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
Friday, November 9, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
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
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
Saturday, November 3, 2012
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 Arnold Arnold
The counseling sessions—with the couple and Dr. Feld—are exactly whatArnold Arnold
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 andArnold
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, andHope Springs
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
Directed by David Frankel
Written by Vanessa Taylor
Rated PG-13
Length: 100 minutes
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.
The counseling sessions—with the couple and Dr. Feld—are exactly what
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
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
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.
Directed by David Frankel
Written by Vanessa Taylor
Rated PG-13
Length: 100 minutes
Friday, November 2, 2012
FLIGHT
Flight (2012)
Grade: B-
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Bruce Greenwood, Don Cheadle, John Goodman, Brian Geraghty and Melissa Leo
Premise: An airline pilot whose plane is in freefall manages to maneuver a crash landing that saves most of the passengers and crew on board. Called a hero and a genius, the surviving pilot is nonetheless snakebitten by accusations that his flagrant alcohol use contributed to the crash.
Rated R for Language (including some frank sexual dialogue), graphic depictions of drug and alcohol use and addiction, an intense plane crash sequence, and a scene of graphic nudity
It's the first week of November, which means more and more movies will be hitting theaters that have their eyes on the prestigious little golden statuette by the name of Oscar, and already, on the 2nd, here is a tasty early course that is all but guaranteed at least one nomination. That film is Flight, a fictional drama that has the sometimes-nightmarish feel of a true story, directed by Forrest Gump's Robert Zemeckis and featuring as its lead one Denzel Washington, a two-time Academy Award-winner who here has his deepest, best role in years. It's not a perfect movie, but the actor makes it memorable. While Flight is kicked off, and anchored by, an airline jet journey that ends badly, it really focuses on the tempting but increasingly-ugly escape hatches of denial, pleasure, lies and addiction. It's a film many will relate to, and many more will need to learn from.
Plot:
While William "Whip" Whitaker's (Denzel Washington) life has its ugly spots, it's difficult to say he's just barely surviving. He's a military veteran employed in the lucrative mission of flying passenger planes all over the world, and he can easily delve into those things he truly enjoys, such as alcohol, cocaine, and nighttime romps with beautiful airline employees like stewardess Katerina Marquez (Nadia Velazquez). After a night (and morning) of enjoying all three, Whip is scheduled to fly a lazy mid-morning route from Orlando to Atlanta. Sure he has a stranger (Brian Geraghty) for a co-pilot and there are some looming storm clouds, but Whip knows this business. He's even able to spike his orange juice and coffee with vodka bottles from the airliner's drink cart.
However, he has just barely reached clear blue sky through a heap of turbulence-causing stormclouds when his plane randomly plunges downward, hurtling toward a quiet suburban neighborhood. While passengers scream and pray and his co-pilot panics, Whip leads the plane into a risky maneuver that manages to get it to the ground largely in one piece. Casualties are minimal, though the rough landing does result in a few deaths. However, the general consensus among the relieved public and early federal aviation investigators is that Whip is a hero; his quick-thinking and know-how saved 96 of a possible 102 people. But a toxicology report done before he wakes in the hospital reveals the copious amounts of alcohol and cocaine in his system, and the bottles of vodka he used on his in-flight drink are found--a problem, seeing as he suspended the dispersion of beverages on board the plane due to the early flight turbulence. When lawyer Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) brings these grievances to light, Whip panics, and, having previously dumped away all his alcohol in a fit of grief and fright, begins drinking again. He sees his coke dealer (John Goodman) again. He brings a fellow junkie (Kelly Reilly) he met in the hospital into his secluded farm hideout. But he can't escape the press. He can't escape the lawyer. He can't escape an upcoming televised hearing about the events that led to the plane crash. And, of course, he can't escape himself, and his reliance on drink to save him from the pain of his past and present.
What Works?
For a long movie, Flight cruises along pretty well, depicting with ease the difficulty someone would experience in being hailed a hero while he (and others) recognize his obvious flaws. Washington is tremendous in the role. The tortured, in-excess Whip is his juiciest role in years, and, for an actor who's been accused more and more of doing the same-old, same-old, or having nothing new in his arsenal, this goes a long way. While the charisma and screen presence I mentioned in my recent review of Washington's Safe House are in evidence, this is the first time in a while I can remember seeing Washington play a character who can seem small and huddled. You can see fear and doubt in his eyes. Though the actor has played villains before (like in Training Day) he's almost always had a sense of nobility and courage about him. That almost-regal essence is almost gone here, where the words that would more accurately describe Whip are weak, pathetic, pitiful, even repulsive. Washington pulls out the stops in a performance that can be flat-out unlikeable--he covers his insecurities with explicit tirades and hair-raising insults, he lies and cheats and begs and pleads, and, like so many addled by addictions and insecurities, he only needs the slightest opportunity to alienate those closest to him. It's a truly awesome tour-de-force.
