Elysium

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Count me a fan of director Neil Blomkamp’s 2009’s District 9, which brought a refreshing reinvention to the dystopian sci-fi film with a keen visual sense, a new accomplished performer at the center (Sharlto Copley), and the social resonance of South Africa’s war on apartheid underneath the entire set-up. Count me less of a fan of Elysium.

Elysium is bigger, grander in scale, and has Oscar-winning performers in Matt Damon (yes, I know that his Oscar was for writing, but he’s one of our best and one of our most underrated—see The Informant!) and Jodie Foster. Instead of aliens vs. the government, we have earthlings stuck in a ravaged post-everything’s-gone-wrong landscape on our planet vs. the rich and entitled living in a Mercedes-Benz-logo-shaped space station in the sky (known as Elysium) that looks like the better parts of the Florida coast. But the film is simultaneously more and less. The budget is bigger and the effects are better (and they were already good in District 9), but the surprise and freshness of the earlier film doesn’t inform our viewing of Elysium, and it shows rather large cracks.

There wasn’t a great deal of subtlety in District 9’s opposing forces, but the main character carried us from one side to the other in his personal journey, and we grew with him in our understanding of the plight of the have-nots. We don’t find that here. We find the eminently likable Matt Damon as Max, one of the have-nots, so we are positioned as a have-not from the get-go. Apparently Elysium is where the beautiful people live. We know that because they have big houses and nice big lawns, and—get this!—they speak French! They also have complete control of the ultimate in health care in their special healing pods. Without giving away too much, Max gets very sick and needs one of the pods; therefore, he’ll do anything to get to Elysium. There are side plots that hinge on governmental overthrows and Inception-esque brain robbing, but this is an “I want to keep on living” film at its narrative core.

This part of the film is exciting, and makes for a rousing action film. The hand-held camerawork is overused throughout, and the action scenes often don’t get their timing right, adding awkward mental notes when one is not supposed to be thinking about such things. But it’s the weight of what surrounds those scenes that drags the film down and consistently compromises its value artistically.

Rich and/or powerful means evil here, and shades of grey are apparently not allowed. William Fitchner plays a high-up reptilian bureaucrat in an unnecessary near-coma. That’s bad enough, as we know he’s able to bring shading to any of his characters. What’s worse is Blomkamp’s man Copley, here a raving mercenary and wild-eyed killing machine who shows none of the intelligence of his District 9 character, and is one-dimensional, brutal, and half-incomprehensible. But the biggest and most unexpected misstep is Jodie Foster. She is, in a word or two, pretty awful. She practically twirls her mustache in every other scene, and her apparently post-dubbed dialogue features a kind of generic upper class accent that simply doesn’t work and that is distracting in the actress’s apparent priority of accent over acting, which is somewhere on the level of a college performer just starting out. Seeing that Matt Damon appears to be directing himself as he relies on his standard array of acting tools (yet somehow making those work), it appears that the focus of Blomkamp’s efforts wasn’t the acting. Considering the talents of all he had in the cast, that’s the big tragedy of the film.

Blomkamp, clearly worried about the box office, is trying to insist that this film isn’t political. If this isn’t political, The Passion of the Christ wasn’t religious. Elysium (the place) is where the 1% live, the inability to go there is the immigration issue, the healing pods are universal health care, and apparently the 99% all speak Spanish along with English. Could that be….dare we say it…. Mexico? Unlike District 9, where the apartheid message was thoroughly but gently infused into the proceedings and had the advantage of a great historical victory behind it, Elysium pulls in too-obvious political connections with its story, which results in a heavy-handedness and raises questions that the film is nowhere near capable of answering. In that arena, the film falls somewhere between simplistic and downright silly.

Still, the ride is a fun one, and Blomkamp has a sense of place that rivals Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardener), Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth) and Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire). Let’s hope that future endeavors will shuck oversimplified political agendas and pay a little more attention to the good actors he may have at his disposal.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blue Jasmine

Posted on August 22, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Every year there is at least one master class in acting for us to enjoy, and for those interested, to study. In previous years, it’s been provided by Streep, Day-Lewis, Penn, or Philip Seymour Hoffman. This year, it’s supplied before the Oscar season (i.e., autumn) by the stunning performance of Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen’s newest film, Blue Jasmine. Happily, that performance is only the central pillar in one of Allen’s best films, certainly his best in years (yes, and that includes the more accessible but bumpier Midnight in Paris).

Blanchett may or may not snag an Oscar for this, but it’s still a performance for the ages. There are other actresses who might have played the part, but few if any could give it the combination of burnished entitlement, insecurity, self-deception, and brittle fragility that Blanchett provides her character. The film is Allen’s take on A Streetcar Named Desire, and similarities abound in the film’s story line and the internal struggles of the main character. But Jasmine (the character’s chosen name in place of her given name of Jeanette) isn’t Blanche DuBois, though she finds herself in somewhat similar circumstances. No Southern belle, she’s the wife of a Bernie Madoff-style character who has lost his fortune and has put his once-pampered wife out onto the streets with nothing but a few plush items, some expensive habits, and few survival skills.

