Change Your Image
leecjaster
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
DC Comics has no idea how to build a universe, and despite some shortcomings, Man of Steel passes; though not with flying colors
In reviewing Man of Steel, I have to divulge a few biases that will help everyone immensely in deciding whether or not to check out the Zack Snyder/Christopher Nolan take on the comic book icon.
I do not — repeat — do not have a problem with origin stories or integral details to the Superman character (as presented in the comics) to be changed. This goes for any of the recent Marvel adaptations which are slowly allowing auteurs to grab hold of a vision and go, taking the reigns and creating far, far better films than would have been possible with a studio puppet behind the cameras.
Man of Steel takes a lot of liberties. There are a lot of key points that have become part of the Superman lexicon than are absent from Snyder's vision. To this reviewer, it was a welcome break of tradition to bring Superman into this generation.
What Man of Steel gets right makes it (hopefully) the start of a series of films with Henry Cavill and Snyder working in tandem. Cavill is fantastic as not only Superman, but Kal-el and Clark Kent. The three roles are clearly separated in the narrative, as Cavill is given a wide spectrum of emotions to play upon. Who is he? Is he alien? Human? A god? A farm-boy from Kansas?
Man of Steel hits full gear when the plot is dealing with the struggle for Superman to find an identity. The script, written by David S. Goyer, has the feel of The Dark Knight Rises — for better and for worse.
There are epic choices that will shape Superman's growth in this universe. It's a great jumping off point for the franchise (and hopefully a similar-in-style Justice League film), but it has the same holes the The Dark Knight Rises did. Frankly, the dialog is laughable at points. Partly due to the fact that DC has chosen to be a strictly "no- fun" zone, whereas Marvel is happy to provide levity in its universe. This leaves DC dark and gritty, which requires better dialog than, "You're a monster Zod, and I'm going to stop you." (Maybe it's a mid- west thing?)
Instead of having to endure Brandon Routh attempting to be attracted to Kate Bosworth (which should be a feat for no man, let alone a Superman), we're treated to Amy Adams and Henry Cavill ready to get "under the cape" from the opening glances. It's a palpable chemistry that appears to be completely organic, and completely unforced by the script. It's a bright, unexpected spot in the grim world that Snyder & Co. have created.
On the acting front, Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe are absolute treats. Shown through a series of flashbacks, these provide touching moments to the character that is Superman, pulled between two worlds. The central core of each of Superman's fathers' teachings is love and destiny. There's empowerment in these words, and an honesty that Goyer should be praised on. The dialog here works like magic in he hands of Crowe and Costner.
The one mild disappointment is with Michael Shannon. No, his performance is worthy, but it's thin. General Zod is played slightly more ambiguous that he should have been. In fact, with Cavill's performance being so varied and conflicted, the only character who seems to have any real confidence are Crowe's Jor-el, and Adams's Louise Lane. Imagine Batman Begins without Liam Neeson's final few scenes, which would have left Ra's Al Ghul a bit of a polarizing, morally-debatable villain. The final scenes rounded out him as a nemesis to Batman, and the protagonist's growth is that much more focused.
Shackled by some hack dialog in key moments, Shannon's Zod is lost in internal conflict, and we never get the cinematic payoff the audience deserves in a Superman/Zod showdown.
Overall
It's all there — Zimmer's score, Snyder's stingingly beautiful CGI vision, Nolan's Machiavellian antagonist against the outcast protagonist, and Goyer's hit-and-miss dialog — and it passes, barely.
If you're a hardcore fan of Superman, you have to see this in the theaters, regardless of your view of augmenting the gospel. Casual fans of Superman and Snyder's work will feel right at home, along with those who have generally enjoyed Nolan's Dark Knight saga. More than anything, that nagging feeling of what the trailers promised is going to sit with you for a few days after, in the same way a few of the scenes feel like moving works of art will — a high compliment to Snyder's growth visually. He's more tasteful and polished than he was with Watchman and 300.
Man of Steel barely breaks the sound barrier, but it breaks it; and the idea of seeing two or three more films with this Man of Steel, well, it'll keep audiences flying high.
The Artist (2011)
The moment the credits roll, you'll want it to start all over again.
The Artist is, without a doubt, one of the best movies of the year. An original masterwork filled with true moments of joy, drama, pain, and classic romance that hasn't been seen on-screen this side of Singing in the Rain or Gone With the Wind.
For the modern audience, most of whom have never actually seen a silent film, the task of sitting through an entire production based around the concept of a silent actor portrayed in a silent movie will prove to be a cinematic curve that will deter certain audience members (see: anyone who liked Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides).
For those who are willing to listen, The Artist will provide the most satisfying taste of cinema's ability to truly entertain.
George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a prominent silent film star in the late 1920s. On the top of the world, Valentin spends his days working at a job he loves, coming home to his loyal (and adorable) dog, Uggie . He also comes home to his wife, Doris (Penelope Anne Miller), but a brief hello is the extent of their vapid interaction.
Valentine has a chance meeting with a fan while schmoozing for the crowd, and this serendipitous event turns out to have vast repercussions on George's future. The girl, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), soon musters up her own career, eventually finding a place for herself in Hollywood. The attraction is immediate and visceral, but the two cannot consummate their feelings.
