burger1124 Reviews

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Jackson's Return to Form

[9/10 · 31 January 2014]

It took Peter Jackson two films to finally get back to the Middle-Earth we know and love. Let's just be grateful he did. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug silences all contenders as this season's rollicking, enormous spectacle, one which must be seen in the intended 3-D to appreciate in its fullness.

And about that 3-D. Oh, what glorious stuff it is. Better than perhaps any film this year (save Alfonso Cuaron's groundbreaking Gravity), Smaug uses its 3-D to enhance the story rather than simply embellish it. Even if you tend not to plunk down an extra few bucks for the surcharge, you'll be glad you shelled out for this one. More about the technical specs later, though. Let's talk story.

For those who have seen the first entry into the Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey, you know the story: a rather reclusive hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (played with wonderful quirks by Martin Freeman) is practically forced into a dangerous mission by his friend, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan). The mission involves traveling with a group of a dozen dwarfs, led by the hot-tempered man who would be king, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), to reclaim their homeland under the faraway Lonely Mountain, a kingdom ruled now by the destructive dragon Smaug. Bilbo's task is to sneak into the dragon's layer to retrieve a precious stone, the wielder of which holds the right to reign under the mountain.

Running concurrently with the journey to the mountain is a subplot involving a disembodied evil force which has taken refuge in a very scary CGI ghost town. It seems this force is a Necromancer, threatening to come to life and conjure a dark army for himself.

An Unexpected Journey ended with the Lonely Mountain in sight for our heroes, and the second leg of their journey proves to be the more exciting adventure thus far. The first film was a disappointment for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the faithfulness to the book's tone. The Hobbit is lighter fare than The Lord of the Rings, with happier songs and a bit more comedy. It works well on the page, but the film suffered for it. With Smaug, Jackson returns to the darker, more somber tone of the Rings films. He also proves that he is still a master of pacing: the numerous action sequences are at turns terrifying and comical, but always entertaining and hardly ever superfluous.

Being less faithful to the source material may get one into hot water with Tolkien purists, and I imagine that the addition of a newly- invented character will incur the ire of many. Tauriel (Evangeline Lily), a female warrior elf, serves basically as the object of both dwarf Kili's (Aidan Turner) and elf prince Legolas' (Orlando Bloom) affections. Nonetheless, the addition adds another layer to the story and gives Legolas' father, King Thranduil, plenty of opportunities to inform Tauriel she is beneath is son. As Thranduil, Lee Pace provides a performance so campy and outrageous it would make Tim Curry proud, but for some reason, it works.

With Smaug, everything works. The acting and direction are still top- notch, but the scripting has finally caught up to them. All the teasing of the first film pays off when we finally get a glimpse of the terrible dragon Smaug in all his glory, and it is truly a thing to behold. Not since Jurassic Park has a reptilian creature been so downright awe- inspiring, and with a voice by Benedict Cumberbatch ( in full "Khan" mode), Smaug should rival Gollum as a fan-favorite.

There is so much to say about The Desolation of Smaug. The new characters, locations, and plot revelations are handled exceptionally well by Jackson. The score, again by the brilliant Howard Shore, is back to par with the Rings films (try listening to the Lake Town theme and not be impressed). The 161-minute run time flies by, and leaves us on a cliffhanger almost as fulfilling as that of The Two Towers. In short, The Desolation of Smaug is simply one of the best times you will have at the Cineplex all year. It is smart entertainment, and great popcorn fare is hard to come by these days.

Her (2013)

Another Cerebral Masterpiece from Spike Jonze

[9/10 · 31 January 2014]

Spike Jonze's Her is a triumph in every sense of the word. Its acting, direction, script, and cinematography are spot-on. There are not enough superlatives to be thrown at this film.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a divorcée who holes up in his apartment and is generally anti-social. He has a few friends, including the unhappily-married Amy (Amy Adams), an old flame. His love life consists of visiting chat rooms and having phone sex with strangers.

One day, he sees an ad for a new operating system, which is custom- designed for each owner. Upon purchasing it, the program builds him Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). Theodore spends the majority of the film revealing himself to Samantha, and she to him, as she has been programmed to evolve and become more self-aware.

Samantha, for Theodore, is the perfect woman: intelligent (capable of reading books in hundredths of a second), funny, caring, and a good listener. They begin a romantic relationship, complete with sex (the phone sex idea comes back into play here). We see the ups and downs of their relationship. Outsiders are generally either confused by the possibility of a romance with an operating system, or strangely accepting.

Jonze uses Her to make salient points about the way humans communicate in an increasingly technological world. Future generations will consider this decade a milestone in cinema for already giving us two films that deal directly with this issue, the other being David Fincher's The Social Network. Her stays true to its billing, though—it is, first and foremost, a romance, one that doesn't shy away from the shaky patches in any relationship. In that regard, it is similarly painful and powerful as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

This is heady cinema, anchored by mainstream actors and a deceptively simple plot. Layers upon layers of subtext lay within. I believe there to be a streak of gay-marriage metaphors at work, but I could always just be reading that into the film. It is, however, very of-the-moment, a futuristic tale that could be set in 2014. Simply put, it's a new classic.

Lone Survivor (2013)

A Hollow War Film

[6/10 · 31 January 2014]

Something just doesn't click with Peter Berg's Lone Survivor.

It seems empty, a hollow movie that should have been filled in with care and concern for its main characters. Instead, more time is devoted to combat sequences—which are admittedly well done—than to any sort of character development.

Lone Survivor tells the true story of Marcus Luttrell, the sole survivor of a failed Navy SEAL mission, "Operation Red Wings" in the mountains of Afghanistan in 2008. Mark Wahlberg plays Luttrell convincingly, but his character isn't given much to work with. He has no solid back story, so the audience can't really connect with a familial side of him. Instead, all we know of Marcus is his love for his fellow soldiers, and we can cheer him on as a leader and warrior.

Berg (who directed and co-wrote) takes his time getting to the actual battle, which comes as the result of a bungled covert surveillance/capture-or-kill mission. Luttrell and three other SEALs have their location given away and are soon surrounded by Taliban fighters. This is where Lone Survivor is at its best: the action sequences are well-staged, compelling, and easy to follow, despite a rapidly moving camera and tricky terrain. Once the action begins, it rarely lets up.

However, the film's first forty-five minutes or so are combat-free, and one would think Berg would invest this time into developing characters and making the audience really feel the sense that these men have something at home worth fighting for. However, he chooses to attempt this through forced dialog (one character explains to his significant other back home that he has to "make that money" or something of the sort) and rather bland situations. By the time the combat begins, we really only care about the bond forged between our four heroes, and we can only care as much as for anyone we just met a half hour before.

By titling the film Lone Survivor, we expect casualties. We know that only one man is making it out of this mission alive, and Berg could have framed the looming sense of dread a bit better. Instead, he prefers long, drawn-out deaths, which seem somewhat sadistic at times. I understand that war is all hell, and that in a real-life setting, there's no cut-away from the harsh brutalities of death. But one SEAL's death in particular seems like cinematic overkill. In other cases, Berg eschews the generally gritty look of the film for fog-filtered, picturesque, slow-motion deaths which come across as stagy and shallow.

Lone Survivor is a well-made war movie, albeit one without a clear message. It is a simple retelling of facts, too true to them at points and too dramatized at others. It is no Black Hawk Down, or even The Hurt Locker. Nonetheless, its actors turn in realistic performances in their depictions of soldiers (Ben Foster and Emile Hirsch are especially good) in a film that ultimately keeps its audience at arm's length from them, emotionally speaking.

The most powerful aspects of Lone Survivor are its bookend montages of footage of the real SEALs involved in Operation Red Wings. I wonder if it would have been a better decision to have simply produced a documentary with the real Marcus Luttrell chronicling his amazing journey. It may have paid better tribute to the brave men involved in the battle than Peter Berg's Lone Survivor.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013)

Flawed but Compelling

[7/10 · 31 January 2014]

There has been a considerable buzz in critics' circles about the historical inaccuracies of Lee Daniels' The Butler and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. I will swiftly put that buzz to rest and say that whatever inconsistencies may be present, both films shine. If people want real history, they should be reading real historical accounts. This is a movie, and its purpose is to dramatize the truth. Mandela is a rougher, tougher picture than The Butler, and its lack of a Hollywood veneer makes it the more potent film.

Idris Elba looks absolutely nothing like Nelson Mandela, but after watching his performance, you won't care at all. The man should be nominated for an Oscar. It is a credit to director Justin Chadwick and writer William Nicholson that their Mandela is a complex character full of conflicting actions and beliefs. He drinks, he sleeps around, he is (depending on your view) a terrorist, and it's all put up on the screen for the audience to analyze.

Likewise, Naomie Harris shines as Winnie Mandela, who provides a more compelling story line than Nelson's for much of the film's run time. Once Mandela begins his prison term, watching Winnie's slow metamorphosis from demonstrator to bitter and violent revolutionary is what propels the film forward. When Nelson is finally released from prison, his ideals have shifted to peace, while Winnie's have landed in violence and arms. The portrayal of their strained relationship in their later years is softly heartbreaking.

There are a few drawbacks: besides its two leads, most characters are one-dimensional, and a last-minute voice-over seems a bit hokey. Still, Mandela's power resonates long after the lights come up.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Hindered By One Scene (Possible Spoilers???)

[8/10 · 31 January 2014]

I find it amazing how one scene can change your perspective on a film, for better or worse. Often, a film can trudge along until one pivotal moment propels it to greatness, or vice versa. With Ben Stiller's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, the scene in question proves to be one of its few flaws.

Walter Mitty (played with nuance by a superb Stiller) is a resident of a bygone era. His wardrobe consists of a drab gray palette, echoing the black-and-white images of a dying generation. He never does anything fun or exciting, preferring to keep to himself, a symbol of the suburban flight of the postwar 1950s. He works for Life magazine, a publication which in real life went digital over a decade ago, processing black-and- white photographs, the old-fashioned way.

It is no coincidence that Stiller injects symbolism into his film: its very premise necessitates that he address certain dichotomies. Chief among them is the struggle to update a 1939 short story into a relevant 2013 film. Stiller (and screenwriter Steve Conrad) address these disparities by leaving Walter in the past while the world moves on without him. In his own way, Walter Mitty is the consummate symbol of the "boomer" generation. He feels a strange disconnect from the increasingly digitized world around him, underscored by his fear of associating with the new and his preference for isolation in what he knows best. His inevitable journey of self-discovery, then, is both a tribute to things we consider obsolete and a rational plea for inter- generational communication.

I cannot say enough about how good this film is. The acting, the writing, the direction and cinematography are all top-notch.

But there is still the issue of the aforementioned key scene. In reality, the scene is not vital at all: it is a complete throwaway, and should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

See, Mitty likes to daydream. A lot. They are elaborate and detailed daydreams, too, and Stiller indulges us in all manner of special-effects laden whimsy when portraying them. But in one particular dream, where Walter imagines himself as Fitzgerald's Benjamin Button, Ben Stiller lapses into, well, Ben Stiller territory. It's a stupid gag played for stupid laughs, and it completely took me out of the movie's rhythmic flow. Its colors are from a different film, its acting is hammy and cheap. And after Mitty was over, I was left with two thoughts: the first was that it was a great film, and the second was that it was hindered by one scene.

Walter Mitty is easily Stiller's best directorial effort, a layered, gentle portrait of a life well-lived. It falls just short of being a classic, though, because of a minor directorial indulgence, a faux pas that ultimately reminds us that Stiller has yet to reach his full potential.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Excessive but Lacking

[8/10 · 31 January 2014]

The Wolf of Wall Street is undoubtedly one of the funniest films ever made by director Martin Scorsese. Unfortunately, it is not one of his best. Clocking in at a whopping 180 minutes, Wolf is too much of everything: sex, drugs, profanity, laughs, dialogue, improvisation, narration.

If you've been following the development and release of Scorsese's latest, chances are you know all about the four-to-five hour, NC-17- rated cut that had to be trimmed down hastily for a Christmas day release. While legendary editor and Scorsese collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker's editing is certainly not lacking in imagination, she and Scorsese let scenes run on entirely too long, cutting back and forth between actors who are clearly making it all up as they go along. Most of the time, the actors appear to be having a great time with the freedom they've been given by their director. Leonardo DiCaprio, in particular, gives an absolutely fearless performance, and he is clearly enjoying himself. If only the audience had such a luxury.

For its first hour or so, Wolf acclimates its viewers to its brisk pacing and no-holds barred storytelling. For the next hour and a half, however, the story falls victim to a "rinse-and repeat" method of constantly regurgitating its themes, scenes, and dialogue, until the inevitable ending provides some relief from its relentless pace.

Wolf tells the story of Jordan Belfort, a Wall Street con artist who dreams of being a rich broker like Henry Hill dreamed of being a gangster in Scorsese's Goodfellas (more on the similarities between these two films later). After losing a promising job in the recession of the late 1980's Jordan learns the tricks (literally) of the trade at a small operation selling penny stocks. Whereas larger, more regulated stocks yield a much smaller commission, "penny stocks" provide a 50% commission for their brokers, who in turn sell an inferior product to gullible investors. Jordan's bright idea is to sell these cheap stocks in huge quantities to much wealthier clients, reaping a huge take for his new front-of-a-firm, Stratton Oakmont.

Needless to say, the plan works for a while, and Belfort and his partners, including Donnie Azoff (played by a joyously weird Jonah Hill) become unfathomably rich. The remainder of the film is basically a visual orgy of gratuitous (and I mean "I-can't-believe-they-got-away- with-this) sex and drugs, set against the backdrop of an FBI investigation into Belfort's dubious business practices.

Perhaps the biggest issue I had with the film is just how gratuitous the edgy material was. Let us compare to a movie like Goodfellas, for instance. That film shows multiple murders, often with characters meeting their demise by gunshots to the head. It also features copious amounts of cocaine consumption, along with about as many f-bombs as you'll ever hear. However, one could make the argument that for the sake of the story, all of these elements are necessary in their fullness. When Henry Hill dabbles in unauthorized cocaine and arms dealing, especially after his best friend gets bumped off, the stakes become raised: one has the very clear understanding that in this world, one wrong move can result in death.

The Wolf of Wall Street, on the other hand, shows relatively little in the way of consequences. For all the laws broken, all the drugs and hookers used up by the male characters, the biggest threat facing the supposed protagonists is possible jail time. A film that mimics the structure and feel of Goodfellas would do well to up the ante a bit, but Wolf falls woefully short in this regard.

This is not to say that there are no consequences. Belfort's unraveling is spectacular, particularly in a late scene in which he tries to leave his mansion with his young daughter in tow. But after two and a half hours of debauchery, a small portion of comeuppance seems like a lack of balance—or poetic justice. This lack of justice is exactly Scorsese's point: for the vastly wealthy, there are often no tangible or justified consequences. Scorsese does a great job of not condemning or judging his characters—he simply shows them as they are, rather objectively, and they condemn themselves with their frat-boy antics. However, the director's overlong dive into a world of excess at times seems a somewhat unhealthy fascination.

The debate over The Wolf of Wall Street is currently raging online. Variety is now running two pieces debating whether the film glorifies its characters' depravity. Some say this is Wolf's genius—an ambiguous presentation of both the temptations of sin and the obvious consequences of those who give in to it. Others would argue that people are giving Scorsese too much credit for what is ultimately an uneven tale with no dramatic drive. I count myself among the latter.

There's a classic sequence toward the end of Goodfellas in which Henry lives in a constant state of paranoia—first as the result of his drug use and later because he has agreed to rat out all of his friends to join the Witness Protection Program. These scenes are key for the arc of the story—both to illustrate the dangerous stakes and to drive the narrative toward its conclusion. The Wolf of Wall Street should have had such a sequence. Instead, we were given just another scene with cocaine and sex.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Corny but Acted in Earnest

[8/10 · 31 January 2014]

There is just something about watching Tom Hanks be Tom Hanks. It's just this warm, comfortable feeling, seeing that man light up the screen. It's almost like the feeling you get watching a Disney movie. Saving Mr. Banks, Disney's new movie starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, gives us the opportunity to do both of those things.

Hanks is fantastic as Walt Disney, who spends his days trying to court stuffy British author P.L. Travers (Thompson) into allowing his studio to adapt her Mary Poppins for the screen. What ensues, as you can imagine, is a cat-and-mouse comedy about her ridiculous demands and Disney's attempts to overcome them.

You see, Disney wants to be accommodating. Decades before the film's 1961 setting, Walt made a promise to his young daughters to make a movie out of Poppins, a promise he takes incredibly seriously and pursues for over twenty years. When Travers, who refuses to write new material, begins to run out of money, she is strongly advised to meet with Disney in California to hear his offer for the film rights to her novel.

Travers, however, wants complete control over the entire production. She routinely insults Disney and his silly animation, making him promise that no cartoons would find their way into a film of Poppins. She also disapproves of songwriters Robert and Richard Sherman (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman, respectively), and takes issue with the casting of the picture, particularly that of Dick Van Dyke.

Over the course of these weeks-long negotiations, the narrative is constantly being interrupted by persistent flashbacks to Travers' childhood in Australia. Her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell) inspires her imagination, but also serves as the reason for her bitterness as an adult.

Saving Mr. Banks is a lovely film in many regards, in particular its acting. Hanks is wonderful as Disney, and his final monologue, delivered from a stationary position while sitting down, is testament to how much he can do with a simplistic setting. Another standout is the always- great Paul Giamatti, playing Travers' chauffeur. Giamatti has no business in a role this insignificant, but takes the dialogue he is given and turns it to pure gold. His performance had me choked up more than once.

Despite its good qualities, Banks has numerous pitfalls, as well. Its script has "Disney" written all over it. Much of the dialogue is hokey and transparent, even in the hands of professionals like Thompson and Hanks. The flashback sequences are spread throughout the film in such a way that we get one scene in the present followed by one flashback, and so on. Structuring the picture in such a manner diminishes the real story (Travers vs. Disney) and instead tries to convince us that Travers' origin story is equally as important. This may be, but it is nowhere near as compelling, and its predictable end comes too late for the drama of the main storyline to redeem it. Director John Lee Hancock would have done better to have contained the flashbacks to a few lengthier sequences and wrapped them up at about the two-thirds mark of the two-plus hour running time.

The biggest problem with Saving Mr. Banks, though, is Travers herself. She never becomes a likable or relate-able character, even after the big reveal of why she is so embittered. Walt Disney's charm may break down Travers' psychological walls, but cannot demolish those built between Travers and the viewer throughout the picture. Thompson turns in a great performance, but the movie would have been more effective if told from Disney's perspective rather than Travers'.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

An Unworthy Successor

[4/10 · 31 January 2014]

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues proves yet again that bigger is not always better, and this return to the world of Ron Burgundy depends on its bigger-ness: bigger city, bigger sets, bigger budget, bigger actors. Director Adam McKay and star Will Ferrell have allowed almost an entire decade to drift by before this sequel's release. One would expect such a delay to allow for the refinement of material, but the end result seems thrown together, incoherent, and sometimes unbearably unfunny.

That last descriptor is what kills the movie. Incoherence and a poor editing didn't hurt the first Anchorman, in fact, its goofy premise and refusal to really pin down a narrative made for an off-the-wall delight. Somehow, Anchorman 2 fails to recapture the magic.

Anchorman 2 finds Ron Burgundy washed up yet again, hosting dolphin shows at Sea World after being fired from a co-anchor position with his wife, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). He is approached to become part of an experimental 24-hour news network in New York, and he decides to round up the old Channel 4 news team to travel with him. Viewers are then treated to an unnecessary 20-minute road trip sequence involving Ron's recruitment of former newsmen Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ Kind (David Koechner), and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Ron finds each of them moving on from news (Champ's new life is by far the funniest), but persuades them in turn to join him in the Big Apple.

At the new network, Ron makes instant enemies with Jack Lime (James Marsden), one of the nation's most-respected anchors, who will be holding down the prime-time news. Ron and his crew will be on the air at 2 a.m. In true Burgundy fashion, he also gets off to a rocky start with his African-American female boss, Linda Jackson (Meagan Good).

The rest of the movie finds Ron and his crew acting out various sub- plots, none of them good enough to hold down the narrative on their own: Brick finds a love interest in the equally strange Chani (Kristen Wiig); Ron's numbers skyrocket until he is involved in a horrible accident; Veronica begins seeing another man (Greg Kinnear). The Brick-Chani courtship is especially hard to watch: Carell and Wiig try their best to make awkwardness work, but the lack of intelligible dialogue and abundance of "loud noises" eventually begins to grate. I suspect this comes as a result of Carell's superstardom since the first Anchorman, but Brick is simply given too much screen time and the character ends up suffering for it.

There are a few scenes that induce giddy chuckles, such as a look at Brian's condom collection, but very few laugh-out-loud sequences. Worse still, almost no quotable lines can be found. Anchorman achieved cult status over the last decade as a result of its quote-ability, but one gets the impression here that the actors and screenwriters were trying too hard to find catchy new phrases for their characters. The improvisation of the first film was often chopped down into poorly edited scenes, but meanwhile it preserved the very best lines. One of the best things about the way the first Anchorman plays is how its great lines come one right after another. Anchorman 2 prefers to let scenes run on for far too long, and its whopping 119-minute run time is entirely too much for a silly comedy like this.

This all leads up to another battle of network anchors, albeit on a much, much grander scale than in the first Anchorman. The presence of a mythical minotaur in the fight provides perhaps the film's greatest line, one that reminds us what could have been. By the anticlimactic end of Anchorman 2, though, all we are left with is a bad taste in our mouths, and the disappointment of a follow-up that can never top its predecessor.

Frozen (I) (2013)

Don't Believe (All) the Hype

[7/10 · 31 January 2014]

Perhaps the biggest flaw of Disney's new musical, Frozen, is the music. More specifically, it's the songs. None of them are memorable, at least not in the same manner as those from films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. The characters sing to cheesy percussion in songs that sound prepared more for the Disney Channel than a Disney movie. In one instance, a main character looks directly into the audience as she belts out her big tune. That was the moment that I realized the musical numbers were individual music videos tacked onto an otherwise fine film.

And, really, there isn't a whole lot to complain about with Frozen. The animation is absolutely gorgeous. rivaling last year's Pixar offering, Brave, for the award for Best Animated Landscapes. It also goes a long way to distance itself from other animated films featuring a bored or discontent heroine who wants to be independent. In fact, the lessons of Frozen all involve selflessness and sacrifice, a welcome change after the narcissistic Brave.

The story is a Disney retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen," in which we find protective older sister Princess Elsa (Idina Menzel), who was born with the special power to conjure ice, distancing herself from younger sister Princess Anna (Kristen Bell) after a childhood accident forced their parents to hide Elsa's secret.

Elsa's secret eventually comes to life when she is crowned queen, and in an attempt to isolate herself, she inadvertently covers the kingdom in perpetual winter. At that point, it is up to Anna, her fiancé Prince Hans, and hunky mountain man Kristoff to save the day.

Frozen is brimming with excellent supporting characters, from a goofy Scandinavian sauna proprietor to the lovable living snowman Olaf (expertly voiced by Josh Gad). Olaf is easily the most enjoyable animated character since Dory in Finding Nemo, and like that character, the filmmakers use his comic relief only enough to balance out some of the drama. That is to say, Olaf never becomes Jar Jar Binks. They could have devoted the whole film to him and I would be a repeat viewer.

Still, Disney's latest offering is far from perfect. Things wrap up far too easily after too much exposition at the beginning. Characters are introduced and barely heard from again (a magic group of trolls comes to mind). I have the feeling that without the radio-ready pop songs, more time could have been spent on fleshing out the margins of the story and providing an even more unique vision within the Disney universe. Menzel and Bell are perfectly pleasant in their voice work, but their huge duets spiral down into "Dueling Vibratos."

It's good that Disney is tearing down its own "princess" stereotypes of late, and Frozen strikes the right balance of not making its heroines dependent upon anyone but each other. If only it could have found a way to reconcile its great characters with its mostly awful tunes, we may have held Frozen as one for the ages.

American Hustle (2013)

Not Perfect, But a Lot of Fun

[7/10 · 31 January 2014]

If you took the wittiest and most entertaining parts of Ben Affleck's Argo and amped them up to Monty Python levels of farce, you'd get the basic feel of David O. Russell's American Hustle. With all the controversy surrounding Hustle's Golden Globe nomination for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, I walked in expecting an out-and-out drama. But a comedy it is, and a darn funny one, at that. It's practically a throwback to Preston Sturges, in that the plot doesn't really matter; it overlaps, contradicts itself, and loops back around in a glorious mess.

Christian Bale is absolutely dynamite as overweight con man Irving Rosenfeld, who is introduced to us in a lengthy scene wherein he combs his hair. Well, combs is an understatement for the elaborate comb-over and toupee patchwork that sits atop his head. It's a brilliant introduction to a small-time con, a sleazy character in a movie brimming with them.

While Rosenfeld and his assistant/mistress Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams in her best role to date) may be sleazy, they certainly aren't stupid. They are successful in their line of work, which happens to involve duping desperate people into giving them $5,000 to secure a nonexistent $50,000 loan. When the lovebirds are picked up by hotshot FBI Agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper, playing dumb quite well), they become embroiled in a series of stings in exchange for their own immunity. DiMaso is a man who wants to wield power he doesn't possess. He is only intimidating because his lack of foresight makes him volatile. He is three steps behind everyone else, and he realizes it.

The first thing you will notice about American Hustle, except for maybe how well-done the period details are, is the caliber of the acting. Bale and Adams rise above the rest, but the performances are strong all around. Jennifer Lawrence, as Rosenfeld's kooky younger wife, shows up here and there to throw a wrench into every plan. She holds her own, though I am still not sold on her playing older than she really is: Lawrence is 23, and she shows it. She is gifted at improvising, but against world-class acting from the likes of Bale and Cooper, her portrayal seems more like a pretty mask worn by Katniss Everdeen than a lived-in character courtesy of an Oscar-winner.

Jeremy Renner is superb as the target of DiMaso's operation, New Jersey mayor Carmine Polito. In Renner's hands, we see no ulterior motives lurking beneath the surface: Polito is a genuine guy who really wants to see his city take a turn for the better amidst the crime and violence of the 1970s. He is aware that he must deal with unsavory characters to get things done, but isn't interested in skimming off the top. In DiMaso's eyes, though, it's enough to be called corrupt.

This is certainly Russell's most entertaining film in years, although his penchant to let the actors improvise gets a bit out of hand. There are many instances where it becomes clear that the actors are off- script, and such transparent improve tends to pull the viewer out of the film. Still, American Hustle is hugely enjoyable, a very funny and often very tense story that crosses elements from GoodFellas and The Informant in the best imaginable ways.

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

The Coens' Coldest

[5/10 · 31 January 2014]

Maybe I just didn't get it. Maybe somewhere in the hour and forty-five minutes of Inside Llewyn Davis was a masterpiece that I overlooked. I know for sure, though, that my overall impression of it finally rested on overlong, meandering, boring, pointless, and pretentious.

Llewyn Davis (a very good Oscar Isaac) is a loser. Most characters in the film have another word for it, but we will go with loser. He's stuck in a dead-end situation: trying to make a living as a folk singer in the over-crowded Greenwich Village scene of 1961. He has some serious talent, but he also fails to connect with his audience on a personal level, a sentiment pointed out to him throughout the movie. He is surrounded by others who seem to be much better human beings and perfectly capable performers, but Llewyn consistently dismisses them all as beneath him. Until he needs to crash on their respective couches.

You see, Llewyn is basically homeless. And penniless. There are no royalties coming in from his last record, recorded as part of a folk duo. His partner committed suicide, and now Llewyn is stuck pushing a solo record to no avail. He has recently had sex with best friend Jim's (Justin Timberlake) girlfriend Jean (an equally unpleasant Carey Mulligan), and the baby she carries may or may not belong to Llewyn. They casually trade insults at each other while nonchalantly discussing the abortion they both decide she must undergo.

