Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Hobbit entered theaters with enormous expectations and, while not as good as The Lord of the Rings, it proves itself both entertaining and worthy of inclusion in director Peter Jackson's sensational franchise.  In a series of great casting choices, Martin Freeman stands out as one of the best as Bilbo the Hobbit; the dwarves may be average company, but Gandalf is a welcome companion.  Come for the humor, sense of adventure, and Gollum, but prepare yourself for a CGI-fest.


The roller coaster ride of great movie releases starting in late October has swept us into the last few weeks of 2012.  There are still some very interesting films out or yet to come out; I'm not sure how many I'll get to see (e.g.: limited releases).  As for The Hobbit, this was one of my most anticipated films of the year.  You may know that I'm a big fan of several action/adventure franchises, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of my favorites.  After a rocky journey, to say the least, Peter Jackson at last managed to get the precursor to LotR on the big screen - despite being just one book (and a shorter one at that), The Hobbit will be spread out over three lengthy films.  The first installment was directed, of course, by Jackson, and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, and others.

The Hobbit opens with Bilbo, circa start of The Fellowship of the Ring (60 years after The Hobbit) giving the background of his adventure to his nephew, Frodo.  Back in Hobbit time, Gandalf the wizard pays his little friend a visit in the land of Hobbits known as the Shire.  He invites Bilbo along on an adventure, and though Bilbo declines, he receives thirteen uninvited dwarf guests for dinner that night.  Eventually Bilbo decides to join them in retaking the dwarves' old mountain fortress which had been overrun and captured by the dragon Smaug for its immense wealth.

Thus Bilbo starts off on the the first great Hobbit adventure.  He and the dwarves tangle with trolls, crazy hippie wizards, elves, goblins, stone giants, and more.  The main story focuses on the merry band's struggle toward their destination, but along the way elements foreshadowing the events of The Lord of the Rings sprout up, including a first meeting with Gollum and his precious.

Like LotR, The Hobbit benefits from some great casting.  First up is Martin Freeman as Bilbo, who is to The Hobbit what Frodo was to LotR.  A brilliant choice, Freeman is a natural Hobbit with a perfectly understated, hilarious sense of humor.  Freeman is essential in livening up a somewhat slow beginning, and grounding the events of the action-packed finale.  Even among all the other phenomenal casting choices in LotR and The Hobbit, Freeman might already be my favorite.  The other main character is returning star Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey.  I think it goes without saying that McKellen is a tremendous actor, and he truly seems to enjoy playing the character.  Gandalf is a bit more adventurous and risk-taking in The Hobbit than he was in LotR, but he has the same kindness, humor, and wisdom.

Thirteen dwarves share this adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf, and to be honest, I marked them as the "hero," the "granddaddy," the "twins," the "fat one," and the rest kind of blurred together.  Thorin (ie: "the hero") is kind of the Aragorn of The Hobbit, but he's a poor replacement.  Not bad, just not very noteworthy.  The dwarves provide some good humor, but I really saw The Hobbit as Bilbo and Gandalf's journey with the dwarves tagging along rather than the other way around (which is technically how it's supposed to be).  There are some more familiar faces, too, most notably Andy Serkis (well, his digital face) as Gollum.  Although he's limited to one extended scene (which also happens to be perhaps the best in the film), Serkis is at least as good as ever as the slimy, treacherous, two-faced yet pitiable creature.  Also involved are Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (both elves), and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White (even by The Hobbit he's already kind of an asshole).

Just as a baseline to be successful, in my opinion, The Hobbit needed to retain the feel of LotR, and in this it succeeded for the most part.  (For a franchise reboot that did not retain the feel of its predecessors to its detriment, see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).  This is particularly true early on in the Shire - a convenient base to start from since LotR started in the same place.  The Hobbit contains roughly the same mixture of action/adventure and characterization as LotR - if anything, this film scales down the epic and tries to incorporate more character background (kind of strange since it is a prequel, but still).  The quality of the action is probably where The Hobbit suffers the worst in comparison to LotR; there's just too much CGI (no more humans dressed up in Orc costumes) and at times it gets a little ridiculous even for a fantasy movie.  On the other hand, the film has a really good sense of humor, especially early in the film before the action gets rolling (thank you, Freeman).  Finally, it's great to have Howard Shore back on board as composer:  he retains several themes from LotR while adding some new ones which, while they need to grow on me, certainly fit the Tolkien universe just as well.

***

The Hobbit is a very good film; only those who hate the genre in the first place or are already nostalgic for Frodo, Sam and the rest from LotR should disagree.  The biggest point of contention on The Hobbit seems to be the decision to break that one, small book into three expansive films.  First, I'll say that I think Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien world so much that this was not primarily a financial decision.  Second... OK, perhaps An Unexpected Journey was a little bloated.  If I were the editor, I would have cut down on the final extended action sequence and some of the LotR-preview stuff.  But I think I was bothered more by the overuse of CGI than the length of the film.  Seeing this made me appreciate just how much the "human" orcs really engaged me in the action of LotR.  Sadly, some of The Hobbit's action comes off more like a video game (for specifics, compare the main orc bad guy in Fellowship to the one in The Hobbit).  But, like I did for Lincoln, I'm mostly picking nits.  The fact is, Jackson successfully plunged back into his unique Tolkien world without missing a beat.  Is it as good as LotR (at least two of which were A+ in my book)? No... but that's not exactly an insult.  One final thing:  I saw this in 2D (ie: neither 3D nor the 48 FPS version).  The Hobbit trilogy has a strong anchor in Bilbo and Gandalf; I highly recommend the first chapter, and am eager for the next.

Movies: Life of Pi

Score:  ***** out of ***** (A+)

Long Story Short:  Ang Lee faced significant challenges in translating the book to the big screen but, like Joss Whedon with The Avengers earlier this year, succeeded far beyond my expectations.  The film follows the book faithfully and does it great justice with visual flair, both in the best use of 3D to date and the realistic ocean and animals, and performances that support the significant narrative and emotional weight.  Highly recommended - and please, go see this in 3D.


With a break of just a week, the fall film season marches on.  Yesterday I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I will be reviewing next weekend.  However, I finally got to see Life of Pi before that.  As likely many of you know, Life of Pi is an adaptation of the book by Yann Martel.  I read and loved it in high school, and was intrigued when I heard that it was being turned into a film.  At the same time, I was a little dubious about how well it would translate into that medium.  Once I saw the great reviews it was getting, though, my decision was made.  Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Brokeback Mountain) and stars Suraj Sharma and Irfan Khan, both playing the main character Pi at different ages.

If you've read the book, I'll start off by saying that the film is quite faithful to the book (although I haven't read it in some years so I might be forgetting some parts).  For the rest of you, it starts with a novelist in Canada coming to the home of an Indian named Piscene "Pi" Patel.  The novelist has been directed to Pi by someone who told him that Pi had a spectacular tale to tell, one that would "make you believe in God".  So Pi starts off by giving the novelist a background of his life as a child in India, the son of a zoo keeper, owner of an oft-ridiculed name, and sampler of religions.  Then the family is forced to move to Canada.

The zoo animals are packed onto a huge shipping vessel to sell, and the family stays with the ship's crew.  However, a monster storm sinks the ship, with only Pi making it off on a small lifeboat along with several animals from the zoo.  Soon, the inhabitants of the boat are down to two:  Pi, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.  Pi is forced to try to not only survive in the middle of the ocean, but also co-exist with the deadly animal.  I doubt I'm spoiling it for you when I tell you he makes it - but just as important are the ways in which the journey fundamentally changes him.

