Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: In one of 2013's featured Oscar contenders, director David O. Russell newest film brings back many familiar faces from his previous films. This one is much goofier and loosely constructed than his other films, like The Fighter or Silver Linings Playbook. While he gets fantastic performances from leads Christian Bale and Amy Adams, youngsters Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are severely overrated misfires. More time seemed to be spent on (successfully) making stylish visuals and a soundtrack rather than on a coherent plot, making American Hustle feel "too cool for school".
As we approach the end of 2013, there are still some interesting films left to see before I write my 2013 year-in-review post. The film I'm reviewing today is a big Oscar contender, and I may be seeing some others, too (along with more "popular" films like Anchorman 2). My cut off for films is based on its release date for theater(s) in my area, so some may not be on the 2013 review (for example, Zero Dark Thirty will be on the upcoming review as it was released near me in early January ). As for American Hustle, I took interest in it for the big names in the cast, the director's previous good films, and the Oscar hype. With over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, the deal was sealed. American Hustle was directed by David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook) and stars Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.
Based on true events, Hustle tells the tale of two great con artists - Irving (Bale) and Sydney (Adams) - who cross paths and become close, both personally and professionally. The two are living the dream in the late 1970s, except for the minor nuisance of Irving's marriage to Rosalyn (Lawrence). Things turn for the worse when the FBI, led by agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper) discovers their operation. All is not lost, however: in pursuit of his own dream, Richie offers them a way out.
What begins as a limited operation to nab other con artists escalates to involve everyone from politicians to the mob. Irving and Sydney's once-tight relationship begins to fray, yet they must work together in order to salvage any remaining hope they have for their lives and the people they love.
Director David O. Russell managed to corral an impressive cast, the principal parts going to those whom he has worked with before (Silver Linings, The Fighter). Christian Bale takes the lead role as Irving the con artist. I knew Bale was a great actor, but wow does he knock it out of the park here. Not only did he (along with significant and excellent work from the crew, I'm sure) transform his body to literally and figuratively flesh Irving out, Bale just disappears into the complex character. He's ruthless and ingenious in his schemes, yet compassionate, vulnerable, etc. - a normal person - in private. Although often sullen and quiet on screen, Bale's Irving always drew my attention. Amy Adams as Sydney is also great, despite being given less background to work from. She lights up the screen when in action - hustling some poor fool or seducing Irving and Richie - as well as in quieter moments when she shows Sydney's keen intelligence yet also, like Irving, her personal frustrations. Russell was spot-on with his decision to cast Bale and Adams as the primary leads: they prove here that they are indeed two of the best actors in Hollywood.
Although Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are getting just as much attention from critics and the press, I was far less impressed with them. They're the "new kids" - also Russell-film vets - and the director clearly wanted to show them off again. Cooper isn't completely terrible as agent DiMaso; he's at least fun to watch most of the time. Yet he doesn't really make a convincing FBI agent - I mean, he's not supposed to be a great agent, but there's very little good to be found in his character at all. You can chalk much of that up to the script, but Cooper is also guilty of overacting on a number of occasions, particularly later in the film. Lawrence is even worse; her Rosalyn is caricature rather than a character. She did an excellent job, fully worthy of her Oscar in last year's Silver Linings, but this is just awful - way, way overacted. The obviously over-the-top parts aren't even entertaining, and the good moments have more to do with Bale's involvement. Cooper and Lawrence both show occasional glimpses of their potential, but the actors and their director badly miscalculated how to approach this film. (Almost forgot to mention Jeremy Renner, a major part in the film! He does a very good job here, much different from the roles I've seen him in before. I didn't think he could be so charismatic, but he pulls it off well.)
Some reviews I've read of this compare it to Scorcese's films; as I'm not very familiar with a lot of those, I'd instead compare it with Ocean's Eleven. American Hustle is meant to be a more high-brow production, but they both have the central components of a group con/heist effort and a web of personal relationships. I'm sure a repeat viewing of the film would help, but it was a little tricky to follow all the con operations in American Hustle - much of it was buried underneath the (very enjoyable) 70s soundtrack, or run through in rapid fire dialogue with lots of con-lingo. As the stakes grow higher and higher, it adds to a sense of bafflement, and not always of the comic type intended by the filmmaker. On the other hand, most of the personal aspects work much better. The strong Irving-Sydney connection is central, with Richie and Rosalyn acting as disruptors. Bale and Adams do a tremendous job showing a complex, genuine relationship, and the film makes its strongest impact when that connection gets twisted, hurt, and otherwise altered. A final point of comparison with Ocean's Eleven is the style, and American Hustle flourishes here, from the costumes to the music. I don't have the vocabulary or the aesthetic sensibility to go into detail, but it's just entertaining.
***
Similar to 12 Years a Slave, here we have a heavily hyped Oscar contender - and while I think it's a very good film, I'd like to tap the brakes a little on this parade of adulation. First of all, the film does not have four stand out performances: it has two excellent ones, and two showy but ultimately failed ones. There's certainly a fine line here, because American Hustle is a comedy and not a serious drama. But I got a strong sense from Cooper and especially Lawrence of trying (whether cynically or earnestly) to up the ante on their Silver Linings success and it ruined their performances. Fortunately, Bale and Adams' performances are extraordinary (I'd also add that Louis C.K. is, unsurprisingly, hilarious in a small role and could have been even better if playing opposite someone other than Cooper). I've already mentioned that the style of the film is high quality and entertaining, but that's superficial. So the "tiebreaker" goes to the story and plot, on which I probably place more importance than many. While it's an interesting set up, there are too many developments that just happen (mainly related to what Richie and the FBI are trying to do) and too many scenes that end up being pointless (Rosalyn's role in particular). So while American Hustle has some great style, two outstanding performances and a neat premise, it ultimately doesn't think it has to play by the rules (Richie/Rosalyn; plot). Good, but not great.
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Part two of Peter Jackson's three film take on The Hobbit is now in theaters. No worries of "dragging" that some (incorrectly, IMO) ascribed to the first film to be found here. But it may have swung too far the other way: while it has lots of fun action scenes, The Desolation of Smaug mostly neglects its biggest star, Bilbo (Freeman). Add in a disappointing climax and, while it's still a solid adventure in Middle Earth, it ranks as my least favorite of Jackson's adaptations.
I'm back with some more blockbuster action - another part two of a franchise, no less! Coming soon: I'll be seeing American Hustle (from the director of Silver Linings Playbook) this weekend, and hopefully, Anchorman 2 not long after that. I've also been blitzing through a number of films I missed in the theater via my Netflix subscription; brief summaries of those will appear in my year-end review. You can read my review of An Unexpected Journey to get background on that film and my feelings on Jackson's Tolkien-verse as a whole. Suffice it to say here, this was one of my most eagerly anticipated films of the year. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was directed by Peter Jackson and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, et. al.
The action picks up just about right where it left off at the end of An Unexpected Journey: Bilbo the Hobbit (Freeman), Gandalf the wizard (McKellen), and the band of dwarves are headed for the Lonely Mountain to reclaim the old dwarven kingdom, while being pursued by orcs. It isn't long before a new menace (not seen before in any of Jackson's films) arrives, but the group manages to escape and get a small breather. Then, as in LotR, there is a parting of ways: Gandalf leaves to investigate ominous signs, while Bilbo and the dwarves trek through a dark, mysterious forest. Among other obstacles are the elves, where audiences are introduced to the female warrior Tauriel (Lilly) and reintroduced to the dashing Legolas (Bloom).
