Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Leave a reply

Marvel’s attempt to recreate its interconnected universe on film has officially paid off.

“Iron Man 3″ is a lot more organized than its predecessor, and a lot less cheesy than its predecessor. If anything, “Iron Man 3″ is cheesy on purpose. While the director/writer team of Jon Favreau and Justin Theroux that made up “Iron Man 2″ is certainly a talented one, Shane Black brings back everything that was great about the original “Iron Man,” plus everything that makes his take on the action genre so unique.

“Iron Man 3″ begins with a confession and then a flashback to 1999. During that time, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is still the same womanizing, partying genius, except with a better heart. The key information here is that brilliant scientist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) and her boss Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) work on a special experiment that could eventually help humans grow body parts back. It is a nice touch for the third “Iron Man” movie, as this series explores people using technology to exceed their life expectancy.


For further proof of that, look no further than Tony Stark. In “Iron Man 2,” he was dying. In “Iron Man 3,” he comes back with post-New York anxiety. Not the Woody Allen kind, but rather the kind you get from fighting aliens that nearly destroy an entire city. Tony distracts himself with work and a serious relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), but mainly work. This still doesn’t stop him from waking up with PTSD nightmares.

The “Iron Man” series is typically a lot more lighthearted than other films adapted from comic books. Yet, it still manages to be a serious character study of Tony Stark, who is basically the living embodiment of an adrenaline rush. “Iron Man 3″ portrayed a man bound to the machine that also haunts him.

Tony’s state of trauma can’t last too long: like any hero, he must get back to work. His latest challenge is a terrorist named The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who looks like Bin Laden but talks like a member of Blue Collar Comedy. The Mandarin is vaguely threatening yet threatening enough that Tony extends an open invitation for The Mandarin to come attack him at his own home. Needless to say, this doesn’t turn out too pretty.

The action and CGI in this film are phenomenal, yet the best part of “Iron Man 3″ is when Shane Black strips Tony of his super powers and in effect, his identity. Technology can sometimes be used as a crutch, so it’s a treat to see Tony use nothing but his wits to fight his enemies. It is a reminder of why Tony Stark is a great hero in the first place: he is a genius. The power of the iron man suit seems to be transferrable  However, Tony Stark is one of a kind.

The reason that “Iron Man 3″ is so entertaining is because it’s a serious story that never takes itself too seriously. Shane Black plays action movie cliches for comic relief all while creating a very solid action film. No stone is left unturned here, if an item is brought up earlier in the script, you can bet it’ll come back later on.

“Iron Man 3″ is also the rare action film that doesn’t think its audience is dumb. Most of the time, the audience gets to find out plot details at the same time that the characters do. Therefore, the audience is not smarter than the characters, and the characters are not smarter than the audience. Both plot and character details unfold slowly. Though not quite on their level, it reminded me of some of the best action genre made in the 1980s, and not just because it also took place on Christmas.

“Iron Man 3″ is not perfect. Many loyal (beyond the movies) “Iron Man” fans were unhappy with a certain plot twist. As somebody who can only be credited as seeing the movies, I can understand why, but it was certainly an interesting experiment. My one quibble about the film is that it is at first bogged down by “Avengers” references. Once it learns to balance those with new plot points, it really takes off.

This may be the final “Iron Man” film. If so, it closed out well because it improved so much from its predecessor and revived the intrigue behind the Iron Man and Tony Stark. Tony Stark is more a Hollywood than New York hero, as he is a man driven mainly by the ego propelled by his talent. “Iron Man 3″ is also all about characters putting on different masks, labeling things, and overall trying to put on a good performance for the rest of the world. Yes, the name Iron Patriot means a lot. In terms of performance, there could have been no better Tony Stark than Robert Downey Jr., who’s fast-talking performance so perfectly matched the wit of what was written down on the page. Basically, Robert he created an alter ego just as compelling as the hero he must play.

The 3D Experience: Definitely worth seeing in theaters, but you could do without the 3D.

Sidenote: During the 1999 flashback, Jon Favreau’s hairstyle and outfit is nearly identical to that of John Travolta in “Pulp Fiction.” Intentional?

Movie Review: Oblivion

Leave a reply

According to “Oblivion,” as well as most other dystopian sci-fi films, the future is filled with white rooms and white furniture. This feels less like an ode to Minimalism and more like a director and crew that were too bored to hash out all the details. That’s what “Oblivion” is: the possibility of an original sci-fi property wrapped up in a generic shell.

“Oblivion” begins with a voiceover describing the end of the world. Tom Cruise, who once again plays a man named Jack, delivers a bland monologue, which works much better when it is explained in a scene later on. Jack, along with Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are part of a “mop-up crew” who stay in a swanky apartment (as described above) and are assigned to patrol what remains of Earth. Writer-Director Joseph Kosinski decided to hit Earth with a whole array of disasters: aliens invade, the moon is destroyed, and earthquakes and tsunamis tear the world asunder. The best thing that can be said about “Oblivion” is how striking and well thought out the world looks. While the set design is stale, the world is well detailed. The creative minds behind this film certainly spend a lot of time thinking about the end of the world.

However, if the film’s poster reminded you a lot of “I Am Legend,” that’s because the two films are a little too close for comfort. “Oblivion” feels like a mash up of a lot of sci-fi films, both great and mediocre. The film’s main villain (or at least I think it is, more on that soon) evokes a much less frightening version of HAL from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Also, the film’s use of paintings and old texts for blatant symbolism felt like “The Book Of Eli,” another post-apocalyptic film with a lot of problems. “Oblivion” is derivative of films that were derivative of other films.
While people like to give Tom Cruise flack, there’s a reason the man became so big in the first place: he is an incredibly talented actor who can take on Spielberg blockbusters and Cameron Crowe romances. At his best, Cruise can feel like an everyman even though he is clearly a movie star. At his worst, he is distant and unemotional. The latter describes his performance in “Oblivion.” While he is supposed to be a cold, highly trained killer here, he didn’t even make sense as that. For somebody with such a haunted and confused past, it clearly didn’t seem to bother him at all.