Life of Pi has a small cast, as you might imagine.  Pi is obviously the main character, with Suraj Sharma getting the biggest part as the Pi on the boat.  He does an excellent job, primarily with expressing vivid emotions of fear and anger in dealing with the tiger, as well as quiet stares that convey everything from despair to yearning.  His performance is essential to anchoring the audience in the story, and he succeeds.  Irfan Khan, the Pi narrating his experiences, also gets a chunk of time, and he was well cast. He shows an inner calmness that reflects the fact that this man, now living peacefully with a family, has endured and learned so much that he can take it all in stride.  The only other notable character/actor is Santosh, Pi's father played by Adil Hussain.  With limited screen time, he effectively portrays a strong, reason-driven man who is strained by Pi's religiousness but loves him deeply.

Life of Pi is only the third film I have seen in 3D.  The first was Avatar; I found the effects to be pretty, but significantly overrated.  Like the film itself, they were just too big and impersonal to leave much impression.  The second film was Prometheus, which was simply because the 3D showtime worked better for my schedule; it added little to nothing to the film.  Life of Pi, on the other hand, was a perfect choice for using 3D; and an acclaimed, innovative director such as Ang Lee was the perfect filmmaker to handle it.  Life of Pi uses the 3D to astounding success in portraying the close quarters danger as well as some dream-like and hallucinatory sequences.  Beyond the 3D, the ocean environment is also incredibly well done (the ship sinking sequence is utterly terrifying); and the animals are surprisingly realistic, particularly the tiger.

What propels Life of Pi into greatness, however, is the third wheel of the film (in addition to effective human performances and visual excellence):  the story as parable.  Now, those who have read the book know the most direct meaning of "parable" here, and it's included in the film.  However, out of what seems to be a fairly simple tale of a boy and a tiger surviving in the middle of the ocean, there is so much that can be taken.  The best part is, exactly what you take from it can be different from audience to audience, and even separate viewings from the same person can evoke different reactions.  To give you a sample of one of the film's themes to me:  with a sense of spirituality (not necessarily a belief in one God or another), life can become a series of stories that take on meaning deeper than the immediate struggles or joys that they entail.

***

Life of Pi is my first five-star rated film (since the start of my blog in summer 2010).  I consider this A+ rating to mean one or more of the following:  the film is simply perfect in just about every way (I can't think of any off the top of my head); the film holds up or even improves on its excellence over time/ repeat viewings (obviously, not a consideration for these reviews); or the film is excellent and also especially appeals to me personally.  Life of Pi falls into this third category; I can certainly understand how others might not like the film as much.  But at the same time, the strength of the visual style and narrative structure, and the performances to a degree, can't be denied.  If you think you'd like to see this film, I strongly recommend that you see this in the 3D at the theater at least once.  Let the visuals suck you into the story and then sweep you away, and open yourself to the ways in which the fantastic story can be reflected in your own life.

Movies: Lincoln

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Spielberg continues his historical drama bent with Lincoln, a much different film than last year's powerful War Horse but one that's at least as good.  Day-Lewis somehow surpasses expectations in portraying Abe with an utterly breathtaking performances that is one of the best I've ever seen.  The other main strength of the film is its restraint, bypassing much of the weighty times of Lincoln's presidency and taking place during a single month just before his death.  Whether or not you are a frequent moviegoer, I urge every adult to see this film, in the theater or elsewhere.


Fall movie madness continues, with Lincoln being the latest in not only one of the longest strings of films I've seen in consecutive weekends but also the highest quality of such back-to-back films.  My reasons for wanting to see Lincoln were plentiful.  First was the presence of Steven Spielberg as director, probably my favorite director of all time, and he has shown himself especially capable and respectful in filming historical dramas.  Abraham Lincoln is one of the most intriguing figures in our country's history, and to have Daniel Day-Lewis, possibly the best living actor, portray him was exciting.  Thus it was not surprising at all to see Lincoln get an excellent score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Lincoln was directed by Spielberg and stars Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and others.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's plot chronology, which I rely on since I often don't remember it very precisely, is nonexistent for this film.  Lincoln does start rather abruptly, on a rainy night following a bloody battle in the Civil War.  President Lincoln (Day-Lewis) sits hunched, almost grandfatherly, below a shabby roof while he listens to Union soldiers express their support for him but also demand for their sacrifice to mean something.  The action soon shifts to Washington, D.C., where the film's central plot comes into focus:  the attempt to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery.

Despite having a majority in Congress and a great deal of public support, Lincoln faced formidable challenges in passing the 13th amendment.  I won't go into detail, but the challenges come from both friend and foe:  Lincoln must persuade a number of Democrats to vote for it to get the supermajority needed, and do it before the surrender of the Confederacy.  He must also temper the enthusiastic support of "Radical" Republicans to not scare off his fragile coalition.  Even in his private life, Lincoln is enormously stressed by a son who wants to join the army and a wife who is on the verge of a breakdown over the death of their son three years prior.

Lincoln shines a bright spotlight on its cast and asks much of them, and they came through brilliantly.  Starring, and appearing in nearly ever scene, is of course Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.  With all due respect to Denzel in Flight, Day-Lewis is guaranteed the Best Actor Oscar like no other I can remember.  I know it's a cliche, but it's about as accurate as possible:  Day-Lewis is Lincoln in this film.  In everything from his higher-pitched voice to his physical gestures and tendencies, he creates a man whose every characteristic is consistent with the whole and which also matches with someone I could easily believe as the real Abraham Lincoln.  Day-Lincoln tells story after story which could easily have become repetitive and boring, but each time he captures your complete attention and interest.  He gives a few extended, powerful rants, but also some abbreviated, everyday speeches with equal skill.  He is an honorable man, but one not above using lawyerly, morally ambiguous methods to achieve his crucial ends.  Day-Lincoln gets a mischievous twinkle in his eye when he tells a joke, listens passively in agony as his wife screams at him, and gives sad, quiet condolences to those who suffered losses in the Civil War.  Day-Lincoln is the film, plain and simple.

But there are some great supporting performances, too.  Tommy Lee Jones leads the rest as Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, who is most memorable in his epic and hilarious smackdowns of the slimy, racist Democratic Congressmen.  Jones also shines, though, when you can almost literally see him swallow his pride and accept smaller but achievable steps to true equality.  Sally Field shows a side of herself that I don't think I've seen before, depicting a brilliant woman on the edge of insanity, to whom tragedy has brought a constant state of rage; yet she also loves her living family fiercely.  David Straitharn (Bourne films) plays Secretary of State Seward with excellent formality and a steady dose of exasperation with his boss.  James Spader provides a nice shot of humor as a seedy briber tasked with securing/wrangling/begging the needed Democratic votes.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Lincoln's son Robert, but in contrast with the rest of the cast, doesn't really do much with the role.

The main genre of Lincoln is, of course, historical drama.  The subgenre is politics, politics, politics.  The entire film revolves around trying to pass the 13th amendment, and considering the stakes and the difficulties in doing so, it's certainly a worthy plot focus.  There are glimpses here and there of the real effects of the major influences on this amendment - the livelihood of African Americans, and the trauma of the Civil War - but again, the focus is really the Washington political machine and the push and pull between the executive and legislative branches of government.  This focus prevented the film from becoming diluted, and still managed to have some powerful emotional moments, typically dealing with either exhilarating political victories or critical moments in Lincoln's personal life.  Humor is sprinkled liberally throughout the film, fortunately, most of it coming from Day-Lincoln, Tommy Lee or Spader.  Finally, John Williams composed the music, as he always does for Spielberg, and it complements the various tones of the film while not attracting too much attention to itself.

