Tag Archives: russell crowe

REVIEW: “Nuremberg” (2025)

by

7

Writer-director James Vanderbilt’s riveting “Nuremberg” chronicles key events surrounding one of the biggest trials in world history. The Nuremberg Trials were a joint Allied effort to prosecute captured Nazi leaders following the death of Adolf Hitler and the fall of the Third Reich. The purpose of the trial was not only to convict the Nazi High Command, but to also present irrefutable evidence of Nazi atrocities to the world while discouraging the defeated Germans from following the same path they did after World War I.

The highest ranking Nazi put on trial at Nuremberg was the Führer’s second in command, Hermann Göring. Highly intelligent, fiercely loyal, and grossly narcissistic, Göring expanded his role as the Supreme Commander of the German Air Force to become one of Hitler’s most trusted officers. His arrogance and cunning were on display at Nuremberg, with both working for him and then later against him.

Inspired by the 2013 nonfiction book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai, Vanderbilt’s “Nuremberg” focuses more on the buildup to the first trial than the a trial itself. It’s an effective approach that gives us clearer insight into how the prosecution’s case was built. It also allows us into the head of Hermann Göring, as seen through the commanding performance of Russell Crowe, who deserves nothing less than an Oscar nomination for his astonishing portrayal.

Image Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classic

Set mostly in 1945 and 1946, “Nuremberg” begins in Austria with Hermann Göring surrendering to American troops. He’s taken to the Grand Hotel Mondorf in Luxembourg which has been turned into a secret prison to house Nazi war criminals. Meanwhile the Allies are struggling to find the best way to hold their prisoners accountable for their crimes. After much deliberation and internal wrangling, they decide on an international tribunal to take place at the reconstructed Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany.

The steadfast yet slightly insecure Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon) is sent to Nuremberg to represent the United States on the prosecution team. He’s joined by the savvy and straightforward British prosecutor David Maxwell Fyfe (Richard E. Grant). As they are working through logistics problems, lack of precedent, and untested case law, U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) is summoned for a specifically challenging task. He is to evaluate Göring and his fellow Nazi prisoners until they face justice in front of the entire world.

Much of the movie is centered on the numerous meetings between Kelley and Göring. Kelley’s plan is to earn Göring’s trust and to exploit his overconfidence. By doing so, not only would he be gaining insight for his superiors, but he could also collect data for a honey of a book deal once the trials are done. But what he doesn’t expect is for the calculating Göring to be playing his own game, turning on the charm and using Kelley’s empathy to his advantage. It’s a mesmerizing psychological chess match energized by two stellar performances. Crowe is especially good, luring us in just as he does Kelley.

Image Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

A strong and sturdy supporting cast reinforces the already powerful script. In addition to Shannon and Grant, Leo Woodall gets the film’s most memorable monologue playing Sgt. Howie Triest (Leo Woodall), a young American translator with a sobering connection to Germany. John Slattery is appropriately leathery as Colonel Burton C. Andrus, the commandant of the Nuremberg Prison. And Lotte Verbeek pulls some unexpected humanity from Göring’s wife Emmy.

The trial itself plays out in a stunning recreation of the palace courtroom. By putting the time and effort into building up to the moment, the trial sequence packs a surprising emotional punch. The anticipation in the opening shots, the discomfort that fills the room once Göring and his fellow Nazis are ushered in, the tension in every question and answer – it all keeps you glued to the screen. But the most sobering moments come with the inclusion of the film footage from inside the concentration camps. It’s the same footage shown during the real trial and it will leave you speechless.

“Nuremberg” ends with a powerful quote from R.G. Collingwood, “The only clue to what man can do is what man has done.” Those words echo well after the film’s final credits have ran. Yet even before that, Vanderbilt keeps that central thought in the forefront of our minds throughout his enthralling drama. Not only does “Nuremberg” offer a powerful historical account, but it has an incisive current-day relevance that makes it even more potent. Perhaps it could have gone deeper. But it’s perspective is crystal clear, and its conveyed with sincerity and urgency.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Mummy” (2017)

by

36

mummy poster

One of the most popular (and priciest) trends in today’s movie culture is the shared cinematic universe. Easily the biggest belongs to Marvel Studios. DC Films is following behind them. And then outside of the superhero genre you have 2014’s “Godzilla” and this year’s  “Kong: Skull Island”, the first two films in Legendary’s MonsterVerse.