The biggest problem that “Oblivion” faces is a script filled with stilted dialogue and underdeveloped characters. Just look at the Morgan Freeman. He comes in, almost saves the movie, and then disappears again for an hour. They say that a movie is as good as its villain. Jack and the resistance spend most of “Oblivion” fighting a bunch of orbs that shoot things out of them. And that’s about it. There are no confrontations or motivations to create intrigue or raise the stakes. A better villain probably would have made “Oblivion” more entertaining.

The film’s villain problem highlights the real issue of “Oblivion”: it’s just plain boring. The action sequences have absolutely no life in them. With all of the money spent on this film, couldn’t there have been a little more life injected into them? Every battle feels like it was won with no difficulty at all. The director seems to enjoy taking every convenience possible whenever a storyline can’t work out (for example: Jack’s bike breaking down).

“Oblivion” is set to a score that sounds like the “Inception” soundtrack mixed with the music from those Carnival Cruise commercials. This is just a small example of the film’s inability to both find the right tone and faithfully pay tribute to the much better films than it rips off. I really wanted to like “Oblivion,” because every original sci-fi film that Hollywood produces is a mini blessing in disguise. Maybe it sold because it wasn’t so original after all. What “Oblivion” lacks is spirit. You could get a lot more entertainment out of watching a group of five-year-olds reenact their favorite scenes from “Minority Report.”

Note: There are multiple story lines that I didn’t get into. That is partly because I don’t want to spoil anything, and partly because I had barely any idea what was going on at all during this film.

If You Don’t Want to See the Watered Down Version, See the Original: Moon, Source Code, Minority Report, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Inception, Cloud Atlas, Looper

Movie Review: Django Unchained

2 Replies

For any of you who think I have a severe Quentin Tarantino bias, let me just say that I disliked “Death Proof.”

Now that that’s out of the way, “Django Unchained” may have just stolen the top ten list of the year in one fell swoop. It may lack the audacious perfection of “Inglourious Basterds,” however this messy masterpiece is bold and brilliant in its own right.

“Django Unchained” rightfully opens with the theme music from 1966′s “Django,” a film that is similar with this Django only in name. This is the first time that Quentin has made a Western that actually takes place in the appropriate era and locale. This is not modern-day Los Angeles, Tokyo, or Nazi-Occupied France. This is Texas in the years just before the Civil War.

Django (Jamie Foxx), a quiet slave with a sharp tongue and a deadly grin, is freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Foxx is fantastically deadpan and unpredictable as Django. Unsurprisingly, Waltz displays his incredible way with words as the verbose dentist-turned-bounty hunter. There is a giant tooth on top of his carriage. I don’t why any of that is important, but it sure is funny.


Like Quentin’s other films, “Django Unchained” is less a story and more a series of cause and effect vignettes. Schultz at first frees Django because he is the one man who can help him identify and track down the ruthless Brittle Brothers, whom he is hired to kill. The mission allows Django to prove himself to be a great shot, as Quentin opens the doors of a slave revenge fantasy of the highest sort.

As his career progresses, Quentin’s films have gotten bigger and more ambitious. During a stretch of the film that is surprisingly quiet on a Tarantino standard, “Django Unchained” takes a beautiful detour into the American frontier as Django and Schultz cross the country.

“Django Unchained” is also Quentin’s funniest film. A scene involving an attempted lynching by a proto-KKK group (which includes Don Johnson and Jonah Hill) quickly dissolves into pure farce. Even with all of the gruesome violence, what shocked me most about “Django Unchained” was all of the moments I found myself laughing and feeling giddy when I probably shouldn’t have. The film is full of comic moments framed around serious moments. Laughing at these demons helps remove their power.

More than any other of his past films, Quentin has challenged himself here, by making a film that takes place before movies. Without the cushion of his typical pop culture references, he goes to some new and interesting places. Surfer movies and Elvis are traded for The Three Musketeers and German fairytales as “Django Unchained” is a mashup of western, southern, and European legends. When Django asks Schultz to help him rescue his wife, Schultz remarks that the name of his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), is the name of a character from Germany’s most famous folktale.

Just when the film couldn’t get any more exciting, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), the Mississippi slave master who currently owns Broomhilda is introduced. Candie reminds me of the villain that Waltz played in “Basterds” but on a whole different level of delusion. DiCaprio, so good at conveying southern hospitality, making Candie seem like a kind and reasonable man even when he clearly isn’t. It is this charm that makes him even more terrifying. He hosts slave fights and doesn’t blink an eye when he orders the violent execution of a rebellious slave. There were many times I forgot that it was even DiCaprio in the role. In a perfect world, the Academy would just hand an Oscar over to him already.

Without the cushion of film, Quentin delves deeper into overanalyzing historical issues with excessive dialogue. Several scenes are so good, yet so dense, that I have to watch them again. His dialogue can explain simple things in such eloquent ways.  Without pop culture, you can see Tarantino’s dialogue for what it really is: a cross between indulgence and intellectualization.

Very few films have been made about American slavery. “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots” are the only ones that have truly stuck, and even those feel a little outdated. Even if it carries some extreme historical inaccuracies, “Django Unchained” is the most interesting and complex portrayal of slavery ever put out by Hollywood. Even when Tarantino intentionally overlooks historical truths, he does wonders with the details. Every costume and set is given so much loving and painstaking detail that I I felt myself becoming deeply immersed in the era. Tarantino shows the slave owners as white trash in fancy outfits, and their accompanying women are exaggerated southern belles.

And then there is Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, an old slave who is also racist. This character totally topples the terrible archetypes in American fiction of the “Magic Negro” and the “wise, old black man.” Stephen has been Candie’s slave for so long and is so close to the man that one might argue that he believes that he is white. However, I think it is deeper than that, and it greatly shows why Tarantino’s history benders are so marvelous and so filled with depth. It is as if slavery rewarded those with loyalty by creating an immense fear of the outside world, and immense comfort on the plantation. Stephen is more than just an excuse for Samuel L. Jackson to curse and say the n-word a lot. Though, watching him do both of those thing is predictably entertaining.

