Southpaw

My Grade:  A

Jake Gyllenhaal is quickly becoming, well, has become one of my favorite actors currently working. This happened ever since he elevated David Ayer’s End of Watch from what could have been a run-of-the-mill cop flick to something visceral and engrossing. He picks solid movies with meaty roles in which he can really show off his acting chops. They are also wildly varied roles as of late.

On its surface, Southpaw looks like a standard sports drama with an equally standard revenge plot woven in. At its heart, though, it’s the story of a broken man who loses everything which allows him to discover what really matters:  family. The only family he has left after his violent temper leads to his wife’s untimely slaying is his daughter, Leila (a revelatory turn from Oona Laurence), whom he also loses when a court determines he is not fit to be her guardian because of his temper and substance abuse. Not to mention, he loses his mansion when he gets sued for attacking a boxing referee, so he is essentially homeless. The majority of the rest of the runtime is spent outside of the ring as Billy fights his own personal demons to get his daughter back.

It really is a shame that the trailers ruined the moment in which Billy loses his wife. Even though you know it’s coming, it still lands like an emotional sucker punch thanks to Gylenhaal’s performance. But, it could have been a much more powerful moment if we didn’t see it coming. If your eyes don’t well up at that moment, there are plenty of other moments for you to fight back tears. Most of which are courtesy of Billy and Leila as both of them try to work out their new relationship in the absence of their wife/mother. These are the best scenes in the film and are truly a testament to the writing and the performances from Gyllenhaal and Laurence.

Adding to the emotional weight is the blind-in-one-eye trainer, Tick Wills (yet another great performance from the always good Forest Whitaker). He used to be a boxer himself but now runs a gym for at risk youth and serves as a father figure to most of them. He also has his own demons to spar with. That just goes to show how rich every character is in this film. “Sons of Anarchy” creator Kurt Sutter has penned a script that goes far beyond just fleshing out a few main characters to make Southpaw stand out from the herd of sports dramas and revenge pictures. Couple that with Antoine Fuqua’s (Training Day, The Equalizer) character focused story-telling and you can’t help but be drawn in whether you’re a boxing fan or not. Even Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson gets to do some acting and succeeds in gradually peeling away the layers of his greedy agent, Jordan Mains.


Overall, Southpaw tells an engrossing story about a father’s struggle to be there for his daughter. All the welterweight championship belts, mansions, gold watches, and fame don’t define you as a man. Being the father you need to be and being able to look at yourself in the mirror are the real victories.

Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

My Grade:  A

Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) took home all the big awards at the Oscars this year - Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Picture of the Year. I don’t always enjoy the Best Picture winners (The English Patient made my list of worst movies I’ve ever reviewed), but I thoroughly enjoyed Birdman.

The film follows a former superhero film star that tries to salvage his career and feel like a real artist by writing, directing, producing, and starring in a Broadway play. It’s not really about the play, though. It’s about this broken man who just wants to be loved. Being recognized from his superhero days isn’t the same as being loved. Having fans doesn’t matter to him when he doesn’t have a good relationship with his daughter or his ex-wife. So, just like the play in the film, it’s a film about what it means to be loved.

The first thing everyone talks about in Birdman is the acting. This is no surprise because it features a stellar cast at the top of their game. Michael Keaton goes all out for this role and delivers the best performance he will probably ever deliver. Then there’s Edward Norton whom I haven’t enjoyed watching this much since American History X. He is equal parts cocky and vulnerable which seems like it would be tough to pull off. Those two were nominated for Oscars along with the stunning Emma Stone who has never been better (except maybe in The Help). She is aided (as are the others) by being given a very complex character to play. The other standout, though, is funny man Zach Galifianakis. Seeing him in a film like this playing a rather serious, dramatic role doesn’t seem right; but he holds his own in a film chock full of extraordinary performances. I’d even like to see him in some more dramatic roles because it was nice to see him expand his range.

The other thing everyone talks about in this film is that it was done in ONE SHOT! It’s something you may not notice unless you are a film buff or been involved in film production, but it makes the film have a unique feel and is very impressive as longer shots are more challenging to pull off. There is one part near the end with some cuts which is used beautifully as a contrast to the rest of the film to really nail the frantic feeling the director was going for.

My only dislike in Birdman is the drum score played by Antonio Sanchez. If you haven’t seen the film, then you may not understand what I mean by “drum score.” Essentially, the entire film’s music is all drums and cymbals. There are some other kinds of music in there, but the majority is all played on a drum set. As a drummer, I can respect the challenge of scoring a film with only a drum set and the drumming is spectacular. It’s also a unique way to score this very unique film. I just didn’t care for it. It’s simply personal taste, but it’s the only reason I didn’t give this film an A+. I found it distracting at times.

Overall, Birdman is an amazing and unique film which deserves every bit of the critical acclaim it has received. It’s also nice to see a film like this succeed because it is an entirely original film in a Hollywood space crowded with sequels, remakes, and adaptations. See, there is still creativity in Hollywood!

Foxcatcher

My Grade:  C-

Don’t you hate it when a trailer looks awesome and intense, the cast is great, the film gets great reviews, and it is even nominated for five Oscars but it isn’t very good? I know I do. And that’s exactly what Foxcatcher did for me. It was a massive letdown.

The film follows Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum who delivers the best dramatic performance of his career), one of the best wrestlers in the world, as he joins Team Foxcatcher which is led by super rich sponsor, John du Pont (a barely recognizable Steve Carell in one of his strongest dramatic performances to date). Together with Mark’s brother, David Schultz (a scene-stealing Mark Ruffalo), they try to make history at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul.

First, I’ll mention the good:  the acting. If you heard Steve Carell and Channing Tatum were leads in a film, you’d immediately think “I bet that’s hilarious.” It’s not. Seeing these two in a drama is surprisingly great but Mark Ruffalo steals the show, hands down. All three knock their roles out of the park and deserved Oscar nominations even though only Carell and Ruffalo got them. It begs the question, though, of why Carell was nominated in the Lead Actor category when really Tatum is the lead.

Apart from the acting, Foxcatcher doesn’t have much to offer. From a writing standpoint, the film doesn’t really delve into the most interesting aspect of its story:  the strange relationship between Mark and du Pont. All you get is glimpses of what appears to be a not-so-healthy relationship while the story focuses on du Pont trying to impress his mother by using his wealth to pretend to be a wrestling coach - and even a wrestler himself at one point. This part of the story is dull and really quite depressing. It doesn’t make du Pont an interesting character; it just makes him pathetic. The most shocking thing to me about all this is that Foxcatcher was nominated for Best Original Screenplay! I’m not sure what the Academy was thinking on that one. Maybe it’s just that Hollywood doesn’t release many original films anymore so there wasn’t much to choose from... yea, that must be it.

Foxcatcher does achieve a good look through strong cinematography and lighting but that and the acting doesn’t save the audience from feeling every last second of the arduous 134 minute runtime. And the final act gives us the most exciting moment but it feels like a random stab at adding gravitas to a film without enough humanity to have any gravitas at all. 

