Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, et. al.
Running time:  135 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  One of the most anticipated films of all time, Star Wars: The Force Awakens - or episode seven, if you're keeping track - meets its high expectations.  The new cast and characters are great, including new trilogy lead Rey (Daisy Ridley), ex-stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega), and they get fantastic help from Harrison Ford reprising his role as Han Solo.  The space battles and one-on-one duels are familiar, yet fresh and excitingly done, and the story is set up with great potential for the next films.  It's not perfect-a little too nostalgic in the final act, and a shaky intro for the new villain-but that doesn't put a dent in the sheer joy that this film presents.  Must see.


A long time ago, in a galaxy far away... it is thirty years after the destruction of the Emperor and the second Death Star.  While the Empire no longer rules the galaxy, remnants survive as the First Order, which itself now resists the governing Republic and Resistance military arm.  Both sides, good and evil, are looking for Luke Skywalker (Hamill), who has disappeared.  On a remote planet named Jakku, a First Order squad led by Kylo Ren (Driver), an agent of the Dark Side, seeks a rumored map that leads to Skywalker.  The rumor is true: a droid named BB-8 flees with the data as the First Order arrives.  Soon, BB-8 comes under the care of an unlikely pair: a native scavenger from Jakku, Rey (Ridley), and a First Order stormtrooper fleeing from his post, Finn (Boyega).

Rey, Finn and BB-8 managed to escape Jakku and as they attempt to get the map into the right hands, they receive help from a legendary hero.  All of them grapple with the dangerous new game they have been thrown into, each bringing vastly different backgrounds - and future goals - into the situation.  Ready or not, though, great responsibility is thrust upon them as the First Order seeks to plunge the galaxy back into the darkness of its forebears - the Empire and Darth Vader.

As the iconic Star Wars franchise enters its third trilogy, it does so with a great cast of new faces, along with some very familiar and welcome old ones.  The primary new character is Rey, played by Daisy Ridley, and both the actress and her character provide a great foundation on which to build the newest films.  Rey is tough-as-nails, clever, scrappy and focused - characteristics of her background as a scavenger, and Ridley portrays them all very convincingly and compellingly.  As Rey is thrown into a whole new setting and she interacts with other characters, Ridley both responds to the new conditions realistically - fearful yet determined - and forms good, interesting relationships with others, particularly Finn.  Props also to the Star Wars team for having a female lead in the male-dominated series.  All in all, an excellent new character.  Boyega's Finn is also a welcome addition.  As a former "bad guy", not to mention not typical hero material and clearly second fiddle to Rey, Finn is definitely a new archetype.  With plenty of charisma and Boyega's fit in the film style, he also complements Rey quite well.  Adam Driver is the new Dark Side bad guy, Kylo Ren, and unfortunately here I am much more skeptical.  Wearing a mask for most of the first part, he is fine if unremarkable.  However, when Ren reveals himself, it's uncomfortably similar to the prequel trilogy's angsty Anakin played by Hayden Christensen.  He is not at all frightening or intimidating and frankly sticks out a bit like a sore thumb here; some of his acting veers perilously close to parody.  Oscar Isaac plays a new hotshot pilot named Poe Dameron.  His role is small, but he's a fun character and certainly brings out that element for the film overall; of course, Isaac himself is also awesome.  The last I'll mention, though it's not exactly a traditional character, is BB-8.  This little droid has earned its place alongside C-3PO and R2-D2 for its distinctive motions, sound effects, and yes, personality - well done!

We also, of course, have some returning characters.  The biggest role by far goes to Harrison Ford's Han Solo.  Despite his advanced age, Ford has done a remarkable job of reconjuring Solo's magic from thirty-plus years ago.  All the personality aspects and energy (I just rewatched the original trilogy prior to seeing this) are there, with just some slight tweaking to incorporate the events (alluded to briefly) between episodes 6 and 7.  Maybe he used to hate Solo, but Ford gives it everything he has - which is, of course, a lot.  Bravo, Mr. Ford!  Chewbacca ("Chewie") is naturally back at Solo's side, and is also as good as ever; in fact, he gets spotlighted quite a bit more than expected, but effectively.  As with the new guys, there is one downer here, too.  Carrie Fisher returns briefly (mercifully) as Leia.  Mostly due to her unrecognizably altered voice, her few scenes are a little painful to watch.  C-3PO and R2-D2 get welcome appearances - but also appropriately brief.

