Movie of the Week – Schindler’s List

This week’s movie: Schindler’s List (1993).

The Holocaust drama takes place in Poland during WWII. It is about Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who decides he is going to risk his life to save as many members of his Jewish workforce as possible after witnessing the horrors committed on the Jewish people by the Nazis.

Director Steven Spielberg won an Oscar for his directorial work on the film, and while it was his fourth time being nominated this win (followed by his win five years later for Saving Private Ryan) announced him as Hollywood’s premier director. He was already the king of blockbusters, but now he was also at the top of grand Hollywood style prestige drama as well.

Spielberg worked with his frequent collaborators composer John Williams (whose score is beautiful, capturing the sadness and struggle) and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (though, this was Kaminski’s first time working with Spielberg – they have now made thirteen films together) on the film, both of whom won Oscars as well. He also employed Polish production designer Allan Starski, who did fantastic work (winning an Oscar too – he later worked on Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, returning to the genre).

The film has a great cast as well, headlined by tremendous performances from Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes.

All together, the film won seven Oscars including Best Picture on twelve nominations. However, what makes the film a classic and one of the best from the 1990s is its humanity, amidst one of the most tragic, heinous, and inhuman periods in history. There have since been many fantastically made films focusing on the time period, but Schindler’s List will remain maybe the most iconic. It is a must-see for fans of Spielberg and excellent period dramas.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD

TV Series of the Month – Generation Kill

This month’s TV series: Generation Kill (2008).

The HBO miniseries focuses on the exploits of the 1^st Recon Maries during the first wave of the American-led assault on Bagdad in 2003. It is told through an embedded Rolling Stone reporter and the troops he shares a Humvee with.

The series is written by David Simon, Ed Burns (who both wrote on The Wire, which was created by Simon), and Evan Wright. Its seven episodes are directed by two very good TV-directors Susanna White (who directs four episodes) and Simon Cellan Jones (who directs three).

The cast is phenomenal – made up of mostly unknown actors at the time, almost all have gone on to do great stuff, especially the series’ lead Alexander Skarsgard. It also features James Ransone, Lee Tergesen, Jon Huertas, Stark Sands, Billy Lush, Kellan Lutz, Rudy Reyes (who plays himself), Chance Kelly, Michael Kelly, and Robert John Burke.

The miniseries makes a good companion piece to Band of Brothers, as it also looks at the camaraderie between soldiers and their struggles like Band of Brothers does but set in a different generation. The series is excellent, among HBO’s best (which is saying a lot). It is a must-see for fans of fantastically well-made war dramas (like Band of Brothers).

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD, and Streaming

The Impossible (2012) – Review

Review: The Impossible is a moving drama about human perseverance in the face of extreme tragedy. The film focuses on a family of five on vacation in Thailand, Christmas 2004. They are enjoying themselves when suddenly a devastating tsunami hits their resort separating the family. Now, they must each find their way back together, as well as survive. It is based on a true story.

For the most part The Impossible plays as a disaster film, but much more intimate with its dramatic scope. The most emotionally and visually impressive scenes for the audience revolve around the massive wave that hits the resort and the immediate aftermath involving the main characters. Much like the plane crash sequence in Flight, these scenes are intense, dynamic, and very emotionally involving (and equate to probably the most spectacular moments in the film, as well as the most compelling).

Much like a typical disaster film, most of which are big Hollywood action films, it starts out with normal everyday life and then the disaster happens and then the characters deal with the consequences as they struggle to survive. However, unlike most disaster films The Impossible only concentrates on the characters in the family. Usually, these types of films have broader scopes giving the audience a more general and expansive understanding of what is going on. Here, (though not quite as intimate or dramatically intensive as Melancholia’s second half) the audience only sees things from the main characters’ perspective. This has two main effects on the narrative. First, the audience does very much relate to the struggles of the family, as they are the only dramatic access point; and second, the main characters seemingly are treated as more important than everything else by the narrative (which one could say is true of all films’ lead characters, but here all the other people caught up in the tragedy are discounted and feel trivial).

