In the Heart of the Sea

The life of a sailor has been romanticized countless times in novel and cinema, and I just don't get it. "In the Heart of the Sea" is painfully cliche at times, and although the film captures the mystery, beauty, and peril of the sea, it remains a mostly hollow and glorified epic seafaring journey.

Captain Pollard (Benjamin Walker) and First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) are whalers in Nantucket in the early 1800's. The setting is delivered beautifully, and the town's excitement over the lucrative oil found in whales has inspired a dangerous industry that has consumed every facet of their lives. Then they go off to sea. Pollard and Chase have their disagreements, but it's no Mutiny on the Bounty. The rub is that there isn't a compelling dramatic moment or issue that would create this tension in the first place, and it just doesn't go anywhere useful. Enter Moby. A massive homicidal whale makes the predators the prey and hunts them halfway around the world, leaving carnage in its wake. The effects given to the whale scenes are fantastic, don't get me wrong, but Moby certainly isn't Jaws. The film deserved more tension, more suspense, and more action.

Director Ron Howard is overrated. There, I've said it. It's difficult to fight this fact, as much as you may want to. If you look at his filmography, there are just four high quality films over his thirty-eight film, forty-six year directorial career. Email me and I'll fill you in on the goods. There are some other ones that are fun and all, but he has made his name on just a couple of strong efforts. If I spent nearly sixty years working in Hollywood, I could direct award-winning films without a doubt. "In the Heart of the Sea" has some nice special effects, and we all know that filming on water has its challenges, but the film could have used something a bit more, I don't know, magical from Opie.

Chris Hemsworth just seemed to be the wrong choice for lead. There are attempts to mask his British accent, and even some discernible moments of a New England accent. It comes off as entirely insincere. Ben Whishaw and Brendan Gleeson as Herman Melville and Thomas Nickerson, respectively, are the bright spots of the film as a pair of raconteurs telling fish stories over whiskey in a room filled with ships in bottles. And when that's the bright spot, you're sort of in trouble.

Moby Dick is a timeless tale, but this variation is just unnecessary. It makes me cringe to see previews for these great (and some not-so-great) stories being retold over and over as if that's more important or spectacular than original ideas. Thinking about the upcoming "Point Break", "The BFG", "The Jungle Book", "Ben Hur", "The Magnificent Seven", "Jumanji", and "Tarzan" is just too much new old movies. Okay, I won't lie, "The Magnificent Seven" will be pretty cool.

The film seems starkly out of place. It was originally intended for a spring release, but that was encroaching on the impending blockbusters, and In the Heart of the Sea is too serious and wistful for that movie-going audience. Perhaps there was an awards-savvy audience in mind when it was pushed to October, targeting those hungry for yet another retelling of a time-honored legend. With biopics all the rage, isn't it a more meta-cognitive approach to make a movie about the story that was told by the man who sailed on the ship that inspired the book for the author. I got lost in my own sentence. Suffice to say, it is not clever. The studio chose to push it yet again to early December. The doldrums between the Thanksgiving feast and the Christmas frenzy. My point is, the film just doesn't fit anywhere. With a more compelling story arc, and perhaps stronger characters, it might have been stronger with any particular audience, but it was simply bland. It's a whale of a tale, but stick with the Melville classic. 5/10.

Spotlight

Rarely does a film come along that can jerk a tear from my eye without using cinematic drama or emotional manipulation in the form of character empathy or foreshadowing. Spotlight manages to achieve the type of emotional response typically reserved for well-crafted documentaries by simply telling the story in an authentic and just way. Plainly put, the story speaks for itself. The best films in the non-fiction genre are the ones that don't try too hard to be something exceptional. They allow the audience to fall into the rhythm of the characters and dialogue without any subversive plot twists or gimmicks, and they allow the story to just be.

