REVIEW: “Before Midnight”

BEFORE POSTER

It’s hard to believe that its been almost 20 years since we first met Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Cèline (Julie Delpy) on that train from Budapest to Paris. The two hopped off in Vienna which spawned one of the most engaging romances ever to grace the big screen. Nearly 10 years would pass before the two would meet again in “Before Sunset”, a smart and enthralling sequel that only caused audiences to fall for these two and their story even more.

Now jump ahead another 9 years. Director Richard Linklater again teams up with Hawke and Delpy to show us where Jesse and Cèline’s lives have taken them. Fans of this series understand that the less you know going in the better so I’m staying far away from details. But to set things up the film starts with Jesse putting his son Hank on a plane back to his mother after spending the summer together. Jesse and Hank’s mother have divorced and their relationship is strained at best. Hank’s departure leaves Jesse with a torrid whirlwind of emotions that swirl throughout the entire film and serve some pretty key plot points later in the film.

As Jesse leaves the airport we see Cèline standing by a car waiting along with two lovely little girls. We find out the two have been together since the last film and, along with Hank, they all have spent several weeks together on the Greek Peloponnese peninsula. We learn all of this in the first few minutes of the film and I’m not going any further than that. As I mentioned, this is a story best appreciated with little to no knowledge of where its going. It uses many of the same familiar narrative structures of the previous films while also making a few pretty big departures. At times it’s just as captivating as the previous films and these two characters are still fascinating. Yet with those things being true, there is still a sense that this is a film deeply connected to the other films but somehow lacking in key areas.

Before 2

First the good. We get to spend more time with Jesse and Cèline. I swear I could listen to these two talk for hours. And there is a lot of talking. Where big-budget movies move from one large action set piece to another, the “Before” pictures move from one long conversation to another. But fans know these conversations are simply absorbing. Nothing has changed here. Another fluid and sharp script is put together and the rich, natural performances from Hawke and Delpy make the exchanges between these two work brilliantly. We are cleverly told of how their lives have transpired and we watch as they take some difficult turns. The conversations feature different tones that we haven’t seen before but they remain utterly enthralling.

Another big plus is how well connected it is with the previous two films. That may sound like simple praise but this trilogy is unique in that it’s impossible to separate them from one another. In fact, that’s the big thing that makes this a hard movie to review. It’s so deeply rooted in the other two movies that it’s difficult to judge it as a standalone film. But that connectedness is also what makes it so alive and vibrant. I was so anxious to see these characters again because of their past and my investment in it. I also genuinely care for them and watching some of the things play out in “Before Midnight” is crushing yet I couldn’t take my eyes off of it.

Yet while I was hooked on every exchange between Jesse and Cèline and their story was of great interest to me, there were a few things that set this film apart but not always for the better. For me the intimacy and romance I was so fond of wasn’t as powerful here. Now understand I’m not saying it’s nonexistent. We certainly get it in doses. It’s just in a different stage. I realize that the specific story directions understandably soak up some of the romance. But some of it is missing and I found myself longing for it.

BEFORE 1

There also seems to be a constant preoccupation with sex in nearly every conversation. The characters seem fixated on it and they kept beating that same drum throughout the entire film. Unlike the other movies where the dialogue seamlessly and gracefully flowed with no feeling whatsoever that it was scripted, here the constant sex jabber felt so contrived. I also missed the sense of location that permeated “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset”. Vienna and Paris were used subtly in those films but to great effect. Here we get brief looks at the Greek locations but nothing of any value. To be fair, Linklater isn’t trying to make a large visual impression with his camera but I still missed that component.

