All Is Lost

“All is lost here.” The movie begins with that line… one of the few uttered in this film. It is a black screen behind the opening voice over. “Our Man” (the title given to Robert Redford’s sailor in the films credits – we never learn his actual name) words a letter, to his family maybe, relating his desperate state… his dwindling rations, his battle to survive, his regret.

Sunlight and noise… we are moved back 8 days in time as Our Man awakens to the sound of a loud collision. His yacht has struck a stray shipping container and is taking on water. The box’s freight of cheap tennis shoes bobs in foot-deep water in the cabin.  Our Man is alone in the damaged yacht in the Indian Ocean. Why is he there? Why is he sailing alone? Who is he? What is he? We know none of these things. We know only that there is a man in a boat far from land and that the boat has hole in it.

A basic story of man against nature follows. The struggle hits fairly predictable plot notes – storms, thirst, near-miss rescues. It is writer/director J.C. Chandor’s minimalist approach to moving through these points that truly sets this film apart from the common. Elemental sounds – wind, rain, sea - and a spartan but haunting sound track (from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros) fill in where dialogue might have been. We watch Our Man move wordlessly, pragmatically through the logical, by-the-manual steps to survival. He is experienced at sea, but not with this type of challenge. He is practical and realistic and he is whatever else we can deduce from his labored movements and exhaustive attempts to stay alive. But we really don’t know this person. The depiction seems like an exercise that uses the main character as a variable… a fine experiment in story telling to see if such an approach can produce a compelling film. That said, All Is Lost is certainly more than a curiosity. Chandor’s tactics are effective. The film is intriguing… even captivating in parts. Yet I watched this hypothesis and proof unfold from afar – more intellectually engaged than emotionally connected. Chandor’s bold strategy holds the film apart but also ties it down. It was interesting to watch but I didn’t really care that much about what happened to Our Man in the end. 7 out of 10. 

Gravity… or the lack there of

“Zero Gravity” or “The Quest for Gravity” might be more appropriate titles for director Alfonso Cuaron’s (Children of Men) stunning outer-space obstacle course of a movie. But maybe Cuaron was going for the double meaning in his one-word title to symbolize his setting of the beauty and strangeness of weightless space against that cold vacuum’s hostility to life. Gravity’s space is breathtaking, but also a place where danger is only millimeters away… and most grave.

The skill and technique with which these two – the spectacular and the terrifying - are combined in this film are rare… maybe even unique. Cuaron's Gravity is an epic spectacle, obviously taking a nod from Kubrick’s iconic 2001 Space Odyssey in its use of imagery in place of traditional narrative or dialogue. But Gravity is even more stunning and balletic than 2001 in its framing and choreography. The long opening shot moves us toward a space shuttle, a piece of the blue globe earth and its sun glistening behind… pure silence is finally broken by the faint sound of communications between working astronauts. The film’s opening scene is truly glorious and I felt it almost a shame when my silent trance was broken by human voices. Sandra Bullock, playing Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical research engineer on her first shuttle mission, is speaking to George Clooney who is mission leader astronaut Matt Kowalski. If you can’t picture Bullock as an astronaut, that’s ok because she’s really not in this one. She’s a novice, on board to implement and oversee experiments she designed back on earth. Clooney’s Kowalski, on the other hand, is an old vet on his last mission and looking to break the combined mission space-walk record in what appears to be a routine workday in the void. As Bullock’s Dr. Stone struggles with the weightless work environment, the gallant and self-assured Kowalski putts around the outside of the shuttle in his jet pack telling stories about his glory days, fast cars, and fast times. Early, Clooney teeters precariously close to a caricature of a G.I. Joe action figure with his phlegmatic Kowalski, but it works here somehow and fortunately the quick-arriving chaos forces a more serious commander before he becomes distractingly corny.