After a first viewing, I believe that Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a worthy new entry in the franchise, though with my strong personal liking of the films and the large canon it enters, it's difficult to appraise it immediately (more on this later).  Still, here are my initial thoughts.  The Force Awakens does two things very well that any Star Wars film must:  create interesting characters, both unique and connected to the franchise-level narrative; and put them through a hell of an adventure with great action.  I've already gone through the characters individually, but it's worth reiterating that the combo of Rey and Solo as the leads is fantastic, pushing the story into new territory while retaining ties to previous tales.  The supporting cast around those two is also great; and even though Kylo Ren is a weak link in this film, his relationship to other characters is crucial.  The action is great, and true to the franchise.  The Millennium Falcon is back and heavily featured, including a fantastic desert chase with TIE fighters; Poe Dameron also kicks butt with great style in his X-wing fighter.  With both enhanced technology and creative new ideas, the Force is also expanded on in everything from mind trick "battles" to more menacing- and dangerous-looking lightsabers.  The original trilogy certainly had its share of humor, and The Force Awakens if anything increases this.  It's not just old Han and Chewie gags; the new characters and BB-8 hold their own here just as they do with the other aspects of their personalities.

An important element of The Force Awakens' success is its establishing a new feel for the new trilogy. All kinds of things affect this "feel" - from the technology and filmmaking styles of the day (from the early 80s to the early 2000s to the present) to the types of stories being told to the actors and their characters.  Episodes 4-6 had their own "feel", in all those ways and more.  So did Episodes 1-3 (I believe this is the major reason why many people dislike the films - because they simply weren't the same as the original trilogy [duh!], which is unfair to the prequel films but I'll leave that argument for another day).  Now Episode 7 brings its own to the table.  The photography and editing are not what you remember from the old films, but they are well done.  If you've seen Abrams' new Star Trek films, you can see his action style, in particular, in this film.  The new style, which is both necessary and good to have, still makes it difficult to assess the film as I mentioned previously.

WARNING: SEVERAL MAJOR SPOILERS IN NEXT PARAGRAPH

Finally, both a look back and a look forward.  After the general outcry that episodes 1-3 weren't Star Wars-y enough (no Han Solo, not "fun" enough [supposedly], etc.), it was inevitable that the new films would have some significant connection to the original trilogy.  I remember one of my first concerns, though, was exactly how they would make these connections.  The result: a mixed bag, but mostly well done.  Solo is the most significant returning component, and once again he is excellent here.  Ditto the Millennium Falcon, and some other returning elements (X-wings, etc.) which get some small updates. Unfortunately, we get yet another Death Star (equivalent) as the climactic battle.  Really?  This was by far the laziest and least interesting of the transition/nostalgia elements.  Plus, to a much smaller degree, Leia... *cringe*  What can we expect moving forward?  Honestly, that's one of the strongest parts of the film, which is admittedly somewhat frustrating.  There are lots of questions for Episode 8: what did Luke do while he was gone?  Who is the leader of the First Order?  What are Rey's mysterious origins and how do they effect her obviously strong abilities in the Force?  And so on.  I did like Han Solo's confrontation with - and subsequent murder by - his son, Kylo Ren.  Not only logical from the plot, as good as Solo was in this film, he played his part in getting the new guys "on board" - now it's time to hand off the baton.  It also gives Ren significant material to develop upon, and one can only hope and pray that it results in his being more interesting and effective in episode 8.  If only they replaced the Death Star conclusion with pushing forward some of these questions and themes more - maybe not answer them, but provide additional depth.  Still, the final shot is a great one and sets the scene for the next episode, which has the potential to be even stronger than this fine start to the new trilogy.

