All Pain. No Gain.

Pain and Gain
written by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely
directed by Michael Bay

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Duane Johnson, Anthony Mackie and Tony Shalhoub

Rated R

129 Minutes

The best thing that can be said about Michael Bay's "Pain and Gain" is that, like most of its characters, it is pumped full of steroids.  This is such a sporadic and clumsy picture, that to call it incoherent would pay it a compliment.  I think what "Pain and Gain" proves is what I've always suspected - Michael Bay is not a first unit director.  He belongs in a special effects department, blowing stuff up real good and staying as far as possible from everyone else.

Supposedly, Michael Bay wanted to slow things down after delivering three "Transformers" blockbusters.  Well, wouldn't you know, "Pain and Gain" speeds things up exponentially, almost rendering those Autobots comatose.  It begins with a manic chase scene, only to rewind about four weeks to show a manic montage of Mark Wahlberg totally going nuts before REALLY totally going nuts.  He's been off the rails before, but I'm almost convinced he filmed this entire movie completely under the influence.  Strangely enough, "Pain and Gain" actually provides Duane Johnson one of his best roles yet, and he shows quite a range here in a film that doesn't deserve his performance.

"Pain and Gain" is 'unfortunately based on a true story' and chronicles three low life fitness freaks and the bizarre and gruesome crime spree they unleash in Miami during the 90's .  Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is employed with a Miami gym doing....well, not much of anything.  He seems to live by the philosophy "if I think I deserve it, the universe will serve it."  If you happen to have any friends that believe similarly, do yourself a favor and unfriend them on Facebook; the universe will thank you, I promise.  Daniel takes to envying a client named Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub) and decides he wants "everything he has."  In order to take it, Daniel recruits Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and Paul Doyle (Duane Johnson), two other body builders with nothing better to do.

What follows is a shamefully irreverent movie that defies categorization.  At first, "Pain and Gain" is supposedly a comedy, considering that the three criminals try crazy things like dressing up as ninjas to kidnap Kershaw.  Then, as the crime gets progressively more involved and the stakes become higher, there are jarring tonal shifts that are uncomfortable and awkward.  Bay apparently has no sense of comic timing; but what's most baffling is that he finds any of this funny at all.  Considering the unspeakable cruelty committed toward characters in this film,  I couldn't help but realize that the characters are based, however loosely, on real people.  If I were the families of the victims, I'd send Bay hate mail for the rest of my life.

With that said, I must concede that Duane Johnson is the best part about any scene he's in.  It's just too bad the material is so abhorrent, because this is exactly the kind of performance Johnson needs to widen his use. Mackie isn't weighty enough to leave an impression either way (and a running gag throughout the film is that he can't impress at all, if you know what I mean).  Popping up late in the game is the always welcome Ed Harris, basically pulling a glorified cameo here as a Private Detective that is apparently given international jurisdiction to chase Lugo to the Bahamas.

Do yourself a favor.  Do not see "Pain and Gain."  You'll only assist deluding Michael Bay into thinking he can make something good outside of "Transformers."  You'll also be party to finding humor in a series of events that aren't the least bit funny.  Sure, these guys were idiots, but they were idiots who had no regard for human life.  So why should anyone fork over money to watch a completely wrong-headed film that attempts to make light of anything they did?  I guess you could sum it up with that line: "if I think I deserve it, the universe will serve it."  And we wonder what's wrong with America.

Sci-Fi At Its Best

Oblivion

written by Joseph Kosinski &Karl Gajdusek & Michael Arndt

directed by Joseph Kosinski

Starring Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko and Morgan Freeman

Rated PG-13
124 Min

For its first hour or so, "Oblivion" plays like it's assembled from the spare parts of all the classic sci-fi films.  That's not negative criticism either, because with direction by Joseph Kosinski, "Oblivion" immediately provides imagery worth remembering while setting up a story that at first seems inspired by countless familiar ones.  Then in the second act, it throws in some twists and surprises and becomes something else entirely.  This is a truly spectacular film that could easily stand next next to the great sci-fi pictures of old.

Joseph Kosinski has only one previous directing credit to his name - "Tron: Legacy," 2010's sequel to the 80's staple starring Jeff Bridges.  "Tron: Legacy" was essentially ignored on its release, but is an exceptional entertainment with striking images if its own.  Now with "Oblivion," Kosinski is apparently working from an original story, and if this is a sign of things to come, he will be in high demand.  The story itself starts out simple enough.  In the year 2077, earth has been wiped out from nuclear war, and sometime later, an alien race called "scavengers" came to utilize the planet's resources.  To preserve what little is left of the planet in hopes to rebuild, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) repairs drones that defend gigantic power converters that use sea water to do...something.  His partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) sits at a control desk in their sky tower to provide him with directives given by Sally (Melissa Leo), who commands everything from the Tet, a space station that sits just outside the earth's atmosphere.

This may sound like a live-action "Wall-E," but Oblivion has quite a bit more going for it.  For one thing, Jack and Victoria are lovers; after all, they are presumably the only two flesh bodies on earth.  Trouble is, Jack keeps dreaming about a woman named Julia (Olga Kurylenko), but he's never met her and can't explain why he remembers New York City the way it was before he was even alive.  Although, there is that mandatory memory wipe every five years.  Hmm.  This is just where "Oblivion" begins to lengthen its mystery and intrigue the audience.  You may be wondering for instance where Morgan Freeman comes into play?  From the trailers you may have gathered he leads some sort of underground resistance.  Yes, but resistance to what?  The answers are where "Oblivion" has its fun and it unravels at a perfect pace, revealing bits of information at the exact moment that the same bits dawn on you.  Smart stuff.

Nobody should leave this movie bored, either.  There is plenty of action to satisfy those hungry for it, but "Oblivion" is not a slave to it, and employs only what makes sense for the world it inhabits.  What matters is how we feel about who the action is happening to, and Kosinski is wise to have cast Cruise and Kurylenko, who play their roles earnestly, which really sells the deeper ideas always just under the surface.  Sci-fi though it may be, this is pretty weighty material, with some truly thought-provoking ideas about the nature of our own existence.  Not only that, but how our existence both relies on, and contributes to the existence of others.  If you're thinking "well duh," just wait until the climax of "Oblivion" and you might get what I mean.

With the trend of sequels and remakes at its absolute crux, it's refreshing when something like "Oblivion" comes along; a mostly original sci-fi movie with timeless appeal and a great many things on its mind.  It's certainly worth more than one viewing just to wrap your head around everything it wants to say.  But even if you see it once, you'll be glad you did.  It's the kind of movie that won't leave you hanging.  I only had one question during the last moments and then "Oblivion" went right ahead and answered it with the last shot.  It's that kind of movie.

The Other Cabin in the Woods

Evil Dead

written by Fede Alvarez & Rod Sayagues
directed by Fede Alvarez
Starring Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez and Lou Taylor Pucci
Rated R

91 Minutes

Horror movie remakes are a staple of the Hollywood machine now days; if for no other reason than to please the increasingly gore-hungry young adult audience.  In that regard, Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead" seems like it would be a good candidate for re-visiting, which Raimi himself essentially already did with "Evil Dead II."  But as directed by Fede Alvarez, this new version slaps the cult classic in the face with a bigger budget and buckets of blood, completely missing the point of a good remake.  Oh sure there are nods to the original here, as well as unrelenting gore; but Alvarez' "Evil Dead" is irredeemably bad and does nothing to distinguish itself from any other run of the mill gore horror plaguing america's big screens.

The essential element of Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" trilogy is the undercurrent of humor.  First of all, by casting Bruce Campbell as the iconic Ash, Raimi nails the absurdity of over-the-top horror movie acting.  He also softens the intensity of the violence by staging it like the punchline of a bad joke.  Sure, there is blood and guts, but you can also see the unfinished roof of the set as Ash runs through the house.  It's funny, you see.  But this new version, boy does it take itself seriously.  Not only are at least two of the characters borderline sociopaths, but they are completely and utterly stupid to boot.  Once things start spiraling out of control, their big plan is to flail about with kitchen knives, nail guns, chain saws, syringes hooked to car batteries (seriously), a shotgun and another, much bigger knife.  Sound like fun to you?  I thought not.

Even the original "Evil Dead" story is throwaway, but this one sinks itself by going the other way and having too much plot.  Mia (Jane Levy), is a heroin addict trying to go cold turkey.  Her estranged brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) meets her and some friends at their childhood vacation cabin with the intention of not leaving until Mia is sober.  Why the cabin has a totally implausible amount of decay and filth after just a few years is never explained.  But I suppose it looks that way because scary cabins must always look that way.  Indeed, things do get very scary when the gang finds a disturbing scene under the cabin via a hidden trap door.  What they find will not be mentioned by me simply because I'd like to keep my dinner down.  Those familiar with Raimi's original will recognize a book that becomes central to the story, although the book in this version isn't utilized nearly as well, and almost becomes an afterthought in the final act.

One of the idiots, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), reads from the book and awakens some nasty demons that create some ruckus.  Ruckus is the nice word for it.  So demented is Eric that he doesn't even TELL anybody when he notices that pages in the book are being fulfilled before his eyes.  He pretends to be just as surprised as everyone else until he realizes that, you know, gruesome death is still death.  There ain't no coming back from that.  What sets Raimi's gore apart though is that he had a low budget and used creativity to fill in the gaps.  For instance, demon vomit was actually pea soup and looked like it, too.  Alvarez cranks the gore notch up to eleven and uses every make-up technique at his disposal to make each scene of carnage as disgusting as possible.  Good for him, I guess.

I could go on, but those familiar with the far superior Raimi version will know about how this one ends up.  My theory is that everything that happens is just imagined through Mia's drug-induced psychosis.  Heck, there is even some nasty business with a needle at one point and I heard a male in the audience at my screening say "sick."  There is your one-word review of the new "Evil Dead" - sick.  No doubt it will earn its budget back in spades.  Or blood.  But I would urge anyone and everyone to stay away from this one.  It isn't any fun.  Not without Raimi; and certainly not without Ash.

All You Need is Love. Seriously.

The Host
written by Stephanie Meyer & Andrew Niccol
directed by Andrew Niccol
Starring Saoirse Ronan, Diane Kruger, William Hurt and Max Irons
Rated PG-13
125 Minutes

 

After seeing “The Host,” I think I finally understand Stephanie Meyer.  She must be possessed by one of the alien life forms in this story.  The aliens, called Souls, inhabit human bodies and strip away anything resembling realistic human emotion.  While their ultimate goal is never quite clear, it makes for a story that is at least more interesting than “Twilight.”  But as Meyer’s M.O. goes, she forgoes the opportunity to flesh out compelling material in favor of sappy romance triangles and adolescent hormones.

Andrew Niccol is an excellent director and his best feature to date, “Gattaca,” is a modern sci-fi masterpiece.  He brings a similar visual panache to “The Host,” which has some truly glossy moments including vehicles that seem to be made of mirrors and a lot of inhabited human beings with the same ethereal blue eye color.  The Souls themselves are also pretty captivating, and Niccol takes at least two opportunities to focus on them while Antonio Pinto’s effective score accompanies.

The story has a lot of potential and Saoirse Ronan has a great deal to do with that.  For those that remember, she played the young Briony Tallis in “Atonement” and walked away with the movie.  Here she plays Melanie, and when the movie opens we find her fighting off a band of inhabited humans called Seekers.  After putting up a good fight, Melanie is captured and the Seekers imbed a Soul within her mind.  How they do this is pretty fun to watch, but disturbing if you think about it too long. 

The Soul that inhabits Melanie is called ‘Wanderer’ due to the fact that it has been on many planets before earth.  Wanderer’s job is to scan Melanie’s mind and deliver any information to the Seekers that may help them find remaining humans that they predictably dub “the resistance.”  Melanie, however, remains conscious within her body and fights with Wanderer for control of it.

With a strong visual palette and a halfway intriguing story, “The Host” starts off promising enough.  But poor Andrew Niccol is held back from really getting into the good stuff by a dud of a screenplay, which was co-written by Meyer herself.  So restricted and narrow is the story, Niccol could feasibly refer to Stephanie Meyer as “the ole’ ball and chain.”  Meyer has drafted a world with endless possibilities for dramatic tension and urgent conflict but instead chooses to again wallow in idealistic teen romance.  And the love triangle in this one is really bizarre – with two guys competing for the affections of two different female personalities but only one physical body.  Uh huh.

We never get a sense of what the Souls want, or even a backstory to explain why they came to earth at all.  And those pesky Seekers; try as they might, they can’t find Melanie/Wanderer once she runs off so they basically give up and go home so that the love story can play out in familiar fashion.  There’s another thing – Melanie and her Soul start to respect each other and become friends, and with infinite philosophies to discuss and things to learn from each other, they spend their time bickering about which boy the other one is allowed to kiss or not kiss.

I have no idea how much of this resembles the book it’s based on but really, who cares?  By now, Stephanie Meyer has proven herself to be a one-trick pony.  So caught up is she in her lovey-dovey fantasy land, she completely dilutes any sense of relevance in her own stories.  I have yet to see a couple in love that resembles anything close to an Edward/Bella or Melanie/Jared situation.  I know I am not the target audience for these things and clearly Meyer is earning her millions by pleasing her demographic; I just worry what she is teaching young ladies to expect from potential boyfriends.  That vampire guy watches you when you sleep and the guy in this one tries to kill you.  But like I said, it’s at least more interesting than “Twilight.”  So there you have it.

Sloppy Joes

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
written by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

directed by Jon M. Chu

Starring Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis and Channing Tatum

PG-13

110 Min

What could Bruce Willis be thinking?  Last month, he put the nail in John McClane's coffin with "A Good Day to Die Hard" and now he's even giving the original Joe a bad name in "G.I. Joe: Retaliation."  I'd have considered "A Good Day to Die Hard" tolerable if I'd known just how bad "G.I. Joe" would be.  And boy is it bad.  This film is like the dumb jock in a room full of dumb jocks.  With one incomprehensible scene after another, this is an excruciating experience in every regard.  If you want a better use of your money, go to your nearest gym and pay one of the customers $10 to flex his muscles for you before punching you in the stomach.

I never saw the first "G.I. Joe" but I can't imagine it has much to offer if this is all they could come up with for a sequel.  It involves a group of supposedly elite soldiers who are dubbed "the Joes" and are apparently the gold standard in United States security.  They sweat a lot, and shoot stuff and blow things up real good and essentially run around doing pretty much whatever they'd like as far as I can tell.  Oh, one of them is Channing Tatum, code name 'Duke.'  I guess he's the leader; and he sucks at video games.  Then there is Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), whose name makes it sound like he should be fighting alongside another familiar set of Hasbro toys.

There are some bad guys as well.  The one called Zartan (Arnold Vosloo) is using nano-technology to pose as Jonathan Pryce, who is the POTUS.  Seriously, his character name is "President."  He performs the task as well as any other movie President, always asking a group of sociopath advisers what they think the proper course of action is.  In one really absurd sequence, the poser President attends an international meeting where several world leaders pull out their own nuclear launch devices as if it were the CES of WMDs.  Anyway, the POTUS poser uses his power to wipe out all but just a few Joes, who then must find and recruit who I think is supposed to be the original Joe (Bruce Willis) to help them pummel the POTUS and preserve the peace.  They're all still sweating, mind you.

Would it help for me to have seen the first film?  I don't think so.  This one does a bang-up job of telling the audience who is who and what's what and all that.  But each scene is completely disconnected from the one before it.  If the narrative were constructed of sentences it would look something like: "BANG!  Dumb action.  Stupid dialogue.  Dumb action.  BANG!  Mediocre musical score.  Sweat.  Dumb action.  BANG!  You get the picture.  There is a middle act ninja fight on the side of some snowy cliffs.  So if that's your thing, you're welcome to it.  But not a single event in this movie challenged my thought process or so much as gave me a heart palpitation.  

Mercifully, the film does eventually end; but I kept wondering what could have possibly delayed the film's release for nine months.  It certainly could not have been improved in any way.  My guess is the studio figured "G.I. Joe; Retaliation" would get smashed by all the blockbusters that it would have competed with on its original release date last summer.  Or maybe somebody said: "this is literally the worst movie ever made; let's make it worser."  Yeah, I know 'worser' isn't a word, but "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" isn't a movie.  It's a disaster.  I think Bruce Willis owes everyone an apology.

What happened to the North's witch?

Oz the Great and Powerful
Starring James Franco, Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, Zach Braff and Joey King
Written by Mitchell Kapner & David Lindsay-Abaire
directed by Sam Raimi
Rated PG

130 Minutes

 



It is undeniable that "Oz the Great and Powerful" is a lot of fun.  This is a beautifully realized film, with the unmistakable Sam Raimi signature on it.  The very opening credits almost not need mention his name for their revealing style.  With plenty to offer a modern-day family, but not much to stand on when compared against the classic, this is a movie worth seeing just for the sake of seeing the land of Oz on screen once again.

As a prequel, I suppose "Oz the Great and Powerful" has a whole lot more going for it than the stage musical "Wicked," which will undoubtedly be translated to film at some point.  "Wicked" undermines every plot detail of "The Wizard of Oz" and completely misses the point.  This new Disney film wins just by staying more true to the magic and scope of the 1939 classic.  It even begins in black and white; filmed and displayed in a square frame format to match its predecessor and emphasize the dreary relism of Kansas.  James Franco plays the Oz of the title; Oz being short for something I can't recall.  Or even pronounce.

Oz is a talented but selfish circus act; breaking girls' hearts by selling them a line of bull just to integrate a pretty face into his show.  He comes off as obviously phony, and when an audience member calls him out, he pulls off a pretty neat trick.  Of course, being good isn't good enough.  Oz wants to be truly great.  So much, in fact, that he turns down the offer of a happy life with Annie (Michelle Williams) just to make it big.  And boy does he make it big.  When a wild tornado hits the circus, he is swept away in his hot air balloon to the wonderful land of Oz.  Believe me when I say he notices the name.

Right off the bat, he meets Theodora (Mila Kunis), a soft-spoken witch who gets a bit of a crush on him.  Seeing how naive she is, Oz is more than happy to oblige, especially when she tells him he is the great wizard whose coming was fortold by her father.  The problem, you see, is that the wicked-witch (nope, not that one) Evanora (Rachel Weisz) will do anything to stop the prophecy coming true, including sending her batch of flying monkeys to intervene.  And this is just the beginning of Oz's laundry list of hurdles he must overcome.

It's worth noting that once the wizard makes it to Oz, the screen format opens up and the color becomes blindingly vibrant.  This is an absolutely beautiful movie, with cinematography by Peter Deming and a list of art directors worth checking imdb for.  The only complaint I have is that so much of this is obviously digitally created; giving it more than a passing resemblance to Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland,' but also taking away from the magic of the original film, which was a landmark production in 1939.  The characters, too, aren't as much fun this time around.  Just like Dorothy had companions, so does Oz.  He acquires a truly good flying monkey named Finley (Zach Braff), who sounds a lot like his friend Frank back home.  And there is a fragile little girl made of china (Joey King) who must remind Oz of a crippled girl he failed to heal during a cricus performance.

These are well-developed characters, but I was longing for the living, breathing presence of the Scarecrow and Tin-Man.  Even the cowardly lion makes a brief appearance, just not as you remember him.  The best connection to "The Wizard of Oz" is Michelle Williams as Glinda the good.  She gives a truly enchanting performance that echoes the Billie Burke version while also claiming it as her own.  As Theodora, Mila Kunis is fine; but considering the-uh-transformation her character goes through, she was perhaps miscast.

There is a pretty rousing climax that sets things up nicely for a sequel to bridge this film with the classic you know and love.  For that, it's worth the price of admission.  Sam Raimi is apparently not on board to do another, and that's just as well.  He has provided a wonderful entertainment that really reaches to honor its inspiration.  Sometimes it hits the mark.  But I think if you're anything like me, you'll want to go home after, put in your copy of "The Wizard of Oz" and smile while thinking to yourself: they don't make them like they used to.

Down, but not out...

Dead Man Down
Starring Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace and Terrance Howard
written by J.H Wyman
directed by Niels Arden Oplev

Rated R
110 Minutes

 

It’s too bad that the trailers for “Dead Man Down” make it look like just another generic action movie with gratuitous gun violence and explosions; because director Niels Arden Oplev serves up what is actually a deeply involving character drama featuring two tortured souls against the backdrop of an organized crime setting.  Sure, “Dead Man Down” has violence on its mind, but with knockout performances by Colin Farrell and Noomi Rapace, this is a much smarter feature than its marketing would imply. 

Colin Farrell is a criminally under-used actor, but turns in possibly his best performance yet playing Victor, an enforcer for Alphonse (Terrance Howard), who operates a number of buildings throughout New York to maintain crime rackets.  Victor doesn’t say much; but instead seems to always be regarding things with quiet focus.  He listens intently to his only friend Darcy (Dominic Cooper) talk about his new baby and how fatherhood can turn even the hardest hearts soft.  There are other characters of interest; like Beatrice (Noomi Rapace).  She lives across from Victor and they have entire conversations that consist almost entirely of waves and glances.

Beatrice is slightly disfigured after a car accident, but gets the courage to call Victor up for a meal.  He doesn’t even notice her facial scars, but holds back for other reasons.  Without spilling the beans, Victor and Beatrice are both grieving and both want revenge.  While Victor has set up an elaborate scheme for his revenge, Beatrice struggles to even function because she’s so shattered by what has happened to her.  It is quickly revealed that she has witnessed Victor doing something related to his occupation.  She has video and threatens to turn him in unless he kills the man who disfigured her.  He explains that what she saw is not what it appeared to be and reveals his background.

It is these developments that occupy the bulk of “Dead Man Down” with maddening urgency.  Both of these characters are short-sighted by their grief and while the organized crime plot plays a vital role in Victor’s past, it is mainly just the vehicle for his journey of renewal.  Victor and Beatrice begin to realize things about one another that make them rethink their original plans.  And while the film is not devoid of action, it is sparse and serves only to punctuate the desperation of Victor’s circumstances.

The screenplay by J.H. Wyman is so nuanced in its presentation of these characters.  When the film is winding toward its conclusion, with the tension becoming unbearable, the script finds a perfect balance of payoff; offering action, but resisting the urge to end on cathartic carnage.  What happens to the people who deserve what’s coming to them isn’t what you’d expect.  And that’s really kind of nice.  There are even brief moments of sympathy for Alphonse, who isn’t painted as pure evil; and Terrance Howard plays him subtly, as a man who is probably a coward.  As Beatrice, Noomi Rapace continues to show her range and appeal to an American Audience.  She worked under Oplev for the original Swedish adaption of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and there are shades of her Lisbeth Salander character from that picture in this one.

The real standout of “Dead Man Down” is Colin Farrell.  He is fantastic as an introspective man tortured by his tragic past, and mercilessly patient in his plan for revenge.  And  “Dead Man Down” requires a patient audience; one that can sit through scenes of subtle glances and grim conversation.  Action hungry audiences won’t find what they’re looking for, but it’s great for those who can relate to loss and desperation.  That a movie called “Dead Man Down” can wallow in these things and still end on a happy note is impressive.  After all, it begins with two people wanting revenge and in the end getting exactly what they need. 

So dark that even the birds can't see...

"Dark Skies"

written and directed by Scott Stewart

Starring Keri Russell, Josh Hamilton and J.K. Simmons

Rated PG-13

97 Minutes

There's haunted house movies, there's alien movies; and then there's "Dark Skies," which fuses both into a chilling and effective feature about a family that gets put through the ringer by unseen forces.  With fine-tuned performances by Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton, "Dark Skies" plays with the atmosphere of "Poltergeist" with a touch of "Signs" mixed in.  It also has a pretty bonkers climax with a bold and well-earned twist ending that I didn't see coming.  This is another February release that gives you your money's worth.

Writer-director Scott Stewart is only on his third feature film after the underwhelming "Legion" and "Priest."  Perhaps with "Dark Skies" he is coming into his own.  This is a well-directed film, with a structure that starts out calmly enough, before unleashing a relentless series of haunting images and frightening events.  Stewart wisely avoids jump scares, and his script gives the characters honest reactions to the things happening around them, without turning them into idiots.  Much of that comes from the convincing performances by Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton - it's really easy to believe in their strained marriage.

Russell plays Lacy Barrett, a real estate agent struggling to sell an outdated home.  Her husband Daniel (Josh Hamilton) is an out of work architect and is three months behind on the mortgage.  As if their economic struggles weren't enough, they begin noticing some strange things around the house; like the entire kitchen pantry stacked up to the ceiling in the middle of the night.  At first, Lacy suspects maybe her son Sam (Kadan Rockett) has some sleep walking issues, but when all the family photos go missing, she suspects something more sinister is happening.  Their oldest son Jesse (Dakota Goyo) is at that awkward transition between puberty and manhood, which is difficult enough to manage without problems at home.  He has a tender way of calming his younger brother at night; by communicating with him via walkie-talkie from his room.

