Category Archives: Movie Reviews – B

REVIEW: “Blue Jasmine”

by

32

BLUE poster

Each year has its share of certainties: we grow a year older, we have to pay our taxes, my sports teams disappoint me, and Woody Allen puts out a new movie. Now that doesn’t mean that every one of Allen’s films are masterpieces (ala “Midnight in Paris”). In fact some of them are just dreadful (ala last year’s “To Rome with Love”). But one thing about the bad ones, you always know the next film is only a year away. And maybe, just maybe, Allen will land one of the real gems he’s capable of making.

Here’s the good news – “Blue Jasmine” is one of the good ones. This character study touches on a number of subjects from business ethics to family troubles to rabid consumerism. At the center of it all is a captivating performance by Cate Blanchett. She plays Jasmine Francis, a New York socialite whose posh lifestyle collapses when her crooked husband is arrested and loses their fortune. Penniless and without a place to go, Jasmine flies to San Francisco and moves in with her estranged working-class sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins). It’s here that she must learn to start a new chapter of her life or drown in her despair of leaving the affluent upper crust.

BLUE1

To go further, Jasmine is a wreck. She’s coming off of a nervous breakdown, she pops anxiety pills like candy, and she has an affinity for heavy drinking. She still carries her spoiled and privileged attitude which clashes with her new destitute reality. And all of this is brought on by her lousy husband. We see the events leading to Jasmine’s fall from luxury through several cleverly incorporated flashbacks. We watch her husband Hal (Alec Bladwin) and his penchant for women and shady business deals while she lives in a diamond-studded state of naïveté. She’s content with living high on the hog while asking no questions whatsoever. That proves to be a costly mistake, both mentally and monetarily.

Jasmine’s snooty ego doesn’t fit well with the circle of people she is introduced to in San Francisco. This class clash is the prominent focus for most of the film. This is also where we meet the film’s fantastic assortment of side characters. Hawkins is great as Jasmine’s kindhearted sister and I really liked Bobby Cannavele as her blue-collar beau hunk boyfriend. We get Michael Stuhlbarg as a lovestruck dentist and Peter Sarsgaard pops up as a wealthy businessman with political aspirations. But the biggest treat was Andrew Dice Clay. Yes you heard me, Andrew Dice Clay. Gone is the loud obnoxious standup routine. Here he plays a humble, hard-working fellow that you can’t help but sympathize with. And it’s all because of the unbelievable turn from Dice Clay. He was completely natural and restrained. Brilliant work.

BLUE2

But the true star is Cate Blanchett who undoubtedly gives one of the year’s finest performances. There are bits of subtle humor that are sprinkled in throughout her story. But she’s more of a sad, self-destructive woman who has no sense of direction or belonging. Blanchett visualizes her struggles through every fidget, every bead of sweat, and every outburst. She’s not a likable character by any stretch but she’s simply mesmerizing. Blanchett gives a performance that is getting some Oscar hype. Personally I think it demands an Oscar nomination.

It’s clear that “Blue Jasmine” was influenced by other films. For example if you listen closely you can hear “A Streetcar Named Desire” passing in the distance. But Woody Allen has always been a filmmaker who treasures inspiration and when he is on his game he can truly deliver. This is really good material handled by an excellent cast including a surprise performance from Andrew Dice Clay and some of the best work of Cate Blanchett’s career. “Blue Jasmine” may not stay with you for a long time nor be considered among Allen’s very best by the bigger fans of his work. For me it really worked and it’s definitely good Woody Allen.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Blackfish”

by

21

Blackfish poster

It’s good to see that documentaries are slowly becoming a recognizable force in the world of cinema. Each year an assortment of insightful and engaging docs that inform and challenge are made by visionary and passionate filmmakers. This year one of the films getting a lot is of press is “Blackfish”. This documentary focuses on Tilikum, a 12,000 pound orca who performs at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. It chronicles the events surrounding Tilikum, including his original capture in 1983, his life in captivity, and his involvement in the deaths of two trainers and a SeaWorld guest.

Let me start with the film’s strength. This is a brilliantly made documentary in terms of its structure and pacing. Director and co-writer Gabriela Cowperthwaite has an unquestionable knack for presentation. With practically no spoken narration, the film seamlessly moves from one interview bite to another mixing in home video footage, archived news reports, and courtroom testimonies. There is never a lull and I found myself glued to the screen even when some of what I was seeing wasn’t that convincing. It has a riveting cinematic flare to it that definitely hits on the emotional level. And clearly emotions were a central target that “Blackfish” had in mind.

