American Hustle Review

Wacky hair, crazy wardrobes and an even crazier cadre of performances. Writer-director David O. Russell strikes gold once again with what is definitely his most ambitious film to date:  American Hustle. Centered on the very real Abscam scandal of the 70s and 80s, pretty much everything else in this movie is most definitely fiction, but what entertaining and glorious fiction it is.

American Hustle simply has the best cast you’re going to see in a single film all year; even the actors in minor supporting roles are great. Actors Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Amy Adams are all returning Russell collaborators and you can clearly see why with this film. Russell is definitely an actor’s director who values characters over narrative and the strength of the former and weakness of the latter encapsulate the strengths and weaknesses of this film. This film is at its best when those characters take center stage in numerous unpredictable and emotionally charged scenes and at its worst when some rather uninteresting and drawn out plotlines are delivered.

Unlike Irving Rosenfeld’s (Bale) very elaborate and intricate comb-over (glue is an integral part of the process), the set up here is pretty simple and straightforward. It’s the 1970s and it’s a time of flashy excess and big characters with big dreams. Irving and Sydney (Adams) are con artists and lovers who get caught in their scam by ambitious and slightly unhinged FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper). Richie sees them as his meal ticket to success and fame and starts using them as bait to catch some bigger and much more dangerous fish. This soon implicates politicians, mobsters, and congressmen but none of it is enough for Richie. Irving and Richie immediately clash in almost every way possible as Sydney also becomes a bone of contention between the two men. And just to complicate matters further, we find out that Irving has a secret family life with an exceedingly unstable wife (Lawrence) and adopted son to deal with. It soon becomes clear that these are all very self-destructive people descending further and further into chaos and situations that are way above their heads. Aside from that, the details aren’t that very important; throw in a corrupt mayor (Jeremy Renner with a ridiculous pompadour) and a Hispanic guy posing as an Emirati Sheikh and you get the picture. There’s lots going on here and it’s better to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

American Hustle is a surprisingly hilarious film with a plot that meanders up and down along with the characters’ machinations and manipulations. But the thing that this film does well is establish all of the characters’ varied and often contradicting motivations. These are people that are as unscrupulous as you can get and they all live in a moral grey area where the main imperative is to take care of yourself and your own bottom line. Different things torment them. Crushed expectations and unpleasant surroundings envelop and suffocate them; life has taken a sizable toll. They all want to be someone else and aspire to be something else. When Irving becomes enamored with Sydney, he sees a beautiful and sophisticated woman who understands him and poses an opportunity to escape his unhappy married life. She sees a confidence and largesse that is appealing but ultimately illusory. Ambitious to a fault and lacking the intelligence or the patience to pursue those ambitions successfully, Bradley Cooper has a lot of fun with Richie and his manic misplaced energy is the source of lots of the humor. As for Jennifer Lawrence, she is the stay at home mom of your worst nightmares. Whether she’s getting drunk or accidentally starting fires, Lawrence isn’t one of the primary players but gets some of the biggest laughs. Comedian Louis CK also shows up as Richie’s long suffering supervisor and the handful of scenes between the two of them are comedy gold. 

But the star of the show here is undoubtedly Christian Bale (who goes through yet another one of his trademark physical transformations). Although he takes a backseat every now and then, we’re mainly following Irving’s story and his attempts to find some semblance of happiness in his crazy messed up life. The overweight and perennially stooping Irving clings to one thing that he cares about most of all: his relationship with his adopted son Danny. Things do get muddled and confused at times to the extent where you aren’t even sure what some of the characters want anymore but that’s exactly the point. One of the subtexts this film addresses is the lies you tell yourself and their power in controlling your life. Lies to get you up in the morning, lies told to get the right thing done, and lies to make you feel better about yourself. But these characters lie to themselves and each other so frequently the line between truth and fiction becomes totally blurred. And it is ultimately through finally finding some truth in their lives and truly caring about someone besides themselves that the characters who do get happy endings find their redemption.

Verdict: American Hustle is an entertaining and well-acted film that contains more laughs in one scene than the entirety (cough...The Hangover III...cough) of certain other “comedy” releases of 2013. Continuing to build on David O. Russell’s success with Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter with yet another winner, this latest film might just be the best of the bunch.  

B+

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 138 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence

Director: David O. Russell

Screenplay: David O. Russell, Eric Singer

Cinematography: Linus Sandgren

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

SPOILERS: 

One year after the massive billion dollar box office hit that was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson’s visionary tale continues with The Desolation of Smaug. And lost somewhere in there amongst elf-dwarf love triangles, unnecessary subplots, and overzealous CGI, the tale of Bilbo the hobbit continues as well. 

Picking up the story where the last one left off, Bilbo and his companions must make their way through the dangerous forest of Mirkwood as they continue their trek towards the Lonely Mountain. They make this journey without Gandalf however as he separates from their company to deal with the menacing looming threat at Dol Godur that can escape his attention no further. Once through Mirkwood after an encounter with the fickle wood elves that dwell there, Bilbo and the dwarves head towards Lake-town, the last remnant of a once great and prosperous city of men. These are ominous times. Evil creatures are multiplying in Middle Earth and orcs are rampant in the countryside. Darkness is growing and all of it portends to what Gandalf has long suspected: The Dark Lord Sauron has returned. 

