Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: At long last, Martin Luther King, Jr., is in a movie - the Oscar contender focused on the famed march leading to passage of the Voting Rights Act - Selma. Though many were likely (and justifiably) worried about how Dr. King would appear on the big screen, David Oyelowo's outstanding performance hopefully eased those fears. His acting and the script's nuanced treatment of the man, as well as the harrowing yet inspiring journey to victory, should make the film an instant classic.
The first film review for 2015 is an appropriate start - no throwaway entertainment, this is one of the main contenders for Best Picture at the Oscars. And so the year overall seems destined to be an historic one for film with an absurd number of films I'm eagerly awaiting, from Star Wars to the latest James Bond episode. And if, on the other side of the coin, there are more films like Selma as well? Wow. Buckle your seat belts. As the first major motion picture (perhaps first of any kind?) to feature Martin Luther King, Jr., this film was obviously a must-see event provided that it had a wide release which it fortunately did. Selma was directed by Ava DuVernay and stars David Oyelowo.
In late 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oyelowo), is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; but, as he sadly tells his wife, Coretta (Ejogo), the civil rights effort he has led is far from over. With yet more influence - from all around the world - he goes to President Johnson (Wilkinson) to demand legislation that will end all obstruction to voting. When the President resists, a frustrated King returns to the very difficult but ultimately effective work that had made him into a source of hope for the movement: nonviolent protest. King understood that this not only galvanized his followers but also raised the consciousness, bit by bit, of white people through media coverage of racists' brutal retaliation against these protests. The next stop was Selma, Alabama.
Through the early months of 1965, Dr. King, the SCLC and SNCC led an effort to organize a march from Selma to Montgomery. In order to achieve perhaps his most important victory, passage of the Voting Rights Act, King would be forced not just to deal with highly reluctant supporters in Washington, but also with threats to his family and choices between the safety of many of his closest friends and followers and the hope for another step towards equality for his people.
The cast of Selma is quite good, and David Oyelowo's magnificent performance pays tribute to Dr. King. I cannot imagine the pressure Oyelowo must have felt in trying to portray the civil rights legend - not to mention the fact that he is the first to do so. But he succeeded incredibly well. It feels like a cliche, but Oyelowo really does inhabit Dr. King as a man, not as some dream-like myth above it all. Sure, Dr. King was not an ordinary person, and Oyelowo captures his presence, his quiet confidence and dignity that towered over any resistance to progress that he met; and he delivers several thundering speeches. And yet Dr. King was also a worried husband and father, and even a leader who, while had faith in the philosophy of nonviolent resistance, also dealt with human doubts about it. The film does a great job of showing how all eyes, loving and hateful, were on one man who shouldered the hopes of his people and - though it was but one battle in the struggle - that man triumphed.
The supporting cast has some fine performances as well. Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) is neither ignored nor highlighted, and her role is both subtle but also important. Although an impressive cast of civil rights leaders is involved, John Lewis (Stephan James) gets the most development as an SNCC leader who joins Dr. King's cause. Many notable white actors are also involved, most of whom you will recognize if not be able to name. Tom Wilkinson plays President Johnson (more on this later), Tim Roth plays oily, awful Governor Wallace, and Martin Sheen takes the bench as a judge.
Although I could analyze Selma much like I did The Imitation Game (both being historical dramas), I'll go a different direction. The mission of Selma seems to be twofold: to portray Martin Luther King, Jr., the man at perhaps the height of his power as a civil rights leader; and to show that though slavery was gone, black people were still imprisoned. Both missions are accomplished exceedingly well. I have already described Oyelowo's great performance, and it is given more meaning being parallel to the other mission. Selma exposes the audience to white society's treatment of black people at an individual level, even women, from sneering denial of voter registration to horrific beatings with batons and whips. Absent are the popular but "clean" portrayals of segregation in the form of whites-only water fountains and such - Selma shows how ingrained and intense the prejudice against black people was (still is...?) in many communities. A particularly horrific attack at the beginning sets the stage for this, steeling the audience (but not numbing them) for what is to come.
Don't worry - the film is not all violence and hatred by a long shot. The camaraderie, and disagreements, of the civil rights leaders are highlighted with many predictable elements but not cliche. The film also takes time for plenty of quieter moments featuring Dr. King, with his family or just struggling with himself. Plot-wise, the film is primarily a build up to the march itself, which required several direct attempts and even more behind-the-scenes efforts (side note: in a short but important scene, Dr. King also mentions the urgency of economic transformation, whose cause he would emphasize in just a few years). Once the march itself does come, it is, essentially and appropriately, a victory lap, composed largely of archival footage of the historic event.
