Steve Jobs

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Danny Boyles
Starring Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels
Runtime:  122 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  It seems like a zillion books and movies about Steve Jobs have come out in the last five years; now the big guns have come out for a biopic, with Danny Boyles directing, Aaron Sorkin writing and Michael Fassbender starring.  Sorkin's script is excellent, and Fassbender's performance is even better as the story looks at three particular product launches in Jobs' career.  While it's interesting and well done, Steve Jobs doesn't fit together as a unified story as well as it could have.  Still, this is very strong entertainment overall and worth seeing some time.


In 1984, the Apple computer company caught the attention of the world with its Super Bowl ad preview of the Macintosh - as Steve Jobs opens, the title character readies himself and his team for the official launch of the new product.  Surrounded by crates of Time magazines picturing home computers on the cover, Jobs struggles to perfect his presentation at the last minute, pushing both his tech people, like Andy Hertzfeld (Stuhlbarg), and publicity people, like Joanna Hoffman (Winslet), to make sure the world sees his true vision.  At the same time, he is confronted with a far different yet even more personal crisis in the form of a five-year-old daughter whom he cannot yet face as his own child.

While Steve does indeed launch his vision, the Macintosh, as he wanted it, the protests he ignored from both his tech partners, Wozniak (Rogen), and business associates, CEO Sculley (Daniels), prove accurate.  The Macintosh flounders.  Fast forward four years later, and Jobs, fired from Apple, unveils his new company's rival machine - a direct response to his old colleagues.  In another ten years Jobs is back at Apple, ready for a triumphant return yet also forced to confront the relationships, both personal and professional, that have haunted him for the past fourteen years.

The cast of Steve Jobs is very good, particularly its astounding lead.  Michael Fassbender takes on the role of the late Jobs, who captured the interest of people all over the world both for leading Apple in its consumer tech device revolutions as well as for his personal "rough" edges.  His products may have been shiny and elegantly simple, but he seemed quite the opposite.  Fassbender excellently pulls all the traits attributed to Jobs - from his brilliance to his cruelty - into a believable and incredibly compelling character.  He makes it clear that Jobs, well, "thought differently" than anyone else, particularly in the first of the three acts, the launch of the Macintosh.  More on the character himself later, but suffice it to say that Fassbender is simply awesome in the title role.  Kate Winslet also does a nice job as essentially Jobs's assistant - she mostly has to suffer through Jobs' stubbornness, but also clearly commands his respect as one of the few people he genuinely trusts.  Daniels makes for a believable executive, at times "villainous" and at times yet another pawn to Jobs' genius.  And Rogen is clearly taking a page from fellow comic Jonah Hill's book in taking on a dramatic role; he does pretty well in the small role as Wozniack, particularly in a heated exchange with Jobs near the end.  There are other notable roles, particularly Stuhlbarg as Hertzfeld, who goes from Jobs's whipping boy to something close to a friend.

Steve Jobs the film, like the man himself, is anything but ordinary:  outstanding in some ways, but significantly flawed in others.  The film is broken into three acts, each of them taking place in the minutes before a new product launch (the Macintosh, the NeXT Computer, and the iMac).  It's directed by the talented Danny Boyles; I haven't seen enough of his stuff to recognize the style, but what is most certainly obvious is the writing by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, The Social Network).  Be sure you're attentive for this one, as the dialogue starts fast and doesn't really ever stop until the end credits.  Generally this is a good thing: the quality of the writing is superb, and turns what could be dry and/or cliched subjects of technology and family reconciliation into entertaining, compelling, often beautiful drama.  Two arguments - one between Jobs and Sculley, the other between Jobs and Wozniak - stand out as electrifying.  Fassbender's Jobs is himself perhaps the greatest strength - unlike some biopics, the title character truly commands every second of this film.  The character, and the great acting behind it, brings about a variety of powerful and/or effective sensations in the audience, from excitement as he focuses on bringing revolution to the tech world; to anger as he wrecks careers and relationships in pursuit of his goals; and the gamut of emotions as he deals with his daughter from age 5 to 19.

