Life of Pi

Yann Martel published the Life of Pi in 2001, and it received critical acclaim from the start. It is one of those stories that resonates with you long after you read it due to its originality and pure beauty. Ang Lee captures this beauty and bottles it in one of the most effective 3D films since Avatar. The story however, doesn't quite translate to the screen as easily.

The story follows a young Indian boy named Pi as he struggles to find his religious orientation, and his true path in life. His family owns a zoo, and during a move from India to Canada, their ship sinks and he finds himself in a life boat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a Bengal tiger.

It appears to be an impossible task to bring this eclectic grouping to life on the screen, but Ang Lee does so with grace and originality. The special and visual effects are nothing short of astonishing, and his choice of which details to include, and which seem trivial is remarkable. I was a huge fan of this book when I read it (because I heard Ang Lee was making it into a movie), and I was not let down at all. It stayed true to the story, and more specifically, to the author's intent.

It is rated PG, which suggests that it is appropriate for all audiences, but my wife and I agree that it should probably be PG-13. This is not a film or a story for children. Survival on the high seas with animals eating each other is not something that children need to see. The twist at the end is also for a much more mature audience, as the story without a good amount of reflection is lost.

Ang Lee did it justice. He added a few bits of his own flare, and will certainly reap the award benefits for his troubles. Life of Pi is the most beautiful film of the year with the most intoxicating visuals. I put him down as Best Director, but the film isn't quite good enough to take the big prize. Not for a lack of trying, I don't think anyone could have done a better job. Painstaking details were put into many of the animal CGI effects, and it is amazing.

As I said, Avatar was the last time that the colors and effects moved me using the 3D technology, but in this case, the movement was a bit too much. If you are one who gets seasick or who has any trouble with the 3D format, you might want to wait for DVD on this one. There were a few times I had to remove my glasses and rub my eyes, and the movement of the ocean was at times a bit too realistic.

I liked this movie quite a bit. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it was mesmerizing and beautiful in its presentation. Danny Elfman provides a great score, but it's really the effects that win the audience over. A Zebra swimming or jumping from a ship, or a Bengal tiger emoting his frustration or hunger to his survival companion. Simply beautiful. 8/10.

Red Dawn

After nearly a year on the back burner, moviegoers everywhere finally got to see the North Korean invasion of Spokane, Washington. The rewrites had to be done, as the original remake (is that an oxymoron?) pitted the rural high school kids against the Chinese, which is a much more believable plot. However, with geopolitical alliances and Hollywood economic projections, China makes a much better customer than they do a... villain? So, let's pick on the one kid on the playground without anyone to protect them. North Korea. And let's be honest, there is no sleep being lost on this choice.

The original film, circa 1984, preyed on the cold war fears of the Reagan era. Russians invading Colorado seems absurd until you have Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze fight back in letterman jackets. They make it look cool, and with girlfriends Jennifer Grey and Lea Thompson, you have a regular Brat Pack at war with the Reds.

This film is fun for many reasons. The first is that everyone likes an underdog story. The second is patriotism. The third is America. Could it get better than this? Entertaining? Yes. Great filmmaking? No.

The Eckert brothers are living the American Dream in Spokane, WA. One has returned home from the Marine Corps, and the other is the high school quarterback with the cheerleader girlfriend. Their dad is the sheriff of the town. There is a faint hint of tension within the household, but that's back story gibberish. The real take away is that all of them are at least 25 years old. Think 90210, only modernized.

Anyway, we get to know a couple of the characters enough to know that the older brother (Hemsworth) is patriotic, but ran away when his mom died, and the younger brother (Peck) has a chip on his shoulder and doesn't ever listen to advice. Are these traits that will guide their actions over the course of the film? Maybe...

Anyway, the North Koreans attack by setting off an EMP, and then parachuting into Spokane. Let me tell you, I've been to Spokane, and there's nothing militarily strategic about that place. Anyway, the US military is nowhere to be found and the boys have to round up their motley crew of friends and stragglers and go on the offensive.

