Movie of the Week – Munich

This week’s movie: Munich (2005).

Following the events perpetrated by Black September against Israel’s 1972 Olympic team in Munich, five men are charged with finding all involved and bringing them to justice. These men are sent from Israel to Europe to find and kill those involved living and/or operating in Europe. This is based on the true story.

Munich is prolific director Steven Spielberg’s best film of the 2000s (and really his best film since Saving Private Ryan). Other notable films from the decade from Spielberg include: Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can. Spielberg worked with his frequent collaborators composer John Williams, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and production designer Rick Carter on the film.

It stars Eric Bana, and co-stars Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, and Hanns Zischler. The supporting cast is very good as it features: Ayelet Zurer, Geoffrey Rush, Michael Lonsdale, Mathieu Amalric, Moritz Bleibtreu, Marie-Josee Croze, and  Lynn Cohen.

Garnering five Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Director, Munich is excellent because it balances it ability to be both a great spy thriller and an involving character drama. It is not just all action, explosions, and gun fights, but a searing look at the mental and physical cost that these men paid in an attempt to make right what was so heinously done to their fellow countrymen. 2005 was maybe the strongest year for cinema of the last decade (with films like: Batman Begins, The Beat That My Heart Skipped, Capote, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Match Point, The New World, Pride & Prejudice, Serenity, and The Squid and the Whale), and Munich is right there among the year’s best. It is a must-see for fans of Spielberg and great thrillers.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD

Lincoln (2012) – Review

Review: Lincoln is a historical political drama built on wonderful performances and historical significance that still resonates today. The film is about President Abraham Lincoln’s battle within the House of Representatives to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution (essentially making it illegal to own slaves, among other things) before the end of the Civil War (which, in its fourth year, saw the South beginning to wane considerably), as with the war ended it would be much more difficult (negotiating the peace with the South).

Director Steven Spielberg has structured the film to be essentially a political drama centered around the struggle to pass a piece of legislation – a historic piece of legislation but one nonetheless – and thus the connection to the main narrative journey for the audience comes from whether or not they care about the consequences if the legislation does not pass. Spielberg faces a difficult challenge from the start, as this being famous (in at least that everyone knows that Lincoln freed the slaves, in simple terms) informs the audience of the outcome before the film even starts. Thus, the audience must be drawn into the story by more than just the outcome of the narrative. Spielberg accomplishes this by also making the film a character piece focusing on Lincoln (not so much biographically looking at his career, but more about the man himself, his personality).

Looking first at how the film works as a political drama, excusing the fact that the audience already knows how it ends, the film achieves its narrative goals but lacks a powerful deeper dramatic impact. Its main flaw comes from how Spielberg manages the tone of the film. For the most part, the film is presented as a very serious drama with grave consequences to the actions of the characters, matching the backdrop of the very bloody and devastating Civil War ravishing the country – the stakes could not be higher. Plus, the importance of passing the amendment in the House quickly (as it had already been passed in the Senate), a main narrative point that sets the plot and characters in motion, stems from Lincoln’s understanding that the North mostly agrees that making slavery illegal will help end the war, but if the South is going to surrender in short order then the amendment is not necessarily essential (as Democrats and conservative Republicans do not support it as adamantly as liberal Republicans). Thus if the amendment is going to pass at all, it needs to happen before the South begins its surrender (and thus the urgency). Spielberg is able to convey how critical the urgency is, but Washington D.C. in the film seems unaffected by the war. Yes, there are graphic images of the war, but for the most part it feels very removed from the drama in the film. Spielberg uses an almost playful tone in many of the political scenes (especially those featuring Bilbo, Latham and Schell and their mission to buy votes – though, these are among the most fun moments in the film, but should we be talking about fun moments in a serious political drama?), which undermines the tension that he is otherwise building. The House is also comprised of laughable caricatures, with many of the representatives (particularly the Democrats) portrayed as exaggerated buffoons (again, how can the audience take the film seriously with characters such as these). The film at moments feels like a political farce, like In the Loop, and yet, again, the stakes could not be higher (is Spielberg really making a satire addressing today’s political climate?). It is as if Spielberg is worried that the film will be overly dramatically weighty and wants to infuse light moments into the narrative to allow the audience to breath (especially given the film’s long runtime). However, this is ultimately problematic because the audience no longer feels just how important the passing of the amendment is (even if they intellectually understand it) nor do they feel the grave pressure that the war is putting on all of the characters, as the whole political drama is presented to them as a satire of sorts tonally. The saving grace of the drama however comes in the form of a few serious characters that convey the full weight of what is going on (namely Thaddeus Stevens), but it is not quite enough.

