2013: The Year in Film: "The Dallas Buyer's Club" Review

HIV/AIDs remains a huge health crisis internationally, and a big one here in the United States as well, but by and large, it's become a manageable condition, if monitored and treated properly. It's easy to forget that when the disease was first identified in the early and mid 1980's, it was mysterious, misunderstood, un-treatable, and usually fatal in an extremely short period.  In many circles, it was seen as a disease limited to the gay community, which fed into and inflamed fears, misconceptions and pre-existing biases already surrounding that community.  Study of the disease was extremely limited, treatment was even less so, and the hopes for survival for someone infected with HIV were low to say the least. Add to this equation the inflexible bureaucracy that is the FDA, and there wasn't much hope for someone infected with HIV in the 1980's. In response to the slow progress of the medical community in treating this disease, HIV positive individuals sought other avenues for treatment of their disease, seeking out experimental drugs and treatments that were being tested worldwide. As a way to escape the watchful eye of FDA regulators and law enforcement, these people formed "buyers clubs" as a way to distribute their drugs, where each person paid a membership fee and was given drugs as part of their membership, rather than paying directly for the drugs themselves.

Ron Woodruff was a Texas cowboy, party animal and electrician who, after years of drug use and having sex with anyone who was willing, found himself diagnosed with HIV. He was given only a short time to live, and in his desperation at a lack of options, he began seeking out alternative treatments via medical journals and foreign doctors. After realizing that there was a market for these drugs, he started a "buyer's club" to distribute the drugs among other desperate HIV positive individuals.

The Good: This is a fascinating story that I truly knew nothing about, and the film does a solid job of telling the tale without appearing overly preachy. (as many "message" films are want to do) The portrayal of the mid-80's is solid, but the true draw here are the performances, especially McConaughey in the lead and Jared Leto as transgender woman Rayon. McConaughey is on a real role lately, and his performance in this one is probably the best one of his career. He transformed himself physically, losing a ton of weight to portray the AIDs-afflicted Ron Woodruff, and even if his transformation from masculine homophobe to HIV medicine crusader is a bit cliche, it's still a richly drawn role given real depth and pathos by an actor at the top of his game. Jared Leto also throws himself into the character of Rayon, and his character is at turns funny, charming and utterly convincing. This particular version of the Odd Couple really highlights the human face of the epidemic.



The Bad: Jen Garner's character is pretty damn pointless. She's a doctor who works at the hospital where Woodruff is first diagnosed and she ends up sympathetic to the club and hangs out with the characters... but she doesn't do anything else. Did the film think we needed a quasi romantic lead? I'm still not certain exactly what she's doing. Additionally, in its focus on Woodruff, the rest of the characters lag behind. It would have been interesting to see more of Rayon's motivations, for instance, and maybe get to know the Dallas HIV+ community a little better as well. Woodruff's transition from macho man and homophobe to man of the people seems a BIT too abrupt to be true, but McConaughey's performance helps gloss over these shortcomings.

In all, a pretty damn strong and fascinating film. I don't know that I recall an actor being as red-hot as McConaughey is right now. Between this, Mud, Wolf of Wall Street and True Detective, he's come a long way from romantic lead in awful rom-coms. This one is definitely worth a watch, even if it falls short of the best films of the year.

8/10

2013: The Year in Film: "12 Years A Slave" Review

Sometimes the old idiom "truth is stranger than fiction" is absolutely, 100% true. The tale of Solomon Northrop, a free man and talented musician who was tricked, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, is by all accounts true, and offers a disturbing window into our nation's dark past. First a historical backdrop: after society became entrenched and indelibly 'American' on this side of the Atlantic, slavery took on an expressly racial form. Following the ban of the international slave trade passed by the U.S. and Britain in 1808, the only source of slaves for domestic slavers was the internal slave trade, which led to the development of huge markets throughout the south. This also led to a rise in price, which incentivized the kidnapping and selling into slavery of free black Americans. This practice was shockingly common, but given the legal structures in the antebellum south that were designed to preserve the individual property of slave owners against the rights of the slaves themselves, it could be incredibly difficult for a captured free person to prove their free status.  While Solomon Northrup managed to return to his family and freedom in the north, the fact that a relatively prominent man of means could be yanked from his life as an ordinary citizen underlies all that you need to know about the status of African Americans in the pre-Civil War U.S.