A brief look at positives before getting bogged down in the drawbacks: the world building here is great as always and the CGI is astonishingly seamless (although an occasional CGI overload does occur). Lake-town is something we haven’t seen before in Middle Earth and a refreshing change in environs from the endless callbacks and revisits to locations and visuals from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. A mention should also be made about the great performance of Martin Freeman. Perfectly cast as Bilbo, he doesn’t have many moments to shine here but he seizes them when they do arrive (his scenes with Smaug are particularly entertaining)

Now to the drawbacks. As is often the problem in the second chapter of a movie trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug isn’t very effective as a standalone film and feels like just an overlong teaser, much as the first one did. Too many of its working parts are too dependent on resolution in the finale. The objective here is simply to get bums into seats and give you just enough of a tease to compel you to come back for another go around next holiday season. And while we do finally get introduced to the dragon Smaug and Bard the Bowman, much of this film makes for an unsatisfying experience as all we get are those introductions and bits and pieces of the overall story. The storyline is crushed by the headier weight of the looming events of the Lord of the Rings; The Hobbit isn’t given much room to breathe as its own separate story and it shows. While The Two Towers had the strong driving narrative of the last stand at Helm’s deep and the downfall of Sauron’s puppet Saruman to propel events and give the film a compelling structure, no such events push the story in The Desolation of Smaug. It doesn’t have a villain that is subdued and defeated or a single subplot that is resolved; Azog the Defiler and his mysterious master are still hanging out in the periphery and the obvious fate of Smaug is set up for the trilogy closer. Bilbo is simply lost in the shuffle of all these events and perhaps the best character in the Lord of the Rings arsenal, Gandalf, is grossly underused. Gandalf’s screentime is minimal in this film and his storyline is woefully simplistic. All he basically does is go to Dol Godur and promptly and inevitably get captured. Perhaps another one of those eagles will pop up and rescue him from his confinement in the final installment; I guess we’ll have to wait another year to find out. 

Forced dramatic moments abound aplenty in this film. The point that Bard the Bowman carries the heavy burden and legacy of an ancestor who failed to kill Smaug is bluntly hammered in for the audience. And a particularly bizarre moment occurs when the dwarves bafflingly easily give up on finding the entrance to the Lonely Mountain (just to have that scene where Bilbo heroically refuses to give up on his friends). A perilous months long journey that the dwarves have waited to embark on all their lives is dropped with the swiftness of someone going to a restaurant and finding out that it unfortunately happened to be closed that night. And finally, we come to the Elf-dwarf love triangle. While the return of Legolas and the creation of the character of Tauriel don’t really make sense in terms of the story being told, they do make sense in financial terms. Although the book version of the Hobbit lacks a strong female character or a compelling romance angle, both are forced in here with a confounding and surprising lack of subtlety. You can blatantly see the cynical machinations at work here and you can easily envision the board room meeting where these decisions took place: “Oh, well we NEED a female character to appeal to the women demographic and we MUST have a love triangle to keep people interested. A love triangle with whom, you ask? Umm, well just pick the best looking least make-up wearing dwarf I guess. And people love Legolas, don’t they?” Don’t get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with artistic license, but when it comes for the wrong reasons at the expense of the story being told, it is truly a shame. 

Verdict: What will the legacy of the Hobbit Trilogy be when all is said and done? Of course, they still are competently made and visually imaginative films that are nowhere near as bad as the shoddily put together Star Wars prequels were. With all that being said however, you still can’t help but feel like there was a lost opportunity here somewhere. Perhaps The Hobbit: There and Back Again will redeem this venture slightly when it hits theatres in December 2014. This writer isn’t counting on it. 

B-

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 161 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans

Director: Peter Jackson

Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro

Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie

Blue Is The Warmest Color Review

SPOILERS:

As uncompromising as it is unapologetically non-mainstream, Abdellatif Kechiche’s Blue is the Warmest Color is truly a unique and rare experience. For roughly three hours, we are immersed in the tumultuous journey of a young girl’s experience of first love in all its raw passion and wonder.

Beginning with her story as a precocious teen, Adele (Exarchopoulos) negotiates her way through the awkward and rocky waters of discovering herself and her sexuality as she slowly realizes that she may be more attracted to women than men. And when she catches a glimpse of a striking blue haired girl in the streets of her town, she feels an undeniable attraction that entrances something deep inside her. So after much anxiety and an ill-fated romance with a boy at her school, she takes the plunge and finds herself clueless and alone in a women’s’ gay bar. While there, she is approached by Emma (Seydoux), that very same blue haired girl. An older college student who is brazenly non-conformist and completely comfortable in her own skin (both things which Adele clearly is not), Emma is everything that Adele desires and the attraction between them is instantaneous. After facing scrutiny and persecution from some of her classmates for her sexuality despite her self-deluding denials of their accusations, Adele leaves that world behind and loses herself in Emma completely. They soon begin a passionate and torrid relationship and from then on, we watch as Adele matures into a woman as she pursues her own path in life, a path which may or may not include Emma in the end.

As explosive and powerful as that first love truly seems, where you feel as if nothing of you could possibly exist outside of it, this film is more interested in exploring Adele’s journey to discover herself beyond its confines. Adele goes through all of the relationships in her life, but deep down, she always senses that something isn’t right. While the first half or chapter could be classified as Adele’s journey of meeting and falling in love with Emma, the second half is the slow and steady exposure of the cracks in their relationship. And although it ends in chaotic and dramatic fashion, the fault lines that are at the root of their problems deceivingly has very little to do with affairs or infidelity; there is another level that is the divide between the two characters. They each value different things and are focused on embarking on starkly different avenues in their lives. Emma is the creative one willing to expose herself completely for her art, while Adele is much more practical and self-effacing. This difference can especially be noticed in the differing life philosophies of their parents when they meet each pair of them for the first time. Everything is free and out in the open with Emma, whether it’s her relationship with her parents, her physical appearance, or her attitude and disposition towards life. As for Adele, she reflects her parents’ more conservative and practical life adages and is nowhere near as comfortable at exhibiting herself or her inner sexuality as Emma is.

The most interesting thing about this film is the captivating and magnetizing effect it produces on you. While there’s nothing that particularly stands out in the dialogue, set direction or cinematography, it is a sheer masterpiece of directing, simply because of the fact that you forget that there is in fact someone directing it. Well known French-Tunisian director Abdellatif Kechiche has had a prosperous  and award-winning career in the avant-garde French film scene and his most recognizable work prior to Blue is the Warmest Color is most likely 2007’s Couscous.  But with this new mature work, Kechiche has elevated the simple story of a girl falling in love to stunning heights. Actually based on a graphic novel (even here yet another adaptation), Blue is the Warmest Color won the major awards at this year’s Palme d’Or and it’s easy to see why.

