Marx_Bros_Fan86 Reviews

Dunkirk (2017)

The most absorbing technical marvel since Gravity

[8/10 · 26 July 2017]

Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is making headlines as the best war movie in years, and arguably Nolan's best film. The former I can understand and I don't agree with the latter, but that's not really important. I think most people will agree that Christopher Nolan's gripping direction as well as the film's cinematography, sound, and special effects all amount to one of the most impressive technical marvels in years. Dunkirk takes the war genre to a new level, similar to the way Saving Private Ryan did about twenty years ago, with absorbing action scenes that create an authentic war feel. Saving Private Ryan is not the best analogy to this movie though. To me, the best comparison is Gravity (2013), - both gripping stories about survival under insurmountable odds that keeps the audience invested with its technical wizardry.

Dunkirk follows three stories at different times during the ill-fated battle. One story follows a British air force pilot played by Tom Hardy in what are the best dog fight scenes scenes in years. Hardy is once again covered by a mask, but it makes no difference. The second story is about a British infantryman trying to get off the beaches of Dunkirk at any cost. The third story is about a group of civilians (one played by Mark Rylance) who assist with the rescue effort in their ordinary boat. The chronological narrative tricks will remind Nolan fans of his first film, Memento, but it's no where near as complicated. Eventually the stories intersect. The one element uniting all of these stories is the struggle for survival. While some characters are paralyzed with fear, others manage to stay brave and fight the good fight. You barely see the Nazis, and the violence is never graphic, but you feel the horror of war through the sound of the bombs, the sound of the bullets hitting metal near the soldiers, and the sheer desperation in the eyes of the soldiers.

The technical features of the film have deservedly received the most acclaim, but the cast's performances are all commendable. Hans Zimmer's score is also his best in years. The music will get your heart pumping.

Of all the praises I have heaped on this film, I do have some reservations. I am not sure how well this film will hold up on a small screen. Without the big screen to take in the picture, and the speaker system of a movie theater, I don't know how gripping the movie will be. It may be just fine, but I think the film will lose something on DVD. The lack of a traditional story and developed characters may harm the film's repeat value.

Still, if you're going to see one action spectacle this summer, see Dunkirk in IMAX. You must see this movie on the biggest screen you can. The sounds and the sights will make you feel like you are really there.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

An Excellent Finish to a Great Trilogy

[8/10 · 24 July 2017]

War for the Planet of the Apes Matt Reeves' conclusion to his Apes trilogy is a surprisingly emotional story of the last stand between the humans and the apes. The war that started in the previous film is still raging on, as the humans have become increasingly desperate. The virus that made the apes highly intelligent has mutated and the humans have not discovered a cure. The virus now degrades humans' intelligence and abilities, destroying their ability to speak. Caesar (Andy Serkis), our protagonist from the last two films, simply wants peace, but the mad Colonel McCullough, played by Woody Harrelson, has different ideas. He goes on an ape-murdering rampage that sends Caesar on a revenge trip. Caesar and a few choice friends, including the orangutan Maurice, decide to kill McCullough for justice and for their own safety.

It would have been easy for War for the Planet of the Apes to fall into a generic revenge flick or war movie formula, but instead, Reeves delivers a complex, emotional conflict between two desperate species that are struggling to survive. Caesar's conflict with Koba from the last movie still lingers as Caesar struggles between the paths of peace and war. Just how far will his hate take him? McCullough, on the other hand, desperately wants to contain the spread of the virus and decides to kill all humans that exhibit symptoms, all while imprisoning the apes that threaten the human race's position on the top of the food chain. You can almost understand where McCullough is coming from. Threat of extinction is a scary thing. What would humanity do if ever faced with such a problem? You can bet there would be people like McCullough. Perhaps that is what made the experience hit home for me – as fantastical as the plot is, the despicable way humans behave rings true. What leaves the viewer on the side of the apes is their general dislike of violence, their acceptance of humans with the virus, and the value they place on preserving their own kind, traits the humans do not seem to share.

The movie is deliberately paced and isn't really action packed. It takes its time exploring moral conflicts and developing the story. The action scenes it does have are high caliber and it goes out with a real bang. The special effects are among the best you will see in theaters this year. If they don't get a visual effects Oscar, nobody deserves it.

The performances are excellent. Andy Serkis mimics ape movement perfectly and his voice is freakishly ape like. Woody Harrelson proves once again that he can do no wrong – he's always a pleasure to see, and he excels in the Colonel Kurtz like role. Also noteworthy is the child actress Amiah Miller as Nova, a mute girl, and she doesn't disappoint.

I was most impressed with just how emotional the whole experience was. Deaths in the movie really hit you, and the musical score really tugs at your heart strings. Perhaps the saddest thing for this viewer was observing how the human race more or less turned on itself so easily. All too easy to believe.

With War for the Planet of the Apes, I believe Reeves delivered the most consistently good trilogy since the Lord of the Rings. I think if you like sci-fi movies that take time to tell a story, develop characters, and explore themes, you will like this movie. If you expect a conventional action movie, you will be disappointed. I'm glad we got the former. Who needs more conventional action movies? Not me.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Guardians 2 mostly delivers

[7/10 · 11 May 2017]

James Gunn's sequel to the surprise hit Guardians of the Galaxy had a lot to measure up to, and it mostly passes. Marvel has added an unconventionally character driven movie to its pantheon, which is both its strength and its weakness.

The Guardians are still a dysfunctional family – Peter and Gamora are the couple that you root for but always seem to find things to fight about; Rocket is so jaded he won't let anyone get too close; Drax is still socially inept; the most normal member of the group seems to be the talking tree, Groot, who can only say variations of the phrase "I am Groot." When Rocket steals valuable property from a race of gold skinned aliens, the Guardians are chased around the universe, until they are intercepted by Ego, a living god played by Kurt Russell, who just happens to be Peter's father. Peter, Gamora, and Drax go off with Ego while Rocket and Groot stay behind to guard Nebula, Gamora's wacko sister. Without giving too much away, eventually a bad guy threatens to destroy the universe and the Guardians have to stop him.

While the plot ends up being pretty conventional, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is really about the characters learning to deal with all of their pent up personal issues. In that sense, it's pretty unusual for a Marvel movie. Marvel's grip is definitely felt on the film, but it's not nearly as strong as you would think. We get some pretty good emotional scenes here. I was most impressed with Michael Rooker's character Yondu, a supporting character from the first film that I did not expect to see again. He develops a pretty believable bond with Rocket and we get more insight into who he really is. I also have to give a shout out to Batista's performance as Drax. I'm not sure how much range he has as an actor, but he's excellent in the part. He's hysterically funny and he really becomes the character. But every character is handled very well. Peter's relationships with Gamora and his father are well done, and Gamora's relationship with her sister is also developed more.

I did have some problems with the movie though. As much as I liked the character's individual stories, I could have used a stronger plot. It takes a really long time for the real plot to kick in. I felt like there was not enough really meshing the movie together and instead it was just like watching a day in the life of the Guardians, albeit a slightly more unusual one. I also think it tried too hard to be funny at times. The humor came out of the scenes more naturally in the first movie – with this one it felt like they were jamming in jokes to measure up.

Still, I'd recommend seeing this in theaters, especially if you liked the first one.

Logan (2017)

Great drama and action all in one

[9/10 · 20 March 2017]

Hugh Jackman's supposed last outing as Wolverine in Logan was quite the gamble for 20th Century Fox. Could they pull off another R rated superhero movie? Could they pull off a superhero movie with a low key story? I'm happy to say that Fox and director James Mangold pulled it off with flying colors. Logan is the perfect sendoff for Hugh Jackman, who has played Wolverine in nine movies over seventeen years, and it's hard to see how anyone can replace him (and you know they will eventually). Logan is a character driven drama that evokes classic Westerns like Shane and Unforgiven, while still being a superhero movie. With the market saturated with superhero movies, Fox has shown that you can still make superhero movies that feel fresh, and they should really make this kind of film their niche.

Logan takes place in 2029, and for reasons I won't go into here, mutants have not been born in years, and the X-Men have all been killed, except for Wolverine and Professor Xavier. Wolverine is at the end of his rope – his healing factor does not work as well as it used to and he is slowly dying. His most pervasive pain of all though is his mental pain – years of fighting have worn him down, and he wants all the pain to end. He just wants to make enough money to buy a large boat so he can just escape from the dangerous world with Professor X, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and can no longer control his powers.

But one day a woman with a little girl only known as X-23 comes pleading for his help. X-23 is a mutant who was cloned from Logan's DNA and is now being pursued by the scientists who created her. Logan at first wants nothing to do with the girl, but when a gang of criminals called the Reavers comes to take her, Logan reluctantly helps the girl by taking her to a mutant refuge in Canada. But it becomes clear pretty quickly that X-23 might not really need much protection, as she has the same claws and amazing fighting ability as Logan.

Wolverine was my favorite childhood superhero, so my standards are a bit high, and I can say that I've never seen a better depiction of him on screen. Hugh Jackman gives one of his best performances that I sincerely hope earns him an Oscar nod. He expresses such pain and frustration and you really feel it. His chemistry with X-23 is great as they end up forming a dysfunctional family unit with Professor X. The family aspect was surprisingly moving. I legit cried a little bit at the end of this movie and I don't think any comic book movie has ever done that to me.

Patrick Stewart also gives a wonderful performance as an old Professor Xavier. He has his own guilt to deal with and the movie ends up being a great sendoff for him too, as this is reportedly his last X-Men movie.

Finally, the action is spectacularly brutal, as a real Wolverine movie should be. I think this is clearly the best action movie in the X-Men franchise.