Everyone has heard about the Catholic church child sexual abuse scandal that popped up in Boston in the late 1990's, but there hasn't been a story told on film that has given the story the justice that it deserves; from either side. On the one hand, the church has endured ridicule, and the title of Catholic Priest has almost become synonymous with the punchline of a pedophile joke. On the other, the untold story of thousands of legitimate child sex abuse victims and hundreds, if not thousands of Priests has remained hidden in the shadows for fear of shame, persecution, or God knows what other reasons.

Spotlight refers to the special investigations team of journalists at the Boston Globe. They run high profile exposes and often spend months working a case before it is published. The foursome are portrayed remarkably by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d'Arcy James. Working under the newly appointed Globe editor, played with a veteran calm by Liev Schreiber, they are tasked with following up on an abuse allegation at a Boston Diocese. Rounding out the supporting cast are John Slattery (Mad Men), Stanley Tucci, and Billy Crudup. I can honestly say that this is a case of flawless performances all around, in what is a sizzling and taboo discussion piece. From the outset, there is a growing sense that something isn't right, and the deeper the team digs, the larger the spiderweb of involvement by various people and organizations within the city and in the Diocese. This particular investigation sparked an international outcry for action and blew the lid off one of the worst kept secrets in Boston.

Handling a story of this nature demands a delicate balance. After all, in today's day of religious intolerance, child sex abuse in the Catholic church is akin to ISIS' relationship to Islam. What I mean is that it is easy to pigeon-hole the religion and defame it based on the actions of the few. Admittedly, the numbers are skewed, and there are more abusers than there are apostates, but the crimes are no less horrendous or cowardly than suicide bombing, are they? The film treads lightly on the details, but still places the blame squarely where it lies; the conspiracy to cover up the crimes. The heart-wrenching piece is the shattered lives of the hundreds of victims that never had an avenue to find justice until the court of public opinion was opened up to them.

I would expect nothing less than numerous Academy Award nominations for Spotlight. You could nominate numerous supporting actors with a straight face, but Mark Ruffalo will likely get the lions share of recognition. I would also expect it to end up on Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay ballots. It is a must-see, and will be hard to beat in terms of sheer quality.

Writer/Director Tom McCarthy (writer of Pixar's Up) has certainly made strides since last year's potential Razzie, The Cobbler. Spotlight lands squarely atop my current list of Best Pictures of the year (that I've seen so far). It is beautiful in its execution, acted to near-perfection, and directed with a veteran's patience and eye. What sets this apart from other works of non-fiction is that this story wasn't told to shock audiences, it was told to honor the story, it's a story that needs to be told, and was done tastefully and fearlessly, and that is why it gets such high marks for me. It's hard to beat a film like this in any genre. Of course, it's hard to beat a story like this as well. 9/10.

Creed

You know what I hate about boxing movies? They make me feel a little out of shape. Okay, a lot out of shape. Boxers have some of the most disciplined physical regimens of any athlete, and that’s part of the appeal. Seeing how far a person can push themselves physically in a sport where it is you and you alone who can deliver your fate. Fight, train, discipline. It’s a romantic notion, but one that is unrealistic for most of us. That’s why we pay to see others do it. For all intents and purposes, this film is Rocky 7. It’s the inevitable changing of the guard because, well, Sylvester Stallone will be seventy years old next summer. Wow. “Creed” is the new generation of the franchise, focusing in on Rocky’s late rival/friend’s illegitimate son, Adonis.

“Creed” is a new take on the dying sport of boxing; a sport tarnished by controversy and disappointment over the past couple of decades. A sport that has been supplanted by the more ADD-centric mixed martial arts movement. A sport that has a long and distinguished history, but it is seemingly fading from the public interest. Boxing is as pure a sport of man versus man as you can get. The physical and psychological demands of the gloved combat sport is machismo at its purest.

