Review: Life of Pi

Like most moviegoers over the age of 14, I despise the prominent part that 3D technology plays in many of today’s films. It’s a rather stupid technology, in my opinion, and yet the industry spends billions of dollars every year to push it upon us and like fools we buy into it, albeit it perhaps begrudgingly. I consider the 3D treatment to be a gimmick (and not a particularly good gimmick at that) and most of the time I go out of my way to make sure I avoid it. Occasionally, however, word begins to circulate that a particular movie MUST be seen in 3D and in those instances I generally find myself reluctantly acquiescing. So it is with Life of Pi, a beautiful and touching film in its own right that is brought to life even further by one of the best uses of 3D we have seen yet. After falling on hard times at home in India, 15 year-old Pi (Suraj Sharma) and his family decide to relocate to Canada to start anew. Pi’s father sells the animals he housed at the family’s zoo and arranges for freighter passage for his family along with the animals. But a few days into their journey the freighter is beset by a terrible storm and sinks, leaving Pi stranded on a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He is not alone, however, as his boat is also occupied by a zebra, a hyena, a chimpanzee, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Nature takes its course quickly and soon Pi is left with only Richard Parker to keep him company, a relationship that takes some getting used to for both parties. With a very long voyage ahead of them, Pi and Richard Parker are forced to find an accord as both need the other to survive.

I haven’t read the bestselling book on which this film is based but I know that it was deemed by many to be a near unfilmable piece of work and I can see why. Told from the perspective of an older Pi (Irrfan Khan) telling his story to a young writer (Rafe Spall), Life of Pi builds its drama not through the lens of whether or not our hero will survive but through what sort of man he’ll be when he reaches the other side. Pi is as much about our protagonist’s struggle to know and understand the mind of God as it is about pure survival and it is in this arena in which the film makes its most indelible mark. But there are many themes at work within this film: spirituality, survival, Darwinism, among others, and each of them are wrapped up in a layer of symbolism, which I’m sure I only grasped a fraction of. It raises a lot of questions but it often allows the audience to ponder them for themselves rather than force feeding an answer. Director Ang Lee juggles many balls at one time and the way in which he is able to bring balance to his film, to give each of the varied themes an appropriate amount of attention and still bring it together into a cohesive whole should be commended. Pi tells a very difficult, complex story and yet Lee manages to boil it down to its simplest and most dynamic form, leaving the audience to delve as deeply as they care to go without hindering the spirit of hard-earned triumph that seeps through every aspect of the film.

From an acting standpoint, Life of Pi is perhaps a little underwhelming. I would call Sharma’s performance slightly above adequate: never bad, never obnoxious (which can be a problem when yours is the only character on screen for extended periods of time) but also never truly inspiring. He does his job satisfactorily but it isn’t quite as strong as I might have expected going in. Khan’s is the much more powerful performance for me as I thought his work brought the story home in a way that Sharma couldn’t quite manage. To be fair, however, Life of Pi isn’t an actor’s movie as much as it is a filmmaker’s movie.

Pi represents Lee being given the green light to create and he does so with incredible flair. I’ve seen a handful of beautifully shot, gorgeous films this year (Beasts of the Southern Wild, Skyfall, and The Master come to mind) but Pi is unquestionably the best of the bunch and one of the more awe-inducing, visually stunning films in recent memory. Lee pays particular attention to the animals in his film and as huge sucker for nature programs, I greatly appreciated the creative and glorious way in which he highlights the beasts, whether Richard Parker or the meerkats that inhabit a remote island. It is also full of vibrant, glorious colors and those colors are used splendidly to help Lee set the tone. Some of the shots, in particular a pair in which the sky is reflected on the water in such a way that the only way you can tell where one ends and the other begins is by pinpointing Pi’s lifeboat, are poster-worthy, magnificent moments that stand out in spite of the overall strength of the rest of the shots that surround them. Lee uses the 3D technology in an innovative way, making his film immersive in the background but also bringing his main subjects (Young Pi, Old Pi, and Richard Parker) into the forefront, making them seem all the more real and more relatable. To this point, I would say Avatar and Hugo best represented the efficient use of 3D but Pi very well may have surpassed them both. This movie is a technical wonder and a well-paced, intelligent one at that.

The nature of the narrative lends itself to a few ups and downs that rock Life of Pi from time to time. It always keeps the audience on edge and while this works most of the time, occasionally I felt as if the constant shifts interfered with the film’s momentum. In addition, while I though the somewhat ambiguous conclusion was perfectly fit for the film, I can imagine that some will find it unsettling or at least confusing. But overall, I found Life of Pi to be an affecting and beautiful film and an experience that won’t soon be forgotten.

Life of Pi Director: Ang Lee Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall Rated: PG (intense situations and subject matter throughout) Recommended For: Ages 12 and up (Boring for younger audiences and possibly too intense at times)

Review: Killing Them Softly

One of the quickest ways to insure that I will pay no heed to your opinions is to insert your political affiliation and beliefs into a decidedly non-political conversation. Recently a friend of mine posted a Facebook status asking for advice as to where she should go on vacation, to which some twit responded, “Just stick to a red state.” Despite living in a red state and at least vaguely supporting the general ideas that tend to fall into the “red state” category, I would like to punch said twit in the face for bringing his personal politics into a conversation that most certainly did not involve them. So it is with Killing Them Softly, a giant and droll political sermon disguising itself as a crime drama, and a film that I would like to punch squarely in the face. Set against the backdrop of 2008 Detroit, Killing Them Softly centers around Frankie (Scoot McNairy), a small time crook looking for an easy score. Through an associate he comes across a job holding up a mob-run poker game overseen by Markie (Ray Liotta). Of course no one is stupid enough to knock over a mob game but here’s the catch: a few years earlier, Markie hired a crew to hold up one of his own games, a move that earned him a sizeable profit but the distrust of those around him. If Frankie and his partner Russell (Ben Mendolsohn) can pull the job correctly, the blame will be placed on Markie, leaving Frankie to get off clean. But, as will happen with this sort of thing, the job goes sideways and before long Frankie finds himself at odds with hitman Jackie (Brad Pitt) and the group he works for.

In an effort to be fair, let’s first have a look at the positives that Killing Them Softly brings to the table. Namely, Brad Pitt is excellent. This is a good role for him, one that allows him to show off the charisma that makes him such an appealing lead but which requires him to get a little grimier than he usually gets. Jackie is a cool customer who pines for the good old days when, as he would have the audience believe, things were more civilized. In another life he might have been a decent guy to hang out with but years of killing for a living and hanging around in this crowd has left him only half human. It’s a quality role and Pitt plays it well. McNairy, too, hits all the right marks, albeit in a smaller role than I envisioned going in. Fresh off a fabulous turn in Argo, McNairy is putting together a solid resume for himself that one can imagine will only lead to bigger and better things in the very near future. On top of these performances, some of the shots, particularly the (few) action sequences within Killing Them Softly are gorgeously captured and put together. These scenes serve as a reminder that director Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James) has real talent behind the camera.

The rest of the film, however, is a total waste. The opening credits are obnoxious and come jam packed with so much political vigor that I almost immediately thought to myself, “I’ve made a huge mistake.” I guess I should thank Dominik for letting it be known so quickly what Killing Them Softly would be all about; whatever I might have imagined for the film coming in, within five minutes or so it became clear that what I would be getting is a sermon and there’s no attempt to hide this. Even still, the heavy-handedness of the background statements are so strong as to completely and totally overwhelm any other point the film might have been trying to make, leaving me to wonder why I didn’t just stay home and watch CNN or listen to Glenn Beck. Dominik hammers his point over and over, bringing to mind the old saying about beating a dead horse, only by the end I felt like the dead horse.

But don’t leave here today thinking that the overtly and embarrassingly political nature of Killing Them Softly is the only real problem. No, instead this repetitive drum banging only serves to distract from the films other flaws of which there are MANY. Namely, it’s exceedingly boring. I enjoy a good slow burn (which I expected this movie to be) but in actuality, this is closer to a no burn. NOTHING HAPPENS. It’s a wonder that Killing Them Softly even got a wide release because it feels like the sort of art house feature that a few critics love but the masses never bother with. There are multiple scenes that could have and should have been scrapped altogether and do absolutely nothing to further the plot. Moreover, entire characters have no reason to exist within this narrative. James Gandolfini plays a prominent role and yet (and I am not exaggerating here) his character accomplishes and adds, literally, NOTHING. He flies in town to do a job, he acts like a tool, he doesn’t do his job and then OFF CAMERA his character gets in trouble and has to bail. I’m still scratching my head as to what purpose his character was supposed to hold. The music often feels forced and comes across as just plain annoying after a while. Killing Them Softly drags painfully, too, somehow making 97 minutes seem like three hours. For once I can forgive the rude moviegoer in the row in front of me who spent the entire back half of the film playing with his phone because, quite frankly, I was doing the same thing. Then there’s the matter of that pesky title which is downright terrible. Of course I knew going in that the title was bad but once I actually sat through this thing its horribleness struck me even more. Unless the title was meant to be foreshadowing for what this film would do to its audience, in which case Killing Them Softly hit the nail on the head.

Killing Them Softly Director: Andrew Dominik Cast: Brad Pitt, Scoot McNairy, Richard Jenkins Rated: R (Heavy and suggestive language, moments of harsh violence, general awfulness…) Recommended For: 17+ hardcore indie movie buffs

Review: Red Dawn

I want to make a couple of things clear right up front with you dear reader. First, Red Dawn is in no way, shape, or form a good movie. By almost any measure it is, in fact, a pretty terrible movie. Second, by no means would I recommend any of you spend your hard earned money to see it. If you choose to ignore this advice I will not be held responsible for your loss of $10 and 95 minutes. Third, I was in an emotionally damaged state when I saw this film having just had to put my beloved dog down. As such, my brain was probably not in a trustworthy state. Please keep all of these disclaimers in mind now when I tell you that despite all of its many, MANY, plot holes, absurdities, and general foolishness, I enjoyed the crap out of Red Dawn. There are really only four things you need to know about the “plot” of Red Dawn:

1. Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth) is home in Spokane on leave from his duty with the Marines; 2. The North Koreans (all 24 million of them) attack and invade the United States, knocking out all of our communications and (apparently) rendering our military incapacitated; 3. Jed and his brother Matt (Josh Peck), along with a group of untrained teenagers, form a resistance group known as the Wolverines who fight back against the insurgents who have taken over their town; 4. Despite being completely new to this whole “warfare” thing, the Wolverines cause serious problems for the North Koreans and eventually force a major confrontation that will decide the fate of our country.

And that is all.

If I were to turn my appraisal of Red Dawn into a pros and cons list, the cons would FAR outnumber the pros. It’s an absolute mess, really. It isn’t enough that the premise itself is ludicrous. The idea that the North Koreans would invade and find some level of success in taking over this country is absurd. Nuke us, maybe. Engage in biological warfare, maybe. But outright invade and take over? Not so much. Byond that, though, the rest of the plot is rife with holes to the point that you actually find yourself surprised in the few instances when it manages to string together two consecutive scenes that sort of make sense. It is constantly jumping from one place to the next and you’re just supposed to fill in the gaps on your own. The dialogue is painfully cliché and cheesy and most of the time it is delivered in a manner more befitting a Disney channel pilot than a major motion picture (the budget for Red Dawn was $65 million by the way). Several of the actors are incredibly bad and while some of that can be chalked up to inexperience (Josh Peck) or lack of talent (Connor Cruise), I know some of these performers are capable of more than what they exhibit in Red Dawn (Adrianne Palicki). Some of the blame for this can probably be pinned on the haphazard way in which this film was edited after the fact (it’s been sitting on a shelf for almost three years) and some should be aimed at first time (and probably last time) director Dan Bradley whose entire career has been dedicated to stunt work (so you know it was in good hands!). The tone of Red Dawn constantly fluctuates between campy and overly serious, rendering the film completely devoid of an identity. And if all of that wasn’t enough, the movie comes to a conclusion with all of the precision of a bad Saturday Night Live bit at the end of the show and none of the charm.

