300: Rise of an Empire

        My first thought after seeing this film was ‘Why?’  I just could not figure out why this sequel was made.  The original ‘300’ was a ground breaking visual masterpiece that pushed the frontiers of what could be accomplished with green screen technology.  In addition, it brought nerd idol Frank Miller’s stories to life like no one had ever seen.  An almost flawless recreation of Miller’s vision.  While the interesting true story of the 300 Spartans facing the million man army at Thermopylae in 420 B.C. was a great canvas, it was the incredible visual execution and sheer ‘Coooollll’ moments that reverberated through geekdom at the time and still does to this day.  Despite the film’s genius, it was light on story.  It was a case were special effects carried the film (one of the rare cases where it worked).  ‘300: Rise of an Empire’ tries to recreate that… and does, but one is left with a sense of been there, done that.

There is some cleverness that I admired.  The sequel takes place before, during, and after the battle portrayed in the original.  It is told from the perspective of The King of the Greeks, Themistocles (played by Sullivan Stapleton).  Unfortunately for the film, Sullivan doesn’t come close to Gerard Butler’s hipness from the original.  He has the ability to angrily shout every line just like Butler’s Leonidas, but come on… no one can exclaim: “This …Is…Sparta!!!” with the Shakespearean gravitas of Butler.  Sullivan makes an admirable attempt, but falls short.  In addition, the story is basically the same; standing defiant in the face of being outnumbered and outgunned.  It’s a pale imitation of the first.

There were high points in the film.  The Persian general Artemesia played by the sophisticatedly beautiful Eva Green was a welcome addition.  A greek orphan raised by the Persians to eventually become leader of their massive armies, she commands the screen and becomes the central focus of the film whether that was the intention or not.  Merciless, savage, yet feminine, Eva Green is able to achieve the perfect balance in the boys world of badassery.  Great performance.  In addition to this great performance, Rodrigo Santoro recreates his role as the God-King Xerxes.  It was interesting to see his back story and rise to power.  This was a more human portrayal of the omnipotent King from the original.  It had an almost super-hero type origin story that worked well in this context.  

There were some cameos from the original that served to link the plot to the battle we knew was going on elsewhere during this storyline.  Ultimately, it was unsatisfying because you find yourself wishing that you were back there instead of the plot line you are witnessing.  Everything in this film was done competently and with equal skill as the original; however, nothing significantly new or fresh was brought to the tale.  If anything it was a pale imitation leaving one with fond memories and longing nostalgia, but in the day and age of instant access you would be better off going back and watching the original.  It’s not a bad film, but I can think of better ways of spending my movie dollar

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2669520921/

I give this film ** stars

Robocop

           BIAS ALERT:  The 1987 ‘Robocop’ is probably one of my favorite movies of all time and definitely my biggest guilty pleasure in terms of film.  It was a low budget, fun, action ride that has since achieved legendary cult status for those of us who were nerdy teenage fanboys during the 80’s.  The genius (and yes, I use that term lightly) of the 1987 Robocop was its’ ability to skillfully and cleverly lampoon the Reagan era society, while at the same time providing us a sobering look at how technology was just beginning to affect and merge with our our lives (remember; no internet, personal computers, or smart phones back then).  It was a modern day Frankenstein tale with a modern technology twist and lots of cool action to boot.  Despite all of ’87 Robocop’s humor and action, there was a moving story of what it means to be human combined with a lot of emotional gravitas if you were willing to be swept up by it.

When they announced the 2014 reboot, I thought; “Why mess with the Mona Lisa”.  Robocop was a cult classic, but definitely a period piece.  I wondered how could they adapt it to our current environment.  Well, I’m going to state right out that the reboot was not a great film, but it is a very respectable reimagining of Robocop which stays true to the essence of Robocop and what it is all about.  The current incarnation is a much darker and more meditative exercise than the original.  Instead of exploring a robot discovering his buried humanity, it approaches it from the other angle of a man slowly understanding that he is losing his humanity into a machine.  Joel Kinnamen plays the current incarnation of Robocop with a full arrange of emotion and personality as opposed to Peter Weller’s automaton rendition.  I almost wish I could write this review without comparing, but there were too many similarities to avoid that type of review.

