By Brett Blake THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Although it’s not perfect, this second installment of the HUNGER GAMES franchise bests its predecessor (which was good) in nearly every way. The scope feels much bigger, with the Districts and the Capitol (and its various denizens) being more fleshed-out, as are the actual games themselves, which are far more exciting than the “shaky cam”-tinged proceedings from the first film. Similarly, the new characters introduced are legitimately interesting and welcome additions to the story; as the primary newcomers, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Jena Malone, and Sam Claflin do a lot with not a lot of screentime. Donald Sutherland actually gets some material to chew into this time, and he’s great, playing the character’s evil in a completely real way, which is quite effective. Jennifer Lawrence has emerged as a mega-star within the last 18 months, and it’s deserved; she’s flat-out excellent as Katniss, always grounded and totally believable in conveying what’s she’s going through, and the fact that the character herself continues to be a strong and capable (yet still flawed) young woman is laudable. What I find most interesting about this franchise is that it presents some certifiably sophisticated ideas, and yet still offers all the requisite packing and trimmings of a blockbuster. There’s quite a lot to mull over under the surface in the film (if a person chooses to do so), and the primary idea of using the system in order to weaken/beat that system is a fascinating (and even vaguely subversive) one. Additionally, this film really hammers home (in more effective fashion than the first movie) the almost grotesque decadence of the Capitol, which makes the thematic/political underpinnings all the more pronounced; it’s really kind of nightmarish, which would be a problem if the story didn’t clearly want us to be off-put by the bizarre pageantry of it all. What flaws can be found? Chiefly, it runs on a little too long; there were at least a couple of scenes that felt unnecessary, in the sense that they essentially re-state things we already know about the characters or the situation. That’s really the only issue of concern; this is a pretty terrific film, and if its “Don’t forget to come back next year!” cliffhanger-style ending is any indication, we’re just getting warmed up for the main event. We can only hope that Stanley Tucci’s teeth will make a return appearance. THE BOOK THIEF Brian Percival’s adaptation of Markus Zusak’s novel is a strong, surprisingly affecting World War II story told through the eyes of a young girl in Germany. The film opens with narration from Death himself (itself?), which is an indication right from the start that mortality is a subject that’s going to be dealt with, and even in its lightest moments, THE BOOK THIEF is ever-mindful of the human consequences of the conflict that was the Second World War. As our lead, Sophie Nélisse is remarkable. Her character is the kind that could have easily been grating or unrealistic, but Nélisse is so confident in her choices - and so natural and convincing in the way she plays the material - that she really makes the part shine. At the risk of overselling it, it’s one of the finest examples of “young person acting” that I’ve seen in recent years. This should be a star-making performance, and I expect to see big things from her in the years to come. She’s ably supported by the likes of Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson; Rush brings an incredible amount of warmth and decency to his work, while Watson provides a stern counterweight that adds a nice bit of humor to the proceedings. The film’s technical credentials are top-notch, from the period-correct costumes, to the authentic production design, to the often-beautiful cinematography, which nicely captures the mostly-wintry settings of the story. The score from John Williams fits the movie well, and as music on its own, it’s quite lovely; there’s a contemplative, delicate quality to Williams’ music here that is refreshing in an age of droning, non-thematic scores that we find so often accompanying movies. I’ll tread lightly on this final point for fear of spoilers: many of the reviews I’ve read for this film have assigned adjectives like “saccharine” or “schmaltzy” to it, and while I would certainly agree that it’s not trying to be SCHINDLER’S LIST, and there’s nothing in here that would dissuade me from taking an intelligent child to see it, THE BOOK THIEF doesn’t sugarcoat very much, and developments in its third act have a decidedly harder edge than I was anticipating. This is a good thing, the movie is better for it, and its overall message about the value of books, language, and communication is definitely a worthy one. Anyone with an interest in the subject matter, the historical setting, or even childhood “coming of age” stories should check it out. It’s very solid work all around. 