Movies: Olympus Has Fallen

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Long Story Short:  At last, a fun, ambitious action film comes out with stars who aren't over the hill!  Butler and Eckhart make for likeable protagonists, while a dash of Freeman adds (artificial) weight and the villain is quite timely.  Olympus has its fair share of flaws throughout, but the taking of the White House itself is enough to get action fans to the theater, and once there they will enjoy a nice popcorn film.


While the weather is only now starting to look a little more like spring, the Hollywood schedule was undeterred by this and its spring lineup is well underway.  A number of action films have already come out in 2013, most of which did not appeal to me (Bullet to the Head with Sylvester Stallone? Ugh), were critically trashed and even failed at the box office.  However, it's been a little while since I've seen a straight up Die Hard-style action film, so when I heard about Olympus Has Fallen, I was interested.  It got decent reviews (for the genre), had a neat premise, and star actors.  The film was directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) and stars Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman, and Aaron Eckhart.

Olympus begins in a winter vacation spot with a regular family - that has a contingent of bodyguards.  That's because this regular family is POTUS (Eckhart) and his wife and son; the bodyguards, particularly Banning (Butler), are like an extended family here.  Unfortunately, a tragedy occurs and Banning, although he is not at fault, is removed from the Secret Service.  A year and a half later, with Banning working at Treasury, a delegation from South Korea comes to visit the White House.  During the visit, the appearance of a rogue aircraft triggers a well-choreographed, all-out assault on the White House, and the military is unable to arrive before these terrorists wipe out local defenses and infiltrate.

Fortunately, our hero Banning is still in DC and soon becomes, with the help of acting President Speaker Trumbull (Freeman), the nation's only hope to avert catastrophe.

As you might imagine, Olympus Has Fallen is not an actors' showcase.  Nevertheless, Gerard Butler is well-cast as the hero of the film.  His physical build makes him a believable butt-kicker, and he is able to switch nicely between silent, grim focus and warm, friendly guardian to POTUS's son.  Butler's delivery of John McClane-esque humor isn't as effective, but he's certainly a guy you can root for.  Aaron Eckhart is similarly well-cast as the President; really, both characters are split 60-40 between tough guy and family figure (that's Butler; it's 40-60 for Eckhart).

Morgan Freeman is once again the Voice of Authority - specifically, the Speaker of the House who becomes acting President with POTUS and the Vice out of action.  Freeman is another puzzle piece but, maybe just because his role is smaller and simpler, it seemed like a paycheck role for him.  Eckhart just seemed to be working harder, whereas Freeman rode the power of his mere presence.  Filling out the rest, Dylan McDermott plays the nasty little snake with conviction; and Rick Yune, who reprises his role from the 2002 James Bond film, Die Another Day.

OK, OK, what really matters here?  The action!  Fortunately, Olympus Has Fallen succeeds overall in this aspect.  The assault on the White House is especially good; the writers clearly put as much thought into this as they did the rest of the film combined.  The level of tension in this extended scene rises at a great pace - not peaking too soon and numbing the audience to the rest of it.  At times the violence is a bit gratuitous, but overall I think going for it with the "R" rating was the right choice (also freeing characters to use choice language when needed, but it's not overdone).  After the opening assault, the action becomes more formulaic, but still entertaining.  While Banning's mastery of White House security is more than a stretch, what you actually see on screen - the fights - show him as a really good but not immortal, Chuck Norris-like killing machine.  There is virtually no humor here through the first half or so, and then the Die Hard-style banter begins between hero and villain - not nearly as effectively as its predecessor, unfortunately.

***

When I think about what score to give to a film, I balance a number of different things:  overall quality, of course (writing, acting, plot, etc.), but also how much I personally enjoyed it, as well as expectations for the film to a degree - which includes genre.  I ask myself, What were the goals of this film (or at least, what was I hoping to get out of it)?  For Olympus Has Fallen, the answer to that was basically tense, fun action and likable, not too cliched characters (and perhaps some nice explosions).  Well, Olympus succeeded pretty well on those counts.  I lowered its grade for having too many extraneous little threads that go nowhere, a dull villain (post-assault), and the suspensions of belief sometimes being a bit too much (characters being extraordinarily stupid as often as unrealistically prescient).  Still, the frame of the film is solid, with some real highlights not only in the action (again, the taking of the White House) but also in some of the personal scenes.  It's pretty simple:  if you like action films, I recommend it.  If you don't like action films, well, this one isn't going to change your mind.

Movies: Oz the Great and Powerful

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Long Story Short:  Director Sam Raimi takes on the famous wizard in Oz the Great and Powerful, the first expected blockbuster of the year.  Despite having the structure of a standard family film, Oz manages to entertain both young and old with an engaged cast and clever ideas throughout.  And even with a limited range of outcomes, Oz manages some surprises (particularly Franco's "hero").


I promise you, I will improve my current average of seeing a movie per month!  That task is looking to become easier as the studios begin to release more films that interest me.  The first, and perhaps biggest, film in what has become the new "spring blockbuster season" is Oz the Great and Powerful.  It has been many years since I've seen The Wizard of Oz, so long that I barely remember it - but the trailer and commercials for this just piqued my interest for some reason.  Well, with a talented director, interesting cast, and decent score on Rotten Tomatoes (~60% at time of release), I decided to give it a try, just hoping for an entertaining time at the theater.  Oz the Great and Powerful was directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man films) and stars James Franco, Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz.

The film begins in Kansas in 1905 (thanks, Wikipedia), the picture framed in a black-and-white square. Oscar Diggs (Franco) is a magician with a traveling circus, whose most effective tricks seem to be wooing his young female assistants and bossing his male assistant around.  After a tough performance, Oscar gets even worse news: a rather large man is angry at him for flirting with his girlfriend.  Oscar flees in a hot air balloon, but gets swept up in a tornado and finds himself flung into Oz (along with normal aspect ratio and full color).  He finds fantastic, unearthly life forms in addition to a young witch, Theodora (Kunis).  Upon meeting Oscar, the witch is excited that he is the prophesied Wizard of Oz, come to save the realm from the Wicked Witch.

