Rust and bone/Zero Dark Thirty

Rust and Bone

Here's a pretty fair review.  I really only went to this film because the director's last work was A Prophet, which was great.  This one has a similar sense of style to the earlier one - lots of dreamlike, almost impressionistic, imagery and wordless interludes - but lacks the narrative push.  Really for being such a high-concept film (orca trainer gets legs bitten off and falls in love with a street fighter) not much happens.  Its pretty content with just letting the relationship play out in a muted and unhurried pace, and (until the ending) no overt dramatics and histrionics.  On balance I think it generally works, but I can easily see viewers being really annoyed and possibly bored by the pacing and lack of clear resolution.  You really have to be in the right kind of mood for this type of film.  Its not non-linear like The Tree of Life, just very mannered and matter of fact while avoiding the obvious emotional beats (until the aforementioned ending where it forces in too neat of a resolution).  I don't know if this means you should check it out, but I can say I wasn't bored and much of it did stick with me.

Zero dark thirty

This film on the other was pretty much a straight adrenaline rush from the beginning to end.  Chronicling the ten year hunt, and killing, of Osama Bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty focuses on one CIA analyst who pursues the terrorist for over a decade.  I appreciated that the film avoided making any large statements, and I think the criticism leveled at it over its portrayal of torture has been misplaced.  I didn't get the sense it was glorifying the practice, and to not acknowledge that it happened would have been completely disingenuous.  I I also think the criticism of its lack of politics is misguided.  The film is pretty narrowly focused on the mechanics of what happened and not more.  While its true that a more political tact might have given the film more dramatic oomph (that's a technical term), it would have distracted from what I think director Katherine Bigelow was trying to do.

Its not perfect, and it surprisingly lacks the tension of any of the bomb-defusing scenes in Bigelow's previous film The Hurt Locker, but overall its still entertaining.  Really the thing that threw me off the most was the casting of Chris Pratt (Parks and Rec's Andy Dwyer) as one of the SEAL team.  It's not that he does a bad job but every time I saw him onscreen all I could think was BERT MACKLIN FBI!   It was actually really distracting.  But anyway, this is a well executed thriller, and Jessica Chastain does a nice job with a fairly underwritten lead character.  Its not the best picture of the year, but then not everything can be Cabin in the Woods.

Django Unchained

Most of this is going to be some random thoughts, but let me just say up front that this delivered on all its promise.  Its one of the most entertaining experiences I've had at a theater all year.

1.  This is very much a close cousin to Inglorious Basterds.  Except rather than killing tons of Nazis, this time its slavers.  I'm fine with both.  The first big difference between the two is the approach to violence.  Where the fight scenes in Inglorious at least had a modicum of reality (at least within the logic of the film), in Django Tarantino fully embraces the hyper-stylized, over the top, nature of the spaghetti westerns that influence it.  As a result Django is more overtly comic with plenty of laugh out loud moments, whereas the humor in Inglorious was more subtle.  This mainly comes from the fact that the Basterds was predominately driven by  dialougue, and Django is more visceral.  I give the edge to Basterds (mainly because Django doesn't have a scene approaching the opening to Inglorious), but they make a great double feature.

2. Christoph Waltz is still amazing.  Yes he's just playing a variation of his Hans Landa character from the former film but that doesn't make him any less enjoyable.  I also need to figure a way to grow his facial hair.

3. There's been a lot of criticism that the film is too humorous, given its subject matter. I'm not sure that's a fair charge (bear in mind this is coming from a solidly middle class white guy).   Yes Tarantino treats the slavers like buffoons, but doesn't that lack of any respect for them work as a form of criticism as well? They want to be seen as hardcore competent killers, not clowns.  Anyway, the scenes that are meant to horrifying, come off as such.  He doesn't whitewash the atrocities against slaves, he just treats the responsible parties with the disdain they deserve.  And you better believe everybody gets what's coming to them.

4. This is by far the best role by Sam Jackson in years.  He actually seems engaged, and his interplay with Jaime Foxx and Dicaprio is a joy to watch.

