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.

Bridge of Spies

Four Stars (out of four)

So, this is a movie I have been eagerly anticipating.  It's funny how things can work out sometimes.  A movie that is about the Cold War; and with the way current events are shaping up in Syria and Ukraine and with Putin pushing a very nationalistic agenda, we may be seeing a return to those days much earlier than any of us thought.  I grew up during the Cold War, long after these events took place, but not so much so to remember and appreciate the context this movie was steeped in.  And, it is dead on.  To younger audiences that were born in the 80's, it may seem inconceivable how the geopolitical dynamics played out then, but the movie perfectly captures these dynamics perfectly.

The movie is based on real events.  After Soviet spy Rudolph Abel (played very mensch-like by Mark Rylance), is arrested, an insurance lawyer, James Donovan (Tom Hanks), is appointed as his attorney to demonstrate to the USSR that Abel will get a fair trial, thus showing our moral mettle.  After taking the case to the Supreme Court, Abel unsurprisingly gets a very stiff sentence.  Meanwhile, U2 pilot Gary Powers is shot down over the USSR and gets a similar stiff sentence from the Soviets.  People from both sides are screaming for blood and the mood on both sides of the world is tense.  Donovan is sent to East Germany as a private citizen to negotiate a trade.  Since the trade can't be acknowledged by either government, there is a lot of skullduggery going on.  In the meantime, a US graduate student is arrested in East Berlin, further complicating the matter because the German Democratic Republic (the GDR or East Germany) wants to score points with the USSR by getting their man back and by stressing to the US that the GDR is not a doormat for the USSR.  Donovan decides to get both US citizens released and eventually does.

The reason I gave the ending away is that it is all a matter of historical record and isn't what the movie is really about.  It is about the context of the events in question, public sentiment on both sides, and most interestingly, the geopolitical power dynamics at a crucial point in world history.  It was incredible to watch, particularly in regards to the GDR.  The movie takes place just as the Berlin Wall was going up, and for those of us born later in the Cold War, it is easy to forget that Germany was caught in the middle of all this, shortly after losing WWII.  They didn't necessarily like the Soviets, but they had little control over their fate because of the war they started recently ended in defeat.  While they had to accept their lot in a much grander drama that overshadowed them, they would not go quietly.  The GDR makes the negotiations difficult until the movie implied that the Soviets leaned on them.  In this, we see the beginning of the real subjugation of East Germany under the Soviet yoke.  Essentially, we see the Soviets telling the GDR they are no longer a sovereign nation.  As Orwell said after the uprising in his book Animal Farm, "Of course all animals are equal.  Just some are more equal than others.". All of this is played out in microcosm through this spy exchange, and would establish a new world order that arguably still exists today.  It is a brilliant, yet understated presentation on how the Old World order died, a final casualty of WWII and marked the ascension of the US role in world affairs from then on.

But the movie is more than that.  It also brilliantly portrays the US/USSR battle of ideas/moral codes and our mutual distrust.  It is also quick to point out the hatred between us was very real, but both sides understood the consequences of missteps.  It portrays the mutual animosity and the quid pro quo nature that dominates our relationship even today.  And considering Russia's new-found belligerent ambitions to reclaim the prestige they lost in the 1990's, we may be traveling down the road portrayed in this film again for a new generation.

As I said, this is not a particularly dramatic film, but one of subtlety and nuance.  At first, I was underwhelmed, as Spielberg's movies tend to be bombastic.  But as I think more and more about what I saw, the more I see that it is fantastic story, penned by the Coen brothers of Fargo and No Country for Old Men.  The fact the story is true is icing on the cake.   This movie is measured, takes its time to highlight the details.  The details are all-important here, so it is not required for the movie to lambaste us.  This is truly an adult, intelligent film; a species of growing rarity in Hollywood.  It is movies like this that remind me as to why I still love  them.  Vacuous crap like The Lego Movie makes me despair, but movies like this restore my faith in the state of today's storytelling.  Leave the kids at home and see this.  Or bring them to learn something about where we have been and maybe where we are going.