Along the way to the Emerald City, Oz works his charm on Theodora and picks up a flying monkey companion named Finley (Braff).  All are merry at the news in the City, but Theodora's sister, Evanora (Weisz), informs him that he must first defeat the Wicked Witch before he can become King of Oz (and enjoy the massive room full of gold left for him).  Oz sets off on the task with Finley, but as you might imagine, not all turns out as planned in the effort to rid the realm of its evil-doer.

A rather eclectic cast was assembled for Oz, and for the most part it works quite well.  James Franco is the lead as Oz, of course.  I am not really a fan of Franco, but that works out here:  I think he seems arrogant, falsely charming, and conniving - and that's basically what Oz is.  Of course, Franco/Oz aren't all bad, but it's pretty intriguing to have a non-traditional hero in this fairly traditional story.  Glinda the Good Witch is played by Michelle Williams, who looks absolutely stunning but is certainly no damsel in distress.  Williams pulls off a combination of great gentleness of character without coming off as naive, and her mental and emotional resolve is a great example for young viewers.  Rachel Weisz is also great as the witch Evanora, a calculating, cool-headed power broker in the Emerald City.  

Unfortunately, not only is Mila Kunis miscast as Theodora the witch, her part is also the worst-written aspect of the film.  Her character just sticks out like a sore thumb from the time she appears, and Kunis makes it worse by overacting.  Oz also has two nonhuman companions:  the already-mentioned Finley, as well as China Girl.  Finley, as voiced by Scrubs' Zach Braff, is a fun character who is great for young audiences and perfectly tolerable for adults, too.  China Girl, voiced by Joey King, is also good, displaying a great attitude early on; unfortunately, both characters are mostly forgotten in the last third or so of the film.

The narrative structure in Oz the Great and Powerful is standard, what you'd expect from a family-based film, but it has enough interesting aspects within that structure to keep adults' attention, too.  Oz could easily have been made as a film to show off "look how cool the land of Oz looks, updated from the 1939 classic!" - but fortunately, Raimi keeps this to a minimum and instead focuses on the characters throughout.  Perhaps most impressively, Oz manages to keep its self distinct from the classic film.  For example, each may have similar openings with the main characters swept away by tornado, but it doesn't come off as contrived.  The ending, which has certain results that are expected, achieves its ends cleverly.  There is also, fortunately, none of the cynical or self-aware humor of some recent family films, and Franco is actually pretty funny.  As a last note, the soundtrack didn't really stand out to me at all.

***

Ultimately, the fun, creative, even memorable moments in Oz the Great and Powerful outweigh its flaws to result in a good family film.  First, I'll elaborate more on the downside:  the script is not all that good.  The worst part, as I mentioned, is pretty much everything to do with Theodora; in addition, the film has a pretty substantial running length for a family film (2 hrs, 7 minutes) and so it drags at times (this is also the fault of the editors, of course).  I realize that this is a family fantasy film, but some of the plot devices also come off as a little too convenient.  On the other hand, there is a lot to like here, too.  The entire cast seemed to enjoy it (no "phoned-in" performances), Franco is very well-cast as Oz, and Williams and Weisz are great as polar opposite witches.  The focus on character even comes down to the climax:  instead of using yet another effects-heavy battle of armies, the good guys are forced to outwit rather than outmuscle their foes.  Perhaps Wizard of Oz fanatics will find more to complain about than I did, but if you are just looking for a fun time that offers more clever twists than the usual family film, check it out.

Movies: Side Effects

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

*At the bottom of this review, I am posting my hopes for Oscar winners.*

Long Story Short:  Steven Soderbergh, director of films as varied as Contagion and Magic Mike, continues to surprise with his choice of a pharmacological thriller.  He gets some high-quality acting from the main characters, played by Rooney Mara and Jude Law, and gives his audience an intriguing take on depression, and the hows and whys of the ways society deals with it.  I personally was disappointed at the abrupt change in direction in the last part of the film, but the ideas and acting are enough for me to recommend it overall.


What I thought might turn out to be another usual prolonged film drought in winter was unexpectedly interrupted last week.  I had not even known this film existed until I checked Rotten Tomatoes to see what the current options were.  Side note:  Identity Thief seemed to have promise, but it was lambasted so badly by pretty much every critic that I didn't want to waste my money on it (I was pleased not to have wasted money on last year's The Dictator).  When I checked what Side Effects was all about, I was intrigued:  an interesting plot concept, a good cast, a notable director, and a very impressive critical reception (86% currently on RT).  Sounds good to me!  Side Effects was directed by Steven Soderbergh and stars Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Channing Tatum, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

After an opening of mysterious, foreshadowing scenes that take place later in the film, Side Effects introduces Emily (Mara), a young woman awaiting the release of her husband, Martin (Tatum), from prison for insider trading.  There is great joy upon his return home, yet Martin finds that his wife has nevertheless relapsed into depression.  It gets so bad that coming home from work, Emily tries to kill herself.  In the hospital, she meets psychiatrist Jonathan (Law) and begs him to let her go home again.  He agrees, but insists that she see him for therapy on a regular basis.  Jonathan prescribes several anti-depressants to Emily but they don't work.

However, a new drug called Ablixa, recommended to Jonathan by Emily's previous psychiatrist (Zeta-Jones), works wonders on her despite having the side effect of occasional sleepwalking.  It goes downhill from there, though, as the side effect causes Emily to commit a serious crime.  As Jonathan defends Emily, he faces scrutiny as well for his methods.

