Synopsis: Mickey Pearson is an American expatriate who became rich by building a marijuana empire in London. When word gets out that he’s looking to cash out of the business, it soon triggers an array of plots and schemes from those who want his fortune
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Colin Farrell, Hugh Grant, Henry Golding, Michelle Dockery
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rated: R
Running Length: 113 minutes
TMMM Score: (6.5/10)
Review: When he first started out, director Guy Ritchie was able to deliver films that felt like rough and rowdy brawlers. They were British to their core, authentic in their design with deliriously off the wall characters that didn’t come off as cliché stereotypes or too arch to be taken seriously. Finding a crossover hit early on in the US with 1998’s Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels he scored and even bigger hit (and married Madonna) in 2000 with Snatch starring mega-star and super fan Brad Pitt and his career in Hollywood was officially off and running.
Briefly distracted by an ill-conceived remake of Swept Away starring his wife, he found his way back to the grittier gangster pics (albeit with bigger budgets and more formal studio involvement) for Revolver and RocknRolla. That’s pretty much the last time the Ritchie who was heralded as the next big thing in the early 2000’s was seen because the director has largely toiled in high profile franchise or tent pole fare for the past decade. His two Sherlock Holmes films were fun but didn’t play to his strengths and while the big screen adaptation of television’s The Man From U.N.C.L.E. wasn’t the sizable hit it should have been, it felt like Ritchie was getting back to what he was good at. By the time Ritchie signed on to oversee the live-action adaptation of Aladdin that was released in 2019, I think even he was surprised at where his career was sitting.
Perhaps that’s why he’s starting 2020 off with the release of The Gentlemen, an interesting return to form for Ritchie that’s a good reminder of what he can do with material he feels some affinity toward. Serving as both writer and director, Ritchie has assembled some top tier talent from the UK and US but don’t let the title, poster, or other marketing fool you. This isn’t a refined “ol chap” sort of crime caper but a hard-nosed, foul-mouthed, not always linear crime drama that often gets lost in its own maze of double crosses and deception.
After years of building a successful drug trafficking empire in the UK, American businessman Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey, Interstellar) has tired of all the extra precautions and risk and is ready to sell his business and retire with his wife Roz (Michelle Dockery, Non-Stop). News of his plans spreads quickly and attracts the attention of a quietly treacherous billionaire (Jeremy Strong, Serenity) who thinks he can outsmart Mickey and drive down his asking price and ambitious Chinese mobster Dry Eye (Henry Golding, Last Christmas) looking to make a play for his own piece of the London underworld. With the two men vying for the whole mincemeat pie, they’ll resort to any method of skulduggery to get what they want and that may involve working together…or are they all being outsmarted by an entirely different puppet-master?
This being a Ritchie film, there has to be several subplots going that will eventually loop back around to tie into the central story line. One involves a flighty (and foppish) tabloid journalist (Hugh Grant, Florence Foster Jenkins) attempting to extort money from Mickey’s right hand henchman (Charlie Hunnam, Pacific Rim) who knows where all the bodies are buried and isn’t above digging another hole for the reporter. Also factoring in the mix are a team of young amateur boxers and wannabe rap viral video stars who raid the wrong drug house and need their exasperated coach (a divine Colin Farrell, Dumbo) to get them out of a jam.
How these threads get braided together, tied off, trimmed up, and sewn shut makes for an entertaining final act of The Gentlemen but it’s that first 75 minutes or so that are a bit rocky to get through. It’s a fairly slow opening and one that is, at times, hard to follow with Ritchie jumping around in timelines which can make it difficult to track the action and the characters. There’s a smart way of doing these shifts (think Pulp Fiction) and it starts with a strong screenplay that’s well defined, razor sharp. Unfortunately, Ritchie’s script isn’t all that dynamic so even if the double crosses and twists that emerge aren’t exactly easy to identify, it’s mostly because we’ve been deliberately not given information that would have helped us piece together the puzzle. One scene has us not being able to decipher what people are saying in a key moment because there’s something in the way blocking our view yet when the scene is replayed later on that obstruction has vanished and we can clearly hear that one nugget that would have clued us in. In a way, that’s cheating the audience through trickery.
Along with a rather inspired soundtrack (always one of Ritchie’s strengths), the cast helps to sell the movie, even with these narrative blips. I liked McConaughey’s weary and wary kingpin, he’s clearly been in the business long enough to know when to lose his temper and when to keep his cool. Some may find the performance “lazy” but I found it appropriately conserving energy for the characters Mickey interacts with that deserve more of his output. I wasn’t ever totally sold on Hunnam playing such a buttoned up fellow that keeps the dirty work out of Mickey’s hands – there’s just something that doesn’t fit and I would much rather have seen Golding take on this role because I also didn’t believe him as a short fused petulant gangster.