The Martian

3.5 Stars (out of four)

And so the new crop of good movies for Oscar season continues.  Many people have said The Matian is Director Ridley Scott's Apollo 13 or a love letter to NASA and science, and those people are not wrong.  This movie could not have come at a better time for beleaguered NASA, and I am pretty sure the recent discoveries on Mars were timed to coincide with it.  Now, I can't tell you if the science is perfect in this film, but I can tell you it is one hell of a ride.

The Martian begins with our fourth manned mission to Mars.  After a week into a month-long mission, the landing site is hit by a huge storm and the crew is forced to abort.  As they are trying to get back to the ship, astronaut Mark Whatney (Matt Damon) is struck by debris and disappears into the storm.  He shows no life signs so the crew takes off without him.  It turns out, though, Watney did survive and after the storm, makes it back to the habitat.  He is injured, but manages to pull through.  He then has to figure out how to make supplies for six people for 30 days last for five years until a rescue mission can come and get him.  That is, of course, if he can find a way to communicate with Earth since the communicator dish was destroyed...

So, the movie is a bit like Apollo 13 meets Castaway.  But is is so much more than that.  Like Apollo 13, it stresses that none of this is possible without a great amount of teamwork; this time, on a global scale.  Scott shows why he is such a great director here by ratcheting up tension, injecting humor in all the right places, keeping a breakneck pace, showing the enormity and complexity of the problems quickly, and makes you want to go hug your old science teacher all at once. It is immensely entertaining and not to be missed.  There are no good guys and bad guys, no nefarious agendas, just a bunch of very smart people who are working toward common goal.  And it is a massive advertisement for NASA, still the coolest and nerdiest government organization that really knows how to sell itself.

The Martian is one of those great movies that is a testament to the human will to survive.  It is an acting tour de force for Damon, since he is alone throughout most of the film.  He delivers most of his exposition through a series of video logs that allow us to take stock on his personal situation at important points.  It is actually an ingenious bit of storytelling to keep us grounded in Whatney's psyche.  It brings real emotion and a human element to his situation that is critical for us to care what happens to him.  It connects us in a very real way, whether you see him clowning around, updating us on his progress and plans, or venting his frustration.  In the end, it comes down to Damon and his performance in these oddly intimate moments that make this movie work so well.  

The only real complaint I have is actually not with the film, but the source material.  It is a little too convenient what jobs Whatney has. He has precisely the set of skills he would need to do everything.  He is a botanist and engineer, meaning he sits at the perfect intersection of growing things and fixing everything on the ship physically.  He's Superbrain!  But, while the movie does come up with some limitations he has that are overcome later, I ultimately felt it was a little too neat.  I realize that all members in NASA are crossed trained in other missions as well, but Whatney seems to have every conceivable skill he would need to survive his ordeal.  But in the end, this is a very minor criticism to what is an excellent movie.  See it as soon as you can.  You won't be disappointed.

The Intern

3 Stars (out of four)

It is nice to see a comedy come along that don't insult or condescend to its audience or demean its characters.  The Intern is not broad or farsical entertainment, just a very sweet look at a bunch of people with their own set of problems trying to make it in the world.

The Intern starts with Ben (Robert DeNiro), a genuinely nice widower and retiree at a bit of a crossroads in his life.  He has learned what many retirees learn, the boredom of retirement.  He has already traveled the world, picked up hobbies and spends a lot of time with his children and grandchildren, but still cannot find enough to fill the time or hole in his life that was left without his wife and job.  One day, he finds an Internet company that is advertising for an internship program for senior citizens.  He obviously gets ithe job and quickly ingratiates himself on everybody with his laid-back and very friendly attitude.  He ends up working for the company's founder, Jules (Anne Hathaway), a very driven young woman trying to keep the company vibrant and profitable.  She has a reputation of being hard to work for as she is very peculiar how things have be.  While they initially don't mesh very well, Ben begins to break down the walls she has and they eventually become a great team.