***

Lincoln is about as good as its aim allow it to be; while those aims are perhaps a little limited - relatively speaking - the accuracy with which Day-Lewis and Spielberg hit the target is nearly perfect.  There is so much rich material to choose from in dealing with Abraham Lincoln's life, even if you are choosing only from his time as President, that I'm sure there was great temptation to do a sprawling biopic.  In fact, the screen-writer, Pulitzer Prize-winner Tony Kushner, initially sent Spielberg a mammoth script.  But Spielberg wisely pared that tome down to a one month period that represented perhaps Lincoln's greatest struggle and ultimate triumph.  Lincoln certainly gives a remarkable look at the titular man, and Day-Lewis is astoundingly brilliant, but it's more about his efforts and achievement for the nation than about the man himself.  I'm not sure, then, how much and how long Lincoln is likely to stick with me:  on the one hand, it's a tightly focused and expertly executed glimpse at one historical event, like Argo (although Spielberg is almost saying to Affleck, "good effort, kid, but this is how we do it in the big leagues"), and on the other hand, its smart decision to stay limited might prevent it from becoming an all-time classic.  My only gripe with it, really, is that the ending is drawn out a bit too long.  Anyway, I'm starting to nitpick:  Lincoln is a must see for all adults.

Movies: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  The Perks of Being a Wallflower seems to be slowly working its way through theaters nationwide and is likely to be available on DVD and streaming soon.  It's a coming-of-age film of one year in the life of a high school-aged boy named Charlie.  Ezra Miller shines as one of his pals, and both Lerman and Watson improve along the way, too.  Ultimately, Perks represents the journey of high school faithfully and makes up for any imperfections with its emotional resonance.


It's almost like summer again as the films keep on coming.  This week I got to see The Perks of Being a Wallflower, initially released all the way back in September.  I was interested in seeing it then, but as a limited release it didn't get to my theater; I guess it's expanded since then, so I took the opportunity.  The main draw for me was simply the strength of reviews for it, and I also enjoy the occasional coming-of-age story.  The Perks of Being a Wallflower was directed by Steven Chbosky (who also wrote the novel that it's based on, in 1999) and stars Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller.

We first get a glimpse of the main character, Charlie (Lerman), who is about to enter high school.  He lives in an average suburb with both of his parents and his sister Candace (Dobrev).  Charlie is quiet and intelligent, and at first the only connection he makes is to his English teacher (Rudd).  On a chance encounter at a football game, he sits down with a kid from his shop class, Patrick (Miller) and his stepsister, Sam (Watson), both seniors.  He sees them again at a school dance, and follows them to an after party where they begin to bond.  Charlie, attracted to Sam at first sight, tells her of his lack of romantic experience at Christmas as she expresses some affection, though she is dating someone else.

The trio, plus some of Patrick and Sam's other friends, begin hanging out together all the time, and a favorite activity becomes enacting The Rocky Horror Picture Show at a local theater.  Mary Elizabeth (Whitman) asks Charlie to the Sadie Hawkins dance and, under her controlling lead, the two start to date.  Growing frustrated with the relationship, Charlie acts rashly which threatens his friendship with the entire group.  Meanwhile, spring is approaching with Sam struggling to get accepted into college, Patrick dealing with his own difficult relationship, and Charlie feeling both blessed and cursed by the friends he's made in his first year of high school.

The performances of the young people in a coming-of-age film are crucial to establish relatable, believable events.  Logan Lerman as Charlie is the main character, but he acts more as the center rather than the focus throughout the film.  For the most part he portrays his quiet, polite, intelligent part well, with a few slips in character here are there.  Crucially, he does well in the most important, emotional scenes.  Emma Watson as Sam improves throughout the film after a little overacting at first.  She is well-cast, her strikingly beautiful face attracting Charlie's and the audience's attention; she flirts almost off-handedly, something few can pull off well.  The third member of the group, Ezra Miller as Patrick, is the best, though.  He oozes charisma, and also comes across as the most believable teenager in the entire cast.  Swinging between the extremes of petty pranks to deep pain and alienation, Miller pulls it all off and steals most of the scenes he inhabits.

There are some nice supporting roles, too.  Paul Rudd, typically a leading man, does a fine job in just a few minutes of screentime as the English teacher.  Nina Dobrev as Candace is very convincing as Charlie's sister, trying to keep her little brother at bay at times and at others showing a deep, sisterly bond.  Finally, Mae Whitman injects some good humor into the role of Mary Elizabeth, a smart, sarcastic girl who fluctuates believably between cooly controlling and desperately clinging.

The cast provides the foundation of this realistic coming-of-age film; Perks also contains a story, structure, flow, and feel that makes it all the more relatable.  I mentioned that Charlie acts as the center rather than the focus of the film, and I mean that his are the eyes and ears through which the story is told.  He has a strong family, but aside from his sister, they are virtually ignored - as a real teenager would, focusing instead on his peers.  The foci throughout the film goes in a cycle - again, in the way a teenager's typically does - going from school concerns, to friendship, to romantic pulls, and back again. The structure is also clever:  it takes place over roughly one year, and shows the paradoxical high school feeling of being both temporary and timeless, as Charlie's new friends are all seniors.  There are just enough cultural cues to give the story a place in time, but it's still plenty relatable to most generations, I think.  There are several powerful yet genuine scenes, though not so many that it seems every day has a world-altering one.  Perhaps the most memorable is the most simple, utilizing the power of music, and recurring at the end as a perfect book end.

***

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a flawed film, but one that resonates in ways that elude the efforts of most other films.  The first act of the film had me thinking that it was headed down a very common, very predictable road but then it just kept on developing.  I would argue that the Charlie-Sam relationship is potentially most deserving of criticism:  it takes up the largest chunk of time, sometimes starts to drift into cliche; then it dies down, only to rise up again (better, yet briefer, this time).  I suppose, whether or not this was done intentionally, though, that it well reflects the awkwardness of the whole high school experience.  There are several different important strands of Charlie's relationships in the film, some of which occur simultaneously and others consecutively, and it's interesting to see them all interact and yet stay in their own little bubbles apart from each other.  Although my own high school experience was much different in detail than Charlie's, of course, I could relate to many of his feelings and some of the more powerful moments.  Perks is a movie worth seeing at least once and, like our memories of high school, worth revisiting from time to time.

Movies: Skyfall

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  007 is back after a four-year hiatus, and is receiving great praise from critics as well as success at the box office.  Craig, already great in his first outing as Bond in Casino Royale, mirrors his character's own development of greater confidence by having more fun than in the two previous films.  Yet Bond faces not only a sinister foe in MI6 rogue Silva (villain master Javier Bardem) but also questions of his own role in defending the modern world.  Seen best (in my opinion) as the third act of Craig's Bond trilogy, Skyfall also represents the finest quality of today's action genre.


It's been a great fall movie season so far, with the fantastic Argo and Flight.  Now it's 007's turn, and one of my most anticipated films of the year.  I am a huge James Bond fan, and was thrilled with the series reboot in 2006's Casino Royale (my favorite of the series so far).  Quantum of Solace was also very good - severely underrated, in fact - and then 007 fans were subjected to another long drought between films thanks to MGM going into bankruptcy.  Fortunately, Daniel Craig stayed on as Bond, and I was quite excited by both the trailer for Skyfall and by the inclusion of Javier Bardem as the villain.  Skyfall was directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) and stars Craig in his third 007 adventure, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, and Bardem.

Skyfall drops the audience straight into one of 007's missions, this one in Istanbul.  Bond (Craig) finds a meeting gone awry, and M (Dench) instructs him to abandon a fallen fellow agent there are go after a stolen hard drive.  A great Bond chase ensues, going from car to motorcycle to train.  As Bond grapples with the bad guy, M instructs another MI6 agent to shoot - taking out 007 instead, accidentally.  Bond survives, of course, and takes his time getting back to home base; meanwhile, MI6 is hacked and under attack by cyber terrorists.