The original was full of action and intrigue, but the plot just doesn't work today. First of all, the North Koreans could never penetrate North America except through Alaska. Second, Russia would never ally with them. Third, Spokane would not be chosen as a strategic site for any foreign power. Finally, they would not allow citizens to go about their daily lives under "occupied territory". This was my biggest gripe. How better for guerrillas to disrupt operations than by being allowed to walk around town, pretending to not be a revolutionary? The answer is that there isn't a better way.

The original had a darkness to the story. An impetus of mortality. I remember more than one of the main characters falling to a stray Russian bullet. The remake casts them as much more untouchable, and much better looking. It just didn't jive for me, and I never legitimately feared for their safety. Then again, I was nine or ten when I saw the original. Interesting fact; The 1984 Red Dawn was the most violent film ever made at the time. It recorded a violence rate of 134 per hour. Impressive, even by today's standards.

The film is ridiculous, and yet, it is a fun idea. Everyone has a dark fantasy of how they would respond in the event of a catastrophic change in their life. Usually this takes the form of Zombie apocalypse, political meltdown, or airborne virus. This rendition happens to be North Korean invasion. I like that the kids learned how to mobilize and use military grade weapons in an afternoon, and nobody really caves to their nerves, but it made it implausible within a ball of impossible.

The 17 year old I was with said it was one of the best movies he'd ever seen. Enough said. The actors should have been more unknown (and younger), and more of them should have died. The remake follows the original nicely, but I really feel the film makers had a ripe idea and if done in a clever and original way, it could have really been a well made movie. 6/10.

Lincoln

The anticipation for the 16th president's biopic based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's

Team of Rivals

has two conveniently divisive camps: Those who are Spielberg war drama disciples, and those who will follow Daniel Day-Lewis to the ends of the earth. I happen to fall into both categories. I would have to say however, that for this film, Daniel Day-Lewis wins.

I could imagine this film being created by another team, and perhaps with a different supporting cast, or another director, but after viewing, I simply cannot imagine any other actor, living or dead, who could channel Abraham Lincoln in the way that Day-Lewis did. Perhaps it's because he's the perfect age for the role, or maybe it's because he's just that damn good.

I was in awe of his screen presence from start to finish, and found myself imagining what his preparations must entail. He is surrounded by A-list actors in various roles, and I kept wondering "what must they be thinking, being in the presence of cinematic greatness?" There are a handful of exceptional actors in the world today, but Day-Lewis is in a class all his own. And deservedly so. He will become the first actor ever to receive 3 Best Actor Oscars, joining Jack Nicholson (2 Best, 1 Supporting) and Walter Brennan (3 Supporting Actor Oscars) as the only triple winners.

Premature you say? Not really. Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are amazing in The Master. Denzel Washington shined in Flight, and I'm very much looking forward to Silver Linings Playbook (Bradley Cooper) and The Sessions (John Hawkes). None of them however has the gift that Day-Lewis displayed as the great emancipator.

The film centers not around the life of the legendary leader, but around his desire to pass the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution before the Civil War is won. He knows that if it were to wait, the Southern delegations wouldn't vote to pass it, and there is already barely enough Republican support to pass it in the House of Representatives as is, so he digs deep in his bag of tricks, calling out favors to all of his constituents, and makes a pivotal play to the most Democrats just before the war ends at Appomattox.

Tony Kushner (Munich) deserves a great deal of credit for the success of this film. The dialogue and action, including introduction of characters and plot progression, hinge on his masterful writing. The other part is the brilliant supporting cast, but I'll hit on that in the next paragraph. Kushner makes the drama behind the Civil War accessible even to those who don't teach American History to middle schoolers, and creates tension in a mainstream, and family friendly way. However, from start to finish, the film never loses sight of the whole point. Progress and equal rights, which by today's standards seem obvious, but through Spielberg's lens is beautiful and poignant.