Overall, Foxcatcher in no way lives up to the undeserved hype it has received from critics. It does allow us to see some actors in a new light (Carell and Tatum) which is refreshing; but that can’t save this weighty borefest with no vitality. Once last question, though... how did this film earn an R rating? There is one curse word, a couple instances of drug use (which aren’t very graphic), and one butt shown from far away. The subject matter isn’t even that dark or disturbing. I think the filmmakers wanted an R rating just so it would be taken more seriously by The Academy. I would not recommend Foxcatcher to anyone unless I didn’t like them. 

The Imitation Game

Written by Clam Sepulveda

(Note:  Clam's thoughts on the film do not necessarily reflect Nolan's thoughts on the film)

Clams' Grade:  A

Let me say that this is the strangest love story I have seen in a while. At first, on the outside, this film is about WWII and the breaking of the Nazi Enigma code. But the subtext goes far beyond the straight up history books we read in school. Now, I am not saying that subtext is a bad thing - seeing that this is based on a true story, I actually feel a little more informed, surprised and knowledgeable about history. Benedict Cumberbatch jumps from fire breathing dragon into a character with multiple layers and does it with great talent. Being the kind of reviewer that does not do a great deal of research into the plot of a movie - never reading another reviewers paragraphs and paragraphs of plot spoilers - I was pleasantly surprised that this movie was not completely what I expected. The Imitation Game should definitely be on the list for any movie lover this year.

About the Author

Clam writes for The Outlook, a local paper in Newton, NC. He is an actor live theater, film, and television and has been reviewing movies for nearly fifteen years. Some day he hopes to get his big break, and maybe make it to Broadway. Please feel free to e-mail you questions or comments to him HERE.

American Sniper

My Grade:  A-

Let me start my review of this Oscar contender by saying that I am not a big fan of war movies. I don’t know why I’m not and I know that there are a lot of really solid war movies out there. They just aren’t my speed. But, I like Clint Eastwood as a director (Gran Torino is one of my favorites) and I have become a big Bradley Cooper fan since he shed his Hangover persona and has proven himself as one of the more versatile actors in the business today. Then there was the super intense trailer which had me intrigued. But, when American Sniper racked up six Oscar nominations this year, my fate was sealed - I was going to see American Sniper.

If you don’t know, Sniper follows the story of real life Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle as he racks up kills and saves lives throughout four tours of duty in Iraq. Thankfully, the film also explores his family life during his time in the service and even his psyche after he returns home from the war. These aspects are what add the real emotional meat to the film. Without those parts, this would be just like any other run-of-the-mill war flick. Albeit a very intense and gritty war flick.

Three things make this film a standout. First, the production design is spectacular. Especially during the war scenes, it looks outstanding. You feel like you are watching a real war take place; it’s that convincing. Secondly, the intensity stays amped up to the utmost levels throughout the entire film. Every scene that takes place in Iraq has you on the edge of your seat. Thirdly, and most importantly, Bradley Cooper gives the best performance of his already impressive career. They say acting is about transforming... well, Cooper transformed into Kyle. He also portrays Kyle’s inner struggles (the conundrum of whether to shoot a child or not, being there for his family versus protecting his country, etc.) with a realistic subtlety that breaks your heart at times but always makes you want him to succeed.

This film is not without its problems, though. The biggest being that every other character (besides Kyle) is paper thin. Kyle’s brother seems like a big factor in the story at the beginning, then disappears until he pops up once more for a scene that doesn’t really help the story or the emotional development. He could have been used in a much more powerful way. All of Kyle’s military colleagues serve singular purposes and have weakly crafted backstories that are usually brought up right before they die or get hurt in a thinly veiled attempt to make us care a little more for them before they are ripped from Kyle’s life. Even Kyle’s wife is one dimensional! If there was ever a character that should have some effort put into her backstory, it’s the woman closest to Kyle. She only has one motivation:  keep her husband home with the kids. This singular motivation makes her come off very selfish and even belittling toward her husband (whom she claims to love) at times. The acting, though, is great. The supporting cast doesn’t have much to work with but they all are very believable in their respective roles.

Apart from the weak supporting characters, the film takes a few leaps in time which were a bit jarring for me. It could be because I don’t really know how long a tour of duty is or how long you get between tours but they were off-putting to the extent that once I wasn’t sure the kid Kyle was with was his son. I do, however love the enemy sniper character. He serves as a great foil for Kyle and doesn’t have to say a word to be a powerful character... he speaks with actions (most of those actions being killing folks from ridiculously long distances).

Overall, American Sniper is a solid entry into the war drama canon and deserves much of the praise it has received from critics and the Academy. It really is a shame that the supporting characters aren’t more well-developed, though, because this could be one of the all-time greats if it didn’t suffer from these weak characters. It’s not a film for the feint of heart, though. It portrays graphic violence and even shows a shocking amount of this violence toward children. It’s not just for shock value, though, it works in the film and just makes it that much more powerful.

Gone Girl

My Grade:  A

David Fincher is one of my favorite directors. I have enjoyed most of his filmography except for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Also, Fight Club and The Social Network are a couple of my all time favorites. I guess I need to see Panic Room as it’s the only one I haven’t seen.

Anyway, let’s get to his most recent offering:  Gone Girl. I was wary of this one because of some of the casting choices. I have never been a fan of Ben Affleck as an actor. Even  in the movies he’s in that I like, I never really liked him in them. I love him as a director, though! Then there’s Tyler Perry. I couldn’t believe Perry found himself in a David Fincher film. I was borderline upset because I have seen snippets of Madea movies and that actor doesn’t deserve to work with a master such as Fincher. Well, thankfully, both of these men proved me wrong.

Gone Girl is adapted from a highly acclaimed novel which I have not read, so every twist and turn hit me fresh. And oh what a twisting and turning journey it is. It is about Nick Dunne (Affleck) who becomes the focus of a media circus when his wife (Rosamund Pike) goes missing. He enlists the help of cocky, high profile defense attorney, Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) to help him work through this trying situation. He also has his twin sister (Carrie Coon) for moral support. Then, other stuff happens which I can’t talk about without spoiling anything.

This is simply a great piece of dark, moody filmmaking that sprints through its 149 minute run time and leaves you guessing until the very end. It’s a taut thriller of the highest order crafted by the deft hand of a director at the top of his game. He owes a lot of the storytelling success to the writer of the novel and screenplay, Gillian Flynn. This is her first screenwriting credit and it’s impressive. The dialogue is sharp and witty with bits of dark humor thrown in at just the right times and I can’t think of a single scene that goes on too long or seems unnecessary.

The acting is also superb and, I never thought I would write this sentence:  I loved Tyler Perry in this film. Wow. I can’t believe I wrote that, but it’s true. He was perfectly cast and absolutely kills it as Tanner Bolt. Ben Affleck even impressed me. His role doesn’t actually require a lot of emotion for most of the film but he brings a vulnerability to Dunne that is necessary so we can empathize with him even though it seems he may have murdered his wife. The standout, though, is Rosamund Pike. There’s nothing to say about her performance as Amy Dunne other than it’s brilliant. She will scare you and make you feel for her, then scare you again, then make you hate her. All in a single scene. It’s powerful stuff.