Bond's only lead is the man who stole the hard drive - containing the identities of NATO secret agents - and he manages to track him to Shanghai.  There, 007 meets a voluptuous woman who takes him to the boss, who turns out to be a former MI6 agent named Silva (Bardem) gone rogue and insane.  It seems that Bond has the situation under control, but Silva knows exactly what to expect from his former handlers and remains two steps ahead of them.  Bond is forced to dump the agency playbook and make Silva fight on his terms, resulting in not only an explosive finale but one that brings 007's mysterious origins in contact with his new "family".

Acting is hardly the most important aspect of a Bond film, but Skyfall has a strong cast.  Craig retains the same gritty style that he introduced in Casino Royale, but his 007 is now a shade more confident, in particular deploying a sense of humor more often.  Craig's Bond is unique in that the first three films all build off each other (more on that later) rather than stand alone, and so the character has evolved.  I personally still prefer Pierce Brosnan, the 007 I grew up with, but Craig does a superb job with his own interpretation of the iconic spy.  He really hit the ground running (literally and figuratively) in Casino Royale, and has ably guided the character along from there.

Judi Dench has her largest role yet as M (which she started in 1995's Goldeneye), and her character (along with 007) is under pressure from the start as being past her prime.  Unsurprisingly, both Dench and her M prove themselves up to the challenge.  Javier Bardem as Silva is sensational, and an instant classic villain in the 007 pantheon.  If you've seen No Country For Old Men, just imagine a metrosexual Anton Chigurh - equal parts creepy and frightening.  His introductory scene, basically a monologue, is perhaps the most entertaining in the entire film.  Naomie Harris plays an MI6 agent "Bond girl" and, in limited screen time, flirts with Bond effectively.  Ralph Fiennes plays a hard-nosed bureaucrat who breathes down M and Bond's necks, yet remains fiercely loyal to the country.  Last but not least the new Q is introduced (yay!), and the young Ben Whishaw plays him with the same bored, hilarious exasperation as the legendary Desmond Llewelyn.

Skyfall has plenty of action befitting a proper James Bond film, and Mendes eschews the often-confusing shaky cam from Quantum of Solace.  The opening Istanbul chase is a very good one, employing classic 007 tricks yet in the grittier, imperfect mode symbolizing Craig's style (I have to admit, the opening is the best action of the film and the rest is fairly pedestrian, by 007 standards anyway).  Daniel is very convincing as a hand-to-hand fighter (unlike the beefy Roger Moore) and also shows himself as a mortal, taking almost as much punishment as he dishes out.  Of course, just when you think "what's so special about this guy?", he takes down half-a-dozen baddies in two seconds, taking your breath away. There is considerably more psychological and emotional "action" as well in Skyfall, particularly in questioning the effectiveness of MI6 in the modern world, and delving (like Casino and Quantum) into Bond's past and what drives him.  Fear not, Skyfall is not all battle:  Bond trades quips with Harris' agent and Whishaw's Q like the old days, and Dench and Bardem even add some humor, too.  One last thing:  Adele's title song is one of the best Bond themes and I hope that she, in the style of Shirley Bassey, returns to the series.

***

Skyfall, taken by itself, is a very strong action film.  But I have to admit that the first time I saw it (yes, I've seen it twice already), it left me with an empty feeling.  Thanks to an observation from another reviewer, I went into my second viewing with another perspective and it worked much better.  How did this happen?  I went in the first time expecting one of those classic 007 films which have - despite a lot of variations, of course - a certain formula and style.  I could tell Skyfall was moving toward that classic 007 feeling, but it didn't quite get there.  The second time I saw it, I thought of it more as the third film in a trilogy and was much more pleased.  Unlike any Bond films before them, Craig's have all built on each other, and Quantum is even a direct sequel to Casino.  Skyfall has a completely new plot, yes, but it retains the overall theme of developing James Bond into the legend on display in films one through twenty.  And the last scene of Skyfall rather clearly shows that at last, Craig's 007 is truly the Bond of "shaken, not stirred," "the name's Bond, James Bond," etc.  So for full effect, I recommend that you watch Casino Royale (see this regardless!) and Quantum of Solace before Skyfall.  Yeah, yeah, it's just an action film - but it's a great one by itself and even better for those who follow 007.

Movies: Flight

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Denzel Washington gives an excellent, career-defining performance as main character pilot "Whip" Whitaker in Robert Zemeckis' Flight.  An edge-of-your seat opening gets the audience's attention and then turns it to the struggles of one man - seemingly a hero - with his own demons.  Supported and enriched by a great cast forming Whip's circle of friends and enemies.  Thanks to Denzel's performance and a fine balance between believability and inspiration, Flight soars into its place among the year's best.


The beginning of November signals the start of a nice long run of films I'm interested in seeing.  I caught this Flight last Monday; last night I saw the new James Bond movie (review coming next weekend!); my local theater finally released Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Lincoln is already out now, too.  First thing's first, though:  I saw the trailer for this during another theater trip, and the premise intrigued me.  Plus, Denzel is a great actor and when he stars in the more "serious" films like Training Day and American Gangsters, the result are strong.  With a good score on Rotten Tomatoes (76%), I decided to see it.  Flight was directed by Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump, Cast Away) and stars Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, and John Goodman.

Flight introduces the main character, Whip Whitaker (Washington), waking up in a hotel room with bottles of alcohol strewn about and an attractive young woman casually walking around naked.  After ingesting a line of cocaine, we watch Whip stride out of the hotel - dressed for duty as an airplane pilot.  Whip is the captain of a short flight from Florida to Atlanta, from where he will debark to greet his estranged family.  Whip shows off his skills to his young, inexperienced co-pilot, but midflight he is awakened from a nap by turbulence and all hell breaks loose.

When the dust settles, Whip is a public hero, saving the vast majority of the lives on his plane.  But the pilot's union, represented by Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) quietly informs Whip of a positive toxicology report taken and summons attorney Hugh Lang (Cheadle) to defend him.  Whip grapples with his continuing addiction and finds himself pulled different directions by old faces, like dealer Harling (Goodman), and new faces, such as fellow addict Nicole (Kelly Reilly).  Both the NTSB and Whip search for the answer to this question:  is he a hero or a villain?

Flight sports a stellar cast, and it is led by a phenomenal turn from Denzel Washington.  The focus of the film is entirely on Whip; as the character went, so too did the rest of the film.  I'm pleased to say that Denzel knocked it out of the park with a moving and memorable performance.  Part of Whip's character is the typical calm, collected Denzel - but Whip is also a man utterly controlled by his addiction.  Whip can be a charming, thoughtful guy, but when he is confronted by others over his addiction, he lashes out in fierce, yet vulnerable, self-defense.  Beyond Whip himself, the film sets up his relationships with his family, friends and co-workers superbly and Denzel drops right into the middle of those interactions like he has lived that life for years.

While Denzel is the focus and the star, he has tremendous supporting players around him.  Kelly Reilly (whose face you'll likely recognize) does a great job in her role as a random acquaintance of Whip's, keeping control in a role that easily could have been overacted.  Goodman has kind of a similar role to the one he had in Argo, actually, and he's just as good - and funny - here.  Whip's co-workers Charlie (Greenwood) and Hugh (Cheadle) master their characters' superficial compassion and the ruthlessness they reveal only behind (sometimes literally) closed doors.  One last role that deserves mention is one I can't even find on IMDB - he's a cancer patient in Whip's hospital and provides an electric few minutes.