Although it does most things well, Steve Jobs does have some flaws, and one in particular I'll focus on.  The three-act structure is neat and well done, but it doesn't all fit together very well as a single, complete narrative arc.  The family element - which, scene-by-scene, is very well done - seems to be the most intentional effort to try to form an arc, but even it feels incomplete.  When it comes to Jobs' career, the overall goal of the film is even less clear.  Without going on too long, each theme (particularly his vision of the products and how to maneuver people to get it done) is well done but the script, for all its power, can't quite bring them together satisfyingly enough.  Of course, this is all based on real life, but I think there was a significant opportunity to pull all the different strands together better than they were, without being artificial.  By the end, you (or at least I) feel "that was cool" but it is lacking a memorable, unified whole from all the individual components.

***

Steve Jobs is a strong drama with an interesting style; even if it falls short of Best Picture material, it absolutely should land Fassbender a Best Actor nomination.  As far as comparisons to other Jobs films go, I don't know.  This is the first one I've seen and even been interested in (despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of Apple products-since 1992), thanks to the involvement of Fassbender and Sorkin.  While I've given it a B+, it's certainly much closer to an A- than a B.  It's hard to find a lot to argue with - but unfortunately, the flaw of lacking overall cohesion and/or focus is considerable.  The attention to detail and scene-to-scene quality is admirable - but the feeling of "OK, so...?" begins building in the third act (culminating in the last few frames) and the strength of variety in having both career and family aspects contributes to the dilution of any theme.  With the massive amount of dialogue, this almost certainly benefits from a second viewing - though I think I'll wait until I can Netflix it.  Recommended for a night at the movies with a quality drama, particularly if you're looking for something out of the norm (but not crazy weird).



"SteveJobsposter" by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SteveJobsposter.jpg#/media/File:SteveJobsposter.jpg

Bridge of Spies

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Starring Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan

Running time: 141 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Bridge of Spies is Spielberg's latest, and he continues his trend in recent years with another historical drama.  Featuring one of the best actors around, Tom Hanks, plus a notable supporting performance and an interesting premise, the film will entertain a wide audience.  But the film is also split in two, which hinders both halves, and the film is often too simplistic and predictable.  Recommended for a rental, but certainly not a must-see theater experience.

Serenely painting and making his way through New York City in 1957, an old man, Rudolph Abel (Rylance), seems unremarkable.  But in a world sitting on the edge of civilization-ending nuclear conflict between America and Soviet Russia, not all things are as they seem.  The FBI tracks Abel to his home and arrests him as a spy.  Hard intelligence is not the only thing of value in the Cold War, though: America hopes to prevail in the culture war, too, and the government assigns insurance lawyer James Donovan (Hanks) to defend Abel.  Donovan is commended for his service to country; but Donovan soon becomes interested in fighting a genuine case - despite the risks to his family and his career.

The Cold War gets even more complicated when an American spy plane is shot down over Russia, its pilot captured by the Soviets.  The American government quickly reverses its thinking on Donovan: the man who went against his own country to defend the enemy may be just what it needs to bring home a brave young service man.

Bridge of Spies' cast is capably led by the two main players, and supported by a mixed group of minor characters.  Tom Hanks, perhaps the most accomplished actor of his generation (and one of my favorites overall), doesn't have to stray far from his wheelhouse to portray the earnest, honorable lawyer Donovan.  Onscreen almost the entire film, Hanks makes keeping his character consistent look easy.  He employs a wry sense of humor very effectively to prevent the story from being too much of a textbook study.  It's a fairly typical Hanks performance, by which I mean it's excellent.  Even better, though, is Mark Rylance in the film's second biggest role, Soviet spy Abel.  He communicates the kind of man Abel is simply by his facial expression (mostly unchanging) and the way he moves - calm, quiet, resolute, yet gentle.  He speaks few lines, but one line in particular is repeated several times to great effect - both his delivery and the writing.  Rylance's Abel is the best single thing about the film.  The supporting cast is a mixed bag.  Most of them are caricatures to one degree or another - Donovan's CIA handler (Scott Shepherd) being the worst - while others do much better, like Amy Ryan as Donovan's wife.