Outside of the impressive tsunami wave devastation sequences, the characters (particularly Maria, Henry, and Lucas) are the strongest aspect of the film. Their fight for survival is something the audience can easily get behind and care about, thus the audience has a stake in the characters and the narrative. They are emotionally invested in the film, which is always a good thing for a narrative to achieve. However, the narrative is split between Maria and Lucas (who find each other in the immediate aftermath of the wave) and Henry (who is with his two kids for most of the second act), and it jumps back and forth between their journeys. Director J.A. Bayona does do a good job of managing the two stories so that the audience’s focus is where it needs to be – when things slowdown in one story, he switches to the other. That said, Maria and Lucas’s story is much more emotionally compelling because Maria is likely going to die and Lucas has to take care of his mother (versus Henry and the two younger sons being relatively fine and Henry just looking for Maria and Lucas – only, the audience already knows where they are).

The end of the second act feels very hokey. After separating the family into three parties (Maria and Lucas, Henry who is looking for them, and the two younger sons who Henry left with other survivers so he could better look for Maria and Lucas), Bayona has all the characters run into each other at the hospital where Maria and Lucas have been since being rescued by locals, but draws it out as they just miss each other as they wander around, or one character sees another but cannot get their attention and runs after them. Bayona does this to play with the emotions of the audience using tension and expectation, and eventually a happy reunion. However, this type of ‘cat-and-mouse’ sequence is difficult to do without it feeling overly manipulative and blatant. Sadly, here it plainly feels like it was just inserted into the story to draw every possible emotion out of the audience (which is fine, if done right) and ultimately works contrary to all the very good drama that had come before. It takes the audience out of the drama, because they feel the hand of the director trying to emotionally guide them.

Another big issue with the narrative is that the main characters are seemingly treated in a manner placing them before everyone else. They are saved by locals when thousands of others are left to die on the side of the road. They find a place in the hospital and get immediate treatment when thousands are waiting to get in before they ever arrive. They are not only privileged by the other characters in the film, but also the whole tone of the film seems to place their needs and struggle above thousands of other faceless nameless characters (both tourists like them and locals) who seem to otherwise not matter. There might as well have not been any other people injured in the tsunami, because in this narrative it does not seem to matter. This gives the film sort of an elitist feel – like the only reason to tell a story about the tsunami is because a white family survived. The film ends with them being flown out on a private medical jet to Singapore so that they can get better treatment. The plane is fairly big, and they are the only passengers on it. Yes, this is how real life works – clearly, assuming they have money and connections, they would have privileges above the common man – but the film’s ambivalence towards all secondary characters seems to set a dismissive tone. The main characters just do whatever they want seemingly outside the bounds of what everyone else is tethered to. It just gives the film a strange feel (at least for me it did – maybe no one else felt this).

Also, all the secondary characters in the film are portrayed as being good people. Sure this is somewhat of a common aspect of disaster films, as disasters do tend to bring out the best in groups of people (while the main characters just do what they want somewhat selfishly in a societal context). But, self-interest is still a main component of the way a normal human functions (it has to be). So when all the supporting characters are selfless it seems odd – and this probably goes back to the film’s clear interest in only its main characters, all secondary characters are their just to fill up the background or briefly interact with the main characters on some superficial or plot-driven level.

The Impossible is a great drama with a visceral experience for the audience (for the most part), and for most people is going to be emotionally enveloping as it is a fantastic human story. However, it also has some grievous narrative flaws that hold it back.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: J.A. Bayona is now two films in (his first being The Orphanage, which I have not seen), and both are good. Interestingly, The Impossible was made for Spanish audiences and came out in Spain long before it was picked up for distribution in America. But, like The Orphanage, Bayona’s film was a hit in Spain and found distribution in America as well. Spain has a number of good filmmakers (chief among them Pedro Almodovar), and Bayona is certainly a rising star.

Fernando Velazquez’s score has a very sentimental feel to it, tapping into the emotional drama the characters experience. Essentially their worlds are crushed, but they must carry on and try to survive – there is still hope even when things seem bleak, which is the feeling Velazquez’s work creates. Oscar Faura’s cinematography is very good as well. The camera stays mostly close to its characters, but every so often it ventures into wide shots to give the audience more perspective of just how devastating the tsunami is.  Eugenio Caballero’s production design is fantastic. It feels as if the characters are actually in the thick of the damage and carnage, as if the filmmakers are a documentary crew.

