LES MISERABLES

Les Miserables (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Tom Hooper

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Daniel Huttlestone, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter

Premise: Ex-con Jean Valjean seeks redemption from a life of selfishness even while concealing his true identity in the midst of the French Revolution.

Rated PG-13 for violence, blood, sexual material and intense emotional content

Maybe you have to have a passion for performing arts, like I do, or maybe you just have to have a certain excitable personality; whatever the case, as Tom Hooper’s tremendous Les Miserables drew to a close, I couldn’t wait to clap—just as if I was watching a performer on stage throwing themselves into the last few notes of a song that had moved me. True, the ending is one of incredibly powerful images of love and unity, bringing together nearly every character viewers have beheld during the previous two-and-a-half hours, and it’s also the big payoff for a sweeping, dramatic, emotionally-powerful movie, but, still, I wanted to clap very badly. Maybe, though I wasn’t moved enough to cry, I felt the need to express myself in some outward way. Thus, when the screen when black, I led the theater audience in a round of applause that started even before the first credits appeared.

Les Miserables—based on the musical play that was adapted from the 1863 Victor Hugo novel—is the rare movie that deserves to be called art. That’s an easy thing to say, yes, because nearly the entire movie is sung, but I mean it. The camera captures amazing images, from a man of powerful conviction walking a precipice by moonlight with a sprawling, sleeping city in the background to a young woman smiling contentedly as she dies because she’s in the arms of the man she loves. The music surges and hums and soars, and a cast of actors acts and sings with full-hearted passion in a way that’s really impressive to behold. Supposedly the first movie musical ever to be sung entirely live on camera as opposed to recorded in a studio and then lip-synched, this latest adaptation of the classic story immediately enters the annals of the best movie musicals of all time.

PLOT

Imprisoned as a young man for stealing bread, Frenchman Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) gets out of jail and promptly ignores his status as a parolee in his quest to make up for the time he lost. This unwise decision naturally puts him back in the crosshairs of the local law enforcement, particularly stern government officer Javert (Russell Crowe), who makes a point to keep track of the case of Jean Valjean. However, after being shone some touching kindness by a priest (Colm Wilkinson), Valjean decides to drop his law-breaking ways and sets out to do some good in the world. In a few years, he’s a successful businessman and a leader in his community, and he’s able to do some serious good when a young single mother (Anne Hathaway) loses her job and, with it, her ability to support her young daughter (Isabelle Allen). Valjean takes the child in and raises her as his own. Still dogged by Javert, Valjean is forced to change locales every few years until one move threatens to break up his household, because his now-grown adoptive daughter (Amanda Seyfried) has fallen in love with one of the local rebellion leaders (Eddie Redmayne). Still very tempted to act in his own interests, Valjean is torn between his desire to keep his daughter (and himself) safe from harm or make her happy by letting her be with the man she loves. But Javert is hot on his trail and the city is on the verge of exploding as tensions between the rebels and government troops come to a head.

What Works?

Unlike many musicals, Les Mis stays interesting the whole time. Where many lengthy shows’ second acts are composed largely of reprises of the first act’s best songs and tired romantic clichés, Les Mis is constantly offering new action, new characters, new songs, and new looks—in this it probably benefits largely from being a movie, where the camera can draw in and out and around the actors and sets to keep things fresh, rather than the audience’s being forced to see everything from one viewpoint the whole time as they would at a musical theatre. Speaking of which, it’s obvious what an undertaking making this movie was, from costumes and sets to acting and getting groups of hundreds to sing the same song. It’s a sprawling, important, dramatic epic, and it’s done well.  Despite the considerable length, the pace rarely lags, and even though this show spans nearly 20 years and contains about a dozen major characters, the audience is able to maintain interest and affection for each.

Of course, a lot of that has to do with the actors, and director Tom Hooper has assembled a cast of bold actors who can not only sing well but are willing to go above and beyond, to act and sing with raw emotion in ways that are not always movie-star glamorous. The one you’ve probably heard about is Anne Hathaway, who sings one of the show’s biggest numbers, “I Dreamed A Dream”, in uncomfortable close-up, her haggard appearance, quivering voice and yearning eyes making the performance not only an impressive vocal display but an almost disturbingly real appeal to the heart. In those four/five minutes, you can see why the filmmakers opted for their actors to sing on camera, because it’s obvious the emotion of the moment and the setting and the character’s fall from grace enable the actress to make it so astonishingly vivid. While Hathaway’s the most likely actor to receive attention from year-end awards shows, she’s hardly alone in doing impressive work in Les Mis. Though best known as Wolverine from the X-Men franchise, Hugh Jackman validates his second reputation as a musical talent with waves of emotion and impressive vocal range. Though he becomes less the focus as the film moves into its second hour, he remains affecting. Then there’s proven screen actor Russell Crowe, who sings at least two of the show’s best solo numbers in an eye-opening performance. Eddie Redmayne has an emotional musical number (“Empty Chairs At Empty Tables”, an ode to dead rebel allies) nearly on par with Hathaway’s. The luminous Amanda Seyfried and sincere Samantha Barks make memorable impressions as well, as do child actors Isabelle Allen and Daniel Huttlestone.

Les Mis is the rare musical that has a bigger goal in mind than a romantic happily-ever-after, and another impressive achievement by the film is that despite the fact that all these things are conveyed through music, the morals of love, redemption, unity, sacrifice and faith all stick. Finally, the cinematography is also phenomenal (bravo head photographer Danny Cohen), going from those emotion-grabbing close-ups to sweeping panoramic views to create a visual experience a play never could.

What Doesn’t Work?

When it comes to musicals, be they on stage or on film, you have to make some sacrifices as a viewer. First, you have to believe two people could fall deeply in love after a few seconds of eye contact. Also, after two and a half hours, you do get a little tired of people singing, you’re also worn out by the constant emotional peaks and valleys. Les Mis does feel long—probably fifteen minutes could have been cut without compromising the movie’s quality—and, in keeping with musical tradition, there are a pair of supporting characters on hand mostly for comic relief that prove rather distracting. While they do have one amusing gag (the constant mispronunciation of a major character’s name), they’re so much less interesting and heartfelt than the other major players that you feel they could have been done without.

Content

What’s generally going to keep people either from seeing Les Miserables or from enjoying it are its length (a little over 2.5 hours) and its main idea (it’s a musical; ergo, it’s pretty much all singing). But there are some obvious innuendos and some partial nudity derived from skimpy costumes and scenes near a brothel, but these are largely contained in the film’s first half hour. And there is a fair amount of blood and a few minutes of intense warlike violence (the audience will see a number of people get shot at close range).  For the most part, though, it’s fairly light by today’s movies’ standards.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

I can’t stop humming a few of the melodies, does that help? It’s long and pretty heavy, but Les Miserables is an admirable and impressive movie with an exceptional cast, a grand scope and some important themes. Like all great shows, it earns its applause handily.

Les Miserables (2012)

Directed by Tom Hooper

Screenplay by William Nicholson; Based on the musical play written by Claude-Michel Schonberg (composer) and Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel (lyrics); English lyrics later added by Herbert Kretzmer

Originally inspired by the novel “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo

Rated PG-13

Length: 157 minutes

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Grade: A
Directed by Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Holm, Sylvester McCoy, Hugo Weaving, and Elijah Wood, with Andy Serkis as Gollum
Premise: Respectable hobbit Bilbo Baggins finds himself drawn into a quest in which a company of dwarves looks to reclaim their long lost homeland.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material including violence and gore, scary moments and some grotesque bodily images

Yes, I would call J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' my favorite book. I was a child (probably seven or eight years old) when my mom first read it to me, and it's the first story outside of Disney movies I can remember really embracing. I read it over and over again (and still read it at least once every two years or so). I've memorized whole passages and know chunks of dialogue verbatim. Of course I've pictured how it would all look and sound if I could see it, movie style. Well, obviously, that dream became more of a reality when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films became monumental successes from 2001-2003, and then whispers about a big-screen film adaptation of The Hobbit immediately began, considering Hobbit is LOTR's predecessor. Well, for a few years, momentum has been building as a rumored trilogy based on The Hobbit and events from the same time period--but featured in other Tolkien works like The Silmarillion--has been in the works.

Well, last night I saw the first film in that trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and let me tell you, the experience was sweet. Unlike the recent Silver Linings Playbook--another movie adaptation of a book I adore--there wasn't a lot of wiggle room with the plot, so the makers didn't try to give it any. Sure, they've put a few things in there that aren't in The Hobbit's text (first published in 1937), but it mostly feels right (most of what they've added was meant for the unitiated, to help them mentally connect the dots between The Hobbit and the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, which take place 60 years apart). All the best scenes have been created in loving detail, the characters have been brought to vivid life (enriched by a fleshed-out backstory), and the genial entertainment of the originally for-children story has been recreated. I could tell people in my row at the theater were looking at me as I chuckled in glee throughout most of the first hour, which consists mostly of one wild and very unexpected party. While there were a few moments when my movie critic senses started tingling, for the most part, the movie was on point. And considering it was telling the primary beloved story from my childhood, that made me happy.