***
What a way to kick off 2015! A few other notes on Selma. The film reminds me quite a bit of Lincoln, and for much more than simply the historic struggles of African Americans. They both center around legendary leaders but portray them as fallible (if extraordinary) people. Both deal with a fairly limited historic scope, with legislative goals at that. Of course, they are quite a bit different in many ways as well, but they are united by these structural elements as well as strong execution across the board (from writing to acting) to truly bring those pivotal events to life. One of the main controversies about this film has been the portrayal of LBJ, and I'll address this briefly. From a historic perspective, yes, his role in the film is misleading at best - but this is a work of art, and ultimately I feel that it's acceptable. It could have been much "worse", and LBJ is far from the focus here, anyway. Finally, I'll note that this film is timely in addition to being historic for its featuring of Dr. King. I won't get into a full debate about it here, but in the last several years new threats have arisen to the right to vote in this country - and this film is an important reminder about the real dangers of that. Anyway, in case you somehow missed it throughout this long review: Selma is essential viewing.
"Selma (film) poster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Selma_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Selma_poster.jpg
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: One of the season's leading Oscar contenders, The Imitation Game fully lives up to its reputation. Based on the story of the mission to break the Nazi Enigma code, Cumberbatch is superlative as the hero-turned-persecuted Alan Turing. He's supported by a great cast, and the script does a great job of balancing absorbing realism with genuine dramatic interest. Must see.
Here it is - my last film review for a movie released in 2014! I hope to have my year-end review up next week, with my usual top 10, blurbs on movies seen out of the theater, awards, etc. There are several movies that technically came out in 2014 - in NY and LA - but I go by the wide release date (hence films like Selma will be counted as 2015 for me, unlike the Oscars). Boy, am I excited for the movies coming out this year! But first, I wanted to catch as many Oscar contenders from the late fall/winter season as possible. The Imitation Game finally hit theaters around me (somewhat after the supposed "wide release"), and I was very intrigued by both the subject matter and the acting talent of the lead. The Imitation Game was directed by Morten Tyldum and stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley.
As the Nazis advanced seemingly unstoppably in the early years of World War II, Britain desperately looked for something to give it an edge in the conflict - to survive, even. Mathematics genius Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) is called on by the military to work with a group of cryptographers to try to solve Germany's message-encrypting Enigma machine. Working in isolation, the group chafes at Turing's fantastical designs to build his own machine to solve the puzzle. Reaching out for extra help, Turing meets a genius to match his own - Joan Clarke (Knightley) - who advances the cause but also complicates things for Turing who has a secret that could unravel all his efforts. Turing and his team achieve amazing success in cracking the Enigma - but tragically, the end of one war simply means the beginning of another.
The Imitation Game is filled with great performances, and it all starts at the top. Alan Turing is a character not too unlike another of Benedict Cumberbatch's famous roles: Sherlock Holmes. As in that TV show, Cumberbatch is phenomenal. Carrying over similar anti-social tendencies, he inhabits another major part of Turing, the tragedy, with equal effectiveness. Like Sherlock, you can just imagine the genius going on behind his eyes, all the while being practically blind to those around him (which imparts arrogance, humor, but also sympathy). And when Turing is forced to confront the "crime" of his nature, his innocence and lack of understanding are heartbreaking. Cumberbatch is simply riveting, and is truly worthy of the focus of the film.
Knightley has a fairly small role as his partner Joan, but she also does great work. She is well known for her work in period roles like this, and this is one of the stronger I've seen her in. Joan gives Alan as good as she gets, and has a unique relationship with him, almost sister-like in some ways. While small, her role is also a big boost to the film. There are also plenty of nice supporting roles such as Matthew Goode as one of Alan's group (his chief rival, but honorable man); Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) as the skeptical, practically hostile commanding officer; and Alex Lawther as a school-age Turing.
The Imitation Game is one of the best overall films I've seen in quite a while, strong in virtually every area. As mentioned in my Unbroken review, historical dramas can be quite challenging, but this film succeeds on the two biggest fronts: historical realism, and dramatic interest. Now, I don't know the particulars of this story to tell, but it certainly seemed genuine to me. Imitation Game provides plenty of details to do this (from how the Enigma worked to the setting), but not so much that you get bogged down in it. Perhaps more impressive is how much dramatic interest it creates. Let's face it - a bunch of nerds taking years to try to decode essentially a black box could be dull; or force writers to make up a lot of stuff to make up for it. However, the script effectively conveys the direct difficulty of the task - and adds on top of it pressure from military brass, Turing's own skeptical group, and occasional glimpses of the war's wider stakes to hold you rapt. You exult in the successes (personal as well as professional - with a clever little line that symbolizes it all and gets repeated in the appropriate places), and are deeply moved by the losses and injustices. The film also does a good job of keeping the pace flowing by moving fluidly among three time periods: WWII efforts to break Enigma (the main one), Turing as a school boy, and Turing under investigation after the war.