One of Side Effects' draws for me, as I mentioned, was the cast, and it does not disappoint.  Rooney Mara as Emily is the film's lead.  I haven't seen Mara in much else, but she certainly shows her talent here.  Especially early in the film, when there's not a lot of dialogue, Mara does a great job of communicating her inner turmoil with body language alone:  the way she stares, the way she moves.  Really strong lead performance.  Jude Law as Jonathan is her primary co-star, and he similarly puts on a great show.  He displays the intelligence and compassion that mark the exemplars of his field in psychiatry, yet also, when things go bad, the condescension of "you don't understand people like I do" while at the same time being blindsided by political and financial motives.

The film's supporting roles are filled by Channing Tatum as husband Martin, and Catherine Zeta-Jones as Emily's old psychiatrist, Victoria.  Tatum's part is fairly small, but he lends the role a gentle personality, sympathetic partner, and doesn't take attention away from the key player, Mara.  Zeta-Jones also does a good job with her part, a rather stiff, unlikeable psychiatrist.  Her role gets a little out of hand later in the film, but it's mostly the script's fault, not hers.

With Side Effects, I was looking forward to a dramatic take on a serious issue in the country:  increased use of pharmaceuticals, and, specifically, anti-depressants.  I was quite pleased by this aspect of the film.  While it really focuses primarily on the main characters Emily and Jonathan, these characters are well-positioned (and well-acted) to represent the issue in a very believable way, with surprisingly few cliches.  The aspects involved include everything from the sufferer's (Mara) lonely moments when you can see her thinking about giving up on life, to the struggles of medical personnel (Law) in deciding the best way to handle a situation, to the patient-removed motives of big pharma and consulting companies.  The final shot of the film is one of the most effective I have seen in a while:  an immense mental facility placed right beside a busy urban highway, representing, to me, how there is this massive issue in society that we encounter each day without necessarily realizing it.  Humor was sparse, but that's the way it should be here.  The score was quite good, particularly at the beginning of the film - as with watching Mara's body language, it's easier to pay attention to the music when there isn't constant dialogue.

***

"OK," you're probably thinking.  "Based on all you've said, why didn't you rate this higher than a B?"  To put it in as general terms as I can, I didn't like the direction the film took in the second half.  If you don't want a slightly more spoiler-y explanation, STOP READING UNTIL YOU SEE ALL CAPS AGAIN!  What appears in the first half of the film to be a completely plausible sequence of events and mixture of personalities, suddenly evolves into a conspiracy that keeps growing and growing.  Admittedly, without said conspiratorial turn, poor Jonathan would have been left out to dry.  As it is, Jonathan's character gets too smart, and Zeta-Jones too zany for my tastes, not to mention the details of the "real" story.  OK YOU CAN START READING AGAIN.  In my opinion, Side Effects would have been significantly better with a decent wrap-up to the events of the first half/two-thirds of the film, which would have resulted in a snappy ninety-minute or so running time.  Instead, it dragged on and lost focus on the riveting depiction of a believable story in trying to change directions too quickly and too drastically.  Still, you may (and clearly many critics do) disagree with me there.  Despite my disappointment, I certainly recommend it for the first half and the great acting, though a theater trip isn't essential.



2013 Oscars

My hopes for the best picture, director, and acting categories:

Best Picture
Amour (haven't seen it)
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild (haven't seen it)
Django Unchained
Les Miserables (haven't seen it)
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

My pick:  While Life of Pi is my favorite of the year, I know it doesn't have a chance, so I am pulling for Lincoln.  The frontrunner seems to be Argo; while that's a very good film, and a worthy winner in a weaker year, this is a strong year and Life of Pi, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty are each at least a cut or two above it, in my opinion.

Best Director
Michael Haneke (Amour)
Ang Lee (Life of Pi)
David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)
Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)
Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

My pick:  In this category, Ang Lee stands out as the obvious choice for his remarkable job making such a difficult film.  I guess my second choice would be Ben Affleck for Argo, for the way he balanced great tense parts with light, funny ones - oh, wait, that's right, he got snubbed.  Then I guess I'd have to pick Kathryn Bigelow, for making bold narrative choices and leaving the audience to decide tough issues for themselves - what's that?  She's not nominated, either?  Academy Awards FAIL.

Best Actor
Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook)
Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)
Joaquin Phoenix (The Master)
Denzel Washington (Flight)

My pick:  Daniel Day-Lincoln, of course.  I did hear great things about Phoenix in The Master, so I want to check that out some time.  Denzel also gave the best performance I've seen from him in years, if not ever, and he would be a deserving winner in most other years.

Best Actress
Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty)
Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)
Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild)
Naomi Watts (The Impossible)

My pick:  I've heard fantastic reviews of each of these performances, but only seen two of them.  I would give the nod to Chastain over Lawrence in the more challenging role (plus I think Lawrence is just a little overrated).  Great choices here, including both the youngest and oldest nominees in Oscar history!

Best Supporting Actor
Alan Arkin (Argo)
Robert de Niro (Silver Linings Playbook)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master)
Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)
Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained)

My pick:  Hoffman is the only one I haven't seen.  Of the other four, this category is about as easy as Best Actor:  Tommy Lee Jones, no question.  The other three did great jobs, no doubt - but Jones hit a grand slam in Lincoln.

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams (The Master)
Sally Field (Lincoln)
Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)
Helent Hunt (The Sessions)
Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook)

My pick:  As with Best Actress, I'm afraid I've only seen two of the nominees' films.  And one of them, Weaver, I honestly don't know why she was nominated.  It wasn't bad, just... very small and inconsequential to the film.  Sally Field, however, would be a perfectly deserving winner, in my opinion.  That makes three actor picks from Lincoln.  Interestingly, The Master has nominees in three categories, too, yet it doesn't have a best picture or best director nomination...