You already know from the trailers that the shuttle they’re working on is destroyed, leaving the astronauts marooned in space – even Houston falls silent in the initial mayhem. What follows is a Rube Goldberg-like chain reaction that poses increasingly more treacherous and impossible challenges to our space walkers and their rescue. The trip is truly stunning, heart pounding… griping. If you go, be prepared to find yourself gasping for air along with Stone as her suit oxygen level drops slowly… 10 percent… 5 percent… gone – or twisting in your seat to help her grasp on to a passing hand hold. But know that Gravity is first a real-time disaster movie and foremost a visual experience. You’ll not find the cerebral and supernatural elements of other acclaimed sci-fier’s such as 2001, or Solyaris, or even last years Prometheus. Gravity will not give you a point of view on man’s purpose or origin – it simply pits the possibility and will to survive against the seemingly insurmountable barriers of a magnificent but completely foreign realm. The film does have poignancy, however, and is strongest emotionally when conveying the human need for anchor and the power of the concept and the hope of going home. It’s just that these more ethereal points are no match for the awesomeness of what is pictured on the screen.

Watch Gravity three dimensionally. I suppose you can’t be disappointed in this film whether it has a z coordinate or not, but the imagery will have more weight and depth (literally) if you’ve got the glasses on. You’ll find Bullock and Clooney are fine of course – playing to type. And you may find Gravity more substantial emotionally than I did. But it doesn’t matter either way… you’ll be glad you bought the ticket. 8.5 out of 10.

Enough Said

The annual lull between summer-season blockbusters and the late-fall trickling out of Oscar bait seems to now be over with the release, or near release, of such titles as Gravity (Sandra Bullock) and Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks). It has been a dark, dark month for those trying to decide if they should venture out to see “Percy Jackson Sea of Monsters” or “We’re the Millers”… and then going to the park for a run instead (good decision). But if you’re looking for a good film to segue you into the critically acclaimed heavy hitters of winter, might I suggest Enough Said.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini are Eva and Albert, both divorcees with daughters leaving their homes for college. Eva is a massage therapist and Albert is a television historian. They meet at a party. Neither is really looking for anything – they even admit to each other that they’re not attracted to anybody in attendance – but it’s obvious that something has clicked. Coincidentally, however, Eva also meets Albert’s ex at the party and enlists her as a client. The ensuing Seinfeldian fix Eva gets herself into as part of this triangle provides the mechanism that moves the story along and gives Eva and Albert something to work against. But the film is really about the common fear of getting hurt, losing at love, life change and loneliness. Issues of what we want out of love and relationship, what we usually get instead, and the ridiculous (and sometimes petty) issues we let get in the way of our feelings for someone are presented and debated through a group of interesting and well played characters while chatting at dinner, or arranging furniture, or crocheting a blanket. In this sense, Enough Said has sort of a When Harry Met Sally feel but with less production. Louis-Dreyfus and Gandolfini are extremely believable in this one and have a homey chemistry that makes you want them to be together… to succeed. The film, as a whole, has a very natural and intrinsic quality.

There is nothing very weighty in Enough. But it is an insightful film, sharply written and warmly preformed. The plot, although unlikely, does not feel forced but rather flows naturally from its flawed and vulnerable pieces. The subtle and wide-ranging expressions that served Louis-Dreyfus so well when she was with Jerry and the gang are on display again and give additional likeability to Eva and those around her. There is some sadness, however, in watching one of Gandolfini’s last performances - Sopranos fans will be surprised how easy he makes playing a big softy look. Regardless of your taste… or gender, I think this film will win you over.  8 out of 10

Mud - New release DVD

Mud is a love story… or a story about loves. But it doesn’t deal in the simple or the clean. Mud is about complicated love… the messy, sometimes misplaced, can’t-help-ourselves, confusing, dangerous, strained-but-binding loves. Or in other words, that real-life stuff that is between most all of the caring relationships we’ve shared in or been witness to in our own lives. For our entertainment and enlightenment, several strains of this emotion have been balanced and mixed skillfully together by writer/director Jeff Nichols (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter) and injected onto the screen. The result is a sort of fable. But it is more familiar than dark fairy tale. It feels authentic and honest… earthy real – and is simultaneously sobering and gratifying.

The love stories begin with a Huck-and-Tom-like adventure. Two 14-year-old boys Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and his best friend, Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), living in a poor community of ramshackle houseboats on the Mississippi, have heard from another boy of a grand spectacle on a nearby island. They find it – a boat wedged high in a tree by a flood. After scaling the tree and entering the boat, they lay claim to it imagining what glorious adventures could be had there. But they quickly find that the boat is already called for by the island’s sole inhabitant - Mud (Mathew McConaughey)… that’s his name, Mud.