There are only really three performances (leading or supporting) of note in the film. Tom Holland gives a breakthrough type performance as Lucas. He carries a main section of the narrative, as he desperately clings to helping his mother (as he believes his father and brothers are dead). Ewan McGregor is good as Henry, a man who just will not give up on his family. He has a heartbreaking scene in which he must call his father to tell him that he is okay but his wife and son are still missing. It might just be the best dramatic moment in the film. Naomi Watts has probably the most difficult role as Maria. She is seemingly on the brink of death, as she is badly wounded but must be strong for Lucas. She is quite good as well.

Summary & score: Emotionally compelling and intense, but narrative issues (especially in the second half) keep The Impossible from being one of the year’s best dramas. 7/10

Rust and Bone (2012) – Review

Review: Rust and Bone is a strong character drama built on brilliant performances and deft direction. The film is about Stephanie and Alain, two people in the south of France who by different circumstances find themselves in hard times. However, together they are able to find strength.

Writer-director Jacques Audiard’s drama works fundamentally because his characters, Stephanie and Alain, feel real and are relatable to the audience. Unlike most Hollywood character pieces (this is basically the French equivalent), Audiard is unafraid to have his characters be unlikable in moments, which allows them to do horrifying things (especially Alain in his relationship with his son). But, it makes their redemption all the more satisfying and moving an experience for the audience.

As a character drama, the film invites the audience to go on a journey of discovery with the characters on an emotional level. For Stephanie, her journey is about overcoming the tragedy of losing both her legs below the knees in an accident, completely changing her life (or so it first appears). Her story is about finding the strength to start living again, and she finds that in Alain who treats her like he would any other person (instead of like a cripple). Audiard finds real beauty in this character and he expresses it in a visual manner – particularly in the scene in which Stephanie returns to her former place of employment (and the scene of her accident) and plays with the orca she trained. It is incredibly moving and visually magnificent. The audience can easily relate to her from a place of pity or sympathy, but Audiard is not that interested in those emotions, as Stephanie often finds herself offended by those that take pity on her. Audiard strives to have the audience relate on a higher emotional level as she rebuilds herself and her life – not sympathy, but relating to her strength and drive. Her struggle is not a setback, but merely puts her on a new path.

With Alain, Audiard makes it much tougher on the audience. Alain cannot seem to get out of his own way, as he continually makes bad decisions that seem to alienate those around him (especially those that love him), yet he is also the only character to treat Stephanie like a normal woman. His friendship with her comes from a place of empathy, as he can see that she is in a bad place just as he is in a bad place. Alain is completely broke with no real skills. He takes his son away from his drug-addled mother and moves to the south of France to stay with his sister in the hopes that she can help him, because he does not know how to care for him properly. However, he turns to dubious ways of making money, sleeps around, and does not act like a good father – even though deep down he does love his son; he is just weighed down by the stresses of life and does not know how to handle it. He then finds a calling in street fighting; entering into loosely organized fights to make some extra money and Stephanie goes with him. Her presence and her struggle to rebuild herself seem to give him the strength and drive to preserver. And yet, he still cannot get out of his own way. The audience has a much tougher time relating to Alain. His mistakes border on unforgivable, and yet they are all things the viewer could find themselves doing if put under the same pressures and in the same circumstances as him.

While Stephanie’s journey is about remaking herself and perseverance in the face of tragic events, Alain’s journey is one of redemption, and they need each other. It is these overarching narrative tracks that draw the audience in and make the characters ultimately people the audience can get behind and take stock in, despite their mistakes – along with the great performances from the actors and Audiard’s wonderful direction.

The film is a bit emotionally manipulative, as most dramas are. Audiard injects a lot of dramatic tension and elevation into the narrative – like Stephanie losing her legs and Alain constantly making himself the bad guy (and a scene with Alain’s son near the end of the film). There are tear-jerking scenes that play with the audience’s emotions, but Audiard is a good enough director and storyteller to make these heightened dramatic moments feel organic. Yes, the film is manipulating the audience, but it is doing so artfully and meaningfully. The film is not about the dramatic plot points; it is about the characters and their emotional journeys of physical and spiritual redemption.