Sports: Super Bowl XLVII, Commercials, Australian Open

Super Bowl XLVII, Commercials, Australian Open

In the depths of winter, it's movie hibernation season; hopefully I'll be able to see a few soon (or more accurately, hopefully there will be some films I want to see released soon).  Until then, I thought I'd check in to take a look at how the 2012 NFL season concluded, review the best and worst Super Bowl commercials, and mention the Australian Open a bit.

2012 NFL Playoffs & Super Bowl

In predicting the 2012 NFL Playoffs, I had some good insights... but even more spectacular failures.  I am most pleased in my prediction - and also the result - of Atlanta "upsetting" Seattle as the NFC's top seed.  They played really well in their two postseason games, seizing full advantage of their home field noise, mitigating their weaknesses on defense as well as possible, and on offense both breaking big plays for scores while also milking the clock pretty well despite a poor running game.  I like this Falcons team, and hope they do well again next year.

And then there were the bad calls.  I thought Green Bay had been building momentum at the end of the regular season, but San Francisco completely annihilated them.  Granted, I did not see it, and only heard a little bit on the radio, but it seemed pretty lopsided to me.  Like many others, I thought that San Francisco would regress significantly this season.  While their defense was less dominant, the QB switch from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick was enormously successful.  With a fantastic offensive line, the 49ers should only improve next year with the offseason to fully implement a game plan built around Kaepernick's unique talents.

My biggest miss - and the biggest surprise to me - was Baltimore.  I picked them to lose to the Colts, and expected their next two opponents to thrash them as well.  To my eyes, and I saw the Ravens quite a bit on TV this year, the team simply regressed in almost all aspects.  The defense, riddled by injuries and age, dropped to middle of the pack at best.  QB Flacco had a poor regular season and bad play calling (they fired their offensive coordinator near the end of the season) minimized the impact of RB superstar Ray Rice.  Something, whether it was Ray Lewis' retirement or whatever else, dramatically changed for this team in virtually all facets once the playoffs started, though.  They were the wild-card round team that got in a rhythm this year, with a suddenly red-hot Flacco and a significantly improved, opportunistic defense.

So the Super Bowl teams were set - in my opinion, the best team in the NFC in San Francisco, versus the fourth-best team in the AFC (If you did a round robin tournament with the six AFC playoff teams, I am sure that Denver, New England, and Houston would all do better than Baltimore).  Still, I had picked against the Ravens in three games and been wrong each time, so, ignoring what my head was telling me was the superior team on paper, I predicted the Ravens to win the Super Bowl, 27-24.

The game, played in New Orleans' Super Dome, started with the 49ers looking solid but just a bit tense, unable to finish drives.  Baltimore, on the other hand, capitalized on good field position and moved the ball better than expected in building a 14-3 lead by the midpoint of the 2nd quarter.  A few bad drives from San Fran led to another short field for the Ravens and they got another TD on badly blown coverage.  Just like that, to most people's (myself included) surprise, the Ravens had a dominant 21-6 lead on the 49ers at halftime.

Then the Ravens came out of the locker room with a kick return for a TD - at 28-6, they had their foot on the 49ers' throat.  Finally, though, San Fran put together a nice drive for a TD midway through the quarter... and then the lights went out.  As players milled around and stretched, trying to keep focused, it was potentially a turning point.  Would one team be more affected than the other?  Well, it certainly seemed to help the 49ers as they scored another 10 points in the next four minutes, cutting the deficit to 28-23.  The Ravens responded with a long drive but just a field goal, and the Niners scored yet another TD on the next drive (though they failed the game-tying two point conversion).  Another long drive from Baltimore forced the Niners to go for a TD with about four minutes left - they drove down the field, but the Ravens' D stepped up just in time (plus help from a missed defensive holding penalty on 4th down).  Smart time management from Ravens' coach John Harbaugh sealed the victory, 34-31.

I was certainly rooting for the 49ers, being a Steelers fan (although I do prefer John over Jim Harbaugh).  Still, at least TTSNBN didn't even make the Super Bowl this year!


Commercials

This year's Super Bowl commercials overall were an improvement over the last few years.  There were few if any all-time greats, but also few that were truly terrible.  Average quality was at least decent.  On the other hand, what the hell happened to Budweiser?  They used to always have the funniest commercials, and now they come out with one sentimental commercial and a bunch of crappy ones the last few years.  Here were 2013's top 5 funny, top 5 "good" (creative, awesome, etc.), and 5 worst commercials:

Funny:

Good:

Bad:

2013 Australian Open

I didn't see much of the tournament this year, since of course the time zone difference makes it impossible to see anything but replays.  In the men's bracket, things went pretty much according to plan.  Ferrer, the tough little grinder who's worked up to #4 thanks to Nadal's prolonged absence, got to the quarters where he was smashed by one of the elites (Djokovic).  Murray took down Federer again, this time in a five-setter; Fed himself was tested by Tsonga before winning in five sets; and Djokovic won the tournament for the third year in a row.  The final against Murray was very competitive until Murray seemed to get injured, at which point Djokovic pulled away comfortably.  In the women's bracket, however, things did NOT go according to plan: the top seed actually won!  Serena Williams was stunned by up-and-coming, fellow African American Sloane Stephens, and in a surprise return to top form, Li Na made a run to the finals.

Interesting questions abound for this 2013 tennis season.  For the men, top biggest one of course is whether Nadal can return to form once he's finally back in the mix.  Murray upped his play last year to make a case that there's still a big three - just with Murray instead of Nadal.  Can the Scot take the trophy in his home nation this year?  Will Djokovic keep his hold on the #1 ranking?  Can Federer keep getting to the quarters, semis, and finals of Grand Slams as the other elites seem to be moving past him and second tier players (Tsonga, Ferrer) look to challenge?

For the women, will Serena get back to #1 as seems inevitable?  Can eastern Europeans Azarenka and Sharapova solidify their spots at the top of the rankings by consistently getting to the semis and finals of Grand Slams?  Will there be any new breakout superstars in the making, and is American Sloane Stephens one of them?  Hopefully we've got some more high-quality tennis in store as has been the case the last few years.

