Spotlight

4 Stars (out of four)

I have always had a soft spot for the press.  I firmly believe that it is crucial to our keeping a free society and an open exchange of ideas.  Without it, we would be lost.  Yes, many claim it is a liberal pundit ground, overwhelmed by stinking liberals who want to bring society down for the sake of a buck, but I fundamentally disagree with them.  Are there people with agendas?  Of course, and today's AD/HD blog-infested world has only exacerbated the situation, but it is often the press that shines a light into those dark places we don't want to talk about, for better or worse.  It has been said that for evil to flourish, good men need only do nothing about it.  Spotlight is a damning criticism of that indifference, and what it sometimes takes to change it.

The story of Spotlight is pretty simple.  It is the true story of how The Boston Globe broke the story of the Catholic priest abuse scandal in the early 2000's.  Liev Schrieber plays the new editor that directs his investigative team headed by Michael Keaton to push the investigation.  The movie portrays the enormity in scope of the problem and the hurdles the team had to go over to report it.

The subject matter is, quite frankly, some of the most depressing I have seen.  It lays bear the heinousness of the crimes as the church moved predators from diocese to diocese and pressured the families to stay quiet about crimes these priests were inflicting.  The movie takes the time to show not just the damage done by the crime, but also to people's faith in what they thought was an unimpeachable institution.  This movie obviously has a point of view, and sometimes devolves into accusatory criticism of an entire institution that does a lot of good, rather than sticking to the facts of the case.  That said, the movie is absolutely incredible.  It not only takes on the crime itself, it takes on the ubiquity of the church and its culture in Boston to illustrate how difficult it was to find information about the scandal.  In a not-so-subtle continuing motif, every establishing shot, or long shot usually begins and/or ends with a different church in the background, illustrating the collosal presence the church has in these people's lives. It is literally everywhere.  And the sad aspect about the scandal is, everyone knew about it, the facts were there in public sources, yet no one stood up to it and said, "No, this is wrong."  Indeed, as the movie shows, there was a large conspiracy to cover it up.

The performances are straightforward and non-bombastic, injecting a sense of realism not usually present in movies like this.  There is not a stinker in the cast, but standouts include Keaton, Mark Ruffalo as one of the reporters, and Stanley Tucci, playing the defense attorney for many of the victims.  Tucci continually puts out amazing performances, one after another. I have never seen him turn in a stinker, and this movie is no exception.  He is long overdue for an Oscar and has only one nomination for 2009's The Lovely Bones.  He delivers again and again, but unfortunately, I don't think he will be awarded one this year because this is not the type of performance that usually wins.  But his quiet and nuanced portrayal shows a good man who deeply cares about the welfare of his clients, but is hamstrung by the ethics of his profession.  

This is an intensely sad movie, but one that should be seen by everyone.  This is what great movies are.

Trumbo

4 Stars (out of four)

This is a biopic of Dalton Trumbo.  For those of you who don't know, Dalton Trumbo (played by Bryan Cranston) was one of the infamous "Hollywood Ten," a group of mostly screenwriters and directors who were victims of the prosecution of the Congressional House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare of the 50's.  All of the ten were former or current members of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression in the 30's and the 40's when Russia was an ally.  They were at the top of the infamous blacklist and were not able to work under their names for close to 20 years.  Trumbo was one of the best writer among them, writing two (!) Oscar-winning screenplays (Roman Holiday and The Brave One under pseudonyms).  The blacklist was ruthlessly enforced by Hollywood tabloid writer Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) and the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, originally formed by Walt Disney, but at this time, was headed by John Wayne.  Trumbo was cited for contempt of Congress when he refused to testify before HUAC, served prison time and then couldn't work under his name for close to 20 years.  He was finally vindicated when Otto Preminger hired him for Exodus, and Kirk Douglas publicly announced him as the screenwriter for Spartacus.

There have been other prominent movies made about the blacklist including, Guilty By Suspicion in 1989, starring Robert DeNiro.  But Trumbo is probably the best at demonstrating the fear and paranoia that made America lose its way for some time.  To be fair, history and recent revelations from Soviet KGB archives have shown that there was a very active attempt by the Soviets to infiltrate all prominent institutions in America from the press, to labor unions, to government agencies to the entertainment industry.  McCarthy and HUAC, while their methods were despicable, were not the paranoid kooks they tend to be portrayed in movies like these.

