2013: The Year in Film: "Zero Dark Thirty" Review

Kathryn Bigelow, a director who had no-doubt action movie bona fides, shocked the world with "The Hurt Locker", a brutal military thriller that took the Oscars by storm three years ago. Established as one of the few in Hollywood who can handle politically explosive issues in an even-handed and honest way, that made her a no-brained to handle the potentially controversial story of the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden leading up to his death in May 2011. This flick rested on potentially contentious ground, being released amidst a highly charged partisan political climate and being seen as potentially bolstering an incumbent president. In addition, the flick featured unprecedented access by the film crew to sources linked to the mission itself, promising as real a look at the largest manhunt in human history as possible from a major studio picture.

The film focuses on a small, elite group of CIA operatives tasked with finding the world's most notorious and wanted man, Usama Bin Laden, following 9/11. The trail gets hot and cold through multiple wars, but one agent stays the course - Maya. (played masterfully by Jessica Chastain) Of course, we all know the ultimate ending, so the question becomes whether or not the film succeeds in providing the necessary tension and intrigue to justify its lengthy runtime. No worries, the answer is a resounding "yes".

The Good: The cast, especially the leads, are great. Chastain, whether or not she ultimately wins Oscar, is a revelation. She does the bulk of the lifting here, and bears the pressure and determination of the decade-long hunt for a ghost masterfully. Jason Clarke (minor boy), Kyle "Coach Taylor" Chandler, Mark Strong, Joel Eddelston and others flesh out the cast and are all extremely effective, especially Clarke, but make no mistake, this is Chastain's show. By centering on her character the film puts a human face on the manhunt, and as we see Maya struggle against forces working against her the chase takes on real stakes. The plot moves crisply, effectively moving through the years and from Pakistan to Afghanistan to CIA black sites to Washington DC in a way that ramps up the intrigue and keeps things interesting while never feeling jumbled or confusing. This is no small feat. The cinematography and filmmaking is, quite simply, near-perfect. The film feels hyper-real, the brief scenes of punctuated action are simply brutal and the final raid on Bin Laden's compound is one of the more suspenseful scenes I've seen in recent year. Considering we all know what happened, that's obviously an impressive performance. The script is filled with enough insider language and jargon that you (or I, at least) feel like an insider without it being so dense that the goings-on are incomprehensible. Bigelow again successfully walks that line of showing without judging or commenting, choosing to let the film speak for itself. This is the treatment this story deserves. A partisan hack could have mangled it and made something fleeting, instead Bigelow is clearly devoted to creating a quality product, and it shows.

The Bad: there is very little bad here. One criticism I have is that the film, with its massive cast, made some questionable choices. I love Chris Pratt as much as anyone and respect Mark Duplass, but casting them as a Navy SEAL and CIA analyst seem questionable at best. Another criticism is that the film by and large entirely glosses over the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. While I understand that it has a mission, to tell the story of the Bin Laden manhunt, the fact that those conflicts consumed countless resources that could have been used to crush Al Qaeda and Bin Laden seems highly relevant.

In all, this is an important film. It's masterfully crafted, alternately funny, brutal, but always honest, and features a near-perfect performance at its heart. From the African embassy attacks in 1998 (really, you could argue starting with the first WTC bombing in 1993) through his death in 2011, Bin Laden was US public enemy #1. The triumph of a small group of Americans is a story that's simply essential. I've started calling it "The Social Network" for geo-politics.  It's a character-driven thriller with stakes that would reverberate worldwide. Far from being a jingoistic rah-rah piece it's an important piece of social commentary. If you remember 9/11 and the war on terror, see this movie. If you don't, you should see this movie even more. See this movie, it's the best of 2012, plain and simple. This is filmmaking at its finest.

9.5/10.

[As an aside, I'd like to comment on the silly contention that the film condones torture that's been circulating among some. Plain and simple, this film pursues no political agenda. It passes on innumerable opportunities to score points with one side or the other, pursuing a cold, almost documentarian touch over more emotional or exploitative options. It depicts torture because torture happened. Pretending it didn't would be doing the story a disservice. If anything, the film condemns violence as brutal and soul-sucking for all parties involved.]

2012: The Year in Film: "Django Unchained" Review

As I saw this one on New Years' Eve, this will be the last entrant in the "2012: The Year in Film" series, and we'll move on to 2013. Another year older, hopefully wiser, etc., etc., something like that. Some of you may not know me that well. If you don't, I'm sorry, but if you do, you probably know that I'm an unabashed Quentin Tarantino fanboy. I had a giant Pulp Fiction poster in my room for years, continue to have a Reservoir Dogs poster, and credit Pulp Fiction with being the movie that made me start loving movies. I think that's a common choice among movie buffs ages 25-35. With that being said, it's been extremely interesting over the last decade to see Tarantino transition from being a rebellious young upstart to being a respected elder statesman of sorts. His reputation and prestige have allowed him to do basically anything he wants over the last decade, and the results have been diverse, controversial and always interesting. He's delivered a nearly 5 hour two-part revenge opus in which the main character's name isn't even revealed until the 2nd film and an alternate history in which Jews kill the Nazi leadership in France, both of which few, if any, filmmakers could get made, let alone doit well, and he follows that up with a similar alternate history flick featuring slavery in the American south.