This movie is a joy to watch because it is fun, but never really insults any of its characters.  Yes, personal quirks are sometimes the butt of some jokes, but those jokes are more sweet than mean.  Instead of being a sardonic satire like The Office or Office Space, The Intern is more of a lighthearted look at making your way in the world in today's new business environment.  No character is cruel or mean.  Even though Jules is very hard to work for, she is not the Glenn Close she-devil in The Devil Wears Prada (another Hathaway film), but merely a driven, detail-obsessed woman used to getting her way because her way generally works.  She deeply loves her company and vice-versa, but it has grown too fast and she is overwhelmed.  Ben, meanwhile, could come across as the sage old guy, like Yoda in a tie, but it doesn't do that either.  He is instantly likable because he is a hard-working, genuinely good guy who sets an example that everyone sees and is drawn to.  It is after they know him that he touches everyone with advice that comes from experience.

But the winning element for me is that the movie never condescends to anyone.  The people are real people with real problems.  There are no broad caricatures or mean depictions.  There is no one talked down to.  This movie could easily degenerate into simple, easily digestible pigeonholes, but it never does that.  What is particularly nice is the relationship Ben and Jules have.  It starts warily, but not antagonistic.  As they grow to know and understand each other's problems and quirks, a genuine friendship develops.  Nothing is too over the top or unbelievable.  This is just a genuinely fun and warm comedy that is thoroughly enjoyable.

Sicario

3.5 Stars (out of four)

In preparation for this review, I looked back at my review for Prisoners, the first film I had seen from Dennis Villeneuve (who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite directors), and I was struck by how similar I felt about the themes of both movies, reflections on the consequences of morally questionable actions when you are reasonably sure about the reasons for those actions.  If it's possible, Sicario is even darker than its little brother in terms of scope and tone and took me to very unpleasant places.  It is also disturbingly and unflinchingly accurate in its depiction of the drug war raging on our border.

The movie opens up in a small town outside Phoenix, where FBI Special Agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) is on a team to investigate a kidnapping.  After a brief shootout and bombing, it is discovered there are 42 bodies wrapped up in the house's walls.  She is then selected to be part of a special task force to go after the drug lords behind it.  She agrees, and thus becomes our eyes and moral center for much of the rest of the film.  Throughout the movie, we are then taken on a brief tour of the enormous scope of the drug war on both sides of the border in an operation that becomes increasingly dark and illegal.

It's interesting they chose a woman to be the center of this film.  She unfortunately doesn't do very much but watch and become increasingly appalled at the lengths and methods the task force is running.  Perhaps they chose a woman to be the antithesis of every man in the film, who, apart from her partner, are all complicitly evil at various levels?  In a way, this is very effective as the film's moral ambiguity needs a moral center.  This movie is being compared a lot to Steven Soderberg's multiple Oscar-winning film Traffic, not the least being their similar themes.  But while Traffic was more of a wake up call based on its timeframe, this movie finds us smack dab in the middle of a war in all but name (i.e. our military fighting the drug lords).  The only thing that kept me from giving this four stars is that it degenerates into a little bit of wish-fulfillment, similar to Clear and Present Danger, where we strike at drug lords, but there is no real retaliation or consequences.  This smacks a little bit of unreality, but otherwise, everything leading to the climax of Sicario is dead on.

This movie took me to some very unpleasant and dark places I don't normally like to think about, which tells me just how effectively presented this material was.  As good as Prisoners was as far as suspense, Sicario makes it look like a garden party.  I have rarely seen such a perfect mix of music, angles and subject matter to keep the viewer totally rapt. This film never lets up the tension, and it is both disarmingly blunt in its depictions of the atrocities of the Mexican Drug War and subtle in its use of beautiful composition mixed with evil intent.  Every scene is claustrophobic and suffocating, filled with low angles, low lighting and tight spaces to make you subconsciously feel trapped.  As I listened to people afterward, that was the recurring element over and over again, the non-stop tension.

I have seen enough of these movies in my life and know the craft enough to know when I am being manipulated, as all movies expressly do to their audiences.  So, it is a mark of excellence, to me, when I find myself really being really affected by the events I see on the screen.  This movie is excellent in every way, other than it ends a little too cleanly for my taste.  However, from what I have seen, there is already a sequel in the works that deals with the outcome of the events set forth in this movie, again to be directed by Villeneuve.  I can only hope it is as good as this one.  Be warned, this is not the normal actioneer or suspense movie.  It hits really close to the bone and will disturb many who see it who are unaccustomed to real violence.  There is nothing glitzy about this film.  It is exciting, yes, but very cruel an unrelenting, just like its subject matter.