Rust and Bone is a beautifully shot and acted character drama. It blurs the lines between what the audience sees and expects from its characters and the audience’s own deeper relationship with the characters – in other words, it creates characters that are at face value not necessarily likable but through their emotional journeys the audience comes to feel deeply and care about them, which is all a filmmaker can want and ask for in a film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jacques Audiard may well be France’s best director working right now. Since 2005, he has made three wonderful films (this, A Prophet, and The Beat That My Heart Skipped – all three are well worth seeing). He does not shy away from characters on the fringe of society. Though, he does not just show them as bad or lesser people. He takes a more realistic approach showing the good and the bad that they are capable of. His characters are much more developed and interesting than almost any others in film right now. I cannot wait for his next film.

Alexandre Desplat’s score is regal and triumphant, perfectly fitting this story of redemption. The film is emotionally intense and visually intimate. Desplat reinforces these elements wonderful with his excellent music. Audiard also employs a great soundtrack that works with the tone of the film incredibly well. Stephane Fontaine’s cinematography is fantastic as well. Fontaine and Audiard use the lighting and camera to capture the intricate emotional details of the performances mixed with expressive visual imagery creating an intimate and visceral experience for the audience. Michel Barthelemy’s production design roots the film very much in reality (and the world in which these characters inhabit – gritty and grimy) again fitting the tone of the film.

Rust and Bone does not have too many dramatically meaty supporting roles, as the film is very much just about Stephanie and Alain and their relationship. However, Celine Sallette, Corinne Masiero, and Bouli Lanners are good in their small roles. Matthias Schoenaerts (building off his great work in Bullhead) is very good as Alain. He seems so natural in the role that it is as if Audiard just found this character on the streets and had him play himself. He is a brutal and emotionally closed off man, bordering on villainy to some extent, and yet Schoenaerts is able to give him such humanity that the audience cannot help but end up on his side by the end. Marion Cotillard is phenomenal as well. Stephanie has a long road to go from pretty much giving up on life to finding such strength to not only hold herself up but also to hold Alain up as well. He helps her and she helps him. It is easy to dismiss her work playing someone who is crippled as being dramatically low hanging fruit (so to speak), but Cotillard brings so much more to the role. She is heartbreakingly lost only to be the truly strong one in her relationship with Alain. It is emotionally fearless work, and among the year’s best.

Summary & score: Rust and Bone is one of the best character dramas this year, with some of the year’s best leading performances. 8/10

Movie of the Week – Inglourious Basterds

This week’s movie: Inglourious Basterds (2009).

What if the Allies had killed Hitler and ended WWII early? Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds plays a bit like a revenge fantasy. It is split into five vignettes taking place in Nazi Occupied France that all tie together by the end.

Tarantino is one of independent film’s most celebrated directors. His films are mostly considered classics. With Inglourious Basterds, however, he made his most expensive (costing around seventy million) and subsequently most successful film to date (in terms of gross box office). He has said that it is the first part of a new trilogy, with Django Unchained being the second in the series.

Cinematographer Robert Richardson and production designer David Wasco produce brilliant work on the film, which overall is aesthetically fantastic (and maybe Tarantino’s best in that regard). The visuals (and especially the score, taken from classic westerns, war films and David Bowie) reference genre films that Tarantino grew up with.

As good as Tarantino’s writing is (and it is very good), the performances are maybe even better. The cast is universally wonderful, making stars out of a few European actors who before did not have that much exposure in the states. The ensemble includes: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz (who won an Oscar for his work), Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schweiger, Jacky Ido, B.J. Novak, Gedeon Burkhard, Omar Doom, August Diehl, Denis Menochet, and Mike Myers, with voice work from Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.

