2012: The Year in Film: "Lincoln" Review

I got lucky to catch a screening of this one Wednesday night.  Flicks don't come with a much better pedigree than this one. Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln in a film called "Lincoln" directed by Steven Spielberg? That's a damn exciting flick on paper.  And whatever you may think about latter day Spielberg (I happen think he's an overly sentimental, broad corncob who wastes visual brilliance and competence on being "popular", uncontroversial and safe) you can guarantee that this flick is going to feature a star-studded cast, look incredible, and be an all-around solid flick. That's never the concern with Spielberg. You're never going to get a complete turd. The question is, and has been since Schindler's List, is he going to be TOO safe. I.e., will Spielberg take the requisite chances to make something truly memorable and accomplished, or will he keep it in "Oprah's Book Club" territory and make something everyone likes, but no one truly loves?

 Based on the book "Team of Rivals" by Doris Goodwin (which I have sitting on my shelf, but haven't read, sorry not sorry) that focuses on Lincoln's unique cabinet (he pulled together political rivals and opponents to lead the country through the Civil War), this flick features on the last few months of Lincoln's life and in particular the passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery for all time.  In that way, the title is somewhat misleading.  This is NOT a biopic on Lincoln the man, the myth, the legend, but rather a snap shot of a very specific, challenging and defining period in his presidency.

We open in January 1965.  The Civil War is winding down as the Confederacy finds itself with its back against the wall.  Lincoln has won re-election and enjoys a broad popularity after the long, turbulent grind of the last few years.  Desperate to both finish the war and push through with his political goals, Lincoln faces the tough task of balancing the diverse characters in Washington and elsewhere, especially the legal abolition of slavery in the entirety of the United States.  We all know how this one turns out for old Abe and for the nation as a whole.



The Good: there may not be a better director today at visually representing period than Steven Spielberg.  Between this and "Amistad", Spielberg has an obsessive master's eye for visually representing and recreating the gritty, earthy tones of the 19th Century.  This flick looks like a visual museum and I'm sure it will assume a role in history classrooms nationwide for decades.  The lead performance is simply astounding.  Not that we expected anything different from Daniel Day Lewis, but his Lincoln is warm, incredibly charming and often funny, but often wears the weight of the world on his shoulders.  This is a man who's been dealt an incredibly burdensome hand by the world, and rather than shirk from his lot rises to the occasion the way few ever have.  Lincoln's reserve, determination, wisdom and brilliance are borne out on Lewis' weary face and body language.  Sally Field (who I was admittedly worried about) is strong as Mary Todd.  Tommy Lee Jones is great as Thaddeus Stevens and will likely win Best Supporting.  James Spader tries his damndest to steal this one and absolutely owns every scene he's in.  When this film is focusing on Lincoln interacting with people or political intrigue both inside and outside of the Capitol Building and the White House it's great.  A top-notch political filler chock to the brim with historical nuance.

The Bad: I can't shake the feeling that Daniel Day Lewis is wasted in a role and a movie like this.  While no doubt he's given us a tender and complex depiction of Lincoln that will be remembered for years, Lincoln just simply doesn't offer the fiery bombast of a Daniel Plainview or Bill Cutting that really brings out the madman in DDL.  Maybe that's more a personal complaint than anything else, it's just that our finest living actor acts so rarely, it's disappointing when he doesn't give us something legendary.  The film tries to do too much re: Lincoln.  It tries to give us biographical details like a biopic, but the view and timeline is so short that it's not able to successfully do this.  The biographical scenes, including many scenes with Mary Todd and Robert Todd feel forced and shoehorned in.  In addition, this flick offers little nuance of the opposition to the 13th Amendment.  Those standing in opposition are depicted as cowards or worse.  There are scenes when the film is simply too broad.  Scenes like soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address or soaring music with emotionally manipulative shots seem out of place in a film this honest.  Plus, the ending feels unnecessary and out of place.  An odd coda to what had to that point been a highly effective historical/political thriller.

