REVIEW: “The 33”

33poster

I can’t help myself. I’ve always had a soft spot for disaster flicks and there has never been a shortage of them. Hollywood has found a way to make a movie about any and every conceivable disaster. The good ones are fun, exciting, and inspired. But many have been shallow, formulaic, and shamelessly melodramatic. “The 33” is the latest and let’s just say it falls somewhere in between.

Based on the 2010 Chilean mining accident, the title refers to the thirty-three miners who were trapped some 200 stories down after the San José Mine near Copiapó, Chile collapsed. The story gained global attention with news agencies from around the world covering the day-by-day rescue efforts. Concerned family members stood vigilantly by pressing for action which led to the Chilean government taking over the intense rescue operation.

33movie1

The film follows most of these main story points with its own bits of drama added in. We get the obligatory introduction scene when local families are having a big shindig. The following day the miners head to work 17,000 feet below ground. A foreman (Lou Diamond Phillips) has growing concerns over the mine’s safety but the owners dismiss his suggestions. As the men start their work the mine begins to collapse driving them deeper into the mountain. The thirty-three make it to a safe room called The Refuge only to find its food and water supply understocked and the radio broken. They are trapped with few supplies and no way of communicating.

Antonio Banderas plays Mario, the face of the miners and their de facto leader. Banderas is quite good spreading inspiration and emotion like butter on toast. I always find him entertaining and any fault with him can be tracked to the script. He is often asked to lay it on really thick, something he has no trouble doing. He is also given a few corny made-for-the-movies lines. After the mine collapses he says “That is the heart of the mountain. She finally broke.” You can’t help but laugh.

The second part of the story takes place above ground. The private company who owns the mine wants to keep things quiet, but their resources for a rescue are limited. Family members led by the fiery Maria (Juliette Binoche) grow tired of the lack of information about their loved ones. The young Minister of Mining (Rodrigo Santoro) convinces Chile’s President Piñera (played by Bob Gunton in an odd bit of casting) to send him to the site to oversee the rescue attempt. Gabriel Byrne is brought in as the chief engineer and James Brolin pops up as a drill operator.

33movie2

The topside story hops back and forth between the efforts of the rescue team and the families gathered outside the mine in a makeshift camp. There are several decent dramatic threads between the two but nothing that stands out. The same could be said about the drama inside the mine. After a really good opening the miners’ story grinds to a halt. In fact the entire movie drags its feet around the midway point. A good 20 minute cut to the film’s bulky 127 minute running time would have helped a lot.

There are some good performances, an inspirational true story, a really good beginning, an emotionally satisfying ending, and one of the final scores from the great James Horner. But aside from the laggy middle, the film mainly suffers from being glaringly formulaic. Being based on a true story obviously tips its hand in many regards, but “The 33” hits nearly every disaster movie tick. I still enjoyed the film overall, but I kept waiting for it to do something unique. It never quite does.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

5 Phenomenal Road Trip Comedies

PHENOM 5

I had originally set out to list 5 phenomenal road trip movies but the list grew too big and there were too many films I simply couldn’t leave off. To remedy my predicament I decided to break them down between comedy and drama. We are starting with some of the funnier cross-country journeys. Doing it this way proved to be chore. There are so many to choose from. For that reason I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. Still there’s no denying that these five road trip comedies are nothing short of phenomenal.

#5 – “Tommy Boy”

TOMMY

Let me start off by saying that I have a genuine soft spot for this nutty 1995 Chris Farley and David Spade vehicle. The two Saturday Night Live vets were known for their chemistry. Spade was the sour, sarcastic, stick-in-the-mud while Farley was the klutzy, lovable goofball. Here they set off on a cross-country sales trip to try and save his father’s company. Obviously things don’t go well and most of it is due to Farley’s idiocy. But it is one hysterical trip mainly thanks to the clashing personalities of the two characters.

#4 – “Smokey and the Bandit”

SMOKEY

There are so many things I equate with “Smokey and the Bandit”. The popular Jerry Reed song “East Bound and Down”. The cute-as-a-button Sally Fields. That black Pontiac Trans Am that I still wish I had. But in terms of comedy it introduced us to one of film’s funniest characters – Sheriff Buford T. Justice. The late and great Jackie Gleason played the role and to say he stole much of the movie wouldn’t be a stretch. This surly, Texas Sheriff’s determination to catch Bandit is only overshadowed by his blindness to his own ineptitude. It makes for some truly hilarious encounters and several classic Gleason lines.