***

Stay tuned in coming weeks, as hopefully I'll get to the theater to see some new films and then review them here in my blog.

Movies: Zero Dark Thirty

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow returns to the big-screen with another Oscar nominee in Zero Dark Thirty.  Zero lives up to the hype with an intense, realistic narrative of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and, equally as impressive, a brilliant lead performance from Jessica Chastain as the CIA officer who just wouldn't give up.  Come for Chastain, and brace yourself for the riveting ups and downs (culminating in the SEAL Team Six raid) in the hunt for bin Laden.


This is the kick-off to the 2013 film season, and we start off with an Oscar nominee in Zero Dark Thirty.  Technically, this film was released in 2012, but was only released widely in January so that's why I'm counting it as 2013.  There were a number of factors leading me to see this, besides the fact that it's gotten such good reviews and Oscar nominations.  The subject is an interesting one, and I had missed the director's Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker, from what I can tell a similar film, from a few years ago.  Zero Dark Thirty was directed by Kathryn Bigelow and stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, and several actors you'll recognize in smaller roles.

Zero Dark Thirty opens with a dark screen, playing audio clips from emergency calls placed during 9/11.  Then we are taken to 2003, where Maya (Chastain), a young CIA officer, has just been assigned to an unnamed "black site" in Pakistan.  There she witnesses first-hand the repeated interrogation and torture of a key al-Qaeda captive.  Shaken by the methodology at first, Maya is soon latches onto the first link in a chain that she believes could lead her to Osama bin Laden.  Dan (Clarke), the officer who introduced her to work in the field, is sent back to Washington and Maya takes the hunt for bin Laden fully onto her determined shoulders.

Despite an increasingly hostile working environment in Pakistan, and an administration in Washington determined to shut down interrogation techniques that were invaluable to the CIA, the young officer only grows more tenacious and skilled in her daunting mission.  You may recognize some scenes along the way that made the news (including the terrorist attack written about in the book The Triple Agent), and when you finally see bin Laden's compound, an eerie yet satisfying tingle crawls up your spine.

With an ultra-realistic, almost documentary feel, the cast of Zero Dark Thirty had to be good, and fortunately, it is.  First and foremost is Jessica Chastain as Maya, who absolutely knocks it out of the park.  The main topic of the film is the hunt for bin Laden, but parallel to that (and perhaps more important) is the nuanced evolution of Maya, and Chastain truly brings her to life.  From the early torture scenes, where Chastain shows Maya's discomfort yet determination to stick to it, to her frustrations after numerous setbacks, to controlled yet impassioned arguing with her superiors to keep on the hunt, the actress creates one of the best hero/heroines in recent film history.

Chastain is supported by some other good performances, too.  Jason Clarke as Dan, the interrogator/ torturer, has clearly become accustomed to treating captives as sub-human yet he clings to some shreds of normalcy in a believable way.  Kyle Chandler is great as a top bureaucrat, supporting his officers at times but ultimately bending to whatever he feels is best for his own career.  Mark Strong, a villain in so many films, is also very good as a CIA official whose feelings on Maya's mission evolve in the way Chandler's bureaucrat could not.  There are some other notable appearances, but the last I'll mention is Chris Pratt (Andy from Parks&Rec) as a member of the Navy SEALS squad.  It was a bit difficult for me to see Andy, er, Chris as a Navy SEAL, but his presence added a touch of lightness to an otherwise incredibly tense, sometimes brutal finale.

Zero Dark Thirty is a deadly serious film; it does not dramatize the story in the way that Argo often did (not to say either is right or wrong, just different).  At the same time, it is not a dark or depressing film, which is quite an accomplishment.  Yes, there are the torture scenes (water boarding), but they do not set the tone of the film; Zero gives you a glimpse of what it's like, then later offers tough questions about it.  Yes, there are some sudden, terrifying attacks (by both good and bad guys).  But all of this is placed within the context of Maya's journey, and her indomitable spirit buoys the audience.  I would also argue that the violence/action is well balanced to convey its genuine danger and context.  There are even touches of humor here and there, which, importantly, all fits well with the tone of the film (no wink wink, nudge nudge).

***

As I've already mentioned, there are comparisons to be made between Zero Dark Thirty and Argo.  Incredible stories of clandestine American activities in central Asia.  Great tension.  Impressive supporting casts.  However, the main reason why Argo is an A- and Zero Dark Thirty is an A (with potential for A+ if it holds up over time) is Ben Affleck vs. Jessica Chastain.  Chastain gives a Navy SEAL-like performance, while Affleck is more like campus security.  I can't really think of much more to say about the film; it's just really well done.  Perhaps it starts to drag just a little, but in a way that's appropriate in reflecting Maya's long, agonizing mission.  And once the bin Laden raid starts, time ceases to be a factor.  A final note:  between the current favorites for Best Picture Oscar, I favor Lincoln over Zero Dark Thirty, but both are perfectly worthy (I would still choose Life of Pi over either, but it doesn't stand a chance).  Highly recommended.

Movies: 2012 Review

2012 Films in Review

It's time for my favorite post of the year - counting down my top ten of the past year, plus other stuff!  It turned out that my little Academy Awards experiment failed miserably, so I'm just going to tell you who I would vote for :-)  I'll also have the miscellaneous selections as well (worst of the year, films seen on DVD, etc.)  Now for the top ten!

10.  Django Unchained (dir. by Quentin Tarantino; starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, et. al.)

So, I'm cheating this year by having eleven films in my top ten, but it was such an excellent year I think it's appropriate.  Django certainly kept up cult-favorite director Tarantino's standard of high quality, but there is some slippage from 2009's Inglourious Basterds.  Still, an extended ending that I did not enjoy and a somewhat uninspired plot are made up for by a great cast (esp. Sam Jackson) and by indulgent moments of fun and humor that Tarantino usually seems to minimize in such straightforward forms.