The filmmaking here is some of the most natural you’ll ever witness; you quite simply forget the fact that these are actors playing pretend because it just doesn’t feel like they are. With a rumoured 800 hours of footage being shot in total, a number of the shots in the final cut were taken while the actors were unaware that they were being filmed. To further blur the line between reality and fiction, Adele’s character name was changed from Clementine to the actress’s actual name over the course of filming. In what is also definitely a standout aspect, this film spends time on moments and dialogue that other films would cut or choose not to show. And it is these moments and these bits of dialogue that are some of the greatest strengths of the storytelling. We witness these characters’ interactions and feel the tangible realness of it on screen. The camera unabashedly closes in to near claustrophobic levels to the point where we can see every minuscule feature of Adele and Emma’s face. We become close observers of every subtle and intimate moment; we see the glints of happiness in their eyes and the bliss in their smiles. This level of intimacy may give you the impression that all this could make for some uncomfortable viewing but one of the talents of this film is that it easily expunges such notions; we never feel like foreigners impinging on Adele’s world.

But for all the praise that this film is receiving, it is not without its fair share of problems. Perhaps not too surprising a fact for a three hour film, it does tend to drag at times, especially towards the end. And even though some of the scenes kept in may have some justification in remaining, a more effective viewing experience would have excised certain redundant and thematically repetitive scenes.  And disappointingly, a very pivotal scene that occurs in a cafe towards the end is the one scene that doesn’t ring true. Possessing an almost dreamlike unrealistic quality to it, it is perhaps the only scene that feels forced and contrived at times. Aside from that however, much of what we witness doesn’t have to be spectacular; its sheer simplicity is very intimate and completely beguiling. As for the ending, it will probably leave some people reeling when it briefly brings up a potential uplifting note of optimism and then snatches it (almost cruelly) away. But it isn’t until we witness that ending that we understand the purpose of this film. This isn’t the story of a woman finding true love and living happily ever after. Rather, it captures the journey we all must traverse as we awkwardly, enthusiastically, and brazenly traipse and stumble our way in the hopes of one day getting to that happy ending.

B+

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 179 minutes

MPAA Rating: NC-17

Cast: Adele Exarchopoulos, Lea Seydoux

Director: Abdellatif Kechiche

Screenplay: Abdellatif Kechiche, Ghalia Lacroix

Cinematography: Sofian El Fani

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Review

With a best-selling book trilogy and an Oscar winning star in Jennifer Lawrence backing it up, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was always guaranteed to do well but after the muddled mess that was the original, there was no guarantee that Hunger Games 2.0 would be much better. And while a quick summary of the plot may convince some that this story is just a rehash, such fears ultimately prove to be unfounded. Catching Fire is a satisfying experience that lives up to much of the hype.

Not exactly the most original of movie universes, the first Hunger Games come off as very derivative of its various inspirations (there’s a little bit of Twilight and Harry Potter and lots of Battle Royale) but the sequel succeeds in giving more depth and heft to that universe.  Finding ourselves in the dreary locale of District 12, we rejoin Katniss (Lawrence) approximately a year after the events of the original Hunger Games. Residing in the district’s Victors’ Village with her family, Katniss has rekindled her friendship/relationship/whatever with childhood friend Gale (Hemsworth) while also keeping up the pretense of her fairytale romance with Peeta (Hutcherson). Or is it pretense after all?? And more to the point, who really cares? As was the case with the first film, the romance aspect isn’t exactly the highlight here and the acting of both Josh Hutcherson and (especially) Liam Hemsworth is cringeworthy at times (Gale’s occasional use of the pet name of “Katnip” for Katniss is especially forced and awkward). Anyways, back to the actual story. Finding Katniss dangerous and unruly, Snow is desperate for the opportunity to destroy her.  And with the fast approaching 75^th anniversary of the Hunger Games providing Snow the perfect opportunity to dispose of her, Katniss’s worst fears quickly become a terrible reality.

And this is where the movie becomes truly engaging. Pitched as a cat and mouse battle between tyrannical President Snow (Sutherland) and the masses represented by Katniss’s resilience and smouldering defiance, this battle is the clear strong point of Catching Fire. With the districts long abused and downtrodden by the Capitol’s sadistic regime, trouble has been fermenting and Snow can see signs of discontent everywhere. Throw in the Capitol’s totalitarian police force and excess-indulging elites and you have the ingredients of a sure-fire revolution in the making. Where life was once a miserable and meagre existence for many of Panem’s citizens, hope has sprung back to life and Katniss, “The Girl on Fire”, is the symbol of that hope.  But every revolution requires a spark to finally set it off and the feeling of inevitability that the unwilling Katniss will be that first spark hangs heavy over proceedings.

As reluctant a hero as one could possibly be, Katniss is overwhelmed in every aspect of her life. Unsure of her feelings for either Gale or Peeta and uncertain about whether she has the capability or desire to lead a revolution, she is also plagued by nightmares from the traumatic experience of her first games. Expected to lie and deceive and play the part as Snow’s propaganda puppet for the rest of her life, Katniss finds herself in an untenable situation when the safety of her loved ones becomes dependent on her compliance. But the fact that her strength emerges through all of this nonetheless is what makes her character so appealing. Katniss is truly a great character in this series and in what is a rarity in Hollywood, a great female character to boot. Lawrence gives Katniss a depth, maturity and believability that is actually very lacking in the character’s counterpart from the source material.

