Movies Spotlight – 2016 Movies, Part 2 – August 2016

Overall, 2016 has felt disappointing at the movies. Yes, we have a few great movies like Everybody Wants Some!!, Green Room and The Witch, but the year seems to have produced one disappointment after another (especially this Summer). Captain America: Civil War, The Jungle Book, Zootopia, Finding Dory, and Deadpool lived up to our expectations (and surpassed them), but Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, X-Men: Apocalypse, The BFG, The Legend of Tarzan, Jason Bourne, and now Suicide Squad have all come up short (seemingly pulling down our opinions of the whole year and our enthusiasm for what is to come). And yet, there are a number of films to still be excited for:

Pete’s Dragon

At face value, it is surprising that Disney would remake Pete’s Dragon, a back-catalog 1970s musical that I imagine anyone under 35 does not even know ever existed. But Disney has done something interesting with this remake, they have only taken the very basics from the original and let indie auteur David Lowery run with it, resulting in a family film that actually feels substantial. Lowery also has a great cast with Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford and Karl Urban. In theaters August 12^th. Check out the trailer.

The Light Between Oceans

Derek Cianfrance makes brooding dramas, steeped in deep, dark emotions. This all makes him the perfect filmmaker to take on an adaptation of The Light Between Oceans, a drama about a man and wife who decide to raise a baby they find adrift only to discover years later that the child’s mother is still searching for it. The cast is among the year’s absolute best with Alicia Vikander, Michael Fassbender and Rachel Weisz. This could be 2016’s first serious Oscar contender. In theaters September 2^nd. Check out the trailer.

The Girl on the Train

Paula Hawkins’s novel was a huge success, making this adaptation one of the most anticipated films of the Fall. Emily Blunt leads a good cast and Tate Taylor has proven very adept in his ability to produce strong cinematic adaptations (like The Help). The mystery thriller is about Rachel Watson, a divorced woman who takes a train past her old house everyday on her way to work; only, one day something is different when she believes that she witnesses a murder, but that is not the whole story. In theaters October 7^th. Check out the trailer.

The Birth of a Nation

Writer/director/star Nate Parker won both the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival with his slavery drama The Birth of a Nation. The film feels vital, given the #OscarsSoWhite controversy and our current sociopolitical climate. Parker also represents a much needed fresh cinematic voice. The film is about Nat Turner, a literate slave and preacher who organizes a rebellion against the masters in the antebellum South. In theaters October 7^th. Check out the trailer.

Doctor Strange

Marvel Studios can do no wrong with their Cinematic Universe (aka the MCU), or so it seems. Doctor Strange, however, represents an interesting challenge. Marvel bottled lightening with Guardians of the Galaxy, a gaggle of heroes unknown to general movie-going audiences, but can they do it again with Dr. Stephen Strange? They certainly have the goodwill of their fans, a promising (and different) concept and a phenomenal cast, headlined by Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Eijiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen, and Tilda Swinton. In theaters November 4^th. Check out the trailer.

Loving

Indie auteur Jeff Nichols is one of America’s brightest independent filmmaking stars. His new drama tackles the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple struggling to live in 1958 Virginia. Like The Birth of a Nation, Loving feels tonally vital right now. The buzz out of the Cannes Film Festival, where it screened in May, was very strong with special notices for leads Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. In theaters November 4^th. Check out the trailer.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

Filmmakers have had limited success tackling the Iraq War, as it seems to be difficult to really capture the tone of such a twisted and problematic conflict and portray the struggles faced by the men and women in the middle of it (my personal favorite is the HBO miniseries Generation Kill). That said, auteur Ang Lee is a good fit to take it on. Lee also has a good eclectic cast with Kristen Stewart, Vin Diesel, Steve Martin, and Chris Tucker. The film adaptation is about Billy Lynn, a war hero who temporarily gets to come home. In theaters November 11^th. Check out the trailer.

Arrival

Auteur Denis Villeneuve made my favorite film of 2015 with Sicario; he is back in 2016 with the sci-fi drama Arrival. It is about an expert linguist who is recruited by the military to determine if an alien race that has landed crafts across the globe comes in peace or are a threat. Villeneuve again champions the need for more roles and better roles for female actors by casting Amy Adams in the lead (he famously gender switched the lead in Sicario, casting Emily Blunt). In theaters November 11^th.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Cynically speaking, we all knew Warner Bros. would find a way to keep the Wizarding World of Harry Potter going; however, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them has the pedigree to delight fans. J.K. Rowling is providing the script, David Yates (who directed films 5-8 of the Harry Potter series) is behind the camera, and Oscar-winner Eddie Redmayne stars. The film is about the adventures of Newt Scamander, a specialist in magical creatures, in 1920s New York City. Even after eight films, I am excited to return to the Wizarding World. In theaters November 18^th. Check out the trailer.