When "talkies" become the future of the movie industry, George finds himself out of work, a has-been, and decides to prove the world wrong by making his own silent feature. All the while, Peppy finds herself as the new face of the talking Hollywood era. From here The Artist weaves a wonderfully spirited portrayal of a man who has it all, loses what he loves, and must come to terms with what his life can be.
Will he find love? Will he get back on top? Will he make it out alive?
Valentin is one of cinema's most empathetic characters to come along in years. He's a throwback to the stern of mind, light of feet, and "quick with a joke or a light of your smoke" movie stars from a by-gone era. Jean Dujardin, who has rightfully earned many awards and nominations for his performance is simply—enigmatic. He shows more emotion in his left eyelash than most actors over an entire career.
Physical comedy, which hasn't been enjoyable on-screen since Jim Carrey and Chris Farley were able to capture the magic again in the early '90s, is finally back. When George and Peppy engage in a Deliverance moment of back and forth dance steps, the audience cannot help but smile. The Artist is a gift, it brings the past to the present, full of all the original charm and charisma that made cinema a worthy art form in its genesis.
In order to engage a modern audience effectively, The Artist boasts a captivating score by Ludovic Bource. Helping to keep the audience up to speed with the tone and feeling of each scene, the score's heightened importance creates a different kind of cinematic experience that hasn't been around since the silent film era. There is no other score as integral as The Artist's is to its success.
The Artist is also masterfully directed by Michel Hazanavicius, choosing to visually move the audience with shots framed with a classic elegance and movement. (It was actually shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio from the silent film era.) The scene that showcases this best features George drinking whiskey on a reflective table. The camera turns upside down, framing his reflection, only to have the whiskey poured on top and distill his appearance. The scene gives the audience everything they need know about the character, and it's simply brilliant to watch.
Overall
A captivating and cultured cinematic love letter to the era of Hollywoodland, The Artist not only hearkens back to the best of the era, but pushes modern cinema forward with a look back to where it came from. It's amazing with all of the hack Hollywood scripts floating around, the idea of turning them into silent movies shouldn't be altogether cast aside. (It's a shame The Artist wasn't around before George Lucas started working on his prequels, audiences may have never been subjected to that horrid excuse for dialog. C'est la vie.)
On the Side
Uggie is one one of the best on-screen dogs in years. In fact, this year boasted a rather large collection of memorable pets, including Arthur in Beginners, Dolce in Young Adult, Skeletor in 50/50, and (stretching a bit here) Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Any dog lover must see The Artist, simply to shed a few tears about the love between a man and his best friend.
The Descendants (2011)
A dramatic American masterpiece
Alexander Payne's painstaking dramas are a vital piece of the modern cinematic landscape. Sideways was a piece of pure inspired craftsmanship, full of rich characters and a wonderfully intricate weaving of plot points that didn't feel heavy handed. Payne has perfected the art of the American drama into a craft, one that he continues to develop.
The Descendants, which sports the best performance of George Clooney's career, is the best American family drama since American Beauty. Payne's careful attention to slowly crafting a script that features a complicated web of emotions, relationships, and mistakes has paid off in one of the most defining looks at the modern American family in all its glory and pitfalls.
Set in Hawaii, The Descendants chronicles one of the most difficult periods of time in Matt King's life. Currently in the middle of negotiating a massage real estate deal that involves the land he and his family have inherited since the foundling of Hawaii itself, Matt finds himself taking care of his two young daughters as their mother (Elizabeth) was severely injured in a boating accident. Matt has been an absentee father, "a back-up parent", as Payne's script eloquently states, and now finds himself thrust in the spotlight.
If the situation couldn't get complicated enough, Matt's eldest, troubled daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) confesses that Elizabeth was cheating on him. The Descendants beautifully sets up a dramatic centerpiece which is full of a few unexpected and beautifully written plot points that keep things more than interesting. Payne's strength is the ability to continually keep the audience guessing what's next, knowing that whatever is on the horizon is going to enhance the already well constructed dramatic situation.
Think about the last time the genuine feeling of surprise occurred at the movies. Few and far between. Payne is one of the who stays ahead of his audience, leading, instead of pushing them towards the narrative's climax.
The ultimate strength of a drama relies on the fine line between telling the audience how to feel, and allowing the audience to feel the intended emotion. The best dramas take it a step further, presenting such a realistic emotional palette that the audience may not know what to feel, or feel several conflicting emotions at once. That is the high water mark for a drama, and Payne has put The Descendants among the best there is. More so than than the shining dramas of last year (Social Network, True Grit, King's Speech, Black Swan), a modern, un-stylized drama is difficult to get past the sniff test of smart audiences—there's no fallback to style.
This is the life we all lead as Americans, and even though audiences will never know what went on in the courtrooms during the Facebook lawsuit (or if "Lawyer up, asshole!" was ever actually said), or how hard life really was on the rough lands of Arkansas for a Marshall and a young girl on a bounty hunting mission; audiences know how hard their own lives are. It presents the most difficult grading curve there is, and The Descendants couldn't have been a more effective and gut wrenching effort. It's no wonder it took Payne seven years to craft this, and it's his masterpiece... so far.