***
The Imitation Game was a great way to finish up the calendar year in film. I saw several films based on either true stories or in war, and this one beats them all. Cumberbatch's performance is certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination, and the entire cast should be up for one in whichever award show does that (Screen Actor's Guild?). Also worthy of commendation is writer Graham Moore, for the reasons mentioned above. A great film, and hopefully I'll be able to see more of the frontrunners before the Oscars. Highly recommended.
"The Imitation Game" https://www.clapsnslaps.com/img/movies/8806/The-Imitation-Game-poster-1.jpg
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: A film critics have anticipated for its Oscar-worthy credentials - from director Angelina Jolie to its harrowing real-life WWII story - hit theaters on Christmas, Unbroken. Jolie and the writers do in fact guide the film along, from (lost-at-sea) scene to (prisoner of war) scene, pretty well, sometimes even more than that. But the man who somehow endured all these horrors, Zamperini, is still a mystery by the end, and so we're left with an unfortunate feeling of emptiness.
This week brings one of my final reviews for the films of 2014; it might be the very last one, but there are one or two 2014 releases that I still might see. I also saw Exodus: Gods and Kings several weeks ago but I was unable to write a review for it soon after, and it wasn't very good anyway (I'll comment on it in my year-end review). So here's another war movie, one that comes with some Oscar hype, in addition to (and partly because of) its extraordinary true story and famous director (Jolie). Although the film has received middling reviews from critics (50% on RT), I decided to see for myself. Unbroken was directed by Angelina Jolie, and stars Jack O'Connell and Miyavi.
The film begins in beautiful, bright blue skies - in which a fleet of warplanes zoom towards a mission. Louis Zamperini (O'Connell) is aboard one of the B24s on its way to bomb a Japanese island in 1943, and his plane narrowly survives counterattacks from enemy fighter planes. As the crew tries to survive, Zamperini's history comes in flashbacks, starting with his upbringing in California. Teased as an Italian immigrant, Zamperini becomes a troublemaker but by chance a hidden gift is discovered - running. Trained and disciplined by his older brother, Zamperini becomes focused and conquers state competitions, even getting to the Olympics.
Back in the Pacific, Zamperini and his crew are sent back in the air, and this time they are not so lucky. Thus begins an unimaginably difficult series of obstacles and hardships for Zamperini, from being adrift in the middle of the ocean to abused as a prisoner of war. And as much as he battles the conditions themselves to survive, Zamperini must also continually strengthen his own resolve to endure.
Unbroken has a relatively small cast, and even fewer who play significant roles. Louis Zamperini, naturally, is the main character, played by Jack O'Connell. O'Connell does fine in a difficult role, but ultimately he didn't grab my attention. Depending on the tone of the film (more on this later), he could have played a heroic, charismatic man or a more realistic, gritty one - he ends up doing a bit of both at various times. Decent acting, but something - the script, modesty, or perhaps just a lack of the right spark - prevents him from really taking control of the film as needed. More impressive, in the second biggest and much more clearly defined role, is Japanese pop star Miyavi as Zamperini's tormenter (known as "the Bird"). Miyavi brings a needed dose of passion to the film, at times straying close to overdoing it but always commanding the audience's focus. He portrays no cartoon evil, but an interesting take on an ultimately fragile, vulnerable villain. There are a few other minor roles (mostly fellow American soldiers), but none of them are really worth mentioning.
As I talk about more and more in my reviews, for me a critical element for films is to get the right tone and stick to it effectively. Here we have another WWII epic, but one that is trickier than usual because it truly is incredible yet is also a true story. So the two opposing tones the filmmakers might choose between are the glamorous and/or heroic Hollywood style, and the realistic, gritty tone of a biopic (as I alluded to earlier). To the director's and the screenwriters' credit, this film manages to get a pretty good blend of the two. There are several moments of Hollywood-esque triumph (capped by the wood lift seen in previews) and peril, but also plenty of unpretty scenes of enduring life as a prisoner of war (most effectively near the end of the film, as they work at a coal station). But from a bird's eye view, the film fails in some significant ways. There isn't really a compelling narrative arc to tie it all together - admittedly, a tricky thing for a true-story film to do honestly (just ask 12 Years a Slave). A perfectly acceptable alternative is to really dig into the real person whose life we are watching - but here the shortcomings of O'Connell's acting (and/or the script) handicap the film.