The film takes a slow burn approach, minimizing time spent in the ring in favor of character development and handing the baton from nostalgia and power to a new generation of fighter in a new era. Gone are the times of punching slabs of meat. The new boxer is more brains and less brawn. There is something emotional about seeing an aged Stallone, and maybe it is only going to be felt by those who grew up knowing Rocky Balboa and the cinematic magic that he brought to the underdog role, but Michael B. Jordan is appealing to any audience, new and old alike, and certainly fills Rocky’s shoes adequately.

Michael B. Jordan (“The Wire”, “Friday Night Lights”, and “Fruitvale Station”) plays the progeny, Adonis Creed, with a burning fury in his eyes. He is a bitter young man fighting to escape the shadow of his father. He excels at exuding his toughness, but there is a soft side to him that just doesn’t quite fit the mold. The grittiness and violence in his character isn’t as prevalent as a film like this year’s “Southpaw”, but he is physically imposing, in a more fine-tuned machine sort of way.

The softness bodes well for the development of the relationship with Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky. Their growing symbiotic relationship is really what the film is about. They need each other, on opposite ends of life’s journey, and the interactions bring out the best in both of them.

Stallone has rarely been better as an actor. He lets his guard down and shows a vulnerable side that is authentic and fitting for his final (most likely) film in the storied franchise that served as the foundation for his own legacy. His soap box speeches are like entries out of Yogi Berra’s diary, and it reminds us what endeared us to the character in the first place nearly forty years ago.

Director and screenwriter Ryan Coogler (“Fruitvale Station”) reunites with Jordan for what is one of the best boxing films in recent memory (better than “The Fighter” and “Million Dollar Baby” for certain). He uses precision camerawork and choreography to enhance the attempt at realism. An impressive single-shot sequence in the middle of the film is testament to his vision and attention to detail. He captures the essence that the audience wants to experience, and does it without any unnecessary glitz or glamour. The on-screen ring-time is deliberately minimized to keep the focus on the characters, and it works. By the climax, there is a hunger for the fight that only grows stronger through the absence of much fighting to lead up to it.

“Creed” manages to accomplish what has been so difficult to duplicate since the early “Rocky” films, and going back further, to “Raging Bull”. A realistic approach to the emotions beneath the surface of the fighters. The real humans behind the fighters. “Creed” delivers a knockout performance for the holiday season, and I for one am thankful that it didn’t disappoint. Here’s hoping the “Creed” franchise is just beginning. 9/10.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

After three book and four films, we finally bid adieu to everyone’s favorite bow-wielding heroine, Katniss Everdeen. I will spare you the book versus movie comparison, but will say that it has quite a bit in common with other recent epic finale attempts; fantastic action, satisfying resolution, but a bit long-winded and melodramatic on the back end.

When the first Hunger Games came out in 2012, it became the next “Harry Potter” in terms of low risk, bankable box office success, and sparked an industry frenzy of imitators; “The Lightning Thief”, “Divergent”, “Maze Runner”, “Ender’s Game”, “the Giver”, and the upcoming “the Fifth Wave”. There is something about the young adult sci-fi dystopian future that is like catnip for the target demographic, which by my calculation, is just about everyone. Don’t lie, you know you love these movies.

The film picks up where Mockingjay Part 1 leaves off, in the middle of a revolutionary war with the wealthy being overthrown by the proletariat. Propaganda, terrorism, and class wars make for an almost uncanny commentary on our current political climate. Suzanne Collins, you visionary, you. Katniss and her band of elite friends and warriors must infiltrate the capitol to remove the evil President Snow from power to finally end the war and return power to the people.

This is where the film finds its rhythm and success. The elaborate traps that the game makers litter throughout the city make for a dangerous maze with deadly consequences and heightened tension, because as we all know, all bets are off when it comes to a finale. Any of the characters are fair game to be killed off, and (spoiler alert), many are.

The second act falters greatly, however. After the climax, there is the obligatory wrapping up of the story which goes on for so long, I thought Peter Jackson might have been involved in the film. At well over two hours, it seems as if the two Mockingjay films were dragged out just so they could double the profits. Smart move for the studio, but not so great for the paying audience. It would have made a fantastic single movie, but there’s just too much excess fat in a five hour finale that honestly should have been trimmed.