While this series has been called “The Before Trilogy” by some I hope that’s not the case. The ending isn’t nearly satisfying enough to end a trilogy but more importantly I want to see Jesse and Cèline again. I know I’ve voiced some frustrations with this film but it’s far from being bad. In fact there are several scenes that I absolutely adored. But I can’t shake some of my issues with it – issues that don’t make it a poor film, but they do make it a lesser chapter in this overall captivating love story. But true love can hit a few rough patches doesn’t it? Perhaps that’s what we get here.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “World War Z”

World War Z poster

There’s one absolute in this modern movie age. It’s a certainty that goes unquestioned. Zombies always attract an audience. Hollywood loves zombies and it’s evident by the loads of flicks we get featuring the undead. We get zombie horror, zombie comedies, heck we even got a zombie teen romance picture earlier this year (here’s my shameless plug for my review of “Warm Bodies”). More than big superhero movies or the incessant raunchy comedies, zombies have proven to be a force in modern cinema.

So that brings us to the goofy titled “War War Z”. This strategically muted apocalyptic zombie film is loosely based on the novel by Max Brooks and stars golden boy Brad Pitt. In the film he plays Gerry Lane, a former United Nations worker and now full-time family man. While stuck in heavy downtown Philadelphia traffic with his wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and their two daughters, chaos breaks loose in the form of a deadly zombie pandemic. The film wastes absolutely no time thrusting us into the chaos. No overtelling of a origin and no deeply thought out structuring of the narrative. The story of “World War Z” begins in the most basic of ways but it’s very effective. We quickly see the threat, we learn of its massive scale, and the stakes are raised.

With world cities devastated and governments is disarray, humanity tries to put together some line of defense. Gerry reluctantly volunteers to help in exchange for protection for his family. One of the best things about Pitt’s character is that he avoids most of the common trappings. How many times in films like this have you seen lead characters suddenly become tough guy buttkickers? That never happens here. Gerry isn’t a military man and so often it’s soldiers escorting him through danger. Now that doesn’t mean he’s a wimp. In fact his intellect and instinct are often used to get out of some pretty tough spots. I liked the approach.

World War Z 2

Plagued (pun intended) by setbacks and production delays, “World War Z” looked doomed to failure. Several rewrites and reshoots pushed the film back from its original December 2012 release date. But where that’s often a cause to worry, here it definitely was a plus. I had a blast with the film, more than I originally expected. It pulls elements of horror, big budget action, and clinical thrillers and mixes them together in what I found to be a highly entertaining experience. It doesn’t do anything to reinvent the wheel yet I did find it was able to develop its own look and feel while staying in familiar territory. One minute we are walking through creepy, dimly lit hallways and another moment we’re watching the infected invade cities via some amazing set pieces. Again, familiar stuff but wonderfully conceived.

Now there’s no denying that “World War Z” intentionally takes a very PG-13 approach to what could be a very R-rated story. Some will undoubtedly find fault with that and in some ways I can see their point. But there’s an impressive craftiness to how director Marc Forster realizes the film and I think it works. He also delivers some amazing visual sequences that are still swirling around in my head. Scenes which looked a bit questionable in the trailer actually translated well for me in the film and he maintains a crisp and fluid pace that I never found dull or lethargic.

World War Z 1

I also have to get back to Pitt. He gives a very committed performance and he provides us with a character that never gives us cause to lose our rooting interest. He feels real and grounded which makes his circumstances all the easier for the audience to invest in. I found myself caring for him and for what happened to him and watching him navigate the dangers (sometimes surviving with luck that only a movie can provide) was made the more thrilling because if that.

Now I know some of my fellow horror brethren will cry foul because of the many things this movie dodges. I also know many will dog it for not breaking any new ground. I also have to say it’s one if the worst implementations of 3-D I’ve every seen. Talk about a pointless distraction. But there is something key that it does extremely well – something that is often times forgotten when it comes to making movies. I’m talking about storytelling. I found this to be intense, fun, and most importantly a well structured and well told story. It’s an easy movie for some folks to pick apart and honestly it does open itself up to that. But boy I had fun with this flick and as a zombie fan this was pure undead pleasure with just the right touch of humanity.

