There are moments in "What Maisie Knew" where I wanted to break through the screen and protect the titular character. She is being exposed to so much harmful events around here that it is almost impossible not to let your heart break when her heart is so easily broken. This is not a horror film. Demons aren't stalking Maisie and her family. Instead, it is her family that is fallen apart and Maisie is left there to struggle under the rubble. "What Maisie Knew" is the most realistic depiction of the impact of a dysfunctional relationship and the impact it has on a child. It is an expertly crafted film with performances that deserved to be recognized.
Maisie (Onata Aprile) is the bright, energetic daughter of rock singer Susanna (Julianne Moore) and businessman Beale (Steve Coogan). Between Susanna's music recording and touring and Beale's constant travel and womanizing, Maisie is left on the side. She is often put into the arms of her caring nanny Margo (Joanna Vanderham) if she is cared for at all. Just as often, she is forgotten. It isn't that Susanna and Beale actively are trying to hurt their daughter. This is not a story of abuse. It is a story of neglect. Susanna and Beale care for Maisie but just as often they are swept into their own world, which is often filled with loud and harsh verbal fights through thin walls as their relationship falls apart. In one scene Beale actually jokingly refers to Maisie as his "sixth favorite girl". What is meant as a joke is subconsciously true. It is not all neglect and isolation for Maisie though. Margo and her mother's friend Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgard) see the light of Maisie and give her the childhood she so greatly desires. They become foster parents all while the real parents are in the other room. Maisie tries to understand the world around her as it constantly changes as she continues to not be the priority in her parents life.
From the sounds of the plot and my description, it is easy to think that "What Maisie Knew" will be an incredibly depressing film. In a lot of ways, it is heart-breaking. There are scenes where you will watch what Maisie has to deal with and you will ache for her. They will feel like little blows to the stomach. These are not the manipulative blows that are so often found in independent dramas. Instead, they feel real. They don't feel like events that are created to further a plot. We know children like Maisie. Her parents might not be abusive in the standard sense but their neglect and mis-managed priorities lead her to understand extremely complex and adult situations. Little care is given to what Maisie wants or how she feels about events. You won't openly hate Susanna and Beale, no small feat considering how wonderful and mistreated Maisie is, but you will constantly tell them to slow down and open their eyes.
For every gut-punching moment, there are moments of absolute beauty and emotion that will no doubt last with you. There are many moments between Maisie and Lincoln which are absolutely wonderful and will make even the hardest person smile. These short scenes show the childhood Maisie deserved from her parents. Skarsgard, who I've often simply seen as his cold and cruel character in "True Blood", shows he has fantastic acting range. An actor we so often see as intimidating and cunning, is shown to have a wonderful heart. It is a truly surprising performance.
The "amazing performance by a child" card has almost become a movie critic cliche at this point. 8-year old Quvenzhane Wallis received a Best Actress nominee for last year's "Beasts of the Southern Wild". Other actors such as Haley Joel Osment, Anna Paquin, and countless others are often praised because their performances are good "for a child actor". Onata Aprile is absolutely fantastic as Maisie. Sure she may not get the acting powerhouse (which are often manipulative) moments as someone like Wallis but she plays Maisie in such a convincing and honest way that you can't help but feel and connect with her. Her performance is not simply her playing with Skarsgard and Vanderham. There are moments of her reacting to her parents actions that can't simply be summed up to a child actor as "act sad now, Onata". If it weren't actors as recognizable as Moore and Coogan, you would almost feel this was a documentary about the impact of divorce on a child. In a just world, Aprile will be receiving plenty of nominations come award season.
"What Maisie Knew" is one of the best movies to come out in quite some time. It is completely worth seeking out although I strongly predict that most won't know it exists until it hits Netflix Instant and pops up as a recommended title. It is a true same. It is the type of shame that makes me want to never stop writing film reviews. There are a multitude and opinions and mentions of big-budget films. As I write this review, I'm about to leave to see two summer tent-pole films where the catering budget was probably higher than the entire budget of "What Maisie Knew". Movies like "What Maisie Knew" give me a reason as a film-lover to drive lengths for movies, to give every film a chance, and to shout their praises from the roof-tops when they prove to be amazing. In the hands of a bigger studio, "What Maisie Knew" would be released in December and receive Oscar attention. As that can't happen, all I can do is strongly recommend that you seek out this beautiful film as soon as you can.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
"Fast and Furious 6" 2 stars out of 4 (C)
If you would have told me three years ago that not just fans of fast cars would be eagerly awaiting the reason of a sixth "Fast and the Furious" film but that critics would be excited as well, I would have easily bet my "pink" (title to my car) that you were wrong. Of course, you would have gotten a rundown 1999 Ford Escort but at least you would have had the American ride that Vin Diesel's character Dominic Toretto prefers. Of course, that Escort did 0 to 60 in "Ehhhh" miles-per-hour so he would have probably prefered the Charger he drives in the series. Not only does his Charger make a return but the full cast of the last film and even a character we thought was dead. Trailers and TV spots have aired since the Super Bowl, promising cars that drive even more fast than before and ridiculous explosions. At this point, it is what the fans of the series and action fans in general are expecting. They expect to see decent one-liners, fast cars, shocking displays of the ignorance of physics, and Dwayne Johnson something getting bigger and stronger every movie. The problem that "Fast and Furious 6" has is that it seems to be directed by the Justin Lin who brought us "Fast and Furious" (the 4th film in the series) and not the Justin Lin who brought us "Fast Five", the 2011 sequel that surprised audiences and critics by being "'Oceans Eleven' with cars" and completely legitimizing a film series that had become the bane of so many jokes. Lin uses his inflated budget and expanded reign on the film to set some impressive action scenes. The problem is that we have seen every one of these scenes for months now in ads and most of the non-action scenes are either implausible or riff on past scenes in the series that desperately try to add gravitas to the "family" aspect that Toretto has been preaching since the first film but nobody has ever truly believed. Like back-from-the dead Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), "Fast and Furious 6" hit its nitrous oxide far too early and has nothing new to show us and it crosses the finish line far behind "Fast Five".
When we last left Toretto (Diesel), O'Conner (Paul Walker), and his crew (Tyrese Gibson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Sung Kang, and Gal Gadot) had pulled off an impressive heist and were hiding overseas. "Fast and Furious 6" starts like most action film sequels do with someone, in this case Special Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) giving them a reason to come out of hiding and fight... err... drive again. It turns out that Letty (Rodriguez), former girlfriend of Toretto, didn't actually die as we had assumed in "Fast and Furious" (again, the fourth film). She has been working with a criminal named Shaw (Lee Evans) who runs a group of mercenaries which Gibson hilariously points out look like the evil versions of our gang of "good guys". It is up to the group to help Hobbs track down Shaw, explain to the amnesia-stricken Letty about her past, and hopefully receive a pardon for the crimes they have committed.