Inglourious Basterds was nominated for eight Oscars, including Best Picture, but only won one. It is my favorite of Tarantino’s films (and among my 25 favorite films from the last decade), and a must-see for fans of Tarantino’s work and war films. It is brilliant.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

This Is 40 (2012) – Review

Review: This Is 40 combines very funny comedy with well-developed characters and strong dramatic moments. The film is about married couple Pete and Debbie. They have been married for about fourteen years and have a seemingly comfortable life, but troubles at work and at home begin to fray their relationship.

Writer-director Judd Apatow is known for his brand of comedy – mixing crude ‘R’ rated jokes, usually derived in an improvisational manner, with heartfelt drama and strong characters. This Is 40 in many ways is the culmination of his style. It has numerous scenes of fantastic comedy and big laughs, ranging from realistic to over-the-top (as jokes are exaggerated for comedic effect), but it all works. And, it also has what is ultimately very realistic feeling drama, focusing on domestic issues that the audience can relate to. Pete and Debbie might as well be real people the audience knows, that is how authentic their drama feels and is presented.

This results in two reactions. Either way viewers will relate to the drama and characters, however for some viewers it will be too much, too realistic and cutting. Cinema is still viewed as an escape, and a mainstream ‘comedy’ like This Is 40 is often viewed as something that should not have material that will bring the audience back into their own lives asking them to relate by looking at the highs and lows in their own relationships – it is supposed to be an escape and just make them laugh. The film is too good a drama in this sense and thus for viewers that just want to laugh it might hit too close to home, as even though Pete and Debbie essentially only have ‘white-people problems’ (and yuppie white people at that) the deeper drama is universal. However, for viewers that enjoy being completely emotionally engaged, the film works quite well showcasing the ups and downs of life and the struggles people go through to make their relationship work.

While Pete and Debbie struggle in their relationship with each other, their kids, and their parents, most of the supporting characters outside their family are there primarily to provide comedy. Apatow has put together a wonderful group of very funny people (like with all his films) and they deliver hilarious material. Viewers who enjoy Apatow’s brand of humor will not be disappointed. This is a very funny film, even with all the drama. Plus, the ending very much makes it a comedy in the classical sense.

Narratively speaking, Apatow’s films have often been criticized for being overly long and over indulgent in the material left in – in other words he is not an economical storyteller, which is an important component of good Hollywood filmmaking. This Is 40 is no different. It really just amounts to a snapshot taken from Pete and Debbie’s life. Yes, there is a deep emotional and dramatic significance to the drama, as they are at a crossroads, but the film does not leave the audience feeling life everything will be happy forever after. There will still be highs and lows, but for now they are okay – in a better place in their relationship than when the film starts. Thus, the film works more as dramatic experience (which also happens to be very funny) than a more straightforward narrative story. The viewer takes in the drama, relates to it, and takes something away from the experience.

This will also have one of two results for the viewer. It will either feel too loose and rambling, as if Apatow merely shot a bunch of footage and then found some semblance of a story in editing but did not want to lose any of the jokes or performances so he over stuffed it. Or, it will resonate with the viewer as a dramatic journey, again showcasing the ups and downs in Pete and Debbie’s relationship(s).

Despite Apatow’s filmmaking style, and how it seems to somewhat be moving further away from typical comedic narrative filmmaking, This Is 40 is both a very funny comedy and an in depth and emotionally true look at marriage that entertains and dramatically engages its audience (something few comedies achieve).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Judd Apatow has now directed four films, each straddling a difficult tonal line between comedy and drama. His first two films (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) clearly felt like comedies, but with good dramatic moments and characters (again, his trademark). But, his last two films (Funny People and This Is 40) have come much closer to being dramas, and in many ways are as the characters and their issues outweigh the jokes. Viewers (steered by marketing) go into these films expecting comedies but are met with character-based dramas that also happen to be really funny and have happy endings. This seems to be splitting opinion much more, as many just want funny movies not character pieces, while others recognize what Apatow is doing with his films and appreciate them for what they are (something different and interesting). I for one really enjoy what he is doing with his films and look forward to his next.

Jon Brion’s score works to accentuate the dramatic shifts in the film, while Apatow also greatly uses a good soundtrack to strong effect. Phedon Papamichael’s cinematography is very good as well. The film is shot in a very straightforward fashion, but visually everything looks great. Jefferson Sage’s production design is used to ground the characters in reality, but Sage also has fun with some of the sets (like Pete’s office, which looks like a rock nerd’s fantasy).