 To compliment the political drama structure of the film, Spielberg lays a character study of Lincoln on top, giving the audience a look into the man. The tone of the character work juxtaposed to the political drama (satire) does not always mesh well (as the character stuff is seldom light), often leaving these moments of the film feeling overly tedious and slow (especially those involving Mary Todd Lincoln). Spielberg wants to give the audience a full understanding of Lincoln, not just his role in politics but also his personal life (reminding me of the HBO miniseries John Adams in this way). However, despite how good the performances are, the film is first structured as a political drama and thus the character moments should play into the narrative of getting the amendment passed (and for the most part they do), everything else is not needed. Lincoln’s interactions with his family, which Spielberg uses to develop the character, add very little to the film, even detracting from it greatly as they drag down the pacing, because they do not inform Lincoln’s decision-making process in regards to the main narrative, they are merely present as fluff (and thus unnecessary). It is as if Spielberg presents Lincoln as a great man accomplishing great things in spite of his personal family drama, even going so far as to have Mary say as much. Yet, Lincoln seems unaffected by his personal life when it comes to his handling of the affairs of state, which again makes these moments narratively and dramatically unneeded. The audience never feels the toll that his personal life has on him (because it seems to have none). Spielberg does have some great character moments as well, however, specifically those featuring one of Lincoln’s many stories (wonderfully illustrating both the man and his thoughts on particular matters). The stories reveal much more emotional character detail about Lincoln that resonates with the audience in relation to the film’s main narrative. If Spielberg wanted to dive deeper into the character, the film should have been structured as a character piece primarily, not centering all the dramatic tension and action on the passing of the amendment, or sought out a longer format to tell a more in-depth story (like a miniseries).

These two main faults do hold Lincoln back from being great, as despite its grand scale, social relevance and overall strong filmmaking (though, I would argue that the finale image in the film is very sloppy, including the awkward dissolve) it is far too tedious, infuriatingly so. The film is filled with beautiful, powerful and electric images and scenes, but is constantly undermined and compromised emotionally by slow pacing (resulting from a flabby secondary narrative) and an uneven tone.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Spielberg is a master of Hollywood filmmaking. What that means is that he is the master of making grand event films that are both highly entertaining and dramatically impactful (regardless of the genre, be them blockbusters or serious dramas). With Lincoln, Spielberg certainly tries to achieve this balance, which probably accounts for the lighter tone and caricature-like characters in a number of the scenes juxtaposed to the serious social and political importance of the narrative – i.e. he is trying to make a blockbuster serious drama. However, the film is quite flawed, and thus should not be counted among his best Hollywood dramas (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich), and yet it is still impressive.

John Williams’s score gives Lincoln an added emotional depth. It has a weight to it, which coveys to the audience the significance of the characters and events taking place. Williams also gives Lincoln a classic theme (maybe not among his best, but a fitting one nonetheless). Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski’s lighting gives the film an overall an almost cheerless feel, matching the season in which it is set (being the dead of winter) and general mood surrounding the country (that of devastating war). However, it does clash a bit with the tone at times. In terms of shot composition, Kaminski’s photography is fantastic. Lincoln is often cast in shadow or in silhouette, playing off his famous features. Rick Carter’s production design compliments the cinematography adding a very realistic grit and grim to the images. The world of 1865 was a very dirty place, and Spielberg, Carter and Kaminski are not afraid to present a more realistic look for the period (instead of the usual gloss that Hollywood films have) with faded colors, dirt and incessant shadows clouding everything in darkness and gloom. Overall, the film is very strong aesthetically.

The acting throughout Lincoln is very good (even if some of the performances tend towards the side of caricature). It has a massive supporting cast with many great and well-known actors. However, James Spader (sorting of playing an 1865 version of his The Office character Robert California) steals almost all his scenes and is very entertaining (the montage retellings of his Bilbo et al. acquiring votes is hilarious and completely engaging). Lee Pace (playing the vocally opposing Democrat Fernando Wood) is also fantastic and highly entertaining. David Strathairn (playing Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, who was also targeted for assassination on April 14^th, 1865 but his assailant failed) has the difficult role of being the audience’s in to what is going on, being forced to mainly convey exposition and context. However, Strathairn is still very good often playing devil’s advocate to Lincoln. Sally Field has a thankless (and grating) role playing Mary Todd Lincoln, left to be an irritation (both for the audience and) in her husband’s life. She does accomplish being annoying (so I guess she played her role well?). Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in the film, playing a man (Thaddeus Stevens) that must comprise his beliefs to ultimately take the first step forward. He is able to exist both in the exaggerated silliness of the House arguments and still maintain an emotional connection with the audience (it is quietly the best performance in the film). As always, Daniel Day-Lewis completely embodies his character (in this case Abraham Lincoln). Every line of dialog or movement feels organic. It is a tough task to take on such an iconic historical figure, but Day-Lewis brings so much humanity to Lincoln that the audience leaves the film feeling like they really got a sense of the man.