Justin Lin again shows that he can film an interesting driving sequence. As is to be expected, "Fast and Furious 6" features some rather impressive stunts. One featuring what can most easily be described as an armored F1 racing car (all apologies to people who actually know something about cars if I got this wrong) is especially well-done. Another scene involving a tank and a busy highway is surprisingly well put-together and actually far more sadistic than we have seen in this series. The problem lies with the total lack of realism in these action scenes. It is difficult to fault the "Fast and Furious" films for psychics or logic issues. It is a movie about cars driving very fast. When we see someone project themselves out of a car, catch another person, land hard into another car, and walk away untouched we aren't supposed to question it. The problem lies in the visual effects. Far too often, any time a car or a human being does something that is impossible it is displayed using some very weak CGI. These second-rate effects completely take us out of the moment. We believe someone like Iron Man can fly because we buy the effects. It is difficult to believe that the cars are pulling off a great deal of the stunts in "Fast and Furious 6" because the effects don't make us believe.
Another large misstep in "Fast and Furious 6" is the filming of hand-to-hand combat scenes. Lin seems so used to cutting his shots fast for the car sequences (most likely to give them a feeling of being truly faster than possible) that he carries this bad habit along with the scenes of people fighting outside of cars. One of the brightest additions of "Fast Five" was that it featured some very impressive hand-to-hand combat, presented perfectly in the modern-day classic fight between Hobbs and Toretto. Unfortunately, nothing in "Fast and Furious 6" comes close to that fight and any attempts fall extremely short. The quick cutting makes these fights difficult to follow and, much like the visual effects in the car action sequences, make them very difficult to believe.
Some have suggested that the "Fast and Furious" films have become a form of "comic book movie" that has no comic book past. It features caricatures of humans, both good and bad, beautiful women, one-liners, fast cars, gorgeous locations, and action sequences that are simply impossible. That is all fine and good but you need to have the presentation to back it up. We are no longer impressed or surprised with the jabs between Tyrese Gibson and Chris "Ludacris" Bridges. All of the good dialogue they seem to be able to write was featured in "Fast Five". On the action front, nothing here comes close to the fight between Diesel and Johnson or the finale involving a large stolen safe being drug through city streets. You can tell them "Fast and Furious 6" is trying to reach those heights but it simply can't. Instead what we have is a sloppy story that relies on a character coming "back from the dead" with amnesia in order to advance the story. It plays like a television show that has gone on just a bit too long. It is still entertaining but it seems to be doing whatever it can to leave a cliffhanger and to get picked up for another season. The end credits of "Fast and Furious 6" make a grand promise for a "Fast Seven". One hopes that we get the Lin who made "Fast Five" back again and that someone tells him that sometimes less is more.
When we last left Toretto (Diesel), O'Conner (Paul Walker), and his crew (Tyrese Gibson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Sung Kang, and Gal Gadot) had pulled off an impressive heist and were hiding overseas. "Fast and Furious 6" starts like most action film sequels do with someone, in this case Special Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) giving them a reason to come out of hiding and fight... err... drive again. It turns out that Letty (Rodriguez), former girlfriend of Toretto, didn't actually die as we had assumed in "Fast and Furious" (again, the fourth film). She has been working with a criminal named Shaw (Lee Evans) who runs a group of mercenaries which Gibson hilariously points out look like the evil versions of our gang of "good guys". It is up to the group to help Hobbs track down Shaw, explain to the amnesia-stricken Letty about her past, and hopefully receive a pardon for the crimes they have committed.
Justin Lin again shows that he can film an interesting driving sequence. As is to be expected, "Fast and Furious 6" features some rather impressive stunts. One featuring what can most easily be described as an armored F1 racing car (all apologies to people who actually know something about cars if I got this wrong) is especially well-done. Another scene involving a tank and a busy highway is surprisingly well put-together and actually far more sadistic than we have seen in this series. The problem lies with the total lack of realism in these action scenes. It is difficult to fault the "Fast and Furious" films for psychics or logic issues. It is a movie about cars driving very fast. When we see someone project themselves out of a car, catch another person, land hard into another car, and walk away untouched we aren't supposed to question it. The problem lies in the visual effects. Far too often, any time a car or a human being does something that is impossible it is displayed using some very weak CGI. These second-rate effects completely take us out of the moment. We believe someone like Iron Man can fly because we buy the effects. It is difficult to believe that the cars are pulling off a great deal of the stunts in "Fast and Furious 6" because the effects don't make us believe.
Another large misstep in "Fast and Furious 6" is the filming of hand-to-hand combat scenes. Lin seems so used to cutting his shots fast for the car sequences (most likely to give them a feeling of being truly faster than possible) that he carries this bad habit along with the scenes of people fighting outside of cars. One of the brightest additions of "Fast Five" was that it featured some very impressive hand-to-hand combat, presented perfectly in the modern-day classic fight between Hobbs and Toretto. Unfortunately, nothing in "Fast and Furious 6" comes close to that fight and any attempts fall extremely short. The quick cutting makes these fights difficult to follow and, much like the visual effects in the car action sequences, make them very difficult to believe.
Some have suggested that the "Fast and Furious" films have become a form of "comic book movie" that has no comic book past. It features caricatures of humans, both good and bad, beautiful women, one-liners, fast cars, gorgeous locations, and action sequences that are simply impossible. That is all fine and good but you need to have the presentation to back it up. We are no longer impressed or surprised with the jabs between Tyrese Gibson and Chris "Ludacris" Bridges. All of the good dialogue they seem to be able to write was featured in "Fast Five". On the action front, nothing here comes close to the fight between Diesel and Johnson or the finale involving a large stolen safe being drug through city streets. You can tell them "Fast and Furious 6" is trying to reach those heights but it simply can't. Instead what we have is a sloppy story that relies on a character coming "back from the dead" with amnesia in order to advance the story. It plays like a television show that has gone on just a bit too long. It is still entertaining but it seems to be doing whatever it can to leave a cliffhanger and to get picked up for another season. The end credits of "Fast and Furious 6" make a grand promise for a "Fast Seven". One hopes that we get the Lin who made "Fast Five" back again and that someone tells him that sometimes less is more.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
"The Hangover Part III" 1 star out of 4 (D)
You can almost hear the discussion now:
"We need to print more money! Let's make another Hangover movie! We can say that it is the last in the series and we can tie everything together."
"Sounds like a great idea. Frat boys and high schoolers will eat that up! They completely bought into 'Hangover 2'. I don't know how they didn't notice that it was the same movie as 'Hangover 1' only now it took place in Bangkok."
"Yeah but who cares. As long as we can sell Wolfpack shirts and tickets we are golden!"
"We have a draft of a script. Zack Galifianakis's character is acting crazy because he is off his meds or something. The Wolfpack... Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and... uh... that other guy take him to a doctor or something."
"That doesn't sound wacky though. Can they get high or something?"
"Maybe later. I know it sounds lame but it will get crazy. Ken Jeong's character owes some mobsters some money. The mobsters kidnap... uh... the guy who got kidnapped in the first movie... and it is up to the guys to find Jeong to get him back."
"Ok. I get you. How can we compensate for the fact that Galifianakis and Cooper have risen far beyond the source material, are extremely busy, and are sick of playing these tired characters."