I took some ribbing but “World War Z” was one of my more anticipated films of 2013. I gotta say as months passed and the trailers hit the web my skepticism grew. But now it’s safe to say I feel vindicated. This is an honest and straightforward movie that’s certainly made for a broader audience. But I certainly don’t hold that against it especially when it grabs me and doesn’t let’s go. It’s simple escapist entertainment and it’s a fun reminder of why I go to the movies.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

K & M Commentary – That Odd Thing Called Taste

typewriter-banner 1

There is something all of us possess that highlights our own special uniquenesses. It’s this odd thing called taste. Our wide variety of tastes show themselves in a wide variety of ways. Just think about it. One person may love 19th century classical music while another loves 1980’s hair metal. One person may only read crime novels while someone else only reads biographies. I know some people who love Italian pasta while others hate it and would prefer a thick-cut ribeye steak anytime. I could go on and on but you get the point.

Our tastes are just some of the things that set us apart from each other and our tastes are defined by an assortment of different things. They help to reveal our own unique personalities, our own unique voices, our own unique preferences, and our own unique passions. We may share specific tastes but an individual’s collective tastes help to give them an individuality that can often times be fascinating.

I’m especially drawn to people’s different tastes when it comes to movies and television. There’s such a widely varied gamut of likes and dislikes when it comes to these areas of entertainment. I also love how a person’s passionate taste for something helps identify them. For example I know that Ruth at Flixchatter adores British cinema and the many great actors that come from the U.K. Mark at Marked Movies is all about Robert DeNiro and his many great films. Lady Sati over at Cinematic Corner is incredibly passionate about “Game of Thrones”. I could go on and on.

But for me there’s an even more fascinating way to look at our different tastes when it comes to movies. It amazes me how two people can look at one movie and have such drastically different responses to it. Tastes can so wildly vary that one person may despise a film with all their being while another person adores the film and is passionate in their defense of it. There was a time in my immaturity where I would get frustrated when someone disliked a movie that I thought was brilliant. I know, it’s a silly notion but it’s true. I just couldn’t grasp how a movie that gave me such a wonderful experience could be such a pain for someone else. Movies are a funny thing.

It all comes down to this – movies are subjective. They have the uncanny ability to effect every soul differently and appeal to specific tastes in various ways. Movies can scare one person but not another. They can make one person laugh while another sits stone-faced. They can bring one person to tears while another rolls their eyes. There’s just a unique quality about movies that is directly connected to our individuality. What works for one doesn’t always work for another. That’s why movie critics most often debate the writing, the direction, technique, etc. And even then the critic can’t separate his or her own individual taste if they’re being honest in his review.

Still, I can’t promise you that I won’t scratch my head or roll my eyes when I hear that you like Seth Rogan or Will Ferrell movies. I can’t promise that I won’t sit in a state befuddlement when I read a rave review of a Nicholas Sparks film or I see an Adam Sandler movie take in over $100 million. I can’t promise you any of those things. But I can say I better understand it. Like I said, taste is a really odd thing.

THE END

5 Phenomenal Russell Crowe Movies

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

Many of my readers probably know that in a huge Russell Crowe guy. One of my earliest Phenomenal 5 lists focused on modern working actors and Mr. Crowe was right there close to the top. I’m not sure why it’s taken so long but today we’re focusing just on Russell Crowe movies. The are five of his best according to me and I think they easily stand strong as not only great performances but as great overall films. Now naturally with so many solid movies on his résumé I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But there is no denying that these 5 Russell Crowe films are absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – “3:10 TO YUMA”

310 to yuma

This isn’t the first time that James Mangold’s 2007 western has made a Phenomenal 5 list. Many have overlooked this as a pointless and inferior remake. I couldn’t disagree more and one reason it works so incredibly well is the solid performance given by Russell Crowe. He plays the complex bandit Ben Wade and he has an absolute ball with the role. Watching his back-and-forths with Christian Bale as well as his condescending jabs at the law was a hoot and Crowe perfectly sells the intricate layers to his Ben Wade character. It’s a great performance in what I feel is a great modern western.