Instead of lampooning Reagonomics and Detroit urban decay, the current incarnation focuses on the sacrificing of civil liberties for the sake of safety as well as protection from terrorism (and also Detroit urban decay, amazing 25 yrs later that’s still the topic).  The cool factor of technology is tempered with the sobering reality of seeing how intrusive technology can be in our day to day life.  The updated film does what it is supposed to do and that is help us analyze our times through an exaggerated science fiction perspective.

Michael Keaton plays the evil OmniCorp president Raymond Sellars with a Steve Jobs style of eccentricity.  He is determined to bring a product with a human persona to market. The American public will not tolerate having mindless drones and robots in law enforcement, so his mission is to humanize his products. Gary Oldman (I’ve said before, he’s my favorite actor) is the Dr Frankenstein style Dr Dennet Norton.  His creation of Robocop is a work of genius, but even he has no idea of it’s consequences or implications.

As stated before, Joel Kinnamen takes on the role of Detroit cop Alex Murphy.  He is a family man who is ripped from humanity when what remains of his body after a murder attempt is placed in a mechanical body.  In the original, Murphy struggles to remember and reconnect with his family. He battles to become more than the machine he’s been turned into.  In this version, Murphy is fully cognitive and agonizes how he can still remain a husband and father in a completely prosthetic body.  He fears losing himself to his machine side. A much more broad range of emotions is required than the original, but Peter Weller did a much better job at the emotional nuances and subtleties . I found most of the performances in this film respectable (I will keep going back to that word).  Jackie Earle Haley as the Quality Control chief and even Jay Baruchel as Sellars executive Lieutenant were all engaging.  Samuel L Jackson as the Bill O’Reilly style Pat Novak (Host of the ‘Novak Element’) provided a perfect skewering  of the current cable news climate of combining news and sensationalized commentary.  A great performance which looked like he enjoyed playing way too much.

Overall, for those Robocop purists out there, this film does not remake or dishonor the original. The original stands on it’s own and always will.  The current incarnation of Robocop can be enjoyed on it’s own merit as well as provide little tidbits that have a pleasant nostalgia.  The phrases “I’d buy that for a Dollar” and “Dead or alive; you’re coming with me” can be found and still makes the inner 80’s nerd in all of us smile.  Definitely a darker ride than the original, but still a lot of fun.  It reflects how the times have changed.   I recommend despite the 2 and a half stars I'm giving it.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4257589273/

I give this film ** 1/2 stars 

Monuments Men

Disappointingly awful.  I don’t use the word awful lightly as I don’t like to completely malign artistic endeavors.  I try to find merit in most types of subjective expressions, but this movie was painful start to finish.  I was so excited to see this given it’s unlikely star studded cast and a topic which I would think would be incredibly interesting.  This film was a let down top to bottom.  It was pompous, overbearing, preachy, and ultimately couldn’t decide what type of movie it wanted to be.  

Monuments Men deals with the true story of a platoon commissioned by FDR in the later stages of WWII to find and safeguard masterpieces which were stolen by the Nazis.  Hitler had decreed that he would destroy all of the stolen art should he lose.  After D-day, it became obvious that Hitler was going to lose, so in a race against the clock, a diverse group of art experts are assembled for this mission.  George Clooney and Matt Damen lead the cast as Frank Stokes and James Granger respectively.  It almost felt like an ‘Ocean Eleven’s’ style of ensemble with a more noble (pretentious?) purpose.  Bill Murray, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, Jean Dujardin, and Cate Blanchett are all actors I love individually.  I admire the attempt to bring such diverse talents together, but ultimately there was no meat in the story to latch on to.  Each individual backstory was so weakly developed, there was no emotional investment in any of the characters.