Like Blanche, Jasmine moves in with her sister, Ginger. Unlike Stella, however, Ginger [played with a dead-on American accent and a touch of her own self-deception by English actress Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky)] has an ex and a current boyfriend, neither of which is interested in Jasmine. The story meanders in and out of the Streetcar narrative, and it ultimately forms a parallel work that becomes much more of a late Woody Allen than any kind of modern take on a major mid-century film.

Allen is in old and new territory here. As usual, he features women well and often, and as (almost) always, his female performances are unusually strong and deeply felt. Blanchett’s Jasmine is only the newest—albeit one of the best—performances of an actress in an Allen film. The clash of cultures is also a recurring feature in his films, and the contrast between the soft lighting and colors of Jasmine’s New York life (including a vacation home to die for) with the overly bright and colored life of Ginger and San Francisco as is jarring as Annie Hall’s New York, LA, and Wisconsin. (There’s a slight and funny homage to that film in the name of the doctor that Jasmine first works for in the Bay Area—a Dr. Flicker who shares his name with the doctor that tried to bring the young Alvy Singer out of his youthful depression.)

What’s old and yet fresh is another reminder of Annie Hall–the structure of the film. Non-linear but not in the least confusing, Allen (or his editor) lets the story bounce gently back and forth from the present to Jasmine’s wealthy past, taking us into this memory and that. Annie Hall was structured around Alvy’s (Woody Allen) telling his story with Annie (Diane Keaton) as well as various other women in his life. The cutting there was more Eisensteinian in nature, and the contrasts between now and then (and New York and LA) were more pronounced and sharply humorous. Here we cut back to Jasmine’s memories as breezily as she moved through the large, high-ceilinged rooms she once inhabited, and the moves into the past are more of a reflection of what the character is experiencing, whether consciously or not. Allen was greatly responsible for bringing the actual rhythms of stand-up comedy to film, especially with Annie Hall. Here he softens the jumps, removes the satire, and allows us to experience Jasmine’s past with a combination of Blanche DuBois’ gauzy self-denial and a genuine sense of empathy for her present condition.

What’s completely new is Allen’s apparent newfound appreciation of the emotional and financial plight of the middle class living outside of Manhattan. Perhaps his trips overseas and his European films—and his advancing years—have provided him with a softening toward those not in upper middle class apartments arguing about issues far from the pressing concerns of most Americans. Here, Ginger’s ex, played surprisingly well and with the right combination of hurt and bluster by Andrew Dice Clay (of all people) is still reeling from the bad financial advice that Jasmine and her husband gave them that forever destroyed their chance of financial stability. Ginger’s current boyfriend, played with edge and sympathy by Bobby Cannavale in the Stanley Kowalski role, isn’t a brute or a one-note wonder, but a regular guy with some anger issues who’s just trying to make his way in the world—in his “career” and his relationships. Allen doesn’t make fun of him as he might have a few decades ago, and perhaps due to Cannavale’s inherent likeability, he has our sympathy even as he acts out in ways we wouldn’t want to see in our own homes. Cannavale has become an actor to watch, on stage and on screen, and this is one for the acting résumé. He can be rough, kind, sweet and dangerous, and can play both smart and not quite as smart as he thinks he is. No one else quite has this combination of inherent traits and external skills, and he’s not done developing yet.

Alec Baldwin is an obvious but not always successful choice as the husband. As much as Jasmine shows a deep but fractured soul, Baldwin’s character seems to have no soul, and the actor doesn’t suggest one. He plays smooth and unctuous without seeming too slimy, but his persona (including previous roles in films, his 30 Rock experience and his reputation as a newsmaker for all the wrong reasons) is larger than his character, and we can never stop remembering that we’re watching Alec Baldwin.

Peter Sarsgaard, always a joy to watch and more talented than he’s generally given the opportunity to demonstrate, leaves his usual dark shadings behind with this character in a performance as smooth as aged wine. Unfortunately, it’s a part of the weakest story line in the film. His character’s appearance on the scene is coincidental to a Dickensian extent, and the developing of his relationship with Jasmine is rushed and simply unbelievable when viewed too closely. It’s the one part of the film that stumbles.

Overall, however, the film is more palpable, more real, and more fully realized than any Allen film since Match Point. Even apart from the gem that is Blanchett’s performance, the film is a joy to behold, and we watch with as much concern for the characters as admiration for Allen’s skill as a filmmaker. Yet the core, and the film’s shining glory, is Blanchett. Her Jasmine is complicated, yet fully realized. She provides Jasmine with an internal life that is at once beautiful and frightening to behold, and it puts to shame those actors who rely on externals when portraying wounded characters. From an audience point of view, Jasmine is difficult, appalling, maddeningly entitled, broken, and real. From a performance point of view, Blanchett’s character is a parade of pleasures. She owns the film from beginning to unsettled end, and captures us in the process.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lee Daniels’ The Butler

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Lee Daniels’ The Butler is nearly a critic-proof film. Its subject matter—a real-life butler who served a number of presidents in the White House—has been tied inextricably into the greater battle for civil rights for African-Americans. That’s the source of its power, and is at the core of some of its weaknesses.