The more recent entry into this craze comes from Universal Pictures. It’s called the Dark Universe and it’s meant to be a shared-world revitalization of the classic Universal monsters. Some couldn’t care less. As a fan of those great oldies I was anxious to see what they would come up with.

mummy1

“The Mummy” is the first film to get the reboot treatment and serves as the launching point for the Dark Universe. It’s essentially an origin story but one that doesn’t resemble either the Boris Karloff classic or the more fun-loving Brendan Fraser films. It’s definitely its own thing but defining it beyond that isn’t that easy. Is it an action movie? Is it a horror movie? Is it a Tom Cruise vehicle? Yes to each but especially the third.

Cruise is clearly the centerpiece which works for and against the film. I still like him as an actor and he brings an unquestionable star power to the movie. On the other hand maintaining that star power sometimes outshines everything else. His character resembles roles he has played variations of in other films and he is intent to stick with that type. So much so that when this particular character flirts with some interesting new directions he never goes all the way.

After an obligatory prologue the film introduces us to Cruise’s character Nick. He’s a sergeant with the U.S. military who has a side gig as a soldier of fortune. He and his stereotypical sidekick (played by Jake Johnson) nab artifacts and sell them on the black market. While in Iraq the two stumble across the ancient tomb of Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), an Egyptian princess who sold her soul to Set, the God of Death (see the aforementioned obligatory prologue). They extract the sarcophagus with the help of Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) a spirited archeologist and Cruise love interest.

mummy2

As you can guess they manage to release Ahmanet (aka the Mummy) and computer-generated death and destruction follow. Nick becomes her conduit, Russell Crowe pops up as Dr. Henry Jekyll, Cruise gets a running scene, and a not-so-likely sequel is set up. Here’s the thing, in between that titillating synopsis are moments of good ol’ corny fun. And there are a couple of action sequences that are pretty exciting. But there is just as much that doesn’t work – the goofy humor, a bad ‘return from the dead’ angle inspired by “An American Werewolf in London”, and any attempt at romantic tension.

In the end “The Mummy” is a generic middle-of-the-road movie. I don’t think it’s as bad as many critics say and it’s certainly not as good as a studio would want. It simply has no true identity. It’s all over the map in terms of tone and quality. With big names already signed up for Dark Universe installments – Javier Bardem’s Frankenstein, Johnny Depp’s The Invisible Man, Angelina Jolie’s (rumored) Bride of Frankenstein – it’s clear Universal has big plans. You would think the franchise launching point would be given a little more attention.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2-5-stars

REVIEW: “The Water Diviner”

by

13

WATER poster

Russell Crowe has long been one of film’s most reliable actors. His work has earned him the reputation for giving strong and steady performances. This has allowed him to dabble in a number of different movie types and genres. But the 51-year old Oscar-winning Australian has watched his career truly flourish in period pieces covering everything from the Roman Empire to 1950s Los Angeles. Regardless of the time period or setting, Crowe always seems perfectly cast.

“The Water Diviner” places Crowe in 1919 following the end of World War I. He plays Joshua Connor, a farmer and water diviner living on the rugged Australian Outback. I knew practically nothing about the practice of water ‘divining’ but the film takes care of that in a fine opening sequence. From there we learn that recently Joshua’s life has been as hard as the ground he works. His three sons were presumed killed during the Battle of Gallipoli and his emotionally fractured wife Eliza (Jacqueline McKenzie) found it impossible to cope with the loss.