Before long, the weird stuff starts to get out of control.  For instance, nobody seems to be able to explain why three separate bird migrations slammed into their house at once, resulting in hundreds of dead starlings on their lawn.  And what of the mysterious marks and bruises that begin to appear on the boys?  Or Daniel's bizarre rash behind his ear?  To reveal much more would be to spoil to fun, which by this point might suggest a ghost is to blame.  Not quite.  Although, Daniel does eventually discover something shocking on security camera footage after Lacy claims she saw...someone in the house.  This causes them to contact Edwin Pollard (J.K. Simmons), who is an "expert on these things." 

There is some really nice effects work worth a mention, and Stewart relies on stark imagery rather than overdoing it on CGI, although much of the climax benefits from some expert use of it.  There are a couple transition shots that stand-out as well, which trigger changes in the narrative before things get truly nuts.  The ending might be disappointing for some, but it reveals such a gut-punching twist that it works.  Plus, considering what the Barretts learned from that Pollard wacko, I'm not sure that any conventional happy ending is possible.  How about that - the movie is called "Dark Skies" for a reason.

Not to be confused with 'Snatch'

'Snitch'

written by Justin Haythe & Ric Roman Waugh

directed by Ric Roman Waugh

Starring Swayne Johnson, Rafi Gavron, Barry Pepper and Susan Sarandon

Rated PG-13

112 Minutes

Dwayne Johnson, the actor formerly known as 'The Rock', has tried hard to move away from his professional wrestling persona by starring in a series of preposterous action roles.  Surprisingly, "Snitch" provides him his most understated performance yet in a movie that is better than you'd think, but still bears the mark of an amateur director.  It also has one of those giveaway title cards that says "based on a real event," which means you can expect at least half the feature to be a total work of fiction.

The director is Ric Roman Waugh, who has been a stuntman in nearly 50 feature films, which may explain an incomprehensible chase scene that happens in the first few minutes of "Snitch."  Jason Collins (Rafi Gavron) is running from the DEA after they bust in to intercept a shipment of ecstasy pills that Jason just received.  As he hops fences and sprints back alleys, the cameraman seemingly sprints right along behind him, resulting in one of the worst cases of queasy-cam I've ever seen.  Mercifully, Jason is swiftly caught and the camera work calms down for the duration of the feature.

While "Snitch" claims to be based on a real event, I question the film's depiction of a completely irresponsible and stubborn state prosecutor played by Susan Sarandon.  She tells Jason's father John Matthews that in order for her to reduce Jason's sentence, he will be required to dime out other drug dealers or known traffickers.  Problem is, Jason doesn't know any and the pill incident was only the result of a stupid mistake.  John accepts this, and offers to bring in a big shot cartel leader all by himself.  This is where the film strains credibility because the Sarandon character goes for the idea almost without hesitation.  

Matthews owns a construction business and enlists the help of an employee named Daniel (Jon Bernthal) who has a connection to a big time drug runner.  Daniel is trying to go straight and support his family, but after introducing John to Malik (Michael Kenneth Williams), he is forced to go on the first run with John as a show of good faith.  Apparently even in the drug trade, professionalism is paramount.  The first run is monitored by Agent Cooper (Barry Pepper), who tries to bring reason to the situation by telling John how deep he's getting.  Cooper holds off on nabbing Malik when he realizes that on the receiving end of the money is Juan 'The Mole' Pintera (Benjamin Bratt), a cartel leader who wears some very fancy sun glasses, but never does much else.  

This sounds like the perfect set up for a climax full of shoot-outs, explosions and double crosses but "Snitch" stays pleasantly grounded in the tension that builds on John as time runs out.  Oh sure, there is a riveting freeway chase and a couple close scrapes, but they aren't sensationalized for a carnage-hungry audience.  In fact, the PG-13 rating stays true to its expectations, and delivers the goods without foul language and excessive violence.  Dwayne Johnson is also pretty convincing as an average Joe who is just trying to save his family.  Considering his bulking size, that's no easy task, but he pulls it off.

With some practice and a truly great script, Ric Roman Waugh may emerge as a competent director in the years to come.  "Snitch" is certainly a good try, and considering its release at the tail end of box office dumping season, you could do worse for weekend entertainment in February.  And I'd like to see Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson fill his resume with a few more roles like this; where he isn't expected to pummel everything just because he's built like Mr. Universe.  Although, he totally could have taken that sissy cartel guy.  Just sayin.  

I Hope She's Not My Real Mother...

“Mama”
written by Andrés Muschietti, Barbara Muschietti and Neil Cross
directed by Andrés Muschietti
Starring Jessica Chastain, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Daniel Kash and Javier Botet
Rated PG-13
100 Minutes

 

There is a perception among horror movie aficionados that in order for a horror film to be any good, it must have an R rating.  Perhaps that allows for the freedom of adding more blood and gore and a few liberal uses of the F word.  You know the one.  Then there is “Mama,” a terrifically atmospheric tale that earns its truly horrifying moments using the more accessible PG-13 rating.  First time director Andrés Muschietti delivers an effectively creepy story that is ‘presented’ via executive producer Guillermo del Toro and for once, that actually means something because “Mama” has his trademark style all over it.

I had no prior knowledge of “Mama” until the eleventh hour before going to see it; and I’m really glad I went in having no idea what to expect.  If you can, avoid the trailers and I think you’ll have a better time because while the film does indulge in a couple generic jump-scare moments, it mostly works off its own bleak atmosphere and dark story.  It begins with a father (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) absconding with his two young daughters after shooting their mother.  He recklessly speeds on snowy roads and after crashing, retreats with the young girls into a cabin in the woods.  In a further attempt to win father of the year, he contemplates shooting the girls before he is interrupted by….something.

Five years on, the girls’ Uncle Lucas (also played by Coster-Waldau) searches desperately for his nieces, all the while trying to maintain a functional relationship with his rock-band girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain, miles away from her role in “Zero Dark Thirty”).  Lucas’ hired men find the girls in the very same cabin, filthy and feral.  The scene of their discovery is pretty disturbing and probably aided by CGI to get the animalistic movements just right.  The girls are placed into the care of Lucas and Annabel; the oldest girl, Victoria (Megan Charpentier) seems to retain memories of her former self and begins to adapt to normal life again.  The youngest, Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse) is a different story.  She sleeps under the bed and appears to depend on an unseen caregiver that Victoria refers to as ‘mama.’
  

I must resist divulging further details to preserve the many legitimate twists and surprises.  “Mama” seems to stick to convention, before offering up a completely unforeseen series of events; such as the girls being left alone with Annabel after an “accident” puts Uncle Lucas in the hospital.  The movie succeeds in providing some horrifying imagery without giving in to unnecessary gore and bloodshed, although I would argue that “Mama” may indeed be too much for some 13 year-olds.  It’s worth noting that none of the adult characters in the movie should be considered role models for good parenting; least of all ‘mama.’