#3 – “Dumb and Dumber”

There is a mind-numbing quality to the humor of this 1994 Farrelly brothers road trip romp. But unlike the awful prequel and sequel, “Dumb and Dumber” had a certain charm and it never felt as if it was forcing itself to be funny. In it we get Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels playing two well-meaning (well, sometimes) idiots traveling from Rhode Island to Aspen, Colorado to return a briefcase. Obviously when you have characters with the IQ’s of a sock there will be obstacles. Carrey and Daniels have a blast and there are so many funny moments. Consider me a member of the film’s substantial cult following.

#2 – “The Blues Brothers”

BLUES

The only reason this musical comedy from 1980 isn’t tops on the list is because it may not be a road trip movie in the purest sense (whatever that means). But I feel it does fit here and it is simply too good to leave off. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd set off on their “mission from God” to save the orphanage they grew up in. To do that they have to find and put back together their old blues band to earn the money to save their childhood home. Hysterical characters, wild car chases, great song and dance numbers – they all play a part in this high-energy and truly funny movie.

#1 – “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”

PLANES

There are so many movies that could have made and even topped this list (“Vacation” will surely come to mind), but I have such an affection for this 1987 gem (one of John Hughes’ best films). Steve Martin plays a high strung executive trying to get from New York City to Chicago in time for Thanksgiving. A missed taxi cab, a blizzard, and a flight delay threaten that. Thankfully there is John Candy who plays a chatty traveling shower curtain ring salesman. The two are polar opposites yet they keep crossing paths often times with very funny results. Martin and Candy play off of each other like experts and deliver one great scene after another.

There are my five road trip comedies. Do you have any thoughts on these or any others I didn’t mention? Please take time to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

REVIEW: “Focus”

FOCUS poster

I can’t say I have always shared the general enthusiasm for Will Smith’s movies or his performances. It’s not that he is a bad actor. But, with a few exceptions, he often seems to play variations of the same type of guy. That is certainly not a problem for his fans who have made him a bonafide box office draw, but as someone who doesn’t always care for ‘that guy’ he plays, it can be a turn off.

Smith’s time on the big screen hasn’t been as prominent as during his heyday. He had at least one film (sometimes more) come out every year between 1995 and 2008. “Focus” ushers in a bit of a return to the starring spotlight and once again he is playing a variation of the same type of guy. He’s cool, stylish, cocky, and a bit of a wise guy. Sound familiar? Here he plays a dapper professional con-man with a seemingly endless amount of resources at his disposal. But more on that later.

 

FOCUS1

The story begins with Smith’s character, Nicky Spurgeon, being seduced and conned by a novice scammer named Jess (Margot Robbie). Nicky isn’t fooled and he sees through her amateurish scheme. A few days later Jess approaches Nicky in dire straits begging to be his protegé. Nicky agrees and tests out her sticky fingers on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Impressed by her success Nicky invites Jess to join his crew. A few good scores and a painfully predictable romance follows.

Nicky’s dad always taught him that business and pleasure don’t mix, so he drops Jess after realizing he was falling for her. But obviously the story doesn’t stop there and the two meet again three years later in Buenos Aires. Is it a chance meeting or doesn’t Jess have something up her sleeve? A web of twists, turns, deceptions, billionaires, parties, and race cars make up the second half of the story.

FOCUS2

There are times when “Focus” could be called a fashion extravaganza masquerading as a con-artist movie. Some scenes serve only as opportunities for the two stars to show off their good looks, nice physiques, and chic attire. This works well with the aforementioned typical Will Smith character. We get a lot of that here. It’s interesting that the film’s best scene features Smith casting aside that persona and showing us a vulnerable and intensely human side of his character. I won’t build it up but you will know it when you see it.

Ultimately “Focus” is a movie stymied by its amoral vanity, its overload of mediocre twists and turns, and the lukewarm chemistry between Smith and Robbie. If you view it through a very simple and straightforward lens you’ll notice a few fun moments. But it is never as cool or crafty as it tries to be and designer sunglasses, swanky sports jackets, and posh gowns only carry things so far. And even the movie’s title makes you wonder if you are the one being conned because there isn’t a lot of focus here.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2 Stars

REVIEW: “Spotlight” (2015)

I’ve always been a sucker for movies with journalism at their center. I like all kinds of them – the character-driven dramas and especially the more focused procedurals. For years Hollywood has enjoyed using journalism as a means of telling numerous kinds of stories. Many have been fantastic films while others…not so much.

The latest journalism picture sets us down in the world of investigative reporting. It is Thomas McCarthy’s “Spotlight” – an absorbing newsroom drama about a Boston Globe investigative team’s discovery of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. The story goes even further by following the team’s uncovering of an elaborate and disgusting cover-up by the Boston Archdiocese.

