an exhausted genre. However, good is good, or in this case excellent. Spielberg truly uses film as an artistic canvas and takes a fight and battle free Cold War drama and makes it seem more action packed than most modern blockbusters.

Anyone who grew up reading John LeCarre, Tom Clancy, or Robert Ludlum remembers how much Cold War intrigue was a part of our life. Today’s generation has little concept of the extreme polarization of the world at the time compared to today’s fractured globalized politics.  Nothing illustrated that more than the rise of the Berlin wall that went up and ultimately came down before the current generation was even born.  Fears of global destruction seemed to teeter on the slightest misstep in world diplomacy.  Compared to today’s currently politically correct and morally equivalent world, the Cold War saw no qualms about labeling the enemy and vilifying them.

In 1959, when Russian spy, Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) was captured, the public spectacle was an almost unanimous lynch mob mentality.  The public and government alike looked for ways to skirt The Constitution instead of adhering to it. The United States government sourced James Donovan, a former Nuremberg prosecutor and current insurance lawyer, to represent Abel just for the appearance of a fair trial.’Bridge of Spies’ is inspired by the true story of James Donovan (Oscar performance by Tom Hanks) doing his constitutional duty of defending the accused and then becoming a key negotiator in the prisoner swap of Abel and downed U2 spy plane pilot, Gary Powers.  In a further demonstration of Donovan’s skill as a negotiator, he was also able to get a wrongfully jailed American student thrown in as part of the bargain.

Spielberg’s gift as a Director is his ability to show decency and values in the worst of situations without ever seeming contrived or naive. He is able to capture the wholesomeness and optimism of the time even as he reveals the horrors and anxiety of Cold War life.  This is a type of role for which Tom Hanks was made.  He is the virtuous everyman, given an impossible task of arranging a pre dawn prisoner swap in East Berlin at the Glienecke Bridge without any acknowledgement from the US government of his mission.  His objective of negotiating while completely vulnerable to the whims of the newly formed  East German government is an occasion to which few could rise. Donovan’s ability to remain calm and even go beyond his mission to help secure the release of the unjustly captured American student is a feat to watch and we marvel at his tenacity, when at many points, it would have been easier to leave the student behind.

Mark Rylance gives a superb and understated performance (one that I hope isn’t overlooked) as the Russian spy, Rudolph Abel.  His guilt is never in doubt, but with benefit of hindsight, he was not the monster Cold War hysteria painted him as.  A meek man who was only doing his job diligently for his side, his unlikely friendship with Donovan was the core of the film.  I do wish Spielberg had delved more deeply into Donavan’s motivations, but some of the film’s allure was Abel’s calm reserve, mystery, and detachment.  When Donovan asks Abel “Why aren’t you worried?”, his deadpan reply of “Would it help?” becomes a running joke in the film and even a source of comfort towards the end.   It’s not that we have sympathy for Abel, rather an understanding that, much like the captured pilot Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), he was just doing his job. 

This is just a great movie and fully worth the price of admission.  A great throw back to the Cold war era and a story worth being told.  It’s edge of your seat stuff and a great reminder of a world we have left behind.

I give the film **** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3682448/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

The Walk

‘The Walk’ is the first great movie of the Oscar season.  Roger Zemeckis has put together a film based on the 1974 tight rope crossing between  the World Trade center towers by legendary French performance artist, Phillipe Petit (played by one of my favorites, Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  Not only is this a great historical piece, but it is also a cinematic work of art.  Zemeckis captures the spirit of the time and Petit’s Gaelic passion, but this is also a case where the special effects truly make this film not just spectacular, but one of the most breath taking (and vertigo inducing) experiences at the movies I have ever encountered.  I saw it in 3-D.  I’m not sure I could have handle IMAX.  The suspension of disbelief is so real that you actually feel like you are on the wire with him as he traverses the gulf between the two towers.  I noticed many people in the audience unable to even watch as the third act unfolds.

