Lincoln review

                 Left in the wake of a particularly spiteful presidential election, American may a feel somewhat fatigued by the months and months of bickering and political backbiting. Directed by the world famous Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln” documents another era when America was polarized among specific issues regarding civil rights. With these current issues in mind and released in the end of November, clearly Spielberg aims for Academy consideration. However, though it would be easy to dismiss this movie as Oscar bait, “Lincoln” has enough flare and ingenuity to sustain a life outside of the awards season. 

                Daniel Day-Lewis disappears in another performance as the titular character. You forget about him as an actor in the part, and more significantly, you forget about all of the other outstanding and outrageous performances he has played in the past. But surprisingly, Abraham Lincoln as a character is not the focus of the movie.  Many other characters are lingered on and analyzed throughout the film and Lewis’s portrayal as Lincoln remains a humble island of calm admits an ocean of animosity and political anxiety around him.

                Wisely the screenplay by Tony Kushner--who had previously worked with Spielberg before on “Munich”—narrows the scope of this story within a few weeks in the life of Abraham Lincoln as he is trying to pass the 13^th amendment, which would ban all slavery and involuntary servitude. Though he has already given the emancipation proclamation and the Civil War is coming to a close, he must ensure a constitutional end of slavery, not only for moral reasons, but also to ensure that a similar war on this issue can’t be resurrected later. From there the movie follows Lincoln and many other politicians as they try and persuade the other members of the senate to vote for their cause.

                As I have stated before, this is a true ensemble cast and one of the most eclectic I have seen all year.  This film brings in all strata of fame and popularity; from veteran Hollywood stars like Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee-Jones, to underappreciated character-actors like Jackie Earle Haley and Micheal Stuhlbarg, as well as interesting up-and-coming guys like Joseph Cross and Dane Dehaan. Some are playing against type and some are simply serving the purpose of the story, but the cast is chosen well and there truly isn’t a weak link in the entire thing. That, in and of itself, is astonishing. Tommy Lee-Jones in particular steals every scene he’s in and he and Lewis should both receive well-deserved nominations.

                Though Spielberg brings the quality and craft you expect from him, his authorial presence seems sheathed, in order to facilitate what is more of a screenwriter’s showcase. Much, if not all of the screen time consists of lengthy scenes of funny dressed people talking in rooms. This is both the best and worst thing about the movie. It’s not a short film and because of the sheer density of the antiquated dialogue—as well as it is delivered—the movie sometimes strains from a lack of cinematic diversity.  Though I could appreciate everything that was happening, I often felt as though I was watching a really great play that was turned into a pretty good movie.

                “Lincoln” is a sophisticated political procedural and it asks the audience to sit up straight and pay attention, for that I fully commend it.  Though I don’t know if we can call this movie a classic, it’s full of great moments, stunning performance and graceful direction, even if at times it feels like a really expensive and really talky History Channel reenactment.

Grade: B 

Originally published by the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2012

Skyfall review

               Everybody remembers their first James Bond movie. Whether you grew up in 60’s with Sean Connery, the 70’s with Roger Moore, the 80’s with Timothy Dalton, or the 90’s with Pierce Brosnan, everyone has their favorite 007. This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the British spy series, and with that, comes the release of “Skyfall”, the 23rd movie starring the well-known and well-worn, sophisticated master of intelligence.  For many born in the last few decades, Daniel Craig’s grizzled and angsty interpretation of the character has not only become their first and favorite, but he has also converted some older fans from across the franchise. 

                Like something of a culmination of all the previous 007 movies, “Skyfall” reaches a new audience with a slightly darker, interior take on the hero.  Though hints of this was flashed in the also-successful “Casino Royal” back in 2006—only to be near-wasted in its follow up “Quantum of Solace” in 2008—director Sam Mendez (“American Beauty”, “Road To Perdition”, “Away We Go”) realizes which elements are essential to the series and which elements beg to be challenged.