"We will just write more scenes with Jeong! People love his stereotypical Asian stereotype!"
"The Hangover Part III" is a cash-grab that seems rushed and like none of the actors involved wanted anything to do with it. Cooper and Galifianakis look like they would literally be anywhere else but here. Cooper hides behind glasses, no doubt so the camera can't see him rolling his eyes as he just counts his salary in his head and how it will allow him to make better films in the future. Galifianakis is playing an almost parody of the character he played in the first film. Here, he is almost reserved unless the script calls for him to say a word oddly or for him to fall into something.
The script of "Hangover Part III" almost resembles an early draft of something that was just pushed into production as fast as possible. Some have said that the somewhat more dark and less comedic nature of this script is an interesting step. If anything, the lack of comedy and laughs just shows a total failure in storyline. It is easy to write that someone gets shot and killed unexpectedly (no spoilers here). It is difficult to write interesting and funny dialogue. There is nothing even close to the Wolfpack speech of the first "Hangover". In its place are the aforementioned "Galifianakis falls into things!" "Jeong mangles the English language becauses he is an Asian stereotype!" and even several incredibly pathetic music-related laughs. Having a character play "MMMBop" by Hanson as they drive around or having a character sing "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails during karaoke is not funny. Having Jeong singing "I Believe I Can Fly" by R. Kelly while parachuting is pathetic and the fact that scene was used in the trailers should be a dead give-away at the total lack of laughs this film delivers. It is weak eye-roll inducing comedy.
The harshest complaint of "Hangover Part III" is when it wraps up the story and the series, the audience feels nothing. We don't want the story to continue. We don't care what these characters do. By this point, everyone is simply going through the motions. Nobody wants to be there and it seems that they invested more money in getting the rights to songs than they did polishing and re-writing their script. While I wasn't the biggest fan of "Hangover" and "Hangover 2", both of these films are far better. "Hangover" had some genuinely funny moments, even if they were simply Galifianakis playing a personality he'd been working on for years in stand-up. Although "Hangover 2" was very much a copy of the first film, it at least had an interesting location in China and had some dark comedy slipped in. The best element of "Hangover Part III" is probably its poster, a spoof of the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II" teaser image. This is a joke based on a movie that is two years old. Nothing about this film is fresh, interesting, or worth your time.
I can honestly say I laughed more at "Scary Movie 5". That film at least had actors and screenwriters who were going through the motions without wasting your valuable summer movie money. When the small roles (almost glorified cameos) by John Goodman and Melissa Mccarthy are the best parts of your film, you are in trouble. If you want to think fondly of the original "Hangover", stay far away from this conclusion. Just know that it is over and hopefully Galifianakis can cash his checks and return to worthwhile and interesting comedy.
"We need to print more money! Let's make another Hangover movie! We can say that it is the last in the series and we can tie everything together."
"Sounds like a great idea. Frat boys and high schoolers will eat that up! They completely bought into 'Hangover 2'. I don't know how they didn't notice that it was the same movie as 'Hangover 1' only now it took place in Bangkok."
"Yeah but who cares. As long as we can sell Wolfpack shirts and tickets we are golden!"
"We have a draft of a script. Zack Galifianakis's character is acting crazy because he is off his meds or something. The Wolfpack... Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and... uh... that other guy take him to a doctor or something."
"That doesn't sound wacky though. Can they get high or something?"
"Maybe later. I know it sounds lame but it will get crazy. Ken Jeong's character owes some mobsters some money. The mobsters kidnap... uh... the guy who got kidnapped in the first movie... and it is up to the guys to find Jeong to get him back."
"Ok. I get you. How can we compensate for the fact that Galifianakis and Cooper have risen far beyond the source material, are extremely busy, and are sick of playing these tired characters."
"We will just write more scenes with Jeong! People love his stereotypical Asian stereotype!"
"The Hangover Part III" is a cash-grab that seems rushed and like none of the actors involved wanted anything to do with it. Cooper and Galifianakis look like they would literally be anywhere else but here. Cooper hides behind glasses, no doubt so the camera can't see him rolling his eyes as he just counts his salary in his head and how it will allow him to make better films in the future. Galifianakis is playing an almost parody of the character he played in the first film. Here, he is almost reserved unless the script calls for him to say a word oddly or for him to fall into something.
The script of "Hangover Part III" almost resembles an early draft of something that was just pushed into production as fast as possible. Some have said that the somewhat more dark and less comedic nature of this script is an interesting step. If anything, the lack of comedy and laughs just shows a total failure in storyline. It is easy to write that someone gets shot and killed unexpectedly (no spoilers here). It is difficult to write interesting and funny dialogue. There is nothing even close to the Wolfpack speech of the first "Hangover". In its place are the aforementioned "Galifianakis falls into things!" "Jeong mangles the English language becauses he is an Asian stereotype!" and even several incredibly pathetic music-related laughs. Having a character play "MMMBop" by Hanson as they drive around or having a character sing "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails during karaoke is not funny. Having Jeong singing "I Believe I Can Fly" by R. Kelly while parachuting is pathetic and the fact that scene was used in the trailers should be a dead give-away at the total lack of laughs this film delivers. It is weak eye-roll inducing comedy.
The harshest complaint of "Hangover Part III" is when it wraps up the story and the series, the audience feels nothing. We don't want the story to continue. We don't care what these characters do. By this point, everyone is simply going through the motions. Nobody wants to be there and it seems that they invested more money in getting the rights to songs than they did polishing and re-writing their script. While I wasn't the biggest fan of "Hangover" and "Hangover 2", both of these films are far better. "Hangover" had some genuinely funny moments, even if they were simply Galifianakis playing a personality he'd been working on for years in stand-up. Although "Hangover 2" was very much a copy of the first film, it at least had an interesting location in China and had some dark comedy slipped in. The best element of "Hangover Part III" is probably its poster, a spoof of the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II" teaser image. This is a joke based on a movie that is two years old. Nothing about this film is fresh, interesting, or worth your time.
I can honestly say I laughed more at "Scary Movie 5". That film at least had actors and screenwriters who were going through the motions without wasting your valuable summer movie money. When the small roles (almost glorified cameos) by John Goodman and Melissa Mccarthy are the best parts of your film, you are in trouble. If you want to think fondly of the original "Hangover", stay far away from this conclusion. Just know that it is over and hopefully Galifianakis can cash his checks and return to worthwhile and interesting comedy.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
"Star Trek Into Darkness" 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)
The film opens with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) running from something. Maybe it is angry villagers. Maybe it is an exploding volcano. Maybe it is both. It is that uncertainty and chaos that defines "Star Trek Into Darkness", J.J. Abrams's second film in the re-boot of Ray Bradbury's science-fiction story. Maybe it was the IMAX sound ripping through my ears or the screen-filling 3D elements bouncing every which way but "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a loud, clanking movie. When you think of the "Star Trek" series prior to J.J. Abrams's 2009 reboot, you wouldn't imagine it as loud and clanking. These adjectives are often associated with mindless action movies like the "Transformers" films and while "Star Trek Into Darkness" is definitely more intelligent than those films, it is as equally interested in wowing you versus testing your mental capabilities. It would rather throw obvious references to past "Star Trek" movies and TV episodes than test your ability to understand confusing time-travel events like the previous film. While "Star Trek Into Darkness" might lack any true surprises, it does move at a break-neck pace, maybe in hopes that you won't think too much. Most of the time it is successful but when it fails, you can't help and watch it like a starship falling in space.