In this day and age of spectacular blockbusters, where bouts of superhuman achievement have become the norm, it is a credit to Zemeckis’ skill as a Director that he is able to showcase human achievement with wonder beyond anything that a mega blockbuster is able to convey.  Further, this is not just some dry documentary accounting the life of Phillipe Petit.  This is a rich and artistically done film that brings to life the passion and mania of a Parisian street performer.  I already held Joseph Gordon-Levitt in high regard, but he flawlessly adopts the French accent and artistic spirit that I would have doubted an American would have been able to capture.  Oscar season starts in October and I will be amazed if this doesn’t garner him a nomination.

The story of Petit traversing the World Trade Towers was one of which I was always aware, but the depth of planning and execution was something I never imagined.  With the complexity of a bank robbery, Petit and his crew plotted for months with excruciating detail on how to execute the performance art of the century.  The film’s narration style fits well with getting inside the head of an artist whose passion turns to mania as he becomes fixated on what was, at the time, the tallest buildings in the world.  We feel his obsession for the artistry of the feat to a level that we know it was no longer a choice for him.  It was simply something that must be done.

While this was completely Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s film, I don’t want to over look a strong supporting cast.  Charlotte Le Bon as his love interest Annie was superb.  She was his support, if not of the act itself, then of his dream.  Charlotte Le Bon is a French Canadian actress who has been popping up a lot lately as the go to French character actress, but I hope she is able to break the type casting as her performance rises above mere support.  She shines with out over bearing.  Ben Kingsley plays Petit’s Czech circus mentor, Papa Rudy.  Kingsley also delivers a performance that is powerful because it is not over bearing.  He is Petit’s harshest critic, but his admiration of Petit’s passion and drive is never in doubt.  I’m not sure what accent Kingsley was putting on, but it must have been authentic if he was doing it.

In addition to the incredible feat itself, ‘The Walk’ also captures the spirit of the 70’s, both in New York and Paris.  There was only one scene where they mocked Americans, but overall it was a return to a day where the world saw America as a land where people went to accomplish great things.  It was a destination. It was fun to see all the ethnicities interact and enjoy each other’s differences.  It was also a joy to watch the authorities, while they knew they had to stop what Petit was doing, stand in marvel and admiration of the feat that he performed.  

I can’t recommend this film highly enough.  At every level it is a cinematic accomplishment.  This shows the potential of what CGI is meant to be.  Something that not only enhances a film, but also completes the palette of the story being told.  I haven’t seen what will come out the rest of the year, but I need for this performance to be nominated come Academy Awards time.  If you go, you will be uneasy and depending on your constitution it may be to the point of excessive discomfort.  I have heard stories of audience members throwing up or passing out during this film.  I confess, I don’t consider myself afraid of heights, but I had some severe heart palpitations during the third act.  Don’t let me scare you though.  This film illustrates how man can achieve and exceed anything those superhuman blockbusters can throw at you.  

I give this film ***** stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3488710/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Sleeping With Other People

        I’ve always said I like to state my biases before I review something, so I have to admit I consider Romantic Comedies one of the lowest forms of cinema there is next to slasher films.  The typical romantic comedy is usually riddled with clichés and involves unrealistic people reacting to unrealistic situations in unrealistic ways (as opposed to super hero movies of course :-)).  I think it is more the unoriginality of them that I find so offensive as, despite my distaste for the genre, some of my favorite films fall into that category.  Movies such as ‘500 Days of Summer’, ‘Love Actually’, and “When Harry Met Sally’ are all well written and inspiring works of cinema.  Given my openness to respect those films, I tend to blame the producers of the genre itself rather than my fickle tastes.  So, needless to say, I approached ‘Sleeping With Other People’ with much trepidation.  Reluctantly I confess, that for what it was, I was pleasantly surprised by the wit and execution of this film written and directed by Leslye Headland.

The success of any romantic comedy relies on the likability of the two leads.  We have to have a fondness for them and want to see them get together.  Sometimes the genre goes for sheer star power and attractiveness (a la Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson), which usually means a stale and uninspired story follows.  Other times, as the case with this film, two characters who are just plain likable are given witty dialogue and realistic problems that many people can understand and relate to.  One would be hard pressed to find two more likable comedic actors than Jason Sudakis and Alison Brie.  Each is engaging and witty on their own and they bring that to the chemistry crested between the two of them.