All of these missteps (and a dozen more that I don’t have time to note) should make Red Dawn an utter disaster. But it does have two things going for it. One, it’s got Chris Hemsworth and at the end of the day, if you have Chris Hemsworth, you’re not completely worthless. This is pre-Thor Hemsworth and he’s definitely a little rough around the acting edges but that doesn’t keep him from being a presence on the screen. He brings sincerity to his role and he does his best to sell his (terrible) movie to you and because of this, he makes what would be an unwatchable movie at least partially watchable. Two, in spite of all of the screw-ups, missteps, and “How in the world did they expect us to buy this?!” moments that plague Red Dawn, it is still, at the end of the day, entertaining. Not entertaining enough to make it good or even overly enjoyable, but enough to make the theater experience relatively fun. It is very much an 80s movie and with an experienced filmmaker at the helm, it might have been made to play like an 80s action movie homage which probably would have worked quite well. As it stands, it doesn’t go nearly far enough into the realm of the over the top ridiculousness that makes films like The Expendables and Taken so much fun and so worthwhile. But for me, it was entertaining enough to stick with it and I’m only slightly ashamed to admit that when Red Dawn makes its way to HBO, I’ll probably watch it again…and again.

Red Dawn Director: Dan Bradley Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki Rated: PG-13 (lots of violence, language including the big one to ensure that all-important PG-13) Recommended For: Teenagers who don't know any better. And me, apparently.

In Home Viewings: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

After failing to break up a gigantic meteor headed directly for earth, NASA announces that the world as we know will be coming to an end in three short weeks. The sky is literally falling. Dodge (Steve Carell) receives this news with somewhat less hysteria than those around him, choosing rather to spend his last remaining moments pondering a life more unlived than lived. His course of regretful contemplation changes, however, when he becomes acquainted with Penny (Keira Knightley), a flighty newcomer to his building with whom he forms an unlikely bond. Dodge and Penny decide to hit the open road with the idea of reuniting Dodge with the one who got away and an eye to finding a plane that can get Penny home to England before the meteor hits. The road holds many surprises, though, and soon the pair finds themselves bonding over their shared experiences and impending doom. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a film I was very much looking forward to when it opened in theaters but one that slipped through the summer viewing cracks. I had a hard time making time for it in the midst of summer blockbuster fun and judging by its poor performance at the box office, I’m guessing this was a common theme. That is perhaps for the better, though, as this is the sort of film that probably makes for a better viewing in the comfort of your own home rather than in a theater seat. Seeking a Friend isn’t great and isn’t a film I’d want to pay $10 to see, let alone watch multiple times, but as far as Red Box rentals or HBO viewings go, it’s a movie that holds some real value. Moreover, I’d say it’s a film that has a little bit of everything, making it a solid pick for date night, group movie night, or, in my case, “sit at home alone on a Thursday evening on which I have nothing better to do than rent a movie” night.

Seeking a Friend has two major positives working in its favor. First, it hits the nail squarely on the head in terms of tone. This is a dark (sometimes VERY dark) comedy, an identity that suits its narrative very well. It is quirky and odd, at times even sobering, but at its heart it is always a dark comedy and this trait carries it further than it could have ever gone as a romance or a serious drama. The best dark comedies can make you laugh at situations or scenes that are inherently unfunny, or even tragic, and on this front the film plays quite well. Secondly and more importantly, Seeking a Friend has Steve Carell and Steve Carell can often make up for a multitude of sins. I can think of no one who personifies the strange but kindly “nice guy” like Carell does, who can handle the sort of dark and somber settings that a movie like this takes its characters to while at the same time instilling in that film a sense of heartfelt levity. He is one of the industry’s best when it comes to making you root for a given character and he brings that trait the table in spades this time around. I love Carell’s presence in just about any film but the understated and subtle ways in which he carries Seeking a Friend deserve special mention.

The rest of the parts that make up this film don’t always measure up to its real strengths. The narrative itself, while an interesting concept, doesn’t have much to it. At times it fluctuates a little too liberally between its playful side and its darker subject matter. And it could have used a steadier, or more experienced, hand at the helm than writer and first time director Lorene Scafaria. I think she allowed Knightley a little too much freedom with her character and she in turn becomes somewhat obnoxious at times. But overall, Seeking a Friend is oddly enjoyable, if not entirely satisfying.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World Director: Lorene Scafaria Cast: Steve Carell, Keira Knightley, Martin Sheen Rated: R (strong language, mature themes) Recommended For: Fans of quirky, dark comedies 16 and up

Review: Lincoln

One of the toughest challenges I run across in this line of work (and by work, I mean sad hobby to which I devote entirely too much time) is the issue of judging a film to be good, even great, before I’ve even taken a seat in the theater. I try to go into each film unbiased, with little more than general excitement to rely on but let’s be honest, some films bring with them a built in feeling of greatness that can’t be ignored; that’s human nature I think. So when we get, say, my favorite director ever, Steven Spielberg, working with perhaps the best actor of his generation, Daniel Day Lewis, on a film concerning the greatest president in the history of America, Abraham Lincoln (duh), you can imagine the internal struggle to remain neutral before heading in. It is only fair, then, to suggest that nothing short of Honest Abe wielding an axe and slaughtering a CGI Bela Lugosi would have led to me disliking Lincoln. So bear that in mind as we delve into a film that is sure to find its way onto the list of Best Picture contenders. Just a few months before his eventual death, Abraham Lincoln (Day Lewis), the 18^th president of the United States of America, found himself at a crossroads. The Civil War, which had raged across the country for the better part of four years, was nearing a breaking point at which time the Rebels would have to come to terms with the Union. But the end of the war was not Lincoln’s only endgame. Instead, he wanted to see the 13^th Amendment, which would provide for the unconditional emancipation of all slaves, passed through the House of Representatives and into law, a measure that would prove difficult to pass once the war came to a close. With limited time on his hands, Lincoln and his Secretary of State (David Straithairn) began a campaign to fast track the Amendment within the House and secure the necessary votes, including at least 20 from the opposing Democrats, to see its passage before the window of opportunity closed.

Lincoln is less biopic and more historical document, a dynamic that could potentially throw off the unprepared viewer. Spielberg goes to great lengths to display the realities of the situation Lincoln found himself in back in 1865 and illustrate the many difficulties he had to overcome. When considering the climate of hostility Lincoln had to navigate, we, or at least I, tend to focus on the tension and outright hatred the man faced from the South and fail to acknowledge the many pratfalls he had to work around within the Union and even his own party. It’s a portion of history that gets overlooked and therefore, it makes for a fascinating and fresh backdrop to work with. I have found that many biopics struggle to tell an interesting story. That is to say, the films often become all about the lead performance and his/her subject and fail to bring the story up to the level of the performance. Ray is a prime example; Jamie Foxx’s portrayal is fantastic and truly deserving of his Oscar win. But the movie itself does very little, in my mind, to add to Foxx’s acting. Lincoln doesn’t have this problem because the story holds just as much importance as the performance. Spielberg is able to blend a significant narrative in with the more personal aspects of Day Lewis’ portrayal and it all comes together in a tidy, gloriously well-crafted film that works on many levels.

That is not to say that Daniel Day Lewis’ performance isn’t great. Pick a complimentary adjective to describe Day Lewis’ work here and you’ll probably still undersell it. “Exquisite” and “perfect” come to mind. He personifies Lincoln in a way that few, if any, other actors could. His Lincoln exhibits the wisdom, patience, and steadfastness that we all associate with the man but it is his moments of humor, wit, and fire that really brings him to life and makes him seem perhaps more human than he has been before. This goes beyond the sort of powerhouse performance that I anticipated and reaches into the sort of revered territory reserved only for the best the industry has ever given us. It’s a portrayal that sticks with you and I think I’ll feel even stronger about six months from now.

But again, the real brilliance of Lincoln is that it does not hang its hat solely on the lead performance. Spielberg makes a debate in the House of Representatives exciting and appropriately tense, a statement I imagine CSPAN is incredibly jealous of. It really is an incredibly interesting story and Spielberg builds its momentum beautifully throughout. In addition, the ridiculously talented cast of characters provides magnificent support for Day Lewis, though each player receives fairly minimal screen time with which to work. Tommy Lee Jones, Lee Pace, and James Spader are especially impressive but truth be told, I could list off a dozen or more actors and actresses who have at least one strong moment in the spotlight. And as with almost any Spielberg film, the technical aspects of Lincoln are outstanding. This is a beautiful film and Spielberg frames virtually every shot perfectly, never wasting an inch of space. The score, too, is fitting and the set pieces are gorgeous. At times the plot drags just a bit (one or two of the Mary Todd Lincoln scenes could have been left out in my opinion) and I believe it should have ended a few minutes earlier. There is a natural stopping point that includes a beautiful shot that were it up to me, would have been the film’s closing scene but instead we roll on a bit longer. Nevertheless, Lincoln is one of the year’s best and I expect it will be judged thusly. Moreover, it’s a return to form for our greatest director after he endured a one-for-three “slump” over the last few years that included the underwhelming War Horse and a certain archaeology-related sequel that shall remain nameless.

Lincoln Director: Steven Spielberg Cast: Daniel Day Lewis, David Straithairn, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones Rated: PG-13 (A smattering of language including one well-placed bomb, small samples of violence and gore in isolated scenes) Recommended For: Content wise, suitable for 10/11 and up, length wise it’s probably geared more toward teens and up)

Review: Skyfall

I must admit up front that I am not the would-be authority on the James Bond franchise that I am on, say, the Star Wars universe or even the Marvel superhero world. I have probably seen 15 or so of the 22 films (preceding this one) officially considered part of the James Bond canon but if I’m being honest, many of them run together for me. I have enjoyed Daniel Craig’s run at the helm but I think most of the Brosnan films are rubbish and of the previous entries, only Goldfinger stands out in my mind as its own film; the rest have sort of glommed together into a super Bond movie that never ends. But while the individual films themselves have never held much sway for me, I do have a healthy and enduring appreciation for what the series as a whole stands for, as well as the more memorable sections of each film: Odd Job, the gadgets, “Shaken not stirred”, etc. all hold a place in my heart as part of the legacy of Bond and what the series has meant to the film industry over the last 50 years. Skyfall, then, is the perfect Bond film for me, a movie that pays homage to the best parts of the franchise’s past while moving ever forward into bolder, smarter new territory. Presumed dead and recovering on a beautiful but boring island after a botched mission, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is suddenly reminded that the world needs him when an unknown terrorist sets off a bomb at MI6. Bond comes back to the fold a wounded man, both physically and mentally, and soon finds that his adversary, a former MI6 agent named Silva (Javier Bardem), may be his toughest yet. Silva has a score to settle with M (Judy Dench) and will stop at nothing in his pursuit of his revenge, forcing Bond to engage with his enemy on a more personal level.