Plot: "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole, with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat. It was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort." -first lines from "The Hobbit", by J.R.R. Tolkien

The hobbit in question is, of course, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, with Ian Holm in a few scenes of Bilbo as an older hobbit). As a respectable, middle-aged hobbit, Mr. Baggins lives a quiet life in the Shire, a peaceful country where people never have any adventures or do anything unexpected. All that changes one day when old Baggins family friend Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) comes by and hints that he's looking for someone "to share in an adventure". Bilbo quickly rejects the offer, yet finds himself hosting an entire party of adventure-ready dwarves that very evening. Led by regal lord Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the dwarves' intention is to travel to the east, to The Lonely Mountain, where a thriving city called Erebor once stood--a fine city by dwarf or any other standards, it was ruled by Thorin's grandfather King Thror. But the dwarves were forced to flee (those who survived, anyway) when a dragon named Smaug plundered and all but destroyed Erebor, but Thorin and his fellows swore they would return to retake the ancient city and its caverns full of treasure.

Though petrified at the idea of danger, Bilbo decides to accompany the dwarves (his mother's side of the family, the Tooks, have long been famous for their knack for adventure, after all). Though the adventure is often grim--the 15-person party faces heavy rains, murderous orcs, terrifying trolls and rumors of ancient evils regaining strength--they nonetheless find treasure, make an ally of sorts in the elf lord Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and learn of a secret passageway into Erebor that might allow them to avoid direct contact with the dragon. But then they're ambushed and ransacked by orcs, and Bilbo himself gets lost in the dark underground catacombs of the orc fortress. There he encounters a strange, murderous creature and accidentally runs off with something that creature holds dear...something called its Precious.

What Works?
Nobody does spectacle like Peter Jackson. From stunning landscapes to huge battles, pulse-pounding chases and epic panoramic shots that span miles in seconds, Jackson has put his epic touch all over this depiction of The Hobbit, just as he did so famously on his Oscar-winning LOTR trilogy a decade ago. Being a movie that needs to give people who haven't read the book (but may have seen the LOTR movies) some important info, Hobbit gets to open with an epic prologue that will teach even dedicated readers like me a lesson or two, but then it gets down to business. As a lifelong fan, I am pleased to report that all the most important scenes--"An Unexpected Party", "Roast Mutton", "Riddles in the Dark"--have been done great justice. Two songs from Tolkien's text (which is surprisingly full of songs) have been included, many jokes and nuances have been incorporated, and then one scene that is touched on, but quickly passed over, in the book gets my pick for the holy-cow-am-I-really-seeing-this, this-is-AMAZING movie moment of the year (two words: stone. giants.).

The visual effects are great, giving life and detail to three enormous, nasty trolls, all manner of hideously deformed goblins and orcs, and snarling, drooling wild wolves, and even a pack of giant eagles. The elf fortress of Rivendell remains a gorgeous sight, as does the quaint, rural countryside of the Shire. The Hobbit might lack the more adult LOTR's emotional complexity on the page, but it fills in the gaps with action, humor, some extra mythology, and some pleasing little nods to LOTR (Elijah Wood pops in and out of a few scenes, series vets McKellen, Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee have a lengthy discussion in another, and, of course, the nefarious Gollum's key scene is given its due).

Even more than the Lord of the Rings movies, The Hobbit has a lot of ground to cover and a lot of people to introduce, so the acting isn't of utmost importance, but a few positive impressions are made. Ian McKellen is as good as ever as Gandalf, wise but weary, old but battle-ready. Andy Serkis (who provides the voice and movements for the motion-capture-animated Gollum) proves, again, that he may be the most invaluable person working in movies today. As Bilbo, Martin Freeman gets a little lost in the shuffle during group scenes with the dwarves, but the actor not only shows Bilbo's growth as an adventurer and a warrior but nails a few key emotional moments. Of special note is Richard Armitage in the meaty role of Thorin, proud warrior and heir to the lost dwarf throne. Other than a late misstep that involves a little too much sentiment, the actor brings this complex character brilliantly to life, showing all the nobility, courage, stubborness, pugnaciousness and pride that makes him such a daunting figure. It's a great portrayal, and I'm looking forward to seeing the character further develop in future installments.

What Doesn't Work?
The Hobbit isn't perfect, alas, but my complaints are small. The major detour Jackson and company take in including a character not in 'The Hobbit' text is a little distracting, taking away from the main action when the main action is plenty interesting. I wasn't surprised by the movie's length (in fact, I'd gladly watch the depiction of the entire story if it was all one movie, however long), but it did start to drag just a little bit in its last few scenes, when I knew it was ending. It took its time getting there, and it does so with a few over-the-top touches that, to me, felt fake (Thorin might come to respect and care for Bilbo as an ally and friend, but he would never hug him, as he does here).

Content:
As with LOTR, the real issue isn't language or graphic violence (though you do see a few decapitations), the issue is just intimidating content, like deformed and gruesome goblins and trolls, unexpected ambushes and creepy shadowy creatures (like the crazy-schizophrenic Gollum and the dark spirit Necromancer). But this is not (yet) as dark as The Lord of the Rings was at times.

Bottom Line (I Promise): What can I say? My favorite childhood story was made into a faithful and often delightful movie, with all the most important scenes given affectionate detail, plus some awesome battle scenes and breathtaking images. I'm happy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Directed by Peter Jackson
Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro; based on the novel 'The Hobbit' by J.R.R. Tolkien
Rated PG-13
Length: 169 minutes

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Grade: B+
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Jacki Weaver, Anupam Kher and Chris Tucker
Premise: Believing he still has a chance with his estranged (ex) wife, an optimistic man gets out of a mental hospital and tries to improve his personality by fostering a friendship with an odd young woman who lives down the street.

Rated R for language, intense emotional content and some sexual material

Picture this: a book you love is turned into a movie, and you're interested enough in the story and characters to see it, but you're terrified what they (the screenwriters and [producers) might do to change it. Then you see the movie, and you suffer that horribly awkward mental/emotional complex where you liked the movie, but it is (depending on the story in question) noticeably different from the book you came to know and adore, so it both does and does not feel like an accurate representation. Does that make any sense? Fans of The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings will know where I'm coming from. Twenty-four hours after seeing Silver Linings Playbook, screenwriter/director David O. Russell's adaptation of Matthew Quick's wonderful, offbeat novel of the same title, I'm suffering that very thing. It's like going through withdrawal--some of the book's characters, dialogues, plot points and themes were represented well, while other big changes were made that I'm not happy about (why didn't they just do it like the book did it?). And, of course, I wonder if Matthew Quick himself A) approved the script, B) will see the movie, and C) will like it.

Like I said, I've been through this before. I thought The Hunger Games movie was solid but was extremely critical of some of the Harry Potter flicks, and I read "The Silver Linings Playbook" just last week, bought it, and re-read it because I thought it was terrific, so of course it's fresh in my mind. Well, it has to be darn near impossible to make a barely-two-hour movie a fantastically accurate reflection of a 290-page book (let alone one in which the last third is mostly composed of letters written from one character to another), so I knew the challenges O. Russell's adaptation would face. Quick's novel uses a lot of descriptions in place of dialogue, centers around a very unconventional relationship, deals with some sobering/difficult issues, and ends on a note that both is and is not satisfying. As I expected, the movie is considerably more upbeat and a lot more accessible, increasing the amount of dialogue, upping the romantic ante and downplaying two of the major conflicts. Without giving away anything specific, I can also say the primary difference between the Silver Linings book and movie reflects the same  structural difference between the Two Towers book and movie. In J.R.R. Tolkien's text, the siege of Helm's Deep was a mere chapter; in Peter Jackson's 2002 film, it was half the movie. That's the key difference to the Silver Linings--an event that is important but not that important becomes the centerpiece of the movie, which requires a lot of tweaking of dialogue and smaller plot points and characterizations. It also necessitates a rather different ending. But if you haven't read the book, that means absolutely nothing to you, so...

Ultimately, though I've been wringing my hands over the differences between book and movie for the last day, I would say David O. Russell succeeded in doing what movie adaptations of books and other mediums always aim to do: respectfully acknowledge and reference the major characters, events, and themes of the original work while also creating some new life in a stand-alone project. Yes, O. Russell did it.

