Captain America: Winter Soldier

      ‘Captain America: Winter Soldier’ is another addition to the mighty Marvel universe and it is the most mature and sophisticated one to date.  I say that cautiously as superheroes bring out the kid in all of us, but this addition reminds one more of a political thriller than a flat out super hero extravaganza.  A sequel to the original movie ‘Captain America’, this one is superior to an already excellent film and one doesn't often say that about sequels.  Lots of action that is only augmented by a film that nourishes political intrigue and conspiracies over gratuitous special effects.

Even in the most capable hands, Captain America was always a difficult hero to portray.  On the surface he would seem a one dimensional character.  Basically, a boy scout who goes around spouting patriotic idealism.  While the audiences ate that up in the 1940’s when he was created as WWII propaganda, the current, more cynical audiences like their heroes a bit more complex and grittier. The trick is how does one maintain the integrity of who Captain America is while at the same time creating an engaging story that doesn’t seem passé and hokey?  Well, ‘Captain America: Winter Soldier’ is able to accomplish that,  The world is dark and sinister, yet Captain America maintains who he is and the audience roots for his strength of character while he struggles to deal with the world around him.

The movie can be considered a sequel to both the original ‘Captain America’ and the mega successful, ‘Avengers’.  It continues  the story line that is ultimately leading to ‘Avengers 2’.  Marvel is very impressive at making these sequels as part of a broader narrative, yet able to stand completely on their own. The movie opens with Captain America (perfectly cast Chris Evans) adapting to his new life in the present day only a few years after being unthawed.  For an idealistic man from the 1940’s, Steve Rogers has a hard time understanding how complex the lines have become between the good guys and the bad guys.  Being a soldier, he does the only thing he knows how to do and that is be a soldier for S.H.I.E.L.D. (America’s covert spy agency).  He is confused by what used to seem so noble and patriotic has become so nebulous and suspect.

Nick Fury (the always cool Samuel L Jackson) returns as the Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. We know he is on the side of the angels, but it always seems that what he is saying is probably not the whole truth or even the truth at all.  As Tony Stark described him in ‘The Avengers’; “Even his secrets have secrets”.  We see a more human side of Nick Fury, especially in his interplay with his friend and mentor, Alexander Pierce (a coup in casting; Robert Redford).  Redford puts in a more than token performance (in fact respectable) in a film genre whose script 10 years ago would never have crossed his agent’s desk.  He oozes evil as the high powered government bureaucrat.  As Nick Fury begins to realize that his sacred S.H.I.E.L.D has been infiltrated  by the neo-super-Nazi organization Hydra, his whole world is turned upside down as he begins to realize that there is no one he can trust.

Scarlett Johansen returns as the seductive Black Widow.  Less of a superhero in this film and more of a covert spy, she is the only one that Cap can trust, yet even that bond is strained.  Their interplay is some of the best in the film and it raises the hope that she will get her own film someday.  She is much more complex as, depending on the situation, she is either the good guy or the villain.  I was initially against Scarlett Johansen for this role, but she has made it her own. 

And of course, there is the titular character; The Winter Soldier.  Any self respecting comic book geek knows the full story behind him, so I won’t go into any detail here out of respect for the uninitiated.  I will say the reveal of his identity was anti-climatic (partly because we were expecting it), but also that his appearance was so different that most people don’t recognize him.  For a character who is in the title role, he didn’t have a large or even necessary part.  By the end of the film we realize he was introduced in order to set up the third film.  It was still fun to see him come to life from the pages of the comic book (from arguably the best Captain America story arc ever told).  He is Caps equal in every way.

Marvel does a great job at detail (which comic book geeks obsess over).  There were plenty of ‘Easter egg’ gifts to the fans that the common movie goer wouldn’t catch (so subtle that the laymen don’t feel slighted).  The one that has most of geekdom buzzing was the name dropping of Stephen Strange.  Long rumored to be getting a movie of his own, this leads one to believe that it is in the works given that this is the first time his name is acknowledged in the Marvel cinema universe.  The introduction of Agent 13 is another one that most realize won’t be the last we see of her.  I also admire how they make villains that were ‘cheezy’ on the comics page into more realistic threats, such as the French mercenary, Batroc the Leaper in the beginning of the film.

The most welcome addition was Anthony Mackie as The Falcon.  In the Marvel universe, Captain America and the Falcon are as legendary a team up as Batman and Robin.  Once again, Marvel takes what could have been a disastrous interpretation of a winged flying man  and made us totally suspend disbelief in the context.  It even made him more badass to boot.  Mackie strikes the perfect balance between being the faithful sidekick, yet still being his own man.  I hope he gets larger parts in future sequels and expansions.

Even though ‘Captain America: Winter Soldier’ would stand on its’ own as a political conspiracy film, it is ultimately a superhero film with all the necessary fight scenes and explosions expected.  What I love about the Marvel films is that they do not rest solely on special effects, In fact, the character driven aspect of these films improve with every outing and we become more and more invested.  ‘Captain America:Winter Soldier’ is by far the most mature Marvel film to date.  It’s an interesting dissection of the political time we live  regarding NSA surveillance, drones, patriotism, and the confusion of what is right and what is wrong as seen through the eyes of a man who came from a time when they saw it much clearer.  I give this film high, high marks:

I rate this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4095715865/

The Grand Budapest Hotel

       Wes Anderson is someone who continually impresses, even if I am not what one would call a ‘fan’ of his work.  He is one of the few directors left that makes films that are distinctly stylized and distinctly his vision.  The Grand Budapest Hotel is probably his finest work and like any work of art, it depends on the viewer to determine how much they appreciate it.  This film is stylized to the brink of abstraction, but not quite.  Impressive storybook photography mixed with intriguing, yet borderline cartoonish characters, The Grand Budapest weaves a tale worthy of a Teutonic picture book fable.

The Grand Budapest Hotel follows the adventures of the concierge Gustave (delightfully effeminate  by Ralph Fiennes) and his Bellhop in training, Zero (played by Tony Revolori).  The time period is between the two World Wars.  Gustave is considered  the epitome of concierges at the most respected hotel in Europe at the time.  He has gained his legendary status in part by bedding the wealthy lonely octogenarian guests at the hotel.  Each professes their undying love for him as well as being impressed by his impeccable knowledge of culture and social graces.  Great fortune turns to trouble when one of his guests/lovers death is determined to be murder.  When it is revealed that a priceless painting was left to Gustave in her will, he becomes the prime suspect.  The race is on to clear his name before he is condemned to prison for life.

The respect for Wes Anderson  in Hollywood is such that a wide variety of top notch actors strive to be in his movies despite their low budgets.  This one is no exception with everyone from Adrien Brody to Harvey Keitel to Ed Norton to Willem Dafoe… the list goes on.  Despite the quantity of characters, each one is richly developed and a pleasure to see fleshed out in their individually quirky ways.  Always comedic, yet flavors of people and personalities we all know taken to extremes.  An artistic vision from top to bottom.

Ultimately, at heart, it is a simple character period piece.  No real surprises or twists and turns, just an artistic vision laid out for everyone to enjoy.  There is not too many other ways I can think to describe this film, so I will just highly recommend it.  Something different from Hollywood other than the generic cookie cutter formulas that make them money but leave viewers craving something different.  This film satisfies that craving while at the same time wanting more.  A Wes Anderson gem.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1157933593/

I give this film ***stars

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