Star Wars: The Force Awakens

       ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (heard of it?)is probably one of the most anticipated sequels in recent memory and it is finally here.  With all the hype surrounding it, was it possible to live up to the hype and expectations?  Well, it did a pretty good job.  ‘Star Wars’ is probably one of the most beloved franchises of all time and among the first movies that ushered in the era of the modern blockbuster.  Critics have always been mixed on the quality of the films that have spanned 40 years, but the fans have never wavered over generations.  What added to the anticipation is that this is the first in a series of films in which George Lucas is not involved.  Director and Star Wars geek J.J. Abrams was tapped to continue the vision and I have to say that he captured all the magic of ‘Star Wars’ and continued the journey even if he did fall back upon themes and stories we have seen before. 

The story takes place three decades after the original trilogy.  The Galactic Empire has fallen, but the Dark Side has arisen in the form of The First Order.  Once again, there is a Death Star style weapon that must be stopped by the Resistance.  A story we have seen more than once in the trilogy, but Abrams is still able to keep the excitement and wonder that made the original so memorable.  This time around we are introduced to two new protagonists with Rey (Daisy Ridley) a scavenger on the planet of Jakku and Finn (John Bodega) a Storm Trooper who has defected from the First Order over a guilty conscience.  However, The true stand out for me is the antagonist; Kylo Ren (played by an actor with whom I was never impressed with before; Adam Driver).  Kylo is our look into the Dark Side, yet not as developed or with the confidence and reserve that Darth Vader possessed, which makes him all the more interesting. Kylo is given to fits of rage when things go wrong and is full of self doubt, which gives him an air of unpredictability that keeps one guessing on which way the story will unfold.

Of course, half the fun is seeing all the original actors portray their former roles.  Harrison Ford is still the wise cracking Hans Solo if not a bit more wizened.  Carrie Fisher is now General Lea (isn’t that a demotion from ‘Princess’?) As she leads what is left of the Rebellion.  Of course, the big mystery is Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker.  He has been absent in all the promotional material and pre release pictures of him have been as rare and fuzzy as Bigfoot sightings.  The reason is clear as the film wishes to unveil him and I will leave it at that.  Smiles are had all around as we are reintroduced to C3-PO and R2-D2 and even brief voice cameos from Yoda and Obi-wan.  Just enough to thrill the seasoned fans, yet not alienate a younger and newer audience.

The film does rehash and remix well known story lines from previous films, but the magic is still there.  At its’ heart, ‘Star Wars’ was never a deep and thought provoking piece of Science Fiction, rather is was a swashbuckling and epic piece of Space Opera, with all the disfunction and Freudian themes that go along with it.  It was an epic reproduction and grand enlargement of the serials that George Lucas fell in love with as a boy and, as I’ve said repeatedly, it captures the magic we felt in childhood over stories that seem silly and mundane in our adulthood.   I’ve never thought George Lucas was a good writer (I’m not alone), but he was an epic storyteller.  There is a difference.  A writer is about strong and engaging dialogue, where a storyteller creates a world into which we are swept.  Lucas had grand visions and an unparalleled ability to capture wonder and fun.  Where I think ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ steps up is that the dialogue is tighter and the engagement much more sincere.  It will never achieve the level of the first ‘Star Wars’, but that is only because it follows it.  I think if this new trilogy can find a way to say something new, instead of rehash old themes, then it could truly stand greatly on its’ own.