Bridge of Spies is another Spielberg historically-based drama, in a traditional style like his 2011 film War Horse.  In some ways this style pays off, and in others it does not.  The film is essentially made up of two distinct halves:  Donovan's defense of Abel in the first, and his attempts to negotiate with the Soviets for a prisoner exchange in the second.  Both halves have their merits.  Rylance's performance is the highlight of the first half, though it's also fun to get to know Donovan's character, too.  The opening scenes tracking Abel are quite well done - free of dialogue, full of mystery.  The second half has an interesting collection of Soviet/East German characters (even if some can be a bit cartoonish), and Donovan's negotiating style is intriguing particularly as it recalls his insurance roots.  The climax and its resolution are both satisfying, impressively so considering the result is not really surprising.  Spielberg generally does a great job scene to scene, with he and his cast usually making the most of the script and atmosphere.

Unfortunately, there are also some significant flaws that should be pointed out as well.  Perhaps the biggest is the dual nature of the film; as I mentioned, it's basically split in half.  While the two are connected, this has the result of the first half feeling rushed and the second half feeling out of place and, combined with the overall running time, dragging on too long.  There is great stuff to explore in both halves, and Spielberg couldn't seem to pick one over the other, thus diluting them both (Lincoln felt both shorter and more focused, despite actually being longer).  Bridge of Spies is great at nuance in places, but the script is not one of them.  This is especially so in Abel's trial (spies=bad, screw due process just 'cause!), in the form of the judge, and later on in Donovan's CIA handler (government agents are cold, heartless bastards!).  Traditional, earnest filmmaking is one thing; cliched storytelling (in not all, but too much of, the film) with straw men villains is another.  Finally, and maybe this only bugs me, but long-time Spielberg cinematographer Kaminski returns and brings his awful lighting that is way too bright and artificial - he doesn't use it in all his films, but he did it in the new Indiana Jones, too, and completely wrecked it.

***

Bridge of Spies is a good film, and I'm surprised by its 93% score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Part of this score and my opinion in general might be based on higher expectations for Spielberg films - he's certainly shown that he can make excellent historical dramas.  While Hanks and Rylance are strong leads and it's an interesting story, I think Spielberg was just a bit lazy with this one, or maybe he simply didn't know exactly what he wanted from it.  It has appeal for a broad audience, but I would recommend waiting for it to come to Netflix (and when I say that I mean DVD/BluRay; you can get pretty much anything in existence on disc, but their streaming selection is far, far smaller).  This one isn't worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but it's a solid drama for a night at home with a movie.

"Bridge of Spies poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bridge_of_Spies_poster.jpg#/media/File:Bridge_of_Spies_poster.jpg

The Martian

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Ridley Scott
Starring Matt Damon, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jessica Chastain, et. al.
Running time:  141 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Martian is a crowd-pleasing blockbuster adaptation of the best-selling space adventure novel.  Helmed by titan filmmaker Ridley Scott and starring Matt Damon and a raft of others, they went all out on this one and cranked out a great piece of entertainment.  Apollo 13-like problem solving, an ample sense of humor and the charisma of the stars largely overcome its long running time and lack of depth.  Still, a very fun time for all ages and stages; well recommended.


Colonizing another world has long been a dream of mankind, and at the beginning of The Martian, that is just what Watney (Damon), Lewis (Chastain), Martinez (Pena) and the rest of a NASA team are doing on the red planet.  Their month-long mission is cut short, though, when a storm unexpectedly blows through their camp - and forces them to abandon Watney, who is thought dead.  As Lewis, Martinez and the others head home in the Hermes, a tech at NASA spots a tiny anomaly which quickly becomes confirmed as Watney - who was pronounced dead just weeks earlier.  The excitement of the news settles into an all-out effort to figure out how to keep him alive:  the next mission to Mars is not supposed to arrive for another four years.

Watney proves a resilient adventurer, figuring out essentials for his survival, from growing food to contacting NASA on Earth.  But his individual efforts will only buy him time.  As things inevitably go wrong, tough decisions must be made about how much NASA can - and should - risk to save the life of one brave man.