12 YEARS A SLAVE A harrowing and occasionally brutal experience, 12 YEARS A SLAVE captures the horrors of slavery in an utterly unflinching fashion. As directed by Steve McQueen, the film features two of the stand-out performances of 2013, as well as a surprisingly low-key and measured tone that makes the brutality all the more effective and pronounced. As Solomon Northup, our protagonist, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a tremendous and moving performance. Obviously the particulars of the (true) story make him an incredibly sympathetic figure to begin with, but Ejiofor doesn’t take that for granted; he earns the audience’s sympathy through his delicate work, and the pay-off at the end of the movie is as satisfying and affecting a conclusion as I’ve seen this year. The more explosive performance of the movie belongs to Michael Fassbender, playing the slave owner to whom Northup ends up enslaved. Fassbender is utterly magnetic, and he manages to wrap the character’s deeply evil deeds inside a complex, all-too-human psyche, which grounds the evil in a realistic - rather than over-the-top or silly - way. The remainder of the roles in the cast are filled-out by an impressive roster of actors. Brad Pitt, Pauls Giamatti and Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, and particularly Lupita Nyong’o (in a heartbreaking performance) all show up to one degree or another. Granted, some of these are glorified cameos, but they all feel of-a-piece, and they don’t distract from the issue at hand. Speaking of that issue, the film’s treatment of slavery is highly commendable. We all know that it remains the darkest section of American history, but it’s another thing to see the casual, almost perfunctory ways in which the slaves where belittled, abused, and murdered. It’s tough to watch at times, but it’s necessary to witness it. As with SCHINLDER’S LIST before it, 12 YEARS A SLAVE should (one day) be used as a teaching tool for younger generations, and in that respect, it’s an incredibly important film. All of that having been said… I don’t think the film is unassailable, or perfect, or “The Best Film of the Year!” McQueen’s direction is workmanlike, which is fine, but on a cinematic/technical level, there’s nothing truly exceptional here. It’s very good work, no question, but I think the reactions in the film criticism intelligentsia are more a reflection of the movie’s importance than its cinematic prowess. That, I suppose, is valid... to one extent or another. That’s not to downplay the movie’s merits in the slightest. It comes with my highest recommendation because it’s vitally important that people - on occasion - be confronted with some of the less-honorable parts of our country’s past, and even if its subject matter alone can’t entice you to see it, go for Ejiofor and Fassbender; their performances are as good as any you’ll see this year.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake Being lost at sea is probably not an experience with which many of us are personally familiar. We may have read stories - or seen movies - about it, but to actually be in a predicament like that is something else entirely. I bring this up because J.C. Chandor’s ALL IS LOST feels so incredibly authentic, so realistic, that I almost wonder if any of it comes from personal experience. I doubt it does, of course, but it’s a testament to Chandor’s writing and direction that the film conveys such a high degree of verisimilitude. It’s a powerful movie, tense and often beautiful, and it’s anchored (if you’ll pardon the pun) by one of the finest performances of Robert Redford’s storied career. Redford is the film’s only character, an unnamed sailor (the Internet Movie Database’s page for this film lists him, somewhat charmingly, as “Our Man”) whose boat collides with a massive, adrift shipping container; this collision damages Redford’s boat (and, worst of all, the radio), and though he’s able to make some basic repairs, it’s pretty much too late. A string of near-calamities follow, forcing our lone hero to do whatever he can to find a way to survive. No more need be said on the plot front. It’s a man-against-the-elements tale, and while it’s not the first such story to make its way to cinema screens, it’s certainly one of the best - it’s completely engrossing all the way through. As I alluded to, this is truly a one-man show, and Robert Redford is more than up to the task. It’s a mostly (almost entirely) silent performance, which is refreshing; lesser films would have likely resorted to adding in a voice-over narration, or - far worse yet - had the character just start talking to himself in an unrealistic way. But here, it’s just Redford’s face and body language that are used to get across what the character is feeling, and Redford nails it. It helps, too, that age has bestowed upon him a weathered visage, which fits perfectly in line with the nearly-archetypal “Old Man and the Sea” idea. Redford also deserves praise for taking on what is a pretty physically-demanding role; he’s tossed around cabins and bulkheads, as well as over the side into the sea (several times), and although I’m sure some strategically-placed stuntmen were on hand, it looks like it’s really Redford getting in there and doing the work. It’s not a showy or flashy performance (some might call it the definition of restrained), but it’s so much more compelling and effective than if we had somebody going all histrionic with the part. On a technical level, ALL IS LOST is a step-up in nearly every way from writer/director Chandor’s previous film, 2011’s very solid MARGIN CALL. Chandor stages a lengthy storm sequence that’s as accomplished - on a sheer production level - as any huge-budget “event” picture, but this movie’s smaller scale actually allows the sequence to have even more of an impact. It’s as harrowing and just-plain-scary as anything I’ve seen this year (right up there with the other great “lost in a hostile environment” film of 2013, GRAVITY). Similarly, the cinematography - both above and below the water - also impresses; for the most part, it feels pretty stripped-down, but then the movie gives us some absolutely beautiful visuals, from distant sunsets, to overhead shots of the vastness of the ocean, to sharks and schools of fish circling under Redford’s vessel. Continuing on the technical front, I’ve got to praise the element that I found to be the most impressive of all: the sound design. Given that the film eschews dialogue for the most part, that increases the burden on the other parts of the sound mix to really hit home, and they do. It’s a dense sound track - the flapping and flutter of the sails, the creaks and groans of the boat, the rush and crash of the waves… it’s as accomplished a mix as I’ve heard in a long time, and by rights it should not only be nominated for an Academy Award come Oscar time, it should win. The sound is that good. I want to touch briefly on two final points. The first concerns the shipping container that kicks off all of Redford’s problems. Unless I’m very mistaken (which, in the interest of full disclosure, has been known to happen), we’re meant to ascertain that it’s of Chinese origin, given certain markings and phrasing on its side. Now, when I consider the fact that Chandor’s previous film dealt with the personal consequences of international banking and finance malfeasance, I get the sense that he’s a director not above making some kind of “statement,” however veiled and subtextual it may be. Could he be trying to say something about China’s emerging global dominance and the threat that could pose? Perhaps. It’s more likely, of course, that I’m reading something into nothing, and that I’m just seeing what I want to see, but I think it’s an interesting connection, nonetheless. Last point: I brought up GRAVITY earlier in this review, and as I think back about ALL IS LOST, it really does strike me that it bears a kind of kinship with both GRAVITY and, strange as it may seem, CAPTAIN PHILLIPS. It’s connected to GRAVITY in the way they depict one person’s resourcefulness and capacity for survival in terrifying and hostile conditions; it’s connected to CAPTAIN PHILLIPS in the way their stories are - essentially - entirely brought about by an incident involving the global shipping industry, and how one man must keep his wits together to survive at sea. The three films are soul mates of a kind, and they share one other very important characteristic: they're all among the very best that cinema has had to offer so far this year. By Breanne Brennan
I would like to unofficially dub 2013 "The Year Movie Poster Characters Turned Their Backs on Everyone." Why? You may ask. Take a look at the compilation of many of this year's posters. I don't think I've seen as many backs turned as I have since...well, I don't really know. We might even call it "Joker Syndrome," as seen in the poster for THE DARK KNIGHT, which seems to have inspired many other blockbuster film posters to turn their characters' backs in a badass fashion. It appears that "backs turned" has been the go-to design for subsequently all teaser posters this year. I will admit that even though it is getting to be a tiring concept, it can look reeeally cool in most cases, like the teasers for OBLIVION and THE HOBBIT. Whatever the design though, Ryan Britt explains it perfectly in this post on tor.com: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/01/the-19th-century-painting-that-most-blockbuster-movie-posters-are-based-on By Brett Blake When the final word on the Marvel Cinematic Universe is written, I expect THOR: THE DARK WORLD will go down as one of the more controversial entries in the series. It’s a sequel that fully embraces the cosmic weirdness of its comic-book-panel origins, and it nicely expands on the groundwork laid down by the previous film… but it’s not perfect... and it’s not as solid, top-to-bottom, as its predecessor, either. But here’s the good news: it’s still a massively entertaining movie, full of incident, humor, and spectacle, and it perfectly sets the stage for the movies we’ll be seeing from Marvel over the next several years. After an expositional prologue establishing this story’s antagonists, the Dark Elves, THOR: THE DARK WORLD picks up almost immediately following the events of last year’s THE AVENGERS; Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is hopping across Asgard suppressing uprisings, while Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been imprisoned for his crimes. Through some elaborate plot machinations, Thor finds himself reconnected with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and must contend with attacks on both Asgard and Earth, in the process forging an uneasy alliance with Loki to defeat the Dark Elves and their leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). With that brief synopsis out of the way, allow me to begin with the positives. First and foremost, Hemsworth and Hiddleston up their respective games and deliver new angles and dimensions with their characters. Hemsworth’s easy charm fits Thor wonderfully, and the storyline allows the character to grow. That’s doubly true for Hiddleston’s Loki, and one of the movie’s biggest successes is how it handles him. I’ll tread lightly for fear of spoilers, but I will say that the way the script chooses to use Loki feels like a natural progression from where the character’s been over the course of both THOR and THE AVENGERS, and it puts him into some quite interesting positions that should warrant further exploration in the future. The rest of the cast members all do very solid work; Portman completely sells her character’s chemistry with Thor, and Anthony Hopkins gets to bring the gravitas as Thor’s father, Odin. Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings get to handle the bulk of the movie’s comedic relief, while Jaimie Alexander and Idris Elba get some nice, action-y moments to shine. The other factor worthy of discussion is how just plain “out there” the film goes. It’s almost joyfully fantastical from the very beginning, and it never lets up. This is a movie that has elves flying bizarre spacecraft, giant monsters, and a weird red substance capable of destroying the entire universe. Far and away, I’d call this the most blatantly comic book-y movie Marvel has yet produced; there are literally dozens of moments that feel like they’ve been ripped from the pages of any given issue of “Thor,” and I mean that in a very good way. Much of the imagery - colorful and grand in scope - is absolutely spectacular. Similarly, Asgard itself is rendered in far more detail than when last we saw it; this time around, it actually feels like a lived-in, fleshed-out place. That’s no slight against the previous THOR film, as the more contained Asgard we saw there fit the needs of that story. Along that same vein, the action in the film is exciting and thrilling, and feels distinctive when compared to what we saw in the first film. Here, we’ve got (several) aerial dogfights, sequences of close-quarters combat, and the constant threat of massive destruction being visited upon Asgard and London. The climactic action setpiece, while relatively small in scope when compared to, say, the final battle in THE AVENGERS, is an incredibly inventive sequence involving teleportation and assorted gravitational anomalies; it’s great fun. I also want to quickly touch upon the musical score by Brian Tyler. He conjures up an absolutely massive, powerful sound for the music that appropriately accompanies the picture, and he also crafts a strong main theme to anchor the score. Given that he scored IRON MAN 3 earlier this year, I’d like to think that he’s slowly becoming Marvel’s go-to guy as they move forward. All that’s good, right? So where does the movie stumble a bit? Two key areas: the villain and the pacing. Let me take the latter first. At a mere 112 minutes (and that’s including the end credits), this is the shortest Marvel film to date, and while that would be fine if that was the intention going in, it really feels like we’re getting a somewhat chopped-up version of the movie that was originally shot. The opening third of the film has a herky-jerky quality that just seems off; having a fast or breathless pace is one thing, but there are quite a few moments here that feel rushed, like whole scenes might be missing. It’s not enough to impact the narrative, but I found it to be quite noticeable. There’s not much “connective tissue,” if that makes any sense. The second area of concern is much more detrimental to the film. Put simply, our villain, Malekith, and his band of Dark Elves are not compelling in the slightest, and the screenplay seems to almost go out of its way to not supply them with any meaningful motivation. They want to “plunge the universe into darkness.” Why, you might ask? Well, just because, apparently. Now, don’t get me wrong, none of this is the fault of Eccleston, who plays Malekith just fine (I think he’s rather good at projecting the character’s single-minded determination to accomplish his - admittedly vague - goal, and there’s a subdued quality to his evil that’s interesting), but we never get a full sense of what this race of beings truly desires. We’re meant to be afraid of the elves simply because they’re at odds with our heroes, not because we understand their motivations, or the consequences of them getting what they want. In a lesser film, this flaw could have been enough to sink the whole enterprise; luckily, everything else about THOR: THE DARK WORLD is strong enough to overcome it. What it comes down to is this: if you’re willing to look beyond the unimpressive villains, and can embrace the sense of fun that the movie offers, you’ll have a blast. Those looking for something more grounded, however, should consider this entire review a warning - the movie’s probably not for you. For the rest of us, however, THOR: THE DARK WORLD is a ton of fun. Side note: Do see the film in 3D if you can. Not because there’s anything groundbreaking in the movie itself in terms of its 3D usage (there isn’t), but because you’ll get to see a pretty cool, complete scene from next spring’s CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER that’s only attached to the 3D prints of the movie. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|