Jennifer Lawrence has evolved beyond this character, but she was locked in from the start and is certainly getting paid well for this franchise. She is keeping herself busy with next month’s Oscar-bait biopic, “Joy”, and projects with Steven Spielberg and Darren Aronofsky on the horizon as well as another “X-Men” film and a curious science fiction story called “Passengers” with Chris Pratt.

Francis Lawrence (no relation) is a fantastic director with a bright future in the action genre. The man behind “Constantine”, “I am Legend”, and the final three “Hunger Games” films is in strong command of his work. His action scenes are thrilling and suspenseful, and there is a dark, edginess to his craft. There is a scene in the sewers below the capitol that is eerily reminiscent of the “Aliens” films. Claustrophobic, dark, perfectly timed sound effects and red herring moments that make you jump. This is the Francis Lawrence I want to see more of in the future.

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s last film role is unremarkable as Plutarch Heavensbee, the former game maker-turned rebellion leader, but his presence is noticed. It’s always difficult seeing an actor on-screen after their death, and like Robin Williams’ “Boulevard”, there is a heartfelt feeling that he will be missed.

“Mockingjay Part 2” was precisely what I was expecting, but the first half impressed me and the second disappointed. It’s time to move on to the next franchise du jour. What will it be? Blood Red Road? Delirium? Legend? Pure? Only time will tell, but there is limitless material out there, and with it we might see the next Jennifer Lawrence. Parting is such sweet sorrow, Katniss. 7/10.

Spectre

Daniel Craig is back for the fourth and perhaps final time as the iconic lothario James Bond; the British spy with an insatiable appetite for women and a knack for finding, avoiding, and making danger look just plain cool.

The latest entry into the pantheon of the genre finds James dealing with the aftermath of “Skyfall” and the death of his beloved mentor, M. The trademark opening sequence is breathtaking as a helicopter does barrel rolls over a crowd of onlookers in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead. The film continues its epic 148 minute journey, introducing us to new villains, new women, new gadgets, and a hip, new twenty-first century nod to the changing spy game and the challenges and fears that come with it.

Everyone who follows the cinematic universe has stumbled upon James Bond once or twice (or twenty-four times) and after the masterful “Skyfall” in 2012, there has been a resurgence in the quality of the films as well as a shift back to basics where Bond is less of a ladies’ man who gets cool gadgets and fights baddies to more of a tough guy who fights complex networks of villains and just happens to be good with the ladies. It’s subtle, but it’s appropriate for the evolution of the franchise.

In an homage to what might be Craig’s swan song, “Spectre” takes on a much more classic approach to the story. It’s eerily nostalgic of the Sean Connery Bond; the one who made the character so compelling way back in the 1960’s. What keeps us coming back for more each and every time? I’m glad you asked. The spy fantasy is nothing new. Excitement is a natural yearning, and what better fantasy than being a smart, attractive, physically imposing man who carries a license to kill, escapes every hostile situation, and gets literally every woman he wants. The formula doesn’t get much more perfect than that. Why do women love James Bond? I haven’t figured that one out yet, but my theory is the whole international man of mystery thing. Tame the wild beast, travel to exotic locales with the coolest guy in the room. That sort of thing.

Craig walks through the role, perhaps fatigued by the demands of playing such an important character in film. There is already speculation as to the identity of his successor, with most odds makers putting Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, and Tom Hardy at the top of the list. For my money, I’d like to see a fresh direction and see a younger actor play the role. Someone like Jamie Bell. Not necessarily a prequel because the franchise isn’t entirely chronological, but a fresh set of stories to accompany a fresh actor (perhaps a throwback and a 1960’s or 1970’s setting?)