The film is very well acted with a great and very funny supporting cast. Jason Segel’s, Chris O’Dowd’s, and especially Melissa McCarthy’s (who is hysterical) performances standout among the smaller supporting roles. Megan Fox is also surprisingly good in her supporting part. Albert Brooks is great in support, capturing the essence of the film, playing Pete’s father to both be funny and dramatically compelling. This is the third time Apatow has used his own daughters (Maude and Iris Apatow) in his films, but never with so much dramatic responsibility. They are both fantastic, and casting ‘real’ young actors in the roles would not have been an improvement. Paul Rudd is wonderful in the film. He gives Pete such a carefree cool vibe, but underneath there is so much stress and worry that just eat away at him boiling up when he can no longer bare it. Rudd also has perfect comedic timing. However, it is probably Leslie Mann who steals the film. Debbie just wants to have the perfect life and she tries to control everything around her to make it so, but this leaves her perpetually disappointed and ultimately unhappy. She just seems so frustrated all the time, but desperately wants to be happy.

Summary & score: This Is 40 is not going to work for everyone. It is not just a funny comedy, but also a cutting character drama. For those it does work for, it is a wonderful experience full of hilarious comedy and emotionally resonate drama. 8/10

At the Movies – January 2013 – Part 3: Most Anticipated Films

Must-See of the Month:

Gangster Squad (Ruben Fleischer) – Action Crime Drama – Jan 11

Summary: As Los Angeles began to grow as a major metropolitan area, East Coast mafia interests started to take control of the city, led by Mickey Cohen. To fight back, the LAPD put together a violent squad to take the mobsters head on. Filmmakers: Director Ruben Fleischer is back with his third film, following the well-received Zombieland (though I am not as enamored with it as most) and (the fairly terrible) 30 Minutes or Less. Making a stylized crime drama does not seem like the logical next step for Fleischer (who also wanted to make a G.I. Joe film), but after seemingly playing out his hand in comedy why not try something new. He is working with composer Steve Jablonsky (Battleship), brilliant cinematographer Dion Beebe (Green Lantern), and production designer Maher Ahmad (worked on all Fleischer’s films). Cast: The film stars Emma Stone, Ryan Gosling (the two of whom had great chemistry in Crazy, Stupid Love.), Josh Brolin, and Sean Penn. The supporting cast features Giovanni Ribisi, Michael Pena, Anthony Mackie, Robert Patrick, Nick Nolte, Frank Grillo, Mireille Enos, and Troy Garity. Expectations: Gangster Squad looks like a fun gangster film, and has a fantastic cast. It is easily the most anticipated film of January (which is otherwise a very weak month). Originally, it was slated to come out in September 2012, but due to it containing a scene involving a shoot-out in a movie theatre (and its relevance to the tragedy in Colorado) it was delayed so the scene could be re-shot or replaced (or if it was ultimately kept in unchanged after all, delayed enough to not get everyone up in an uproar over sensitivity). Thus, this is a much better movie than what is typically scheduled for January. Fans of gangster films definitely want to check this out (though, merely renting it is probably fine). Trailer: Here.

At the Movies – January 2013 – Part 2: Hollywood Films

Serious Films:

Broken City (Allen Hughes) – Crime Drama/Thriller – Jan 18

Summary: Billy Taggart is a NYC cop who is asked by Mayor Nicholas Hostetler to tail his wife to find out who she is cheating on him with. However, Taggart finds himself immersed in a much bigger scandal. Filmmakers: Director Allen Hughes typically works with his brother Albert. Together they have directed Menace II Society, Dead Presidents, From Hell (which is visually very impressive), and The Book of Eli. This is his first solo feature. He is working with composers Atticus Ross (who scored The Book of Eli for Hughes, and did fantastic work with Trent Reznor scoring The Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Leopold Ross, and Claudia Sarne, cinematographer Ben Seresin (Unstoppable), and production designer Tom Duffield (The Kingdom). Cast: The film stars Mark Wahlberg (who is also producing) and Russell Crowe, with Natalie Martinez, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Kyle Chandler, Barry Pepper, Justin Chambers, Alona Tal, James Ransone, and Griffin Dunne in support. Expectations:  Broken City is definitely a contender for best film of the month with Gangster Squad (though, this being the movie graveyard known as January, that is not saying much). The Hughes Brothers’ films are generally entertaining (we shall see how Allen does on his own), but they have never made anything special. The cast is surprisingly good for a crime drama relegated to January. It looks like a decent actiony thriller built inside a crime drama. Not sure it is anything more than a rental, but you could do worse if you need something to see. Trailer: Here.