In conclusion,  the film tries to do too much and falls short of its broad ambitions.  HOWEVER, it is extremely watchable, much funnier than you'd expect, and features a great historical story.  In addition, the star studded cast, top to bottom, is simply great.  Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawkes and David Straithern particularly more than hold their own with the esteemed Daniel Day Lewis.  This film is very, very good, and will be remembered as such, but unfortunately it falls short of true greatness.  If you have any interest in American history, great acting or politics at all, see this movie.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Seven Psychopaths" Review

Only 9 days late on this one. Could be MUCH worse. Martin McDonagh is a critically acclaimed, Tony nominated and well respected Irish playright who made the move into film with 2008's absolutely brilliant and Oscar nominated "In Bruges". I can honestly say that In Bruges is one of my favorite recent films and established McDonagh as someone I'd be following for the rest of his career. Centered on two Irish hitmen who hide out in Bruges, Belgium after a hit gone horribly wrong, In Bruges is dark, it's twisted, it's sweet at moments, it's hilarious, and it's surprisingly introspective. Think old Guy Ritchie with more "heart" and without trying so damn hard to be "cool". With that being said, when I heard that he was finally following up In Bruges, my interest was piqued to say the least.

 Enter "Seven Psychopaths", which was not done ANY favors by the advertising. I seriously wonder who's in charge of the marketing for some of these flicks.. this one came off as a stylized "cool guy" action-er in the style of a Pulp Fiction or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. What we actually get is something that is KIND of that, but also much, much more and altogether different. We focus on Martin, (Colin Farrell) a screenwriter who's up against a deadline from the studio and hopelessly out of ideas. All he has for his next movie, that's due any day now, is a title: "Seven Psychopaths". His best friend and aspiring actor Billy (Sam Rockwell) who's at least slightly unhinged and also a part-time dog thief seeks to help Martin out of his alcoholic writer's block phase by any means necessary. Along the way, under the guise of research for this Seven Psychopaths project, we're introduced to a number of possibly or actual psychopathic characters, including bunny loving Zachariah (Tom Waits) and pacifist Hans (Christopher Walken), who is Billy's partner in dog kidnapping. After Billy and Hans take the wrong dog, Martin and friends find themselves in serious danger, and no where on the movie.

This flick is smart, it's violent, it's very, very meta, but above all it features great quirky actors with whip-smart dialogue being alternately disturbing and hilarious. Sam Rockwell, in particular, was born to play this role. He's charming as hell, moderately disturbing, hilarious, and just a few shades too far away from "normal" for anyone to be comfortable around him. He's the kind of guy who'd hang out with you all night and then murder your girlfriend as the result of an off-hand remark. Making a movie featuring dog thievery called "Seven Psychopaths" and leaving out Chris Walken and Woody Harrelson is most likely illegal, and those two crown princes of Hollywood spastic behavior certainly do not disappoint.
If I have a complaint, it's that the plot can be scattershot, but the film isn't trying to be a straightforward narrative exercise. If anything, it's a quasi-autobiographical meta look at writing films, featuring some strange personages in lieu of anyone who may be recognizable as a normal person. It's sometimes disturbing, it's often hilarious, it's surprisingly charming, and features some memorable characters in some great locales. The entire final act in Joshua Tree national park is surreal and masterfully shot.

 Come for Chris Walken, Sam Rockwell and Bonny, the cutest Shih Tzu ever (many hilarious uses of Shih Tzu by the cast, btw), stay for a boozy yet effective Colin Farrell, Tom Waits, Woody Harrelson and a story that will charm you while you're laughing your ass off. This is a fun flick that will no doubt be enjoyed in dorm rooms for years to come. A damn good time at the movies.

 8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Argo" Review.

