Movie Review: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller) is a negative asset manager at TIME Magazine who spends more time lost in his vivid daydreams than he does in real life. Once an outgoing, rebellious teen, Mitty longs to break out of his shell but struggles to find the right motivation to push him into gear. This motivation comes when he loses the negative that is to serve as the cover photo for the final issue of TIME. Desperate to track down this lost treasure, he gives in to his internal call to adventure and embarks on a crazy journey to find Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn), the photographer who took the shot. His journey will take him to Greenland, Iceland, Afghanistan, and back again but soon the focus of his travel shifts and Walter begins to truly rediscover himself.

I rarely feel the need to challenge the establishment, as it were, when it comes to the general critical consensus on a given movie. Art is subjective and while I often like or dislike a film more than the established critics, I don't feel the need to lead the charge of rebuttal. However, having seen The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, having taken note of the film's Rotten Tomatoes score (currently sitting at 48%), and having browsed through a number of negative reviews, I feel the need to lead said charge.

Most of the bad press I've read regarding Walter Mitty has boiled down to one of two responses: either the writer took issue with the film's expansion upon the original short story (written by James Thurber and published in The New Yorker in 1933) or the writer felt the film was reaching for heights, trying to connect to emotions, that it didn't get to. In regards to the first complaint, having recently read the original story, I feel good when I say it is excellent and also it absolutely would not translate to a full length feature in 2013. With this film, Stiller held true to the spirit of the book and expanded upon it in what I would say is a very fitting manner. And as far as the second complaint goes, I would much prefer a film have the ambition to reach for grander goals and fall short than to sleepwalk through a story without attempting to become anything bigger. I had no problem in the slightest connecting with Mitty and while it didn't end up as the iconic film it wants to be, it's still a stinking good film.

Simply put, I really, really liked Walter Mitty, to the point of outright love. It's a predictable story but one that is told with great flair and an even greater passion that I found infectious. Ben Stiller truly cares about this film and I think that bleeds over into virtually every frame. Mitty takes the viewer all around the world and the visuals throughout are absolutely stunning. I'd say this movie is worth seeing just for the camera work and the outstanding overall look of it all. All of the actors are engaged in the story and while nothing here is deserving of award contention, I found all of the characters to be likable and the performances to be solid. Penn is perhaps most noteworthy in a tiny role that reminded me just how ridiculously good that guy can be when he's invested in the movie. Kristin Wiig could've been given more to work with but I think she played her role well and there's an awkward chemistry between her and Stiller that suits the film. Mitty is also seriously fun to watch and highly enjoyable and for me, that general likability covers over most of its flaws. Lastly, there's a timeliness to the film that embraces the love for things that are rapidly headed toward extinction. The chosen medium here is TIME Magazine and the magazine industry as a whole but it could just as easily be book stores, film, or just about anything else that we hold on to in the midst of the turning tides of technology.

Maybe it's just me and my affinity for nostalgia. I have long said that I will probably be the last person to ever shop in a brick and mortar book store or to buy a physical CD and that part of me certainly identifies with the romanticism of Walter Mitty. But even if my heart was completely frozen toward that aspect of the movie, I would think there would be more than enough herein to make me respond favorably to the whole thing. Mitty is a warm, feel-good, highly enjoyable movie that the cold-hearted critics are straight-up wrong about. Grade: A- (Rated PG for a little language)

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

A year after her boat-rocking victory in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has discovered that the world outside the arena is even more dangerous than the one inside. The stunt that saved both her and Peeta Mellark's (Josh Hutcherson) lives also put her squarely in the crosshairs of President Snow (Donald Sutherland), the leader of Panem. As a repercussion of her actions, Katniss and Peeta see their names called to return to the arena in what amounts to an all-star competition in the 75th Hunger Games. But there's more at stake here than just the fight for survival and soon Katniss is embroiled in something far bigger than just herself.

I think a lot of people were surprised by the quality of the first Hunger Games movie last year. The books, in my opinion, range from "solid" to "tired" and contain just enough of a teen romance subplot to make me skeptical about the Twilight-ification of a movie adaptation. But the first film turned out quite well for me and became one of the year's biggest hits. That movie laid a solid foundation for what was to come and gave me hope for what was to come in further adaptations that, quite honestly, don't have the quality source material to draw from that the first one did. Even with heightened expectations, I couldn't have expected Catching Fire to be anywhere near the outstanding blockbuster it turned out to be.

Two big things happened in the time between The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. One, directorial control shifted from Gary Ross to Francis Lawrence. Now, I am in the minority but I thought Ross did an excellent job with the first film and I was bummed to see him exit the project. But Lawrence turned out to be the absolute right man for the job. He adds an edge to Catching Fire that was missing in the first film and this bite, if you will, brings home the realism of the travesties the film depicts. As such, this film is a significantly more emotionally charged film than The Hunger Games ever aspired to be. Lawrence, I think, had a stronger understanding of the material and that shows in the finished product. (To be fair, Ross' job was to lay the groundwork whereas Lawrence's was to expand upon that.)

Two, in the time between the release of The Hunger Games and the start of production on Catching Fire, Jennifer Lawrence became a willing movie star. She's always been a terrific actress (in this case, "always" means "since 2010 when she burst on to the movie scene") but in interviews leading up to the first film, you got the sense that she wasn't all that comfortable in this setting and I think that came through the screen at times. Now, however, Lawrence is fully embracing both the character and the direction her career is taking and this makes her performance all the more invigorating. It isn't just Lawrence who seems more comfortable in her skin. Hutcherson is legitimately good in Catching Fire (I've always found him to be only average to this point) and the character is much the better for this. Woody Harrelson's Haymitch gets some added meat to his role, Sutherland actually has an opportunity to act rather than simply stalk through scenes menacingly (which, admittedly, he is very good at), and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a perfect addition to this cast. In general, this is a superb cast and each escalates the performance to match the escalating stakes of the film. But make no mistake, this is the Jennifer Lawrence show and she comes through beautifully.

Visually, Catching Fire achieves its goal by both highlighting the stark contrast between the lavish capital and the downtrodden districts and by bringing to life a more elaborate arena than what was at play in Hunger Games. The effects are simple and believably and you never get the eye-stabbing CGI overload that you could very easily expect to get in a movie like this. Francis Lawrence paints a lush picture that only serves to heighten the strength and emotional relevance of the film as a whole. Catching Fire is perhaps the best big budget blockbuster you are likely to see this year and leaves one only wanting more from the sequels yet to come. Grade: A (Rated PG-13 for some serious violence and general intensity) 

Movie Review: About Time

On New Year's Day in the year in which he turns 21, Tim's (Domhnall Gleeson) father (Bill Nighy) sits him down and delivers a startling revelation: all the men in the family, dating back for generations, have been able to travel through time. There are some limitations to this power, of course, but essentially, Tim has the ability to jump back to any moment in his life and do as he please. It's a remarkable skill that allows the awkward, lanky lawyer an opportunity for a second chance at some of his most horrifying experiences (most of them involving interactions with women). Soon afterward, he meets Mary (Rachel McAdams) who will become the love of his life after some embarrassing stops and starts and before long, Tim's ability takes on all new meaning as he discovers his time travel no longer impacts only him but also his wife and kids.