The ending of “Mama” will be much discussed and debated, and will certainly be a controversial one.  I looked up comments by Guillermo del Toro and Muschietti and discovered that they were willing to fight long and hard to retain the ending as it is.  Considering the nature of the story, I will say that the ending is unconventional, but bold; and with a tale this disturbing, probably even makes the most sense.  In any case, this is a smart, crafty horror film that adequately delivers more than a few effective chills.  If you go with a date, make sure you get her home on time; lest she have a parent like “Mama.”  You’ve been warned.

He Said He'd Be Back

“The Last Stand”
written by Andrew Knauer, Jeffrey Nachmanoff and George Nolfi
directed by Jee-woon Kim
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Forest Whitaker, Peter Stormare and Eduardo Noriega
Rated R
107 Minutes

 

Aside from a couple glorified cameos in “The Expendables” features, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been absent from movies for nearly a decade.  He makes his return in “The Last Stand,” an action movie that recalls some of Schwarzenegger’s classic tough guy roles.  This is a competent feature from director Jee-woon Kim, making his American directorial debut.  While it doesn’t do anything innovative with the genre, “The Last Stand” is pleasantly old-fashioned, with sporadic bursts of spectacle on-par with “The Fast and the Furious” franchise.  This is a brisk, entertaining flick that knows how to flex its muscles.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has aged pretty well, and the screenplay wisely avoids overdoing it on old age jokes; although there are a couple jabs at the star’s expense.  The narrative is absurdly expository, composed of throw-away dialogue that lays everything out for the audience.  That’s okay; because this is the kind of feature where you aren’t required to think much.  It helps that Jee-woon Kim knows precisely what kind of material he’s working with, and injects the picture with a gleefully western sensibility.

Schwarzenegger plays Ray Owens, Sheriff of a small Arizona town dubbed Sommerton Junction.  Owens has retired there after a hard, decorated career with the LAPD; and wouldn’t you know it, he’s about to start a relaxing weekend off.  Even a vague familiarity with this kind of material will tell you what happens next.  Up in Las Vegas, ‘the most dangerous cartel leader since Pablo Escobar’ is about to be transported by the FBI.  His name is Gabriel Cortez (played by Eduardo Noriega), which is about as generic as you’d want a cartel leader name to be. FBI Agent John Bannister (Forest Whitaker) heads up the transport, but of course, things don’t quite go as planned and Cortez gets sprung by his endless army of heavily-armed thugs.

Driving a super-powered Corvette, Cortez flies down the highway at top speed en-route to Mexico, while his lead henchman Burrell (Peter Stormare) builds him a ‘mobile assault bridge’ across the canyon border just outside Sommerton Junction.  Agent Bannister leads a conventionally inept effort to stop Cortez by setting up wimpy roadblocks to get ploughed through by a couple heavily-armored assault vehicles that are seen exactly one time.  Whether these are driven by Burrell’s crew is unclear; if so, they are quite skilled at being in two places at once, but nevermind.  As these things go, there is only one man capable of stopping Cortez and his crew, and Bannister predictably calls on Sheriff Owens to lead the titular last stand.

This is all a good deal of fun, with a surprising amount of gratuitous violence, which is about right for a movie like this.  Owens relies on a skeleton crew of Deputies including Luis Guzman in a classic Guzman role, Jamie Alexander as the pretty face and Zach Gilford as the doomed rookie.  One of the film’s mistakes is the casting of Johnny Knoxville, essentially playing the same manic version of himself that he always plays.  In a movie that already has plenty of light moments, his buffoonery is a bit much, although it is through his character that the small team is able to acquire adequate firepower to battle the onslaught of villains.  The rousing climax packs a punch, with well-staged action that highlights Arnold’s strength as an action star.  He’s still got it for sure, and holds up quite well in a last-ditch fist fight on that assault bridge.  One of the stand-out sequences is a clever take on corn field hide-and-seek played out entirely between two cars.

“The Last Stand” is perfect for a rainy day viewing with popcorn held firmly in hand.  If anything, it is elevated past its many clichés by sure-handed direction and the nostalgia of seeing Schwarzenegger back on the big screen handing out beatings and gunfire.  There is a late scene where a diner patron asks the Sheriff how he’s doing.  “Old,” Schwarzenegger says.  The patron replies “nah, you still got a ways to go yet.”  Let’s hope so. 

Clayton's Top Ten of 2012

It is almost time for the Oscars and I am largely disappointed in the nominee list for the majority of categories.  I was originally in support of extending the best picture nominee list to 10 films, but now I wonder if that was a mistake.  It seems to me that a good number of movies are picked and thrown in at the last minute just to have a list of 10.  For instance, "Amour," which I have not yet seen, has been nominated for best picture and best foreign film.  That seems unfair.  There are also a couple baffling choices I feel shouldn't be anywhere near best picture because they eliminate better choices from the running.  Therefore, I have compiled my list of what I consider to be the top 10 pictures of 2012.  I am going to be literal and limit myself to ten films, although I will place some honorable mentions at the end of my list.

10.   "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World"

     
This is a lighthearted disaster film that forgoes big budget effects and instead focuses on the human spirit and the importance of friendship.  The screenplay by Lorene Scafaria is tender without being too self-aware and there are surprising moments of profundity.  Steve Carell is at his best in material like this and shows a great deal of depth, while Keira Knightley steps outside her comfort zone to do a rendition of the manic pixie dream girl.  Audiences missed the boat on this one, which is too bad , because this is one of the year's most pleasant and uplifting films.

9.  "The Dark Knight Rises"


Let's face it; "The Dark Knight Rises" was never going to be a consideration for a best picture nomination.  But the lack of best supporting actor nods to either Gary Oldman or Michael Caine is criminal.  This was the blockbuster to beat this summer, and while "The Avengers" slightly took the edge on pleasing the fan-boys, "The Dark Knight Rises" was far and away the better example of actual filmmaking and a knock-out finish to a blockbuster trilogy.  Christopher Nolan has crafted a completely thrilling conclusion to his Bruce Wayne story arc.  While it may not have addressed all audience expectation, it provided a deeply resonant story along with some of the year's best action.  A totally satisfying 165 minutes.