Plot: Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) has been in a mental institution for eight months, fulfilling his end of the deal on a plea bargain that he entered after he beat the bejeezus out of a man his wife (Brea Bee) was cheating on him with. Turns out, this sloppy workaholic had also suffered from bipolar disorder his entire life and not known it. But after eight months of medication and open talking sessions and self-help slogans, he has a new, positive (some would say naive) lease on life, is in great physical shape, and is ready to go home. When his mother (Jacki Weaver) is able to get the courts to approve his release, he rejoins his family. He's not completely well, though. He's still obsessed with finding, and getting back together with, his ex-wife (who he doesn't really believe no longer wants anything to do with him). He doesn't believe a restraining order really means he can't go back to work at the high school where he used to teach as a substitute. And he also has "diarrhea of the mouth", wherein he says pretty much anything that comes to his mind (as one character puts it bluntly: "you say more inappropriate things than appropriate things"). He's also prone to tense, sometimes-violent tantrums. All these things stand in the way of his truly reconciling his relationships with his mother, his father (Robert DeNiro), his older brother (Shea Whigham) and his old best friend (John Ortiz), despite the help of a kindly therapist (Anupam Kher). He's also being occasionally dogged by a police officer (Dash Mihok) who knows he isn't in his right mind.

One night at a dinner party, he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a friend's pretty but spacey sister-in-law who, it turns out, is nearly as blunt and socially awkward as he is. When Tiffany suddenly tries to seduce him, Pat turns her down out of respect for his wife (as he calls her; he still wears the ring, after all). But this interaction nonetheless gives him an idea: maybe his befriending this notorious, apparently-friendless girl (who has curiously started following him around on his daily runs around the neighborhood) could win him some brownie points with his ex, making him look like a kind, considerate guy. Though a dinner date goes badly when Tiffany explodes and begins shouting obscenities in public, she soon approaches Pat with an interesting offer: be her partner in an upcoming popular ballroom dance competition, and she'll put in a good word with his ex, whom she and her sister (Julia Stiles) occasionally spend time with. He agrees, and they're soon spending hours in Tiffany's personal dance studio, working on a routine. But Pat's unique relationship with the eccentric Tiffany soon raises a lot of uncomfortable questions with her parents, his parents, her sister, and his therapist.

What Works?
Since I read the book first and have a great amount of affection for it, of course it's easier for me to think of things I did not like about Silver Linings Playbook, but it nonetheless takes a lot of steps in the right direction. The pace is quick, the mood is much more upbeat, even playful (the book can be very somber as it explores Pat's honest, sometimes-depressing view of his life and relationships), and the big dance-off is a treat (it includes a classic yuk involving a lift gone very wrong).

This being a David O. Russell film, though (like I Heart Huccabees and The Fighter), the most important aspect of Silver Linings Playbook is obviously the actors and their portrayals. While a few of the characters get left out to dry by the transition to movie (particularly Pat's therapist), most of them are brilliant. I haven't seen any of Bradley Cooper's big movies to date (The Hangover, Limitless, The Words), but I was really impressed with his work here. From book to movie, the character has become a lot more outspoken and blunt and erratic, and Cooper gives it his all in a manic, determined performance. Robert DeNiro also does some of his most sincere work in years as Pat's sensitive father. Jacki Weaver is perfectly cast as Pat's sympathetic mother, and Chris Tucker has a few good moments as a buddy from the mental institution, but the real actor to watch is Jennifer Lawrence. I knew the Hunger Games star was one of the favorites in the Best Actress Oscar race for this performance going in (which didn't surprise me, as Tiffany on the page is one of the most complex and interesting female characters I've ever read), and Lawrence proves an absolute pistol. Shaking off the withdrawn sullenness that sometimes hindered her portrayals in Games and in last year's The Beaver, Lawrence makes Tiffany exactly who she's supposed to be, an unpredictable, self-centered and occasionally crude woman who tends to drive people away even though what she really clearly wants is to be loved and cared for. Screaming insults or self-degrading remarks at the top of her lungs or breaking down at mentions of her recently-deceased husband, Lawrence honors Matthew Quick's most poignant, memorable character.

What Doesn't Work?
Oh boy. The things I could say here...

Well, let me just put it this way. Though there were a bunch of differences in dialogue and event sequence and character importance, Silver Linings did the book impressive justice for two-thirds of its run-time. Though different, it was essentially on course. Then it completely deviated, started to come back, then deviated again (in my opinion, even though there was a major plot change, they still had a chance to return to the book's very particular brand of drama again, but they mostly missed it). I won't use specifics, but, in my view, the ending was a little cheap. Though it gets to the same ultimate destination, the movie goes for a more obvious and plain emotional payoff than Quick's gorgeous, emotionally-fragile writing. In fact, I'm extremely frustrated, because as good as Cooper and Lawrence are, their potential best dramatic moments are taken from them by this big tonal change, which ultimately leads to an ending that feels uncannily like a mushy Valentine's Day treat movie, as opposed to the grittier, more idiosyncratic nature of the happenings in the book.

On a completely subjective note, however, there are a few things I'd quibble about in any movie, like the plausibility that a man is able to publicly approach a woman with a restraining order against him to the point that he's able to whisper in her ear--with that Dash Mihok police officer watching. But I digress.

Content: As in the book, there are many uses of colorful language (like words that start with "f" and "s"), which is the main reason the film is rated R. There is a brief shot of a woman in the shower, an uncomfortable family tussle, some suggestive dancing and even some descriptive sexual dialogue, but, as with the book, there are no unnecessary romantic/sexual pit stops. This story is more focused and serious than that.

Bottom Line (I Promise): I love the book, and, though I could say a lot of things about how it's different, I enjoyed the movie Silver Linings Playbook. It does the book justice for the most part, but it does its stars even more (it's a must-see for fans of Cooper and Lawrence), and it leaves you feeling hopeful.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Directed by David O. Russell
Screenplay by David O. Russell; based on the novel "The Silver Linings Playbook' by Matthew Quick
Rated R
Length: 122 minutes

THE EXPENDABLES 2

THE EXPENDABLES 2 (2012)

Grade: B-

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Yu Nan, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Liam Hemsworth, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Amanda Ooms, Jet Li, Scott Adkins and Chuck Norris

Premise: Barney Ross and his group of mercenaries travel to Albania to free the local populace from a crime lord who has been torturing the locals and mining plutonium.

Rated R for strong bloody violence and language

Is it possible for more people to bite the dust in a movie than in The Expendables 2? The movie is 102 minutes long and, I would guess, some 500 people meet their maker during the running time. Admittedly, they’re mostly faceless minions who are supporting a crime lord who’s hurting innocent people, but, still—death is not beautiful in this sequel to the 2010 shoot-em-up blockbuster The Expendables. Like the prequel, this movie is about the All-Star action heroes cast assembled to save the world (or at least small-to-medium-sized third world communities), but they wouldn’t be able to do the awesome things they do without some extras to kick, punch, shoot, stab, skewer, or otherwise maim. If the last decade’s Hostel and Saw franchises qualified as “torture porn”, than these two Expendables flicks unquestionably qualify as “action porn”. These movies are for dudes who wanna watch movies that feature a couple of one-liners, some manly camaraderie, and lots and lots of shooting. In fact, the bare bones script concocted (by star Sylvester Stallone and assistant Richard Wenk) for this movie barely qualifies as a “story”; it’s mostly an itinerary drawn up to get our team of recognizable over-the-hill heroes from one shootout to another, with big and bigger weaponry designed to help them out of “tight corners”.

But, still, as a guy, I love it. It’s fun stuff. (Is it bad to say I giggled to myself as various Asian/Eastern European militia were blown to bits by .50 cal bullets and pistol rounds, because I did)

Plot

I use that word “plot” loosely, but there you go. Most of the guys in this movie aren’t “acting”, they’re just “being”, because this movie cares less about their characterizations than the body counts they stack up. But for formality’s sake, I’ll do a brief roll call. Stallone is Barney Ross, the stacked and goateed manly-man who leads “The Expendables” mercenary team, which includes knife-happy sidekick Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial arts master Yin Yang (Jet Li), erratic Swede Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), hulking gun lover Hail Caesar (Terry Crews, and I’m not kidding about his name), and wrestling stylist Toll Road (MMA star Randy Couture, ditto about the name). Barney’s some-time ally/rival is called only Mr. Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and his occasional employer is a humorless man named Mr. Church (Bruce Willis). At the beginning of this movie, the Expendables rescue Mr. Trench from some nasty Nepali militia with the help of their newest and (by far) youngest member, Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth). The mission goes well (well, for them—scores of random guys get blown to smithereens before these guys lift off in their ancient seaplane), but they barely get to enjoy the comforts of home before Mr. Church comes to them with another mission. Now the guys need to help a smart superspy (Yu Nang) find a secret cargo plane that crashed in the Chinese mountains carrying, among other things, a transponder designed to track plutonium deposits found in an Albanian mine.

Unfortunately, there’s someone waiting for them at the site, the transponder is lost, and one of the Expendables ends up cold and still. Enraged, the Expendables mark the killer, Villaine (Jean-Claude Van Damme) as their next target and hurry after him, to get revenge—and to stop him from harvesting the discovered five tons of weapons-grade plutonium. But Villaine commands vast numbers, and the Expendables may actually be out-gunned without the help of trigger-happy bounty hunter Booker (THE Chuck Norris).

What Doesn’t Work?