Spotlight1

The film is inspired by the true story of the Globe’s ‘Spotlight’ unit who in 2001 exposed the abuse and cover-up eventually winning a Pulitzer Prize for their work. McCarthy also co-wrote the script which notably doesn’t feature a true lead performance. This serves the story well. “Spotlight” is a full-on ensemble picture built around several key characters and represented by some of the best performances of the year.

The ever-entertaining Michael Keaton plays Walter “Robby” Robinson who heads the Globe’s four person Spotlight team. His team consists of the fervent, high-strung Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), the tireless Ohio transplant Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams), and the seasoned Matt Carroll (Brian d’Arcy James). It’s a tight-knit and semi-autonomous group who determine their own investigations and are given all the time and resources needed.

spotlight2

That appears to change when, amid potential company cuts, the Globe brings in a Boston outsider Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber). Feeling there is an important story to be told, the new boss immediately pulls Spotlight off their current project and has them investigate alleged child abuse among local priests. Their trail winds back several years implicating more priests and revealing more victims.

“Spotlight” is a painstaking procedural more focused on credible detail than big, showy moments. There is no pomp or pageantry. McCarthy is far more interested in examining the journalistic process than standard issue newsroom clichés. Everything he presents is done so with the utmost realism. You truly get a sense that you are watching an investigative process in motion. It may be the energy of the newsroom (much of which was shot in the Boston Globe offices) or something as simple as digging through old news clippings, making phone calls,  or examining old records.

spotlight3

But there is an incredible balance within the film. It is a journalism procedural but there is also the serious and unsettling story we witness being uncovered. “Spotlight” handles this prickly subject deftly and earnestly. It pulls no punches while at the same time respectfully representing the victims. Even in these moments the movie avoids the temptation to go big. It maintains a consistent level of restraint both from the actors and the director.

And not enough can be said about the performances. Keaton and Ruffalo are flawlessly in tune with their characters. Liev Schreiber may be the biggest surprise delivering a clever minimalist performance. John Slattery even dials it back as the paper’s deputy editor. And Stanley Tucci is fabulous as an attorney on the wrong side of the church due to his unsuccessful crusade against clerical molesters. Tucci is an actor known to go big, but even he is more concerned about serving the story than his character. It’s something the entire cast shares.

spotlight4

Ironically the film is titled “Spotlight” yet a spotlight is something no one involved seeks. Whether you’re talking about the director or a cast member, everyone seems more interested in the story being told. That chemistry allows for the film to center its focus on smart, meticulous storytelling. McCarthy’s film is subtly thrilling and it flows at such an invigorating pace. Better yet it doesn’t hold our hand or insinuate we need every narrative beat explained for us. And in the end there is no chest pounding or lofty hero statuses. Just a stinging indictment that reaches beyond the church. As one character says “There is enough blame to go around”.

The Spotlight team ran a series of revealing articles that had a profound impact throughout Boston and beyond. It was true journalism at its purest during what could be called the last great age of the newspapers. “Spotlight” the movie is a worthy tribute to the important work done by that team. It also happens to be one of the best films of 2015 and easily one of the best films about journalism itself.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

2015 Blind Spot Series: “Network”

NETWORK poster

“Network” is a film that I have probably seen if you piece together all of the portions I’ve watched over time. But it qualified as a Blind Spot because I had never sat down and watched it through. I never could put a finger on what kept me from investing the time to watch a film that many categorize as truly great. Upon watching it in its entirety, I was reminded what first drew me to the movie as well as what pushed me away.

For me “Network” is a mixed bag that is hard a narrow down or label. To call it messy would be an understatement, but there is a reason and motivation behind its messiness. “Network” seeks to push every button it can reach. It strives to be a full-blown outrageous satire, an insightful look behind the scenes, and a sermon on nearly every social or political concern of 1976. Director Sidney Lumet and writer Paddy Chayefsky never allow their film to be pigeonholed but at the same time its constant shifts in tone and voice, specifically in the second half, do more to distract than enlighten.

network1

The film begins by painting itself as a behind-the-scenes expose on a struggling television network. UBS makes the decision to fire their longtime evening news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch) after a steady ratings decline. During one of his final broadcasts Beale threatens to kill himself on live television (an idea inspired by Christine Chubbuck’s on-air suicide in 1974). This infuriates the network heads who have him removed immediately.

Beale’s best friend and news division boss Max Schumacher (William Holden) allows him to appear one more time in order to bow out with dignity. Beale uses the opportunity to go on a mad rant which again angers his bosses but spikes the network ratings. Programming director and ruthless ratings hawk Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) convinces her boss Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall) to exploit Beale’s obvious mental breakdown much to Max’s disapproval.