Much in the same way that "Inglourious Basterds" is at once an homage and an update to the classic World War 2 films of the 50's and 60's, "Django Unchained" is a spaghetti Western with a Tarantino twist. The film focuses on Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who has recently been sold after an escape attempt, and a German bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who needs Django because he's able to identify the Brittle Brothers, slave overseers with a hefty price on their heads.  Schultz and Django hit it off and Django shows surprising aptitude at bounty hunting, so they decide to partner up and in exchange Schultz will help Django rescue his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington).  The duo finally track down Hilde at a notorious plantation called Candyland, run by one Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and try to put together a plan to secure her freedom.

Tarantino's films have a tendency to feel fragmented, split into separate scenes or chapters that can be uneven and give his films a disjointed feel.  Unlike Inglourious Basterds and several of his other films, Django has a cohesive narrative and feels like something that another director could have made narrative-wise.

The Good: This is an impressive film.  It's nearly 3 hours long but manages to never feel unnecessarily long, which is a feat in and of itself nowadays.  It features Tarantino's trademark dialogue in spades, and there simply isn't another filmmaker alive who takes as much joy in the interaction of his characters that he does. It's brutal, it's often funny, it's simply a joy to watch.   Tarantino doesn't shy away at all from the possibly sensitive nature of his subject, and honestly, that's a good thing.  A revenge fantasy doesn't deserve kid gloves.  Visually it's great and manages at once to feel like the classic westerns of the 60's and 70's while being something distinct and wholly new.  The cast is great.  Waltz (we should all thank Tarantino for bringing him to America) simply owns every scene that he's in, bringing different, European sensibilities to the antebellum south and really owning the juicy dialogue he's given.  DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson really revel in their roles as villains, really bringing the charm and managing to be both charismatic and evil in the way that all great movie villains are. Foxx is strong as well, while his character isn't given the same wealth of material as Waltz and DiCaprio are, his character has a great heroes' arc, and really develops over the film's 2.75 hours. 

The Bad: There isn't too much bad, or even negative, at all. There are some scenes that are hard to watch, but let's be honest, chattel slavery in general wasn't hard to watch. It's become common on the internet to criticize Tarantino's gratuitous use of time appropriate racial epithets and shocking brutality, but to me it really isn't all that different, thematically and tone-wise than Inglourious Basterds. The way that was a Holocaust/WW2 revenge fantasy, this is a slave revenge fantasy. Plain and simple. People are cruel and say awful things, because let's be honest, when you own a human being like they are a piece of livestock, you probably aren't very nice to that livestock. My $.02.

In all, there are some hilarious scenes (a scene with hooded southerners seeking revenge is particularly funny), and Django and Dr. Schultz carve a trail of bodies across the south and west that's simply a lot of fun. The dialogue is outstanding, and Tarantino has really added one of his best films to his filmography. If you're a Tarantino fan, a fan of Westerns, or even a fan of movies, go see this one. It's one of the top 3 or 4 flicks of the year and just might be Tarantino's best since Pulp Fiction. 9/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Silver Linings Playbook" Review

David O'Russell may well be one of the better American filmmakers working today... after beginning his career with the vastly underrated "Three Kings" and  the indie "I Heart Hucklebees", he returned with a vengeance with 2010's "The Fighter".. a film that was one of the best of the last several years and got some serious academy love.  He follows up that highly acclaimed flick with a much smaller dramedy he wrote and directed called "Silver Linings Playbook", adapted from a novel of the same name.

In Silver Linings Playbook (SLP for the remainder of this review) Pat, a 30-something former teacher has recently been released from a psychiatric hospital where he spent the last 8 months under court order following a violent incident.  Pat's parents want him to get back on his feet and cheer on the Eagles with the rest of the family but Pat is determined to win back his wife and his job through a fitness and self-improvement regimen.  As he moves back into his childhood home and struggles to adjust to life in his parents' home where he has no job, medication, therapy and a no-contact order with his wife, he gets re-introduced to an acquaintance named Tiffany, his buddy's sister in law.  Her husband recently died and she's dealing with mental illness and recent job loss as well.  Pat and Tiffany form a bond as Pat struggles to get back into his feet and find his titular "silver lining".