The Martian is packed with A-list stars and allows most of them to shine, if briefly.  Matt Damon plays astronaut survivor Watney, and he proves to be well-suited to the role.  Damon capably displays his character's determination and versatile competence, at a Hollywood-heightened level at that (more on this later).  He also provides an effective, wry sense of humor, mostly coming from the grimness of his situation, but generally keeps his plight sympathetic and not overwhelmed by victimization.  Chastain and Pena get the biggest roles as Hermes crew members; each is familiar and capable in her/his primary role as struggling, moral leader and comic relief, respectively.  Back on Earth are Jeff Daniels as the director of NASA, and leaders beneath him including Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, and Sean Bean.  Each falls into somewhat cliched roles - Daniels as the leader who messes up and needs redemption, Bean as his moral foil, Wiig as the not-getting-it bureaucrat and Ejiofor as the one trying to balance everyone else out.  They all shine in spots (particularly Ejiofor) and are dragged down in others.  Plenty of other roles remain, though the last I will point out is Donald Glover as a scene-stealing, hilarious NASA nerd.

Based on a self-published ebook that became a best-selling smash hit, The Martian is made to be a traditional, crowd-pleasing, ultimately triumphant adventure.  To be a bit more specific, it's like Apollo 13 but on all the steroids taken by Bonds, McGwire and Sosa put together.  The primary draw in the film is that element taken from the Hanks classic (among others), in figuring out how to overcome seemingly-impossible technical challenges (it's a lot more entertaining than I make that seem).  Particularly for the first half of the film or so, this does indeed work very well, particularly with Damon's running commentary and spiced with plenty of humor.  The humor itself is the next most potent ingredient - while it doesn't always hit the mark, it is used consistently and creates a lighter tone than there might otherwise be.  Other than a tough to watch self-operation near the beginning (I myself looked away), it's pretty sanitized and overall family friendly - this is an important consideration going into it.  This may not be to some people's taste, but at least the filmmakers do a good job of keeping this tone consistent through the film.  On a final note about the better parts of the film, the effects are high-quality, but fortunately they don't overwhelm the story or characters.

While there's plenty to like about The Martian, it's not perfect.  Although I mentioned the tone is appropriate and consistent, it also creates a superficiality to the proceedings - it's hard to truly connect with the characters, even (especially?) Watney.  This is not helped by the fact that the movie is just too long; an even two hours would have been fine and effectively trimmed the fat.  The excitement and intrigue of Watney's improvisations lose steam, and there isn't enough beneath it to transition to.  Finally, all of this gets played out by fairly cliched characters - even if they are played by familiar, capable and entertaining actors.

***

The Martian is rock-solid, at times excellent entertainment, that should appeal to about as broad an audience as a movie possibly can.  If anything, my "B+" score may be slightly underrating it - the wealth of excellent movies released so far this year has perhaps skewed my ratings.  Again, as pure entertainment it succeeds greatly - the things that it does, it does well.  Its faults are largely a result of the "limitations" of that form - and are things that probably won't bother less-frequent moviegoers much.  To be honest, there isn't much I feel particularly strongly gushing about or nitpicking against in the film.  As a final note on this film, then, I hope that it might stir renewed interest in science and exploration in society in general.  It's a good film - go see it!

A brief check-in about the blog itself: this is my second consecutive review after a long hiatus, and my hope is to keep them coming for a pretty good stretch now.  Look for my review of Spielberg and Hanks' Bridge of Spies next week, and more to come - after all, in the last two months of the year we still have the last Hunger Games film, the newest James Bond, AND Star Wars!  Can't wait.




"The Martian film poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Martian_film_poster.jpg#/media/File:The_Martian_film_poster.jpg

Sicario

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Denis Villeneuve
Starring Emily Blunt, Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin
Running time:  121 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Sicario is director Denis Villeneuve's second major release in the U.S., and like Prisoners he delivers an outstanding thriller.  His cast is again stellar, led by a tough Emily Blunt, scary Benicio del Toro, and scheming Josh Brolin.  Villeneuve's excellent tone-setting - from script, to shooting to score - is top-notch, though the second half of the film doesn't entirely fulfill the promise of the first.  Still, it's a must-see.