“Hell of a thing boys” Mud begins, “a boat in a tree… that’s a hell of a thing.”

Mud’s a mess – grungy, and down to his last loaf of bread for food. He’s full of odd information and questions, and equipped with a magic shirt that protects him but also a .45 tucked in his pants just in case.  He’s killed a man, he confesses early to the two boys, after the man assaulted the women he loves - Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), and is hiding on the island waiting to rendezvous with her and make an escape. He’s in a bad fix and appeals to the boys for help in his cause and ambitious plan. Ellis needs only to hear that the bad things Mud has done have been done for love to be hooked. Neckbone is less convinced and senses the danger, but looks up to Ellis and reluctantly agrees to assist - and their adventure begins.

Nichols weaves other relationships into and around this core four, mostly vertexed through Ellis, the young romantic trying to understand love, find evidence of its endurance and anchor to it. The binding ties explored include those between husband and wife and various forms of connections between fathers (of sorts) and sons. All have their complications and deficiencies. Nichols leaves us to our own to decide what is wrong or right about the people involved… what is true and what is not about their actions and motivations. "You can't trust love," Ellis’ father tells him. "If you're not careful it'll up and run out on you." And one might think this is the moral of Mud – that love doesn’t last. But it might be just the opposite – that love is one of the few things that endures, in different times and odd forms wherever it may.

Marvelously cast, beautifully shot, splendid story telling – Mud gets 9 out of 10. 

World War Z

Z does not waste any time. Gerry Lane (Pitt) and family (relatively unknown actors) are headed out but are snarled in downtown traffic, a radio news report about odd breakouts of a rabies-like disease is background to their chatting, and then… it is on. Explosions, rioting, numerous and really fast maniac zombies are overrunning the non-maniacs, and all hell is breaking loose. It’s a spectacular, blunt-force opening that will have many nicely hooked. And the fact that the story behind the spectacle of undeadness is not all that bad, makes the anxiety that follows even more effective.

Z, directed by Marc Forster (Finding Neverland), has several things going for it that make it just a bit more special than the present crop of 2013 summer blockbusters. Most obvious among its particular attributes are the hybrid zombies. No dragging feet, half stroked-out gait for this crew – no sir. These dead things are revved up, super-charged, killing machines designed to run you down and eat you up. Scripting a virus that takes only 12 seconds to convert you into a super-powered, flesh-eating ghoul gives the film (at least in its first half) a great chaotic, this-thing-can’t-be-stopped pace. I actually found myself tightening my grip on the arm of my seat (slightly)… my breathing was noticeably affected (somewhat) - the early scenes are that edgy tense. 

Second, the film is not all together stupid… unusual for a big-budget summer scare flick. Although Z clearly gives up on the post-war retrospective approach of its source material (World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War), its simplified understory and style have just enough savvy and consistency to add to, rather than distract from, the film’s terror-ride core. Z does tease us, however, with what it could have been. For example; in a too-short scene, a caged and compromised CIA agent (cameo by David Morse (The Hurt Locker, Disturbia)) hints at the politics behind the disease and of the world’s reaction to it – why some nations are winning and some are losing. Sadly, there just is not enough time for such intrigue and Z chooses to move around the globe in a more conventional action-thriller path. Nonetheless; although Z can’t be described as cerebral in any way, or even all that original, the film is taut - the dialogue is crisp and smart, and the tension is as thick as molasses whether Forster is stressing us in high or low gear.

Which brings me to the movies final point-scoring element. Z is a zombie thriller, so by definition it’s going to be over the top. But unlike so many of the big box office action films this year, it does not pound you into submission with the relentless cacophony of sight and sound (like Man of Steal for example).  Instead Forster does something almost unheard of in this type of film; he shifts gears midway - from fast and frantic battles to a silent, slow, and tense walk through enemy lines.  I found this deletion of the obligatory crescendo toward a tiresome, hyperactive finale to be perfectly refreshing.