Well, okay, character development is mostly nil, and the dialogue consists mostly of mingled oaths and meaty attempts at humor, not to mention the more popular guys’ recycling of each other’s old catchphrases (“I’ll be back”, “Yippie ki yay”). There’s plenty for an even halfway-serious moviegoer to sigh and roll their eyes at, and I did both. A lot of the tension is also distilled by that old fallacy of a villain stopping to chuckle and then ramble after backing our heroes into a corner, giving them time to think up a plan/recover from injuries. And of those “heroes”, as in the last film, only three of them (in this case, Stallone, Statham and Hemsworth) really matter (also, some women might object to the idea that the women in these movies always find the beefy, mumbling Stallone attractive; speaking of women, there’s pretty much nothing that would endear this movie to female viewers. I mean, NONE). Also, of all the stars in this movie, it’s curious that arguably the most legendary one (Chuck Norris) is the one who has least purpose to be here. His role is pointless, and he doesn’t even kick anybody (though he does tell a joke).

What Works?

Like its prequel, The Expendables 2 is super fun. It’s more fun, in its own way, than even The Avengers, Marvel’s put-em-together-and-let-them-fight-baddies assembling of its own instantly-recognizable heroes. The actors don’t really matter, but they’re still fun to watch. Stallone gets most of the lines, but Couture gets to throw people around and yank them into suplexes, Crews gets to flex his muscles and blow 50-cent-piece-sized holes through people with machine guns, Jet Li takes on a small army of knife-wielding Asians, and Dolph Lundgren lifts up his heavy legs and kicks a dude straight off a balcony. Willis and Schwarzenegger even get into the action this time, getting to shoot up several roomfuls of bad guys and ripping both doors off a puny European-made car. Hemsworth takes over for the first movie’s Mickey Rourke as the person who actually does a little bit of acting, but my personal favorite is Jason Statham. After three Transporter movies, Safe, The Bank Job, and The Mechanic, it’s clear that, while he’s no Laurence Olivier, no one can take out a half-dozen or more faceless bad guys without breaking a sweat like Statham (one bit involving Statham donning priest’s robes in an old Eastern Orthodox church to catch a few thugs off guard is this film’s high point, nearly as fun as the Dolph Lundgren/Jet Li faceoff from the first movie). Oh, and Yu Nan brings a hint of gravity to her role as the token tough female.

Content:

Most of the bloodletting is done at a distance, but that doesn’t stop it from splattering. This movie reaches almost ludicrous levels in its depiction of people being blown away by walls of bullets (one guy in particular appears to receive as many bullets in the torso as Vito Corleone’s son Sonny in The Godfather). There’s also some cussing, but this movie is rated R for bloody violence (if you ever thought a movie where people shoot each other would contain simply people getting shot rather than being dismembered, boy were you wrong). Keep the kids and the squeamish far away.

Bottom Line (I Promise): It’s ridiculous, of course, but I’m a guy, and I enjoyed The Expendables 2, just like I enjoyed its prequel. There’s little story, little acting, and this movie even wastes a few of its stars, but its adrenaline-fueled shootouts are the stuff of a guy’s daydreams.

The Expendables 2 (2012)

Directed by Simon West

Written for the screen by Sylvester Stallone and Richard Wenk

Rated R

Length: 102 minutes

RED DAWN, LIFE OF PI

RED DAWN (2012)

Grade: B

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas, Connor Cruise, Brett Cullen, Will Yun Lee and Jeffrey Dean Morgan

Premise: After the North Korean military conquers their hometown, a group of American teens and young adults gather weapons and rebel against the invaders.

Rated PG-13 for intense action violence and language

Dan Bradley’s Red Dawn is one of those movies that delivers exactly what is expected, and is the better for it. Just over an hour and a half in length, it introduces us to its characters, sets in motion the crucial conflict, gives us some enjoyable camaraderie and fierce action, and ends on a note of sentimental but inspiring patriotism. Largely uncluttered by forced character development or unnecessary romantic interludes, it’s a genuinely decent remake (of the 1984 Patrick Swayze/Charlie Sheen film of the same name) and an engaging time at the movies.

            Spokane, Washington is one of those small towns where everyone knows everyone. One ordinary weekend, a world-weary Marine war veteran (Thor’s Chris Hemsworth) comes unexpectedly home to visit his widowed father (Brett Cullen), the county sheriff, and younger brother (Josh Peck), the starting quarterback for the local high school football team. After a Friday night game in which the young QB nearly leads his team to an inspiring comeback win, the boys retire to a local tavern where the younger brother hangs out with his cutie-pie cheerleader girlfriend (Isabel Lucas) and a few school chums (Josh Hutcherson, Connor Cruise) and the older brother runs into an old acquaintance (Adrianne Palicki) who has a thing for him. Before anything can happen, though, the power unexpectedly goes out, forcing them all to return home.

            The next morning, both brothers awaken to explosions and a sky full of planes dropping armed paratroopers into their backyard and neighborhood. The intruders are North Koreans, and the brothers see them rounding up friends and neighbors while they frantically flee to the city’s wooded outskirts. They’re soon joined by some of their friends from the tavern, but not before they realize the younger brother’s girlfriend has been interned in a prison camp, and their father has been executed by a cruel Korean officer (Will Yun Lee). Distraught, the group vows to do something to avenge their father and their neighbors. With the Marine as their de-facto leader, they begin gathering weapons, food, and explosives, train, and become a new version of the “Viet Cong, the Mujahadeen, the minutemen”, your typical nagging pain in the butt to wealthy invading forces. Nicknamed “The Wolverines”, the group’s excursions soon both inspires the locals-and other rebel groups-to fight back, and earns the increasing ire of the Koreans, who vow to find and kill these guerillas.
            Like I said, Red Dawn isn’t complicated. You could have learned nearly everything I just described by watching the movie’s trailer, and, to please an expectant audience, the screenplay quickly gets down to business. You’re barely ten minutes in before the bombs start falling, and that’s only after a credits sequence set to real-life newsreel footage of President Obama, VP Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton describing the “danger” posed by the increasingly-mobilized North Korean nation. And as soon as the Marine gives his brief rallying speech and all the kids join the rebellion, you’re a two-second training-scene-blip away from the actual shooting and blowing up of bad guys. And hard-core action fans should be mollified to learn that the shoot-outs and chases are pretty legitimate—this isn’t a cutesy kiddie action movie like Spy Kids; the Wolverines bear assault rifles, machine guns, grenades and mines, and use them. And the action rarely stops—there is only the briefest of perfunctory character development scenes, and any serious romantic subplots are sidestepped. No, this is a shoot-em-up, kids and all.

            Given that shoot-first, develop-characters-later mentality, it’s hardly a surprise that Red Dawn is not an actor’s movie, but all the principles acquit themselves admirably. As he proved playing Thor and The Huntsman in blockbusters the last few years, Chris Hemsworth is a solid actor with considerable appeal—rather like a Jason Statham or a Dwayne Johnson, audiences will watch him do pretty much anything. Here, he’s the only actor with sufficient time to develop a character, and he makes it worth our while. Josh Peck, who came up a broad comic actor, struggles a little with more emotional moments, but is nonetheless a satisfactory second fiddle, and Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki and Connor Cruise all provide effective portrayals in supporting roles.

            Red Dawn is not perfect, of course. Shaky-cam is used to its usual disorienting effect here (rendering one fistfight almost completely unintelligible), many plot developments strain credulity, and one “important” character (the girlfriend played by Isabel Lucas) is left out to dry—more plot device than person. However, the movie’s last third is its best, containing its most gripping action sequence and its best-handled emotional scene. And it ends on just the right note.

            Bottom Line (I Promise): Red Dawn is an effective and engaging hard-core action flick with some solid actors and an intriguing premise. It feels shorter than it is, and it’s never boring. If you’re tired of serious dramas this time of year, this tense action flick might be worth your time.

 Red Dawn was directed by Dan Bradley and written for the screen by Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore, who based their work on the 1984 screenplay by Kevin Reynolds and John Milius; It is rated PG-13 and runs 114 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE OF PI (2012)

Grade: B+

Directed by Ang Lee

Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan and Rafe Spall

Rated PG (contains intense emotional content and some animal-related violence)

Slumdog Millionaire meets Cast Away in this visually-stunning adaptation of Yann Martel’s classic novel, which has a singular premise you can’t really beat: a young man survives a devastating shipwreck only to be stranded in the middle of the ocean on a small life boat with the wreck’s only other survivor, an adult tiger. While fear, wrath and hunger all have their place, the two eventually establish a respectful, symbiotic relationship where the boy keeps the tiger alive because having something to occupy his mind and emotion keeps him alive during hundreds of days alone at sea. Call it the ultimate coming-of-age story. Directed by Oscar-winner Ang Lee (whose impressive credits include Brokeback Mountain and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), this film has been hailed as a shoo-in for multiple Academy Award nominations, including Best Director and Best Picture. It’s also been called “the next Avatar” and “a visual miracle”, and for good reason.