So the original question was “Did ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’, live up to expectations”?  The answer turns out to be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.  J.J. Abrams was the perfect choice to helm this and did a masterful job at replicating and continuing and impossible task.  A new audience will discover a franchise that has been a worldwide phenomena for most of my life.  However; while some new characters were introduced, not much new in way of ideas or innovation in story was presented.  I have to say that it’s a fantastic time at the movies and well worth the wait.  I would never take that from then new trilogy.  I anxiously await the next one, so that says pretty much everything that needs to be said about if it was good.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/?ref_=ttcrv_crv_tt

Chi-Raq

          This movie is a challenge for me to review.  It’s a film about my beloved Chicago, so there was no way I wasn’t going to see it.  It is also a Spike Lee joint and I have a variety of conflicting opinions of him as a Director.  First and most importantly, Spike Lee offers unique and artistic films and, while one may or may not agree with his social messages, he always provides thought provoking visions.  As a film enthusiast, what more could I ask for?  That being said, even though all the above is true, I also find his film making amateurish at times and his dialogue and character interaction to be wooden and often caricatures instead of fully developed  multi-dimensional people.  Such is the case with ‘Chi-Raq’: an examination of gun and gang violence in south Chicago.  For some reason, which I’m still not sure why, Spike Lee decided to present this essay in the form of a Greek play.  By that I mean, there are narrators and choruses.  Every character has a Greek name and most bewildering, if not annoying, the entire movie is done in rhyme (I’m not skilled enough to know if it was in Iambic pentameter, but it seemed like it).  This did not add to my artistic appreciation, rather it ended up being distracting and taking away from the gravitas of the subject matter.  

If one can get past that, it is difficult to get by the premise which he takes from the Greek play ‘Lysistrata’.  A beautiful protagonist, not coincidentally named Lysistrata (played by the seductive Teyonah Parris), is tired of the death and devastation caused by the gang violence in her neighborhood.  Given that her boyfriend Chi-Raq, (played by an unconvincing Nick Cannon) is a big part of the problem, Lysistrata decides to do something about it.  After seeing a news report about a group of women  in a village in Uganda withholding sex from their husbands until the war stopped, Lysistrata decides to implement a similar plan in Chicago.  Suspending the disbelief, logistics, and practicality that something of this scope could be accomplished in a city the size of Chicago, I found the whole idea offensive and a step back in the women’s movement as the film suggests that only men are in charge and women’s only weapon is their sexuality.  Spike Lee has been known for his misogyny in past films, but this takes it to a whole new level. Further, most of Spike Lee’s use of sexual blackmail seemed adolescent and played to racial stereotypes.  In one scene, Lysistrata seduces the Confederate general who guards the Chicago armory which he has adorned with Confederate flags…Really?  Heavy handed and playing to social and racial fears which don’t even exist in this part of the country.  

The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has come out against this film and I can see why.  It portrays the government establishment as the problem.  D.B. Sweeney plays Mayor McCloud, but it is a thinly veiled caricature of Rahm Emanuel and not very flattering.  I would be offended too if I were him.  Despite that, Chicago is considered one of the most corrupt cities in the country and Spike Lee is right to exploit that fact as part of the overall picture.  Given my own tastes, I find Lee’s extreme exaggerations hurt his argument rather than enhance it.  Hyperbole is usually dismissed when used as support.

Despite all of this, I took much from this film and it did have a voice worth hearing.  The gang violence and it’s consequences were sobering.  In one particularly moving scene, a single mother (played by an intentionally unglamorous Jennifer Hudson), loses her only child in a gang cross fire.  Her anguish was palpable and made all the more moving to anyone who knows that Jennifer Hudson lost many of her family members to gang violence on the same streets in Chicago.  Her search for justice was powerful and difficult to watch.  John Cussak plays Father Corridon with intensity.  Usually films portray flamboyant preachers as villains, but Father Corridon is sincere in wanting to serve the community he was born to.  His faith and love never waivers even as he despairs at the violence all around him.  Anger and faith all rolled into one. I’m still not sure how to process one of my favorite actors, Samuel L Jackson who is the narrator Dolmedes.  He infuses the classic Greek tradition of narration with a south side Chicago persona.  He does it flawlessly, but I found the whole concept and character distracting and disrupting to the gravitas Spike Lee was trying to create.