10.  Argo (dir. by Ben Affleck; starring Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, et. al.)

Poor Argo; it was released at the very beginning of an extraordinary run of films this fall that perhaps has led to me to underrate it - even the Academy snubbed it by denying Ben Affleck a best director nomination (total injustice).  What I do remember from this film is the great tension, specifically at the beginning and end of the film, the very realistic-feeling portrayal of Iranian society, and - mixed in very successfully - some great Hollywood humor (thanks, Arkin).  Only criticism:  Ben Affleck, please stop casting Ben Affleck as the main character in your films.

9.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (dir. by Peter Jackson; starring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen,  Richard Armitage, et. al.)

It seemed like money in the bank that The Hobbit would end up as one of the best films of 2012... and probably in another year it would be in my top 5, but not this year.  To me, it's crucial to start by saying that Jackson instantly recaptured the feeling and tone (visual, pacing, etc.) of his LotR trilogy, an essential but by no means easy task.  And the casting of Freeman as Bilbo was simply brilliant, honestly just as appropriate as DDL as Lincoln (and Gollum returns!).  But it does drag with a bit too much extended-edition footage, and the last act showed us again how too much CGI can take you out of the experience.

8.  Skyfall (dir. by Sam Mendes; starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, et. al.)

I saw this again recently, and interestingly, my thoughts on it remain virtually unchanged.  Skyfall is one of the best-made 007 films ever (that's 23 films over 50 years).  It is tightly paced, very well shot (some of the most beautiful scenes in a visually-exceptional series), great performances, and some classic Bond action, and one of the best theme songs in the series.  But... I just can't fall in love with this one, despite loving 007 in general.  I can't put a finger on why that is yet, but to me, Casino Royale still easily retains its title as best 007 ever.

7.  Hope Springs (dir. by David Frankel; starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and Steve Carrell)

If you had told me at the beginning of 2012 that this film would end up in front of The Hobbit and Skyfall, I would have laughed.  But this quiet little film - totally ignored by the Academy - is really a great one.  Hope Springs's key to success is two-pronged:  a tight focus on its subject, and outstanding performances by the leads, veterans Streep and Jones.  The film shifts effortlessly and naturally between genuine grief and uncomfortable hilarity.  I love Carrell, but he really is just an audience here to two of cinema's finest ever giving it their best.

6.  The Perks of Being a Wallflower (dir. by Stephen Chbosky; starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, et. al.)

One of my personal favorites of the year, this was considered an Academy dark horse but, like Hope Springs, was ignored.  Maybe I'm just a sucker for nostalgic, coming-of-age films - on the other hand, if not done well, they're excruciatingly bad.  This one does have flaws, and near the beginning seems to be headed along a cliched path, but fortunately it veers well away from that.  Ezra Miller is remarkable here, and Watson shows she has post-Hermione potential.  This film is funny, clever, and produces chills up your spine from recalling your own high school experiences (good and bad).

3.  The Avengers (dir. by Joss Whedon; starring Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Tom Hiddleston, et. al.)

Here I have a three-way tie; I simply can't put one ahead of the others when taking everything into consideration.  For this film, I honestly think that Joss Whedon deserved a Best Director nod.  The degree of difficulty putting so many superheroes, so many stars into one coherent film with the pressure of soaring expectations was unbelievable.  But he did it:  he made possibly the most fun superhero film ever (I didn't say the best overall).  Whedon understood and took full advantage of the strengths of not only the actors but also their characters, elevating the film way above its dull plot.

3.  Flight (dir. by Robert Zemeckis; starring Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, John Goodman, et. al.)

The theme of 2012 - exceeding expectations - continues in full force with this film.  Made to look like an action film by the trailers, the scene that everyone knows about happens at the beginning - it's even more impressive than you think - and then it shifts into a very personal, down-to-earth drama.  Denzel is absolutely terrific, giving the best performance I've seen from him.  His character inspires praise and/or sympathy at times - and a minute later, equally deep loathing and contempt.  His nuanced role is supported by the most well-rounded film of the year.

3.  The Dark Knight Rises (dir. by Christopher Nolan; starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, et. al.)

In a way, this might be the most flawed film of the three... but it's also my favorite.  Nolan's Bat trilogy is now among my favorites (Star Wars, LotR, Indiana Jones...) and my anticipation for Rises could not have been any higher.  So inevitably I was a little disappointed on first viewing - but I was also more excited to buy and rewatch it on DVD than the other 2012 films.  The film is certainly an epic - and ultimately, to me, very satisfying - conclusion to the trilogy.  Bane is no Joker, just as The Dark Knight Rises is not simply The Dark Knight with new characters, and it was a great decision not to try.

2.  Lincoln (dir. by Steven Spielberg; starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, et. al.)

Hollywood brought out the big guns for this one.  Director Steven Spielberg (my own favorite).  The best living actor (Daniel Day-Lewis).  And the most celebrated U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln.  The temptation to make a sprawling Civil War/emancipation pic must have been strong - but the story zeroes in on just one month, and the fierce battles are not at Gettysburg but in Congress.  There was Lincoln's greatest challenge and greatest achievement.  Day-Lewis, as I've said, is Lincoln for all intents and purposes, and the film is every bit the triumph it was expected to be.

1.  Life of Pi (dir. by Ang Lee; starring Suraj Sharma and Irrfan Khan)

2012 was filled with soaring adventure films from massive franchises, epic dramas with spectacular performances, and near-perfect little indie gems.  Yet my favorite of them all is this adaptation of a book I first read in high school.  As superb a job as Whedon did with The Avengers, Ang Lee one-ups him in making both a spectacular and faithful film out of a very challenging novel.  Life of Pi is visually brilliant, and it's on that strength (with help from a creative narrative and strong performances) that it represents what I think film does best:  pose massive yet personal challenges to the audience, inspire emotion from despair to relief, and reveal the wonder and awe that life is capable of.  That is why Life of Pi is my #1 choice in an unprecedented (for me) year of greatness in film.