In many ways, Skyfall is our real introduction to the new Bond and where the character is headed. Casino Royale serves as an excellent origin story of sorts and it’s a film I love but it could have easily been a one-off entry. Quantum of Solace had sequel-itis written all over it, an uninspired and flawed effort that tried too hard to simultaneously exemplify a brooding Bond while still playing to the franchise’s legacy of suave casualness, a combination that didn’t work against the backdrop of a boring plot. Skyfall, on the other hand, nails the tone that Solace and even Casino set out to establish but ultimately failed to identify. The movie harkens back to your dad’s James Bond with a number of well-placed in jokes and references, including the one-liners and cheesy instances of double-entendres that have been missing of late, while at the same time pushing forward to establish a modern Bond that will serve the series well for the next decade. The sum of the parts of Skyfall, the narrative, the action, and on down the list, is fitted perfectly to its hero and as such, the two complement each other wonderfully. This is the Bond film that James Bond himself would make and its confidence and boldness as a film measures up to that which Bond has historically shown over the last 50 years.

I felt like this was the first time that Craig was able to make James Bond fully his own. In Casino, it seemed like Craig (and the film itself) was trying to show the audience who Bond wasn’t rather than who he is and Solace just never really got off the ground. Here, Bond is shown to be a much deeper, calculating man than he has been in the past, a man who perhaps hates his job but understands the necessity of what he does, whereas past Bonds have at times reveled in the more romantic aspects of the spy game. Craig’s Bond still has a bloody good time throughout his travels but there’s much more weight to his actions, a feeling that suits our time and a role that Craig plays extremely well. That said, I believe I laughed more in Skyfall than I ever have before in a Bond movie and I am extremely impressed in the way the film manages to jump back and forth between the dark and the light with seamless dexterity. There’s an outstanding script at work here and director Sam Mendes (Road to Perdition) uses it extremely well, highlighting both his own strengths and the various strengths of Bond and the man who plays him. It isn’t just the more serious nature of the film or the sly way in which it pays tribute to its predecessors that make Skyfall such a grand achievement; it’s the masterful way in which the action sequences play out, a narrative that goes in some truly unexpected directions, and the overall style of the film as a whole. This is without question the most beautifully shot Bond film, a feat which Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins should be commended for. One scene in which Bond fights a lackey in the shadow of a brightly lit Shanghai high rise will undoubtedly stand as one of my favorite scenes of the year. It’s about as gorgeous as an action film gets, really.

But as with any Bond film, you cannot discuss Skyfall without delving into the villain. It seems like every time a new Bond movie comes down the chute, we hear how great the villain will be and how he will stand as Bond’s equal, a promise that almost always goes unfulfilled. Silva, then, is the exception to the rule. Silva is the personification of deranged evil and Bardem illustrates his afflictions with a haunting flair. He is suave and cool, much like Bond himself, giving the impression that he could have been Bond in another world and vice versa. The similarities between the two of them don’t stop there and it is because of this that I felt Silva was much more of a threat than the past Bond villains have been. Perhaps more importantly, Bardem is the first Bond villain I can think of whose purpose in life was to destroy rather than attain world domination and the riches that come with it. Silva is reminiscent of Heath Ledger’s Joker and Bardem brings extreme ruthlessness to the role, making him one of, if not the, best and most frightening Bond villain we’ve seen yet.

Like almost any action-oriented film, I could pick at the loose threads of Skyfall until it was threadbare but where’s the fun in that? There are some plot holes, a few misfires along the way, some of which are glossed over, some left exposed, but at the end of the day, these minor potholes along the road to sheer, unadulterated entertainment are easily overlooked and did nothing to hinder my enjoyment of it. The story is layered and smart, the introduction of new supporting characters is smooth, and Bond himself comes out looking as good, if not better, than ever. As I have not seen all of these films, I am unqualified to call this the best Bond movie ever. But I can, and will, deem Skyfall to be the best Bond movie I have personally had the pleasure to experience and I anticipate many, many repeat viewings in the future.

Skyfall Director: Sam Mendes Cast: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judy Dench, Ralph Fiennes Rated: PG-13 (some language, violence, a healthy amount of collateral damage, and the requisite innuendo) Recommended For: Action fans ages 11 and up

The Collected Works: Denzel Washington

Very few Hollywood names hold more sway than Denzel Washington. Over the last 20+ years, Washington has carved out a place of great esteem for himself amongst average moviegoers and film nerds alike. In an era in which the power of a name has seen a precipitous drop-off, Washington is still able to pack theaters with the best of them. If his box office reliability weren’t enough, the man has also attained critical adoration and award committee acclaim, having earned five Oscar nominations (and two wins) along with a host of other honors. Perhaps his greatest asset has been his ability to mix his roles. He has jumped from the heavy material found in Malcolm X to more popcorn-y flicks like Man on Fire and back again and often times, the depth and weight of his performances can transform a would-be blockbuster something much more significant, such as Remember the Titans. For my money, Washington belongs in an elite class of actors who can proudly refer to themselves as, The Movie Star’s Movie Star. At 58 years old, he can essentially do any movie he wants to without jeopardizing his integrity because he will always come back around to do something important when the right role arrives. As one of my favorite actors in the business, it is with great pleasure that I delve into the Collected Works of Denzel Washington and look back on his fantastic career. (Note: If you are new to this feature, the object of The Collected Works is to rank a given performer’s films from worst to first. These ranks pertain to the films first, performance second.)

Movies I haven’t seen: Cry Freedom, For Queen and Country, The Mighty Quinn, Heart Condition, Mo’ Better Blues, Mississippi Masala, Much Ado About Nothing, Devil in a Blue Dress

30. Virtuosity (1995) – Lt. Parker Barnes Rotten Tomatoes score: 33% There are any number of films from this time period that played on our obsession with the future of the Internet. Virtuosity is easily one of the worst to fall into that category.

29. The Preacher’s Wife (1996) – Dudley Rotten Tomatoes score: 62% The RT score would lead me to believe that perhaps I’m a little too hard on this movie but man, I hated The Preacher’s Wife. I think it was supposed to be fun and uplifting but instead I find it to be off putting.

28. Out of Time (2003) – Matt Lee Whitlock Rotten Tomatoes score: 65% To be honest, it’s difficult to distinguish Out of Time from several of Washington’s other cop roles but I’ve always thought this one was one of his weakest. I really did not like the plotline on this one. Seemed lazy.

27. John Q (2002) – John Q. Archibald Rotten Tomatoes score: 23% This represents Washington’s lowest-rated film in his prime and I tend to agree. The tone jumps from scene to scene and John Q. also had the misfortune of following in the wake of Training Day.

26. The Great Debaters (2007) – Melvin B. Tolson Rotten Tomatoes score: 79% Perhaps I should give this one another go considering the relatively good reputation it has with both critics and viewers. I, on the other hand, thought it was cloying and uninspired. A semi-knockoff of Remember the Titans but without the football.

25. The Manchurian Candidate (2004) – Major Bennett Marco Rotten Tomatoes score: 81% I was astounded to see the general approval given this film when I started doing the research. I thought everyone hated The Manchurian Candidate and now that I know many people do not, I am quite confused. For me, this is the definition of a bad, pointless remake.

24. Unstoppable (2010) – Frank Rotten Tomatoes score: 86% This is another one that I don’t really understand from an appeal standpoint. I was bored out of my mind in Unstoppable and many of the “exciting” plot points just made me roll my eyes. I enjoyed the chemistry between Washington and Chris Pine but that’s where the virtues of this film end for me.

23. The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) – Walter Garber Rotten Tomatoes score: 55% Slightly more entertaining than Unstoppable but probably a worse movie when it’s all said and done. My predisposition to a dislike of all things related to John Travolta does not help its case, however.

22. The Siege (1998) – Anthony Hubbard Rotten Tomatoes score: 45% I just watched The Siege for the first time all the way through and I was thoroughly unimpressed. The scenes involving Washington were solid enough but the rest of this movie is kind of an overdone mess.

21. Ricochet (1991) – Nick Styles Rotten Tomatoes score: 73% You could make the case that Ricochet is what put Washington on the map as a leading man. I caught this movie recently for the first time in years and while it is wayyyyy over the top, it stands up as a thoroughly decent action flick for a rainy afternoon.

20. The Pelican Brief (1993) – Gray Grantham Rotten Tomatoes score: 52% One of the weaker Grisham adaptations during a period in which the industry was OBSESSED with law-related films, but I would argue that when it came out, The Pelican Brief was a solid film. It just doesn’t hold up well.

19. The Bone Collector (1999) – Lincoln Rhyme Rotten Tomatoes score: 28% I haven’t seen Bone Collector in a very long time and I don’t intend to as I’m sure it would plummet down this list. But this was a staple rental for my friends and I in our later high school years and I refuse to cheapen its memory by actually re-watching it and noticing its (many) flaws.

18. Antwone Fisher (2002) – Dr. Jerome Davenport Rotten Tomatoes score: 79% This is the sort of film that should only be viewed one time. It caught me completely off guard and I was both impressed and uplifted by the story and the quality acting. Once you watch it two or three times, however, it starts to lose its initial appeal.

17. Flight (2012) – Captain Whip Whitaker Rotten Tomatoes score: 76% Half of Flight is excellent and almost that entire half is due to Washington’s performance. But the movie as a whole left me wanting and a little underwhelmed.

16. Safe House (2012) – Tobin Frost Rotten Tomatoes score: 53% I’m sure most people think I’m crazy for listing Safe House ahead of Flight but that’s why they pay me to make the tough calls. No doubt that Flight has much greater ambition and tries hard to be a great film but while Safe House aimed much lower, I think it hit its mark on the nose whereas Flight missed wide. This movie is highly entertaining and I found Washington to be thoroughly enjoyable.

15. Déjà Vu (2006) – Doug Carlin Rotten Tomatoes score: 55% I just re-watched Déjà Vu recently and while the execution isn’t perfect, I’m still impressed by the attempt. A great idea and very close to one of those films I spoke of earlier that Washington takes to higher levels than it would have achieved without him. Almost.

14. Crimson Tide (1995) – Lt. Commander Ron Hunter Rotten Tomatoes score: 87% It has been ages since I’ve seen Crimson Tide and I don’t think I have the proper appreciation for it. At that time, there was only room for one submarine-related war movie in my heart and that space belonged to The Hunt for Red October. I intend to revisit this one soon.

13. Courage Under Fire (1996) – Lt. Col. Nathaniel Sterling Rotten Tomatoes score: 85% For some reason, I vividly remember being impacted by the trailers for this film and desperately seeking it out even though it was most assuredly not geared toward a 13 year old kid as I was at the time. This is a very strong film that features some excellent performances, including Washington’s.

12. The Book of Eli (2010) – Eli Rotten Tomatoes score: 48% There are a litany of issues at work within Eli and a number of miscalculations were made during its production. I could pick it to pieces if I chose to. However, there are many elements of Eli that I absolutely love and as such, I choose to overlook the many, many flaws. This film tends to grow on me the more I see of it.

11. He Got Game (1998) – Jake Shuttlesworth Rotten Tomatoes score: 80% Washington himself is incredibly good in this one. The movie as a whole doesn’t quite live up to his standard. Still, while He Got Game is a flawed sports film, it’s still very entertaining and earns points for rewatchability.

10. Fallen (1998) – John Hobbes Rotten Tomatoes score: 40% Much like The Bone Collector, this is a movie that I watched many times as a teenager and my fond memories have perhaps clouded my judgment. Still, I think the ideas at play in Fallen are awesome and I still love the conclusion.