While Washington (probably in line for his sixth career Academy Award nomination and first since winning Best Actor for 2001's Training Day) gets the lion's share of the credit for the film's success, he does have support. Reilly, Cheadle, Greenwood, Brian Geraghty and Tamara Tunie all contribute ably as people touched in different ways by Whip, be they good, bad, or ugly. Tunie has a particularly-good moment as a flight attendant who's known Whip for eleven years and is aware of his alcoholic tendences; her eyes fill with emotion and sad knowingness as a surprisingly-pitiful Washington pleads with her to feign ignorance. The all-important plane crash is also a suitably gripping, terrifying experience.
What Doesn't Work?
The movie's tone--mostly sobering (pun intended)--is usually interrupted by the appearances of an oddly-quirky John Goodman, who seems to have strolled in from another film. And Reilly's junkie is given a surprising amount of screen-time early on for someone who disappears halfway through the movie. There's also a curious--and rather aggravating--scene in which Geraghty's now-crippled co-pilot and his hyper-religious wife call the plane crash preordained and offer to pray with the troubled Whip. While it may be an attempt to add a new dimension to Whip's story and ordeal, it's so short and brief it feels a little more like a half-baked attempt to show a bit of scorn toward people who would label such a disastrous event as "an act of God". In any case, some of the "praise Jesus" dialogue felt a little farcicial, and why cut away right as Geraghty begins praying with Whip after setting it up in such a serious manner?
At two-and-a-quarter hours, Flight does drag in places, and a sentimental U-turn late in the running, while redeeming Washington's character and, possibly, the audience's mood upon leaving, seems a little unnecessary.
Content: Flight is very rated R, from two early (and unnecessary) scenes of graphic nudity and graphic sex-related dialogue to repeated scenes of Washington, Reilly, Goodman and others snorting coke. All these scenes felt in-excess; while it helps non-drug users understand the addiction to show the scene once, why so many times? And why, in one late scene, almost as a comic relief? There's also a fair amount of four-letter words and a few bloody images during and after the plane crash, but the majority of the drama is accomplished through what Flight conveys about addiction and personal demons.
Bottom Line (I Promise): Flight isn't a must-see unless you're a huge Denzel Washington fan, but it does have a lot to say about the demons of addiction, lies, and denial.
Flight (2012)
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by John Gatins
Rated R
Length: 138 minutes
Grade: B-
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Bruce Greenwood, Don Cheadle, John Goodman, Brian Geraghty and Melissa Leo
Premise: An airline pilot whose plane is in freefall manages to maneuver a crash landing that saves most of the passengers and crew on board. Called a hero and a genius, the surviving pilot is nonetheless snakebitten by accusations that his flagrant alcohol use contributed to the crash.
Rated R for Language (including some frank sexual dialogue), graphic depictions of drug and alcohol use and addiction, an intense plane crash sequence, and a scene of graphic nudity
It's the first week of November, which means more and more movies will be hitting theaters that have their eyes on the prestigious little golden statuette by the name of Oscar, and already, on the 2nd, here is a tasty early course that is all but guaranteed at least one nomination. That film is Flight, a fictional drama that has the sometimes-nightmarish feel of a true story, directed by Forrest Gump's Robert Zemeckis and featuring as its lead one Denzel Washington, a two-time Academy Award-winner who here has his deepest, best role in years. It's not a perfect movie, but the actor makes it memorable. While Flight is kicked off, and anchored by, an airline jet journey that ends badly, it really focuses on the tempting but increasingly-ugly escape hatches of denial, pleasure, lies and addiction. It's a film many will relate to, and many more will need to learn from.
Plot:
While William "Whip" Whitaker's (Denzel Washington) life has its ugly spots, it's difficult to say he's just barely surviving. He's a military veteran employed in the lucrative mission of flying passenger planes all over the world, and he can easily delve into those things he truly enjoys, such as alcohol, cocaine, and nighttime romps with beautiful airline employees like stewardess Katerina Marquez (Nadia Velazquez). After a night (and morning) of enjoying all three, Whip is scheduled to fly a lazy mid-morning route from Orlando to Atlanta. Sure he has a stranger (Brian Geraghty) for a co-pilot and there are some looming storm clouds, but Whip knows this business. He's even able to spike his orange juice and coffee with vodka bottles from the airliner's drink cart.