Honorable Mentions:  Brave (Pixar keeps up a very high level of quality, though it falls short of its particularly great recent films like Toy Story 3, Up! and WALL-E); Looper (surprisingly bleak yet very well-done action film showcasing the talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and worth a shot on Netflix); Ted (best comedy of the year that I saw, despite the presence of the abhorred Mark Wahlberg; Seth MacFarlane has a lot of talent and really did well in his film debut).

Worst Film of the Year:  Dark Shadows (I bet you thought some of the trailers/ commercials for this were funny, huh?  Well, so did I... and those were the only good parts of the film.  Clearly a cash-in on the demand for Johnny Depp playing wacko characters, this film is an utter mess that fails both as a horror and as a comedy.  Avoid at all costs.)
Runner-Up:  The Dictator (To call this just a disappointment would be to understate it.  I loved Borat, but this was an incredibly lazily made film and again, all the funny parts are in the trailer.)

Most Overrated Film of the Year:  Amazing Spider-Man (I really saw no need for a reboot of this franchise so soon, but I decided to see it after good reviews and, hey, it's a superhero film.  I came out of the theater with the exact same thought:  "why did they bother to make this?"  OK, Emma Stone is a big upgrade from Kirsten Dunst, but I definitely prefer Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield, and the tone of the film was all over the place, dabbling in just about every popular new action film technique that's been used in the past decade.  Oh, and the villain sucked and the action got repetitive and boring very quickly.  Useless.)
Runner-Up:  21 Jump Street (Yet another comedy where virtually all the funny parts are in the trailer.  Jonah Hill is surprisingly unfunny here, and while Channing Tatum is enthusiastic, he's still no comedic genius.  It's intentionally over-the-top yet the results are far more baffling than funny.)

Most Disappointing Film of the Year:  The Campaign (It's not that this is a bad film.  It has some hilarious parts (especially the Lord's Prayer scene).  But there was so much damn potential here that "pretty good" is not nearly good enough.  Will Ferrell - my favorite current comedian.  Zack Galifianakis - best up-and-comer, IMO.  Politics - endless possibilities.  It ended up just feeling rushed, and I was particularly disappointed in Ferrell's part.  What a shame.)
Runner-Up:  Men In Black 3 (I guess it's a stretch to call this a disappointment, as MIB2 was so bad.  This was pretty good, certainly not nearly as good as the first.  Again, they had potential to do a lot more here, with a phenomenal performance from Josh Brolin as a young agent K.  Tommy Lee Jones' essentially cameo role was an embarrassment, though, and Will Smith never really seemed to get in his old groove.)

Movies I Saw on DVD:  Moonrise Kingdom (quirky and very good, highly recommended.  Would have made my honorable mention, perhaps squeezed into top 10 (12?!?) if I'd seen it in the theater); and a bunch of mediocre-to-bad films that I wisely avoided in theaters, including (from best to worst):  This Means War, Chronicle, Red Tails, Battleship, The Dictator.

(OK, so 2012 had its share of bad/forgettable films... but the quantity and quality of the best still make the year a resounding success.)


Acting Awards:

Best Actor:  Daniel Day-Lewis (I mean... how could I pick someone else?  Probably the best acting performance I've ever seen.)
Runner-Up:  Denzel Washington (Virtually any other year, he wins.  Spectacularly deep, vulnerable, moving performance.  I also want to give a shout-out to the other three nominees - Freeman, Jones, and Brolin - who were just a step below but also phenomenal.)

Best Actress:  Meryl Streep (If the king of actors won that award, it's only fitting that the queen of actresses win this one.  For playing such a variety of characters, Streep slips easily into her incredibly ordinary yet moving character in Hope Spring.)
Runner-Up:  Jennifer Lawrence (To be honest, this selection (for Hunger Games, btw, not Silver Linings Playbook which I haven't seen) is mostly because she had to carry the film.  Based on my choice of films and Hollywood's tendencies, I didn't really see any female leads other than Streep's that really blew me away - although Lawrence, Watson, Hathaway and Rapace were all good.)

Best Supporting Actor:  Tommy Lee Jones (for Lincoln) (In another fiercely competitive field, TLJ takes it by being able to really let loose with his ferociously intelligent and hilarious no-nonsense persona.  Seeing him annihilate the pro-slavery Congressmen was about as satisfying a feeling as you can get in a film, and he also had some important, more nuanced scenes as well.)
Runner-Up:  Samuel L. Jackson (for Django Unchained) (In a film with two other great supporting actors - Christoph Waltz and Leo DiCaprio - SLJ simply stole the show, playing against archetype as brilliantly as TLJ played into his.  Again, fellow nominees Miller, Arkin, and Fassbender deserve shout-outs for their stellar performances as well.)

Best Supporting Actress:  Sally Field (Here's another no-brainer.  Field is capable of such calm, precise, penetrating darts that she even humbles TLJ himself in one scene of Lincoln, but in other scenes she lets her character completely breakdown, screaming at her husband with utter fury and despair.  Remarkable.)
Runner-Up:  Kelly Reilly (In a more interesting category than the lead, Reilly sets herself above the rest by, at times, nearly matching the intensity of the lead (Denzel) and also reining in a potentially corny/ melodramatic part.  Johansson, Dench, and Stone did great work as well in their respective roles.)



Whew!  What a year!  And I'm already diving into 2013, as yesterday I saw Zero Dark Thirty (review to come next week).  I hope you'll enjoy my reviews to come this year, as I look forward to films such as Star Trek: Into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Ender's Game, Anchorman 2, and more!