It speaks volumes on the still raw wound of slavery that what may be the most honest and definitive look at slavery on film should be directed by and starring men from England. Rising star Steve McQueen (Shame, Hunger) directs Chiwetel Ejiofor (still not sure how to pronounce his name, you guys) in a film that is simultaneously beautiful, disturbing, inspirational and haunting. Solomon Northrop was a musician, a husband, and a father in Saratoga, New York. He had been born free and lived his entire life as a free man. A chance meeting led to him traveling to Washington D.C. to perform, where he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the slave markets of New Orleans. The title explains the rest. Along the way, we are shown an intimate and complex glimpse into the realities of life for millions of Americans and that most evil of institutions.

The Good: the cinematography is tremendous and this film is simply gorgeous. Contrasting the natural beauty of the American south with the unnatural viciousness of the institution of slavery was, in a word, brilliant. Ejiofor (who I've always been a fan of) is a revelation as Northrop, who becomes known simply as "Platt", bringing a resonant humanity to the role, and a confident grace and dignity to the character. The absolutely stacked supporting cast is all very strong as well, with Benedict Cumberbatch (as the benign slaveowner Ford) and Michael Fassbender (as the vicious and unhinged slaveowner Epps) standing out, along with newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, who is simply spectacular as Epps' prized slave and rape victim Patsey. Fassbender is brilliant in his disturbing and tortured performance, and his Epps is a complex and layered picture of a brutal slaveowner. I don't think we've seen anything quite like it. This film really pulls no punches with its depictions of the innate inhumanity of slavery and the brutality that so often went along with owning human beings, while never feeling gratuitous. Northrop struggles to maintain his humanity, and his role as a relative outsider and newcomer allows us to learn the ins and outs of a slave's day to day existence without ever feeling like a simple exposition dump. Quite simply, the film is at once incredibly brutal and undeniably beautiful. Northrop's struggle to retain his humanity despite seemingly impossible odds is a powerful and inspiring one, and the depictions of the lives of the other slaves, especially Patsey, is simply heartbreaking.



The Bad: I really have one major complaint, and that's simply: Brad Pitt's character. I recognize that this is based on a book and a true story, and that the character that Brad Pitt played did help Solomon regain his freedom, but he simply isn't believable in the setting, mid-1850's Louisiana. He openly pontificates on the evils of slavery while on a plantation and engages in debates with a slaveowner about the inherent wrongness of the institution. Now, I don't know this for certain, but given that the south was willing to wage the most devastating war in US history over the continued survival of slavery, I'd wager that such a man wasn't likely to last long in the antebellum south. He seems like a total anachronism, embodying 21st century ideals in a 19th century setting, and it's really jarring.

Other than Brad Pitt playing a 2013 UN delegate who emerged from a time machine in 1853, this is, plain and simply, the best movie of the last year. It's undeniably powerful, emotionally jarring, incredibly brutal, and unapologetically honest in its depiction. It pulls no punches, and for that it is a crucial film. This film effectively combines art house visuals and sensibilities with the sentimentality of a Spielberg and world class acting. Solomon Northrop is a man worth remembering, and the honest truth of slavery and its indelible mark on American history should be out in the open. More than just a history lesson, though, this is a powerful, emotionally resonant film and should be required viewing for high school students everywhere. Bravo.

9.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Review

The first "Hobbit" movie was... a mixed bag, to be certain. For all of its strengths, it felt bloated, far too long and relied on too much CGI. Much of this stemmed from the questionable decision to turn "The Hobbit" into a trilogy and thus a prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings".. when the source material is a 200 page children's book as opposed to a 1200 page epic.  So the decision to turn those 200 pages into 9 hours of film resulted in things like... 40 minute dinner parties consisting of 10 minutes of dwarfs throwing plates in zany ways and seemingly endless chases.  There's also the fact that... not much happened in the first film, which basically covered 70 pages of text. So one would thing that, given that ALL of the action was reserved for the last two films, they'd have to be more exciting almost by default.  The first film left our heroes battered but not broken and within sight of the lonely mountain.

We pick up right where the last film left off, with our gang of assorted misfits having left the Misty Mountains behind en route to Erabor.  A large and seemingly infinite band of Orcs is in hot pursuit (seriously, it didn't seem that big to begin with and how many died in the last movie?), as our wayward travelers make their way to the Lonely Mountain. Along the way, they encounter Beorn, spiders, elves, barrels, and approx. 1900000 orcs on the way to the lost dwarven kingdom and the titular dragon.

