2014: The Year in Film: "Fury" Review

The Second World War is easily one of the top 2 or 3 film settings in the history of film. We've seen WW2 done in just about every conceivable way.. and it's easy to see why. The scale of the war is virtually inconceivable to a modern audience, and the clear morality of the conflict makes it easy to tell re-envisioned or adapted versions of virtually any myth or archetypical heroic story by using the war as a backdrop.

David Ayer, the writer/director of Fury, cut his teeth on gritty LA crime dramas. He wrote Training Day, wrote the first Fast and Furious film, wrote and directed the underrated Harsh Times, and wrote and directed End of Watch, here we see a departure (although he did write U-571) with a World War 2 tank film. Ayer's films are violent, often brutal, and hyper-masculine, so it's exciting to see his take on a well-worn genre. Ayer has also been tapped to write and direct WB/DC's Suicide Squad, kind of a superhero twist on The Dirty Dozen, and I think that's kind of an inspired choice.

Here, we are dropped into Germany in April, 1945. The war is nearly over (indeed, it will end on May 8, although our characters don't know that) and our war-weary characters have fought their way into Germany itself. As they face increasingly desperate German defense in hostile territory, the seasoned tank unit is forced to accept a raw recruit due to personnel shortages. This recruit, Norman, (Logan Lerman) has zero training or experience, which is a bit of an issue for the rest of the crew, who have been together for years. The crew, led by "Wardaddy" (Brad Pitt, in a bleak take on his Aldo Raine character from Inglorious Basterds) finds itself tasked with defending an important crossroads at the main column's rear, and desperately trying to survive the war.

The Good: first, I don't think I've ever quite seen WW2 depicted in this way. It's become commonplace in our culture, already inclined to think of veterans in a positive light, to treat every member of the "greatest generation" in a venerated air of hushed respect. That's simplistic, morally simplistic, and quite frankly disrespectful to the millions of unique individuals who served during this time representing all shades of the human condition. This film treats its characters as flawed, dark, cynical but most of all believable human beings. They aren't trying to be heroes. They're guys who've seen a lot of horrible shit and just want to do their job and go home. The film is gritty, dark, and dirty, with everyone constantly covered in filth, mud, grease and blood, the way I imagine a tank crew in enemy territory in 1945 would have been. The action sequences are tremendously and impressively choreographed, and the film features the single finest tank battle I've ever seen depicted on screen. The narrative is tight, despite the long runtime, and it's not overly grand in scope, choosing to focus on "man on the ground" realism rather than large displays. But most of all, the highlight of this film are the performances, and two in particular. Brad Pitt is, at this point, maybe the most quietly assured movie star on the planet. He eases into his roles with aplomb and brings a truly remarkable depth and humanity to a damaged yet charismatic man who easily could have become a caricature. It's become commonplace to rip on Shia LaBeouf, and the guy is no-doubt a weirdo, but in this film he turns in a legitimately great performance as "bible", the tank's gunner and spiritual leader. He's nearly unrecognizable, missing teeth, scarred, mustached and covered in mud while mumbling most of his lines, but his character feels so incredibly true to life and delivers some of the film's most powerful moments. See below. Jon Berenthal (Shane from the Walking Dead) and Michael Pena are strong as well and Logan Lerman grows up before our very eyes on screen. The combat depicted is brutal, and the gallows humor between the men galling, and in a lot of ways this film feels like a war horror movie - which I suppose is what a good depiction of war should be. The violence and gore is occasionally shocking, but I suppose it probably is pretty shocking to see the things one sees in war. By the time of the film's climatic battle, we have spent so much time with these men so intimately, that we are incredibly invested in every shot... and the battle is infinitely better for it.



The Bad: if anything, it may be TOO gory, which could lead to a legitimate criticism of the film taking relish in its disturbing visuals. I don't think that's what the film is trying to do, but there are some horror-gore level visuals that can be a little upsetting. Additionally, I liked what Logan Lerman was doing by and large, but I don't think his character was interesting or compelling enough to match what Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf were up to. Granted, he's an audience cipher and our window into this world, but he's just not that interesting. Additionally, I think it's worth stating that I feel the film ultimately falls a little short of its goal.... there are occasional moments of true... grace? Beauty? And profound humanity.. but at its heart it falls short of greatness, and settles for "damn fine war movie"... which isn't so bad.

Ultimately, this is a poignant, powerful, occasionally upsetting and visually thrilling film. Fans of World War 2 or war movies in any way should not miss this one, as I feel that it's a valuable addition to the war canon. Don't come to see gallant heroes vanquish evil. Come to see human beings cope with hell on earth. And for a few really great actors do some really great work.

8/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "Gone Girl" Review

Gillian Flynn's novel "Gone Girl" was kind of everywhere a few years back. I definitely read it and really liked it, and I think most of the people I know read it. It's a fascinating mix of Americana, noir, murder-mystery and domestic drama all set against the backdrop of the late 2000's economic downturn. Basically a "Lifetime" movie with a twist, the book was a fascinating twist on a familiar narrative, and even if the ending was a controversial one, the book was a pretty massive hit in 2012. The film went into production pretty much immediately thereafter, and once David Fincher's name was attached, I immediately focused on this flick as one to watch. Fincher, the auteur behind films as diverse as Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, has a visual style all his own, and his willingness to delve into the darkest sides of the human condition in a brutal way made him an ideal choice for the adaptation of "Gone Girl". Throw in the fact that Gillian Flynn, the author, was brought on board to help write the adaptation, and there was quite a lot of buzz around this flick upon its release.

In Gone Girl, we're introduced to Nick Dunne, (Ben Affleck) a handsome, aloof, all-American type of guy whose wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) has just gone missing.  Through a mix of flashbacks and following the investigation of the disappearance, it becomes clear that there is more to this picture-perfect couple than meets the eye, and as the media circus descends on the sleepy Missouri town, the entire case begins to spiral out of control.

The Good: it's Fincher, one of the most visually distinctive directors of our time, so the visuals certainly do not disappoint. As Fincher has matured as a filmmaker, he's able to convey simmering tension better than just about anyone in the business, and even though the film isn't able to keep the same sense of mystery going that surrounds a first-time reader of the book, the outcome remains in doubt and keeps you glued to the screen. Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck are pretty-spot on casting, and Pike especially shines, in a role that's not quite like anything else I've ever seen her do. The supporting cast is strong as well, with Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry (?), Kim Dickens and (Ohio native!) Carrie Coon performing admirably as well. Carrie Coon, fresh off of The Leftovers (which I kind of love, btw) shines, and I really hope that she continues to find steady work. The narrative flows and progresses pretty seamlessly, and despite a long runtime the film is pretty tight, without much meandering or wasted space that seems to be a hallmark of many film adaptions of books.



The Bad: The character of Nick is a problem. But he was a problem in the book as well... he's just not interesting, charming or compelling. That's not an indictment of Affleck's performance, because Nick is a big, aloof lug in the book as well, it's just a criticism of the story as a whole. Additionally, the film suffers compared to the book because you, an audience member, never really believes that Nick did it. In the book that remains an open mystery, and the story suffers as a result. Additionally, the ending of the film, even though it's a marked improvement over the ending in the book (I told you the ending was a problem..) still feels abrupt and disappointing. In a film that seems to pride itself on quasi-realism, the ending just... isn't realistic at all, and that is pretty jarring.

In all, if you're a fan of Fincher, a fan of the book, or a fan of neo-noir-ish mysteries, there's a ton to like in this movie. It's dark, it's cynical, it's bleak, but it's also wild and fun in a crazy way. Well worth a watch.

7.5/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Boyhood" Review

Richad Linklater is one of the truly original filmmakers working today. A uniquely American auteur, he came out of the 90's indie movie scene with films like Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly and the Before.... films. (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset and Before Midnight)  Most notably for purposes of discussing Boyhood, his masterpiece, the Before... films, which feature the same actors acting out an extended narrative over the course of decades demonstrate an experimental streak and willingness to play with the usual trappings of film.

Enter: Boyhood. In 2002, Linklater cast a 6 year old boy, Ellar Coltrane (which is a pretty awesome name, btw) as Mason, a boy growing up with a single mom and his sister in Texas, in a film that was to be shot in short segments over the next 12 years until Mason was 18 years old. Rather than a documentary, this was going to be a prolonged narrative that would follow Mason, and with him the other actors cast in the film, over the next 12 years and tell a story that's at once deeply personal and somehow universal in an almost spiritual way.

The Good: First, screw good, pretty much everything about this film is great. This film blurs the line between documentary and narrative pretty seamlessly, and rather than punctuate life with highlights and "big" moments the way works of fiction are want to do, the film allows its narrative to meander through Mason's life like a lazy river. Friends, family members, girlfriends, houses, schools and moments come and go, and we're shown the mundane, the everyday, the stuff that makes life worth living through the eyes of a small boy who is becoming a man before our very eyes. Life's big moments (parents getting married, moving to a new town, etc.) happen in the background and aren't the focus, along with major geo-political and world events (the Iraq War, the election of Barack Obama, the housing crisis, etc.), all of which pass without commentary they way they would in a child's life. Their effects resonate, but for Mason and his family, the focus remains deeply personal and focused on the here and now. This gives the film a timeless and a universal impact. Even if you didn't grow up in Texas in a single parent home, you were a kid, in school, who did _____. You drank with your friends. You got your first car. You talked about girls. (or boys) This universality, for me, made me feel at once small and insignificant, because YOUR shit is kind of everyone's shit, after all, and also part of a greater whole. Everyone involved should be commended for how cohesive everything feels. Despite the fact that it was filmed in snippets over a 12 year span, this is a recognizably cohesive narrative, and that combination of documentary-style devotion to its subjects and a cohesive narrative makes this a wholly unique achievement in the history of film. Having never seen Ellar Coltrane in anything else, I can't say how much of himself he's bringing to Mason and how much of Mason comes from the page, but he's a sensitive, likable, charming individual and Mason's quiet likability as the audience's cipher really draws you in to the film. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are great as well, and as the film progresses and they age into their new status quo, their character's interactions with Mason progress as well in an organic and natural way... which makes the parent-child relationship really shine through in a way that I don't believe I've ever seen on film before. Lorelei Linklater, the director's daughter, plays Mason's sister, and despite not looking like her on-screen "parents" or "brother" the way that Mason does, she undergoes a similar and equally powerful transformation of her own. Even if this film isn't going for the BIG cry or the BIG resolution in the way that the trailer would have you believe or a traditional movie typically would, it's just as powerful, and more affecting than just about any work of fiction I've ever encountered.



The Bad: there isn't much, if anything that's not to like here. If I had one criticism, it would be a lack of development of supporting characters. I get that 12 years is a long commitment, I do. But the narrative feels sparse at times because it focuses on our primary subjects at the expense of the world around them.

In all, though, this is quite possibly the greatest film I've ever seen. It's definitely the most powerful. Despite being 3 hours long, I was rapt throughout, and the fact that this thing successfully worked despite EVERYTHING that could have gone wrong is an achievement in and of itself. Even if you aren't a boy growing up in Texas, and I've never even been to Texas, there's something universal and timeless about Mason and his family. If the task of fiction is, as I've heard, to comment on the human condition, then we have an undeniable masterpiece here. Technically brilliant, incredibly touching, and with a refreshing sense of universality and awe, Boyhood kind of grabs you and never lets go. Is it my favorite movie ever? Probably not. But it just might be the best movie I've ever seen.

10.

2014: The Year in Film: "A Most Wanted Man" Review

So, the overdose/death/suicide of Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the truly sad premature deaths of the last few years. One of the truly great and distinctive talents of his generation, he was only 46 years old when he passed... and I'm legitimately still a little sad about it. Other than his crowning achievement, his Best Actor Oscar for Capote, he turned in particularly memorable roles in The Master, Doubt, Boogie Nights, Charlie Wilson's War, and so on and so on. He was the type of performer who left his mark on every single role, no matter how small (hell, he was even pretty great in Along Came Polly) and who elevated otherwise forgettable films into great, memorable works just by the sheer force of his talent. I was, and remain, incredibly sad to see him go, as I feel that his best years may have been ahead of us, but as a small consolation he left us a few more films to remember him by. In addition to the final Hunger Games flicks, which are 'meh' as far as PSH goes, he left us with A Most Wanted Man, an adaption of a John le Carre spy novel. (le Carre, who had worked for British intelligence during the Cold War also wrote "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" among numerous other books)

In A Most Wanted Man, we're introduced to Hamburg, Germany, where a mysterious Chechan man swims to shore and attempts to hide with the local Muslim community. German and American intelligence services take an interest with this man - who may have ties to terrorism - and the spies on the ground struggle to discover the truth before its too late.

The Good: like a good spy novel, quality TV drama or 70's-era film, the plot unfolds gradually, choosing to focus on character points and narrative tension over James Bond-style action and car chases. I'm under the impression that this film paints a realistic picture of what spycraft and intelligence work are really like focusing on the bureaucratic, political elements, although of course I have absolutely zero perspective on what is or is not "realistic" when it comes to such things. Rather than painting its characters as "good" or "bad", more or less everyone exists in a shade of grey, and it remains a legitimate question for most of the film as to whether the "most wanted man" in question is a legitimate target and potential terrorist or a political refugee and victim. Philip Seymour Hoffman is, in a word, brilliant. His Gunther Bachmann is understated, intense, and driven despite the failures of his career, and his posture, mannerisms and every move belie a man determined to fight for his beliefs even as he's nearly been defeated by the demands of his chosen profession. Even though the performance is more subtle than what's typically considered "great", this film is a great encapsulation of what made PSH such a tour de force on the screen. If it's not an ideal farewell, it's a suitable one. The rest of the cast doesn't quite keep pace with him, but Willem Dafoe, Robin Wright and newcomer Grigoriy Dobrygin are bright spots.



The Bad: the plot is at times a bit melodramatic, and some of the character motivations don't quite make sense. Rachel McAdams is miscast, as she's simply not up to the task of matching PSH in a serious film, and her character's motivations seem to miss, as she's simply not believable as a crusading immigration lawyer. Additionally, this film falls into the personal pet-peeve trap of having American actors playing Germans talking to each other in English with German accents. I have always thought that is just absurd, and I know that it's an old Hollywood trope, but I simply cannot abide it and think it's always ridiculous. We're all adults. We can read a movie. Film it in German or adapt it so that it's set in an English-speaking country.

In all, you're coming to this film for one reason and one reason only: to see one of the greats in his last performance as a leading man. Even though the film is subtle and understated, it's done well, and PSH for his part does not disappoint. So if you're a PSH fan, or feel like watching what's basically a very good extra-length episode of Homeland, you'll like what you see.

7.5/10