George Clooney, in the director’s chair, could not decide what type of movie he wanted to make.  A preachy film about art? A comedy? An action flick? A period piece?  Ultimately, he tried to do all of this and succeeded at none.  There was no flow to the storyline, which in turn, made it hard to be swept up by the supposed ‘race against the clock’.  The humor wasn’t funny and the romantic angles were awkward.  Cate Blanchett (btw, my vote for succeeding Meryl Streep as the greatest actress out there), was completely wasted.  The romantic chemistry between her and Matt Damon was wooden.  Clooney’s Frank Stokes was the center of the film acting as both leader and narrator for the film.  Very few people can deliver a dramatic monologue as well as Clooney, but instead of coming off as inspirational, it just felt pompous whenever he droned on about art being more important than civilization or even human life itself.  

I could talk about different plot points or dynamics, but I don’t think this film merits that type of review.  It’s almost like Clooney tried to string together emotional and ‘Oscar’ moments with no coherent story for it to make sense.  One particular scene, with Bill Murray listening to a recording of his daughter singing ‘Merry Christmas’ over the army base’s loud speakers, seemed so emotionally manipulative that all I took from it was rolling my eyes.  And I LOVE Bill Murray.  It takes a lot for me to be disappointed in one of his performances.  

You know, when i sat down to write this review, I was determined to have at least one nice thing to say about this film.  I struggle to find any redeeming value other than maybe a little historical context.  I recommend buying a history school text book as it is probably less dry than this movie.  I’m not even going to say wait for the DVD.  I’m just going to say skip this altogether and save 2 hours of your life for something else more productive, like watching paint dry.  

I give this film * star (I’m being generous)

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2520623385/

2014 Oscar Predictions

Time again for me to try my luck with the Oscar predictions.  Some years I do well, while others not so much.  Usually when I stumble, it’s because I let my personal preferences interfere with my objective judgement concerning the tastes and politics of the Academy.  This year, I have decided to do what I want to win and what I think will win.  We shall see…

Best Picture:

• I Think: American Hustle:  This film seems to have all the mojo.  Personally, I think it’s over-hyped, but still a fun film.

• Captain Phillips

• Dallas Buyers Club

• Gravity

• Her

• Nebraska

• Philomena

• I Want: 12 Years a Slave:  Fantastic movie. Steve McQueen’s best work to date.  It definitely has the Hollywood politics on it’s side, but I’m not sure it’s enough to beat the American Hustle bandwagon

• The Wolf of Wall Street

Best Actor:  Not to sound cliché, but everyone of these actors deserved to win.  I would be fun to see Bruce Dern pull out a dark horse win.

• Christian Bale – American Hustle

• Bruce Dern – Nebraska

• Leonardo DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street

• I Want: Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave is the defining role of his career.  Incredible job.  It’s also who I think will win as well.

• Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club

Best Actress:

• Amy Adams – American Hustle

• I Think: Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine.  Great performance and I will be very happy if she wins

• Sandra Bullock – Gravity

• I Want :Judi Dench – Philomena.  Everyone loves Judi Dench and in my opinion her best performance of her impressive and distinguished career.  I don’t think the film made enough of a splash to win.

• Meryl Streep – August: Osage County

Best supporting Actor:

• Barkhad Abdi - Captain Phillips

• I Think I Want Bradley Cooper - American Hustle:  I’m giving this to Cooper.  It’s who I think will win and who I want to win.  More about the intensity of the performance than the actual quality of the acting, but attitude counts.