That said, for a congressional committee that had the phrase Un-American in the title, they certainly used unamerican methods to prosecute people without probable cause, based primarily on flimsy allegations rooted in fear.  In the rush to protect America, they trampled the rights of many Americans who didn't deserve the treatment they received; losing their jobs, freedoms and sometimes their lives to root out communism in America.  This movie raises a real warning about the pernicious influence of fear and how it turns us against ourselves by painting groups of people with the same broad brush.  I don't know if it was the filmmaker's intent, but there are real reverberations in today's charged climate, specifically with Muslims.  People today are more and more assuming every Muslim is dangerous and suspicious, and the rhetoric is getting more blunt and accusatory, filled with self-righteousness and fear.  Whenever we as a nation feel threatened, if we can't strike at an outside foe, we turn inward on each other.  Trumbo tries to show the consequences of that kind of behavior through the microcosm of Trumbo's own life.

The movie is superbly written and acted. It is very scary in its implications.  But it is often punctuated with incredible wit and humor that makes it palatable and not preachy.  It is thoroughly enjoyable and thought-provoking. I would recommend every adult in America see it and reflect on what it is saying.  It will probably not change many people's minds as many have made their mind up based on fear of the different.  But hopefully, it can persuade some people to reach for their better angels.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

3.5 Stars (out of four)

The Hunger Games series is quite possibly one of the most satisfying, albeit a tad predictable, stories to have passed our way during the past decade, both as books and movies.  When I first heard of Suzanne Coliins' young adult story for the first time, it sounded a little too much like the sadistically violent manga, Battle Royale.  But she has managed to create a wonderfully entertaining world and story.

Mockingjay Part 2 picks right up where the last one left off. Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) has been rescued by the resistance and tried to kill our hero, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) because he was tortured and conditioned to become a living weapon.  The resistance is making its last push against the capital and President Snow (Donald Sutherland, exuding oily menace).  Katniss decides to go on a suicide mission to kill Snow and is joined by a team of commandos, including her other paramour Gayle (Liam Hemsworth), setting up a quiet conflict between he and Peeta for Katniss' heart.  But should Katniss succeed in her mission to kill Snow, what insidious menace comes next?

As I said, the whole Hunger Games franchise, and this movie in particular, are very satisfying.  This movie has the right amount of action, pathos, and finally closure.  Every loose thread is tied up well. This story, for a young adult's story, is quite rich in atmosphere and characterization.  It is as complex as it should be without being too Byzantine in its plot arcs.  After I watched this final film, I rewatched the other three and was surprised by how many allusions are in the last movie and how it completely pulls minor or subtle plot points from even the first movie all together at the end.  No story arc is left hanging.  Unlike the horrifying mess of the Twilight series, The Hunger Games is a complexly layered work of art with one of the better female role models for young girls.  It's sad that the "strange" worlds of fantasy/sci-fi are the primary places where strong female characters flourish, almost as if Hollywood is telling us this is the only place they realistically exist.  Katniss is strong, determined and capable, while not sacrificing real emotion and moments of weakness.  And while she is a little too much of a super woman, it comes off convincingly, due in no small part to how good an actress Jennifer Lawrence is.  In less capable hands, the performance would be hokey.  But Lawrence pulls it off with the acting chops she has developed in indie films.

I cannot recommend this series higher, for reading or watching.  It is surprising, funny, sad and ultimately stands for something.  My only complaint (and it's a minor one) is that you have to have the background of the other films to understand this one.  If you don't watch the others, you will be hopelessly lost the further you go in as there is very little exposition.  Each movie depends on the first or it will make no sense.  But, having said that, if you have seen the others, you will not be disappointed with the end here.

Creed

3 Stars (out of four)

I REALLY wanted to like this movie.  The Rocky series has meant a lot to me growing up, and is probably one of my favorite franchises of all time.  So, I was eagerly anticipating this new entry in the Rocky canon, as it promised to take Rocky in a whole new, exciting direction.  Did I like it?  The short answer is yes.  The long answer is that it could have been so much better and was a sadly missed opportunity.

So, Creed opens with the illegitimate son of Apollo Creed, Adonis Johnson (Michael B. Jordan), a young black man who has been fighting adversity and his personal demons his entire life.  The film opens with him as an unknown boxer in Tijuana, making a name for himself with several wins, mostly on his raw talent alone.  When he goes to his father's old gym in L.A., he unwisely challenges the reigning middleweight champion and is quickly thrashed in a sparring match.  Adonis realizes he has a lot to learn, so he goes to Philadelphia to convince Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) to train him.  Rocky, after some persuasion, reluctantly agrees, and soon, Adonis wins his first real middleweight fight.  Adonis was fighting under his mother's name because he wanted to make his own way, but this wouldn't be much of a movie if the Creed name didn't get leaked.  Meanwhile, the current middleweight champion 'Pretty' Ricky Conlan (played by real-life 2x champion Tony Bellew), is under several scandals that threaten his boxing career, so of course, a fight is set up between the two.