I believe Z to be the best of the summer blockbusters to date. The ending, however, is completely superfluous and out of phase (corny) with the rest of the show. So skip out a few minutes early; you’ll know when. But don’t get in there late... 12 seconds is not a lot of time.  7 out of 10. 

Man of Steel

If one Superman slugs another Superman… what happens? What if they punch each other 5,000 times… then what? Watching Zach Snyder’s (Watchmen, 300) Man of Steel, it seemed at times that getting to the bottom of these perplexing paradoxes of our DC Comic Book youths was the sole objective of this film. Ok, I exaggerate (but just a bit)… there is a story here. It’s just a little hard to recall amidst the gargantuan battle royal between super hero and super bad guys and the noisy CGI cloud of destruction that comes with.   

Man of Steel’s story, contained principally in the first half of the film before the MMA match begins, turns out to be a fairly close retelling of the Superman legend portrayed in the Christopher Reeve Superman I (1978) and Superman II (1980) films. Snyder’s version, however, takes itself more seriously than the red-tights, 20th-century rendering. It’s a little more sci-fi, visually bolder; and it’s darker. Not “I’m Batman” dark (although Christopher Nolan of the recent Batman trilogy did produce the film) but trending in that direction. That story, of Kal El (aka Clark Kent, aka Superman) sent from a dying Krypton civilization and planet as a baby by visionary parents to a new world, is quite well told by Snyder. The treatment of the emotional and spiritual side of parents giving up a child, adoptive parents loving an alien child that will change the world, and a super child growing up not knowing who or why he is, is effective and powerful. Unfortunately, that side of the film loses the battle with the turgid and over-long action/warfare part of itself. In the end, I just wanted one of those 5,000 super punches to cause the super villain to give up his super ghost so I could go home. 5 out of 10. 

Star Trek Into Darkness

J.J. Abrams reboot of the Star Trek series in 2009 created a new universe in which James Kirk and his crew could explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. A universe altered by the old-reliable sci-fi restart button… time travel. Now, in Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams picks up where he dropped us off in 2009; placing our old friends in familiar poses but in different, even inverted or transposed, settings and circumstances from what we remember from the original Trek history.

But this second venture in space is not quite as good as the first. Long-time fans of the series (TV and motion picture) will be pleased that Abrams continues to inject vintage components from the old Star Trek franchise into these new films. Old names with new faces will trigger the desired nostalgic response from the faithful. But just a bit of the specialness of having our old buddies back with us has worn off.

As with all of the Kirk-era Star Treks, the movie works best when the crew is engaged in its patented interplay… cocky Kirk riding his star ship like a wild horse, Spock responding with the single raised eyebrow, and the rest throwing in there special moves – all is the same but all slightly different… in good and interesting ways. Benedict Cumberbatch is outstanding as the enemy (or is he ally?), who is new to this crew's pseudo-parallel universe but well known, from another past, to long-time Star Trek viewers. But alas, writers and director eventually fall into typical summer-action-film excess and the misconception that if 10 explosions is good then 100 is better. Fortunately the CGI action is not as bombastic and laborious as other summer blockbusters such as Iron Man III or Man of Steal, but it does overwhelm at times. Although Abbrams fails to completely sustain the magic of his first Star Trek, Into Darkness is still worth the price of the ticket and is the best of the early summer action films. – 7 out of 10. 

Oblivion

Oblivion is the place where most of my memories of this film went quite shortly after walking out of the theater. Like the mild impression from a pretty, but non-spectacular sunset - hey, would you look at those nice colors - the thought of the film faded quickly behind the next interesting thing that came by. Oblivion, the new future-world sci-fier starring Tom Cruise, is an attractive film; I'll give it that. Maybe if the concepts of the story and it’s telling were as consistent and cogent as its visual landscape and architecture it'd have some staying power. Instead, the results offer little more than formula components in familiar scenes extracted from the post apocalypse/invasion genre freezer and just re-heated for us on a shiny new plate. While great care has been given to the film’s settings, the story and script feel like lazy efforts. I’m sure Joseph Kosinski, who co-wrote, produced, and directed the film, does not consider himself indolent in his creative endeavors, but if he thinks his story is deep and profound (and it was clear he was trying hard to make me believe that) then he’s a little too close to it… cuz he’s wrong. Oblivion, the saga, may be clever enough for its graphic-novel (comic book) origins but it’s no heavy hitter beyond that.

The attempted profundity starts with narration from the main character - Cruise’s Jack Harper, also known as Technician 49. It’s 2077; our beloved earth has suffered an alien invasion (some 60 years earlier). The evil intruders first blew up the moon wreaking havoc with the planet’s tides and tectonics to soften us up, and then they hit the ground.  As Harper puts it “we won the war but lost the earth”. Winning meant unleashing the nukes, we learn, and thus trashing most of the planet. Surviving humans have, or are, migrating to Titan, a moon of Saturn. The success of the exodus and the new colony depends on the operation of fusion energy stations, fueled by earth’s oceans, that power the whole venture. Technician 49 and his teammate (and assigned wife), Victoria "Vic" Olsen (Andrea Riseborough), are charged with maintaining the drones that defend the power stations from the few remaining aliens (known as Scavs) that, for some reason, are still carrying on the bad fight. The couple receives their orders from a twangy mission commander headquartered on the "Tet," a space station orbiting earth and fueling up for a final trek to Titan.  

Kosinski, intentionally or not – it’s hard to tell, makes it clear early on that there’s something fishy going on here. The first red flag pops up when Jack Harper reveals that for security reasons the technicians’ memories have been wiped… always a foreshadow of skullduggery. Its not a very good wipe either (hey we’ve only had 77 years to develop this technology) as Tech 49 has remnant memories of a woman – someone he loves but does not know – hanging out with him on top of the Empire State building… who’s she? 49 also wonders aloud about those Scavs; didn’t they get the memo that they’d lost the war… hmmm? And did they say that we’re all going to live on Titan… Titan? I guess the memory wipe was just good enough to make Harper forget that the average temperature on Titan is about 200 degrees below zero and that it rains methane. Or maybe he never earned the astronomy merit badge.

Even though it’s easy to get ahead of Kosinski’s plot, there’s still some good tension as Harper works to discover what gives on this burned-out earth. The drones – flying spheres that shoot mean machine guns in all directions - are particularly menacing and create suspense as they process, in RoboCop style, whether the thing in their sites is a good guy or a bad guy. And Cruise is… well… he is plug-and-play Tom. He’s good, as usual, as the talented and confused hero, but has too little to do in front of Kosinki’s dense and stunning landscapes to have any memorable impact. The rest of the film’s characters, especially the women, are flimsy foils or simple stereotypes from similar-genre films (do all future world rebels wear capes… really?).

Kosinski is a graduate of the Columbia School of Architecture, and it shows. The drones, Harper’s patrol plane, and particularly the technicians’ futuristic quarters are marvelous creations. But Kosinski obviously wants Oblivion to be more than just a visual experience; he wants it to be an acute and poignant puzzle. But it’s not. What the scriptwriters might think are killer twists, you’ll see coming like a slow hanging curve ball – you’re to third base before Cruise’s character gets his bat off his shoulder. You’ve processed all of the profound revelations long before the score swells to let you know that something really emotional is happening. And the film’s is-it-really-that-easy ending is terrifically unsatisfying. I would have been just fine with Kosinski focusing all of his talents and money on his grand and cool sediment filled, dystopian vistas… maybe putting some Copland behind it and calling it a day, instead of trying so unsuccessfully to convince me that I was experiencing a story that was truly special. 5 out of 10. 

2103 Oscar Nominee Review - Life of Pi

Life of Pi is, throughout, a visually impressive and, in the end, a mentally challenging trip. Ang Lee’s adaptation of the best-selling 2001 novel by Yann Martel places a young Indian boy named Pi in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with a hungry Bengal tiger. The events that lead to this bizarre situation are odd but less peculiar than the journey that follows. Mingling the fantastic with delusion and dream (or vision), Lee pushes Martel’s Pi through a journey of ambiguous nature. The principal objective is survival; but surrounding that goal is a possible parable about the character of the world… of life, faith and truth. Matching this spiritual context, Lee transforms the natural world surrounding Pi’s trial into something beyond natural. Lee’s imagery gives the feel that someone has turned up your visual sense knob past its maximum 10 to a Spinal-Tape 11. The world around floating Pi is hyper-ised – the oceans too calm or too wild, the colors of landscape and sky are beautiful but not quite correct. The castaway’s realm displays as if injected with some sort of growth hormone that has caused it to become a Dali-like globe canvas for Lee to paint Pi and his carnivorous companion.