The only casting issue is Neil Patrick Harris as Amy’s ex, Desi. He plays a rich boy with attachment issues and is supposed to be creepy. But, he’s still Neil Patrick Harris. It’s not his fault that I laughed when he appeared on screen. He plays his part very well. But he’s still Neil Patrick Harris. Unfortunately, he is simply too charismatic for this role and probably shouldn’t have been cast in it.

Finally, I would be remiss to not mention the haunting score that inches its way under your skin by capturing the sick mood of every last frame. Trent Reznor (with Atticus Ross) has worked with Fincher on other films like The Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and they are a match made in movie heaven. Nobody else could capture the mood of Fincher’s films like Reznor. My friend wrote on Twitter that “no two people were ever made for each other like Fincher and Reznor.” I agree completely.

Overall, Gone Girl certainly lives up to the huge hype. That doesn’t happen very often but, when it does, it’s magical. This film will also make you question some things about marriage and relationships but won’t tell you what to think. That deeper aspect makes it an even better piece of filmmaking that will go down as one of the best movies of the modern era.

The Room

My Grade:  ???

It is a special thing when you find a movie that is so bad it’s good. When everything comes together in such a spectacularly awful way that you can’t help but enjoy the horrific mess you are watching. I can find this kind of joy in a number of movies including Drumline, Troll 2, and more. But, in the annals of amazingly bad movies, none is better at being bad than Tommy Wiseau’s 2003 opus that takes itself very seriously, The Room. 

To watch this film is a unique experience. It’s not a unique story and doesn’t do anything unique with its cinematography or anything. It’s a straight forward story of a woman getting bored with her fiancee and seducing another man... her fiancee's best friend. The dialogue isn’t unique except for everyone greeting everyone else with “Oh, hi (insert character’s name)” as if Wiseau thinks we will forget the characters names if they aren’t said 100 times. No one thing is unique about this film; but the way everything comes together makes it unlike anything you have seen or will see. And it all hinges on the oddity that is Tommy Wiseau.

Wiseau writes, directs, produces, and stars in The Room. And he is just plain weird. His accent sounds European... maybe... or just like he’s constantly zonked out on pain meds... or something. And he might be the strangest looking person in the world. With his stringy black hair and indescribable facial expressions, he just makes you think he might be an alien. His wardrobe choices don’t help either. His clothes in the film never fit correctly and I counted at least two times when his character wears zip-off cargo pants. You know the ones that zip off at the knees in case you want to make them into shorts? It’s not a good look.

The acting is a whole other animal. It’s indescribably bad so I’m not even going to try. Nobody is believable in their roles but this could stem from the fact that the characters are horribly crafted. No character has any motivation for their actions. Johnny (Wiseau) doesn’t care about anything (even his fiancee cheating on him, it seems). Lisa (Johnny’s cheating fiancee) wavers in her feelings toward Johnny, never gives a reason for getting bored with him, and falls in love with Johnny’s best friend at the drop of a hat. She’s certifiably crazy. Then there’s Mark (Johnny’s best friend) who constantly tells Lisa they have to stop, then jumps right back into bed with her two seconds later. The film tries to portray this inner conflict he has about what he’s doing, but then (ten minutes later) he doesn’t even care if Johnny finds out. All the other characters just drift in and out of the story for no apparent reason other than to have conversations that spell out facts about the plot. It’s a conundrum as to how these characters can be so poorly crafted.

The dialogue is even worse than the characters who speak it. People literally ramble on and on about stuff but essentially say the exact same thing in slightly different ways as they ramble. For instance, when Johnny is telling Lisa how he didn’t get his promotion, he says:

“That son of a b**** told me that I would get it within three months. I save them bundles. They’re crazy. I don’t think I will ever get it. They betrayed me, they didn’t keep their promise, they tricked me, and I don’t care anymore.”

Then there are times when people say things and it’s as if they didn’t say it at all or the writer forgot that they had the character say it. Here’s an example when Lisa is talking to Mark about her mother:

“She wants to control my life. I’m not going to put up with that. I’m going to do what I want to do and that’s it. What do you think I should do?”

She is going to do what she wants to do... then asks Mark what he thinks she should do. Wow. And, when Lisa asks Johnny if he got his promotion, he says “no.” Then, after a pause, she says “you didn’t get it, did you?”

Then there’s the dialogue that tells us exactly what we already know from the rest of the conversation. Lisa is talking to her sister about how she’s cheating on Johnny. Her sister mentions how she could never do that. Then Lisa explains her point of view and her sister replies, “your point of view is so different from mine.” Yea, we got that from the rest of the conversation.

The best part of the dialogue, though is how repetitive it is in order to hammer home the plot points we really need to be aware of. There are countless times when Johnny or someone else mentions that Mark is his “best friend.” And Lisa says “I don’t love him anymore” probably fifteen times.

There are so many other things I could mention that add to the strange masterpiece that is The Room. Like how people inexplicably come in and out of Johnny’s house for seemingly no other reason than to have a brief conversation then say they “have to go.” Or how Lisa’s mother says, “I got the results; I definitely have breast cancer” then her health issues are never brought up again. But it’s just something you have to see to believe. 

Once you see The Room, you’ll understand why it has stood the test of time (since 2003) as the “best worst movie ever.” Which is why I didn’t grade it. I can’t give it a good rating because it is a horrible film. But, I can’t give it a bad rating because I enjoy it so much. Once you see it, though, you won’t understand how Tommy Wiseau spent 6 million dollars to make it. Yes, you read that correctly... 6 million dollars is the reported budget. Shocking, I know.

For some more fun with The Room check out some of these links...

Trivia about The Room

Some goofs from The Room

A fun little video game tribute to The Room

Everything you want to know about The Room from Wikipedia

Under The Skin

My Grade:  B-

This is a strange one, folks. Under The Skin is from little known director Jonathan Glazer and stars the talented and gorgeous Scarlett Johansson. Be warned, watching this film is not your normal film-viewing experience. To be honest, I am not even really sure why I liked it as well as I did because it’s, frankly, kind of boring from a story standpoint. The visuals keep it alive and can only be described as hypnotic.

Under The Skin follows the story of a beautiful young woman as she seduces lonely men during the wee hours in Scotland and lures them back to her... what can only be described as a lair, I guess. On her journey, however, she discovers who she really is and a little about what it means to be human.

To call the story slow would be an understatement. Much of the film contains no dialogue but a lot of Johansson’s character doing some major people-watching. It’s as if she is hypnotized by how they interact with each other and even by how they move. But, surprisingly enough, watching her watch people is mesmerizing. Sometimes she is simply looking at herself in the mirror; but she does it with such interest and wonder that it is unlike anyone else has ever looked at themselves in the mirror before. Then, when she does lure an unsuspecting lad back to her lair, you may want to look away, but you can’t. Visually, this film is a strangely hypnotic masterpiece.