The hook of Flight, and what the studio surely hoped would get people to the theater, is the plane crash.  And certainly, the film does not slight this scene in the least, producing tension about on par with some of the better scenes in Argo.  But it's only the take off (pun intended) for a film about, as I described in Denzel's acting, a man dealing with addiction and perhaps his final reckoning.  Seeing how this man, a capable guy esteemed in his profession, brought to his knees time and again is powerful, as is seeing the results of his addiction, due to the crash or otherwise, on other people in his life.  Even with all of this serious stuff, Flight manages to sneak in some really good humor to help prevent things from getting depressing.  In fact, one of the miracles of the film is that it isn't depressing despite the subject matter.  A final note:  although the score is by Alan Silvestri, who did the beautiful themes in Forrest Gump, I can't remember any of the music except a few excerpts of Rolling Stones hits.

***

Put simply, even in a particularly strong year for film, Flight is one of my favorites so far.  A huge reason for this, I'll say it again, is Denzel Washington's bravura performance.  Another part is that it fits into a style of film that I really like.  After all, this is the director who did Forrest Gump, one of my all-time favorites.  Like in that film, Flight manages to straddle that tight-rope line between showing characters and their behavior that the audience can believe with characters and behavior that we want to see.  Nine times out of ten, if not more, a film does one or the other, either slipping into cheese and taking us out of the film's world - or being so real and bleak and depressing that we desperately want to get out of the film's world.  Flight achieves that rare balance, in my opinion.  Great main character, great relationships, great humor, a great range of emotional responses - oh, and a great ending, too.  Highly recommended - see it in the theater if you can (we need more films like this!) but rent or stream it later if you can't.

Movies: Star Wars-Disney Deal

Movie News:  Disney Buys Star Wars

Last weekend, I wavered on whether or not to see Cloud Atlas.  It seemed intriguing, but got mixed reviews and it's three hours long.  Ultimately, I decided to hold off on it until it comes out on DVD.  This weekend will start a string of movie weekends for me (starting with Denzel Washington's Flight).  Not having a film to review worked out OK because possibly the biggest non-product-release entertainment news in many years broke this week:  George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney.

Disney Buys Star Wars:

I think the enormous news that broke last Tuesday was best summed up by a Huffington blog post titled: "Disney Buys Lucas, Star Wars Saga Continues, and Internet Breaks in Half."  If you are somehow unfamiliar with at least the basics of the deal at this point, just Google "star wars disney" and you should find a few things.  Being a huge fan of the franchise, I wanted to share my thoughts on the news, especially when it's so early and the possibilities seem virtually endless.

First, I should state that I share in the (minority?) view that the prequels were a triumph.  Were they perfect?  No.  Probably my biggest gripe with them is the actors they got for the pivotal role of Anakin Skywalker.  Both Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen were terrible.  But come on, Jar Jar wasn't that bad (more bearable than the Ewoks, IMO).  And let's look at the positives:  Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan, Liam Neeson as Quin-Gon, Sam Jackson as Mace Windu, Yoda:  the Jedi just kicked ass.  Emperor Palpatine's scheming.  Cool world designs (esp. in Attack of the Clones).  Natalie Portman.  Powerful emotional sequences created not just by what we know occurs in Episodes 4-6, but also by the way they are set up in the prequels themselves.  Point being:  I found far, far more to enjoy in the prequels than to complain about.

Still, Disney has a mixed record in dealing with big franchises.  Coming to my mind, I see one good, one bad, and one mixed result.  The bad:  Pirates of the Caribbean.  The first was a lot of fun, and I also enjoyed the second quite a bit.  But things just went overboard in the third film, and the fourth was purely a money grab by the studio.  Despite the fourth still making buckets of money, I think it's clear that the bad taste in the collective mouths of the public will have to fade a bit before another could be made.  The good:  Disney purchased Pixar, and the studio has essentially been left alone to do its thing, ie, be today's highest-quality studio.  Sure, there was the Cars 2 dud and I hope they steer away from more sequels and back to originals, but the phenomenal films WALL-E and Up! were made in the Disney era.  And then there's the mixed:  Marvel.  I loved The Avengers about as much as anyone else, but the film's success has resulted in a flood of green-lit spinoffs:  Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man will probably have five films each before long (they're even making a film for someone called Ant-Man for crying out loud!).  Having found a super-successful formula, Disney risks overextending with the Marvel roster of superheroes.

The Disney plans for Star Wars that I know so far are: A) there will be an Episode 7, 8, and 9; B) Lucas will not write or direct any of them; C) they will not be based on existing "Expanded Universe" literature; D) Disney hopes to release a SW film "every two to three years"; and E) there will likely be SW TV show(s) on Disney's TV network soon.  Hearing about B made me rather disappointed - here I'm admitting, yes, I've read several SW books - because there are some really good stories to tell (including a ready-made, fan favorite known as the Thrawn trilogy).  The good news is that while Lucas will be a creative consultant, he will not have a direct role in the making of the films - we'll thus be spared Lucas' occasionally cringeworthy dialogue.  There already is a SW TV show - The Clone Wars - and, based on a few episodes I've seen, it's not bad.  Any new series would likely follow a similar formula.

Lucas made billions with this deal, but overall it was a bold and selfless decision, particularly based on his history.  SW has been Lucas' baby for 35 years - he had the final say on everything that went on in that universe, from the merchandise and other peripherals to, of course, all the films.  Now, in the hope of creating a smooth transition, he is passing the franchise into the hands of one of the world's oldest, biggest, and best-loved entertainment companies so that SW not only remains relevant for generations to come, but also grows and evolves.  Lucas will still be around, one would hope, for the release of the coming trilogy, and he has accepted a far more passive role in their creation - essentially a grandfatherly role.  Now the ball is in Disney's court to live up to the trust Lucas has put in them.

Will Disney try to quickly cash in on SW, creating a mindless factory that saps the franchise of its creative force?  Or will it rely heavily on the experience of the LucasFilm people and nurture it as an intergenerational franchise?  Right off the bat, Episodes 7, 8, and 9 present challenges:  they ought to be centered on the Skywalker arc again, yet Hamill and his buddies are too old to be the featured players.  Even should Disney find the right story to pursue for that trilogy, and get the right directors, writers, and actors, there is their goal of releasing a SW film "every two to three years".  What will that look like?  Fortunately, the SW films have sketched out the foundations of a rich, wide universe.  Star Wars is already the king of film franchises (with all due respect to 007); it being passed on to Disney creates a huge range of outcomes for it.  Will it be remolded into an unmanageable behemoth that gets sent off course then left to float adrift until nostalgia for the first films can return?  Or will Disney support those who have worked with the franchise for years and give them the resources to carefully grow it into something even better, something that the entertainment world has never seen before?

May the Force be with you, Disney.

Politics: 2012 Election

2012 Election

The longer I've been following politics, the greater range of feeling I've had about it.  First, "Candidate A must win the election or the next four years will be terrible!" then, "well, how much is really going to change no matter who wins the election" then, "well, it depends on what happens in Congress, and in the courts, and at the state level, and the local level...".  And then it repeats.

I doubt that any of those three options are completely accurate.  I read in a recent Time magazine that those who are the most informed - and are thus typically the most partisan - have the hardest time accepting that a particular fact from the other side of the political spectrum might be true.  It's not very surprising.  Elections, in some ways, are like a sports league where the teams are different religions.  The way a team wins or loses is by receiving validation, internal or external, that it is right.  So every team can, and usually does, "win".  And yet, when there is a challenge to your team not being right, it is like someone is challenging the validity of your faith:  there must be some flaw or distortion in the challenge that makes it wrong.  We - and especially the most partisan among us - can't stand to lose an election because A) our "team" lost the "championship" and B) a majority of people (at least in the electoral college) had the gall to side with the other "religion".