I was lucky enough to catch a screening of this one a week before it hits theaters (it comes out Friday, October 12), and this flick has been one I've been excited for since I first saw the trailer. (Check the 2012 Movie Preview if you don't believe me.) Based on a "truth is stranger than fiction" style true story, (Best told in this Wired Story) during the Iran Hostage Crisis of '79-'80, where Iranian students and radicals stormed the American embassy during the Iranian revolution, taking 52 embassy workers hostage and holding them for 444 days. Well, the lesser known part of the story is that 6 embassy workers escaped during the storming of the embassy, simply walking out the front door and seeking refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. As the Iranian forces desperately sought out any and all Americans still in Iran to punish and use as leverage against the American government that had long supported the brutal Shah, the CIA faced a race against time and a possible diplomatic and PR crisis.

This is a story that seems custom-made for the screen, as the CIA and other government agencies seek to formulate a plan, any plan, to get these still-hidden Americans out before they face capture and likely worse by an angry and violently anti-American Iranian regime.  CIA specialist Tony Mendez formulates a plan that seems utterly preposterous, but may be the only option - create a phony movie studio with legitimate Hollywood types and a false Star Wars rip-off, complete with a cast and a script, that's seeking to film in Iran, and all of the Americans can leave together as a Canadian film crew.  You can't make this stuff up.

With a premise like that, the primary job of the filmmaker is simply going to be to don't screw it up.  It's an amazing premise, but one that could easily descend into camp or worse simply by virtue of having to many moving parts.  You need to take your premise as serious as it actually was while still recognizing that yes, this was completely ridiculous.  The good news?  Director Ben Affleck (who is slowly but surely moving up the list of quality American filmmakers..) surely does not screw this one up.  This flick is part insider Hollywood comedy, part political thriller/race against time, but the two parts fit and make this amazing story worth telling into a legitimately great movie.

The Good:  The film moves back and forth from Hollywood to political intrigue seamlessly, and Affleck never once lets the plot get away from him.  Everything is designed to ratchet the tension to higher and higher levels, so that by the final escape attempt, you're literally on the edge of your seat.  This flick is hilarious at times (Alan Arkin and John Goodman, especially, chew up scenery and really knock their Hollywood insider roles out of the park) and almost unbearably tense at times (I think I bit off all of my fingernails during the last 45 minutes) but it seamlessly comes together into one greater whole.  The performances are more than adequate (personally, I'd have loved to have seen more of Bryan Cranston), but this flick is about pacing, about atmosphere, and about scenery.  Everything is meticulously re-created, a series of pictures during the credits will show you just HOW MUCH everyone and everything looks exactly like it was, and that labor pays huge dividends as this is a flick that looks great and is one of the more effectively entertaining adult flicks I've seen in years.  This is the kind of movie that Spielberg has been trying to make for 20 years and just can't make anymore because he's too damn sentimental.  When you're able to be THAT tense and THAT suspenseful, despite the fact that EVERYONE knows that none of the embassy staff were killed in the Iran Hostage Crisis (or, I hope they do), you're doing something right.  And this flick is doing a lot right.

 

The bad: I don't know if it's Affleck's performance or the screenplay's treatment of him, but Tony Mendez as a character could have really benefited from some meatier development.  This guy is an American hero, and the flick mainly uses him to ferry about from plot point to plot point.  He's given some anguished scenes and a small family sub-plot, but one of the greatest agents in the history of the CIA (Jimmy Carter's words) could have benefited from a more charismatic performance and meatier development.  All of the characters, in general, are slightly under-developed.  Now, I get that this is a political thriller and escape movie at its root, so character is secondary to the plot and suspense, but we don't care as much about some of these people as we should.  Note: I'm nit-picking at this point.  This is one of the best movies of the year.

In all, this is an incredibly well-done flick.  Affleck is one of the finest American filmmakers working today (he's currently 3-3 as a director, with "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town" already both winning wide acclaim), and I for one can't wait to see him continue to grow as a director.  This is total awards bait, and although it might not win a lot at the Oscars (this year's slate will be STACKED), it will certainly be nominated, and rightfully so.  This is a great film.  One of the better and more watchable films I've seen in quite some time.  The final act is near perfection.

9/10.