However, he has just barely reached clear blue sky through a heap of turbulence-causing stormclouds when his plane randomly plunges downward, hurtling toward a quiet suburban neighborhood. While passengers scream and pray and his co-pilot panics, Whip leads the plane into a risky maneuver that manages to get it to the ground largely in one piece. Casualties are minimal, though the rough landing does result in a few deaths. However, the general consensus among the relieved public and early federal aviation investigators is that Whip is a hero; his quick-thinking and know-how saved 96 of a possible 102 people. But a toxicology report done before he wakes in the hospital reveals the copious amounts of alcohol and cocaine in his system, and the bottles of vodka he used on his in-flight drink are found--a problem, seeing as he suspended the dispersion of beverages on board the plane due to the early flight turbulence. When lawyer Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) brings these grievances to light, Whip panics, and, having previously dumped away all his alcohol in a fit of grief and fright, begins drinking again. He sees his coke dealer (John Goodman) again. He brings a fellow junkie (Kelly Reilly) he met in the hospital into his secluded farm hideout. But he can't escape the press. He can't escape the lawyer. He can't escape an upcoming televised hearing about the events that led to the plane crash. And, of course, he can't escape himself, and his reliance on drink to save him from the pain of his past and present.
What Works?
For a long movie, Flight cruises along pretty well, depicting with ease the difficulty someone would experience in being hailed a hero while he (and others) recognize his obvious flaws. Washington is tremendous in the role. The tortured, in-excess Whip is his juiciest role in years, and, for an actor who's been accused more and more of doing the same-old, same-old, or having nothing new in his arsenal, this goes a long way. While the charisma and screen presence I mentioned in my recent review of Washington's Safe House are in evidence, this is the first time in a while I can remember seeing Washington play a character who can seem small and huddled. You can see fear and doubt in his eyes. Though the actor has played villains before (like in Training Day) he's almost always had a sense of nobility and courage about him. That almost-regal essence is almost gone here, where the words that would more accurately describe Whip are weak, pathetic, pitiful, even repulsive. Washington pulls out the stops in a performance that can be flat-out unlikeable--he covers his insecurities with explicit tirades and hair-raising insults, he lies and cheats and begs and pleads, and, like so many addled by addictions and insecurities, he only needs the slightest opportunity to alienate those closest to him. It's a truly awesome tour-de-force.
While Washington (probably in line for his sixth career Academy Award nomination and first since winning Best Actor for 2001's Training Day) gets the lion's share of the credit for the film's success, he does have support. Reilly, Cheadle, Greenwood, Brian Geraghty and Tamara Tunie all contribute ably as people touched in different ways by Whip, be they good, bad, or ugly. Tunie has a particularly-good moment as a flight attendant who's known Whip for eleven years and is aware of his alcoholic tendences; her eyes fill with emotion and sad knowingness as a surprisingly-pitiful Washington pleads with her to feign ignorance. The all-important plane crash is also a suitably gripping, terrifying experience.
What Doesn't Work?
The movie's tone--mostly sobering (pun intended)--is usually interrupted by the appearances of an oddly-quirky John Goodman, who seems to have strolled in from another film. And Reilly's junkie is given a surprising amount of screen-time early on for someone who disappears halfway through the movie. There's also a curious--and rather aggravating--scene in which Geraghty's now-crippled co-pilot and his hyper-religious wife call the plane crash preordained and offer to pray with the troubled Whip. While it may be an attempt to add a new dimension to Whip's story and ordeal, it's so short and brief it feels a little more like a half-baked attempt to show a bit of scorn toward people who would label such a disastrous event as "an act of God". In any case, some of the "praise Jesus" dialogue felt a little farcicial, and why cut away right as Geraghty begins praying with Whip after setting it up in such a serious manner?
At two-and-a-quarter hours, Flight does drag in places, and a sentimental U-turn late in the running, while redeeming Washington's character and, possibly, the audience's mood upon leaving, seems a little unnecessary.
Content: Flight is very rated R, from two early (and unnecessary) scenes of graphic nudity and graphic sex-related dialogue to repeated scenes of Washington, Reilly, Goodman and others snorting coke. All these scenes felt in-excess; while it helps non-drug users understand the addiction to show the scene once, why so many times? And why, in one late scene, almost as a comic relief? There's also a fair amount of four-letter words and a few bloody images during and after the plane crash, but the majority of the drama is accomplished through what Flight conveys about addiction and personal demons.
Bottom Line (I Promise): Flight isn't a must-see unless you're a huge Denzel Washington fan, but it does have a lot to say about the demons of addiction, lies, and denial.