The U.S.S. Enterprise has been sent to a distant planet to kill John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a terrorist who attacked Starfleet offices. This plan of "kill, not capture" doesn't agree well with the staff, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), a stickler for following the rules in the name of "logic". When they do meet up with Harrison, they find that there is much more to this cunning adversary than they expected. His booming declarations start to influence Kirk and those around him. Is Harrison to be trusted though? Can they truly believe a terrorist? It is up to Kirk and his crew to figure this out.
Without getting into spoilers, there are far too many instances in "Star Trek Into Darkness" of characters all but "breaking the fourth wall" and winking at the audience to acknowledge references to the original series and films. While the 2009 "Star Trek" had its share of obvious connections to the original story, it didn't do it nearly to the degree this film does. While the first time this is done, it might be charming, it quickly becomes grating and manipulative. The final act (again without spoilers) comes as close to "nuking the fridge" (or "jumping the shark" if you will) as any film in recent memory. It takes an intense and action-packed story and completed stops it in its tracks making you wince and want to look away from such an obvious repacking of a former story. There is a thin line between knowingly referencing and out-and-out copying. The final act falls much closer to "copying".
The script's dialogue, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, is another especially disheartening element. It seems much more interested in making the audience laugh than propelling the story forward in a straight-forward manner. There is an alarming amount of "s" words dropped into this film, no doubt in hopes of eliciting laughs. While I am far from someone who balks at language in films, there is something about the "Star Trek" series that seems above using vulgarities. It is understandable that the dialogue would need to be livened up to go along with the young cast and romantic storylines, but it pulls you out of the moment and almost seems to belittle the story.
Seen as a big-budget summer spectacle, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not without its positive elements. Abrams knows how to film action and some scenes are truly exhilarating. Cumberbatch is also excellent as the villain. Had his character been fleshed-out further, he may have been looking at award nominations. As it is, he proves that he is definitely someone to watch in future films. Although it is easy to chide the dialogue for being somewhat cloying, it does make up care about these characters. While it had a built-in fan-base to begin with, the characterizations of Kirk and Spock are still very good and we buy their connection at every turn.
It is difficult to recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness" as a continuation of the story set up in the far-better 2009 film. While that film challenged viewers with a complicated storyline that contained action, here it seems that Abrams just wanted to experiment with the effects budget. Gone is any subtlety and in its place is just a somewhat numbing and forgettable action film. While it will no doubt have fans and entertain viewers (both old fans of the series and new fans), it still is disappointing and receives a weak recommendation. While I definitely hope Abrams's "Star Trek" series "lives long" in future films, it is going to need to take a look inside and push away what it thinks audiences want if it is going to truly "prosper".
Additional note: "Star Trek Into Darkness" was post-converted into 3D. This means that Abrams filmed it in 2D and then went back and used computers to produce a 3D effect. He has been quoted as saying he did not want to do this and that the movie studio told him that if he wanted to make the film, he had to release it in 3D. While some scenes do feature interesting uses of the extra dimension, overall it is distracting. 3D is not made for fast and kinetic action. It is also not made for scenes where the camera focuses in and out of two characters in a wide scope shot. Very often I found myself looking away from the screen to re-orient myself. While some of the action scenes do benefit from the 3D (especially when seen in sequences filmed using IMAX cameras), I recommend that you see "Star Trek Into Darkness" in 2D. Abrams would want it that way and your eyes and brain will thank you.
The U.S.S. Enterprise has been sent to a distant planet to kill John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a terrorist who attacked Starfleet offices. This plan of "kill, not capture" doesn't agree well with the staff, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), a stickler for following the rules in the name of "logic". When they do meet up with Harrison, they find that there is much more to this cunning adversary than they expected. His booming declarations start to influence Kirk and those around him. Is Harrison to be trusted though? Can they truly believe a terrorist? It is up to Kirk and his crew to figure this out.
Without getting into spoilers, there are far too many instances in "Star Trek Into Darkness" of characters all but "breaking the fourth wall" and winking at the audience to acknowledge references to the original series and films. While the 2009 "Star Trek" had its share of obvious connections to the original story, it didn't do it nearly to the degree this film does. While the first time this is done, it might be charming, it quickly becomes grating and manipulative. The final act (again without spoilers) comes as close to "nuking the fridge" (or "jumping the shark" if you will) as any film in recent memory. It takes an intense and action-packed story and completed stops it in its tracks making you wince and want to look away from such an obvious repacking of a former story. There is a thin line between knowingly referencing and out-and-out copying. The final act falls much closer to "copying".
The script's dialogue, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, is another especially disheartening element. It seems much more interested in making the audience laugh than propelling the story forward in a straight-forward manner. There is an alarming amount of "s" words dropped into this film, no doubt in hopes of eliciting laughs. While I am far from someone who balks at language in films, there is something about the "Star Trek" series that seems above using vulgarities. It is understandable that the dialogue would need to be livened up to go along with the young cast and romantic storylines, but it pulls you out of the moment and almost seems to belittle the story.
Seen as a big-budget summer spectacle, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not without its positive elements. Abrams knows how to film action and some scenes are truly exhilarating. Cumberbatch is also excellent as the villain. Had his character been fleshed-out further, he may have been looking at award nominations. As it is, he proves that he is definitely someone to watch in future films. Although it is easy to chide the dialogue for being somewhat cloying, it does make up care about these characters. While it had a built-in fan-base to begin with, the characterizations of Kirk and Spock are still very good and we buy their connection at every turn.
It is difficult to recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness" as a continuation of the story set up in the far-better 2009 film. While that film challenged viewers with a complicated storyline that contained action, here it seems that Abrams just wanted to experiment with the effects budget. Gone is any subtlety and in its place is just a somewhat numbing and forgettable action film. While it will no doubt have fans and entertain viewers (both old fans of the series and new fans), it still is disappointing and receives a weak recommendation. While I definitely hope Abrams's "Star Trek" series "lives long" in future films, it is going to need to take a look inside and push away what it thinks audiences want if it is going to truly "prosper".