The Good: Martin Freeman, especially, and the rest of the cast, are very good. Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo is one of the great performances in the entire LOTR/Hobbit film series and he does an excellent job of grounding the otherworldly happenings in a relatable and endearing way. Ian McKellen IS Gandalf at this point, and despite the fact that his character is less capable and powerful than he was when we parted at the end of the LOTR trilogy, he encompasses the spirit of the character so fully that he's basically the wizard archetype at this point. The plot is much more compelling this time around, and doesn't feel as needlessly bloated. Even though Legolas was never in the book, his presence here doesn't seem out of place and actually makes a lot of sense, and it's nice to see a familiar face. Smaug is impressive, and the scenes of Bilbo trying to outwit the dragon are the best in the film.  



The Bad: despite the clear improvement, this film still faces many of the problems of the first installment. Where the LOTR trilogy used CGI in spots, it primarily relied on makeup and practical effects. The Hobbit films have gone full George Lucas on us, using CGI effects and characters to make the proceedings feel an awful lot like a cartoon. Plus, how many times is someone going to fall 50+ feet onto rock and emerge unscathed? The issue of the plot feeling like one long chase remains, even if its not as glaring as it was in the first film, and I'm still forced to ask just how many orcs are chasing them?

If you're a fan of Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's Middle Earth, you'll like this one as well. It's not as good as any of the Lord of the Rings films, but we knew that going in. Despite way too much CGI, a bloated plot and the most pointless "love" story that's ever been on film, it's still a marked improvement over the first Hobbit film and actually moves at a brisk pace despite the runtime.

7.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review

The first "Hunger Games" film was a flawed, yet effective effort to bring the best-selling young adult book series to life. It featured a powerhouse cast, including the always great Jennifer Lawrence as the lead, but its slavish devotion to the source material ultimately robbed the film of its emotional punch. The movie was simply too concerned with getting the details right to focus on the importance of making an effective stand-alone piece of media.  Additionally, by and large the world was not sufficiently developed. We're taken to this place and shown things, but the film by and large feels like it's just happening with little emotional resonance. A lot of this was due, no doubt, to the first book being the least cinematic of the trilogy, with a lot of the action taking place in Katniss' head. Jennifer Lawrence is a spectacular actress, but even she can only do so much with a story that underplays the book series' greatest strength: the world and political tension therein.

Enter: "Catching Fire". The question is: would the powers that be behind this incredibly lucrative (the first Hunger Games made $400 million at the domestic box office) film series improve on a promising start and fix the rather obvious and seemingly simple issues? Or would they rest on their laurels, content to bank hundreds of millions on as little effort as possible? The answer, thankfully for we the audience, is that with a new director (Francis Lawrence taking over for Gary Ross) and a higher budget, Lionsgate would step up to the plate, and give us a film befitting its star.

In "Catching Fire", Katniss finds herself and her world reeling from the events of the first film. Her defiance of the capital has led to rising discord among the districts, and her new-found celebrity and notoriety has her every action scrutinized by President Snow and the power brokers in the capital. She, being the naive bumpkin that she is, wishes that everything would return to "normal", but it soon becomes clear that that can never be the case. A curveball in the form of a "Quarter Quell" means that Katniss and Peeta find themselves returning to the arena, with the stakes even higher the second time around.

The Good: Jennifer Lawrence, as she's been in every single thing that I've seen her in, is simply tremendous.  Her performance in this film is one of the better performances I can recall in a big budget blockbuster, a subtle portrait of trauma and its aftermath, really grounding the otherworldly nature of the proceedings in a decidedly human way. The rest of the cast seems to have stepped their game up as well, (RIP, Philip Seymour Hoffman!) with the stakes feeling much, much higher this time around. The higher budget was really put to work as well, with the world feeling much more fantastic and immersive. The world at once seems grittier and prettier to look at, and that's no easy task.