I admit, I've felt pulled into this game more than once, particularly when I first really started to follow politics more closely.  But the electoral process is not a game, and the important work only begins once the politicians have been elected.  We, the people, must stay informed and also, yes, make politicians aware of issues that develop in society.  Then politicians must work together in order to solve those issues.  They must work together for two reasons:  1) obviously, they don't all share the same view so nothing will get done if they don't compromise (for reference, see the last 2.5 years); and 2) no side has all the right answers/no ideology if implemented will result in a perfect society, so we need to take the best ideas no matter which side they come from.

This is why the picture at the top is a sign for Stewart and Colbert.  They mock the self-righteousness and incompetence of both parties (admittedly, like me, with a liberal slant).  They point out the real pain and frustration that goes on in the world, and how the political process turns it into a pawn in the chess match while doing nothing about it, or any number of other ways politicians mess up.  It is important - perhaps crucial - that we be able to step back and laugh at ourselves, at least occasionally.

***

With all that said, next I'm going to specifically point out what I would like to see done on the various issues of the day.  As Obama has focused his campaign on his past accomplishments and why Romney sucks, and Romney has focused his campaign on taking both sides of every issue and why Obama sucks, I'm going to just take a stab at how each might handle the issues.  Here we go!

Deficit:  I address this first because it is entirely dependent on other issues.  I looked through national budget data since 2001, and my conclusions to deal with the problem are:  grow the economy (enormous effect on revenue), rein in military spending, and, most importantly, reduce health care costs.  Yes, the numbers look big and scary right now - but the deficit must be seen relative to these other issues.  As long as the economy continues to recover and we can address entitlements and military spending (much more in doubt), then the deficit will not seem so scary.
Advantage:  Obama (Seems much more level-headed about the issue; much of the Republican base has an exaggerated fear of the issue and would pressure Romney, a more fiscally-reasonable politician than the Tea Party or the rest of the fringe, to make disastrous spending cuts.)

Economy:  Ultimately, I think both TARP (although it was hard to stomach) and the stimulus were necessary to prevent a depression.  Beyond that, the government has no magic wand to wave and make the economy grow like China's in the short term.  There are way too many uncontrollable, global variables.  I do believe that if the government invests in education, infrastructure, and certain industries, it can help create a strong foundation for the long-term.
Advantage:  Obama (Romney has business credentials, sure; but it seems to me he favors short-term approaches that, while perhaps providing a temporary boost, may also hamper the nation long-term.  Obama supports the kind of investments I think are critical to that long-term foundation.)

Healthcare:  We have to slow the rise of healthcare costs, otherwise the nation will go bankrupt and/or healthcare will become a luxury for a smaller and smaller pool of wealthy Americans.  Luckily, there is a model for success here:  basically every other developed nation in the world.
Advantage:  Obama (Obamacare is not perfect, but at least it is a major step in the right direction.  Republicans, on the other hand, don't want government to have any part of an overall healthcare policy, despite its success internationally.)

Entitlements:  Much like healthcare, the rise in costs is unsustainable, at least for Medicare and Medicaid (I think Social Security is supposed to be basically sound).  On the other hand, these programs need to be able to do their jobs, both for moral reasons and economic ones (70% of the economy is based on consumerism).  Again, healthcare costs in general are a huge driver of the price of these programs, so it's hard to say exactly how much of the problem is structural.
Advantage:  Mixed (In response to Republican pledges not to raise taxes, many Democrats want no changes at all to entitlements.  I doubt huge changes are necessary in any event, but we at least need to be able to look at them critically.  On the other hand, Romney/Ryan have a plan that won't kick in for those 55 and older, which makes me deeply suspicious of their plan.)

Global Warming:  The biggest threat to not only this country but the entire human race, yet it is not a factor in the election at all.  This is a classic frog-in-boiling-water case.  I realize that it is literally not possible to entirely switch off of fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the near future; but that has to be the end goal, and it has to start NOW.  Efficiency is low-hanging fruit.  Fracking, while it needs to be carefully regulated, is a good start since natural gas contributes about half as much (if Zakaria's facts are correct) carbon as coal, which needs to go ASAP.  I'm even willing to talk about increased nuclear power, but ultimately we must develop renewable sources that are affordable and scalable, and fast.
Advantage:  Obama (Big investment in renewables in the stimulus was a good start, at least.  And Republicans will have a very difficult conversation with their kids if they continue to deny the very existence of the scientifically-verified, slow motion disaster that is global warming.)

Foreign Policy:  Yeah, this is a huge, diverse topic, but I'm trying to be as brief as possible here.  First, treat China - the world's other superpower - with respect, and build up a positive relationship with it rather than one of hostility.  Second, scale back use of drones but increase use of intelligence in tracking and controlling terrorist cells and organizations; al-Qaeda is still a threat, but we can't further alienate the people with collateral damage.  Third, don't demonize Islamist political parties in the new Middle East democracies but emphasize the democratic ideals that foster harmonious societies (education, women's rights, etc.).  Fourth, don't start a war with Iran.  Fifth, pay attention to Africa.
Advantage:  Obama (Both parties are fairly close in foreign policy these days, but Romney and some Republicans, at least at the moment, are too hawkish on China and Iran.  Tensions throughout the world seem to be rising, whether it's the economy in Europe, revolution in Middle East, or competition in East Asia.  The U.S. needs to be a calming, stabilizing influence.)

Immigration:  I admit, I know very little on this subject, mostly because I live in a part of the country that is >90% white.  But it's a very important topic nonetheless and, broadly speaking, I advocate for merciful policies for undocumented immigrants (and certainly clear paths to citizenship for their children), in addition to a modernization of policies for others:  for example, many bright young people study in the U.S. and then are forced to go back home - and take their ideas with them.
Advantage:  Obama (All of the public debate is on the undocumented immigrant aspect, and Obama again has the advantage of not answering to a major section of his base whipped into a frenzy by the Tea Party, Fox News, et. al. like Romney does.  I will say, Romney seems likely to be more moderate here than some others in the GOP would be.)

Drug War:  An utter disaster on so many levels, it must end now.  Probably the most insidious part has been its disproportionate impact on impoverished and minority populations, but it has also led to a culture of incarceration, crisis in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, and billions of dollars spent to not even put a dent in the rate of drug use.  Legalize and regulate marijuana (disclosure:  I've never tried it before, nor do I have any intention to).
Advantage:  Neither (Hey, the libertarians finally score a point!)

***

So, as you can see, I plan to vote to re-elect President Obama in November.  Was he perfect in his first term, or does he agree with me on every point?  No, but I think he's taking the country in the right direction on a number of the most crucial issues.  And to go back to the first part of my post, we've got to compromise and get to the best solutions, no matter the partisan bent.  Look at Obamacare:  it addressed one of the most critical issues in our country, and Obama championed it despite the fact that it was pretty much the same plan that a certain Republican used in Massachusetts.

Feel free to share your thoughts with me in the comments, for or against!

Movies: Argo

Score:  **** out of *****  (A-)

Long Story Short:  Argo is a big step forward for Ben Affleck, the director, and in my eyes it earns its current status as an Oscar favorite.  The film really nails a believable atmosphere, and because of that, a superb tension, particularly at the beginning and end.  Affleck's own character, the hero, is disappointing and shows that he has a little work to do in that area, but the supporting cast provides plenty of brilliant moments.  Highly recommended to all.


As more well-reviewed, limited release films come out, movie theaters around me continue to miss them... except for this Oscar buzz film, Argo.  After reading about the premise several months ago, I was interested to check this one out.  Plus, Ben Affleck impressed me with his work on The Town from a few years ago.  Once November arrives, the movie choices should continue to get better (and perhaps some previous limited releases will make their way to my area).  Argo was directed by Ben Affleck and stars him, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman.