Jake (Jason Sudakis) and Lainey (Alison Brie) lost their virginity to each other in their college dorm.  They go their separate ways until after 12 years of dysfunctional relationships, they run into each other again at a sex addicts meeting.  The chemistry is still there and they find a solace in being able to be open with each other about each other’s issues.  Even though they both feel attraction for each other, they realize how much sex has ruined their relationships, so they decide to just remain friends.  This proves easier said than done as they become closer to each other than most of their relationships and they are the first they turn to when things go wrong.

Like with “When Harry Met Sally” (seemingly the standard by which all romantic comedies are judged), the friendship goes through ups and downs while all the while being there for each other.  The attraction is always evident and acknowledged, even if it is not acted upon.  Without giving away too much of the plot, there are some surprising twists, but ultimately it is a romantic comedy and eventually the resolution finds its way back to comforting romantic clichés.

There are a lot of cliches in this film, no doubt about it, but a combination of Jake and Laney’s likeability combined with honest and witty dialogue makes up for any other faults the film may have.  Strong supporting performances by Adam Brody and Amanda Peet as their respective competing love interests gives this film everything it needs to be an enjoyable time at the movies.  Sure, this has everything you would expect from a romantic comedy (or dread depending on your perspective), but the humor is sharp enough to entertain anyone and Jason Sudakis has enough appeal and comedic timing to keep even the most jaded anti-romantic engaged.

This is a small quiet film that will not make much splash at the box office, but it is a great change of pace and will probably be a great date night movie at home, unless you are like me and have to see it in the theatre.  Rated-R, but with surprisingly little nudity.  Mostly for strong and candid dialogue.  I recommend.

I give this *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3165612/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Learning to Drive

         Not every film has to be a blockbuster.  Sometimes a small, low key, independent film can charm you just as much, albeit in a different way, than any Hollywood spectacle.  It’s even better when Hollywood mainstays, Patricia Clarkson and Ben Kingsley, will take on roles strictly based on a good storyline and interesting characters rather than the paycheck.  ‘Learning to Drive’ is a story of an unlikely connection between two people who could not be more different and how each provides support for each other as they stumble through trying times in their lives.  These are two people we care about finding their way through the world.

After a painful divorce, lifetime New Yorker Wendy (Patricia Clarkson) decides it’s time to learn to drive. She enlists the aid of Darwan (Ben Kingsley), a Sikh immigrant who works as both a taxi driver and driving instructor.  While Wendy struggles with her divorce, Darwan faces his own relationship issues as he is about to meet is arranged bride for the first time.  Wendy’s life is one of solitary upper class white privilege, while Darwan lives one of communal immigrant family responsibility.  Their lives couldn’t be more different or awkward when they first meet, but both provides perspective into each others lives that help them see their own more clearly.  The chasm never disappears, but their fondness and respect for each other grows as each realizes the travails of each other’s situation.

Like I said, this is not an ‘exciting film’.  It rolls out at a leisurely pace and one is not always sure of the direction.  It is a character study of intersection.  It shows that there are joys and triumphs as well as sorrow and  tragedy in everyone’s life regardless of station. This film explores that there is a common ground for connection by being human even if there is nothing else relatable.  We feel pain for Wendy as she struggles to accept her husband of 20 years has moved on to a younger woman, while we feel empathy for Darwan who struggles to connect with a bride he doesn’t know or understand.  They commiserate in their relationship challenges during driving lessons.  Each are in pain and turmoil, but each demonstrates it differently. Wendy’s high strung emotional volatility stands in stark contrast to Darwan’s calm and patient reserve.  Darwan teaches Wendy centeredness while Wendy gives Darwan an insight to love and acceptance.  The two grow as people and a friendship forms that neither expected.  

I don’t know what else I can say about this film other than it is worth your time.  I can find many things to pick apart about this film regarding pacing and even dialogue, but the overall sum of the film makes me just want to focus on the positive.  Diversity is interesting, but commonalities in diversity is even more interesting and this film is a study of that.  Don’t go expecting a wild time or a laugh riot.  Just relax and enjoy getting to know these two people and how they affect each others life.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi157790489?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

The Gift

       At the urging of my brother, I decided to move up the film,’The Gift’, on my queue of movies to watch.  I’m so glad I did as this is one of those hidden gems that will go unnoticed by the public until it comes out on Blu-ray.  This is a B-movie genre film that rises above its’ station to deliver a well crafted and intelligently thought out thriller.  In this day and age of over the top action, briskly paced stories, and formulaic paint-by-numbers genre films, it’s nice to have a film that takes its’ time crafting a story where the viewer is taken in and doesn’t know where they will be transported.

