Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Drive
I actually saw this movie a few weeks ago, but I have been putting of writing my review because I have no idea what to say. This is a movie that completely defies description - no matter what you think it will be about, you are wrong. Yes, it is about a Hollywood stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) who also works as a wheel man for the criminal element. Yes, there is a hit put on him after a job gone wrong, and yes, he has a relationship with his married neighbor (Carey Mulligan). But none of that is the movie.
The movie itself is almost like being in a trance. Imagine driving along the highway with your favorite song on the radio and the perfect breeze blowing through the window; when you just lose yourself in the rhythm of the road, and your mind goes blank as if you were flying, no worries, no thoughts of your destination. That is how this movie captivates you. There is very little dialogue, especially by the main character, and while you never get to know him, you are still drawn to his magnetism and confidence. The love story features no witty banter, or sizzling sex scenes, and yet with only a few bittersweet glances and a single kiss manages to be more about love and romance than most movies.
Now imagine your perfect Sunday drive interrupted by a tractor trailer plowing into a guardrail in front of you. the violence in this film is sudden, shocking, and incredibly realistic (read: graphic). It is not overtly gory for the sake of titillation, but the raw intensity coming after such silence is incredibly powerful.
The acting in the movie is really good - Bryant Cranston and Albert Brooks round out the cast as a washed up driver trying to get back in the game and a criminal kingpin respectively, but in truth the emotional center of the movie lies with Gosling and Mulligan. I can't think of another actor that can as effectively manifest internal emotions without externally revealing a thing. These two are true talents, and without them this exceptional, indescribable film just wouldn't have been the same.
I don't know if you'll like it, but without a doubt you should go see Drive. I loved it. (and the music is great)
Drive 1hr 40 min R
Monday, October 10, 2011
Reel Steel
Reel Steel is pretty much everything you'd expect from the previews: absentee father reluctantly connecting with his smartass, but sweet kid. Uplifting underdog story a la the little engine that could. Giant robots smashing each other to bits. But formulaic or predictable as it might be, that isn't to say it isn't highly enjoyable fun. After all, these are formulas Hollywood is pretty good at. You may have your doubts, but I guarantee that you'll find yourself verklempt a time or two, and damn if you won't be on the edge of your seat hoping for the little guy to win the big fight.
Hugh Jackman is pitch perfect as always - although his character is such a jerk and it's kind of hard to see him as a total ass because come on, we all know the guy has a heart of gold. Dakota Goyo is great as the son, bonding with a father he's never met as well as a 10 foot tall metal robot. Over all, highly enjoyable film that will hit your soft spots and leave you cheering.
here's a little clip:
Reel Steel 2hr 7min PG-13*
*The movie is rated PG-13, but I think it could have easily been a PG, and younger kids shouldn't have any problem seeing it. Except for one short scene where a few punches are thrown, there is no violence (other than the boxing robots of course), and no bad language that I remember. My theater had tons of little kids, and none of them left emotionally scarred. I'd probably let my kids see it on DVD when it comes out.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Ides Of March
There are a lot of directions this movie could have taken as a political drama. It could have explored the climate of modern day politics and how even the most sincere, straightforward candidate is forced to continually make compromises until they no longer recognize themselves. It could have focused on the campaign managers, for whom the candidate and the platform hardly even matter as anything other than leverage to win votes. Or it could have followed the disillusionment of a seasoned campaign manager, who has finally found a candidate he believes in, only to discover he is as black hearted as the rest of them. Any of these story lines could have pulled us in to The Ides of March, and delivered us an emotional, thoughtful film. Instead we get all three.