            Starting with a gorgeous credits sequence packed with sumptuous visuals of animals walking, crawling and wallowing in their zoo habitats, Life of Pi introduces us to the adult Pi (Irrfan Khan), a middle-aged man who has achieved respectable success after immigrating to the United States from poor India. When we meet him, he’s hosting a friend of a friend, a young author (Rafe Spall) who’s been told Pi has an amazing life story. In flashback, we learn of Pi’s youth. The younger of two boys born to a zoo owner (Adil Hussain), Pi was initially christened with a classic Indian name that is pronounced “pissing”. Thankfully, he found a way to boldly ensure everyone learned to call him Pi—yes, after the mathematical sign that means 3.14—and could soon occupy his mind with more important things than playground taunts, such as his first crush and his experience with different religions (to the chagrin of his reason-first father, he soon becomes a Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu). And it may just be God who saves him when, as a teen (and played by Suraj Sharma), he’s the only survivor of the shipwreck that claims his family after they leave India for America with all of their animals in tow.

            At first accompanied by several animals, Pi is soon left sharing a lifeboat with the beautiful but ferocious Bengal tiger, who, through an amusing mistake in paperwork during his delivery to the zoo, is named Richard Parker. Though Pi manages to construct a buoy of sorts out of the boat’s life jackets, paddles and netting, he knows the only way to survive the rough seas is to get in the boat itself, even though roughly half of it is occupied by Richard Parker. Though Pi gets a lucky break one day when the tiger foolishly leaps overboard in pursuit of some tuna and can’t clamber back into the boat, Pi can’t find it in his heart to kill the animal or leave it stranded. He soon devises ways to distinguish “his half” of the boat from “its half”, to feed it, and to even get shade and collect fresh water for them both. The tiger never gets past the growling and snarling stage, but Pi comes to realize he would have long expired of loneliness and despair if he weren’t forced to stay awake and alert because of the predator’s presence.

            Life of Pi is, truly, an amazing visual spectacle, from the incredibly convincing tiger and rough, rocking seas to flocks of flying fish, gorgeous sunsets and powerfully intimidating storm fronts approaching from the horizon. This is a movie that inspires awe, and it deserves terms like “lovely” and “beautiful”. In fact, Pi is so visually impressive (probably a given for several different technical categories at the Oscars) that you’re soon convinced that even the scenes of the two grown men talking or strolling through a park are filmed in a way you’ve never seen.

            As Pi, Suraj Sharma gives one of the year’s most raw and wonderful performances, and Irrfhan Khan is steady and moving as his older self. This film is rich with emotion, from Pi’s weeping over his dead family to his frustration with the immovable predator to his desperation in literally fighting it for food when a large fish flops aboard the lifeboat. Many people will probably cry, and few won’t be touched. Regrettably, the power and wonder of the story’s signature passage renders the end a little dull (you kinda wish the magic would never end), but it’s still powerful and inescapably moving.

Bottom Line (I Promise): I haven’t read the book, but it’s definitely on my list after I was touched, thrilled, and moved by the movie adaptation. Life of Pi is gorgeous (in 2-D as well as 3-D), intense, and memorable.

Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee; the screenplay was written by David Magee, adapted from Yann Martel’s novel; it’s rated PG and 127 minutes long

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN - PART 2

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
Grade: B
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Mackenzie Foy, Peter Facinelli, Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Kellan Lutz, Michael Sheen, Maggie Grace and Dakota Fanning
Premise: Edward and Bella's young child, Renesmee, is immediately in danger upon her discovery by the Volturi, according to an ancient decree that vampires cannot have children due to the newborns' instability and reckless bloodlust.

Rated PG-13 for sexual content and strong violence (including multiple decapitations)

And it's time to exhale. After five movies in five years, over $2 billion in worldwide box office revenue, and multiple parodies and spinoffs and imitations, The Twilight Saga has come to a close. May the rejoicing (by cinema purists and manly men) and weeping (by most women and an admittedly fair number of men) begin!! Director Bill Condon's Breaking Dawn - Part 2 wraps up the story of vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and his great love, vulnerable-human-turned-immortal-vampire Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), having covered in five films what author Stephanie Meyer depicted in four lengthy best-selling novels.

I'm not gonna lie: it's a little hard to believe it's over. I got on the Twilight bandwagon shortly after the release of the first film in November 2008, read the first three books and saw two other movies, but, bored and slightly irritated by the rampant cheesiness and schmaltziness of both the books and the movies (but mostly the movies), I didn't bother to read the fourth book, Breaking Dawn, or see last year's Part 1, also directed by Condon. But, coming into the theater to see Part 2 after finally breaking down and admitting I kinda wanted to see it, I decided to set expectations aside and watch and just hope the romantic stuff didn't get too gooey. While I snorted and sniggered my way through a fair amount of cheesy dialogue and amusingly-obvious special effects (and rolled my eyes during a putrid romantic scene or two) I was actually rather impressed. Certainly, Part 2 made for a breezier, more entertaining time at the movies than the talky Lincoln, which I saw yesterday. And while it won't prove an Oscar winner and didn't leave me wanting more installments, I'm glad I saw it. It's a pleasant feeling.

Plot: Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off, with Bella Cullen (a thankfully more coloured and expressive Stewart) now a mother and a vampire (for the uninitiated, Bella married her vampire lover, Edward Cullen, in the last version, became with child and would have bled to death during labor if not for Edward's biting her and setting her on the fast track to immortality). While she's still getting used to some of her new characteristics--like crushing super strength and an all-consuming thirst for blood, human or animal--life is as good as it's been for Bella since she met Edward (Pattinson). She doesn't have to keep her distance or tread carefully around him, his kindly surrogate father (Peter Facinelli), or her new "siblings" (including Kellan Lutz's Emmett and Ashley Greene's Alice), she's now super-fast and graceful, and her daughter, Renesmee (played as a toddler and child by Mackenzie Foy) is healthy and happy and growing quickly.

*NOTE* Since she was conceived by an immortal vampire and a human, Renesmee has inherited some characteristics from each, and grows at about ten times the rate of a normal child.
*NOTE #2* Renesmee's name is a combination of Bella and Edward's respective mothers' names, Rene and Esme.
*NOTE #3* Remember Bella's werewolf friend and ever-smitten second-rate crush Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner)? Well, he's still around. Why would he still be around since he's officially lost out on the girl of his dreams? Because, in keeping with the werewolf "tradition", he has recently "imprinted" psychologically and emotionally on the woman deemed to be his future mate...Renesmee.

Well, as Renesmee grow, Bella hones her new powers, reaches out to her doting but confused father (Billy Burke), and Jacob's constant presence is increasingly accepted by Bella/Renesmee's extended vampire family. But trouble arrives in paradise when a fellow vampire (Maggie Grace) traveling through the area spots Renesmee and then hastens to tell the Volturi--the ruling vampire regime--about her. After all, the Volturi, led by Michael Sheen's charismatic Aro and Dakota Fanning's quietly-sadistic Jane, uphold vampire law, and vampire law dictates that immortal youngsters are not tolerated due to their tendency to be unstable and destructive (they're usually decapitated and burned like all criminal vampires). When Bella's surrogate sister Alice gets wind of this (she can see the future), she warns the rest of the family that they have "until the snow sticks" to gather evidence of Renesmee's mortality and credible witnesses...before the Volturi come to kill her and anyone who tries to defend her.

What Works?
Quietly, it seems, the Twilight Saga has come into its own. Thanks to Bella's marrying Edward and Jacob's connection to Renesmee, Part 2 is freed from the I-love-him, but-I-love-him-too whining that made the previous installments so insufferable at times. And the "white-face" makeup used to make the vampires look pale and immortal has thankfully been applied with less ferocity this time around--Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Ashley Greene and Peter Facinelli all have more color than they've had in the four other films combined (regrettably, this pleasing development does not apply to either Kellan Lutz's Emmett or Michael Sheen's Aro, both of whom look like they're dying of some hideous disease). Taylor Lautner also keeps his shirt on for almost the entire movie (the girls in the audience only had one chance to squeal and whistle during a de-shirting), another check in the "Thank Goodness" box. And, because Part 2 has an actual point and needs to take several steps to get there, there's not a lot of down time, so Pattinson and Stewart have less time to sit around murmuring and cooing sweet nothings to one another.

The latter also allows Part 2 to get past the clunky and awkward "acting" done by the main two in the other chapters. There's a lot to be done, and a lot of new faces to familiarize the audience with (or at least introduce them to), so this film doesn't rest nearly as much on the slight shoulders of Stewart or Pattinson. Part 2 isn't going to get any closer to snaring an Oscar nomination than the other installments in the franchise, but decent contributions are given by nearly all involved, including Stewart (having fun, for once), Peter Facinelli, Michael Sheen (clearly having a ball), and the earnest and surprisingly poignant Billy Burke.