Once Bilbo and the dwarves part ways with the elves, they find themselves still pursued by the persistent orcs. Unfortunately, there is a giant lake between them and the Lonely Mountain. Bard, a denizen of Lake Town (literally, a town built on top of the lake), is persuaded to give them passage. Just when it seems that they've finally caught a break, though, Bilbo and the dwarves - and Gandalf, many miles away - face their greatest challenges yet.
As in An Unexpected Journey, part two of The Hobbit features a large cast. Martin Freeman returns as Bilbo and, when given the chance, reinforces the fact that he is the best actor to portray a Hobbit yet (and that's no offense to Elijah Wood, et. al.). The problem is that he gets significantly less time to shine in this chapter; however, he still has all the cleverness, humor and does all the little things that made him great in part one. Ian McKellen gets a surprisingly large part - of course, Gandalf is old hat (literally and figuratively) for him now as one of the icons of fantasy film. It takes a little while for Thorin, leader of the dwarves (as played by Richard Armitage), to get his time in the spotlight. When he does, Richard shows that he has gotten the born-leader persona down even better now, and the script really helps to reveal his character's strengths and weaknesses.
Two elves play significant roles in The Desolation of Smaug. Primary is Evangeline Lilly (Kate from Lost) as Tauriel. She is a welcome addition - and not just as one of the series' few female characters. Evangeline portrays her convincingly as a fierce, effective warrior; newcomer to the outside world and thus excited yet somewhat naive; and possessing of the warmth of (some of) the elves of Middle Earth. Unfortunately, she's also saddled with a boring love triangle. Orlando Bloom's Legolas is a welcome addition to the cast - even if he mostly just kicks orc butt (in the coolest ways possible). Luke Evans plays Bard, the Lake Town guide. I know he's a major part of the book, but... bleh. Aside from being an Orlando Bloom clone, he's almost entirely generic and bland, just like Lake Town itself (more on that later). And the rest: Stephen Fry as Master of Lake Town (almost makes the Lake Town scenes interesting)... Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug (nice voice work on the dragon - but there are other problems that I'll get to)... the other dwarves (not nearly as mischievous this time, sadly - only one to get major attention is Kili).
Not enough action for you in An Unexpected Journey? Then The Desolation of Smaug is right up your alley, although it sacrifices other elements - perhaps too much - in doing so. This film is definitely a roller coaster ride, with a number of different sets and a variety of action. Much of it is exciting; maybe this is just my personal taste, but I loved just about any action involving the elves. Despite being a bit over the top, and goofier than LotR action, a barrel-ride sequence in the first half of the film is my favorite, pure fun and smiles - while gripping your seat. Yet the "crown jewel" - the showdown with Smaug the dragon - was pretty disappointing. I love how they ominously set it up, but once it gets going it sets off one of my action pet peeves. Smaug could and should have obliterated Bilbo and the dwarves a thousand times, but supposedly due to the dragon's "arrogance" or, worse, anything the victims did, they survived. There's a lot of suspension of disbelief that goes into watching a fantasy film, but when a freaking 100-ton dragon tries and fails for twenty minutes to fry a Hobbit and some dwarves, it gets boring and exasperating.
***
While it's disappointing that the climax of The Desolation of Smaug falls so short, the film overall is still very solid (although not as good as part one). This is still Peter Jackson's Tolkien-verse, and even if it's stranger than ever, it's still a place to behold. Bilbo/Freeman and Gandalf/McKellen are as strong of leads as you can ask for, though it's disappointing to see Bilbo's role in particular diminish. New faces and places pretty much balance out as far as good and bad - good being the elves, Mirkwood, and Tauriel (and Legolas, though he's not technically new), the bad being Lake Town and Bard. Sadly, Lake Town and Bard figure to play much more prominent roles in the last film. Yes, the concept of a town on the lake is neat, but there isn't anything else to make it special like the Hobbits' Shire, or the elves' Rivendell or Mirkwood, or the other humans' Rohan or Gondor. I should repeat as a counterweight to this negativity that most of the action in this film is sensational (including a Gandalf duel), and some of the things they show briefly are great, too. If you're looking for an entertaining time at the theater, you can't go wrong with either this one or Catching Fire. I can't help but feel apprehensive about the third Hobbit film, based on the way this ended, but if anyone can pull it off, it's Peter Jackson.
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Katniss Everdeen returns for the second in a four part series that is already one of the biggest modern film franchises. The ramifications of the first film's ending dominate this middle chapter of the series, as we get increased political tension and another trip to the brutal Hunger Games arena. Lawrence still doesn't quite strike me as the best fit for sullen yet strong Katniss, but she's helped by a strong supporting cast (esp. Peeta, Effie, and Finnick). An upgrade in almost every way from the original, particularly in the action, Catching Fire is one of the year's most solid blockbusters.
We're coming down to the last few weeks of 2013. I'm beginning to Netflix some of the films released this year that I chose not to/didn't get a chance to see in the theater; I'll make comments on those in my 2013 film review (late January or early February). I'll certainly be seeing the second Hobbit film and Anchorman 2, but beyond that I'm unsure of what else to expect - we'll see! As for Catching Fire, I meant to see it on opening weekend - but the show I wanted to go to was sold out, so I had to wait. As I explained last year, I read all three books before I knew they would become films; it's a fun series, though not in the upper fantasy echelons (i.e.: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.). Still, I was encouraged by the great early scores it got. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was directed by Francis Lawrence and stars Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, et. al.
Catching Fire picks up right about where the first film left off: Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) have just survived the children's gladiator event of a near future society. Although only one child is supposed to survive, they managed to break the pattern. As we find at the beginning of this film, this result has produced feelings of solidarity in the oppressed population of Panem - and suspicion among its rulers. In order to get things "back to normal", Katniss and Peeta are pressured to contain the situation as a romance within the Games rather than as a gesture to the broader society.
Still, Panem's rulers are antsy about the state of things, with Katniss and Peeta representing perhaps just the beginning. Thus, the next Hunger Games - an "anniversary" edition - is changed to consist of only past winners of the competition. As Panem looks at the new Hunger Games with more at stake than ever before, Katniss and Peeta are once again thrown into peril.
Like other popular book-turned-film series, The Hunger Games assembles a cast of familiar faces to portray even minor characters. Reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen is Jennifer Lawrence. Certainly today's most hyped young actress, Lawrence is good here but not great. She impressed me in last year's Silver Linings Playbook, but she's not a great fit here. Lawrence shines when given active, emotional scenes (or entire parts - see Silver Linings), but Katniss is mostly subdued, if not withdrawn, and that isn't a strong suit for Jennifer yet. Although his part is somewhat small, I am much more impressed with Hutcherson as Peeta this time than in the first. Partly he benefits from having a unique male role as the passive half in a semi-romantic relationship. But Josh really holds to that (not an easy task for most hotshot young actors) and makes Peeta a sympathetic, relatable character.
