Change Your Image
waittilnextyear
Reviews
Is It Cake? (2022)
This show is interesting, but could use some fine tuning
I'm making this review to fight against all of the "I hate this host" comments. Mikey Day is funny and, in my opinion, this show would be entirely unwatchable without his campy/quirky brand of humor and energy (which is also used to great effect on SNL). To be fair, a show about cakes impersonating other objects is already absurd, so might as well go all the way.
The things that can be improved...
1. Why are the non-baking contestants sitting on a bench for 8 hours? I hope they are just there for maybe 30 min to get some show material, not for an actual 8 hours. They should come up with a better way to pick the baking 3, or send the non-bakers home after they lose the opening cake-off. They can focus more on the craft (or the backgrounds of the contestants) instead of the peanut gallery comments if they are worried about not having enough material/interaction.
2. The judges need to get a little bit closer OR the lights need to be a little bit brighter OR they need to have a little bit more time to decide. It looks like they are just too far away to see any details. Maybe there can be more decoys if they are worried about the judges getting in too close and making it too easy. They are viewing them from a comical distance. I think even 5 feet closer would be a big improvement.
3. The button-press screen for the judges does not work well. The 3 judges rarely ever agree and the whole selection process, while decently suspenseful for TV, is chaotic and doesn't make sense. Maybe they could give each judge their own panel and they all vote separately. Then, they can go by whichever cake gets the fewest votes as the cake. For example, if all 3 judges pick it, that cake would lose against a case where none, one, or two of the judges picked it. They could escalate the prize money with the degree of deception ($5k if it fools one judge, $10k if it fools two judges etc).
4. The guy cheated in the very first episode? What up with that? They should either let all of the contestants decorate the decoys or none of them should get to do that. Since the whole premise is MAKING CAKES TO LOOK LIKE OTHER THINGS, I'm not real comfortable with making other things look more like cake instead. Yes, it *really* matters. More than anything.
Breaking Bad (2008)
Breaking Bad is Mostly Good (SPOILERS)
Obviously a cult classic show and I am very late to the party here. I actually began watching Better Call Saul first and when I learned it was a prequel to this show, then started watching Breaking Bad. I might be one of the only people in the world to watch these shows in this order, but I found it worked well. At least I understand the Cinnabon sequences in Better Call Saul now.
As an actual, real life chemist (that has been asked dozens of times if I watch Breaking Bad), I tend to avoid shows like this to avoid Hollywood's generalized clumsy depiction of science/scientists. But, this show doesn't suffer too much for what Hollywood's idea of a "chemist" is supposed to be.
That being said, I do have to take some issue with the Walter White character's background. Brilliant chemists that specialize in X-ray crystallography are generally not also uber synthetic organic chemists. And most chemists that are used to academia and lab scale don't just pick up mechanized industrial processes/machinery and run a lab like they had under the lavanderia. This show exhibits a pretty basic lack of knowledge about how specialization works in chemistry. Even more, a brilliant organic/inorganic chemist (apparently also responsible for a startup) on Walter White's level certainly doesn't end up as a high school teacher. This type of talent almost always goes tenure track to an R1 school or into industry to make a lot of money. Heck, you don't even need a PhD to teach chemistry in high school! I wasn't really convinced that he "loved teaching" enough to have picked such an odd career path for his pedigree (despite the love triangle that they kinda sorta tried to set up with him/Gretchen/Gray Matter to "explain" it).
Aside from that, the casting worked really well for this show and the acting was generally fantastic. I really enjoyed Giancarlo Esposito as Gus Fring, Jonathan Banks as Mike Ehrmantraut, Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman, Betsy Brandt as Marie Schrader, and Dean Norris as Hank Schrader. I thought maybe the best performance was Mark Margolis as Hector "Tio" Salamanca--he managed to play his role with basically just face twitches, opening and closing his eyes, sniffling, and ringing a bell. It was amazing.
I also really thought they made good use of music and had some pretty good opening scenes for quite a few of the episodes. The openings about the fly and Wendy the meth head stand out.
The two characters I ended up liking least were actually Anna Gunn's Skyler White and Bryan Cranston's Walter White. With Skyler, it was less about Anna Gunn and more that the character was just so annoying, thick-headed and selfish for about the first 2 seasons before sort of redeeming herself with the Beneke shakedown thing and car wash thing. She was really hard to like after making her husband's initial cancer diagnosis all about her and her feelings before he ever got into doing any of the really bad stuff. Then cheating with Ted right about the time things were getting toward even keel didn't make any sense either. I had a hard time imagining how Skyler and Walter ever would've become a couple in the first place.
With Cranston I found that as the episodes rolled on, he really grated on me. I thought he was guilty of over-acting. Really annoyingly obvious over-acting. Oh the melodrama! I oftentimes pictured him acting in a Broadway show, but then again he can overdo it just playing a dentist on Seinfeld. The constant touching of his face, flying off the handle at a moment's notice, the waterworks. Some of the issues I had were with how the Walter White character was totally inconsistent about whether he was going to make a cold, cunningly calculated decision or make a series of really idiotic ones (really, driving to your stashed millions because Pinkman sends a text message like that? I have a difficult time thinking he wouldn't have seen through that. How he'd leave an autographed copy of Gale's book in his bathroom). I felt that Walter White just being straight up with Skyler and Jesse would've basically ensured his meth empire ad inifnitum, but he had to keep lying about stupid things to estrange them. Didn't really seem to fit. Ditto with Pinkman and Huell snitching late in season 5. It didn't quite fit that the clueless DEA were now all of a sudden much smarter than an operation that had routinely outsmarted them at each turn. And, the cancer thing ended up just being a red herring. Which kinda sucks because that was the entire motivation for the character's actions.
The final quibble I had with the show was that season 5 was a little bit all over the place. It was almost like the Gus Fring saga in season 4 turned out to be so compelling, they felt they needed to top that somehow in season 5. I think I would've preferred the show ending after season 4. I wasn't really a fan of the 'Hank finds out about Walter' dynamic. I thought Hank's character was better served being unable to figure it out. They went a little bit too hard on the "try to hold onto anything, lose control of everything" philosophy.
All that being said, I don't want to sound overly negatively. This show was plenty compelling and watchable. I rate it an 8. Other than gutting out an odd episodes here or there it was almost never boring and the story kept moving.
Bosch (2014)
Harry Bosch is one bad hombre
Found this series among all the Amazon Original series and decided to give it a try. Glad that I did. I binged on all 4 seasons in less than 1 week.
The best way to describe this show is...imagine one of the better episodes of Law and Order (but less lame and prime time-y) and instead of it getting resolved in 60 min, it takes a whole season (ten 1-hour episodes). Then, sprinkle on a bit of the California atmosphere from the movie Heat.
For those saying this show has a weak script or is cliche, I'd have to disagree with that. Sure, there are some standard cop/detective tropes in here, but I find the acting/script/plot to be rather smart. It's eminently watchable and Titus Welliver does a great job with the titular character--a hard-boiled detective with ex-military special ops background protecting his family and going after the bad guys with the same bulldog tenacity.
One quibble is it appears they didn't really know what to do with Sarah Clarke's character Eleanor Wish. One season she's a focal point, the next season she's not on the show, the next season...well I don't want to spoil it but you'll see.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Oof -- That was bad.
LOL! An 8.1 rating at IMDb! It surely seems that the movie studios are automating the stock/robotic positive reviews that overtake this site for each new big budget failure. Come to think of it...I haven't had to fill out a CAPTCHA lately...hmm
Anyhow, I made it about 45 minutes in before cutting my losses.