The last third of the movie also builds up to a breathtaking action sequence that is nearly as awesome as teenage boys have figured this series could be all along if all the vampires and werewolves stopped whining and moaning and just had at each other. Chalking this movie's popcorn factor far beyond any of the previous films', this battle royale contains some cool mano-a-mano duels and a few stupendous twists (the audience in the theater gasped as a whole at least once, and I heard multiple people gasping "What!? But that's not in the book!"). On that basis, as a guy, I must admit that this movie left me rather satisfied.

What Doesn't Work?
Not all of the actors are free from the stale-white face makeup that heightens the cheese factor in these parts, and no vampire-playing actor is spared the blood-red eye contacts, which go from distracting to gross and back, depending on the actor. And there are enough gooey exchanges between Stewart and Pattinson for you to get antsy hoping for the action to start. And Taylor Lautner--though spared the unenviable task of devoting the whole of his screen time to either showing his abs or pining for Stewart--has lost his luster. Once this series' breath of fresh air (back in the New Moon days), he is here more annoying than anything. Some of the CGI is iffy, and, of course, the requisite slate of dialogue contains a few howlers ("How DARE you nickname my daughter after the Loch Ness monster!"). The good news is....this is finally over.

Content:
There's no cussing and, apart from one early scene of partial nudity and heated kissing between Stewart and Pattinson, nothing more than playful innuendos to offend/disturb younger viewers. The big battle does contain a lot of dismemberments (ripping the heads off their foes is a favorite vampire pastime, if you didn't know), but, of course, there's nary a drop of blood spilled. Ironic for a vampire movie, huh? Mostly, if your preteen or young teen daughter wants to see this movie with her fellow young Twi-hard friends, there's nothing that's gonna give them nightmares.

Bottom Line (I Promise): I'm not saying this is official (and it doesn't matter that much, anyway) but The Twilight Saga might just have ended with its best, most entertaining installment. Busy and brisk enough to do away with most of the angsty material that held the other films back, Part 2 is actually kinda cool.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
Directed by Bill Condon
Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg; Based on the novel "Breaking Dawn" by Stephanie Meyer
Rated PG-13
Length: 115 minutes

LINCOLN

LINCOLN (2012)

Grade: B-

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, Hal Holbrook, James Spader, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gulliver McGrath, Lee Pace and Jared Harris

Premise: Shortly after being re-elected for his second term as president, Abraham Lincoln struggles to pass the 13^th Amendment and free the slaves despite assurances from friends and colleagues that it will prolong the Civil War.

Rated PG-13 for language, intense emotional content and some disturbing war-related images

Lincoln is one of those movies that will clearly divide those who appreciate moviemaking as a craft and those who simply watch movies for entertainment purposes. A serious, “art-house” weekend alternative to the more conventional Twilight Saga finale, it comes with the highest possible pedigree. It’s the 28^th feature film directed by Steven Spielberg, it stars two-time Academy Award-winner Daniel Day-Lewis as one of the most recognizable leaders in world history, features a sprawling cast of fine actors young and old (Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Hal Holbrook, Gulliver McGrath), and chronicles one of the most important legislative decisions in the history of the United States (and maybe the world)—the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery forever in America.

It’s a great story, and you’d be hard-pressed to find an event in history that has changed our country’s landscape and culture as dramatically as the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, but Lincoln is one of those movies that had me, personally, leaning back toward the “movies-for-entertainment” camp. As a self-proclaimed snooty, high-falutin’ movie critic wannabe, I’ve seen a lot of movies, and I’ve gone out of my way to see and enjoy movies that most people would never watch and have never heard of. But, Lincoln, though a stirring historical narrative, is no Civil War action picture. It’s not a romance, and it’s not a comedy. It is a historical drama, focused on one of the toughest decisions any of our presidents has had to make, it takes place almost entirely in the offices and courtrooms and corridors of buildings in Washington, and the word for it is talky. It’s good stuff, but after two-and-a-half hours became more than a little tedious.

Plot: After being re-elected in the midst of the Civil War’s fourth full year, Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) decides it’s time to get his amendment passed, to one-up the Emancipation Proclamation by freeing all American slaves, once and for all. However, everyone from his fiery wife (Sally Field) to his Cabinet members (David Strathairn, Hal Holbrook) agree that “it’s either this amendment or the Confederate peace, you cannot have both”. With Reconstruction looming even while the War rages on, many of even Lincoln’s closest supporters believe freeing the slaves any time soon would be a grievous mistake, and they know the Confederacy will prove even more stubborn to keep fighting if an attempt is made to take its slaves away. So, while secretly courting a few top Confederate officials to discuss terms of peace, Lincoln publicly places his amendment before the House of Representatives again. The sides are clear: some, like stodgy Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) have fought their entire lives to get slavery abolished. Others, like fiery Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), believe white people are morally and biblically superior, and that it would be a degradation to society to free them. Going with his gut to pursue the amendment before the peace, Lincoln leaves the Confederate officials in the care of General Ulysses S. Grant (Jared Harris) and recruits a team (James Spader, John Hawkes and Tim Blake Nelson) to work on persuading any moderate or “lame duck” representatives to vote pro-amendment, to generate as much in-favor support as possible. Meanwhile, a more personal distraction arrives in the form of Lincoln’s oldest son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who has dropped out of Harvard and desires to join the army against the wishes of both his parents.

What Works?

It’s impossible to discuss Lincoln without focusing on the man at its center, and one of America’s most decorated figures is brought to vivid, entrancing life by the gifted Daniel Day-Lewis. While some have quibbled about the voice chosen—low and quavering, not quite “commanding”—the actor not only looks the part but makes Lincoln a man of powerful conviction and deep wells of emotion. Between his knack for sly jokes and twinkly optimism and his equally convincing explosions of anger and feeling—not to mention the enormous frame and the oft-present top hat—Day-Lewis does enable you to believe that, somehow, you are watching the Abraham Lincoln, a man we’ve all heard about and seen in books but rarely studied up close.

While none of the other actors get anything close to the time Day-Lewis does to flesh out their characters, many make solid, memorable contributions. Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones have already gotten Oscar buzz for their stirring performances, David Strathairn is his usual reliable self, and Lincoln is packed with many other respectable actors all deserving of notice. In fact, the cast is so big and so good some fine actors (like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jared Harris) are given only bits of screen time when they clearly warrant more.

All the aesthetic production values are superb, from the wigs and the suits to the costumes and the sets. The cinematography is great—while most of the movie takes place in offices and courtrooms, placing a premium on lighting and angles, there’s a dazzling outdoor close-up of the Capitol building, a slow panning of a devastated battlefield in Petersburg that drives home the horror of the War, and a truly moving moment when Gen. Grant, having accepted Lee’s surrender at Appomatox, takes off his cap to his rival and fellow countryman, and his subordinates respectfully follow suit.

Oh, and did you know that even old men in wigs can be funny? For a movie that can be stuffy and talky, it packs a surprising number of jokes that allow the audience to giggle.

What Doesn’t Work?

Lincoln is long. Though its 149 minutes probably place it somewhere in the middle of Steven Spielberg’s output, it feels about twice that. It’s a quality film, but, again, the word I come back to is tedious. There’s precious little to get the pulse racing, and the old-time dialogue—which renders about a third of the conversations unintelligible—doesn’t help. Though the actors are good and the history meaningful, it’s also disappointing that Lincoln lacks the typical Spielberg pizzazz. It seems like such a quiet, unexciting movie for the director, who’s most famous for his action/adventure fare and classic set pieces. But is that really his fault? Or the movie’s? I guess I just wasn’t expecting such a straight-up, no-frills character study.

Lincoln also takes a couple extra scenes to end, taking it to a rather overly-sentimental stopping point.

Content:

Lincoln mostly consists of men talking, but there are a few grim visual reminders of the War going on in the background that is oft-mentioned (remember, this is Steven Spielberg directing—a man famous for his graphic depictions of war and its costs in Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List). Some of the details do get gory. There’s also a fair amount of cussing and some heated/emotional discussions. Mostly, this is a tame film, but it’s the slow-burn history-class presentation of the material that will (and, in some cases, should) keep people away.

Bottom Line (I Promise):

It tells an important story and it’s undeniably well made, but Lincoln lacks regular entertainment value outside of a truly impressive performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, and it will not prove the most exciting two and a half hours you’ve ever spent in a theater. It’s far from Steven Spielberg’s best film, and I wouldn’t recommend it to many people, but it’s still an effective portrait of a man who continues to inspire millions.

Lincoln (2012)

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Screenplay by Tony Kushner; Based on the book “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Rated PG-13

Length: 149 minutes

SKYFALL

Skyfall (2012)
Grade: B+
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney and Berenice Marlohe
Premise: James Bond fights to stop a sadistic cyber-terrorist from destroying MI6.