Continuing a trend witnessed in recent years in major blockbusters such as The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel, Catching Fire is remarkably bleak and depressing for a massive Hollywood mainstream film. Even with a PG-13 rating, the violence on display is frequent and intermittently shocking. And because it takes so long to get into the arena of the Games, it’s easy to think that Catching Fire would be a boring dud but that’s where one would be mistaken. While wholesale killing and mayhem excites this writer as much as the next person, the Games aren’t simply about pitting a group of youngsters against each other in a battle to the death anymore. This time, it’s an arena of political manipulation that is just one piece in the puzzle of the brewing battle for control of Panem. We get a good glimpse at what’s at stake and the first hour and a half builds up well to a final act that brings some much needed action and excitement.

Not everything works as well, however. The movie is at its worst when it forces dialogue and awkward characterization depending on the needs of the screenplay. Cinna, Katniss’s stylist and pseudo-personal life coach, is a perfect example of this but is mercifully not in the movie very much. But while some of the dialogue and acting is generally bad and unnatural, at least there are some slightly more interesting characters at this go around. Respected actors such as Jeffrey Wright and Philip Seymour Hoffman also pop up and lend the film credibility in the supporting character department that was previously sorely lacking.

Verdict: While this second installment of the Hunger Games series isn’t the greatest cinematic achievement, the fact remains that this film delivers as an entertaining blockbuster. The film manages to meld many interesting themes with lots of explosive action and despite the lengthy runtime, it leaves you begging for more once it’s over.

B

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 146 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson

Director: Francis Lawrence

Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Michael Arndt

Cinematography: Jo Willems

Ultimate 2013 Movie Mashup

Celebrating another year of movie trailers that give away pretty much everything is this awesome mashup of every major film trailer in 2013. Enjoy:

Oldboy Review

Fans of Korean director Chan-wook Park’s 2003 cult classic “Oldboy" were outraged to hear of plans to remake their beloved film for American audiences and even more fans were probably baffled by the announcement that Spike Lee would be directing. Best known for his Malcolm X biopic and his breakout hit Do The Right Thing, it's hard to see thematic parallels between this film's subject matter and the rest of Lee’s filmography and it is also odd to see him remake another director's material. This isn't a Spike Lee joint. Rather, it is simply a Spike Lee film. But the most confusing thing about doing this remake is that is guaranteed to have zero to minimal mainstream appeal to a North American audience that will find many of its more deviously perverted elements less than palatable. Best described as a loony and bonkers mad detective story, the stakes are high and the clues and answers are shocking and fantastically preposterous. A strong suspension of disbelief is required to properly enjoy Oldboy. Otherwise, you'll be in for a very bad time.

A difficult movie to talk about without venturing into spoiler territory, Oldboy is definitely an experience where the less you know the better so consider that a warning before you proceed any further. To begin from the beginning, we are introduced to Joe (Brolin), an instantly unlikeable sleazy slimeball of a guy who also happens to be a raging alcoholic. With a toxic relationship with his ex-wife and a non-existent relationship with his 3 year old daughter Mia, we watch Joe’s dealings with the people in his life and quickly realize this isn't a man many people are going to miss if he should suddenly disappear. And sure enough, Joe encounters an attractive stranger in the middle of one of his nightly booze binges and and he wakes up the next day to quickly realize he’s trapped inside an unfamiliar bedroom. More importantly, he also quickly realizes that someone is intentionally trapping him and ignoring his pleas for help. 

With a camera trained on him 24/7 and sleeping gas released whenever he has to be incapacitated, his mysterious unnamed jailers control every aspect of his life. Allowed only a television and a complete set of the Encyclopedia Britannica to entertain him, Joe slowly begins to lose his mind. He witnesses major world events such as the 9/11 attacks and the inauguration of presidents and also discovers that his ex-wife has been murdered and that he is the chief suspect. His subsequent deterioration is difficult to watch.  He draws a face on his pillowcase with his own blood just to have some semblance of intimacy with something, anything. He attempts suicide by violently slashing his wrist but is prevented from succeeding. He is deprived of any human contact whatsoever and all the while he wonders why him and more importantly, he wonders who is tormenting him? Clinging on to the hope of seeing his daughter again, Joe eventually turns a corner and vows to become a better man for her. And when he is suddenly released after 20 years with only a phone and a bag stuffed with dollar bills in his possession, he follows a trail of evidence that someone has left for him to follow for reasons that he and the audience must discover.

What should be very apparent at this point is that this premise is clearly not a product of the Hollywood conveyor belt system. And it’s pretty obvious to see that the singular strength of both versions of Oldboy is that very unique premise. Unfortunately though, the downfall of both films is the steady unravelling of the strength of that premise when the plot relentlessly stumbles forward into ludicrous and overly absurd territory. Riveting and stylish, the first half of Oldboy makes for some great cinema. The audience is just as much in the dark as the protagonist is and the process of unveiling and discovering the answers and truths behind his mysterious confinement is definitely the most effective aspect of the film. 

And although it obviously owes a huge debt to the original, Oldboy is actually an improvement in certain ways. While most of the major plot points survive and stay the same, the storytelling is much more clear and straightforward in Spike Lee's version. An occasional tip or nod to the Korean original surfaces every now and then and the infamous hammer fight scene is also recreated (but is much less effective). But Lee also adds a couple of new deft touches and visually arresting shot choices throughout and many of the more fanciful and farfetched elements are excised for the benefit of the narrative. However, it could be argued that this comes at the cost of the Korean version's appeal. The original Oldboy is a bonkers mad film that doesn't exist anywhere near anything resembling reality and the film possesses an almost mythical quality of sorts. And therein lies the problem with this new version of Oldboy. It is a pretty faithful remake but it lacks the emotional gut punch quality that makes the original so haunting. A tale steeped in tragedy, the original grapples with our concepts of memory, identity, love and family and twists them on their head. Most of this fails to translate properly in the Spike Lee version. The simple way to describe this new Oldboy would be to call it a redemption and revenge story that acts as an overly elaborate actioner/whodunnit.