Zoe Saldana basically plays the same uninspiring role in every movie she's in...here she's green, there she's blue. Chris Pratt's character seems like it came from the cutting room floor of an American Pie movie admixed with a touch of the Rocketeer. Pratt and Saldana have no chemistry together. The CGI cybernetic, jokester raccoon with the voice of Bradley Cooper is also among the worst characters ever conceived for a movie.
The plot was meh at best and the whole production was dragged down by one of the worst screenplays ever put together. I mean it was really awful. Chock full of "jokes" and one-liners that just weren't funny. Not even smirk-worthy funny, let alone laughter-inducing. The dialog was artificial and embarrassing for whoever penned it. It was bad and s/he should feel bad for it. This movie tried way too hard to be Star Wars meets the Avengers and it wasn't successful at it.
Also featured was too much exposition about what Ronin or Thanos had done or were trying to do; "you're Draxx the Destroyer!" type telling rather than showing. None of the characters were introduced in a logical or organic way; they mostly seemed shoehorned in.
I think it says a lot about the acting when a CGI tree (hint: wooden) is the best of the bunch.
Yes, you are Groot. And I will not be watching anything connected with Guardians of the Galaxy again.
Inception (2010)
In a Dream within a Dream within a Dream, Nobody Can Hear You Fall Asleep Before the Movie Ends
I've tried now to watch this movie on 2 or 3 separate occasions with an open mind and haven't been able to finish it. It's just too boring. If I were to see another scene of a DiCaprio explaining the plot and wacky dream world rules to one of his teammates, I couldn't even...Whenever they get to the snow/skiing scene like some James Bond movie, I yawn and turn it off.
You know the premise is weak and/or over-complicated when the lead actor spends as much time narrating as he does acting. There are just so many unneeded layers, terms, and pseudo- philosophical/intellectual gobbledy gook asides. Just plain tacky. Chemists and architects (cast Jason Alexander in that role and we have a movie) and whatever Joseph Gordon-Levitt's job description was. Add in a phantom, delusional Marion Cotillard and a little gratuitous Michael Caine-- tell Chris Nolan he can leave Alfred out of this one.
Here we have a plot with no real consequences that doesn't really explore anything of substance and with actors that seem to be going through the motions. It seemed like a pair of screenplay writers that were in an active competition to see who could obfuscate and torture the story line the most thoroughly; and they both won. Problematically, people tend to glorify and overrate things that feign sophistication and complexity. There isn't anything sophisticated here-- just made up, illogical, scene-serving hot garbage with some pretty CGI. This is a textbook style-over- substance movie.
I can say, however, this movie was successful in subjecting me to inception. The idea implanted deep in my subconscious was that this was a really bad movie; a movie that is criminally overrated at 8.8/10. Yuck.
Schindler's List (1993)
The Best Movie Ever Made
A lot of people are under the assumption that either CITIZEN KANE or VERTIGO is the best motion picture in human history. And, while these are undoubtedly in the discussion, and one can say that Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock are certainly in the top 10 best directors in history, neither of these are the best movie of all time.
CITIZEN KANE is an epic piece of semi-fiction clustered around the life and times of Hearst, McCormick, Insull and a few others. This film broke ground in so many technical ways--flashbacks as the primary source of telling a story, multiple narrators, deep focus shots, intense shadows and lighting effects, and camera angles shot from the floor at times. Also, this was probably the most highly controversial film ever made, since William Randolph Hearst tried furiously to snuff it out, and Hollywood moguls approached Orson Welles and RKO Productions to reimburse him for the costs of the film just to simply destroy it. However, although CITIZEN KANE might be the most innovative film of all time (save for the first motion picture, the first color motion picture, and the first with sound), it is not the best picture or all time. This is largely because the story is quite dated, and almost no one can connect with a newspaper mogul in today's society. Sure there are enduring themes here, but ultimately this picture doesn't have the soul to grab us as viewers and pull us in.
Without going into similar detail for VERTIGO, suffice it to say that this is another picture that is technically revolutionary (Vertigo effect), but the story just doesn't have the level of humanity and soul that one would expect for best movie ever.
Two other pictures that are commonly viewed as contenders include IMDb's own #1 THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION as well as IMDb #2 THE GODFATHER. And while these movies are much more soulful story-wise than VERTIGO or CITIZEN KANE, neither rises quite to the level of technical brilliance exhibited by the other films.
So, there appears to be a quandary at the top of the movie hierarchy, where we have two brilliant, technical masterpieces that don't have quite enough soul, and we also have two brilliant cinematic masterpieces that might not be as technically/visually stunning as one would expect from the best movie ever.
Enter SCHINDLER'S LIST.
SCHINDLER'S LIST is a movie that, although it is comfortably amongst the top movies on IMDb (#8 currently), no one ever seriously mentions it for best movie. And this is really a crime, because it deserves that title, and is by far Spielberg's best work.
The acting is A++ in this movie--what we have is Liam Neeson, possibly the most underrated actor of the last quarter century, delivering his finest performance as protagonist Oskar Schindler. Alongside this performance, is Ralph Fiennes also giving his finest career performance as antagonist Amon Goethe. There is not a single line spoken, nor facial gesture made, nor flourish with a prop (cigarette, shot glass, deck of cards) that is anything short of mind-blowing. The scene between Schindler and Goethe discussing the difference between power and justice, with power coming the ability to not exercise that very power, or make a pardon, was phenomenal. And then Goethe's being so influenced that he becomes obsessed with trying on that version of "power" for size before ultimately discarding it was haunting. Aspiring actors be on notice, this movie can teach you to win an Oskar (intentionally misspelled) someday. Ben Kingsley fills his role sublimely as the necessary cog in the Schindler machine (and ultimately the one who goads Schindler into realizing there is more than business at stake), Itzhak Stern. Additionally, casting European and Jewish actors and actresses only makes this tale that much fuller with realism and soul.
The sound, music, and cinematography is simply on another level, and this is what sets it apart from THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE GODFATHER. Seeing Krakow from a distance at night, with machine gun fire intermittently lighting up rooms with murders was extremely effective, as were all the set pieces that showed intricate hiding places and how the Nazis had come to use stethoscopes to defeat this Jewish strategy. The cat and mouse game between hunter and hunted was very well done. What's more, the emaciated bodies of people who played some of these roles looked like they were actually taken out of Holocaust footage. It was disturbing and stunning all at once. Throw in an AMAZING, beautiful, and tragic score with superb sound editing, beautiful panoramic shots, and compelling grayscale to yield an artistic, audiovisual feast.
As if to cement its status as best film ever, the attention to detail, the script, and the utter despair felt at every turn was breathtaking. You cannot help but be awe-struck at every horrified expression, every pained look, every exactly delivered line. Though this is a 3-hour-long epic, there is not a single extraneous line in the entire movie. There is not a single gratuitous scene. Every scene absolutely belongs, and every spoken line fits like a jigsaw puzzle.