Adding to the unique and engrossing visual style is the minimalist score which captures the mood perfectly and serves to hypnotize you even more. The filmic elements come together in such a way to draw you in and seduce you much like Johansson’s character seduces her victims. Then, once you are drawn in, the weirdly appealing visual effects blow you away and leave you speechless. 

None of this would work if it weren’t for Johansson’s spectacular performance. She perfectly captures the wide-eyed wonder that her character has while observing humans as if seeing them for the first time. Then, as her character arc takes shape and she begins to realize what it’s like to be a part of this world that seems so foreign to her, it’s almost as if we get to experience it with her. It’s uncanny how well she connects with the viewer with very little dialogue.

Overall, Under The Skin celebrates film as a visual art form. It is definitely not a film for everyone and I would not really like to see it again. I mentioned the hypnotic nature of the film multiple times because it’s almost as if this film tricks you into liking it when it’s really not fun to watch... because it’s not fun but I dare you to look away. This is a film that will stick with you. So, if you’re into unique film experiences and can get past the nudity (which isn’t just used for the sake of having nudity), then rent Under The Skin and let it get under your skin (see what I did there).

American Hustle

My Grade:  B-

Silver Linings Playbook is my favorite movie of 2012 and one of my top ten of all time. With that being said, I was quite excited when David O. Russell teamed up with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence again for American Hustle. Combine that personal excitement with all the awards season hype, and you’d better believe I was stoked to see this film. Once I finished, though, I felt betrayed. At first I thought I was let down because of the exceedingly high expectations I had for the film. Then, upon further contemplation, I came to the realization that this is a highly overrated film and nobody seems to acknowledge that. This con movie cons the audience (and critics) into thinking it’s a better film than it really is.

Hustle is a con thriller comedy (how’s that for a genre mashup). The problem is, though, that it doesn’t really work in any of these genres. As a con thriller, it’s just confusing. Con movies are supposed to throw a lot of twists and turns at you, but Hustle becomes a jumbled mess. Who’s conning whom? What’s with the British accent? Is Bradley Cooper a good guy or bad guy and why is he yelling at everyone? And what in the world does Robert DeNiro’s character add to the film? From a comedy standpoint, there are funny parts but other parts are clearly supposed to be funny and don’t hit. It’s almost as if the filmmakers had some inside jokes that they put in the film that the general audience is not in on.

All those issues have to do with the writing. From a story perspective the script is lazy but the dialogue is stellar. First of all, if you’re going to start a film at a midway point in the story, then go back and show how we got there, that midway point better be wild. When Anchorman 2 opens with Ron Burgundy, fully dressed in his suit, getting attacked by a shark, I want to see how that happened. When American Hustle opens with a con to pay off a governor and the governor doesn’t take the money... who cares? Just start the film from the start of the story.

Like I said, though, the dialogue is spectacular. So is the set design, costuming, cinematography, and everything else that contributes to the look of the film... yea, even the hair. David O. Russell captures the time period perfectly. Also, the acting is out of this world (as is to be expected from this kind of star power). The only problem I have is that there wasn’t enough Jennifer Lawrence. Her character didn’t make a lot of difference in the narrative, but she stole every scene she was in and delivered most of the laughs. 

For all the problems this film has, I enjoyed the majority of my 138 minutes in the theater. It’s just plain fun at times but it isn’t as good as it thinks it is. Case and point:  the reveal near the end of their buddy being the lawyer is supposed to be this ‘aha’ moment and you immediately say to yourself, “I get it!” Then, however, you think more about it and you can’t help but wonder how they got the office, why they were even in that office, who they were ultimately trying to con... the list goes on.

Overall, American Hustle looks great and features solid dialogue and some fantastic performances, but the story is sloppy and confusing. The actors are all deserving of their Oscar nominations and I would probably vote for this film in Costume Design and Production Design; but I can’t get behind the nominations for Best Picture or Best Original Screenplay. Also, I’m not sure how it can be up for ‘original screenplay’ when it’s loosely based on a true story. But that’s a discussion for another time.

The Wolf of Wall Street

My Grade:  B

Martin Scorsese is famous for making protagonists out of those that could be the “bad guys” in someone else’s film. His classic gangster film Goodfellas is a prime example. While these are guys that constantly break the law, disrespect pretty much everyone, and even murder people without blinking an eye, we still kind of want to hang out with them. My problem with Scorsese’s most recent attempt at doing the same thing, The Wolf Of Wall Street, is that there is nothing redeeming about these characters whatsoever. At least in Goodfellas they are loyal to each other and have some sort of code. Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is defined by two words:  ‘greed’ and ‘addiction.’ That’s it. There’s nothing more to him at all. So, three hours of his repugnant life is a little much with no “save the cat” moment (that’s a reference for all my screenwriting brethren). The writer tries one time to show that Belfort is capable of doing good for someone other than himself but it seems forced and, thus, falls flat.

That is not to say this is a bad film. Wolf shows off stellar performances from top talent and introduces us to the dramatic chops of the beautiful Margot Robbie (Naomi). She steals every scene she’s in and Jonah Hill (Donnie) has never been better. The truly outstanding thing about this film, though, is the electric performance by DiCaprio. This is by far the best performance of his career (even better than What’s Eating Gilbert Grape which I have said might be the single best acting performance I had ever seen). In a year packed full of outstanding performances by male leads, my Oscar vote would go to DiCaprio. Simply breathtaking.  

The cinematography is also top notch. Rodrigo Prieto’s (director of photography) camera soars through the narrative, dizzying us in this debauchery-ridden dream that we can’t escape... but don’t want to. This film about addiction is addictive. You don’t even feel bad for laughing at the blackest of black comedy until after the film has released you from its grasp and you step back from it to realize what you just watched is the filthiest, grimiest story you have ever seen. Some critics have lambasted this film as nothing more than filth but it’s not my place to say whether it should or shouldn’t use the ‘f word‘ over 500 times (the most in cinematic history) or contain some of the more graphic drug use and sexual content you’ll see in a movie. That’s an artistic choice by the director and if any story warranted it, it’s this story. So I laud Scorsese for not pulling any punches. But it was a bit much for my taste.

That’s not why this film will not make my ‘Top of 2013’ list, though. With thin characters and little to no substance, this isn’t my cup of tea. Also, with all that the film has to say about addiction (to drugs, money, power, sex, etc.) it doesn’t really condemn it. There are moments in the film in which it seems to condemn Belfort’s lifestyle and warn the audience about the dangers of addiction. But, a few moments later, it will celebrate this lifestyle and brush it off as “no big deal” or even “fun.” If Belfort got what he deserved by the end, I could rally behind this film more; but he essentially gets a slap on the wrist for being even more of a slimeball by selling out his friends.

Overall, The Wolf Of Wall Street is a dizzying, zany, thrill ride that draws you in with the deft skill of a master filmmaker, but ultimately becomes an empty experience because it is confused with how it treats addiction and there is no redeeming quality about any of the characters. Leonardo DiCaprio, though, shines. This role is something to define a career... and DiCaprio already has an outstanding body of work. If ever he deserved to finally get an Oscar, it’s for this performance.