I felt the point Spike Lee was trying to make was made early and the film disintegrated into absurdness by the third act.  I’m not sure what type of mid-life crisis Spike Lee is going through, but the film obsessed on sexual situations and behaviors we giggled at in middle school.  Lee’s misogyny and homophobia took away from his very insightful examinations of the plight of south side Chicago.  The film solves nothing, but does give a glimpse into an intolerable situation that one would expect to find in the Middle East and not in our own country.  Lots of cameos by familiar stars (no offense Wesley Snipes, but you are a little old to be playing a gang member) (Dave Chapelle, you are still awesome!!) and lots of topics that will have you talking after you see it.  While I can’t say i thought it was a good film, it is an artistic vision which I always respect.

I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4594834/?ref_=ttmi_tt

Creed

       How can one not walk into the theatre without a feeling of dread of yet another ‘Rocky’ sequel (perhaps spinoff is a better word)?  ‘Rocky’ was the first franchise that became synonymous with the big studio sequel machine that produced sequels of less and less quality as they progressed.  Two things gave me a small glimmer of hope when I purchased my ticket: One was the fact that the last sequel, 2006’s ‘Rocky Balboa’, was actually an under-appreciated  quality piece of work that went relatively unnoticed by the public due to the public’s reflexive eye rolling at ‘Rocky’ sequels and two was that ‘Fruitvale Station’ Writer/Director Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan teamed for another project.  My curiosity got the best of me and my glimmer of hope was more than rewarded with a unique take on Rocky’s world that captured all the magic of the original ‘Rocky’, yet is able to stand uniquely on its’ own.

I think the thing that intrigued me the most was that Stallone put his ego on hold and played a supporting character role.  There is no macho bravado when Rocky is introduced, only a man in the latter stages of life for whom every person he ever cared for has moved on. However; I am jumping ahead of myself, because this film is squarely about the title character; Creed.  The film opens on a troubled boy named Adonis Johnson in the juvenile detention system not able to control his temper or feelings of abandonment,  One day a mysterious woman named Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad) shows up and offers him a home and a name:  Creed.  Mary Anne is Apollo Creed’s widow who has discovered that Apollo fathered a love child from an affair.  Mary Anne takes it upon herself to do what is right in her mind and take the boy in. Flash forward to adulthood and we find Adonis having everything he could want, but still restless and troubled.  He quits his high paying white collar job in favor of underground Tiajuana boxing matches.  He is a fighter at heart and wants to break into professional boxing, but no one will accept someone they consider the silver spooned son of Apollo Creed as a legitimate contender.  Adonis leaves his L.A. home to travel to Philadelphia to see if the only man who ever beat Apollo Creed, Rocky Balboa’ will train him.  After checking into a low rent flop house, Adonis shows up to Rocky’s restaurant to enlist his aid.  What Adonis finds is an old man who is long past his days in the ring.  While moved by Adonis’s plight Rocky can only say “No”.

Adonis isn’t so easily deterred and trains religiously at Rocky’s old gym and shows up repeatedly to convince Rocky he is worthy.  Predictably, Rocky relents and agrees to see if Adonis has what it takes.  I think what sets this film on its’ own unique path is Adonis’s love interest with Bianca, his musician neighbor who is progressively losing her hearing.  Bianca isn’t just there for a generic love interest or provide Adrianne style support. She has a life journey of her own that will end with her loss of hearing and not being able to pursue the music she loves. Some of the best moments were the interaction of the two.  Second is Adonis’s ultimate opponent in the Irish World Boxing Champion ‘Pretty’ Ricky Conlan (Tom Bellew).  Conlan is someone whose story I wished they would have developed more.  He is the undisputed World Champion, but is unfortunately facing a 7 year prison term for weapons possession. He knows he will be past his prime when he gets out, so he is desperate to have a big payday in order to provide for his family.  When he learns that Creed’s son is entering boxing, he decides that type of name recognition could draw a big crowd.  Again, despite Conlan’s bad boy antics, we feel for his plight and him as a person.