“Django Unchained” does to slavery what “Inglourious Basterds” did to Nazis and The Holocaust.  It is also the most perplexing and entertaining film of 2012. Nobody combines high and low brow as well as Quentin Tarantino. Only in one of his films could a Mexican standoff segue into a conversation about racism and French culture. After 20 years as a filmmaker, Quentin still knows how to pull the rug out from under the audience. “Django Unchained” constantly change our opinions of who the bad guys are. It may not totally rewrite history or change the way movies are made, but it does go way past the point in which it should have ended, and then gives great reason as to why it does just that.

How I Rank Quentin Tarantino’s Films:
1. Pulp Fiction- Still Tarantino’s best film, “Pulp Fiction” is still as brazen and funny as it was when it first came out. This pop culture tribute has become an indelible part of pop culture.
2. Inglourious Basterds- Jews kill Nazis. Christoph Waltz is introduced to the world. History is rewritten. What’s not to love.
3. Kill Bill 1 & 2- Part one is a breathtaking action spectacle. Part two is the most emotional film Tarantino has ever made. Altogether it’s the film that kicked off my movie obsession.
4. Reservoir Dogs- The place where it all began. Still one of the best directorial debuts ever.
5. Django Unchained
6. Jackie Brown- This was not loved when it first came out, but it’s hard to follow “Pulp Fiction.” “Jackie Brown” holds up well on repeat viewings.
7. Death Proof- This is where Tarantino went a little off the rails. It’s the weaker half of “Grindhouse.” This ode to trashy cinema forgot to be fun.

Movie Review: This Is 40

Leave a reply

Comedies aren’t supposed to be over two hours long. Then again, Judd Apatow is a very ambitious guy. He likes to let his camera run long, and he doesn’t shut it off until he feels like he’s ready to shut it off. “This Is 40,” which clearly comes from a very personal place, at first made me want to check my watch. However, once the credits began to roll, I realized that I wouldn’t have minded if it ran a little longer.

“This is 40″ is a “sort-of sequel” to “Knocked Up.” It would be better labeled as a spinoff, a title which is usually reserved for television. It takes the struggling married couple Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) and their two daughters Sadie (Maude Apatow) and Charlotte (Iris Apatow) and puts them into their own little world. Pete desperately finds ways to escape. He’s given up on his fantasy baseball league and seems more content sitting on the toilet with his iPad. Debbie, meanwhile, is fed up with feeling under appreciated and keeping everything together on her own. Naturally, this causes some problems.


Yet, despite all their problems, what makes “This Is 40″ unique is that I never doubted for one second that Pete and Debbie weren’t right for each other. “This is 40″ is more about unfortunate speed bumps than the absolute deterioration of a marriage. It takes place on the week that Debbie turns 38 (although everyone treats her like she’s 40) and Pete turns 40. This begins what many in Hollywood would call a midlife crisis.

I never found “This Is 40″ to be a film about people drifting apart. Rather, its about two people who want to be closer together finding ways to get closer together. “This is 40″ is about the modern family struggling to grow and remain close in a very wired world of cell phones and tablets. It’s the same thing that “Modern Family” tries to do, except “This is 40″ doesn’t have Ed O’Neill repeatedly telling us how much he loves his family. I have not reached the age of 40 yet, but I can tell that “This is 40″ comes from a very real place. It has absolutely no problem showing us the bad as well as the good.

While “This Is 40″ is not my favorite Judd Apatow film, it is definitely his most mature, and his most lovely made to date. Yet, maturity does not mean that he eschews vulgarity. It has a hefty load of what I like to call “butt stuff.” One scene that has been frequently discussed is one in which Debbie is forced to look at Pete’s butt because he thinks there’s a problem. It’s a scene that shows both the sparks of a marriage that has faded away and the unconditional love that remains. There is also a less talked about scene where Pete lets one rip. The moment was unscripted. It’s hilarious and it’s a fine example of the loose and spontaneous feeling of the film.

Often, “This Is 40″ feels less like a story and more like life unfolding before our eyes. It is one of the more unconventional mainstream comedies you’ll see nowadays. It refuses to settle for the usual plot beats, and it doesn’t try and immediately ruin happy moments with sad ones. Judd has a great talent for knowing when to be funny and when to be sad at just the right times. It was something he tried to do in “Funny People,” but had much less success with. You can tell that someone has become confident in their comedic abilities when they know that it is okay to go for an extended period of time without a laugh.

Even if SAG didn’t recognize it, “This Is 40″ has one of the best ensembles of the year. Every cast member participates in what I would like to call “confessional acting.” As Pete and Debbie, Mann and Rudd are so convincing as this married couple. Even though I felt that the film was running a little long during the third act, I was surprised to find myself teary eyed (not from boredom) by the end. The extra running time made them into real people, and their performances hit that point out of the park. Also impressive is the oldest Apatow daughter, who has a way with words and emotions at such a young age. And to no one’s surprise, Albert Brooks is perfect as a bitter old Jewish man.

Like every good project Judd has worked on, “This Is 40″ is special because of its great display of empathy. It makes us dislike our characters when they are acting based on their most flawed instincts, and it makes us like them when they overcome and change. By the end of the film, Pete and Debbie don’t necessarily change who they are, but rather they learn to embrace what they have, and what they can become. The greatest thing that can happen to an Apatow character is when they gain a sense of self-awareness.

As the film began, I almost thought I wasn’t watching an Apatow film. He has embraced a quieter, more artistic sense of filmmaking, which I am rather enjoying. The opening felt like a Wes Anderson film, but with less thick-rimmed glasses and Kinks songs. But even as Apatow changes, the best parts of his works doesn’t disappear. Even as Pete and Debbie battle financial troubles and deteriorating health, characters still manage to get into fights about “Lost” and “Mad Men” and talk about how they pee “like a shower head.”