The Bad: Again, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson have negative chemistry. I'm inclined to blame Hutcherson for this, since he probably won't be working in any capacity in another 5 years, but whoever is to blame for it, it really detracts from the overall strength of the story and that's really going to be an issue in the final installments of the series. Look at JLaw's scenes with Lenny Cravitz. They CRACKLE, man. Hutcherson just sort of mealy mouths around, likely sad that he's 3 inches shorter than his "love" interest. Not good stuff, Lionsgate. Additionally, despite the fact that the improved budget really expanded the world, there's still the issue of what, exactly, is going on in Panem. Is this a problem with the source material? YOU BET. But, it appears that Panem is all of the US and quite possibly all of North America, right? District 12 appears to be Appalachia... and has a population of, what? 5,000? I'm confused as to what happened to everyone. EXPLAIN, Suzanne Collins.

Ultimately, as far as sci-fi dystopian blockbusters go, you could do much, much worse than "Catching Fire". Jennifer Lawrence is one of the 3 best actresses working today, and she really knocks this one out of the park. This one is in every way better than the first Hunger Games film, and well worth a watch if you're into this sort of thing at all.

8/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Thor: The Dark World" Review

Of all of the "first generation" Marvel films, "Thor" was maybe the biggest surprise. Not because it was particularly good, because among the Marvel films it's among the weaker entries (and seems to take place in a one-block town that appears to have been built for purposes of the movie), but rather because it's even slightly good or watchable. The character of Thor in the Marvel Comics universe is, let's be honest, completely nonsensical. He's the literal Norse god of myth, an immortal Asgardian who is revealed to be a cosmic alien rather than an actual deity. Silly and nonsensical, right? Even in a universe where being bitten by a radioactive spider gives one the relative strength and dexterity of a spider.  But relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth really sold his portrayal, making the character believable and likable while a powerhouse cast (Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston in particular) fleshes out the world. Thor wasn't given a TON to do in "The Avengers", but Loki got a huge boost as the main villain, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to expand with Thor's second solo film.

Following the events of the first Thor film and the Avengers, Thor and his loyal warriors find themselves putting down rebellions across several worlds. Save all discussions of the virtues of absolute monarchy for other places, as this one is working JUST FINE, thank you. Thor is being groomed to take over the throne of Asgard from his father/the Allfather but continues to dream of earth and Jane Foster/Natalie Portman, who he met for approximately 48 hours in the first Thor movie, but whatever. After an ancient evil that threatens the survival of all of the worlds is discovered, earth and Asgard find their fates intertwined yet again.

The Good: Marvel made the decision following "The Avengers" to branch out its other properties into differing genres. Here, this works to perfection. The first 'Thor' film was a more straightforward superhero origin story, but for round two we're given a fantasy/sci-fi romp with much more humor and a fun approach to what could have otherwise been dense and confusing nonsense. Director Alan Taylor, after honing his fantasy chops on "Game of Thrones" proves to have been a perfect choice to take over the Thor franchise. The powerhouse cast, led by Hemsworth as Thor, Portman as the love interest, Anthony Hopkins as Odin and Tom Hiddleston as Thor's adopted brother and Avengers villain Loki lend gravitas to the proceedings.  Every scene with Loki is a treat, as Hiddleston really brings a smarmy humanity and depth to a character who could have easily been a one-note villain. The effects are great and the plot serves to advance Thor as a character and provide an explanation for why he finds himself so interested in Earth. But the main draw here is the tone. Quite simply, this film is a ton of fun to watch. Comic relief is around every corner, but it successfully manages to toe that line between "silly" and "fun".. and that's no easy feat. The supporting characters, especially Kat Dennings, make it clear that everyone involved knows just how silly everything is, but it's still a lot of fun and never feels cheap.


The Bad: the plot feels a bit empty, due primarily to a lack of development of the villains. I get the impression that Malekith was intended to be a counterpoint to Asgard and Odin, but that many of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. As a result, the villains wind up being a sort of mysterious menace that wants merely to destroy everything out of spite. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with a one-dimensional villain, but in a film that otherwise does a great job with its characters it feels like something's missing.

All in all, if you had concerns about the Marvel stand alone films following the Avengers... you shouldn't. The decision to treat stand-alone films as just that has allowed the characters to veer off in new and interesting directions and really enriched the cinematic universe as a result. Plus, is there a character in film who's more fun to watch right now than Hiddleston's Loki? He's just chewing up scenery here, and the fact that Hemsworth doesn't feel like an afterthought is a credit to just how good he is at giving Thor some humanity. Alan Taylor is a director to keep your eyes on, folks, he's attached to the reboot of the Terminator franchise.

8/10.