Overall
Movies are cheap laughs, easy entertainment, external stimulation, an adrenaline high, and exploitive money making devices. Movies are art, moving paintings, emotional experiences, and a cathartic way of coping and understanding the human condition. Some movies are a canvas for a visual genius (Malick, Fincher), a conceptual idea (Moneyball), or a novel undertaking (The Artist).
Alexander Payne is the impressionistic genius of the modern American drama. Up close, it's beautiful and impactful, but when viewed from a step back, there's an overwhelming and emotional connection with something we can only connect with through art.
Footloose (2011)
Despite not having a reason to actually exist, Footloose entertains and captures the charm of the original.
As a cynical movie writer, all the lines were ready to go once the chance to review Footloose finally arrived: "It's a BLT without the Bacon", "1980s cheddar is already old, now molding thirty years later.", and "(Insert rant on Hollywood remakes here)".
But damn-it, the Footloose remake doesn't suck; even if it has no reason to exist.
In the hands of director Craig Brewer, Footloose manages to overcome a one note plot (which was apart of the original as well), potentially obnoxious covers of the original soundtrack, and pulls out memorable performances from each of its leads.
The Footloose remake doesn't make any major changes to the plot line of the original, which essentially boils down to kids being legally prohibited to dance because of a car crash where several teenagers tragically died (they say drink responsibly in the TV ads... isn't that enough?)
Apparently, an epic fail of that size just can't go unpunished by forcing everyone who wants to dance to keep those moves at home – where they belong. Despite the law, young Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald) is determined to shake things up and get his boogie on. Along the way, he'll attempt to woo the reverend's daughter, Ariel Shaw (Julianne Hough), while also taking down the preacher man himself (Dennis Quaid) at the city council.
The plot is laughable, cheesy, and amazingly Brewer manages to make it seem dramatic. No, there's never really a scene that moves past shallow, but there are moments where Hough and Wormald are able to engage in real emotions that have back-story and plausible reasoning. It's an accomplishment that should probably be awarded with an Oscar, but alas, it's not that kind of award show.
Among the many triumphs of Footloose, first and foremost is the dancing. It's simply stunning to watch, and is a mixture of step by step reproducing the original dance moves, and adding a new flare as well. The music is the same combination of old and new, and doesn't miss a step (except for the fact that Kenny Loggins's original Footloose plays during the opening scene where the aforementioned teenagers crash -- an obvious and egregious mixing of separate universes).
Special note should also be given to Miles Teller , who plays Willard, originally portrayed by Chris Penn. It seems blasphemous to say, but Teller is as charming as Penn was in 1984. It's once again proof that Brewer knew exactly what he was doing with this project, and each gamble paid off. Brewer didn't pull any punches (or slaps for that matter) in his attempt to update Footloose for the MTV generation
err from the MTV generation.
Okay, the whole MTV generation thing is confusing. Brewer achieves the update however, despite everything working against him, managing to gives the audience something between a choking laugh and a smile.
Overall
Casting two professional dancers in the lead roles turned out to be a winning decision in regards to dramatic elements, as well as the physical/musical ones. it's a shame that Footloose has to exist in the world, but now that it does, this reviewer is okay with it. Strip away all the years of Saturday night on TNT love for the original, and Footloose (2011) is just as exciting, cheesy, and engaging as the original (even without the Bacon).
On the Side
It's nice to see Dennis Quaid in a role that he doesn't phone in. Still, he's borderline. Maybe he just Skyped it in this time.
Drive (2011)
This side of Steven McQueen, it doesn't get any cooler than Ryan Gosling and Drive.
Nicolas Winding Refn isn't known to most American movie-goers. His Pusher trilogy is well known to most cinephiles however, and Bronson helped launched Tom Hardy as a name in the circles of Hollywood, pushing his career where it is now. That is to say, despite his lack of American influence, Refn has already left an impact.
For those unfamiliar with his work, Refn is the scotch of modern cinema. While his usual brew is full of up front oak, Drive starts out smooth and bites three-quarters of the way down. Oh, it hurts so good too.
Drive, brutal, distinctive, and wreaking of cinematic style, is the most diacritic of all films released so far in 2011. Refn has established himself as a forerunner in the modern cinematic landscape as cinematography's new "it" man for cool. Drive, despite a few disjointed creative choices, is a must see. That said, the more vanilla or mainstream the movie goer, the more frustrating the experience of Drive.
Driver (Ryan Gosling) is a Hollywood stunt man by day, and a wheel-man by night. As Drive opens, we see Gosling command the screen with just one line of dialog, shot over a scanning shot of his stark apartment. Dinge oozes from the bedspread, sticks to the walls, and is plastered to the furniture. Refn establishes the tone for Drive in just 90 seconds.
The following six minutes are a 101 for how to shoot a tense action sequence. Drive shows our protagonist weave his way through the streets of L.A. with two criminals in the back, hot after a robbery. Much in the same way The Driver operates, the audience is consistently with the Driver, never taking a moment to care who or what happens in the backseat.