***
Unbroken is a quality film, but I would agree with most critics that it falls well short of being included in the best-picture conversation. Despite the many differences, I have to say that this film also shares a good bit in common with the fall's other WWII film (and not just the fact that Jolie's husband, Pitt, stars in it), Fury. Both films, from scene to scene, are competently, and sometimes very well, done. They both show various facets of the horrors of the war, often quite effectively, but both films also resort to Hollywood-style heroism in ways that detract from it to some degree. And ultimately, both left me feeling kind of empty, as a movie-goer, and unlikely to remember them long term - (no) thanks to lack of strong narrative arcs or at least good development of character(s). This is where Saving Private Ryan stands as the model, to me, of a great war movie - and even 2014's Lone Survivor at least got the first part down well. In summary, I wouldn't say you should avoid Unbroken - but there's no harm in waiting for it on Netflix.
"Poster for Unbroken (film)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbroken_(film)#mediaviewer/File:Unbroken_poster.jpg
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Battle of the Five Armies recalls The Return of the King in many ways, besides being the conclusion in a Tolkien trilogy. Despite falling well short of that Best Picture-winning movie, it's still a triumphant effort. Besides being stale at this point, the big battles indicated in the title are numbed by video game-like CGI. Fortunately, the character battles - both action and emotional - are quite good, led by Freeman's outstanding Bilbo. If you're a fan of these films, then I recommend you catch the trilogy finale in theaters.
At last, a review for a movie on its first weekend of release! Thanks to the last Hobbit film's mid-week release date, I am able to be a little earlier than usual this time. I also saw another film that was released earlier; since I'm already "late" for that one, I'll post it next week. A number of other good options are being released at the end of December but I don't know which ones will be released in my theater (many are starting in just NY and LA). Well, this was probably my second most anticipated film of the year (after Interstellar). As the Lord of the Rings films quickly secured a place among my all-time favorites, I have eagerly anticipated each Hobbit film as well. While the first two were not Lord of the Rings-level good, they were still very good. And now for the finale! The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies was directed by Peter Jackson and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, et. al.
The action picks up right where The Desolation of Smaug left off. Bilbo and the dwarves failed to slay Smaug the dragon at the end of the last one, and the beast now flies to the nearby Laketown in a rage. He engulfs the city in a conflagration, but one of the citizens is able to bravely stop it. Now homeless, Laketown's people make their way toward the ancient, abandoned city of Dale on the footstep of the Lonely Mountain (where Smaug came from). News of Smaug's demise spreads quickly, and a race begins to claim the vast store of treasure that he had hoarded.
Dwarves, Elves and Men each have their own interests in the mountain, its treasure and the surrounding land, but they soon find that they are all in danger of being wiped out by the evil orc armies. Only working together, both armies and individuals, can the varied peoples of Middle Earth prevent their destruction.
Battle of the Five Armies returns the principle cast of the first two Hobbit films, and adds a few more characters. Martin Freeman as Bilbo the Hobbit is superb once again. After a reduced role in the second film, he is fortunately prominent again in this one, despite it being action heavy. You can read my review of the first film for my reasons why Freeman is a perfect Hobbit. He is more serious in this one, but equally effective. Next up is Thorin, the leader of the Dwarves. Despite his leadership, he did not really stand out to me in the previous films - but in this one, he definitely takes the spotlight. Armitage is most effective when coveting his treasure early in the film (more on this later). While he's more of a generic hero in the second half, he's still more distinguished here than in the previous films.
Everyone else (and that's a lot) is basically a supporting player. Ian McKellen as Gandalf has a disappointingly small role - in fact, it may be the thing I most regret about the film since he's so good. Luke Evans gets a decent size part in the first half as Bard; his character, like Thorin, is more distinctive this time, and he does a good job (even if he's still Aragorn-lite). Tauriel (Lilly) the elf and Kili (Turner) continue their stale "romance", blessedly briefly, and Legolas has more awesome action scenes even if he isn't much of a character. Finally, Tolkien-verse favorites return for some brief but kick-ass action: Saruman (Christopher Lee), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel).
The final chapter of the Hobbit is parallel in many ways to The Return of the King (the last of the Lord of the Rings). Both are epics that are challenged to balance vastly different objectives: massive battles and personal struggles with equally high stakes. Along with this is an expectation of both exhilarating action sequences and poignant emotional ones. While uneven and with a few stumbles, Battle of the Five Armies is successful overall in this mission. The weakest link I would say are the epic battles between armies. Sure, there are some cool CGI effects, unexpected touches, and they (sort of) go all out. But here the CGI-heavier nature of the Hobbit films - and these battle scenes in particular - also show their weakness. The CGI, while perhaps necessary, also acts as a wall to believability, and it feels much more like a video game (I know the elves are disciplined, but do they all have to move exactly in precision?). And many of the overall tactical elements are quite obviously just plot-driven and not very logical/"realistic" (relatively speaking).