***

After several years of highly anticipating the next chapter, it was wonderful to see the new Star Wars and find it a great success.  Is it a perfect film?  No, of course not.  And as I mentioned, I'll need time and a few more viewings to get a more accurate sense of where it stands among the other Star Wars films, not to mention its quality as a film in general.  Right now, my biggest disappointments are with its use of another Death Star climax and its shaky introduction of new villain Kylo Ren.  Occasionally some lines also seemed a bit clunky or out of place, but that could be part of my (and everyone else's) getting used to the new style I talked about earlier.  However, none of that can compare to the great work from (most of) the characters and the exciting action and adventure.  I can't emphasize how important it is that not only was Solo a great inclusion, but that Rey and Finn (and Poe, though largely in potential) are such fun, interesting (not to mention diverse) new characters.  Abrams took great care in injecting new life, using both technology and inventive filmmaking, into the magic and action of the franchise as well, from lightsaber battles to space ship dogfights.  And finally, it all sets up the next chapters with a maximum of anticipation and potential.  With all that, I think we can forgive the film a few stumbles (remember, the old films had them, too!).  Highly recommended for all.




"Star Wars The Force Awakens Theatrical Poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Wars_The_Force_Awakens_Theatrical_Poster.jpg#/media/File:Star_Wars_The_Force_Awakens_Theatrical_Poster.jpg

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Francis Lawrence
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, et. al.
Running time:  137 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The epic, blockbuster YA Hunger Games franchise comes to its conclusion in Mockingjay Part 2 - and it goes out on a high note.  Jennifer Lawrence finally turns Katniss into the interesting, complex character that the books created.  Even as the final part of the journey enters darker territory than before in the books, the film embraces this tone better than any of the others.  Highly recommended for those who've followed the series.


Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) begins the final chapter of her journey with a single, overwhelming goal: to kill the leader of the future, dystopian land: President Snow (Sutherland).  Having just recovered from an attack by her mind-warped fellow survivor Peeta (Hutcherson), Katniss assists the rebels of Panem to conquer the final fortress leading to the Capitol itself.  For the final attack, however, the rebel commander Coin (Moore) tries to hold Katniss back to use her for more propaganda material, spurring on the troops as a symbol.  Katniss sneaks her way to the front lines regardless, but her fame prevents her from hiding any longer, allowing Coin to adjust her plans to protect the Mockingjay.

Working their way through the devastated but still dangerous streets of the Capitol, Katniss' new "all-star" propaganda team includes the still-unstable Peeta and her lifelong friend Gale (Hemsworth).  Things go awry as they do in war, though, and Katniss seizes the opportunity to resume her original mission.  She may not control the army that seeks to bring down a murderous regime, but her actions and status as the Mockingjay will shape the world to come.

All the familiar Hunger Games faces return for the finale, to a greater or lesser extent, providing a nice send off.  However, it's significant improvement in Lawrence's performance (with no small amount of help from the script) that leads the way.  I have noted in my reviews of the other Hunger Games films that Lawrence is talented but either uncomfortable or unsuitable in the role of Katniss.  Well, better late than never.  Lawrence seems to have connected with Katniss, particularly her relationships and motivations, rather than acting generically sullen with the occasional (and unconvincing) dollop of distress.  Thanks to her performance, I felt that Katniss was at last a character worth investing in for the journey.  Hutcherson is still a bit uneven in his acting (sometimes over-the-top) but overall solid, and his Peeta gets a nice part to play here.  Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks's Effie get very little screen time, which is the biggest disappointment of the film - but their characters simply aren't major parts of the story, so it's better than trying to awkwardly stuff them in.  The two leaders in the film, Coin and Snow, are portrayed excellently by the veteran actors Julianne Moore and Donald Sutherland, which is crucial given their importance here.

