Review: Jack Reacher

Synopsis: When an ex-Army sniper is brought in for the seemingly random shooting of five civilians, a former military policeman and current ghost named Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) appears on the scene to investigate the murder. Initially going under the assumption that the sniper is guilty, he soon finds evidence to the contrary and begins working in conjunction with defense attorney Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pink). As his investigation draws him closer to the truth, Reacher discovers a much bigger cover-up than he expected and soon runs up against an enemy he may not be able to defeat. What I Liked: As stated numerous times in this space, I love Tom Cruise. The man just tries so stinking hard and I appreciate that. Fans of the Reacher books have noted that Cruise’s real life diminutive size is not in keeping with the monster of a man depicted in the novels but for his part, Cruise does an excellent job of selling Reacher’s physical and mental prowess. Like any red blooded American male I always appreciate the rogue cop/soldier/criminal/vigilante/what have you who takes justice into his own hands without concern for the law and Jack Reacher does a solid job of pushing that agenda throughout. Most of the action sequences, while thoroughly unrealistic, are exciting and well-designed and there are a couple of car chases that, while unspectacular, hit their marks with the requisite adrenaline punch.

What I Didn’t Like: Having not read any of the Reacher books, I have no idea how closely Jack Reacher follows along to the written word. That said, I found the plot in general and Reacher’s entire persona to be lacking. As the film goes along we find out more and more about Reacher and it’s always presented in a rather smug, “Oh by the way he can also do this!” sort of way that wore on me after a while. This is part origin story in a way but this information seemed forced and cliché. By the time we find out that Reacher is also an expert marksman I’d about had my fill of his greatness. Meanwhile, the way the film is laid out lends itself a little too much towards becoming a TV law procedural which left me a little hollow. Jack Reacher is almost completely devoid of a score and while that has worked well for some films of this sort, this time around I found it to be a little off-putting and it only added to the feeling that the whole thing could have been pared down by 15 or 20 minutes. Most importantly, Jack Reacher has trouble finding itself as it jumps, uncomfortably I might add, between a gritty thriller and a tongue-in-cheek action piece and after a while this becomes frustrating.

The Verdict: Part European-style action film, part outtakes from The A-Team, part origin story for a franchise that probably isn’t going to happen, Jack Reacher has its moments but never fully finds a groove that allows it to excel in any one area.

Jack Reacher Director: Christopher McQuarrie Cast: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Jai Courtney, Richard Jenkins, Werner Herzog Rated: PG-13 (violence, language) Recommended For: Action fans 12 and up

Review: Django Unchained

I have a complicated relationship with Quentin Tarantino. He is a craftsman with a pen and paper if ever there was one and his writing is impeccable. His love for film is widely known and while ostensibly all filmmakers share a passion for the film, Tarantino is one that stands out as true believer, as it were, one who needs the cinema the way most of us need air. And he is a master when it comes to crafting a scene. Even still, Tarantino does everything in an all-out, no holds barred, aggressive style that is, I believe, designed to run off those viewers who don’t love what they’re watching. There can be no fence-sitting with a Tarantino movie; either you love it and consider it a triumph or you find it vile and want nothing to do with it and I think that’s the point. He tends to push the envelope further and further as his film goes on and at some point you are presented with the choice to get on board or stay at the station. I was left at the station with Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill 1 & 2, and Jackie Brown and while I recognize its genius, I must admit that Pulp Fiction left me behind as well. His last film, Inglourious Basterds, is the only Tarantino film to date for which I can say I was fully on board for and it is the film I hold up as his best work. Django Unchained follows in the footsteps of its predecessor and comes dangerously close to “masterpiece” territory. A would-be escaped slave who is sold to a new master apart from his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), Django (Jamie Foxx) has his fortunes reversed when he is acquired by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). A bounty hunter by trade, Schultz proposes a deal: Django will lead him to and identify a group called the Brittle Brothers and in return, Schultz will give Django his freedom. After their partnership proves profitable, Schultz agrees to help Django find Broomhilda, a trail that leads them to the plantation of Calvin Candie (Leonard DiCaprio), a well-known slave owner who has made a name for himself by running Mandingo fights. Schultz and Django come up with a ruse to catch Candie’s notoriously fickle attention and soon find themselves in the belly of the beast at Candie’s plantation where they run afoul of aging and crotchety house servant, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), whose suspicion leads to great trouble.