Rated PG-13 for strong violence and blood, disturbing images, and two brief sexual scenarios

The best thing I can say about Skyfall, the 23rd movie in the 50-year-old James Bond canon, is that even if you've seen some or most or all of the previous 22 entries, you still won't know what's coming. Characters live and die, alliances are made and broken, an unbreakable titular hero is hurt and nearly killed, and surprises leap out of the woodwork. Director Sam Mendes (an Academy Award winner for American Beauty) channels the recent Dark Knight series by proving unafraid to put a popular character in an unusual setting, substitute some brawn for brains, fleshen out the characters and the drama, and create a real movie, with a real plot. Most James Bond movies have been pretty straightforward--guns, girls, gadgets, cars, "Bond, James Bond", saving the world, and a few shaken martinis--but by the end of Skyfall, there has been fear, pain, pleasure, shock and sadness, and you may have forgotten you're watching a James Bond movie at all. And that's quite an accomplishment.

Plot: After suffering a near-fatal injury during a fracas with a terrorist named Patrice, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is hardly ready for duty. But when a cyberterrorist hacks into and then blows up the headquarters to his agency, MI6, 007 hustles back into action. As the world reels in alarm, Bond's superiors, M (Judi Dench) and Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) inform him that a very important piece of information has been stolen, namely, a hard drive containing the names of NATO agents undercover all around the world. Patrice appears to have been the middleman, but the real culprit is clearly someone with disturbingly intimate knowledge of computerized weaponry, London, and MI6. With the help of fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris) and new MI6 tech-wizard Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond tracks Patrice in the hope that he will lead him to the criminal mastermind. The strategy works--though, as Bond discovers, the mastermind is not someone to be trifled with, a super-smart someone (Javier Bardem) with an arsenal of weapons, a small army, and decades-old plans to seek deadly revenge against his old boss, M.

What Works?
Unlike many recent Bond movies (like the four late-90s, early-2000s chapters starring Pierce Brosnan), Skyfall does not overdose on action, gadgets, overacted villainy or wan attempts at romance. The usual Bond bits are in place--the martini, the car, the gun, the gadget, etc...--but Skyfall never feels like a cookie-cutter creation. The story and acting nuances are all too good for that. Mendes was out to make a real film, and he has.

Heading a very good and memorable cast, Daniel Craig continues to prove tough, amusingly gruff, and delightfully dogged as Bond, here putting his serious acting chops to work as the character battles old age, injury, drunkenness, and some of the shadows of his past. Though fierce, he's immensely likeable, and it's getting harder and harder to remember that this same role was once played by Pierce Brosnan (or Sean Connery). Possibly the biggest bonus Skyfall has in its favor is a fleshed-out role for M. Instead of simply standing on the sidelines or sitting in an office barking orders, Judi Dench gets to get her hands dirty, making household explosives and defending MI6 against court prosecutors while suffering from guilt and showing both her age and her secret fears. Other major characters (who you might hear from again, *hint hint*) are well-played by Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw (whose young, confident, energetic Q is one of this movie's real treats).

However, what really makes Skyfall work is its primary villain--that cyberterrorist, Silva, played to deranged and frighteningly unpredictable perfection by Javier Bardem. Coming on the scene at about Skyfall's midpoint (right as it's beginning to feel a little long and slow), the actor gives the proceedings an immediate boost of adrenaline with a performance that reminded me of both his own previous portrayal of a merciless, debased hit man (in No Country For Old Men) and Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson's crazy-sadistic portrayals of The Joker. Silva is a man who's suffered both physical and emotional pain, and he's all the scarier for his desire to stop at nothing to make sure the right people pay. While one doubts Silva could hold his own in a fistfight with Craig's Bond, Bardem all but steals the show with his scary-memorable performance, by turns fey, flamboyant, and terrifying.

Also, the typical Bond movie theme song--Adele's "Skyfall"--is terrific, and it's set to blazingly-colorful opening credits.

What Doesn't Work?
Skyfall's main weakness is that it gets too long for its own good, albeit right in the middle. Bond's meeting with this installment's resident "Bond girl" (Berenice Marlohe) and then a skirmish with some hard-faced Asian baddies barely raises the pulse. At least one other major development is kind of glossed over, an unfortunate detail seeing as this particular plot point strains credulity. However, Skyfall's second half--essentially one long chase sequence--redeems its sometimes-plodding first, giving us breathtaking action as well as looks into the hearts and souls of Bond, M, and Silva (in this movie, you learn more about Bond's past than in all 22 previous parts combined). My only other complaint would be that Marlohe's performance, while decent, is unnecessary--the only time Skyfall feels like other, lesser James Bond movies is by trying to force the "Bond girl" storyline on us.

Content
The sex scenes are brief, and the cussing is minimal, but Skyfall is a hard PG-13 because of its level of intense action and its dark, unrelenting content. Silva may be odd, but he's an unpredictable nut case who will kill anyone who gets in his way. He also sports a gruesome disfigurement people will remember long after the movie. Skyfall probably isn't a very good film for kids.

Bottom Line (I Promise):
Not quite as good as the now-classic Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's first go-round from back in 2006, Skyfall is nonetheless an impressive, engaging Bond movie that, between its featured standout performances (by Craig, Dench, Bardem, and others) and its promise of other great things to come, makes you really look forward to the next one. Mission Accomplished.

Skyfall (2012)
Directed by Sam Mendes
Screenplay written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan; based on characters created by Ian Fleming
Rated PG-13
Length: 143 minutes

PARANORMAN

ParaNorman (2012)
Grade: A
Featuring the Voices of: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick, Tucker Albrizzi, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Casey Affleck, Jodelle Ferland, Leslie Mann, Jeff Garlin, Bernard Hill, Elaine Stritch and John Goodman
Premise: A boy who can see and speak to ghosts is called upon to help save his town when an ancient curse lets seven dead figures rise from their graves and walk the streets.

Rated PG (contains dark themes, rude humor, intense action and scary images)

Huh. Clearly I identify with movies about outcasts. ParaNorman is at least the third movie I've reviewed (after January's Hugo and September's Let Me In) that focused on a young man who was, if not completely unknown to other people, looked down upon and viewed as weird or different or outcast. A loner by nature, I guess I enjoy these movies so much because each gives that "outsider" a chance to fit in, be it with just one special person (as was the case in Let Me In), a family (a la Hugo) or, possibly, a whole community, as is the case here. Thus, with a story of an outsider coming into his own set as the basic framework around a thrilling adventure equipped with a heartfelt moral, ParaNorman is a treasure. It's a feast for the eyes, a laugh riot, an engaging twist-and-turn tale and an exercise, it turns out, in feeling good and making connections. What's not to like?

Oh, did I mention the zombies? There are zombies. In today's beyond-the-grave-obsessed culture, that can only be a plus ;)

Plot: Norman Babcock (voice of Kodi Smit-McPhee, the lead in Let Me In) can see ghosts. Yes, he can see the imprints of souls those who have passed on in or near his town of Blithe Hollow, Massachusetts, and he can speak with them. One frequent visitor is his recently-deceased grandmother (Elaine Stritch), who was the only person who even pretended to try and understand him. His parents (Leslie Mann and Jeff Garlin) and older sister (Anna Kendrick) tolerate his oddities with exasperation bordering on outright annoyance. And, at school, no one pays him any attention outside of a nasty bully named Alvin (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). Though Norman finds something of a kindred spirit in similarly teased and nerdy peer Neil (Tucker Abrizzi), he becomes even more alienated from everyone else when he gets a vision of paranormal happenings during the school play and freaks out in front of everybody.

The vision, though, was important. The town of Blithe Hollow is particularly famous for the event the school play was emulating, the trial and execution of a witch by Puritan townspeople nearly 300 years before. Every year on the anniversary of the killings, things start to get weird, but, in the past, all supernatural activity has been held in check by Norman's eccentric uncle (John Goodman). When that uncle keels over dead (and promptly visits Norman as a ghost), Norman realizes it's up to him to read from "the witch's book" at her gravesite and the graves of the seven particular settlers who saw to her killing. However, Norman's been grounded by his parents, and he can't get to the gravesites on time on the eve of the 300th anniversary. Ominous clouds form in the sky, and the decaying bodies of the seven Puritans, headed by a still-bewigged judge (Bernard Hill), rise and move into town, causing damage and distress. In a panic, Norman and Neil, aided reluctantly by Norman's sister and her crush (Casey Affleck) try to get to the site of the witch's grave to read from the book and put her spirit at peace.

What Works?
Like the similarly-delightful Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (2005), ParaNorman manages to portray dead bodies, severed body parts, ghosts and other grisly images in a way that evokes both unease and glee. Thus, while certain scenes are appropriately creepy and cringe-worthy, it also hits home run after home run in the slapstick department (one stand-out gag, involving a dead, lulling tongue, is by turns horrifying and hilarious). I was rolling in my seat during the bulk of the film, which not only makes a night of the living dead scenario about as funny as Dumb & Dumber but also tickles the funnybone with tongue-in-cheek societal stereotypes (gun-toting rednecks, ditzy, simpering girls and lugheaded he-men) and crackerjack visual magic. The animation is superb--if it's not quite as glossy as a Pixar creation, it's nonetheless realistic as well as effectively gritty and creative.