Additional note: "Star Trek Into Darkness" was post-converted into 3D. This means that Abrams filmed it in 2D and then went back and used computers to produce a 3D effect. He has been quoted as saying he did not want to do this and that the movie studio told him that if he wanted to make the film, he had to release it in 3D. While some scenes do feature interesting uses of the extra dimension, overall it is distracting. 3D is not made for fast and kinetic action. It is also not made for scenes where the camera focuses in and out of two characters in a wide scope shot. Very often I found myself looking away from the screen to re-orient myself. While some of the action scenes do benefit from the 3D (especially when seen in sequences filmed using IMAX cameras), I recommend that you see "Star Trek Into Darkness" in 2D. Abrams would want it that way and your eyes and brain will thank you.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
"Disconnect" 4 stars out of 4 (A-)
"Disconnect" could easily be compared to films like "The Place Beyond the Pines" or "Crash". It features actors you recognize as characters whose lives interconnect. Where "Disconnect" succeeds over the failures of "Pines" and "Crash" is that it is a dark, realistic depiction of these intersecting lives that doesn't once think low of its audience. There are several moments where "Disconnect" could have gone the easy route. It could have given you what you expect or in many cases simply "fear". Instead, it is a riveting, gripping film about how technology has pulled us away from the people who are around us. In one particularly touching scene the character says "Everything I love is in this room". This somewhat cliche line is made important by it being one of the few moments that character is seen without a cell phone.
"Disconnect" revolves around three stories. The first involves two teenagers (Aviad Bernstein and Colin Ford) creating a fake online character they use to tease Ben, a loner student (Jonah Bobo) who goes to their school. Ben's father, Rich (Jason Bateman) is unaware of his son's blossoming "relationship" as he constantly on the cell phone doing business. The second story involves reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) who begins to interview Kyle, an 18-year old online "sex webcam" performer (Max Thieriot), in hopes of putting together a juicy story based on his life. What starts off as online web chat interviews becomes much more as Nina tries to get the story that is Kyle's life. The last has couple Derek and Cindy (Alexander Skarsgård and Paula Patton) dealing with online identity theft which leaves them penniless. Derek is addicted to online poker while Cindy frequents chat rooms to help her deal with the grief of losing her child.
Films like "Disconnect" could implode on themselves with their overly weighty premise and meaning. The idea of technology pulling people apart is not a terribly new thing to film. 2006's totally unseen gem "LOL" dealt with characters whose relationships were ruined by technology. While "Disconnect" is often about how technology can have a negative impact on human interaction, it is never so over-the-top that it becomes eye-rolling. This is the kind of message that can get self-indulgent very quickly. "Disconnect" never feels like it is straining with the story and the message. It does not bash you over the head. It weaves the dangers of technology into real weighty human problems. This story is much more about human interaction than it is about those humans typing on keypads.
Director Henry Alex Rubin makes his fictional film debut here. He directed 2005's wonderful documentary Murderball (whose star Mark Zuban makes a brief appearance). Rubin shows great skill being able to weave these stories together in a sharp fashion considering the film's no-doubt low budget. He shows wonderful restraint when he needs to as well as impacting and suspenseful moments when they are called for. Again, Rubin and screenwriter Andrew Stern, need to be congratulated on how they were able to side-step many of the problems inherent in stories like "Crash" and "Place Beyond the Pines". There is not one "eye-rolling" moment in "Disconnect". It constantly surprises you not just in the directions the story takes but the directions that it does not take.
"Disconnect" is a small film that will no doubt not be playing in many markets. Hopefully, the inevitable appearance on Netflix Instant will result in people seeing this gem that will no doubt be one of the best of the year.
"Disconnect" revolves around three stories. The first involves two teenagers (Aviad Bernstein and Colin Ford) creating a fake online character they use to tease Ben, a loner student (Jonah Bobo) who goes to their school. Ben's father, Rich (Jason Bateman) is unaware of his son's blossoming "relationship" as he constantly on the cell phone doing business. The second story involves reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) who begins to interview Kyle, an 18-year old online "sex webcam" performer (Max Thieriot), in hopes of putting together a juicy story based on his life. What starts off as online web chat interviews becomes much more as Nina tries to get the story that is Kyle's life. The last has couple Derek and Cindy (Alexander Skarsgård and Paula Patton) dealing with online identity theft which leaves them penniless. Derek is addicted to online poker while Cindy frequents chat rooms to help her deal with the grief of losing her child.
Films like "Disconnect" could implode on themselves with their overly weighty premise and meaning. The idea of technology pulling people apart is not a terribly new thing to film. 2006's totally unseen gem "LOL" dealt with characters whose relationships were ruined by technology. While "Disconnect" is often about how technology can have a negative impact on human interaction, it is never so over-the-top that it becomes eye-rolling. This is the kind of message that can get self-indulgent very quickly. "Disconnect" never feels like it is straining with the story and the message. It does not bash you over the head. It weaves the dangers of technology into real weighty human problems. This story is much more about human interaction than it is about those humans typing on keypads.
Director Henry Alex Rubin makes his fictional film debut here. He directed 2005's wonderful documentary Murderball (whose star Mark Zuban makes a brief appearance). Rubin shows great skill being able to weave these stories together in a sharp fashion considering the film's no-doubt low budget. He shows wonderful restraint when he needs to as well as impacting and suspenseful moments when they are called for. Again, Rubin and screenwriter Andrew Stern, need to be congratulated on how they were able to side-step many of the problems inherent in stories like "Crash" and "Place Beyond the Pines". There is not one "eye-rolling" moment in "Disconnect". It constantly surprises you not just in the directions the story takes but the directions that it does not take.
"Disconnect" is a small film that will no doubt not be playing in many markets. Hopefully, the inevitable appearance on Netflix Instant will result in people seeing this gem that will no doubt be one of the best of the year.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
"The Great Gatsby" 3.5 out of 4 (B+)
If there ever was a director that could be considered "polarizing", it is Baz Luhrmann. You either find his films (which include the, in my opinion, modern-day classic "Moulin Rouge" and the very inspired yet often maligned "Romeo + Juliet") interesting and visually-stimulating or you think they are over-the-top manic drug-induced dreams. His latest film, "The Great Gatsby", based on the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, will do nothing to dispel those who already dislike his work. In fact, it will no doubt bring a new crew of Luhrmann-haters as he has once again taken a much-loved piece of literature and gave it a contemporary and altogether surprising twist. I can openly say that I like Luhrmann's films and his vision is one of the most interesting of a director working today. "The Great Gatsby" may be his best story yet and although his vision the original Fitzgerald story do not always connection well, it is still a jaw-droppingly beautiful film.
Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a 1920s bonds salesman whose newfound wealth moves him into an impressive house on Long Island. His small-town beginnings don't prepare him for what money and his new location bring to his life. Next-door to Carraway, is the house of a mysterious figure named Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who holds human parties that pull in all of New York City. Nobody has seen Gatsby but his reputation is more than enough for people to create elaborate stories about who he is and who he is not. After receiving an invitation (a rarity for Gatsby), Carraway runs into Gatsby. Gatsby pulls Carraway into a life of money, romance, alcoholism, and corruption all in hopes of rekindling a relationship with Carraway's cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Daisy's powerful and angry husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is the only thing keeping Gatsby from achieving the only thing his money can't buy.