The film is definitely inspirational, more than well acted, and touching. It’s the story of personal overcoming, of doing more than surviving—all coupled with an agonizing struggle against racial prejudice and hatred. Wrapping the two together turns a human story into a political one, diluting the human drama at the expense of a rallying cry, and creating a strong defense against criticism in the process.

First, that awkward title. Apparently the Warner Bros. 1916 silent film—a comedy short, no less—called The Butler is still such a part of our collective artistic consciousness that we’d be confused by a 2013 color and sound film of the same name. Seriously, I have no idea why that couldn’t be worked out amicably, but I am tempted to sue Warners myself for having foisted such an awkward title on the American public. To paraphrase Mr. Knightly to Emma in Emma, “Badly done, Warners. Badly done.”

The film’s strengths are obvious and subtle. What’s obvious are the many fine and several OK actors. First is the national treasure known as Forest Whitaker, last enjoying an Oscar for playing Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. He’ll likely be nominated again here for his role as Cecil Gaines, the butler. These two performances show the breadth as well as the depth of this great actor; no two characters could be more diametrically opposed. It’s simultaneously subtle and passionate, and while he is not always helped by the script, he breathes life and shading to his character at every turn.

As anyone who has read Word One about this knows, the most influential and possible richest woman in the world is playing Cecil’s wife Gloria. Much has been made of her return to acting, and her presence certainly can’t be ignored. For a celebrity, Oprah is a real actress, and her performance here respects both the material and the character. But one can’t for a second pretend that we’re not watching OPRAH! acting. Happily, she is good enough to keep the distraction to a minimum. As in her last outing in The Color Purple, she’ll likely be nominated for an Oscar because she’s Oprah. Whether she will deserve the award or nomination remains to be seen at this point.

What’s also obvious but which works much less successfully is the parade of famous faces in cameo roles. The supporting work of many of our best actors is more than fine: Cuba Gooding, Jr.; Terrance Howard; David Oyelolo, and even Lenny Kravitz. It’s the cameos that lend gravitas and distraction. Wait, isn’t that legend Vanessa Redgrave? Yes, it is, but that’s OK, because she’s a world-class actress who disappears in her roles. Robin Williams as Eisenhower? Far too distracting. James Marsden as John Kennedy—that one works, as Marsden is not as famous as he should be, and he disappears into the part as much as he can. John Cusack as Nixon? Live Schreiber as LBJ? Alan Rickman as Reagan? Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan? Their presence adds weight to the film as well as political street cred to their personae, but is a constant distraction (“Wow, look how much Jane looks like Nancy!”) Mariah Carey as Cecil’s mother? While she was more than fine in Lee Daniels’ Precious, her presence here is part of the Parade of Stars that keep impressing us with their participation while continually pulling us out of the film.

The more subtle success of the film is one that it also tends to overplay. The film’s brilliant point is that what a White House butler accomplished in both his life and work is every bit as distinctive and progressive as the more active civil rights workers of the ‘50s and ‘60s. Happily for politics but unhappily for art, the film overplays that hand in two ways. One, it ties in Gaines’ story to that of his son, who becomes a kind of Forrest Gump of the civil rights movement. The contrast and tension of the two stories is regularly demonstrated by cross-cutting between the elegant world of the White House and the rough-and-tumble realities of the beatings, harassments and outright violence against the civil rights workers. The cutting is effective in suggesting ironic contrast, but the film isn’t quite sure what it wants to be saying. We don’t disrespect Cecil and what he’s doing; we actually admire it. We also respect his son and the efforts of all those struggling against discrimination and segregation. The contrast is a little too easy to make and yet not quite precise enough in what it’s suggesting. The film’s stance could have been clarified in the specific tensions between father and son, but again, there is heat without a lot of light in those exchanges as son moves further into revolutionary causes, and various strains arise between father and son. What remain, though, are a respect for the efforts of both, and a distaste for disrespecting one’s elders and the move by some from resistance to violence. The contrast between the approaches of father and son strains a bit as Gaines evolves realistically as a man growing through middle age while his son and girlfriend are given an increasingly caricaturist presentation as they lose their individuality to slogans instead of dialogue and a parade of clichéd hats and hairstyles.