Pi’s story, it was said, will make one “believe in God”. An established but blocked novelist was told this in India by Pi’s maternal uncle, and the author comes to visit the adult Pi, now living in Canada, to hear the story and possibly gain some inspiration for new book. Pi (portrayed at different ages by different actors but played as the adult Pi perfectly by Irrfan Khan) narrates the film as he recites the story to the would-be scribe. Pi starts by telling of his youth as a son of a zoo owner. Central to this first chapter and key to the adventure tale that follows is Pi’s acute interest in understanding God and the relevance he finds in religion. Much to his rationalist father’s chagrin, Pi finds truth, or at least peace, in the teachings of many religions mixed together – Pi explains: “ None of us knows God until someone introduces us. I was first introduced to God as a Hindu. There are 33 million gods in the Hindu religion. How can I not come to know a few of them?”  

Pi’s life journey shifts dramatically when his family decides to close the zoo and immigrate to Canada where they will sell the animals. This decision puts large animals in a large ship on a stormy sea:

Adult Pi: Now we have to send our little boy to the middle of the Pacific.

Writer: And make me believe in God.

Adult Pi: Yes, we will get there.

The ship sinks. Only one lifeboat survives the storm and in short time there are just two left on that small boat… man and beast. Pi and the tiger travel at the will of the ocean or of God maybe; first separated by what distance is possible, then together in a necessary truce.

Pi’s ocean adventure is a digital masterpiece. I did not see the film in 3-D but I can’t imagine it being any more vivid. Although you can tell the difference between the live tiger (used sparingly) and the CGI tiger, the computerized depiction is amazingly fine. Lee piles additional pseudo-natural wonders onto the screen - a giant whale raising out of the ocean to pierce a super crisp night ski, a battalion of jelly fish illuminating a glass ocean, a field of Meer cats on a floating island. On the ocean, Lee’s visuals dominate the spiritual. But the uncle’s claim remains hovering behind the images…”make you believe in God” – what does that mean?

That the story is a combination of thrilling adventure tale and mystic allegory does not weaken its power in either mode. Rather the two themes team nicely together, the latter focusing the former. Although you may be carried away in the visual, Life of Pi is more than just a tale of the fantastic or fantasy. It forces ones head to tilt a bit... makes you ponder why we believe what we believe…  9 out of 10.

2013 Oscar Winner Review - Argo

Readers over 50 may clearly remember the events of November 4, 1979 when Iranian militants overran the US embassy in Tehran taking hostage all who were inside. But we likely do not remember the life-or-death, CIA-led operation to rescue the six Americans who walked out of that embassy minutes before it was taken. We don’t remember that part because it was never told to us (until now)… and we probably would not have believed their story if it had been.

Indeed, Argo’s tale of how CIA agent Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck who also directs) managed to extract six US embassy workers out of revolutionary Iran is so outrageous that it could not have really happened. But it did. And it’s that fact - that the film is chronicling a real event – along with superb execution, that gives the film’s fairly standard caper story line an intensity edge and special feel.  

During the frantic take over of the U.S Embassy, amidst the record shedding, frantic phone calls, and fear and panic, six staffers leave the building to a side street and just walk away. Initially, Iranian revolutionaries are unaware of their escape to the home of the Canadian Ambassador, but it's only a matter of time before they are discovered unless they are evacuated. Back in D.C., Agent Mendez is brought into upper-level intelligence strategy sessions to consult on rescue approaches for the six. Unimpressed with the plans being considered to get the Americans out, Mendez puts forth his own proposal – inspired by watching “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” with his son the night before. The cover story would be that he and the six are part of a movie production crew scouting locations for a sci-fi movie called “Argo” (for you true Sci-Fi fans the script selected for the cover story was originally titled Lord of Light, based on the book of the same name by Roger Zelazny – the CIA renamed it Argo). Mendez would get in and set up the cover, train the six in their new identities, then walk the crew through the airport and get on a plane home... ridiculous right? Everyone agrees that all possible options are bad but that this idea is as crazy as it sounds:

CIA Bosses: "You don't have a better bad idea?"