"The Great Gatsby" is easily Baz Luhrmann's most reserved film maybe ever. This, of course, isn't saying much. The extravagant party sequences show the Luhrmann we've come to love (or hate). They are loud, colorful events blaring music that is not time-period appropriate in the slightest. Sometimes the music works incredibly well (both incarnations of Lana Del Ray's "Young and Beautiful" fit perfectly) and sometimes they are like nails on a chalkboard (a scene featuring Jay-Z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)). Luhrmann utilizes 3D well in these scenes of excess allowing heaps of confetti to seemingly spill into the audience. It is his 3D utilization and filming of the more sullen and reserved moments in "Gatsby" that work especially well. Iconic scenes such as Gatsby staring at the often-discussed "green light" across the water are among the most beautiful moments presented in 3D cinema. The diminished brightness of the picture that 3D often causes has very little impact on the distance and depth the dimension adds. Luhrmann actually holds himself quite a bit in comparison to his previous works. The 3D is never so over-the-top that it takes you out of the film. The only scenes that feel completely connected with his often "campy" style are the party scenes which almost seem to be written just for Luhrmann to present. While it is not totally necessary to be seen in 3D (in fact, the brightness 2D offers might be preferable in several scenes) it is easily the most impressive 3D presentation since "Hugo".
DiCaprio is his typical great self as Gatsby. He plays the calm and kind-eyed man with every nuance that could be expected. He again proves that he possibly the best American actor currently working. While this won't be the time he walks away with an Oscar, he is perfectly cast and it is impossible to picture another actor in his position. It is nice to see Maguire make a return to wide-release cinema. After reading about how Maguire and DiCaprio grew up acting together, it makes the connection to Carraway and Gatsby that much deeper.
Taking such a well-loved work of literature like "Great Gatsby" and turning into into a big-budget 3D film filmed by the maker of "Moulin Rouge" and featuring a soundtrack produced by Jay-Z is something akin to a joke. On paper (no pun intended), Fitzgerald's story does not read even close to the presentation offered here. Surprisingly enough, Luhrmann's style fits perfectly. If you take the story and its themes of how money and parties can't bring you everything and inject it with the manic and gorgeous energy Luhrmann often presents, it is a natural fit. Many purists will no doubt be disappointed in this film. This is definitely not the story you pictured while reading this novel in high school. That said, there is no reason the film version should have to please the fans of the book. The book will remain and they can either choose to watch Robert Redford's 1974 version or simply to re-read Fitzgerald's text. The heart of Fitzgerald's story is still seen in Luhrmann's story. It gave me a whole new reading on a novel I all but ignored during my first reading in 9th grade. I can only hope I enjoy a re-reading of the novel as much as I enjoyed this presentation.
The film is not without its negatives though. The scenes featuring Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and George Wilson (Jason Clarke), working-class friends of Tom Buchanan's are extremely out-of-place. While it could be said that the slightly irritating characterizations of Myrtle and George are part of who these characters are truly meant to be, they are both miscast in their roles. Clarke, who was easily one of the highlights in last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" plays George almost as a theater performance and it doesn't fit. It could also be said that Edgerton's performance of Tom Buchanan might not be up to the character he needs to play. He may act cold and yell as a man in a loveless marriage protected by money but after we see similar performances by Jon Hamm in "Mad Men" that eclipse this weekly.
Luhrmann's campy flourishes don't always work. Almost every Jay-Z song in this film completely pulls you out of the moment. They feel like temporary audio tracks that were put on the film until they could fit a better song that fit the scene. While I'm definitely not against the usage of hip-hop in period films (Quentin Tarantino's usage of Rick Ross and Tupac songs in last year's "Django Unchained" worked perfectly), here they feel awkward. Dubstep, techno, and even Jay-Z collaboration with Kanye West "Who Gon Stop Me" fit with the gluttonous nature of the 1920s rich. Jay-Z songs like "100$ Bill" and "Hova (I.Z.Z.O.)" do not and pull you totally out of the moment.
"Great Gatsby" is still something we don't see often during the summer. An intriguing, beautiful, and well-made film that must be seen on a big-screen to be truly enjoyed (in 3D or 2D). While it will more than likely not be the movie you pictured when you bought that ear-marked copy complete with the writing of someone you never knew (as the copy I purchased at John Kings Books in Detroit), it is still an amazing story with themes that still echo today. Much like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet", this is a retelling of an amazing story that we can only hope makes a connection with today's generation.
Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a 1920s bonds salesman whose newfound wealth moves him into an impressive house on Long Island. His small-town beginnings don't prepare him for what money and his new location bring to his life. Next-door to Carraway, is the house of a mysterious figure named Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who holds human parties that pull in all of New York City. Nobody has seen Gatsby but his reputation is more than enough for people to create elaborate stories about who he is and who he is not. After receiving an invitation (a rarity for Gatsby), Carraway runs into Gatsby. Gatsby pulls Carraway into a life of money, romance, alcoholism, and corruption all in hopes of rekindling a relationship with Carraway's cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Daisy's powerful and angry husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is the only thing keeping Gatsby from achieving the only thing his money can't buy.
"The Great Gatsby" is easily Baz Luhrmann's most reserved film maybe ever. This, of course, isn't saying much. The extravagant party sequences show the Luhrmann we've come to love (or hate). They are loud, colorful events blaring music that is not time-period appropriate in the slightest. Sometimes the music works incredibly well (both incarnations of Lana Del Ray's "Young and Beautiful" fit perfectly) and sometimes they are like nails on a chalkboard (a scene featuring Jay-Z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)). Luhrmann utilizes 3D well in these scenes of excess allowing heaps of confetti to seemingly spill into the audience. It is his 3D utilization and filming of the more sullen and reserved moments in "Gatsby" that work especially well. Iconic scenes such as Gatsby staring at the often-discussed "green light" across the water are among the most beautiful moments presented in 3D cinema. The diminished brightness of the picture that 3D often causes has very little impact on the distance and depth the dimension adds. Luhrmann actually holds himself quite a bit in comparison to his previous works. The 3D is never so over-the-top that it takes you out of the film. The only scenes that feel completely connected with his often "campy" style are the party scenes which almost seem to be written just for Luhrmann to present. While it is not totally necessary to be seen in 3D (in fact, the brightness 2D offers might be preferable in several scenes) it is easily the most impressive 3D presentation since "Hugo".
DiCaprio is his typical great self as Gatsby. He plays the calm and kind-eyed man with every nuance that could be expected. He again proves that he possibly the best American actor currently working. While this won't be the time he walks away with an Oscar, he is perfectly cast and it is impossible to picture another actor in his position. It is nice to see Maguire make a return to wide-release cinema. After reading about how Maguire and DiCaprio grew up acting together, it makes the connection to Carraway and Gatsby that much deeper.