• Michael Fassbender - 12 Years a Slave

• Jonah Hill - The Wolf of Wall Street

• Jared Leto - Dallas Buyers Club

Best Supporting Actress:

• Sally Hawkins - Blue Jasmine

• I Think I Want: Jennifer Lawrence - American Hustle:  This will be year two for Jennifer Lawrence.  It wasn’t a good year for the supporting actress category.  I can’t think of another performance that will compete, although I did enjoy June Squibb’s performance in ‘Nebraska’

• Lupita Nyong’o - 12 Years a Slave

• Julia Roberts - August: Osage County

• June Squibb - Nebraska

Best Director:

• American Hustle – David O. Russell:  

• I Think:  Gravity – Alfonso Cuarón:  Changed my mind.  I think this will go to Alfonso

• Nebraska – Alexander Payne

• I Want: 12 Years a Slave – Steve McQueen.  Hands down the person who should win.  McQueen always makes thought provoking films and this is his best work to date. 

• The Wolf of Wall Street – Martin Scorsese

Philomena

       I have to confess that the idea of going to see ‘Philomena’, a film based upon the true story of an Irish woman coming to America in search of her son who was taken from her 50 years ago, seemed like kind of a downer way to spend the afternoon.  I actually dragged myself to the theatre as I felt I was obligated to see it as I try to view all the Oscar picks before my predictions.  To my infinitely pleasant surprise, I was taken off guard completely by this incredibly powerful and beautiful movie that is perhaps Judi Dench’s finest work and earns her another Oscar nomination.  They say life is a journey and not a destination and this is was what was going through my mind as I was pulled in by this film.  It’s not so much about her finding her long lost son, rather the journey and her spiritual awakening as she journeys to resolve her past.  Far from being depressing, it is an uplifting film of the human spirit and discovery.  Even though I have seen this billed as a ‘comedy’ in some places (and indeed there are many humorous moments) it is probably the last category I would force this into.  

The set up seems like it will be depressing.  Martin Sixsmith (played straight laced by the usually zany Steve Coogan) is a disgraced BBC political reporter who stumbles across the story of Philomena (Judi Dench).  She is an Irish woman, who as she reaches the later stages of her life, is haunted by the memory of the baby she was forced to give up at a convent 50 years prior.  She has suffered all her life wondering what ever happened to her baby boy and does not want to go to her grave without knowing.  Sixsmith is reluctantly drawn into her story and agrees to help Philomena in exchange for book rights to her story.  What starts off as a tedious assignment for Sixsmith, soon arouses his reporter’s instincts as they hit roadblock after roadblock when trying to find out about Philomen’s long lost son.  

With effective use of flashbacks, the brutal life of single mothers confined to convents in early 20th century Ireland is painfully illustrated.  A brutal life of literal slavery and abuse, that to this day, Philomena saw nothing out of the ordinary.  It was just how she was brought up and what she knew.  I marveled that as late as the twentieth century, this type of servitude could still be going on and  unresolved to this day.  It challenges one’s faith in an already beleaguered Catholic church, but as we realize they are as much a victim of circumstance as anyone.  

Despite the roadblocks put up by the hyper secretive convent, Sixsmith compiles enough clues to find out that her son was adopted by Americans and taken to Maryland. The simple Irish Philomena, who had never left her homeland in her life,  journeys with Sixsmith to Washington D.C. to find if her son is still alive.  The infinite possibilities of what could have happened to her son constantly flood her thoughts.  Is he homeless?  Did he die in Vietnam? Could he be President?  Is it possible that he is obese (“Have you seen the size of the meal portions here”)?  I won’t go into details about what she finds as that is not as important as her journey within herself.  As she searches for her son, she comes to realize the wrongs of her past.  Both the wrongs done to her and the wrongs of her actions.  She just didn’t realize at the time how inhumane these things were.  It is only through this journey and a more distant perspective of her past that she comes to realize that her life was not as it should have been and that she played a role in that as well.

Despite all these hardships, Philomena has traveled through life with a sweet good nature.  This is in stark contrast to Sixsmith’s cynical perspective of life despite being a man of privilege and wealth.  Sixsmith, who starts out barely tolerating Philomena as a pleasant simpleton, comes to respect Philomena and her life’s journey.  Being more ‘sophisticated’ and educated, Sixsmith is often more outraged by the injustices bestowed upon Philomena than Philomena herself.  He is profoundly moved at the strength of moral character Philomena demonstrates under circumstances that would break most people.  He marvels at how she can be a woman completely without anger or bitterness towards a life and church that has so wronged her.