Mockingjay Part 2 is the best film in the Hunger Games series.  Certainly, Lawrence's aforementioned improvement (and in addition, Katniss as a character) is a major part of that.  The other characters have also become settled in.  Peeta's new potential threat status mixes quite interestingly with his gentle, quiet personality, and Gale (played by the hopeless younger Hemsworth) accepts the role of simple, hardened rebel soldier.  The chess match between Coin and Snow, mostly felt in the background but felt powerfully in a few personal moments, adds intrigue and complexity.  The other parts of the film are great, too - the action and adventure.  The level of suspense and quality of choreography and effects are at least as high here as they were in the second best film, Catching Fire.  And now we get all of that in a new, urban warfare environment, where the danger feels even more ubiquitous.  Clever traps are still everywhere, and a dark, frenetic battle against freaky monsters in the sewers is expertly done (and allows Katniss's skill with the bow to shine).

The biggest reason that this film is the best of the Hunger Games, though, is that it embraces the dark tone of the books, which is even more so in this final part of Katniss's story.  Catching Fire did this alright, too, but it was by far the biggest problem in the first film.  The story would have had to be changed significantly, particularly toward the end, to avoid this darker tone - but I wouldn't have been at all surprised if the usually over-cautious studios had done just that.  Instead, we thankfully get a film that really probably should be rated R; it is not for younger viewers.  Mockingjay Part 2 does still revert to some of the franchise's worse habits, like Peeta and Gale's awkward, forced discussions about Katniss (only one here!), but these elements are minimized and usually at least serve some small role in the plot.  The events of this film gradually shift Katniss's perspective, from that of revenge (albeit in service of a good outcome) to justice and peace.  When tragedy strikes, it only seals that transformation and earns Katniss the eloquently depicted ending that she receives.

***

Although I looked forward to seeing the conclusion to the Hunger Games film franchise, it was not among the top of my most anticipated films for 2015.  Due to the uneven quality of the previous films and their star, I largely felt compelled to see how it all ended up.  Thus I was quite surprised - pleasantly - that it turned out to be the best of the series.  Jennifer Lawrence's performance and the film's unflinching portrayal of the dark, complex plot are certainly the main reasons, but those are well supported by the other characters, good pacing, action scenes, and so on.  There still might be enough nits to pick for some to lower this to an A- or so, but I'm impressed that they got as much out of this as possible so it earns an A from me (note: in fact, later I did in fact move it back a notch to A-).  While the franchise doesn't measure up to the top tier of its sci-fi and fantasy peers like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, this high-quality conclusion ensures that it is a journey worth returning to some day.  Highly recommended, but of course that's only if you've seen the previous films (or at least read the books).




"Mockingjay Part 2 Poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mockingjay_Part_2_Poster.jpg#/media/File:Mockingjay_Part_2_Poster.jpg

Spectre

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Sam Mendes
Starring Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes
Running time: 148 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Daniel Craig returns as 007 in his fourth James Bond film, and it's another big success.  While Craig continues to build on his personal Bond storyline, this entry is dominated by a return to the past in its emphasis on classic Bond action and even the inclusion of an old nemesis.  The film is a bit long and less tightly written than previous Craig films, but its massively entertaining action makes up for it and then some; you'll leave the theater with a smile.  Highly recommended.


In Mexico City during the Day of the Dead festivities, British MI6 Agent 007 - James Bond (Craig) - is ostensibly enjoying the many "pleasures" around him.  However, he's on the case of a suspected terrorist plot in the city, and manages to defeat the villains.  On returning home to London, Bond is taken off field duty by M (Fiennes), who informs his agent that the entire "Double-O" program is in danger.  Not in physical danger, but from a new breed of government bureaucrats who seek to replace Bond and his ilk with all-knowing tech surveillance.  Bond's mission in Mexico City was just one step of a larger investigation though, and he is soon off to Rome to search for more clues to what is becoming a very unusual mystery.

Bond meets up with an old nemesis, one he encountered before his promotion to 007.  In exchange for information about the conspiracy, Bond promises to protect the man's daughter (Seydoux).  As the two travel the globe, Bond must fend off a vicious hitman (Bautista) and figure out why a man thought dead twenty years earlier seems to be showing up everywhere.  To do so, he will have to confront his past - both personal and professional.