Like what made the first ‘Rocky’ film great, “Creed’ is about character development.  The last 15 minutes of fighting is visceral and exciting to be sure, but the true magic comes from our caring for these people and what has brought them to this point in life.  There are plenty of nostalgic throwbacks to the Rocky franchise to appease our thirst for that, but this film stands squarely on its’ own with a modern take on the boxing world.  If I have any complaint, it’s that we couldn’t spend even more time developing the relationships.  The relationship between Mary Anne and Adonis was too interesting to be such a brief part of the film and ‘Pretty’ Ricky Conlan had a story worth being told in its’ own right.  

If you are an eye roller at the thought of another ‘Rocky’ movie then I strongly encourage you to give this film a chance.  If you are a ‘Rocky’ fan then go prepared to thoroughly enjoy the ending of the ‘Rocky’ saga, but the launch of a new one.  Even if you don’t fall into either of these categories, I still highly recommend this film.  Stallone has never been better and I wouldn’t be surprised if his performance will earn him a ‘Best Supporting Actor’ nomination (Supporting?  In a ‘Rocky’ movie?).  I don’t know how it’s possible after all these years that Stallone can still portray Rocky as the underdog.  That takes skill.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3155604249?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Spectre

          I don’t know whether it’s because I’m getting older, but it feels like Daniel Craig just started as James Bond but ‘Spectre’ is his fourth film in the role and probably his last turn as Bond.  Each actor has brought their own style to the Bond franchise, but in my humble opinion, Daniel Craig was probably the most dynamic and exciting Bond so far.  He left behind the campiness of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan and took Bond on a grittier journey that more closely mirrored the books and reflected more modern post 9/11 sensibilities.  As far as I am concerned, Craig’s first outing ‘Casino Royale’ is the gold standard for Bond films.  I wasn’t too impressed with the subsequent offerings, but at least ‘Skyfall' tried to be innovative and break from a formula that has become tired after 24 films.  ‘Spectre’ takes a step back and revisits the old formula and, while I enjoyed the film, I can’t say it will be particularly memorable.  The film relies too heavily on cliche Bond style action sequences and seductions as well as throwing in a little too many nostalgic throwbacks from previous films to stand on its’ own.

‘Spectre’ starts off promisingly enough delivering a visceral action sequence in Mexico City.  I enjoy when they explore cities we have not seen before and this definitely upped the ante for future action sequences.  After the opening sequence, things become predictable.  M is furious with Bond and puts him on notice.  Of course, Bond rebels and follows a personal agenda regardless.  All of this leads to Bond uncovering global level plot of villainy along with women to seduce.  Been there done that and have seen it done better in other films.

I was excited to see the crime organization Spectre reintroduced as it has an illustrious history in terms of the Bond franchise.  Although, I did find it odd such a pivotal organization was being introduced at the end of Bond’s career.  I was even more excited that Christoph Waltz was tapped to be Blofeld, the head of the massive global crime syndicate.  Who does a villain better than Waltz?  My excitement was short lived as the limited screen time that Waltz had was really not all that impressive.  Scenes that were supposed to heighten Blofeld menacing demeanor came across flat and almost boring. Twists, turns, and connections between Bond and Blofeld towards the end were thrown in that seemed forced and unnecessary.  Sometimes less is more when it comes to plot twists.  Truly a waste of Waltz’s villainous capabilities.

Of course there are the Bond women.  They always seem to fall into two categories.  The first one is the wife or girlfriend of the villain, who finds Bond irresistible to the detriment of their health.  Monica Bellucci takes on this role and adds an Italian class that does the role justice.  At 50, she is the oldest Bond woman to grace the screen and is stunning.  The second category is the spunky damsel in distress.  This is usually someone, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a villainous situation from which there is no way out (except with Bond’s help of course).  We find this in the character of Madeline Swann play by the beautiful Léa Seydoux.  Like all Bond women her attractiveness is without question, but I always roll my eyes when they seemingly realize that Bond is the love of their lives in a 72 hour period.  Still, the scene between Bond and Madeline in the restaurant railcar harkens back to the glamour and beauty of the 1940’s and she plays her role well.