The tight angles shot inside the car give the audience a sensations of being trapped, unable to get out, and ultimately along for the ride. Only the brief shots looking out the front window are relief for the audience, and these scenes almost give the sensation of floating, as the headlights beam out amidst the dark urban-scape.
After the film school clinic is complete, Refn movies on to the narrative. Driver's only true friend, the father figure/mentor Shannon (Bryan Cranston), is his boss at the local mechanic shop, and his stunt coordinator on sets. He is the central point of life, that is until he befriends his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, Benicio.
After the plot finally comes to a head, Gosling's stoic and sincere emotions shine through to keep the audience holding on to some semblance of the ground, just as Drive takes off and pushes audiences to the limit of what everyone can handle. As far as violence goes, it will be more than most can handle, but there's no buyer's remorse here, as Refn quickly darts back across the line after he crosses it. Drive leaves the audience feeling as if they've been punched in the face briefly, but there's no black eye or bruise the next day. It's brilliant.
It's the attention to the line between too much and not enough that Drive thrives on. Even the opening hour, which is nothing but building suspense, feels as if each scene is pushed to the absolute capacity. Each shot lingers and lingers, only to pull away right before the audience wants to move on as well. Refn asks a lot of his audience to truly see the tranquil beauty in Drive, and it isn't for everyone.
Drive's ultimate success is the claustrophobic feeling Refn achieves with tightly cornered shots throughout. Characters are often framed to the left or right, helping to showcase the dynamic felt between characters, and constant lack of stability that each character faces. While everyone involved in the narrative is themselves stable and willing to take the high road, each is also brutally aware of real life, and the decisions it forces upon us.
There are no lambs amongst the lions in Drive. More than cars and speed, that is what Drive is about.
Overall
Drive isn't for everyone, but those who understand the mastery of Refn behind the camera, the understated acting, and the almost serene sense of violence that Refn injects in the final act, Drive is a cinematic dream ride of an adrenaline rush. Don't find yourself missing out on your chance to test Drive.
On the Side
The only missteps of the entire production involve the odd sense of 1980s homage. Everything from the pink script font used in the credits, to Gosling's jacket, has the pungent odor of the '80s. Drive has the feeling of the pilot episode of Miami Vice, complete with Michael Mann's amazing ability to shoot an urban downtown setting. Those elements, along with the new wave/electronic music, gives Drive a feeling that the '80s are about to be cool again... Which it is, right?
Machine Gun Preacher (2011)
Uneven, lackadaisical, and shockingly emotionless.
What in God's name was director Marc Forster thinking when he took on Machine Gun Preacher? Sporting a talented leading man with chops and charm far beyond his most well known work, Gerard Butler can't work his way past a series of unfortunate hurdles Machine Gun Preacher lays out.
Along with Butler, a memorable performance from Michael Shannon (unsurprisingly), and an inspirational story are wasted on an effort that has major issues in tone, plot, and overall message. Machine Gun Preacher is uneven, pedestrian, and shockingly emotionless, conspicuously so for a tale of a man who survives prison and drug abuse to open an orphanage in Africa.
(There's no need for remorse here, just because it's about Africa doesn't mean it's a good flick, or that it needs to be seen.)
Gerard Butler plays Sam Childers, a former drug dealer getting out of prison in the Machine Gun Preacher's opening scene. From the first line, where Butler groans a force expletive at the guard, it's obvious that Machine Gun Preacher has no idea what it's trying to say, nor how to execute it if it did.
After returning home to his wife (Michelle Monaghan) and child (Madeline Carroll), Childers is ready to return to his old ways, since prison didn't change a thing about the man. His wife has found Jesus however, and it's time for Sam to do the same. Hence, after a brief few days of drug fueled insanity with his buddy Donnie (Michael Shannon), resulting in an attempted murder and loads of other good times, he hits rock bottom and gets down with Jesus too.
Don't mistake the tone as satirical, Machine Gun Preacher plays out exactly as described.. It's as if every scene was attempted to be shot with as little effort as possible. It feels as if the audience is reading a biographic of Sam Childers with only straight facts, no sense of motivation of feeling in it. Machine Gun Preacher is dryer than an encyclopedia entry about Childers... Honestly, wikipedia tells a more interesting narrative, and it saves you two hours.
Sam eventually finds God, gets his life together, and embarks on a mission to Africa. The reason for his interest was simple enough, overhearing a guest speaker at church mention the need for volunteers. Sam, whilst in Africa, doesn't just stick to his mission works, instead deciding to tour some of the most dangerous land in the world. He comes back a changed man, something prison never did to him.
Becoming obsessed with Africa, Sam makes frequent trips back to set up an orphanage for children. All of this causes stress at home, conflicts with the life he lives in America, and begins to divide his attention so much that he neglects and loses focus on his family at home for his children abroad.
His friend Donnie also cleaned up his act with God, and is watching over Sam's family while he's gone. The relationship between the two is by far the most interesting in the entire story, but Forster chooses to waste Shannon's glorious talent and keep him in the narrative as little as possible. It's a sub plot that eventually effects Sam's life in am major way, but it wasn't built up enough on-screen, and the audience just doesn't care past Michael Shannon's empathetic performance.
Sounds like the makings of an emotional climax, right? Especially when Sam decides to take matters into his own hands and must defend the orphanage from attack, and Sam even becomes proactive, seeking out baddies to take down. The issue is, none of the action sequences are gripping, every shot is devoid of effort, and the end result is a flat interpretation of what was probably some juicy real life material. It's a damn shame to see Machine Gun Preacher come out the way it did.
Overall
Shannon and Butler shine through the clouds, but it's a losing battle Despite a few moments of emotion or suspense, 90% of Machine Gun Preacher is a flat lined affair. It's a shame that Sam Childers didn't get an on-screen product that is cohesive in its message, pacing, and direction. His life is far more interesting than the product made about it, and the situation in Africa is once again told as a national geographic sociology report, rather than a personal struggle to motivate those to take action. Which, could have been the point of Machine Gun Preacher... it's hard to say.
On the Side
Michelle Monaghan is beyond typecast as this point. Once again, the role seems enticing, Oscar bait even, but in the hands of this director and screenplay, her character is reduced to a supportive yet tough device to further Sam's arc along. She isn't given the time she deserves, just as Shannon's character wasn't.
Real Steel (2011)
Despite the flaws, Real Steel is a fun ride.
Hugh Jackman is one likable guy. It's a gift. Jackman, despite all odds, has retained his ability to somehow give a memorable performance in a movie that is far, far better that it should be.
Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots Real Steel is a family flick with impressive visuals, real characters, and fun to spare. Yes, it's horribly cliché, filled with sometimes groan-worthy dialog, and includes side stories that are little more than afterthoughts, but it doesn't matter. Real Steel is going to entertain everyone between the ages of 10 - 15, and it keeps enough redeeming qualities that anyone over that age can sit through it entertained and surprisingly involved.
Real Steel follows Charlie Kenton (Jackman), a former boxer known for his never-say-die spirit, dealing with life after his professional career in the ring is over. Charlie is hopping from town to town trying to make ends meet fighting robots. Charlie lucks into a situation with his son, whom he left a decade ago, enabling him to get some quick cash and get back in the ring.
With his son Max along for the ride, the two slowly share a bond together, born out of Atom, a scrap yard robot whom the pair has decided to put in the ring for one last shot at the big time. As Max dances and showboats pre-fight, Charlie slowly teaches the robot some fighting moves. Atom becomes a minor sensation, and eventually leads the pair into the professional ring, all of which leads up to a showdown with the undefeated champion of the the robot boxing world, Zeus.
There's no spoilers here, everyone heading into Real Steel knows exactly where the narrative is headed. The slightly flat love story between Charlie and Bailey, played by Kate Evangeline LIlly (the daughter of the boxing gym owner who gave Charlie his big break), is devoid of chemistry, but there's plenty of likability and smiles. There's no tension to the backdrop of Max's situation in regards to his mother's untimely death which thrust him into Charlie's life, nor is there anything palpable to the thrown together characters Charlie comes into contact with on his way to betting his robot in the ring.
But none of that matters...
The shortcomings of Real Steel don't matter in the end, because director Shawn Levy has managed to craft highly immersive robot fighting sequences that are amazingly destructive and brutal. The machines look fantastic on the big screen, and the attention to detail in the fighting sequences keeps the audience wanting more and more.
The only reason the action works, the most surprising aspect of the entire production, is that Charlie and Max are well rounded characters with an interesting dynamic. It's hard to imagine this from the trailers and previews, but they absolutely work on-screen in capturing a growing bond filled with moments of strain and light-hearted joking.
Real Steel is the case of a director with nothing to say (Levy also directed Night at the Museum), telling a story that doesn't have much to say which hasn't been beaten into the ground before, and doing it in a way that is so fun and enjoyable its sickening. Real Steel simply works, despite all its flaws and corny moments, Real Steel contends until the final bell.
Overall
No matter how amazingly terrible Real Steel could have been, it's given life because of Jackman and the impressive visuals. Real Steel simply wouldn't have made it without a stellar looking robot fighting sequence or two, and Jackman is able to somehow take every line of corny dialog and add... something. One time it's a smirk, another time its the vague hint of a tear, and then it's that Jackman smile that lights up the entire theater. Jackman is the MVP of Real Steel, even if he is on an 8 - 8 team come playoff time.
The Ides of March (2011)
The Ides of March should garner buzz for Oscar nominations for Ryan Gosling, and is one of the best films of the year, easily making top ten lists for 2011.
George Clooney's foray into directing has been nothing short of a resounding success. Good Night, and Good Luck showcased the finest acting performances of 2005 in an enthralling slow burn.
Clooney's previous effort, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, gave the world Sam Rockwell's finest performance (yes, edging even Moon). Clooney's motif asks what smart men do under arduous circumstances, and his strength is the space he gives his actors to shine, often by limiting his on-screen time.
With The Ides of March, Clooney has once again crafted a taught situational dynamic of ethics and morality, choosing the modern political landscape as his canvas. The Ides of March is another worthy effort in Clooney's resumé, and gives his lead one of the best performances of his career, allowing Ryan Gosling to captivate and charm with seemingly effortless ease amongst the highest caliber of supporting talent around today (Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman).
