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.

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 Counselor" Review

Cormac McCarthy is easily one of the greatest living American novelists. The Road, Blood Meridian, and No Country for Old Men top the list of his works. So getting him to write an original screenplay should be a good thing, right? Ridley Scott is undoubtedly one of the greatest living directors. 'Alien', 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Blade Runner' top the list of his best films. So getting him to direct a film written by Cormac McCarthy should be an amazing thing, right? When you throw in a cast led by Michael Fassbender, Benicio Del Toro, Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz, and a big budget, all of the ingredients are here to have a film that at the very least is quite good, right? So what makes a good movie? If you can't just throw together a great writer, a great director and a great cast and mix it up at random, does that mean there's a certain alchemy to the whole process? YES!!! OF COURSE THERE IS. Someone needs to tell 20th Century Fox this. You'll see what I mean in a bit.

So if you've ever read Cormac McCarthy, you'd understand why his writing style is potentially problematic if applied directly to screen, and why the film adaptations of his work are often pretty heavily modified. His writing is sparse and muscular, preferring to show rather than explain, and while that's something that can be extremely effective in film, in my experience film characters often need more fleshing out than their book counterparts. A character in a book can be sufficiently fleshed out by just living inside of their head, but the same technique when applied to film can make the whole enterprise feel empty. Hollow, even. So how does this translate to screen?

In "The Counselor", Michael Fassbender plays the titular character, a high-priced lawyer of some sort who finds himself mixed up with the wrong crowd. Various other "wrong crowd" characters abound. Consequences ensue.

The Good: there are some solid and tense scenes, and the film looks beautiful. Additionally, it doesn't shirk from the brutal violence that defines the drug trade, especially for the Mexican cartels. Beautiful people wearing beautiful things in beautiful places is always pretty to look at, at least. To a certain extent, I appreciate not having my hand held through the plot. It doesn't necessarily bother me that the details are sparse - the details are sparse in, say, Pulp Fiction, right? Fassbender, at least, does what he can with the material, and maybe I just have a soft spot for him, but in a world so lacking in details and exposition, all he can do is react to things that we aren't really in the loop on.



The Bad: the rest of the accomplished and surely expensive cast isn't given much to do but lounge around on couches in expensive clothes and lecture our erstwhile protagonist (who assumes that role just by virtue of his existing) with 200-level philosophy meanderings on the nature of fate, good and evil, snuff films, etc. Great actors like Javier Bardem and Brad Pitt are paraded around like clowns in preposterous outfits and give one long soliloquy after another to a guy who I'm not sure we're particularly supposed to like or care about. It's like McCarthy got REALLY pissed at how everyone praised Tarantino and decided he'd do one better. However, where Tarantino's films carry themselves with exuberant panache, McCarthy's first attempt feels at once bloated and empty, both stale and needlessly nihilistic.Neither his attempts to humor or disturb land with the effectiveness of literally dozens of cheaper and less star-studded films that I've seen. Ultimately, the plot doesn't feel sparse for narrative reasons, it feels sparse out of laziness. For every legitimately "cool" scene there are three that are boring at best, and fail at portentous with a particularly vile brand of postmodern pretension more often than not.  This is a film that references far better media and geopolitical occurrences out of hand, choosing instead to focus on college stoner-level diatribes on topics from the profane to the "profound".

So if you've been wondering if combining a great writer with a great director and a better cast = great film... your question has been answered, and that answer is an enthusiastic "NO". There are elements of a strong film here, but ultimately it feels cheap, whitewashed, needlessly flashy, and far inferior to other modern noir flicks. The unique combination of feeling simultaneously hollow and ridiculously bloated is something that's generally reserved for huge action flicks, but Scott and McCarthy seem to have brought that "After Earth" feeling to a whole new genre. So check it out if you feel like seeing some cool deaths and have already watched every single kind of good movie that you can get your hands on. Otherwise, I think you can skip this one.