But “Network” then shoots off into a number of unusual directions including an ill-fated romance between Diana and Max. Diana is incapable of loving anything other than television ratings while Max flippantly and emotionlessly leaves his wife of 25 years Louise (earnestly played by Beatrice Straight who won an Oscar for her whopping 5 minutes of screen time). It is a weird side road that only plays out in spurts. There is a compelling current in each of their scenes yet we are never allowed the time to fully understand the relationship.

NETWORK2

The film also branches off into a Patty Hearst-like side story complete with an urban leftist militant group directly patterned after the Symbionese Liberation Army. These scenes start off strong but intentionally grow more absurd. These things all clash together before culminating in an ending which is completely off the rails. Again, none of this is by accident. Lumet and Chayefsky have so much to say, so much to explore, and so many indictments. Some of it is chilling and prophetic while some gets lost in the melange of loud rants and pointed lectures. But somehow it is always compelling.

“Network” was a huge success in 1976 and was widely applauded by critics. It won a total of four Oscars (for Dunaway, Finch, Straight, and Chayefsky) and was nominated for six more. It is a film that does so many interesting things and it subverts nearly any expectation the audience may have going in. Yet despite its irreverent ambitions it is messy to a fault. The clashing between seriousness and satire is jolting and not always in an entertaining way. I also don’t think the film lives up to its own lofty feelings of self-importance. It ends up being an engaging but frustrating road full of many ups and some disappointing downs.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

5 Phenomenally Bad Movies That Were Major Box Office Successes 

PHENOM 5

Watching a movie’s success can be astounding. Watching a film ride an unstoppable wave of popularity to the point of making just below or above $1 billion is incredible. It’s even more astounding when the movie is bad! Today’s Phenomenal 5 looks at bad movies that raked in insane amounts of money despite their quality. To narrow it down I kept my choices within the top 60 grossers of all time and surprisingly there were plenty to choose from. So considering that I wouldn’t call this the definitive list, but in my mind these five top movie grossers are simply and plainly bad.

#5 – “The Da Vinci Code”

Da vinci

In 2006 “The Da Vinci Code” was a hot topic. I had absolutely no interest in Dan Brown’s best-selling novel so obviously the movie adaptation wasn’t high on my list either. The controversies and the film’s popularity eventually lead me to check it out. That was a mistake. Ron Howard’s long, absurd, bore of a movie plods along trying hard to be a provocative thriller. It fails. But despite that “The Da Vinci Code” made $758 million at the box office. Don’t ask me. I can’t figure it out either.

#4 – “Spider-Man 3”

SPIDEY

Its hard to believe that a movie which made $890 million at the box office would push a studio to pull the plug and completely reboot the series. That doesn’t happen often, but it reveals just how bad the film is. “Spider-Man 3” is a prime example of a movie trying to do too much. Too many side stories, too many villains, too many half-baked relationships, and too many flimsy characters. Apparently people loved it enough to see it again and tell their friends. I thought it was a complete mess.

#3 – “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”

TRANS

Take a quick look through the top grossing movies and you will see all four Transformers films. That blows my mind. The first installment was pretty decent but after that it was all downhill. I didn’t want to make this all about Transformers so I just chose the second film “Revenge of the Fallen”. Talk about a loud, dopey, bloated up movie. Sure Michael Bay’s movies look great but this thing doesn’t know when to end. It goes on and on and on. Apparently some people didn’t mind sitting through the brain-frying cerebral bombardment. It made $836 million worldwide.

#2 – “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”

INDY

This one is personal. What should have been a monumental moment for Indy fans turned into one of the most frustrating and rage-inducing movie experiences. The thought of Indiana Jones returning to the big screen was a big deal to me. How could it be bad? Ford, Allen, Lucas, and Spielberg were all on board. Not only was it bad, it was offensively stupid. Yet despite its crappiness the film would go on to rake in $786 million. I’m sure much of that is due to the name in the title, but screw-ups like this don’t deserve that kind of attention. Rant complete…

#1 – “Avatar”

Let me honest, not everything about “Avatar” is bad. No one can argue that the special effects and the cutting edge use of 3-D were groundbreaking and something to behold. But everything good I could say is restricted to the technical side because Avatar’s characters and overall story was absolutely horrible. James Cameron’s career project swipes story points from so many other films. This is literally “Dances with Wolves” in another galaxy. Completely predictable, awkward acting (Stephen Lang gives one of the worst performances in history), and insanely lame and heavy-handed political messaging. Yet despite its glaring story problems “Avatar” stands as the highest grossing film of all time – $2.8 billion. For that tragic reason it is my #1.

There they are in all of their dubious glory. Agree or disagree? Please let me know in the comments section below.