Manchester by the Sea

Auteur Kenneth Lonergan is finally back with a new film with Manchester by the Sea, a drama about an uncle who must take care of his teenage nephew after the boy’s father passes. The film has a ton of Oscar buzz coming out of its early festival screenings, many calling it the best film of 2016 so far. It boasts a solid cast, led by Casey Affleck, Kyle Chandler and Michelle Williams. In theaters November 18^th.

Moana

Disney’s latest ‘princess’ film aims to be something completely different. First, Moana, a young Hawaiian woman, is actually voiced by a young Hawaiian woman in Auli’I Cravalho and second Moana is her own hero without a love interest. This feels like a big step forward for Disney, who has made big recent strides forward in promoting its female characters. The film also features voice-work from Dwayne Johnson as Maui the demi-god. Ron Clements and John Musker lead the creative team (they have given us some of our most beloved Disney films like The Little Mermaid and Aladdin). In theaters November 23^rd. Check out the trailer.

Allied

Each new Robert Zemeckis film feels like a big deal, as he is a filmmaker known for pushing the visual envelope forward while telling big stories. His new film, Allied, is a WWII action romance about two spies working for the Allies who marry each other and work together, but what if one of them was really a double-agent working for the Nazis? The film also happens to have two of Hollywood’s most dynamic leading actors in Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard playing its spies. I think this is a sleeper for film of the year. In theaters November 23^rd.

La La Land

Bursting onto the scene with Whiplash, writer/director Damien Chazelle is back with a musical dramedy and he has J.K. Simmons with him again. We need more good musicals; this one looks magical and sublimely charming. It stars Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling (who has fantastic chemistry) and is about a jazz pianist who falls for an aspiring actress in Los Angeles. In theaters December 16^th. Check out the trailer.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Set right before the beginning of A New Hope, Rogue One is about the team of rebels who steal the plans for the Death Star. Director Gareth Edwards describes the film as a war movie, set in the Star Wars Universe. Writer Tony Gilroy is working with Edwards presently finishing up the final editing process, getting the tone just right. Everything we have seen so far is very promising. Plus, the cast, fronted by Felicity Jones, is very good. This is the film I am most looking forward to seeing. In theaters December 16^th. Check out the trailer.

Passengers

Sony’s most high profile film of 2016 is Passengers, a sci-fi adventure about a spacecraft shuttling thousands of people to a distant colony planet that experiences a malfunction in one of its sleep chambers awakening two passengers 60 years early. The story sounds intriguing alone and then you throw in the very charming leads Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt and Passengers suddenly jumps to the top of a lot of ‘Most Anticipated’ lists. If Lawrence and Pratt have chemistry, I cannot imagine this not being highly entertaining. Rising star Morten Tyldum is behind the camera. In theaters December 21^st.

A few others to look out for: Queen of Katwe, American Honey and Lion. 

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014) – Review

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is a bleak film, focusing more on character than action, setting up the franchise’s final installment.

The film finds Katniss Everdeen recovering in District 13 in the wake of the events of Catching Fire. She is distraught about Peeta’s capture by the Capital; however, Plutarch Heavensbee and President Alma Coin (the leader of the rebellion) desperately need her help. Right now is the moment of rebellion that District 13 has been waiting for, ever since their initial rebellion was quelled over seventy-five years ago. Katniss’s actions at The Hunger Games have inspired a nation. The rebels need her to be their symbol of revolt, inciting the nation to rise up together against the Captial.

First thing, let us call Mockingjay – Part 1 what it really is: a narrative and creative abomination in the name of additional profits (akin to splitting The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn into two parts even though the story does not really support two full narrative films). The Harry Potter series split its final book (The Deathly Hallows) into two films, starting this trend – the difference between The Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn and now Mockingjay, however, is that there was enough substantial story and character to make two films. Here there is not.

Calling the film an abomination is harsh. The problem is that the film essentially serves at the first act of the final chapter; yet, the filmmakers (including director Francis Lawrence) need to fill two hours with material, when really only about thirty to forty minutes is essential (or even needed). Thus, the film is primarily a showcase of the characters sitting around, grinding out time until the action really begins (in the next film). For the audience, this makes for a less than interesting film overall, but it still has its engaging moments.

The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 plays as much more of a character piece as compared to the continuous action of Part 2. Mockingjay – Part 1 tries to follow a similar path, as the narrative focuses on Katniss’s internal struggle with being the face of the rebellion, but there does not seem to be any narrative momentum. By comparison, part 1 of The Deathly Hallows saw Harry and company searching for horcruxes and the meaning of the Deathly Hallows. The film has a narrative structure and character development. It works as a standalone film (in as much as a sequel can), while also setting up the final film. Mockingjay – Part 1 is initially about Katniss becoming the face of the rebellion, which she does without much struggle. Then, the film seems to become about the recovery of Peeta. The problem with the second narrative piece is that Katniss is not involved in the action.