The supporting cast must have been clambering to work for Spielberg, and with Day-Lewis. In all, attached to this film, there are 8 Oscar wins, and an additional 17 nominations (my math may be a little off), but my point is, the cast is absolutely loaded with talent. Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in a pointless role), John Hawkes, Bruce McGill, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Jared Harris, Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, etc. You get the point. They all get to wear ridiculous facial hair, and generally all contribute to the movie magic with each recognizable face that enters the frame.

You get a concise history lesson in the span of 2 hours and 20 minutes, but it is so much more than that. It's a tribute to the greatest American President in history, and an acknowledgement of the decisions he made that shaped our country to be what it is today.

The film may surprise a few because it isn't a comprehensive biography by any means. It glosses over the early years, the rise to political power, and even his initial reactions to the Civil War. Spielberg was also wise to avoid a dramatic assassination scene. Everyone knows how the story ends (spoiler?) - Lincoln is killed, and the North wins the war. Slavery has been abolished forever changing the southern economy. Spielberg does a nice, subtle job with this one. Not the Oscar fodder of years past, but instead, a film that stands on its own legitimacy. Mostly by the brute strength of Daniel Day-Lewis.

Skip this if you hate movies, but see it if you want a clinic on what it means to be an actor. Best performance, film, adapted screenplay, and probably director of the year. 10/10.

Skyfall

James Bond is back with a new attitude and a new director. Superfan (and Oscar winner) Sam Mendes takes the helm of the 23rd incarnation of the agent provocateur, 007. Daniel Craig is back as the secret agent, and his image is becoming the gold standard for Ian Fleming's iconic character. Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and even Sean Connery just don't seem to fill the suit after Craig has taken over as the "blunt instrument" as Dame Judi Dench's M so eloquently put it.

No, this is Bond 2.0. The James Bond that doesn't just get the girl and save the day using badass technology, he's the Alpha male of the pack. He's tough and knows how to get the job done. He's let off his leash to do the dirty work of MI6, and is often the scapegoat in the process.

That said, I have been expecting a lot out of this film. Ever since Sam Mendes was revealed as the new director, I had high hopes. Mendes is probably best known for American Beauty in 1999, but he also did a remarkable job with Road to Perdition, Jarhead, and Revolutionary Road (huge critical disappointment, but a beautiful portrayal of the Yates classic). I honestly can't imagine why a director wouldn't want to do a Bond film, especially considering what is possible with technology today; special effects, geopolitical maelstroms, economic collapse, etc. The jams that James could get in are innumerable. The love for the character is practically universal. It's no wonder that Mendes took the bait.

The plot plays out conservatively; following the formula that has been successful for 22 other films. the opening sequence sets us up for the drama. In this case, Bond is "killed" while trying to rescue a computer drive containing the names of all NATO secret agents embedded with terrorist organizations. A terrifying thought if such a list truly exists.

Upon his resurrection, he hunts the man responsible, who is conveniently independently wealthy, with intricate knowledge of his opponents, who has a specific grudge that will dictate his insane actions. Along the way, Bond beds a beautiful exotic woman who is later killed, and he ends up setting the record straight about himself, and in the process saves the world. I couldn't have written it simpler myself.

And that's the problem. Daniel Craig is a superb Bond. He is charismatic, violent, rugged but confident, and unassuming. He fits the mold perfectly for a realistic incarnation of a British secret agent. The problem is that he seemingly does the same song and dance every time and it doesn't ever change. It doesn't ever get old either though. It's just plain fun. Seeing what the writing team comes up with for gadgets, capers, and special effects-laden action scenes is half the experience.

The other half is the bad guy. Javier Bardem brings his No Country for Old Men game as Silva, the gay, computer genius, former spy villain. He has terrible hair, a creepy set of dentures, and a peaceful yet vindictive agenda that makes him even more terrifying than if he were just plain mean. Of course he spends exorbitant amounts of resources on the most miniscule of plans, but he wouldn't be a James Bond baddie without that, so you can't fault the guy.