                The movie begins with a fantastic chase scene in Turkey, only to reveal that Bond (Daniel Craig) is accidently shot by a fellow agent, while in close hand-to-hand combat atop a moving train. Though presumed dead by MI6, he is actually hiding in the tropics, where he can enjoy hard drinking and easy women, while tormented by the apparent fact that his agency has always considered him expendable. When a mysterious cyber-terrorist (played by Javier Bardem) kills many of the other agents and begins to personally threaten their motherly leader M (played by the Judy Dench), Bond decides to come out of hiding, where he is now out of practice and perhaps out of his league against this modern kind of evil.

                Fans of the D-Craig Bond movies should find no fault with “Skyfall”.  It’s well paced, immaculately shot, and exciting in an understated and grounded way—though not without a smidge of camp for those who appreciate the broader humor of its older predecessors.  In fact, more than any other film in the franchise, this installment casts its net wider for people who are normally not as excited. Sam Mendez brings a class and clout to this newer adaptation to the series and asks questions to the morality of espionage as well as the morals of Bond as a character. Unusually, Bond is shot to look older and vulnerable, in a state of emotional and psychological distress and even if he saves the day, his mistakes cause fatal ripples through the plot. I found this to easily be the most substantive Bond movie yet.

                The cinematography by Roger Deakins (whose previous work can be observed in the Coen Brothers catalogue) is truly artful and worthy of nomination.  The quiet and contemplative intensity of this thriller is echoed by his minimal use of lighting and the dramatic use of ambiguous silhouettes. Mendez is a visual director, and not since Deakins work on “No Country for Old Men” has his collaboration with a filmmaker been so effectively symbiotic. 

                Does “Skyfall” make any missteps? Scarcely. Some may (and should) question the political-correctness of Bardem’s lascivious portrayal as a sexually ambiguous psychopath. Also, some may notice many similarities to the recent Christopher Nolan Batman movies, especially the second act, which feels almost like a beat-by-beat reinvention of “The Dark Knight”. However, it never registers as a cynical or lazy choice and it seems to do so with a deliberate purpose.  If Nolan, who is an admitted Bond enthusiast himself, has written the book on how a movie’s anti-hero is supposed to behave in a post-911 environment, then with “Skyfall” Mendez has added an equally significant chapter.

Grade: A- 

Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2012

Wreck-It Ralph review

                More than any other kind of adapted media, videogame movies have a higher fail rate. While the super heroes in comics are enjoying their current renaissance and TV shows and novels have appreciated some kind of cinematic success for quite a while, the transition from game to frame has always left something lost in the translation. “Super Mario Bros”, “Mortal Kombat” and any of the “Resident Evil” movies might bring in the revenue but rarely do they satisfy the gamers or live up to the complex narratives and adventures that keep the gaming industry alive. However, movies about video games, such as 2010’s “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World” or the 1989 Fred Savage film “The Wizard”, seem to circumvent this pitfall. In this tradition, the Disney produced “Wreck-It Ralph” conveys an excitement and imagination that most movies based on existing game properties severely lack.

                Set in the world of arcade entertainment, “Wreck-It Ralph” tells the story of a video game villain of the same name (voiced by John C. Reilly) whose job is to wreck an 8-bit building, while a hero handyman named Fix-it Felix (voiced by “30 Rock” star Jack McBrayer) has to put it back together with his magic hammer. Though the details of the game they occupy is simply their day job—living casually in an established society with other video game characters while the arcade is closed—Ralph is still shunned by this civilization because of the social norms that dictate that game villains must be segregated from the other characters. In order to find acceptance, he tries to be the hero of a modern first-person shooter, and in doing so accidentally cross contaminates elements from that game into a cutesy, candy-inspired racing game called Sugar Rush.  While there, he meets another outsider, a glitch names Vanellope (voiced by Sarah Silverman) who only wants the chance to race among the characters in her game.