5.  Yes its too long, but whatever.  Its a ton of fun, and I was never bored.  I don't know if it will be as re-watchable as some of his other work, but I'm going to find out.

Jack Reacher

Plot summary

I wanted to see this for two reasons:

1) Christopher McQuarrie - writer of The Usual Suspects and director of the criminally underrated Way of the gun was the writer/director.
2) Werner Herzog, director of The Bad Lieutenant and frequent Comedy Bang Bang guest was making his acting debut as the bad guy.

Well Herzog was fine, though barely in it, and the director half of writer/director was great.  The film has some nice set pieces, and all of the action is clever and well-executed.  The problems begin whenever there's expository dialogue.  I don't know how much to blame on the source novel, but anytime there was a scene that didn't involve a fight things just ground to a halt.  It doesn't help that the plot had a ton of holes in it, but plenty of other films have dealt with that.  Here you just wanted everyone to stop talking, and donn't really care what happened with any of the ancillary characters.  Really this could have been a 45 minute film with minimal talking, and would have been just as effective.

Don't get me wrong, the entertaining parts are very entertaining.  Its just too bad the script didn't match up with the direction.  Though since the director wrote it I guess I can just blame him for everything. 

Les Miserables

I'm not sure I can top this review  but I'll try.

Les Mis is a difficult thing film for me to review because I think the book is one of the truly all time great works of literature and my familiarity with it is going to significantly affect how I receive the film.  This can cut one of two ways.  On the one hand I may find the story to be more powerful than someone unfamiliar with the details since I can fill in all the backstory of the different relationships that's, by necessity, missing from the film.  On the other hand, my familiarity with what's missing might also just end up making the film seem like an inferior version.  I guess what I'm saying is that adaptation's difficult, and I can't really comment on how someone unfamiliar with the source material (book or stage musical) would receive the film.

Anyway,  the best way to summarize the film is that it feels simultaneously rushed and a bit of a slog; has some nice, and powerful, moments and while overall it isn't bad, isn't great either.  I think it helps to have at least some familiarity with the basic story going in, because otherwise a lot of what the film sells as significant will just feel trivial.  Given how its a pretty straight adaptation of the stage musical I'm not sure it was really necessary to make, but its not a waste of time (and Russel Crowe's singing isn't as bad as the talk suggests.  Its not great, but not a train wreck). I'm sure it will get a bunch of awards nominations, but I don't know that I'll go out of my way to see it again.

Silver Linings Playbook

Here's the plot recap.

I enjoyed Silver Linings, and it reminded of David O. Russel's last film the Fighter.  Like the former film, he takes a pretty conventional genre (sports movie in the fighter, romantic comedy here) and gives it enough edge and quirks so that it doesn't feel as utterly conventional as the story actually is.  This is entertaining, but (again just like the Fighter) I'm sort of surprised at how much love this film is getting in critical circles.  In no way does it reinvent the wheel, or try to realistically portray mental illness.  Its an above average genre exercise, with a strong cast, that has just enough skewness in it to elevate it above typical fare. Even if the mental illness is portrayed more as quirky than debilitating.

Really the most interesting part of the film revolves around Bradley Cooper's relationship with his father (played by Robert DeNiro), and I'm not sure what interests me is intentional.  First, Deniro only expresses any love for Cooper when his favorite teams win, which he associates with Cooper's good luck charm qualities.  At first this is portrayed as the disturbing behavior that it is, but by the end the film just sort of accepts it and treats it as a merely quirky.  Even their big reconciliation comes immediately after DeNiro wins a bet.  Second, Deniro makes Cooper take part in a bet so irresponsible and psychotic that you can't believe everybody just shrugs it off (after some initial protests) and the whole thing is portrayed as a heart-warming bonding exercise.  I suspect that some of this is Russel's effort to send up the idiot plot devices of most romantic comedies, and in that sense it works.  If its meant to be played straight though, then the whole is a gross miscalculation.  

It's too bad that this film is being hyped so much because I think the acclaim ultimately hurts it by skewing expectations so much.  I guess its not the film's fault and I shouldn't complain.  Except this is my blog that nobody reads and I'll complain if I want to.  Suck it.