In my opinion, this may be the best Bond ever, and there are several reasons, all of which I invite debate. First of all, Daniel Craig portrays the character in the most effective way of all the actors who have held the title (and I am so glad that Clive Owen wasn't chosen). Javier Bardem brings a depth to the bad guy that is usually glossed over by the antagonist. He is frightening while being unassuming at the same time. A rare feat for any villain in any film (or story). You're never thinking that he's actually going to go full psycho, but you secretly know that he could at any time. Kind of like Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, but to a lesser degree. Thirdly, Mendes is subtle with the cliches. He stays away from fun gadgets, Aston Martins (mostly) and womanizing. Instead, he sets the table for subsequent films that no doubt are in the works (Craig has signed on for 2 more - next out in 2014. No official word on Mendes' involvement).

Newcomers Albert Finney and Ralph Fiennes also add to the star power and story-building core. In many of Bond films past, actors are one and done. I have a feeling we will see some of these guys for the next 2 films as well. I'm just hoping for an appearance by Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter in the next ones as well. The girl is less of a factor in the film (and honestly, not supermodel caliber), but she is more believable as the type of woman who would jump right in bed with a stranger, so it fits with the storyline more flawlessly as a sidebar and less of a plot point. Hey, at least it isn't Denise Richards.

What it lacks in excitement, it makes up for in familiar comfort. It's a safe action film that gets the job done. I can't say I wasn't a bit disappointed, but I may have been setting the bar too high. You know you're going to see it, it's James Bond. 8/10.

Flight

Denzel Washington throws his hat in the ring for the title of Best Actor in this year's Oscar race. He plays William "Whip" Whitaker, a commercial airline pilot with a nasty drinking problem. He executes a miraculous crash landing, saving nearly everyone on board, but the subsequent investigation finds him doing more soul-searching than he bargains for.

The story is less about Whip's heroic tale as it is about his dark demons, and the emotionally manipulative setup that makes the audience feel morally claustrophobic, needing to choose between drunken hero, or ethically-challenged villain. It's really compelling on paper, and has brilliant snippets in the previews, making it seem almost Best Picture-worthy. Almost.

The film unfolds much too quickly, with a 16-minute crash sequence within the first 25 minutes of the movie. It's too much, too fast. Let me say however, that the 16 minute sequence is absolutely enthralling. Edge-of-your-seat, nail-biting tension that is masterfully crafted by Robert Zemeckis, and brilliantly portrayed by the veteran Denzel Washington.

Once the opening sequence is over, the film stalls much like the plane gliding gently to its resting place on the ground, after performing a jaw-dropping roll that is stabilized by none other than Mr. Washington. Denzel is simply amazing. I envisioned a variety of other actors in the role, and it is true, many could have done it, but there is something about Denzel in his pilot's uniform that seals the deal. It was a great choice, and there were times that he was so convincing as the drunk, that I could almost smell the booze on his breath. Unfortunately, his character just wasn't very likeable, and his prideful denial of his problem tortured the story until the very end.

It's been nearly 20 years since Zemeckis won the Best Director statue for Forrest Gump, and this film was definitely his best since Cast Away in 2000. I couldn't help thinking that it was trying to be too many things at once though, and consequently disappointed in all of them. The story isn't about the crash, or the heroic anecdote. It isn't about the resolution of the investigation, or the investigators. It isn't about the victims, or about the perils of flying commercially. No, it's about alcoholism. A seemingly subtle tribute to Leaving Las Vegas. A clear Oscar hopeful that just goes too far with this theme and doesn't satisfy the promise made in the preview in the process.

The writer, John Gatins, who is a veteran of underdog feel-good stories, goes way out of his comfort zone here and finds himself in unfamiliar territory. After seeing the film, a conversation with friends brought up half a dozen ideas that would have provided a more satisfying conclusion. It's unfortunate that such a ripe tale was wasted by a lack of creative writing.

The supporting cast is just alright. Bruce Greenwood is the friendly face, playing the pilot's union rep who walks with Whip after the incident, and Don Cheadle goes through the motions as the unscrupulous lawyer who represents Whip. John Goodman overacts as the friendly neighborhood drug dealer, and the relatively unknown British actress Kelly Reilly conjures up an annoying southern accent to play the unnecessary drug addicted companion of Whip. I guess nobody was truly impressive save Washington. I was impressed to see James Badge Dale in a brief appearance as a cancer patient in the hospital, but this is primarily a one-man vehicle.