The thing I loved about Craig’s first outing, ’Casino Royale’ is that they significantly scaled back on the over the top special effects and gadgets.  ‘Spectre’ doesn’t take this lesson and relies a little too heavily on pyro technics over story.  However, even though it seems i’ve mostly criticized the film, ‘Spectre’ is old school Bond and a fun ride with a little nostalgia thrown in.  While my critique may be harsh, I found myself enjoying it like any other Bond film.  Everyone has their favorite Bond and Daniel Craig is mine.  I will miss him without question, but some of the names that have bandied about have me very excited (Please please let it be Fassbender).  All said and done; ‘Spectre’ is worth the price of admission.

I give this film ** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3362042649?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Burnt

         I so wanted to like this film more than I did.  Having a love of good food and being a great admirer of Bradley Cooper’s recent work, I had incredibly high hopes for a film that seeks to explore behind the scenes of what goes into creating a great kitchen and restaurant.  I suppose I had a great taste in my mouth from last spring’s ‘Chef’ where Jon Favreau truly explored the passion and artistry of creating haute cuisine. I even had fond memories of Anthony Bourdain’s cynical literary expose of the New York kitchen scene in ‘Kitchen Confidential’.  Both pieces of work surprised us with the brutality of the kitchen, but also charmed us with the humor and creativity one found there.  Unfortunately, Director John Wells brings us a look into kitchen life that takes itself way too seriously and sucks whatever joy one finds at witnessing the creation of food that rises to the level of art.

        The story centers around down and out Chef Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper), who is doing penance in New Orleans for destroying his rock star culinary career in Europe with drugs and alcohol.  After his self imposed exile of shucking oysters comes to an end, he moves to London to see if he can start over and earn an impossibly coveted 3rd Michelin star. Even though Adam has burned almost every conceivable bridge, Adam is able (albeit through the same dirty tricks that got him thrown out of Paris) to land the head Chef job at a prestigious hotel run by his old acquaintance, Tony (played by the always fantastic, Daniel Brühl). Tony isn’t very good at his job and only runs the hotel restaurant because his father owns the hotel.  Despite the bad history between he and Adam, he believes Adam can create something that will make tony’s father finally proud of him.  Of course, to create a great kitchen a chef needs to have a great team, so Adam repairs previously burnt bridges as well as recruiting talented newcomers.  Since every movie like this needs a romantic foil, of course Adam recruits the lovely Helen (Sienna Miller) as his up and coming protege.  She is clumsily worked into the story, but how else does one interject the further drama?

         This is where the film takes a downward turn as the stress of creating Adam’s vision causes him to revert to his previous self destructive ways.  Adam’s totalitarian and abusive ways of running a kitchen become difficult to watch despite the beauty of the culinary masterpieces being prepared. Good food is about joy and life, but the Director chooses to spend the majority of the time lingering on the stress and mental violence of working in a kitchen.  The few glimpses of art being created are quickly overpowered by the overall dour and heavy tone of the film.

         I get what the Director was trying to do.  All great artists are tortured.  Great art comes from pain.  Chefs at this level are truly artists and the truly great chefs are tortured artists.  Point made, but that doesn’t make for a great story or something I want to spend two hours watching.  The opening of the third act becomes ludicrously depressing to the point of farce.  Sometimes less is more when trying to make a point.

         It’s a shame because there was some great talent in this film.  I already mentioned Daniel Brühl and Sienna Miller, but there were also some great, if not pivotal, roles played by Mathew Rhys, Omar Sy, Emma Thompson and Uma Thurman.  I got the feeling that some of this was just an excuse for celebrities to get together and hang out in London and eat great food.  Since I already started down the unsubstantiated proclamation route, I’l also say that much of this seemed like a vanity project for Bradley Cooper.  The intensity and the over acting as well as taking advantage of his French speaking background all seemed a little contrived.  

        I respect the concept of this film, but the execution was lacking.  Any film about food or art has to include the ability to enjoy what was created, not just the angst behind it.  I won’t say I’m sorry i plucked down money to see this, but it can definitely wait until it comes to the small screen.

I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3936727577?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

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