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).