What would have given this film the little boost that it needed was if it held something back. 25 minutes into the film, you've seen the entire sequence of events unfold that lead to the crash. If there was something missing that we as an audience were to discover later, not even a twist, but a piece that adds suspense or changes the perception of the situation, then the end would have rivaled the beginning. There was a lot that Zemeckis and Gatins could have done, but they simply let the story unfold on the screen.

The film is worth seeing for the crash sequence, and Denzel's performance, but it's certainly not a feel-good story, or even a morality tale. And there is frankly quite a bit of disappointment in how it all plays out. 7/10.

Argo

In Greek mythology, Argo was the name of the ship that Jason used to retrieve the Golden Fleece, and was considered the first seagoing war vessel by many historians. How this translates to the title of a fictitious sci-fi film from the early 1980's, I honestly have no idea other than it's the vehicle that Ben Affleck uses to retrieve his 2012 Oscar nominations.

Ben Affleck's follow-up to 2010's The Town is a remarkable true story set in Iran, circa 1980. Affleck plays CIA ex-filtration specialist Tony Mendez, who has the idea to use a terrible pre-production film called Argo as a ploy to rescue six Americans who are hiding in the Canadian ambassador's home following the collapse of the US embassy.

The film has been getting considerable Oscar buzz, and rightfully so. The preposterous nature of the story propels it forward, and a great ensemble cast delivers subtle performances that are made authentic by the terrible hair and fashion of the late 70's. Couple that with the civil unrest and anti-American sentiment in Iran during the time, and the tension is palpable, right from the opening credits. A very poignant film in our current climate as well.

Affleck interestingly casts himself in the lead role for the second straight movie, which is an interesting move. Not that he does badly, just his reputation and performance as a director is moving out of a pretty face with a lucky break and into that of a truly respectable auteur. He is a damn good director.

His acting is mostly emotionless, and he gives himself some good lines, but he is mostly an introspective professional who drinks to bury the idea that he might fail, and that it would get innocent American killed if he does. There is a minor subplot about his failing marriage and the somewhat estranged relationship with his son, which isn't completely unnecessary, but doesn't have any real traction.

The true draw here is the predicament. These six Americans are trapped, and the Iranian Guard is searching for them, closing in with each passing day. It's a game of beat the clock, and Affleck's Mendez is racing against time to get his plan rolling before the Iranians figure it out. The suspense boils over in the final act as they make their way to the airport. This kind of breathless edge-of-your-seat tension is the stuff good films are made of. Affleck crushes the pacing and the authenticity of suspense.

Supporting Affleck are a trio of veterans; John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston. Each gives exactly what is necessary to garner just enough attention. I particularly enjoyed Arkin's cavalier attitude as a movie producer past his twilight who's brought in the loop to make Argo seem as real as possible. Cranston is very quickly becoming one of my favorite actors around, and Goodman is great as usual. Also commendable are Tate Donovan, who looks more and more like Tim Robbins every day (and has aged 30 years in the past decade), and Victor Garber as the Canadian ambassador. True, he doesn't have much screen time, and has very little dialogue, but he has screen presence and commands authority with each scene he's in.

Carter gives a nice take on the events during the closing credits and there are some side by side photos that make you wonder which are from the actual people and events and which are from the film. The similarities and attention to detail are shockingly uncanny, and Affleck obviously wanted the viewer to see his painstaking process. Part of it was surely homage to the man, Tony Mendez, and the people who were involved in the ordeal.

Argo is a great film, and deserving of all of the Oscar praise. Expect writing, directing, and picture nominations for sure. It is something different, and the contrast of the Argo sci-fi ruse with the Argo CIA operation is a fun balance act that adds an unexpected dimension to what would otherwise be a terse political work of non-fiction storytelling.

Go see this film if you like a good story. You won't be disappointed. 9/10.