Taking such a well-loved work of literature like "Great Gatsby" and turning into into a big-budget 3D film filmed by the maker of "Moulin Rouge" and featuring a soundtrack produced by Jay-Z is something akin to a joke. On paper (no pun intended), Fitzgerald's story does not read even close to the presentation offered here. Surprisingly enough, Luhrmann's style fits perfectly. If you take the story and its themes of how money and parties can't bring you everything and inject it with the manic and gorgeous energy Luhrmann often presents, it is a natural fit. Many purists will no doubt be disappointed in this film. This is definitely not the story you pictured while reading this novel in high school. That said, there is no reason the film version should have to please the fans of the book. The book will remain and they can either choose to watch Robert Redford's 1974 version or simply to re-read Fitzgerald's text. The heart of Fitzgerald's story is still seen in Luhrmann's story. It gave me a whole new reading on a novel I all but ignored during my first reading in 9th grade. I can only hope I enjoy a re-reading of the novel as much as I enjoyed this presentation.
The film is not without its negatives though. The scenes featuring Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and George Wilson (Jason Clarke), working-class friends of Tom Buchanan's are extremely out-of-place. While it could be said that the slightly irritating characterizations of Myrtle and George are part of who these characters are truly meant to be, they are both miscast in their roles. Clarke, who was easily one of the highlights in last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" plays George almost as a theater performance and it doesn't fit. It could also be said that Edgerton's performance of Tom Buchanan might not be up to the character he needs to play. He may act cold and yell as a man in a loveless marriage protected by money but after we see similar performances by Jon Hamm in "Mad Men" that eclipse this weekly.
Luhrmann's campy flourishes don't always work. Almost every Jay-Z song in this film completely pulls you out of the moment. They feel like temporary audio tracks that were put on the film until they could fit a better song that fit the scene. While I'm definitely not against the usage of hip-hop in period films (Quentin Tarantino's usage of Rick Ross and Tupac songs in last year's "Django Unchained" worked perfectly), here they feel awkward. Dubstep, techno, and even Jay-Z collaboration with Kanye West "Who Gon Stop Me" fit with the gluttonous nature of the 1920s rich. Jay-Z songs like "100$ Bill" and "Hova (I.Z.Z.O.)" do not and pull you totally out of the moment.
"Great Gatsby" is still something we don't see often during the summer. An intriguing, beautiful, and well-made film that must be seen on a big-screen to be truly enjoyed (in 3D or 2D). While it will more than likely not be the movie you pictured when you bought that ear-marked copy complete with the writing of someone you never knew (as the copy I purchased at John Kings Books in Detroit), it is still an amazing story with themes that still echo today. Much like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet", this is a retelling of an amazing story that we can only hope makes a connection with today's generation.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
"Mud" - 3 stars out of 4 (B)
One of the more interesting developments in Hollywood recently has been that Matthew McConaughey has turned from more than a punchline and into more of an actor. I'm not saying he isn't still funny or an easy addition to a joke. His laid-back demeanor and Texas drawl are just begging for comedy. He has proven though that he is a respectable actor who is hired in movies by directors like Lee Daniels, Steven Soderbergh, and even Christopher Nolan. His latest performance is in Jeff Nichols's "Mud". He plays the titular character with all the drawl we have come to expect from McConaughey. It just so happens that that drawl fits the character and the film perfectly.
Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are two middle schoolers who lived alongside the Mississippi River. They are bored and spent most of their time on the river, trolling for fish they can freeze and sell to the townsfolk. They also enjoy spending time in their treehouse on a remote island which is acutally much more of a treehouse-boat. The boat, located high up in a tree, has no owner and no sign of how it got there. On one of their visits, Ellis and Neckbone run into a man named Mud (McConaughey). Sly and personable, Mud asks the boys if they wouldn't mind going into town and getting him food. He can't leave the island as he is waiting for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It is with this action, that the two boys get themselves into a darker situation than they had expected as Mud proves to be more than they expected and yet exactly as they expected.
Jeff Nichols is coming off of 2011's "Take Shelter", a film that would have received much more award attention had it been released at a better time and had it received a proper advertising budget. Nichols again proves that he is one of the more promising new-comers. His writing and directing show a filmmaker who could produce something great in the next few years. He lingers just long enough on shots so that he makes his point but never beats you down with it. While "Mud" is not nearly as powerful or as riveting as "Take Shelter", it still shows Nichols in a good light.
McConaughey is a natural fit as Mud. One of the often maligned parts of his acting ability is that he essentially plays himself. His characterization of Mud is no different. McConaughey is a charming, good-looking rascal and that is his character here as well. Still, he plays his standard role very well and it fits the character extremely well. Witherspoon is essentially wasted as Juniper, a woman of few words or actions. Her role could have been played by any 30-something actress although it is nice to know that she can branch out from big-budget romantic comedies and do semi-independent film again. Nichols mainstay (and soon to be extremely sought-after actor following his performance in this summer's "Man of Steel") Michael Shannon appears in a supporting role as Neckbone's uncle. There is a part of me that wonders what he might have done with a character like Mud even though McConaughey is such a natural fit.
Much of the acclaim for "Mud" will not go to McConaughey but to the performance by Sheridan as Ellis. The characterization and delivery of Ellis seems natural and propels the film forward. One scene in particular between Mud and Ellis near the end after a realization is "Oscar-bait" in the best way. His performance is very reminiscent of River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" or Jamie Bell in "Undertow". There is not one moment we don't believe this boy is a 14-year old who honestly has no idea what is going through his mind or what he is getting himself wrapped up into. While his performance will more than likely be forgotten come next Oscar season, Sheridan is definitely someone to watch in the upcoming years.
Like "Take Shelter", Nichols somewhat fumbles his way through the third act. He builds tension incredibly well and pulls viewers in so tight that very few endings could complement them. The final 20 minutes of "Mud" feels oddly out-of-place, like a film with not enough time to adequately tie everything up. While it does not totally disappoint, it isn't the ending the film deserves. One hopes Nichols can figure out how to master an ending in his next film as he certainly knows how to build something up.
Much like its main character, "Mud" breezes through with a charismatic attitude that hides dark and mysterious undertones. It again proves that Nichols is on his way to something great, that we should probably compliment McConaughey at least 1/3 as much as we poke fun, and that there are some truly great child actors out there working today and hopefully in the future.
Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are two middle schoolers who lived alongside the Mississippi River. They are bored and spent most of their time on the river, trolling for fish they can freeze and sell to the townsfolk. They also enjoy spending time in their treehouse on a remote island which is acutally much more of a treehouse-boat. The boat, located high up in a tree, has no owner and no sign of how it got there. On one of their visits, Ellis and Neckbone run into a man named Mud (McConaughey). Sly and personable, Mud asks the boys if they wouldn't mind going into town and getting him food. He can't leave the island as he is waiting for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It is with this action, that the two boys get themselves into a darker situation than they had expected as Mud proves to be more than they expected and yet exactly as they expected.
Jeff Nichols is coming off of 2011's "Take Shelter", a film that would have received much more award attention had it been released at a better time and had it received a proper advertising budget. Nichols again proves that he is one of the more promising new-comers. His writing and directing show a filmmaker who could produce something great in the next few years. He lingers just long enough on shots so that he makes his point but never beats you down with it. While "Mud" is not nearly as powerful or as riveting as "Take Shelter", it still shows Nichols in a good light.