I am very glad I saw this film and while I don’t think it will win the Oscar for best picture, Judi Dench has a strong shot at Best Actress.  Fantastic performances by both Dench and Coogan.  High marks for a film I’m glad I forced myself to go see.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2753669401/

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

Lone Survivor

         

         There are some movies that you can’t say you ‘enjoyed’ no matter how good they are. ‘Lone Survivor’ is a film that, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum or your views on the war in Afghanistan, causes you to  deepen your respect and gratitude for our armed forces.  It’s almost cliché these days to say we support our troops.  Some, who have views opposed to  America’s industrial military complex, still give thanks and admiration to the people who serve.  ‘Lone Survivor’ transcends all politics and viewpoints and shows the depth and quality of the people who serve.  It doesn’t whitewash or paint them as saints, but it shows the type of people who give their lives for their country and to each other.  I’ve always believed extraordinary situations bring out either the best or worst in people.  This films shows the depth of the unshakeable fraternal bond between people who put their lives on the line for their country.

‘Lone Survivor’ is based on the true story recounted by Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell (played by Mark Wahlberg).  It follows a routine (is there such a thing) insurgence operation in Afghanistan that spirals out of control when they are discovered by local goat herders.  Given the choice of either releasing them and giving away their position or killing their captives, they choose to do the only thing the Articles of War allow and set them free.  Within hours they are surrounded by hundreds of Taliban fighters and the fight for their survival begins. Despite all the fire fights and military themes, this is not an action movie.  It is a story about the bond between soldiers and the extraordinary humanity they exhibit in an unthinkably inhumane situation.  Often hard to watch, but at the same time mesmerizing, this ride is done with gritty realism as opposed to cartoonish super heroics found in most modern military movies.  

Taylor Kitsch (showing he can act despite his recent series of flop movies) plays the platoon leader, Michael Murphy.  Emile Hirsch plays Danny Dietz and Ben Foster rounds out the team as Matt ‘Axe’ Axelson.  If I may take an aside, Ben Foster gives an incredible performance as Axe.  He is a rising actor who will soon be a household name.  He has respectable, but minor roles in superhero movies like ‘The X-men’ and ‘The Punisher’, but has continued to grow as an actor.  His role in ‘3:10 to Yuma’ showcased his abilities and his turn in this film continues my respect for him.  I look forward to seeing what comes next.  Back to ‘Lone Survivor’, what these four assembled actors are able to do better than anything else is to bring depth and heart to these men.  While it takes an extraordinary person to become a Navy SEAl, they  have lives and connections that we can all relate to.  We become invested in  these men, which makes the horror of what they go through all the more excruciating.  

My hats off to director Peter Berg for avoiding falling into any political view point traps.  That would only have taken away from the impact.  You know that these men would be the same people and doing the exact same thing whether their President was Democratic or Republican.  Berg opens the film with a real footage montage of Navy Seal training.  Understanding the pain and hardship these men go through to become SEALS is essential to our becoming invested in them as the movie starts.  Berg (and of course the actors) is adept capturing the essence of the type of people who are able to become SEALS.  While their interactions and relationships seem as ordinary as anyone else, we know they are far from ordinary.  

I don’t like to lecture and say you ‘should’ see this film, but in this case I will make an exception.  Memorial Day and Veterans Day are set aside to honor our military, but sometimes they are just abstract holidays for outdoor grilling and time off of work..  This film gives us a deep insight and appreciation for the armed services and the people who put their lives on the line everyday.  Like I said earlier, no matter what your political views are, you can’t help but appreciate the men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.  They do so, often in anonymity, with little expectation of recognition or reward.  I hope this will be considered one of the great modern war movies.  Respectful, but without glorifying war.  I highly recommend this film.