The mood of this film gives it soul, like you find in films such as CASABLANCA and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, but darker and haunted. This feeling just makes you want to root like hell that everyone makes it out unscathed. And when that train full of women is mistakenly sent to Auschwitz, a knot forms in your throat--so close, but yet so far from salvation. And, even Liam Neeson as Schindler is not immune, as he gives a bravura final performance where he weeps and questions the value of a life--could he have done more? It's become his sickness, his addiction, and though he did so much, it is certain not being able to turn his Nazi gold pin into even a single additional life will haunt him forever.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Solid Effort
I have to commend the Bigelow/Boal team for making a movie about such a controversial topic when it's this fresh still. I've seen nut jobs coming out of the woodwork saying nonsense like:
1. This film is liberal propaganda meant to prop up the Obama Administration.
2. This film is conservative propaganda depicting how awesome torture, err, "enhanced interrogation techniques" are.
3. This film is just the cherry on top of a massive conspiracy wherein all of a sudden the govt. decided to announce the murder of Bin Laden, but he was either A) already dead or that B) it was not Bin Laden they murdered.
And so it goes with anything remotely political in this country--there are crazies on both sides, but there is little middle ground. Naturally people view this through their lens of choice, whether Fox or MSNBC, but I have to say I did not find this movie to be rife with political ambitions. In fact, I think Bigelow, despite any partisan view she may or may not have, went out of her way to distance this picture from anything partisan (other than maybe pro-American) for that very reason. Due to the meandering timeline of this film, we got to see small snippets of a GW Bush appearance as well as a 60 Minutes interview with Obama. And in both cases, they were depicted as merely presidential--not bumbling, not good, and not bad--just as Commander in Chief at certain periods in history. What's more, is none of the characters in the movie made reference to either, other than something to the effect of 'you have to get this together before I present it to the President.'
Having gotten past the politics, one can actually start to critique this movie. And, it's basically a character study of Jessica Chastain's Maya. As depicted early in the film, Maya was repulsed by the torture that was occurring and when left alone with a detainee, you could hear the trembling idealism in her voice. Juxtapose this against a frenetic Maya angrily scribbling the days elapsed while the CIA sat on its hands about intel, and you have quite the contrast. Her character grew, and as the final scene leaves open to us, was it good growth for her? Certainly it was satisfying professionally, but was it worth that much of her life? Tears of joy? Tears of release? In the meantime, she'd been nearly killed and had some of her few friends blown up in a suicide bombing. While not the most engrossing character study I've seen, it was quite believable how Maya basically sacrificed any kind of normal life to do CIA work in Pakistan, work needed to be the MF'ing heroine that found the compound in Abbottabad. When asked point blank if she had any friends, she had no answer. And, kudos as well for not sticking an obligatory, Chastain is kinda hot so let's toss in a gratuitous sex scene. That was the right choice for her "tortured" character.
As far as the filmmaking, it was a confluence of capable parts. Nothing extremely visionary here and no one is going to put Bigelow alongside Orson Welles, Kubrick, or Hitchcock for this picture. The score was good, the script was believable, the cinematography was good, and the acting was also solid. This was a story-driven movie for the most part, not a technical masterpiece. Nothing really stood out, although I see that some are saying Arabic was being spoken in Pakistan when it should have been Urdu. Not being an expert on those languages, I have nothing to add there, but that may be a wart in the production of ZD30.
There were two memorable parts to this movie for me, other than the obvious focus on the heroine Maya. First, there was the totally unexpected Mariott bombing in Pakistan. I usually see these coming (as with the utterly predictable CIA compound car bomb), and I'm not sure if I missed the fact they'd entered the Mariott, but the explosion came completely out of left field for me. The second thing was basically the commitment to show a reenactment of the actual Seal Team operation in what seemed close to real time. Even though I obviously knew how that played out, the suspense was actually gripping during that whole 30 minute period. And for the people I see asking, well what did the movie's title mean? Run that scene back where the choppers head in and the mission is a go, Maya looks at the ops clock, and it reads 00:30. That scene is worth another viewing anyway.
TL;DR: Despite what the crazies are saying about how this movie is just "propaganda" being fed to the "sheep" out there; I say this is actually a solid movie. It takes a recent historical happening that most people care about, threads the needle between a military drama and a documentary with a nice touch of suspense. Though this movie is not a masterwork, hopefully ZD30, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, or LIFE OF PI can stop Hollywood from making a bigger ass of itself by giving unworthy pictures like ARGO or LINCOLN Best Picture.
Gilda (1946)
Sure I'm Decent...
GILDA was a nice yarn about a love triangle set in Argentina. Rita Hayworth (Margarita Cansino) as Gilda along with Glenn Ford as Johnny Farrell gave a lot of life to this picture. George Macready was also excellent as Ballin Mundson. This was a movie that held my interest throughout, I did not once check to see how much time was left, even when Gilda was off-screen. Without getting into spoilers, I'll just say that Rita Hayworth might just be the quintessential Hollywood bombshell, and she was so honored as 'Gilda' was scrawled on the hull of a test A-Bomb in 1946. Just check out her entrance about 17 minutes into the movie, and you may want to put on a flame retardant suit first just so she doesn't melt you at first sight. Recommended.
Hitchcock (2012)
Enthralling
Well it's pretty obvious that 2012 was a pretty meta year for filmmakers. We have ARGO, a movie about a fake movie, and SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, a satirical movie about writing a screenplay, and now HITCHCOCK, a biopic about one of the all time masters of film. Of those three, HITCHCOCK is clearly the best film.
What was so enthralling about HITCHCOCK was that this deftly straddled the line between drama and biopic. The tension between Alfred (Anthony Hopkins) and Alma (Helen Mirren) was palpable and completely necessary to tell Hitchcock's story, especially about how he needed that creative rush of passion to punch his filmmaking into the horror genre. What's more, this film gives Alma Reville her just due and doesn't merely sentence her to a "woman behind the great man" role, but a woman on par with him--this point is made quite clear in this film.
The acting was superb. Hopkins was brilliant as always. Mirren was atmospheric and yet completely commanding at once. The only weak link was Jessica Biel (Vera Miles) but that was balanced by her lack of screen time. Also, as a red blooded male, I can't remember the last time that there were two supporting actresses as beautiful as Scarlett Johansson (Janet Leigh) and Jessica Biel in the same picture. And this fact not only makes for easy viewing, but it's totally relevant for a movie about Alfred Hitchcock's legacy.
The score was perfect. The camera work was very steady and direct (no shaky cam) and becoming of a film about Alfred Hitchcock. The sets were oh so 50s and 60s. The script was quite adequate. This movie was not too long as has been a trend lately (CLOUD ATLAS, LINCOLN, THIS IS 40). In fact, you could make the case that this should've gone 2 full hours. In total, I did not notice any technical weaknesses in this film.
To me, the scene where Hitchcock is miming outside the theater during the screening of PSYCHO is stunning. That is one of the best scenes I can remember from a movie in 2012. Obviously, it's not as iconic as what's happening in PSYCHO at that moment, but it's an excellent scene and superbly acted by Anthony Hopkins.
What's more is we not only get a story about Hitchcock and his life and mannerisms (seen as obsessive and controlling, but brilliant), but there are tidbits of cinema history here. I'll bet almost no one would've guessed that merely showing a toilet was considered obscene in 1960. And, how he was able to work the shower scene by the censors is nothing short of miraculous. People have to remember this in context, that the 50s and 60s were a much more conservative time in American history where Communist witch hunts and anything deemed "un-American" was deeply frowned upon and hunted. For a visionary like Hitchcock to be able to create a film about such a jarring topic in such a vulgar way in that conformist, baby boomer culture, and for it to be a smash hit was nothing short of impossible.
TL;DR: The best biopic of 2012. A truly compelling production with no glaring flaws. A deft balance between entertainment and education. Required watching for any serious fan of the cinema.
Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2011)
Jeff, Who Finally got that Wood Glue
Well, at least I now know where the TV show Catfish got its music from.