2012: The Year in Film "Looper" Review

Rian Johnson is one of the more intriguing and exciting young American filmmakers working today. His two previous flicks, "Brick" (a smart, stylized updating of the classic Noir tale in a modern American high school - and vastly underrated) and "The Brothers Bloom" (a fun, occasionally hilarious caper) are both new twists/perspectives on classic and often tired genres, and show an imagination and eye for both story and filmmaking that make Mr. Johnson's career one well worth following. Oh, and there's the fact that he's directed two of the stronger episodes of "Breaking Bad", season three's "Fly" (a serious achievement in directing) and season five's "51". Now comes feature flick number three, "Looper".

 In the not-so-distant future, time travel has been invented but is highly illegal due to the potential timeline effects and as a result is used exclusively by the world's largest criminal organizations to eliminate people in the past, as murder is all but impossible in 2072. In the film's present, 2042, assassins called "Loopers" are employed to handle the job of eliminating these targets. This film's vision of the future seems to indicate that the next 30 years will not be kind to the US of A or the greater world. Homelessness is rampant, vagrants roam the streets, and a violent lawlessness has taken over the major cities. Loopers arrive at a set time and place, kill the hooded individual as he or she arrives, take their payment from the person of their victim, dispose of the body, and go about their day. It's a pretty clean and efficient system, largely untraceable... the only issue is the loopers themselves. At some point, the future organizations will "close the loop", by sending the future self of the assassin through time, the assassin will unbeknownst to himself, kill his future self, take his resulting large payday, and enjoy the next 30 years of his life.  Loopers enjoy a pretty easy life in this future dystopia, with steady and good pay (a few years of "Looping" pays enough for a lifetime of relative leisure), few responsibilities, and steady access to drugs, parties and women.  A looper's only concern is ensuring that his target meet his intended demise, as letting a target escape is simply unacceptable, with potentially devastating consequences.

Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt - "wearing" a CGI-ed face to make him resemble the older version of himself, played by Bruce Willis) is one such Looper.  He enjoys life in the city and is quietly stashing away half of his pay, hoping to move to Paris after his time as a looper is up.  All of his dedication and plans are waylaid when, through the unusual circumstance of his target arriving without a hood, he hesitates and allows the older version of himself to escape.  A manhunt ensues, and Joe finds himself in a race against the clock and his employer to hunt down himself.



"Looper" is smart, very smart, and expertly done.  The plot crackles, the performances shine, and via narrative techniques like flashbacks (flashforwards?) we are shown the stakes and the film's vision of the fluid nature of time.  You will never be able to make traveling time make sense, so it's best to just establish your rules and run with them.  Looper does this, and so escapes most of the headier discussions of time travel that are guaranteed to: 1. make your head spin, 2. descend into nonsense, and 3. sound like an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where you're just making up pseudo technical sounding nonsense.  Note: Looper isn't able to do this completely, but what it IS able to do is completely switch directions completely midstream without hitting a hiccup and effectively create a whole new and parallel narrative that exists alongside the main narrative but is largely separate.  Basically, Looper is two movies, 1/2 crime/caper/gangland thriller and 1/2 redemption/family/relationship story and 99% of flicks would fail when trying to pull something like this off, but somehow Looper does it largely seamlessly and effectively.  This is a serious achievement.  Characters have distinct development and motivations.  Joe and Joe (JGL and Bruce Willis) share enough besides the CGI-ed face that confrontations between them are fascinating, with a young man's headstrong foolishness butting up against his older counterpart's wisdom and know-how.

The good: the performances.  Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the finer young actors working today, even if he did try WAY too hard throughout his SNL hosting gig.  Bruce Willis is a pro and could play this role in his sleep.  Emily Blunt, who I've always thought had a tendency to sort of drift through her roles as scenery, really owns this one, and she'll grow on you.  Jeff Daniels has a lot of fun with what could have been a stock part.  The plot is smart and seamless and has very few holes... something that you can't often say about flicks featuring time travel.  There are some characters that exist merely to further the plot, but there are worse sins a movie can commit, Chris Nolan has been doing that trick for years.  What starts as a dystopian action-er turns into a character piece, and this flick is worth seeing for that alone.  It's shot spectacularly, makes great use of its characters, will have you at the end of your seat at times, and really uses its time travel elements pretty ingeniously.  I liked this one a lot.