Blackfish2

For me, good documentaries enlighten, challenge, inform, and expose. I like it when they take on a tough subject with passion and conviction. But I also appreciate balance, not in terms of equal time for a counterpoint, but in fact telling and representation. That’s a balance that I think is missing here. “Blackfish” is after all an advocacy film. It has a clear objective in mind and there is nothing wrong with that. But there reached a point where I felt chunks of information were being left out and the film was going for a more emotionally manipulative approach. I’m certainly not saying there aren’t moments that truly cut to the heart, but “Blackfish” wants the audience thinking solely with the heart and judging by many of the responses that seems to have worked.

Those interviewed for the doc are mainly a handful of ex-SeaWorld trainers, an OSHA representative, and an orca expert. It’s a single-minded group who offer some thought-provoking insight but also have a similar objective – spotlight the evils of orca captivity and put the crosshairs on SeaWorld. I thought the film’s case was the strongest when it was explaining facts about orcas in their natural habitats. It is also hard not to be effected when we see how some of these early parks operated. And I believe the doc raises some good questions about SeaWorld’s safety protocols.

Blackfish1

But the film falls short when it tries to land its bigger punches. For example the main argument of “Blackfish” is that Tilikum killed three people as a direct result of being held in captivity. Yet Tilikum’s culpability in two of the deaths is sketchy. The first death also involved two aggressive female orcas and the second death involved a man who hid in the park and climbed into the tank with Tilikum after hours. Cowperthwaite briefly touches on these details but then uses the deaths to further a point of view. There is also the goal of making SeaWord out to be nothing more than an evil money-grubbing corporation. While SeaWorld should answer some of the film’s piercing questions, this is a self-serving characterization that overlooks some key facts about the establishment.

“Blackfish” makes a few other missteps. It often gives definitive statements about ambiguous events and it does try to frame opinions as facts. But it also gave me a greater appreciation for these incredible animals and it challenged my past apathy towards their plight. “Blackfish” does ask some powerful questions and it does so through a near perfect presentation. I only wish it was as interested in appealing to the audience’s examination as it is to the their emotions. That type of manipulation just wasn’t needed. Then again, it seems to be a tactic that has really worked so far.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Book Thief”

by

19

BOOK THIEF POSTER

Add this to the ever growing list of movies based on popular books that I’ve never read. “The Book Thief” was a popular novel released in 2006 by Australian author Markus Zusak. At least that’s what I’m told. I obviously had not read it or even heard of it until the new film adaptation hit theaters. I have to say the trailer instantly grabbed me. I’m naturally drawn to movies about World War 2, the Holocaust, or the people affected by them. So even with the film’s small amount of press and lukewarm reviews I was still anxious to see it.

Let’s not beat around the bush. I loved “The Book Thief”. Even further, I’m really surprised at some of the criticisms that have been thrown its way. Some I simply don’t agree with while others feel terribly unjust. It’s true that the movie doesn’t delve deep into the horrors of its setting. And it’s also true that it has its share of melodrama. But I never felt this film needed to be more graphic or detailed and melodrama in itself isn’t a bad thing. For me “The Book Thief” was a sweet, tender, and moving story. Yes those adjectives tend to be overused, but for me they fit this movie perfectly.

DF-05687.JPG

Oddly enough Death is the narrator. ‘He’ sets up the story by introducing us to a young girl named Liesel (Sophie Nélisse). She and her younger brother are being taken by their mother to meet their new foster parents. But when her brother dies in route, Liesel is left alone in this new and difficult environment. Her new parents, the cold, strict Rosa (Emily Watson) and the gentle, compassionate Hans (Geoffrey Rush), live in a small German town during a tumultuous time. Naziism is gaining strength and World War 2 is nearing.

Director Brian Percival takes us along as Liesel tries to adapt to and survive in her new world. There are a few people she meets who helps her along the way. Her new next-door neighbor, a young boy named Rudy (Nico Liersch), is instantly attracted to her and the two become great friends. She also encounters a Jewish man named Max Vandenburg (Ben Schnetzer), who Hans and Rosa put into hiding. But perhaps her greatest source of comfort is found in her newly discovered love for books. Through books she grows closer to her new father, she learns the ways of the new world, and she learns a way to express herself that she had never known before. Throughout the film many things in Liesel’s life changes. Her love for books isn’t one of them.

“The Book Thief” moves slow and deliberate but I never had a problem with it. I found myself glued to the story and the characters particularly young Liesel. Canadian actress Sophie Nélisse is asked to carry much of the load and she is certainly up to the task. The 13-year old gives a mesmerizing performance. She captures the childlike innocence and playfulness while never falling under the weight of the heavier emotional scenes. It was also amazing to see the way she handled a German accent. She really blew me away. Then there is the brilliance of Emily Watson and Geoffrey Rush. Both are perfectly cast and hit every note just right. In fact Rush deserves some serious Oscar consideration for this performance.

Book thief 2

But this is also a beautiful movie made so by Florian Ballhaus’ fine cinematography, some wonderful costume and set designs, and a lovely score by John Williams. There are several camera shots or visual moments that are still etched in my mind. The film is striking as it visualizes several uncomfortable events including a nighttime book burning, a home-by-home search for Jews, and people scrambling for bomb shelters as air raid sirens eerily scream in the background. And it’s made even more effective by the fact that it’s all seen through young Liesel’s eyes.

I love it when a film grabs me and pulls me into its world. That’s exactly what happened with “The Book Thief”. For two hours I was a resident on that small town German street. I cared about the characters, laughed with them, and was pierced by the tragedies they endured. It may be too dry for some people, too tame for others, and perhaps it is just a tad too long. I still had an incredible experience. A stirring story, some beautiful direction, some of the year’s best performances, and a near perfect ending all contribute to this being one of my favorite films of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Black Hawk Down”

by

37

BHD BANNER

I’ve never once tried to hide my appreciation for Ridley Scott. He’s one of my favorite directors and even when his material may not be its strongest, the sheer visual presentation and keen eye that he possesses has always blown me away. More often times than not Scott has given me a truly amazing motion picture experience. Gritty crime thrillers, ambitious science fiction spectacles, marvelous period pieces, and one particular modern military picture that I think is one of the greatest war films of all time – “Black Hawk Down”.

In 2001 Scott took on a project chronicling the events of the Battle of Mogadishu. The 1993 bungled operation to capture the brutal Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid revealed an ineptitude in the U.S. government and the true and unwavering bravery of the American military. It’s an amazing story adapted from Mark Bowden’s 1999 book. “Black Hawk Down” doesn’t cater to any political perspective and like many modern war films it doesn’t lose its effectiveness in a heavy-handed message. The movie sets things up and then puts its focus on the ground and the troops involved.

BHD1

“Black Hawk Down” features a wonderful cast, each feeling perfectly at home in their roles. Eric Bana, Sam Sheppard, Josh Hartnett, William Fichtner, Ewan McGregor, Tom Hardy, Tom Sizemore, Jason Isaacs, Orlando Bloom, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Glen Morshower and others bring this gritty and intense war story to life. Much of the movie’s potency is due to the ability of these actors to draw us to the characters and truly invest in their dire circumstances. A lot of this is also due to Ken Nolan and company’s strong screenplay. The well versed military dialogue and strategies seem anchored in realism making the story itself all the more compelling.

But for me the movie’s success always comes back to Ridley Scott and his spectacular vision. His tension-soaked pacing keeps you locked in from when the first American boot touches ground. His cameras move through the Moroccan urban locations creating an unsettling and dangerous close-quartered environment. The vehicles, helicopters, weaponry, and uniforms all feel extremely authentic. All of this contributes to something that is essential for a film like this – high stakes. Scott does a tremendous job of raising the stakes as the soldiers try to survive amid such violent chaos.

BHD2

And of course there are the brilliant action sequences. Loud echoing gunfire, heavy machine guns and RPGs, strikingly real chopper crashes, projected dirt and rock from grenade explosions and bullet rounds. It’s fierce and furious but again it carries with it a sharp tinge of realism. That’s what make it so powerful. I swear, every time I watch “Black Hawk Down” I find myself consumed by it. Scott’s eye for action is impeccable and here he always keeps it lodged in the story’s context.

“Black Hawk Down” is an intense, visceral experience. It’s gritty action one minute and deeply moving the next. But it never loses sight of its main focus – the soldiers. Scott has done a lot of unique stuff throughout his career and many of his films are true favorites of mine. Well let me just say this is one of his best and coming from a big fan like me, that’s high praise!

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “Before Midnight”

by

30

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: “Badlands”

by

28

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