Fortunately, the movie works much better at the personal level - both emotionally and in the action scenes. The most intriguing relationship is between Bilbo and Thorin, one that doesn't last all that long. In place of the Ring (which Bilbo does have, and comes up a few times), the main source of evil influence is the treasure in the Mountain, which twists Thorin in both believable and story-relevant ways. Bilbo plays an important role here, which serves as the most touching part of the film. Of course, the conclusion of the film has the usual happiness in victory, sadness over deaths, and welcome return to the Shire for Bilbo which are all effective (esp. the latter) - and much briefer than Return of the King. As for the action, this is much, much better than the CGI armies. This is mainly comprised of Thorin and Legolas each taking on a leader of the Orc army, and they're probably the best battles of the Hobbit trilogy.
***
Is the Battle of the Five Armies as good as The Return of the King? Hell, no, but that's certainly no insult to the final chapter of the Hobbit films. There are some interesting comparisons between the Star Wars and... Jackson/Tolkien (?) film franchises. Each are made up of two trilogies (well, that's about to change), and the trilogies in each series are stylistically distinct from each other - and even in parallel ways at that, I'd argue. Jackson's trilogies are more closely related to each other, but still different. The Hobbit films, tone and story are more pure entertainment and appropriately (if overall also disappointingly) more CGI-based. Humans in orc costume are quite a bit more frightening than today's most impressive, big and bad CGI orcs. Much of The Lord of the Rings is essentially about escaping or defending from evil, whereas The Hobbit goes out to find it, to a certain degree. There are plenty of other differences, of course, but those overall differences are a large part of what drew me into LotR significantly more than The Hobbit.
As I mentioned in my review of the first Hobbit film, I am quite impressed by the way that Jackson retained much of the LotR Middle Earth setting, visually as well as in tone. And Martin Freeman was the home run of the trilogy - despite being the lone Hobbit, he was better than any of his peers from the LotR films. The Hobbit films are worthy, if lesser companions to the LotR: they truly inhabit the same world, and are damn entertaining. So if you've seen the other two Hobbit films, I'd recommend that you go out to the theaters to see this satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.
"The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit:_The_Battle_of_the_Five_Armies#mediaviewer/File:The_Hobbit_-_The_Battle_of_the_Five_Armies.jpg
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)
Long Story Short: Since it worked twice before (financially), Hollywood decided to do it again - splitting the final book of a popular YA series into two films. The Hunger Games filmmakers had their work cut out for them with this book, and it didn't help that their star Jennifer Lawrence isn't any better as Katniss this time. Obviously, avoid if you haven't seen the first two films - but if you have, this is a watchable set up for the finale, thanks to a good supporting cast and a decent war atmosphere.
Although I'm a bit late with this one, today's film review marks the start of the holiday blockbuster season. Rest assured, there are more to come in December! As I've noted in my review of the other Hunger Games films, I read the trilogy of books about a year or so before the first film came out. I enjoy the stories, although I wouldn't put it among my favorites. Still, I'm certainly interested in seeing through the conclusion of the film adaptations. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 was directed by Francis Lawrence (also did Catching Fire) and stars Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, et. al.
Picking up where the story left off in Catching Fire, Katniss (Lawrence) has been retrieved from the arena of her second Hunger Games' event. She is now with the rebels, located in the hidden, underground, supposedly destroyed District 13, along with the survivors of District 12 (her home area). While Katniss is relieved to be reunited with her mother, sister, and childhood friend, Gale (Hemsworth), she is tormented by the horrific experiences of two different Hunger Games and the loss of friends from the Games, including Peeta (Hutcherson). She is given little time to recuperate, though: the leader of District 13, Alma Coin (Moore) insists that Katniss be used as a propaganda tool in the fight against the government and its seat of power, the Capitol.
With help from friends both old and new, Katniss is persuaded to join the cause, though it puts her right back in the thick of the danger. And she discovers that Peeta is not dead, but rather put to horrifying use by the Capitol. With a symbol to rally around, rebels across the country push harder and harder against their oppressors - but the fight has only just begun.