4/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "World War Z" Review

If you guys are looking for something that's somehow incurred more nerd rage than Star Trek Into Darkness, here's your target. Some day I'll write a post theorizing about the calculus that goes into nerd group think and whether or not they'll accept an adaptation of a widely beloved work, but for now let's just say that the reaction is often swift, completely illogical, and irreversible. "World War Z"was first a novel by Max Brooks (Mel's son!) that detailed an oral history of a worldwide zombie pandemic. It was written as a collection of individual accounts that together shape a global tale. It's seriously worth a read, as it touches on the international and geopolitical scale of a zombie apocalypse that is so often seen only through the eyes of a small group of survivors in zombie fiction. This film is not that book. Other than the title and the fact that the main character works for the United Nations and trots the globe, it bears only surface details with the book - and that's fine! The disparate characters, multitude of settings (and genres!) and fact that the book exists as a series of first-person narratives would have made straightforward adaption all but impossible. The film instead chooses to do zombies bigger and differently than we've seen on film to this point.. and I'm cool with that.

This film faced some legendary obstacles to production - surely associated with the difficulty adapting the book to a 2 hour movie, but there were issues with multiple re-writes and issues that required several weeks of re-shoots. In all, the film's budget ballooned and it began to risk a reputation as a disaster in the making. Mark Forster (Quantum of Solace) directs a screenplay that 75% of the writers in Hollywood have touched, and Brad Pitt stars as former UN investigator Gerry Lane. The film opens as Gerry is at home with his family when the worldwide zombie outbreak hits the Eastern US. After a tense escape and rescue, Gerry finds himself aboard a flotilla of ships that serves as UN headquarters and is tasked with investigating the virus so that a cure may be found. His investigation takes him around the world as he seeks to uncover clues about the disease among widespread destruction and mayhem.  

The Good: this film looks great. The CGI and effects are seamless and we are given zombie mayhem on a scale that we haven't seen in movies before. The disparate locations give a taste of what a worldwide zombie outbreak/apocalypse might actually resemble - as that's something that's typically depicted on a much smaller, more intimate level. There are some extremely tense and thrilling scenes, including a few of the most effective thriller set pieces I can recall. It's highly reminiscent of Alien, Aliens or 28 Days Later in that way. The way that this film created its world and its zombies, these zombies are much more terrifying that the traditional variety, and that makes for some thrilling and high stakes set pieces. The film really hits the ground running (there's no boring 20 minutes of exposition here) and that sets the stage and the stakes for what follows. In sharp contrast to the majority of action/sci fi films that have been released in ohhh, the last decade (looking at you, Man of Steel), World War Z is not 20 minutes too long, and if anything feels a little abrupt. In addition, Brad Pitt is (as always, or at least as always since the late 90's) very good. He's not your traditional action here in this one, but he's believable as a humanitarian investigator and grounds what could have been an insane destruction fest in a modicum of humanity.



The Bad: on further evaluation, the film kind of falls apart, but then again, it's about zombies, and I'm not sure there's a plausible explanation that doesn't just involve vampire-style magic. In addition, other than Pitt, no one else is given a lot of characterization, so we're really just rooting for "humanity" vs the zombie horde rather than any specific people. Also, rather than represent a revolution in zombie storytelling, this flick sort of borrows a bit from here and a bit from there (a little 28 Days Later, some Dawn of the Dead, a little Contagion, and boom.), and it feels a little TOO derivative at times.

In all, this film brings enough to the table and features some legitimately great and incredibly tense scenes to be a whole hell of a lot of fun to watch. It will probably fall apart when you're driving home and discussing it, but that doesn't change the fact that while it was going on you were probably a little scared and pretty damn enthralled. World War Z is much, MUCH better than anyone was giving it credit for a month ago.

7.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Moneyball" Review

Moneyball Before we review this badboy, let's have a brief discussion about theater etiquette. Where did people learn that it's ok to carry on a full-volume conversation in a theater? It seems that theater behavior is pretty fundamental.. they remind you on the screen prior to the start of the movie for christ's sake. Like, how self-absorbed are you that you really aren't even whispering? What the hell? The most annoying thing people do (listen up, ladies) is ask questions mid-movie. Let me let you in on a little secret: ALL WILL BE REVEALED. Seriously, something fun about books, and movies, and TV shows is that they tend to explain things in time. I can guarantee one of two things: either the very thing you are asking will be explained, probably in short order, or the movie you're watching is full of holes and a piece of shit. Questions like "who's that?", "what's he doing", etc. are so incredibly stupid. If it isn't already painfully clear, either explicitly or through context, it's about to be made explicitly clear. If you're unable to interpret the clear signals given to you by people who tell stories for a living, either you're stupid or the movie you're watching is. Either way: DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FUCKING MOVIE. It is getting to the point where I am considering bringing some sort of shank to the theater. A woman probably aged between 55 and 70 was seated directly behind me and asking pretty basic questions at full volume. Literally no effort to whisper whatsoever. If you don't know what baseball free-agency is.. 45 minutes into a movie that you paid and everyone else paid $10 to get into is probably not the time to familiarize yourself with an extremely elementary concept that would probably be best solved BEFORE SEEING A BASEBALL MOVIE. The whole concept of whatever that woman was up to is so damn stupid to me that it hurts my brain. But anyway, ON WITH THE REVIEW.

So "Moneyball" is based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis that chronicled Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's then and now, and his push of a computerized, sabermetric approach to building a major league baseball team. I love baseball, I love science, and I love statistics and the new sabermetric approach to baseball and sports in general, so I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read the book, despite it being recommended to me literally 10+ times. However, I am familiar with the story and people involved, so I was excited to see this one. Bennett Miller, best known for directing "Capote" is at the helm, and Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, adapting Lewis' book.

It is 2001, and the Oakland A's, fresh off a 100+ win season and disappointing playoff loss, find that they've lost their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) to free-agency and are facing the difficult prospect of rebuilding on a serious budget. At the time, the Oakland A's had a payroll of less than $40 million while the New York Yankees (among others) had a payroll of around $140 million. (In case you're curious, this situation has only become worse over time) Beane, frustrated at the situation he's facing, decides that a new approach is required to help his team compete. After meeting a young staffer for the Cleveland Indians (sad face) who is using an innovative computer program to evaluate talent and maximize value, Beane brings the staffer to Oakland as Assistant GM, and the two overhaul the team based on statistical analysis rather than "look" and "tools" and the traditional things valued by old-school baseball scouts.

I know, it sounds boring. But Aaron Sorkin wrote it... and he's an amazing, amazing screenwriter. Did you like "the Social Network"? Yeah, he did that. Among many, many other things. Sure, on the surface it's about baseball, but really this film is about science and rationality and change challenging tradition and the old guard. There was, and continues to be in some circles (cough, Joe Morgan, cough) substantial resistance and even hostility to the "moneyball" approach... but make no mistake, sabermetrics are now used to at least some extent by just about every baseball franchise and are spreading to other sports. Billy Beane and co. were first. By mixing in baseball action with drama and scenes fleshing out Billy Beane, the film manages to rise above its somewhat limited synopsis to become part biopic, part social commentary, part sports movie and part documentary.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane.. and this flick would have succeeded or failed based just about entirely on his performance. He does not disappoint. His version of Beane is intense, standoffish and a whole lot of a prick, but also very likable. Considering that probably 1/3rd of the movie is Beane by himself or with one other person being intense, a strong Beane is an absolute requirement. Jonah Hill makes a foray into the serious as the fictional (his character is in fact a combination of a couple of different assistants to Beane) Peter Brand, a Yale-educated computer whiz who never played baseball at any level. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is virtually unrecognizable as the pudgy, priggish Manager of the A's who is skeptical of Beane's new approach. Chris "Andy from Parks and Rec" Pratt makes a foray into the serious as Moneyball wet dream exemplar Scott Hatteberg. Once I got over "holy shit, that's Andy!" mode, he was very good and brought an "aw schucks" charm to the role. The supporting players are all very good and believable, but make no mistake, this is Pitt's film.. and he more than rises to the challenge.



The screenplay is tight and brings, through the use of flashbacks, some context and depth to the proceedings so it's not just simply a straightforward telling of the A's 2002 season. The dialogue is crisp and often funny, the characters feel very human, and by framing the film as a contest between underdog outsiders vs. good old boy traditionalism, the film transcends sports and has a lot to say about society in general. I really liked this movie.. it's top 3 for the year.

8.5/10. See "Moneyball" if you like baseball, if you liked "The Social Network", or if you're in the mood to see something made for grownups and demonstrates the growing potential of film. If they can turn "Moneyball" and Bill James' sabermetrics into a movie, I'm excited to see what's coming.