Freed from the frocks as Lady Mary on Downton Abbey, Dockery looks like she’s having a ball as Mickey’s no-nonsense wife and while Ritchie has never been great with female characters…he at least gives her a nice zinger of a scene, small as it is. I’m torn on Grant’s fey reporter act, half horrified at how uncouth it is in this day and age to play a part so literally and half enjoying seeing Grant continue to take on roles that are a far cry from his mop-top romantic leads that made him a star nearly three decades ago. Stealing the show completely is Farrell as a tough love trainer who isn’t willing to let his young acolytes pay the ultimate price for a stupid mistake. If Ritchie were to want a spin-off of this movie, he could easily find another film story for Farrell and the boys…and I’d happily see it.
Recently, 2019’s Uncut Gems was called out as having the seventh most f-words in film history and I’d be willing to bet The Gentlemen would rank just as high for the most use of the dreaded c-word. Now in the UK that verboten word doesn’t carry quite the same weight it does on our shores but it still has a significant impact over the course of 113 minutes. I’m a fan of these kind of crime films and so it’s worth seeing The Gentlemen if only to make sure Ritchie continues to go back to making movies like this and doesn’t make a movie musical with Will Smith as a Genie again. This is clearly a world and material he has a meter and rhythm for and while the overall orchestra isn’t quite in tune yet they’ve been warmed up nicely.
Synopsis: Paddington, now happily settled with the Brown family and a popular member of the local community, picks up a series of odd jobs to buy the perfect present for his Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday, only for the gift to be stolen.
Stars: Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent, Peter Capaldi, Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw
Director: Paul King
Rated: PG
Running Length: 103 minutes
TMMM Score: (9/10)
Review: Two short years ago Paddington, Michael Bond’s famous bear in the blue coat and red hat, finally got his first big screen adventure and it was a lovely bit of whimsy that snuck up on me in the best way possible. With its message of kindness filtered through quirky characters and a colorful kaleidoscope of production design, Paddington strangely wasn’t the huge sleeper hit in the US it should have been. Still, enough critics took note of its quality, coupling that with its snazzy UK box office a sequel was greenlit, and boy, are we lucky to have another one of these charming films!
The lovable bear (voiced by Ben Whishaw, Skyfall) has settled into life with the Brown family at their comfortable home in London. Mr. Brown (Hugh Bonneville, Breathe) is going through a mid-life crisis, dying his hair and exploring new yoga poses while Mrs. Brown’s (Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water) attention is focused on swimming to France. Their children, Judy and Jonathan, are both preoccupied with their own teenage interests while their housekeeper Mrs. Bird (Julie Walters, Brave) keeps the house running and everyone fed.
A popular fixture on their winding street that has a way of bringing sunshine to all he encounters (save for stodgy Mr. Curry of the neighborhood patrol), Paddington is living his best life, even if he occasionally gets into a spot of trouble. In this outing, Paddington’s Aunt Lucy (voiced by Imelda Staunton, Maleficent) is still back in darkest Peru and he wants to get something special for her in celebration of her 100th birthday. Though at one time she planned to visit London with her late husband, they never made the trip but her adopted nephew finds the perfect gift in an expensive hand-made pop-up book of the sights of city in the curiosity shop owned by Mr. Gruber (Jim Broadbent, The Legend of Tarzan).
While visiting the opening night of a dazzling ‘steam circus’ with the Browns, Paddington mentions the book to Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, Cloud Atlas), a washed up actor that happens to be the descendant of a magician who was desperate to acquire the same pop-up tome. Evidently, contained on its pages are clues to finding a wealth of jewels hidden away by the proprietor of the circus. When the book is stolen and Paddington is jailed for the crime, he has to find a way to clear his name before Phoenix can acquire the bounty.
Returning director Paul King doesn’t yield to the episodic nature of Bond’s original creations. This is a bear and family that have adventures and Paddington 2 hits the ground running, barely leaving any time to catch your breath. Bounding joyously through scenes that find Paddington bungling a job at a barber shop to his revolutionizing the lives of his fellow inmates by educating the gruff cook (Brendan Gleeson, In the Heart of the Sea) on the tastiness of orange marmalade, the movie will leave you smiling. It’s so focused on celebrating the innate goodness in people and kindly revealing how unfortunate it is to be someone who can’t find the fun in life, I can’t pick out anything that felt like a misstep. It’s also a legitimately funny and ultimately moving (bring a tissue or two) bit of family entertainment, something of a rarity these days.
While both films earn a strong recommendation, I’d give the edge to this sequel, if only for the fact that the first one dealt with a bit more intense villain (Nicole Kidman’s sinewy meanie wanted to stuff Paddington!) and Grant’s character is just a sad song and dance man that wants money to finance a West End revue. On that note, make sure to stay through the credits for an incredibly pleasing musical production number featuring Grant tap-dancing to Stephen Sondheim. Nominated for three BAFTA awards (take that, The Post!) the good news is that there’s already a Paddington 3 in the works, let’s hope nothing gets in the way of its release within the next two years. While we’re at it, this would make a great series for Netflix…just a thought.
Review: There’s a play based on the life of Florence Foster Jenkins I saw several years back called Souvenir. A two-person drama set in a supper club where Jenkins performed with her pianist Cosmé McMoon, you knew in advance that she was regarded as a terrible singer and that’s what attracted me to it. The lights go down and I spent the next twenty minutes waiting for the actress playing Jenkins to open her mouth and warble out an opera aria. She did. I laughed. Then I spent the next two hours waiting for it to be over, the frivolity having running its course by the time the third song began.
That’s what seeing the new film Florence Foster Jenkins feels like…waiting for the joke and then checking your watch to see when it will end. Buoyed by strong performances but misguided by some plot distractions that laboriously pad the running length instead of graciously filling it, it’s not a bad film in the slightest, just a one-joke movie that has its moment in the sun before entering some rainy weather territory which seriously drags down the latter half of the picture.
Jenkins (Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady) was a spirited eccentric that actually believed she could sing and was surrounded by friends (some say hangers-on) that wouldn’t be honest with her. Her common-law husband (nicely played by Hugh Grant, Cloud Atlas) pays reporters for good write-ups and has a girlfriend on the side (Rebecca Ferguson, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation) while her new pianist (Simon Helberg) is aghast that someone so bad could be lauded so much.
Focused on the last year or so that Jenkins was alive, director Stephen Frears (Philomena) and writer Nicholas Martin have crafted a splendid looking period piece set in New York (but filmed in London) that hits most of the right notes even as their leading character runs afoul of her own musical keys. Still, there’s a paint-by-the-numbers feeling to it which keeps it awkwardly grounded and merely content with going through the emotional moments.
Yet from the rapturous reception the film received at my screening, it’s clear this is an audience-pleasing picture. I almost feel like I need to see it again since so many lines were lost to audiences roaring over a previous phrase (which I feel is actually a problem with overall editing…didn’t anyone involved screen this with a crowd first?). Released at the tail end of summer when more discerning crowds have come in from the summer sun, it’s likely to be a well-timed alternative to the CGI heavy box office fodder that’s hogged many screens at your multiplex.
Streep is, as always, beyond reproach and you can pretty much count on her making another trip to the Kodak theater with another Oscar (and SAG and Golden Globe) nomination under belt. There’s already a ton of press showing Streep singing well (like in Into the Woods) and praising her bravura bad singing here and it’s nice to find out she did the majority of the singing live. It can’t have been easy for a trained singer to learn to sing so poorly…but Streep doesn’t merely sing off-key, she’s studied Jenkins and found out WHY she doesn’t sing well and used that to get the sound right. Her Queen of the Night aria is alone worth the price of admission.
Supporting Streep is a dandy Grant who I hope will also get some Oscar recognition for his work. A difficult role seeing that he’s a bit of a cad, Grant digs deep and shows that above all else the man he’s portraying truly loved Jenkins even though they couldn’t have the kind of life together that either planned. Under some old age make-up, Grant remains charming in that aloof sort of way but over the years he’s grown as an actor to temper that aloofness with authenticity.
Aside from Streep and Grant, the other supporting players are a mixed bag. Helberg’s performance is all overbite…literally. Though Martin takes some time to flesh out Jenkins long-time pianist, Helberg plays him so slight and twee that I half expected him to fly away at any given moment. He’s got good chemistry with Streep, though, and that’s all that really matters. I’ve liked Ferguson and Nina Arianda in other movies but not much here…both play grating women in roles that easily could have been excised, especially Ferguson as Grant’s long-time mistress.
What makes Florence Foster Jenkins something I’d cautiously recommend is the stately way Frears, Martin, and Streep have presented this delusional socialite who performed her final concert to a sold-out crowd at Carnegie Hall. Knowing the difference between a characterization that’s eccentric instead of goofy, Streep gives her the requisite dignity without letting her totally off the hook. Like the overall film and the peculiar woman at its center, it’s an admirable close but no cigar.
Synopsis: The story of Florence Foster Jenkins, a New York heiress who dreamed of becoming an opera singer, despite having a terrible singing voice.
Release Date: May 6, 2016
Thoughts: I’m not prone to posting more than one column dedicated to my thoughts on a preview for a film but I’m making an exception in the case of Florence Foster Jenkins. This full trailer arrives on the heels of a nice little teaser and gives audiences more to anticipate in this true-life story of a socialite singer who drew thunderous crowds…even though she couldn’t carry a tune with both hands. I already know that I’m going to like Meryl Streep (Into the Woods) as the deluded dame but I think the real interest here will be around Hugh Grant (Cloud Atlas) who seems to be coming into his second act as an older leading man. Gone is the foppy haired charming stutterer and in its place is an actor that’s been taking on note-perfect roles as of late. Directed by Stephen Frears (Philomena), this looks like a pleasant treat.