Woody Harrelson is also back as Haymitch, former Hunger Games victor/current advisor to Katniss and Peeta. Woody is always fun to watch and he's a natural fit for this role - but I do wish that they'd really make him an asshole like he is in the books rather than this "benevolent grump". Elizabeth Banks as Katniss' and Peeta's chaperone, Effie, might be the sneaky (albeit flamboyant) best part in the series so far. She is just what I imagined from the books, a surprisingly complex character who makes us believe her sheltered upbringing/enthusiastic job is challenged by Katniss and Peeta's situation. Favorite newcomer: Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair (a former winner/contestant in this film). He is charismatic and commands the screen, separating himself from an endless list of similar parts in other films. Other notes: Liam Hemsworth (Gale) continues to be the most obnoxious, useless YA aspect of the films... Philip Seymour Hoffman's (gamemaker Plutarch) has bad dialogue but is such a good actor that he pulls it off anyway... Stanley Tucci (TV host Caesar) is the next best supporting series regular after Effie.
There are lots of different elements in play here for Catching Fire as a film. It's an adaptation (duh), it's the middle chapter of a series, it's YA but also more ambitious at times. Oh, and it's supposed to make a LOT of money. As an adaptation, I think Catching Fire is at least as good, perhaps a bit better, than the first (although it's a little bloated). Catching Fire also does well despite being a middle chapter; it starts right after the first, so no explanation of time gaps are required; and it finishes up the first aspect of the series' plot (i.e. revolving around the Hunger Games themselves) neatly with a tantalizing preview of what's to come. Although I cringe at some of the YA-inspired moments (basically anything with Gale), they are fewer in Catching Fire than they were in the first. The action scenes are significantly upgraded as well from the first, in large part thanks to some of the book's creative "obstacles" within the Hunger Games arena (killer monkeys and spinning islands and ghastly gas, oh my!).
***
I left the theater satisfied but not exuberant; the film is growing on me as I think back on it. I could see possibly bumping it up to an "A-". The Hunger Games films have so far been about as faithful as a non-R-rated version could be; its successes and failures have largely mirrored the books'. Katniss is an interesting heroine, although Lawrence hasn't been able to quite fulfill her potential (she has a big opportunity in the final two films, though). Her relationship with Peeta is one of the most intriguing parts, in both book and film; while her relationship with Gale is equally cliched and boring in both. The idea of two innocent civilians' - childrens' - actions sparking a revolution is well realized; even if the details of the situation behind it (the government, the oppressed people, the history) are a little more bland. That's OK, the main focus is on Katniss and her family and friends, and Catching Fire maintains it. The build-up could have been trimmed, but it still holds the attention; and once we get to the arena, it's more fun than the first film. Recommended (although, of course, make sure you've seen 2012's The Hunger Games, or read the books, first).
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: The widely praised and Oscar-hyped 12 Years a Slave is starting to open across the country, giving a wider audience the chance to see it. Receiving raves as both an incredible story of an individual and a powerful, realistic portrait of slavery, it falls short, at least on the former. The film benefits from some outstanding performances, particularly from Michael Fassbender, as well as from unapologetically startling, horrifying, disquieting scenes. But the whole is significantly less than the sum of its pieces, unfortunately.
As I noted in last week's review, I've got a big change in genre for this week's film review - and then it's back to blockbuster territory for next week with the Hunger Games sequel. After that, it's a little less clear what comes next; I'll have to look more closely at upcoming films. And it's likely to be only film reviews for a little while: the NFL season still has over a month until the playoffs, the NBA is well underway (missed my chance for a preview), and tennis season doesn't start back up until January. I first heard about 12 Years a Slave early in the fall, as it became an early Oscar favorite at the Toronto (?) film festival. It sounded like an interesting premise, so I wanted to see it; finally, it arrived in a theater near me last week. 12 Years a Slave was directed by Steve McQueen and stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch.
Leading with a few disturbing scenes of slavery, the film then flashes back to introduce Solomon Northup (Ejiofor) - a free man from New York. Northup is a successful man with a loving wife and children, but he is approached by men who seek him for his violin-playing talents and he leaves to work with them. All seems almost too good to be true, and it is. One morning, Northup wakes to find himself chained in a dark room. He soon discovers that he is being trafficked to the South as a slave. As Northup does not act like other slaves - he wasn't born one - he finds himself passed among plantation owners. For twelve years, Northup is forced into a horrible, nearly impossible balancing act - to keep himself physically alive, as well as to keep his hope alive so that he can someday return to his family and life as a free man.
12 Years a Slave enjoys the benefits of a great cast of actors. As I say that, though, I must follow with a tempered review of Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance, which has been lauded by basically every major critic. In individual scenes, I will agree: Ejiofor communicates effectively with little direct dialogue, using body language well. But in creating a compelling character throughout the course of the movie, he isn't nearly as successful - and I put 90% of the blame on the script and director (we'll get to that). Michael Fassbender, on the other hand, is phenomenal. Playing Northup's horrible master Epps, Fassbender makes him truly frightening and repulsive - yet utterly believable as a man whose behavior has become habit as much or more than choice, and one is who not a simplistic, pure evil, but rather a real man gone rotten beyond repair. He commands every scene he's in, and conveys the despair of slavery more effectively than any single act of brutality.
Lupita Nyong'o, a virtual newcomer to acting, also does a stellar job as the slave Patsey. Epps' favorite, Patsey is the most sorrowful victim of the film. Nyong'o is silent and still for much of the time, virtually a hollowed out automaton created by Epps' and his wife's abuse. But occasionally what's left of her soul breaks out when she is alone with Northup - so uncontrolled and desperate that even Northup is incapable of understanding her. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Northup's first master, Ford, a much gentler man. Cumberbatch fits the role well, a serious, dignified and slightly conflicted man, but here again is a problem with the script (more in a moment). Among other notable roles, starting with the best, are Sarah Paulson (as Mrs. Epps, about as bad as her husband), Paul Giamatti (a brief role as an utterly remorseless, cruel slave trader), and Paul Dano (a mean but cowardly overseer).
12 Years a Slave is quite a story, but a difficult one to balance. There are two equally powerful and important elements to get right: Northup's experience of hell as an individual, and the institution of slavery as seen through this unique lens. With this kind of story, Hollywood tends to have two styles, with plenty of films landing somewhere between: you have the sentimentalized versions with exaggerated characters, dialogue and set-up emotional scenes; and you have the deadly serious (and usually depressing) realistic versions with little dialogue, story arc or emotional triumph. For the story of 12 Years a Slave, the problem is that Northup's part lends itself to the former version, while the slavery part lends itself to the latter.
The film tries, consciously or not, to split the difference, mostly to Northup's detriment. The original plan seemed to be to go for the "serious" path: if you've read anything about this film before, I'm referring to the scenes of violence. And no doubt about it, those scenes are effective: from the near hanging that drags on mercilessly, to the whippings, to the slave trade and on and on. And the Epps crew is a perfect setting for displaying the cruelty of slavery realistically (at least seems to); no huge, fancy plantation, this is a nowhere land led by nobodies; no towering, tyrannical owner, this is a pathetic human being whose sole power comes from the law being on his side.
However, the trouble for Northup starts early. Precious little time is spent on Northup's pre-slavery life; I suppose this was meant to show how rapidly things could change, but what it really does is deny Northup a crucial base on which his character can build. The whole process of transportation and trading is a shocking, brutal and effective one, but the Ford section gets things all out of whack. There is no process of assimilation; we simply find Northup immediately getting in Ford's good graces (Cumberbatch gets to play the thinly veiled "gentle slave owner"), and then he abruptly blows up on the overseer (Dano) and that's it for the Ford part. Only when Northup arrives at the Epps does his situation seem to sink in; but then, Northup's defiance as a free man also shows up at random times. There's just precious little consistency (or at least smoothness in transition) in either Northup's character development or the film's path between hope for Northup and despair in slavery. By the time we get to the ending, it's both predictable and ineffective.
***
Now, I know a lot of that just sounded pretty damning. And I still rated the film an "A-". What gives? Most scenes in the film (although there are some duds toward the end) are powerful and effective, keeping you riveted. Most of the performances are superb (Fassbender, Nyong'o, etc.) or at least interesting (Cumberbatch, Giamatti, etc.). But when you put them all together... there's just not enough synergy to make this a truly great film. Most of the slavery aspects are superb and moving, when no one (not named Fassbender) is speaking - but there are enough Hollywood-ized scenes and dialogue that it doesn't all fit together (Brad Pitt's small part is the coup de grace here). And Northup is sadly generic, saddled not just with the contrasts mentioned above, but also with the lack of an effective starting point to work from.
Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind when I saw 12 Years a Slave. But I'm doubtful; when that happens, my opinion of a film tends to shift over the course of the week (on average) between when I see the film and when I review it. If anything, my opinion of this film has solidified. I can't speak for what the critics saw in this (or, possibly, blinded themselves from) to deem it an instant classic. What I can say is, yes, there are great performances (Ejiofor's overrated one - due to script and directing - aside) and powerful scenes. Those are good enough to get it to "A-". But, thanks to an inconsistent script and a director who couldn't keep it all together, it is not a cinematic great taken as a whole.
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: Thor gets his second shot to be the main man, and while the series further separates itself from the other franchises, it also remains perhaps the weakest link overall. Thor 2 is certainly a lot of fun with its big battles, and Chris Hemsworth is a likable lead while Hiddleston is making Loki one of the great comic book villains. But plot holes, convenient timing and deus ex machina reach pretty ridiculous levels here, and the parts on Earth (I'm looking at you, Jane/Natalie Portman) leave much to be desired.
The fall movie season rolls right along. Looking ahead on IMDB, there seems to be a good mix of genres coming out, from blockbuster to Oscar-bait, that I may see in the theater. And 12 Years a Slave was released in my local theater this weekend - just in time for the gap between Thor and Hunger Games (talk about contrasts!). Marvel's film studio seems to be an unstoppable machine now, propelled to the forefront by The Avengers and led by a Batman-level star (Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.). Hey, I'm not complaining - I love superhero films, and the Avengers universe has yet to deliver a bad one. So while the first Thor wasn't great, I still wanted to see the second. Thor 2: The Dark World was directed by Alan Taylor and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and Natalie Portman.
Set just a few years after the first Thor, the film begins with Thor (Hemsworth) and his Asgardian (pseudo-gods from another "realm") team of warriors mopping up some chaos in the other realms. Back on Earth, Jane (Portman) is interrupted from trying to develop a normal life by the discovery of a bizarre physics-based phenomenon. Snooping around, Jane stumbles into an ancient, forgotten substance from another realm. The Asgardians notice this, and Thor shoots down to Earth to check on his mortal object of affection.
It turns out some bad dudes are out to capture the substance that Jane discovered. Thor and the rest of Asgard are caught off guard by this new threat. With his father stubbornly opposed to him, Thor is forced to work with his imprisoned brother Loki in order to stop the threat to the entire universe.
Even action films need competent actors, and Thor 2 has them - even if not all their characters are all that great. Chris Hemsworth reprises his lead role as Thor. While Chris has the right features - easy confidence, sometimes sliding into arrogance or righteous fury (understandable of a pseudo-god); nice comic timing (if not always utilized fully by the script); and the brawniness of a superhero - he still has yet to really distinguish Thor as a true leader/primary character in any of his films. Much of this is due to the script strangely downplaying his role, but Hemsworth should assert himself more. Thor's brother Loki, however, upstages him with glee, as played by Tom Hiddleston. While I thought he was underwhelming in The Avengers (apart from one or two scenes), Loki completely dominates this movie. Hiddleston truly owns this role now, and he gives Loki phenomenal range and depth of character almost effortlessly. Poor Thor.
Natalie Portman's character Jane is as frustrating and useless as she was in the first film. Certainly, the scripts have been the main culprit - Jane basically serves as motivation for Thor and a connection for him both romantically and to Earth. All the "scientist" parts have been utter nonsense. Here is where Portman's failure comes in, though: if Jane were really this science dork, she would not be anywhere near as aloof and "cool" as Natalie plays her. They need to kill Jane off ASAP. Notes on other characters: Kat Dennings as Darcy continues to be a great comic foil (keep her, dump Jane)... Idris Elba's gateway guardian Heimdall was a total bad-ass in the first film, but he goes disappointingly rogue in this one... Thor's merry men (and woman) remain an interesting but underused gang of Lord of the Rings-like buddies.
The Thor universe is really quite different from the other mainstream superheroes, as it allows for many more fantasy elements. This is both a blessing and a curse. The result in Thor 2: there's a lot of fun in ways that you won't see anywhere else, but there is also plot chaos in just about every scene. Actually, Thor 2 adds in sci-fi to the mix; while its combination with fantasy elements is a little rough, it's not too bad (nothing like Cowboys and Aliens... *shiver*). But there also need to be some ground rules within whatever universe you're occupying, and Thor 2 throws them to the wind with abandon - and when it doesn't do that, the right-place-right-time effect fills in. Still - while Thor 2 is no parody - it pokes gentle fun of itself occasionally, and the general feeling I got was mostly fun. Also, it's not just good guys beating the living snot out of bad guys (aka Transformers); evil wins some impressive victories in this film, but I'll leave it at that.
***
Thor 2 doesn't diverge as much from its predecessor as this year's Iron Man did, but it takes similar, commendable chances for such a lucrative studio. Like Iron Man 3, some of these efforts worked, while others didn't - and there's still plenty of room for growth and change in the next one. On the positive side, Thor 2 has decided that this is the appropriate franchise for doing the kind of crazy, fantasy-based action that you can't pull off in any other superhero film. On the downside, they will have to be very careful to prevent future installments' plots from spiralling out of control like this one did - audiences' (or at least my) tolerance for things just working only goes so far. While the politics/culture/people of Asgard are becoming fleshed out nicely, a LOT of work needs to be done if they want to keep recurring characters from Earth. So, three recommendations going forward: 1) get rid of Jane (sadly unlikely); 2) strengthen Thor's role (can Hemsworth do it?); and 3) give Loki a big part in every Thor movie going forward (I'm not too worried about this one coming true). If you want to be entertained and can paper over gaping plot holes with the good aspects, go ahead and try this one in the theater.
Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: At long last, one of the greatest sci-fi classics (and one of my favorites) comes to the theater: Ender's Game. And... promptly falls on its face. The moving and entertaining story is almost completely ruined by a terrible script - even great actors like Ford, Davis and Kingsley can't salvage it. And the most important step - finding a great Ender Wiggin - ends in failure. At least Ender's Game is visually successful and engaging, but that's not nearly enough to make for a good movie.
At last, back to the movies! October turned out to have fewer intriguing films than I thought it would. However, the late fall/early winter blockbuster season has now arrived, to combine with (hopefully) the release of some Oscar-worthy films, too. I was hoping 12 Years a Slave would come out here, but so far, no luck. It was about a year ago that I heard Ender's Game was being made into a film; I loved the book when I read it years ago, and was excited to see Harrison Ford attached to it. Thus, it was one of my most anticipated films of the year. Ender's Game was directed by Gavin Hood, and stars Asa Butterfield, Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley.
Taking place far in the future, Andrew "Ender" Wiggin (Butterfield) is a young cadet in the military. An extremely smart student, Ender easily defeats his classmates in video game-like simulations. His strategic mind goes beyond the theoretical, though, as he defends himself from bullying classmates, too. His genius attracts the attention of Col. Graff (Ford) and Major Anderson (Davis). The military commanders invite Ender to the space station-based Battle School, where he joins the best of the best. Graff in particular is confident that Ender is the one who will someday be able to defend Earth and all of humanity against an alien race that had previously attacked - and nearly ended it all.
As Ender continues to be monitored closely by the commanders, he quickly establishes himself as a leader and unifying force at the Battle School. Before long, he conquers the School's primary team combat simulation league. The fun and games can't last forever, though: personal crises emerge, as well as the pressing danger to all human life that Graff is desperate to counter with Ender's special gifts.
Ender's Game is filled with recognizable faces, but no stand-out performances. Asa Butterfield (Hugo) plays "Ender" Wiggin, the amazingly talented yet tormented young boy. Unlike his character, Asa is no special talent at his craft - acting. He isn't terrible, but he doesn't sell Ender's tremendous emotional conflict nor display his one-in-a-billion, born leader presence. Ford plays Col. Graff in a role that is bigger than the one I remember (of course, it's probably been thirteen years or more since I read it). Ford occasionally shows his stuff, but the script is especially terrible for him and more often than not he can't overcome the handicap. He's basically used as the same gruff but well-meaning tough guy he's been for the last ten years. Viola Davis (Major Anderson) and Hailee Steinfeld (Ender's gal pal) both do alright but get little screen time and are mostly passive partners to Ford and Butterfield, respectively. The worst acting comes from some of the children; Moises Arias in particular should definitely find an alternative field of work.
It's been so long since I read Ender's Game that I really don't remember a lot of specifics, moreso just impressions. What I remember is Ender being an amazingly gifted young boy who is a magnet for his peers, not just because of his skill but also his innocence and kindness. The bonds he forms with his classmates are powerful, and when he's pulled away from all that it produces a strong negative feeling. The film adaptation really doesn't replicate this experience very well. Mostly, the script is just poor, hampering all involved - but to make matters worse, Butterfield was a bad choice for Ender, the film's lead. Now, it's not all bad: visually, Ender's Game is quite impressive. From the uniforms to the space station to the team combat game, it all looks much like I imagined it years ago, and it's fun to see. There is plenty of CGI battle toward the end; while it can seem a little video-gamey, it's surprisingly suspenseful and immersive, too. I was disappointed that the aliens were yet another race of generic bugs in desolate locations, but oh well.
***
Ender's Game is certainly going down as one of the biggest film disappointments for me in the last few years. It could be that my middle-school aged self simply liked the book more than I would if I read it again now; it might be that the characters and story just aren't as compelling as I remember. But this film adaptation strikes me as a cynical combination of A) dumbing down to the simplistic thinking of teenagers, B) awkwardly and unsuccessfully trying to cram in book elements for the fans (Valentine and Peter most significantly), and C) tossing in big name but unmotivated (and unsupported) stars to raise broader interest. Honestly, I might have forgiven that stuff to a degree if they'd found a special young actor to play the special young Ender - but they didn't. I mean, you still have the skeleton, at least, of Ender's Game, which lifts it above other poorly executed sci-fi/action/YA films. And I was happy that in such a visually-dominant medium, they got the look of most things right. But that certainly doesn't make this worth going to see in the theater; and unless you're a fan of the book, you can skip it on Netflix, too.
Fall 2013 TV
Well, my predictions on future blog posts have been poor this fall. September surprisingly saw the release of more films that I was interested in than October. I have been tempted to go see Captain Phillips, as I like Tom Hanks a lot and it got great reviews - but it seemed like another bleak drama, and the premise just didn't grab me (Netflix for sure, though). The good news is that I can guarantee that there will be a lot more movie reviews coming soon - not next week, but the week after with either 12 Years a Slave (PLEASE show this one, local rural theater!!!) or Ender's Game, followed by the new Thor, Hunger Games, and on we go.
But I didn't want to go too long without a blog post. What to do? There have been some interesting stories/surprises in the NFL at the midseason mark, but not enough for a whole post. I haven't looked at the coming NBA season enough yet to do a preview (hopefully have one next week). And I've almost done a political post recently (shutdown/debt ceiling thing), but haven't found the right way to do a quick essay form post. However, I hope to do some research on gerrymandering (possibly with campaign finance) and post about that sometime this fall or winter.
But what about this week? It occurred to me: I've never done a blog post about TV shows (nearly did one on Lost a few years ago after Netflixing the whole series). I've been able to watch a little more this fall thanks to my new DVR (I will never have cable without DVR again). So here's a look at what I've been watching, and recommendations thereof.
ABC
Modern Family
Wednesdays @ 9:00 PM
If you've never heard of this show, you've probably been living under a rock. Now in its fifth season, Modern Family has been growing in popularity each year, while achieving critical success from the beginning (it's won Outstanding Comedy at the Emmys every year it's been on air). Using the mockumentary style made famous by The Office (one of my all-time favorite shows), Modern Family combines it with the traditional sit-com's family dynamics and values to create a new classic. Each episode switches among three units of an extended family, each of which has uniquely hilarious dynamics. My favorite/funniest characters are Cam (Eric Stonestreet), Phil (Ty Burrell) and Jay (Ed O'Neill) - although young Lily is becoming really funny this year, too.
Modern Family was laugh-out-loud hilarious in seasons one and two, then regressed significantly in season three (in my opinion) and recovered somewhat last year. Season five, I'm happy to say, is back to the show's original fantastic form. The show has rid itself of the cliches it started to pick up in the last two seasons, as well as its focus on the kids (they're fine strictly as supporting parts - NOT in the lead). The ingenious plot connections among the three units are back in strong form, as is the overall sheer cleverness. The best comedy series of the fall so far, by a wide margin.
Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Tuesdays @ 8:00 PM
Made thanks to the incredible popularity of The Avengers, this show had the good fortune of being created by that film's director, Joss Whedon. In its first season, Agents of SHIELD has established itself as an hour-long family adventure (probably appropriate for middle-school kids and up) in the model of Lois and Clark and similar shows. The show focuses on, of course, the shadowy agency known as SHIELD, and on one particular unit led by Agent Coulson (familiar from recent Marvel films - same actor, too). Working with Coulson is a team of five: two (non-"super") butt-kickers, two nerdy scientists, and one mystery who used to work for a "Wikileaks"-like organization. The structure is fairly conventional, with a plot-of-the-week, although there's been considerable character development (for some of them anyway) and the beginnings of an overarching nemesis organization.
Being a comic book-film fan (strangely, though, I've never bought or read a comic book), I had to try this show. Plus, I figured ABC and Marvel would pour plenty of resources into it considering the popularity of its inspiration. The result so far: Agents of SHIELD is a surprisingly good show. It isn't deep or a critical darling, but it is simply very entertaining. Coulson and the mystery girl - former "Rising Tide" (ie: Wikileaks) hacker Skye - are the main characters, and form a solid foundation. The others aren't much more than stereotypes yet, but they are all easy on the eyes. The show has a lot of potential for growth, but it's already well worth watching.
CBS
The Crazy Ones
Thursdays @ 9:00 PM
Two huge names - from very different past roles - team up for CBS' new hit comedy. Now, I need to get off my chest that I am somewhat biased against CBS - I think most of their shows (granted, a lot of it I've only seen in commercials) are incredibly simplistic, redundant and purely commercial crap (how many ****ing NCIS, CSI, GHJ, ABC and XYZ investigation shows do you need?!?!). Putting two huge names together - Robin Williams and Sarah Michelle Gellar - seemed like another obvious ploy that the uber-rich CBS pulled to get mega ratings. Still, I LOVE Robin Williams - so I had to try it. He stars as the head of an ad agency, and Gellar is his daughter who works for him. Also involved are two male and one female assistants. I'm a few weeks behind on this (they're waiting on my DVR), but to this point each episode revolves around the ad agency trying to create campaigns for various clients with a mix of embarrassing failure and heart-warming triumph.
It's too early to have a final verdict on this show, as I could easily see it becoming either great or terrible. Robin Williams is still hilarious, and when he is the focus the show is hilarious. Gellar (or rather the character they wrote for her) isn't bad but certainly the weak link - an adoring daughter who messes up then figures out how to fix it (usually only with her dad's help). The other three are still wild cards. They have set up Zack (James Wolk) and Andrew (Hamish Linklater) to have clearly defined and opposing personalities - so far, they've worked at times and failed at others. I'll keep watching it and hope it develops, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it falls apart.
The Big Bang Theory
Thursdays @ 8:00 PM
Here's another one that you'd have to be culturally-deficient not to know about. I came to this show a little late, but really enjoyed watching random re-runs and getting to know the characters. The premise, shocking for a CBS show, is actually fairly creative, with a band of super smart nerds and one single "normal" young woman living in the same apartment building. The cast has grown to include female counterparts for Sheldon and Howard - Amy and Bernadette. To me, by far the funniest parts of the show have been the interactions of Sheldon, he of the severe case of Asperger's, and Penny, the ordinary country girl now living in the city. Howard, while occasionally funny, is far more repulsive than amusing; and unfortunately the new cast members have not been too good.
I actually only watched the season premiere episode of this show, and have not seen one since. While the early seasons of Big Bang were quite good, it has become pretty bad now. I watched it last season, but only because I was with a group of people who did still like it - but last year was also terrible. Why is it so bad now? For one, they have run out of good ideas and are rehashing plots/situations that they have done twice, three times, or more. The characters have changed as the show has become more popular - developing would be one thing, but they are cynical and "cool", a disastrous trend. Unless I get a compelling case from someone to do so, I will not be watching new episodes of this show again. Old re-runs are still good, though.
NBC
Parks and Recreation
Thursdays @ 8:00 PM
This show started off very quietly in the shadow of the massively popular The Office in 2009. Another mockumentary-style show, Parks & Rec is about a small town's government department (guess which one?) led by eternally optimistic and hard-charging Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler). The show provides an interesting - albeit silly and over-the-top, of course - look at both the strengths and weaknesses of (local) government in modern society. The department is hilariously headed by libertarian Ron Swanson, who oversees a mostly ragtag crew: Knope (the one motivated employee), stylish Indian American Tom, goofy Andy, exasperated Ann, serious nerd Ben, workout freak Chris, and more. My favorite/funniest characters are Ron (Nick Offerman), Tom, (Aziz Ansari), and Andy (Chris Pratt).
The show changed pretty substantially from the first two seasons to season three and beyond. I actually really liked the super-awkward style of the first two seasons - maybe even more than the current style - but the new style works very well (finally getting some awards recognition, too). I have to admit, though, that this season has not been up to the show's standards. Andy, one of my favorites, has been absent for most of the season, but that doesn't explain everything. I think it's probably just a slump but, now in its sixth season, perhaps another big shift is needed or the show simply needs to wind down soon. I'll definitely continue to watch new episodes, though. And if you have not seen the show yet, I definitely recommend you go through it on Netflix.
Fox
Brooklyn Nine-Nine; New Girl; The Mindy Project
Tuesdays @ 8:30, 9:00, 9:30 PM
I've decided to lump these three back-to-back-to-back shows together - not just because of the scheduling but because of their other similarities. New Girl is, ironically, the oldest, now in its third season; followed by The Mindy Project in season two; and Brooklyn Nine-Nine started this fall. All three shows are single-camera comedies (no laugh track), although I'd say Brooklyn is the only one that could qualify as a mockumentary. New Girl follows three guys (Nick - funniest character, Schmidt - most annoying, and Winston - weirdest) and one girl (Jess) who live together in an L.A. apartment. The Mindy Project is about a young female doctor and her (mostly work) friends and attempted relationships. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is about a police precinct starring Andy Samberg as the hotshot (but often screw-up) detective, Andre Braugher as his unamused boss, and supporting cast.
Although I enjoy all three shows, I'm a little worried about them. New Girl had a great first season, not as good second season, and worse still this year. Mindy started off great last year, but isn't quite as good this year. Brooklyn has followed suit with a nice first season so far. I'm not sure if these shows just inherently don't have great longevity, or if they just aren't being steered very well, since they have all followed a downward trajectory. General advice for all: avoid making romantic relationships (esp. if both are main characters) the focus. Both New Girl and Mindy have done that this year, and it doesn't work. Each show, while similar in some ways, has its own personality, and I'm hopeful that the writers can sustain or improve them going forward.
AMC
The Walking Dead
Sundays @ 9:00 PM
AMC has gone from just another cable channel to one of the hottest on TV the last few years. Mad Men and Breaking Bad (I've seen the first few seasons of Mad Men only; want to catch up on both via Netflix) gave AMC an impressive combination of critical and ratings success. The Walking Dead has become even more popular - the most watched show on TV in the 18-49 demo, I believe. The show takes place in a post-apocalyptic Georgia, following deputy Rick Grimes who, after waking from a coma, finds but a few survivors among hordes of zombies. He miraculously finds his wife and son alive, and joins the group that they were with. So far, it's mostly been a story of survival, whether it be avoiding the undead, finding food and shelter, or dealing with other group of people.
Season one of The Walking Dead, a mere six episodes, is probably my favorite so far - an extremely tense series of episodes that slowly unveiled the mystery that the show throws you right into the middle of. Seasons two and three were both good - and also opposites. Two was perhaps a little too slow, focusing mostly on the emotional impact of living without modern society; while three was perhaps a little too action-packed, with plenty of excitement but losing much of the nuance that marked the show earlier. Season four has been very good so far, in providing a better combination of exciting action with character development (and my least favorite character is gone! Yes!). If you're very squeamish, this might not be the show for you (usually I am, but this doesn't bother me); if not, try it on Netflix.
Other shows I watch occasionally or haven't started new seasons: Louie (brilliant), SNL (wow, the Bruce Willis episode was horrific; I miss Bill Hader!), Orange Is the New Black (Netflix original; I'm about halfway through the first season, and it's great).
Bottom line: If you want to follow just two TV shows this fall, I would recommend Modern Family and The Walking Dead.
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: One of 2013's first big Oscar contenders, Gravity, floats into theaters. A surprisingly straightforward film (for all its awards fanfare), Gravity seizes your attention by immersing you in its zero gravity environment and following the terrifying action without breaks in the action (or edit) for tension-filled minutes at a time. Bullock astounds with her physical acting, and Clooney is a comforting presence. Go see it, in 3D.
Now that we're into October, it's fully fall movie season (although September surprisingly offered up two good films as well). This is where we get most of the year's best dramas, many of which will show up at 2014's Oscars. As I've noted, 2012 had a spectacular fall movie season, and hopefully 2013 can impress as well. For as long as I've known about Gravity, I've heard good things about it; based on the trailer, though, I was confused about what kind of film it was. Still, the raves kept coming in, and I also found it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron - the director of Children of Men, one of the best movies I've seen, period. Along with Cuaron's directing, Gravity stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.
Well, since there's not much of a conventional "plot" to Gravity, and since much of it should be kept secret until you see it, this is going to be a short summary. We start off in space, with a team from NASA - scientist Ryan Stone (Bullock), astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney), and an engineer. They are working on a telescope, but it isn't long before they get a warning of impending danger from mission control. Unlike the approaching rumble of an army or beast, this danger gives no sonic warning (being in space), and soon disaster strikes. Kowalski locates a frightened Stone in the aftermath, but suddenly space just got a lot bigger and scarier - and the initial disaster will strike them again unless they get back to Earth in time.
Gravity features basically two performances. The lead is taken by Sandra Bullock as expert scientist but amateur astronaut Dr. Ryan Stone. Having read about the innovative way they filmed this, I have enormous respect for Bullock (they basically put her in a box for hours and told her to act as if she were in space). For that technical prowess, Bullock likely deserves an Oscar nomination. However, hers is not a particularly well developed character - more on that later. Clooney, in a smaller role, plays confident veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski. As the shit hits the fan and flies out into space in all directions, Clooney is the one comforting, reassuring part of the situation. I totally bought him as a hotshot but compassionate astronaut and what he brings to the film is essential.
Based on all the raves I'd been hearing about Gravity, I assumed that it had a large philosophical or character-based component - but no, this is essentially a thriller (albeit a whole new kind). And that's not a bad thing. Everything in this film is directly related to the central crisis - there are a few minutes at the beginning and the end that serve as introduction and conclusion, but they are welcome respites from the tension throughout the rest of the film. The two main elements that make Gravity stand apart are its immersion and continuous editing (which reinforce each other). The immersion is created by the unique filming mentioned earlier - the actors float through much of the film, and the camera is almost always right on top of them (one particular scene at the beginning has Bullock spinning upside down out of control to a degree that I almost felt sick). The continuous editing is kind of self-explanatory: there are entire scenes that consist of one extended shot - in other words, the action doesn't shift to another camera angle or skip crucial seconds of action. The immersion and continuous editing make for quite an intense experience.
***
While Gravity is "only" a thriller, it is a kind that you've never seen before (see notes about immersive and editing techniques above). I also went to see it in 3D - forced to, since there was only one 2D showing per day, but I am very glad that I did. Like Life of Pi, this film actually uses the extra dimension to add realism and depth to the film rather than as a gimmick. The first two-thirds or so, at least, is just a roller coaster ride - but there were so many new elements that were available to Cuaron, taking place in outer space. Constantly being feet, inches, or millimeters from the abyss keeps the characters - and audience - in perpetual dread. Still, not all is perfect with Gravity. At a certain point - I can't be specific without ruining some things - it starts to lose steam and/or originality. This is the same point at which Gravity tries to turn toward Stone's past as motivation for her survival. There just isn't enough to be meaningful or interesting, so it just ends up bogging things down - a totally straightforward survival story would have been preferable. That's why Gravity falls short of a straight "A". Still, I highly recommend this film - and don't just see it in the theater, go see it in 3D.
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Don Jon is truly Joseph Gordon-Levitt's film - in addition to being the lead, he wrote and directed it as well. And under his control, we get a very solid film, equally entertaining and thoughtful. Gordon-Levitt doesn't tread lightly around the controversial subject of porn, but nor does he gross you out (OK, not too much, anyway); mostly he makes you laugh about it. Along with a strong script and good performances (esp. from Johansson), this is a film well worth seeing.
Who would have thought? Two interesting, good movies released in September - and available in my non-city area! With Gravity coming out this weekend, I'll have at least three consecutive weekends with a movie review, and it could very well keep going. As for Don Jon, I heard a little blurb about this being written, directed, and starred in by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a preview of 2013 movies. The little film has finally gotten a wide release after being showcased at film festivals. I am a fan of Gordon-Levitt's, and with an interesting premise and good reviews (~80% on RT), I decided to give it a try. In addition to Gordon-Levitt's involvement, Don Jon stars Scarlett Johansson and Julianne Moore.
Before the primary story breaks out, Jon Martello (Gordon-Levitt) shows and narrates the life he's living. He's a young man (early/mid-20s?) with a very specific routine in which he conveys manliness to the outside world while his own world is consumed by porn. Both his friends, who hang out with him at clubs, and his family, who encourage him to start his own family ASAP, drive him to keep up this lifestyle, albeit for opposing reasons. One night at the club, Jon finds a particularly sexy woman, Barbara (Johansson), but she refuses to go home with him. Still, Jon determinedly pursues Barbara over the next few weeks, and eventually goes on a date with her.
It isn't long before Jon is disappointed despite getting to date his "dream girl"; Jon finds himself returning to porn, and she has her own not-so-secret obsessions. Jon begins to go to night classes to try to improve their relationship, but he doesn't fit in with the people there - including an older single woman (Moore) who seems attracted to him - and he becomes even more dissatisfied. Something's gotta give - you'll just have to see what it is!
Don Jon has an impressive, charismatic cast that's well-suited to the tone of the film. Gordon-Levitt is the lead as "Don" Jon Martello, and he does a very good job. Yes, the film is in part rom-com, for which Gordon-Levitt's natural charm is a good fit, but he is just as effective in portraying a realistic, horny young man. He's perhaps a little too earnest to ever be an elite actor, but his style works here and provides some great humor (describing his porn habits in his macho-infused, unironic way of speaking, for example). Scarlett Johansson does perhaps the best acting I've ever seen from her, playing girlfriend Barbara. She has all the little details of her character down perfectly, from the accent to the body language. Without giving anything away, I was expecting her character to develop one way and was pleasantly surprised that it didn't - to Scarlett and the script's credit.
Julianne Moore, one of the best actresses around at the moment, does well as night student Esther. She manages to combine her character's life experience with an equally deep sense of loneliness and a little insecurity, too. Although I found Joseph and Scarlett's character's more interesting, Julianne makes hers as good as it can be. Tony Danza plays Jon's father, and is another good fit. He doesn't really stand apart from other similar working-class fathers (de Niro's character in Silver Linings Playbook came to my mind), but he provides good humor. Finally, watch for some brief but hilarious cameos from other stars in clips from some fake films.
Like Prisoners, Don Jon has two main objectives in mind; here, it's to be both romantic comedy and dramatic analysis of media's affect on our lives. The romantic comedy part is to be purely entertaining and draw in couples (which seemed to work at the show I went to); the best part of this is that Don Jon ends up subverting the rom-com genre expectations - not completely, but still more than enough for me. The more interesting, serious (although humor is appropriately, effectively used, too) part is the less glamorous portrayal of everyday life (mostly from Jon's young-man perspective, but also some commentary on women's lives, too). Gordon-Levitt smartly replays the routines of Jon's life using key details (eg: the hum of a computer turning on) to symbolize repetition - a repetition, by the way, that does not get tiresome. Don Jon shows that we can get mentally and emotionally addicted to not just specific activities (porn), but also to plain old routine itself.
***
As Gordon-Levitt's debut as the director and writer of a feature film - not to mention its star, too - Don Jon is a very impressive achievement. I enjoy him in just about everything I see - from 3rd Rock to Looper to The Dark Knight Rises - and now he shows great promise behind the camera, too. The editing, writing and filming all display professionalism; although you could argue that the emphasis on routine in the story is a crutch for him to lean on (so that he didn't have to come up with something new each frame), the film works and that's all I care about. The running time is also just about perfect at about an hour and a half. A few things drag Don Jon down, such as threads that go nowhere and elements that seem superfluous, at least in how they're handled in the film (his religious faith). And while Jon's addiction to porn is realistic, he could have used a few more flaws to make it even more believable (at times you can almost seem him think, "gosh, if I just weren't addicted to porn, I'd be perfect!"). Still, Don Jon moves at a good, entertaining clip, with charismatic performances, good humor, and some interesting bits for your brain to chew on. Highly recommended.
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Prisoners, a film with some big names but relatively little hype, is a thriller with bigger intentions. Directed by newcomer Denis Villeneuve, the lead actors, Jackman and Gyllenhaal, really make the emotional impact and suspense work beautifully. Although the film invites your guesses, it leaves the mystery of whodunnit - and whatwillJackmanbecome - a secret up until the very end. Perhaps too much for parents of young kids to take, but for the rest of you, excellent entertainment.
Well, I guess that was a relatively short "drought" for movie reviews! With the fall film season right around the corner, there should be still more reviews coming in. I'm not expecting a fall season as good as 2012's, but hopefully there will be some interesting movies. Again, in choosing films I tend to balance my interest in the premise and actors with its critical reception. In choosing Prisoners, that balancing weighed heavily on the critics and the actors involved; I don't usually go for missing persons-type films. However, Jackman and Gyllenhaal are great, and Jon Stewart seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the film when interviewing Jackman, so I gave it a try. Prisoners was directed by Denis Villeneuve and stars the aforementioned actors.
Prisoners begins on a gray Thanksgiving day with the Dover family - father Keller (Jackman), mother Grace (Bello), teenaged son Ralph, and young daughter Anna - going to visit fellow nuclear family the Birches. All seems normal, with Mr. Birch trying to loosen up the more serious Mr. Dover, and the families' kids pairing off to play with their closer-age counterpart. Several hours pass, and Keller decides to check on his young daughter, but the older kids haven't seen her or the Birch's young daughter. They quickly check the Dover's home (in the same neighborhood), but they aren't there, either. The older kids bring the parents to check out an RV that the young kids had seemed interested in earlier, but it's gone, too.
Frantic, the families call the police; the search for the kids and the RV begins, with the RV being found within hours. The driver is a strange young man, but also mentally handicapped, and he doesn't understand what's going on. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) takes the lead on the case, and tries to reassure the families, particularly Keller, that he is doing everything he can - yet there is frustratingly little to go on. As Loki painstakingly gathers little clues that may or may not go anywhere, Keller decides to pursue the one "lead" that the police have already discounted...
The cast of Prisoners is fantastic, portraying a very realistic set of normal characters thrust into the most stressful of situations. Hugh Jackman as father of missing daughter Anna is a co-lead, and he plays brilliantly against type here. Jackman tends to be either the nice guy, or even when rougher around the edges (Wolverine), is intelligently sarcastic. Keller, however, is a simple, blue-collar family man driven by his emotions. He is a "good guy" in that he is determined to find his daughter, but Jackman does a great job of only slowing realizing the dramatic consequences of his character's actions. Gyllenhaal as Detective Loki is the other co-lead (I'd say they're equally prominent), and although he doesn't get the same level of emotional development, the realism of his acting is extremely impressive. The case evolves from being just another job to a personal quest for him - sounds like a cliche, but Gyllenhaal makes it work like few, if any, others can. Somewhat sullen, or maybe just reserved, Jake still makes Loki a guy you definitely are rooting for.
Paul Dano plays Alex Jones, the mentally handicapped driver of the RV. Wow, does this guy give you the chills every time he appears on screen. It's a fairly small - though crucial - part, and Dano really disappears into it; despite this, Alex is a passive character most important for how the other characters deal with him. There are some other big names in this film, although none have really big roles; Viola Davis and Terrence Howard play the equally stricken Birch parents who are most intriguing when comparing their reactions to the Dovers'. Melissa Leo plays Alex's aunt, and Mario Bello is Mrs. Dover - each has a few important scenes.
Prisoners is ostensibly a thriller, as the characters - and audience - try to solve the crime before it's too late for the victims. But the film is also a deep, intriguing, and disturbing look at how normal people can respond to life-altering events. Both of these aspects are given roughly equal attention, working together nicely and keeping the 2.5 hours running time sufficiently varied. Prisoners is not a horror film, but I felt tense for most of the film, fearing equally either a surprise attack or gruesome discovery at every other turn (the script does a great job of making it come true only often enough to get you to expect it). At the beginning of the film, a very simple but dark musical undertone heightens this tensions immeasurably (didn't notice it later on, but I may just have missed it). It is difficult to get any specific sense of direction, either for the personal or thriller aspects of the film, which I think was a great idea - not just because it makes it harder to guess what will happen next, but also because that's just how life works. If by now you're thinking, boy, this sounds a little too grim for me, fear not: it has a (reasonably) happy, or at least satisfying, ending.
***
Prisoners is a great film, although it falls short of a straight-up "A" for me. As I said, it works very nicely to have both thriller and personal/emotional elements to this film. However, the two kind of go their separate ways as the film progresses, and so when it switches between the two, it's not as smooth a transition as it could be; you're thinking, OK, now what's happening with Keller/Loki now? Also, while I think the ending is good in several ways, it's also a little anticlimactic and ultimately the explanation for the whole crime is maybe a little too neat and not a perfect fit for the rest of the film. Still, I'm basically nitpicking: although the two films are very different, Prisoners shares The Butler's gift of great performances. You just can't wait to see what Keller/Jackman and Loki/Gyllenhaal do next. The suspense is phenomenal, and, while I'd been prepared to witness extensive scenes of brutality, they really show just enough to give you the impression you need and then focus on the mental and emotional aspects again. Final verdict: if you do have small children right now, you may want to hold off on this for the moment (or risk nightmares). Otherwise, highly recommended.