Flight (2012)
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by John Gatins
Rated R
Length: 138 minutes
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
SAFE HOUSE
Safe House (2012)
Grade: B-
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard
Premise: A young CIA agent suddenly finds a high-priority fugitive in his custody, and must transport him to a CIA safe house miles away while assassins pursue them.
Rated R for strong, bloody violence, language and a brief scene of torture
Grade: B-
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard
Premise: A young CIA agent suddenly finds a high-priority fugitive in his custody, and must transport him to a CIA safe house miles away while assassins pursue them.
Rated R for strong, bloody violence, language and a brief scene of torture
It’s not hard to think of a way to describe Safe House, a Denzel Washington spy/action vehicle that hit theaters this past February. Think of the Bourne series. Throw out the amnesia subplot. You’re left with a lickety-split spy/action thriller featuring a high-priority agent--who's in possession of certain secrets--on the run, doing his best to thwart foreign field agents while trying to get back to Washington Washington South Africa instead of Europe . Put ingredients together, stir and let simmer.
Oh, Safe House is an entertaining watch, to be sure. There’s gunplay and car chases and fisticuffs galore, different whodunit and who’s-side-are-they-on subplots and an ending that leaves you wanting a bit more. It’s a decent action picture—fronted by a pair of very capable leading men, to boot. It just feels so familiar. If Denzel wasn’t it, I’d probably forget all about it. Since Denzel is in it, I might remember it for just a little bit longer.
Plot:
Rookie CIA agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) undoubtedly wonders why he ever joined the CIA. Though highly trained and highly educated, he was assigned a “house-sitting” position in Cape Town , South Africa
Forced on the road, Weston is given orders to take Frost to another safe house in the country. But what with the Euro-assassins on their tales, the highly-skilled and intellectual Frost trying to toy with Weston’s mind and escape his custody, and the confusion back at headquarters between different department directors (Brenda Gleeson, Vera Farmiga), whether they’ll even make this new safe house remains a mystery. And, even if they do, the question facing Weston is—what to do with Frost when he gets there?
What Works?
Having Denzel Washington in the movie works, of course! Denzel is no chameleon, but here, as in most of his roles, he radiates charisma and an energy that allows you to take him at his word. A super-smart superspy who can also beat the daylights out of people? Works for me! Frost probably wasn’t a very tough role for Washington Washington
While the rest of the cast, though featuring some well-known names, is saddled with a bunch of largely by-the-numbers executive roles, Safe House doesn’t drag. There are several wickedly-intense, edge-of-your-seat action sequences, and only about half of them are ruined by smash-cut editing and shaky-cam cinematography. Washington
What Doesn’t Work?
I already pointed most of it out—one key fight is largely spoiled by poor lighting and hyperactive editing, accomplished actors like Vera Farmiga, Sam Shepard and Brenda Gleeson are stuck in one-dimensional roles anyone could have played, and it’s a little difficult not to roll your eyes during the obligatory third-act “surprises” (this guy was really working with this guy to undermine so-and-so, while So-and-so, contrary to the last hour, is actually a bad guy, which makes him this other person's actual enemy). Sorry if that seems really cynical, but I’ve seen a lot of spy capers with twists and surprises.
Content
Supporting characters in this film have extraordinarily short life spans, and they’re off-ed in ways both subtle and not subtle. There’s a short but intense torture scene early on, a couple of to-a-pulp beatings, a bunch of heavy shootouts, and two extra-brutal fistfights that border on the disturbing in their bone-crunching, pain-inflicting intimate details (Reynolds, playing a rookie agent who's , does make his character’s sense of horror at the escalating violence palpable). Of course, there’s also a couple lines’ worth of four-letter words, but, other than one brief suggestive scene, no hints of sexuality or nudity.
Bottom Line (I Promise): The Bourne Safe House (just kidding) won’t be the most original movie you’ve ever seen, and it doesn’t boast Denzel’s best performance ever, but it’s got enough interesting plot twists and electrifying action sequences that it will keep most viewers entertained. Just try to walk away maintaining some faith in our government’s ability to get things done—that might be this movie’s real challenge.
Safe House (2012)
Directed by Daniel Espinosa
Written by David Guggenheim
Rated R
Length: 115 minutes
Sunday, October 21, 2012
LOOPER
Looper (2012)
Grade: B
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Pierce Gagnon, Noah Segan, Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano
PREMISE: A master assassin who kills criminals sent back through time is forced to make a series of difficult choices when his next marked target is the older version of himself.