9. Malcolm X (1992) – Malcolm X Rotten Tomatoes score: 91% This is where this list gets tough. From a performance standpoint, Malcolm X is one of Washington’s finest hours; perhaps even his absolute best. But the movie itself is extremely overdone and unnecessarily long. I wish Spike Lee had made this film 10 years later after he figured out how to make a movie instead of just a statement.

8. Man on Fire (2004) – John Creasy Rotten Tomatoes score: 38% I have trouble understanding why Man on Fire received such poor reviews. Is it great? No. But is it a quality action film? I say most certainly. It is also more intense than many of Washington’s action films and packs a serious punch.

7. Philadelphia (1993) – Joe Miller Rotten Tomatoes score: 77% The bulk of the attention paid to Philadelphia is given to Tom Hanks’ incredible performance and rightly so. That said, Washington’s is also a great portrayal and while the film itself doesn’t quite hold up twenty years later, it was incredibly impactful at the time of its release.

6. Inside Man (2006) – Detective Keith Frazier Rotten Tomatoes score: 86% Very few films from the last decade have caught me by surprise the way Inside Man did. I went in expecting a throw away heist film and came out having seen a supremely well-crafted and highly enjoyable cops and robbers flick. Despite all of the accolades his earlier work earned, I think Inside Man and 25^th Hour stand out as Spike Lee’s best work.

5. American Gangster (2007) – Frank Lucas Rotten Tomatoes score: 80% The only problem with American Gangster is that it’s not exactly exciting. It’s a gangster film that plays out like a biopic and as a result, you have to be in just the right mood to appreciate it. The battle of wits, as it were, between Washington and Russell Crowe is fantastic, however.

4. The Hurricane (1999) – Rubin Hurricane Carter Rotten Tomatoes score: 83% It pains me that so many people have forgotten The Hurricane and its many virtues. It is a difficult film to watch at times but if I’m being honest, I think it stands as the film that Malcolm X could have been. It also contains one of Washington’s very best performances.

3. Remember the Titans (2000) – Coach Herman Boone Rotten Tomatoes score: 73% I’ve probably seen Remember the Titans more times than any other film on this list and I’m still impressed by it. Sure, there’s a hokey element to it and in the interest of making Remember the Titans appealing to a wide audience, perhaps the events are a bit on the nose at times. But it’s still an inspiring film and it treats its medium, football, with great respect.

2. Glory (1989) – Trip Rotten Tomatoes score: 93% Like most members of my generation, Glory was a significant part of my education in history. It’s one of the few films that we were shown in school and no one ever complained because it took seven full days to watch. I haven’t seen this one in a while now but it still resonates and stands out as an incredible film. Glory contains a performance by Washington that won him a well-deserved Best Supporting Actor trophy.

1. Training Day (2001) – Alonzo Harris Rotten Tomatoes score: 72% I consider Training Day to be the greatest cop movie of its era. It is gritty, it is tough, it is realistic when it needs to be and gloriously over the top when the situation calls for it. The battle between good and evil, or perhaps naivety and streetwise experience, is fantastic and I’ve always loved how much the movie manages to cram into one day. It never lets up. The driving force behind Training Day, though, is Washington’s TREMENDOUS performance that goes against type. Harris is one of the best villains of the decade and Washington’s willingness to set aside his good guy act for the right role demonstrates just how talented and versatile he really is. His work here earned him the first Best Actor Academy Award ever won by an African American and it is still one of my favorite performances ever.

Well that’s how Denzel Washington’s career breaks down for me. Please feel free to share your own thoughts below!

Review: Flight

It’s been a while since Robert Zemeckis has been on the set of a life-action film. After 2000’s Cast Away, Zemeckis dedicated himself to the art of motion capture animation, a bumpy road that brought about three relatively unsuccessful films (The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol) and the shuttering of his studio. With that in mind, I think it’s only fair to give Zemeckis, the creator of such beloved films as Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, the benefit of the doubt if Flight, his first foray back into the realm of live-action cinema, shows a few signs of rust. When his commercial aircraft experiences a massive mechanical malfunction, Captain Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) goes above and beyond to save the lives of his crew and passengers, taking evasive maneuvers that perhaps no other pilot could have managed. He awakens in a hospital room as a hero, having lost only six of 102 souls on board in spite of tremendously long odds and a harrowing crash landing. His story takes a turn, however, when it becomes known that Whitaker has a serious issue with alcohol and drug addiction and was in fact drunk at the time of the crash. As investigators close in on his condition and the heaping pile of lies he’s told to cover it up, Whitaker’s drinking problems reach a whole new level, alienating his only allies, heroin addict Nicole (Kelly Reilly) and company lawyer Hugh (Don Cheadle), and bringing himself closer and closer to a breaking point.

There are moments of sheer brilliance in Flight that reminded me of just how good Zemeckis can be when he’s on his game, especially in the early going. The man is a special effects whiz and whereas someone like Michael Bay uses effects in a, “Look how shiny!” sort of way, Zemeckis has always used his visuals to add drama, tension, and/or intensity to his films. (Example: the plane crash and subsequent struggle for shore in Cast Away.) The sequence of events that take place on the plane in Flight, which takes up about the first 20 minutes of the film, are extremely tense and very well put together. It’s both exciting and terrifying and in these moments you get to see Captain Whitaker at his very best, perhaps a look at what the man would have been without the backbreaking influence of chemical dependency. Following this opening sequence, however, the brilliant moments come along less frequently and before long I found myself getting bogged down in the narrative, lost somewhere between apathy and outright disdain for the protagonist.

Addiction is not an easy thing to portray in a film. If you go too soft, you end up with an unrealistic story that doesn’t resonate. Go too far in the other direction, however, and you’re likely to end up with a character that begins to grate on the nerves of the audience. Christian Bale’s performance in The Fighter I think stands out as the prime example of how to bridge the gap between the two. That character is completely realistic down to the very last detail and yet he plays it in such a way that you truly do feel sorry for the character even when he is doing horrible things. Whip Whitaker doesn’t quite fit that bill for me. Zemeckis takes the narrative of Flight so far and does so much to show him to be a miserable human being that Whitaker becomes a wholly unsympathetic character. I guess the object of all of this would be to drag Whitaker down to his lowest point so that his redemption will seem all the more fulfilling but instead, I reached a point nearing the film’s climatic conclusion in which I said to myself, “This guy sucks and I hope he either dies or goes to jail.” At that point, there’s really no coming back; Whitaker could have gone on to find a cure for cancer in the film’s final scene and I still would have harbored some dislike for him.

As part of this process of breaking down the lead, Flight asks much of Washington while simultaneously putting him in a hole that he has a tough time digging out of. Like everyone else with a pulse, I love Denzel Washington and consider him to be one of the very best Hollywood has to offer. But whereas Flight requires a great performance in order to make the movie work, Washington’s is only a good one that holds some real strength but doesn’t measure up against the man’s better works. It is unfair to demand an Oscar-caliber performance out of anyone, even someone as accomplished as Washington is, but I think that’s the sort of portrayal Flight requires in order to hit its mark and as a result, both parts of that equation come up short. The supporting cast, including Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood, and American Treasure John Goodman, also struggle to excel and at times come off a bit uneven. I found only Reilly and James Badge Dale, in a short but excellent appearance, to be particularly strong performers. This is disappointing as, given the names attached to this film, Zemeckis could have done considerably more with his cast than he did.

Flight represents a good effort from all parties, though perhaps a little too far-reaching for its own good. Its better moments shine quite bright but they are too often blotted out by a hard-driving narrative and an uneven tone that struggles to strike the right chord at the right time. And in the end, I was left with the feeling that Flight could have been much better than it ended up being.

Flight Director: Robert Zemeckis Cast: Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Kelly Reilly, John Goodman Rated: R (language, nudity, and “here’s how to do cocaine, kids!” extensive drug use) Recommended For: Adults with patience who get to see more than one movie a month. In other words, don’t spend your one night away from the kids on this one.

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

NOTE: Make sure you see this one in the theater. The animated short, Paperman, that plays before the film is MAGNIFICENT and may not be included on the initial DVD/Blu-Ray release. Totally worth the price of admission by itself. In 2006, when Disney bought Pixar and put John Lasseter in charge of its entire animation division, most of us expected great things. After 60-odd years of complete domination in the animated movie world, Disney had lost the magic, if you will, of Sleeping Beauty and The Lion King in the midst of a heap of mediocre features that just didn’t measure up to the legacy the studio had created for itself. With Lasseter on board, though, multiple generations of Disney fans who had grown up on the virtues of Robin Hood and the like hoped that the man who had redefined the genre with Pixar would return the studio to its previous glory. In essence, we were hoping for Wreck-It Ralph.

All Ralph (John C. Reilly) wants in life is to be appreciated. As the villain in an 80s arcade game known as “Fix it Felix Jr.”, Ralph’s job (which he does quite well) is to inflict damage upon the Niceland apartment building so that Felix (Jack McBrayer) can fix the damage. For thirty years, the end of each night, when the arcade the game resides in closes up shop, sees Felix returning to the thankful residents of Niceland while Ralph is relegated to the dump. Eager for a change, Ralph sets off into the various realms of the other games in the arcade in search of a Hero’s Medal which would, he believes, change his lot back home. But when he stumbled into the racing game “Sugar Rush”, he is waylaid by an obnoxious misfit known as The Glitch (Sarah Silverman), and when their paths become tied through a series of wild events, Ralph begrudgingly agrees to assist The Glitch, though he has no idea what he’s getting himself into.

I have seen Wreck-It Ralph described as, “Toy Story for video games” and I believe that statement rings absolutely true. In a year in which Pixar’s own feature (Brave) felt much more like a Disney movie than one that fit the standard Pixar model, it is fitting that the Disney film should have a decisive Pixarian feel to it. From the early moments, which include a gloriously scripted voiceover that would make Morgan Freeman jealous, Wreck-It Ralph establishes a link to the best of the Pixar universe and it never looks back. The concept itself is ingenious and deliciously outside the box, a truly original idea that opens up a thousand doorways through which to take the film. I imagine that, when advance notice of Wreck-It Ralph began circulating in Hollywood, many studio executives spent some time banging their respective heads against a wall or two, wondering why they didn’t think of this. And yet the core value at the film’s heart, the universal desire for acceptance, is incredibly simple and stands out as one of the reasons why the film excels. One of the keys to success in the Pixar universe is emotional relevance; they take common themes, struggles, and desires and illustrate them through lavish and meticulously crafted mediums, be they talking toys or a lonely robot. That quality courses through the veins of Wreck-It Ralph, creating a bond between the audience and a giant, buffoonish video game character, and making his journey seem all the more real in spite of the fact that it takes place within the code of an arcade game. 

The quality of Wreck-It Ralph, however, goes far beyond the original concept, something I was concerned about going in. It would have been easy for director Rich Moore and his creative team to focus too much on the overlying idea and forget to build the rest of the film up to the appropriate standard. Instead, it is clear that every detail of Wreck-It Ralph was given the proper attention. For one thing, it is a very intelligent film. Sure, you have the requisite “duty” jokes that will keep the kids (and possibly the adults sitting next to me who shall remain nameless) laughing but overall, many of the bits are geared toward an adult audience (though none of it crossed the line to become inappropriate for younger viewers, a quality I appreciated). There are also a ton of little details (you might even consider them Easter Eggs of a sort) that are geared specifically to the gaming population, all of which brought great approval from the audience. The voice work, too, is spectacular. Reilly is the perfect actor to bring Ralph to life and he brings a real sharpness to his role. In addition, Silverman, McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Alan Tudyk do an excellent job in their respective roles and all of them blend together with their characters. This is a quality I greatly appreciate as I feel that too many animated films utilize their voice actors only to create familiarity with the audience instead of having them actually act. As in, “Hey! That’s Adam Sandler talking! Now I like this movie!” I find this very distracting and annoying. Here, though, the actors lend both their voices and their talents to the cast and I think Wreck-It Ralph is much the better for this. I was especially impressed by Tudyk, whose voice was completely unrecognizable to me until the final credits rolled.