Out of the Furnace

My Grade:  C

What do you get when you put four Oscar nominated actors and two Oscar winning actors in a film by a director whose first film (Crazy Heart, 2009) was nominated for some awards and has a stunning 91% on RottenTomatoes.com? Unfortunately, you get Out of the Furnace. It’s such a disappointment that this film squanders the outstanding talent it boasts in its cast. That being said, it may not actually be bad... it just doesn’t live up to its potential (which is worse than simply being bad).

Out of the Furnace is a slow, brooding drama set in western Pennsylvania in an area aptly termed the “Rust Belt.” Scott Cooper (director) uses the setting well in capturing the bleak, depressed look that encapsulates the mood of his story. It’s grimy, but he captures it beautifully, making for a very interesting look for his film.

It takes more than look to make a great film though. It also takes talent which this cast is packed with. Woody Harrelson takes on a sick, twisted role in the ultra-violent Harlan DeGroat and does well with it, but the script doesn’t give him much to work with in terms of depth. He’s simply pure evil which makes for a forgettable antagonist. Zoe Saldana brings a much needed lightness to the depressing story with her charming turn as Russell Baze’s (Christian Bale) girlfriend, but her role doesn’t affect the story much at all. She seems to only be there to add some character development to the paper-thin protagonist, Russell; but even that isn’t done well. Willem Dafoe (one of my favorites) takes on a sleazy role as the bar owner that gets in over his head which he seems perfect for; but the role, again, just isn’t unique enough to capitalize on Dafoe’s talent and quirks. I already mentioned how thin Christian Bale’s character is and it’s a shame because he proved in The Fighter that he can own the screen in a gritty, dark drama. He does what he can but spends most of the film mumbling his lines, getting violently angry at random times, and taking heartbreaking news with little or no emotion. Casey Affleck stands out as conflicted war veteran, Rodney Baze Jr. His character is written the best and he does very well, but the film doesn’t focus on him as much as it should.

Writing is the major issue here. The characters are thin, the story is familiar and oppressively depressing, and the climactic conclusion that this film seems to be building to never comes. The ending is strange... but not in an artistic or meaningful way. It just doesn’t make a bit of sense. Maybe I missed something, but I doubt it. If there is a shining moment in the writing, though, it’s in the parallelism portrayed in various scenes involving some rather involved metaphors. One involves hunting, some foreshadowing, and a metaphor connecting Rodney and a deer. Not surprisingly, many of those things are going to be lost on the average viewer. Kudos to not pandering to the audience, though... I guess.

Overall, Out of the Furnace is very slow when its premise seems to promise a much faster pace. It would work better as an action film and if Rodney went missing sooner, leaving Russell more of a chance to face off with DeGroat (Woody Harrelson) for more of the film. The bottom line is that Cooper and his co-writer, Brad Ingelsby, traded entertainment for art. Some may praise them for it but I condemn them because it is possible to combine the two. 

Captain Phillips

My Grade:  A+

Tom Hanks has been nominated for 5 Oscars and has won twice (Forrest Gump and Philadelphia). Chances are he’ll add another notch to that Oscar belt this award season because of his breathtaking performance in Captain Phillips. The film is more than just a stellar performance by Hanks, though. This is just an engrossing film that will be the fastest 134 minutes of your life.

Captain Phillips starts off a bit slow for my tastes. It leaves time for you to get to know Phillips (Tom Hanks) and his family life, though, which certainly helps you care about him as the story continues to amp up the intensity. Once he’s finally on the Maersk Alabama (a U.S. Container Ship... an “unarmed freighter” as Phillips calls it), he’s already in anti-piracy mode because he knows his route takes him right through the heart of pirate infested waters. He locks down security (which is a great way to show off the intricacies of the boat which would all be used later), and even runs drills. Little does he know that the drill would quickly become a real-life situation. The pirates are already moving on him.

Apart from Hanks’ acting, a huge reason why this film shines is because of its exploration of the antagonist, pirate captain Muse (a downright terrifying performance from newcomer Barkhad Abdi). He’s not just a greedy pirate. He is much more developed than that. He’s disrespected among his peers but has more courage than any of them. He also refuses to give up, even when the odds are stacked impossibly high against him. It almost makes you root for him... almost. 

I knew that the hijacking would be an intense scene but I didn’t know that the film would only increase the tension more and more from the hijacking until the epic conclusion. Paul Greengrass (director) never lets up. He combines the intense character drama with very tight, realistic, and gripping military ops to bring about a satisfying climax that almost leaves you exhausted from being so engrossed in the story for so long. He even weaves in conflict among the bad guys and a message about globalization... the film is like an onion (or parfait, if you ask Donkey from Shrek):  it has layers.

To say a little more about the acting, Hanks starts the film with little in the way of emotional meat. So, at first, I was wondering why he chose this role. Then, as the film continued, I saw the massive arc he portrays and Hanks gives a performance unlike any he’s ever given (even better than Castaway). But the standout is Barkhad Abdi as Muse, the de facto leader of the pirate crew. This is his first credited film and he actually lived in Somalia until he was seven. I think he may have actually been on a few Somalian Pirate ships back then... he was that convincing. I heard that in an interview, Tom Hanks said that Abdi (and the other actors playing his pirate captors) were terrifying. If you can scare a legend like Tom Hanks with your performance, you deserve more roles.

Overall, Captain Phillips is a gripping thriller featuring stellar performances, edge-of-your-seat intensity, a layered examination of its real-life material, and even a message. It’s award-worthy work and Paul Greengrass’s best. See it as soon as you can and be wowed.

Oldboy (2003)

My Grade:  A

Sex and violence seem to intersect on a regular basis in film... probably because sex sells and violence usually implies action which also sells.  In Chan-wook Park's 2003 violent thriller, Oldboy, sex and violence are at the heart of it.  Oldboy is based on a Japanese Manga (comic book) written by Garon Tsuchiya and illustrated by Nobuaki Minegishi.  It also has an American remake in the works to be directed by Spike Lee.

A regular guy named Oh Dae-su (Min-sik Choi) gets kidnapped and imprisoned on his daughter's birthday for seemingly no reason.  While in captivity he learns a lot of random facts from TV, learns how to fight by practicing punches and kicks against the wall, and slowly works toward escaping by scraping away at the walls with a chopstick.  After fifteen long years, however, he gets released for seemingly no reason.  He makes it his mission to find the people that kidnapped him and kill them for what they did to him and the things he learned in prison will prove very valuable.

As his past becomes more clear to him and he begins to uncover the truth about his captors, he finds out a lot of things he doesn't want to know.  He also realizes that someone has gone through a lot of trouble to manipulate him and seek revenge for something he did a long time ago.  Then, the actual truth is something that he, nor an audience could have seen coming.