Rated R for bloody violence, language, sexual content including nudity, and some disturbing images
Unfortunately, I didn't go into the movie Looper with a clean slate. Though I had only sparingly seen trailers, hadn't read any official reviews, and hadn't had any in-depth conversations with anybody who'd seen it, people's social media venting about this particular well-reviewed sci-fi thriller made it evident that the movie would end on some very dramatic note. "Incredibly sad," one of my friends wrote. "Depressing" said another. So, while I was engaged-and quite interested in-this impressively trippy original work, I was poised the whole time, just waiting for an attempt to wring out my tear ducts. Thus, the last 10 minutes didn't have as much an effect on me as they could have, because I was waiting for them. I'm also not a particularly big fan of dramatic twist endings (I'm still recovering from the last-minute shockers of The Dark Knight Rises and The Usual Suspects). Well, there...now I've gone and ruined your chance of seeing it with no clue. Sorry.
Plot
In 2074, mankind develops the ability to travel back through time. Organized criminals quickly put this technology to use by sending people they want "gone" back through time to be executed. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, under an intricate, impressive set of prosthetics) is one of the hired guns from 2044 who does the killing. Give him a time and a place and he waits patiently, stopwatch in one hand and power-packing shotgun in the other. When a person appears, he blows them away without hesitation. He then disposes of the body and is handsomely rewarded. But then Joe's simple routine of killing and then tripping on eye-injected acid drugs is interrupted when his colleague and best friend Seth (Paul Dano) panics after being sent an older version of himself to kill. Joe wants to help, but when he's backed into a corner by his crime lord/father figure (Jeff Daniels), he gives him up. Wracked with guilt, he has barely begun imagining what would happen if his older self was sent back through time for execution when it happens. His older self (played by Bruce Willis) appears, and he can't recover from his shock quickly enough.
The old man escapes, and promptly sets out on a complicated mission to find and kill the younger version of the dictator running the 2074 crime scene, whose latest victim was his beloved wife (Qing Xu). Meanwhile, the younger Joe, desperate to kill or capture his older self and regain his cozy existence, tracks him to the house of a young mother (Emily Blunt), where he's forced to stop and rest while suffering drug withdrawal. But the crime lord's agents are hot on the case, chasing both the younger Joe and his older self, and the former soon realizes the woman and her young son will be targeted for helping him.
What Works?
The film is very engaging, but the first thing I must talk about is the prosthetic set used to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt resemble a mix of himself and Bruce Willis. While it's not perfect, I became considerably less-obsessed with how real or not-real it looked as I became amazed at the way Joe's eyebrows and nose suggest Willis, while the eyes, mouth and expressions remain Gordon-Levitt's. And that's not to mention the always-admirable Gordon-Levitt is a good enough actor to channel rage, grief and anxiety through the makeup. As far as acting goes, Willis also does an impressive job, and Blunt makes the most of a slightly under-written role.
Looper is very likable, though--an original work with a couple surprises in its back pocket (there's a bit with self-inflicted scars bearing messages that is quite intriguing), and the pace is often furious while the stakes are, of course, sky-high. The idea that both men are hunting themselves never loses its luster.
What Doesn't Work?
One of the key developments--it involves some people's ability to use telekinesis to make things levitate--seems shoe-horned in (it brought to mind M. Night Shyamalan at his laziest), and the last third of the running time contains an overall weird feel that belongs in a different movie. There's also a subplot involving a desperate-to-prove-himself hit man-wannabe (Noah Segan) that is needlessly brought back to life so often throughout the film it's annoying.
Content
While Looper earns its R primarily with four-letter words and bouts of stupendous violence (like one scene where dozens of hitmen are offed by a machine-gun-wielding Willis), there's also one instance of graphic nudity and a few disturbing images related to children in peril.
Bottom Line (I Promise): Neither as sad nor as good as I was expecting, Looper is nonetheless an entertaining and well-made original work.
Looper (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Rian Johnson
Rated R
Length: 118 minutes
Grade: B
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Pierce Gagnon, Noah Segan, Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano
PREMISE: A master assassin who kills criminals sent back through time is forced to make a series of difficult choices when his next marked target is the older version of himself.
Rated R for bloody violence, language, sexual content including nudity, and some disturbing images
Unfortunately, I didn't go into the movie Looper with a clean slate. Though I had only sparingly seen trailers, hadn't read any official reviews, and hadn't had any in-depth conversations with anybody who'd seen it, people's social media venting about this particular well-reviewed sci-fi thriller made it evident that the movie would end on some very dramatic note. "Incredibly sad," one of my friends wrote. "Depressing" said another. So, while I was engaged-and quite interested in-this impressively trippy original work, I was poised the whole time, just waiting for an attempt to wring out my tear ducts. Thus, the last 10 minutes didn't have as much an effect on me as they could have, because I was waiting for them. I'm also not a particularly big fan of dramatic twist endings (I'm still recovering from the last-minute shockers of The Dark Knight Rises and The Usual Suspects). Well, there...now I've gone and ruined your chance of seeing it with no clue. Sorry.