One of the big problems with this film series as a whole is that Katniss seems to always be sidelined. Even as the face of the rebellion, she is not directly involved in the rebellion planning or action. She is just propaganda. It might have been interesting for the film to really take a deep look at the emotional and psychological toll being a symbol takes on Katniss, being removed from the real action, just rolled out to make appearances for moral, seeing those actually fighting dying around her. It does this to a minor degree, and those moments are compelling; but, this was never going to be that kind of film – a character piece, built on performance and dramatic moments. Lawrence still wants to make a sci-fi action adventure, like the first two films, but there is just not that much for anyone to really do.

Structurally, Mockingjay – Part 1 has a number of things that do not work as well as they probably should. Right off, the film feels completely disconnected from Catching Fire, as if it were unrelated. The characters and tone are totally different. We learn that some period of time has passed between the end of Catching Fire and the beginning of Mockingjay, but it is very disorienting (especially because I just re-watched Catching Fire before seeing this). Lawrence certainly had the narrative time to transition the narrative to District 13, but instead the film begins clumsily. Lawrence also had the time to focus more on supporting characters, but no one is really given much to do dramatically. Katniss is the only character that has significant character moments (seeing the carnage that the Capital brought upon District 12 and her realization that Peeta was brutally tortured while being held in the Capital). Again, most of the film’s issues seem to arise from there not being enough to sustain a full narrative feature.

There are things that do work too. Katniss’s emotional moments are effective and even moving. Lawrence does a good job creating a world that looks and feels very bleak. District 13 is reminiscent of the style of the film 1984 (based on George Orwell’s novel) – it is a bit ironic that the rebels fighting for freedom seem to live in a highly structured world (seemingly void of real personal freedom and personality). The few moments of action are engaging as well. Lawrence even creates some tension when the team goes to retrieve the victors from the Capital.

Mockingjay is a sufficient setup for Mockingjay – Part 2, but it is bloated and does not work as a standalone film. Katniss is not even given a real dramatic journey in the film. Its biggest fault is that it feels overly long, slow and even boring in parts, because it is essentially a one act piece stretched to fill two hours. Lawrence does not do enough with the characters or feature enough action to fully engage the audience for the film’s runtime. Yet, all that said, the stage is set for Part 2, which seems like it will be a rewarding film experience (finally); and thus, Mockingjay – Part does ultimately serve its purpose (sloppily).

Now for something minor that I noticed that does not really effect the film’s overall quality at all, it just bugged me. The blocking of the film crew within the film (there to capture moments of Katniss reacting to stuff to use for the rebellion’s propaganda machine) is often fairly terrible. The cameramen are in each other’s shots. The director even walks in front of one of the cameramen at one point. They miss many crucial shots of Katniss emoting and in action (and so on). It is really no big deal; it just bothered me. They are touted as being the Capital’s best crew, but seemed incompetent.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Francis Lawrence made a good film with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. With Mockingjay – Part 1, he is at a bit of a disadvantage, as it is clear there is not enough material to fill two films. That said, he does a good enough job (I guess). He gets good performances and the few action scenes work well. It is just disappointing that there is not more character moments to go around and that the film is not more efficiently structured (instead of feeling a bit tedious). I am looking forward to seeing Mockingjay – Part 2. I imagine it is much more action packed and that Katniss, finally, is involved in the primary action both emotionally and physically.

Aesthetically, Mockingjay – Part 1 is grim. The film mostly takes place in a somewhat soulless and barren bunker or amongst the rubble of destroyed towns. Jo Willems’s cinematography is fairly straightforward, working with Philip Messina’s production design to create this dreary world, seemingly almost void of color. It works narratively, but I miss the flare the first two films had in their design style. James Newton Howard’s score works well, supporting the dramatic moments (but it is overshadowed by the great soundtrack that Lorde put together).

The cast is good overall, but dramatically speaking there is very little for most of them to do. Natalie Dormer has her usual rambunctiousness about her, which works well with her character (the filmmaker Cressida). Elizabeth Banks has some fun moments as Effie, adjusting to a world without style and color. Sam Claflin is good as Finnick, seemingly playing a man broken by the games (though, it feels a bit out of character given where the audience left him in Catching Fire). Julianne Moore is very calm and calculating as President Alam Coin, very restrained. It works. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems a bit disinterested as Plutarch Heavensbee, probably because he has almost nothing of substance to do in the film. Donald Sutherland plays President Snow with a lot of flare and guile, enjoying the villainy of the character. Woody Harrelson, too, seems bored as he spends the film standing around, aside from a few lines of dialog. Liam Hemsworth probably has the most screen time in this film of any in the series so far, and yet he remains unengaging. Josh Hutcherson is quite good as Peeta, showcasing the mental and physical toll being a prisoner of the Capital is taking on him (he looks like he is dying, slowly wasting away). I just wonder why the film never gives Johanna (especially when you have Jena Malone, who is fantastic in the role) or Annie any screen time while they were captive (even if it were just in the background). It is an odd choice to single out Peeta as the only visible ‘traitor’, while leaving the others to merely be referred to as similarly traitors for doing the same thing. Filmmaking is about showing more than telling (or at least it should be). Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Katniss. She conveys the pain and internal struggle that she suffers through very well. It is clear that she is on the breaking point. (Much like the audience, I am sure) Katniss is tired of being left out. The film is moving in some places and ultimately succeeds dramatically solely because of her performance (as structurally it is pretty poor).