The characters that Judd portrays are getting older and older as his career progresses, yet he luckily hasn’t abandoned his distinct style of humor. While it is called “This Is 40,” you don’t have to be that enjoy to enjoy this film. When you laugh at something as hard as I laughed at parts of “This Is 40,” there is no use in questioning it.  

If this scene doesn’t help “This Is 40″ earn over $100 million, then there is no hope for America anymore.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Leave a reply

It took just one musical cue from “The Hobbit” to remind me why I fell in love with the “Lord of the Rings” series in the first place. Perhaps it has been widespread anger on the Internet that’s given me nothing but low expectations for “The Hobbit.” The result is better than I thought it would be: it’s a movie that’s all over the place, but one that is very good at being all over the place.

Seeing as the film version of “The Hobbit” was released after the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Peter Jackson gets to give us some nice little winks to a series that ended nine years ago, especially with some surprise cameos. “An Unexpected Journey,” the first part of this “Hobbit” trilogy, opens with a long prologue providing more details on the history of Middle Earth. To be honest, I wouldn’t have minded if this prologue went on longer. It gave even more life and depth to this imaginary world. From the perspective of someone who didn’t read the books, “The Hobbit” succeeds best when it is providing small details and expanding the mythology of Middle Earth. With that, this movie has a true purpose.


“The Hobbit” gives us a closer look at those tiny, hairy-footed folk who inhabit The Shire. The Hobbits are comfortable with their land, and they don’t see any reason to ever leave it. This is especially true for Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who would prefer sitting outside with a pipe and a book more than anything else in the world. That proves impossible when Gandalf (Ian McKellen) shows up at Bilbo’s door with a small (pun maybe not intended) army of Dwarves. The Dwarves pile into Bilbo’s home for a long comic set piece that is basically the Middle Earth equivalent of the State Room scene from “A Night at the Opera.” The Dwarves eat, drink, and sing a lot.

“The Hobbit” also does good in turning the Dwarves into the most interesting race of creatures on Middle Earth. In fact, every race is much more fleshed out in “The Hobbit.” This time, it is more than just one representative from every race. There is a sense of history to this imaginary world.

Quite frankly, Bilbo is a much more interesting hero than Frodo was. The film version also manages to flesh out a very good arc for him. Despite the fact that this is just a portion of one larger book, there still manages to be a sense of a complete character arc. While Bilbo becomes something of a warrior, it is most entertaining to watch him rely on his cunning to defeat his enemies.

“The Hobbit” is a “Lord of the Rings” movie made for fan boys. It may be a prequel, but it is filled with references to “Lord of the Rings” installments of the past. It feels weird to have nostalgia for something that came out only a decade ago, but that’s just the state of our culture. The return of Gollum (Andy Serkis) was most welcome for me. Gollum may be weird and hard to look at, but he is one of my favorite Tolkien creations. Watching him tear himself apart for his “precious” is sometimes funny, but mostly sad.

Even though this is only part one, Peter Jackson has a lot to balance here. The biggest problem with “The Hobbit” is that it may be a bit overstuffed. Most of it feels necessary, but at times it seems to have a problem knowing what moment is most important. An epic battle with Goblins (which was, no doubt, awesome) gets in the way of an epic battle with Orcs. The original “Lord of the Rings” had spread out battles that built up to one big one. At times, “The Hobbit” felt less like it was building up, and more like it was going all over the map.

As a result of this, “The Hobbit” also suffers from Multiple Ending Syndrome. It runs under three hours, yet I definitely saw many instances where it could have concluded and I would have been satisfying. However, I can understand why they built up to the ending they did, as they needed a good cliffhanger. As far as cliffhangers go, it happens to be an excellent one. It immediately made me ready to see part two.

“The Hobbit” is certainly not the most meaningful installment of the “Lord of the Rings” series. However, in a way, it is the most fun and most expansive. One of the most important parts of storytelling is world building. To me, the more realistic and creative the world that the characters inhabit is, the better the overall story is. Television has gotten really good at that, but film often forgets how to do it. “The Hobbit” does it right. While prequels are often made as an excuse to get more money out of a series, this prequel deserved to be made. There is one very meaningful part of it I would like to share, though. With all of the violence that has been shown lately in the media, “The Hobbit” includes this one amazing trinquet of wisdom from Gandalf: “True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.”

Movie Review: Skyfall

Leave a reply

Now, this was the James Bond I’ve been waiting for. Or, more accurately, I didn’t know there would be a James Bond quite like this.

After 2006′s masterful “Casino Royale” redefined the series, 2008′s mediocre “Quantum of Solace” set it back another few years. 007 makes a major comeback yet again with “Skyfall.” When James Bond was rebooted, the intention was to radically start England’s greatest secret agent over from scratch. Now, everyone seems comfortable enough with Craig in the role to bring back some classic Bond tropes. I didn’t realize how much I even missed them until “Skyfall.”


“Skyfall” might be the first time since “You Only Live Twice” that Bond has “died” before the opening credits. A failed mission to get a hard drive containing a very secret list of names sends Bond hurdling off a train and into a river, leaving M (Judi Dench) to write Bond’s obituary. Before the train chase there is a motorcycle rooftop chase that is both implausible and impossible not to be thrilled by. The very best Bond moments make the implausible so much fun.

Shaken, not stirred.

After a fantastic opening credit sequence, Bond is found hiding on a tropical island. Craig’s Bond might be the most reckless Bond yet, so much so that he’ll even play drinking games with a scorpion. Unlike most exiled heroes, Bond doesn’t seem to miss his job. That is, until he sees a news report about a terrorist attack at M16 headquarters that effects him personally, despite being out of the job. The revisionist James Bond of the 21st century is not motivated merely by a duty to defeat the bad guys; this Bond also has a strong emotional compass.