Joel Edgerton is the writer and director, but also the lead antagonist, so my hats off to him for this personal project that he delivers with skill and vision.  The story centers around a married couple, Simon (Jason Bateman) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall) moving back to California and running into an old acquaintance, Gordo (Joel Edgerton) from Simon’s past. Gordo's social awkwardness to reconnect with Simon charms Robyn, but Simon is uncomfortable by this mysterious person from his childhood.  However, even Robyn becomes uneasy as random gifts start appearing on their doorsteps as well as Gordo himself, but Robyn’s sense of social protocol requires her to at least invite Gordo over for dinner.  The tension rises as Gordo’s interest intensifies, while never quite crossing any boundaries.  Sometimes you just know something is creepy without ever being able to put your finger on it.

For anyone who lived through the 1980’s, who would have thought that Jason Bateman would have become more well known than his sister, Justine (of Family Ties fame).   Not only has he become more famous, but he has demonstrated that he is a versatile and gifted actor who is able to do everything from comedy to dark thrillers (and anything in between).  If this were any other type of film, I would say that Jason had a shot at an Academy Award for his portrayal of this nuanced role.  I’m frustrated that I cannot write more about this film without giving away too much of the twists and turns, but I will say that this film takes you in directions you don’t expect.  And as I stated earlier, it is in no hurry to take you there.  As the story slowly and artfully unfolds, you begin to reassess your assumptions of who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist.  Do these terms really even apply?  Is the victim always the innocent and is the predator always in the wrong?  One thing I will reveal is that by the end of the film, I still don’t have the answer to those questions.

Joel Edgerton demonstrates the skill of a craftsman as he seeks to draw out the tension as long as possible as he slowly reveals his vision for what is actually going on.  The theme of a wife not really knowing the true nature of her husband is a well treaded plot device, but Edgerton is able to make it seem fresh as the horror of Robyn discovering what her husband is really capable of begins to dawn on her.  I would imagine it must be difficult for Edgerton to direct himself in this role as Gordo, but he captures the essence of someone who seems nice on the surface, but has an unidentifiable creepiness to him.  Still, as the story unfolds, even though the creepiness and the danger remain, we do begin to feel empathy if not sorrow for Gordo.  That takes skill from a story teller not to sacrifice core character traits in order to achieve a plot point.  Edgerton is able to take tension and make it build, while never letting it snap.  It’s excruciating, but that is part of the fun.

If you like thrillers in the vein of ‘Fatal Attraction’, then I highly recommend this film.  Not every film has to be a mega blockbuster to be worthy of being made and ‘The Gift’ illustrates that point.  I have to believe there is still a market for the art of story telling and character development.  From that sense, ‘The Gift’ is a gift for those who seek that out.  I recommend this as a date movie, but you might be taking a second look at the person you are with once you walk out of the theatre.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4178092/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Fantastic Four

      I would like to start off by saying that, despite considering myself somewhat a purist when it comes to interpretations of superheroes in films, I do enjoy a good reboot of a character or franchise.  Characters that were created in the 1960’s must be brought up to date to remain relevant and a new take on a classic character is essential as one can’t keep telling the same story over and over and still be interesting.  Franchises like Bond, Superman, and Batman have all successfully rebooted their franchises and breathed new life into characters for a new generation.  That being said, Josh Trank is an impressive director and the cast that was assembled was solid and even provocative, so I approached the reboot of the disappointing 2005 Fantastic Four films with optimism.  My optimism was betrayed.  This film was a hot mess from top to bottom.  Its’ attempt at grounded realism failed and the result was a dark and ponderous film that had no concept of what makes superheroes magic.  Of course, one accepts change in characters and storyline with a reboot, but after it’s over, one should feel the essence of the character is captured.  When Daniel Craig uttered the phrase “My name is Bond; James Bond” at the end of ‘Casino Royale’ we totally accepted him as Bond despite the changes.  This was not the case with the Fantastic Four.  These were not the characters of the comic book nor even an effective re-imagining.