That mystery being solved (*spoilers*), that leaves us with a plot that all really takes place in a single afternoon. And boy, for old Jeff, Who Lives at Home, he seems to not spend all that much time there. I mean he takes the bus to get some wood glue and by the time he comes home with it, he's staked out his sister-in-law and tried to break up a sexing session in a hotel room, he's conspired with his brother to stake out a lunch date, he's been mugged by and smoked out with someone (who probably isn't really named Kevin), and his mom has been turned bi. Pretty normal day for most people...
But, although this movie was fairly banal and seemingly meaningless for the first hour with us really seeing little more than Jason Segel do facial expressions and Ed Helms descend further into self-parody, the end scene was a payoff like rarely seen in cinema these days. With the son who lost his dad too soon (Jason Segel, Jeff) able to follow a series of unintelligible hunches and arrive in a place to save a pair of daughters from ultimately losing their dad was good karmic retribution. The fact that he was able to draw closer to his brother and save his brother's marriage in the process was icing on the cake. As he mentioned about his dream, and as The Smashing Pumpkins put so well, it was all about Today being the most important.
As for the acting, it was OK. Susan Sarandon (Sharon) was a revelation. Everyone knows she can act, but she just never mails it in and I love that about her. Although there was a scene in which she turned bi with just a 30 second phone call followed by the fire alarm being set off at work, that's on the writing not the acting. Jason Segel was pretty good too. Ed Helms (Pat) was his usual poor-acting self, unfortunately.
My main issue about this film was that I'm not sure why they titled this JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME. The reasons being that his living at home had nearly nothing to do with the story. He could have been a Wall Street stockbroker and the story would've been virtually the same. And, I'm sorry but older people who "live at home" would never display those heroic qualities of jumping in the drink with no hesitation. Otherwise, he'd be Jeff, Who Works for the Police or Jeff, Who Served in the Army, or maybe Jeff, Who is a Paramedic and Drives an Ambulance. I realize that the director was probably going for an extraordinary deed from an ordinary person, but I'm not buying it.
TL;DR: A pretty solid movie. If you can stomach gratuitous amounts of Ed Helms, you should enjoy this one.
This Is 40 (2012)
This is a 7
With the IMDb rating between 6 and 7 and my score being a 7, this really won't move the needle, but here goes...
First of all, this was a very cumbersome plot with sprawling families, work relationships, distant parents, and a boy who looks like Tom Petty, but with horse teeth. So, it's no surprise that it took this film nearly 2.5 hours to run its course. In fact, the family theme runs through this film to the degree that a film like THE GODFATHER does. Well, that's the only similarity; there's no Luca Brasi here.
And, yet I am conflicted. Part of me wants to commend Judd Apatow for writing and directing something that moves at the pace of family rather than at the pace of the lizard brain of your average movie-goer. In this vein, Apatow takes lots of time to introduce seemingly minor characters, which is somewhat standard for Apatow with introducing bit part actors to the world. This strategy worked well for Albert Brooks here, who nailed it as Pete's (Paul Rudd) father. Also, Charlyne Yi has a nice seemingly demonic speaking part--a scene that almost makes you curious as to how many takes it took to get everyone not to laugh. So, the supporting cast is quite developed--same for John Lithgow's Oliver. Megan Fox can't act, but everyone already knows that.
However, I am conflicted because we have a sprawling cast of characters and because this moves at the pace of family, it was just too slow for cinema. The movie seemed to have too much down time and although the drama between Debbie (Leslie Mann) and Pete (Paul Rudd) is likely what you'd find in a passive-aggressive marriage of two people who are both growing weary of aging; I think there are a few too many peaks and valleys here as they argue about everything ad nauseum. Whether it's popping a Viagra, or eating cupcakes, or being judgmental...all they do is fight. So, in that light, I feel as though we could have had 30 min fewer of the marital distress after Apatow already established the theme convincingly earlier on.
As for some odds and ends, it's a bit surprising to me that Judd Apatow is so comfortable casting his wife into not just romantic roles with Paul Rudd, but that he writes topless scenes for her also! Either they have a very comfortable marriage or there's something slightly off there. I get that they're artists, but....Also, the gratuitous f*** bombs dropped by his older daughter Maude (as Sadie) was kind of funny, but a little gratuitous (which may be why it was a little funny).
Finally, this movie was not as funny as I had expected it might be, and it's apparent Apatow sacrificed some of the 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN vibe to do something a bit more serious. I don't fault him for that--THIS IS 40 was funny enough to make me laugh out loud a handful of times. And, the real show-stopper here, in my opinion, is the youngest daughter Iris (playing Charlotte). I think she has some of the most hilarious lines. Two that come to mind are about how her older sister is a nightmare to her so watching LOST should be no big deal, and how watching LOST was going to give her some shaky a** nightmares, which is a beautiful shot taken against the shaky cam epidemic in modern filmmaking.
TL;DR: Utterly watchable, though it drags in some parts. The acting is quite good for a comedy, but then again this isn't strictly comedy. Not as funny as you might hope, but you're rooting for them so there are some redeeming features. Don't expect too much, and you won't be let down.
Lo imposible (2012)
Maybe Impossible but not Really Enjoyable
Naomi Watts was phenomenal as Maria and skillfully played a severely wounded part for almost the entire movie (either struggling to move or from a hospital bed). I can honestly say that her performance is the best acting from an actress I saw in 2012.
The make-up, depicting all manner of gruesome injuries and the set design, trying to re-create the rubbish from the tsunami, was superb and very effective.
I also like that although the movie was based on a Caucasian family (who lived in Japan but was vacationing in Thailand for Christmas), the indigenous Thai people are portrayed as caring and sympathetic in this movie. The reason this really stood out to me, because I watched ARGO recently and was stunned at how one-dimensional, stereotypical, and negatively the Iranian people were portrayed. Here, in THE IMPOSSIBLE, the Thai are rendered much more humane and are critical for the protagonist family in their attempt to reunite.
However, the reason for the low star-rating is mostly due to how the movie drags on after the first 20-30 minutes. Perhaps that was intended to get more and more shots of carnage and to impart a sense of hopelessness (this movie did make me feel hopeless once or twice, but not in the way the director probably wanted!). Really, the whole quest seemed "impossible" though it was based on a true story. Again, not really the "impossible" that the director was probably going for, but rather impossible to care about and implausible.
Another major issue I had was that we leave Ewan McGregor's Henry until nearly an hour of the film has elapsed. The problem is that I felt Ewan seemed to try to overact his scenes to get the most out of it, probably because he was left out of so many scenes. I normally enjoy McGregor's performances but I thought he came off as amateurish and lame in this role.
I won't be critical of the children in the film, because that would be just mean. But, they did alright, and Tom Holland, the boy who played Lucas, had a large role and seems to have quite a future in the acting business.
TL;DR: Overall this was a movie that dragged on and failed to inject the viewer with the emotion that it needed to. It's sad because a film of this nature should make it easy to portray those tearjerking sentiments. Obviously, I understood the devastation and tragedy, having made a donation at the time this happened, but this movie failed to make me emote as some other tragic movies have. THE IMPOSSIBLE is watchable simply for Naomi Watts' performance and the opening 30 minutes. The rest is not worth watching.