The other tension that nearly breaks the film is the climax of the film, where the two strands—Gaines’ life and the civil rights struggle—come together in the election of President Obama. The election of a half-black man is a ready-made and obvious culmination connecting the life of a White House butler and the struggle of the African-American to achieve parity on every level with whites. Perhaps too ready-made. On a cultural and political level, every white American should see this and get some insight into the black experience in America. On a film level, the ending overplays its hand and comes off as a rousing advertisement for the current president, after working so hard to present the previous executive leaders as real people who figure prominently but temporarily into the life of our central character. For those watching the parade of presidents and who are completely sympathetic with the civil rights movement, yet have reservations about this president’s policies, the knee-bending at the end of the film is a bit much and nearly tears the story away from Gaines’ life. Happily there is a Hail Mary pass at the end that refocuses the film back on Gaines, but the damage has already been done, and it leaves the film frayed at the edges.

The film is strongest when it stays personal, and sets its personal story within the context of what’s happening OUT THERE. While the son’s story and efforts could have been supportive and evocative with Gaines’ personal story in the forefront, instead it takes up too much time and focus, and more is clearly less here. Ironically, a more subtle and quieter presence of the son’s civil rights work would have resulted in a stronger and more powerful film. As it stands, Lee Daniels’ The Butler will be remembered for Oprah, too much star power, and a commanding, for-the-ages central performance.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Wolverine

Posted on August 9, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Full disclosure: I’m not a comic book geek, nor a superhero fan, and not even a particular fan of the popular Wolverine character. So maybe that’s what accounts for a rather tepid response to this film, an admittedly superior film to its predecessor, X-Men Origins: Wolverine—not a particularly difficult feat. From the feedback I’m getting from my graphic novel-loving friends, this one hews more to the “true story” of the tormented hero, digging both into his heart and into a classic Wolverine tale.

This outing has Logan/Wolverine drawn out from his self-imposed exile in the wilderness into the bright colors, whirling action, and evil deeds of some Japanese criminals. Apart from specific memories the plot stirs in the hearts of the true fan, the story is the simple classic of a hero/superhero discovering his true calling and giving himself over to it. That arc is the foundation of the film and what holds it together. In between isolation and acceptance, there are a lot of fights, a good deal of personal agonizing, and some uncomfortable acting.

The one scene that will likely be referred to over all others is the fight atop a bullet train. It’s original, spellbinding, fresh, and as unbelievable as every other fight scene in a Marvel or DC Comics film. But it’s fun.

Of course the film stars Hugh Jacked-Man, who is given every opportunity to have his shirt off. (If I looked like that, though, I’d be writing this shirtless as well.) He’s nearly as buff as Henry Cavill in Man of Steel, and the physique is a special effect in and of itself. (Though a distracting one: sometimes you can only think of all the hard work it took to look like that, which takes you right out of the film every time.) I’m a fan of the man, and the camera does love him. But I’ve never quite been as much of a fan of the actor. Some are lauding the return to Wolverine’s dark gruffness here, but I never had the feeling that he completely nailed the part, in spite of this being his umpteenth outing as the character. Jackman can do action sequences well, though, and certainly knows how to wear the character’s heart either on his sleeve or far behind his eyes—an important ability in a film that highlights Wolverine’s emotional journey as much if not more than his call back into action.

It’s a violent film when you add it up, but director James Mangold (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma) keeps Logan’s slicing and dicing j-u-s-t out of camera range many times, keeping down the gore while still providing enough visual and aural information to let us know how much flesh is being punctured and slashed. While the action sequences (the train-top fight excepted) are not especially well constructed, this approach maintains the focus on Logan and keeps us both in the film and close to the character at the same time—a welcome change in an action film with this many deaths.

Once in Japan, though, there are two-and-a-half weaknesses that are as surprising as they are disappointing. There is an animé sprite come to life played by Rila Fukushima, a triangle-faced dyed-red-haired pixie who moves the action along. Unhappily, she is a first-time actress, and her performance outside of the action scenes is an awkward combination of mugging and OK if not always successful attempts at genuine acting. She’s a strong visual presence, however, and she adds color and energy. Also a first-time actress is the center of the intrigue as well as Logan’s possible love interest. She is played by Tao Okamoto, and her acting is weak and underplayed, but she has a solid screen presence that helps hold together the nearly overdone intrigue swirling about her. Lastly, there is a truly awful character played awfully: the Viper, played embarrassingly by Svetlana Khodchenkova, whose character doesn’t fit the film, and whose overdone “performance” is clichéd and laughable. She nearly ruins the film.

Then there is the third act, which turns into Wolverine Meets the Transformers. Don’t get me started on that. Just remember the earlier part of the film when you get to that point.

Because it’s an improvement over the previous Wolverine film, and because there is a return to the character’s roots, and because the Asian setting guarantees hundreds of millions in additional foreign box office, and because Jackman and Wolverine are a beloved combination, we likely haven’t seen the last of the films focused on this tortured superhero. In some ways, this is another international action production cobbled together with the requisite action sequences, foreign bad guys and comic-book characters come to life. But Jackman’s sympathetic portrayal, and the film’s steady emphasis on Logan’s hurting heart, serve to elevate and differentiate The Wolverine from the pack.

Note: There’s a preview of X-Men: Days of Future Past, which feature’s Wolverine’s next appearance, that comes in the middle of the end credits—don’t miss it.)