Oldboy keeps you engaged for its entire two hours and will keep you guessing until the very end.  That is a testament to the strong writing.  If nothing else, this story is unique.  At first, it is a little hard to buy into because it's not clear as to why someone would imprison a man for no reason.  As the layers unfold, though, you will move to the metaphoric edge of your seat and never scoot back.  It's engrossing.

What helps this film be so captivating is the outstanding performances by its award-winning leads Min-sik Choi (Dae-su) and Hye-jeong Kang (Mi-do).  Min-sik Choi is especially good, having to show an incredible range and intensity throughout the film.  He actually won Best Actor at the Asia-Pacific Film Festival in 2004 for his performance in Oldboy.  

The cinematography by Chung-hoon Chung is also stunning.  Chung's camera expertly captures the grittiness of the world that Dae-su has to navigate and enhances the brutality of the narrative when necessary.  There are also some surprisingly gorgeous scenes that give a much needed break from the dirt and grime.  Two particular shots stick out as being especially good.  First, there's a long shot of Dae-su pleading with his captors from the slat through which they feed him while in prison (also a great moment in Min-sik Choi's performance).  The more impressive shot, though, is a fight scene that lasts about three minutes (that's just a guess about the time, it could be longer) and involves Dae-su versus at least twenty others in a hallway.  The camera pans back and forth as the fight takes place and never cuts until Dae-su has successfully finished off his attackers.  Epic.

Overall, Oldboy is a wonderfully done foreign film.  But, being a foreign film, it may not be for everyone.  It is done very artfully but very differently from much of American cinema.  Also, the brutal violence, disturbing nature of the plot, and nudity makes the film a little harder to watch than some films but is certainly worth checking out if you are into the thriller genre or foreign films in general.

Les Miserables

My Grade:  B-

I have to start this by saying that I didn’t really want to see Les Miserables because I don’t like period pictures and I don’t like musicals. I do, however, like Oscar nominated films and I don’t turn down free movie tickets. So, needless to say, at least I got my money’s worth.

I did not like this film but that’s not to say it’s a bad film. The cinematography is fine other than a couple of overly dramatic, somewhat distracting shots when Russell Crowe is singing. The sets are epic and strangely beautiful despite how grimy the locals are. The lighting is doesn’t take away from the film. All the filmic elements are exactly how they should be, so kudos to Tom Hooper (the director who won Best Director for his last film The King’s Speech).

It’s well-made but it’s considerably too long. When this play is performed on Broadway, there is an intermission... too bad the film doesn’t have one. Unless you are a huge fan of musicals as a genre or this particular play, you will probably be checking your watch throughout because it’s a really long 158 minutes. And a depressing 158 minutes. If I had a dollar for every song that is sung while the performer is crying, I would be able to pay admission to see it again (even though I wouldn’t dare do that).

There are a lot of mixed opinions of this film, but there is one undeniable fact:  Anne Hathaway rocks the house. She sings beautifully, she exhibits raw emotion better than many performances I’ve seen this year, and she’s not bad on the eyes even after a barbaric haircut and a few of her teeth being ripped from her skull. When she sings the famous song “I Dreamed A Dream,” I literally applauded afterwards. That scene alone is why she deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.

The biggest problems I have with the film (other than the length) are Russell Crowe’s singing voice and the love story. It’s not that Russell Crowe is necessarily that bad, but he’s not really that good either. His acting performance is strong, though, and that’s big for me to say because I’m not a Russell Crowe fan at all. 

The bigger problem, however, is the love story that is essentially the entire emotional thread holding second half of the film together. Marius (Eddie Redmayne) sees Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) for a brief moment across a crowded square and falls so madly in love with her that he questions his allegiance to his best friend, Enjolras (Aaron Tveit who is the best male voice in the film), and the other revolutionaries with whom he has been working and planning for a long time. I don’t buy it. But, also, she falls so in love with him that she can’t live without him? That’s more flimsy than the relationship between Ryan Gosling’s character and Emma Stone’s character in Gangster Squad. At least they had a conversation and even slept together. Still flimsy, but they interacted before falling in love and risking their lives for each other.

Overall Les Miserables is a well-made film but is overly long, emotionally manipulative, and held together by one of the weakest B-story romances I’ve ever seen. It looks great and the singing is wonderful, though, but I found some of the melodies a bit monotonous and boring. Anne Hathaway makes this film worth watching, I just wish she was in it more.

Zero Dark Thirty

My Grade:  A

It might be hard, but forget all the controversy and debate circling Zero Dark Thirty and it’s still easy to see why it has garnered positive reviews, box office success, and award season buzz. Kathryn Bigelow has been directing little known shorts and features since the late 70s but she really burst into the public eye when she became the first woman to win the highly sought after Best Director Oscar in 2010 for The Hurt Locker. Zero Dark Thirty, her second foray into the portrayal of war in the middle east, solidifies her as a force... in that genre. If her next film branches out of the middle east (which I really hope it does), then we will see if she just has a niche, or if she can handle various kinds of subject matter. Whether she can handle other subject matter or not, though, Zero Dark Thirty is just short of a masterpiece. 

Everyone knows that Zero Dark Thirty is about the epic, lengthy manhunt for the most hated terrorist in recent history:  Osama Bin Laden. It follows Maya (a stoic but intense Jessica Chastain), a CIA operative, and her colleagues as they gather intelligence and risk their lives to take down the big bad Bin Laden. What it’s really about, though, is obsession. It’s a look at a woman who takes on a goal and is so driven to get it done that it almost drives her insane. On second thought, Maya travels far beyond mere obsession.

It’s clear that a lot of research went into making this movie and, whether it’s realistic or not, it certainly feels realistic which is ultimately all that matters to the audience. Nobody knows what really happened when S.E.A.L. Team 6 raided Bin Laden’s stronghold and I don’t think we need to know exactly... but the way Kathryn Bigelow brings it to the screen is possibly the most tense 20 or so minutes that you will experience in a film. “Gripping” and “riveting” are good words to describe the raid scene, but the entire film will keep you on the metaphoric edge of your seat. Nail biters, beware, because this film won’t help if you’re trying to stop.

Jessica Chastain kills it in Zero Dark Thirty. She doesn’t show a ton of emotion throughout the film, but that works for her character and when she does... holy crap, it’s chilling. Especially in a key scene where she gets in her boss’s (Kyle Chandler) face, she will take your breath away. The other standout is Jason Clarke who plays Dan and is called an “animal” by a terrorist captive. That’s a pretty apt description of him at first, until he gets burnt out, but he has some extremely intense scenes and plays with with a detached calm that makes him even more menacing.

In this kind of film, it can be hard to keep tensions high because everyone pretty much knows how it ends (unless you think Bigelow will rewrite history like Tarantino did with Inglorious Basterds), but Zero Dark Thirty does a great job of keeping the stakes high, building up to an intense climax, then closing with a very satisfying, albeit abrupt, ending. The only reason I can’t give this film an A+ is because it’s so heavy that I wouldn’t want to watch it over and over. When the film was over at my screening, the entire audience left in complete silence. That has some to do with the final image (which is perfect, but heavy), and a lot to do with the nature of the film itself. It’s great to watch once, but I’m not sure a lot of people will want to watch it over and over.