The Possession (2012)
This Movie is a Life-Sucking Dibbuk Box
Without even getting into the fact that the entire premise of this movie revolved around a 10 year old girl's "box," which is reprehensible AT BEST, there were wayyyy too many plot holes. First of all, Kyra Sedgwick is the oldest-looking 47-year old woman I have ever seen (born in '65--I had to check because she looks 60). So, her Stephanie character looking like she's in her 50s (generously) and having a pre-teen child (pregnant as a 40-something?) seems a little off. Maybe she could have played those kids' grandma? This isn't to mention that Kyra Sedgwick really can't act a lick either. Maybe on a soap opera, but that's not saying much (dramatic stare!!! and, commercial break).
Alright, and as for Jeffrey Dean Morgan's character, Clyde. Did he REALLY have to be a basketball coach of all things? Yeah, that was really believable how they had to bring in a body double to shoot some simple hoops!! Anything but a basketball coach! Lawyer, doctor, construction worker, garbageman...anything. And, c'mon saying I think there MAY be something wrong with my daughter and then backing off after his daughter psychotically tried to put a fork through his hand and was just chillin' in a room with exactly 1,785 giant moths buzzing around. Yeah, all kids go through this phase when their parents divorce, it's actually pretty common.........
And there were some dumb little poor attention to detail things too like the older daughter brushing her teeth without having put any toothpaste on her toothbrush first. A DIY Jewish Exorcism on your daughter? Yeah, that's the kind of thing you just wing after watching a handful of YouTube clips. Totally believable. And where can one find the classified ads for Jewish Exorcisms? I guess I just go to Brooklyn and look for a guy randomly singing along with his iPod? That narrows it down. Well, at least he's wearing religious clothes.
Would it really kill a Hollywood director to show people in movies using PCs? I mean according to Hollywood, EVERYONE uses a Mac, but in real life Mac is still a minority.
And why, pray tell, do some people get the bleeding eye treatment/hurricane force winds, but some suffer no such fate? I did enjoy how they introduced the counselor just to knock her off in the next scene! They must've realized the didn't have enough characters in the script and had to ad lib to maintain all the main roles! When Clyde decided to put the box in the dumpster, it didn't try and stop him? Hmmm....And his 10 y/o daughter just happens to run like Usain Bolt leaving the ostensibly athletic "basketball coach" in the dust? And she knew exactly where to go....and the father dumped it so close to the house? If he was starting to think that thing was evil, why not drive it FAR FAR FAR away, or throw it in a lake? I mean his daughter just admitted she was talking to her invisible friend that lived in the box. That would be a red flag I'd have to think.
By the way, was that a statement for vegetarianism? In the midst of a B-horror movie? Well, I didn't see that coming.
Moving the little girl from her private hospital room looking for privacy? Isn't that one of the better places to find privacy? Oh, that's right, but the "basketball coach" knew of a training room in the hospital that is empty after 6. Convenient.
The only shreds of this movie that were OK were the 2 daughters who actually were the best actress/actors in the entire movie. And the scene with the younger daughter beating her classmate down was pretty funny. But I suppose funny is not the effect that they were going for.
TL;DR: This movie was an unmitigated, smoldering pile of rubbish. I'd only suggest watching this if you hate yourself very much.
Sinister (2012)
This Sounds Like a Job for Captain Hindsight
I feel like this film deserves a good, solid damning with faint praise...it was watchable.
Well, the bar has been set very low for the horror genre over the past 20 years, so it isn't surprising this film is getting some audacious praise. But if you are looking for a horror film on par with HALLOWEEN, THE SHINING, or even THE RING you really needn't watch this film. In my opinion, if you look up the word "mediocre" in a dictionary, it should have Derrickson's SINISTER listed as a synonym.
Ethan Hawke was believable in his role as Ellison Oswalt, but really he was a supporting actor in this film--the projector was the lead. There was also one of the better marital blow-up scenes since WAR OF THE ROSES I've seen on film, kudos for that. But, Juliet Rylance's Tracy didn't seem very solid of a character. She basically tells hubby Ellison that she doesn't want to know what he's up to writing about grisly, unsolved murders, but then goes ballistic about him not telling her they moved into a "haunted" house. In the middle of this film, Tracy is satisfied to perform "mommy duties," and isn't really shown with any hobbies, work, etc. A very 2D portrait of really any female character ever in a horror film.
The found footage was good stuff, and the murders depicted therein were pretty creative for a horror movie--I can't recall seeing a good ole fashioned drowning in a horror picture lately. The lawnmower was also right at home in this grisly horror movie. The pace was fairly good for suspense, if somewhat monotonous in nature. Example:
-goes to sleep
-creeeeeek
-"huh, what's that?" (I should go investigate) /walks around house sloooooowly with a knife/bat/flashlight.
-finds a box of films or a scorpion or a snake or some kids with mudpaint on their faces that he can't see, because they are later revealed to exist in Bughuul-Land...kinda like Disney Land except not as touristy or happy.
-JUMP SCARE!!! /end suspense
While there were some legitimate scares that didn't feel too cheap, the first one really coming slightly over an hour into the film, anyone who DID NOT assume the missing child was the murderer from the first "home movie" was not paying attention!! Hmm...family of 5, 4 hanging from a tree, 1 missing and no trace.../scratches head. Officer Barbrady from South Park would've been very proud of this police work.
So, the climax and end of the film did not pay off for me that well. I was waiting for Oswalt's family to show up in a "family film" for about a half hour before it actually happened. Excruciatingly predictable. Not to mention, we have these 10 y/o super human kids who are lifting/dragging/transporting/roping/drugging/murdering their entire families, which seems out of the realm of their physical capabilities. Now, I'd be fine suspending my disbelief if this occult deity somehow gave these kids special powers, but that didn't seem to be the case. That doesn't even account for the plotting and planning. Why again did these otherwise normal kids become homicidal maniacs? From looking at a picture and getting their souls eaten? Oh, that's right...
As you have it, there's a (famous??) non-fiction murder-mystery writer who likes scotch, watching interviews of himself being a tool on Tavis Smiley, and locking himself in his office to watch found footage. But, for a guy who deals with scary ish all of the time, presumably, you'd have to think this Ellison Oswalt guy is just a tad jumpy? I mean this guy wrote Kentucky Blood!! How can anyone be scared after that? OK, so we never found out what it was about...touche.
Raise your hand if this movie would have been better had that deputy cop been the deranged killer, rather than Bughuul--a forgotten, ancient, pagan, Babylonian deity. /raises hand. Oh, yeah, and they could have figured a more creative way than an axe at the end right? No one's ever done axe murderer in a horror film before...
TL;DR: If you like horror flicks that are pretty OK, and kind of interesting, but somewhat scary, then you just might make it a point to put this film on the backburner to watch sometime, maybe. Not as gory as SAW, and sort of in the suspense-psychological tradition of THE SHINING (right down to the wall paintings), with an inanimate object (projector) as the lead role no less; this movie is certain to make you twitch once or twice and let out a good hearty "meh" at the end. 5/10.
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Bonny the Shih Tzu for Best Supporting Dog
It is unclear to me why people feel compelled to compare this to a Tarantino flick, as if it being a closer match should garner it a higher rating. Frankly, this is better than anything Tarantino has done in quite some time. The script and dialogue for SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS can hold it's own against anything Tarantino has ever directed, PULP FICTION included.
I'm struggling to think of a single part of the movie that I didn't enjoy--still struggling--struggling--OK, well maybe they carried on a bit too long at the Joshua Tree National Park? That's really all I can come up with.