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fruitvale Station

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Yes, a star is born. There are plenty of good reasons to see and experience Fruitvale Station. But perhaps the greatest pleasure is watching the birth of a star—Michael B. Jordan. The film, a favorite at Cannes and Sundance, is an accomplished bit of filmmaking in itself. But it will likely be remembered as the film that made Jordan a star and let the film-going public know that there is an actor of talent to watch, we hope, for a long time to come.

Fruitvale Station is the true, heart-breaking and maddening story of the last day and death of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old San Francisco Bay area resident with a serious girlfriend, a young daughter, a sketchy job history, an on-and-off relationship with selling drugs, and a mother who loves him and that he loves right back. There’s nothing special about Oscar, and there’s everything special about him, at least the way Jordan and writer/director Ryan Coogler present him. He’s conflicted, complicated, not quite grown up, and comes across as a real human being in every scene. He loves his girlfriend, and is fiercely loyal, except when he’s not. He needs to work, but loses a job by showing up late once too often. He’s kind, thoughtful, and lies easily. He is presented in the film as beginning to put his drug-selling past behind him, which adds a high degree of tragic irony to the last altercation that leads to his untimely end.

The film is done in a strongly realist way, with the camera going right to the edge of tolerable shakiness. We feel as if we’re simply observing real people living real lives, without a lot of moralizing or politicking, a feat in itself. The ending is all the stronger for the lack of a high horse or overheated visual presentation. Since the film begins with the real video cell phone footage of Grant’s death, there is a layer of doom that overlays everything we see. But the humanity and life of the characters and what they do is so palpable that it almost fights against the inevitable climax, adding a creative tension throughout the film that’s both personally disturbing and artistically exciting to experience. [Spoiler alert] The only near misstep is a scene with a dog that is mirrored later in the film, and soaks the main character in a martyrdom that is unnecessary; perhaps less would have been more here.

In a film of strong performances, Jordan stands out, and for more reasons than being the lead. He registers as deeply felt and real while at the same time unsure of what his character is thinking and feeling at times. Oscar is just 22 and is sure of only a few things: he loves his mom and daughter. After that he’s mostly loyal to the mother of his child, enjoys his friends, doesn’t know what he wants to do, and is finding growing up difficult. Jordan captures all of that and more. In a mostly slice-of-life film, Jordan succeeds as presenting us with the most life-like character in the film.

Octavia Spencer, Oscar winner for The Help and a co-producer her, nails her character almost as firmly as Jordan, though a bit of her Help character seems to slip in now and then in the early scenes, threatening ever so slightly to distract the viewer and thin out her character. But mostly, she inhabits the role with ease and strength, especially as the dramatic demands grow. Melonie Diaz as Grant’s girlfriend is solid and gives a near-showcase performance herself. But this will be remembered primarily as the film that will kick-start Jordan’s already promising career.

One rare but happy result of the realist approach to the film is the presentation of Spencer’s character as a Christian believer. Her speech and her quick and muttered prayers when facing stress are refreshingly true to life, and her two praying scenes (grace at dinner and prayers for Oscar’s recovery when it’s already too late) are afforded the kind of respectful treatment that Hollywood generally doesn’t know how to handle. Generally these kinds of scenes apparently can’t be done without mockery or presenting a kind of laughable generic “Christianity” that no one practices (except in the minds of irreligious screenwriters who clearly haven’t a clue). I can’t remember the last time I saw a Christian character presented with respect and without irony or suspicion in a mainstream Hollywood film outside of Tyler Perry’s work, and here the acting is much better. Her character’s treatment adds one more level of reality to a film that depends on it for its power.

As a polemic on any number of issues, the film lands a bit on the soft side, and again, may be all the more powerful for it. It could have been grittier and angrier, and the actual murder could have been more directly and bitterly presented. Like the grainy cell images in the beginning, we don’t see everything that happened and don’t exactly know how things went from bad to worst. But the effect is that Oscar’s humanity is elevated in the process. He’s not reduced to an issue, or a cog in a message machine. Some may argue with that approach. But it takes the film up one more notch in what it refuses to do, and therefore in what it succeeds in doing for Oscar’s humanity and his memory.

One final note [and possible spoiler]: the arrival of Kevin Durand as the first police officer we see at the beginning of what we know is the final sequence. It’s the kind of set-up for a twist that is artful and shocking at the same time. Just look at Durand–he must be the bad guy, right? It’s one more good move in a film that should be studied as an example of an issue film that can take a different, perhaps more effective, approach to controversial material.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

World War Z

Posted on July 9, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Mash-ups have often been fun diversions. Think of music mash-ups such as “Happy Days are Here Again” with “Get Happy,” or any number of more modern ones (watch more than one episode of Glee and you’ll see at least one.) Film mash-ups combine genres, which is often an exercise in exhilaration or frustration. “It’s a Western—no, it’s a musical. No, it’s both!” (Paint Your Wagon) Or think of David Lynch, or anything by Tarantino. Sometimes fun, sometimes fascinating, sometimes confusing.