The voice cast is superb, populated as it is with respectable but not necessarily A-list names. Smit-McPhee, who played a lonely outcast with paranormal company in live-action in Let Me In, has the perfect earnest and unwhiny voice for the grown-beyond-his-years hero. He really brings Norman to life. Mintz-Plasse is a scream as the snotty but wussy villain. Goodman continues building his diverse repertoire with expressive voice work as Norman's uncle, and Kendrick, Affleck, Albrizzi, Garlin and Mann all make sure this is a rollicking good time. All of Jodelle Ferland's work comes in the more down-to-earth third act revelations about the witch's history, and she, McPhee, the animation team, and the poignant dialogue come through with a message about being different and still loving and forgiving that really means a lot, especially in a "different" movie like this. I definitely didn't expect such a heartfelt message from a movie with ParaNorman's quirky looks and story--Score One for the screenwriter (Chris Butler) and directors (Butler and Sam Fell).

What Doesn't Work?
At 92 minutes, ParaNorman is briskly-paced, but it takes a few extra, unnecessary minutes to get around to the witch's story, adding a step or two to the storyboard and climactic spectacle that could have been done without. At least one gag is also dragged out considerably too long. However, these are small complaints. Most of this movie is a wonder.

Content
Can you not tell? From Norman's penchant for watching brain-eating-zombie movies to his fake-severed-head lamp and the appearances of all the ghosts he encounters--not to mention a brief, hammy death scene--ParaNorman is loaded with themes and ideas that might spook younger kids, as well as some of their parents. A mild cuss-word or two is dropped, and there are a few low-key innuendos as well. But, for the most part, it's the in-your-face nature of the darker themes that might make people uncomfortable.

Bottom Line (I Promise): Gut-bustingly-funny, wondrously-animated, intriguing and surprisingly-touching, ParaNorman is a really good time--a smart, funny movie for the family. Please don't be put off by the beyond-the-grave themes. I promise you, this movie has its heart in the right place.

Oh, and there are zombies. Did I mention the zombies?

ParaNorman (2012)
Directed by Chris Butler and Sam Fell
Screenplay by Chris Butler
Rated PG
Length: 92 minutes

HOPE SPRINGS

Hope Springs (2012)
Grade: B
Starring: Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones and Steve Carell
Premise: A bored housewife whose marriage has lost its luster enrolls herself and her husband in a week-long Intensive Couples Counseling.

Rated PG-13 for language, constant sexual references, some sensuality, and some intense emotional content

Not too long ago, I was speaking fondly to my mom of her parents--my grandma and grandpa, who’ve been married for 51 years and are parents of six, grandparents of 22 and great-grandparents of six. Since my grandfather got past his serious alcoholic stage nearly 30 years ago, their marriage has been steady and positive. It's darn near impossible to think of one without the other. Anyway, in the conversation, I mentioned to my mom how awesome it is that her parents are still married, that they've stayed together through thick and thin, and that they're past the stage where they have to worry about what they look like, and whether the other finds them physically attractive. At that point, my mom stopped me and went "whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm pretty sure they do still worry about being physically attractive." Well, I was surprised. Typical twenty-something, right? What? Old people don’t care about being physically attractive! Obviously! According to my mom, they do. And going along with such an idea, it’s clear that part-emotional, part-psychological and part-biological desire to be attractive to people—let alone the person you give yourself to, who you’re closest to—doesn't fade along with your hair color and your youthful "attractiveness".

Such is the idea behind Hope Springs--that a couple who has seen several decades together, still live together and have had children together, who aren't divorced, aren't separated, and aren't at each other's throats, might not necessarily be the perfect couple. There's no financial crisis and no question of adultery, but the relationship has lost its luster. The film opens with an agonizing scene in which meek housewife Kay (Oscar-winner Meryl Streep, very good in a subdued role that requires her to look all of her 63 years) enters the guest bedroom, in which her husband, Arnold (67-year-old Tommy Lee Jones, terrific), sleeps. She's wearing a slinky blue dress that shows plenty of cleavage, has put on makeup and primped herself. She even leans against the inside of the door just so after entering. His response: "What?" He thinks she must have a logical reason for coming inside. Is her room cold? Is something wrong? Realizing they're on totally separate wavelengths, Kay is mortified and can't even speak. She leaves the room and goes to bed alone.

A wife not being able to tell her husband she wants to have sex—let alone a wife of 31 years? Hope Springs is all the more effective because it ups the stakes, focusing on the sort of couple most outsiders would assume isn't having problems (they're still together, aren't they?), and then taking a peek, revealing troubles a couple of any age could have.

Plot: Kay cooks, cleans and works day hours in a clothing store. Arnold works a white-collar job in an office that undoubtedly pays well. However, despite a big house, healthy, happy grown children and all the physical comforts they could want, Kay is not happy. After Arnold threw out his back some time before, he found it was more comfortable to sleep alone in the guest room. He never came back. And they almost never talk. Every morning Kay makes Arnold a bacon-and-egg breakfast that is ready just as he sits down to read the paper (in silence). Once he's eaten, he gets up, tells Kay what time he'll be home, gives her a peck on the cheek, and leaves. They usually eat dinner in silence, celebrate holidays/anniversaries by buying "gifts for the house" (like new cable subscriptions or water heaters) and then Arnold falls asleep in an armchair watching instructional golf shows on ESPN. Kay feels lonely and disconnected, but she's too quiet/soft-spoken/intimidated to say anything outright. But, when she hears about an Intensive Couples Counseling offered by a Dr. Bernard Feld (Steve Carell) in Maine, she signs them up for it and even pays the entire cost. Arnold is appalled at her sudden hefty expenditure and reluctant to go, but he can see it means a lot to her and grudgingly takes a seat beside her on the plane.

The counseling sessions—with the couple and Dr. Feld—are exactly what Arnold feared they would be. Kay's not too fond, either. They're asked about how often they have sex (it's been almost five years), what they like about sex, why they don't touch each other anymore, whether they still find each other attractive, and challenged to try different touching exercises. They try to fumble through it—Kay shyly and Arnold grumpily (and because he doesn't want them to have wasted $4,000)—but, slowly, they start to open up. Secrets are revealed. Resentments are revealed. Pains and fears are voiced. They talk more than they have in years. However, in the midst of these sessions, Kay realizes the pain may have gone too deep. Even a nice date and a few honest storytelling sessions may not be enough.

What Works?
The actors do. This is a change of pace for both leads—Kay is very unlike the strong-willed, dynamic, resourceful women Streep usually plays, and Arnold is just a regular old man, a big change for Jones, who usually plays the coolest, smartest, wittiest character in his movies. Both are terrific. It's a bit of a shock seeing Jones nearly in tears contemplating a failed marriage and 31 years on the hook, while Streep embodies and acts out fears any woman of any age can relate to (when an embarrassed, agonized Kay cries out "I can’t do this; I'm not sexy!" late in the film, it truly hit me; how many people of any age have that exact fear?). The actors also bravely chart waters (like sexual references, admissions about sexual fantasies and even moments of physical intimacy together) that are usually reserved for actors at least a few years younger, and they do it memorably.

The film’s success rests with those two leads, which would be a great anchor for any film. The only other actor with significant screen time is Carell, who puts his typical understated everyman-ness to good use. But the depiction of Kay and Arnold’s relationship, and all the ins and outs, all the regrets and worries and resentments and mistakes, is what Hope Springs is all about. The movie also ends with a hell of a funny joke.

What Doesn’t Work?
Any movie about a rebuilt relationship is going to have a hard time not getting wishy-washy in its third act, and Hope Springs is no different—though I have a hard time remembering a movie where you wanted it to happen more. If anything, the movie feels a bit short. The structure of the movie also feels a little uneven; most of the sessions are depicted in three or four minute segments where more would have been nice (we only get a fraction of the typical “I first saw him/her when….” story). Some of those moments would have benefited from being fleshed out more. But the big thing Hope Springs does right is depict both people thoroughly—neither Kay nor Arnold is the bad guy or the perfect partner, and we are able to see in both what would attract and repel the other.

Content
I know what you’re thinking: a movie starring old people that’s all about sex!?! While no sex is depicted graphically, terms like “orgasm” and “climax” and “oral sex” are brought up repeatedly, and there are some heated make-out sessions and a lot of conversations about sexual fantasies and desires. Most kids would just be bored by a movie featuring three people sitting in an office and talking, but even those who stay might hear things a little beyond their sensitive ears.

Bottom Line (I Promise): Sure, it’s a little mushy and preachy, but Hope Springs is a moving, honest movie about what people desire and need in relationships, even relationship that have lasted decades. It’s a great chance to watch two experienced actors at the top of their game try something new.

Hope Springs (2012)
Directed by David Frankel
Written by Vanessa Taylor
Rated PG-13
Length: 100 minutes