Christopher Walken was Amazing and this is one of his best performances in that last 20 years. He gives all you'd expect and more from a movie with psychopaths in the title. He plays his patented strangely and powerfully occult role with aplomb. I was momentarily taken back to THE DEER HUNTER as Walken's Hans sat across from Woody Harrelson's Charlie in the cravat scene. The way Walken "out-aggressived" the aggressor really provided for a fantastic scene.
Sam Rockwell is also excellent as really the co-lead actor here. Collin Farrell was fine as the lead, but I'm glad his role was the more passive type as to yield Rockwell and Walken (along with a game Woody Harrelson) near full control of a screenplay that cuts like a knife.
To be this entertaining (not really a dull moment), this unpredictable, with this witty of a dialogue, this humorous and grotesque all at once, while offering a scathing satire about the Hollywood experience (the meta-Hollywood satire involving women--either they are scantily clad or minimized, and the satire involving violence and clichéd screen writing) in a single film is simply a tour de force. Throw in great acting and a really solid, yet simple soundtrack that supports the film but never overwhelms...and you have a complete picture.
Trying to recall some of the funny, interesting, and fresh moments...
-obviously the opening scene
-the fact that there is an organized dog-abduction ring just to get reward money
-the sight of what you think might be a Buddhist monk, until you see the vestment and the random topless, white babe in the scene (who happens to be perfectly fluent in Vietnamese)
-nearly any of Walken's lines
-the Buddhist, no Amish, no Quaker psychopath!
-Bonny's collar
-the clichéd, yet fresh stories of the Quaker and the killer and also the serial killer killers (the lady removing one inmate's head at the neck via hacksaw was so over-the-top gruesome yet fantastically funny and non-offensive somehow)
TL;DR: Bottom line is, if you want to watch something different and quirky where the story may not be all that serious, but it's at least witty and unpredictable, then you will LOVE this film. Great laughs, lots of comedic gore, plenty of white rabbits (no, really), and a role that Christopher Walken was born to play makes me give this movie thumbs way up.
Argo (2012)
Criminally Overrated
Where to even begin? Maybe with the positives?
Well, I found the pacing to be pretty good, and this film wasn't an overlong snooze-fest like Lincoln, so that made it somewhat entertaining. Some of the camera work was very good--I really liked some of the shots they took. Bryan Cranston was amazing in his role--it made me want his character to be the lead actually. Alan Arkin also shone in his role. Finally, the editing was good and is rightfully nominated for an Oscar.
SPOILERS!
All of the other Oscar nominations are pure folly. Best Picture? Absolutely not. Really? A more boring Oceans 11 meets the streets of Tehran is good enough for Best Picture these days? How sad is that? Best Screenplay? So, turning an interesting, real-life caper into a droll, boring, formulaic Hollywood movie is a good thing? The dialogue was generally trash when Goodman and Arkin weren't delivering one-liners. At no point did any character say anything about themselves or their situation that felt like it actually mattered or had any impact. Best Sound? Seriously? In a movie that has a soundtrack populated with Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, and Scottish bagpipes? Sure, real original....You can go to any college bar in America and hear that soundtrack. Did America's movie establishment collectively snort a few lines of PCP-laced coke before watching this? Is that how it came to be such a great experience?
As for the picture itself, aside from the nominations, this played quite fast and loose with actual historical facts, which is kind of a no-no when doing a film based on reality. To divide the credit 95:5 USA:Canada is about a 50-point swing from where it probably should be, and Canadian reviewers have said as much. Also, the fact that Iranians are writing in that they feel the need to say they are not from Attila and the Hun and they aren't all bloodthirsty psychos bent on pillaging and murdering is pretty telling. Hollywood hasn't produced a film so stereotypically wrong about a whole race of people for, what, 3 months? I mean, Persian culture developed mathematics for crying out loud! Yet, this group of people has no more human qualities now than territorial apes? The fact that this was set in Tehran, which makes Iranians kind of important to the story and not a SINGLE Iranian is portrayed with any shred of a conscience is deeply troubling. The pigeonholing of Iranians as barbarians and Canadians like a little, ineffectual brother is absurd.
I was struggling with the fact that the movie would have been so much better had Ben Affleck's character actually been played by Chuck Norris! That says something (and not that I'm a fan of Walker, Texas Ranger which I'm not). The worst part, aside from 35 minutes of Affleck-face screen time, was the meeting he went to and completely shredded everyone's ideas (which were stupid, but...no one had any other ideas, seriously? In an intelligence agency?). He subsequently proposed something so preposterous that no intelligence agency would EVER have green-lighted it, except for that it actually happened...hmmm...HOW? Maybe some more background about how this proposal made it through! Surely, that's not still classified at this point. This is how you immerse your audience in the story, Ben, you need to be stronger with the details--and give history buffs a reason to say, "hmmm, that's something I didn't know!"
TL;DR: As for my rating being 2/10, which may seem overly harsh, well, an OK movie, technically, was ruined by historical pandering, a suspense-less caper that was oh so predictable, and a series of implausible action scenes with virtually no action in them. That this and Lincoln will be duking it out for many Oscars really makes me happy that I don't go to the cinema all that often anymore.
Lincoln (2012)
Spielberg Secedes From Making Good Movies
This is the most awful movie I've seen in recent memory. How Spielberg can take arguably the most interesting time in American political history with one of the finest actors in modern cinema (Daniel Day-Lewis) and turn it into a 2.5 hour epic slog of pure drivel is completely beyond me. Don't directors generally try to take a seemingly UNINTERESTING TOPIC and make it INTERESTING? Why the opposite tact taken here? I nearly didn't make it through. After making it 10 minutes in (and again at 30 min), I nearly called it a night--it was THAT awful--and I NEVER walk out on movies. Sadly enough, it was curiosity about if anything worthwhile would EVER happen in the movie which drove me to sit through this rubbish pile.
Let me clarify. I love documentaries. I love history. I love long, thought-provoking, detailed movies. I love clever dialogue. This, however, was effective at none of those things. Daniel Day-Lewis in full make-up passed for a beautiful Lincoln, but his mannerisms and demeanor (even his audio I'd have to think) were SO far off! Here, we don't see this dour, weighty Abe Lincoln that history has handed down to us after sorting through a time that added years of emotional baggage to his figure. We see a moaning Abe Lincoln shouting his wife down, horsing around with his kids while his signature legislation is being voted on, BS'ing with his cabinet like they're trying to plan a bake sale, and basically being a giant bully (I wouldn't have been surprised at all for him to yank down his trousers and tell the VP of the Confederacy that his was bigger). I got zero sense of any gravity of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES and the specter that cast over EVERYTHING going on in 1865. I'm sorry, but this movie stripped Lincoln of anything emotional or recognizable and turned a self-educated, country lawyer turned commander-in-chief into a calculating robot or a jester. There was nothing Lincoln about this. And to what end? To hint that Honest Abe wasn't so honest after all? Well, then sue him for cutting down the cherry tree...OK, sorry for mixing presidents in mid sentence.
As for some of the other things, I'd have to cite terribly inconsistent performances by Sally Field (Mary Todd Lincoln) and Tommy Lee Jones (Rep. Thaddeus Stevens). I don't get the obligatory Mary Lincoln was a crazy scene, when she's shown as nothing but a competent, but grieving mother throughout. And, Jones' depiction of Stevens was a hot gumbo of Scott Baio, Bilbo Baggins, and Gary Senise's Lieutenant Dan from Forrest Gump all in one. Woo! Joseph Gordon-Levitt absolutely did not need to be in this film at all in his role, save for amassing more "star power." In fact, the ONLY performance I enjoyed throughout was James Spader's W. N. Bilbo. And in fact, the only story thread I found mildly interesting was the wrangling of votes. Turning this many A-List actors into such a muddled and poor pile of claptrap hints at what a gigantic waste of life the direction and screenplay were here.