Once we know that the actor is good, there is always the expectation that the character of James Bond will be awesome. However, it is rare that a Bond film produces a truly memorable villain. That is until they cast Javier Bardem as hacker terrorist Silva. Bardem has pretty much cornered the market on creepy villains in modern film. While Le Chiffre of “Casino Royale” was dark and frightening in a realistic way, Silva is cheesy in the best sense of the word. He is entertaining to watch because he is so unpredictable. We might know where he will go, but how he will get there is impossible to know. Bardem plays him with the exaggerated movements of a Broadway dancer. Here is a villain who is as interested in causing anarchy as he is in putting on a show. In that aspect, he is a perfect movie villain.

“Skyfall” might be the first time that a “Bond Girl” didn’t have significant screen time. I would argue that M is the Bond Girl of “Skyfall.” It makes sense, as the plot becomes largely about protecting her. It is also interesting to see a Bond film that is more about the development of a friendship than about the development of a romance. Bond and M have a very complicated relationship, as M is not above sacrificing an agent in order to complete a mission. It is this kind of character work that has made the past few Bond entries some of the strongest in the 50 year history of the series.

That dog.

“Skyfall” is brought to life by director Sam Mendes. Mendes has directed some smaller scale action flicks (“Road to Perdition,” “Jarhead”), but never anything on this scale. Mendes has done with James Bond what Christopher Nolan has done with Batman. Mendes brings a lot of his artistic sensibility to the table and makes the cities more than just giant action set pieces: they are living, breathing, and stunning places. The opening throws us relentlessly into the center of a bazaar. Bond has never stared so pensively at the London skyline. Shanghai is brought to life with beautiful colors and then becomes the stage for an amazing fight consisting only of silhouettes. I have yet to go to Shanghai*, but it looks something like the way “Blade Runner” imagined Los Angeles to look like in 2019.

While “Skyfall” may be the funniest Bond yet, there is a constant, dark shadow of death that hangs over it from the very beginning. It is as if Bond’s whole way of life is in more danger than ever before. “Skyfall” may be the most thematically rich Bond film ever made. It truly questions the place of a spy made for the Cold War in the modern age when anyone can get a computer and become a hero or a terrorist. This is probably the most self-aware Bond as well. It is an eloquent and deep territory to explore, but it is almost ruined at several times by overstatement.

As a director, Mendes’ Achilles’ Heel  has always been subtlety. He seems afraid to let a theme come across organically, so he feels a need to hammer the audience over the head with it. They ask, “are we still relevant with technology?” so many times that by the end, it almost loses all value. However, the surprising amount of innovation in this theme saves “Skyfall” in the end.

Anyone upset about the lack of technology in “Skyfall” clearly hasn’t seen Daniel Craig with a shotgun.

“Skyfall” is both a throwback to James Bond of the past and a radically new Bond as well. It includes a few surprises that will be most meaningful to die hard fans. It also peppers in some backstory that makes the Bond legend so much stronger. But overall, this is just the best action movie I have seen in ages. For every plant there is a payoff and for every explosion there is a reason. “Skyfall” shows how smart Bond and the other agents are. Getting Bond as far away from technology at the end was a pretty ingenious move on the writers’ part. Modern blockbusters never forget the eye candy, but they often neglect to make their heroes actually seem intelligent. I believe a Bond without jetpacks or invisible cars is the best Bond there is.

The question of whether Bond is still relevant is actually pretty meta, and questions whether after 50 years, Bond films are still necessary. I think the answer is yes. James Bond has become something of a constant to me, and no Thanksgiving ever feels as awesome when there is no new Bond film to look forward to. It’s also great to think that whatever existential fear is currently haunting the collective subconscious (nuclear war, terrorism, cyber attacks), James Bond will always be there with his Walther PPK to stop it.

*Between “Looper” and “Skyfall,” Shanghai has gotten a glorious portrayal this year in film.

Movie Review: Argo

Leave a reply

Ben Affleck pulled off the impossible and made a movie about the making of a movie that isn’t cheeky or ironic. Then again, it’s hard to be overly ironic when the movie you’re making is fake and you’re dealing with a hostage crisis.

“Argo” plays perfectly like a classic thriller: it’s smart, suspenseful, and fun. “Argo” is both an entertaining thriller and a disturbing document of a very bad time in history.

“Argo” is equal parts reenactment, documentary footage, and artistic license. It starts off with a nice refresher  on the past 60 years of Iranian history. In just about a minute, it makes much more sense out of what happened to that country than CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News ever could combined. It goes up to 1979, the year in which the Shah was overthrown and the Iranian Revolution began. Director Ben Affleck gives us a full fledged reenactment of the Iranians breaking into the US Embassy in Tehran. This scene would have felt overlong, if it wasn’t so important to the rest of the story, and directed with nail-biting intensity.


Actually, “Argo” is not about the hostages in the Embassy but rather a select few that nobody knew even escaped. A group of Americans hid out in the Canadian Embassy. The Canadians didn’t quite bother the Iranians as much as the Americans did, as the Canadians never seem to bother anyone, as they are the greatest country ever to exist.*

But I digress. The CIA needs a way to safely get the Americans out of the Canadian Embassy and back to America. Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is on it. Tony is good at his job, and, like almost any government agent on film, he just wants to get home and see his son. You’ll hear more about this later in the review.

Tony and his boss Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) go through every option and can’t find a logical way to sneak the Americans out of Iran. As O’Donnell, Cranston is much more subdued than I’m used to seeing him. But then again, anyone in government who’s most concerned with following orders isn’t going to chew up the scenery. As the clock ticks, no idea seems to work. That is, until Tony comes up with the craziest idea ever: shoot a fake movie in Iran, and sneak an entire fake crew out of the most dangerous country in the world.

“Argo” is a heist film in which the big heist involves the making of a movie. This is the kind of story that can make any film buff go crazy. When rescuing the Canadian hostages, Tony tells them that they all must assume the roles of certain members of a film crew. They must learn and memorize their backstories for when they are questioned at the airport. They are essentially memorizing characters and becoming a part of a lie. While making a fake movie, they are essentially acting one out in real life. And we, of course, are seeing that movie be acted out in real time.