Unfortunately, in some ways this spreads the focus of the film too thin. We have a young political up and comer (Ryan Gosling), who thinks he can finally leave the usual dirty dealing behind because he has found a truly deserving candidate to lift into office, only to find himself caught in a maelstrom of double crosses and cover ups. We have a candidate (George Clooney who also directed) learning that the compromises required to win are slowly chipping away at every principle he promised to stand on. We have two campaign managers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti) who care nothing for the truth, or ethics, or the people trampled underfoot on the race for the win. Each and every character arc is riveting, and unfortunately under explored. There is so much drama just ripe for the picking here in each man's personal struggle with morality (or lack there of) and the eternal question of the ends justifying the means - if you do whatever it takes just to win, can you ever regain your sense of right and wrong?
This movie could have easily plumbed these depths and been twice as long, and just as riveting. Unfortunately, the story line itself was entirely predictable, and severely undercut the skill of the cast (seriously - phenomenal cast) as well as the richness of the characters. I wish the script had served the people involved (both real and fictional) a little better, because this would have been an exceptional vehicle for discussion on power, ambition, loyalty and black vs white. Instead we are shown no surprises, taught no lessons, and everyone is painted the same shade of gray.
Worth seeing for the tremendous cast and fine acting, this is a case of a fine movie that nonetheless disappoints because it could have been great.
The Ides Of March 1hr 41 min R
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Debt
The Debt tells the story of three Mossad agents, and their mission to bring a Nazi war criminal out of East Berlin and to Israel for justice. Taking place both in 1965 and 1997, we see the events of the mission, as well as the fallout for the agents 30 years later as result of those events. The cast is impressive, Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson play the agents in 1997, and they do an fine job of looking world weary and beaten down by the pressure of the secrets they keep. But it is the scenes set in 1965 that truly bring the film alive. The agents in their youth are played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, and their scenes practically vibrate with all the tension and anxiety of inexperienced field officers in over their heads. The man they are sent to capture is played by Jesper Christensen with a casual malice and lack of fear, and we watch as the agents become captives of a situation spiraling out of control. They grow moe and more brittle, haunted by unspoken personal demons as well as the man they have been hunting, and the final fracture is the secret they spend the next 30 years trying to forget.
I loved the movie that took place in 1965. As can be expected, the mission naturally lends itself to more excitement and tension, propelling the story along because we can't wait to figure out what really happened. But the scenes set in 1997 should have been riveting as well. Three people, who have suffered their regrets differently for all these years, struggling with heavy secrets and the question of justice and redemption as they grow older, are characters ripe for exploration and drama. And yet I felt the modern portion of the movie fell flat, not enough ambivalence, or regret was communicated, and the ending itself bordered on preposterous. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do, but I wish they had simply made a movie about the mission itself and given the three newcomers even more time to shine.
The Debt 1hr 53 min R
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Warrior
A lot of people probably aren't going to be interested in seeing Warrior because of the basic premise - two brothers training and fighting in a mixed martial arts tournament. One is an ex-marine war hero, the other a physics teacher father of two. Both are desperate, angry, damaged men with painful pasts and family history. And while the focus is on the tournament, and the fighting, the movie is neither glorifying nor glossing over the brutality of the sport.
And the beauty of the movie is that all of the training, and fighting are the only way these two men know how to survive. Tom Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, the ex-marine younger brother who is carrying around so much anger and resentment that you can see getting in the ring is the only thing keeping him from burning to a cinder on his rage. Hardy barely speaks during the movie, and yet we understand completely the fury and guilt driving his every punch. Joel Edgerton plays the older brother Brendan Conlon, a retired UFC fighter drawn back in to the ring in a desperate attempt to hold on to his house and the quiet family life he first left it for. He has the thick facial structure of someone capable of taking any hit thrown his way, but his eyes betray pain and feelings of inadequacy he carries from a childhood playing second fiddle to his brother. Both brothers (and their father, played by Nick Nolte) are estranged, caught up in a fractured family dynamic with edges still too sharp to smooth over. The details of the past are rarely mentioned, and yet body language and facial expressions communicate exactly what happened in a way no words could.