As the film opens, Kate (Blunt), an FBI special field agent, leads a team in storming a suburban Phoenix house.  She faces little resistance, but uncovers the house's horrific secret within its walls.  The house was being used by a Mexican drug cartel, and Matt (Brolin), a DoD adviser, recruits Kate to aid in a counterattack.  Given only vague details of the mission, Kate nevertheless accepts, and meets Matt's partner, Alejandro (del Toro) en route.  The team flies to the border, and links up with a team of ex-military special forces warriors; they cross into Mexico and take custody of a high-ranking member of the cartel.  The team has a close call at the border, and Kate is furious with Matt for his secrecy and flagrant use of violence.  He gives her nothing, but she continues on, intent on figuring out what Matt is really up to.

Kate, Matt and Alejandro dig deeper into the cartel, and the level of danger rises as they do so.  Kate pulls her FBI partner, Reggie, in for support, but it is a dark world they have entered - and they have no idea what to expect around each treacherous corner.

Sicario has a fairly small but very strong core group for a cast.  Emily Blunt is the lead as FBI agent Kate, and she gives a great performance.  She is strong and courageous, in a very realistic way and at a realistic level; she also capably conveys Kate's frustration, vulnerability, and sometimes fear.  The only problem with Kate is not hers; at times, the writers let her down with a few awkward outbursts.  Benicio del Toro is just as good, beginning the film as a quite, weary but clearly competent sidekick - and transforming into one of the scariest villains since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.  His performance is not at all showy, but as the movie goes along, even the simplest glance can send chills running down your spine.  The third main character is Josh Brolin's Matt, a seemingly nonchalant defense advisor.  I don't think it qualifies as a spoiler when I say that his character is not what he seems, even as he smoothly and easily maneuvers events to their inevitable end.  Small parts include Kate's partner Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya), the sole source of refuge for the heroine; Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) playing yet another asshole - he's pretty good at it; and Maximiliano Hernandez as a representative of the morally murky and dangerous border area.

Sicario is a very good thriller engrossed in an intriguing, contemporary plot - though it isn't without its faults.  The strength of the film lies in the setting of the tone, just as in Villeneuve's Prisoners (more on this later).  A combination of elements keeps you on the edge of your seat and hackles up throughout the two hour running time.  The script provides just enough verbal and visual clues to let you know what is going on at the moment, but keeps the bigger picture mysterious.  The cinematography is excellent, from the angles or perspectives of shots to forboding, more obvious scene setting.  And Sicario also benefits from an outstanding score, turning even simple scenes into vividly menacing ones with an emphasis on heavy, bass electronics mixed with more standard orchestral stuff.  The opening scene featuring Kate in her "day job" is chilling and pretty much perfect, and it provides for the first push of an excellent first half, if not more, as you simultaneously soak up everything on screen and are desperate to find out what happens next.

Unfortunately, the film loses a bit of momentum as the second half proceeds.  Largely this is driven by the script, which settles down to merely "average", and a somewhat disappointing climax.  Already mentioned are Kate's odd/foolish outbursts, which spring up in this part of the film; and the promise of a grand, diabolical scheme didn't materialize quite to my expectations.  For all the first half's complexity, it boils down to a straightforward ultimate plan.  Still, the scenes themselves - from a night-time raid in a tunnel to a tense confrontation between Kate and Alejandro - crackle with energy and tension.  The last, brief scene pulls back and puts it all into perspective quite well.

---

I may be going too hard on Sicario, even at an A-.  This is the first film I've reviewed in two months, making it my longest hiatus in probably at least five years.  Well, whether it's an A or A-, one thing I know for sure is that Denis Villeneuve is now on my list of filmmakers I will go to the theater to see automatically (joining Spielberg and Christopher Nolan; there are a few others getting there, too, like Matthew Vaughn).  Villeneuve's Prisoners was even better than Sicario, and its lack of a Best Picture nomination was a crime to film.  Both show that he is a master of atmosphere and tension, helped by cinematographer Roger Deakins, effective scores, scripts, and so on.  Just really, really high quality entertainment - admittedly, not exactly upbeat stuff, though.  Villeneuve is quite similar to Nolan in that his vision, style and scene-to-scene filmmaking are impeccable, but both could still use a little work on the big picture to make some true masterpieces (well, Nolan's at least gotten there once, with The Dark Knight).  Anyway, I highly recommend Sicario - watching on the big screen will maximize the terrific suspense, but see it regardless.





"Sicario poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sicario_poster.jpg#/media/File:Sicario_poster.jpg