As with the other films in the series, Mockingjay Part 1 has a tremendous cast. Despite this, I'm still not happy with Jennifer Lawrence in the lead as Katniss. In fact, I think she might be worse than before (partly due to her different role in this film). Ironically, the film intentionally pokes fun at Katniss' early attempts to film propaganda pieces - she simply comes off as inauthentic. But this is increased by the fact that Lawrence herself seems hard-pressed to fit this role, as well as other aspects of her character. As I've mentioned before, she has done really well in other roles - but this one just doesn't work for her. Three films in, I have to say this is the biggest (and it's a doozy) problem for the film series.
Fortunately, Lawrence is surrounded by a (mostly) tremendous supporting cast. Highlights are Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of his final roles; even if the part is pretty cliche, he is still so fun to watch and delivers a few great lines. And the best one-two punch, as it has been since the start, is Woody Harrelson as grumpy veteran Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks as air headed yet layered Effie. Both are tremendous fits and seem to really relish their roles. I only wish they had more screen time. Newcomer Julianne Moore is leader Alma Coin; she effectively makes her vaguely off-putting yet difficult to read (a little bland so far). Hutcherson as Peeta just gets a few brief parts, unfortunately, after his breakout in Catching Fire. In his place, the incredibly dull (as character and actor) Liam Hemsworth gets the spotlight as Gale. Finally, there are other familiar faces that get fleeting but appreciated appearances (Stanley Tucci as Caesar, Jeffrey Wright as Beetee, etc.).
Hunger Games is now at least the third major YA franchise (following Harry Potter and Twilight's lead) to break up its final book into two films. It's tricky enough to create a compelling film from a book in the middle of a series, but with an abrupt start and no clear break in the story, the task is even harder for these films. Fortunately, Mockingjay Part 1 pulls it off about as well as can be expected. It all takes place either in the cramped underground spaces of District 13, or the devastated rubble of former cities, which makes for a rather sobering experience. While Lawrence is unable to generate much personal connection by herself, there is a fascinating propaganda war between her and Peeta. Scenes of her with Gale are wastes of time, but once things get going there is a neat little bond that develops among Heavensbee (Hoffman's character), Haymitch, Effie, Beetee and so on.
Part 2 is where the real fireworks will surely be set off, but Part 1 also squeezes in some action, too. With no more actual Hunger Games to show, the film pivots to some fairly genuine war scenes that avoid gore but still create a realistic setting. The film does have a few high points, and even a climax, but it really should have been shorter for all the story is advanced (cutting Gale's part way down would have been a great start). Finally, the film does still a retain a modest sense of humor like the others, driven almost entirely by Haymitch, Effie, Heavensbee and company.
***
In sum, the experience of Mockingjay Part 1 is pretty much, "eh." This should be obvious by now, but if you haven't seen the other two Hunger Games films yet, don't even think about watching this one yet. If you have, this is a perfectly watchable movie but not what one would expect from a blockbuster franchise. Again, the filmmakers had quite a challenge splitting Mockingjay into two different films - add in the fact that their lead really just doesn't cut it, and it's kind of amazing that it's as good as it is. Credit that to a good script which, after a bit of a rocky first few minutes, finds a good narrative flow apart from the useless Gale scenes - as well as to an entertaining supporting cast and some pretty good war scenarios. Next year, of course, is the conclusion to this series which should be more satisfying. But that's OK, since this year we get to finish the (underrated) Hobbit series!
*3rd teaser poster for the film The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games:_Mockingjay_–_Part_1#mediaviewer/File:MockingjayPart1Poster3.jpg
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Birdman is a fascinating drama that toys with what is real and what isn't (on many different levels) in the form of the production of a play in New York. Foremost in the intricate web of fantasy and reality is the casting of Michael Keaton as a one-time superhero star who looks for a renewal after becoming forgotten (sound familiar?) But that's just the icing - the real substance of Birdman is the virtuosic long-take style in which it is filmed, along with the great performances and even soundtrack that goes with it. One of the best movies of the year - both in quality and entertainment value.
I was not expecting to be able to see the movie I am reviewing today, so the month is turning out to be even more packed than expected! Starting next weekend, the first in December, the focus will likely shift back to blockbusters as the holiday movie season gets underway. When I read about the premise of this awhile back (same as ever), I was immediately amused by the interaction of the premise and the leading man (more on this later). Later I found that the film was not just a straight-up comedy, as I had assumed it would be - it was also getting glowing reviews as an Oscar contender. Like last week's film, I assumed it would be just a limited release and therefore get nowhere near my theater - but I got lucky again! Birdman was directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel) and stars Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et. al.