The opening half hour of The Ides of March is nearly perfect, as the world of the campaign trial is displayed in "no top button conversations" taking place in hotel rooms and school band halls. The behind the scenes look is enthralling, which immediately sets up the narrative in an engaging way.
Stephen Myers (Gosling) is the brightest political media mind in the country. The Ides of March opens as his candidate, Governor Mike Morris (Clooney), is sitting up double digits in the ever important Ohio primary. Myers and Paul Zara (Hoffman) are the two headed beast driving the political force of an ostensible shoe-in for president. Despite the weakness that the audience never actually sees Myers's savvy on-screen, Gosling's charm and sullen-eyed stared convey enough that The Ides of March needs only to posit these facts.
Gosling is a magnet to those around him, playing everyone as pawns in his game of media chess, as well as the audience. His relationship with Paul grounds Myers from his idealist fantasy that Gov. Morris is "the real deal", as moral and idealistic in his actions as his views, essentially setting Myers up as a modern day Brutus to Morris's Ceasar.
As the Shakespearean title would suggest, someone is going to get stabbed — metaphorically, of course.
Under the immense stress of the campaign, Myers makes the short-sighted decision to strike up a sexual relationship with Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), an intern (what a dirty word in politics). Meanwhile, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamati) proposes to Myers that he's playing for the wrong team, and through a series of political moves, can find himself on the wrong end of this democratic primary.
Each plot development feels as if taken from the stage, with the remnants of Farragut North (the play which The Ides of March is based upon) in every scene. Giamati and Hoffman tackle each extended monologue with the vehemency of Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff in their roles on Sorkin's The West Wing. These scenes are by far the best in the entire work, as Gosling stands in the middle, young and naive to the wiles of the elder political campaigners.
The muted browns and sheering blue palette expose the Iowa chill that falls over the campaign, and in the hands of Clooney, the audience takes a place on the ticket as one event leads to another, spiraling out of control until the climax.
The Ides of March stands as an exploration of politicians, the electoral process, and the implicit understanding of the term guile. The Ides of March is not an exposé, and any critic taking up issue with The Ides of March and its want to simply explicate the struggle of Gosling's character, is asking The Ides of March to be something it doesn't aim to be; a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire point of The Ides of March.
The Ides of March is exploration, a look in to a world everyone knows exists, but never gets the chance to see. It asks more than it reveals, and for those expecting something new in a political drama, it's time to look elsewhere. (You're a jaded critic, we get it.) The one truth in these dissents, i.e. the inability for The Ides of March to be more than the sum of its parts, is valid. The Ides of March won't stick with you as long as it should, given the quality of acting performances here.
Overall
The Ides of March should garner buzz for Oscar nominations for Ryan Gosling, and is one of the best films of the year, easily making my top ten list for 2011. That said, those expecting something new from a political drama will be disappointed, while those expecting a captivating look at the inner workings of a political campaign (revelations and bias aside), will receive The Ides of March with cinematic revelry.
On the Side
Clooney's artistic flair shown on Good Night and Good Luck and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind are notably absent here. Clooney's Ides of March has a visual palette of note, but is decidedly bland in its angles and framing. The Ides of March never feels as if the audience is trapped within the struggle, but a willing participant that can exit the vehicle whenever needed.
Friends with Benefits (2011)
Quick, Smart, and Self Aware
Another R-rated comedy? Come on, right?
Okay, even though this summer has seen the release of a litter of R- rated pups, including Horrible Bosses and Bridesmaids, there's definitely room for WIll Gluck's fast paced effort, Friends with Benefits.
Beyond the obvious similarities to No Strings Attached, the barely watchable rom-com that left everyone wondering how the hell Natalie Portman came off as less charismatic than Ashton Kutcher, Friends With Benefits is a sharp and satirical look at the modern landscape of romantic comedies.
A comparison to Scream isn't exactly off the mark here, as many of the same self-aware elements that worked in Scream work for Friends With Benefits. There are obvious breaks of the fourth wall when the rom-com clichés are checked off the list, but Friends With Benefits knows what it is, a romantic comedy, and a fun one at that.
During the opening few minutes, Jamie (Miila Kunis) and Dylan (Justin Timberlake) are both dumped by their respective significant others, prompting each to decide that it's time to take a break from everything resembling an emotional relationship. These opening bits are truthful, biting, and played off with a wonderful wink and smile to set up the entire tone of Friends With Benefits right from the starting gate.
Dylan is a veritable hot-shot at a dot-com when head hunter Jamie is hired to wrangle him as GQ's newest art director. When Jamie wines and dines Dylan in New York, attempting to close the deal on his taking the GQ gig, there are moments of genuine chemistry between the on-screen couple. Kunis, who is at the absolute peak of her celebrity right now, is charming, beautiful, and generally full of a real personality. Jamie is not perfect, and Kunis plays that perfectly.
On the flip side, Timberlake is extremely well cast, pulling on his boyish charms and good looks to breeze his way through lines and moments that could be extremely corny, but come off with poise and ease in his hands. Timberlake has now earned his place in movies -- he can stay, even though this and his performance in The Social Network feel more "directed" than "acted" per se, he's been smart in choosing roles that fit him as he gets his feet wet. Honestly, it sounds like the start that a lot of mainstay Hollywood stars have had.
After a few months in New York, Dylan and Jamie decide that they should adopt a friend with benefits lifestyle, as each are done with the dating game. After the ground rules are set, the two get to it. These first sex scenes between the two are some of the most entertaining in the movie, with Gluck's direction never letting one joke linger too long, just in case it didn't hit with the impact it needed. The first half of the film is a combination of clever writing (think Nora Ephron, but she's grown up with the internet) and quick editing to keep the pace and flow as upbeat as possible (exactly the same way Easy A , Gluck's previous effort, operated).
The plot finally comes around, as the back and forth connection between Dylan and Jamie becomes apparent, and the two are forced to actually deal with their feelings for each other, and share other feelings between each other as well. Friends With Benefits is a romantic comedy, so the typical situations of overhearing a conversation that was misunderstood and a brief entrance of a potential love interest are all in place. It's obvious Friends With Benefits is aware of the mold, but it's not about to go breaking it, either.
Overall: It's obvious that Gluck is perfecting the art of the new rom- com. Fired Up!, Easy A, and now Friends WIth Benefits have given rise to the John Hughes of the internet generation. Pulling in the best elements from the classic '30s and '40s ethereal cinematic romances, touches of Woody Allen's pace and conversational flow, and dialing up a Nora Ephron-esque charm in his screenplays (and screenplay adaptations), Will Gluck has another winner -- far better than that "other" sex without attachment movie.
Easter Egg: When Jamie is waiting to pick up Dylan from the airport, notice the name on the sheet of paper she steals: O. Penderghast. (Olive Penderghast was Emma Stone's character in Easy A.)
Beginners (2010)
I'm in Love With This Film
The cinematic experience affords the opportunity for numerous ways to achieve a goal. That goal, generally, is to explicate an emotional arc, story, or point that relates to our lives. That point is sometimes achieved through allegory such as the sci-fi genre, and other times through a real on-screen account of life as it happens.
Nowadays, in the modern landscape, the point of a movie is often to simply entertain, rather than attempt to convey a point beyond the entertainment level of the audience. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, isn't aiming for a catharsis of the soul, it aims to delight the visual senses for a few hours and then let people go about their lives.
Beginners falls into the sometimes maligned category of dramedy, which has left movie-goers and film critics at a near stalemate in terms of judging the quality, entertainment value, and overall decision to see a movie that sometimes aims to make us feel despair, a sense of solitude, or even hopelessness in the modern world.
For Beginners to attempt to entertain, its quality will be in direct correlation to the entertainment value of the piece, which is why dramedies sometimes fall into a category of pure hatred for the general audience and critics alike (The Beaver seems apt in this position as a recent example). If the quality isn't up to par, the fall back entertainment value is next to nothing. Dramedies jump without a net, if you will.
Thanksfully, Beginners does not disappoint. Its focus is its power, and fueled by dynamic and engaging performances from Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer, and Melanie Laurent, Beginners tells a succinct and impactful story of grief, love, loss, and the power of always attempting to the live the life we have.
When Oliver (Ewan McGregor) is forced to deal with the death of his father Hal (Christopher Plummer) and embarks on a new relationship with Anna (Melanie Laurent), he begins to see his life in a completely new way. Beginners opens with Oliver narrating the tumultuous last few years he spent with his father, providing a jumping off point for his new beginning.
After Oliver's mother died, his father came out to him and the world as a gay man who had been gay his entire life, shaking the foundation that had Oliver concerning his childhood. Oliver's dad then begins to live the life he was never privy to, and at 75 begins to change his dress, lifestyle, and general attitude towards life to reflect his profound inner release of coming out of the closet. He starts political groups, puts out personal ads, and garners a much younger boyfriend. Hal is finally living as himself, only to be diagnosed with cancer a short time after, of which he eventually dies from.
Oliver is handicapped by each of these revelations in a very stoic and stern manner. McGrregor is able to give the audience a feeling of impact when these events occur, but never in a way that appears melodramatic. In fact, McGregor is able to convey a sense of hallowed- out emotions with each passing scene, emotions which are only allowed to flood to the surface during moments where he is caught off guard.
Melanie Laurent is a divine treat as Anna, an actress who comes into Oliver's life just months after his father's passing. Their subsequent attraction, romance, and relationship are the crux of the film, but it's the way that writer/director Mike Mills is able to inter cut the last experiences of Oliver and his Dad, Oliver's memories as a child of his parents' marriage, and his musings of sadness, artistic expression (he's an artist designing an album cover for a band during the time), and his unresolved feelings about his past relationships that give Beginners its soul.
Beginners lets the audience move and grieve with Oliver, only to see him attempt to blossom. The interplay between Christopher Plummer's wondrous spirit on-screen is juxtaposed with McGregor's seemingly solemn demeanor in the most effective of ways. Beginners also intersperses narration from Oliver over scenes where Oliver recounts the year, president, images of happy people, images of sad people, and shots of the stars. These scenes help to give the audience a visual space to imagine Oliver's life as he sees it, through the lens of history and culture.
These effective tools, along with Arthur, his father's Jack Russell terrier that Oliver must now take care of, give the audience something to grab onto. It's the vinegar to an otherwise lemon juice laden story. That is the beauty of Beginners though. Rather than lay the foundation of an uplifting story of self-discovery, the foundation laid as real life --- dark, scary, lonely, depressing, and infuriating.
The sweet is then added on top of the bitter, providing the audience with moments of genuine laughter (such as when subtitles appear to express what Arthur -- the dog -- is saying as he talks to Oliver) and true satisfaction of seeing two people fall in love and desperately try to work it out.
Beginners is Mike Mills's baby, and he cradles it with care an attention to detail that far exceeds the wonderfully sullen lighting, cautiously hopefully cinematography, or the editing of scenes with few cuts to create intimacy and connection. No, even the dress of Anna and Oliver are handled with care, with each being donned in clothing that reflects their current emotional state with each scene (McGregor is geniously put in sweaters to convey a sense of his cold throughout the film, while Anna is in loose fitting garb that reflects her free spirit).
Beginners is a story about human beings trying to escape their own demons, find themselves, and at all times, learn that even as things end, we can always begin again. Effective in scale, focus, and message, Beginners shouldn't be missed.
Zookeeper (2011)
Zookeeper Cages Itself
Kevin James isn't without talent. His years spent on The King of Queens were entertaining, and for a certain demographic, provided exactly what the doctor ordered. Translating to the big screen, James had a memorable performance in Hitch, while seeming to pull enough likability and charm out of roles in movies such as The Dilemma and Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
The latter, Paul Blart, was a monster hit, winning the box office in its opening weekend with $32 Million, despite being barely watchable. Zookeeper follows in this same tradition, with James doing his best to act within a poorly directed, poorly executed, lackluster effort that disappoints for both kids and adults.
Kevin James plays Griffin, a zookeeper who excels at his position. Though he loves his work, a failed proposal to Stephanie (Leslie Bibb) in the opening sequence, causes Griffin to consistently wonder what his life would be like with the girl he wants, instead of the job he loves. When Stephanie comes back into his life five years later, Griffin is determined to get Stephanie back, despite the consequences of changing himself, the life he loves, and the job he was born to do.
Leslie Bibb puts a lot of her comedic chops to work in a role with no meat on the bone. Her Stephanie is a one note song, but Bibb manages to make her seem as if he she has motivations that are somewhat sincere, if utterly wrong for Griffin. Despite Bibb's best efforts, the writing never lets her character escape past her cheap plot device: to give Griffin a catharsis that he doesn't have to change who he is to find love.
Where will he find that love? In fellow co-worker Kate (Rosario Dawson) of course. As Kate, a vet who works with Griffin, Dawson also brings loads of personality and charisma to a character that is about as interesting as a dissertation on Guam's current economic import/export climate (no offense to anyone in Guam, or the import/export game for that matter).
Gauging Zookeeper is best done by relating it to its peers. Dr. Dolittle, which carries much more similarities than the talking animal aspect, was a much more concise and well constructed effort than Zookeeper ever has a chance of becoming. While the animals in Dr. Dolittle are able to provide more than canned laughter for adults, their action provided visual stimulus to keep the kids happy throughout the runtime. Dr. Dolittle also lets the animals do most of the physical comedy, which proves to be the most effective method to reach kids (and adults for that matter).
Another production of similar value is Night at the Museum (which I personally hated). At least Night at the Museum had the decency to get into the meat of the action within a few minutes. Part of the real issue with Zookeeper is how long it takes to actually get to the animals talking. Then, once they do, they don't do much else except talk. Then, when they talk, most of the humor is above the kids, and embarrassingly devoid of anything adults will find of value. The dialog as bland and pointless as it gets.
For example, Adam Sandler plays the monkey who essentially screams, "Throw poop at her!" for minutes at a time. Other animals don't provide much else, except for horrible dating advice, which proves to be the shtick for the middle act. While James is able to get something out of these gags, even his physical comedy can't save the bits from being dry and without a point or reason. Zookeeper doesn't use the crux of the entire movie-- the animals talking -- to actually further the plot or advance a character, proving to be one of the cardinal sins it commits.
When Zookeeper finally wraps up the first grade reading level of a plot (honestly, Curious George books feels like a convoluted thriller compared to Zookeeper), there's really no point to have gone on the journey. Zookeeper is a sloppy and apathetic effort in every aspect, including cinematography, costume design, set design, and, oh yea, plot, humor, and message.
Overall: For the adult in the audience, Zookeeper will provide a few grins, interlaced with moments of disengagement, irritation, scoffing, and finally sleep induced drooling. For kids, Zookeeper takes nearly thirty minutes to get the animals talking, and once they do, they don't do anything but attempt to entertain the adults.
Despite concerted efforts from Kevin James, Rosario Dawson, and Leslie Bibb, Zookeeper cages itself from the outset.