                While this movie was directed by Rich Moore, who has previously worked on a lot of TV animation such as “The Simpsons” and “Futurama”, it was produced by Pixar co-founder John Lasseter—though not released by Pixar Studios. Knowing that, much of this movie reminded me of many of the successful plot devices of the “Toy Story” franchise, in which Lasseter was the creator.  The plot dwells heavily in a secret world where our entertainment treats being a play-thing like its business as usual. We also have a story of an outsider who is looking to fit within a tightly protected world by breaking its rules.  Lastly, it also shares the ever-prevailing “Toy Story” theme of the fear of becoming outdated and obsolete, as the players get older and game graphics advance. However, that isn’t to say that this movie doesn’t use these well-tested archetypes in a fun or interesting way.  “Wreck-It Ralph” explores its different game genres with an enthusiastic energy and love for the medium. All throughout the movie, recognizable game characters are sprinkled in the background of the plot, as well as the fabricated main characters, patched together from many other popular arcade personalities.

                My only reservation with this movie is that the conflict seems unnecessarily bifurcated. By the beginning of the third act the two different concerns that Ralph must resolve starts to compete for screen time, causing some minor, but forgivable pacing issues. 

                Like “Toy Story” this movie melds childhood nostalgia with a mature sense of retrospection, done in way kids can enjoy while they’re young but will grow with them as they get older.  While much of this movie refers to contemporary video game aesthetics, it knows how to draw the audience in with the joy and wonderment of the classic Disney model, crafting a good story and likable characters. 

Grade: B+

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2012

Cloud Atlas review

                Mainstream movies usually aim to be, what they call in the industry, a four-quadrant-hit; a movie that attracts young males, old females, old males and young females. It’s rare when a movie like “Avatar” can actually do this and create the kind of jumbo success that studio’s marketing research has been working towards for years.  “Cloud Atlas” is the new feature film by the Wachowski’s, the wonder-siblings responsible for “The Matrix”. It's co-directed by Tom Tykwer, the German art-house filmmaker of “Run Lola Run” fame.  It aims not only to attract every age, but every fan of every genre, within the framework of a comprehensive, if not somewhat labored, hundred-million dollar experiment.

                The plot of “Cloud Atlas” follows many stories that intercut in 3-10 minute increments all throughout its duration. Halley Berry, Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Jim Sturges, Hugh Grant and Hugo Weaving, as well as a few other major players, all play many characters in multiple tales that cross through various times and places in history--some in the distant future, some in the historical past, and some in the present day. From story to story, each actor plays against age, gender, and race, hinting towards an inherent connection between time and space.  With mixed results, the film explores genre juxtaposition and different editing rhythms in search for a single meaning or recurring theme within its greater context.

                Though I can’t say that the movie completely achieves everything that it aims for, its ambition is admirable.  The scope and scale of this project is truly epic—a word that is often thrown around, but rarely appropriate—but the depth of “Cloud Atlas” is what left me wanting. With all of its narrative gymnastics and high flatulent philosophizing aside, the movie doesn’t actually say very much about its countless characters and how we are supposed to feel about the multi-stranded events that unfold.  But it all looks pretty fantastic and for much of its length I was having fun, even if I was occasionally frustrated or bored by some of the mini-movies within the movie.

                Because a limited amount of actors are playing several different parts, a lot of the plots hinge on the effectiveness of the makeup and performances. Broadbent and Weaving are chameleonic character-actors and can gracefully flow from style to style as they are asked to bring a different quality from scene to scene. Halley Berry and Doona Bae, a Korean actress who is also used throughout, don’t have the same kind of range and versatility and often look outlandish or distracting when they are made up against their type.  And then you have Tom Hanks, who always looks like Tom Hanks no matter what, but who is inexplicably able to bend and mold into whatever ridiculous setting he is asked to inhabit.