Silver Linings Playbook

My Grade:  A+

Bradley Cooper. Robert De Niro. Chris Tucker. Jennifer Lawrence. Does that sound like the cast of an independent film? I didn’t think so. But Silver Linings Playbook is at least independent enough to screen at the Independent Spirit Awards. Their definition of “indie” is clearly a bit subjective, but Silver Linings Playbook fit and garnered 5 nominations in 2013.  It was also nominated for 8 Oscars but only took home the statue for Lead Actress (Jennifer Lawrence).

According to an article in the LA Times, one of the reasons Silver Linings Playbook is considered more “indie” than other movies with this caliber of talent is because of its relatively modest budget of 21 million dollars (which, after tax breaks and other things, fits the “under 20 million” rule at the Independent Spirit Awards). The other reason is because of its “uniqueness of vision.” And that’s what makes it great. It’s quirky, funny, and emotionally gripping, but it’s also refreshingly different from the usual rom-com faire (if you consider this a rom-com... which it only sort of is).

It does (kind of) follow the rom-com conventions of a meet cute, growth of the relationship, tear that relationship down, then hope they get together at the end. But it’s so much more than that and (best of all) you can’t predict the ending... probably. I couldn’t, at least.

Bradley Cooper is at his best in this film as the emotionally unstable guy, Pat, trying to rebuild his life after a trip to “the looney bin.” Emotionally unstable is hard to play... and this is the guy from The Hangover. He kills it, though. Then, of course, there’s the juggernaut that is Robert De Niro. He is Pat’s sports loving, highly superstitious, gambling-addicted father. He is also a bit emotionally unstable as he is given to outbursts of anger. This isn’t the caliber of performance De Niro has in Taxi Driver, but it’s strong, nonetheless. Trying to hold his own on screen with these two is funny man Chris Tucker, who hadn’t appeared in a film since Rush Hour 3... five long years earlier.  Maybe the time off did him some good because he does very well in this film. His role isn’t major, but he provides some good laughs and stays out of the way for the bigger players.

The most outstanding things about this film have everything to do with Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Not only does Lawrence put on a show that Cooper and Tucker could learn from... but De Niro could even learn a thing or two. She’s unbelievably good in Silver Linings Playbook. It helps that her character is superbly crafted, giving her a lot to work with; but I can’t even describe everything she is able to do in this film (including dance her heart out) - she’s just that good. The only problem I have with the film also has to do with Tiffany, though. I am left to come up with my own ideas about her motivation in the film. I get it with the other characters. They have personal motivations that lead them to do things and change them based on other characters. I have my guesses with Tiffany, but it’s not clear what motivates her or what she gets out of everything that goes on.

Overall, this film is outstanding. It looks great, the acting is superb, the story is funny while still tugging at your heartstrings, and the characters are surprisingly well-developed. Silver Linings Playbook also gave me a once in a lifetime (so far) experience:  at one point in the film, the entire theater erupted in applause. Not at the final credits as if to collectively say “good film.” I mean outright, full-on applause complete with cheering. And it’s not like one person started it, slow-clap style. It was spontaneous and powerful... amazing. Never had I seen that happen in the middle (well, near the end) of a film before.  And, of course, I joined in.

Killing Them Softly

My Grade:  C

Have you seen a trailer for Killing Them Softly? If you have you still probably don’t know what it’s about. All I can tell from the trailer is that Brad Pitt plays a hitman and there are some slow-motion death scenes. I didn’t go into this film with any kind of expectation... and it still surprised me. Some people are excited about this film because it’s written and directed by Andrew Dominik who wrote and directed The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which also starred Brad Pitt (and has a title that is way too long). I haven’t seen that film, but it was nominated for two Oscars and has Casey Affleck in it... so I’ll probably check it out when I get a chance.

Killing Them Softly is not what you might expect from a hitman film. It has a storyline that you might expect but it executes that storyline in a strange, somewhat meandering way. And it doesn’t have quite as much action as you might expect (and hope for). The story goes something like this:  two guys stick up a poker game because, when they do that, everyone will think that another guy actually did it; then everyone will go after that other guy, letting these two guys get away with the money and not have a bunch of guys trying to kill them. Of course that doesn’t go as expected, though, so Brad Pitt has to get involved to make it right... you guessed it, by killing the people that actually ripped off the poker game. That’s a pretty standard mob-style revenge movie.

This film, however, doesn’t go about it in such a conventional way. A lot of the film involves characters talking to each other. Just talking. Not shooting up warehouses or running for their lives. Talking. While the dialogue isn’t bad, it’s also not witty enough to keep me engaged the entire time (especially since the actual story doesn’t really do anything new). Brad Pitt is great in this film, though, and his character is different from most hitmen, which adds some interest.

What stands out about this film is how good it looks. It’s a very artistically made film and is extremely deliberate with all it’s filmic elements. That’s the same kind of thing I said about Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2011 film, Drive. Killing Them Softly actually reminds me a lot of Drive because of its generous use of slow motion, its relatively slow pacing, and how graphically violent it is. The death scenes look like works of art, though.

Overall, Killing Them Softly is good if you are in the mood for that kind of film. It’s artistic and somewhat surreal. If you like Drive (starring Ryan Gosling), then you will probably like Killing Them Softly even though Drive is a much better film. It also ends kind of abruptly and I haven’t decided how I feel about that.

Surviving Family

My Grade:  B

If you know me or have read my reviews, you have heard me go on and on about independent cinema and how much it has to offer in the vein of fresh, original content and undiscovered talent.  If you haven’t heard that from me, you have now.  I recently got the good fortune to connect with Mara Lesemann who wrote and produced a drama called Surviving Family.  She enjoyed my reviews enough to want my semi-expert opinion on the film, so I viewed it and enjoyed it.  As with all films, it’s not without its problems, though.

As a writer, I tend to talk mostly about story... and this story is fine.  Terry (played by the gorgeous Sarah Wilson) is about to marry california dream-boat, Alex (Billy Magnussen), but they have only known each other for six months!  When they go to see Terry’s family, things have changed since the last time she had been home... almost two years ago.  The family borders on dysfunctional at times, but tend to come through for each other when they really need each other.  They do have a rough history, though.

This film captures the idea that every family has its problems.  It’s slow at times and some scenes are too long, but that’s how these family gatherings are.  It’s a lot of talking and reminiscing.  The biggest issue I have with the story is how it seems to dwell in the past. The characters all have their problems because of their past, so it’s natural that the past will come up; however, it slows the pace a bit much for my tastes (but it’s a drama, so slow is fine).  The film itself dwells in the past, too, by showing numerous flashbacks; some of which are VERY striking because they are completely silent.  This was a bit off putting at first, but I feel they are more powerful because they are silent.