The film starts with a brief narration of Iranian history, and the action begins in 1979, following the deposed Shah's escape to the U.S.  Revolutionaries gather and gain support in the streets outside the U.S. embassy, with the diplomats inside growing more and more nervous.  Eventually, of course, the Iranians break into the compound and take almost everyone hostage.  Six people, however, manage to escape and hide out in the Canadian ambassador's home.  Back in the U.S., news of the attack dominates the headlines, while the State Department frets about their secret knowledge of the other six. State is desperate to get them out, but the CIA squashes their ideas to get them out.

CIA agent Mendez (Affleck) comes up with another idea involving location filming in Iran, but his superiors, including boss O'Donnell (Cranston) are doubtful.  Still, it's their only lead, and so Mendez approaches makeup artist Chambers (Goodman) and producer Siegel (Arkin) in order to develop a legitimate operation to back up the ruse.  Back in Iran, the escapees grow restless even as the revolutionaries piece together that there are Americans in hiding.  When Mendez arrives in the hostile nation, the situation gets even more tense as he races against the clock to get them out.

The performances in Argo are very good for the most part.  Interestingly, however, Ben Affleck's role as the CIA hero Mendez is bland and mediocre.  Perhaps Affleck just put 90% of his energy into directing (which he did much better), but even compared to my low standards for him, he just gives very little personality or flavor to his character.  Fortunately, the roster of supporting roles has several stand-outs.  First there is Cranston, playing Affleck's boss; he disappears into the role of a dedicated, experienced, slightly arrogant yet intensely loyal CIA manager.  His biting humor and bursts of passion provide some of the film's best moments.  Next are John Goodman and Alan Arkin as his polar opposites, cynical and seemingly indifferent Hollywood vets.  Both are hilarious and Arkin delivers the movie's crass catchphrase based on the title of the fake film.  Several of the American escapees also give great performances, although the character names elude me.  Some familiar faces in small roles (Victor Garber from Alias, Kyle Chandler from Friday Night Lights) round out the great cast.

The name of the game in Argo is suspense.  Particularly in the beginning, as Iran's revolutionaries invade the embassy, and at the end when the Americans make their escape attempt, the film keeps you on the edge of your seat.  Sure, it goes away for stretches in the middle, but if it didn't, I think anyone who watched it would end up with blood pressure issues.  The key to Argo's success with tension I think is the very realistic feel given to the true story, and a sense of how dangerous Iran was, particularly in that time period.  The humor provided by Arkin, Goodman, and occasionally Cranston is a perfect complement to the tension, and it's an appropriate kind of humor, too.  I also need to give a lot of credit to the set designers and especially costume and make-up artists (the real ones!).  During the credits side-by-side shots of the film actors and their real-life counterparts are shown, and they are amazingly accurate.

***

Argo really shows Ben Affleck's growth as a filmmaker; not that The Town was bad, but this film is certainly superior.  Affleck nailed the tension and realism of an historical thriller about as well as any other I've seen - but he's still got some room to grow.  His character, in fact, is a good symbol of the area he needs to improve:  I simply did not feel pulled into the story by the characters; certainly not by his bland lead.  Yes, there is a palpable, thrilling sense of relief when the Americans have finally gotten away, and there are a few good moments relating characters (mostly on the strength of Cranston's, Arkin's, and one of the escapee's acting).  But it lacks that connection to character that, for example, Apollo 13, nailed.  Make no mistake, however:  this is an excellent film that I would recommend to any adult audience and many younger ones, too.  Perhaps over time this film could prove itself to be worthy as a classic of its genre.

Movies: Looper

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt extends his big year at the movies as he stars in this new sci-fi action film.  Built on a sturdy and intriguing premise of a man meeting an older version of himself, Looper puts the action in a gritty, well fleshed-out near future setting.  The level of violence may surprise you, making Bruce Willis a natural fit as the older Gordon-Levitt (facial prosthetics make JGL truly look like Baby Willis).  Very well done, if perhaps not a film that leaves a lasting impression.


Finally, a new movie review!  September, as usual, was a bad month for film, with Looper being the only one that got my interest.  There are two other films out right now, The Master and Perks of Being a Wallflower, that look good but currently are not playing in my area, unfortunately.  Anyway, when I first heard about Looper, it seemed like an interesting premise with an actor I like (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).  And then I heard the actors seemed quite enthusiastic about the film, and it came out to excellent reviews (93% on Rotten Tomatoes).  This, combined with my recent drought in trips to the theater, made it an obvious choice.  Looper was directed by Rian Johnson (his third film) and stars Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt.

Looper is set in a near-future America (2044 according to Wikipedia; I don't remember this being said in the film).  The country has fallen into decay, and Joe (Gordon-Levitt), a young man, works for the mob in a rather unique way.  He is a Looper:  the mob from thirty years in the future uses time travel to send its victims back in time for disposal so that their bodies are never found.  Joe is good at his job, and enjoys the benefits (drugs, girls) that his employment provides him.  However, the reality of his situation begins to dawn on him when a friend goes on the run and asks him for protection; Joe sees how fragile his life really is.

Things take an even worse turn when Joe's next target turns out to be... himself (Willis).  Of course, his old self is not the usual hapless victim, and Old Joe escapes.  While Joe is desperate to put down his old self or be hunted like his friend, Old Joe has a mission of his own to stop a future personal tragedy from occurring.  As Joe struggles to decide what to do, another variable gets thrown into the mix and forces him to defend someone else for the first time.

The performances in Looper are good, though nothing especially outstanding.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt again does a very good job; as earnest and selfless as he was in The Dark Knight Rises, he is equally as convincing in his indifference and self-interest for (most of) this film.  Gordon-Levitt makes Joe likable enough, despite his character's flaws, to carry the film's emotional weight.  Bruce Willis as "old Joe" does a decent job; really he's basically a more ruthless John McClane from Die Hard.  Old Joe is interesting in comparing him to the his younger self, not in watching Willis do something new.  Emily Blunt does a fine job in a role I did not describe in the plot synopsis; all you need to know at this point is that she plays a normal woman with genuine, powerful concern for her family.  The supporting cast includes Paul Dano as Joe's friend on the run (brief but effectively creepy plot); Noah Segan as a mob hitman (dark comic relief); and Jeff Daniels as the mob boss (very entertaining).

The premise of Looper - a young man assigned to kill his older self - is the central and most interesting aspect of the film.  However, the futuristic setting itself is surprisingly well crafted, too.  There are plenty of near-future sci-fi films out there, and typically a few obvious details spell out how it's different from the present day, and then the rest is unimportant.  Looper, though, is filled with small but very interesting details about how this future America looks - not just using a few new gadgets, but in having characters interact so naturally with everything around them, from hoverbikes to eye-drop drugs.  The film also really drives home the horror of violence, which I was not expecting from previews.  This is an R-rated film, and there's plenty of blood and a few mangled bodies - but the anticipation of potential violence here is just as terrifying.  There is a little bit of humor in the film, but not much; it's the emotional stakes that are intended to balance out the violence and overall gloom of the future society.

***

Looper sets itself apart as perhaps the best near-future sci-fi action film in years.  It uses the idea of a man forced to confront his older self (don't worry, the time travel itself is not that important here; there's no Inception-level technical exposition) as the core and supports it with a bleak yet well developed setting that balances a ruthless, kill-or-be-killed reality with unexpected yet believable and powerful hope.  Now, that sounds like high praise, which I meant it to be - and yet, it doesn't quite close all the loops, I guess you could say.  As another reviewer I read noted, just about all the elements work, but there's no magic that ties it all together to create those special moments you get in a truly great film.  Most of the separate elements are well done to one degree or another, and they're thematically coherent (in contrast with, say, this year's Spider-Man), but it's not what I call a memorable film.  Plus, the one technical gripe I'd make about it is that it's a bit too long; perhaps fifteen minutes taken here and there could have been shaved off.  If you can't take R violence, you might want to avoid this film, but otherwise, I do highly recommend it as a (rare) entertaining and engrossing fall action film.