Action/Adventure:

The Last Stand (Jee-woon Kim) – Action – Jan 18

Summary: Small-town sheriff Ray Owens and his inexperienced officers is the only thing that stands between the leader of a drug cartel, who escaped from a local courthouse, and his freedom once he reaches the Mexican border. Filmmakers: Korean filmmaker Jee-woon Kim makes his Hollywood debut with The Last Stand. He is well known for his action and horror films in Korea (like The Good, the Bad, the Weird and I Saw the Devil). He is working with frequent collaborators composer Mowg and cinematographer Ji-yong Kim, while action specialist production designer Franco-Giacomo Carbone is new to his team. Cast: The film stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, with support from Jaimie Alexander, Rodrigo Santoro, Forest Whitaker, Genesis Rodriguez, Peter Stormare, Harry Dean Stanton, Johnny Knoxville, Zach Gilford, and Luis Guzman. Expectations: The Last Stand marks Arnold Schwarzenegger’s return to starring in action films (following up his appearance in The Expendables 2). Will audiences still want to come to the theatres to see him? This certainly does not have the same nostalgic draw as The Expendables films. Lionsgate is taking a tempered approach, as this is a relatively low budget film, and I suspect they imagine this will do much better business in foreign (and ancillary) markets. Schwarzenegger fans are probably better off just re-watching his classics (like Predator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Total Recall) and waiting to rent this than rushing out to theatres. Trailer: Here.

Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters (Tommy Wirkola) – Action Fantasy Horror – Jan 25

Summary: What if Hansel and Gretel grew up to hunt and kill supernatural beings like witches after being held captive by one as children? Now we will finally know the find out. Filmmakers: Norwegian writer-director Tommy Wirkola seems like a good fit for this film. He had a breakthrough hit (of sorts) with his film Dead Snow. He is working with producers Will Ferrell and Adam McKay (maybe this is supposed to be a comedy too?), composer Atli Orvarsson (The Eagle), cinematographer Michael Bonvillain (Wanderlust), and production designer Stephen Scott (Hellboy II: The Golden Army). Cast: Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star, with Famke Janssen, Zoe Bell, Peter Stormare, and Thomas Mann in support. Expectations: Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters was delayed by Paramount Pictures from March 2012 to January 2013. Their reason being (very reasonably) that Renner would be a bigger star in 2013 coming off Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, The Avengers, and The Bourne Legacy than in March 2012, plus January plays better internationally (important for action movies which translate better than comedies and dramas) and Paramount has not had a good performer in January in the last few years (and that will probably not change with this). All that said, however, delays usually do not mean good things for the quality of the movie (again, was this an action comedy and then delayed to be reworked? – It certainly does not look like a comedy in the trailer). Putting a twist on well-known stories sometimes works okay, but usually you end up with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or The Brothers Grimm (both of which look like the direct ancestors of this film). Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters looks like an overly stupid action film, but I will probably still rent it to enjoy its silliness on some level (and hopefully it really is a comedy). Trailer: Here.