Summary & score: It is difficult to rate The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 because it is not really a narrative film (in that it does not really have its own story to tell or a complete character journey). It is merely just act one. Seemingly, it was never meant to be more. Thus, to really give this film a score I need to see how it plays in relation to Part 2, as presumably they are really two piece of one epic film. As it is, it only works insomuch as Jennifer Lawrence gives a very good performance, the action is engaging and some of the visuals are compelling. Large portions of the film, however, are uninteresting, as characters and viewers sit around waiting for the action to start. It was completely unnecessary for Mockingjay to be split into two films; thusly, this film exists solely to make additional money, not to serve a narrative need – and that is unfortunate for fans of the series. 5/10

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) – Review

Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past gets a lot of things really right, but still does not quite bring the X-Men franchise up to the same level as The Dark Knight Trilogy or recent Marvel Cinematic Universe films (such as The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier).

In an attempt to bridge the X-Men films of the early 2000s with (the initially intended reboot) X-Men: First Class (which sees many of the characters as their much younger selves), Days of Future Past employs a time travel narrative to send Logan (Wolverine) back in time (or his consciousness) to warn young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherrr of the dangerous path Raven (Mystique) is on; one that will see the world destroyed by Sentinels (giant robots that initially target mutants but then begin rounding up and/or killing all of humanity). Director Bryan Singer (who directed the first two films in the franchise) returns to the helm (after First Class writer-director Matthew Vaughn bowed out). Singer changed a lot of the elements of Vaughn and writing partner Jane Goldman’s initial story so that he could again bring back his original cast. The results are a mixed bag.

A lot of what Singer does with the film is fantastic. He certainly has a love of and flare for the characters and what they can do. The action scenes, especially those in the future, are phenomenal, exciting, and get at a lot of what is really cool about seeing the X-Men using their powers as a team to combat an enemy. The new mutants introduced in the future (particularly Bink) are also very well done, though with limited screen time. It might be nice in a future installment of the franchise to again see these characters (if that is even possible now). The style of the film is also very good, as Singer takes full advantage of the 1973 setting and juxtaposes it against the future visually. Though he makes a brief appearance as well, Peter Maximofff (Quicksilver) is also a lot of fun and steals his scenes. Again, Singer does a great job with the X-Men themselves and showcasing their abilities in a very entertaining and visually impressive manner. It terms of its visuals and action scenes, Days of Future Past is the most thrilling and absorbing of the franchise to date. These elements alone also create what is ultimately a strong comic book film, but the film also has a lot of issues that do hold it back.

The first thing that strikes the viewer as the film ends (something that is often tricky with time travel narratives) is that if the X-Men in 1973 do succeed in altering the future then every other X-Men film (other than First Class) is thus rendered irrelevant in terms of their stories affecting how the characters mature and grow in the future. Essentially by Singer bringing the two franchises together as one, he has erased his own films from the X-Men timeline as well as last year’s The Wolverine (which does not seem very forward thinking by Fox). Yes, those films can still exist on an alternate timeline, but they are still nonetheless greatly devalued. It just seems that it may have been better served to just leave the two sets of films separate as unrelated entities instead of forcing them together. The Days of Future Past story very easily could have been told solely with the original cast or with the new cast. Bringing the two casts together, while cool, ultimately seems to inflict more harm on the franchise than good (though, to be honest, the franchise was in tatters anyway thanks to a few poor films and timelines that make no sense).

This leads to the next point. The film suffers from Wolverine fatigue (and this may just be my own bias), as this is his sixth appearance as the lead character in an X-Men related film (plus he has a cameo in First Class). Fox does not seem to trust the franchise being able to succeed without him (and maybe they are right), and thus he is thrust into the narrative, ultimately not really serving any purpose other than being a plot device, spending most of the film just standing around as a bystander to the real action and drama. This issue also stems from Singer’s need to merge the two sets of films. Because Wolverine does not age (or ages very slowly), he is the only choice as the character to have his consciousness sent back in time (as he will look the same in 1973 and 2023). The comic book version of Days of Future Past features Kitty Pryde sending her own consciousness back in time to her younger self. Had the two sets of films remained separate, it would have been interesting to see a richer, fully fleshed out Kitty Pryde interact as a much needed leading female character (as really, Mystique is the only female character of substance), sending her consciousness back from the Sentinel-ravaged 1970s to the 1960s (say before Magneto is implicated in the assassination of JFK leading to the US government asking Trash to build his Sentinels to deal with the mutant problem). As is, this film, like almost all the X-Men films, sort of just becomes another Wolverine film; although, his character serves no purpose once he informs Charles Xavier of the impending doom of all mankind (which happens in the first act; and thus he stands around for two acts doing nothing important or interesting – he is not so much a character, but something that allows the plot to move forward).