About Time has been billed as a romantic comedy with a twist and while that's not entirely incorrect, it's only part of the equation. Don't get me wrong, the quirky/awkward romance between Gleeson and McAdams that masquerades as the film's central focus is strong and if that's all the film gave us it would be a breath of fresh air within a genre (the date night romantic comedy) that has become so stale as to almost completely die out. But at its heart, About Time is much more concerned with relationships, particularly that between father and son. And on this front, the film leaves its true mark. Gleeson and Nighy exhibit an easy, compelling chemistry that immediately draws the viewer into their unique relationship and gives the film an emotional power that is both delightful and heartbreaking at the same time. To put it simply, I would happily watch a film that was dedicated entirely to the Gleeson-McAdams relationship but I would just as happily sacrifice the entirety of this plot line in order to get more of the Gleeson-Nighy plotline. And that, my friends, is saying something.

Writer/Director Richard Curtis (Love Actually, Notting Hill) has a very distinct, simple style that is on full display here. He sets the stage, he puts his actors into great positions within the setting, and then he lightly hits the beats to keep the film moving. Little time is spent on the complexities of the plot (particularly the hows and whys of the time travel element) but this just allows the film to focus on what it values rather than bogging down in the details that ultimately don't matter all that much. The cast members are all essentially playing themselves (or versions of themselves) but this sense of realism/familiarity leads to a comfortability on screen that works brilliantly with Curtis' measured but leisurely pacing. That's a fancy way of saying that when it's at its best, About Time makes you forget you're watching a movie and lets you think you're watching real people in real relationships interact.

None of the performances within About Time are likely to earn awards attention but all of them are strong and worth mentioning. Gleeson, whom I only recognized from smaller roles, is doing his best Hugh Grant impression but he does so to great affect and with tremendous poise. Nighy reminds us that when he's given something to work with, he's a bloody brilliant performer whose timing is nearly unparalleled. And McAdams is, well, McAdams, as charming and enchanting as ever. (My bias towards Rachel McAdams probably knows no bounds so perhaps I cannot be trusted on this front.) The supporting players are all very Curtis-ian and each gets a moment to shine, often in some of the most impactful moments of the film. Moreover, Curtis highlights each cast member's strengths wonderfully and puts them on display with a subtle flair that works perfectly with the film's narrative.

On top of all that, the core message of About Time is refreshingly pure and straight forward. I won't call it so much "life changing" as "life-affirming", which honestly left me feeling a bit lighter upon exiting the theater than I was when I walked in. Just an all-around beautiful film. Grade: A (Rated R for some language and sexuality that is more suggested than displayed. Honestly a very light R rating.)

Movie Review: Ender's Game

Fifty years after a race of alien bugs attacked earth and nearly succeeded in wiping us out, the battle continues deep in space. Believing that our best hope in the war are savant children with a mind for strategy, Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and the International Military begin putting the brightest boys and girls through a rigorous training program designed to find one solitary savior. This savior is embodied in one Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), the third child in a family of washouts who displays both the empathy of his sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin) and the violence of his brother Peter (Jimmy Pinchak). With another alien attack on the way, Ender must push himself to the edge of his abilities while learning to become the leader he is born to be in order to save the human race.

Based on the 1985 literary classic of the same name, Ender's Game represents a valiant attempt to turn the unfilmable into a cohesive film and while it doesn't succeed completely, it's not the total mess it absolutely could have been. The novel is a minor masterpiece and if you haven't read it, you should, but so much of the content would never work in a major motion picture. If you're a fan of the novel, you have to know and accept going in that there are going to be significant changes in order to make this work on screen and if you can do that, Ender's Game is likely to be an enjoyable experience. While the film misses on many of the subplots and themes that make the novel so great, it still manages to pull itself together enough to be a fair if not altogether faithful adaptation.

Director and screenwriter Gavin Hood (of X-Men Origins: Wolverine fame) restructured the plot a bit in order to streamline it and make it more accessible. I would say he was successful in doing this even if this accessibility neutered the power of both the story and the main character. Ender's Game takes us (a bit hurriedly) through Ender's progression through the initial training program, his time at Battle School, and eventually his ultimate arrival to Command School. We get a sense of the dark world in which this story takes place but Hood keeps us lingering on the fringes of the darkness rather than plunging us in the way I might have liked. In the same way, Ender's strategic nature is played up while his violent side is touched upon only slightly. This probably makes Ender a more sympathetic, likable character but it also fails to give us a sense of the savagery that lives inside of this boy and moreover, the savagery of the world he is forced to live in. Ender's Game is really a socio-political commentary more than it is a piece of science fiction but in attempting to appeal to a wider audience, I'd say Hood may have gone too far and left the film with very little bite.

Complaints aside, Ender's Game is still a solid film. Ford and Butterfield play off of each other quite well, the former giving one of his best performances in a very long time. I found the moments in which these two interact to be the strongest points of the film and we get a hint of the power locked away inside this complex story. Butterfield plays Ender a bit more wooden than I would have liked but it's still an admirable portrayal. Surprisingly, Ender's Game is not an overwhelmingly FX-driven film and Hood uses the effects well. There's nothing particularly special about anything happening here but it's also not the eyesore that it really might have been. And Steve Jablonsky's score is surprisingly effective.

As far as adaptations of beloved, unfilmable novels go, Ender's Game is far better than The Great Gatsby so if nothing else, 2013 didn't completely ruin two of my favorite books of all time. It could certainly be better but I had fears of much worse and for the most part, those fears proved unnecessary. All in all, Ender's Game is a decent movie based upon a superior source material that gives it enough juice to make it worthwhile. Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for violence and edgy themes)

Movie Review: Gravity

For those of you who know me or follow my work, you know that my recommending the 3D version of a film is a shocking departure from my normal stance. It is fair to say that I am vehemently opposed to the technology as a whole. But every so often a movie comes around that uses the technology not as a crutch or a gimmick but as an actual story-telling device that works with rather than apart from the rest of the film. To date, I have attached this exception to three films: Avatar, Hugo, and Life of Pi. Gravity now becomes the fourth member of that group while simultaneously setting itself so far apart from those films as to make me feel foolish for ever applauding their merits.

While on a final spacewalk to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, bio-medical engineer Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), debris from a Russian satellite explosion rips through their orbit, destroying their space shuttle and leaving them stranded. With a limited oxygen supply and only a thruster pack with which to operate, Stone and Kowalski must make their way to the International Space Station before the debris comes through again and ruins any chance they might have at survival.

In an industry that is becoming increasingly dominated by home viewing options, it has become important (at least to me) to identify the films that need to be seen in a theater and those that can wait for your flat screen at home. A movie like The Way, Way Back which I love can be viewed and appreciated just as much at home as it can in a theater but some movies beg to be seen on the big screen. Gravity takes this a bit farther in that it demands to be seen on the biggest screen you can possibly find and in 3D no less. I’ll go so far as to say that if you wait until this film reaches DVD/Blu-Ray before you see it, you won’t even be seeing the same movie I partook in on Thursday night. It is THAT important that you get to Gravity as soon as possible.