The relationship between Django and Inglourious is obvious and one which, for my money, this film benefits from immensely. For all its war violence and Hitler killing, Inglorious is a subdued movie compared to Tarantino’s other works and that same spirit runs through Django and suites the Western (or “Southern” if you prefer) sensibilities quite well. Save for the first explosive bit of violence at the very beginning of the film, the majority of the film carries on in a relatively realistic manner, meaning it is filled with violence, language, and racial slurs and yet none of it seems out of place in the slightest. It’s a brutal world our characters live in and that is portrayed unconditionally (to the point of discomfort at times) but not, in my opinion, gratuitously through the first two hours. In fact I almost forgot at times that I was watching a Tarantino film as Django runs much closer to a Coen Brothers picture than anything else for a long stretch.

This illusion of subtle realism is shockingly and brutally brought to an end, however, in the film’s concluding act, in which our titular character engages in a gunfight that quite literally covers the walls in spilt blood. In retrospect, perhaps this shouldn’t have come as a shock as this is a Tarantino film and it is, after all, a story of revenge. But in my mind, so much was done through the majority of the film’s runtime to present the action in a realistic way that when it suddenly erupted into an explosion of entry wounds, Monty Pyton-esque blood splatter, and over-the-top cries of death, I was distracted and a little put off. Personally, I think some of the prospective power of the scene (and those that follow) was lost in the blatant Tarantinoization of the violence that just didn’t quite fit the overall tone of the film. In this way, Django is reminiscent of last year’s Drive, a film that I would have considered perfect without the random scenes of hyper-violence that weren’t in keeping with the rest of the movie. It’s a minor complaint all-in-all but without them, I think I would proclaim Django as the best movie of the year. As it is, it’s only a slight downgrade.

Whatever complaints I or anyone else might have about Django, however, there can be no disputing the abject brilliance of the film’s many performances. Foxx embodies his character with a cocky flair that almost any other actor would have missed on. He manages to have a little fun with his role but never so much that the character loses his purpose. Moving forward, however, I will almost certainly remember Django more for the supporting work than for anything Foxx does. It is an absolute pleasure to watch Waltz at work in a role that is so very different from the Oscar award-winning turn in Inglourious that put him on the map in Hollywood and yet one that is just as strong. Schultz is a more layered character than anyone else in the film and Waltz illuminates each of those layers beautifully. Then there’s DiCaprio in a delicious role that had many of his fans salivating during the trailers. Candie is an odd, flighty sort of guy, personality traits which DiCaprio nails over and over again, and yet he has a hidden fire that allows DiCaprio to get worked up in a lather in that glorious way he does. Surely this is the role that wins him his first Oscar. Perhaps most surprising of all of Django’s many fantastic portrayals is the turn by Jackson that is undoubtedly the most significant role he’s taken on in a long, long time. The complexities of his character are immense and he manages to steal the show on many occasions. If all of this weren’t enough, you’ve also got truly enjoyable work from Jonah Hill, Walton Goggins, and even Don Johnson. In a year filled with great ensemble casts, Django features what I would consider the best collection of performances of the year, all of which deserve attention.

When you combine all of these outstanding portrayals along with the tremendous writing, a host of gorgeous shots and locations, and a soundtrack that just might be Tarantino’s best yet, what you get in Django is an incredible movie going experience that remains only a step or two away from perfect.

Django Unchained Director: Quentin Tarantino Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson Rated: R (strong and continuous language, brutal violence, brief nudity, and general mature themes) Recommended For: 17 and up

Review: Cloud Atlas

The term “ambitious” gets thrown around quite a bit in film criticism these days. I myself have been as guilty as anyone when it comes to using that word as a parachute, a safety blanket to cover over a wide range of concepts, thoughts, and ideas that would be otherwise difficult to describe in a thousand words or less. Cloud Atlas, however, stands out as the proverbial picture in the dictionary and has me thinking that perhaps I should reconsider my use of the word. Properly summarizing the concepts laid out in Cloud Atlas isn’t the easiest endeavor I’ve  ever taken on. We begin in 1849 and wind up at an unknown point far off in the future with stops in 1931, the 1970s, 2012, and 2144. Through each of these stories, vignettes if you will, two people find each other over and over again throughout their many lifetimes. In each storyline, our star-crossed lovers or would-be lovers face all manner of difficulty and in each they are forced to deal with the hardships, be they physical or ideological, of the day on their paths to mutual discovery. As the film progresses, the six storylines are brought closer and closer together, each resembling the others more and more until they are all brought together into one gigantic tale.