To make this fake movie come true, Tony goes to Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) who then brings him to legendary producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin, who utters a line of dialogue that has already become classic). They bring Tony a script for “Argo,” a B-grade sci-fi film that could be filmed perfectly in the Middle East. They have their cover. It is too bad that the “Argo” within “Argo” never got mad. I’d really like to see this tale of overthrowing a king on a distant planet. The story of the sci-fi “Argo” actually sounds alarmingly similar to what was happening in Tehran during that time. Get on it, Affleck.

“Argo” marks Affleck’s third time behind the camera. With every feature, he gets better and better as a director. He directs “Argo” like a confident, old pro, and not just a young director still searching for his voice. Behind the camera, Affleck is someone who is incredibly well versed in both movies and the art of filmmaking. As he also showed with “The Town,” Affleck has a talent for strictly following genre conventions yet also making them fresh and exciting. He has conquered the chase scene. Towards the end of “Argo,” there is one chase that totally puts any chase in “The Town” to shame. Some of the final chase in “Argo” might be fictionalized, but Affleck knows that part of showing history on film is bending the truth a little bit. After all, even in a story as exciting as this one, facts can be boring.

Sometimes, the cinematic conventions that “Argo” follows work to its advantage, and other times not. While I understand that Affleck just wanted a strong back story for Tony, I would not have minded if they just completely removed everything about his estranged family. It didn’t make Tony any deeper or more complicated as character. All I wanted to see was Tony at work, and how his job effected him. “All the President’s Men” didn’t need to show personal relationships in order to flesh out Woodward and Bernstein. In a movie about the workplace, showing someone being good at their job can often be enough to bring out character.

I am not against character development. However, I am against character development that turns the character into a prototype rather than a human. I can site a more recent example, actually also about the CIA, in the show “Homeland.” The most important details about the CIA Operative main character are how her mind functions and how that effects her job. Tony’s relationship with his son didn’t effect his job. His job effected his relationship with his son. This was mentioned several times, but never explored deep enough. There was one possible ending nestled in “Argo” that would have been a little darker, yet absolutely perfect. Instead, the ending they went with pushes a little too hard to tie things together nicely. Hard-boiled thrillers should never end with a perfectly tied little bow on them.

But maybe I am being a little tough here. After all, Tony’s relationship with his son is partly forged on a love for movies. If it wasn’t for his son watching “Battle of the Planet of the Apes,” Tony might never have thought of his crazy rescue idea. There is something wonderful about the nature of cinema that I think “Argo” showed flawlessly: movies can connect two estranged people, or two people from completely different cultures, in a way that most other art forms can’t. The idea of a story can cross a threshold even if two people don’t even speak the same language. “Argo,” in simplest form, is a love letter to filmmaking. Pay very close attention to the graininess of every shot. That’s on purpose. This could be one of the last times you see a movie that’s actually shot on film.

*Note: I am not Canadian, and they are not the greatest country ever. However, I am a big fan of their country.

Movie Review: Lincoln

1 Reply

How do you bring one of history’s most famous and important people to life, when the only knowledge we have of them is from still photos and documents? Simple: bring in Daniel Day-Lewis. Not only can that guy act his way out of a paper bag, he would also spend an entire year studying the life of a paper bag in order to prepare for the performance.

“Lincoln,” however, is the first time I’ve seen Daniel Day-Lewis in a performance that doesn’t totally dominate every frame of the film. No, he is also guided by an impressive ensemble, who will surely take home the big ensemble prize at the SAG Awards.


Despite the title, “Lincoln” is about much more than the man himself. It is about the feelings of an entire nation during a very specific time, and how the actions of one Abraham Lincoln transcended the time he was living in. As Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis brings out a warmth and sense of humor that make him unlike any politician I could ever imagine. He always has the look of a man who will always stay firm on his beliefs. The film opens with Lincoln having personal conversations with a series of soldiers. This is the Lincoln we will see throughout: a man who just wants to hear out everyone’s opinion, and possibly make some people happy as well.

Give Steven Spielberg some credit for boldly making “Lincoln” a two and a half hour look at the 13th Amendement. This is no biopic about chopping down a cherry tree and then running for president. The limited time frame is tricky, yet it still manages to capture the best of this man by showing him as he goes through the most difficult time in his life.

Spielberg hasn’t made a truly great fantasy since 2002′s “Minority Report.” His other great strength lies in recreating history. Every little detail in “Lincoln” is so beautifully realized that you can see how much thought and research went into the making of it. It immerses you into 1860s America. Colonial Williamsburg this is not, as it vividly shows everything from the muddy streets of Washington to the dead bodies piling up in mounds in Virginia.

“Lincoln” is a rare film about politics that actually feels realistic. It takes us through the grueling process of getting a constitutional amendment passed. This time, it is the amendment that would eventually end slavery. Lincoln is not the usual president we see on screen who is exaggerated for entertainment purposes. He does not always have the right thing to say. Instead, he chooses his words wisely. I think that is partly what made him such an amazing public speaker.

One other interesting thing you will learn about Lincoln here is his voice. I always pictured it being loud and booming. If Daniel Day-Lewis is to be believed, he was much more soft spoken and down-to-earth. Everyone always says they want a president who they could sit down and have a beer with. I disagree. A president should be more like Lincoln: understanding of your needs, and able to have a conversation with you without being condescending.

I am used to seeing Day-Lewis totally dominate the screen in every role he takes. However, “Lincoln” is the first time I have seen him take a role that is more subdued. At times, he even manages to take a back seat to some of the other excellent actors. Most prominently, Tommy Lee Jones walked away with many of the scenes he was in as Thaddeus Stevens. His final scene is one of the most important and surprising in the entire film. Unfortunately, Joseph Gordon-Levitt does not get nearly enough screen time as Abe’s son Robert.

“Lincoln” is a Spielberg film, and like any Spielberg film, it cannot stray from sentimentality. In “Lincoln,” it’s not as bad as in, say, “A.I.” or “War of the Worlds.” However, it does feel a little bit thrown in here. It’s as if Spielberg thought that he had to prove to us that Lincoln was a good man by showing that he was a good father. Clearly, that wasn’t needed. However, I really did like the portrayal of Lincoln’s precocious son Tad. I have a feeling that Tad’s hatred of slavery might have helped propel Abe to push the amendment through.