The grieving yet determined Joshua sets out to keep a promise to his wife – to find his sons and bring their bodies back home for burial. Along the way he is tortured by painful flashbacks, but his search is also assisted by guiding visions. He also encounters several key people along the way. He meets Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko), a war widow raising her son and running a hotel in Constantinople. Jai Courtney shows up playing an Australian officer tasked with finding lost Australian soldiers left on the battlefields. But the greatest help comes from an unexpected source, Major Hasan (Yılmaz Erdoğan), a Turkish officer deeply sympathetic to Joshua’s plight.

WATER1

Crowe not only stars in the film but makes his directorial debut. His direction may not instantly mirror that of an auteur, but it’s clear he is no novice and he understands the craft. In many ways Crowe’s approach hearkens back to a classic form of directing. We see it in much of his structural and camera decisions but also in the simplicity of the direction. I also think Crowe should be commended for giving the film a grand, near epic look and feel despite having a less than epic budget. The budget restrictions show themselves in the handful of action sequences but overall it feels like a sweeping, expansive story.

“The Water Diviner” is an entertaining and emotionally satisfying drama but it has sparked some intense controversy. Many people were offended by the film’s failure to address the Armenian genocide. Some pretty heavy allegations were hurled at Crowe and boycotts were called for. But were those feelings justified? Is this the type of film that demands the genocide be addressed? While offering the utmost respect for those effected by the slaughter, I would argue the answer to both questions is no.

“The Water Diviner” doesn’t aim to be a historically thorough film. The story takes place after the war and the central focus is on a father’s loss of his three sons. In many ways the film highlights the futility of war and the devastating personal costs that follow. Crowe shows the post-war through several different perspectives while never taking a side or forming any conclusion. But all of that serves as a backdrop. It’s truly a story of loss and a father coping the best way he can while also struggling with his complicity in his son’s fate. That is the emotional current that drives the film which is why I think the controversy is unwarranted.

Crowe’s direction is solid but even more could be said about his performance. I feel Crowe is sometimes overlooked because we know he is always going to give a strong performance. In this film he is the linchpin and the emotion center. I always enjoy Kurylenko and she is good here. Unfortunately her character is restricted to a fairly obvious side story. Not so for Yılmaz Erdoğan. The Turkish actor and filmmaker gives us an incredibly compelling character and he tells so much through his tired, war-weary eyes.

Some may consider “The Water Diviner” to be a bit too melodramatic and some may struggle with the film’s shifts in tone. Others may get caught up in the well-publicized controversy. Instead I found myself caught up in the story that lies at the heart of the film and I was completely invested in the central character. Russell Crowe has given us a fine movie that once again spotlights his talents as an actor while also introducing us to his talents as a director. It definitely impressed me and he has certainly earned more opportunities behind the camera.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

TEST star

REVIEW: “Broken City”

by

16

Brokenposter

Lost in the corpulent backlot of 2013 movies is “Broken City”, a political/crime thriller that features a fine cast and a common but still interesting idea. The film marks the solo directorial debut of Allen Hughes who is known for his past works with his brother including “The Book of Eli” and “Menace II Society”. An underperformer at the box office and generally panned by critics, “Broken City” is looked at as a movie that squanders its potential. But is that a fair criticism? In a nutshell, yes it is.

For me, the biggest problem with “Broken City” reveals itself early and persists through the entire picture. There is practically no fire or energy shown in any facet of movie. In a story that should generate plenty of emotional spark, all we get are dry characters, dry scenarios, and a dry ending. There is rarely a charge of life anywhere to be found and the movie seems to wallow in lethargy. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact blame. Is it the direction from Hughes? Is it Brian Tucker’s script? Could it be the actors who seemingly have no interest in what they’re doing?

Broken1

Mark Wahlberg stars as a former New York police detective named Billy Taggert. Seven years after being forced to leave the department following a controversy and PR nightmare, he works as a struggling private detective. Things get complicated when the New York City Mayor Nicholas Hostetler (Russell Crowe) hires him to find out who his wife (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) is having an affair with. Little does Billy know that by taking the case he would be catapulted into a complex political web involving the mayor, his opponent for the upcoming elections (Barry Pepper), and the police commissioner (Jeffrey Wright).

There is a pretty familiar formula that the movie uses while still trying to do a few things of its own. Unfortunately a lot of time is wasted on superfluous side stories that are never fleshed out to the point of being interesting. The best example of that involves Billy’s aspiring actress girlfriend (played by Natalie Martinez). Her character and their struggling relationship seems shoehorned in to try and add some humanity to Billy. She is present for a short time and then completely drops off the map. It’s also one of those movies littered with lucky timing and all sorts of conveniences. Whether Billy is pulling up just as someone throws out a suspicious bag of garbage or whether he is never spotted while supposedly hiding in plain site.

Broken2

While the characters are mostly flat and dormant, there are moments where that approach really works. Crowe and Wright have some great back-and-forths generated from the internal rivalry of their characters. Their verbal jabs are stinging and these two great actors have a lot of fun with the animosity. Wahlberg doesn’t get those types of moments. He spends the entire movie stone-faced and rarely shows one ounce of emotion. I’m not sure if it is how he is written or how he was directed, but his character could have been so much better with just an ounce of charisma or personality. That toned down approach turns out to be a problem for every character.

“Broken City” does featuring some great cinematography that captures a variety of New York City flavors. And again, there are a few moments of good crisp dialogue particularly between Crowe and Wright. Unfortunately the lack of zest and the wasted time spent on half-cooked characters doesn’t elevate the film past its already formulaic structure. It’s really a shame because a movie with this strong of a cast could have been better. Instead it’s a forgettable, below-average thriller that deserves its spot in the backlot of the 2013 movies.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Noah”

by

55

noah POSTER

Darren Aronofsky wasn’t the first person I would expect to make a serious Bible-based epic, but that’s exactly the task he has chosen. In fact he has been wanting to bring the story of Noah to the big screen for years. Now armed with a $150 million budget and a stellar cast Aronofsky has co-written and directed a large-scaled picture that has already been met with its share of controversy.

As a Christian myself there are certain things in the Bible where creative liberties have no place. That may not allow me to be the most objective critic of some Bible-based movies but it is a belief that is inseparable from who I am. On the other hand some stories from Scripture leave themselves open to interpretation while others may stir our imaginations by omitting many of the details. Such is the case with the story of Noah. The story of Noah and his ark takes up only a small portion of Scripture so there are definitely areas where our creative imaginations (in this case Aronofsky’s) may kick in. Yet you always look for respect of the spirit of the story and at least some type of adherence to the material.

NOAH2

Fans of popular novels or those passionate about a historical figure or account have always expected some degree of adherence to the source material from movie adaptations. That’s perfectly reasonable and why would the approach to this be any different? Instead Aronofsky has taken a well known Bible story and laced it with Tolkien-styled fantasy, weird mysticism, and one of the most heavy-handed environmental and animal rights messages you’ll ever see on screen. In essence he has chosen to tell a story about a man named Noah and definitely not THE story of Noah that many people may be expecting.

The main aim of Aronofsky’s version is recognized early in the film. Noah (Russell Crowe) shares with his three sons that the environment is the true apple of the Creator’s eye. He uses his son’s criminal offense of plucking a flower from the ground to show how callous men can disrupt the Creator’s beautiful and harmonious world. A situation then arises which allows Noah to tell of how animals are the Creator’s crowning achievement and how men endanger them, some going as far as actually eating them (which shocks his sons). All of this happens in one of the film’s opening sequences but it isn’t contained to it.

The main conflict throughout the movie is between the evils of mankind and the innocence of animals along with Noah and his family. In fact, Noah states that the entire purpose for building the ark is to save the animals and kill wicked mankind. Now the movie does throw a couple of bones to those who were hoping for a slightly accurate telling of the Bible story but the similarities between the movie and the Biblical account are strictly cosmetic. This is much more like a poor man’s Lord of the Rings installment filled with giant talking rock creatures, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) who is a strange hermit/wizard, and an huge CGI-heavy battle sequence. Spellcasting, odd relics, and bloody blades take center stage.