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1014343705/

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

The Wolf of Wall Street

       ‘The Wolf of Wall Street” is a 3 hour bacchanal exercise of excess and debauchery.  I would say it is a modern cautionary tale in the vein of ‘The Great Gatsby’, but I’m not sure it is entirely a cautionary tale.  It seeks the comedy of the wild rise and life of the real life Jordan Belfort.  If any story represents the excesses of Wall Street, it is Jordan Belfort’s.  Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his better performances as the legendary Wolf of Wall Street and Martin Scorsese takes him in a decidedly humorous albeit extreme direction.  

Jordan Belfort was a middle class slick talker who lands an entry level job at a brokerage in 1987.  There, under the hilarious mentorship of Mark Hanna (a far too brief role for Matthew McConaughey), Jordan learns the business of selling stocks.  Unfortunately, Black Monday happens and Jordan, along with a large number of his peers find themselves on the street.  Down and out, Jordan lowers himself to apply for work at a penny stock brokerage in Long Island.  When Jordan realizes that he will earn a 50% commission on worthless junk stocks as opposed to 1% on more ‘legitimate’ investments, a whole new world opens to him.  His new found peers marvel at his ability to sell massive amounts of these stocks.  He parlays his instant success into starting his own brokerage; the professional sounding Stratton Oakmont (a Lion on the logo and everything).  He rounds up a bunch of his neighborhood friends, who were mainly skilled at selling weed, to be his men in the sales trenches.  

Donnie Azzoff (Jonah Hill), the quirky neighbor instantly becomes Jordan’s beta male side kick once he learns how much Jordan makes.  Other than McConaughey’s character, the role of Jonah Hill’s Azzof provides the majority of the comic relief in the movie.  He revels in Jordan’s success almost as much as Jordan does.  Through questionable business practices, Stratton Oakmont becomes a great success and the money starts rolling in in quantities greater than they ever imagined.  With the great success, the life of great excess starts.  Drugs, sex, and parties commence in an ever increasing cycle.  All their addictive personalities cause them to have a no limit lifestyle of debauchery and excess.  A guy who used to take the bus to Wall Street becomes an entrepreneur who takes a helicopter to and from work.  Wives are left for trophy wives.

Even though it’s immensely funny, it almost becomes ponderous over the course of 3 hours how each hedonistic event tops the previous.  Of course, with this much success attention is attracted.  Both the FBI and the media start to dig into his mega success as they rightfully believe that there must be something shady to achieve this much success.  Ironically, the Forbes hatchet article on his mega success attracts a swarm of top end stock brokers who now want to work for him.  This launches him even further into the stratosphere.  As with all mega excess, it can only burn this bright before things start to collapse.  

I tend to be libertarian and capitalistic in my belief system, but I felt this challenged as we see how much wealth is created without creating anything.  Basically, a stockbroker just moves money from one stock to another and makes money each time it happens.  They create absolutely nothing, yet gain great wealth from that.  To make it worse, Scorsese delights in showing the total contempt these salesman have for their clients.  They milk money from people who can’t afford it and laugh at the con they are pulling on them.  Despite the laughter Scorsese inserts, one feels unclean at watching these types of smarmy people bilk so many people out of their savings. 

‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is a fun, almost X-rated ride, about capitalistic excess.  It was equally fun and disturbing to see just what money can buy in terms of an excess lifestyle.  It’s a little unsettling seeing that his eventual karmic punishment did not really strike me as something that would dissuade someone from that life if that is a direction they chose.  It was a wild ride with only a mild punishment and a life on the other side.  Scorsese and DiCaprio rarely do wrong together and it was fun to see them turn out this epic sized, yet humorously american tale.  Definitely a high point in both their careers.  If you can take the X-rated debauchery, I highly 

recommend this film.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1514841625/

I give this film ***1/2 stars