With Logan, Fox has reminded us that superhero movies can actually be films, and not just set- ups for a sequel. I hope they make smaller, more focused superhero films their model going forward. They might not make as much money as Disney, but they can be made for a fraction of the cost. I hope they abandon any notion of creating a cinematic universe. In fact, I don't even want to see a sequel to X-Men Apocalypse. Given the way this movie ends, it would be hard to care about the Phoenix Saga, and Deadpool and Logan are just so much more interesting than anything they are likely to come up with in the McAvoy/Fassbender X-Men universe. Fox really raised the bar here, and I hope they continue to have artistic success in the future.

Beauty and the Beast (I) (2017)

Entertaining enough, but lacking

[6/10 · 18 March 2017]

Beauty and the Beast is Disney's latest live action remake of one of their animated classics. But unlike Jungle Book, Maleficent, and from what I've heard, Cinderella, which gave us new spins on familiar stories, Disney opted to make this movie a scene by scene remake of the original. With excellent production values and a high caliber cast that includes Dan Stevens, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and Ewan McGregor, Disney certainly delivered an entertaining family film, but it is too similar to the animated movie to really stand out in any way.

The story is unchanged - a mean, selfish prince is cursed by an Enchantress and transformed into a beast until he can learn to love - and someone loves him back. All hope seems lost until a beautiful, intelligent woman named Bell finds his castle in search of her father, who the beast has imprisoned. You can guess what happens next if you don't know.

This Beauty and the Beast is about thirty minutes longer than the original. The extra scenes do provide some interesting background information and resolve some plot holes from the original movie, which is appreciated. But other subplots just fall flat. A subplot about Belle's mother and LaFou (Gaston's buddy) don't really go anywhere. There are also four new songs here and I can't say I can remember a single one of them.

The cast is mostly excellent. Luke Evans is a funny Gaston and Kevin Kline is good as Bell's father. Dan Stevens also gives the Beast emotional depth. Unfortunately the weakest link in the cast is the most important part - Belle. I don't understand how Emma Watson continues to find work - she's a complete bore as an actress and the auto tune for her singing is really obvious. She's good enough, but her love scenes with the Beast aren't convincing. They feel like they are going through the motions.

Even the special effects are a mixed bag. The Beast's facial expressions and movements are not as convincing as they should be. While the living household objects are animated well, they are almost too realistic, which robs them of the character they had in the animated movie.

This Beauty and the Beast is a good film to take your kids to, but it ultimately represents the worst trends in Hollywood nowadays. It's afraid of taking risks and it exploits nostalgia for cash. I can understand why they didn't want to change too much of the original, given that it's arguably their best animated film, but that just begs the question - did this need to be made? I think the answer is no.

Jackie (V) (2016)

More of an indulgent fantasy than a biopic

[5/10 · 4 January 2017]

I've seen many critics and commentators praise Jackie for being an accurate, intelligent, and insightful depiction of Jackie Kennedy and I'm a bit flabbergasted by this. This film came across to me as highly speculative, overly melodramatic, and distant all at the same time. Many of the film's techniques are praiseworthy, but this ultimately doesn't reach the level of a biopic like Patton or Malcolm X.

Jackie follows the life of Jackie Kennedy (played by Natalie Portman) during the days after her husband's assassination. The film's framing device is an interview of Jackie with a journalist (Billy Crudup) at her home after the assassination. She imparts her story to the journalist to set the record straight about her life and her family's legacy. She is extremely controlling during the interview, telling the reporter what he can and can't write about her (even at one point saying she doesn't smoke while smoking a cigarette). The film flashes back and forth between the interview and the days after the assassination, focusing on Jackie's grieving. After showing the initial events after the assassination, Jackie tries to stave off a nervous breakdown while grappling with what her life means without her husband. Without him, she almost feels like her life is a waste. To handle this, she becomes obsessed with building the Camelot myth around the Kennedy family. She wants the Kennedys to be remembered as a grand, romantic family with a good legacy. She accomplishes this in part by planning a grand funeral for her husband against the wishes of the secret service, who desire a more modest ceremony for safety reasons.

I have no doubt that Jackie was instrumental in building the mythology around JFK, and it's not a stretch to believe that she wanted to validate her own life in some way by doing this. Finally, she must have went through some kind of PTSD after the assassination. But the film attempts to show all of these things in ways that are indulgent, exploitative, and melodramatic. Take a scene where Jackie listens to Richard Burton's performance of Camelot while trying on various stylish dresses she had worn in the White House, all while sobbing hysterically. Or a scene where she admits to a priest that she might have planned all of the pomp and circumstance during the funeral to make her feel good about herself. These scenes feel like they came out of a National Enquirer article rather than a decent biography. Just five minutes of research will show that Jackie didn't even plan the funeral – it was planned by Robert Sargent Shriver. This film is all about mood, not accuracy. Needless to say, Jackie's vanity in this film is probably a tad bit exaggerated, and I question the veracity of pretty much every scene in the film.

These flaws may have been somewhat forgivable if I felt like the character Jackie really came to life at any point, but I don't think she did. Using the interview as the framing device was a bit clumsy, and it's one of the many elements that really prevented me from being fully absorbed in the film. While the film is clearly trying to make points about Jackie's character, I feel like I'm being told about them. I don't feel them. But the cold distance between Jackie and the audience is partially because of Natalie Portman's performance. While her performance has been praised left and right, I found it to be overly rehearsed, almost mimicry. In a good biopic, there has to come a moment where the actor becomes the historical figure, and I don't think that happened here. I could say the same for the film's second largest part, Robert Kennedy. Peter Sarsgaard does not look or sound a thing like RFK.

The movie isn't all bad. For all the flak I've given Portman, her performance is good overall, just not as good as her Black Swan performance in my opinion. The director Pablo Larrain uses close ups very effectively (in some of Portman's best moments), and he seamlessly blends archival footage with reenactments. There is a scene where Jackie looks out the window of the limousine at her husband's funeral, and the reflections of the people watching the funeral motorcade on the window looked an awful lot like archival footage to me. Real archival footage or not, it was an impressive effect. The score by Mica Levy is also haunting.

Jackie was a pretty disappointing experience for me. It's more like an exercise in artistic filmmaking than a good story. Ideally you get both from a film. Not so here. I would wait for video if you want to see this film.

La La Land (2016)

Not a masterpiece

[7/10 · 25 December 2016]

I'll keep this review straight and to the point – I liked La La Land, but I didn't love it, and I'm a little perplexed about why it's a front runner for the Best Picture Oscar. I think the film looks beautiful, from the camera work, to the costumes, and the lighting. Emma Stone also gives a very good performance. But other than that, there's not much else I can really praise. It kept me engaged, but I wasn't riveted by it.

La La Land is an attempt to revive the musical genre by giving it a more modern twist. It's about an aspiring actress (Emma Stone) and a struggling Jazz piano player (Ryan Gosling) trying to reach success in their respective industries. They fall in love without much build up and they encourage each other to achieve their dreams, but there are some bumps along the road (I don't want to spoil it). It's a pretty routine bittersweet love story about the conflict between chasing your ideal career and personal happiness.

I think the main reason La La Land is getting so much buzz is because it's nostalgic about 1940's musicals and it makes show business seem like an important industry. Hollywood and the critics eat up those kinds of movies. I don't think the songs or the dance numbers are particularly memorable though. Script wise, it's nothing special either. Director Damien Chazelle's camera work and Emma Stone's performance are the real stars here. While I don't think the actual songs are memorable, they ARE filmed well. La La Land deserves many technical awards.

I think most people who go into La La Land not expecting a masterpiece will be very pleased. I just don't get the people calling it the best movie of the year. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Overall, a solid effort!

[8/10 · 18 December 2016]

I have been generally critical of the recent Hollywood trend to remake or reboot old franchises to make a quick buck, but sometimes even a snobby curmudgeon like me isn't immune to the charms of nostalgia, and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story hit all the right buttons. When I saw the first trailer for Rogue One I was actually concerned the movie would revisit explored territory, and when news broke that they were re-shooting large portions of the film, I was very worried. But I am happy to say that Rogue One does take the Star Wars franchise in a new direction. I was so thrilled with the end result that I did not care about its flaws, and there are admittedly quite a few. This movie marks a real shift in tone for a Star War movie, and gives me confidence that the new Star Wars franchise won't just feel like a retread.

Rogue One begins with scientist Galen Erso being recruited by the Empire against his will to aid the Emperor's warped dream to bring about peace through tyranny. Before the Empire can take him away, Galen puts his daughter Jyn in the custody of Saw Gerrera, an extremist rebel, to protect her from the Empire. Years later, the rebellion receives information that Galen is building a super weapon for the Empire, and Saw Gerrera may have information vital to the survival of the rebellion, they recruit Jyn to help them. She embarks on her mission with Captain Cassian and his battle droid, the wise cracking K2SO, who can really pack a punch. Little does she know that Cassian has been given orders from his superiors that she won't particularly like. (don't want to give away any spoilers so I will leave it at that).

This brings me to the film's main strength – Rogue One treads new ground by drawing inspiration from modern spy/war movies rather than the 40's action adventure serials that the original movies were based on. Captain Cassain and the Rebellion do a few things that are morally shady, in stark contrast to the clean, black and white approach to the conflicts of the previous Star Wars movies. It's a reminder that even the good guys can do bad things in war. It's a refreshing take given that the last Star Wars movie felt so much like the originals, both in story and style.

The film is not without its faults. Rogue One's main problems are similar to Gareth Edward's previous film, Godzilla. The pacing is pretty slow at times and the characters could have been more interesting. The main character, Jyn Erso, should have been developed better. I don't want to give away too many spoilers, but her character and the film would have benefited if her feelings toward the rebellion and her motives to help them were spelled out for us a little more clearly. She's a bit of a blank slate at times. In defense of the characters, it's still nice to see a Star Wars movie about the (relatively) normal people who fought against the Empire, as opposed to the elite Jedi.

One of the more controversial aspects of the movie is the use of CGI to recreate beloved characters from the original Star Wars movies. The quality of the animation varies from scene to scene, but I was distracted by it even when the animation was at its best. Honestly I would have preferred to see new actors playing these parts. It worked fine with Mon Mothma, so I don't see why they couldn't have done it with the other characters. I suppose the filmmakers may have thought that these particular characters were too iconic to replace with new actors. I disagree. Still, I got used to the animation, and I learned to appreciate what the director was going for.

Rogue One makes up for its deficiencies with a rousing third act that involves a rebel force storming the beachhead of an Imperial fortress and a space battle that is arguably the best in the franchise. This is where Gareth Edwards really deserves credit. His movies have problems with story and character development, but damn can he direct an action scene. He's really the best action director that the Star Wars franchise has had.

Rogue One really managed to pay homage to the original movies while taking it in a new direction. For that, I highly recommend it. I hope these solo spin off movies continue to find ways to differentiate themselves from the saga movies. I look forward to the next few Star Wars films!

Shin Godzilla (2016)

Now This is a Godzilla Movie!!!

[8/10 · 13 October 2016]

So a lot of Godzilla movies are forgettable, but occasionally a gem is made, and Shin Gojira is one of them. The movie is basically a reboot of the series with an important contemporary political message. This Godzilla follows the mold of the original movie. People forget that the original Godzilla had a serious anti-war and anti- nuclear message. Shin Godzilla is a smart commentary on the state of Japanese politics and the restrictions on their government since the treaty with the United States that ended World War II. Oh, and of course, there is plenty of classic Godzilla destruction to keep you entertained.

Godzilla starts out as an infant that is almost a cross between a fish and a lizard. It lives in the ocean and then slithers across the cities of Japan like a snake, causing massive destruction in its wake, and gradually grows into the Godzilla that we all know and love. And he looks GREAT. He looks menacing as ever, and the fiery breath and lasers from his scales are awesome. This Godzilla basically a nuclear reactor, exhibiting radiation wherever it goes, continuing the anti nuclear message of Godzilla movies, particularly pertinent considering the nuclear meltdowns Japan has experienced.

But destruction scenes can only cover so much of the film. In between these scenes, the Japanese government scrambles to respond to the threat. There is some really good political satire here. The Japanese Prime Minister is ridiculously restricted when it comes to using military force, a direct result of World War II. There are funny scenes when the Prime Minister really seems caught with his pants down when he has to make a big military decision very fast, and the cabinet actually has hilarious deliberations over how they can justify using the military against Godzilla. When it becomes clear that the Japanese defense forces can't beat Godzilla, the government contacts the Americans for assistance. The film takes a few digs at the United States, given that the USA more or less takes control of the attack plans.

(MAJOR SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH) The heroes of this story are a group of young, idealistic, low-level government bureaucrats, who are not afraid to take action when their superiors are afraid. They come up with an elaborate plan to defeat Godzilla by freezing him, as opposed to using nuclear weapons, which the UN wants. Of course, they successfully freeze Godzilla, instead of destroying him, and the frozen Godzilla literally becomes a permanent fixture in the city of Tokyo. In one of the most important lines of the movie, the main character says that Japan will have to learn to live with Godzilla. This no doubt is meant to be commentary on Japan's current situation with rival nations like China and North Korea. Japan is having an important national conversation now about the future of their government, especially their military, and this film seems to be saying that Japan needs to stand up for itself while using power more responsibly than previous generations. (END SPOILERS)

The best part of the movie is that it manages to be intelligent while entertaining and humorous at the same time. The film is VERY fast paced and rarely lags, even though there can't be more than 30 minutes of actual Godzilla footage. Characters speak fast and the camera cuts are very quick, which makes it difficult to read the subtitles (one of my few complaints). Still, there was something captivating about the fast cuts. The actors are all good at delivering jokes too. The humor will carry over very well to foreign audiences.

Aside from the difficulty reading the subtitles, I have a few minor quibbles. When Godzilla is an infant, the character's design isn't very good. His eyes are too big – it makes him look like a toy. Fortunately he's only in this state for a few minutes. Also, there is a character who is supposed to be Japanese American, but her American accent is, well, non-existent.

Still, this is a great Godzilla movie. Much better than the self-serious bore fest with Elizabeth Olsen. For Americans, it's only in the United States for a week, so see it now!

The Birth of a Nation (2016)

Competently made, but rather safe and predictable

[6/10 · 10 October 2016]

Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation made headlines at the Sundance Film Festival, but now that it's been released to the public it is getting a mixed, although mostly positive reception. I don't believe this is purely due to Parker's rape controversy. While Parker's retelling of Nat Turner's infamous slave rebellion has some emotional and powerful moments, it is ultimately a pretty routine slave movie. I don't know why it got such rave reviews at Sundance.

Parker took the title of D.W. Griffith's landmark and appallingly racist silent film for his directorial debut movie, and it serves as a rebuke to the racial stereotypes promoted by that film (that plague us to this day, I might add). Parker plays Nathaniel (Nat) Turner, a slave on the Turner plantation. The wife of Nat Turner's owner takes a liking to him and teaches him to read the bible. Eventually Turner begins to preach to the slaves on the plantation. Soon, the Turner family sees a potential financial opportunity in Nat's talent and they rent him out to other slave owners to preach obedience and good servitude to slaves. Nat is uncomfortable with this new role, and as he witnesses more and more atrocities on the plantation, including the rape and beating of his wife, Cherry, he decides to start a violent rebellion.

Nate Parker gives a good performance and all of the key scenes are directed pretty effectively. I thought his relationship with his owner was interesting as it was of the more paternal relationship for most of the film. The owner, played by Arnie Hammer, wasn't a one- dimensional monster. A worse director might have gone down that safe route. To the film's credit, despite the heavy subject matter, it didn't bombard you with overly emotional, depressing scenes every five minutes, which you would think a movie about a slave rebellion would do.

And yet, despite these welcome decisions by Parker, the movie does rely too much on common story telling tropes that we have seen since Glory. From the whipping scenes to the rape scenes, they've all been done before. As a revenge movie, the fictional Django Unchained had more edge. As a movie about a repressed people fighting for freedom, I don't think this movie went anywhere that we haven't seen before. This story, to me, never really gets that interesting.

The film would have been better if it had just stuck to the actual historical narrative. By all accounts, the rape of Cherry Turner didn't happen. There is no evidence that the rebellion was sparked by a particular act of brutality. Nat Turner decided to start a violent rebellion because he believed slavery was immoral and against the laws of God – it was as simple as that. He believed he received messages from God telling him that a race war was on the horizon and he was destined to lead it. As Leslie Alexander wrote in The Nation, slaves didn't need to endure rapes and beatings to violently rebel, just the mere fact of being a slave was enough (I'm paraphrasing here). This would have made for a much more morally complex and interesting film. Relying on rape scenes to spark rebellions is just clichéd at this point (Braveheart anyone?)

Relying on the historical narrative also would have done wonders for the character of Nat Turner, who is a pretty bland, generic hero. Grappling with the idea that Turner might be a religious maniac would have really given us something to think about. I think Parker was afraid to handle the subject matter in this way though. Parker clearly wanted to make a movie with a relevant message for the problems that black people face today. Some of the dialogue could have been taken directly from a Black Lives Matter protest. I'm not sure how successful he was in tying this movie to contemporary events though. I'm not sure what message he wanted to give other than "fight the good fight against oppression," as I don't believe Parker wants the BLM movement to take up arms against the U.S. government. For a movie about current problems facing the black community, watch the Netflix documentary 13th.

The Birth of a Nation is a competently made drama about an important event in American history and that's really the best thing I can say about it. Not great, but not bad.

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

Best animated movie of the year

[9/10 · 22 August 2016]

OK, so it's a bit premature to call Laika's latest masterpiece the best animated picture of the year, especially given that Disney's Moana has yet to come out, but I find it hard to believe that any other animated film this year can match the originality and the quality animation of Kubo and the Two Strings.

Kubo is a more somber story than we're used to seeing in animated movies. Kubo and his mother deal with the death of Kubo's father while seeking refuge from Kubo's evil grandfather, the moon king, a god like creature who lives in the heavens and can only come to Earth at night. Kubo's mother was once an immortal princess who fell in love with a common man, Hanzo, and together they had a mortal son, Kubo. Her father, the Moon King, considers this a betrayal, and seeks to steal Kubo's eyes in order to turn Kubo into an immortal creature like himself.

Kubo's mother is injured during her escape from the Moon Kingdom and she develops a kind of Alzheimer's like condition where her memories fade and she is immobile during the day. Kubo takes care of her as she literally stares into space – it's pretty deep stuff for a kid's movie.

Kubo and his mother manage to fend off the Moon King and his two evil daughters for a few years, but eventually they are found. His mother uses her last bit of magic to send Kubo far away and enchants a monkey doll to come alive and protect him. Along the way, Kubo and the monkey meet a giant beetle, a former Samurai who was cursed by the Moon King. Together, they have to find an indestructible sword and magic armor with which they can defeat the Moon King. Kubo is not defenseless, however, as he uses a magic guitar that can create and control origami figures to fight off the Moon King and his minions (it comes in handy, trust me).

Make no mistake, the animation is this film's crowning achievement. Laika does brilliant stop motion animation, which is such a nice change from the abundance of computer-animated movies we see nowadays. The scenery and the characters come to life in a way that CGI can't capture. There are some very scary images here, like Kubo's flying Aunts who wear Japanese versions of Guy Fawkes masks (there may be a real term for their masks, I just don't know it).

While the animation is excellent, the story is not to be discounted either. Kubo and the Two String's themes of loss and the strength that we can derive from the memory of deceased family members make for a very moving story, and it deals with these themes in a way that is not too manipulative or cookie cutter. There are also plenty of laughs along the way. The antics between Kubo, the monkey (voiced by Charlise Theron), and the beetle (Matthew McConaughey) are very funny.

I do think that the story could have been tighter. Kubo gives a heavy-handed speech about the power of family at the end of the movie that I don't think we were adequately prepared for, for instance. But you can certainly understand why the speech is there, and the movie has so much else going for it I really didn't mind.

It's a shame this movie isn't doing better at the box office. Maybe it's bad marketing, but I think Laika's animation style and darker kid's stories are simply not appealing to American audiences. This is unfortunate as their movies are more intelligent than most American animated films. I hope the studio endures.

So go out and see Kubo and the Two Strings! We need to reward intelligent movies!

Suicide Squad (2016)

Another mess from DC/WB

[4/10 · 6 August 2016]

I don't know what it is with DC, but they haven't had a superhero film with a well-developed story since Nolan left the scene. Their latest movie, Suicide Squad, has too many characters, too many flashbacks, and a poorly written action plot, resulting in a pretty boring movie.

Suicide Squad starts shortly after Batman v. Superman. Superman's death influenced ARGUS chief Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble a team of super powered villains to fight against meta-human threats. Don't ask me why she doesn't just ask Batman, the Flash, and Wonder Woman.

The team members consist of Deadshot (Will Smith), the best hit-man in the world; Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), the Joker's deranged girlfriend and former psychiatrist; Diablo (Jay Hernandez), a super-villain who controls fire; Captain Boomerang, who literally just throws boomerangs really well; Killer Croc, (Adewale Akinnuoye Agbaje) a super strong villain who is part man and part crocodile; and Slipknot, (Adam Beach), who can climb walls.

The team is assembled to take out the super villainess Enchantress, a witch who wants to destroy the world. But the team is kept in the dark about the true nature of their mission, and they are just told to basically point and shoot at whatever they come across, until they learn the truth at the end. During the mission, the Joker (Jared Leto) intervenes to take Harley Quinn back, causing trouble for everyone.

Developing all of these characters and delivering a good action movie seemed to be beyond the ability of the filmmakers. Deadshot, Harley Quinn, and Amanda Waller are the only characters who really stand out. Will Smith gives a good performance – his trademark personality doesn't overwhelm the character, which I was worried about. Margot Robbie nails it as Harley Quinn, her mannerisms, her humor, everything. Viola Davis is just chilling as Amanda Waller.

The rest of the cast might as well have not been there. Jai Courtney is funny when he has something to say. Slipknot, Killer Croc, and Diablo disappear at times during the movie and you don't miss them. Slip Knot and Killer Croc in particular are given little to no character development. There's also a bodyguard named Katana whose only development comes from a few throwaway lines. These are some of the least memorable characters you'll meet in a blockbuster action film.

Flashbacks are the primary mechanism for developing the characters and I just think that that's pretty lazy. It works well enough for Dead Shot and Harley, but it would have been better if we had seen these characters develop relationships with each other on screen in real time instead of diverting so much time from the plot at hand. By the end of the movie they're this big happy family and it doesn't feel convincing.

As for Jared Leto's heavily promoted Joker performance, all I can say is "meh". I didn't think he was scary or funny and most of his scenes could have been cut. In fact they probably should have been cut to develop other characters better.

So while the supporting characters are pretty forgettable, the plot is pretty forgettable too. The team just wanders around a city without much direction until they find Enchantress. The story is not well served by mediocre action scenes either. When Star Trek Beyond has better action scenes than a superhero (or in this case, a super-villain movie), that's pretty bad.

All in all, this was a pretty dull movie, only marginally better than WB's previous outing (although I haven't seen the ultimate cut of BvS yet). This project seems to have suffered from a classic case of too many hands in the pot - studio micromanagers may have changed the movie so much that it didn't resemble Director David Ayer's original vision. WB employed the company that cut the trailer to make the movie funnier apparently. I've never heard of a major studio using a trailer company to recut their film. Plus, I heard the script was written in six weeks (not smart). Maybe we'll see a better cut on home video, but DC can't keep relying on director's cuts to save their projects. They have to shape up soon, or they will see disappointing box office returns.

Man of Steel (2013)

Outstanding action can't overcome poor story and character development

[5/10 · 5 August 2016]

With the release of DC's Batman vs. Superman and Suicide Squad, I felt compelled to revisit this movie, to see if my opinion would change. To my surprise, my opinion did change slightly, but I still think that this is a pretty mediocre movie.

First, if by some small chance you don't know what this movie is about, Man of Steel is a retelling of Superman's origins. The movie opens with a bang, literally, as Krypton is about to explode. But once Superman's ship is about to land on Earth, the trouble starts. For the next hour or so the movie adopts a non-linear structure, flashing back between Clark's adulthood and childhood attempting to tell his origin story. To me, these scenes were structured pretty haphazardly. A lot of scenes feel misplaced and some key emotional scenes would have had more impact if the film had a more traditional, linear structure. For example, the scene where Superman dons his uniform for the first time isn't moving or exciting because Superman still feels like a stranger. We go from Superman being an adult in the present, to being a kid, then back to the present, then at one point he's a teenager, then he's an adult again but it's in the recent past, and then he's a teenager. It's all over the place. The "origin" part of the movie is just a collection of disjointed moments that provide some necessary exposition and allows characters to pontificate about Superman's life mission. The movie should have SHOWN us who Superman is through his actions and experiences. This origin sequence is easily the weakest part of the film. It doesn't flow well and it is almost impossible to really become invested in.

The movie takes on a more traditional structure about halfway into the picture. After Clark Kent discovers a Kryptonian space ship in the arctic, he meets a holographic projection of his real father, Jor-el, who gives him a long lecture about what a savior he can be. Unfortunately Superman activates a distress beacon on the ship, which attracts the evil Kryptonian General Zod and his small paramilitary force. Zod invades earth with the full intention of rebuilding Krypton – and he does not want to share the planet with humans. The movie is almost entirely action sequences from this moment on, and I was just happy that the movie had direction.

The action sequences are pretty fun and visually amazing, and they've taken a lot of flack. Yes, there are moments where Superman behaves pretty stupidly and causes damage to buildings that he could have avoided. I chalk this up to Snyder just wanting to make up for the slow first half of the movie by giving us a loud finish. I found these moments irritating, but they didn't bother me as much as they did the first time. Superman DOES save people in Smallville, and by the time the fighting in Metropolis starts, the city is mostly abandoned.

(SPOILERS) Then of course there's the infamous moment where Superman kills General Zod. I don't have a problem with Superman killing per se, but if Superman had just been developed a little better then maybe his decision to kill would have had some weight. I would go so far as to say that he doesn't really have a defined moral code in this movie, so his pain and anguish over killing Zod doesn't really make sense. (END SPOILERS)

By the end of the movie, I think I can extrapolate where they wanted to go with this Superman, but it could have been done so much more effectively. Warner Bros. and Director Zack Snyder wanted to give this Superman a darker edge so much that they made some pretty bad story decisions, especially with Clark's relationship with his parents. The creative minds behind this film are aware that Superman needs to have a pretty optimistic belief system, but it's really hard to see where he gets that from. Clark's parents actively dissuade him from using his powers because they think people will be scared of him, which I understand, but the movie really doesn't show us why Clark should buy into it or why he decides to buck his parent's advice when he does. This desire to go dark and downbeat culminated into the worst scene in the movie in my opinion. (MAJOR SPOILERS) In one flashback, Jonathan Kent is about to die in a tornado, and he tells Clark not to save him in order to preserve his secret. To my disbelief, Clark obeyed. This made no sense to me - Clark was a grown man at that point, and if saving his father isn't a reason to expose his powers I don't know what is. Clark being scared of the unknown result of exposing his powers, even as a grown man, didn't really have much credibility in my mind. Jonathan Kent even said at an earlier point that some day Clark will change the world and he hoped it would be for the better. What better moment for Clark to go against his dad's wishes than by saving his life? THIS is the moment where Superman should have been born in my opinion. Clark deciding to do what was right rather than what was safe would have helped this film so much. It would have been much more effective than Clark deciding to don the red cape after hearing a computer projection of his dead Kryptonian father lecture him on why he needs to be Earth's savior. The movie thinks it's being "deep" or "mature" when it's really just dumb.

To sum it up, this movie's story is a muddled mess, but it has impressive visuals, competent performances, good action scenes, and a good score. It was a weak start to the franchise that really crippled the future of the DC movie universe. Oh well. There's still television.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Batman v Superman represents the worst results of studio interference

[2/10 · 27 March 2016]

With the success of Disney/Marvel's Avengers series, WB is scrambling to compete with Disney by prematurely launching a Justice League franchise with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. The studio heads don't realize that the best thing they can do is just get out of the way and allow more creative minds to take control of the series. But money is the most important factor, and they employed the most creatively bankrupt puppets to make a by the numbers movie: Director Zack Snyder, who doesn't seem to know how to pull a story together, and mediocre writer David S. Goyer, who only seems to make good movies when he teams up with Christopher Nolan. Co- writer Chris Terrio wrote Ben Affleck's Argo, but it's clear that studio interference stifled his talents.

The movie begins with a flashback to Batman's origin for the umpteenth time – where his parents are murdered outside of a movie theater. Then it quickly cuts to the battle of Metropolis in Man of Steel, where we see an older Bruce Wayne, played by Ben Affleck, ordering his office building in Metropolis to evacuate. Unfortunately, not all of his employees could get out on time.

Batman's rage over the deaths of his employees and the destruction of Metropolis leads him to believe that Superman must be killed for the safety of the planet. It's an adequate motivation at face value, but it's really stupid when you think about it. Superman was clearly the good guy in the fight from Man of Steel and Batman's rationalization of his own desire to kill Superman is illogical. In a scene from the trailer, he tells his butler Alfred that if there is even a one percent chance that Superman could have ill intentions, he must be destroyed. One percent? That's his threshold? That's just nuts. There are several governments on this planet that have the ability to destroy the world many times over, and I don't see Batman pushing for their destruction. Batman basically has a xenophobic reaction to Superman, and that makes for a boring conflict in my opinion.

Superman has his own story independent from Batman. Superman is facing some kind of congressional inquiry into Superman's activities. People are suspicious that he is in fact the one responsible for the crime that he stops. It kind of reminds me of the suspicion around Spider- Man in those movies. You know, the kind of suspicion that some people always have in movies when a superhero comes to town, but it really has no basis in reality? Still, the question of whether Superman should fight crime is a good one – it could have been the basis of an entire movie. Unfortunately this interesting subplot is underdeveloped, making it the least interesting aspect of the movie.

Right under Superman and Bruce Wayne's noses, Lex Luthor is trying to buy off politicians and gain access to the government's Kryptonian ship from Man of Steel as part of a plot to pitch Batman against Superman… because nothing can go wrong with this convoluted plot. Oh, and Wonder Woman pops up because she's looking for a photo that Lex Luthor stole from her. Literally.

I can't explain this mundane plot any longer because it's making my head hurt. To sum it up – all of these plots and characters are underdeveloped, and the movie basically keeps cutting back and forth between each individual plot as if it thinks it's hooked the audience. Obviously, it didn't hook me.

Affleck is good as Batman and I wouldn't mind seeing him in another movie if Zack Snyder is not involved. Wonder Woman's appearance at the end was a clear crowd pleaser based on the reaction from the audience I saw the movie with, but I thought her presence was unnecessary and I found her acting robotic. Cavill is a good Superman but he's given absolutely nothing to work with here.

For me this movie was a two and a half hour bore. The worst movie I've seen since Transformers 2. I won't see any upcoming movie in this franchise in theaters unless the reviews get significantly better.

Spotlight (I) (2015)

Powerfully told story

[9/10 · 1 March 2016]

I'm not the first person to say this, but Spotlight probably is the best journalism movie since All the President's Men. It starts with Martin Baron (Liev Schreiber), who plays the new editor of the Boston Globe, catching on to a potentially explosive story that nobody seems to be covering in great detail – the sexual molestation of young boys by Catholic clergy. So he assigns the Globe's "spotlight" team to the story – a close-knit group of journalists who uncover the biggest scandals in Boston. Michael Keaton leads the team consisting of Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and a few others as they delve into one of the most important journalism investigations of our time.

The execution of Spotlight is what really made it the best picture winner at the Oscars. The way it delves into the journalistic process – the countless interviews, the research, piecing things together with scant evidence until you get the smoking gun – that's what keeps you watching this movie. A journalism investigation is not exactly something you think would hold your attention for two hours, but it does. It is also a very tightly edited film – each scene moves the story forward and not a moment is wasted or excessive.

What I especially admire about Spotlight is its low key feel and humble nature. It celebrates the value of investigative reporting while acknowledging that journalists really dropped the ball by not pursuing this story sooner. It gives this serious issue the importance it deserves while asking the question – why did it take people, particularly journalists, so long to act? All of the pieces were there for them to put together. Could they have done something sooner? And it does all this with very few manipulative, Oscar baity moments. It lets the story stand for itself.

Spotlight is a triumph of good story telling with little flash or style, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Selma (2014)

Very powerful film - highly recommended!

[8/10 · 31 January 2015]

One of my history teachers once called Martin Luther King the "sacred cow" of the Civil Rights movement – an almost mythological figure. I would go so far as to say that the whole civil rights era has been sanitized to the point where the oppression of African Americans in the Jim Crow South almost doesn't feel real. But Ava DuVernay's Selma brings this era to life again. She succeeds because she does not shy away from the darker side of this era while delivering a riveting and moving picture.

The film begins with Martin Luther King's acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, a sort of ivory tower secluded from the real action. But DuVernay quickly brings us back into the real world by depicting the bombing of an African-American church in Birmingham Alabama where four children were killed. The scene packs a major emotional wallop, giving the audience a sense of the frankly barbaric oppression of African Americans in the Jim Crow South better than any Nobel Prize speech (or history textbook) can convey.

The movie then turns to a woman named Annie Lee Cooper, played by Oprah Winfrey, attempting to register to vote in Selma. The government employee subjects her to a ridiculous quiz on irrelevant facts that everybody would fail. Needless to say, her application is denied.

It is in the face of this brutal violence and the violation of constitutional rights that King asks for the help of President Lyndon Baines Johnson in passing a Voting Rights Act, but Johnson wants to focus on desegregation and poverty. King won't budge on the voting issue and decides to organize a march on Selma Alabama in protest.

From here, Selma focuses on three key relationships in Martin Luther King's life – his relationship with his wife, Coretta, his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson, and his relationship with civil rights organizations. All of them are rife with complications – his wife is understandably concerned about his safety, LBJ does not want to move as fast as King on voting rights, and King's organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, disagrees amongst themselves and with the student group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) over tactics and strategy. But they all push forward, and unless you live under a rock, you know the Voting Rights Act eventually passed.

The heart and soul of the movie is King's relationship with the civil rights organizations themselves. From the arguments over tactics and safety to the camaraderie between members, Selma portrays the inner workings of these organizations and the painful struggles they endure. The most harrowing moments are the conflicts between marchers and the police. The authorities were not merciful - they brutally beat men and women indiscriminately. The most moving scene for me was the murder of a black protester named Billie Lee Jackson by the police. Jackson and his family participated in a protest march that the police broke up. Jackson, his wife, and his father try to hide in a restaurant, but the police hunt them down, and during the fight Billie Lee is shot and killed.

This sequence was particularly moving because it integrated the civil rights movement with the aftermath of the Civil War and the shootings of young black kids in the present. King visits Jackson's grandfather Cager Lee in the coroner's office to console him. During their conversation, Cager Lee tells King that he was born in 1882 and his family always said he would be the first in his family to vote. King then delivers a powerful speech at Jackson's funeral, placing responsibility for the youth's death on the white people that support discrimination and the African-Americans that do not join in the movement. The link to the post Civil War era is rather overt with the inclusion of Cager Lee, but you would have to be extremely ignorant of current events to not notice the parallels between the excessive force of the police in the 60's with the excessive force of today's police. Selma's juxtaposition of the civil rights movement between these two eras rightly frames it as part of a struggle that is ongoing rather than finished. That, I think, is its greatest achievement.

The movie has good performances all around. David Oyelowo does a respectable job portraying MLK as a burdened but resolute leader. He has good chemistry with Carmen Ejogo, who plays Coretta Scott King. Tim Roth plays an especially loathsome George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama who famously said "segregation now, segregation forever." I wasn't too enamored with Tom Wilkinson as LBJ – he's a good actor, but he didn't seem like LBJ to me.

The stars of this movie though are the unseen director, Ava DuVernay, and the writer, Paul Webb, who took an often sanitized piece of history and made it seem real to viewers, a very difficult task. I wish DuVernay had been nominated for an Oscar for best director.

DuVernay shows that the Jim Crow south was truly a tyranny on this earth. More importantly, Selma is part of a relatively recent trend in Hollywood to make African Americans the central focus of civil rights stories that are often told through the perspective of white people (The Help, Mississippi Burning, Glory, Ghosts of Mississippi, and plenty more). Selma helps us appreciate the very real dangers that the civil rights movement faced and it helps us respect its participants even more.

American Sniper (2014)

Powerful movie with a limited scope

[7/10 · 27 January 2015]

American Sniper is on pace to become the most successful movie of 2014 and the most successful war movie of all time. Director Clint Eastwood's latest movie is a biopic of the life of a soldier, Chris Kyle, a Navy Seal who served four tours in Iraq and became the most successful sniper in American military history with 160 confirmed kills. Critics have generally been favorable, but a small vocal group has sharply criticized it for various reasons, including stereotyping Muslims and for overlooking some of Chris Kyle's personal vices. Regardless of your point of view, Eastwood has clearly struck a cultural nerve here. As a portrayal of American soldiers during the Iraq war, this movie will be hard to top, but its perspective is limited nonetheless.

Bradley Cooper, in an Oscar nominated performance, plays Chris Kyle as a confident go-getter. Kyle becomes a Navy Seal shortly after the al Qaeda bombings of the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, but the movie quickly moves to his first tour in Iraq. The character might sound like a giant boy scout, but Cooper plays the part very sincerely.

The film provides little sense of the causes of the Iraqi insurgency. Instead, Eastwood chooses to focus on Chris Kyle's battle experiences and the toll they place on him. (SPOILERS) The film's opening scene perfectly depicts the pressure that snipers are under during urban warfare when a mother and her child walk out of a building and attempt to throw a grenade at American soldiers. Kyle is visibly shaken by the prospect of shooting a woman and a child, but this doesn't stop him from doing his job or quell his pride. Kyle pushes himself to kill every insurgent and he puts himself down if any American is injured or killed. His fellow soldiers give him the nickname "legend" because they feel invincible when Kyle is protecting them.

Eastwood directs the sniper sequences very well, but the film somewhat degenerates into standard action movie fare when a Syrian Olympic sniper champion named Mustafa hunts down Chris Kyle after a bounty is placed on his head. Kyle is determined to kill this sniper because he has killed a few of his buddies. This revenge subplot, while entertaining, feels somewhat artificial in a movie that otherwise feels pretty authentic. Despite the pedestrian subplot, the last battle sequence is an epic shootout in the middle of a sandstorm that is visually amazing and very suspenseful.

Warfare is only half of the story though. Kyle is increasingly withdrawn every time he returns home between tours. His wife, played by Sienna Miller, feels her husband slipping away. While the theme of the soldier who cannot adjust when he comes home may be familiar, American Sniper depicts the conflict between a man's duty as a soldier and his duty to his family better than any movie I have seen. Posttraumatic stress disorder is also portrayed very authentically and respectfully. Eastwood deftly shows that war can nearly destroy a person even when they are not fighting. Ultimately, PTSD proves to be Kyle's downfall, but not in the way you might expect.

Much has been said of this film's blind acceptance of the Iraq war as a noble cause. This is not what I saw. Chris Kyle believes in the cause he is fighting for, and he does not regret killing to protect his soldiers, but this does not mean the movie endorses war. War is painful and clearly has a serious toll on everyone involved. The movie is subtly critical of Kyle's blind faith in the Iraq war in two key scenes where two of his fellow soldiers (including his brother) question the wisdom of the war. I believe that Kyle's refusal to accept these criticisms is how he keeps himself going, and just because the film does not outright condemn Kyle for his beliefs does not mean it supports the war itself.

The most controversial aspect of this movie is the portrayal of the Iraqis. Kyle and the rest of the soldiers repeatedly refer to them as savages, and there is no effort to really develop any of the Iraqi civilians. I understand the concerns about stereotyping, but anyone whose opinion of Muslims declines because of this movie was ignorant to begin with.

Still, I am torn on this portrayal of the Iraqis. A biopic demands that the film be told from Kyle's point of view. The fact is, soldiers see a lot of gruesome things, and Kyle's belief that the Iraqis are savages reflects the fact that there are some savages in Iraq. The ISIS videos should not leave any doubt in your mind about that. To an extent, I respect Eastwood for not kowtowing to politic correctness.

On the other hand, narrowly framing the Iraq War through an American soldier's point of view is indicative of the country's inability to really try to understand Iraqi points of view. The limitations of the biopic format give Eastwood an out, an excuse not to tackle this perspective. To do so might have offended the core audience this movie is geared to: American conservatives. This does not mean the movie has to defend al Qaeda or the insurgency, but a little bit of effort to portray Iraqis as something more than one dimensional stand ins would have gone a long way towards improving the film.

Eastwood has produced a film that will keep us arguing largely because we are still arguing about the Iraq war. I think the movie will stand the test of time for respectfully tackling the pressures faced by American soldiers, but it seems clear to me that a response is called for. We need a movie that tells the Iraqi point of view. If it does come out of Hollywood, I wouldn't expect it for a long time.

Godzilla (2014)

Dull as dishwater

[6/10 · 20 May 2014]

There are times when I just feel out of step with the average moviegoer, and watching the latest Godzilla film in a packed movie theater was one of those times. Godzilla was met with constant cheering and clapping from the audience. But I don't think the movie ever built momentum, suspense, or tension, nor did the characters provide a compelling human element. Godzilla was a flat out bore to me.

I can't really express my disappointment with this movie without revealing crucial plot elements; so if you haven't seen the movie, stop reading this now. The film begins with scientist Ishiro Serizawa (played by Ken Watanabe), who arrives at a quarry in the Philippines where two ancient, giant fossilized eggs have been found – one appears to have hatched. In the meantime, two nuclear engineers in Japan, Joe Brody (played by Bryan Cranston) and his wife Sandra Brody (played by Juliette Binoche) have detected disturbing seismic readings underneath their power plant. The power plant melts down and Joe Brody is forced to seal a few engineers in the core, including his wife, in one of the most painful scenes of the movie. Cranston suspects that the government is hiding something about the nuclear power plant's melt down, and it's obvious to the audience that it has something to do with the eggs that Ken Watanabe found.

Fifteen years later, Cranston, fraught with guilt, is obsessed with discovering what exactly happened to cause the meltdown. His son Ford, a military veteran played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson, has moved on and has a wife (Elisabeth Olson) and a child of his own. Ford's return from a tour of duty in the Middle East is cut short when his father is arrested in Japan for attempting to trespass on the nuclear power plant site. They discover that a monster that feeds on radiation caused the meltdown - but it is not Godzilla, as you might think. No, the culprit is only referred to as a MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism), a giant moth-like creature that destroys everything in its path through brute force and its ability to emit an EMP blast.

Bryan Cranston is lost in the ensuing destruction. The movie does not really spend much time mourning Cranston as the MUTO quickly calls out to another bigger and badder MUTO that has awoken in California. As Serizawa and Ford work to figure out a way to stop these creatures, the key to their destruction comes from an unlikely source - Godzilla. Godzilla has awoken as well, and he is on the hunt for some MUTO meat.

Director Gareth Edwards takes a different approach with this movie than you might expect, focusing on the humans of the story rather than the monsters. I can certainly appreciate his effort. Overexposure of the monsters might make them lose their impact after a while. But none of the characters are well defined or particularly interesting. Aaron-Taylor Johnson's personality is dull as dishwater and the writers did not really give him any compelling traits. The only character that could have had any kind of interesting arc was Cranston considering the enormous guilt he feels about his wife's death, but he dies within the first twenty minutes. The movie loses its most interesting character far too soon.

The film is only partially redeemed by the action. The action scenes have a very dark, apocalyptic feel, epitomizing the 9/11 fears that have crept into American movies for the past thirteen years. The monsters themselves look amazing and there are definitely some cheer worthy moments when Godzilla kicks serious butt. The last thirty minutes are a TON of fun!

Before the end of the movie though, the action scenes are always cut short, which is a surefire way to take me out of a film. There is never any sense that the stakes were getting higher as the film went on. Perhaps if the human stories were more interesting this approach could have worked, but it just resulted in a very boring movie.

The movie's largest problem is that Godzilla is just a supporting character in his own movie, as Christopher Orr pointed out in the Atlantic. The movie isn't really ABOUT Godzilla; it's about the MUTOs. And I just don't care about MUTOs.

It's clear that a lot of people LOVE this movie though, so there's a pretty good chance you will like it too. I'm just glad that I skipped out on IMAX though, that would have been a real waste of money for me.

Moon (2009)

A Return to Pure Sci-fi

[9/10 · 19 February 2013]

Moon is a welcome return to pure science fiction. Most science fiction films nowadays are what I call "sci-fi lite-" that is, they contain science fiction elements within the framework of another genre. But Moon is the best real science fiction film that I've seen in ages. Coincidentally it came out in the same year as District 9, another great science fiction film, but Moon edges it out slightly in my opinion. This is a mind-bending film that gives the audience a lot to think about. This is a spoilerific review, so do not read this unless you have seen the movie.

Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an astronaut who harvests an energy source called helium-3 for the Lunar Corporation. Bell is all alone on his employer's moon base with only his computer, Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey), for a companion. Three years of isolation have put a heavy toll on his mental and physical health. He starts seeing things and gets easily distracted. His poor health causes him to get into an accident while driving a vehicle that's sort of like a monster truck for moon travel.

Bell awakens in the infirmary on the base, but something seems fishy. Gerty does not want him to go outside and the computer lies to him about taking a conference call with his corporate overlords. So he concocts a scheme to trick Gerty into letting him outside the moon base where he makes a shocking discovery- there is a body in the wrecked space vehicle that looks just like him! It turns out there is another Sam Bell, and they are both just clones of the original Sam Bell who is safely back on Earth. The two clones have to learn to live with each other and it doesn't prove to be easy.

From here, the film explores an interesting question: what would it be like to meet yourself? Could you learn anything from yourself? The two Sam Bells in fact do have a lot to learn from each other. Sam Rockwell really makes the film's insane scenario seem perfectly plausible and he is able to carry the entire film on his shoulders since he's practically the entire cast! Rockwell is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood in my opinion.

Moon is an impressive directorial debut for Duncan Jones, David Bowie's son. Aside from creating a fascinating premise, Jones employs old school special effects that stand up to the best computer animation in Hollywood. You would never guess that the moon base and the vehicles are miniatures- and all of it was done on a shoe- string budget. It just goes to show you that creativity and intelligence can always outdo a large budget.

Moon is one of those rare intelligent science fiction films that will be loved by fans for a long time. I look forward to more of Duncan Jones's projects.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Gratuitous violence does not give it a higher meaning

[3/10 · 17 February 2013]

I finally got around to seeing Mel Gibson's most controversial movie, and as I expected, I wasn't impressed. The Passion of the Christ is technically admirable. Gibson employs haunting music, expert cinematography, and lets face it, effective use of violence and gore to leave a heavy impact on the audience. Jim Caviezel has Jesus down pat. But the film is devoid of any higher meaning and its self-seriousness lacks entertainment value.

Basically, The Passion of the Christ is the story of the crucifixion. Rather than focus on Jesus's teachings, Gibson just gives us two hours of Jesus getting tortured while his mother and Mary Magdalene look on in horror. Occasionally Satan turns up to tempt Jesus and I must say these scenes were especially creepy. I was struck by how genderless Satan looked. I'm not sure if Gibson did this to serve a higher purpose or maybe it's just me. Either way, Satan really looked like he was not from this world.

I suppose if you are religious you might find this movie extremely moving but for me it was very boring. It was like the third act of a film extended into a two-hour movie. If you're going to make a movie about Jesus, I don't know why you would only focus on this narrow aspect of his life.

I should reveal my bias- I've always found the idea of God sacrificing his son for the sins of humanity to be barbaric. That doesn't sound like a loving God to me, and I guess that's part of the reason I wasn't impressed with this film.

Furthermore, the torture scenes were so gruesome I can't believe this movie isn't rated NC-17. I prefer it when directors do not shy away from depicting violence when it is warranted, but this went a little too far for me. Gibson also includes gratuitously violent scenes that serve no purpose- for example, a crow pecks out the eyes of one of the people that was crucified next to Jesus- what was the point of this? Gibson was in a dark place when he made this movie.

Finally, I must address the charges of anti-Semitism that plagued this movie's release. I understand where the charges come from but I think they're overblown. The Pharisees are one- dimensional evil bad guys (and so are the Romans, I might add), but there are several good Jewish characters. The man who helps Jesus carry the cross is Jewish. The woman who gives him water is Jewish. Many of the Jews who witness Jesus carrying the cross are horrified by what they see. The High Priests are corrupt, but you can expect that in any religious organization (look at the Vatican). I don't think this film is anti-Semitic.

In the end, The Passion of the Christ doesn't really have much to offer except violence, violence, and more violence. I don't think it's particularly "deep" or inspiring-it's boring. I'm afraid I don't have anything more to say.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Delightful

[8/10 · 9 February 2013]

Sometimes, meeting the right person can turn your life around. That's one of the messages of Silver Linings Playbook. Of course, this is not exactly new territory for Hollywood love stories, but there's a lot of craziness in this romantic comedy that sets it apart from the usual fare. David O. Russell's story of two mentally ill people who fall in love, based on a novel by Matthew Quick, is not a natural recipe for a romantic comedy, but Silver Linings Playbook's upbeat, quirky portrayal of its main characters makes for a delightful experience.

The story is about Pat (Bradley Cooper), a substitute teacher with bi-polar disorder who was committed to a mental hospital for eight months. Later we learn that Pat brutally assaulted his wife's lover after catching them in the shower listening to his wedding song. The movie begins with Pat's mother Dolores (Jacki Weaver) discharging him from the mental hospital and bringing him back home. Pat's father (also named Pat- played by Robert Deniro), has always favored his other son, but he wants to spend some quality time with Pat Jr. to make up for it. But these intentions are masked by Pat Sr.'s job. Pat Sr., a bookie with obsessive compulsive disorder and a penchant for violent outbursts (guess where Pat Jr. got his problems from?), believes that his son is a good luck charm that will help the Philadelphia Eagles win games. Pat Jr. thus interprets his father's advances as financially motivated.

Pat Jr. doesn't have much time for family, however, because he is obsessed with getting his old life back. His daily routine revolves around his plans to win over Nikki even though she has a restraining order against him. Now there's a textbook case of denial for you. Pat believes that staying positive is all it will take to turn his life around. He jogs around the neighborhood with a garbage bag over his sweatshirt to stay in shape to impress Nikki, and he reacquaints himself with friends who can contact her. Pat's world is really turned upside down though when he meets a woman who knows Nikki- Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a beautiful young widow who is severely depressed and lacks confidence in herself. Tiffany bears a tremendous sense of guilt over her husband's death, and in her depression she went on many sexual escapades which only contributed to her self-loathing. There is instant chemistry between Pat Jr. and Tiffany, but Pat suppresses his feelings and convinces her to deliver a letter to Nikki. Tiffany won't be used so easily though. She agrees to help him on one condition- that Pat will help her win a dance competition that she has attempted to enter for ages.

I bet you can guess where the movie goes from here. While the film has a formulaic side, its portrayal of mentally ill people rings true. People who have experienced or witnessed mental illness will find that this movie hits the right chords- Pat's manic highs and lows, his refusal to use medication, and the arguments that get out of hand will be very familiar to them. I also enjoyed how the film touched on Pat's family history of mental illness as these problems are often inherited. Its core message is very positive- mentally ill people can help lift each other out of their complicated problems if they work together. Alone, they will just wallow in their destructive behavior.

I wouldn't describe this film as a laugh out loud comedy, but the character's quirks and behaviors, as well as the many absurd situations they find themselves in make this a very entertaining picture. Silver Linings Playbook is also elevated by its performances and Jennifer Lawrence shines the brightest. Compared to her performances in X-Men First Class and Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook is easily her best. Lawrence's high maturity and fiery attitude overcomes her sixteen year age difference with Bradley Cooper. Cooper, to his credit, captures the highs and lows of bipolar disorder very well. It is also good to see Robert DeNiro in an intelligent role again. This won't go down in history as one of his best roles, but he makes his obsessive compulsive quirks genuinely funny and sad at the same time. Pat Jr.'s obligation to Tiffany's dance competition drives a wedge between him and his father that leads to the best scene in the movie- a three way argument between Cooper, DeNiro, and Lawrence that unexpectedly turns to the Eagles' excellent performances whenever Pat Jr. dances with Tiffany.

If you're going to see a comedy in theaters now, see this movie.

Dredd (2012)

Gruesome action

[8/10 · 27 January 2013]

I meant to see Dredd in theaters but I never got around to it. Now I really regret it. I could tell that this movie was MEANT to be in 3d. Alas, I saw it on DVD. One of these days I have to see it on a 3d TV to really accurately judge it.

What I can say though is that I admire the movie's simplicity and lack of pretension. The movie doesn't waste time with character building scenes or origin stories. I'm not saying that movies shouldn't have character development, but this is Judge Dredd, not Shakespeare. Sometimes action movies are a little too self-important for my taste, but not this movie. Dredd knows what it is and it isn't ashamed of it.

Dredd takes place in a dystopian future where America was ravaged by nuclear war. The country is now a police state where policemen, called "Judges," are authorized to determine criminals sentences on the spot without a trial, even death sentences. Dredd is the most feared judge of all and he has been paired up with a rookie with psychic abilities named Anderson. Anderson's gift gives her obvious advantages- she can sense guilt without interrogating prisoners and detect when they have malicious intents.

Dredd's first mission with Anderson is to investigate a simple crime in a 200 story apartment building in a slum. Little do they know that this apartment building is the headquarters of the crime lord Ma Ma, where she is manufacturing the hottest new drug, SLO MO, a mind altering substance that allows you to perceive time at an extremely slow speed. Dredd and his rookie companion are forced to fight their way out of the slum while learning to work together. The plot reminds me of one of my favorite movies from last year, The Raid. Given that they were made about the same time I think the similarities are a coincidence.

Karl Urban pulls off the grimness of Judge Dredd very well and the movie wisely has him keep his helmet on. There's really not much more to say about the acting except that everybody does a competent job. Game of Thrones fans will enjoy Lena Headey as the drug lord Ma Ma and Olivia Thirlby captures the naive student quality required for the role.

The star of this movie is the action. To use a cliché, this is a real roller coaster ride. Even though I didn't see this on a 3d TV I can tell that the slow motion must have made the 3d enhance the action scenes instead of being a cheap gimmick. The drug experiences actually gives the film a reason to have slow motion, unlike most action films nowadays.

I have never read the Judge Dredd comics, but I think this movie probably captured the essence of its source material. In a compact 95 minute running length, Dredd doesn't waste time getting to the action and doesn't outstay its welcome. For that I admire it very much.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Challenging and Gripping Depiction

[9/10 · 18 January 2013]

Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal's Zero Dark Thirty is a journalistic account (disclaimer: "journalistic" does not equal factually accurate) of the ten year search for Bin Laden and one woman's unparalleled determination to see him dead. The film is an absorbing look into the world of the CIA, a gripping action film, and a reflection of the United States's internal conflict over the methods employed by our intelligence agencies in the War on Terror.

The film opens with a black screen and confusing audio from September 11, 2001, but one conversation clearly emerges- a 911 call from the burning World Trade Center. The woman on the phone screams about the intense heat of the fire, but the most harrowing part of this segment was not the audio itself, but the silence that followed after it.

The movie continues with a CIA agent named Dan (Jason Clarke) torturing the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the planner of 9/11. He is beaten, water boarded, and stuffed in a small wooden box. The film's main character Maya (Jessica Chastain) observes in horror, but eventually she seems to accept these methods as just another part of their information gathering process. At one point she tells the prisoner that he can help himself if he starts telling the truth. The CIA agents only begin to make progress when they treat the prisoner nicely, however, by offering him a meal. He then gives them the name of Bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed.

These scenes have earned the movie the title of the most controversial movie of the year. Opinions on this movie vary just as wildly as the national conversation on the issue of torture today. The controversy of these scenes comes from the movie's refusal to take an outright stance on torture. I don't want to get into this too deeply since many critics have already written excellent pieces on the subject. But this leads me to a question: Is it the director's responsibility to take a stand on issues like this, or is it better to let the audience decide? I can really understand both of these positions, but as someone who likes movies that force the audience to think about these controversial issues rather than spoon feeding them a message, I like Bigelow's approach.

From here, the film begins its second and longest act, a procedural drama about the painstaking search for Abu Ahmed and Maya's struggle for support in the CIA. Her executives and co-workers doubt her lead, but her persistence borders on obsession. Maya seemingly has no personal life or any other commitments- Bin Laden is on her mind 24/7. Chastain is tough as nails as a woman in a man's world. Her performance has been universally lauded, but the character herself has been a source of criticism as the film does not give us any insight into where her obsession with finding Bin Laden came from. However, I don't think the film needs to give her a motive. Maya feels the shame that America felt when Bin Laden practically disappeared from the national conversation only two years after 9/11- isn't that enough of a motive?

Finally, Maya tracks the courier down to a compound in Abottabad Pakistan, and the final act focuses on the Navy Seal mission that ended in the assassination of Bin Laden. We all know how Bin Laden was killed, but the third act of the film is riveting nonetheless. This is the most authentic (feeling) military mission I've seen in a movie since, well, The Hurt Locker, proving that Bigelow is still the master of military movies. Seal Team Six's raid on Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan is executed with remarkable efficiency despite a few setbacks (I don't want to spoil them for you). They kill Bin Laden and the people he was living with (including women) in a systematic fashion, almost like a doctor performing surgery, as we view the mission through the Seal's night vision goggles.

The movie does not question the ethics of invading a foreign country without authorization, but two scenes involving Pakistani witnesses to the mission demonstrated the downside of such decisions. I am not questioning the justification of the mission, but I wonder if Pakistanis will ever trust America. One scene involved crying children in the compound who just witnessed the deaths of their parents. The other scene involved the people from the surrounding homes approaching the compound to investigate. One of the soldiers speaks into a megaphone in Arabic and tells them to turn around, but they don't listen. The soldier tells his companion, Hakim, that if the Pakistanis don't turn around soon he will open fire, which motivates Hakim to yell in English that if they don't turn around they will be killed. You can bet they listened to that. Scenes like these will provoke discussion about the complexities of modern warfare.

With that, Zero Dark Thirty is a challenging, gripping film that does not give us easy answers. Perhaps it's because the United States hasn't come to any answers as a nation. I'm not sure where it would rank on my list of 2012 movies but it's definitely in the top ten.

Life of Pi (2012)

Have to admit I was a little bored

[6/10 · 12 January 2013]

When I saw the trailer for Life of Pi, it really sparked no interest in me. I have never really been a fan of Robinson Crusoe stories and I didn't think the presence of a tiger would make much of a difference. But then the movie received 11 Oscar nominations, and I thought maybe I had shortchanged this film. I'm glad that I saw it, but my initial instinct was correct: Life of Pi just isn't for me.

I will start with what I liked about the movie: the visuals. Just about everybody agrees that Life of Pi is the visual masterpiece of the year, arguably a greater contribution to 3d than Avatar. The digital creation of the tiger, named Richard Parker, is one of the most realistic examples of CGI in recent memory. The way the clouds are reflected in the water and the psychedelic images that Pi sees on his journey are the most amazing things you'll see this year.

For anyone who might not know, Life of Pi is about an Indian teenager's (Gandhi, not Sitting Bull) harrowing spiritual journey as he is stranded on a boat for over two hundred days with only a Bengal Tiger for a companion. This story is partially narrated by Pi as an adult, who is visited by an author with writer's block. The author was told that Pi's story can make him believe in God. The problem is the author is the most boring character you'll ever meet and the constant transitions back to the older Pi are intrusive.

Overall though, Life of Pi gets off promising start despite the poor framing device. Pi is raised by an atheistic father who owns a zoo, so understandably he becomes enamored with animals and religion. Pi is raised Hindu, but he soon becomes interested in Christianity and Islam and converts to both faiths. I thought this was an interesting point in the film- why couldn't somebody follow all three religions? When Pi's family comes upon rough economic times they are forced to move their zoo to Canada. Their freighter encounters a vicious storm in what is the most visually impressive experience in the movie. Pi evacuates on a life boat with a wounded zebra, but after the storm passes he discovers an orangutan and a hyena. Somehow, the tiger hides under a canvas on the boat for two days, but whatever. Pi must learn how to hold the tiger at bay while surviving at sea.

This is where Life of Pi started to lose me. No matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to focus on survivor stories. There might be something more than my bias against these types of stories though. There is something about Ang Lee's directing style that reminds me of still water- it just doesn't excite me. I admit it's not fair to categorize this film just as a survivor story because it deals with the testing of faith during a crisis. But the religious themes just felt pedestrian to me. For me, this film's saving grace was the 3d, which is unusual because I usually think that 3d is a waste of time.

The most controversial aspect of the film was the ending. Without giving away too much, Pi reveals an entirely different version of his survival story and the audience is forced to choose which one to believe. I like the idea of being able to interpret the events of this movie in more than one way, but I didn't like the way it was executed in the story. It would have been much more effective to hint at the alternate survival story during the movie rather than just lay it all out at the end. I find myself strangely indifferent to the plot twist. I don't think it's particularly clever or "deep."

Nevertheless, this film has a real chance at winning the Oscar for Best Director because they snubbed Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain. It will certainly win a lot of technical awards, and deservedly so. Overall, Life of Pi is not a bad movie, but it never really excited me as much as it should have, nor did I find it particularly thought provoking.

Les Misérables (2012)

Maddeningly Uneven

[5/10 · 2 January 2013]

Years ago I wrote a review of Les Misérables: the Tenth Anniversary Concert where I said there was no way a movie musical could top it. It turns out I was right. The long awaited adaptation of the Broadway musical is a large scale enterprise, but much of the singing falls flat and it suffers from mediocre direction.

Les Misérables is about an ex convict, Jean Valjean, whose quest for redemption challenges traditional notions of morality and justice. The ex convict's life is changed when the Bishop of Digne pardons him for stealing his silver; Valjean, touched by his sympathy, decides to break his parole to start a new, honest life for himself, one where he could be unburdened by his label as a convict. But his life really begins anew when he adopts Cosette, the daughter of one of his factory workers, Fantine. Valjean inadvertently approved Fantine's termination of employment, forcing the single mother to become a prostitute and sell her hair and teeth for money. Taking responsibility for his actions, Valjean rescues Cosette from the sniveling Thenardiers while being pursued by the relentless policeman, Inspector Javert.

But let's get to the musical. Overall, this film is maddeningly uneven. The singing ranges from amazing to downright pitiful. Les Miz has garnered a lot of attention for the decision to have the actors sing live and I think it had mixed results. The group musical numbers like "One Day More," "Master of the House," and "Lovely Ladies" work pretty well, but the quality of the solos vary.

Hugh Jackman, who plays Valjean, is a decent singer and actor but he can't seem to handle high notes. Anne Hathaway is the star of this film- the only cast member who sings as well as she acts. Her very moving rendition of I Dreamed a Dream is the highlight of the film (eat that Susan Boyle). The other cast member to really look out for is Samantha Barks as Eponine. Barks has played the character before on the London stage and her experience shows. Eponine is in love with Marius, a young student who tries to start the next French Revolution, but Marius does not return her affections. Marius, played by Eddie Redmayne, is also a good singer, but his voice sounds a little muppetish at times (you have to see it to know what I mean). Marius's heart belongs to Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and the feeling is mutual. Seyfried manages to get through her songs, but her voice is very thin.

Russell Crowe as Javert is the oddball of this cast- he doesn't hold a candle to any of the other cast members. This is a character that demands a powerful presence and Crowe just doesn't have it. Casting decisions like this are usually justified for two reasons- the film needs big stars to make a return at the box office and they can emote better than stage actors. The former might be true, but the latter certainly isn't in the case of Crowe. Crowe is a good actor, but he's basically an emotionless zombie in this film. Crowe just falls flat in every scene.

Rounding out the cast are Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baren Cohen as the greedy Thenardiers, who provide some much needed comic relief.

Poor direction is also a large culprit for the film's flat musical numbers. Critics have said this before, but I need to repeat it- someone should get Tom Hooper a better cinematographer. He uses far too many close-ups and amateurish cattycorner camera angles to signify "danger." The shoddy camera work turns what should be enthralling musical numbers into very tedious affairs. The movie just lacked dynamism.

Much has also been said of the film's sluggish pacing. At two hours and forty minutes without an intermission, it can be tough to sit through. It feels a bit more like a collection of musical numbers rather than a cohesive story. I'm not sure if this could have been avoided without sacrificing loyalty to the original musical though.

To his credit, Tom Hooper did make some good decisions in reorganizing the order of the songs and incorporating parts of the book to help transition between certain scenes. He gives us a slightly different interpretation of A Little Fall of Rain, a duet between Marius and Eponine, which actually overshadows Eponine's signature song On My Own. *SPOILERS*His decision to include the Bishop of Digne in Valjean's death scene instead of Eponine was pretty smart, since Eponine was not important to him at all. *END SPOILERS* The sets and costumes are all top notch of course, and if the movie wins any more Oscars it should be in these categories.

Some people might see this movie as further proof that musicals just don't cut it in Hollywood, but I still have hope that the genre can make a comeback. Heck, the live singing in this movie worked brilliantly at times. I think part of the problem is nobody has the guts to do a musical properly- they always cast musically "handicapped" people like Russell Crowe to draw in crowds. The belief that people just won't like a traditional musical, or that movie actors are somehow better suited for musicals than actual singers has always struck me as a capitulation to fear more than anything. I think with the right music, the right cast, the right script, and the right director, musicals can be as good as ever.

If you want to see a real performance of Les Miz though, just watch the Tenth Anniversary Concert.