Josh Trank has already distanced himself from this film after opening day, tweeting that the studios took his film and messed it up.  Not sure that is completely true as the basic concept of the re-imaging was flawed, but I will continue.  The core casting was solid; Miles Teller and Michael B Jordan were both inspired casting choices as Reed Richards and Johnny Storm.  Jordan caused manufactured controversy as his character is blond haired and blue eyed in the comics and Jordan is African American.  This was not an issue while watching and he was actually one of the more faithful portrayals in the film.  As for everyone else, the casting director should be publicly humiliated.  Every great film needs a great super villain, and Tobey Kebbell as Dr Doom was embarrassingly pathetic.  Dr Doom is the genius blue-blooded monarch of the fictitious country of Latveria. He is Marvel’s greatest villain and is a man of enormous intellect, presence, and gravitas.  This film portrayed him as an unkempt, disenfranchised,underground hacker who just happened to be from Latveria.  He possessed no sense of regality or purpose other than being anti-authority and government (ironically, totally opposite of his iron fisted despot persona in the comics).  Kate Mara and Jamie Bell were uninspired choices for Sue Storm and The Thing.  The CGI was impressive for the Thing, but that is all I can say about it.  Thespian Reg E. Cathay as Dr. Franklin Richards must have thought he was in a Shakespeare production as he bellowed every line with over the top abandon.

So where does that leave us?  I had no problem with the altering of the original story by having the team gain their powers through inter-dimensional travel rather than a mere space trip.  I didn’t even have an issue with making them all teenagers instead of adults like in the comic book.  My issue is that not only did the gloom and pace suck all the life out of the story, but the magic fun that Marvel is able to capture in its’ films was completely absent.  Marvel has mastered the magic formula to create the excitement comic book geeks had as kids when reading their stories.  Movies in the hands of people who don’t understand this and that try to make what they think a comic book movie is fails miserably.  The most notable example is Joel Schumacher’s ‘Batman and Robin’ which should have ended a lot more careers than it did.  There is nothing fun or wondrous about the Fantastic Four and the character development and interplay was on par with a CW show rather than something worthy of the First Family of comics.

The story itself was silly and made all the worse as they cloaked it in a dark, tedious, and politically correct self-important atmosphere.  The team traveling to an alternate universe in secret (and while drunk mind you)to find resources to save our dying planet, strained credulity (is climate change in every Hollywood movie now?).  Supposedly the strange green glowing substance they found there gives them their powers, but Sue Storm wasn’t even with them, so I didn’t understand how she was affected to.  Victor Von Doom is left behind and when they return to the alternate dimension they find Doom an all powerful recluse who wants to remain there and rule…what? I’m not sure since he seemed to be the only inhabitant.  Equally confusing is why he appears to be crippled when he is mysteriously all-powerful and why, if he wants to stay in the alternate universe, he allows them to bring him back to Earth. Doom was a character of great power and cunning in the comics.  This Doom walked around like a character that belonged in the movie ‘Scanners’, randomly exploding peoples heads with undefined power and glowing green.  Whatever they call this character in this film, it was no way even a remote reimagining of Dr. Doom.  I don’t know what it was.  

In the third act, the battle to save Earth in the alternate dimension lacked any sense of wonder and, indeed, approached levels of hokey and camp that I haven’t seen for quite awhile in superhero films.  Whether or not Trank is responsible for this mess, it is obvious that the final product is a result of people who have no concept of superheroes.  The Fantastic Four was Marvel’s flagship at one time and someone should be able to make a great movie from it.  This is not it.  It will be interesting to see where it goes from here, because sequels had already been planned and cross-overs with the X-Men were in the works.   I cannot imagine Sony going forward after this dismal outing.  My hope is that they sell the movie rights back to Marvel, who I have no doubt would be able to make a movie worth seeing.

Sometimes movies are so bad they ruin your day.  This was one.

I give this film 1/2 star

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1502712/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1