As for the cast, Josh Brolin is great at capturing the overall sleaziness of pre-incarceration Joe and is also adept at portraying the lethal and unstable Joe caught in the midst of his madcap pursuit for answers. He doesn't go as full on batshit crazy as Joe's Korean counterpart does but his performance is solid and serves the film well. Sadly, Elizabeth Olsen is shortchanged in her role as Marie, a kindly young social worker who decides to help an unstable Joe in his quest. Despite the fact that she is a pivotal character in the events to come, she has very little work to do here; Brolin is the centerpiece of this film. Old Spike Lee favorites Samuel L. Jackson and Michael Imperioli also pop up in supporting roles. 

Verdict: Although it sticks very close to the original and lacks some of its bite and depth, the American version of Oldboy is still eminently watchable and exceedingly entertaining, especially in the first forty minutes or so as the audience struggles along with Joe to figure things out. Go along for the ride with an open state of mind and you will most likely leave confounded, yet oddly satisfied.

B-

Notes (SPOILERS):

-As Joe’s revenge seeking tormentor, Sharlto Copley somehow manages to be even more ridiculous and over the top than he was with his villainous performance in last summer’s Elysium. It is a campy performance that you would normally find in a bad B action movie but it fits oddly well within Oldboy's bizarre fantasy world. 

-Watch out for some great unintentionally hilarious moments that show up when Copley’s character’s unbelievably implausible motive and methods are finally revealed.

-Some of the more shocking elements are toned down for the Hollywoodized version but not by as much as many film critics will have you believe. The only significant toning down to be found is in the ending. To avoid major spoilers, it suffices to say that the Hollywood version’s ending is pretty much exactly that: a Hollywood ending that, although still shocking, plays it much safer than the Korean version (the Korean film's ending, on the other hand, is pretty much a diabolical perversion of the stereotypical Hollywood ending). 

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 104 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Sharlto Copley, Samuel L. Jackson

Director: Spike Lee

Screenplay: Mark Protosevich

Cinematography: Sean Bobbitt

Nebraska Review

Coming off critical and commercial success with The Descendants in 2011, we’re unmistakably in Alexander Payne territory once more with Nebraska, a road trip story that marks a mature evolution in the director’s style. Combining various elements from Payne’s last few films, Nebraska is chiefly about family in all its complexities and absurdities. And as is always the case with Payne, he handles the subject with a grounded realism and effortless humor that never sinks down to overly melodramatic territory. After examining the hidden miseries of peoples' lives concealed behind the exotic sunny environs of Hawaii with The Descendants, Payne goes for a different taste of Americana in the very un-exotic setting of Billings, Montana.  

David (Forte) is a simple guy whose life is slowly drifting him by in a town where everything is slowly just drifting by. Working as a salesman at an electronics store and coming off a 2 year relationship with a woman he never felt sure about, David is a man caught in a lifelong rut. As an added distraction, David also has to deal with an increasingly senile father who has it in his head that an obviously misleading letter promising him winnings worth a million dollars is the real deal. Ignoring his son's repeated assertions that it's just a scam, Woody (Dern) is obsessed with going to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim his prize and is willing to walk the whole way there if he has to. And despite the endless nagging and complaining of David's plucky mother Kate (June Squibb in a great and hilarious performance), he finally gives in and decides to drive his father to Lincoln. But it is during a detour into Woody's old home town that the story of Nebraska is truly told.  

Nebraska explores the fabric of a worn down family suffering from the bitter effects of time and history that get to us all. Age-old themes are touched upon but the familiarity is welcome here rather than coming off as stale or rehashed. Within seconds of David's first interaction with his parents, we become instantly acquainted with the inner works of the family.  And through a series of deliberate and steadily paced scenes, the suffocating confines of David and Woody's world soon become apparent. Although they are very different men in many ways, we see many parallels between David and Woody throughout. Both men's proclivity for alcohol as a coping mechanism is hinted at and David's apprehensions about entering into a loveless marriage clearly has its roots in his parents' fractious relationship. And while David clearly loves his father, Woody is a difficult man who says very little and David can only deal with him with a frustrated bemusement of sorts. “What are you even going to do with that money?” A perplexed and slightly confounded David asks his father. But the road trip is a perfect opportunity for both characters to learn something and attain some perspective. Over the course of a few days, David realizes he never actually knew his father and never understood the loves and pains that turned him into the sad man he had become. Once they arrive at Woody’s old stomping ground of Hawthorne however, David begins to put together bits and pieces of his father’s life and discovers many a thing he didn't know about his old man, or perhaps, about himself.

In an artistic choice that works well for its purposes, Nebraska is filmed in its entirety in black and white. And while the stark imagery on screen is beautiful, it captures the beauty in a colorless world that conceals a hidden pain and drudgery that is always there somewhere in the periphery. Showcasing the austere open fields of the Midwestern landscape along with the derelict stillness and antiquity of the Midwest's small impoverished towns, the cinematography here is exceptional and definitely one of the highlights of the experience. 

The true highlight though is the great characters and cast at work here. Bruce Dern is excellent as he blurs any distinction between actor and character with a performance that fits his talents hand in glove. Will Forte is also perfectly cast and the simple easygoing quality that shines through even in his Saturday Night Live sketches makes for a perfect David. Surrounded by oddity and madness all around him, David is our window into the quirky world of Nebraska. The humor derived from this film is of the subtle variety and blends seamlessly in with the frequently depressingly sad story. This may sound like a difficult feat to accomplish but laughs come thick and fast from unexpected places and are earned with honest performances. Payne has always had a keen eye at finding the hilarity and absurdity abundant in everyday life and those moments resonate all the more because we’ve all been there at some point (some of the film's funniest scenes involve incredibly awkward family gatherings in front of the television). 

Verdict: While not quite as provocative or as memorable as some of Payne’s earlier work, Nebraska is an unexpectedly emotional and mature experience that allows its viewers to come to their own conclusions. And in what is perhaps an old cliché, the road trip to Lincoln, Nebraska isn't about the illusory destination full of false hope but about the journey of discovery the characters embark on to get there.

B+

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 115 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Bruce Dern, Will Forte, June Squibb, Stacy Keach

Director: Alexander Payne

Screenplay: Bob Nelson

Cinematography: Phedon Papamichael

Ender's Game Review

With another holiday season fast approaching and the “golden” age of movie adaptations/remakes still going strong, Hollywood’s contempt for original content continues with the release of Ender’s Game. In an attempt to replicate the enormous success that the first Hunger Games film enjoyed (with 400 million dollars box office in the US alone), the studios are scrambling to pick up anything remotely young-adult themed in the hopes that it can become the next billion dollar pop culture phenomenon. Case in point: the upcoming Divergent film is being heavily marketed and promoted before its March 2014 release, where it will most likely do some good business (although probably not as much business as Lionsgate is hoping for). But for every Hunger Games and every Divergent series hitting multiplexes, you will also find countless Ender’s Games floundering in their wake.  

Some time in a future where Earth has been invaded by an alien species of insect-like creatures called Formics, the surviving humans who successfully managed to repel the onslaught have turned to their most gifted children as the key to their survival. Observed and monitored from a very young age, select children with exceptional intelligence and capabilities are chosen to attend a special battle school in space and trained to eventually lead Earth's fleets into battle. And the most exceptional of these children might just be Andrew “Ender” Wiggin (Butterfield), a young boy who Colonel Hyram Graff (Ford) believes may be the “one” he’s searched for his entire life: a child capable of preventing humanity’s complete annihilation. Taken away from his home and his beloved sister, Ender is intentionally placed at Graff’s insistence in an isolated environment where he finds himself at odds with all the other gifted children at the battle school. Struggling to cope, Ender must overcome every obstacle thrown in his path if he is to succeed.  

Arriving a little over three weeks before the general release of the Hunger Games sequel, the idea may have been to fill a gap in the market and attract what would basically be the same target audience with a similar-themed film. The plan sounds good enough if it weren't for a couple of things it has working against it. First of all, while Hunger Games is universally known and has a large and young fan base already in place, Ender's Game is a 28 year old novel that, while not completely unheard of, definitely has nowhere near the same name recognition. Keeping that issue aside, the main problem is this: the plot/story of Ender’s Game doesn't work for the kind of movie that the filmmakers decided to make. While the storyline of a group of kids fighting to the death in a massive arena is tailor-made for conversion to film, the same cannot be said about Ender's Game's storyline. A more cerebral and character driven novel, the unwieldy results of its forced conversion are there for all to see. Film-makers always have to toe a careful line on how much to draw from the source material and how much should be taken in a new direction and writer-director Gavin Hood somehow manages to go too far in both directions. In Ender’s Game, the film-makers follow the step by step progression of the book’s storyline but very little of its interesting themes or social commentary survive the transition. There are many parallels with the current war on terror and the lengths people are willing to go to preserve their way of life in this story but they rarely crop up in a meaningful way in the film. Another problem: there isn’t much action in the novel and yet the film-makers still conceived it as an action movie. But those expecting thrilling scenes and epic adventure will undoubtedly be disappointed. Action sequences are brief and few and far between and generally take place in a simulated training environment where the risks are minimal and the thrills are poorly delivered. 

Regardless of the source, a movie should be held up on its own merit but Ender’s Game is too faithful to the book while also paradoxically betraying its spirit (see the recent adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson’s The Rum Diary for a perfect example of this). The plodding execution here leaves something to be desired as we persevere through flimsy attempts at sampling themes and ideas from the book while terms from the novel such as "ansible" and "hegemon" are mentioned but never explained. Putting it simply, “Ender’s Game: The Movie” comes off as the typical bad book to film adaptation. You can always tell if a movie adaptation is bad within the first 5 or so minutes because they typically have no clue how to start the story or how to introduce its elements in anything resembling a clear or cohesive manner. Instead, we are treated to awkwardly rushed scenes and clunky exposition while the intricacies of the characters’ world are barely touched upon and rarely brought up again. And even though it reportedly had a budget north of 100 million dollars, the movie surprisingly comes off as very small scale. We never truly become immersed in Ender’s world because we only get to see a small fraction of it (a flaw found in a few other recent big budget sci-fi films). In the elaborate battle school space station for example, the audience isn’t allowed to witness much; Ender's progression through the ranks feels too easy and straightforward and we never capture a sense of how arduous his coming of age story should have been.

But the problems don’t end there: Ender’s Game just doesn’t give its audience enough credit and is far too simplistic in its presentation. Relationships are superficial and mechanical; the characters are all only there to cynically serve the film’s purpose and progress the plot from point A to point B. You won’t find anything more complex in the characters’ relationships with each other beyond something along the lines of “Oh she’s nice so I like her” or “Oh he’s mean so I hate him”. And while we’re talking about the characters, another drawback for this film would definitely be the handling of the child actors involved. Asa Butterfield clearly has some talent as evidenced by his performances in Hugo and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas but much of that is wasted here. As Ender, a young genius saddled with incredible ability and placed under immense pressure, his performance is stilted, wooden and unconvincing. Ender’s character lacks a clear arc and we never experience the changes he supposedly goes through; everything can’t just be explained with background narration but this movie clearly disagrees. While the novel’s Ender is a complicated child wrestling with the fear of his own formidable capacity for destruction, the film fails to channel this effectively and Ender is portrayed in a much more safe and positive light. He’s basically the same character throughout and things just sort of get brushed over quickly as the movie goes through the checklist of what happens to him next. The rest of the child cast fare no better as they regurgitate memorized lines and fill their specifically designated roles. We have designated main nemesis, designated friend one, designated friend two, designated “girl” friend, and of course, you have to have one or two “designated enemies who eventually become friends because of how nice and good the main character is”. 

Verdict: With such great source material, Ender’s Game should be considered a wasted opportunity. As is often the case with big films designed to make as much money as possible, morally ambivalent themes and layered and complex characters are condensed and streamlined. It's a boring approach that doesn't challenge or provoke its audience and makes for what is an instantly disposable product ready to be consumed and forgotten before the next film of the week arrives and another 12 dollars is spent (not forgetting 15 dollars for a popcorn and large drink of course).

C

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 114 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin

Director: Gavin Hood

Screenplay: Gavin Hood

Cinematography: Donald McApline

Top Five: Coen Brothers Movies (Part III)

1. Barton Fink

The legend goes that the Coens were suffering from an acute case of writers’ block while penning the screenplay for Miller’s Crossing (which deserves an honorable mention), and what gushed forth from their minds in a matter of weeks was Barton Fink.  Winner of the Cannes Film Festival’s prestigious Palme d’Or back in 1991, the oft-maligned Barton Fink comes with a reputation of being intentionally ambiguous and confusing. While it could be argued that this reputation may be justified, the fact remains that, in this writer’s humble opinion, the Coens’  tale of a playwright who sells out for a shot at the big leagues and his subsequent descent into hell (literal or metaphorical, it’s all up for debate) may just be their greatest accomplishment to date.

Barton Fink is a successful 1940s playwright whose critical acclaim has gotten him the attention of Capitol Pictures, a big studio out west in Los Angeles. Surrounded by the flattery of the sycophantic elites of New York, the self-aggrandizing Barton is clearly conceited and full of himself, claiming to just be a humble writer who only seeks to shed light on the plight of “the common man”. A noble claim indeed, but as we soon shall see, the claim proves to as hollow as the man who makes it. Making the big move to Hollywood, he checks in to the strange and seemingly deserted Hotel Earle and after a bewildering meeting with the fast talking head of the studio, he gets assigned to write a new boxing picture featuring the big star of the time, Wallace Beery. In an unfamiliar setting and faced with the task of scribing a story he feels he possesses neither the motivation nor the knowledge to write about, Barton’s typewriter promptly falls silent.

In what is yet another indictment of Hollywood, this movie targets the cynical and artistically vacuous process of making movies just for the sake of making them. Barton faces a conflict and inner turmoil that the Coens themselves have encountered their whole careers: the desire to make great movies within the confines of a system that fixates on the pre-eminence of the all important bottom line. The Coens perfectly capture the agonizing and torturous process of writing and of creativity in general with this film. We become entrapped with Barton in the claustrophobic environs of his seedy and dilapidated hotel room as he becomes consumed by the utter isolation of his mind and soul. Everything suddenly turns into an excruciating distraction. Peeling wallpaper, an uncatchable mosquito on the ceiling, mysterious sounds of sobbing from next door; the minutiae of everyday life all appear to be working in tandem to thwart his efforts.

Now it’s unclear how much of what happens in the Hotel Earle is real or not and how much of it is just a manifestation of what is clearly a troubled mind. Besides the overeager concierge Chet (played by Steve Buscemi, who incidentally is in all of the top three films of this list), there doesn't seem to be many other people around the walls and corridors of the ethereal hotel. He also soon encounters Charlie Meadows (you guessed it, John Goodman makes yet another appearance), a lonely and clearly troubled insurance salesman who happens to be the source of the mysterious sobbing. And it’s their relationship (or lack thereof) that defines this film. Right under his nose, Barton finds a “common man” who might just be the key to solving his writers’ block but Barton is too caught up in himself and too lacking in empathy to see it. To complicate matters, Barton also becomes involved with Audrey, the secretary of the famous W.P. Mayhew, a drunken novelist and screenwriter who may be a bit of nasty foreshadowing of what working too long as a screenwriter does to you. And through it all, the plight of the common man is forgotten.

It’s hard to put into words exactly what makes this movie great but it grows on you the longer you watch and the more immersed in it you become. With deadlines approaching and pressure quickly mounting, the tension piling up on the helpless Barton soon becomes unbearable when events start to take a very dark and surreal turn. But even though Barton is an unlikeable man in many ways, the Coens still manage to imbue him with a decency that makes us unable to not still root for him. A flawed and cowardly character, you get a sense that his desire is genuine but his failure in sticking to the integrity he holds up so loftily may be his ultimate downfall. The Coens almost seem to be making the claim that Barton fears too much to be a truly great writer.  

Notorious for offering very little insight on their own films, the Coen brothers’ work here takes the cake. There are many layers to peel away and inspect here and the movie leaves many things unresolved but one question remains once it’s over that stands above all the others: what exactly is in that mysterious box? We can take a guess at the answer but in the end, perhaps the point is that we’re just not supposed to know.

Top Five: Coen Brothers Films (Part II)

3. The Big Lebowski

Falling in the middle of the Coen spectrum between ludicrous farce and serious drama, The Big Lebowski is quite simply the story of "The Dude", one of the greatest and unlikeliest anti-heroes ever to grace the silver screen. However, it should be noted that by the time the movie's over, we're not quite sure if the Dude could even be classified as an anti-hero or if he's just some buffoon who casually bumbles his way from one sticky situation to the next. A satire of Hollywood life and its bizarre detachment from reality, The Big Lebowski also plays as a stylized film noir turned upside down on its head. When two strangers break into the Dude's house demanding money and proceed to defile his rug, a rug that "really tied the room together", we embark on a journey so bizarre and so convoluted that it has to be seen to be believed. 

Featuring elaborate dream sequences, eccentric porn producers, feminist nude artists, German nihilist musicians, and an endless array of offbeat characters and peculiar situations, this is by far the Coen brothers' zaniest and most imaginative work, definitely their funniest, and perhaps their most entertaining.  Jeff Bridges plays the the iconic role of a lifetime with "The Dude", a bowling enthusiast who pays for 69 cent cartons of milk with a check. Lazy, ignorant, generally incompetent, and constantly high, all the Dude wants is to get a new rug and move on to the next round of the local bowling tournament. Instead, he finds himself prey to the advances and demands of countless other parties, including his crazy Vietnam war veteran sidekick Walter (played by Coen favorite John Goodman), who garners some of the movie's biggest laughs. One wonders how much of the Coen brothers' actual experiences in the jungle of Hollywood made it into this picture as we venture into what is truly a surreal world where anything can happen and we can only take comfort in one fact: The Dude abides. 