Agent Mendez: “This is the best bad idea we have, sir”

The script sets up the story in two parts and Affleck deftly transitions from one, the comedy of developing the ridiculous cover story, to the other, the tension of its execution in Iran. Mendez needs to make the cover as real as possible and enlists the assistance of make-up pioneer John Chambers (there’s the Planet of the Apes connection), played by John Goodman. Alan Arkin plays a cantankerous producer, Lester Siegel, whom Mendez and Chambers convince to join the charade as the “big name” behind the film. Goodman and Arkin are both outstanding in these supporting roles. Oddly, Arkin’s Siegel may be the most memorable and interesting character in the film yet the only main character that is fictional. Arkin captures a particularly poignant moment that seems to set the tone for the transition between comedy and tension when, about to turn down the offer from Mendez, he sees a newscast of a blindfolded hostage on a small TV in the meeting room. The magnitude and humanity of the situation becomes real and heavy in that moment compelling him to help regardless of the likelihood that it will be a completely wasted effort.

Argo is a very good movie; nominated for seven academy awards and winning 3 including Best Picture. It is an unsensational portrayal, relying on the narrative of the event to hold attention and evoke emotion. It is difficult to resist getting caught up in the skillful presentation and current of the story. Despite the fact that you already know (maybe) how the event ends, there is great tension and I found myself egging the six on… verbally, out-loud to the screen… it’s that well done. Since these reviews are sort of a series of Oscar Best Picture critiques, I can’t help but compare it to those previously reviewed here.  So here goes… Argo is good but Lincoln is the better. But Argo is still a must see and gets and 8 out of 10. 

DVD New-Release Review: Premium Rush

How long can one watch bicycles chasing themselves through honking, downtown Manhattan traffic before one taps out? Well, the results of a recent case study with a sample size of one (me), indicate that its some time less than 85 minutes… or the run time of the alleged chase-action thriller Premium Rush. Indeed, Rush plays more like a high-end, but annoying version of Frogger (you young people may have to look that up) than a serious thriller or even a tongue-in-cheek romp. I’m not quite sure what the makers (David Koepp directing) were shooting for but the film hits no good target firmly.

A “Premium Rush” order is the most deluxe and expensive, double-time bicycle delivery service… if your paying for the “Rush” it means you need to get something across town fast-fast. And if you need it fast, then Wilee (like the coyote – played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is your man. For Wilee, being a bike courier is a life style, not just a job. He’s a law-school grad but can’t trade in the bike shorts for the office grind. He’s considered crazy by his crazy colleagues, rides gearless and brakeless, and is, of course, the best in the city.

The film’s silliness starts when Wilee picks up a package from an old law school lady chum. Turns out that the innocent-looking envelope contains a valuable ticket desired greatly by a gambling-addicted and hopelessly in debt cop… and thus the chase begins. Backdropping the scene is a romantic triangle with a glistening female cyclist (Dania Ramirez), Wilee’s bike-courier rival Manny (Wole Parks), and Wilee as the lead. Joined for worse and better with this group, Wilee must outrun the evil cop and work out the mystery of the ticket, all while navigating through the perilous streets of Manhattan on his fast bike with others in hot pursuit.

Gordon-Levitt certainly looks the part here and reportedly did much of his own riding – which looks good. But the bike heads slowly down slope from there. Nobody from the buddy-romance triad seems capable of carrying his or her load with any believability. Gordon-Levitt’s interchanges with Ramirez trend from stiff to awkward (unintentionally). And Ramirez, although looking tough and good in the bike gear, will not be receiving any awards for her acting. More entertaining is Michael Shannon’s play of bad Detective Monday. Regardless of any confusion from the director on where he wanted this film to go, Shannon obviously chose cartoonish for his take on Wilee’s nemesis and he plays it to the hilt. I expected to see Detective Gordon’s eyes bug out of his head on springs and for him to shout “why I oughta…!” each time Wilee slipped from his clutches. Shannon, who has been memorizing in previous efforts like Take Shelter, applies the wacky approach right to the bitter end of the flick and is easily the best component of the film.