Plot
In 2074, mankind develops the ability to travel back through time. Organized criminals quickly put this technology to use by sending people they want "gone" back through time to be executed. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, under an intricate, impressive set of prosthetics) is one of the hired guns from 2044 who does the killing. Give him a time and a place and he waits patiently, stopwatch in one hand and power-packing shotgun in the other. When a person appears, he blows them away without hesitation. He then disposes of the body and is handsomely rewarded. But then Joe's simple routine of killing and then tripping on eye-injected acid drugs is interrupted when his colleague and best friend Seth (Paul Dano) panics after being sent an older version of himself to kill. Joe wants to help, but when he's backed into a corner by his crime lord/father figure (Jeff Daniels), he gives him up. Wracked with guilt, he has barely begun imagining what would happen if his older self was sent back through time for execution when it happens. His older self (played by Bruce Willis) appears, and he can't recover from his shock quickly enough.
The old man escapes, and promptly sets out on a complicated mission to find and kill the younger version of the dictator running the 2074 crime scene, whose latest victim was his beloved wife (Qing Xu). Meanwhile, the younger Joe, desperate to kill or capture his older self and regain his cozy existence, tracks him to the house of a young mother (Emily Blunt), where he's forced to stop and rest while suffering drug withdrawal. But the crime lord's agents are hot on the case, chasing both the younger Joe and his older self, and the former soon realizes the woman and her young son will be targeted for helping him.
What Works?
The film is very engaging, but the first thing I must talk about is the prosthetic set used to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt resemble a mix of himself and Bruce Willis. While it's not perfect, I became considerably less-obsessed with how real or not-real it looked as I became amazed at the way Joe's eyebrows and nose suggest Willis, while the eyes, mouth and expressions remain Gordon-Levitt's. And that's not to mention the always-admirable Gordon-Levitt is a good enough actor to channel rage, grief and anxiety through the makeup. As far as acting goes, Willis also does an impressive job, and Blunt makes the most of a slightly under-written role.
Looper is very likable, though--an original work with a couple surprises in its back pocket (there's a bit with self-inflicted scars bearing messages that is quite intriguing), and the pace is often furious while the stakes are, of course, sky-high. The idea that both men are hunting themselves never loses its luster.
What Doesn't Work?
One of the key developments--it involves some people's ability to use telekinesis to make things levitate--seems shoe-horned in (it brought to mind M. Night Shyamalan at his laziest), and the last third of the running time contains an overall weird feel that belongs in a different movie. There's also a subplot involving a desperate-to-prove-himself hit man-wannabe (Noah Segan) that is needlessly brought back to life so often throughout the film it's annoying.
Content
While Looper earns its R primarily with four-letter words and bouts of stupendous violence (like one scene where dozens of hitmen are offed by a machine-gun-wielding Willis), there's also one instance of graphic nudity and a few disturbing images related to children in peril.
Bottom Line (I Promise): Neither as sad nor as good as I was expecting, Looper is nonetheless an entertaining and well-made original work.
Looper (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Rian Johnson
Rated R
Length: 118 minutes
Friday, October 19, 2012
THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER
The Perks of Being A Wallflower (2012)
Grade: A
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh, Johnny Simmons, Paul Rudd and Melanie Lynskey
PREMISE: A lonely high school freshman falls in with a group of eccentric seniors who help him deal with personal problems in his life.
RATED PG-13 for language, strong sexual content (including partial nudity and suggestive references), intense emotional content, alcohol/drug use, and a fight
Wow. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a wonderful movie, and a very necessary one. Based on a coming-of-age 1999 novel written by Stephen Chbosky (who also wrote the screenplay and directed the movie), the film deals bravely and directly with a murderer's row of the most important issues of our teenage years--dead-end relationships, suicidal thoughts, prejudice against homosexuality, family tension, sexual tension, peer pressure related to drugs and sex, schoolroom fights, and even the question of what love isn't, and is. I was expecting a boldly offbeat sort of romantic comedy, not this. Not a film that plumbed such dark places in the human mind and heart. Not a film that dared to inspect the sort of things that even sensitive people try to cover up. And certainly not a film that dared suggest, in this day and age, that losing your virginity-even to someone you think you really love-can be a painful and regrettable experience.