#4 – “A BEAUTIFUL MIND”

Beautiful Day

Many think Russell Crowe should have received an Oscar for his brilliant work in Ron Howard’s “A Beautiful Mind”. I whole-heartedly agree. Crowe shows tremendous range in what is a wonderful cinematic biography of John Nash. “A Beautiful Mind” is a big movie that almost feels made for the Oscar voters. But it’s a film deserving of its Best Picture win and much of that is due to Crowe’s work. The movie sinks or swims based to his performance and he more than keeps it afloat. It also helps that he’s given a smart script from Akiva Goldsman (who also took home an Oscar). All of this comes together to form a powerful film that I still enjoy revisiting.

#3 – “ROBIN HOOD”

Robin hood

Talk about a movie that got a lot of mixed reaction! Readers may remember that the very first movie featured in my Public Movie Defender column was Ridley Scott’s epic sized Robin Hood. The movie was blasted as dull and plodding. I thought is was a fantastic and fresh look at the legend of Robin Hood. One reason it resonated with me was Russell Crowe’s performance. He’s never too big and he relays a Robin Hood that steers the campy and sometimes corny personas we have sometimes seen. I love the world Scott visualizes and I really appreciated how it did tell a broader story instead about being strictly an action picture. Some may disagree, but I think this is a wonderful Russell Crowe picture.

#2 – “MASTER AND COMMANDER”

Master Commander

Well, it’s actually titled “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” but who wants to type that over and over? I still remember how excited I was when I first heard that Russell Crowe had signed on for this film. Peter Weir’s film based on Patrick O’Brian’s popular series if novels couldn’t have castes a better Captain Jack Aubrey. Crowe’s a natural for the role and I find myself enthralled with the story every time I sit down and watch it. Stunning cinematography and beautiful period design also helps in making this such a great film. But it’s Crowe who shines brightest. You can’t take your eyes off of what he’s doing. It was another Oscar worthy performance in what is one of my favorite movies.

#1 – “GLADIATOR”

Gladiattor

It’s one of those rare joys to find a movie that completely sweeps you away and cements itself as one of your all-time favorites! That’s the case with “Gladiator”. I love this film. Once again Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe collaborate to put together a huge breathtaking period piece. But this time they created a near masterpiece that I can watch anytime and anywhere. A lot of my love for it swirls around Crowe’s top-notch performance. He’s physical, emotional, inspirational, and brutal. It’s the performance that earned him an Academy Award and you won’t hear any arguments from me. “Gladiator” is a brilliant movie and for me it’s the top dog when it comes to Russell Crowe movies.

Those are my five favorite Russell Crowe movies. What are your thoughts? See something I missed or do you disagree with my choices? I’d love to hear your thoughts below.

REVIEW: “Badlands”

Classic Movie SpotlightBADLANDSTerrence Malick’s directing career has spanned four decades. Now that can be a bit misleading since he’s only made six films during that time. Still, that small body of work has been enough to make him one of my favorite directors. For me, a Malick movie is an experience. He’s an auteur who plays by no other rules other than his own and the quality of his films are always at a high level. There are also several thematic and visual distinctions that course through every Terrence Malick picture, stylistically and narratively differentiating them from most other movies.

It all started in 1973 with the release of “Badlands”. Malick was inspired by the real-life story of Clarence Starkweather, also known as the ‘Mad Dog Killer’. He and his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate went on a killing spree through the midwest in the late 1950’s, murdering 11 people including her parents and her 2-year old sister. But the similarities between the film and the true story are few. “Badlands” does focus on an ill-founded young romance and the terrible events that follow but it looks at them through a much different lens than the true story would allow.

“Badlands” stars a 33-year old Martin Sheen who looked a lot younger than he was. He’s intentionally given a James Dean look with his white t-shirt with rolled up sleeves, blue jeans, dangling cigarette, and rebel-styled hair. He plays Kit, a rudderless ship with seemingly no direction or aspirations for his life. He’s just quit his job as a garbage collector and you get the sense that he has no idea what’s next.

Badlands 2

While walking through the streets of a small South Dakota town, Kit comes across 15-year old Holly (Sissy Spacek) twirling her baton in her front yard. Spacek was almost 10 years older than the part but you would never guess it from her performance. She immediately comes across as an innocent and naïve young girl with a very veiled perception of the world. She lives alone with her father ever since her mother died a few years earlier. I got the sense that that loss had deeply affected her life. Holly falls victim to Kit’s charm and a romance follows, against the wishes of her father. From there, as with most of Malick’s movies, the story takes an idyllic idea and carries it through to a sad and violent conclusion.

In “Badlands” there are several things that Malick doesn’t reveal and several questions he doesn’t explore. For example we know practically nothing about Kit’s past. We also never get a clear idea as to the root of his violence. Personally I think it’s all found in his and Holly’s quest to find where they belong in the world. Malick gives us two characters who you could say create their own twisted fairy tale of existence. They romanticize their lives on the run and never seem to count the consequences or consider the damage the do. They live in a fantasy world of their own making. This evident from several scenes and conversations they have. We also sense it from Holly’s narration which we hear scattered throughout the movie.

badlands1

In “Badlands” you’ll also see the genesis of Malick’s concentration on nature. Even then his camera seems to gravitate towards beautiful shots of the sun breaking through a leafy canopy, glistening dew on a flower petal, or the lively flow of water in a stream. It’s certainly not as profound as in his more recent pictures but it’s undeniably there. And throughout the film there seems to be a contrast between the beauty and peacefulness of nature and the skewed fantasy world the characters have invented.this subtle dichotomy is never more vivid than in the movie’s well-known tree house scene. I’ll leave it at that for those who haven’t seen it, but it’s a fascinating sequence.

Let me build on that last sentence. “Badlands” is a pretty fascinating movie and it’s a strong directorial debut for one of our best directors. It’s a well written tale of two lost souls dancing between idyllic naiveté and sociopathic violence. I couldn’t take my eyes off of it. Again, “Badlands” is an obvious birthplace of Malick’s particular and personal style of cinematic storytelling and that in itself is worth seeing. But there are also more unsettling stories of lost innocence and tragedy from Malick’s pen that are just as vital to making this a great film.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

Your Voices: On Underrated Actors

Your Voices

I’m amazed at how some actors have managed to become huge movie stars despite their mediocre talent while other immensely talented actors struggle to get the recognition or bigger roles that they deserve. There are several examples of fantastic actors who just can’t seem to gain the type of appreciate I think they deserve. Out of these talents there are two that top the list for me.

Guy Pearce and Karl Urban are two actors who have had a few smaller starring roles but are mainly reserved for supporting work. Urban has probably had the toughest time breaking in. It was his work in The Lord of the Rings that really caught my eye. But he’s also been really good in “Red”, “The Bourne Supremacy”, and of course the new Star Trek films. But it’s Pearce who I find to be the most underused and underappreciated. He’s one of my favorite actors and while he’s had more significant roles than Urban, he still seems like a second or third tier actor for some. His work in “Animal Kingdom”, “Memento”, “Lawless”, “LA Confidential”, “The Time Machine”, and “The Proposition” are some examples of his incredible talents.

Now that you’ve heard mine, it’s time for Your Voices. Who do you think are some of cinema’s more underrated actors?

Those are my examples of underrated actors (we’ll be talking about the ladies soon). I hope you’ll take time to list some of your choices and share a few comments about them. I can’t wait to learn who you think deserves more recognition! Thanks again!

THE END