World War Z begins as a promising mash-up of a family drama interwoven with a zombie movie. Although it gets to the central conflict rather too quickly, it works in an oddly fascinating way, mostly because the film does two things well. First, it keeps rooted with touching scenes of family connection and concern, and doesn’t rush them. Brad Pitt plays Gerry, a UN superman called to save the world in the light of the newest zombie pandemic. But the film, while showing his mad skills, leans hard toward Gerry as loving husband and protective father, and for a while, that connection adds depth and keeps the film rooted in the real world of love, support and family. Second, the film keeps the zombies at something of a distance by not reveling in the gore of the attacks and keeping the worst of the action just out of sight. Yes, it’s about zombies, but it might be any apocalyptic nightmare scenario.

But just when you think it all might work, the film s-l-o-w-s d-o-w-n and becomes a drawn-out suspense thriller that takes the film in the direction of another mash-up, this time a medical thriller (spoiler alert: will they find the proper antidote?) combined with a long, drawn-out sequence of equal parts zombie suspense and messianic sacrifice. Then it doesn’t wrap up as much as it just “concludes” with an open-ended narrative shrug that comes somewhere between “whatever…” and a “I dunno….” By this time, the promise of the first half has long been forgotten, the pace has been recalculated one too many times, and the two strong strands of family and zombie are left dangling and unresolved.

The film’s acting is its saving grace. Brad Pitt has become a better, deeper actor since becoming a father, and the changes work well here. Though he’s still hiding his looks under scruff and long hair, he seems to have left behind the quirks of the character actor and has embraced his leading actor status. He’s strong, smart and paternal all at once, and he holds the film together. His wife is played by Mireille Enos in what I hesitantly call the Jessica Chastain role (a category that I hope doesn’t exist a year from now). Her role isn’t as flashy, but it’s solid, and contributes greatly to the family dynamic of the film.

Two spoiler alerts ahead: The film does have one genuine stop-your-heart moment amidst a number of other moments of surprise, plus there is a narrative twist toward the end when the film presents its “answer” to the crisis. It’s fresh and imaginative, but it’s nearly lost in the missteps of the second half.

Not being able to categorize a film is not a criticism. Citizen Kane can’t be categorized, either. But nearly everything in that film works. WWZ starts off strong with a fresh mash-up of family and zombies, then careens into a series of narrative bumps and unrelated set-pieces that ends up derailing the whole thing by the time it’s over. The acting is good, the production values are generally first-rate (though the zombie hordes look CG), but the final effort is most certainly less than the sum of its parts.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quartet

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Quartet is a pleasant diversion, and will be remembered mainly as Oscar-winning actor Dustin’s Hoffman’s first (only?) directorial effort. Young people will stay away from it in droves, as it concerns a group of classical musicians who live in a lovely but threatened “old-age” home. For older folks, it’s an agreeable trifle with recognizable actors and characters that are worth the visit. It’s equal parts comedy and drama, and while never either deeply moving or howlingly funny, it’s, to use the vernacular, a good rental.

I’ll leave it to the viewer to discover what the title refers to, but there is a good deal of lovely music from real musicians, and that’s the first strength of the film. The second is the cast of characters, including the over-sexed older gentleman, the kind but (literally) demented singer, the past-her-prime operatic diva, and the performer-turned-teacher who thinks he’s found his old-age stride until…(no spoiler here). They are as worn as an old pair of slippers, and generally just as comfortable to have around. No real surprises, but this isn’t a film about surprises.

Maggie Smith, fresh from the rejuvenation of her career supplied by Downton Abbey, slips somewhere between the actress and line reader (see “Actors and Line Readers” on this website) in her role as the opera singer/diva whose arrival at the home stirs up old feelings and new possibilities. Smith is a wonderful actress, and can play nearly anything. Except, it seems, the musical diva. Dame Gwyneth Jones, a retired opera star, plays the operatic diva already living at the home when Smith’s character arrives, and she possesses—and is able to exude—the necessary diva resonance of the opera singer that Smith isn’t able to. Smith is too enjoyable a presence to spend much time carping on that, but it’s noticeable. Singer divas are singer divas, and actress divas are actress divas. There’s a difference.

As a director, Hoffman expectedly gets solid performances from his actors. He brings the action, based on Ronald Harwood’s play (Harwood was also the screenwriter) outside as often as he can to break up the staginess. But he doesn’t seem to quite know where to put his camera, and while each scene has its own rhythm and integrity, the film as a whole lacks pace. And several plot points, as well as the film’s ending, are simply ridiculous outside of an afternoon Disney special.