As I said, this movie is a mixed bag of nuts.  On the one hand, it is entertaining and fun, though not particularly original.  On the other hand, none of the original makers have anything to do with it.  Stallone didn't write or direct, Bill Conti didn't do the music.  And while I applaud the filmmakers' gamble to try a new stylistic feel, it is curiously flat and undramatic in all ways.  Say what you will about Stallone, he is a fantastic writer, as his 1976 Oscar nomination for the original Rocky can attest.  Stallone himself says that he uses Rocky to be able to preach certain values he has, a worldview of hard work, determination, plain common sense, and decency.  And through his admittedly tortured diction, he created a character that is the Everyman.  Rocky is us and our best aspirations.  Creed feels like a rehashed story of cliches, which brings me to what I think is the film's almost fatal flaw...

Now, I have not seen Michael B. Jordan in anything else for comparison.  I don't know if this is a fair representation of his true acting ability.  But, if his performance in Creed is an indication, his wooden portrayal of Adonis almost ruins the story.  His look is perfect, but there are a lot of youngish, African-American actors like Corey Parker or J.D. Williams who would have done a much better job.  There is a lot in the story to like.  There is pathos, conflict and joy, yet they all fall curiously flat with Jordan's performance.  I don't know if this was a limitation on his part, or a fault on Ryan Coogler, the director.  Either way, what could have been a great character is sadly lacking.  But aside from that, the movie is entertaining.  If you are looking for a fun time, go see it, but don't set your expectations too high.

Spectre

3 Stars (out of four)

We continue the story of the relaunched James Bond, and it is good, but still a tad odd.

Spectre continues wher Skyfall let off.  In another direct sequel, this movie opens in Mexico City, where Bond (Daniel Craig continuing a singularly satisfyingly intense portrai of our favorite spy) assassinates a man and picks up a mysterious ring with an octopus on it.  We find that it belongs to the shadowy organization, SPECTRE, a group that profits on anything horrible in the world and the primary author of everything bad that happened to Bond since Vesper Lynn's assassination in Casino Royale.  Bond pursues the group until he finds its leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Woltz in a deliciously evil performance).  Blofeld and Bond appear to be connected in some way, which Bond discovers as he tries to save London from another big attack.

So, considering this is one of the most action filled franchises in cinema history, there is not a lot of action.  This particular installment is long on story, and appears to be suffering from post-production cuts like its predecessor, Quantum of Solace.  For parts of the movie, I found myself lost, like I came in 39 minutes late to a two-hour movie.  It's also pretty long, clocking in close to 2.75 hours. The movie is not particularly exciting, with only a couple of major action pieces.  All the familiar characters show up and are a lot of fun.  I love the new M, Q and Moneypenny.  I like the fact the movie has nor succumbed to the temptation to put more gadgets in, because this inevitably results in overkill, like the battle of the super cars in Die Another Day.  This relies more on good old fashioned espionage and skullduggery.  Another element I particularly liked about the film is its dark and very cruel, evil undertones.  This is not a happy-go-lucky movie like the Roger Moore set.  It is very serious and somber, and therefore very interesting to watch.  Despite the plot holes, the intense tone makes this film very interesting.  It gives Bond a more "real" feel, rather than being an indestructible superman.

Real or not, however, it may be disappointing to some Bond fans.  It is a totally different tone and feel with the possible exception of License To Kill.  As I said, it is a totally different tone than a Bond film.  It is deadly serious.  This is not a movie to be taken lightly, but this is the direction Bond needs to go.  I hear many fans criticizing the film, that it sucks or it's too long, but no real criticism other than they don't like it.  Very serious takes are needed in this franchise to keep it from slipping into Three Stooges style dreck like Diamonds Are a Forever, Moonraker, A View To A Kill, or Die Another Day.  Please, when you go see this film, remember the depths these films can sink to when fans start whining about "Where's Q?  The gadgets?  The supercar?"  Etc, etc, etc.  please do not let these uninformed people take Bond away from this leaner, meaner, post-Bourne Bond which will require another reboot.  I like the direction has been going with the Craig series, despite some misfires, and I, for one, want to see it continue.