Spectre has a rich cast of fun characters, with very capable actors bringing them to life.  Daniel Craig returns as the title character for his fourth James Bond film.  Not much new here - he neither gains nor loses ground on his previous performances.  Which also means that he is dynamite once again in the iconic role.  Although there is still some character development in this as in his other three Bond films, Craig gets to enjoy the "classic" Bond role - taking out the bad guys, seducing the ladies - more than before (more on this later).  Craig still has the steely demeanor that has defined his take on Bond; though less suave than previous actors, he does have a great wry sense of humor.  Christoph Waltz is great as the villain (to absolutely no surprise to anyone who's seen Inglourious Basterds).  The cool, collected calm of his evil sends shivers down your spine.  Bond girl Madeleine - played by Lea Seydoux - is among the better of Bond's love interests.  She is strong, though as a "normal" person (99.9% of us) is out of her league in 007's live-and-let-die world.  Bond's "supporting cast" at MI6 is quite good, with Fiennes, Whishaw as a young Q and Harris as Moneypenny; if Craig continues as Bond, their presence (presumably) would be a top reason to celebrate.

While Spectre is certainly still in the distinctive style and tone of Daniel Craig's three previous Bond films, it also heads back in time to classic 007 in more ways than one.  The slight change in course is not perfectly done, but it certainly still ends up as a film that stands alongside the other Craig films in quality.  There are a number of lengthy action scenes, and these - pure and simple entertainment - are the main focus, as opposed to building the Bond story as in the three previous films.  Overall this works great even if they sometimes last a little too long.  The opening scene, a Bond tradition, is good, especially the first few minutes.  There are several vehicular chases which definitely harken back to classic Bond in being over-the-top - in a good way.  And my favorite sequence involves the main "henchman", another Bond fixture (like Jaws).  Taking place in the close quarters of a train, the fight is incredibly intense and well-choreographed, possibly the best in Craig's entire run.  The scenes are not just well-executed:  the various locales are impressively shot and the camera knows how best to capture the characters, too.  Spectre stays true to 007 humor as well, especially Bond falling out of a building... and his landing somewhere strange.  In the biggest nod, Waltz's villain turns out to be the classic Bond nemesis (if you know who that is, don't worry, you'd have figured it out quickly anyway).  Thankfully, both Waltz's performance and the script do justice to the character from start to finish.

Although there are no huge problems with Spectre, there are a few reasons that it doesn't get my very top scores.  Overall, the melding of the "Craig style" of Bond to earlier films in the franchise goes quite well.  However, it does result, almost out of necessity, in a weaker overall plot than Craig's other films.  Deus ex machina shows up here rather often - something Craig's films have largely avoided though it is admittedly par for the course in the franchise.  How much you notice this (and how much it bothers you) may vary.  It's also quite a long film at two and a half hours.  A little more time in the editing room could have made this considerably tighter (especially a few of the action scenes).

***

Spectre stands as another triumph for Craig and even as much as I enjoy the entire franchise, the consistent level of quality in his Bond films is incredible.  This is one of the quickest turnarounds for me between seeing a movie and reviewing it (~3 hours); in that time, and especially as I'm writing this, my opinion is improving significantly.  That may be because I started getting a headache and had to resist a call from nature for a good chunk of the film.  A second viewing is definitely in order, even if I hadn't dealt with that previous sentence on the first go.  The improving opinion is also a symptom of Spectre - a movie I very eagerly awaited - not being quite what I expected (e.g. incorporating more "classic Bond" fixtures), and I felt the same way about The Dark Knight Rises.  Speaking of highly anticipated films, this was the second of the "Big Three" this year that I've looked forward to for several years.  The first was Jurassic World, and in a little over a month the third will arrive - the new Star Wars.  So far, so very good.  Spectre is high quality action filmmaking and recommended for any sensible person.




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

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