By Brett Blake Director Darren Aronofsky’s grand re-telling of the Noah story is many things: sometimes reverently adherent to the Biblical text, sometimes off on its own tangents; sometimes a sweeping, fantastical epic, sometimes a provocative character study. You might not think these disparate ideas, tones, and styles could co-exist in anything resembling a cohesive and satisfying final product, but the miraculous thing about NOAH is that it somehow pulls it off. It both fits into the long tradition of epic Bible-based films, and yet it also feels completely fresh and modern. It will almost certainly not sit well with some sectors (more on that below), but for those willing to go along with a more fantasy-inspired “take” on the tale, this is a borderline-spectacular film. The bare bones of the story should be well-known to everybody, given that it’s one of the oldest stories of human civilization, so I’ll waste no time on recapitulating it here; what I will mention, though, is just how complex - morally and theologically - director Aronofsky chooses to present the tale. Much time is given to debate and discussion between the characters about Noah’s (Russell Crowe) course of action; some even go as far as to directly and repeatedly challenge Noah’s interpretation of what God - referred to in the film only as “The Creator” - is asking of him. The film never shies away from the inherent implications of Noah’s task and the ensuing great flood. Human faces are given to those wiped out by the deluge, and though the movie presents ample evidence of mankind (at that time) being sufficiently flawed enough to warrant God taking action, it’s nowhere near as cut-and-dried as previous tellings of the story have presented. More devout viewers may find this muddying of the waters (as well as the expansion of the story beyond what's present in the text) to be inappropriate, but I believe it gives the movie a genuinely thought-provoking quality that’s quite welcome, and it foregrounds the idea of the mystery of faith in a truly compelling way. We are shown people wrestling with the events going on around them, and struggling with the question of what God wants from them; aside from Noah himself, obviously, this idea is somewhat embodied in the characters of the Watchers, fallen angels who have strayed (or so they believe) from God’s will, and who alternately help and hinder mankind on Earth. I’ve seen more than a few critics point to Martin Scorsese’s controversial (but quite excellent) THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as a comparison to NOAH, and I think that’s - at least partially - a fair one. Both films deal seriously with how human beings relate to God, and they don’t shy away from the somewhat murky moral questions that can crop up with respect to men trying to decipher God’s ultimate plans. Where NOAH separates itself from the complexity of LAST TEMPTATION - and where it’s not so much unlike the sweeping Biblical epics of the past - is in its embrace of spectacle. There’s a strain of grand fantasy running through this film that’s quite striking; this is a movie in which six-limbed rock giants (the aforementioned Watchers) help to build the ark, and in which a man repels an advancing army with a wall of fire brought forth by driving a sword into the ground. There’s also a spectacular sequence involving a hoard of men laying siege to the ark as the deluge begins, and it’s a marvelously staged setpiece, one full of interesting bits of action as well as character moments. The film does stumble a bit in the third act, once the ark is afloat. Without getting into spoiler-heavy territory, I will say that the movie kind of transforms into almost a psychological thriller, and it goes so far as to position Noah himself as something of an antagonist. Again, some will have an issue with that, and I’ll grant that it feels like it comes out of nowhere to a degree, but it does illuminate a great deal about this version of Noah’s character and what he thinks his mission is. Speaking of Noah, it’s high time I talk about Russell Crowe’s work; no contest, I think it’s one of his very best - and most complex - performances. He conveys Noah’s innate decency, his initial absolute confidence of purpose, and his love for his family, but he also perfectly captures the weight bearing down on the character (particularly as the story moves into its second half), and his transition into a more troubled and dark figure is well-handled. It’s awards-level stuff from him. In terms of the supporting performances, there’s not a weak link to be found. Jennifer Connelly is a strong counterpoint to Crowe’s Noah, and many of the more philosophical ideas at play come about because of her conversations with other characters; ditto for Ray Winstone, the ostensible villain of the piece who makes valid arguments against what Noah’s up to (up to a certain point, of course, as the movie does pretty unequivocally come down on the side of his character being a villain by the end). Logan Lerman does a fine job brooding as one of Noah’s sons, and Emma Watson is surprisingly effective in the moments she’s called upon to show genuine emotion. Plus, Anthony Hopkins turning up as a wise old hermit can never be a bad thing, so he’s a welcome presence, too. The design, creation, and visualization of the ancient world in which the tale takes place is fascinating, and there are more than a few moments in here that are profoundly stunning and awe-inspiring. Though the story is confined to a relatively small geographic area (until the post-flood scenes, anyway), there’s a huge sense of scale and scope, aided in no small measure by the production design and the cinematography. Clint Mansell’s musical score is - thus far - the strongest of the year, and it gives the movie a profundity that’s appropriate, but it also handles the quieter, more delicate moments with aplomb. NOAH is not a film that wants the audience to sit down and passively watch it. NOAH is a film that demands that the audience (read: you!) engage with it on the weighty and philosophical issues it raises. It’s a movie that grapples with the implications of faith in a challenging - yet completely respectful and, ultimately, hopeful - way, and it also offers some incredible moments of visual splendor and excitement. It’s not Darren Aronofsky’s masterpiece (that remains 2010’s BLACK SWAN), but as of this moment, NOAH is the best film of 2014.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake NON-STOP is the sort of film that could have turned out any number of ways: a mind-numbing bore, a grim slog, a cliche-ridden potboiler… Thankfully, it’s none of those things, and though most would probably admit that it’s got its fair share of ridiculousness, its ultimately a completely entertaining entry in the subgenre of films set aboard airplanes. It’s a classic subgenre, with movies ranging from the AIRPORT series of the 1970s, to AIR FORCE ONE of the 1990s, and more recent films like RED EYE and FLIGHTPLAN. NON-STOP is in the upper tier of such movies, which may or may not sound like I'm damning it with faint praise, depending on your personal taste. In NON-STOP, Liam Neeson plays a man with a very particular set of skills. Wait... sorry, that's actually his character from TAKEN. I got confused for a second, there. Here, he's playing an emotionally troubled U.S. Air Marshal. We know he’s emotionally troubled because he drinks a lot, broods, and sneaks into airplane lavatories to smoke cigarettes. On a red-eye flight to London, a sinister, unseen mastermind begins playing games with Neeson, games which eventually explode into a full-on crisis situation. Bodies pile up, tensions rise, and only one man can handle the situation - Neeson! Now, I’ll admit, I deliberately made the movie sound pretty cheesy in that description, but I think it’s a good representation of the film itself. It takes itself just seriously enough to generate some legitimate tension, but it also embraces the somewhat silly nature of the events that unfold. The script does a surprisingly great job of setting-up red herrings and potential solutions to the central mystery, and while the ultimate resolution of that mystery is - to be honest - a little half-baked and goofy, it works because the movie seems to know exactly what it is - a solidly-made B-movie with a fine cast and strong direction. This could have easily been schlock (some might say it still is), but director Jaume Collet-Serra does a fine job of pitching the more absurd elements at just the right tone. He also manages to keep the film visually interesting at all times; despite being set entirely onboard an airplane, the setting never becomes boring, and Collet-Serra uses seemingly every inch of the plane to full effect. The staging of a couple of fight scenes in close-quarters are particularly effective. As the lead, Neeson’s in fine, professional form. His new-found niche as an action star has been well-covered elsewhere, so I won’t dwell on it here, except to say that the conviction he brings to this kind of role makes him extremely watchable, and the kind of presence the audience naturally wants to root for. He’s not doing anything groundbreaking or Oscar-worthy in NON-STOP (see the recent THE GREY for just such an Oscar-worthy performance), but he’s a compelling figure amidst the hijinks (and hijacks) that unfold. He’s joined by an aces supporting cast; Julianne Moore is the biggest “name” in the lineup, but you’ve also got great up-and-coming character actors like Corey Stoll, Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, and newly-minted Oscar nominee (for 12 YEARS A SLAVE) Lupita Nyong’o rounding out the passenger manifest. Each treats the material seriously, and none act as though they’re “above” this sort of film. Moore, in particular, seems to be having a pretty fun time as Neeson’s ostensible sidekick. Technically, the film rises above its B-grade station; it’s a very slick production, featuring moody cinematography (you might not think the cabin of an airplane would be the most interesting location in terms of light and color, but this film makes a strong argument that it’s possible), as well as an effective sound mix that nicely heightens the tension at some key moments of the story. The production design is also interesting, as the set is clearly convincing as being a real plane, and yet it conforms to the demands of the filmmaking process in an unobtrusive way. I suppose that’s just a long-winded way of saying the airplane set is clearly larger than its real-world counterpart would be, but not in such a way that screams “THIS IS A MOVIE SET!” In the final analysis, NON-STOP is much better than it probably should have been. It’s a solid, fun little thriller with a strong lead performance. It’s not high art, but I had a great time with it, and fans of Liam Neeson’s action-type films should find much to enjoy. By Brett Blake Another decade, another attempt to re-launch Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan character as a viable franchise-leader. While I don’t expect JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT will be the film to establish a new Clancy-verse cinematic franchise (based solely on the film’s rather tepid box office performance over its opening weekend), I do think it is a very solid and entertaining espionage thriller with good performances, decent action and suspense, and a fun villainous plot that feels moderately realistic… if not entirely plausible. Although the film provides a prologue establishing how Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) is recruited into the CIA by his mentor, Harper (Kevin Costner), the bulk of the story involves Ryan’s attempt to stop an attack on the United States economy by elements within the Russian government, personified by Cherevin (director Kenneth Branagh), an influential and shady Russian businessman. Other than a subplot involving Ryan’s fiance, Cathy (Keira Knightley), and her concerns about Ryan’s fidelity, the story is very straightforward, offering the kinds of spy tropes we’ve seen before (i.e. We have to hack the villain’s computer network! There’s a bomb somewhere in the city! I’m not a field operative!), but SHADOW RECRUIT somehow manages to feel at least moderately fresh, and there’s an almost nonchalant, mundane quality to the actual espionage that is a hallmark of Tom Clancy’s writing. The Ryan character has been the focus of three previous movies: 1990’s THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER (featuring Alec Baldwin as Ryan), 1992’s PATRIOT GAMES (with introduced Harrison Ford as the character), 1994’s CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER (Ford again), and 2002’s THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (where Ben Affleck took on the role). Those first three films are excelllent-to-very-good (I’m not too big on SUM OF ALL FEARS, personally), and while the acting continuity was not maintained, the continuity of the character was, in the sense that Jack Ryan has always been defined by a couple very key traits - a sharp intellect and a Boy Scout-ish sense of honor and duty to country. Those traits are carried over into SHADOW RECRUIT quite effectively by Chris Pine; he plays Ryan as a fundamentally “good” man operating from a very decent place, and even though the screenplay is keen to throw him head-first into fight and chase scenes, the writers are also careful to show Ryan analyzing and breaking-down information. The character as envision by Clancy is meant to be something of a “thinking man’s reluctant action hero,” and I think this film strikes as nice a balance as you could hope for from a mainstream thriller. As the mentor/authority figure in the story, Kevin Costner does good work with a cliched character, the kind of figure we’ve seen literally in dozens of films and novels in the past decades. What make Costner interesting here are the little acting choices and semi-off-beat line readings that he gives; he brings a real sense of old-school world weariness to the part that goes a long way towards offsetting the fact that we’ve seen this character before. It seems Costner is in the middle of something of a mini renaissance (given that he’s starring in no less than three films over the next three months, SHADOW RECRUIT included), and I’m happy to see him back in a big way. Keira Knightley’s role is a somewhat thankless one by design, as there’s only so much you can do with the character within the confines of the kind of story that’s being told, but she’s fine, and is able to keep the character from being irritating, which - on the page - she could easily have been. And that brings me to Kenneth Branagh, both the director and co-star of the film. I’m not sure I’ve gone on record with my feelings vis-a-vis Branagh, so let me take a moment to do so. I’m a fan of his, both as an actor and a director. I think his directing filmography is admirably eclectic and interesting (who else could say that they’ve directed some of the finest Shakespeare adaptations of all time, plus the first film based on Marvel Comics’ Thor character, and now a high-tech spy thriller?), and in terms of performance, I’ve never seen him give anything less than his best effort (heck, one of his most fun performances is in WILD WILD WEST; a cinematic atrocity, to be sure, but he’s a blast to watch in that movie). With SHADOW RECRUIT, both of Branagh’s facets acquit themselves quite well. In his role as the villain, you can clearly feel Branagh relishing the part (particularly the Russian accent), and though he does come close to chewing some scenery - in an entertaining way - there are also a couple of moments that hit upon a modest sense of pathos surrounding the character, which fleshes him out in a nice way. (Brief digression: the villainous scheme presented in the film posits that high-ranking officials in the Russian government and business world are attempting to torpedo the American economy; given that Russia seems determined to oppose the United States on the world stage over almost every geopolitical issue of note, I found the movie’s plot to be not too terribly far afield from the sort of crazy maneuver some in Russia might wish they could pull off. I suppose that’s just my way of saying I don’t think Russia currently operates in good faith, and this movie plays right into that notion. I'm now stepping away from the soapbox.) Branagh-as-director seems to have taken his cue from several different sources, from Clancy’s novels (obviously), to films like THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR and the BOURNE series. Indeed, the action feels particularly Bourne-inflected, in the sense that it’s frenetic and exciting… if perhaps just a tad too jittery. That said, Branagh’s trademark ability to stage dialogue and conversations in interesting ways is very much evident in the movie’s best scene, where Pine, Costner, and their CIA team attempt to piece together the evidence pointing towards an imminent attack in New York City. It’s a classic Clancy-esque scene, and Branagh treats it with appropriate weight and energy. All things told, JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT doesn’t quite hit the heights of THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER or PATRIOT GAMES, but it’s right on par with CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, and as a spy yarn, it could have been a whole lot worse. All around, it's a solid entertainment. By Brett Blake AMERICAN HUSTLE Director David O. Russell’s latest is a smart, frequently funny, and hugely entertaining romp. Telling a fictionalized version of the ABSCAM scandal from the 1970s, wherein elected officials were caught taking bribes, AMERICAN HUSTLE plays fast and loose with the actual facts of the case, but this is acceptable as it never purports to be a true documentation of what really occurred. Russell has assembled an incredible line-up of performers, and they’re all terrific. As the central character, Christian Bale undergoes yet another physical transformation, but beyond the physical, Bale gets to the core of this person, a con man with a big heart, and it’s one of the most entertaining performances he’s ever given. Even better is Amy Adams as Bale’s partner in crime; it might be the best work she’s has ever done. She’s totally convincing and compelling as a woman dying to become somebody else, and for as strong a person as she comes across, there’s a tremendous amount of vulnerability simmering underneath. Bradley Cooper is pretty much a riot as the FBI agent who ropes in Bale and Adams, and while it veers dangerously close to being too goofy a performance, Cooper pulls it all together, and he’s the comedic highlight of the movie. Also a comedic highlight is Jennifer Lawrence, and most of her scenes are terrifically humorous (a sequence involving her singing and dancing to “Live and Let Die” might be one of the funniest things I’ve seen all year). Lastly, we have Jeremy Renner as a politician and a target of Bale, Adams, and Cooper, and he exudes a humanity that makes for a great contrast to the lunacy going on with the other characters. All of five these actors should be up for major awards consideration; whether or not they actually will be is yet to be seen. Thematically, the movie has much to say about phoniness, in the sense that there are multiple cons going on here. Cons within cons, and the people being conned are often those who give in to the temptation of corruption. Everybody’s a fake on some level, or a person trying to be somebody they’re not. Only Renner’s character actually seems like a truly honorable, above-board fellow… and yet he still finds himself resorting to criminal activity, all the while purporting to be doing it for the benefit of his constituents. It’s not a heavy-handed idea in the movie, but it is there for people to find and examine if they so choose. There’s one other issue that I want to touch on, and that’s the notion that some critics have brought up involving this film being, essentially, some kind of imitation of the works of Martin Scorsese. I can see that argument up to a point, I suppose: there’s voice-over narration, the editing is electrifying, the use of needle-drops for the music is fantastic (REALLY fantastic, in fact; the songs - and their usage within scenes - are killer), and the overall tone and setting is not too dissimilar from Scorsese’s classic, GOODFELLAS. But those are surface similarities. Is any movie set in the 1970s, involving crime, and with a rollicking pace suddenly a Martin Scorsese rip-off? I don’t think so, and AMERICAN HUSTLE exists completely on its own terms. To merely waive it off as Scorsese-lite does a tremendous disservice to David O. Russell’s directorial work here, which is one of the best efforts of this year (and, I’d wager, the film would look and feel very much the same if GOODFELLAS never existed). Bringing up the Scorsese argument seems like a cheap way to detract from the film, and I felt I had to - at least partially - refute it. It might sound like damning with faint praise to say this, but I will anyway: this is a relatively light film, almost a caper, for even at its most grim, there’s such a lightness of touch and a desire to entertain that it’s never less than a completely enjoyable experience, and the conclusion - however improbable or “Hollywood ending”-ish - wraps the whole film up in an enormously satisfying, crowd-pleasing bow. SAVING MR. BANKS Who would have thought that the behind-the-scenes backstory of the making of MARY POPPINS would be this good of a film? Well, obviously, I thought it would, but I was in the tank for this film the moment I heard about it: a look at how Walt Disney - at the height of his Hollywood power - managed to pry the film rights of the Mary Poppins character from her creator, P.L. Travers, is an incident that all good Disney-philes, of which I am one, probably have at least some knowledge of. But what about the mass audience? Could this story really make a compelling film for everybody? I think SAVING MR. BANKS proves the answer to that question is a resounding “yes,” and it’s one of the best movies of the year. The film’s fictionalized version of the real events presents a trip made by Travers (played by Emma Thompson) from London to Hollywood in 1961, where she meets Disney (played by Tom Hanks), as well as the creative team he’s assembled to bring Mary Poppins to the screen. Story conferences, arguments, and trips to Disneyland ensue. Beneath that, we are also told the story of Travers’ childhood (where she’s portrayed - very effectively - by Annie Rose Buckley) in Australia, and her relationship with her father (played by Colin Farrell), a free-spirited, big-hearted man with too strong an attachment to alcohol. The first thing that has to be said is that, as Travers, Emma Thompson is phenomenal. It would be very easy to portray her as some kind of unlikable nightmare, a picky control freak who cannot be pleased by anything, and while Thompson certainly does convey a certain amount of that, she adds so much more depth and pathos to the part (something aided, no doubt, by the thoughtful script from Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith). As Travers, Thompson’s tough-as-nails exterior is concealing immense vulnerability, which assures that her more rough edges and attitudes never become tedious. It’s a marvelous characterization, and it’s one of her best performances. Then there’s Tom Hanks’ Walt Disney, which - if I’m being honest - is what I was really looking forward to out of this movie, and Hanks goes not disappoint. He’s got all the folksy charm and warmth and enthusiasm of which the real Disney displayed bucketfuls… but there’s a whole lot more going on under the surface, a resolve and a savvy that befits a man who was a self-made mogul, and one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry. I expect many people will claim, given the fact that Walt Disney Pictures is the production entity behind this film, that the movie’s some kind of hagiography, a depiction of Disney-as-saint; the movie never presents Disney as anything less than a tremendously decent man, so those looking for him to be shown as some kind of tyrannical taskmaster will surely be gravely disappointed. I’ve read many books about Disney’s life, so I like to think I’ve got a good handle on the sort of person he really was, and I tend to think this film’s depiction of him is pretty darn close to who the real guy was. The supporting roster adds a lot of nice color to the film, as well. Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman, and B.J. Novak portray the inner circle of creative minds working on MARY POPPINS, and their frequent exasperation with having to meet the demands of Thompson’s Travers is pretty entertaining. Through these characters, the movie also does a surprisingly great job of illustrating the creative process itself, and how collaboration is often a difficult - but necessary - enterprise, and one that frequently strengthens the final product. Paul Giamatti pops up as Travers’ Hollywood chauffeur, and he adds a nice, “aw shucks” normality to his part that makes the character’s slowly-growing friendship with Travers interesting, and not quite as cliched as it could have been. Finally, we have Colin Farrell as Travers’ father, and he gives a very strong, even passionate performance as a deeply flawed man who tragically cannot live up to the idealized version of himself that his young daughter sees. The film heavily employs the use of flashbacks - something the marketing has hinted at, but mostly shied away from - to tell this story young Travers and her father. At first, the flashbacks felt hastily-edited, and as if they were interrupting the flow of the present day storyline. Eventually, though, the editing falls into a nice rhythm, and there’s some intercutting/juxtaposing of events from one time period with events from the other that makes for some pretty powerful moments. Technically, the movie is rock-solid. The period details of both turn-of-the-century Australia and early-1960s Hollywood feel well-observed, and the cinematography captures them in rich, warm detail. Thomas Newman’s musical score is also effective (though, I’ll add, exactly the kind of score we’ve heard from him a few times before); however, the movie gets the most musical mileage out of the actual songs that Richard and Robert Sherman wrote for MARY POPPINS. It’s particularly fun to see the two brothers actually hashing out lyrics and melodies, many of which don’t sit well at all with Travers, but the moment when she finally does connect with one of their songs is as joyous a sequence as has been captured on film this year. SAVING MR. BANKS has no pretensions of being an “important” film, despite attempts to place it into an “Oscar bait” category. It’s concerned with telling an interesting story in compelling and entertaining fashion, and it more than achieves that. The phrase “feel-good film of the year” is a horrible, overused cliche, but sometimes it is an apt description. It certainly is in this case, as I can’t imagine somebody walking out of SAVING MR. BANKS without a smile on his or her face. By Brett Blake There’s been a lot of carping in online film criticism circles about the relative merits of director Peter Jackson’s HOBBIT trilogy, with many deriding the decision to split the slim source novel into three movies (a fair-enough point of contention), and others finding these new films lacking in the subtlety and depth that were plentiful in LORD OF THE RINGS. And you know what? They’re absolutely right about that - these HOBBIT films aren’t coursing with the weighty import of any of the LORD OF THE RINGS installments. But here’s the thing… neither is the novel; it’s a pure adventure tale, which is something THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG understands perfectly, and it captures a sense of spectacle and excitement that many so-called blockbusters could only hope to achieve. Picking up rather unceremoniously after the events of the previous film, AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, this second film finds Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the band of Dwarves - led by Thorin (Richard Armitage) - drawing nearer to Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, inside which dwells the titular Smaug, a massive, fire-breathing dragon. Obstacles present themselves along the way, but it’s no spoiler to say that our heroes do finally enter the mountain in this film, and in doing so come face-to-snout with Smaug. Where that leads to I leave for audiences to discover for themselves; of course, if you’ve read the novel, you have a pretty good idea of what transpires with the dragon, though Peter Jackson throws a few curveballs into the narrative. Right from the jump, it’s clear that DESOLATION OF SMAUG is a marked improvement over last year’s UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (which I’m still a big fan of); whereas that film - somewhat by necessity - spent a good chunk of its first hour setting the stage for the adventure ahead, this film launches into adventure full-steam. It’s an episodic structure (at least until the company reaches the mountain), but it moves at a fast clip, and the individual encounters are thoroughly interesting, distinct, and entertaining. We meet Beorn, a man who can transform into a giant bear. We encounter a pack of terrifying spiders. We learn more about the Elves and their antagonism towards the Dwarves. We spend a good deal of time with the people of Lake-town, a location we’ll be seeing more of in the next film, including Bard (Luke Evans), who’ll also be a key figure in the next movie. Similarly, this episodic nature allows the story to present us with a more varied and interesting assortment of characters than last time around. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) returns to Middle Earth, joined by newcomer Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), and their relationship to each other - as well as the Dwarves - appears primed to play a large role in the next film. Ditto for Bard, who’s given a compelling backstory and family life, which is a welcome expansion of his character from the novel version of the man, who’s a bit of a blank slate; here, by establishing that Bard has a unique connection to Smaug’s past, it truly feels like this is a character who’ll receive quite a satisfying payoff, albeit in a full year's time. Once we get inside the mountain, we are finally able to meet Smaug (as voiced by Benedict “I’ve been in every movie this year!” Cumberbatch), and his confrontation with Bilbo and the Dwarves is absolutely fantastic. From a purely design standpoint, Smaug’s one of the best cinematic dragons ever, and Cumberbatch’s vocal performance is memorable and full of character. If Jackson and co. hadn’t been able to pull Smaug off, then the four-plus hours of film-time that led up to his appearance here would have been all for nothing; luckily, the buildup was worth it. He’s a fully-realized CG creation, and lots of credit has to go to the animators, who - in tandem with Cumberbatch - really give him a distinct personality. Dovetailing into that, we have the action sequences, which are first rate. There’s a river chase involving barrels that is one of the most fun setpieces in years, but even the smaller fights are exciting and packed with neat gags and bits of business. Jackson’s creativity is fully unleashed in these moments, and there are few filmmakers who have the eye for building fun sequences the way Jackson does. The production design needs a few words said about it, too, as I found it perhaps even more exquisite than the previous film (or even LORD OF THE RINGS); there’s a jaw-dropping attention to detail, particularly in the Lake-town set, and in conjunction with the beautiful cinematography, the movie is a delight to look at. Aurally, things are even better, with Howard Shore contributing a spectacular score, rich and powerful music that stands toe-to-toe with his masterpieces from the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy; it’s the score of the year. There are nitpicks, of course. The biggest one being that the character of Bilbo is, at best, a co-lead in this story, sharing importance with Thorin. Some people seem to have a real issue with this, and I do think there could have been ways to mitigate it to some extent, but it’s really a small point. Why? Because Thorin has the clearest and most effective story arc in the novel; from beginning to end, it is Thorin who changes the most, not Bilbo, and if the filmmakers want the conclusion of Thorin’s story in next year’s THERE AND BACK AGAIN to have the impact it deserves, foregrounding him in this installment was the wise move. The only other issue I’d say I have with the movie is also a very small one: this very much feels like a “middle” film, right down to the cliffhanger ending. The ending works, I think, because there’s not just a single cliffhanger, but rather there are multiple dangling threads - each interesting and compelling - that really do leave you wanting more (to use that cliche), instead of frustrated by the lack of closure. The last thing I want to say is in regards to Peter Jackson himself. The movie feels like a direct reflection of his desire to entertain, and there’s not a frame in this movie that doesn’t convey his exuberance and joy at being able to play in this world. THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG has just one goal - to make sure you leave the theater having had a blast. It more than accomplishes that, and it’s the finest adventure film of 2013. 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. 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 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. Getaway By Brenton Thom GETAWAY is an action-thriller about an ex-race car driver whose wife is abducted, and who is forced to drive around the city and cause havoc in a stolen car to get her back. The film stars Ethan Hawke as Brent Magna, the ex-race car driver, Selena Gomez as a character known simply as “The Kid,” whose car he steals, and Jon Voight as “The Voice” on the phone giving instructions to Hawke. Right off the bat I can tell you to "get away" from this movie. It is hardly worth watching. Now, I’m not saying one specific thing is bad about this movie, but a collection of things. From the start, you have to question yourself, why is this movie being made? Well, like all movies, they start from the script... and what a bad story/script this was. Just bad writing altogether. The story feels forced and rushed. For some strange reason, the main characters in this movie are American, but they live in Sofia, Bulgaria. There are no questions or answers to why these people are living here in this location. The only thing that can come to mind is some rich guy in Bulgaria wanted to make an “American-action” movie, and boy let me tell you, there is action. I don’t think I’ve seen so many European police cars get destroyed before. I think that was majority the budget (or maybe those Euro cars are so cheap, they can afford to destroy so many). Back to the script - it serves no purpose for this story to be told and shot in Bulgaria. Besides the visuals, it serves no greater purpose to the plot. The characters are unbelievable, minus Hawke's character. He seems the most realistic out of all these people. Maybe it was Ethan Hawke’s performance (but Hawke alone sadly can not save this movie). His character has purpose: his wife has been kidnapped and he’s doing anything in his power, while being monitored under cameras, to get his wife back and follow the instructions from the car phone. “The Kid.” Selena Gomez’s character. Ey, ey, ey. Where do I begin with her? She's by the far the most unrealistic and unbelievable character. You know the main car that Hawke drives in this movie? The Shelby Mustang. Well, that’s her car he stole. Hers. This 19 year old girl, who tries to rob him at gunpoint to get her car back. Where did she get this gun? Why and how can she afford this car? Also, she’s a gear head. She knows a ton about cars and how to torque the engine and make it faster and better. Did I also mention she’s a computer genius, can hack networks and various computer programs, and knows about what's going on in the story they are stuck in? She basically becomes the exposition. When Hawke is confused, she has to explain it for us simpletons, but with a sarcastic tone. Example: “The feed was re-routed to a government server so we can’t track the IP address, but anyone could access the feed, duh!” Are you kidding me? She was the biggest mistake of this movie. How she can afford all this stuff, be a genius, and also hack and shut down power plants is beyond me. She should be an evil genius if she can figure out evil people’s plots while stuck in said evil plot. Now, I’m sure Selena is trying to broaden her range (after working for Disney up to this point) by doing SPRING BREAKERS and now this action theft movie, but her dialogue is bad. I counted her saying “shit” or “oh-shit” variations at least 13 times (and that’s just her - Ethan Hawke said it a few times as well). Part of me thinks the writers took a page out of SOUTH PARK’s book when aired programs can say “shit” on television and went to town by overusing the word. Another issue is the physics and “reality” within the movie. I honestly think the film is probably just one big commercial for the Shelby Mustang. This car swerves, crashes, and gets shot up a ton, but not once do any of the windows crack, shatter, or explode, nor does the body get scratched up, at least until the very end (I never realized this car has been reinforced with armored plates and bulletproof glass). The car never stalls, and the engine always roars. But for being such a powerful American automobile, it sure does a poor job leaving the Euro cars in the dust. EVERY police vehicle catches up to this muscle car when they are in pursuit. If that’s the case, why even have this specific fast car if other cars can catch up to it? Again, this could come back to a writing flaw. The one good thing about this movie is its “climactic” chase scene, which is shot from the point-of-view of the car itself, chasing down "The Voice" through the streets of Sofia. It's a cool scene done entirely in POV. We hear the engine roaring, the gears shifting, and the vibrations of the car as it cuts lanes and crosses intersections chasing the other car. Again, if this fast car can’t catch up to other cars or leave others in the dust, why use it? Advertising! Overall, I would NOT recommend this film to anyone. The movie drags on, nothing is accomplished, the story is boring, the characters are flat and we don’t care for them. I can only recommend this movie if you want to watch a non-traditional holiday movie, because this movie takes place during the holiday season with Christmas approaching. Otherwise, skip this movie all together. It annoyed me. It wasn’t even good (or bad) enough to make fun of, because it took itself too seriously. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|