There are some extremely touching moments in the film.  I’m not one to cry in a film and I didn’t almost cry, but I could see where someone would cry... especially at one particular moment:  Terry is at her most vulnerable and Alex says a beautiful line that immediately strengthens her, dries her tears, and puts a smile on her face.  (That was my way of trying to explain the moment without spoiling anything... I hope it worked.)

The thing that stands out the most in this film is the look of it.  Timothy Naylor’s cinematography is wonderful.  It won’t blow you away and Naylor doesn’t take a lot of chances with super complicated shots or weird angles, but it’s exactly what it needs to be.  The lighting is great, too.  Almost every time we see Sarah Wilson she looks like an angel as the sun dances off her hair.  And the unorthodox wedding looks good for what it is.  It looks thrown together... but that’s the point.  And I must say that it’s thrown together pretty well.

The only other issue I have with the film is some of the acting.  The entire cast is great at times and just okay at times.  Some of the emotional scenes seem forced but some of them are great.  Some of the lighthearted comedy scenes get a bit awkward, but most work very well.  This is definitely a talented cast but they do have their ups and downs.

Overall, Surviving Family is a wonderful first foray in the feature realm for director Laura Thies and writer/producer Mara Lesemann.  I’m not a huge fan of straight drama, but I was pulled in by this film.  The story flows well and is touching at times, the cinematography works very well, and the cast has moments of brilliance.

Safety Not Guaranteed

My Grade:  A

Ever heard of Colin Trevorrow?  Probably not unless you are a Star Wars fan that has been following all this drama surrounding the candidates to direct Episode 7 under the Disney masthead.  Trevorrow’s name has been tossed around in the mix but it’s pretty certain that he will not be the guy.  Why would this seemingly random director be mentioned for such a high profile film?  Because of his feature debut, Safety Not Guaranteed.

The film is about an intern named Darius (a charming and layered performance from Aubrey Plaza) who goes with her boss, Jeff (Jake Johnson of “New Girl”) and her fellow intern, the shy Arnau (an awkwardly funny turn from Karan Soni) to investigate an intriguing classified ad.  Who wouldn’t want to investigate this ad?

WANTED:  Someone to go back in time with me.  This is not a joke.  You’ll get paid after we get  back.  Must bring your own weapons.  I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed.

I’m intrigued... that’s why I wanted to see the film.  And I’m glad I did because it’s a joy.  It has some wonderfully quirky and well-developed characters that all play off each other nicely.  The quirkiest of the bunch is the man who placed the classified ad, Kenneth (Mark Duplass of “The League”).  He plays this role with extreme care, walking the thin line between muted heroism and crippling insecurity to a tee.  He brings a lot of heart to the character and his chemistry with Darius makes this film so much better than many indie films you will see this year.

Apart from the great acting, the story is well done, too.  It’s unlike anything you’ve seen but is easy to connect to.  It even has a few twists thrown in... and they are well-done.  One of the issues I have with this film, however, is how little the A-story (their investigation of Kenneth’s ad) intertwines with and is affected by the B-story.  There are many subplots, but the main B-story (Jeff trying to reconnect with an old flame) is one that almost doesn’t seem to matter apart from helping develop Jeff as a character.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good part of the film and the night that Jeff and Arnau party is great (I’m not going to mention more at risk of spoilers); however, it doesn’t affect the Darius and Kenneth portion of the story much at all.

Apart from that, the only other small issue I can think of that keeps me from giving this film an A+ rather than an A involves the twist... well one of the twists.  Without saying too much and ruining anything, I’ll put it like this:  Kenneth explains something away that Darius believes is a lie and we are left to speculate whether he is really lying or not.  I’ve said too much already...

Overall, Safety Not Guaranteed is a great example of why you should avoid big budget Hollywood movies sometimes if you want a low-key, entertaining, and (most importantly) refreshingly original film.  It also has plenty of laughs and great performances to go around.  So, to close on a cheesy/witty note:  safety may not be guaranteed, but enjoyment is.

Flight

My Grade:  A-

Denzel Washington is epic.  That’s all there is to it.  He has been nominated for 5 Oscars and has won two of them (Supporting Actor in Glory and Lead Actor in Training Day).  He has also rocked our cinematic world more recently in Man on Fire, Inside Man, American Gangster, and The Book of Eli.  My personal favorites of his roles are in Training Day, Remember the Titans, American Gangster, and John Q but he seriously outdoes himself in his most recent film, Flight, directed by Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump).

While Washington is what will bring viewers to see Flight, the story will certainly help.  Penned by John Gatins (Coach Carter, Real Steel), this film takes an interesting approach to the hero story.  Whip (Denzel Washington) is an airline pilot that makes a miraculous crash landing saving most of the passengers on board a plane that “fell apart in midair.”  The problem with this, however, is that Whip is an addict.  He is definitely an alcoholic but dabbles in some more serious things like cocaine and other drugs.  He drank and snorted cocaine on the morning of his flight.  Was he in proper shape to fly the plane?  Can these federal offenses (think about how much worse that is than drunk driving) be overlooked because of his midair heroics?  Those are the questions Flight addresses in its overly long 138 minutes.

Its length is the only major problem I have with the film.  If it could keep up the intensity that it starts and ends with, then 138 minutes wouldn’t be a problem at all.  It sags in the middle, though.  Waking up after very little sleep in a room with a naked woman, tons of empty beer bottles, and a line of coke on your dresser ready for you to snort is not a way that you should wake up if you’re leaving on a 9am flight... especially if you’re the one flying it.  But, that opening scene (which is mostly one shot) lets us get to know Whip very well, very quickly.

Then, as the plane takes off, we know that it will eventually crash (since we’ve seen trailers).  You might think this would destroy any chance at building tension since we also know that Whip survives based on trailers and how the story couldn’t go on without him.  If you thought that, you would be wrong.  The crash scene is some of the most tense minutes I have ever seen in film.  It’s breathtaking.  And the special effects are wonderful.  It is as exciting (if not more so) than the shipwreck in James Cameron’s classic Titanic. 

After the crash, though, the narrative gradually slows to a tedious halt.  It’s hard to know for sure why it starts to feel so slow, but you certainly will be tempted to start checking your watch (not your cell phone because that should be turned off... right?).  As more and more complications for Whip’s case compound, though, the film starts to pick up steam, leading to a rather shocking twist near the end.

While Denzel Washington holds this film up with his tour-de-force performance (I hate using that over-used film critic term, but it’s true), the film also benefits from a strong performance from little-known Kelly Reilly as Whip’s indomitable love interest who helps make him a better person.  Flight also boasts a fine turn from John Goodman, bringing a much needed comedic presence as Whip’s drug dealing, fun-loving friend that is always there when you need a little cocaine to perk you up after you’ve had too much to drink.

Overall, Washington makes this film worth watching.  You have seen him in roles where he is good and even great, but he has never been better than he is in Flight.  It’s also an interesting look at a modern-day flawed hero and the redemption that he (and sometimes all of us) needs.  If it weren’t for the slow pacing in its tedious second act, then Flight would get an A+ from me... but it doesn’t.  Do expect to hear about Denzel when Oscar season comes around, though.