Parker (Taylor Hackford) – Crime Thriller – Jan 25

Summary: After professional thief Parker is double-crossed and left for dead by his cohorts, he seeks revenge. His plan is to shanghai them and hijack their latest score. To do this, he must make an unlikely alliance with a woman on the inside, Leslie. Filmmakers: Oscar nominated director (for Ray, he also won an Oscar for a short film he made in the 1970s) Taylor Hackford is no stranger to action films and dramatic thrillers. His best includes Blood In, Blood Out, Dolores Claiborne, and The Devil’s Advocate. He is working with composer David Buckley (The Town), cinematographer J. Michael Muro (Rush Hour 3), and production designer Missy Stewart (A Better Life). Cast: The film stars Jason Statham and co-stars Jennifer Lopez. Nick Nolte, Michael Chiklis, Clifton Collins Jr., and Wendell Pierce feature in support. Expectations: Jason Statham is on a breakneck pace of putting out mediocre throwaway action films, and Parker is just his latest (this will be his thirteenth since 2006’s Crank). There is really no reason to see this in theatres unless you love action films and are a big Statham fan. It looks very forgettable. Trailer: Here.

At the Movies – January 2013 – Part 1: Independent Films

Art-House Comedies:

Struck by Lightning (Brian Dannelly) – Dramedy – Jan 11

Summary: Carson Phillips has been struck and killed by lightning. Now dead, the young man recounts how he blackmailed his fellow schoolmates to writer for his literary magazine. Filmmakers: Director Brian Dannelly is back for his second feature film. His first was Saved!, which was kind of funny. Between the two features, he directed a number of TV episodes. He is working with composer Jake Monaco, cinematographer Bobby Bukowski (Rampart), and production designer Linda Burton (Bully). Cast: The film stars Chris Colfer (from Glee), who also wrote the script. Rebel Wilson, Sarah Hyland, Christina Hendricks, Dermot Mulroney, Allison Janney, Angela Kinsey, and Brad William Henke feature in support. Expectations: Struck by Lightning looks like a decent indie comedy. Chris Colfer is good on Glee and Rebel Wilson was one of the breakout stars of 2012 (she should have an even bigger 2013 with a prominent role in Michael Bay’s action comedy Pain & Gain). It played to positive buzz in its festival screenings in 2012. January is a slow month for good movies (unless you are catching up on all the great stuff release in December), so maybe this might be worth seeing. I will wait and rent it. Trailer: Here.

Movie 43 (lots of directors) – Comedy – Jan 25

Summary: A large ensemble cast litters multiple intertwining stories (with multiple directors). Filmmakers: The film has a lot of directors: Elizabeth Banks (making her debut behind the camera aside from a couple shorts), Steven Brill (Drillbit Taylor), Steve Carr (Pall Blart: Mall Cop), Rusty Cundieff (Chappelle’s Show), James Duffy, Griffin Dunne (The Accidental Husband), Peter Farrelly (The Three Stooges), Patrik Forsberg, James Gunn (Super), Bob Odenkirk (The Brothers Solomon), Brett Ratner (Tower Heist), and Jonathan van Tulleken (Misfits). Cast: The ensemble features: Emma Stone, Gerard Butler, Hugh Jackman, Chloe Grace Moretz, Elizabeth Banks, Kristen Bell, Kate Winslet, Anna Faris, Naomi Watts, Bobby Cannavale, Uma Thurman, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Halle Berry, Chris Pratt, Josh Duhamel, Richard Gere, Kate Bosworth, Patrick Warburton, Liev Schreiber, Justin Long, Seann William Scott, Leslie Bibb, Jason Sudeikis, Kieran Culkin, Jack McBrayer, Terrence Howard, Johnny Knoxville, Tony Shalhoub, Stephen Merchant, J.B. Smoove, Jeremy Allen White, and Jimmy Bennett. Expectations: From a director standpoint, Movie 43 mostly features mediocre filmmakers (if not bad filmmakers – aka Brett Ratner), with really only James Gunn standing out as someone who is interesting. However, the cast is overloaded with star power and very funny people (like Emma Stone, Chloe Grace Moretz, Kate Winslet, Chris Pratt, and Stephen Merchant, who is particularly hilarious in Extras). The film looks to be taking a very R-rated (if not vulgar) approach to its jokes (which will hopefully still have a biting witty edge, and not just be the same old tired stuff that has seemingly made R-rated comedies tame in recent years with their oversaturation). This is probably not worth seeing in theatres, but maybe a rental for comedy fans (plus, it does look pretty funny based on the trailer). Trailer: Here.