Gravity’s plot could not be any simpler and yet writer-director-genius-visionary Alfonso Cuaron is able to wring more out of it than most directors pull from the most complex of narratives. This is all about the human will to survive, it just happens to be set against the backdrop of the most incredible starscape (possibly a word I just made up) you will ever see. Cuaron’s actors are both outstanding (and yes, I said both because there are basically only two characters in this film) and deserve special mention. Clooney’s is much more of a supporting performance than you might guess but he is his usual, charming, ridiculously focused self. And Bullock, I believe unquestionably, will see her name on just about every Best Actress award list the industry has to offer. This is by far the most human Bullock has ever seemed and as a result, her performance is powerful and reflexive. But with all due respect to both Clooney and Bullock, Gravity’s stars are Cuaron and his camera.

The shots Cuaron puts on display are some of the most outstanding examples of what you can do with a camera that I have ever seen. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that Gravity is propelled by the best cinematography I have ever seen in a film. Ever. EVER, you guys. I’ve watched hundreds, if not thousands, of space-related films and Cuaron does things in this movie that don’t even seem possible. If you didn’t know better, you might think Gravity is a documentary shot with the most advanced camera ever invented. Cuaron uses his setting to great and sometimes devastating effect, creating an insane level of intensity that jumps off in the opening moments and carries over literally to the very last frame of the movie. If you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to be stranded in space, Gravity has the answers for you and they are chilling and haunting but nonetheless breathtaking.

All of this makes Gravity an unquestionably strong film. I would take it a step further. If I had to choose right here and now, I think I would feel good about calling Gravity one of the ten best movies I have ever seen. Given the scale of the film, given the difficulty of the subject matter, given the way in which Cuaron brought it all together with the best camerawork I have witnessed to date, it belongs in a special category. It is, quite simply, a masterpiece. But again, this brilliance absolutely will not translate to a 42 inch Samsung. Find an IMAX screen and pony up the extra cash for a 3D showing and buckle up for a ride that is just as much experience as it is movie. Grade: A+ (Rated PG-13 for seriously extreme intensity and some language)

Movie Review: Rush

In 1976, there were two names in Formula 1 racing: James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl). Hunt was the quintessential party guy while Lauda was the meticulously dedicated student. Hunt had charisma but Lauda won the most races. Their rivalry not only fueled the sport but also each other, pushing each driver to the limit of their capacities and beyond, eventually leading to a near catastrophic crash that left both men scarred in different ways.

The biggest thing I took out of Rush is that the world of cinema is a better place when Ron Howard is relevant. Coming off a near decade of sub-par work (minus 2008's Frost/Nixon which is superb), Howard returns to prominence here and reminds you that when he is at his best, he makes tremendous films that resonate no matter the subject matter. Case in point: In my 30 years of existence, I have at no point given a second thought to Formula 1 racing and yet, he made me care about the sport, if only for a couple of hours. His knack for story development is on full display within Rush and his camera work is even more spectacular. He uses practical effects whenever possible instead of relying on CGI and the result is a pulse-pounding, real experience that you would never guess cost less than $40 to produce. The action sequences have appropriate scale to the "story first" nature of the field but they are nonetheless exciting and thoroughly entertaining. Essentially what I'm saying is, Ron Howard makes blockbuster movies for adults and Rush is a prime example of what he does best.

That's not to say that Howard doesn't have a lot to work with. Bruhl gives a phenomenal portrayal as the serious-minded, borderline tortured Lauda and you could certainly talk me into his deserving a place within the Best Actor award conversation. He's great and this is just as much his movie as it is Hemsworth's. It just so happens, however, that Chris Hemsworth is becoming a movie star before our very eyes and watching his maturation is a sight to behold. There's a big difference between "great actor" and "movie star" and in a world that has become increasingly reliant on franchise/property value, the number of true movie stars has dwindled. Hemsworth can officially count himself among that group as far as I'm concerned. His charisma is endless and he seems born to play the role of playboy Hunt and yet he brings more depth to the character than I might have expected. Bruhl's is the performance that deserves adoration but it is Hemsworth's that will be talked about.

Though there are some issues that sprout up along the way (most notably, more exposition than we really need and an exceptionally annoying track announcer that narrates the action far too frequently in the closing stretch), Rush is a powerful and compelling film that I expect we'll hear more from come award season. Grade: A (Rated R for language, nudity, drug use, and some graphic surgery-related scenes that will scar you for life)

Movie Review: Elysium

In the future, the earth has become overpopulated, polluted, and stricken with disease. To combat this, the world’s wealthier residents build and flee to a ritzy space habitat known as Elysium, leaving earth and the rest of its inhabitants to rot. Max (Matt Damon) always dreamed of leaving earth but when he is given only five days to live, he becomes desperate to reach Elysium and the instant-healing med bays that propagate every home. In order to do so, however, he must take on an extremely dangerous job that draws the ire of Elysium’s secretary of defense (Jodie Foster) and her psychotic security agent, Kruger (Sharlto Copley).

I’ve been looking forward to Elysium for quite some time now as it combines two of my favorite things: science-fiction and Matt Damon. It certainly didn’t hurt that the entire concept came from the mind of Neill Blomkamp, who is responsible for 2009’s Oscar-nominated entry District 9 and who stands as one of the rising stars in the genre. I’m not sure that Elysium quite measures up to District 9 but it is still a strong film that holds a place as one of the better entries of the summer. Blomkamp’s strengths as a sci-fi visionary are on full display here and he makes excellent use of the $100 million budget he had to work with by limiting the film’s scale and preventing it from becoming the CGI overload it very easily could have been. Max isn’t particularly challenging or memorable but in true Damon fashion, he makes his character likable and brings the appropriate frenetic energy that the role calls for. Copley is an excellent counterpart for Damon to the point that you find yourself wanting more of their rivalry. And Blomkamp builds an interesting world in which his characters operate, taking Elysium beyond becoming just another sci-fi concept film.

There are definitely flaws that pop up along the way. Foster’s character is poorly written and underdeveloped and the speech pattern that all of the Elysians speak with is maddening. The plot doesn’t always come together seamlessly and Elysium falls into more clichés than I would have liked. But even at its worst, it is still better than most blockbusters of this sort. What really sets the film apart is Blomkamp’s commitment to the development to a rather simple plotline (a desperate man trying to find a way to survive) in a complex environment. The film is not as gritty or dark as District 9 but it’s still telling a weighty story. As such, Elysium retains a measure of power in relation to the central narrative while still maintaining a high entertainment value. Grade: B+ (Rated R for language, violence, and some gruesome imagery)

Movie Review: Mud

After the flood waters in a small Arkansas river town recede, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) locate a boat stranded in a delta’s tree line. With an eye to fixing the boat up and claiming it for themselves, the boys climb up only to discover that it is occupied by a mysterious stranger who calls himself Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Mud seems like a good ol’ Arkansan and so the boys agree to help him secure everything he needs to fix the boat in exchange for Mud’s pistol. Soon, however, Ellis becomes aware that Mud is on the run from the authorities and finds himself caught up in a serious situation centered on Mud’s longtime love Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).

I saw Mud several weeks after it was released due to the arrival of our baby and by the time I got in the theater, the anticipation was killing me (this also would have shocked me at any point prior to 2013). The trailer was fantastic and writer/director Jeff Nichols’ previous film Take Shelter is tremendous and thus, Mud had my interest. Still, however, this exceeded my expectations by leaps and bounds. If at any point in the last 20 years, you had told me that in 2013, my favorite movie of the year would star Matthew McConaughey and Reese Witherspoon, I would have either laughed in your face or attempted to punch you, depending on my mood. And yet, that is exactly what has come to pass.