8. "Jack Reacher"

 

From its unforgettably bold opening moments, "Jack Reacher" had me hooked.  Adapted from Lee Child's book series, directer Christopher McQuarrie has translated the ninth novel into an exceptional thriller with some hard-hitting action.  While it was tragically under-seen by audiences due to a competitive release date ("The Hobbit"), this is a character that NEEDS a franchise.  Part procedural, part 70's style action cinema, "Jack Reacher" is a very rewarding and entertaining experience.  

7. "Looper"

 

Did any working actor have a better year than Joseph Gordon-Levitt?  After the massive success of "The Dark Knight Rises," he delivers another winning performance in Rian Johnson's sci-fi-centric "Looper."  With a core narrative built around a time-travel gimmick, the heart of the movie is in the characters' and their various motivations and goals.  A pretty noir-ish feeling first half is followed by a surprisingly grounded last act; with a series of twists that culminate in the corn fields of Kansas.  Wrtier/Director Johnson is making a name for himself with brainy, thematic originals, and this is his best one yet.  Gordon-Levitt still had time to turn in an energetic performance in "Premium Rush" and a somber portrayal of Robert Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's latest.

6. "Wreck-It Ralph"

By far the best animated feature of the year, "Wreck-It Ralph" is a hilarious, homage-laden family adventure with something to please everyone.  With an incredibly uplifting message, the picture also has a heart of gold to match its loving but misunderstood protagonist.  "Wreck-It Ralph" is an example of Disney at its very best, including a variety of visual styles to match the film's 'game jumping.'  John C. Reilly is pitch-perfect as the lovable Ralph; and Sarah Silverman makes for a surprisingly likeable side-kick.  Kids will appreciate the action and adults will be doubled over with all the sight gags and clever in-jokes aimed at the bygone arcade generation.

5. "Skyfall"

Not only is this the best Bond Daniel Craig has done, but it is quite easily the best Bond in 50 years of the franchise.  Sam Mendes brings a classy touch to "Skyfall" as well as a bit of vulnerability for 007.  Roger Deakins' cinematography is unforgettable and shifts with the mood when things go from bad to worse.  Javier Bardem portrays another sinister villain in a great performance, while Judi Dench turns in her best work yet as Bond's handler M.  "Skyfall" does for James Bond what "The Dark Knight" did for Batman; this one is not to be missed!

4. "The Grey"


While I didn't get a chance to review this movie when it was in theatres, I have recently finished watching it for the third time and could have easily made it my number one film of the year.  "The Grey" is certainly 2012's most harrowing picture; a tense and breathtaking tale about the spirit of human survival in the face of what seems to be inevitable mortality.  Liam Neeson gives one of his great performances as John Ottway, an Alaskan oil worker who survives a plane crash along with six other men.  They face the harsh elements and a vicious pack of wolves that stalks them mercilessly.  Joe Carnahan actually filmed his cast in the harsh cold of the Canadian tundra and that fact alone makes this a must-watch.  Perhaps the only thing holding it back from my top spot is how bleak and dismal the movie can seem.  But after the third viewing, the knock-out ending left me uplifted.

3. "Django Unchained"


This is on many people's list this year among the top three, and with good reason.  Quentin Tarantino's latest picture is another masterwork of controversial cinema.  A tale about vindication and revenge is set against the backdrop of the slave-era south, but takes on the stylistic sheen of a classic spaghetti western.  Nobody can master and pay homage to multiple genres better than Tarantino, and "Django Unchained" is a perfect canvas for his work.  Jamie Foxx is excellent in the title role, but it is Christoph Waltz who yet again walks away with the picture; delivering the trademark Tarantino dialogue with poetic perfection.

2. "Lincoln"


"Lincoln" is Steven Spielberg's best picture in years.  This is a remarkable cinematic portrait of our Nation's greatest President in his most tumultuous period in office.  Daniel Day-Lewis is no stranger to Oscar attention, but this is a performance that absolutely deserves the recognition.  "Lincoln" is such an important film; relevant to countless generations, and should set a new bar for historical dramas.  While I am inclined to agree that it goes on perhaps one or two scenes too long, everything that comes before is perfect cinema.  If this were to win best picture, I wouldn't be disappointed.  Or surprised.

1. "Argo"/"Zero Dark Thirty"

Okay, I lied.  Obviously eleven films made my list, but it is hard to rank the year's two best pictures when each is so pitch-perfectly made.  I give a tie to "Argo" and "Zero Dark Thirty" - both dabble in middle-east conflicts driven by western politics.  "Argo" is a flashy, suspenseful look at the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and simplifies the events into a smart and expertly paced thriller.  Ben Affleck is superb as both director and star; perfectly balancing humor with urgency.  With a host of stellar supporting roles, including John Goodman and Alan Arkin, "Argo" is probably the most crowd-pleasing experience I had in the theatre this year.  It exposes a little-known bit of history while simultaneously taking a shot at the gimmicky system of Hollywood glamour; it stands strong as a contender for best picture of the year.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is a riveting chronicle of the ten-year manhunt for Osama bin Laden.  Kathryn Bigelow directs with as much accuracy as possible, blending a smart procedural with moments of nail-biting suspense not unlike her 2009 best picture winner "The Hurt Locker."  Jessica Chastain is mesmerizing as Maya, a new CIA operative who staunchly follows a single lead for a decade while nobody listens to her.  Her persistence leads to what has become the most public top-secret raid in history - the midnight raid on Osama bin Laden's compound.  The mission itself is put off until the lengthy picture's last half hour but it's a heart-stopping sequence.  When it's over, the audience feels a bit like Maya - more emotionally drained than satisfied.  That is in no way a bad thing.  "Zero Dark Thirty" may be held back by the controversy surrounding its depiction of torture, but it is controversy leveled by those who fail to understand the film.  "Zero Dark Thirty" deserves its praise in spades.  

Honorable Mentions:

"Moonrise Kingdom"-One of the year's absolute best screenplays and Wes Anderson's finest film to date.

"Safety Not Guaranteed"-A quirky and inspiring comedy with a romantic flavor and a sci-fi twist.  The characters are completely loveable and sincere.

"Prometheus"-Disappointments and plot holes aside, this is still the best sci-fi picture of the year, and quite beautifully re-creates the majesty of Ridley Scott's classic "Alien" universe.

"Sound of My Voice"-A haunting and hypnotizing indie film about a film journalist and his girlfriend who infiltrate a mysterious cult led by a woman who claims to be from the future.  I couldn't stop thinking about this movie after I saw it, and Brit Marling is captivating as cult leader Maggie.

Gangster Style

"Gangster Squad"
written by Will Beall
directed by Ruben Fleischer
Starring Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone
Rated R
113 Minutes

A movie called “Gangster Squad” requires realistic expectations, to say the least.  This film is pure pulp and glossy style, offering almost nothing in the way of substance; but I believe it is also precisely the movie Ruben Fleischer intended to make.  Those expecting the seedy, complex noir of “L.A. Confidential” won’t find it here, but if you are seeking out a stylized take on classic gangsters and cops, duking it out with tommy guns, you could do far worse.

“Gangster Squad” opens with one of those cockamamie ‘inspired by true events’ title cards.  Sure, Los Angeles was a real place in 1949, and Mickey Cohen was a real gangster, but that is the extent of any truth.  The screenplay by Will Beall mostly tosses aside actual history in favor of a narrative that seems to exist in an alternate reality.  In this reality, Mickey Cohen is a ferocious hothead, waiting to explode at the slightest agitation.  Sean Penn plays him as an egotistical maniac, but his scene chewing is spot-on for the tone Fleischer is aiming for.  Nick Nolte plays Police Chief Parker, infamous for his strong-armed approach to cleaning up corruption in the city.  Here he enlists Sgt. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) to recruit a rogue unit of off the books police officers to start hitting Cohen’s rackets in an effort to drive him out of town.

The cast is a serviceable bunch of recognizable stars, but uniformly under-developed.  That’s okay in a picture like this because it is gleefully about style over substance and it requires good looking men.  Replace any of these talented actors, and you’re left with a made for t.v. snoozer.  Ryan Gosling is a dedicated Sgt. named Jerry Wooters; he initially resists the offer to go after Cohen, but once he snags Cohen’s leading lady Grace Faraday (Emma Stone), he has good reason to get invested.  The team is rounded out by Michael Pena, Robert Patrick, Anthony Mackie and Giovanni Ribisi; each one with a specific generic trait to lend to the team.  One nice touch is Sgt. O’Mara’s wife, played by Mireille Enos in a role that at first seems like the clichéd stay-at-home concerned wife.  Sure, she’s pregnant, but she can hold her own and after she puts in her two cents, she insists on helping her husband select his team so that she knows he has good men to back him up.

The action is generally well-staged and while the film underwent some re-shoots for widely publiscized reasons, nothing about them feels jarring or disjointed.  The cinematography by Dion Beebe is warm and glamorous, easily providing a visual style to match the film’s vibrant mood.  In fact, the most enjoyable aspect of “Gangster Squad” is that it doesn’t pretend to be a more substantial film, but embraces its look and simple narrative enough to live up to its title.  Not every gangster-era movie needs to aspire to greatness, and since “L.A. Confidential” set an insurmountable bar anyway, why bother?  Keep in mind too that "L.A. Confidential" also told a largely fictional story; albeit with a bit more grounded approach.

I can see why “Gangster Squad” would underwhelm critics and audiences, but it provides an even better experience than the trailers would suggest.  This is a solid entertainment that requires purposefully lowered expectations.  After all, you can’t go see something called “Gangster Squad” and expect an Oscar contender.

For God and Country

Zero Dark Thirty
written by Mark Boal
directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler and Joel Edgerton
Rated R
158 Minutes

Movies based on actual events are hit or miss to say the least.  Even more worrisome is when the audience is reminded of the “true story” with an opening title card.  How much of Kathryn Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty” is based on solid fact, I do not know; but at least it has the regard to specify that much of what it contains is based on eyewitness accounts.  That’s good enough for me, because what could have easily been a sensationalized account of the manhunt for Osama bin Laden emerges instead as a meticulously paced exploration of the investigative work that led to one of the most top-secret raids in history.  “Zero Dark Thirty” is a bold and harrowing procedural that easily sits among the very best films of 2012. 

“Zero Dark Thirty” begins with a black screen accompanied by audio recordings of 911 calls made from victims inside the twin towers on September 11^th, 2001.  This is a brave and haunting way to begin the film because it helps the audience to recall exactly where they were on that fateful day.  It may also help prepare the audience for the film’s depiction of torture, which has caused a great deal of criticism to be leveled against it.  Make no mistake; the scenes of torture are intense, but tastefully not graphic.  They are included because they almost certainly must have occurred, but seem to have been carried out as a desperate measure to stop further acts of terror.  To say that “Zero Dark Thirty” is ‘pro-torture’ is such an empty-headed criticism because the vital piece of information that drives the rest of the narrative is given up in a moment of kindness and calm, with no violence involved at all.

 

The interrogations are carried out by Dan (Jason Clare), a seasoned CIA man who longs for a desk job back in Washington rather than the futility of questioning terrorist cells.  Jessica Chastain in yet another riveting performance plays Maya, a new recruit whose first assignment is to assist Dan in getting information from Ammar (Reda Kateb).  Ammar eventually gives them the name of a courier known only as ‘Abu Ahmed.’ Subsequent suspected terrorists give varying information about the name; and while the name may be an alias, it becomes almost an obsession for Maya, who is convinced that he must be someone of vital importance.  Maya’s lead is all but ignored by almost everyone who outranks her, including director of operations Joseph Bradley (Kyle Chandler) and an important division leader named George (Mark Strong).  She stays persistent at great risk to herself, and even through the loss of close colleagues.  Chastain is masterful at portraying hopelessness in what seems a tireless effort.

At two hours and thirty eight minutes, this is a long film; but it is wisely punctuated by chapters, giving it an almost segmented feel that allows us to process information as it’s presented.  That’s a smart move, because the screenplay by Mark Boal chronicles over 10 years’ worth of information, culminating in the investigation and subsequent raid on a compound in Abbottabod, Pakistan.  While the outcome of the raid is cemented in history, it is an absolutely breathless sequence, highlighted by accuracy and a refusal to submit to Hollywood action spectacle.

 

After “Argo,” “Zero Dark Thirty” is the second feature this year to showcase western politics and Middle East spy games.  They are both nominated for best picture and each film has relevance, but this is certainly the more serious of the two.  If left to lesser filmmakers, perhaps “Zero Dark Thirty” would have resembled a more liberally-adapted version of events but director Kathryn Bigelow seems to have worked diligently with Mark Boal to present the events as honestly as possible.  The actual mission is compelling enough by itself; that it makes for great cinema is completely rewarding.  “Zero Dark Thirty” is a triumph.   

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.