Perhaps the most impressive feat Wreck-It Ralph pulls off comes in the form of keeping its narrative integrity and momentum together despite undergoing a fairly significant scene shift. Ralph’s stay in “Sugar Rush” takes up a solid half (or more) of the film and that world is dramatically different from the film’s initial setup. I was a bit concerned that this would result in a drop-off in interest/quality but instead the film just keeps on rolling. Wreck-It Ralph is a wonderfully fun, smart film that should keep a wide-ranging audience happy and instantly takes up residence amongst my favorite Disney films of all-time. 

Wreck-It Ralph Director: Rich Moore Cast: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Alan Tudyk Rated: PG (some mildly crude humor) Recommended For: All people who have souls

Star Wars, Disney, and Where We Go From Here

By now you have of course heard the news: George Lucas has sold his company, Lucasfilm, and virtually all of its subsidiaries to Disney for the handsome sum of $4.5 billion dollars. From a pop culture standpoint, this is one of the biggest bombshells of the last decade, perhaps longer. The acquisition of Lucasfilm and all of the moving parts that come with it represent a tremendous power grab from one of biggest film studios in the industry, if not the biggest. Even more importantly, though, this transaction comes with an added piece of fascinating news: Disney immediately announced that a seventh Star Wars movie, the first of a new trilogy, will reach theaters in 2015.

To be honest with you, dear reader(s), I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. I am known, both in real life and in this space, for always having an opinion and being open about that opinion. This caught me off guard, however, and I see a tremendous number of pros and cons. Columns, news pieces, and articles related to this topic have been abundant over the last 72 hours and I’ve pored through every one I could come across in an effort to wrap my head around this. Since The Soap Box Office has always been dedicated to the average moviegoer who perhaps does not have the time to dig into a dozen articles on one subject, I decided the best use of my time would be to compile a concise guide to what all of this means and where the series goes from here as wells as where we the fans go. Please enjoy and be sure to click the links if something catches your eye.

INITIAL REACTION

I was heading into a grocery store when this piece of news came across the airwaves and within minutes my phone absolutely blew up. Like almost every member of my generation (and the generations before and after), I grew up on the virtues of Star Wars. It is, to this day, my favorite film series of all time and that will probably never change at this point. All of my friends know this, of course, and so I spent a solid 45 minutes standing in the candy aisle the day before Halloween answering texts and refreshing Twitter, desperately trying to get all the news I could. (Quick plug for Twitter: if you’re not on Twitter, you are missing out on the greatest source of instant information the world has ever seen. Just FYI.)

I met each text and each piece of information with a feeling that is akin to riding a new, dangerous looking roller coaster for the first time, only this roller coaster has a 30% chance of crashing and killing everyone aboard. It’s a mix of genuine, childlike excitement and abject, “oh the humanity!” horror. The battle inside my body was the battle of Heart versus Brain. My heart, the part of me that loves the Star Wars universe in a way that should probably be reserved for only the closest family members, believed this was the greatest piece of news ever in the history of the world. Meanwhile, my Brain patiently and continually reminded me of all the past transgressions the Star Wars universe has afflicted upon me. The conversation went something like this:

Heart: “New Star Wars films!!!” Brain: “Yeah but do you remember the last set of new Star Wars films?” Heart: “Yeah but…New Star Wars films!” Brain: “Seriously, man, Hayden Christensen. Jake Lloyd. An entire trilogy based on trade regulations.” Heart: “Chewbacca, dude! New stuff with Chewbacca!” Brain: “Jar Jar Binks.” Heart: “…Crap.” (Brain is a real Debbie Downer.)

In truth, none of us know what to expect from this new merger. There’s some sentiment, which I am inclined to agree with in principal, that it can’t get any worse. The ways in which Lucas ruined both his original trilogy and the second series (my own personal views on this matter can be found here) are unlikely to be reproduced. At the same time, however, any further Star Wars films that don’t at least come close to holding up to the standard set by those first three films only serve to further cheapen their legacy, even if they are tremendously better than the prequels. I thought John Carter was a decent movie, a solid “B” sort of film that was better than any of the Star Wars prequels. But in no way does it stand up against the original trilogy and if we get three more films that fall into the same camp as John Carter then all we’ve done is make some rich people richer and taken a little more of the sheen off of the luster of those first three films. Consider that Disney’s last ten big budget, epic, live action films (John Carter, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia, Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Tron Legacy, National Treasure 2, Chronicles of Narnia, and three Pirates of the Caribbean films) have all been less than stellar from a critical standpoint. It’s a risky proposition and one that makes me incredibly nervous.

This is the best way I can sum up my initial reaction. My wife and I are expecting our first child next spring and as such, just about everything that goes through my head right now comes around to how it will impact this kiddo. As I told my friend, “On the one hand, MY KID WILL GET TO SEE NEW STAR WARS MOVIES IN THE THEATER!!! But on the other hand, my kid will get to see new Star Wars movies in the theater.” It’s a coin flip at this point.

THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, and WHERE OF THE NEW FILMS

The short answer to, “What will the focus of the new films be?” is we don’t know. There is a TON of material out there from which the new films could draw from. Full length novels, video games, and comic books focusing on the Star Wars universe exist in troves and some of them provide some excellent content. I think it’s safe to assume that the new films will take place after the events of Return of the Jedi (though there’s certainly room to speculate that they could focus on the events prior to Episode I) as George Lucas himself has always insisted that his Star Wars vision included nine films broken into three trilogies. We’ve seen parts one and two, obviously, now it’s on to part three.

If Disney decided to adapt some previously made content, there are two likely sources from which they would draw. One is the “Heir to the Empire” trilogy of books written by Timothy Zahn which take place directly after the destruction of the second Death Star. They are well-written books that many Star Wars nerds consider to be the official-unofficial story of what became of Luke, Han, Leia, and the rest of our the Rebel Alliance as they attempted to restore order to the galaxy. The problem with this series is that they take place within a few months of the conclusion to Return of the Jedi, meaning Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and the rest would be far too old to reassume their famed roles. The second source that would likely be considered would be the various tales of Jacen Solo, the son of Han and Leia. Jacen has been a staple in the post-Return books and comics and has become an established member of the Star Wars universe, though the events of his life tend to change from book to book/series to series. Using this story would allow our old favorites to play minor roles that are now age appropriate but it also means jumping far into the future, which may be tough for fans of the movies who haven’t read any of the books to get on board.

It is far more likely, however, that the new Star Wars films will feature all-new, original content. Lucas made it clear that he had “detailed” story treatments for new films which he essentially handed over to Disney and knowing Lucas, it’s unlikely that he based any of his story off of something someone else had written. Lucas has also hinted over the years that the third trilogy would center on Luke Skywalker and would be based 20 to 30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi. From a narrative standpoint, I think that timeframe makes sense as it allows the story to move forward past the rebuilding of the New Republic but doesn’t jump so far forward as to bring the audience into a completely new world. From an acting standpoint, though, I think it could be challenging to accept new actors in the roles established by Hamill, Ford, etc. Going only 20 years forward would likely ensure that the original cast would not be a part of the trilogy and I’m not entirely sure how to feel about that.

Of even more interest to me is the suggestion that the new Star Wars films might not (read: “will not”) stop at just one more trilogy. Lucas said he had ideas for “hundreds” of Star Wars movies and while that’s not realistic, it’s a good bet that when Disney wraps up their new trilogy in roughly 2021, they could then begin inserting new stories with new character and/or new actors into the canon. Star Wars could become a James Bond-like entity. We could see a Boba Fett movie, an origin story on the founding of the Jedi Order or, of most interest to me, a movie about the beginning of the partnership between Han Solo and Chewbacca. Personally, I love this idea and I think it could breathe continual new life into the series…if it’s done right.

WHO WILL DIRECT THE NEW FILM?

Boy, now this is a big one. As we all know, the problem with the prequels isn’t that they exist. Everyone who had ever seen and loved one of the original Star Wars films just about died when the prequels were announced. I personally walked around brimming with anticipation for about three years leading up to the biggest let down of my entire life. No, the problem wasn’t their existence but that George Lucas wrote and directed them himself. Lucas has long been an opponent of the Hollywood system and has been very open about the fact that he never wanted anyone to have enough power to tell him no. That’s a noble thought when it comes to perseverance and stick-to-itiveness but having no one around whose opinion you respect and who has the stones to tell you, “Jar Jar Binks is the devil, George” then you’ve done a great disservice to your film/films. Who Disney will choose to helm this thing, therefore, is a really big deal.

Any Star Wars fanboy worth his/her salt has already given thought to the obvious choices for this position: Christopher Nolan, Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, and Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately, we can probably rule all of them out. Coming off of his Batman trilogy, I think it’s likely that Nolan will take a short break (he has no directorial projects in the work) and then resume doing his original work. Whedon has a hardened contract with Marvel and will be working on the second Avengers movie during the would-be production of Episode VII. Abrams is out based solely on his continued involvement with the Star Trek franchise. You just don’t cross the streams. And Spielberg… Spielberg would be my number one choice and of these four, he’s the only one I’ll hold out any hope for. But given their longtime friendship and Spielberg’s own loyalty, I think he would view making a Star Wars movie as a betrayal of Lucas. And, to my knowledge, Spielberg has a longstanding relationship with Disney competitor Sony/DreamWorks.

What we’re likely looking for in a director is an established filmmaker but who also doesn’t have a name that everybody  knows. This is a massive undertaking that would crush a newbie but would also likely prove too risky for a big name director to take hold of. No one wants to be the guy who further damaged the Star Wars name. We’re also looking for someone who has an eye for the nerdy and a healthy respect for the original material. The Hollywood Reporter and /Film both published a wish list of would-be Star Wars directors and both lists make good arguments. Very briefly, these are the five names that realistically might be called upon whom I’d be most interested in (beyond those top four).

David Fincher – The director of The Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would bring a little bit of edge to the Star Wars universe that would suit it well. He also has a history with the Lucasfilm system and seems to be looking to do something a little less serious than his recent films have been (his pet project, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been delayed again).

Jon Favreau – He’s a nerd, he’s great with effects, and he understands how to make a Blockbuster (Iron Man). He does put an emphasis on humor, however, and that skill will not translate to Star Wars.

Alfonso Cuaron – This would be a bold choice for Disney but it might be the best fit of the bunch. Cuaron put together a near sci-fi masterpiece in 2006’s Children of Men and also helmed the third Harry Potter film which marks the transition of that series from the kiddie fare of the first two films to the darker, serious narrative of the last five.

Duncan Jones – My favorite name on this list. Jones has never handled a budget anywhere close to what Star Wars would bring with it but he has a tremendous understanding of the sci-fi genre that few big-time filmmakers have. Moon is a modern sci-fi classic and he transitioned quite nicely to bigger things with 2011’s Source Code.