Synopsis: The story of New York heiress Florence Foster Jenkins who dreamed of becoming an opera singer, despite having a terrible singing voice.
Release Date: May 6, 2016
Thoughts: We all know Meryl Streep can sing after turns in Mamma Mia, Into the Woods, and even Death Becomes Her…but how good can she sing badly? This looks like a swell comedic turn for the Oscar winner, ditching her more serious fare for the kind of fun diversion she likes to take up between period dramas and new accents. I know a little about the lady she’s portraying and if the film is half as clever as the Florence Foster Jenkins stage play Souvenir (this film is not based on that) we’ll be in for a good show that’s not as off-key as its subject. Always nice to see Hugh Grant (Cloud Atlas) part of the mix, too.
We did it! We made it through another summer and while the outdoor heat wasn’t too bad (in Minnesota, at least) the box office was on fire.
I’ll admit that I indulged in summer fun a bit more than I should, distracting me from reviewing some key movies over the last three months so I wanted to take this opportunity to relive the summer of 2015, mentioning my thoughts on the movies that got away and analyzing the winners and losers by month and overall.
So sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride read.
Traditionally, August is the month when the wind-down begins. It never has any of the big tent pole pictures featured earlier in the summer and it can be a time when studios try to burn off some troubled pictures or try to skillfully position a sleeper hit. This August for sure had its share of high and low points, much like the summer that it capped off. I was still in frolic mode so didn’t get to as many reviews as I had wanted but sitting here now, in still sunny September, it’s time to review the movies I missed!
Movie Review ~ Shaun the Sheep Movie The Facts: Synopsis: When Shaun decides to take the day off and have some fun, he gets a little more action than he bargained for. A mix up with the Farmer, a caravan and a very steep hill lead them all to the Big City and it’s up to Shaun and the flock to return everyone safely to the green grass of home. Stars: Justin Fletcher, John Sparkes, Omid Djalili, Kate Harbour, Tim Hands, Andy Nyman, Simon Greenall, Emma Tate Director: Mark Burton, Richard Starzak Rated: PG Running Length: 85 minutes TMMM Score: (7/10) Review: I’m not saying that the U.S. doesn’t churn out a fine slate of family friendly films…but there’s a certain aura around the British imports that seem to work time and time again. Like Paddington earlier this year, Shaun the Sheep Movie was an unexpected delight, 85 minutes of smart comedy that’s deep enough for adults to not need a lobotomy to enjoy and zany enough to keep the attention of young tykes. Remarkable when you consider there’s not any dialogue in the movie aside from some rumbles and grumbles from human and animal characters, it’s a big screen adventure adapted from a popular television show. I wasn’t sure what to expect but I was surprisingly entertained and quite impressed by the stop-motion animation. The film didn’t have great marketing so it slipped by most people but if it’s at your bargain movie theater, pack those kids up in your minivan and get to it…or treat yourself to a solo show.
Movie Review ~ Dark Places The Facts: Synopsis: Libby Day was only seven years old when her family was brutally murdered in their rural Kansas farmhouse. Twenty-five years later, she agrees to revisit the crime and uncovers the wrenching truths that led up to that tragic night. Stars: Charlize Theron, Drea de Matteo, Nicholas Hoult, Christina Hendricks, Chloe Grace Moretz, Corey Stoll, Sterling Jerins, Tye Sheridan, Shannon Kook Director: Gilles Paquet-Brenner Rated: R Running Length: 113 minutes TMMM Score: (3/10) Review: With the huge success of Gillian Flynn’s third novel Gone Girland seeing how fast the movie rights were snapped up, it’s only natural that her other two other books would take a similar path. Dark Places is the first of these to hit theaters (Sharp Objects is arriving as a television movie) and it shows one of two things, either the third time was the charm for Flynn or something was lost in translation. Full disclosure, I haven’t read the book but I’m inclined to think that it’s the fault of the screenwriter because there are so many hazardous movie mistakes only a Hollywood writer could make. Though the mystery of a decades old killing spree coming back to haunt the sole survivor is initially intriguing, it quickly dissolves into a sticky mess that makes less sense the more secrets are revealed. It also doesn’t help that it’s badly miscast, with the usually impressive Charlize Theron relying on her ever-present trucker hat to do most of the acting for her…or maybe to hide her embarrassment at being looped into this turkey. Though it boasts a cast that typically gets the job done, no one quite seems to know what they’re doing…as if they hadn’t read the book before undertaking their scenes. The only worthwhile performance is Christina Hendricks as Theron’s murdered mom, bringing some dignity to a role that, as written, doesn’t earn it.
Movie Review ~ Fantastic Four The Facts: Synopsis: Four young outsiders teleport to an alternate and dangerous universe which alters their physical form in shocking ways. The four must learn to harness their new abilities and work together to save Earth from a former friend turned enemy. Stars: Michael B. Jordan, Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell, Tim Blake Nelson, Reg E. Cathey Director: Josh Trank Rated: PG-13 Running Length: 100 minutes TMMM Score: (4/10) Review: Well, what can I saw bout the Fantastic Four that hasn’t been said (loudly) already? Is it a lousy movie? Yeah, probably. Could it have been better? After two attempts to bring these characters to the big screen I’m not sure we’ll ever get a decent adaptation. What went so wrong? If you believe the outspoken director, it was studio interference that took his movie from a rich origin story to an overstuffed thundercloud of action movie clichés and fairly terrible special effects. If you are to believe the studio, it was that director Josh Trank (who debuted with the surprise hit Chronicle) disconnected from the material, a development that was costing time and money. Watching the film with this knowledge you can see the moment that something went awry. Because the thing is, the first 20-30 minutes of Fantastic Four is quite good, sensitive even. It’s a slow start and, let’s face it, audiences these days don’t want a slow start. They want their action and they want it now. The studio was happy to oblige and when it becomes a standard summer superhero movie my interest took a nosedive and it became a waiting game of the good guys defeating the bad guys so I could go home. I think the colossal outcry from fans and critics was a little on the dramatic side, even for a superhero film, but it’s not wholly unwarranted.
Movie Review ~ Ricki and the Flash The Facts: Synopsis: A musician who gave up everything for her dream of rock-and-roll stardom returns home, looking to make things right with her family. Stars: Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline, Sebastian Stan, Mamie Gummer, Audra McDonald, Rick Springfield Director: Jonathan Demme Rated: PG-13 Running Length: 102 minutes Trailer Review:Here TMMM Score: (6.5/10) Review: So we’ve all long agreed to the fact that Meryl Streep can do no wrong. You can love her for it or hate her for it, but she never fails to impressive me with each new role she takes on. From starring in The Iron Lady to taking a supporting role (cameo, really) in The Homesman, Streep seems to take a role if it speaks to her, no matter the size or commitment. It’s not hard to see why she was attracted to the rough rocker Ricki with her tattoos and braided hair, here was another opportunity for Streep to strip away the classical actress aura and go barefoot into the wild. She’s ably aided by Diablo Cody’s middling script, Jonathan Demme’s careful direction, and a supporting cast that don’t just play second fiddle to Streep’s lead guitar. I think there’s one too many musical numbers allowed to play longer than they should and Cody’s dialogue doesn’t have the snap that it used to. The whole thing is worth it though for a stellar scene between Streep and Audra McDonald, the new wife of Streep’s ex-husband. A sparring match spoken with calm and some care, the two women have an electricity between them that the film needed more of. It falls apart swiftly in its second half, but it’s not a totally out of tune affair.
Movie Review ~ The Man from U.N.C.L.E. The Facts: Synopsis: In the early 1960s, CIA agent Napoleon Solo and KGB operative Illya Kuryakin participate in a joint mission against a mysterious criminal organization, which is working to proliferate nuclear weapons. Stars: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Jared Harris, Hugh Grant Director: Guy Ritchie Rated: PG-13 Running Length: 116 minutes TMMM Score: (7.5/10) Review: I never watched the television series on which this cool-as-can-be spy movie was based on but I’m pretty sure there weren’t the same amount of homoerotic jokes during the weekly adventures of Solo and Kuryakin. While I feel that director Guy Ritchie relied a bit too heavily on his similar experience at the helm of two Sherlock Holmes films, he brings his A game to this big screen adaption, sparing no expense when it came to production design. And that’s a good thing because though it’s never truly predictable, the plot is pretty thin. So it’s up to Ritchie and his cast to sell the film and they are more than up for the challenge. Henry Cavill (Man of Steel) is perfectly cast as the smooth Solo and he’s well matched with Armie Hammer’s (Mirror Mirror) simmering Kuryakin. The two trade barbs rich with double entendre while protecting Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) from falling into the hands of a sinister villainess (the scene stealing Elizabeth Debicki, The Great Gastby). The film looks and sounds amazing, here’s hoping costume designer Joanna Johnston gets an Oscar nomination for her impeccable suits and stunning dresses.
Movie Review ~ End of the Tour The Facts: Synopsis: The story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace, which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, ‘Infinite Jest.’ Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Jason Segel, Joan Cusack, Mamie Gummer, Anna Chlumsky, Mickey Sumner Director: James Ponsoldt Rated: R Running Length: 106 minutes TMMM Score: (8/10) Review: I never thought I’d say the words “potential Oscar nominee Jason Segel” in a work of non-fiction…but then again I didn’t think two-time Oscar nominee Jonah Hill was possible either and look what happened there. Yes, Segel’s work as tormented writer David Foster Wallace is worthy of acclaim as the actor digs deep within and bypasses his comedic instincts to find the truth of the man behind the epic novel Infinite Jest. Jesse Eisenberg (who also pops up in American Ultra) turns in strong work as well, though he’s really just a prop for Segel to react off of. Their five day road trip interview for Rolling Stone is the basis for the movie and it leads the men and the audience into interesting territory. It’s a movie you watch once, appreciate, then file away as something you can recommend to people and feel like you’ve done them a favor. One thing that must be said…Eisenberg needs to learn how to smoke a cigarette. Here and in American Ultra he looks a child does when they are mimicking their parent. Many things about Eisenberg annoy me and this is just another thing to add to the list.
Movie Review ~ The Diary of a Teenage Girl The Facts: Synopsis: A teen artist living in 1970s San Francisco enters into an affair with her mother’s boyfriend. Stars: Bel Powley, Alexander Skarsgård, Christopher Meloni, Kristen Wiig Director: Marielle Heller Rated: R Running Length: 102 minutes TMMM Score: (7.5/10) Review: It’s nice to go into a movie with only a basic logline and a list of the actors featured. I didn’t know what to expect from The Diary of a Teenage Girl but whatever I thought, the movie surprised me in the best ways. The story of a young girl’s sexual awakening in San Francisco is gloriously set in the mid ‘70s, an era of freedom and discovery. While some may be off put by the relationship between an older man and an underage girl (star-in-the-making Bel Powley is older than she looks, thankfully), they’d be missing the point of Phoebe Gloeckner’s autobiographical graphic novel on which the film is based. It’s a frank flick that frequently finds its actors in the buff but doesn’t feel gratuitous because these characters are coming into themselves, marveling at a new experience they never knew existed. I appreciated that the film pulled no punches in showing nudity and discussing sexual situations and director Marielle Heller shows respect for all people involved. It’s a bold film with animated sequences, a killer soundtrack, and splendid performances.
The dog days of summer brought three other notable releases to theaters, though I’m guessing by the poor box office returns of two of them that the studios (and actors) wish the films had just quietly gone away.
I hadn’t heard a thing about American Ultra until two weeks before it was due to arrive, strange considering it starred Kirsten Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg. The two aren’t serious box office draws but they do have a fanbase that might have helped build more buzz for the stoner comedy. Not that it would have made the film any better because at its best it was a mildly diverting mix of comedy and gratuitous violence and at its worst it was a merely the thing you watched because you’d seen everything else at the theater and wanted some time in the air conditioning. It’s bad when you don’t know what the movie is about, but it’s worse when it feels like the filmmakers don’t have a clue either.
I’ve gone on record as no fan of director Noah Baumbach and very on the fence for actress Greta Gerwig so I wasn’t at all looking forward to their latest collaboration, Mistress America. Once again, the universe has a way of loving to see me humbled and I emerged from the screening not only in a damn fine mood but the desire to see it again. That rarely happens with any movie, let alone a Baumbach/Gerwig joint so that should tell you something about the quality of this movie that is firmly in a New York state of mind. Sure, it has its share of problems but they don’t ultimately detract from the overall enjoyment the film brings.
Finally, there’s the sad, sad case of We Are Your Friends, Zac Efron’s latest attempt to be a serious dramatic actor. While I think it’s Efron’s best dramatic performance to date and didn’t totally hate the film, audiences sure did and it became the third biggest box office failure of all time…pretty stunning considering how many other bad movies have been released and made at least a few million during its opening weekend. I think the film got a bum rap and just was released at the wrong time, but it should hopefully send a message to Efron that he needs to spend some time figuring out exactly where his place is in Hollywood because he is, like his character here, totally lost.
Synopsis: Pirate Captain sets out on a mission to defeat his rivals Black Bellamy and Cutlass Liz for the Pirate of the year Award. The quest takes Captain and his crew from the shores of Blood Island to the foggy streets of Victorian London.
Stars: Hugh Grant, David Tennant, Imelda Staunton, Martin Freeman, Jeremy Piven
Director: Peter Lord
Rated: PG
Running Length: 88 minutes
TMMM Score: (7.5/10)
Review: Still a kid at heart, I secretly love being able to see animated films and enjoy them through the eyes of an adult. I’ve no problem finding time to see a PIXAR film with the same verve that I have for the newest R-rated action blockbuster because there’s the same great escapist entertainment to be had in the world of animation. The animators at Aardman have long been a favorite of mine thanks to their pioneering work with stop-motion animation and their creation of the Wallace and Gromit characters.
This year when the Oscars were announced I found there was only one film among the five films selected as Best Animated film nominees that I hadn’t seen and it just happened to be Aardman’s latest effort, The Pirates! Band of Misfits. I missed this one on several occasions in the theater and after seeing the film I regret not taking advantage of seeing the movie on the big screen with the added bonus of 3D technology. It’s one of the strongest nominees and could just find itself with the Oscar when the big night rolls around.
The film starts off in a fairly standard way and I was just settling in for what I thought would be a familiar story when the movie pulled a nice switcheroo and turned a standard plot line on its head. What begins as a tale of a dippy Pirate Captain and his rag-tag crew entering the Pirate of the Year Awards quickly veers into creative territory involving exotic animals, adventure on the high seas, and a few run ins with a very disagreeable Queen Victoria. Along the way there are ample amounts of laughs and superior displays of creativity that have become the standard calling card of the folks at Aardman.
As the Pirate Captain, Hugh Grant (Cloud Atlas) doesn’t rely on his proper stutter and stammer but instead uses a light air to suggest that our hero isn’t as aware as he should be. This Pirate Captain is lovably clueless, making for a winning combination when teamed up with his faithful band of misfit pirates with great names like The Albino Pirate, The Pirate with Gout, The Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, and The Pirate with a Scarf voiced nicely by Freeman (the current Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey).
A few historic characters pop up as supporting players like Charles Darwin who is reinvented as a lovesick dweeb with a thing for Vicki (that’s Queen Victoria to you commoners) who won’t give him the time of day. It’s the Queen Victoria character that made me laugh the most — given new life by Aardman as a scheming villainess and voiced with prim steeliness by Staunton. This Queen is no slouch — director Lord and screenwriter Gideon Defoe (who wrote the source book) make her nice and nasty without ever utilizing any truly mean jabs.
Like the other nominees (Brave, Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, and Wreck-It Ralph), The Pirates! Band of Misfits has a lot of heart in its themes of loyalty and friendship that won’t be lost on youngsters and grown-ups that view it. The blend of stop-motion and computer animation is seamless and beautifully detailed…showing that Aardman gets better with each film they produce. A worthy nominee for Oscar glory, this is an easy-going fantasy adventure with enough visual gags for kids and laughs for adults.
Synopsis: An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.
Stars: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, James D’Arcy, Xun Zhou, Keith David, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant
Director: Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Review: After returning from a screening of Cloud Atlas I looked up the definition of “epic” : Long, narrative poem in an elevated style that celebrates heroic achievement and treats themes of historical, national, religious, or legendary significance. These conventions include the centrality of a hero, sometimes semidivine; an extensive, perhaps cosmic, setting; heroic battle; extended journeying; and the involvement of supernatural beings.”
Knowing that, I have to say that Cloud Atlas is the very definition of an “epic” film. Not just because it clocks in at a bladder testing two hours and 52 minutes and contains one of the more challenging narratives of any film since The Tree of Life. No, it achieves “epic” status in my book because of its grandly ambitious nature and its beating heart that takes the viewer on a voyage within themselves to ask questions about life, death, where we come from, and where we may be going.
What’s amazing on the outset is that the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s twisty tome (which, I’ll admit, I’ve yet to read but it’s now on my iPad waiting for me) was made into a film at all. By all standards of Hollywood, a three hour overlapping story told across multiple races, places, and times wouldn’t get the rubber stamp of approval from any movie studio head with an eye on the bottom line. And that, my friends, is why the film was independently produced and then snapped up by Warner Brothers for worldwide distribution. I’m doubtful that the finished product would have resembled what it does now had Warner Brothers (or any studio) been involved from the outset. It’s a film that no mainstream studio would put their production costs behind…period…end of story.
It was left to directors Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer to adapt Mitchell’s book and bring to life his vivid and precise characters. The visionary brother/sister directors behind The Matrix Trilogy, Speed Racer, and Bound make for a dynamic pairing with German wunderkind Tykwer (Run Lola Run) with each director bringing his/her cinematic language to the screen in a way that makes the entire ship run smoothly. Really six movies in one, The Wachowskis and Tykwer split the movies in half and used the same cast members for each story. This leads to some interesting results and some head-scratching moments…but more on that later.
I usually shy away from giving away too much of a film I’m reviewing but I feel in the case with Cloud Atlas that touching briefly on the six stories won’t spoil anything for the viewer. The film opens in linear fashion by taking us through all the different points of history and future we will be visiting: the 18th century, the 1930’s, the 1970’s, the present, 100 years in the future, and 100 years after that. This is a movie in a constant state of motion that doesn’t need to stick to this linear structure for long. The movie jumps across space and time on a regular basis with very little (at first) linking the stories together.
I’ve heard that the first 100 pages of the novel were difficult for some to get through and the same goes for the movie. I’ll admit that it took me a good forty five minutes to really gel with the rhythm that the directors have set-up for us. Like viewing Shakespeare, though, if you make it through the adjustment period you’ll find something special awaits you and the rewards are plenty. Once the flow of the film has been established it takes off like a rocket with well-timed action sequences that play in harmony with tender moments displaying the human spirit.