Wow.
Plot
Having been sent into a mental/emotional tailspin by the unexpected, unexplained suicide of his best friend, lonely teenager Charlie (the soulful, solid Logan Lerman) is just starting to get a grip on life again. His parents and sister (Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, and Nina Dobrev, respectively) watch him cautiously and anxiously, he spills his thoughts into a journal because he has no one to really talk to, and he approaches his first day of high school as someone just trying not to get in anyone else's way. At first, he's just the only kid who participates in discussions in his English class, but, at a rowdy football game, he takes a chance and goes and sits next to excitable class clown Patrick (a wonderful Ezra Miller). Patrick almost immediately takes him in as a friend, and introduces him to his spunky stepsister, Sam (Emma Watson, warm and welcoming), and a group of other friends. Soon enough, he's no longer an outcast, but someone included in a "group of outcasts".
Basically, he gets a nice big handful of life. When he's not dancing, laughing, or exchanging gifts with his friends, he's doing extra reading on recommendations from his kindly English teacher (Paul Rudd, very likeable in a small, straight role), listening to new music and making mix tapes, and slowly regaining normalcy. He helps Sam study for her second go at the SAT so she can be eligible for Penn State. He's able to give up a precious childhood memento that reminds him too much of the untimely childhood death of his beloved aunt (Melanie Lynksey). He gets his first kiss. But with his friends' time in the area winding down (they're seniors, he's a freshman), anxiety, loneliness, and loss threaten to engulf him once more.
What Works?
The film has surprises-and shockers-around every corner, making that plot summary seem even more rudimentary than it is. But I wouldn't dare reveal more, considering what a rich, full movie this is. It can be a hard watch-I won't lie, it is a very bittersweet experience-but, again, it's a surprisingly tough and transparent look at high school/teenage life.
While Lerman can be a little bit bland (see last year's Three Musketeers), he's growing as an actor. Here he shows impressive depth and range, and it's clear he can emote. And it certainly helps to spend so much of your screen time surrounded by showy, life-affirming, delightful characters like those played by Miller, Watson, and Mae Whitman (another one of Charlie's friends). Miller, in particular, really impressed and touched me as someone who's exactly the kind of zealous friend you'd want to have if you were an introverted, not-so-well-connected teen, but whose loud and rambunctious personality is partially meant to cover up his own problems and insecurities. Veteran actors Rudd, McDermott, and Joan Cusack (as a psychiatrist who works with Charlie late in the film) give able contributions as well, but the "kids" are the stars here.
Really, Perks is a strong movie with a good message about going outside your comfort zone, taking chances, and being honest with your feelings. No matter what happens onscreen-and there is some tough stuff-it shows that honesty and good communication are vital, and that is a very important fact in today's fast-paced, electronic-communication-happy world. And several scenes contain outright wonderful moments, topped off by one intimate exchange-"I want your first kiss to be with someone who you know loves you"-that is about as beautiful as movie moments come.
What Doesn't Work?
The movie might pack one or two too many punches into a by turns tense and thrilling final hour, but you won't get many complaints out of me. A sickeningly bad decision is later saved by a powerful moment of redemption, people are there for each other, and the drama might just wring tears out of you (it certainly did to a pair of teenage girls who left the showing I attended positively bawling).
Content:
Perks can be intense for a PG-13, especially in what it reveals about the backstories and dark secrets of characters (like a girl who admits she was forced to have sexual relationships far too early in life and now can't buck the trend). There's language, drug and alcohol use, intimate moments of kissing and touching and even some raunchy performances at a burlesque theater. But most teens are new to none of this, and most parents need to see this to understand-or be reminded-what it's like to live in the world their teens are living in.
Bottom Line (I Promise): By turns funny and dramatic, sad and thrilling, hilarious and haunting, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a very full and meaningful movie that many, many people will be able to identify with. It's terrific.
The Perks of Being A Wallflower (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Stephen Chbosky; based on his novel "The Perks of Being A Wallflower"
Rated PG-13
Length: 103 minutes
Grade: A
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh, Johnny Simmons, Paul Rudd and Melanie Lynskey
PREMISE: A lonely high school freshman falls in with a group of eccentric seniors who help him deal with personal problems in his life.