Taken as a whole, the main story of Cloud Atlas is the story of life, or at least life as director Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer see it. (Yes, we have three directors at work here and yes, sometimes the “too many cooks in the kitchen” metaphor is quite apparent.) It holds great similarities to Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life though its medium for telling its story is more accessible than that of Tree of Life. To bring their VERY longwinded film to life, the Wachowski’s and Tykwer assembled an esteemed group of actors and put them into a wide range of situations that vary dramatically from scene to scene. One of the concepts at play here is the idea that gender and race are fluid, at least in relation to multiple lifetimes. Each of the actors (including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, James D’Arcy, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, and several others) pop up in all of the six stories and in each one their respective appearances are dramatically different. If you’ve ever wondered what Jim Sturgess looks like as a futuristic Asian or whether Halle Berry holds up as a turn of the century white woman then this is your chance. In addition, the focus of each storyline is different because our main characters, the aforementioned star-crossed lovers, differ in each vignette. Sometimes it’s Hanks and Berry, sometimes it’s Sturgess and Doona Bae, sometimes D’Arcy and Ben Winshaw. I found this to be an interesting twist but one that can be quite confusing and that carries over into just about every element of Cloud Atlas.

I would argue that, as is often the case with epics of this magnitude, the team behind Cloud Atlas mistook complexity and convolution for depth. Anything this grand is inherently complex but it goes far beyond that. This is a very difficult film to dive into and it requires a great deal of effort on the part of the viewer. You have to want to like this movie and nothing is made easy. It is challenging enough to stick with the far-reaching narrative and follow the path of our main characters as they jump from body to body. This challenge is taken a step farther with the directors force-feeding the audience a number of ideas that not everyone is going to agree with or buy into. I’m usually good at suspending reality in order to enjoy a movie but the convergence of concepts in Cloud Atlas often proved too much for me to wrap my head around and accept. I found too much of the film to be preachy and the portrayal of anyone (usually Hugo Weaving) who opposes the inevitable union of our main characters is illustrated with extreme heavy-handedness. If that weren’t enough, in the climatic conclusion, the film romanticizes suicide and basically makes the “freedom” found in this act to be the equivalent of the freedom associated with the abolition of slavery. So that’s not the best.

Cloud Atlas isn’t all bad. It is beautifully shot and the visuals are truly exquisite. The score is tremendous, a lock for an Oscar nomination if ever there was one. And much of the acting is excellent. Hanks is great, as always, and for perhaps the first time, I really enjoyed what Sturgess brought to the table. I was extremely impressed with Hugh Grant who receives little screen time and plays a dramatically different character in every story and yet leaves a real impression in each of them. Above all, I commend the Wachowski’s and Tywker for attempting to do something unique and fresh during an era of Hollywood that seems to embrace the safe. There’s definitely nothing safe about this movie and its daring is unquestioned. But between its absurdly excessive runtime, its uninspired dialogue, and the convoluted, preachy nature of the story (not to mention the sound mix which was surprisingly poor), in my book Cloud Atlas stands as an extremely ambitious misfire.

Cloud Atlas Directors: Lana and Andy Wachowski, Tom Tywker Cast: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, James D'Arcy, Hugh Grant, Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent Rated: R (language, nudity, sexual situations, violence, a few scenes of gore) Recommended For: Film nerds, 16+