Sports: Tennis and NFL

2012 U.S. Open Tennis and NFL Week 1 Reactions

It was another eventful two weeks at the U.S. Open this year, with plenty of surprises and excitement.  The biggest story lines coming into the tournament were, for the men, the worrying continued absence of "Big Three" member Rafael Nadal (tendonitis in knee), and the renewed dominance of Serena Williams in the women's game.  The men's quarterfinals saw all but one of the top eight seeds still playing (Tsonga has been upset earlier).  Hot, windy conditions helped wreak a little havoc, and Berdych scored perhaps the biggest upset by defeating a resurgent Roger Federer.  In the end, Murray seemed to finally reach the necessary level of confidence and maturity to match his physical skills, and won his first Grand Slam tournament.  On the women's side, three players outside the top ten managed to sneak into the quarterfinals.  From there, it was pretty much Serena bulldozing the competition.  Now for a player-by-player review (top ranked and other notables):

(1) Roger Federer:  dismantled all comers in the first few rounds, before getting beaten fairly handily by Tomas Berdych (who also knocked him out of Wimbledon a few years past).  The fact that Roger is back at #1 at age 31 is rather amazing; he did win Wimbledon this year, but with the level of play in the men's game right now, I have to think he's got one or two more Grand Slam titles at most left in him.

(2) Novak Djokovic:  my favorite player lost just one set going into the Finals, where he lost a great five-setter to the surging Murray.  Of course, the Djoker couldn't match his results from 2011 when he won three Grand Slams, but he still got to three finals this year, and won in Australian.  If he can stay healthy and fit, he should recapture the #1 seed by sometime early next year.

(3) Andy Murray:  Murray was tested a few times prior to the Finals, including by #30 Feliciano Lopez.  As I mentioned earlier, though, his composure and confidence against the top players was what finally put him over the top this time (in my opinion).  What a great year for him:  getting to the Wimbledon finals, winning the Olympic gold in his home nation, and now winning the U.S. Open.

(4) David Ferrer:  one of several player trying to nip at the heels of the Big ThreeFour, Ferrer usually gets overshadowed by his Spanish countrymate.  This guy is about as solid as they come, but just doesn't have the firepower to take on the big guns unless they have an off day.  Still, a tip of the hat to this consistent, feisty fighter - he certainly made fellow contender Tsonga look silly in comparison.

(20) Andy Roddick:  my favorite player following the retirement of Andre Agassi, Roddick announced his retirement following his exit from this year's Open.  Roddick could well go down as the unluckiest player in men's tennis, getting to his prime at the same time as Roger Federer.  He lost to Federer four times in Grand Slam finals, including one of the very best Finals of all time in 2009 at Wimbledon, a match he had several great chances to win.  I'll remember Roddick's distinctive, powerful serve for years to come, and salute his fine career.


(1) Victoria Azarenka:  outside of Serena, Azarenka had the most impressive Open even aside from, obviously, getting to the Final.  She crushed her early opponents, then beat both Stosur and Sharapova, a couple of top-ranked hard court specialists.  She even took Serena to three sets before the inevitable collapse.  Still, she won the Australian this year and has hung onto the #1 seed.

(2) Agnieszka Radwanska:  "who?" you might be thinking.  Radwanska is a bit like David Ferrer, a consistent yet unremarkable player - it shows you the lack of talent/consistency in the women's game right now.  Radwanska quietly bowed out in the fourth round at the open.  Her best showing this year was a loss in the Finals at Wimbledon.

(3) Maria Sharapova:  she continues to work her way back to the elite level after several down years due to injury.  She has moments of brilliance, but often spirals downward suddenly, and she lost in the semis at the Open to Azarenka.  Sharapova is a hard worker, though, and should keep improving.  She got to the Australian this year and won the French:  not too shabby.

(4) Serena Williams:  Serena is back in dominant form, winning the U.S. Open, and it seems the only women's player who can beat her right now is herself.  She utterly destroyed her opponents, only losing a set in the Finals, probably just to see what it felt like.  She also won Wimbledon this year; here's hoping someone finally develops who can take her on, or we're going to have a boring year in 2013.

(8) Caroline Wozniacki:  the U.S. Open has been Wozniacki's best Grand Slam, getting to the semis twice and the finals once, yet she lost in the first round this year.  She entered 2012 as the #1 ranked player, and has fallen apart rather rapidly.  Similar to Radwanska, she tends to beat inferior foes but has little chance against the best; this year, she has even lost the consistency.



NFL Week 1 Reactions:

Going game-by-game...

Cowboys - 24, Giants - 17:  the Cowboys didn't blow a 4th quarter lead!  Eli looked pretty shaky, but the Giants are a mediocre-at-best regular season team.  Can the Cowboys be consistently good this year?

Colts - 21, Bears - 41:  the Bears threw up a ton of points on the Colts, but that was no surprise; I suppose I'm cheating, but watching the Bears get dismantled by the Packers, maybe they aren't the sleeper I thought they'd be.  Forte getting hurt is not going to help, either.

Falcons - 40, Chiefs - 24:  well, I thought the Chiefs would make it a little more competitive than that.  Still, I seem to be right about the Falcons' passing offense.  We'll see if KC can bounce back.

Eagles - 17, Browns - 16:  is the Browns' defense that good, or is Michael Vick that bad?  Of course the Browns blow another 4th quarter lead, but the real question is whether this is a blip from the Eagles or a sign of things to come.

Redskins - 40, Saints - 32:  here's the shocker of the week.  RGIII somehow led his team to victory in the imposing Super Dome in his first game.  Can the Saints get on track, or are they doomed to a mediocre season?

Rams - 23, Lions - 27:  hmmm, perhaps the Rams will be a little better this year?  I thought the improvement would've come last year.  Lions fans have to be worried after that performance.

TTSNBN - 34, Titans - 13:  moving right along...

Jaguars - 23, Vikings - 26:  since both of these teams should suck this year, I suppose this was an appropriate outcome.  With Peterson seemingly already back to full speed though, who knows?

Bills - 28; Jets - 48:  how the hell did the Jets score 48 points (in one game)?!?!  The Bills must really, really, really stink this year.  I'm sticking to theory that the Jets suck until they can do this multiple times (and not against the Colts, Vikings, et. al.)

Dolphins - 10; Texans - 30: what can I say?  This is pretty much exactly what I thought would happen.

Seahawks - 16; Cardinals - 20:  everyone, including me, finally gets on the Seattle bandwagon... and then they lose to the miserable Cardinals.  Who ever knows with the NFC West?

49ers - 30, Packers - 22:  I might worry a little about the Packers, except they played superb defense against the Bears on Thursday and won despite poor offense.  I still think the 49ers are headed for a regression this season, even if they still win their division.

Panthers - 10, Buccaneers - 16:  I was expecting a high-scoring game here.  The only explanation I can think of is that divisional games can be weird like that.  Obviously, there's much more worry here for the Panthers if this was a representative game for each team's talents.

Steelers - 19, Broncos - 31:  the score doesn't look so bad, but Pittsburgh looked terrible on both sides of the ball, to me.  The defense couldn't handle the no-huddle of Manning, and the offense sorely needs a running game for balance.  Broncos certainly seem legit, on the other hand.

Bengals - 13, Ravens - 44:  whoa.  I really doubt that the Bengals regressed much (if any) from last year, so barring a fluke performance, the Ravens might be really good this year.  If the aging defense can hold steady, this new offense seems ready to blow teams out.

Chargers - 22, Raiders - 14:  like the NFC West - who knows, when it comes to the AFC West?