Once Llewyn runs out of open couches, he hits the road to Chicago, where he hopes to land a gig at a prominent club. He is joined by arrogant and condescending jazz man Roland Turner (John Goodman) and his quiet drifter of a valet, Johnny Five (Garrett Hedlund). This sequence is where Inside Llewyn Davis, which starts strong against all odds, slows to a grinding and infuriating stand-still. The 20-25 minutes depicted of the mostly-silent car ride to Chicago serves little purpose for the overall story. Neither Turner nor Johnny Five matter in the long run, and they certainly don't teach us any more about our main character than we already know.

Yet, we continue on with Llewyn. He is consistently kicked around by life, and he consistently kicks around everyone who tries to help him out. He rejects an offer to join a trio, presumably because he is either too hurt by his partner's suicide or simply too headstrong to share the spotlight, or both. He cares more about finding a runaway cat that he inadvertently let slip out than he does consoling the woman who may be bearing his child. And that pretty much sums up Inside Llewyn Davis. There is no arc to the story; indeed, the Coen brothers choose to tell a circular narrative, where one of the final scenes chronologically is presented at the front of the picture. By the time we come full circle, it is hard to care too much for Llewyn's fate.

Yet even here, the brothers Coen refuse to conform to such silly things as closure or resolution. If you've seen the final minutes of their Oscar-winner No Country for Old Men you'll have a feel for the type of ending they employ here. Like No Country, the Coens try to make Llewyn's week-long odyssey an existential search of some sort. Unlike No Country, there are no characters that anchor us in anything real or emotional. Inside Llewyn Davis is as cold and distant as the wintry drive from New York to Chicago, and ultimately one of the biggest letdowns of the awards season.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

The greatest of the three

[9/10 · 8 January 2004]

After viewing this picture, I realized it was one of the best ever made. It has the greatest battle scene ever filmed, the best computer-generated character of all time (yes, better than Yoda), and some of the best performances in recent years. This is the third and final film in the Rings trilogy, and it is the best of the three. If you haven't seen the first two films, here's a summary. A hobbit (little person with hairy feet) named Frodo inherits a ring from his uncle, not knowing that if this ring falls into the wrong hands, the world will be overthrown by evil. Frodo, his best friend and gardener, Sam; two Men; a wizard; an elf; a dwarf; and two other hobbits form the Fellowship of the Ring, also the title of the first film. This fellowship is dedicated to destroying the ring in the place it was created: a far-away kingdom called Mordor, the capital of the evil menace. This menace is Sauron, who used to have a body, but, after being killed, is resurrected as a huge eye of fire, which can see Frodo every time he dons the Ring. Also, doing his dirty work is wizard Saruman. In the first film, one of the Men, Boromir, dies, the wizard, Gandalf, falls down a chasm, and the two other hobbits, Merry and Pippin, are captured. The second film, The Two Towers, picks up where the first left off, with Frodo and Sam continuing their journey to destroy the ring, and the elf, Man, and dwarf trying to find Merry and Pippin, and eventually ending up in the kingdom of Rohan, under attack by the enemy. They flee to the refuge of Helm's Deep, and become involved in the Battle of the Hornburg.

Merry and Pippin meet Treebeard, an Ent (walking, talking tree) and destroy Saruman's kingdom of Isengard. Frodo and Sam meet face-to-face with Gollum, a creature who used to be a hobbit named Smeagol, but because of his lengthy possession of the ring, was transformed into a hideous creature with split personalities. Faramir, brother of Boromir, the Man who dies in the first film, captures them. Eventually, they are released. Gollum leads the hobbits to Mordor, but eventually turns against them and says they must take another path into the kingdom, a path containing a giant, hungry spider named Shelob. Frodo and Sam eventually knock Gollum off of a cliff, and he is presumed dead. They get into Mordor, climb Mount Doom, and meet up with Gollum, still very alive and looking for revenge.

Can't tell the ending, must see it yourself!

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

One of the greatest war films "evah" ~!

[10/10 · 16 December 2003]

I realized that I was watching a masterpiece about ten minutes through, when a soldier was lying on the beach, holding his intestines and yelling "Mama!"

Not much else to say besides MY FAVORITE MOVIE, besides that Vin Diesel gives a great performance (Only because he was killed off quickly.)