Movies: Django Unchained

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Django Unchained is the popular director Quentin Tarantino's newest film.  Having blasted Nazis in his last film, Tarantino turns his aim on slavery, depicted as a spaghetti western, with his newest.  An even more star-studded cast than usual make for some colorful characters; although Django himself is a bit of a letdown, Samuel L. Jackson returns to the fold in spectacular fashion.  If you can handle intense scenes of violence and slavery - and don't mind a little sadistic humor - then give it a try.


Before I proceed with my review of Django Unchained, I'd like to turn your attention to an experiment I'm trying this year.  Basically, it's my personal "Academy Awards".  Based only on the films that I've seen this year, I have selected nominees for several categories - what I'd like you, the reader, to do is to vote on each category, and also send in write-in choices if you wish.  You can get to my "ballot" by clicking here.

Django Unchained is the last film I'll see in theaters that was released in 2012 (OK, there may be some technicalities; I intend to see Zero Dark Thirty, which was released in 2012 but only wide release in January so I'm counting it as 2013).  I bid a fond farewell to 2012 films, having been a phenomenal year - but I'll get to that later with my year-in-review post.  Django Unchained is director Quentin Tarantino's latest film so, similar to Spielberg's Lincoln, I was immediately interested.  The premise seemed kind of similar to 2009's Inglourious Basterds, a great film, so with positive reviews coming in (88%) this was a no-brainer.  Django Unchained was directed by Tarantino and stars Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, et. al.

As Tarantino cranks up his trademark soundtrack in the opening scene, the audience watches as a line of slaves, chained together at the ankle, are marched through the wilderness by a pair of white males.  One night, the caravan comes upon a single man riding on a small wagon.  The man, a "dentist", bluntly inspects the slaves and, after some unpleasantries, rides away with one of them.  The "dentist" is actually a bounty hunter named Schultz (Waltz), and he has taken the slave, Django (Foxx), because he was once owned by the Brittle brothers who are Schultz's next target.  After mowing them down, Schultz sees promise in Django and offers to make him a partner for the coming winter's hits.

Schultz bonds with Django on their adventures, and discovers that Django has a wife, Broomhilda (Washington) who is still a slave.  Schultz decides to up his partnership, agreeing to try to help rescue her.  Unfortunately, Broomhilda is held by a plantation owner, Candie (DiCaprio), in Mississippi, deep in "enemy territory."  Schultz and Django must use all of their cunning to make their way to Broomhilda, and Django must keep his hope and his calm in the midst of so much evil being done to Candie's slaves.

Tarantino has once again assembled a fantastic cast, as the stars seem to line up for him (in more ways than one).  Jamie Foxx as Django is the main character, naturally.  He does a very good job, but... I wasn't all that fond of his part.  He gives furious, smoldering stares and does a great job kicking butt when it comes to that, but there's some troubling inconsistency, too.  Django swings a bit too easily from cowering, subdued former slave, to blazingly furious and focused, to detached and cool.  Foxx does each well, but he deserved a more streamlined part.  Christoph Waltz is fantastic once again (he played the main Nazi in Inglouious Basterds, netting the supporting actor Oscar for it), especially in the early going when he does most of the talking.  To be honest, this character is pretty similar to Landa, although he doesn't reach the all-time greatness of that role.  His character - again, due more to the script - becomes much more subdued later in the film.  Waltz is a joy to watch regardless.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the main villain, plantation owner Calvin Candie, and only shows up about halfway through.  He seems to be having a blast being evil for once here, and he shows his character's charm as effectively as his callous brutality.  DiCaprio's Candie benefits from the script where Foxx's Django suffers.  Kerry Washington as Broomhilda is presented as a "main character," but really, she's a plot device, unfortunately.  On the other hand, a supporting role is given to Samuel L. Jackson - a Tarantino veteran - appearing late in the film, and he steals the show.  Accustomed to playing bad-ass characters who, while not saints, generally fight for good, Jackson plays the complete opposite here.  Seeming to be a senile old head slave, in the shadows he reveals an absolutely cruel soul.  Bravo, Mr. Jackson.

Most of the elements of a typical Tarantino film are evident in Django Unchained.  These range from the small, like old-fashioned displays of text in the midst of a scene, to the well-noted, as in the varied use of popular music in the score.  The score, in fact, is one of my favorite parts of this one, being even better/more appropriate, for the most part, than Quentin's other films.  Django also has a good, if often sadistic, sense of humor - and all characters contribute at least in part (there's even a pretend, early-KKK scene that gleefully mocks that organization).  The level of violence is about Tarantino-standard, with both scenes of immense, almost comical bloodshed as well as intimate scenes that are the ones that really make you squirm.  The one Tarantino trademark I felt was not as strong as usual was his specialty of extended, incredibly tense scenes of dialogue.  I don't count the climactic encounter with Candie (I won't spoil the details), since it's more of a monologue.  I guess the lack of these scenes reflect the more straightforward nature of the film, though.

***

I enjoyed Django Unchained quite a bit, but to be honest, I nearly rated this one a B+ instead of an A-. The overall story is much more straightforward than even Inglourious Basterds, several main characters are disappointingly underutilized, and the lack of cleverly tense scenes that I mentioned in the last paragraph.  But I realized I was comparing Django more to Tarantino's other films than to all other films I've seen this year.  Despite a formidable running time, Django rarely drags and is entertaining throughout.  Although Django the character and his wife could have been better developed, there are still Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson making use of great roles.  And although I would have ended the film about twenty minutes earlier than it did (literally, just chop off the last few scenes and then tweak what would then truly be the final scene) due to going a bit overboard on the revenge, most of the stuff prior to those scenes is satisfying.  When deciding whether or not to see this, keep in mind if I haven't made is obvious enough already:  this is a Tarantino film.  LOTS of violence, LOTS of blood - oh, and it deals pretty directly with some of the horrors of slavery.  If you can handle that, and handle the film poking fun of it all, then I recommend you give it a try.