Mud tells a simple story that continuously stays on point for its entirety, diverting only when Nichols feels it is absolutely necessary to build upon the main narrative with a subplot. It is, I think, this determined focus that keeps the film on track when it could have easily deteriorated into something that is only “good” instead of “great.” Having grown up in the South, Nichols has an incredible grasp of his subject matter and treats small town life with great reverence while still displaying the hardships therein. In essence, he picked a familiar setting and inserted a compelling story into the midst of that setting and stitched it all together masterfully. The tone is dark and reminiscent of a Cormac McCarthy novel but it doesn’t dwell in the darkness and actually goes well out of its way to highlight the better aspects of humanity. It’s such a beautifully structured film that I believe it would have succeeded even without the outstanding performances that are play here.

Specifically, Sheridan and McConaughey deliver award-caliber portrayals. Sheridan’s is a less complex character than the one that brought an Oscar nomination for Quvenzhane Wallis in last year’s Beasts of the Southern Wild but I found it to be no less emotionally relevant. Sheridan brings a quiet subtlety to the role, exploding into pre-adolescent rage in just the right way at the appropriate moments and you can see that the kid is oozing with talent. It is McConaughey, however, who really brings Mud home. His performance is natural and relaxed but with an edge that betrays Mud’s darker qualities. He is powerful yet fearful and the unfolding inner conflict within such a simple man is a sight to behold. In short, McConaughey is magnificent and he pushes Mud to incredible heights. Grade: A+ (Rated PG-13 for language and violence)

Movie Review: The Way, Way Back

An awkward 14 year old with an extreme lack of self-esteem, Duncan (Liam James) has been dragged to a sleepy Massachusetts beach town along with his mother, Pam (Toni Collette), to spend an extended summer vacation with Pam’s new boyfriend, Trent (Steve Carell), and Trent’s daughter, Steph (Zoe Levin). Duncan does not get along with Trent who is trying to assert his authority as a father figure before he’s earned the right and Pam’s infatuation with Trent leaves Duncan feeling even more alienated and alone than he’s ever been. With no friends to hang with and a great desire to be as far away from Trent as possible, Duncan winds up absentmindedly sneaking into a run-down waterpark called Water Wizz and becomes acquainted with Owen (Sam Rockwell), the park’s underachieving manager. Owen takes Duncan under his wing, giving him a job, a new sense of purpose, and some friendly prodding to bring him out of his shell, and as things in Duncan’s life become even more tumultuous, the life he has begun to establish at Water Wizz becomes a beacon of brightly lit hope in a world that looks increasingly dark.

There are no words to properly describe how much I loved The Way, Way Back. I am a sucker for this sort of coming-of-age indie drama but rarely does one of these movies meet all of my expectations. There’s always a side-plot that I don’t care about, a prime supporting character that I hate, a sense of melodrama that grates away at me, or some other flaw that ultimately leaves me wanting. Not so with The Way, Way Back. This is EXACTLY the movie I wanted it to be and as such, stands out as one of the most satisfying movie experiences I’ve had in quite some time. It is both heartbreaking and heartwarming at the same time, an honest look at life that touches on real subjects and yet still remains a triumphant endeavor. In a summer that has been filled to the gills with overwrought action and mediocre blockbusters, The Way, Way Back is exactly the breath of fresh air that I so desperately needed.

Much of The Way, Way Back’s success is due to its superb collection of talent. Carell plays against type and again proves to be one of the most subtly commanding actors in the business. Trent is a total jerk but rather than letting his jerkdom become the character’s only personality trait (which happens all too often in a film like this), Carell paints him as a much more layered character, a guy who’s trying to be a good person even if, in the end, he can’t get out of his own way. Collette perfectly embodies the hardworking, goodhearted single mom who trusts too easily and falls into the same traps over and over again. James’ performance is perhaps less nuanced than that of his adult counterparts but his work is no less important to the atmosphere of the film and since his character is the central focus of the film, he is asked to give it much of its emotional resonance and he rings that bell quite well. The supporting actors, including Rob Corddry, Amanda Peet, Nat Faxon, AnnaSophia Robb, and many others, provide a rich landscape of important people in Duncan’s development and all of them work well, especially Allison Janney who is, unsurprisingly, absolutely hilarious as a desperate and borderline alcoholic neighbor.

At the end of the day, though, The Way, Way Back is Rockwell’s world and we’re all just fortunate to be around while he plies his craft. One of the most well-respected and yet criminally under-appreciated actors in the industry, Rockwell has delivered outstanding work in small roles for many years without ever being given the opportunity to completely break out. I cannot call this his best work as his turn in 2009’s Moon was unquestionably some of the best work I have EVER seen in a movie, but what he’s doing here is no less impressive and I would say much more accessible. This could have easily been a fun-but-weightless role in the hands of another actor and instead, Rockwell transforms Owen into a multi-layered, fascinating character who is an absolutely perfect match for Duncan. It is unlikely that his name will be listed among the Oscar nominees when award season comes around but I am willing to say here and now that I do not believe I will see a finer performance this year.

In the places in which the actors do not carry the load, the remainder of The Way, Way Back’s success relies on the near-flawless writing and direction of Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, who took home an Oscar for writing 2011’s The Descendants. The material here is lighter than that of The Descendants but perhaps the defining stroke of genius is simply allowing the film to be less weighty. That is to say, too often in this sort of coming-of-age drama, the film tries too hard to make the issues of one outcast boy or girl take on the weight of the world and the film ends up drowning in the melodrama. Here, though, we remain tied to the micro rather than expanding to the macro and as such, you can really and truly become invested and engrossed in Duncan’s life. You feel for this kid, you hurt when he hurts, you cheer when he has even a modicum of success, and you root desperately for him to break out of his shell once and for all. It's not unique ground that we're covering here but it is the way in which the film touches on that ground that makes it such a treat. What sets The Way, Way Back apart is its joyous outlook on life that prevents it from getting bogged down in the darker edges of its story. The film touches on real, genuinely difficult issues and yet the tone manages to remain gloriously and remarkably uplifting, which is a feat in and of itself. And if all of that isn’t enough for you, the soundtrack is immaculate and might just be worth the price of admission in and of itself. This is a fabulous film, EASILY the best movie I’ve seen this summer, and one that I plan on watching many times over. Grade: A+ (Rated PG-13 for a bit of language, innuendo, and drug use)

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

In the year 2013, a rift between two tectonic plates in the Pacific Ocean opens up and allows huge alien monsters, known as Kaiju, to come into our world to run amok. After a few attacks, the powers that be band together to develop a defense system and produce the Jaegers, giant robot warriors that are controlled by two elite soldiers. The Jaegers are extremely effective but still the onslaught continues, pushing us to the brink of destruction. In a last ditch effort, Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) assembles a motley crew of soldiers, including veteran  Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and inexperienced but gifted rookie Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to take the fight to the Kaijus and put an end to the invasions once and for all.