The bad: as I said, any discussion about time travel bears the risk of crossing over into silliness, and this flick comes close a couple of times without ever crossing over into straight silliness.  As I said, some characters have no point except as a plot device and that can feel cheap.  I personally would have wanted the future to be MORE fleshed out, but I'm a nerd for world-building like that.  It's why I love George RR Martin.  Really, there are few criticisms here.  This is one of the best movies of the year.

"Looper" is smart, it's tense, it's fun, but above all, it's very, very well done.  A must-see.  Worth multiple viewings.

9/10

2012: The Year in Film: "The Master" Review

Paul Thomas Anderson is undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important American directors working today. That's not hyperbole, it's simply fact. When your last film was "There Will Be Blood", a monumnetal work of art that will be studied and beloved decades from now, anything that immediately follows is going to be buzzworthy to say the least, even sight unseen. When you've also written and directed flicks called "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia" and "Punch Drunk Love", needless to say, you're an important filmmaker. Rumors started circulating about "The Master" about a year ago, and the excitement in film nerd circles reached a fever pitch when footage was finally released earlier this year. So needless to say, I was excited for this one. Let's check it out.

First, for a little background, postwar America was a complicated place. On the surface, we had never been richer, more powerful, healthier, or generally better off. Underneath the "American dream" sold to us by advertisers and falsely remembered so fondly by so many today was a general spiritual malaise. A "that's it??!" if you will. (Think: Don Draper at the beginning of Mad Men) This backdrop saw the emergence of pseudo spiritual mystic movements ranging from "new age" and Asian influenced spirituality to pop psychology to a massive rise in cults and new religious movements, one of which being, of course, Scientology. All of these movements sought to prescribe cure-alls to the pittfalls of modern society, and all of them fell far short of their professed goals, and continue to do so in their various incarnations today.  While this flick isn't technically ABOUT Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard, per se, it's certainly inspired, influenced by and based largely upon the charismatic movement L. Ron Hubbard would use to create his bizarre and influential spiritual movement, such that it is.

Freddie Quell is a troubled naval veteran of WW2 who suffers from PTSD, sexual compulsions, possible psychosis, definite nervous tendencies, definite alcoholism and a number of unknown and unstated but clearly present conditions. He finds himself an outcast of sorts, bouncing from menial job to menial job, cooking up batches of hooch that contain such lovely ingrediants as paint thinner and film chemicals when a chance drunken encounter with a pleasure cruise lands him in the orbit of Lancaster Dodd, a self-professed "theoretical philosopher, doctor, nuclear physicist, but most of all, a man" who has gained a dedicated bordering on fanatical following through his writings and teachings. The two men share an odd symbiotic bond of sorts, and Freddie gets drawn into "The Cause", led by Dodd and his group of family and followers, as they traverse the country and wider world, seeking to advance his teachings and movement.

First, this is a strange film.  The narrative, such that it is, is even less present than the narrative in "There Will Be Blood".. it's sort of a thread that meanders about behind vignettes that range from the powerful and profound to the ridiculous.  Rather than a straight evisceration of Scientology or cult-ish mystical/spiritual movements in general, this picture is much more concerned with its characters as people.  As such, we get a pair of absolutely masterful performances from extremely skilled actors at the tops of their games.  Joaquin "I'm probably actually crazy" Phoenix imbues Freddie with an unhinged manic energy and yet odd charm that you at once pity, fear and yet kind of oddly like him, despite everything he's been doing.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is simply a force of nature in this role.  He's menacing and charming.  Brilliant and vulnerable and manipulative all at once.  Despite the fact that we know that he's a master manipulator manipulating his friends and family and quite possibly (read: definitely) making everything up as he goes along, you can't take your eyes off of him and can see how people would be drawn into his orbit.  Amy Adams turns in a memorable performance as well as Dodd's wife, who may be the biggest manipulator of all.  Any time PSH and Phoenix share the screen, the crackling energy is incredible. 
  