Brad Bird – This is the one that seems most likely to me. Bird has worked within the Disney system before, having done The Incredibles for Pixar and showed tremendous skill in moving over to live-action with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. If Vegas laid odds on this sort of thing, Bird would be the favorite.

THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY

After processing the sale of Lucasfilm and the news of the new series of films, my next thought was what implications this would have on the original trilogy. It is no secret that of all Lucas’ many sins, the one true fans have the most trouble forgiving him for is his insistence on tweaking the first three films and refusing to even acknowledge the films as they were when they debuted. This came to a head yet again last year when all six films were released on Blu-Ray for the first time but came with a whole host of new, stupid changes and additions instead of an option to see the unedited version we’ve all come to know and love. (All of this could have been avoided, mind you, by simply including both the original and the extended versions in the pack. That’s all it would have taken.)

But with Lucas now out of the way, many fanboys like myself see a light at the end of the tunnel that will eventually lead to a Blu-Ray release of the films as they should be. Right? Well…

The problem is this: Fox still holds the distribution rights to all of the previous Star Wars films. Episodes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 will eventually turn over to Disney as part of this deal (this will happen in 2020). However, the rights to Episode IV: A New Hope remains with Fox into perpetuity. As such, it would be impossible for Disney to turn right around today and release the original trilogy tomorrow.

With that said, it is not uncommon for two studios/production companies to work together on a deal that is mutually beneficial which this would clearly be. For Fox, cutting a deal with Disney to have the original trilogy released would be a win-win. They would get paid to allow someone else to pay to release a film series that is going to sell tremendously well. For Disney, releasing the trilogy as it should be would endear the company to the fans, many of whom are skeptical of Disney’s involvement. Basically, it’s a matter of how much money will have to change hands to make this happen. It’s likely to be a lot of money but given that Disney just spent $4.5 billion to acquire this franchise and that the release of the real films on Blu-Ray would be a landmark event, you can bet Disney will pony up the cash. But it may take a while to both figure out an acceptable deal and then the chances are Disney will hold the set until the release of the new film gets closer. So continue to bide your time, nerd of the world, and you will be rewarded!

Thanks for taking the time to read this nonsense. Or to not read it. Whichever. The news on this story is going to be flying over the next few months and The Soap Box Office will do its best to stay on top of it all!

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.

Review: Seven Psychopaths

Anticipation can be a seriously fickle mistress. Nowhere is this principle more apparentthan when it comes to the follow up to a successful creative venture, whether it be a film, an album, or anything else. If you see and come to love a movie made by a previously unknown director, you almost immediately start looking forward to his/her next project. You build up a level of anticipation for said upcoming project and as such, it becomes tougher and tougher for the follow-up film (or album or what have you) to measure up to the first one. It’s quite unfair, really. Such is the case with Seven Psychopaths, a perfectly decent dark comedy that disappoints based less on its own merits (or lack thereof) and more on the merits of its predecessor, In Bruges.

Marty (Colin Farrell) has been having trouble focusing. A struggling writer with a substantial alcohol problem, Marty is trying to come up with the characters and plot for his aptly titled screenplay, Seven Psychopaths, but failing to find the right inspiration. Sensing his friend’s troubles, Billy (Sam Rockwell) attempts to help Marty by providing some curiously detailed, psychotic stories and introducing him to his dog kidnapping partner, Hans (Christopher Walken). But when Billy snatches the wrong dog, one belonging to an emotionally disturbed crime lord named Charlie (Woody Harrelson), the trio has to evade a group of gangsters, culminating in a final showdown right out of the movies…or so Billy would have it.

The words one would use to describe Seven Psychopaths would be these: “Solid”, “Decent enough”, “Mildly satisfactory”, “Not bad”, or maybe even, “Pretty good.” And there’s nothing wrong with that. The concept is fun and entertaining. There’s a distinct Woody Allen feeling about this film mixed with Get Shorty sensibilities and that suits the self-aware undertones well. In this analogy, Farrell plays the role of Woody Allen in the form of writer/director Martin McDonagh and he does so well. I’ve always liked Farrell even when his movies were painful and I’ve enjoyed his recent resurgence. He’s a talented guy who, I think, just needs to have talent around him (on screen and off) in order to be great. Rockwell also has some very strong moments, though they are at times tempered by the feeling that he’s not doing anything new (though perhaps that’s an unfair criticism). Both of them are outshined, though, by Harrelson who brings hilarity to a role that badly needs it and Walken who, I think we can all agree, is always a genuine treat to watch in action. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Walken in a new movie and as such, Seven Psychopaths reminded me of what great presence the man has. The seriously dark nature of the film, too, suits the cast and allows them all to show off their skills.

The problem with Seven Psychopaths is two-fold. One, the narrative struggles to stay on target and build momentum. The first 20 minutes move along fast and the pace, combined with the introduction of some hilarious characters, makes it a thoroughly enjoyable beginning and the final 20 minutes wrap things up nicely. But in the middle portion, Seven Psychopathstakes some strange turns and slows to the point of bogging down at times. It’s a stop-and-go approach that left me somewhat frustrated. Two, Seven Psychopaths just isn’t up to par with In Bruges. I readily admit that this is an unfair criticism but I think it’s one that a large number of viewers will have in mind. In Bruges is a triumph, a modern classic in the dark comedy universe, and seeing as how it is the only other McDonagh film I have to go off of and the similarities in tone between it and Seven Psychopaths, it is difficult to refrain from comparing them. I anticipated something great and while the concept is great and at least one scene is magnificent, the end product is only alright.

Review: Looper

We’re entering a golden age, my friends. For sci-fi nerds like myself, the last 15 years or so have been a harsh climate; perhaps not a desolate wasteland but certainly a less-than-hospitable, arid landscape. The 90s were fairly painful for the genre and while the early-to-mid-2000s weren’t awful, the number of good sci-fi films was far exceeded by the number of bad ones. For every Memento there was a 6^th Day, for every Matrix there were two Matrix sequels, and so on and so forth. But over the past few years, we’ve seen the resurgence of smartly written, ingenious science fiction films, from low budget surprises like Moon to the biggest film of 2010, Inception. Looper, then, only serves to further my belief that the sci-fi genre is coming back in a big, big way.

In the future, time travel has been invented and subsequently prohibited to the point that only the mob has the means to use it. When they want to eliminate someone, they send the person back in time 30 years to 2044, where an assassin, known as a Looper, kills the target and disposes of the body. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a prominent member of the Looper society and he enjoys the life he’s carved out for himself in the midst of a bleak society. But when Joe’s future self (Bruce Willis) shows up as his target, he fails to complete his kill, forcing him to go on the run to avoid the wrath of his boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels), as his future self sets out to complete a gruesome task.

There is so much more to Looper than what I just set forth but this is one of those times where I believe the less you know going in, the better. To this end, writer/director Rian Johnson and the studio behind him did a remarkable job of preventing the trailers and advance buzz from letting too much out of the bag, to the point that a significant member of the cast is nowhere to be found in any of the previews. That’s quite rare and the studio deserves some real credit for heeding Johnson’s pleas and playing it close to the vest. Looper unfolds brilliantly and quite unexpectedly, bringing a number of surprises to the table even when you think you have the whole thing pegged. None of this is done in a, “HAHA! GOTCHA!” sort of way (see: every M. Night Shyamalan movie since The Sixth Sense) but rather as a natural part of the film’s progression.

This is an extremely well-written film from both a conceptual and a narrative standpoint. Far too many sci-fi films die almost at conception because the writer had a great idea and no understanding of how to develop it. There are a dozen places where Looper could have fallen apart but in these moments you can see the painstaking steps Johnson took to pave over the pot holes that tend to pop up on the time travel highway. This begins with limiting the scope of what can and cannot be done with time travel and who has access to it, a stroke of brilliance that keeps Looper on track at all times. It is a very focused film and one that doesn’t waste time on lesser sub-plots or the pointless display of cool new technology that you usually see in futuristic films. Everything is handled with an almost earnest sense of purpose and Johnson weaves every character and every aspect of his film together so that everything matters. Johnson also displays an exquisite understanding of time management. Looper runs just under two hours and yet, as a result of its unerring focus, it is able to accomplish far more in that time than I would have expected. The film feels much longer and much more immense than it really is and I mean that in the best way possible. You feel like you know the characters, know the concept, and know the stakes better than you really should in a movie of this length.

Johnson’s incredible work behind the camera is equaled only by the rich performances in front of it. To be sure, Looper is filled with great supporting work from Emily Blunt, Garrett Dillahunt, and especially Jeff Daniels among others. But the bulk of the load is handled by Gordon-Levitt, Willis, and Pierce Gagnon (whose name I would implore you not to look up if you haven’t see the film as it could ruin a significant plot point), all of whom come through magnificently. What Willis does here isn’t much different than what we’ve all come to expect from him over the last decade but this is a weightiest role he’s had in quite some time and I felt like he treats the material with a seriousness you don’t always see from him. Old Joe is a haunted, determined man and Willis exemplifies that quite well. Gagnon is simply a scene stealer of the highest order and I will say no more about him so as to avoid a spoiler. And Gordon-Levitt brings a boat load of nuance and subtlety to his role, making it clear why he was the perfect choice for this role. Joe is hard and dangerous but also insecure about his place in the world and Gordon-Levitt hits that mark over and over. In addition, he does a remarkable job of looking like Bruce Willis. Yes, there are prosthetics, makeup, and special effects in play here but his striking resemblance to Willis has far more to do with Gordon-Levitt’s mastery of Willis’ facial expressions, mannerisms, and behaviors. If you knew nothing about Willis’ presence in this cast and sat down to watch the movie, you would almost immediately note the Willis-isms that Gordon-Levitt slyly displays. It’s uncanny, really, and it makes Looper all the more enjoyable.

In the end, Looper is a tremendous achievement, a sci-fi film that hits the mark on virtually every level. The concept and plot execution is fantastic, the visuals are gorgeous, and the action is well-paced and efficient. Moreover, Looper rewrites the time travel handbook and sets the stage for Hollywood to officially enter a new golden age of sci-fi. 

In Home Viewings: "Safe"

By winning an MMA cage fight in which he was supposed to take a fall, Luke Wright (Jason Statham) runs afoul of the Russian mob. Instead of just killing him outright, the mob runners kill his wife and tell him that if he ever gets close to anyone again, they’ll murder that person, too, leaving Wright in a perpetual state of guilt and loneliness. He drifts from place to place, longing for death but too prideful to end his own life. Things change for Wright, however, when he stumbles across Mei (Catherine Chan), a young girl with a gift for numbers who is at the heart of a bloody battle between the Chinese, the Russians, and the dirty NYPD officers Wright used to work with. Having put himself in the line of fire for all three groups, as well as Mayor Tremello (Chris Sarandon), Wright hatches a dangerous plan to keep Mei safe and settle some old debts in the process.

Whether or not you’re a Statham, you have to give the guy some credit for milking his moment in the sun for all its worth. He is, shall we say, limited as an actor and his work is far from varied. He is, however, very, very good at what he does and he has now put together a decade of titles in which he has cracked skulls with the best of them. Statham has experienced a longevity that I never would have imagined and he shows no signs of being slowed down by stinkers like Killer Elite or In the Name of the King (*shudder*). More than anything else, the man is likeable and as such, we (read: “I”) keep coming back to his films unquestioningly, almost absentmindedly. “Statham has a new movie? Welp, I guess I’ll be seeing that at some point” is a sentence I’ve said to myself a dozen times over the last few years. I never expect much, and many times I come away unimpressed, but I always come back for more.