As for the only things making this somewhat watchable (save for my curiosity about how Spielberg could actually turn out such a dreadful movie and possibly think it didn't suck) included the fact that this was a rare look at the political theater that was really driving the War. Many films opt for depicting life at the battle front (GLORY comes to mind) and it's easy to have a bunch of romance/violence to drive a movie like that forward. So, kudos for ATTEMPTING a Civil War story with NO WAR in it save for the opening scene.
Also, one more redeeming feature was the make-up and costume design relevant to the time period. If this wins an Oscar for that, I wouldn't be surprised. However, even my support of that is qualified due to truly awful and non-1865-vernacular dialogue. I mean, didn't people speak differently back in 1865? They seemed to be speaking in present-day English and interacting with present-day formalities, albeit more dramatically.
And, for Lincoln to go in and introduce himself to a soldier named "Kevin"? WTF? Isn't it more likely he'd find a Horace or a Zeckeriah in that day? Was his domestic servant's name Beyonce too? Maybe his porter's name was will i am or Fallout Boy? Likely not....Poor attention to detail in this regard.
TL;DR: This movie is simply awful. I went in with an open mind, but try as I might to find redeeming qualities, even those qualities are riddled with flaws of their own. This movie was far too long, far too boring, with far too little light shed on the historical aspects of that period. It was a bad movie AND a bad documentary AND a bad play all rolled in one. It did nothing well (ok, costumes were great) and this is shocking when combining the most famous living director, an ensemble cast of Oscar winners, and one of the most interesting periods in American history. In a word, this was shameful.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Perhaps the Best Movie of 2012?
I saw quite a collection of buzzworthy movies in 2012 and I must say that this movie was the best film of the bunch. It was better than THE HOBBIT, FLIGHT, CLOUD ATLAS, PROMETHEUS, DARK KNIGHT RISES, and THE HUNGER GAMES to name a few (although DKR was a close 2nd).
It is an interesting concept and aside from classics like ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, MISERY, RAINMAN, and AS GOOD AS IT GETS, I feel that mental illness as a thematic issue is sorely underserved in Hollywood (perhaps some irony there). Aside from endowing run-of-the-mill villains with ruthlessness, sinister, and psychotic qualities, mental illnesses are hardly mentioned in most movies. So, for it to be a fairly large portion of this film, and especially a characteristic of the hero (!!!), is actually quite refreshing. Maybe it will come as a surprise to some that many "bipolar" people are not defined by their illness alone and can actually function at quite a high level when on an appropriate treatment regimen with appropriate support. Perhaps this movie can debunk some of the stereotypes/connotations that are pervasive to the word "bipolar." Namely, people with bipolar are NOT all crazy, homicidal loons.
I won't get too much into how "realistic" the portrayal is about the illness, because frankly it's a continuum illness where not everyone experiences the same symptoms. There are different subcategories of bipolar disorder and surely, reading through some reviews, I could probably uncover some who say this portrayal is spot on, whereas others would claim this is a trivialized or inaccurate depiction of someone with bipolar disorder. To split the difference, let's just say the screenplay "did it's homework" and the tidbits about paranoid delusions, stress-induced "triggers," manic episodes (jogging in a trash bag overcoat comes to mind), as well as some knowledge of drugs associated with management of bipolar including Seroquel, Klonopin, Xanax, Trazodone, Lithium, and Abilify are appropriate.
That being said, the mental illness aspect really kind of fades out and aside from Bradley Cooper's Pat and Jennifer Lawrence's Tiffany remarking about how "off" they both are, they actually seem strikingly normal as the movie progresses (also a hallmark of successful treatment). So, after setting the backstory well, especially with the intricacies of De Niro's neurotic OCD character, we are treated to a pretty good romantic dramedy (and a great date movie, certainly).
The acting is stellar all around. De Niro, Cooper, Lawrence, and Weaver all give show-stopping performances. The dialogue is solid. The editing and score complements the story well. The script is solidly above average. Throughout the film, we feel Pat's gnawing obsession about reconciling with his estranged wife and his single-mindedness in that endeavor. John Ortiz also gives a top notch performance as Ronnie, the solid friend that every sufferer of mental illness would be lucky to have. Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely stunning and raw in this film.
The plot comes off as very rich and textured, which makes it stand out in the land of cardboard characters on screen these days. We see multiple sides to all of the main characters, they behave logically and in-character throughout, and exhibit unexpected depth at times. The plot delivers some suspense with Nikki showing up expectedly (or unexpectedly), Pat having to choose between his obsession and a new and better self, and there being some real suspense with the dance-off (and no, I don't watch Dancing with the Stars!). Additionally, I almost clapped when Pat tossed Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms through the attic window. It was a priceless reaction. Not to mention can you really be on a date if someone orders Raisin Bran? Must ponder....
Some of the things that came off as poor (keeping it from 10 stars for me) included the psychiatrist character devolving into a minstrel basically--that was totally ridiculous, and the Eagles game scene I would've cut entirely--it didn't do anything but add a bit of unnecessary racism and punching. The Apple product placement was a little much; we just needed a whole scene written for Siri. The brother character Jake didn't really add much save for some 11th hour sibling rivalry. And, maybe most importantly, it's unclear why even a person with bipolar and full-on delusions would sweep away the fact that his wife was porking the history teacher at home in their shower (though the history teacher telling Pat to go was hysterical). Pat seemed surprisingly unaffected by his wife's infidelity, paradoxically because it was that episode that likely triggered his bipolar initially. So, maybe showing him a bit more conflicted about reconciling, and less eager beaver, would have been more realistic. I mean, he's bipolar not stupid.
TL;DR: This was a solid and simple movie. Enjoyable. No frills. Not trying to pretend to be something it wasn't. Competent to stellar acting, direction, and writing propelled this piece to what should be a haul of Oscars in a couple of weeks. If this film doesn't win a single Oscar, I'd be stunned and disappointed. Recommended highly.
Cloud Atlas (2012)
The True True is a Knuckle Sandwich?
This film really attempted something noble in it's artistic scope and especially with it's formatting--which was worth 3 stars on its own (amazingly all 6 stories were worthy of their own feature). Throw in another 2 stars for attractive sets, cinematography, competent acting, and the enchanting Cloud Atlas Sextet symphony. And finally toss in that final star for a couple of legitimate "lol" moments, namely Tom Hanks' present-day character tossing a book critic over a ledge, and for most of Jim Broadbent's caper in the 2012 strand. However, I can't go any higher than 6 stars for this...
...mainly because it was a very long film, that was perhaps overly ambitious to the point of being muddled. We're left with a story that's a near 3 h run time of editing contortionism to try and make a point about what exactly? Well, there's love and redemption certainly. There's also attainment of consciousness and struggle against oppression (slavery, stratification, "big oil," unfair criticism/imprisonment, fascism/tyranny, savagery/tribalism). Not to mention, that the karmic theory of reincarnation is touched on heavily. What about that we're all connected in some small and large ways (we are not our own...etc)? Yep, that too. How about the strong trying to crush the weak? Sure, that was also mentioned. Conspiracy theories? Check, present in each timeline. Quantum physics and uncertainty? Yeah, that too...