I feel as though this flick is a companion of sorts to There Will Be Blood.  Not explicitly, but thematically.  There's a similar iconoclastic approach to society and traditionally revered institutions.  Maybe a good title for this one would be "There Will Be Nihilism".  Where capitalism and capitalists were eviscerated there, spiritual leaders, philosophies and would be guides are here. Just my $.02.

Ultimately, this is a strange, beautiful flick with some incredible sequences and unbelievable performances.  Joaquin Phoenix would likely win Best Actor if Daniel Day Lewis wasn't playing someone named Abe Lincoln later this year.  It falls short of perfection by virtue of its strangeness (I guarantee you'll leave the theater a little confused), but is no doubt a work of art.

8.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Beasts of the Southern Wild" Review

Only 2.5 weeks late on this one.. things are looking up! So every year there's at least one seemingly random tiny film that comes out of no where at one of the acclaimed festival and wows the crowd to go on to an extended arthouse run culminating in a handful of Oscar nominations. This year that film happened to be a crazy little, immensely charming southern gothic psuedo fantasy/magical realism tale. I kept hearing about this one and finally went out to see it, so how is it? This flick features a tiny fictional, isolated, nearly post-apocalyptic community on the Gulf outside of New Orleans. Despite living in destitute conditions, scavenging and scraping by in squalor, the community is tight-knit and festive, mistrusting of outsiders and broader society as a whole. Survival skills are key, and residents of "The Bathtub" are forced to grow up fast in a community that time and wider society have seemingly forgotten. This tiny bayou island community finds its very survival threatened by melting icecaps and increasingly severe storms. In this community a young girl, named Hushpuppy, who seems to have an almost magical connection with nature, lives with her father, known as Wink, who is perhaps the proudest Bath Tub resident of all. The Good: the island, its residents, and the world they inhabit is imbued with an almost Wes Anderson-esque aesthetic.. it's a world all its own with unique characters, rules, and a complete world that exists on its own while seemingly bearing little in common with our own. When done well, this is extremely charming, and this flick does it without Anderson's aplomb and whimsy, electing instead for a grittier, earthier feel all its own. At once rustic and contemporary, this gives the flick a timeless feel, making it seem as though it exists in a time and place all its own. The decision to use unknown or amateur actors really adds to this feel and makes the flick feel rawer and more authentic. The main performances are great. Wink (played by a non-actor) and Hushpuppy (played, quite remarkably, by an incredibly charming little girl named Quvenzhané Wallis) have a believable and sometimes strained family relationship. The film looks great and feels light and magical enough due to the performances despite its serious tone and subject matter. The Bad: The film occasionally treads on overly sentimental territory. While this may not be a negative to everyone, it seems that so much of our modern media is permeated with an unearned and unnecessary nostalgic sentimentality that serves no purpose other than emotional manipulation. I don't have a problem with this, when it's earned by the underlying narrative and character development, but sentimentality for sentimentality's sake is exploitative and cheap. Granted, the film in no way entirely crosses this line, but it certainly walks it, and comes damn near inducing groans at several moments. In addition, the film is certainly an allegory for SOMETHING, but good luck placing your thumb on exactly what. This, combined with sometimes undue sentimentality, cheapens whatever its trying to actually SAY. Again, not a deal breaker, just moderately annoying. Ultimately, the often lovely and whimsical yet still serious story, combined with terrific main performances and great characterization overcomes its weaknesses to make this a sweet, charming flick that's well worth a watch. Its shortcomings left me less charmed than many were, but there's no denying that Wallis, as Hushpuppy, has done something amazing. To think that someone so young could be so talented is truly astounding. Watch this film for her alone. 7/10