Both The Wachowskis and Tykwer have excelled in the past with creating brave new worlds of information within their films and Cloud Atlas is no exception. There’s so much to observe in the details and small hints that a second viewing of the movie is pretty much required. As it ponders the origins of our humanity and our growing reliance on technology, the movie begins to rail against the trappings of just being a statement about oppression and distance. It’s a melting-pot of themes…and I don’t say that to indicate that it can’t decide on what kind of movie it is. The Wachowskis and Tykwer know exactly what film they were crafting and that all the pieces have the same cinematic voice show a unity in design.
While the films may share a similar voice, it’s interesting to note how different they all look to the viewer. The 19th Century storyline looks directly out of Horatio Hornblower, while the 1930’s has a Talented Mr. Ripley quality to it. The 70’s arc is set in San Francisco and Tykwer nails the production design that suggests a Bullitt meats Foxy Brown vibe. The present day film has a crisp and comedic appeal while The Wachowskis tap into The Matrix for inspiration for their film sent 100 years in the future. The final futuristic film mixes a few different looks from TVs’s Lost to Star Wars to Clan of the Cave Bear for its inspiration.
For their cast, the directors have assembled an international group of actors that are called upon to play a variety of different ages, genders, races, etc. It’s almost like repertory theatre as you pick out who is playing who in each different story. It’s mostly easy to see the stars (just watch the variety of fake noses on display) but what I found more interesting was trying to pick out some of the secondary characters that pop up from piece to piece.
Hanks and Berry play major roles in most of the pieces, but in a few they are in blink and you miss ‘em cameos. Berry has had a rocky road after winning her Oscar for Monster’s Ball in 2002. Falling victim to the Oscar curse, she’s chosen roles either beyond her depth or taken bit parts that don’t suit her. In Cloud Atlas, Berry finally shines again in what can be seen as a pseudo-comeback performance. She’s the center of the story for the 1970’s sequence and fills out every vessel of her character, shaping her into someone we have a vested interest in.
Hanks, on the other hand, gets very close to Nicolas Cage acting territory in an overall performance that can be summed up as spotty. I found Hanks to be a little above it all, performing more than acting. Though I racked my brain for a contemporary that would have been better suited for the role (perhaps Michael Fassbender?), Hanks seems like a choice made more for securing funding rather than someone who should be grounding much of the film. At his best, he reminds you of the better parts of Cast Away. At his worst, he’s lost in a cockney accent that would make a junior high production of My Fair Lady sound like the Royal Shakespeare Company.
Hanks and Berry are also stuck in the most problematic film set furthest in the future. Speaking in a language that sounds like a cross between Jodie Foster in Nell and Jar-Jar Binks, you’ll wish that the theater was equipped with subtitles as much of this difficult dialogue is totally lost as if it were a foreign language. Same goes for any scene involving Korean stars Bae or Zhou who handle their roles well but struggle with their limited English.
A curious problem raises its head in the story set in Neo Seoul 100 years in the future. Bae and Zhou are featured prominently in the piece but all of the other non Korean actors are made up to look Korean with uncomfortable results. While it’s not as offensive as blackface would be, there’s something that seems really wrong with using prosthetics to turn actors like D’Arcy, Weaving, and Sturgess into futuristic Korean citizens complete with accents. On the other hand, Bae, Zhou, and Berry also appear as white women in other storylines so it’s not as if just one race is singled out. In a film that celebrates diversity and is actually about cross-cultural exchanges, this seems counterintuitive to the overall message being broadcast. I’m interested to hear what moved the directors to go this far with the multiple actors in multiple roles aspect of the film…it certainly leaves them open for controversy.
Editor Alexander Berner certainly had his work, um, cut out for him with this film. Doing work that should be heralded come award season, he should be credited with keeping the movie as cohesive as it is…he must have had a gigantic amount of material to cut together but it all winds up making sense. Equally as important is the striking work by production designers Hugh Bateup and Uli Hanisch who help to create scenic elements that are period perfection. Cinematographers Frank Griebe and John Toll collaborate well with their directors to achieve a synergy in their technique that clearly is the work of two different artists but moves easily within styles and eras.
Continuing his long standing tradition of composing the music for his films, Tykwer works with Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek to create a score including the titular Cloud Atlas sextet – signifying the six interlocking stories. It’s a lushly beautiful music that feels strangely familiar while still breaking new grounds of composition.
I’ve decided over the course of writing this review that another screening of Cloud Atlas is going to be on the top of my list once I’ve had time to full process this first viewing. There are so many hints about how the stories weave together and an abundance of shared themes that it just can’t all be taken in with one viewing. I can understand how this movie won’t be for everyone and can see that it will divide a large section of its audience. I started off very unsure of the film and wary of its narrative style but gradually was so enveloped in its ingenuity and brave storytelling that I never looked back. As the most expensive “independent” film of all time, it’s also the most ambitious film I’ve seen in 2012 (with Cabin in the Woodsbeing a close second) and one that I’m sure will be on my Top 10 List come December 31. I urge you to go into it with an open mind and be a willing traveler on the journey – sit back, feel, enjoy.