Noah1

The Creator is also in sharp contrast to what some people may expect. At no point in the film does Aronofsky use the name God. Clearly this was intentional. Was it an act of respect in order to not offend especially considering the massive liberties he takes? I don’t know but the God of the Bible and the movie’s “Creator” couldn’t be more different. In the film the Creator is a cold and distant deity who speaks with veiled visions and sometimes not at all. Aronofsky shows him as an iron-fisted tyrant at times who watches mankind wallow in uncertainty and turns deaf ears on their pleas for clarity. And sometimes it’s the Creator who is portrayed as the villain. While Aronofsky never calls him God, it wouldn’t be a stretch to consider this his view of him.

I could go on about strange and perplexing diversions from the original text, but how does “Noah” stand up as a movie? Is it good cinema and is it good storytelling? The film does have some strengths. Whether you like him or not, Aronofsky has a great visual style that separates his movies from others. There are some stunning shots that were really effective especially when the rain starts to come. There are also several phenomenal performances. Crowe is in top form and he is perfectly cast. We also get great performances from Emma Watson, Jennifer Connelly, and Logan Lerman. And I have to mention Ray Winestone. He’s fabulous as Tubal-cain, the king of the evil meat-eating men.

Noah3

But the film has several glaring flaws (aside from my concerns mentioned above). First off, while some of the visuals may be amazing much of the CGI isn’t. The rock creatures look like something out of an early 1990s film and the big climactic battle looked as clunky visually as it felt narratively. Then there were a number of unintentionally goofy moments which were often direct results of Aronofsky’s diversions. The film also grinds to a halt in the third act as a trumped up family drama plays out among those confined to the floating ark. The family conflict angle had a lot of promise, but here it drags the movie down and I began to check my watch.

I’ll be honest, Aronofsky’s decision to divert so wildly from the source material is an issue for me mainly because there is plenty of good story to tell aside from what we are given. But even aside from that, “Noah” is a film plagued with its share of problems. It’s a movie that teases us with what it could have been but ultimately stumbles because of what it actually is. This isn’t the biblical story of God’s righteous judgement of evil and His mercy towards humanity through Noah. But that doesn’t mean this movie isn’t preachy. Its sermon is on the evils of mankind and how the earth has been in a state of physical decay and animals have been robbed of their innocence since we came onto the scene. Who knows, whichever story you care about the most may also determine how much you care about this film as a whole.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Flaunt It or Flush it – Spring Movies 2014

by

59

flaunt-flush

You certainly wouldn’t know it by the weather but the Spring movie season is upon us. The winter movie season is notorious for its flops, particularly in January and February. But usually things start looking up come Spring time. So here is how this works: First I’ll talk about Spring releases that I am genuinely interested in and want to spread the word about. These are films I’ll certainly flaunt. I’m also going to pick five releases that are (from my perspective) toilet ready. These I’ll flush. It’s Flaunt It or Flush It time again.

FLAUNT ‘EM

BUDAPEST1. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (March 7, 2014) – It doesn’t take long for Spring to get rolling. March 7th brings us one of my most anticipated movies of the year. It’s Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel”. Anderson is one of the few comedy filmmakers who I think does it right. His quirky original worlds and subtle themes have always worked for me and it looks like we are getting that again. Ralph Fiennes leads what is one of the best looking ensemble casts of the year and he looks to be a perfect fit with this special brand of comedy. The trailer looks insanely funny and I can’t wait for March 7th.

NOAH2. “Noah” (March 28, 2014) – I’ve noticed several people approaching “Noah” with a bit of skepticism. I can definitely see why. But I also think this has potential to be an amazing film. As frequent readers of my site know, I’m a huge fan of Russell Crowe. I think this role is right up his alley. Plus there is the good supporting cast of Ray Windstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins, and Jennifer Connelly. The big question is Darren Aronofsky. His past work makes me wonder what kind of approach he will take. On the other hand he is a fine director and if he respects the material there could be great results.

CAPTAIN3. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (April 4, 2014) – My deep roots as a comic book fan makes me a sucker for good superhero films. I was a big fan of Marvel’s first Captain American movie. This one looks like it could be even better. Ed Brubaker’s “Winter Soldier” story from the Captain American comic book series was one of my favorites of all time. It’s perfect for the big screen treatment and the early trailers look to be capturing what made the story so great. Chris Evans is perfect as Steve Rogers and the addition of Anthony Mackie and Robert Redford are intriguing. Plus this is set to be the first big tie to the next Avengers film. Sign me up!

LE WEEKEND4. “Le Week-End” (March 14, 2014) – This is a film that has been on my radar for a while. It has already opened up overseas and it makes its United States debut on March 14. This British drama from director Roger Michell follows an older married couple who celebrate their 30th anniversary by going to Paris. Their intent was to rejuvenate their marriage but things don’t go as planned and they are forced to build back their relationship from the ground up. The wonderful Jim Broadbent and Lindsey Duncan play the lead roles which automatically attracted me. The trailer shows a great wit and some beautiful Paris locations.That’s enough to excite me.

XMEN5. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” (May 23, 2014) – Yet another Marvel comics superhero movie, but it’s another one that looks really good. Bryan Singer is back and he’s bringing the whole gang. The cast members from the original X-Men films including Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, and Ellen Page meet the cast members from First Class including Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, and Nicholas Hoult. Throw in some brand new mutants and you have a huge cast of characters. This could blow up in Singer’s face, but it could also be a spectacular film.

FLUSH ‘EM

TYLER PERRY1. “Tyler Perry’s The Single Mom’s Club” (March 14, 2014) – Tyler Perry is becoming a regular on these lists. This Spring he graces us with what looks like the corniest, dopiest, and most cliched movie of his career. I never judge a movie solely on its trailer but it gives us one goofy line, lame gag, and eye-rolling moment after another. Supposedly a group of mothers come together after an incident at school and they become big buddies. Then they partake in a host of silly antics and dopey romances which is supposed to be fun and entertaining. Well I can’t imagine this thing being fun or entertaining.

BLENDED2. “Blended” (May 23, 2014) – If an Adam Sandler movie is released it automatically gets consideration for this list. Perhaps that isn’t the most objective approach but Sandler has a track record that I can’t shake. His consistency would be impressive if it didn’t involve stupid and unfunny movies. I have no reason to believe that “Blended” will be any different from the other garbage he churns out. Who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is a turning point in Sandler’s career. Maybe this is the film that gets him back on track. Personally I don’t buy it and I can see this as a flusher all the way.

HAUNTED3. “A Haunted House 2” (March 28, 2014) – Can someone please explain to me how a crappy movie like last year’s “A Haunted House” could inflict a sequel upon us? Well, I guess if you have a $2 million budget and you pull in nearly $60 million at the box office a sequel is inevitable. I guess the better question is how on earth did that thing make $60 million? The first film was completely unwatchable and this new thing looks like a carbon copy of it. Sitting through the trailer alone is as entertaining as having a root canal. I know there is an audience for this movie but I promise you it doesn’t include me.

OTHER WOMAN4. “The Other Woman” (April 25, 2014) – I suppose there may be a decent idea stashed away somewhere in “The Other Woman” but to be honest I can’t find it. Three woman come together under the bind of being cheated on by the same man. According to the trailer their quest for revenge features dopey missteps, vomit jokes, lame anatomy gags, and an assortment of other things that I don’t find remotely interesting. This is a comedy that could potentially squeeze out a laugh or two. But personally I think it looks like another clichéd and formulaic comedy that will probably find an audience despite its mediocrity.

NEIGHBORS5. “Neighbors” (May 9, 2014) – Stop me if you’ve heard this one before – Seth Rogan in a raunchy comedy. Look, I know this guy has a big following but I don’t get it. This time he and Zac Efron rip off the great Belushi and Aykroyd comedy from 1981. Rogan’s one-trick pony act features the same vulgar, juvenile nonsense that we always get from him and his friends. I know there is an audience out there who will find shooting firecrackers out of your butt and an infant baby chewing on a used condom as funny. I find it to be another example of how void of smarts and originality Hollywood has become when it comes to comedy. This is a flusher through and through.