But as in superhero movies, films like this find their logic in other places than plot. The familiar characters and conflicts are comfortable rather than tired, and the actors playing them are a delight from most important to least. Add to that the genuinely musical artistry of most of the actors in secondary roles, and you have a lightweight bonbon that’s sweet and well worth the time for those who love music and/or are, like the author, of a certain age.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Man of Steel

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Man of Steel is nowhere near as bad as some of the critics have said. Yes, it’s too long by a good 25 minutes, and the action scenes/fights are nearly endless and almost pointless. But as a reboot of the series, it works.

It lays the groundwork for a franchise right from the start. A great deal of time is spent on Krypton, establishing a background for where Superman begins his life as well as laying the groundwork for this particular film’s conflicts. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Kal-El’s (Superman’s) father and the one who arranges for his trip to Earth. The accent is occasionally distracting as he goes for the general English-ish tones of the educated cinematic alien. His general persona of authority works well for him here, and contrary to the opinion of others, he’s nowhere near as miscast as he was in Les Misérables.

Director Zack Snyder (300) spends a great deal of time—too much—on giving us the background of how Kal-El makes it to earth and why, but (spoiler alert) the fact that Krypton bad guy General Zod (Michael Shannon) shows up later helps justify the time spent on his actions, motives and general evil character. What isn’t justified are the drawn-out action sequences, which strain patience as well as credibility. The fights almost reach the point of the ridiculous at (several) times. And poor New York City—just when it was recuperating from the smack-down of The Avengers, Superman and Zod tear block after block to shreds here. This is my vote for another city to be the site of the next superhero battle. And even for a film that begins an another planet and puts us in an unreal world from the get-go, some of the plot set-ups are so literally incredible that it can take you out of the film: Would anyone have really let Lois Lane do half the things the folks in the film allow???

Much has been made of the humorlessness of the film, and that’s true. There are a few notes of humor, but the only real moments we’re given to enjoy comes right at the end. (I did burst out laughing, however, at the quick shot of a work sign trumpeting how many days had gone by without an industrial accident—right in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out.) One of the great successes of The Avengers was the layer of humor throughout the film that added some joy, real humor and a break from the intensity of our world being in danger. The action keeps moving so quickly here that you almost don’t notice the lack of humor until the end, when we all get a chance to breathe.

Henry Cavill (The Tudors, Immortals) is, as Zoolander might put it, ridiculously good-looking and certainly the buffest of all Supermen. All the attention has been paid to his exercise regimen and 5,000-calorie-a-day diet. But he’s pretty good here, as it’s as challenging to play this character (and pull it off) as it is to do an Iron Man, Spider-Man, or even Jay Gatsby. Not being that familiar with his work, I don’t know his range. But beyond the look, he has the focus and confidence needed, as well as the loving-son traits necessary for scenes with his father (Kevin Costner, solid), and mother (Diane Lane, lovely as ever and just as solid). He doesn’t play the nerd when he’s Clark Kent as Christopher Reeve did, and comes off as more lost and a bit confused about his role on earth—which fits perfectly the arc of the storyline here. His character seems a bit more hidden, which is either an actor’s victory with the character, or a slight failure to nail down the character in the midst of identity struggles with being a superior alien, slowing falling for a reporter, and oh, yes, constantly saving the earth while your government may be wanting to capture you. Perhaps future iterations will help make this performance clearer.

As Lois Lane, the talented Amy Adams is a bit too long in the tooth for both the role and for Cavill (she’s nearly 9 years older). But I’d likely have cast her in spite of her age as well. She brings all the necessary brain, sweetness, and toughness to the role. But as she heads closer to her 40th birthday, the age difference might seem greater in subsequent films.

Michael Shannon’s Zod makes a fascinating contrast to the season’s other great fantasy villain—Star Trek Into Darkness’ (possible spoiler alert) Khan, played so brilliantly by Benedict Cumberbatch. His Khan is deeply felt and fierce at the same time, and it is a performance that resonates internally within the character, which creates believability and adds depth to the film. Shannon knows how to do that, but seems to have more experience playing Very Bad People Who Yell a Lot (see Premium Rush). His Zod is all external anger and sputtering, and is less impacting than Khan. (Clearly, he, Crowe and Cavill spent months adjusting their weight—only Cavill gained—and pumping iron. I’ve never seen Shannon in real shape before.) And for some reason, his slight speech impediment seems increasingly pronounced the more he spews his verbal venom, which almost reaches the point of distraction.

Lastly, the traditional Superman-Christ comparisons are anything but subtle. The film actually functions well as a Rorschach test for this generation’s level of Biblical literacy. “El” is one of the Hebrew names for God in the Old Testament. Kal-El is sent to earth as a savior from a father who loves him. He’s raised by someone who isn’t his “real” father, and at 33, he enters his destiny. And in case you might have missed it, Superman’s agonizing over whether to give himself up to save others is placed in a church, with a priest, with an overly obvious stained-glass image of Christ agonizing in the garden before His crucifixion in the background. Yes, we get it! (At least most of us do.)

