Category Archives: Movie Reviews – S

REVIEW: “SCHINDLER’S LIST”

by

12

Many movies have looked at the Jewish Holocaust from a variety of different angles. There have been films that examined it through the eyes of children, those that have focused on specific regions, and others that show individuals who went to great lengths to help the persecuted Jews. A well done movie on the subject always has a strong effect on me. It’s not just the terrible things and disturbing images that filmmakers are showing us, but it’s the fact that they are dealing with a very real and devastating time in our world’s history. The Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews marks one of the world’s darkest times. But it’s also a period that should never be forgotten and there are several films that help us remember.

While many movies have done an excellent job responsibly depicting events surrounding the Holocaust, Steven Spielberg’s 1993 movie “Schindler’s List” is the one that has had the strongest impact on me personally. I recently had an opportunity to revisit the film. It had been several years since I had last saw it and with good reason. It’s not an easy movie to watch. It features some of the most realistic and graphic depictions of Nazi violence and mistreatment of the Jews and doesn’t shy away from presenting it in a crushing and penetrating way. From their initial relocation to Krakow’s Jewish Ghetto to their brutal and deadly time spent in the Nazi extermination camps, we see the Jews experience all forms of cruelty and brutality made more disturbing by its roots in reality.

The Jewish plight is brilliantly and cleverly shown through the true story of Oskar Schindler. Schindler, played wonderfully by Liam Neeson, is a German businessman who arrives in occupied Krakow in hopes of making a load of money exploiting the war. At first, Schindler is a self-absorbed, money-hungry man who quickly finds acceptance by kissing up to an assortment of high-ranking German SS officers. Through bribes and his Nazi Party membership, Schindler obtains several contracts to make metal pots and pans for the German soldiers in the field. To secure even more money for himself, he brings in a Jewish workforce who work considerably cheaper than the local Catholic Poles. To keep his fledgling company up and going, he hires Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley), an accomplished Jewish accountant and highly regarded member of the Jewish community. It’s through this relationship that Schindler begins to see his perceptions change.

Coinciding with SS Officer Amon Goeth’s (Ralph Fiennes) arrival at the Plaszow concentration camp, the Germans raid and empty the Krakow Ghetto, shipping Jews to the camp and slaughtering almost 2,000 in the streets. As Schindler witnesses the atrocities taking place, he’s deeply troubled and an internal conflict begins between his desire for a money-making business and his growing affection for his Jewish workers. He struggles with the temptation to take his money and leave the city. Instead he sets out to use his fortune to try to save his workers and as many other Jews as he can. To do so requires him to get close to high-ranking Nazi’s like Goeth making it all the more difficult.

The story of Oskar Schindler and his personal transformation is quite moving and Liam Neeson is nothing short of brilliant in his portrayal. Neeson’s Schindler is a confident and looming opportunist. Even Spielberg’s camera makes him stand head and shoulders about so many of the people he is in contact with. That’s just one reason the ending is so stirring (I’ll leave it at that for those who haven’t seen the film). I was particularly enamored with the relationship between Schindler and Stern. You initially see the two on a strictly business level. Neither really like or trust the other. But as mentioned, it’s this growing friendship that plays a key role in Schindler’s transformation. I talked about the fantastic work of Neeson. Let me just say Kingsley is equally good and I still view this as his very best performance.

I also have to take time to praise Ralph Fiennes and his incredible work as Goeth, easily one of the most detestable villains on film. Fiennes visually captures this sick and twisted personification of evil. While Schindler does find ways to manipulate Goeth, his ingrained wickedness never goes away and we see it on display through some of the movie’s more disturbing scenes. What makes the character more frightening is that the movie doesn’t stray that far in its portrayal of the real Amon Goeth. He was a sadistic cold-hearted murderer who is said to have killed close to 550 Jews himself. That’s not counting the thousands he sent to be executed. Spielberg included several scenes that show Goeth’s murderous tendencies including his penchant for sniping Jewish workers in the camp from the terrace of his château on the hill. This sick bit of reality only makes the character more despicable and Fiennes sell it perfectly.

“Schindler’s List” is also a technical achievement. Spielberg’s decision to shoot it in black and white was perfect. It gives the movie an added feel of authenticity and when mixed with the frequent hand-held camera work and strategically placed wide angled shots, it makes you believe you’re watching a documentary. The clever style of several scenes almost resemble old film footage of the actual events. It’s that convincing. The movie was shot in a way that resembled a more classic style of filmmaking but yet never shied away from the harsh reality it was depicting. The movie was helped by being filmed on or near the locations of the actual events. Spielberg’s desire for realism really pays off and the locations were a big part of it. But that same desire for realism also made filming difficult for the director. It’s been said he cried repeatedly during the filming and there were certain scenes he literally couldn’t watch.

While “Schindler’s List” is a great film, it can also be a difficult movie for audiences to watch. It’s a movie that’s sometimes painful and emotionally draining. But it’s also a film of immense power and the deepest sincerity. It’s a visually stunning war picture that makes you feel as though you are witnessing these horrific events first-hand. It’s also a story of incredible personal transformation in the middle of some of our world’s darkest moments. The performances are outstanding and Spielberg’s direction bypasses most of the other work on his resume. It’s a stirring historical drama that reminds me of the power movies have to entertain us, to move us, and inform us. It’s also a reflection on a time that we should never forget and events we should never repeat.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

“SAFE” – 3 1/2 STARS

by

0

While not all of Jason Statham’s action pictures have been good, you can’t deny that he has an almost infectious tough guy charisma. He’s a believable action movie star even in the middle of some pretty far-fetched action sequences. In “Safe”, Statham shoots, kicks, and punches through some pretty familiar territory. But it’s also a sharply directed action picture that builds on a really strong performance from Statham all the way to its bullet-ridden finale.

Statham plays Luke Wright, an ex-NYPD special agent who has hit rock bottom. We learn that Luke has resorted to cage fighting, something he hasn’t done well at. After winning a fight he was supposed to lose and costing the Russian Mafia a load of money, his life is utterly shattered by the orders of the mob’s leader. Homeless and at the end of his rope, he sees a young Chinese girl being chased by the same Russians. He intervenes to save the girl who he quickly finds is also being hunted by the Chinese Triads and some corrupt NYPD cops. Luke finds himself in the middle of an all out war in the New York City streets as he tries to protect the girl and the long list of numbers she holds in her memory.

Several things make “Safe” stand out from some of Statham’s other movies.  For one thing, the Luke Wright character shows more humanity than we see in some of his other roles. Statham absolutely has the athletic, tough-as-nails, butt-kicker persona down perfectly. But I was really surprised to see how well he brought genuine emotion to several scenes that called for it. The movie also benefits from a pretty tight and well structured story. It’s fast-paced and adrenaline filled but it’s also cleverly layed out. But that doesn’t mean the story is flawless. There’s nothing that happens that you won’t see coming from a mile away. The only exception is the very end which really didn’t work for me. I’m not going any further because I don’t want to spoil anything, but let’s just say the big finale was a head-scratcher.

But “Safe” is an action movie first and foremost and it delivers plenty of it. There’s plenty of gunfire and bone breaking and the frantic herky-jerky camera work actually works better here than in many other films that employ the technique. Director Boaz Yakin knows Statham’s strengths and he rides them. Statham’s martial arts background fuels some really slick fight sequences and he’s not bad with a pistol either. And while there is plenty violence, Yakin portrays it without buckets of blood. It’s gritty and edgy but it maintains the feel without the unneccessary gore. The action is the movie’s bread and butter and I was sold on it.

This certainly isn’t a movie for everyone and it isn’t a film that will garner a lot of critical praise. But it’s a fun, no-nonsense action picture that I enjoyed. Statham really brings it both physically and with a performance that shows he has some acting chops. The movie is fairly predictable and it’s supposed twist at the end isn’t all that impressive. But will anyone be going to see “Safe” other than to see Statham kick, punch, and shoot his way through waves of bad guys? That’s one of the reasons I went to see it and I definitely got what I paid for.

“SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN” – 4 STARS

by

3

It may have the strangest title of any movie you will see in theaters this year. “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” is a British romantic comedy that doesn’t shy away from the absurdity of its title. It’s a story about faith and believing you can accomplish something regardless of how preposterous it may sound. But this isn’t another run-of-the-mill, paper-thin rom-com that we seem to get bombarded with each year. Instead, “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” has charm, a lot of heart, and some really good laughs.

“Salmon” is based on a novel by British author Paul Torday. It centers around the idea of a wealthy Sheikh Muhammed (Amr Waked) to bring salmon fishing to his homeland of Yemen. He’s a visionary who sees the project as something that would bring his people happiness while a small opposition group of hardliners see it as an attempt to westernize their country. Nonetheless he sends his representative Harriet (Emily Blunt) to meet with Britain’s foremost expert on fisheries, Fred Jones (Ewen McGregor) to test the feasibility of the project. From the start, Fred writes it off as a ludicrous idea noting everything from Yemen’s lack of water to its temperature as reasons why it won’t work. Harriet, on the other hand, is armed with answers and provides several reasons why it could work.

Still Fred wants nothing to do with the project but is soon forced to by Bridget Maxwell (Kristin Scott Thomas), the British Prime Minister’s cold-hearted press secretary. She’s taking some heat over how the country is being perceived by middle eastern countries particularly due to their military presence in Afghanistan. She sees helping the salmon fishing in Yemen project as a way to manipulate headlines and make the country look good. Maxwell is a mean and abrasive character but she also provides several of the film’s bigger laughs. While she is funny, there were times where the script overplays her baseness. Fred goes to Yemen to oversee the project and is soon won over by the Sheik’s vision and passion. He also discovers a growing attracted to Harriet which complicates both of their lives even further.

For me a romantic comedy will never work without good characters. “Salmon” has good characters. Fred is basically a fishing nerd. He’s a by-the-books fellow who feels uncomfortable if he’s even close to being outside his comfort zone. His marriage to Mary (Rachael Stirling) is on it’s last leg and he has no sense of direction for his life. He’s also not your typical rom-com male lead. He’s not suave, powerful, or your standard movie beau hunk. He’s just a guy and he’s easy to sympathize with and maybe even relate to in some ways. McGregor is perfectly cast and he has no problem capturing the qualities of Fred. Even Harriet isn’t your typical character. While she is beautiful, she’s also intelligent and witty yet equally unsure of her future. She recently became involved with a soldier but their relationship is put on hold when he is deployed to Afghanistan. Both main characters feel real. They’re not over-the-top or unrelatable nor are they cardboard cutouts. I liked them both.

“Salmon” does a lot of things right. The performances are really strong throughout and the chemistry between McGregor and Blunt doesn’t have to be manipulated. The movie also doesn’t force the relationship on the main characters. I don’t want to ruin anything but lets just say you’ll know what I mean after you’ve seen the film. I also really liked the sequences that take place in Yemen. They were actually filmed in Morocco and offer their own unique beauty. Also, I found the story of faith to be very effective. The sheik is a man of faith but Fred is not. As the story progresses we see that start to change. The salmon project becomes a time of reflection and self-discovery for Fred and in some ways also for Harriet. There’s one particular scene where Fred is walking with a heavy crowd of people. The overhead shot shows him stopping, turning around, then going back against the steady flow of pedestrians. It perfectly represents the change of direction in his life, the going against the grain if you will. As a whole, the story is well done and as mentioned it features some truly funny moments. Perhaps the only issue with the story is that I did feel some of the plot directions seemed too clean-cut. A few things happen along the way that just felt a little too convenient. But that’s not a big gripe.

I love a good romantic comedy or drama but they seem so rare these days. The genre has been watered down with films that follow the same broken formulas. But “Salmon” is unique in that it actually has funny moments, it is intelligent, and it’s two main characters are easy to care about and believe in. Again, some things in the story are a little too on the nose, but they’re easy to overlook when you have so much else to like. The film looks good and the performances are superb, especially from Blunt. It’s just a solid romantic comedy and so many of the other films in this genre should take notes.

REVIEW: “Safe House”

by

3

Safe House

The 2012 movie year has offered several pleasant surprises at the local cineplex. “Safe House” is a high-octane action picture that keeps this trend going. While I can’t say there is anything particularly fresh or profound about “Safe House”, what it does it does well. It offers plenty of gunfire, car chases, and fist fights while employing several familiar elements into its story. But it never goes beyond it’s intentions and for my money “Safe House” entertains.

Denzel Washington plays Tobin Frost and ex-CIA operative who is now wanted by several international organizations including the CIA and MI6. After being leaked secret documents from an MI6 agent in South Africa, Frost finds himself on the run from a group of heavily armed contract killers. He flees to the American Embassy, a last resort, and is immediately taken into custody. He’s moved to a local safe house ran by a disgruntled Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds). Weston has seen no action and has petitioned for a transfer from his boring position. As you can guess, that changes once Frost is brought into his facility. The mercenaries arrive instantly leaving Weston to take Frost and run.

Safe House 1

Most of the film focuses on the pair as they try to escape their pursuers while also toying with the question of “Is Frost a good guy or is he a bad guy”? As usual Washington nails his character and often times carries some of the scenes that would have otherwise fell flat. He also relays his character’s moral gray area with the perfect amount of ambiguity. He’s hard to read and I loved watching him and his story unfold. Washington never shortchanges his character whether it be Frost’s grit or his personal affections. Reynolds is also quite good and shows again that he is capable of handling better material (sorry Green Lantern). He lays it all out during the action sequences and He and Washington have a good chemistry. There is also a fantastic supporting cast including Vera Farmiga, Sam Shepard, and Brendan Gleeson.

“Safe House” uses a grainy, gritty visual style throughout the movie and while it did take me a minute to get used to it, I found it really worked. The film features a lot of herky jerky camera work and is frantically edited which I’m sure is meant to capture the chaos and intensity of the action sequences. This works more often times than not but I can see where it may be a bit disorienting for some. There are a few instances where it tries to get too clever with the camera but not enough to hurt the movie. Overall it’s visually impressive and the sound design is stellar.

“Safe House” could be considered your standard action/chase picture and there is a good argument there. But I found myself interested in the international aspect as well as the “who can you trust” question that shows itself as the story unfolds. Washington has been consistently good in his career and he delivers a strong performance here as well. He can carry films like this but here he doesn’t have to. Reynolds holds his own and the strong supporting work helps make up for when the plot may not be as sharp. But I had a great time with “Safe House” and I don’t penalize it for aiming at a specific mark and hitting it. Sometimes a straightforward action picture is all I need.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

“STAR WARS EPISODE 1: THE PHANTOM MENACE” 3D – 4 STARS

by

2

There is perhaps no better monument to geekdom than the Star Wars franchise. George Lucas’ sprawling epic and personal cash cow has leapt outside the bounds of movies and into television, novels, comic book series, and more. That doesn’t even count the loads of money brought in through toys and other merchandise. So Star Wars certainly has it’s fan base and it always will. But you don’t have to be a Star Wars fan to appreciated the monumental accomplishment that “Star Wars” was when it hit theaters in 1977. It was a ground-breaking film in regards to its visual style and special effects. The film spawned two sequels, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi”, both of which were immensely popular with the fans.

But one of the greatest stirs within the Star Wars community came in 1993 when Lucas announced he would be making a new trilogy, a prequel to the first three films. They would connect directly to the original trilogy and complete Lucas’ vision for the saga. In 1999, “Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace” was released. There has probably never been a movie released that has been under more scrutiny and breakdown that Episode 1 when it arrived in theaters. Fanboys and critics alike looked for chinks and flaws while never being able to keep from comparing it to the original trilogy. This has made judging Episode 1 on its own merits almost impossible. But Episode 1 had a lot on its plate and while I did find it to be the weakest of the six Star Wars pictures, after seeing the re-release, it still grabbed me and brought me back to the universe that I have always loved.

Since Lucas’ intent was to connect the two trilogies into one cohesive saga, I was always curious to see how he would start everything. In Episode 1, Lucas sets everything in motion by focusing on, of all things, politics as the biggest weapon of manipulation used to bring about the tragic events that we all know will unfold. We also get a look at the Jedi in their prime. We spend most of the time with Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) as they go from political negotiators to planet liberators. A young Natalie Portman plays a Naboo queen who has a major impact on events. Another key part of the film is the introduction to Anakin Skywalker (played wonderfully by Jake Lloyd), a young child slave on Tatooine who we know later becomes Darth Vader. Lucas’ focus on Anakin in the first three films ends up reshaping the actual focus of the overall saga, and for my money in a good way.

As a whole, the structure of “The Phantom Menace” is pretty impressive. It was a daunting task to make three films that could connect directly to the previous trilogy and do so in a way that’s both cohesive and that survives the mythological scrutiny it faced from fanboys. Episode 1 does a nice job of putting the key characters in place while only occasionally getting bogged down in the almost mandatory setup scenes needed to launch the story. It’s nicely written and with the exception of a few hiccups, I found myself still pulled right back into the saga even after all these years.

Several new characters are introduced. Some of them work really well while others, not so much. The hatred for the Jar Jar Binks character was well documented and understandable. For me the problem wasn’t so much with the character, but with Lucas’ overkill in using him as “comic relief”. Lucas overplayed his hand and the result was an annoying and distracting character. On the flip side is the sinister Darth Maul physically played by Ray Park (his voice was done by Peter Serafinowicz). Not only was he one of the coolest looking Star Wars characters of all but his lightsaber fight with Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon still blows me away.

There’s no doubt that Lucas wants to show off the benefits of the new technology available to him in “The Phantom Menace”. In many ways it’s a good thing but in other ways it works against the film. I felt in some instances the movie becomes a barrage of “watch this” CGI moments. There are several scenes that could have easily been left out and the film would have been better for it. But there are also many scenes where the special effects present Star Wars in a new, more jaw-dropping light. The pod races on Tatooine is breath-taking and the space scenes are amazing. Most of the CGI characters move and fit flawlessly into the scenes with human actors. John Williams is back with an incredible score that gives us tiny tastes of the music from the original trilogy. Williams also creates new music that feels as though it want to interconnect with the original music as the story progresses. It works beautifully.

The one significant change for the re-release of Episode 1 is that the film is in 3D. The only problem is that it didn’t feel that significant at all. There are a few scenes where the 3 D works well, the pod races and space battles come to mind. There are also other instances where more depth is given to the scenes. But as a whole, the 3D isn’t particularly impressive. In fact, the 3D trailer that I saw earlier doesn’t reflect what you get from the full film. Now I’ll be honest, the 3D wasn’t the main draw for me. I mainly wanted to go and experience Star Wars on the big screen with my son. But if you’re going expecting a fantastic 3D experience you’ll probably be disappointed.

At the end of the day, “Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace” brought me right back into this magical universe that I’ve always loved. Again, Episode 1 is probably the weakest of the six films but I have a hard time railing on it as many others tend to do. It has it’s share of flaws but it also has it’s share of excitement and grandeur. But most importantly, it looks, sounds, and feels like a Star Wars picture and it sets the table for the rest of this glorious saga.

“SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS” – 2 STARS

by

3

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is the sequel to the hugely popular 2009 action adventure mystery film. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law return as Holmes and Watson as does director Guy Ritchie. Unfortunately the uniqueness, humor, and charm of the first film are all but missing in the sequel. “A Game of Shadows” feels like it hits the same notes over and over and it certainly lacks the freshness of the first picture. It feels bland and generic and even the loud injections of explosions, gunfire, and fist fights can’t break the monotony.

That’s a pretty harsh way to open a review and in all honesty the movie is not all bad. The story pits Holmes and Watson against Professor Moriarty played wonderfully by Jared Harris. Moriarty is a man of great power and is involved in all sorts of criminal activity including terrorist bombings, assassinations, and corrupt business dealings. As with most villains of this type, Moriarty has a much bigger plan at work and the story takes Holmes and Watson through numerous twists and turns, some of which make almost no sense, in their efforts to stop their arch-enemy. The best scenes in the film are the one-on-one conversations between Holmes and Moriarty but sadly we don’t get many of them.

The movie has a few genuinely funny moments. When not bogged down with the sometimes bloated screenplay, Downey, Jr.’s kookiness certainly pulls in a few laughs. There are also a couple of more sequences that are quite funny. But there are several attempts at humor that just fall flat and at times feel out-of-place. Some of these attempts feel cheap and I especially grew tired of certain undertones than seem to run throughout the film. It definitely doesn’t maintain the humor of the first picture.

“A Game of Shadows” won’t do anything to endear itself to fans of the classic characters. But it not only takes the characters further and further away from the source material. I thought this version of Holmes and Watson were quite different from what we saw in the first movie. We get glimpses of the wacky relationship from the previous picture but not enough to drive the film. It overextends itself in so many directions that it seems to have forgotten what made the first film so enjoyable.

I liked the first Sherlock Holmes movie. It was fresh, funny, and quite entertaining. This second installment falls well short of the mark and even with it’s occasional laugh and pulse-pounding action sequences, I couldn’t get past the convoluted plot, cheap gags, and off-balanced direction. If they do decide to try for a third film in the franchise, I for one think they should look to another director. For me, Ritchie’s vision has run it’s course and I can’t see myself sitting through another film that offers as little as “A Game of Shadows”.