Riggan (Keaton) is a Hollywood actor trying to re-establish his fame through the production of (he's writing, directing and starring in) a play in New York. Years ago, Riggan played a very popular superhero character - Birdman - which won him fame and fortune for three films, before he decided to quit the franchise. The story begins perhaps just a week or so before the play's premiere, and trouble abounds. A key cast member has to be replaced suddenly, and a talented yet hard-to-handle theater star, Mike Shiner (Norton) takes his place. As Riggan tries to rein in Mike, he also deals with his secret girlfriend - and co-star - Laura (Riseborough), and his miserable daughter, Sam (Stone), who is his assistant.
Riggan gets the production through several previews, all of which suffer disasters of varying degrees. While he is starved for the attention and the fame of his earlier career, he's unsure if he can - or even wants to - reclaim it through the theater. With the ghost of Birdman ever present in his mind, Riggan tries to juggle both his personal and professional relationships as they push and pull him in all different directions.
Birdman has a great cast, and it produces some tremendous performances. Michael Keaton is the lead as Riggan, the former Birdman. Although he strangely denies it, Keaton is the obvious choice for this role with his parallel history as the first film actor to play Batman. Fortunately, Keaton goes beyond this meta-appropriateness to deliver a great performance. Most strikingly, he is convincing as a star who knows the ropes (of fame and dealing with other big personalities, at least) and has become utterly and unconsciously driven entirely by his ego - yet he's also wearied and scarred from years in the business, insecure from his lack of recent success and lack of experience on the stage. He inhabits both of these sides quite naturally. And while the film is primarily a drama, he leads the way in shifting smoothly into some quirkier and/or humorous moments as well (one scene even recalls a Will Ferrell stunt that had everyone laughing out loud).
Birdman has great supporting roles aplenty. Most notable is Edward Norton as Broadway hotshot Mike. He has such effortless confidence - both his character, and his playing the character - that he steals the show several times. Sometimes it borders on caricature, but he's so good and entertaining that it doesn't matter. Emma Stone is also excellent, showing a broad range from juvenile indifference to, occasionally, explosive fury. She is the emotional center of the film, and not just because she's Riggan's daughter. Zach Galifianakis is the revelation in the cast, as Riggan's friend and lawyer/manager: yes, he's funny of course, but he shows some real acting chops here, too. And there are several other good, though small roles: Andrea Riseborough as Riggan's girlfriend, Amy Ryan as his ex-wife, and Naomi Watts as a co-star in the play.
I tend to focus on story and characters to determine the quality of a film, and view other components as secondary or less. However, the strength of Birdman is driven by the way that it was made and by the performances (I make the distinction here to characters). Think you've seen long takes - in other words, the film is seen through one camera for an extended period without editing - in other movies? You ain't seen nothing yet. The camera twists and turns and snakes through the theater in Birdman for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time and more. I can only think of a handful of times that there is a somewhat clear break in the filming. Sometimes there are seamless time jumps, using the same location, but it creates the effect of a living, breathing production. Simply marvelous work by Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, Gravity). The film also has a cool, naturalistic soundtrack driven by drums, with occasional breaks into orchestral/theatrical excerpts. And you've already read about the great performances.
While it's secondary this time, in my mind, it's worth talking at least a little about the story. Part of it is personal, with Riggan and both his girlfriend and ex-wife - both of these are minor and not all that original. Most prominent is the fondness that develops between Mike and Sam - but all these relationships feel almost intentionally cliched (not that they're bad; and they're also brief). The Riggan-Sam, father-daughter relationship is the most serious, and plays into the other main aspect. That is what gets back to why Keaton was the obvious leading man: his career trajectory. The film critiques blockbusters, but more so the people who aggrandize themselves through those works. It also pokes at the other side, the art-y, theater culture - and both of these cultural models get dressed down in one withering exchange between a NYTimes reviewer and Riggan.
***
Birdman is not and likely will not become a favorite for me - but it is undeniably an excellent and enjoyable film. It combines a little from each of the "film types" I've talked about earlier this fall - creative, ambitious, risky ones and conventional, solid ones - into one great package. I can't emphasize enough how great the filmmaking itself is (the creative, risky parts), with those long takes; it's utterly dazzling, and also fits perfectly with the tone and setting of the film. The performances themselves are great and slightly theatrical (beyond the literal setting) themselves, and the soundtrack goes right along with both the camerawork and performances to create the very enjoyable experience. This all overshadows both the personal elements (the conventional, solid parts) and even Riggan's story (and the film's cultural critique of) of the resurrection/transformation of an acting career. There's even - I haven't had time to mention it yet - some magical elements, which are small and relatively subtle until the final act of the film, where it allows for individual interpretation of the ending. Simply put, if you are able to see this film, I highly recommend that you do so.