Safe might just be the best movie Statham has headlined to date. It has a slightly different tone to it than, say, The Transporter in that it is far less concerned with style and one-liners. Instead, Safe has a surprisingly good plot with which to work and takes a few twists that I did not see coming. It doesn’t take itself too seriously (thankfully) and it isn’t what you would call “sophisticated” but there’s a well-rounded script at play here that continually puts Wright and Mei in better-than-average situations. Wright is a strong character and he displays a depth that you don’t usually get with Statham. Mei is a quality compliment to Wright and she is a fitting spark for his rejuvenation.

Safe delivers some excellent action sequences (duh) that allow Statham to show off his most marketable skills but it also has an energy about it that I felt was missing from other Statham films of late. It moves at a brisk pace without cutting corners and continually pumps in more adrenaline in relatively smart ways. There’s one twist toward the end that could have used a little more elaboration and I wish director Boaz Yakin (of Remember the Titans fame) would have upped Sarandon’s screentime a bit as I felt that character could have been a bigger player. But all in all, Safe hits the mark on everything you want from a small-scale action flick and reminded me once again of why Statham continues to draw me in.

Review: "The Master"

There are certain films, outstanding, quality, great, amazing, incredible films, that do not play well with the masses. Critics, filmmakers and other members of the industry love them but the average moviegoer does not. If you only have the opportunity to spend your hard earned money at the theater once a week (or a month, or a year…), more often than not you want to see the big hit, the blockbuster, or the date-y movie that you can talk about with your friends. And that’s fine. No, that’s more than fine; that’s as it should be. As a huge fan of popcorn/blockbuster films, I greatly appreciate the near-universal appeal of the movies that value entertainment above all else. That said, I also have a deep seeded love for independent cinema and the small-scale pictures that are likely to dominate award season. As such, I have to walk a line here when it comes to recommending a given movie to the average moviegoer, to which this space is dedicated to. With that in mind, let me say this up front: you’re not going to like The Master. 

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) spends the years following World War II moving from job to job, always unhappy and always running into trouble wherever he goes. A veteran with some serious mental problems and a righteous alcohol addiction, the only thing Freddie really seems good at is making hooch, hideously strong, borderline toxic hooch. Freddie’s life changes, however, when he stows away aboard a boat bearing Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his family up the Eastern Seaboard. Dodd is a doctor, a philosopher, and a writer, among other things, who has created an appealing and controversial set of beliefs for himself and his growing base of followers. Dodd takes his religion (though it is never referred to as such) and embarks on a grass roots campaign of sorts to spread his good word and accumulate the power that comes along with it. For some reason, Dodd takes a liking to Freddie and sets him up as a kind of lackey, a position that perturbs the rest of Dodd’s followers, including his wife, Peggy (Amy Adams). But as Dodd and the group struggle to attain worldwide relevance, Freddie’s individual challenges prove to be too difficult to manage.

On the surface, I think that paragraph properly encapsulates the plot of The Master. It goes much deeper than that, though. This is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson’s (not to be confused with the hack, Wes Paul Anderson of Resident Evil fame) fictionalized version of the rise of L. Ron Hubbard and his cult-like religion, Scientology. It is both an account of how the words and ideas of great men can be used for evil and an indictment of this particular religion itself as well as (perhaps?) belief systems altogether. That’s my analysis, anyway, though I am completely certain that there are levels to this film that I missed entirely; maybe lots of levels. I have a feeling that if you read a dozen reviews for this film, you’d find a dozen different ideas about what The Master really is about. In layman’s terms, this is “a real thinker” and it is as incredibly smart as it is maddeningly complex.

What is not complex, however, is the quality of the acting contained within The Master. Every once in a while I see a movie and come away fully believing that I have just seen the performance that would eventually win Best Actor/Actress. It happened last year with George Clooney in The Descendants and while Clooney ended up losing out to the buzz saw that was The Artist and Jean Dujardin, I stand by my assertion: Clooney was magnificent in that film. Given my track record, this will probably be the equivalent of putting a curse on these fine actors but I’ll go ahead and say it: I would be very surprised if anyone tops what Phoenix and Hoffman have done here. Hoffman’s performance is what I would consider to be his most charismatic and magnetic one to date and those qualities come incredibly naturally to an actor who I’ve never really considered to be either. Dodd is powerful and charming but it is his barely-contained rage and an edge of desperation that makes the character stand out. If you will pardon the pun, it is a masterful performance. Adams, too, hits her mark with extreme precision, embodying the old saying, “Behind every great man there stands a great woman.” Her character never receives the attention given to Freddie or Dodd but it is no less important and should garner Adams a load of award attention.

But it is no slight to Hoffman or Adams when I say that their performances pale in comparison to that of Phoenix who WILL be the Best Actor winner when the Oscars roll around (sorry for jinxing you, Joaquin). I have no idea what Phoenix’s real mindset is at this point; I’m not sure if anyone does, including Phoenix himself. His off-the-wall retirement, subsequent foray into hardcore rap, and years-later confession that the entire thing was a bit is one of the weirder Hollywood stories of the last decade and has left me with a great deal of confusion as to what to actually expect from the man. But the fact of the matter is he is a supremely talented actor who is capable of a historically great performance. This is that performance. One scene in particular, a long shot in which Dodd questions Freddie for a full three minutes while the latter refuses to allow himself to blink, should be enough to get Phoenix’s name on the nominee list.

Freddie has so many issues at work within his body and mind and Phoenix is able to display each of them in exquisite detail. His brutal alcohol dependency, his low IQ and lower self-esteem, his sexual deviance, his war-ravaged body and even further damaged mind, his hatred of authority and his secret craving of that which he hates, all are brought forth with a perfect blend of force and subtlety. Freddie is an incredibly rich character with which to work to be sure but I’m not sure there’s a singly actor in Hollywood who could better embody him than Phoenix, save for perhaps Daniel Day Lewis. Phoenix even transformed his body into a gaunt, hauntingly sickly appearance that reminded me of Christian Bale’s transformation in The Machinist. This is truly a powerhouse performance that will stick with you long after you exit the theater.

My one complaint about The Master, and ultimately the issue that will prevent it from being an audience-friendly film, is that I felt it lacked a purpose. Or maybe it’s that I simply can’t grasp the purpose. There is no questioning its pedigree; I honestly can’t imagine that I will see another film this year that is as well-made as The Master is. The camera work is magnificent, the shot selection is unbelievably good, and the score (by Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood) drives the film flawlessly. But from a purely storytelling perspective, I’m not sure what the goal is. In this way, The Master is very similar to last year’s Tree of Life but whereas this film works much better as a character study and a platform for exquisite acting, Tree of Life reached me personally on a near-spiritual level that The Master lacks. That doesn’t keep it from being a tremendous film, however, and one that will certainly find a spot among the year’s best with critics, filmmakers, and cinema junkies alike. But if you’re looking for a good date movie, a fun night out with the guys, or a nice family outing, I would suggest literally any other movie that is currently available to you. This is not the droid you’re looking for.

Review: "Trouble with the Curve"

Recently a friend of mine read one of my reviews and remarked that I spent the majority of the review ripping the film apart and then gave it a decent grade. My responses was that I feel like I need to justify and illustrate my reasons for docking a grade even if it’s not a bad film and told him he needed to come around when I really dislike a given movie. I hope that friend is paying attention today because I’m about to unload both barrels on Trouble with the Curve, a film that will undoubtedly wind up at the top of my worst of the year list. Things have been better for old Gus Lobel (Clint Eastwood). At one time a prominent scout for the Atlanta Braves, Gus has fallen behind the times and hasn’t had a “hit” in a while. What’s more, his vision is beginning to go and his contract is up at the end of the year. Gus is looking at a retirement he wants no part of. With the Braves holding the second pick in the upcoming draft, Gus is sent to scout Bo Gentry (Joe Massingill), a power hitting phenom that every team in the league covets. Sensing that Gus is struggling, his daughter, Mickey (Amy Adams), tags along for the trip, putting their already contentious relationship to a test it almost cannot handle. When they come in contact with Johnny Flanagan (Justin Timberlake), a former player whom Gus scouted who is now, in turn, scouting for the Red Sox, he sparks a few well-needed conversations that put father and daughter on a path toward self-discovery and forgiveness.

I thought long and hard about Trouble and did my best to come up with some positives. Here’s what I could muster:

1. I snickered to myself during this movie approximately four times. Not outright laughter, you understand, but still, a mild expression of amusement; 2. Amy Adams is pretty; 3. The second act isn’t the worst second act I’ve ever encountered; 4. I like baseball. Not as it pertains to this film, though; just, in general, I like the game of baseball; 5. There’s a great Ray Charles song that plays over the closing credits.

That’s all I could come up with and alas, that’s not nearly enough to keep Trouble from being an unbelievably awful film on basically every level.

First of all, this movie is filled to the brim and beyond with every cliché you could possibly imagine. It’s like the filmmakers (whom I’ll address again shortly) were playing “Terrible Movie Cliché Bingo” when they put this mess together. Father-child tension: Check! Old man idioms: Check! A youngster who just doesn’t respect his elders: Check! A happy ending tied up with a pretty bow even though it doesn’t fit the narrative of the film AT ALL: Check! The list goes on and on, enveloping every aspect of Trouble in a haze of irritating clichés that would ruin even a good film, let alone one as poorly written as this one.

The clichés, though, only serve to highlight Randy Brown’s abysmal script that is full of more holes than the proverbial Swiss cheese, if the Swiss cheese was also rancid and covered in a foul green mold. The first act boxes the film into its inevitable and worthless course, the second act finds a tiny smidgen of momentum by taking the focus away from Eastwood, and then the third act comes along with all the storytelling acumen of a mentally challenged monkey. Quite honestly, this is a script that wouldn’t have been deemed strong enough for a made-for-TV movie on the Hallmark Channel. The “plot” is a paint-by-numbers travesty that is as predictable as they come save for one small break in which the story takes a very weird and dark turn for a brief second and then is washed over as if it never happened. (Because what family-friendly film would be complete without a near-rape? All of them, you say? Right you are.)

Likewise, virtually all of the characters are as razor-thin and one dimensional as you could possibly get which makes their respective and inevitable “redemptions” all the more painful. Note to all writers out there: if your character shows no signs of not being a crusty old son of a gun throughout the whole of your script/book/play, then your plot reeks of falseness if he suddenly turns out to be a decent human being at the last possible moment. That’s exactly what happens with Gus, who spends the entirety of the film making it clear to the audience that he is a miserable, unlikeable old coot and then makes a miraculous turnaround because…well, because you can’t end a manipulative, toothless movie like this one without a happy ending. Mickey, too, is exceedingly unlikeable and unsympathetic, a trait I did not know Amy Adams was capable of displaying. Concerning her struggles, I found myself thinking, “Oh, your father wasn’t there for you as a kid? Well, join the club, there are like 3 billion members worldwide.” This is the sort of script that could (and probably should) end a man’s career.

If all of that wasn’t enough, Trouble stands, for me at least, as proof that Clint Eastwood is done. I grew tired of Eastwood’s “grizzled old man” bit long ago and to be honest, I haven’t liked one of his performances in almost 20 years. But this movie takes things to a new level of depressing and aggravating. At the very least, Eastwood’s old man act, complete with barely intelligible grumbling, high wasted pants, and general dislike for everything, has always seemed genuine. But in Trouble, it comes across as forced and uncaring, as if he’s doing a parody of himself in Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby. Moreover, he spends a good portion of the first 30 minutes of the film talking to himself, delivering winners like, “Breakfast of champions” in regards to a cold can of Spam and “singing” the lyrics of “You Are My Sunshine” to a gravestone. I half-expected the Obama Chair to make a cameo. It’s wretched acting and worse yet, it’s an embarrassment to an actor who used to be GREAT.