Despite previews revealing that the final match is between the brothers, each victory in the tournament is as nail biting and triumphant as if we were unaware of the outcome, and the final bout takes such an emotional toll that the audience feels almost as battered as the fighters. I expected this movie to be exhilarating and exciting; I didn't expect it to be heartbreaking as well. If you can stand the violence (there is no overt blood or shattering of bones, but it is still men beating each other senseless) then this is a definite must see. An expertly crafted story enhanced by acting from two men we will no doubt be seeing a lot in the future.
Warrior 2hrs PG-13
And the beauty of the movie is that all of the training, and fighting are the only way these two men know how to survive. Tom Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, the ex-marine younger brother who is carrying around so much anger and resentment that you can see getting in the ring is the only thing keeping him from burning to a cinder on his rage. Hardy barely speaks during the movie, and yet we understand completely the fury and guilt driving his every punch. Joel Edgerton plays the older brother Brendan Conlon, a retired UFC fighter drawn back in to the ring in a desperate attempt to hold on to his house and the quiet family life he first left it for. He has the thick facial structure of someone capable of taking any hit thrown his way, but his eyes betray pain and feelings of inadequacy he carries from a childhood playing second fiddle to his brother. Both brothers (and their father, played by Nick Nolte) are estranged, caught up in a fractured family dynamic with edges still too sharp to smooth over. The details of the past are rarely mentioned, and yet body language and facial expressions communicate exactly what happened in a way no words could.
Despite previews revealing that the final match is between the brothers, each victory in the tournament is as nail biting and triumphant as if we were unaware of the outcome, and the final bout takes such an emotional toll that the audience feels almost as battered as the fighters. I expected this movie to be exhilarating and exciting; I didn't expect it to be heartbreaking as well. If you can stand the violence (there is no overt blood or shattering of bones, but it is still men beating each other senseless) then this is a definite must see. An expertly crafted story enhanced by acting from two men we will no doubt be seeing a lot in the future.
Warrior 2hrs PG-13
Contagion
The first minutes of Contagion are truly harrowing; we see sick people, out in public, interacting and moving through the population before being found dead. The illness spreads quickly, and as the audience we are given that special advantage of knowing more than the characters in the movie. We know that the sickness in London and Chicago and Hong Kong and Tokyo are all related, and we know that it is going to spread. We are treated to numerous shots of hands touching subway railings, and drinking glasses and other innocuous items, knowing that a killer lurks on these surfaces unseen. And when Gwyneth Paltrow's character dies (not a spoiler - this fact is in the previews) we are caught between sympathizing with Matt Damon's disbelief and shock and the frustration of wanting to shout "your son is sick too!" and the screen.
It is incredibly interesting and tense watching the characters in the movie trying to figure out this disease and fighting against the clock of the rapid spread and the dying. I've always loved that peculiar sensation of knowing more than the people on screen - it is a sort of delicious anxiety as they travel towards their doom and you, the viewer, can warn them. But after the initial break out and discovery of the virus, the movie loses a little of it's emotional heft. The movie focuses on the CDC scientists fighting for containment and to find a vaccination (Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne), a blogger with typical anti-governmental conspiracy who may be using his immense reach to help his audience or for his own personal gain (Jude Law), A WHO worker trying to trace the origin of the disease (Marillon Cotillard), and the husband of the index patient (Matt Damon) who has proven immune, but who is left fighting to keep his daughter from exposure.
And yet the second half of the film lacks emotional connection. There are a few scenes depicting the fear and panic of the general population: rioting over limited food supplies and available medicine, but a kidnapping for vaccine subplot goes nowhere, and the scope of the global devastation is offered with numbers and brief shots of deserted city streets littered with garbage. I'm certainly not suggesting that the filmmakers should have chosen to focus on the gore of mass graves and rampant death, but simply mentioning 25 million dead doesn't even begin to fully represent the actual horror of that type of situation. There are moments when the hopelessness of fighting an enemy we cannot see and barely understand come through, but all too often the movie seems more like it is in shock itself, with all the attendant muting of emotional resonance. Everyone seems to be dealing with the situation a little too calmly. Where is the terror? Where is the grief?
All that said, this movie is enjoyable, provided you aren't already a germaphobe, and it has a cast to die for. Definitely recommended viewing, although you may want to watch it at home with a year's worth of canned goods and hand sanitizer.
Contagion 1hr 45 min PG-13
fun fact: Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow's house in the movie is not in suburban Minneapolis, but actually suburban Chicago, a block away from my parents'. You better believe that I was totally jealous that my mom was that close to all the action instead of me. She didn't even hide in the bushes and try and get any photos!
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2
What can I say? Honestly, if you are AT ALL interested in this movie, you are already planning to go see it (or maybe already have). And unless you live under a rock or are so uninterested that you haven't read even one book (in which case why are you reading this review?) you know the story. So there is not much point in recaps or plot summaries. Which just leaves us with one question: Did they do it justice? And the answer is a resounding Y. E. S!
This movie ends an unprecedented series of films, which have broken all box office records, and entertained millions of people, and yet stayed faithful to a series of books that have shattered publishing records and literally changed fiction forever. And it does it honestly, loyally, and epically. The movie is heartbreaking, exciting, joyful and exhilarating all at once, and it concludes the beloved story with the respect and faithfulness it deserves. I guarantee that (if you are a fan) you will leave the theater feeling happy about the resolution, satisfied with the adaptation, and maybe a little bit sad about our glimpse into the world of Harry Potter coming to an end.
However...
that is not to say that this movie is a tour de force of film making. The director/writer/editor/whoever may have done a great job winnowing the incredibly packed final half of the book into a concise storyline, but they did NOT make a particularly adept stand alone film.
The movie starts as though we are coming into the very middle of an existing conversation, rather than simply beginning a new chapter in a much longer story, which even for a "part 2" sets a strange tone. Yes, we all know what happened in part 1, and yes, we are probably familiar enough with what will happen in part 2 to keep up with what is happening and why, but that doesn't mean it isn't jarring to just sort of start right in the middle of all the action rather than taking the time to set the stage and reintroduce us to the current mood and situation. The filmmakers have said that they wanted to do away with exposition and explanation and kind of reward fans for their loyalty (not to mention save time no doubt) by just jumping in to the story and assuming we will know what is going on. And while I applaud that approach, there is something to be said for at least attempting cohesive storytelling. Just because we know that an epic battle is about to begin when Harry and his friends return to Hogwarts doesn't mean it isn't still abrupt to have the fighting just begin. When a character says "he knows we're here" to me that implies 'he knows we're here and he will be here soon' not, 'he knows we're here and so is he with a whole giant army.' Everyone (characters and audience) may be well aware that the war to end all wars is on the brink doesn't mean we can forgo all the dread and tension of the buildup to that final moment when the first shots are fired. Without the pressure of increased suspense, the eventual explosion of violence loses its urgency and emotional impact.
And there was time to include it. At 2 hours 10 min the movie could easily have handled another 10 or even 20 minutes without feeling bloated or leaving viewers squirming in their seats, and those precious minutes could have gone a long way towards smoothing the pacing and knitting together crucial scenes into a meaningful whole. And they could have done even more towards heightening the emotional impact. I was glad to see that the pivotal moment involving Harry's long time nemesis Snape was given just attention, but seeing other beloved characters fight and die loses resonance when they have little or no screen time before hand. The final showdown between Harry and Voldemort was also changed from the book, most likely to make it more action-y for film (and 3D), but in actuality all it did was sacrifice some of the triumph. All in all, this movie was an excellent last chapter in a remarkable series, but failed at the one thing any film should hope to achieve which is to stand alone on its own merits.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2: 2 hrs 10 min PG-13
ps: just in case you read this entire review while also being somewhat on the fence about seeing the movie, let me add this: this movie contains the greatest, most realistic dragon I have ever seen. That alone is worth the price of admission. Seeing one of the world's most beloved characters grow up and kick some ass is just icing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