“Lincoln” is complex, but not as dark as some of Spielberg’s past historical epics. This is his first one that is focused more on words than action. It is a bold choice and a risky gamble that I sincerely salute. However, because of this, the film is unnecessarily slow at times. Just because there are no scenes of action, it doesn’t mean that what is going on onscreen has to be boring. Take the scene towards the end which shows everyone in Congress voting for the amendment. What happens in our nation’s Capitol isn’t always very exciting, but this scene was brilliantly done. We all knew the outcome, but somehow there was still suspense created. That is one of Spielberg’s great gifts: to create the feeling of dread even when the outcome seems clear. I wish that the rest of the film could have been as compelling and exciting as this.

“Lincoln” is not necessarily made for everyone. It is the thinking man’s look at history, and the kind of film that will make history buffs go wild. There are many things I would have changed about it. I still feel it would have much more interesting had they opened with the time before the 13th Amendment was proposed, in which Lincoln wasn’t exactly pro-slavery. Everyone already knew what a great man Lincoln was, but I’d have like to see more of how he became the legend. I cannot change history, nor this film, so for “Lincoln” is, I believe it should be seen. It just requires something that many films don’t normally ask of us: patience.

Movie Review: Seven Psychopaths

Leave a reply
This is one of my favorite movie stills of all time.

“Seven Psychopaths” is one of those film in which its title is also the title of the screenplay a character is writing in the film. However, it’s not one of those films that just ends with the final scene being typed out, so we can take comfort in knowing that everything that just happened was only in some writer’s head.

“Seven Psychopaths” is an insane deconstruction of action movies that I loved every minute of. Perhaps Hollywood has reached a tipping point when it comes to telling crime tales, and “Seven Psychopaths” is exactly what it needed to put it back in line. Meta films walk a very tight rope, and “Seven Psychopaths” manages to consistently stay in line.


I have never understood why films about screenwriters have gotten such a bad reputation. Thanks to the weird minds of screenwriters created by the weird minds of screenwriters, we’ve gotten “Sunset Boulevard,” “Barton Fink,” and “Being John Malkovich.” I have a feeling that “Seven Psychopaths” was written when Martin McDonagh was going through writer’s block. Marty Faranan (Colin Farrell) hasn’t gotten past the title for his latest script, “Seven Psychopaths.” Marty is a drunk, which is in his heritage, as others tend to frequently remind him. He is also in a bad relationship with a controlling girlfriend (Abbie Cornish). He wants his script to be about seven different psychopaths. However, he’s having trouble finding his psychos.

“Seven Psychopaths” was made for both film buffs and crime news fanatics. Marty’s best friend happens to be a dognapper named Billy (Sam Rockwell). He wants to help Marty write his script, so he puts out an ad seeking out every psychopath in Los Angeles with a great story. Billy is always eating junk food and he may be completely insane. I always knew Rockwell was a great actor, but I never realized he could be this funny. His performance is filled with twitchiness and manic energy that makes it impossible to know what he could do next. If for some reason another film about Hunter S. Thompson were to be made (I’m hoping for a version of “Rum Diary” that’s actually good), I would cast Rockwell above all others to play Thompson.

Christopher Walken, in his best role in years, plays Hans, the eccentric boss of the dognapping empire. While he can kill it in small roles (“Pulp Fiction,” “Annie Hall”) he is capable of emotional range that goes much further than “creepy guy with a raspy voice.” His character is that archetypal old criminal who seems too nice to ever shoot. He’s also raising money for the same reason many other film criminals have: his wife has cancer. Why he thinks dognapping is the best way to pay for his wife’s treatment is beyond me, but I don’t think the reasons are all that important.

“Seven Psychopaths” commits so many felonies against good screenwriting. Yet, it breaks all of the rules with such confidence and self-awareness that it just can’t be held against McDonagh. Now, I’m not saying that self-awareness is an excuse for bad writing. However, they come across much better when they are done intentionally. “Seven Psychopaths” knows that the kind of story it wants to tell has been done so many times before, so it might as well try to present it in a new way.

“Seven Psychopaths” introduces characters and subplots, and then gets rid of them whenever it damn well pleases. Breaking screenwriting rules is actually beneficial here: it adds a dangerous, unstable element to the whole story. It’s a screenwriter projecting his own mind through the eyes of another screenwriter, and neither have any idea where their own stories can take them. And that is a beautiful thing about writing a film: when you have absolutely no idea where the story you are inventing is going to end.

Despite the unpredictability, McDonagh seemed to have a good plan for where to end this film in the same way that “In Bruges” tied everything together so perfectly in the end. “Seven Psychopaths” is a huge ensemble, and it makes a mobster played by Woody Harrelson, a serial killer who kills mobsters, and an adorable Shih Tzu all come together. I am not trying to start a fight here, but I will take that Shih Tzu over Uggie any day of the week.

I see “Seven Psychopaths” as being about the purpose of violence in movies. Sometimes, it has to exist just punish people who had it coming. At one point, Billy suggests they all just go out into the desert and forget about everything that happened. That doesn’t work for long, and not only because Billy is an idiot. Perhaps the reason that heist films end in a shootout is because that’s the only natural course for a criminal to go on. No matter how hard you try, cliches can never be completely avoided. But if you present them in the right way, they can show why movies are such an exhilarating experience.

A friend of mine made a very accurate remark about Martin McDonagh, in that he is the only auteur bred during a generation of Tarantino ripoffs that can ripoff Tarantino correctly. That may be partly because McDonagh got his training in theater, so he knows how to write the long scenes of dialogue that mark a Tarantino film. Not only that, but he also gives the characters funny and insightful things to say. We don’t mind if the story is delayed for a bit, because what the characters are saying is so good to listen to. If a film has good dialogue, that means it can be listened to without the accompanying images and still be just as good.