First Class takes place in 1962 and Days of Future Past takes place in 1973 and the plan is for X-Men: Apocalypse to take place in the 1980s. This creates another issue. Ten or eleven years pass between the events of First Class and Days of Future Past and yet the narrative picks right back up as if only a small amount of time has passed (a couple of years maximum); not to mention that the characters have clearly not aged ten years (as it has only really been three years since First Class). The jump forward in time seems to have only been done so that Singer could feature 1970s style elements and include the setting of the Vietnam War, but the setting does not actually matter to the narrative and thus feels like an unnecessary choice (that logically makes less sense once one actually thinks about the fact that ten or eleven years passes between the two films – which means Erik Lehnsherr has been sitting in that cell for at least nine years and Raven has not been able to find and kill Bolivar Trask in the same amount of time; when Lehnsherr gets out of the cell it seems as if he has only been in there a short while and it seems as though Raven is just now on the hunt for Trask; basically, the timeframe just does not seem to make narrative sense and is not supported by what is shown on screen). This is a case of style over substance (which usually does not make for a better film).

The plots over all three of the original X-Men films revolve around Xavier and his X-Men trying to stop Lehnsherr (Magneto) and his Brotherhood. Charles believes in mankind as a whole (that they are good) while Lehnsherr fears what man will do to the more evolved mutants and thus wants to preemptively strike against them (he believes they are bad). First Class was interesting because for most of the narrative, Xavier and Lehnsherr work together. In Days of Future Past the audience is again shown a united Xavier and Lehnsherr in the future, but once the narrative reverts back to 1973, the film quickly once again becomes an X-Men versus Magneto story, which has become somewhat tiresome as they are all essentially the same (as depicted on film at least). Thus, the narrative of this film plays as mostly uninteresting. Xavier and Lehnsherr do the same dance yet again while Wolverine stands off to the side marginally involved. Only Raven has an interesting character arc, as she must decide if she is ruled by her hatred of humanity (stemming from her own insecurities about being a mutant) or if she can mature into someone who can hope that one day mutants will be accepted in society (it is a battle within her between Xavier and Lehnsherr’s ideologies). The other prominent character is Hank McCoy (Beast), but he is not really given anything to do dramatically (other than have a few angst-filled looks aimed towards Raven). The rest of the X-Men are either included as plot devices (like Kitty Pryde and Wolverine) or to make cameo appearances.

The film’s villain (if he can be called that, as the villain quickly really becomes Magneto) Doctor Bolivar Trask is also not really given much to do dramatically. He basically just wants to make weapons that kill mutants and also experiment on mutants, presumably solely because they are different. His character is sadly fairly thin and lacks substantial motivation.

The narrative overall being essentially the same as the three original X-Men films leaves the film dramatically a little uninteresting, despite the great visuals, style and action. Wolverine sort of being the main character but having no dramatic arc or purpose after completing his mission in the first act also greatly hampers the overall narrative. Thus, the film feels very slow in a lot of moments. It may even feel tedious, which is strange because there is again so much to like and it is very entertaining and spectacular overall visually. The big issues with the film all stem from it having a poor narrative structure (even though Days of Future Past is one of the best X-Men stories in comic form). The choices Singer and his creative team make end up hampering the film (and franchise) for seemingly not very good reasons. Yes, it is cool to see the original cast and new cast in the same film, but the cost is a film that is not nearly as good as it could have been and a franchise that has now mostly been made pointless (as the events of all the films other than First Class have now been erased from the current timeline, unless you are Wolverine and remember everything but know nothing about the new timeline you are in thereby making any Wolverine moments between 1973 and 2023 pointless from a character perspective as the Wolverine that wakes up in 2023 is not the same as the Wolverine that exists between 1973 and 2023 – hooray time travel narratives!!!).

While this review does seem to feature quite a bit of complaining on my part, I want to reiterate that Days of Future Past is a good, fun film overall. It is easily the second best X-Men film to date (just behind First Class) and comes very close to being a great film; it just cannot overcome its many narrative shortcomings. My complaining stems from my love of the X-Men and desire to see them get a truly great film (or set of films). I do have high hopes for X-Men: Apocalypse but also have some concerns. Chiefly, I am not sure jumping forward another ten years is going to work for the narrative (as it certainly does not in this film); plus the film is rumored to again include time travel elements (as Apocalypse narratives in the past often have), which could make the resolution of this film moot (as this film has done to most of the past X-Men films). I am also sort of bummed that we could not see Xavier and Lehnsherr’s characters develop more fully as young men in the 1960s (which is probably America’s most interesting and turbulent time period, and also one that works quite well as a mirror to the mutant struggle with its civil rights struggle). But oh well.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Days of Future Past is director Bryan Singer’s ninth and probably his best film to date (as I have said many times before, I think The Usual Suspects is vastly overrated). As stated in the review, Singer does a marvelous job with the action and the X-Men themselves in terms of showcasing their powers. The action set pieces take center stage as the film’s greatest achievement. It is too bad that Singer could not have also devised a stronger narrative structure to support his remarkable visuals and grand spectacle. That said, I am looking forward to seeing X-Men: Apocalypse and what Singer does with it.