All of that doesn’t even take into account the atrocious depiction of baseball (both on the field and off), the most mailed-in conclusion of any drama I’ve ever seen, or little things like the presence of snow on the ground despite it being the middle of summer in the Deep South. The longer Trouble went on, the harder it became for me to sit still resulting in what I’m sure was an annoying experience for the person sitting next to me as I squirmed and shifted from side to side, praying for the pain to stop. It’s the movie narrative equivalent of being water boarded to death rather than being afforded that quick and painless bullet to the head (a fate I longed for as I sat through this movie, by the way). I can’t imagine anyone under the age of 60 enjoying Trouble AT ALL and while I’ve probably seen worse movies over the years, this is one that unquestionably belongs in that conversation.

Small Roles...Big Performances Blog-a-Thon: Barry Pepper, "Saving Private Ryan"

Ruth over at FlixChatter is hosting a blog-a-thon next week entitled "Small Roles...Big Performances." The title is fairly self-explanatory but the idea is to highlight a supporting performance (or performances) in a movie that you find particularly appealing. Make sure you check out FlixChatter for the full list of participants and their entries. Should make for some awesome reading!

When Ruth opened up the floor on this topic, my mind immediately went to the work of Barry Pepper in Steven Spielberg's war masterpiece Saving Private Ryan and while there are any number of outstanding performances that fall into this category, Pepper's is the one that I appreciate above all. A talented actor who always seems to be overlooked in Hollywood, Pepper has had a few starring roles (most notably Knockaround Guys and my favorite sports movie of all-time, 61*) and a handful of superb supporting roles through the years (his work in 25th Hour is exquisite, not to mention The Green Mile, We Were Soldiers, etc.). But 14 years after Saving Private Ryan debuted, it is Private Jackson that still stands out among the rest.

I was 15 when Saving Private Ryan was released and I can still remember everything about my viewing from who I went with right on down the mood as we exited the theater behind a group of WWII veterans. It's a movie that has the power to change you as a person, a gift that so few films have. There are quite a few outstanding characters within Saving Private Ryan; Captain Miller (Tom Hanks), Private Reiben (Edward Burns), even Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies) whose cowardice I cursed and hated even though I knew that deep down, I'd probably fall right in line with him. But as the film progressed, I became more and more enthralled with Jackson, the left-handed, Bible quoting sniper whose precision was impeccable and whose persona was irresistible.

To be honest, I don't think Pepper had a lot to work with in terms of strength of character or quality screen time. Hanks, Davies, Burns, Matt Damon, Tom Sizemore, Adam Goldberg, Giovanni Ribisi, etc. all were handed more well-rounded characters than Private Jackson. That's not meant as an attack on Spielberg or the film (which is one of my 10 favorites), it's just the reality of making a movie. There are only so many pages to go around in a script; someone is bound to get squeezed. Pepper, though, handled Jackson like the seasoned pro he wasn't given that, for all intents and purposes, Saving Private Ryan was his major motion picture debut (if you don't count the Howie Long action movie Firestorm which I certainly don't). There's a subtlety and quietness to Jackson and Pepper used this to suck the audience in. He displayed an uncanny ability to draw attention to his character even when he's not doing much. As such, he became memorable when I'm not sure he would have been in other hands.

Moreover, Pepper brought a downhome authenticity to the role and mixed it perfectly with just the right amount of arrogance, resulting in a character who was believably cool even though he most certainly was not trying to be cool. He has a natural swagger about him that stems from honesty, not braggadocio. When he tells his squad that, "...If you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir...pack your bags, fellas, war's over. Amen." you believe him. It's an incredible performance and one that made me a lifelong fan of one of the industry's most underrated actors.

Review: "Dredd 3D"

Remakes are a tense subject in movie fan circles. There are those who see no problem with the growing trend and those people are usually drowned out by a crazed horde of violent remake haters. Personally I think remakes are acceptable under one or all of the following circumstances:

1.) The original film was made in a foreign language (The Departed is a good example);

2.) The original film is over 25 years old and is NOT considered to be a true classic (RoboCop should be remade, Jaws should not);

3.) The original film was based on another source (book, comic, play, etc.) but was poorly adapted.

Dredd falls into the latter category as the 1995 Sylvester Stallone film, Judge Dredd, didn’t exactly hit home with fanboys of the graphic novels, mostly due to the presence of Rob Schneider, one of the world’s great cinematic ruiners. This is one remake that people, even if it is a vocal minority, have been clamoring for and I imagine it fits the bill for the fans, though it’s certainly not for everyone.

The future of America is bleak indeed. With the remaining 800 million residents of the country jammed into one megacity that stretches from Boston to D.C., the world has become a dirty, grimy place. Only one symbol of the law remains: the Judges, who operate out of the Hall of Justice. Assigned the task of training a newbie (Olivia Thirlby), one of the most fearsome judges, aptly named Dredd (Karl Urban), begins the investigation of a triple homicide at Peach Trees, a 200 story apartment complex. Soon, though, he runs up against a ferocious opponent in the drug kingpin known as Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) who will stop at nothing to prevent the judges from leaving Peach Trees alive.

It’s been years since I saw the Stallone version of Judge Dredd but I remember it being a hot, cheesy, mess of a movie. This time around, director Pete Travis takes all the cheesy foolishness of that film and replaces it with blood…mass amounts of blood. The best quote I’ve seen about this film pegged it as, “the comic book version of a British independent film.” (I tried to find the author of this quote but failed; I apologize for the inadvertent plagiarism.) That’s quite fitting as Dredd has an indisputable British/European sensibility that comes out to play in the stark and often gruesome depiction of action and violence.  This is a serious affair the likes of which we don’t usually see in comic book films, though Travis does take the time to allow for a few VERY American one-liners which are all knee-slapping good. Personally I found the brutal nature of this blood and guts approach to be gratuitous and distracting from what turns out to be a much better plot than I would have expected going in. Dredd isn’t so much gritty as it is viscerally and mercilessly savage. If you’re a horror movie fan, this approach shouldn’t be a problem but I could have used a slightly softer edge in this department. That’s not to say it isn’t fitting or doesn’t necessarily work, I’m just saying it’s not for everyone and the rough, hard edge will eliminate a large portion of the film’s potential audience (as illustrated by the miserable box office total).

Brutal violence aside, Dredd is an extremely well-made film filled to the brim with slick, sophisticated shots and some excellent effects. Travis’ world is small and contained and that leads to a feeling of claustrophobia that adds to the film’s frenetic intensity. In addition, Urban should be commended for a strong performance under very difficult circumstances. Acting with a mask on one’s face is tough and it becomes even more difficult when the mask never, ever comes off. Urban is basically asked to “act” and emote with only the bottom third of his face and he does it very well. He is sufficiently menacing when he needs to be and Urban’s robotic approach to the character hits just the right tone. Thirlby and Headey are both strong as well though, like Dredd, there’s not much in the way of character development with which to work.

All in all, I thought Dredd achieved what it set out to and did its job quite effectively. It could stand for a bit of character development and I feel like Dredd’s reputation should have been built up better within the context of the film itself rather than relying on the audience’s prior knowledge of the character. But the artistry of the post production effects and the overall tone that carries from beginning to end makes Dredda solid, if imperfect, action flick.

Review: "End of Watch"

The next time you find yourself sitting at home alone on a random weekday evening, flip on your cable provider’s guide and count the number of cop-related programs you have to choose from. My guess is that number will be somewhere around 338 options, most of them pertaining to the Law & Order universe. As a society, we are obsessed with cops and police procedurals seem to dominate the TV landscape. But despite our preoccupation with this particular field, Hollywood hasn’t done a particularly great job of late when it comes to cinematizing the police officer experience. End of Watch, then, stands as a reminder of how good a mainstream cop movie can be.

Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) have been inseparable since the academy and have now become patrol partners in one of the more dangerous divisions of the LAPD. A film student in his downtime, Taylor uses lapel cameras to capture footage for his documentary project, a lens through which the majority of the film is told. After a high speed chase turns into a shootout, the pair become local celebrities, a status that leads to the inflation of their already large egos. But before long, Taylor and Zavala get themselves involved in a case way above their pay grades, making them a prime target for a drug cartel.

David Ayer is no stranger to the cop film, having written Training Day, Dark Blue, and SWAT and directed Street Kings. For my money Training Day is the preeminent cop drama of the decade and Street Kings is seriously underrated in spite of Keanu Reeves’ involvement. (Dark Blue and SWAT are fairly awful but that’s beside the point.) His familiarity with the subject, however, was part of the reason I couldn’t muster up much anticipation for End of Watch. Everything about it, from the cinematography that looked exactly like Dark Blue, to the tone that seemed too close to Training Day, right on down to Gyllenhaal’s character who looked like a carbon copy of his Marine in Jarhead (a movie I loathe) seemed entirely too familiar and rehashed. How many times can one director go back to the same material and draw out something new?

Somewhat surprisingly, End of Watch turns out to be the fresh and significant entry into the genre that I didn’t think it would be and that the genre itself needed so badly. It is an effective, efficient, and at times thrilling film that wastes little time and somehow makes two dudes driving around in a car seem thoroughly interesting. Ayer uses the shaky handheld camera effect quite well, a rare example of how this technique can truly be used to play up a film’s realism. More importantly, though, he doesn’t rely on the camera effect to become a crutch or a gimmick to build tension. The action and drama would work without the shaky approach and are only enhanced a bit by the camera technique. And unlike a found footage film, Ayer doesn’t make any attempt to shoehorn the gimmick into situations where it doesn’t fit or create dumb reasons for the camera to always be there and always be in the perfect position to catch the right shot. When there’s a reason for the shot selection to be through the lens of a camera somewhere within the story, it is, but when there’s not, he doesn’t force it in, which I greatly appreciate.

End of Watch truly excels, however, because of the strength of its leads and their tremendous chemistry. To be perfectly honest, I’ve never been a fan of Gyllenhaal and I almost always find him somewhat off-putting. I guess I just don’t find him likeable or relatable and many of his career choices play into that. He is giving me reason to change, though, given his quality turn in last year’s Source Code and the work he puts in here. Taylor is an everyman and Gyllenhaal brings that to life beautifully at almost every turn. Pena does much of the same, creating a clear equality between the two that you don’t always get in a buddy-buddy relationship like this. They work together so well that despite a handful of the sort of great action sequences that I am prone to fall in love with, the best parts of End of Watch are often the exchanges between Taylor and Zavala as they cruise around their beat. It’s an advanced course in what the relationship should look like between partners of this nature.

There are a few dips in the momentum in the second act and I felt like the wedding scene could have been cut down significantly. The counter to that would be that this scene brings the humanity of the characters home for the audience but I would contend that by this point I was completely absorbed in the realism and didn’t need a lengthy look at life outside of the precinct. But for the most part, End of Watch displays nearly unending focus on the things that really matter between Taylor and Zavala, to the point that, with the exception of Anna Kendrick (as Taylor’s new girlfriend), most of the supporting actors are asked to do next to nothing. The approach works very well, though, and End of Watch builds impressively for a dramatic, pulse-pounding finale and at the end of the day, it very well might be the best straight cop movie since Training Day.