"Birdman poster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birdman_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Birdman_poster.jpg
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Headlined by major stars Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy, this new dramedy sprung surprisingly quietly into theaters. The quiet is not at all due to poor quality: Murray is tremendous in the lead, and he is supported by fine co-stars (several of whom are in surprising roles). The drama leads the way here, with a standard odd couple set up leading to thoughtful, moving, original results. And don't worry, Murray and co. bring the funny, too. Recommended for all.
The movie train keeps chugging along this November, with a change of pace in the form of a comedy (a rare critically-acclaimed one at that). My review of the penultimate Hunger Games film will also be coming soon, after which I'm not sure what will come other than The Hobbit part 3 in December. I read a blurb for this (as it starts with many other movies) in a fall movie preview article, and seeing Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy attached to the same movie immediately grabbed my attention. It seemed to be a smaller project, though, so I was thrilled when my local theater picked it up. St. Vincent was directed by Theodore Melfi (debut) and stars Murray, McCarthy and Naomi Watts.
Vincent is an aging, grumpy drunk in New York City (I think; Wikipedia has let me down with this film). His only source of income is taking out money against his own home and horse race betting, which typically nets a negative outcome. Vincent is about to be evicted when new neighbors move in: Maggie (McCarthy) and her young son, Oliver. At first simply a nuisance, Vincent soon sees financial gain in the situation by offering his services as a "baby sitter" for Oliver after school while Maggie works long hours as a single mother.
It turns out that Vincent and Oliver offer unexpected benefits for each of their very different life stages and situations. Unfortunately, while their friendship helps them cope with life, it does not solve their problems - and these intervene to threaten the bond that has formed.
St. Vincent is led by several strong performances, none better than its leading man's. Bill Murray plays the anti-hero Vincent, giving the film its emotional and humorous core. This role is not exactly out of Murray's comfort zone as an actor, but he takes nothing for granted. He builds a very believable character, and a very fascinating, watchable one at that even if his behavior is often loathsome. His grumpy bits are predictably hilarious, yet we also feel for this guy and when the non-gruff side shows it is quite moving. Everything in this film depended on him, and Murray delivered. Also good is Jaeden Liberher, who plays sidekick young Oliver. He plays a quiet, friendly boy with a bit of the overly mature style marked by many young actors (but not badly). Perhaps most impressive is simply how he plays against Murray's sheer presence and personality: he doesn't overcompensate by being loud and overacting, but he's also (nearly) an equal partner in the story.
There are some strong supporting performances as well. First is Naomi Watts as Vincent's Russian stripper girlfriend, Daka. Daka is certainly the most "colorful" of the film's characters, but Watts is both funny as well as restrained enough to not become a caricature. A role that is surprising in many ways, from her importance to the story overall to her fit in the cast. McCarthy as "Maggie the mom" is much, much more subdued than typical - and she does a great job with it. Certainly, she still has sharp, effective humor, but she accepts both a much smaller and much different role and manages to excel. Finally, Chris O'Dowd (Bridesmaids) plays Oliver's teacher in a very small but subtly humorous role.
Overall, St. Vincent falls into the mold of an odd couple dramedy. Both main characters (Vincent and Oliver) start off with significant (and very different) problems, become friends, and help each other out. However, while the start may be familiar in many ways, the results are intriguingly different than expected. Vincent does not, as one would think, essentially become Oliver's new father. There is one scene that veers in this direction - and also ties many of the film's themes together in a blunt but very touching way - but it's the exception, and really doesn't fundamentally change things. Also, while Vincent and Oliver's problems are not original (although a few are surprises), the film does not resolve any of them with a neat little bow. The friendship does not cure all ills - it "merely" helps heal, and gives the characters new perspective. Finally, I've already mentioned how Murray, McCarthy, et. al. are funny - duh - but it is also worth mentioning that the drama really is the primary feature and the humor is deftly, naturally incorporated into the story.
***
St. Vincent is quite simply a strong, well-made film and the more I think about it, the more I like it. There were many ways this could have been done wrong - or at least been completely forgettable or annoying. The acting and writing, though, are both exceptional. Bill Murray's phenomenal performance is the centerpiece, as I mentioned earlier, leading all the crucial elements of the film. However, the acting and the fit of the other characters, especially young Oliver, is an important success, too. The pacing of the film is a little odd, but this is due to expectations: I figured that I could predict the results of certain major events but, as explained previously, the film subverts those. Again, the more I think and write about St. Vincent, the more I find its strengths and struggle to identify weak points, so this could rise in my rankings further by the end of the year. At any rate, I recommend this for all.
"St. Vincent poster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg
