The 'D' aint that silent...

"Django Unchained"

Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson

Rated R

165 Minutes

Just slightly missing the bar set by his own "Inglourious Basterds" in 2009, Quentin Tarantino now delivers "Django Unchained," a wildly ambitious tale of southern revenge.  Sporadically influenced by the great spaghetti westerns, the director's latest plays more like a darkly comic "southern;" set in the gothic history of slavery in the 1800s.  What stands out here is a gleefully tongue-in-cheek attitude toward the ignorance of the trade, with an astonishing amount of stylized violence and two of the best performances of the year.

Quentin Tarantino may have found a new muse in Christoph Waltz, the fantastic German actor who was the absolute highlight of "Inglourious Basterds" as Col. Hans Landa.  While "Django Unchained" is unquestionably Django's story, Waltz again revels in the trademark Tarantino dialogue and serves as perhaps the best protagonist of the year.   Here he plays Dr. King Schultz, a German bounty hunter with a strange but sincere ethical attitude toward his profession.  As the film begins, he is looking for Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who may know how to identify his current bounty, the Brittle Brothers.  Schultz offers Django a deal; if Django helps him find and kill the Brittles, he will grant him his freedom and a share of the paid bounty.  Django accepts, but with a condition of his own; Schultz must help him find and rescue his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), a slave who happens to speak German.

What follows is an extraordinary first act that delights in a variety of western elements, punctuated by the best soundtrack of the year.  Django and Schultz travel the expanse of the American Southeast, dishing out bloody justice to each assigned bounty.  In one truly great scene, Django hesitates to kill a bounty because his son is present and Schultz instills in him a valuable life lesson using only the wanted poster and some perceptive dialogue about choice and consequence.  Django pulls the trigger.

This is arguably Tarantino's most violent film yet, although most of the blood-letting is absurdly over-the-top, a la the 'house of blue leaves' sequence from "Kill Bill Volume 1."  There is also considerable attention given to violence toward the slaves, but Tarantino's faithful will realize that this has more to do with criticizing the historic cruelty against slaves, rather than glorifying it.  Not afraid to take liberties with historic accuracy, Tarantino uses his embellishments to spit in the face of America's dark past in order to tell a resonate story of edification.  The relationship between Schultz and Django highlights this ideal in a humorously subtle way, as if Tarantino is suggesting how easy it is to just get along. 

This is a long feature, at 165 minutes; and while it is somewhat hampered in its middle section, there is not a single scene that feels indulgent.  Leonardo DiCaprio appears late in the film as Calvin Candie, the sociopathic plantation owner in possession of Django's wife.  There is a tense dinner scene that serves as one of the year's best examples of suspense and DiCaprio's unhinged performance is a prime example of why he is consistently sought-after by Hollywood's best directors.  Serving him is the equally nefarious Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), a cruel man who seems to revile all people equally, regardless of race or affiliation.  This all builds to a rousing and satisfactory climax that must be seen to be believed.  Jamie Foxx is superb at completing Django's character arc, easily earning the picture's inflated run-time.   

By now, Quentin Tarantino has solidified himself as a great American auteur.  "Django Unchained" is at least the equal of his previous pictures, and while I slightly prefer the near-perfection of "Inglourious Basterds," this film will easily stand as a timeless example of expert filmmaking. It wouldn't surprise me if this winds up a leading contender for best picture, albeit a very unconventional one.  And there is certainly no denying you get a lot bang for your buck; and then some.  

Sung Almost Entirely by Nose Hair

"Les Miserables"

Written by Claude-Michel Schonberg & Alain Boublil
And
Herbert Kretzmer and William Nicholson
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried
PG-13
157 Minutes

 



I so very much wish I could say "Les Miserables" is a great film.  Considering its mass appeal as one of the longest-running stage musicals of all time, this big screen adaptation was perhaps inevitable.  The music is widely considered to be unrivaled by any other show before or since and it has captivated millions of people for nearly three decades.  While there are undeniable moments of greatness in this cinematic translation, much of the show's vitality has been lost along the way; and under the direction of Tom Hooper, "Les Miserables" compromises the essence of its source material at every turn with crippling creative choices and baffling camera work.

One of the great pleasures of "Les Miserables" on stage is its perfect balance of grandeur and intimacy.  Accompanying the emotional impact of the beautiful music is almost always a breathtaking set construction; capturing the essence of downtrodden 19th century France.  Foregoing the opportunity to show off what is clearly a remarkable production design, Tom Hooper strips away all of the grandeur by shooting almost every song during the first half in extreme close-up.  This force-feeds the intimacy to the audience, which is frustrating considering that it comes through just fine via the actors' performances. As Fantine,  Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is heart-stopping, but Hooper gives her nothing to do but sit there as the camera remains zoomed in on her face for the duration.  It is a creative choice I understand, but one that I disagree with.  His intention is to make the audience feel Fantine's pain; but the music already does that and it undermines Hathaway's incredible performance.

Those unfamiliar with the story of "Les Miserables" should know that nearly the entire narrative is sung, although more so on stage than it is here.  It involves main protagonist Jean Valjean and his redemption over a period of many years; after serving a 19-year sentence for a petty theft to save his nephew, Valjean is placed on parole and watched like a hawk by Inspector Javert.  Valjean breaks parole and goes to great lengths to reinvent himself as a decent man and through a series of unforeseen events, takes into his care Cosette, the daughter of a tragic woman named Fantine.  Javert hunts Valjean for decades and their cat and mouse chase culminates against the backdrop of the Paris Uprising of 1832.  That narrative foundation for the most part stays in tact but tragically, the essential structure of the music is sometimes sacrificed for no apparent reason.  Key lyrics are rearranged, placed out of context and rhythm or excised altogether.  New, less effective lines are added here and there, and there is even a song written for the movie that works against the recurring musical motif and doesn't fit.  All the singing was captured live during filming, but that isn't as effective as it sounds because the vocals seem oddly disconnected from the orchestrations accompanying them. 

Hugh Jackman is a serviceable Valjean most of the time, but is clearly straining his vocal range for vital sections.  "Bring Him Home" should be a delicate and breathless moment, but his vocal imperfections dilute much of the emotion.  As the rigid Police Inspector Javert, Russell Crowe is, well, rigid.  His tonal quality is not suited to this type of music, but when he stays away from an upper register, he is surprisingly capable at bellowing lower notes.  The "Master of the House" sequence with Thenardiere (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) is memorable for all the wrong reasons because Cohen chooses to channel all of his previous movie characters into the role and it deflates Thenardier's seediness.

Amanda Seyfried is delightful as Cosette and her duets with Marius (Eddie Redmayne) are emotional and true to the source.  Aaron Tveit makes for a phenomenal Enjolras, a young revolutionary who is provided some of the most impactful lyrics and melodies.  In fact, the entire second half is truly exceptional and on par with the best stage productions;  Hooper even relents on the close-ups to show more of the production and visual palette.  Although the barricade, usually a grand set-piece on stage around which the whole second act centers, is strangely subdued here and feels almost inconsequential to the rest of the main narrative.  That qualm aside, the music is more consistently left in tact and the finale is easily as emotionally resonant as its stage counterpart.

Make no mistake; there will be longtime fans of "Les Miserables" that love this movie and newcomers could do far worse.  Still, at two hours, thirty seven minutes, it should not take over an hour to warm up to it.  Why the pure majesty of "Les Miserables" was not left to speak for itself, I don't know. Perhaps, like "Phantom of the Opera," this is a show that simply belongs on the stage.  Or maybe it is my bias and great love of "Les Miserables" that had me expecting a truly great movie to have been adapted from it; alas, this isn't the movie.  If you look closely, you'll see the original Valjean, Colm Wilkinson, show up as a compassionate Bishop.  Brief as the part is; believe me when I say that the movie sorely needs him.     

An Action Movie That Puts Mind Over Muscle (But has plenty of that, too)

“Jack Reacher”
Written and Directed by Christopher McQuarrie
Starring Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Werner Herzog and Robert Duvall
Rated PG-13
130 Minutes

From what I understand, Tom Cruise is about as far from author Lee Child's literary description of the Jack Reacher character as possible.  No matter. Tom Cruise, now 50, easily embodies the imposing nature of the character and simultaneously powers his way through yet another physically demanding role.   "Jack Reacher" is a superb thriller that blends hard-hitting action with a smart, twisty procedural.  Written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, this is a must-see motion picture that I hope will gain a large audience because if any character deserves a franchise, this is the guy.

"Jack Reacher" is based on "One Shot," the ninth volume of Lee Child's series of novels and involves the titular character being summoned by James Barr (Joseph Sikora), a trained military sniper accused of shooting five random people in a public park.  The unforgettable opening scene shows the real killer make the shots, each one shown through the lens of his scope.  The catch is that the sniper has fired six shots and it is the one bullet that did not kill anyone that becomes a key to solving the case.  Reacher has a past with Barr and believes he must undoubtedly be guilty.  Barr's defense attorney, Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike) is just trying to keep Barr from the death sentence, but her father (Richard Jenkins) is the District Attorney which further complicates matters.

Helen brings on Jack Reacher as the lead investigator for the case, much to the dismay of police detective Emerson (David Oyelowo), who figures this is an open and shut case due to the amount of evidence left at the scene.  After a chance encounter at a local bar, Reacher starts to believe that  things aren't what they seem and uses his considerable intellect and fists to follow a trail to more answers.  Tom Cruise is in such excellent shape and fights so fiercely that we never question the plausibility of him besting five guys who are mostly bigger than him.  There is also a truly sensational car chase mid-way through that is a refreshing change of pace from most generic movie chases.  As Reacher chases the bad guys, there are also people chasing him, and this provides real tension and a sense of consequence to the scene.

The finer points of the plot are so engaging that I cannot possibly spoil them for you here but I must mention the superb performance of famed director Werner Herzog as the film's mysterious villain.  He lurks in the shadows for a great deal of the picture, but when he does speak, the dialogue is sinister and the characters he addresses listen intently because their lives may depend on it.  Showing up late in the proceedings is Robert Duvall as a spry old gun shop owner who is able to provide clues to assist Jack Reacher in his investigation, as well as the kind of aid that only Robert Duvall can provide.

"Jack Reacher" is the kind of movie that I wanted to watch again as soon as it was over.  It's such a well-blended experience and doesn't miss a beat providing audience satisfaction; although some may feel disturbed by the opening sniper sequence given that we see plenty of that kind of thing happen in real life all the time.  People capable of such atrocities should absolutely be brought to justice.  I'll tell you right now that if Jack Reacher really existed, he'd be more than qualified to serve it.

Lower Your Unexpectations

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”
Written by Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage and Andy Serkis
Rated PG-13
169 Minutes

Here it is at last; the long-awaited return to Middle Earth.  After the massive success of his “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy, Peter Jackson has finally delivered the first chapter of his cinematic adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit.  Originally planned for two installments, Jackson somehow managed to stretch the narrative into three films, with the remaining two scheduled to release next year and the year after.  That baffling decision is only one of the reasons that “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is anything but unexpected.  Instead, when compared to the majesty of Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” epics, this first chapter of the new Middle Earth trilogy is indulgent, long-winded and uninspiring.

In the opening moments, there is a brief wave of nostalgia upon returning to the Shire and seeing Old Bilbo (Ian Holm) beginning to pen the adventures of his young life.  Indeed, “An Unexpected Journey” begins on the very morning that saw Gandalf’s (Ian McKellen) return in “The Fellowship of the Ring.”  As Frodo (Elijah Wood) scampers off to surprise him, the narrative dissolves to sixty years previous, when Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is just a young lad with his whole hobbit life ahead of him.  At first, it is a pleasure seeing Freeman capture similar mannerisms to Ian Holm’s portrayal, and his interplay with Gandalf is a nice match to the early moments in “The Fellowship of the Ring.” 

Aside from the initial visual match, “An Unexpected Journey” soon starts putting as much distance between itself and the “Lord of the Rings” films as possible.  Considering that The Hobbit is essentially a children’s novel, Peter Jackson fully embraces that idea with an overload of tonally awkward humor.  The narrative this time concerns thirteen dwarves that have lost their home in the Lonely Mountain to an evil dragon known as Smaug.  These dwarves are really something.  Not only can they wreck and clean a home in mere moments, but they can sing sweetly while doing it.  They’d like Bilbo to come along with them as a ‘burglar’ to reclaim their home and slay the dragon.  They are led by the great Thorin (Richard Armitage), who doubts Bilbo will be of any real help in their journey.  Armitage’s portrayal is something akin to Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn and is a nice fit for Jackson’s established universe.

Unfortunately, once the titular journey gets underway, it follows a rinse and repeat pattern of predictability and an over-abundance of disastrously obvious CGI.  Filming on location in New Zealand again, it’s as if Jackson forgot what made his “Lord of the Rings” pictures so marvelous; he used the locations to great effect and as much as possible, filmed on practical sets with real actors in fantastic makeup.  The Orcs in “An Unexpected Journey” are entirely CGI, taking away the fierceness that an actor can portray under several pounds of incredibly detailed effects work.  Key locations like Rivendell look like something out of George Lucas’ “Star Wars” prequels, as do silly animal creatures in an early subplot that could easily be excised.  Gone too are the gloriously staged battles, instead replaced with quick-cutting computer imagery.

At 169 minutes, there is something about “An Unexpected Journey” that feels so slight when held up next to “The Lord of the Rings.”  Perhaps the nature of the story hinders itself by following this one group comprising Bilbo and the dwarves the entire time, leaving the larger narrative to feel numbingly inconsequential.  Each chapter of “The Lord of the Rings” follows various races and regions of Middle Earth, creating a cinematic world that feels completely alive and enveloping; but here we are left to endure a series of generic capture and escape set-pieces, the monotony of which is only broken by the always-welcome appearance of Gollum (Andy Serkis in all his motion-capture glory). 

 Stretching out The Hobbit novel to three films smacks of indulgence and Hollywood greed, which is a shame because until now, Peter Jackson has always made magnificent movies.  Alas, you can also catch “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” in 3D and the new 48 fps frame rate.  In 2001, “The Fellowship of the Ring” was nominated for its incredible effects work at bringing to life the characters and locations of Tolkien’s universe.  To accomplish this, Peter Jackson didn’t reinvent the wheel on anything; he used good old fashioned film making to create a groundbreaking epic fantasy.  Will anyone be able to say that about “An Unexpected Journey” in eleven years?  My fear is that these new technologies meant to “improve” the cinema experience will make obsolete the very things that make movies magical.  They sure don’t make them like they used to.     

Even Tough Guys Have it Rough

“Killing Them Softly”
Written & Directed by Andrew Dominik
Starring Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Scoot McNairy
Rated R
97 Minutes

Hey, when it’s tough, it’s tough all over; and organized crime is no exception.  Without much subtlety, Andrew Dominik hammers home this idea by framing an allegory for the 2008 financial crisis within a seedy mob drama.  That is certainly an interesting idea, and within the confines of the crime formula, “Killing Them Softly” is a well-made film with a strong director and a talented cast; but its muddled story fails to deliver its ultimate message until the final frame and by then, it feels irrelevant. 

“Killing Them Softly” takes place in 2008 at the crux of the financial collapse and is punctuated every few minutes by archival news footage of President Bush and Barak Obama ruminating on the state of the economy.   At first, it comes across as painfully obvious allegory, but I believe it is a very deliberate choice by Andrew Dominik to convey that the Nation’s crisis was being observed by everyone, even seedy mafia guys.  The problem is that the narrative is stuck in the past along with its relevance.  In 2012, what’s the point in showing an audience your thoughts on an event that was the focus of 2008? 

The actual plot isn’t half bad for a crime picture.  Two low-level thugs, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), are hired by Johnny (Vincent Curatola) to rip off a Mob card game run by Markie (Ray Liotta).  Johnny assures Frankie that they can easily pull it off because Markie has robbed his own card game before and bragged about it; ergo, the powers that be will blame him again and nobody will be the wiser.  But as these things go, the unhinged Russell runs his mouth to a guy that works for one of the bosses.  Soon enough, Jackie (Brad Pitt) comes to town to whack the two low-level guys, the guy that hired them and even poor Markie; the rationale being that if his games are to keep getting ripped off, it’s bad for business, no matter who’s responsible.  You don’t need a flow chart to discover the parallels Dominik is trying to draw here; the only hard part is figuring out exactly what Jackie is meant to represent.

All of this is handled mostly with extensive conversations containing some pretty great dialogue and in the final scene Brad Pitt makes some observations about America during a monologue that is worth the price of admission alone.  The screenplay is an adaptation of the 1974 novel Cogan’s Trade and had it kept that setting, ‘Killing Them Softly’ might have been a more interesting picture.  In its place is the more obvious and less effective setting of New Orleans in 2008; although the gritty look of the film successfully reflects the depressed environment.  In fact, the movie is full of odd-ball shot choices, with one violent sequence in particular that is strangely romantic in its execution, pardon the pun.  It is a quirky shooting style, highlighted by a great soundtrack and slow motion, making it one of the single most memorable scenes of the year. 

“Killing Them Softly” has had a dismal opening weekend and is now confirmed to be the worst-ever debut for a Brad Pitt movie, which is ironic considering the movie’s central thesis.  I suppose that is just as well, because this is not a great film and doesn’t even come close to approaching the excellence of Andrew Dominik’s previous movie “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”  In any case, “Killing Them Softly” is full of deliberate choices and has some good moments; it’s just a little late to dinner when it comes to delivering its message with any relevance.  But at least it lives up to its title.