If the film reaches too high and far and occasionally falters, it nevertheless gives this generation a new and acceptable Superman. The time on Krypton was too long, the time growing up in Kansas is short-changed, and the fight scenes are both unbelievable and unnecessarily long. But the film sets a solid foundation for future films, the effects are top-notch, and we have a Superman who appears to be able to handle whatever direction the series may take us all in. Not a great film, but a good start.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Finally saw The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), the Vincent Minnelli-directed Hollywood film that trashed Hollywood. Perhaps today it’s known more for its statistical significance; it won 5 Oscars, the most ever for a film not nominated for Best Picture. It’s been on my must-see list for years, and seeing that was my wife’s Father’s Day gift to me: “You can watch whatever you want to tonight!”

As would be expected in a Minnelli film, it’s beautiful to look at, and won Oscars for best b&w cinematography (well-deserved), art direction (of course—it’s Minnelli) and costume. The structure of the film is a combination of Citizen Kane, A Letter to Three Wives (most closely) and All About Eve, and tells the story of someone people used to call a “heel,” played in full grit-your-teeth-and-look-like-you’re-going-to-explode style by the inimitable Kirk Douglas, receiving his second Oscar nomination for Best Actor. (He never did win a competitive Oscar.) He plays Jonathan Shields, who’s down on his luck (or was finally getting his due) as a successful producer, and he is asking three former colleagues (a director, an actress, and a writer) for help. They’ve all been made great successes due to their collaboration with him, and they never want to work with him again. Why? That’s the story.

It’s not as dark and biting as Sunset Boulevard, nor nearly as fun or fascinating. There is a great surprise near the end that I happily didn’t see coming, and which added a great deal of energy when the film most needed it. But perhaps the most enjoyable aspect for a film person is guessing who is supposed to be whom. Is this or that character based one famous actor/actress/director/producer, or is it a composite? And if so, a composite of whom? Clearly the character played by the top-billed Lana Turner is based on Diana Barrymore, son of the legendary John. One shot of a drawing of her supposed actor father in profile is enough, though the film lays it on pretty thick in that same scene. Is Leo G. Carroll’s character based on Hitchcock? The guessing games are nearly endless.

The Oscar-winning script is witty and dark in a noirish way, with biting humor that is somehow never really funny. Instead of enjoying the brilliance of the lines (a la All About Eve or even Sunset Boulevard at times), the characters tamp down the dazzle of the script and proceed to growl the lines away, adding to the dark mood but robbing us of the shared joy of a brilliant retort or comment.

Gloria Grahame won her Best Supporting Oscar for her tiny role here, and I’m not sure why. She’s a fine actress, and she played her part with a bit more edge and definition than some of her other characters, but the role is small and there’s nothing outstanding here. What did catch my attention was what I believe is the best performance in the film. It’s not Kirk, or the beautiful Turner, nor even stars Walter Pidgeon, Dick Powell or Barry Sullivan. The freshest performance is by Paul Stewart in the small but recurring role of Syd. Who? Most film people know him as Raymond in Citizen Kane. Take another look at his performance here, and mourn the loss of career that might have been. He was a life-long working actor, but he clearly deserves to be remembered for more than a bit role in a great film.

If given the choice and you have limited time, take Sunset Boulevard over The Bad and the Beautiful. But if you’ve seen the former, take a look at this black-and-white and very purple studio-era classic. Revel in the look, enjoy the lines and performances, and watch for Stewart at every turn.

Posted in Film Reviews, Older Films | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iron Man 3

Posted on June 1, 2013 by Mark DuPré

Not a lot to say here. It’s better than the second, not as good as the first. The story feels a bit musty and yesterday, with the enigmatic Bin Laden-esque villain. Tony Stark’s post-Avengers Stress Disorder is somewhat hokey, and the action sequences are not up to snuff.

What works is Robert Downey Jr. and his take on the character. Downey seems a bit tired, but his snarky attitude, obvious intelligence, and most especially his approach to the character’s humor make it a joy to be around this guy again. Downey delivers the lines with a laser intensity and speed as if his brain is already onto the next point (which it is) and that the time it takes to actually deliver the line is a necessary evil that he has to execute so that he can get on to the next thing. This fan of the series would have much preferred more Tony, more Tony and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow), less suspension of disbelief over the plot developments, fewer explosions, no PTSD, and a more subtle villain. But that’s just me.

Beyond the tired and consistently more ridiculous storyline, the direction is only adequate. It’s as if a student were writing a paper that hit all the necessary points, but only put them down on the page in proper order with no driving central organizing thesis, and little style. Director Shane Black, a screenwriter whose only previous directorial credit is Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, shows us everything we need to understand what’s going on, but the action sequences lack pop, and a there is a certain blandness of tone throughout. All the information is there; what’s missing is attitude and energy beyond that supplied by the lead actor.

Iron Man, especially as embodied by RDJ, is one of the great movie superheroes. Visiting him is always a pleasure. This film, however, is not. But memories of being with him will probably outlast memories of the film, which will likely fall out of one’s head in a few hours.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment