Tag Archives: cate blanchett

REVIEW: “The Monuments Men”

by

36

MONUMENTS poster

Inspired by an incredible true story and armed with a wonderful ensemble cast, “The Monuments Men” has all the ingredients to be a sure thing. The talent behind the film starts with George Clooney who co-writes, stars, and takes another turn at directing. Clooney has directed some fantastic movies but “Leatherheads” and “The Ides of March” showed us that he’s far from infallible. But I was excited once I saw “The Monuments Men” on the horizon and it quickly became one of my most eagerly anticipated films. Pretty high expectations, right?

I first heard the story of “The Monuments Men” from author Robert Edsel. He was doing an interview and talking about his new book which told the true story of Allied soldiers who sought out and saved important works of art from Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2. It’s incredible stuff and once I heard about a film adaptation I was hooked. Clooney’s picture is loosely based on the actual events which feeds the movie’s strengths but also its weaknesses. So far people have pounced on the film expecting more from it or wanting something entirely different. Personally I thought “The Monuments Men” was fantastic.

Monuments2While watching the film my very first feelings were nostalgic. “The Monuments Men” is a throwback to the old ensemble war pictures but with its own unique twist. I immediately began thinking of movies like “The Green Berets”, “The Guns of Navarone”, and “The Dirty Dozen”. Even the end credits hearken back to those older pictures. My father loved these films and growing up I was able to watch them and learn to appreciate them. I think Clooney gets that and he knows what he’s doing. I give him a ton of credit for recapturing the vibes and nuances of those past genre pieces.

But the big difference between this film and the older ones can be found in the characters. This team isn’t comprised of hardened frontline soldiers. These are common men who possess particular skills needed to complete this unique mission. They are museum curators, art historians, and architects. They are older men who are more comfortable with Picassos and Monets than machine guns and hand grenades. Their mission brings them in as the war in Europe is ending. But even though they slip around the battlefields and combat, eventually the elements of the war effects them. They are at times joking and playful – it’s what you could expect from these types of characters. But they are no longer curating museums, designing skyscrapers, or painting. They are in the war and they constantly come across sober reminders of that.

Monuments1

I love this entire dynamic which diverts the movie from a common action-oriented path. There really isn’t much action at all which hurts the film in some people’s estimation. Personally I don’t think the story calls for much action. Instead it focuses on the mother of all treasure hunts through an assortment of beautiful European locales. But their mission isn’t easy. There are still wartime tensions, a greedy Russian army, and the Nazis who are under direct orders from Hitler to destroy everything. The seven who make up The Monuments Men split up and spread out across Europe hunting clues, fleeing danger, and tracking down as much stolen art as they can.

Clooney’s film has plenty of shifts in tone. The movie sometimes feels easygoing and lighthearted only to be dark and somber a few scenes later. Some have taken issue with this saying the humor feels out of place. I completely disagree because I found the humor to be measured and conscientious. The humor was there but it felt light. There were never any attempts at big laugh-out-loud moments which would have really been jarring.

And then there is the cast. I love watching good actors act and we certainly get to do that. Clooney plays the team leader and he’s joined by Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, and Hugh Bonneville. Everyone of them gives fine performances and there is some unique chemistry that develops. Cate Blanchett is also excellent playing someone based on the fascinating real Rose Valland. All of these characters are given their moments to shine and we are given small bits of information about them along the way. Unfortunately it’s not enough to fully develop the characters – only to make us want to know more about them. That was a little disappointing although a movie like this could get bogged down with layers upon layers of backstory.

monuments3

Phedon Papamichael (who also did brilliant work in 2013’s “Nebraska”) offers up some fine cinematography and the war-torn set designs look amazing. Alexandre Desplat’s score adds to the film’s old-school flavor that Clooney is obviously shooting for. The performances, the nostalgia, the clever balance of the script, the uniqueness of the story. Everything I’ve mentioned comes together in a film that I found satisfying but many others clearly didn’t. What has caused the strong backlash to this film? Was it the lack of action, the deliberate pacing, the scattered storytelling? These things are certainly present but for me they made it a better film and they help steer it away from the conventional movie we could have gotten.

As a lover of art and World War II history, the story of “The Monuments Men” connected with me from the start. As a lover of the fun ensemble war pictures that were all but gone by the end of the 1960s, Clooney’s vision and approach hits the target. To say I’m bewildered by the negative reception to this film is an understatement. I don’t quite know what to make of it. But movies are a funny thing and they certainly effect people differently. For me this was a real treat – a movie that doesn’t pander to conventionalism, moves at its own pace, and treats its subject with respect. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not a bad film either and I for one loved it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

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

The Public Movie Defender – “Robin Hood”

by

35

MOVIE DEFENDER ROBIN HOOD

The idea behind The Public Movie Defender is to take up the cause of a particular movie that I believe is better than the majority of reviews it has received. These are movies which I feel are worth either a second look or at least a more open examination considering the predominantly negative opinions of them. The films chosen are ones that I like so therefore I’m taking their case and defending them before the court of negative opinion. Let the trial begin…

DEFENDANT # 1 – “ROBIN HOOD”

ROBIN HOODOccasionally I like to take the time to focus on a particular movie that I really like but many others didn’t. Call it my unnecessary yet obligatory sense of personal duty or some warped affection for getting blasted by my fellow movie fans. Whatever it is, I find it fun defending movies that I appreciate but many others may not. One such film is Ridley Scott’s 2010 period adventure “Robin Hood”. Lingering at an undeserved 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, “Robin Hood” has faced a variety of gripes from its slow, plot-heavy narrative to its historical inaccuracies. These things didn’t bother me at all and the movie went on to be one of my favorite films of that year.

I still remember when I was driving to the theater to first see Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”. I couldn’t help but wonder if I had set my expectations so high that it would be impossible for the movie to reach them. After all, this is Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, the same team who brought us “Gladiator”, a true favorite of mine. Could one of my favorite working actors and one of my favorite working directors come close to matching the success of their previous Oscar winning period film? The answer is yes, for my money they did come close. While overall “Robin Hood” isn’t as grand or as seamless as “Gladiator”, it does well in many of the same areas that made “Gladiator” such a strong film.

This isn’t your standard Robin Hood that we’re all familiar with. This is considered a prequel to the ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ story that’s been told numerous times before. It follows Robin Longstride (Crowe) as he goes from being an archer in King Richard’s army to the most wanted man in all of England. Along the way he witnesses the death of King Richard in battle and the rise of King John (Oscar Isaacs), Richard’s younger brother. King John isn’t a likable leader. His arrogant, self-serving approach to governing and his burdensome heavy taxes have turned the people against him and it couldn’t be a worse time for that. An invading French army is knocking on England’s door but the people need unifying.

Robin 1

Meanwhile Robin and his three new but merry men find themselves in Nottingham where secrets to his past may lie. Its here than he runs into the proud and spirited Marion (Cate Blanchett). I won’t give anything away but anyone even remotely familiar with the Robin Hood story knows that they eventually hit it off. But violence and war comes to Nottingham which catapults Robin right into the center of the tumult. The story takes its time getting to this point. It deliberately moves through several plot points and it lays out a lot of story along the way.

This is what turned off a lot people. They found it all flat and plodding. Personally I loved the slow and calculated buildup. I loved the clear focus on the characters, the politics, and the strategies behind the events taking place. I loved that it wasn’t just another period film focused almost exclusively on the action. For me the intentional time spent with character development worked fine and it fed the action sequences giving them more meaning and weight. With the exception of a couple of needless inclusions, I was wrapped up in this story and while it might have been too slow for some, I found its proficient script in the hands of this truly great cast made for some wonderful entertainment.

ROBIN2

Now when it comes to making an epic-scale period piece few can do it better than Ridley Scott. Here his amazing attention to detail, extravagant set pieces, and gorgeous cinematography create a believable and stunning 13th century England. From the film’s opening sequences to it’s furious finish, the realistic feel and old English atmosphere is one of the reasons the film worked so well for me. As alluded to above, Scott also brings just the right amount of action scenes. The frantic, gritty camera work and carefully executed CGI allows for the small battles and huge epic scale war sequences to maintain an undeniable energy. But again the film doesn’t totally rely on them. There’s a very deliberate tale that unfolds in an effort to set up the legend of Robin Hood. Scott takes his time and adds a fresh depth to these very familiar characters.

Then there’s the strong lead performance of Russell Crowe. He has always been able to take a character and combine stength with a genuine humanity. Crowe’s Robin Hood is possibly the most human of any previous portrayals showing a sad but strong man in the dark about his past and uncertain about his future. It isn’t loud or showy work but it fits nicely with the tone that Scott is looking for. I also have to mention the performance of another favorite actor of mine. Mark Strong takes on another “bad guy” role and he’s able to create yet another delightfully despicable villain. He’s such great fun to watch. Cate Blanchett puts together a very different and intriguing Marion. She’s strong and independent and Blanchett certainly holds her own amid the slew of male performances. There’s tons of great supporting work from Max von Sydow, Oscar Isaac, William Hurt and more.

“Robin Hood” is an entirely different look at the classic character that does lend to a more serious telling of his legend. That, mixed with the slower plot-thickened narrative, clearly didn’t work for those with much different expectations for the film. It not only worked for me but it impressed me and I found it easy to be absorbed into the story. I’ll admit there are some moments that could have been cut and there are bits of silliness in the big finale. But they never came close to ruining my experience and after several viewings I still believe this is one of the best films of the Scott/Crowe collaborations. That’s my defense and I’m sticking to it.

THE VERDICT : “ROBIN HOOD” – 4.5 STARS

“HANNA” – 4 STARS

by

12

In “Hanna” Saoirse Ronan plays the title character who lives in isolation with her father Erik (Eric Bana) in the snow-covered forests of Finland. While there, he’s instructs her in methods of survival and trains her in hand-to-hand combat which immediately let’s you know there is more going on under the surface. Hanna finds out she has been trained to kill Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), a corrupt CIA agent who has a history with Erik. But after setting out on her mission things go wrong and Hanna finds herself running for her life while trying to piece together who she really is and where she came from.

Ronan again proves she is one of the top young acting talents in film today. She’s simply magnificent as the sheltered but lethal Hanna. She captures the conflict within Hanna through some tender scenes that show her innocent curiosity and some intense action sequences that show the violent nature of her training. Hanna hasn’t experienced any of the modern conveniences or technologies of today and it truly feels as if you are watching her enter a whole new world. It’s also great to see Eric Bana giving a good performance in a very nice role for him. But the usually solid Cate Blanchett is surprisingly inconsistent as C.I.A. agent Wiegler. She sometimes comes across as unconvincing and her odd southern accent seems to come and go. But overall this is Ronan’s show and she is fantastic.

Director Joe Wright starts the film with a bang and keeps it moving at a break-neck pace. It never loses it’s frantic energy or momentum. The gritty techno soundtrack by The Chemical Brothers isn’t overused and, along with the quick camera cuts and sharp angles, contributes to the overall feel of the picture. “Hanna” moves from one country to another and is filmed in some beautiful locations including Finland, Germany, and Morocco. There’s also a unique style to the way “Hanna” is made. At times it has an almost fantasy feel to it due to the way it’s shot and edited. Other times it shows some pretty standard elements from other action/revenge thrillers.

But the film does have a few issues. Throughout the picture you feel there is more to the story than there really is. The abrupt ending is satisfying in one sense but it’s also conventional and predictable. The tension that nicely builds up seems a little hollow as the film reveals itself to be nothing more than a high-octane action/chase picture. Now don’t get me wrong, I love a good action/chase picture. But “Hanna” seemed to be breaking away from the traditional action movie formula. Unfortunately it doesn’t see it through to the end.

The few gripes aside, “Hanna” is a fun and stylish movie as well as a showcase for young Saoirse Ronan. I can’t say enough about her performance. And while Blanchett’s performance is a little distracting and the ending may be somewhat of a letdown, it doesn’t kill the film. There’s many other things to like about “Hanna” and many things that separates it from most action thrillers. So sit down, buckle up, and enjoy the ride. I know I did.