Review: Argo

The opening of Argo came at a bad time for me and despite my extreme excitement for the film, it caused me to wait a week before making it to the theater. In that time, the hype surrounding this movie went into full-on hyper drive, leaving me with an expectation level that stood somewhere between “top five movie of the year” and “greatest movie in the history of mankind.” I hate when this happens as it is supremely unfair to hold a film to lofty expectations that could not possibly be reached (see: The Dark Knight Rises). As such, you know you’ve just seen a GREAT movie when you go in with absurd expectations and it still manages to completely blow those expectations away. Such is the case with Argo, a spectacular endeavor that stands as nothing short of a masterpiece. During the Iranian Revolution of 1979, a large group of American citizens was taken hostage at the US Embassy and held for over a year. Just as the takeover began, a small group of six Embassy employees snuck out a backdoor and were harbored by Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), hidden away from search squads and forced to become hermits. With the pressure of the situation mounting, CIA exfiltration expert Tony Mendes (Ben Affleck) devised a strange plan to bring them home by having them pose as a Canadian film crew in Iran to scout locations for a Star Wars knockoff known as Argo. As the Iranian army comes closer and closer to discovering the stowaways, Mendes makes a daring gamble that puts both his life and the lives of his compatriots at stake.

What a difference a few years makes. Six years ago, if you and I had made a $50,000 bet that in 2012, Ben Affleck would direct and headline the best movie of the year, then right now you would be in possession of a worthless IOU because you would be right but I don’t have $50,000. The guy who once starred in Gigli, Paycheck, and Jersey Girl back to back to back has become, through great effort and a rededication to his craft, one of the best filmmakers the industry has to offer and a personal favorite of mine. It’s a shocking turn of events, really. It started with Gone Baby Gone, a film that gets better and better over time, and continued with The Town, a film I absolutely love that doesn’t get nearly enough credit in my opinion. Argo, however, takes all of the promise, potential, and skill Affleck displayed in those previous films and ramps it up into an incredibly well-made and painstakingly attentive film going experience.

From the first moments, Argo sets the tone for what the audience should expect by throwing you directly into an insanely tense atmosphere that does not let up until the credits roll. It’s a very organic and natural progression that Affleck allows his story to build through and as it goes, so does the drama. Near the very end of the film, I found myself taking in a giant gasp of air that should only be reserved for trips to the surface of a pool after jumping off the high dive and realized that I’d barely been breathing for, oh, a solid hour. The first hour sets the stage meticulously for what is to come in a slow but still thrilling manner and in the final hour, as every aspect of the setup collides together, I found my pulse quickening and my heart pounding as if my own life depended on Tony Mendes’ plan. Without question, the second hour of Argo is simultaneously one of the most satisfying and intense hours of film that I have ever had the pleasure of watching. This is the very definition of a nail biter, and I mean that quite literally as the bloody stumps that used to be my fingers will attest. The simple way in which Affleck creates such a rich and thoroughly compelling dramatic thriller is an absolute stroke of genius that should (and will) be rewarded by every award committee worth its salt.

Across the board, the performances within Argo are on par with the direction and the narrative itself. These are subtle, understated portrayals turned in by one of the greatest cast of supporting players I can ever remember. The film’s IMDB page is a Who’s Who of tremendous character actors, all of whom fit their respective roles like a glove. Kyle Chandler, Bob Gunton, Chris Messina, Rory Cochrane, Scoot McNairy, Titus Welliver and more all receive various levels of screen time and all hit their marks wonderfully. The cast’s true glory, however, belongs to the trinity of Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and American Treasure John Goodman. As Mendes’ boss, Cranston brings a savvy mix of intensity and compassion to his role, making his character’s spring into action incredibly satisfying. It is great to see Cranston take on a film role that is equal to his immense talent after a recent string of less-than-stellar appearances. Arkin plays the fake movie’s producer and truly nails the no nonsense approach required by the role. You could argue that this is just Arkin being Arkin but my response would be, why mess with something great? He fits his role perfectly. And as a make-up artist with a CIA past, Goodman is…well, Goodman is magnificent. He maximizes his limited screen time beautifully, ensuring that every second he is on screen is memorable. When he is on his game, there are few in the industry who do supporting work better than Goodman. All of these performances (and many more I do not have time to highlight) serve to highlight the strength of Affleck’s own subdued portrayal which suits the film quite well.

Every aspect of Argo works in conjunction to create a film that everyone should be able to find merit in. It is well-shot, well-written, and extremely well-acted movie and one that I plan on seeing many, many more times and it might just be enough to make us all forget about Affleck’s past acting transgressions. Or maybe not. Gigli is really stinking bad.

Argo Director: Ben Affleck Cast: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Scoot McNairy Rated: R (language, intensity) Recommended For: Every movie fan 12 years and up. Seriously, go see this one.