While none of these theories are boring in and of themselves, it's just really too much to cram into a single movie with any degree of philosophical depth, even in a 3 h picture. The filmmakers would have been better served to cull out ONE of these philosophies (whichever they felt most strongly about) and use the plot device of multiple stories/repeating characters to drive that home and explore it in some depth. As it is, we have just a cursory examination of a number of philosophies, but it's just a jumble and much ado about nothing.
As for the plot itself, the movie is actually very good in that regard, with solid dialogue (except for the future story arc in which Jar Jar Binks could've easily held a conversation with Hanks and Berry's characters) and very good acting. Hugo Weaving and Jim Broadbent stood out. As did Doona Bae in the neo-Seoul story arc. Tom Hanks actually gave one of the weaker performances, and Halle Berry was just passable.
Basically, there are 6 "vignettes" that are separate but they are in the "same universe."
1. There is an 1849 story arc largely about an abolitionist achieving consciousness through befriending a stowaway slave. The protagonist writes a journal of his sea-faring adventure.
2. There is a 1930s story about a young, gay composer composing a brilliant symphony before committing suicide. This composer was heavily influenced, haunted really, by reading a partial account of the journal written in Story 1.
3. There is a 1970s story about an investigative reporter finding herself in a cloak-and-dagger world of corporate espionage. The protagonist is enchanted by a rare recording of the Cloud Atlas Sextet symphony from Story 2. Uniquely, this protagonist also meets the lover of the gay composer from Story 2.
4. A present-day story about a publisher who gets into hot water and hijinx ensue. This protagonist reads a mystery novel written by the protagonist from Story 3, which inspires him to write a screenplay.
5. A futuristic Seoul, Korea setting in which corporate/military fascism creates a kind of android who is liberated and discovers her humanity. This protagonist is influenced by the screenplay (made into a movie) written by the protagonist in Story 4 to start something of a revolution and become a martyr.
6. A story set further into the post-apocalyptic future, where the protagonist thinks of the character from Story 5 as a sort of deity.
So the physical connectivity of each story arc is obvious, though perhaps minimal. Also, one must mention the comet-shaped birthmark that the main character from each story sports, which happens to match the cosmos that Tom Hanks' elderly character gazes up at the beginning and end. However, the spiritual connectivity is really left to the viewer to decide and wade through a soup of philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of who is reincarnated as who (if anyone) and to what purpose.
TL;DR: An almost spellbinding film that gets stuck in the undertow of it's own philosophical wake. Very crisp, clean, and attractively executed for the most part. Best aspects come in the form of very strong acting especially from Hugo Weaving always showing up to reprise his Matrix role (don't fight the natural order of things...) to the other characters' Neo roles. Jim Broadbent deserves a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. For such a handsome production, though, some of the make-up is stunningly bad, especially the faux Koreans with laughable prosthetics on their foreheads.
Flight (2012)
"Flight" Soars for 30 min; Denzel Gets High and Becomes John Q. Addict for the Remainder
As far as the 7.4 rating, I think that's fair though a bit inflated.
While the script did attempt to explore some details about Whip's character, other than his addiction, that attempt wasn't very effective. This attempt can be summed up in Whip and Nicole's chat where they say stuff like "so what about your dad?" --of course after having already bonded over a cig in the hospital (believable if you smoke/know how smokers bond) and likely made the beast with 2 backs. The problem is, while their initial "getting-to-know-you" is OK, their relationship devolves into a lame second-date feel to it. And then suddenly the heroin addict is going to AA meetings (with no real motivation for attaining sobriety) while Denzel becomes a bad influence on her. It doesn't really deepen Whip's character either since all we really learn of him is from a random home video of him as a kid and the fact that he is estranged from his ex and son. But, there really isn't much depth to his personality or to his struggle with addiction at all.
In fact, the movie kind of glorifies addiction. Sure, Whip's estranged from his family ostensibly because he's a drunk, but he never really seems to miss his ex-wife or son, save for one scene where he randomly drops in so we can have a near "I learned it by watching YOU dad!" scene from those old anti-drug commercials. Yes, Whip FREQUENTLY drinks and drives his whip around (while never seeming out of control of his vehicle--plane included), and enjoys snorting coke with a hippie/stoner John Goodman, which is sure to make kids just say no. Have a raging hangover? No problem, just do a few lines of coke and go for the "banana boat." In fact, at one point, Denzel was chugging what looked like a GALLON of vodka while driving, and showing no ill effects at all...MAJOR suspension of disbelief required. And yeah, not necessary, since we already get the fact he could be an effective pilot while stoned. The drug culture in this movie is a bit gratuitous.
While the lack of character depth and the unbelievably portrayed drug culture (heroin addict spontaneously going cold turkey, minimal impairment from consuming HUGE quantities of alcohol) certainly detracts from this movie, the film was actually not terrible.
In fact, my solution to what would've made this adequate movie really good is as follows:
1. Cut out the ~5 min nude scene from the beginning entirely. Only a convoluted explanation could tie that into the ending, when Whip all-of-a-sudden owns up.
2. Keep the initial plane crash scene similar, but instead of loosely basing it on a real crash (but with an unbelievable outcome), it would have been good to make the predicament and solution more physically possible. For example, I've seen pilots mention that this plane "elevator" stuck in this fashion wouldn't have allowed the plane to glide at the end--it would've been a nose dive.
3. Instead of introducing Nicole for really no purpose, maybe some more emotional depth could've been created around Whip's ex-wife and him ala Dennis Haysbert's character in the movie HEAT. Perhaps, the ex-wife could've still been in love with him, but wouldn't be with him without his sobriety. So, maybe a motivation for Denzel's character to get sober would actually be to get his family back.
4. Perhaps there could've been a plot device such as a flashback or two to show why/how Whip wanted to become a pilot and/or how he got so good at it. I feel we were just supposed to accept his piloting deftness and his co-pilot's whining for no reason.
5. A trial/hearing portion of the movie could have dealt with perhaps a villain, as there really wasn't someone against Denzel's character, save for himself, which is true of all addicts, but still...an external villain is often more compelling. Maybe the co-pilot is out to get him because his legs are crushed? Maybe he has a scorned former lover come forward and rat him out? Some character we can rally against, so Whip could've been more of a hero than an anti-hero. I mean, just because he was drunk flying the plane doesn't make him bad morally. It makes him an addict and breaking the law. But saving all those people, and defeating his addiction could've granted him hero status in this film had there been a villain to overcome. As it was, Whip leaves the audience with no really strong feelings for/against him.
6. While addiction is necessary to tell this story, something more streamlined like in RAY, such as checking into a clinic, and overcoming the addiction in 15 minutes (on screen) would have left more time to flesh out characters and plot details. Heck, he could've fallen off the wagon and gone back to rehab, and it would STILL be less than half the screen time FLIGHT spent on the alcoholism thing.
7. Get rid of the whole SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION feel at the end. Whip flying off to Jamaica after having reconciled with his ex-wife or becoming a big-time aviation trainer would've been more effective than the whole, though-I'm-in-jail-now-I've-never-been-so-free line. Andy Dufresne's character from SHAWSHANK kinda owns prison paradox humor when he said it took going to prison to make him into a crook. While it works great in SHAWSHANK, that movie has rendered such prison humor/paradoxes to be trite.
TL;DR: Had they developed Whip's character more, maybe Denzel would've had an answer when his estranged son asked him "who are you?" at the end. That was for the plot to answer, though it failed to do so in a satisfying fashion. Unless there will be a FLIGHT 2? Can't be, right?