If the idea of giant alien monsters fighting giant, armored robots sounds stupid to you, then you are right…except that it’s also awesome. There is almost no pretense involved with Pacific Rim which helps make it such an enjoyable, exciting thrill ride. This is a summer blockbuster in its purest form, a film that’s entire purpose is to entertain and it rings that bell with authority over and over again. It’s a ridiculous, somewhat dumb premise but the demonstration of skill in producing that premise is spectacular. Essentially, Pacific Rim knows exactly what it is, everyone involved knows exactly what it is, and it goes about its business within that role with near flawless execution. The movie is a combination of Transformers, Independence Day, Godzilla, Top Gun, and probably a number of other popcorn flicks and yet it feels like a glorious hybrid of those films rather than a knock-off of any one of them in particular. In a way, Pacific Rim plays as Guillermo Del Toro’s homage to summer blockbusters and that is awesome.

As with any giant alien monsters versus giant robots movie, there are plenty of flaws within Pacific Rim. The acting is, at best, mediocre and at worst cringe-inducing, the plot requires an incredible amount of suspension of reality, and there are moments that feel a bit like someone was going through a checklist of every ingredient required in a standard summer blockbuster. But the longer you stay within the world of Pacific Rim, the more the movie wins you over and the finished product is much greater than the sum of its parts. Some of the visuals contained within are absolutely stunning and I suspect this film will continue to stand out on that front for years to come. You can’t call this a particularly smart film but I do think Del Toro deserves great appreciation for creating such a lively, insanely fun movie that displays far more intelligence than a premise like this really deserves. Grade: A- (Rated PG-13 for cartoonish violence and some language)

Movie Review: Monsters University

Long before Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman) ever revolutionized the scare industry, they were just your average, run of the mill college student monsters. Mike was the typical bookworm, a hard worker with an academic approach to scare tactics and Sully the naturally talented but lazy prodigy who doesn’t put in much effort. Their rivalry results in their mutual expulsion from the Monsters University School of Scaring and their only path back to the course of their assumed destiny is the Scare Games, an intramural competition between the school’s fraternity and sorority houses. But while they both believe their own abilities will carry the load, they soon learn that winning in the Scare Games will require the sort of teamwork that both of them have struggled with in the past.

While Monsters Inc. might not be able to crack my top five Pixar films, it is, I believe, one of the better examples of the studio’s ability to bring real human emotions to otherwise foreign settings. In fact, aside from Up, it might be the most easily accessible Pixar film from an emotional level. I’ve always had a great soft spot for Monsters Inc. and its main characters are some of my favorite in the Pixar universe. That said, I’m not so sure that we needed a reunion with Mike and Sully. Their story is one that stands up beautifully on its own but I’ve never thought of it as a tale that needed to be added upon in either sequel or prequel form. Monsters University didn’t exactly change my opinion on that but at the very least I must give Pixar credit for developing an interesting premise while keeping the film in line with the spirit of the predecessor.

Much like the last two Pixar films (Cars 2, Brave), Monsters University is geared much more toward the kid audience than anyone else. Unlike those films, however, it also provides a good bit of content from the adult audiences. This element is what has always made Pixar the best in the business and while this movie is still a far cry from the best of the studio’s work, it is, if nothing else, a step in the right direction. College is, I think, an entertaining if not altogether original, setting for a film such as this and allows for a few moments that harken back to Animal House and the like and these little dalliances helped to keep my attention through all of the “Just be yourself” sentimentality that is aimed squarely at the kid audience. The supporting voice talent, featuring Nathan Fillion, Aubrey Plaza, Helen Mirren, and more is excellent and of course Billy Crystal and American Treasure John Goodman do their jobs quite well. The biggest improvement, however, on the last two Pixar entries is Monster University’s extra measure of heart. It may lack the ambition of Toy Story, The Incredibles, etc. but it does feel like this is a story director Dan Scanlon and Pixar wanted to tell whereas Cars 2 and (to a lesser extent) Brave felt more like cash grabs than anything else. It’s still a little too cute for my tastes but at the very least, I think Monsters University represents a step in the right direction and the beginning of a second era of incredible original content. Grade: B+ (Rated G)

Movie Review: World War Z

Almost overnight, the world’s population begins to succumb to a vicious virus that transforms its host into zombies almost instantly. Former United Nations investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) finds himself at the center of the madness as he is tasked with finding patient zero and a cure for the virus. With the fate of the world, not to mention his own family, hanging in the balance, Gerry travels across the globe in order to put together a working vaccine and save humanity as we know it.

Any review of World War Z would be, in my opinion, incomplete without at least mentioning its relationship to the book it is (extremely loosely) based on. I read Max Brooks’ “oral history of the zombie war” a few years back and loved it. It is one of the most intelligent, uniquely structured pieces of science fiction in recent years and as I read it I could easily envision a fantastic film. This is not the film I envisioned. Production on World War Z was an absolute disaster as tension between Pitt and director Marc Forster was so thick that they reportedly would not speak to each other on set. The third act of the film had to be completely reshot after it became apparent that the conclusion was entirely too dark and the budget ballooned to a reported $400 million dollars (the most expensive movie in history). Somewhere in all of that the foundation of the novel was lost entirely. As we learned more and more about the movie, it became readily apparent that the film would have almost nothing to do with the book save the title. I was angry. I’m not one of those people that needs a movie to be EXACTLY like the book it is based on but I’ll never understand the point behind spending the money to acquire a book if you’re not going to use the book at all in the formation of your film. As such, I expected World War Z to be a total train wreck.

I was wrong. Perhaps it was my incredibly low expectations, but World War Z worked for me on virtually every level. It works as a horror movie, as an action movie, as a piece of post-apocalyptic (or in this case pre-apocalyptic) sci-fi and the elements the film borrows from each genre come together into a shockingly cohesive whole. This is one of the most intense action movies I’ve ever sat through and it uses scare tactics appropriately. That is to say, the film doesn’t go out of its way to create scares but rather allows the more horrifying aspects to come to the surface naturally. Meanwhile, the narrative develops quite well and I found myself much more invested in the lives of the characters than I ever imagined I would be. This is a smart zombie film that plays sort of like a combination of Steven Soderberg’s Contagion and The Walking Dead (on a $400 million budget). I felt like most of the twists and turns in the story made sense (save for a handful of MacGuffins in the second act) and Pitt does an excellent job of selling his character’s motivation, both on the micro (his family) and macro (the world) level. The third act comes together perhaps a little too neatly but somehow, despite a myriad of production issues that should have derailed the entire thing, Forster puts forth a conclusion that seems completely fitting to the film as a whole.