                As I have already mentioned, this film is bargain buyers experience; 6 movies for the price of one. You have science fiction, fantasy, historical romance, situational comedy, political espionage, and a post-apocalyptic psycho-thriller.  You get your money’s worth, as this movie is stuffed to brim full of movie, but it’s also just as full of itself. I kept waiting for everything to come together or a greater meaning to coalesce and that never really happens. The task of piecing together each plot as the film is going is a little trying at times and when searching for the subtext, I was left with little reward for all my hard work.  There is obviously something in there about personal freedom, and something about the nature of mankind through the ages, and some eastern illusions towards reincarnation, but ultimately, unlike “2001: a Space Odyssey” or last year’s “Tree of Life”, this isn’t a movie about ideas; it’s a (sometimes entertaining) movie about set-pieces and age makeup.

Grade: C+ 

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Nov-2012

Seven Psychopaths Review

                Unfortunately, not that many films are truly unpredictable anymore. All of the five original plots that have ever existed have been used and reused to the point of irrelevance. So what is there left to surprise an audience? You can insert complete absurdity and nonsense, breaking from the natural flow of your story with non-sequiturs and narrative tangents. Your other option is to address the clichés in your own movie and subvert them—which admittedly has become a cliche in and of itself. Irish filmmaker Martin McDonagh has decided to use both of these methods with his second feature film “Seven Psychopaths”.

                In 2008 McDonagh released his first full length feature called “In Bruges”, starring Collin Farrell, Brendon Gleason and Ralph Fiennes. It was a modest euro-crime-comedy but it showed a lot of strength in McDonagh’s abilities to write good characters and captivating dialogue, resulting in an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay.  Here in “Seven Psychopaths”, McDonagh takes on the pressure to satisfy the expectations of his first impression head-on. This sophomore effort is the product of another crackling script full of the same kind of post-Tarantino/Post-Guy Ritchie moments that we loved the first time around. What changes is he has now written himself into the script and we are asked to question if the things we are seeing are really happening or if they are just the manifestations of McDonagh’s writers-block. 

                The story--at least the most simplified version of it—is about an Irishman named Martin, played by Collin Farrell, who is living in L.A. with an eccentric con man named Billy, played by Sam Rockwell. While trying to figure out how to start a script he has already sold (also called “Seven Psychopaths”) Billy and his partner-in-crime Hans, played by Christopher Walken, begin to prepare for a battle with a dangerous mobster, played by Woody Harrelson, whose beloved shih-tzu they have kidnapped.  At the same time all of this is going on, we are taken into several out-of-context scenes within the script Farrell’s character is trying to craft, and we spend some time within the headspace of the brutal and unsavory characters that occupy his work in progress. As the story progresses the film starts to merge with the film-within-the-film as the concurrent narratives cross and interweave.

                As you can already tell from my synopsis, this movie isn’t too self-conscious about being self-referential. The word “meta” has been used to describe this kind post-modern writing style, while others might just call it self-indulgent and sycophantic.  Both opinions would be correct. The truth is, a lot of this movie is simply throwing everything at the wall—including the kitchen sink—just to see what sticks, fortunately, most of it does. Unlike the streamlined treatment for McDonagh’s “In Bruges” this is not a screenplay that I would ever call tight. In fact I dare call it a bit flabby and unfocused. But it certainly takes a lot of risks and its rewards are all the more fulfilling because of it.

                Even if all of its disparate elements don’t exactly hang together, you can’t deny this movies sheer audaciousness and its ability to shock and entertain you.  The performances all across the board are among each actors best work and everyone has their scene or two to shine, including smaller stand out performances from Tom Waits, Harry Dean Stanton and Linda Bright Clay. Also, the outdoor cinematography is thoughtful and individual scenes and set-pieces are creative and well shot. Most importantly, “Seven Psychopaths” is consistently funny and surprising. Though the movie is making up its own rules, you can never predict where it’s going and by the time it’s over, you feel like you have been taken on a wild ride by a driver who might be as psychopathic as the characters he has conceived.

Grade: B

Originally Published by The Basic Alternative/Nov-2012