Summary & score: Lincoln in many ways is a triumph and a disappointment. 7/10

War Horse (2011) – Review

Review: War Horse is a good war drama that plays very much as an anti-war piece. The film centers on a young colt, Joey, and his miraculous story/journey during WWI. Director Steven Spielberg is one of the great war drama filmmakers (with films such as Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List and executively producing Band of Brothers and The Pacific). WWI (the Great War) was a grave war that saw millions of young men full of vim and vigor encounter the absolute bleakness of trench warfare (nine million of them killed). All war is awful, but WWI was particularly devastating due to the technological advancement in weaponry but not troop mobility. Thus, soldiers were often ordered to charge across no man’s land against machinegun, mortar and rifle fire. Spielberg captures the sheer fear, bravery and terribleness of war on the front (though he does not dig too deep into emotional or physical destruction). Like other anti-war films (another WWI examples are Joyeux Noel or All Quiet on the Western Front), soldiers on either side are presented as both good and bad (it being more dependent on the individual character), creating a feeling of ‘why are we fighting when we might be friends in another life’, which is quite powerful. Spielberg uses Joey to show characters across the war, allowing the audience to not take sides but rather see both sides of the conflict as human. The scene that sees a German and British work together (and even strike up a friendship) drives the point home. While the film is only PG-13 and thus as not as graphic as it probably should be, Spielberg does not shy away from the emotional toll the war takes on its characters (however, it is still lighter tonally than it could have been) and does not let the audience off easy either – there is a lot of pain in the film, especially for those who invest in the well-done characters. Another triumph for the film is Spielberg’s ability to make a horse a compelling lead character, carrying the film. While there are many human characters, and an argument can be made for Albert, Joey’s friend and owner, as a lead, Joey is the principal lead and the through line. However, this also may be the great flaw of the film. While Spielberg does his best to make Joey compelling and give him personality (which he does), it is still a horse and not relatable for the audience to the same extent as human characters. Joey’s journey through the war is a great adventure, but when it is over the audience still looks to the human characters for emotional cues, as they are who the audience relates to and cares about. Sure, the audience cares about Joey, but to an extent it is in relation to Albert (or whomever he is with at the time). Thus, the film, while powerful due to the gravity of the war, is a bit hollow in terms of true emotional connection. The characters do not stay with the audience once the film ends. Spielberg also has an almost disastrous tonal issue with the narrative. The first act of the film is not very good at all, mostly due to Spielberg playing it tonally like a sappy heartwarming animal drama/comedy – something that does not work at all in the face of what is going to come. It is almost enough to ruin the film, but acts two and three work quite well and Spielberg gets the tone just right for the film he is setting out to make. War Horse is one of the better WWI pieces, and yet another reminder to just how terrible war is (despite the fact that we as people seem to often forget that), but is hampered by its shortcomings.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steve Spielberg is the master of emotional manipulation, and he is in top form with War Horse. His gift, however, is that the audience does not feel manipulated, rather they buy in to the emotions that Spielberg would like them to feel at any given moment during his film(s) – it is one of the primary reasons he is the great filmmaker he is and his films the masterpieces many of them are. John Williams delivers yet another wonderful score (Joey’s theme may even make it yet another iconic score; hear it at the end of this excellent piece). It is among the best scores of the year. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and production designer Rick Carter do beautiful work, getting the look just right. There are a number of breathtaking photographic moments, and Carter’s design work fully immerses the audience. Williams, Kaminski and Carter continue to do phenomenal work for Spielberg picture after picture. War Horse really only has brief encounters with many of its characters, but many of the actors give very good performances. Patrick Kennedy, Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch do fine work as British cavalry soldiers, portraying the impact and loss of innocence once the violence begins. Niels Arestrup is quite good and powerful as a man who faces nothing but loss in the war. Celine Buckens, in her first role, maybe steals the film playing Emilie – a young girl who still has nothing but hope for the future even in the face of utter devastation and loss. Jeremy Irvine, also a newcomer, is good as Albert. It is his connection with Joey that makes the audience care about Joey and the film work.