Against all odds, World War Z is a legitimately, shockingly good blockbuster that even borders on becoming great at times. It has almost nothing in common with the book from a narrative standpoint but it does share the novel’s intelligence and maybe that’s the most important thing in the end. Lastly, and perhaps most unexpectedly, there is a streak of hope that runs through the center of World War Z that you almost never encounter in a movie like this and the film feeds off of this subtle positivity in ways I never would have imagined, helping this film to become one of the best movies of the summer. Grade: A- (Rated PG-13 for violence, generally scary images, and mayhem)

Movie Review: Man of Steel

With the destruction of his home planet, Krypton, imminent, a newborn named Kal-El (Henry Cavill) is sent off by his father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) in a spaceship bound for earth, bearing within him the codex for Krypton which will ostensibly allow for the planet’s rebirth. Once here, Kal is adopted by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane) and finds that he is greatly empowered by the proximity of our yellow sun. Gifted with startling abilities that he cannot fully grasp nor understand how to use, Kal (now named Clark Kent) drifts through his first 33 years, occasionally stopping in his travels to save someone’s life but never realizing his full potential. But when General Zod (Michael Shannon), a deranged exile from Krypton shows up in search of the codex with plans to destroy earth’s population, Kal must decide to fully embrace his ability in order to protect the world that has become his home. I feel kind of stupid summarizing the plot to a Superman movie given that his is one of the most well-known mythologies in the world, but one Man of Steel’s bright spots is its reinvention of the source material. Similar to what JJ Abrams did with Star Trek, the team behind this film (writer David S. Goyer, director Zack Snyder, producer Christopher Nolan) took what had become a fairly tired story and breathed a bit of new life into it while still holding (relatively) true to (most of) the established backstory. Man of Steel plays like an actual reboot rather than a remake of the 1978 Superman and in my mind that’s a good thing. To be frank, Superman himself is the most boring of superheroes in my mind and all of the previous Superman films are kind of terrible. The version of Superman presented here is much more approachable than any previous Superman has been and the darker tones that Man of Steel delves into serve the character well. It’s not a perfect script, especially when it comes to the dialogue and exposition, but it gives this franchise a much better foundation than I would have expected.

The cast of Man of Steel give quality performances and this goes especially for Cavill who was a huge question mark coming in. I’ve seen Cavill perform in perhaps three other films and was thoroughly unimpressed with his effort in each entry but here he embraces both the human and superhuman aspects of Superman quite well. He might not be Christian Bale but he’s certainly no Brandon Routh either. Shannon, truly one of the industry’s best actors, doesn’t get as much to work with as I might have hoped but takes advantage of every opportunity he gets. Of the two fathers, Crowe gets the lion’s share of the screen time but Costner’s limited scenes might be the most emotionally relevant of the film.

There’s a lot to like about Man of Steel and plenty of flaws that could be overlooked in most cases. Unfortunately, however, much of it is undone by the horrific direction, especially in regards to Snyder’s film technique. I was nervous about Snyder’s involvement when his name was announced but tricked myself into believing that the studio (and more importantly, Christopher Nolan) wouldn’t let him screw up a huge tentpole film like Man of Steel. I was wrong as it seems to me that the entire film is just a 145 minute adventure in Snyder showing off all the cool tricks he knows how to do with a camera. I’m not opposed to the hand-held/shaky camera style of filming. The format has its merits and can be very effective in the right situation and in the right hands. But a massive, all-encompassing, CGI-laden superhero blockbuster like Man of Steel is not the right situation and Snyder’s are clearly not the right hands. Almost the entirety of the film is shot in shake-camera format, much of it is out of focus, and Snyder continually insists on shooting in close-up. If you’ve ever wondered what Superman’s nose hairs look like, Zack Snyder has an answer for you. The film moves way, WAY too fast for the camera to keep up and as a result of all of this, the visuals within this film are brutally disorienting and headache-inducing. My wife wanted to leave and if we had been so foolish as to purchase 3D tickets, I think I might have walked out. It’s that bad from a visual standpoint and for me, Snyder’s massive missteps strip Man of Steel of almost any merit it may have beyond a general hope that someday there will be a sequel that Snyder is not involved in. Grade: B- (Rated PG-13 for comic book violence, some harsh themes, maybe a little language)

Note: My grade started out as a C/C+, jumped up to a B as I was writing the middle paragraphs, and finally settled in at a B-. Basically, it comes down to how much I appreciate the path Goyer has set this franchise on versus how much I loathe Zack Snyder's hideous work behind the camera. I recommend skipping this film in theaters and watching it on DVD/Blu-Ray when the maddening visuals will be less horrifically disorienting.

Movie Review: After Earth

A thousand years in the future, after the inevitable world war that nearly destroys the planet, earth rebels against the human race and forces us to relocate. Humanity eventually sets up shop on an alien planet that is unfortunately inhabited by an uber-predator known as the Ursa that locates its prey through sensing its fear. Enter General Cypher Raige (Will Smith), humanity’s greatest soldier who teaches himself to be fearless and therefore invisible to the Ursa. He struggles, however, to relate to his gifted son Kitai (Jaden Smith) who wants nothing more than to follow in his father’s footsteps. While on a routine interstellar trip that will ostensibly help the two bond, their ship crash lands on (you guessed it) earth, leaving only Cypher and Kitai alive. But Cypher’s legs are broken and, unable to move, he is forced to send Kitai off alone into the dangers of earth in order to find a tracking beacon that will bring the help they so badly need.

As a longtime fan of science fiction, it pains me to see a good idea wasted on a bad movie, but unfortunately this happens far too often within the genre. After Earth should be at the very least an interesting, enjoyable film and probably would be in the right hands and yet it manages to miss on even the lowest level of goals. At one time, M. Night Shyamalan was one of the most ambitious, exciting directors in the industry and stood at the helm of three films I love. Now, however, he has fallen so far that the studio behind After Earth refused to use his name in the advertising for this film and did everything they could to keep his involvement under wraps. The reasons for this move become clear early and often. The script is littered with bad dialogue (and even worse techno babble) and the plot is paper thin. Meanwhile, the direction of the film is just as spotty and the pacing in particular misses the mark quite badly. At his best, Shyamalan was never great at character development (Signs would be the real exception in my book) but he was tremendously talented at creating tension and developing the plot. These skills have left him, however, and as such, After Earth struggles mightily both in the progress of the narrative and the would-be emotional relevance that the film so badly needs but never can piece together.

Shyamalan’s shortcomings, however, only serve to distract from the biggest issue at work within After Earth, that being the awfulness of Jaden Smith. I have always been a huge Will Smith fan and I will continue to contend that he is an extremely talented actor who is capable of great things. Somewhere along the line, however, he became obsessed with three things:

1.)    His image and legacy; 2.)    Making an absurd amount of money; 3.)    Nepotism.

His kids are everywhere, which is exactly what Smith wants and exactly what the world does not need. It would be one thing if Jaden was a good or even decent actor. But he’s not. Now, I try very hard in my reviews not to bash on child actors because, after all, they’re just kids. But Jaden Smith is exempt from this rule because his dad has done everything he can to force him into the spotlight and he should be evaluated not as a child actor but simply as an actor. As such, let me just say that Jaden Smith is not just a bad actor; he’s epically, historically, unbearably awful. He is the worst child actor to take a starring role in a mainstream movie since Jake Lloyd. Not only did I not buy him as an action star (which this movie tries mightily to push upon us), I did not buy him as an actual human being. With each wooden line delivery and each awkward action scene, Jaden’s mere presence in the film (and possibly the world) grated on me more and more to the point that I found myself actively rooting for the creatures of earth to kill him. He’s just so incredibly bad. If he isn’t nominated for a Razzie award this year it will be either because the Razzies are too nice to nominate a kid or his dad threatened to turn the Independence Day aliens loose on them. Whatever positives After Earth carves out for itself are immediately crushed and beaten into the dead ground by Jaden’s immense lack of talent, making this one of the worst films that Will Smith has ever put his name on. Grade: C- (Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence)

Movie Review: Fast & Furious 6

When a gang of international criminals led by Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) eludes all attempts at capture, special agent Hobbs (Dwayne The Rock Johnson) has run out of options. With nowhere else to turn, Hobbs approaches retired criminals/street race drivers Dom (Vin Diesel) and Brian (Paul Walker) with the promise of information on the whereabouts of the believed-to-be-dead Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) in exchange for the capture of Shaw. Dom’s reassembled crew of crooks teams with Hobbs to track down Shaw but they soon find that he is a much more capable adversary than anyone they’ve taken on before.