New Years Eve - the live blog

I've realized that due to time constraints I've been self-selecting into only seeing mediocre to good films.  This makes mocking difficult (especially since my true love One Tree Hill is no longer on the air).  So when I saw that New Year's Eve (follow up to the completely inessential Valentine's Day which I watched on a flight from Qatar) was on HBOGO I saw a golden opportunity.  However the only way I could possibly make it through was to write while watching.  SO that's what you have here.  I got to be honest, even with the live mocking I may not make it all the way through in one shot (that's what she said).

-Oh Man, this thing is two hours long (how could it not be ninety minutes), I'm definitely not making it all the way through this.
-Opening voiceover: "Some People swear there's no beauty left in the world no magic.  So how do you explain the entire world coming together on one night together to celebrate the hope and magic of a new year?"  Oh hell yes.
-So our first subplot is going to revolve around Hilary Swank trying to make sure the time's square celebration goes off without a hitch.  I'm sure it will.
-Hey its Zoc efron as the world's most alluring Bike Messenger.
-Subplot 3 is going to revolve around two couples competing to have the first baby born in the new year (which yields 25,000).   One of them is that super power couple Jessica Biel and Seth Myers.
-Hey its Ashton Kutcher. Maybe this is narrative continuity from Valentine's Day? No its not. He hate New years, and is Efron's roommate.  Zac decides to find such an epic activity that Ashton can't say no to participating in New Years.
-Subplot 4 (or 5) features Josh Duhamel as a playboy who's best friend just got married, and apparently he has some girl that he met last year at a new years party that he may or may not meet this year.  I'm guess this plot point will never come up again.
-Sweet Jesus its Katherine Heigl.  As a party planner.  She just said "There's going to be more celebrities here than rehab." This movie just jumped six levels.
-And now we have Bon Jovi as some musical superstar named Jensen.  His very presence causes Sofia Vergera to go into hystrionics.  And he has a history with Heigl.
-And the obligatory high school plotline about how some girl might 'kiss' some jonas brother looking mofo at a party.  Her mom is Sarah Jessica Parker playing a Rockette's costume designer.
-I think we're up to at least 9 subplots, this movie makes Cloud Atlas seem linear.
-Hey we have Ludacris in the token black guy role with a speaking part.  He's playing an apparently stoned police officer. I'm just assuming the stoned part from the way he read lines.
-I think Bon Jovi is out acting Heigl.
-John Lithgow is Michelle Pfeiffers boss and he overworks her to the point she decides to quit and start living her life.
-Wait were not done with subplots, we have Robert DeNiro playing a terminally ill man who just wants to see the New Years ball drop before he dies.  He's apparently been hanging on so long just so he can see the ball drop one more time.  Goals are good.  I'm still waiting for a ball to drop.  The mean doctor won't let him, but his nurse is played by Halle Berry.  I'm sure she won't show up again.
-New year's hating Ashton gets stuck on an elevator (which apparently  was built in 1920) with the girl from Glee.  She's really uptight and he hates New Year's.  I'm sure they'll get it fixed in a few minutes.
-I think we're finally done establishing characters as its starting to recycle through character pairings.
-"The world isn't scary mom, it's just getting good and I want to start living in it.  You used to."  Snap.
-Twenty minutes in and I'm already bored.
-Michelle Pfeiffer bought Zac Efron for the day to help her complete all her New Year's resolutions.  If he does he gets tickets to some hot party.  For some reason the second one is to murder a drifter.
-Oh Bon Jovi asked Heigl to married him and then ran off.  Now he wants another chance.  Its lucky you have such piercing blue eyes Jon.
-Heigl: "I'm ready to commit to what I really love, my work."  I'm sure the movie will let her stick with this modern emancipated woman tact.
-Ruh Roh, Abigail Breslin snuck out the window to go meet her friends in times square.  Sarah Jessica Parker is not impressed.   Damn Kids.
-We're not even to the half way point and I'm losing interest in mocking.  I didn't think it was possible, but its not that its bad its just so mind numbingly inconsequential I just don't care enough to get annoyed.
-Hey its Seacrest.  Apparently he's "Mr. New Years Eve himself."  Interest back on.
-The ball breaks halfway up the pole, Seacret has to vamp.  Its glorious.
-This is one of those movie's where everyone talks in speeches.  It's like super low rent Sorkin.
-Apparently no one else lives in this building with the elevator because not one other person has realized that its broken in the last 4 hours.  And neither Kuthcher or Glee girl have had to go to the bathroom in that time. Thaat's about right.
-Apparently they can't fix the ball without 'Electrical Whiz Lester Kiminski."  Played by a 'that guy.'   I do appreciate that in the world of this film that there are super hero electricians.  And everybody accepts this as normal.
-Hilary Swank gives one of the most unengaging speeches every.  Seriously I blacked out for a minute.  I wish I were kidding.
-Halfway through, I really don't know if I can finish.
-Hey Efron is brother to Parker.  The world's shortest family.
-Bon Jovi does not sign Wanted Dead or Alive.  Weak.
-He sings have a little faith in me.  Which now becomes out montage song.  I'll be honest, a lot has 'happened' and I can't be bothered to talk about it.
-There is now forty five minutes left and it feels like a week.  Is so so cold.  Tell me it will be okay.
-Kutcher and Glee girl decide to have their own party.  yeah baby break out the cocaine.  And the elevator starts working right before they kiss.  And the superintendent is played by the one and only Jim Belushi.  Way to shoot high on the cameo's.
-I can't emphasize how utterly rote and unsurprising the film is.  It's easy to mock, but what's the point?  At least One Tree Hill has some elan and owned its craziness.
-Hey its Matthew Brodrick...who cares. Really this is what the movie is,where's waldo with moderately famous people.
-I'm going to lose in the fantasy football playoffs because Tom Brady can't break single digits.
-The actual speeches of the film are about as inane and cliched filled as my accounting lectures.  Yet those don't inspire or get mass applause.
-Bon Jovi gets a second chance and still does not sing Wanted Dead or Alive.  Instead he sing's Can't Turn You Loose, which admittedly is a bad ass song, but raises many questions.  In this reality did Bon Jovi, I mean Jensen, write this?  Or are people going crazy because he's doing covers?  If its the latter then I'm very confused. Actually if its the former I'll also be confused.
-Now fast forwarding randomly.  Somehow not losing the narrative thread.
-Jensen cancels his tour to stay with Heigl. I'm sure all the back singers, crew members, and concert promoters who are left out to dry will understand.
-My god I can't emphasize how boring this whole thing is.  Wait I think Common is Halle Berry's husband in this.  Yeah for diversity.  Or at least rapper diversity.  The best kind of diversity.
-Even with my fast forwarding there's still 15 minutes left.  Remember me fondly.
-By the way, the ball did drop.  Unfortunately I can't say the same for my left testicle.
-I Enjoy Garry Marshall's (I mean Pony Boy's) work on Comedy bang Bang more than his films.
-I was going to transcribe the ending voiceover but I can't exert the effort.
-And we have an ending dance montage for the closing credits.  Of course we do. And there's blloopers.
-This was a horrible idea.

Killing Them Softly

Here's a plot summary.

There is absolutely no surprise that this film has bombed.  It is by far one of the most uncompromisingly nihilistic and cynical films I've ever seen - not exactly the type of thing with broad appeal.  Basically, the film parallels the breakdown of an illiegal gambling ring, with the 2008 financial crisis, while having various players  in the drama pontificate on how nothing matters, and America is just about getting paid.  The fact that the ending even sticks to this viewpoint is something I respect, as most films wouldn't have the guts to stay leave the audience with such a bleak message.  Still, its difficult to say I'll be coming back and rewatching this any time soon.

All that said, the film is surprisingly light (relatively speaking of course), and not as portentious as my description makes it sound.  While no amount of levity is going to make it palatable to a broad audience, what's there does help make the whole thing go down easier.  More generally I'm just fascinated that a film like this even got made.  I'd be curious to know what the marketing plan and revenue projections were, because there's no way anybody thought it was going to be a big, or even moderate, hit.   It's existence is kind of encouraging.