Rush employs several gimmicks to try to style up the action. Wilee’s routes to complete his gauntlet are periodically displayed like a Tom-Tom car GPS or a “Real Speed” video-game map help. A digital countdown display lets us know that the intensity of it all should be ramping up. Wilee also has Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes-like perception skills allowing him to estimate the future and optimize his route. How does he do this…? Oh yeah, that’s right, he went to law school so he’s really smart and can speed up his brain time (a la Limitless) to cycle though three or four scenarios before selecting the only one that will get him successfully through to the next level… errrrr, to his delivery target. I was never worried about Wilee failing as I felt like I could reach out and hit the reset button on the Wi if any fatal crashes occurred.  

The action, repeated over an over again with only slight variation and always amid the din of the traffic setting, in Rush gets a bit fatiguing near the end. And the motivation for it all – the ticket, the delivery, the chase etc. is weak and by the end all but moot. Although I’m sure that many will find this film, and its multitude of pop ups, to be a refreshing take on the chase genre; for me, this time, different does not equal good. Rush gets 4 out of 10.

Oscar nominee review - Beasts of the Southern Wild

There’s pressure to like the indie drama Beasts of the Southern Wild. After all, it has won most of the awards available at the highest-profile film fests… and now an Oscar nomination. I can feel the weight bearing down on me. I’m being patient though, attentive… watching through the film’s imagery, its mythology, its eccentric environment and people, waiting for it to take hold and move me somewhere. All these things swirl around poetically and in interesting paths and patterns, but never seem to coalesce into anything more than a choppy and slow wave of thoughts passing through. What’s wrong with you Pat – didn’t you feel it… sense the magic? Uh, not really… not this time.

Beasts is text-book “art cinema”, including a core social-realism style, and emphasis on the development of ideas through the imaginations of its characters rather than presenting a clear, plot-driven story. The film does set up an interesting gallery in which to display its paintings and poetry. Beasts’ “southern wild” is contained in a fictional Louisiana Bayou (inspired by the real Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana), known to its harshly defiant and hygiene-challenged inhabitants as “The Bathtub”. At the center of the gallery is Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis), a wild-haired, six-year old girl, living (sort of) with her hard-drinking and erratic father and the rest of the small rag-tag Bathtub band committed to protecting their way of life, detached from the toils of the dry-landers modern world. But The Tub, and their life, is endangered… sinking into the water with the sliver of land they reside on. Hushpuppy imagines the universe and the Bathtub as made up of natural puzzle pieces that must stay in place and functioning or the universe breaks. When the Bath Tub's universe begins to falter, she sets out to fix its pieces. 

Wallis shines bright as Hushpuppy and is the best reason to see this film. She is captivating as her strong-willed Hushpuppy wanders among squalor, taking in her father’s, and other's, lessons on resilience and pushing back against his neglect and ruthlessness, finally striking out on her own to try and solve her world’s puzzle. Rookie Director Benh Zeitlin surrounds her with aberrant imagery and philosophizing characters. But these seem to pass by like curious and discrete snapshots without major impact. Some of the pictures of Hushpuppy’s journey are memorable, but the void space between is too great to tie the whole thing into meaning. But, of course, being an “art film”, maybe Zeitlin isn’t shooting for meaning, but only for the cerebral experience… and thus the pressure. I feel ignorant, of course; somehow defective for not praising Beasts, for not gushing over about its originality and boldness. After all, the film has garnered public acceptance beyond its critical acclaim – Beasts shows an 80 %-liked audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I suspect (or maybe hope), however, that many of those 28,000-plus that voted on RT caved to that same pressure I felt. So, if you are left nonplussed by this supposed oracle film of truth and art, know that you are not alone – be strong, hold your ground, and stand up and say to your viewing companions… "So what’s all the big deal about?” 5 out of 10. – Pat L.