I was in high school when the first Fast and Furious came out and I embraced it as a bit of a guilty pleasure. The second and third installments, however, are brutal; genuinely bad movies (two especially). A second chance presented itself, though, as through the magic of HBO I was reacquainted with the series with number four and by the time Fast Five rolled around in 2011 (seriously one of the most enjoyable, rewatchable action movies of the last decade even if you’ve never seen another Fast and Furious movie), I was fully invested in the series again. I’ll make no bones about it: I love the Fast and Furious franchise. There is something extremely appealing about an action movie that knows exactly what it is and never takes itself too seriously and that is exactly what this series has become. Everything escalates from film to film but in some weird way each jump seems to be the next logical step for the franchise to make and Fast and Furious 6 is no different. It is bigger, badder, and more explosive than the last film which is exactly what it intends to be and exactly why I love it.

Look, this is not a film (or a series) that should be viewed with an overly critical eye. All reality must be suspended to sit in for Fast Six and if you can’t do that then you absolutely should not see this movie. If, however, you can leave not your brain but your, “That’s not possible!” sense at the door, you are unlikely to find a more entertaining, fun movie this year. Diesel and Walker, now completely comfortable in their characters and I believe thoroughly in on the joke, complement each other in a way that every romantic comedy pairing can only dream of. They are the Jordan and Pippen of driving fast cars and as a longtime fan of the franchise, it really is hilariously joyous to watch them work together (I truly, truly mean this). The surrounding cast play off of Diesel and Walker quite well with Ludacris, The Rock, and even Tyrese Gibson (long the black sheep of the Fast and Furious family) hitting the right note more often than not. Evans’ Shaw is the sort of solid if uninspiring villain that the franchise has been missing and given the events of the film (no spoilers), I can only guess that the ante will be upped tremendously in the next installment.

The real star of Fast Six, however, is director Justin Lin, just as it was with Fast Four and Fast Five. (By the way, I completely understand how ridiculous all of this sounds. The titles are probably the greatest weakness of the franchise.) You can definitely question Lin’s ability to structure dialogue and narrative or whether or not he understands the basics of physics, but you cannot question the man’s incredible grasp of action. I would go so far as to say that no one in the industry right now consistently produces better action sequences than Lin does and Fast Six is a brilliant example of this. His shot selection is impeccable and his mix of CGI and practical effects is nearly perfect. His ability to capture the coolness of a car chase, a heist, a shootout on the longest runway in the history of mankind is what makes Fast Six an absolute blast of a movie. Forget the plot holes and the massive leaps in the realm of what is actually humanly possible and instead, live your life a quarter mile at a time and just enjoy the NOS out of this one. Grade: A- (Rated PG-13 for some language, general comic book-ish violence, and some sexuality)

Movie Review Star Trek Into Darkness

When a traitor known as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and the crew of the USS Starship Enterprise are sent to track him down and destroy him. But after capturing the fugitive, Kirk begins to suspect that his ship is wrapped up in something much bigger than he initially thought. Caught in the middle of a blood feud of sorts, Kirk, Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew must face down their toughest challenge yet, one that threatens to tear apart everything they hold dear.

Star Trek Into Darkness is EXACTLY what I wanted it to be. It falls right in line with the excellent groundwork JJ Abrams laid out in 2009’s Star Trek without missing a beat and works only to further the mythology of this refreshed franchise without bothering to retrace the steps of the previous film. That is to say, this film relies on the understanding that the viewer has seen the previous film and therefore throws the audience directly into the action. While Star Trek was, of course, an origin story that required a great deal of character development and story setup, Darkness is an immense thrill ride with a simplistic story that still works incredibly well in this environment. Darkness starts fast and doesn’t let up for the majority of its runtime, the film version of a shark in perpetual motion. Abrams is an incredibly efficient filmmaker who wastes no time on screen that could be devoted to anything else and I love that both about him and this film. This is a much more focused film than Star Trek was and there are far fewer distractions to get in the way of what is essentially a story of revenge on galactic level. It has been argued that Darkness is too much style over substance but I contend that it simply know its identity to be a non-stop action movie for adults and Abrams goes to great lengths to hit that mark.

While Abrams work behind the camera is strong to quite strong, it is still the cast that makes this reinvigorated franchise so good. Pine is the perfect embodiment of Captain Kirk and in this installment you get to see him exhibit a number of traits that were purposefully excluded in the last film. Likewise, Quinto again proves why he was perhaps the perfect choice to take over the role of Spock and the opportunity to see a vengeful Spock is a glorious thing. Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, and Jon Cho are all great as well and moreover, the chemistry between all of these characters/actors is probably the best part of the franchise as a whole. What really sets Darkness apart, however, is the presence of a superior villain which Harrison most certainly is. I can’t believe that two years ago I had never heard of Benedict Cumberbatch considering that he is now one of the performers whose presence in a film I get the absolute most excited about. His magnificence in this film cannot be overstated and the intense darkness he brings to the role is palpable. Even if you’re not a Star Trek fan, Cumberbatch is worth the price of admission by himself.

All told, Star Trek Into Darkness is an outstanding blockbuster that delicately pays homage to its Trekkie heritage while furthering the new and improved vision Abrams set out to create for the franchise in 2009. It is beautiful to look at and incredibly fun, a lock to become a favorite of mine for repeat in home viewings. Grade: A (Rated PG-13 for a bit of language and violence)

Movie Review: The Great Gatsby

At the height of the Roaring Twenties, young Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) takes up residence in a shack in one of New York state's wealthiest areas. Nick knows only two people in the area, his flighty cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and her brutish husband Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Through this association, he becomes aware of the legendary parties that take place next door in the estate of the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). When Nick is invited to one of these parties, he becomes acquainted with Gatsby and finds himself swept up in a lifestyle more lavish than he could have ever imagined. But Gatsby has an agenda and after setting up a meeting between his new friend and Daisy, he finds himself caught in the middle of a tangled in a deadly web that may destroy everything around him.

I have been struggling with how to review The Great Gatsby since I saw it on opening night and I have finally come to the final conclusions:

1.) This novel is one of my very favorite literary works and in some regards this film brought a bit of it to life; 2.) Baz Luhrmann does not make films for me and as such, I was predisposed to disliking his vision for The Great Gatsby; 3.) There are parts of this film that I actually really liked but the more I think about it, the more I have come to the conclusion that they are all taken directly from the source material and therefore have less to do with the actual film itself than my aforementioned love for the novel; 4.) I don't think this movie is very good; 5.) I get why other people do think it is very good.

In the interest of fairness, let me start with the positives. Luhrmann put together an impressive cast filled with a number of people I really like (and Tobey Maguire too!) and while I don't think any of them give an awards-caliber performance, most of them are pretty solid, DiCaprio in particular. I very much enjoyed the use anachronistic music in The Great Gatsby and I don't always feel that way about a Luhrmann film. And as mentioned above, there are a few scenes in this film that are taken almost directly from the page and the translation is such that it reminded me just how much I really do love F. Scott Fitzgerald's writing. 

Beyond these "pros", however, I found a lot of faults within The Great Gatsby. For one thing, I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the "spectacle" of the film and this caught me completely off guard. I do not particularly care for Moulin Rouge or Romeo + Juliet but I cannot deny the visual beauty of those films. I was sorely disappointed on that front here. I found the set design to be uninspiring, the costume and makeup to be only adequate, and the actual look of the film to be downright ugly. I was not swept away into the Roaring Twenties the way I needed to be to enjoy this film. I hated the hazy, out of focus way in which many of the scenes were shot and I'm not sure if this was purposeful or if this was the result of seeing a 3D movie in 2D but regardless, it was unappealing. And while the first half of the film at least has a solid energy to it, the back half is quite honestly boring (and again, I say this as someone who has a great affinity for this story). All of the grandiose, classic Luhrmann style is contained in the first hour while the second and third act are a slough to get through. I can't believe that I'm saying a Luhrmann film was too stoic and not nearly as overwhelmingly flamboyant as it needs to be but...well, that's the shocking truth.

These complaints would probably be enough to turn me off from this film but Luhrmann's translation of the novel also leaves something to be desired. He missed badly on Daisy, turning into a truly sympathetic character instead of showing her as the manipulative shrew she is in the book. Moreover, far too much about Jay Gatsby himself is given up or hinted at too strongly so early in the film that the final reveal of who he really is falls flat. The impact and the tragedy of his reality is not nearly as crushing as it should be. The mystery of Gatsby is what makes the novel so great and when you strip that away, the narrative suffers greatly. As such, I can only say that while the novel should be considered required reading for literally EVERYONE, this film version of The Great Gatsby holds little value for me. Grade: C (Rated PG-13 for some language, sexuality, and dramatic themes)

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

After the alien attack on New York City, (that happened in The Avengers, which you should probably have seen by now) Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has had trouble coping with life. He can’t sleep, he is disconnected from his support network, and he continually questions the meaning of life. But when a major terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) begins setting off mysterious bombs all over the US, Tony arrogantly challenges the villain to a fight, a move that proves disastrous. Cut off from his cache of weaponry as well as his friends, Tony digs deeper into The Mandarin’s backstory and discovers a much more personal history than he would have imagined, leading to an all-out war.

Iron Man 3 is a much, much different movie than you’d expect. The original Iron Man is one of my all-time favorite superhero flicks (possibly behind only The Dark Knight and the aforementioned Avengers) and while Iron Man 2 didn’t come close to living up to its predecessor, it fit the mold and I think works well with the original. This installment was written and directed by Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) instead of Jon Favreau and I think that definitely shows throughout most of the film. The tone different, sometimes startlingly so, and as a whole, I would say it is decisively un-comicbook-y. As such, this film may not the best Iron Man movie but it is a remarkably good Shane Black movie. That is to say, it doesn’t really fit in with the previous franchise entries but it is a darn good, highly enjoyable summer action movie with a touch of edge that didn’t exist in the other films.

It should be noted that I’m a huge fan of Black. Lethal Weapon is, in my mind, the second greatest action movie ever (behind Die Hard of course) and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of the most underrated movies ever. Black leaves his fingerprints ALL OVER Iron Man 3 and while that plays quite well for me, an unabashed fanboy, it may not work for everyone. It took me quite some time to adjust to the change in pace and attitude and even a while after seeing the film to fully digest what I had seen. It’s a movie that will probably play better with multiple viewings than it will the first time around. Robert Downey Jr. is always a treat, of course, but this is unquestionably a showcase piece for him. He and Black work incredibly well together and that shows over and over throughout the course of the film. That said, the side characters felt underutilized and there is a fairly big twist that, in my opinion, comes out a little too soon. Likewise, while the narrative is good (much better than Iron Man 2) and the dialogue is superb, the special effects are a little too grandiose for my taste and the “bad guys with glowing eyes” bit was overly cheesy. None of these issues, however, get in the way of Iron Man 3 becoming a very strong action movie, if a slightly underwhelming superhero flick. Grade: A-

Movie Review: Oblivion

In the future, the earth has been devastated by a war with the alien scavengers. Humanity prevailed but the catastrophic damage resulted in the evacuation of our entire species. Only a few remain, the technicians and programmers who keep the technology that powers our new civilization up and running. Jack (Tom Cruise), however, is a little different than most technicians in that he loves earth and longs to remain here once his service is up, against the objections of his coworker, Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). When a ship crashed in Jack's zone, the discovery of its cargo leads Jack down a rabbit hole that will force him to question everything, including his own identity.

Oblivion is pretty much exactly what you expect from the trailers. It is beautiful to look out and filled with technical brilliance but falls short of its lofty goals. The movie desperately wants to be significant in addition to entertaining and while I respect that ambition, the script isn't strong enough to make that a reality. The twists and turns, some of which are at least somewhat unpredictable, keep the film moving but too often Oblivion comes across as a collection of the plot points from a number of other sci-fi films that were probably better. I'm an unabashed fan of Cruise and I like his work here but it is a bit perfunctory and uninspired. All in all, Oblivion is a solid, if underwhelming piece of science fiction that doesn't leave a lasting impression but will garner multiple lazy Sunday afternoon viewings. Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for a bit of language including the big one that lands right where you expect it to and one scene of semi-nudity)

Movie Review: 42

In 1947, Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) made his Major League Baseball debut as a member of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not only was Jackie a singularly gifted athlete, this move was especially huge because he was the first black man to play in the Big Leagues. 42 tells the tale of how Dodgers owner Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) brought Robinson along and displays the trials and tribulations he went through in his effort to change the game forever.

I really wanted to love 42. The movie made my top ten anticipated of the year list, I have a great appreciation for Robinson's legacy, and I think baseball is the best sport in terms of translation to film. This is just such an incredible story that badly needs to be told. Unfortunately, however, (and I'll tread lightly here) the finished product is incredibly flawed and doesn't come close to achieving what it could have. As writer and director, Brian Helgeland (whose IMDB resume is very confusing) chose to take his film in the wrong direction more often than not. The dialogue is bad in a lot of places, the characters are poorly developed, and the general narrative (this is basically told from the perspective of Branch Rickey, not Robinson) doesn't feel right. 42 is being billed as a biopic but really it's a fictionalization of the better parts of one man's life. That is to say, if you took this film at face value, you would have no choice but to assume Jackie Robinson was the perfect human who didn't have a single flaw. That's not to say he was a bad person (OBVIOUSLY) but I prefer my biopics to be realistic, not fantasy, and I think this film suffers from that lack of realism. The whole film is very black and white (no pun intended) and doesn't allow for any shades of gray.

42 is saved, however, by the excellent cast, namely Boseman himself. Wow. This is truly a powerhouse performance that brings to mind thoughts of Denzel Washington in his prime. His portrayal is strong and intense and he alone elevates the film from "passable" to "must see." Ford, while iffy in the early going, displays moments of greatness and while the surrounding actors get nothing in the way of character development, their performances are mostly admirable. In essence, 42 isn't the film that Robinson deserves but Boseman's performance is exactly the portrayal he deserves. Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for occasionally rampant racist terminology and general intensity)