Summary & score: There are many fantastic epics and war epics, and War Horse to a degree is one of them, if only for the weaker elements of the film. 7/10

Sucker Punch (2011) – Review

Sucker Punch is full of action, highly stylized and yet completely boring and un-engaging. From the media on the film, the audience goes in expecting a film with attractive women battling all manner of monsters, and that does happen, but the film is not about that at all. Director Zack Snyder made the film as a commentary on the fanboy cultural treatment of women – they are projected as the repulsive cook, grotesque orderly and other characters (manifesting sort of a voyeur role). The women (aside from Dr. Gorski) in the film play out huge action fantasies dressed in sexy outfits that really have no meaning other than the mere spectacle of it all. In the three layers of the film, they are either inhabitants of a mental asylum, prisoners of a brothel or members of an elite fighting unit. On the first level they are seemingly abused and either driven mad or unjustly imprisoned in the asylum. On the second level they are in constant fear from their pimp, and on display for disgusting men. And on the third level they are empowered sexy women fighting evil. So what does this say about how fanboys objectify women? Well Snyder takes it to its extreme in the third level, which was then used as the selling point for the film by Warner Brothers, thus making his argument for him in a sense. But the shooting style that he uses does not really objectify them; therefore it feels more like a comment on the issue. The first level is full of monstrous male characters (save for the Wise Man and to some extent the Doctor), and the second level takes these repulsive men and gives them complete power over the women while assuming a voyeuristic role, specifically watching the mesmerizing dance of Baby Doll, which is never put on screen as it is represented by the fantasy third level – tapping straight into the ultimate fanboy wants (or so Snyder assumes). Thus in this film, fanboys are the disgusting male characters, and it is a scathing (and somewhat true) assessment (which is probably why many fanboys did not like the film). But what makes the film interesting intellectually as well is that Snyder promotes a feeling of feminism and female empowerment as well, as the core narrative is about these girls rising up, fighting back and getting free of the oppressive males. And this is all well and good, and again makes for an interesting piece of cinema to think about, but the problem is that the film is not entertaining at all, which completely crushes the aspirations of the film. All the action scenes have no real tension, they are just noisy. The lack of tension arises from the utter lack of character development in the film, aside from Baby Doll’s prologue and a few tidbits about Rocket and Sweet Pea. Thus, if the audience does not care about the characters (and we do not) then they do not care about the outcome of the action scenes or dramatic scenes and thus true tension and anticipation are not present making them, no matter how spectacular, bland. Plus the monsters in the fantasies had no soul, making it feel a bit dull. The bordello scenes are therefore the most engaging of the film, and have most of the character driven work, but even they are too exposition filled and lack enough character development to carry the film. This is only exacerbated by Snyder’s cinematic style. Style is a very good thing to have. It is what sets great directors apart, and Snyder has the potential to be great. But much like with Watchmen (only to a much higher degree), style has overrun content and narrative. The film plays a bit like a series of music videos (the music coming from mostly poor covers of good songs). It is really too bad. Snyder has made a very personal and ambitious film that rightly attacks the fanboy cultural objectification of women, but the narrative is weak leaving Sucker Punch as a sub two hour compilation of unentertaining spectacle.

Technical and acting achievements: Zack Snyder is still a very exciting director with a lot of talent despite missing the mark with this film (though, Warner Brothers did not believe in him after the film was torn apart by testing audiences, and thusly the film was toned down and the original ending removed – some of it will be in the director’s cut, but not 100% of what Snyder wanted to do). I am still interested to see what he does with Superman. Tyler Bates and Marius De Vries did an ok job with the score, but some of the covers (whether they had anything to do with them or not) were pretty terrible, which hurt the music of the film overall. Larry Fong’s cinematography worked really well given Snyder’s style and constant use of slow motion (really there was just too much of it) and Rick Carter’s production design was cool. I liked his castle set (though probably 99% CG). Their work along with Snyder’s provides the film with some stunning visuals. The cast had a fairly awful script to work with (dialog wise) and shallow characters so no one really provided a great performance. Jon Hamm was actually quite good, however, in his cameo. Jena Malone and Abbie Cornish were the most engaging of the main characters.

Sucker Punch should have been good or at least entertaining, it had a lot of the right ingredients – but it is not at all. 4/10