Composer John Ottman brings back a lot of the musical score and themes that he did for X-Men 2. It is particularly recognizable in the future sequences. For the 1970s scenes, however, I did miss the great score and themes that Henry Jackman brought to First Class and wrote for the characters. It is too bad that they could not be incorporated as well. The score during the 1970s is very forgettable and is often overshadowed by the era-specific soundtrack. Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel does fantastic work on the film. The change in look and style between the future and 1970s is dazzling. I also enjoyed the look of old film stock when TV feeds and character hand-held camera footage are used. Production designer John Myhre also does very strong work. The future is mostly just rubble in darkness, but his style choices for the 1970s are very fun and cool. In particular, I like Bolivar Trask’s office.

Overall, the cast is very good; most of whom only have very small roles. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are both great reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. They feel right at home and can convey so much without much screen time. Even though I think the film would have been better off if Singer had not brought the two series together, it was really cool to see them again. Ellen Page plays Kitty Pryde (also reprising her role from X-Men: The Last Stand); and while she mostly serves as a plot device (the one who transfers Wolverine’s consciousness back in time), she does bring some dramatic weight to the role. Peter Dinklage is wonderful as Bolivar Trask. The character is underwritten and somewhat sidelined as an afterthought, and yet he still brings a lot to the character, creating a man who hates the mutants maybe because of his insecurity about his own looks. Like Page, Dinklage brings dramatic weight to a fairly thin character.  Evan Peters has a ton of fun with Peter Maximoff and his scenes almost (or do) steal the film. Nicholas Hoult’s Hank McCoy is fine, but his character is almost nonexistent in the narrative. Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Raven and benefits from having what is probably the film’s most interesting character arc. The role takes advantage of Lawrence’s strengths as an actress, such as her immutable will and charisma. Michael Fassbender is again brilliant as Erik Lehnsherr. He is able to convey the complexity of his inner struggle without dialog maybe better than anyone else in the main cast. He also carries himself wonderfully, displaying the sheer force that Magneto can be. James McAvoy is good has Charles Xavier because he delivers a character that truly does care about humanity and has deep moral feelings; but unlike Stewart’s interpretation, McAvoy is a bit more sharp witted and playful. Hugh Jackman turns in his typical Wolverine performance, but does not really benefit from a narrative that sidelines him dramatically for most of the film (even though he has the most screen time).

Summary & score: X-Men: Days of Future Past is both a fantastically impressive X-Men film and a narratively disappointing one. 7/10

LeapBackBlog 2013 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2013 was fantastic. We saw tons of wonderful performances, powerfully emotional dramas, hysterical comedies, gripping thrillers, big and entertaining blockbusters, and grand technical achievements. This year was particularly difficult in narrowing down my choices for my favorite films, performances, directors, and technical accomplishments. For example, I loved Amy Acker in Much Ado About Nothing and Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, but neither quite made the list, and the same can be said for David O. Russell’s wonderful directing in American Hustle or Hoyte Van Hoytema’s sublime cinematography in Her (both just missing out on the list, when they would have made it in most other years). And, there are a number of good films that did not make the list either (and a few I have not yet seen). As it stands, the LeapBackBlog Film Awards are made up, through difficult deliberation, of the films that entertained me and grabbed me as something special, the performances that engaged me, and the craftsmanship that delighted me. These are my favorites of 2013.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Daniel Bruhl – Rush

While Rush is a great sports drama, it is a narrative that is dependent on its characters and their performances. Daniel Bruhl is exceptional as Niki Lauda, a cerebral driver who wins his races by understanding what makes his car superior (and what he can do to it to make it superior) and how to approach each race and track. Bruhl completely loses himself in the performance and role. Lauda is not necessarily a likable character, but Bruhl brings a great charisma to the character, which allows the audience to get behind him. They can see his talent and the confidence he has in himself, and that is infectious. With Rush and the character of Lauda, Bruhl finally has a performance that will serve as a breakthrough for him (which is very deserving for such a talented actor).

Bradley Cooper – American Hustle

American Hustle has a lot of fun with its actors, allowing them to play dress up in a sense, and Bradley Cooper goes all in (with a perm and Saturday Night Fever-like wardrobe choices). But what makes his performance as FBI agent Richie DiMaso so compelling is the intense nervous energy that he exudes. Cooper’s DiMaso has grand plans and wide eyes. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, making all the right moves, when really he is in way over his head. Getting back to his intense energy in the role, what makes it so gripping is that the viewer never really knows where it is going to lead. Cooper is a complete wildcard, much like Jennifer Lawrence’s brilliant performance. That kind of work is just so dynamic because it is never boring.

Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave

Michael Fassbender gives what I think is 2013’s best supporting performances by an actor in 12 Years a Slave as the ruthless slave master Epps. Fassbender carries such an intense and intimidating presence in the film that the viewer cannot help but feel small, weak, and scared. He is utterly evil and vile. And yet, Fassbender brings so much depth and humanity to the character. The audience can see that there is weakness in his character and that he struggles with his vices, striving to be a better man, only to be pulled down over and over by a deplorable cruelty that he cannot shake. He is a man who is ashamed and afraid, lashing out to try to hide these truths. It would be easy to just dismiss Epps as an evil man if not for the clear inner-pain that rules his life. He may even be sympathetic (if we even dare think that) – though his actions are unforgivable, making for a complex and compelling performance. Fassbender is also very good in The Counselor (what is probably 2013’s most overlooked and misunderstood film).

Tom Hiddleston – Thor: The Dark World

Choosing Tom Hiddleston in Thor: The Dark World is very unconventional, especially in such a strong year for performances and films, I know, but the man is just so joyously wonderful as Loki. Hiddleston especially gets to have fun with the character in The Dark World, playing a whole range of emotions. He is tortured with envy over the place his brother holds and full of scorn for his adopted father, and yet also has almost unconditional love for his adoptive mother. All this is kept tightly inside, while he just takes a gleeful joy in being a villain and trickster. He revels in it. And so too does the viewer. Hiddleston has created Marvel’s greatest cinematic villain and one of the best in film history (a history that has seen a couple of brilliant and game changing performances in recent years), and his work as Loki in this is his best so far.

Jonah Hill – The Wolf of Wall Street

The Wolf of Wall Street is an insane exercise in excess, moral corruption, and greed. But, it sure is fun. The actors are given license to go big with their performances, and the whole narrative and world in which these characters exist is so over the top that they all feel firmly rooted in the reality of the narrative. Jonah Hill is clearly having a blast with his character Donnie, a man with seemingly no morals or boundaries. He is just so antagonistic and a complete asshole, and yet completely compelling and entertaining. It is maybe Hill’s best work to date. Margot Robbie is also fantastic in support in the film. Hill had a good 2013, starring in This Is the End as well, playing a very douchy version of himself.

Scarlett Johansson – her

Scarlett Johansson has one of 2013’s most difficult roles, playing the voice of Samantha in Her – an operating system who is self-aware and wants to experience all that is life, including love. What makes the role so difficult is that Samantha is essentially an inanimate object, shown only as an iPod-like device or computer screen. Johansson has to do everything solely with her voice. And to this, she is excellent.  As far as anyone is concerned, watching the film, she is alive. She feels just as vital and real as any of the other characters (which includes wonderful supporting work from Amy Adams and Rooney Mara as well; on a side note, Mara had a great 2013 with phenomenal work in Her, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, and Side Effects). Johansson is also very good in the 2013 romantic comedy Don Jon.

Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle

Jennifer Lawrence is a whirlwind in American Hustle. She plays Rosalyn Rosenfeld (the wife of con man Irving). Lawrence mines her scenes for every bit of fun with her charismatic and attention seeking performance. She absolutely commands the screen whenever she is in a scene, playing against other wonderful actors giving great performances. It is not subtle at all, but neither is the film. She walks a very interesting line between all-consuming and done right frightening. It may be the best performance of the film, and is certainly among the year’s best. The scene in which she sings Live and Let Die is one of 2013’s most entertaining cinematic moments. Lawrence is also very good as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

Carey Mulligan – Inside Llewyn Davis

Carey Mulligan does not have a lot of screen time in Inside Llewyn Davis, but her character Jean sure leaves an impact. Her chemistry with Oscar Isaac (who is also brilliant in the film, and barely missed making the Leading Performance list this year, which is overcrowded with great work) is electric. Their shared scenes jump off the screen. Mulligan does a fantastic job channeling all her pent up rage towards Isaac’s Llewyn Davis. Yet she does something more, something that makes the performance special, she does not just show hatred and rage, but there is a playfulness and maybe even a secret glee to her attitude towards Davis. Yes she is incredibly frustrated with him, but it seems to come from a very caring place (something that is kept hidden away). Mulligan is very good at layering her performances, and this is one of her best.

Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave

Without question Lupita Nyong’o’s tragic and heart-wrenching performance as Patsey in 12 Years a Slave is 2013’s greatest breakthrough acting achievement. She plays Patsey so delicately, yet with some defiance in her. However, her mental anguish is so severe that she only wishes for death. She is a flower desperately reaching for the sun, the thing that seems the most natural and right to her, but is constantly stymied through the terror of a dark cloud that hovers above her. In a film that features many of this year’s strongest performances, Nyong’o is able to distinguish herself and standout as a star (and in a film that marks her feature debut). She delivers profound work; it certainly seems like her future is very bright.

June Squibb – Nebraska

Nebraska is a film that succeeds on its great performances, notably from Bruce Dern, Will Forte, and June Squibb. She plays Woody Grant’s wife Kate, a strong-willed lady who is a bit fed up with Grant’s shenanigans. Squibb’s lively performance completely holds its own against the other great work in the film, and in many ways even might steal the film. She is a delight whenever she is onscreen. It is surprising that a woman of eighty-four would give one of 2013’s best breakthrough performances, but that is exactly what Squibb has done.

American Hustle (2013) – Review

Review: American Hustle is a delightfully entertaining, extremely well acted con man film. It is about two con artists, Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser, who are blackmailed by an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso, into helping him conduct sting operations. However, DiMaso’s scope begins to spin out of control as the con gets bigger and bigger with the team now going after members of the U.S. government and the mob. Rosenfeld sees that everything is getting out of hand and needs to figure out a way to get over on everyone and survive what has become a dangerous game.

Con man films often conform to a very specific kind of narrative, one that involves deception and plot twists – usually trumping character development. American Hustle is no different in terms of its basic plot construction, as it is often difficult to tell what is real and what is for show and the film works in a very good plot twist. But unlike most con man films, its narrative does not revolve around the con. Writer-director David O. Russell has fictionalized the true events of the ABSCAM FBI operation (a real case) to create what is much more a character centric narrative. The con is then ultimately just what brings these characters together, while the character flourish and the narrative even begins to feel a bit like a romantic comedy.

The conventions of the con man genre are not entirely sidestepped however. Like all the best cons, everyone gets what they want – well except the mark. What works particularly well about American Hustle is that the audience gets what they want too, which gives the film a very satisfying feel. The audience is treated to a narrative that makes them laugh, characters that explode off the screen, and a story that engages them.

The film succeeds on the great characters that Russell has created, with the help of his fabulous cast. They are rambunctious, infectious, and overblown – yet the majesty of the film is that the actors and Russell still ground them in reality, even though they are played so big. Each has their character moments that pull the audience in (especially Rosenfeld and Prosser who feel the most relatable) and each is very entertaining.

While the film does emotionally resonate, Russell plays it much more for laughs than deep drama – playing into the film being chiefly a piece of entertainment (as it is a con man narrative after all). The film is fantastically funny. It has such an alluring and jovial energy that is it hard not to be enchanted by its charms. It is just a lot of fun to watch, but it also feels a bit unsubstantial. The characters do their dance but its does not really mean anything (due to the lack of a deeper resonance), and yet still the audience is highly entertained.

American Hustle is a showcase of talented actors teaming up with talented filmmakers, providing characters that erupt with jubilant commanding energy and a narrative that beguiles as it captivates. The film is simply a work of cinematic gratification.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: David O. Russell has really become one of American Cinema’s most successful current filmmakers, winning Oscars for his actors in both The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook – American Hustle is sure to garner a few nominations as well (and maybe a win). Russell does everything well. He is a good visual storyteller, gets great performances (while demanding the attention of some of todays most talented actors), and has snappy, effective dialog. I look forward to his next feature.

Danny Elfman delivers a fun score that is very fitting for the narrative’s tone and time period, however it is completely overshadowed by the fantastic soundtrack. Russell places found music brilliantly throughout the film, heightening the mood and his visuals. And to that, cinematographer Linus Sandgren’s collaboration with Russell is also very good. The lighting is just right, and the camera is aggressive in its movements screaming out to the audience, honing and pointing their attention. Accompanying the lighting is Judy Becker’s standout production design, wonderfully creating the late 1970s/early 1980s with a nostalgic flare. The same can be said for Michael Wilkinson’s costume designs, which in a way steals the show.

As a character driven film, the performances in American Hustle take center stage. Robert De Niro is good in a very small role (channeling a bit of his The Untouchables magic: the ability to make an impact without much screen time). Jack Huston is also good in a small supporting role. Louis C.K. pretty much just shows up to play himself, but it works really well in the context of the character and narrative. He also provides some good laughs (of course). Jeremy Renner gives one of his best performances to date in support (it is up there with his work in The Hurt Locker and The Town). He plays Carmine Polito very sympathetically (which was key to the narrative arc working for Rosenfeld). Jennifer Lawrence is powerfully charismatic as Rosenfeld’s wife Rosalyn, grabbing up all the attention in her scenes. She very well could see yet another Oscar nomination and win for her work. She is so good at playing on the edge – wildly alluring, yet kind of scary. Bradley Cooper was excellent in Silver Linings Playbook, opening eyes to his talent. In American Hustle he is even better as Richie DiMaso, a power hungry, coked-out FBI agent. He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, even when he is being left behind. Amy Adams is also fantastic in the film as Rosenfeld’s partner in crime Sydney Prosser. Her performance is quieter than her co-stars, but her wardrobe choices are bombastic. In this way, she too pulls attention. Christian Bale just disappears into his characters, and Irving Rosenfeld is no different. Bales transforms himself into a man that is always thinking of the next move, and yet is relatable due to his compassion. Bale goes big and flashy with his look, but the performance is grounded in honest dramatic emotion – which is really true for the film as a whole.

Summary & score: American Hustle is immensely entertaining and features many of 2013’s best performances – all that, while still operating as a fun con man narrative. 8/10