Steve Jobs

3 Stars (out of four)

Steve Jobs is a fairly complex movie about a very complex person.  It is pretty darn good, but, in the end, may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Steve Jobs tries to tackle most of the issues of Steve Jobs' life through three of his most iconic product launches: the MacIntosh, the NeXt and the iMac.  These three products encapsulate the first (and arguably most dynamic) half of Jobs' fascinating life and career.  This period of time was the most complicated of his life, covering his repeated denial of his first daughter's paternity, his famous firing (and subsequent rehiring) at his company Apple, and hints at the beginning of the second (and arguably more successful) part of his life where Apple redefined the world with the iPod, iPhone and iPad (upon which this review is currently being written).

Icon.  Arrogant.  Visionary.  Petty.  Artist.  Cruel.  Genius.  Stylistic talent.  Machiavellian manipulator.    Horror of a human being.  Dreamer of a better, kinder world.  Denier of his own child.  Loving father.  Jobs was all these things and more.  At one point in the film, Jobs says, "I am not well-made."  That sums him up quite well.  As with all things in life, things are much more complicated than they first appear.  Aaron Sorkin tries to make sense out of a very complicated man in a very short amount of time.  Drawing heavily on Walter Isaacson's great biography of the same name, Sorkin ingeniously uses the famous product launches combined with flashbacks to illustrate the events that happened up to that point.  The problem is that Jobs is so complicated, it is almost required to have a little foreknowledge of the man and the events in his life to make sense of the plot.  Newcomers to Jobs will be a little lost.  However, the movie boils down to three main stories: the relationship with his coworkers (illustrated by Steve Wozniak, played incredibly by Seth Rogen); the father-son dynamic of the fatherless Jobs (Michael Fassbender) and father figure John Sculley (Jeff Daniels); and centrally, the relationship between Jobs and his daughter.

The whole cast is incredible and the visuals by Danny Boyle interesting and creative.  For people who have an enduring fascination with the man, this is a great film.  For all others, it may fall a little flat.  Myself, I loved it.

Crimson Peak

2.5 Stars (out of four)

We can all thank Guillermo Del Toro for having such imaginative bad dreams, because they always materialize as sumptuous, visual feasts for the eyes.  Unfortunately, as time goes on, the stories are getting less imaginative.  Too bad you can't have everything.

IMDB says "In the aftermath of a family tragedy, an aspiring author (Mia Wasikowski as Edith Cushing) is torn between love for her childhood friend (Charlie Hunnam as Dr. Alan McMichael) and the temptation of a mysterious stranger (Tom Hiddleston as Thomas Sharpe).  Trying to escape the ghosts of her past, she is swept away to a house that breathes, bleeds - and remembers."

Whoooo!  Scary stuff.  Or is it?  The previews promised a fairly scary, gothic haunted house story.  But, in reality, is a fairly stock ghost story written for the post-feminism audience.  I actually encourage strong, female characters, but I hate it when they are stereotypes of modern women stuck in an age that holds their aspirations down and the female protagonist is a misunderstood lion that people just "don't get."  Everyone else around her is either loved but hopelessly stuck in another time, stupid or evil.  This movie plays every Harlequin romance trope out to a nauseating degree.  Without giving too much away, Edith Cushing leaves a perfectly nice guy she grew up with and actually likes (and likes her back) to go away to England with Thomas Sharpe, a mysterious good-looking English landed gentry but penniless lord and his equally mysterious sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastaine).  Edith does this because Sharpe reads and likes her story she is writing and that most everyone else dismisses (thus obviously making him more evolved and intelligent than everyone else around him).  She finds herself in a beautiful, huge, but disintegrating manor house built in the middle of nowhere.  Ghosts start showing up for a reason I won't get into.  Things go bad.

This movie sort of annoyed me for the reasons stated above.  Wasikowski is basically annoying and Hunnam phones it in, turning in the most wooden performance since Pinocchio or Showgirls.  But all is not lost.  This is, after all, a Del Toro movie, and it's the visuals that matter most.  He delivers them in spades.  The scenes in the Crimson Peak manor are incredibly atmospheric and a joy to watch.  A collision a harsh colors and dark shadows, hinting at evil lurking around every corner.  This melange of elements guarantees I will never tire of what Del Toro can do.  He is a singularly gifted director of the visual, from Cronos and The Devil's Backbone to his masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth.  His style uplifts even mediocre material like Pacific Rim, Blade Ii, and the Hellboys.  His films are always interesting and enjoyable to watch, the sheer joy and horror of the visuals are a symphony for the eyes.  Hiddleston and Chastaine play the most gleefully evil characters, and they are clearly having a ball with it.  They are so much fun in these roles.  Go for visual, but check your brain at the door for the story.