RATED PG-13 for language, strong sexual content (including partial nudity and suggestive references), intense emotional content, alcohol/drug use, and a fight
Wow. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a wonderful movie, and a very necessary one. Based on a coming-of-age 1999 novel written by Stephen Chbosky (who also wrote the screenplay and directed the movie), the film deals bravely and directly with a murderer's row of the most important issues of our teenage years--dead-end relationships, suicidal thoughts, prejudice against homosexuality, family tension, sexual tension, peer pressure related to drugs and sex, schoolroom fights, and even the question of what love isn't, and is. I was expecting a boldly offbeat sort of romantic comedy, not this. Not a film that plumbed such dark places in the human mind and heart. Not a film that dared to inspect the sort of things that even sensitive people try to cover up. And certainly not a film that dared suggest, in this day and age, that losing your virginity-even to someone you think you really love-can be a painful and regrettable experience.
Wow.
Plot
Having been sent into a mental/emotional tailspin by the unexpected, unexplained suicide of his best friend, lonely teenager Charlie (the soulful, solid Logan Lerman) is just starting to get a grip on life again. His parents and sister (Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, and Nina Dobrev, respectively) watch him cautiously and anxiously, he spills his thoughts into a journal because he has no one to really talk to, and he approaches his first day of high school as someone just trying not to get in anyone else's way. At first, he's just the only kid who participates in discussions in his English class, but, at a rowdy football game, he takes a chance and goes and sits next to excitable class clown Patrick (a wonderful Ezra Miller). Patrick almost immediately takes him in as a friend, and introduces him to his spunky stepsister, Sam (Emma Watson, warm and welcoming), and a group of other friends. Soon enough, he's no longer an outcast, but someone included in a "group of outcasts".
Basically, he gets a nice big handful of life. When he's not dancing, laughing, or exchanging gifts with his friends, he's doing extra reading on recommendations from his kindly English teacher (Paul Rudd, very likeable in a small, straight role), listening to new music and making mix tapes, and slowly regaining normalcy. He helps Sam study for her second go at the SAT so she can be eligible for Penn State. He's able to give up a precious childhood memento that reminds him too much of the untimely childhood death of his beloved aunt (Melanie Lynksey). He gets his first kiss. But with his friends' time in the area winding down (they're seniors, he's a freshman), anxiety, loneliness, and loss threaten to engulf him once more.
What Works?
The film has surprises-and shockers-around every corner, making that plot summary seem even more rudimentary than it is. But I wouldn't dare reveal more, considering what a rich, full movie this is. It can be a hard watch-I won't lie, it is a very bittersweet experience-but, again, it's a surprisingly tough and transparent look at high school/teenage life.
While Lerman can be a little bit bland (see last year's Three Musketeers), he's growing as an actor. Here he shows impressive depth and range, and it's clear he can emote. And it certainly helps to spend so much of your screen time surrounded by showy, life-affirming, delightful characters like those played by Miller, Watson, and Mae Whitman (another one of Charlie's friends). Miller, in particular, really impressed and touched me as someone who's exactly the kind of zealous friend you'd want to have if you were an introverted, not-so-well-connected teen, but whose loud and rambunctious personality is partially meant to cover up his own problems and insecurities. Veteran actors Rudd, McDermott, and Joan Cusack (as a psychiatrist who works with Charlie late in the film) give able contributions as well, but the "kids" are the stars here.
Really, Perks is a strong movie with a good message about going outside your comfort zone, taking chances, and being honest with your feelings. No matter what happens onscreen-and there is some tough stuff-it shows that honesty and good communication are vital, and that is a very important fact in today's fast-paced, electronic-communication-happy world. And several scenes contain outright wonderful moments, topped off by one intimate exchange-"I want your first kiss to be with someone who you know loves you"-that is about as beautiful as movie moments come.
What Doesn't Work?
The movie might pack one or two too many punches into a by turns tense and thrilling final hour, but you won't get many complaints out of me. A sickeningly bad decision is later saved by a powerful moment of redemption, people are there for each other, and the drama might just wring tears out of you (it certainly did to a pair of teenage girls who left the showing I attended positively bawling).
Content:
Perks can be intense for a PG-13, especially in what it reveals about the backstories and dark secrets of characters (like a girl who admits she was forced to have sexual relationships far too early in life and now can't buck the trend). There's language, drug and alcohol use, intimate moments of kissing and touching and even some raunchy performances at a burlesque theater. But most teens are new to none of this, and most parents need to see this to understand-or be reminded-what it's like to live in the world their teens are living in.
Bottom Line (I Promise): By turns funny and dramatic, sad and thrilling, hilarious and haunting, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a very full and meaningful movie that many, many people will be able to identify with. It's terrific.
The Perks of Being A Wallflower (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Stephen Chbosky; based on his novel "The Perks of Being A Wallflower"
Rated PG-13
Length: 103 minutes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)