As someone who is currently writing a script, “Seven Psychopaths” spoke to me on a very high level by nailing a writer’s journey. Whenever it looks like we’re just sitting there doing nothing, there is actually about a thousand ideas forming in our heads, looking for ways to become a whole. “Seven Psychopaths” is filled with little mini stories that are just as good as the main story. Some of the mini stories are made up and told within a story that is also made up. “Seven Psychopaths” is a movie about how life doesn’t turn out like it does in the movie. Try not to let your head explode before you can actually go see it for yourself.

Yes, that is Tom Waits and a bunny rabbit.

Rosemary’s Baby: My Favorite Horror Film

Leave a reply

Three years ago, I released a list of the five best horror films in honor of Halloween. However, three years is a long time and I am certainly not the same person I was back then. Naturally, both my opinions and taste have changed since then.

In 2009, I hailed “The Silence of the Lambs” as the best horror film ever made. I admit that I have never been the biggest fan of horror films. Zombies and slashers have never quite done it for me. So I think it would be more appropriate to say that this new post is about my favorite horror film. Seeing as I have yet to watch “Night of the Living Dead,” I don’t feel totally qualified to judge which horror film is the absolute best ever made. While I still consider “The Silence of the Lambs” a masterpiece, I have come to realize that “Rosemary’s Baby” is truly my favorite horror film of all time.


One of the biggest complaints made against of modern horror films is how the genre has substituted true suspense for blood and guts. Maybe that is why the horror films which effected me most usually have a supernatural element to them. Ironically though, I hate “The Exorcist.” Giving a character powers that they do not understand and cannot handle can say a whole lot thematically. For example, in “Carrie,” her telepathy is partly a metaphor for her ignorance of her journey into womanhood. “Carrie” does not get enough mentions in top ten lists.

“Rosemary’s Baby” isn’t even that frightening throughout its running time. Then again, there shouldn’t have to be someone hiding behind every door in order to make something scary. A scary idea can be more frightening than a few cheap screams.

“Rosemary’s Baby” is also one of the films that proves that Roman Polanski is a master filmmaker. Few directors have ever been so bold as to view humanity as so overwhelmingly dark. With the exception of “The Pianist,” the endings to most of Polanski’s films are devoid of optimism. However, they are never devoid of meaning.

The film is set mostly in one location. More horror films should use less locations, as giving characters less places to go for safety can make a story all the more chilling. The film centers around certified New York yuppies Guy (John Cassavetes) and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) Woodhouse who move into The Dakota. The Dakota would become the sight of a real tragedy 12 years later, as it was the home of John Lennon, and he was murdered just outside of it. One scene in the film showing a dead body just outside the building feels all the more eery when seen through the lens of history.

The film begins more hopefully than it ends. The young couple is ready to have a baby, yet Guy is struggling to make it as an actor. Their neighbors are the overly hospital Castevets (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). Gordon deservingly won an Oscar for this role. It has always been difficult for me to decide which version of Ruth Gordon she should best be remembered by: the crazy, spritely old Maude of “Harold and Maude,” or the crazy old witch who acted like anyone’s grandmother in “Rosemary’s Baby.”

Guy will do anything to make his acting dreams a reality, and he may or may not have made a deal with the Castevets to transform Rosemary’s seed into the son of Satan. Besides one scene early on in the film which is presented with a nightmarish quality, “Rosemary’s Baby” is mostly grounded in reality throughout. It is also a detective story, with Rosemary investigating her own pregnancy and trying to find out whether her deepest fears are actually all too real. I am not sure how this film was advertised when it was first released in 1968, or whether people knew what the ending would be like going into it. I do not believe saying this is a spoiler, but anyone going into this film would automatically believe that Rosemary is right in her suspicions. If she wasn’t, then there wouldn’t be a film at all.

Keeping that in mind does not managet to ruin the power of “Rosemary’s Baby” in any way. “Rosemary’s Baby” possesses the greatest trait of American films from its era: building up and up and up to a devastating conclusion. Letting things sizzle for longer than they should always leads to great results. The unseen is most terrifying, and that is why we are kept in the dark for so long about this Satanic mystery.

Many horror films play on the idea of how frightening the unseen can be. What makes “Rosemary’s Baby” so unique is the way in which it plays on common fears. “Rosemary’s Baby” asks whether or not we can really trust the people who are supposed to help us unconditionally, such as our family, friends, doctors, and neighbors. In true Polanski fashion, “Rosemary’s Baby” shows that even our loved ones could be working against us because human selfishness knows no boundaries.

Polanski’s films always center around one character who are pulled into evil despite never wanting to be a part of it. The final shot of “Rosemary’s Baby” is both haunting and strangely sublime. Rosemary is that moral center, and she comes to grips with the idea that even if the world were ruled by absolute evil, evil would not be able to exist without love. In Polanski’s eyes, a world without love is more terrifying than staring Satan directly in the eyes.

“Rosemary’s Baby” may be so unforgivingly dark, but there is a reason that I want to keep revisiting it. It is a continuously engaging story that is never ruined by knowing the twists. The script, based on the novel by Ira Levin and adapted for the screen by Polanski himself, shows Polanski’s overlooked gift for humor. “Rosemary’s Baby” is populated by an array of colorful New York high society stereotypes that nearly border on satire. I have not read the original source material, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Polanski crafted many of these exaggerated characters himself, as he always enjoyed spinning our views on the wealthy. Polanski had a reputation for being difficult to work with, but it seems as if his boldest decisions usually end up being for the better. If it wasn’t for Polanski’s change to the ending of Robert Towne’s “Chinatown” script, that film might have been just another detective story.

Believing in the existence of a demon child might seem ridiculous, but the world created by this film is so well crafted that I actually felt stupid believing that the opposite could be true. People seem to only want to talk about horror films around Halloween. “Rosemary’s Baby” is perfect for any time of the year. Because it is as frightening and daring today as it was 44 years ago, it remains timeless in every sense of the word.

People please tell me, which horror classics are your favorites? Which ones do I still need to watch?