2. Fargo

Set in 1987 (Coen films tend to be set in a specific year), Fargo opens in an almost fairytale-like fashion as we are introduced to our setting of Fargo, North Dakota: a town where everyone talks funny and people are willing to do just about anything for a little bit of money. Jerry Lundegaard, a desperate down on his luck car salesman, hires two men to kidnap his own wife and force his frugal father-in-law to pay the ransom.  But a plan that seemed so simple and straightforward quickly falls apart. Nothing special so far but Fargo is the quintessential film to see the magic of the Coen Brothers at work. Where in other hands a film with such a set up would be a predictable and unremarkable by the numbers affair, the Coens’ version shines time and time again.  

The Coens take the farcical elements that are their calling card and throw them into a pitch black world full of betrayal, murder, and shocking indifference. None of the characters seem stale or overly familiar; they all have their unique idiosyncrasies and personalities.  Lundegaard, a meek and seemingly well-intentioned father and husband, deceives customers on a daily basis and risks destroying his family to get what he wants. And  in what is a great example of the Coens’ refusal to follow typical Hollywood conventions, the lead police officer investigating the kidnapping isn’t a grizzled alcoholic veteran or a dashing muscle-bound rookie, but a simple, folksy pregnant woman. Frances McDormand, Joel’s wife and yet another Coen regular, exudes an easygoing gentleness and studious decisiveness as Police Chief Marge Gunderson. And it’s Marge who grounds this film and gives proceedings their moral center. Her character’s journey parallels that of Sheriff Bell (No Country For Old Men) in many respects, and  her ability to separate the horrors she witnesses from her safe and tranquil home life is admirable and touching. A great film indeed, but only one film can be number one. 

 

Yet Again, To Be Continued...

Top Five: Coen Brothers Films (Part I)

In the landscape of modern American cinema, nowhere can we find a voice more unique and more stubbornly resistant to conformity than that of the Coen Brothers. Joel and Ethan Coen, who share writing, directing, and editing duties, bring their signature storytelling style to every movie and fill their worlds with quirky characters, eccentric villains, and layer upon layer of subtext. And although they've flirted with mainstream success at times, their films have always been a niche commodity that range in description from slapstick satire to violent and deeply existential. In spite of this varied range however, all their films share certain sensibilities, and as we shall soon see, recurring themes quickly begin to emerge (besides their propensity to cast John Goodman). And thus begins the countdown to end all countdowns:

5. A Serious Man

In what may be their most personal and autobiographical film to date, the Coens, in their own inimitable way, manage to meld together a satire of their upbringing in a small Jewish community in 1960s Minnesota with an existential quest to find the meaning of life. Inspired by the biblical story of the all-suffering Job and his trials and tribulations, "A Serious Man" focuses on piling endless misery on Larry Gopnik, a physics professor whose life inexplicably unravels before his very eyes. He faces a wife leaving him for an obnoxious man who may or may not be mailing damning letters that are endangering his chances at attaining tenure, self-involved children who couldn't care less about anyone else, an eccentric oddball of a cousin wanted by police for committing "sodomy", a disgruntled student blackmailing him for a better grade, and last but not least, a bill collector harassing him about an unpaid subscription to Santana's Abraxas album.

Ambiguous and full of potential meaning and interpretations, we journey with Gopnik as he desperately attempts to figure out how to live his life the right way. We've all been there before; misfortune hits us and we begin to question how much our actions influence our fate and how much of it is just blind chance and meaningless coincidence. And it's through Gopnik's eyes that we wonder if we should even bother thinking about the big picture at all or just go with the flow. Unanswerable questions all, but damn if it's not entertaining to watch Gopnik struggle to find the answers. Full of dreams, folk stories, and lurid fantasies, it is an absorbing film that delves into the machinations of who we are and how we keep going in our day-to-day life when we are so ignorant of the meaning behind it all.

4. No Country For Old Men

With what may ironically be one of their most oblique (second only to the confounding "The Man Who Wasn't There") and unconventional films, the Coen Brothers achieved unprecedented commercial and critical success with "No Country For Old Men". Adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, the story is Coen-esque to the core. When a hunter by the name of Llewellyn Moss stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong and proceeds to take an unclaimed briefcase full of money, he unwittingly brings the devil to his door, personified by Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem in an Oscar-winning performance). What ensues is a battle of wits and as close to high tension action and suspense as one can expect to find in a Coen brothers movie. One of the most cryptic and unique movie villains of all time, Chigurh relies on a coin toss to pass judgement on many who cross his path, and it soon becomes clear that his hell-bent pursuit of Moss is about something more elemental than mere dollar bills. 

Unapologetic in its presentation and structure, "No Country For Old Men" doesn't make anything easy for the audience and leaves a lot open to interpretation. Continuing a theme touched upon in "A Serious Man" and other Coen movies, this film considers the role fate and chance has on our simple mortal lives, and as is always the case with the Coens, it leaves the answer up in the air: we have the power to call the coin toss, but we're completely helpless in determining which side the coin lands on. One of the biggest misconceptions about "No Country for Old Men" is that Moss is the main character when in fact, it is Sheriff Bell (played by Tommy Lee Jones) who is the chief protagonist. Always arriving at a crime scene when it's too late and constantly trailing behind the other players in this story, Bell is an old man who just doesn't understand the world anymore and struggles to make sense of the violence and carnage he encounters. And it is Bell's sad realization of this and his desire to keep soldiering on anyway that is the one ray of light in what is by far the darkest film in the Coen brothers' ouevre. 

To Be Continued....