The Good: The cast is tremendous here.  Bradley Cooper (who I've been a fan of since he first hit the scene) gives the best performance of his career as he makes Pat convincingly troubled, charming and funny without escaping from the gravitas of what he's dealing with.  Jennifer Lawrence, well on her way to becoming one of the best actresses in Hollywood (don't believe me?  Watch "Winter's Bone") turns in a performance that should be well beyond her age of 22 years and comes away as charming and utterly convincing as the troubled, self-destructive Tiffany.  Robert DeNiro turns in what's probably his most vibrant and vintage performance in more than a decade as Pat's sort of crazy, gambling, Eagles obsessed father, Pat Sr., and is a shoo-in for a best supporting actor nomination.  It's great to have you back, Bob, and you turn in many of the film's best moments.  Chris Tucker (!) and Jacki Weaver are strong as well as Pat's friend from the hospital and mother, although they aren't given as much to do as Cooper, Lawrence and DeNiro.  Oh, and there's  Julia Stiles sighting too.  I didn't even know she was still alive.  The plot is fast moving and clever, and turns what could have been a generic indie romantic dramedy into a memorable, charming story about mental illness, family, sports, friendships and what brings us together.



The Bad: there isn't much bad at all.  This is a charming, tender, heartwarming tale that lets the talented people in front of and behind the camera walk the tightrope of a sensitive subject wonderfully.  If there is a drawback it's that the film wraps up a BIT too neatly, and at times risks making too much humor out of its subjects' struggles.  It doesn't do this offensively or very often, so it's truly not much of a criticism.  The ending does arrive with a bow in all of 20 minutes though.

In all, this film has a little bit of something for everyone.  It's sometimes hilarious, touching, heartwarming and wildly succeeds in delivering what may be the best sports movie of the year.  You can't help but root for Pat, even as you know that success as he sees it may not be what's best for him.  A sweet love story, convincing drama on the role of sports and family in blue collar American life, and above all a rousing success.  Cooper, Lawrence and DeNiro all deserve nominations and this is a film I know I'll come back to.  Kudos, David O'Russell.

8.5/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Les Miserables" Review

First, as a disclaimer, I'm probably in the .01% minority of American humanity in that I've read the Victor Hugo novel but never seen the musical.  (I was strange in my youth and enjoyed reading extremely long novels - the internet has nuked that ability into ash)  I do, however, due to years of involvement in choirs and such, have a moderate familiarity with the songs.  So I'm coming at this flick with a differing perspective than many. With that being said, adaptions of Broadway musicals aren't exactly huge business nowadays, but an adaption starring Hugh Jackman (Mr. Two-sides, your go-to Hollywood musical man) directed by Tom Hooper fresh off "The King's Speech" has as good a pedigree as any.  So how is it?

Les Miserables, roughly translated as "the wretched poor" or something similar, focuses on a convict, Jean Valjean, who has spent a solid chunk of his life incarcerated for a minor crime.  We follow Valjean through the years as he eludes the law (in the person of Javert), finds redemption, assumes a new identity and adopts a young girl.  The story culminates in the failed 1832 rising that was crushed by royalist forces.  Along the way we meet a number of poor and common folk struggling to carve out an existence in a climate of crushing social mores, extremely limited social mobility and shocking poverty.  I must say, there is something profoundly tone-deaf about rich white women loving a work decried in its day for being Revolutionary about the wretched poor and their struggles as if similar situations aren't somewhat mirrored today.  This film used the revolutionary technique of having the actors sing live as they act by using an earpiece with an accompanying pianist... allowing the actors to act while they sing rather than lip sync with separately recorded songs, as has been the technique in every other film musical.

The Good: Hugh Jackman gives the finest performance of his career.  Mr. Two-Sides was born to play Jean Valjean in a big screen production of Les Mis.  He brings the character to life and really takes advantage of the opportunity to act through song.  He's worth the price of admission alone.  Anne Hathaway really owns it.  Seriously.  She sets out to make a depressing character absolutely soul-crushing and completely succeeds.  Her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" is simply devastating.  Not exaggerating.  Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, even if they evidently were dressed by HBC's husband and using Ali G and Bruno's accents, still brought joy to their characters and were quite funny.  Eddie Redmayne was very good as young Marius.  What's most impressive about this film, though, is the production value.  It's sill recognizable as a broadway show, but everything is bigger and grander.  Some of the sets and shots are visually impressive and a joy to watch.



The Bad: It's become common place to bash Russell Crowe's singing.  I'm not going to do that... because Russell Crowe sang and can sing just fine.. the issue is that he can't sing and act at the same time.  And why should he be able to?  He's freaking Maximus.  Amanda Seyfried also is a rather poor singer with a weak, thin voice.  Helena Bonham Carter can't sing worth a darn and Sasha Baron Cohen needed to pick one accent and go with it.  With that being said, some difficulties with actual movie stars not being up to Broadway snuff isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

All in all, it looks great, it sounds (mostly) great, and there are some tremendous performances.  This is a timeless tale and one that deserves a big-budget treatment.  I'd say there's a solid chance this one will be getting some Oscar love in a month or so... it probably won't win in what's been a strong year for film, but Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are all but assured noms.  Go see it, but be ready to bring some tissues.  Oh, and don't sit by old ladies that will hum along with the songs... that's just poor theater form.

7.5/10.