McConaughey is a natural fit as Mud. One of the often maligned parts of his acting ability is that he essentially plays himself. His characterization of Mud is no different. McConaughey is a charming, good-looking rascal and that is his character here as well. Still, he plays his standard role very well and it fits the character extremely well. Witherspoon is essentially wasted as Juniper, a woman of few words or actions. Her role could have been played by any 30-something actress although it is nice to know that she can branch out from big-budget romantic comedies and do semi-independent film again. Nichols mainstay (and soon to be extremely sought-after actor following his performance in this summer's "Man of Steel") Michael Shannon appears in a supporting role as Neckbone's uncle. There is a part of me that wonders what he might have done with a character like Mud even though McConaughey is such a natural fit.
Much of the acclaim for "Mud" will not go to McConaughey but to the performance by Sheridan as Ellis. The characterization and delivery of Ellis seems natural and propels the film forward. One scene in particular between Mud and Ellis near the end after a realization is "Oscar-bait" in the best way. His performance is very reminiscent of River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" or Jamie Bell in "Undertow". There is not one moment we don't believe this boy is a 14-year old who honestly has no idea what is going through his mind or what he is getting himself wrapped up into. While his performance will more than likely be forgotten come next Oscar season, Sheridan is definitely someone to watch in the upcoming years.
Like "Take Shelter", Nichols somewhat fumbles his way through the third act. He builds tension incredibly well and pulls viewers in so tight that very few endings could complement them. The final 20 minutes of "Mud" feels oddly out-of-place, like a film with not enough time to adequately tie everything up. While it does not totally disappoint, it isn't the ending the film deserves. One hopes Nichols can figure out how to master an ending in his next film as he certainly knows how to build something up.
Much like its main character, "Mud" breezes through with a charismatic attitude that hides dark and mysterious undertones. It again proves that Nichols is on his way to something great, that we should probably compliment McConaughey at least 1/3 as much as we poke fun, and that there are some truly great child actors out there working today and hopefully in the future.
Friday, May 3, 2013
"Iron Man 3" 3.5 stars out of 4 (B+)
For as much flack as the "comic book film genre" has received over the years, one of the most interesting occurrences in this genre has been the freedom given to filmmakers who want to do original takes on the material. Robert Rodriguez made his masterpiece with 2005's "Sin City". Christopher Nolan proved that you could take a comic and turn it into an interesting and adult piece of art with his "Batman" films. Joss Whedon took multiple Marvel super heroes and weaved them together to create something that is nothing short of a surprise in "The Avengers". It would be easy for the studios to find a lower-quality filmmaker for these films. Someone who will simply yes "Yes boss" and include every bit of stereotype, cliche, and product-placement into the films creating something pedestrian and vapid. "Iron Man 3" follows in the steps of Rodriguez, Nolan, and Whedon by taking a relatively unproven filmmaker, Shane Black, and giving him the freedom to create something that is becoming more and more uncommon these days: a special effects film where they got the script right before they got the pixels right.
The main complaint that people will have with "Iron Man 3" is that Downey spends so much time out of his Iron Man costume. There aren't nearly as many action sequences as we've come to expect. That said, the pull back from action to the drama of the characters and the situation is a worthwhile and interesting approach. Did we really need more scenes of a CGI superhero punching bad guys while a Black Sabbath song plays? Do we really need ADR Downey Jr quips piped in over "Shoot to Thrill" by AC/DC? These events have already been done and played out. We have seen Iron Man in enough action scenes. This is not to say that "Iron Man 3" is a slow-moving art house film. The film's $200 million budget is definitely prevalent in every scene. The action scenes are used well and fit in perfectly.
"Iron Man 3" starts off shortly after the events that took place at the end of "The Avengers". Billionaire machinist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is off. This is not the alcoholic and purely narcissistic Stark we were introduced to in the first two "Iron Man" films. This Stark is truly shook up. He can't sleep and when he does he has panic-induced nightmares. A new villain, The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), starts threatening the American people through nationally televised cryptic threats. Stark must fight through his own demons in order to fight the ones that threaten him and his girlfriend, Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
The "Iron Man" series started on a gamble. Having unproven former drug-addict Downey, Jr. play a major role in a comic book film was a risk that turned out to be a stroke of genius. The latest stroke of genius was letting Shane Black direct "Iron Man 3". After the dull and boring "Iron Man 2", Black's "Iron Man 3" is a quick-paced and witty film with more surprises than you would expect from a big-budget summer film. Black has made a career on writing snappy dialogue. We last saw this in 2006's "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", the film that arguably reminded the film world about Downey. Here he takes the often overblown character of Stark and puts him in a mostly realistic world-place. He is no longer this over-the-top caricature of a person. While that is most definitely entertaining, it makes us difficult to care about him. Here, we actually start to feel for Tony Stark and the people around him. Gone is the narcissism and womanizing. Gone is the over-the-top AC/DC music that filled every scene of the first two films. Stark seems like a human being. Although this is definitely the most supernatural of the three "Iron Man" films, it also feels the most realistic somehow.
The supporting cast is another place where "Iron Man 3" shines. Ben Kingsley's performance as The Mandarin is perfectly chilling. While he isn't quite in the league of something like Heath Ledger's Joker, Kingsley reminds us that he is a great actor who is underused. Guy Pierce is also perfectly cast as Aldrich Killian, a scientist who has large plans for medical advancements that could replace missing limbs but at a great cost. Child actor Ty Simpkins is also incredibly good as Harley, a boy that Stark befriends on his adventures. The role of "kid sidekick" is a tired cliche that many fans will balk at even a mere suggestion. Simpkins is given great dialogue to work with and fits in very well with Downey's barbs of sarcasm.
The main complaint that people will have with "Iron Man 3" is that Downey spends so much time out of his Iron Man costume. There aren't nearly as many action sequences as we've come to expect. That said, the pull back from action to the drama of the characters and the situation is a worthwhile and interesting approach. Did we really need more scenes of a CGI superhero punching bad guys while a Black Sabbath song plays? Do we really need ADR Downey Jr quips piped in over "Shoot to Thrill" by AC/DC? These events have already been done and played out. We have seen Iron Man in enough action scenes. This is not to say that "Iron Man 3" is a slow-moving art house film. The film's $200 million budget is definitely prevalent in every scene. The action scenes are used well and fit in perfectly.
The most exciting thing about the success of movies like "The Avengers" and "Iron Man 3" is that they will open up the ability for real filmmaking to exist in the "comic book" genre. When wordsmiths like Joss Whedon and Shane Black are allowed to write films that weave together action and genuine screenwriting brilliance, it proves to studio heads that you don't need to leave your brain out when you watch an action movie. This is very similar to how Nolan proved with "The Dark Knight" that you could make a dark and challenging comic book film that audiences and critics both adored. The work of Whedon and Black proves that there is no excuse for films like "G.I. Joe Retaliation" or the "Transformers" films to rely purely on "dumb fun" and "'splosions". Black proves here that you can have fun and make a true "film" at the same time. While I don't know when we will see a new "Iron Man" film, I can imagine the impact from this movie will ring through in the big-budget films that come out in the next few years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)