Two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz plays the villain, Oberhauser (is that his real name?), who has a past link to Bond as well as the previous villains from “Casino Royale”, “Quantum of Solace”, and “Skyfall”. He walks through the role without any real emotion, and I was honestly expecting quite a bit more as his persona just oozes Bond villain. The connections are a nice bow on the quadrilogy and suggest that the next film may be a step in a new direction with some new blood at the helm and in the role. I think it’s a good choice.

Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Road to Perdition”, “Jarhead”, “Skyfall”) is one of my favorite directors, and I imagine he couldn’t pass on the experience to be a part of the Bond legacy. Although he’s rumored to be attached to the twenty-fifth installment, I imagine he will move on to something different. And I can’t wait.

Dave Bautista brings some muscle to the film as Hinx, the henchman. It’s been awhile since we’ve had a good henchman, and it is another nod to the classic approach to this film. My only complaint is with his limited screen time and his lackluster exit.

Everything about this film screams classic Bond, and that is what makes it work. It isn’t nearly as well done as “Skyfall”, but it is absolutely on par with what should be the audience expectations. Perhaps “Skyfall” should have been the fourth installment, sending Craig out with an award-worthy bang, but I paid to see James Bond drive a cool car, fight some quirky bad guys, and bed some beautiful women. Job well done, James. 8/10.

Our Brand is Crisis

Timely and ambitious, “Our Brand is Crisis” is a satirical reflection of our current American political climate set to a backdrop of a South American country in distress and a pair of rival strategists jockeying their candidates in a critical presidential election.

Sandra Bullock is “Calamity” Jane Bodine, a brilliant semi-retired political strategist whose flexible moral compass led her down the path of self-destruction years prior. Tasked with bringing a Bolivian candidate out of the cellar in just eighty days using media, a smear campaign, and some of Jane’s own political tricks, it is a whirlwind of polling, running ads, and pandering to the people.

Billy Bob Thornton is Pat Candy, Jane’s longtime rival who is a globetrotter for the highest bidder. Orchestrating elections without a second thought of consequence or conscience. The two of them are birds of a feather yet they stick out in a sea of South Americans as elitist and disconnected.

Written by Rachel Boynton originally as a documentary in 2005, and adapted by Peter Straughan, the notion is nothing revelatory. It’s an underdog story on the campaign trail, exposing just how depraved and competitive the behind-the-scenes folks truly are. The focus is on the people and not the election, but in this case, glossing over the plight of the Bolivians in greater detail was a mistake. This film would have worked much better for something less serious. Maybe a city council race in Seattle, or the gubernatorial race in Wyoming. An unstable South American country just didn’t really jive with the tone of the characters and what I think was the statement of the film.

The witty repartee between Bullock and Mackie, and Bullock and Thornton throw around clever quotes, political anecdotes, and idealistic rhetoric with lightning speed. The problem is that these characters are more clueless and simple than they let on. And uninteresting. The fact is that “Our Brand is Crisis” has a bit of an identity crisis itself. It wants to be politically relevant, and insightful. It also wants to develop strong characters who establish lasting relationships. But it also wants to tackle some real significant global issues, and use humor to make those issues less painful. It’s too much and not enough.

There is an uncomfortable tension between Bullock’s Jane and Thornton’s Pat that I couldn’t tell whether it was sexual attraction or sexual harassment throughout, and that doesn’t bode well for any film. Sandra Bullock is her typical loud-mouthed character evolving through the interaction with the less fortunate, but in this case, the changes are just too massive for her character to achieve realistically. Thornton is just plain slimy, so kudos for his performance, but his character took things a bit too far.

I can appreciate a good political satire, but there is nothing compelling or original in this story. Perhaps most importantly, there is no appeal for any of the candidates. No mention of any issues or past political miscues with the exception of one that is honestly, pretty irrelevant. A film this deeply rooted in the inner-workings of the corrupt political machine needs to provide some direction to the audience. I wasn’t rooting for any of the candidates because I didn’t know what they stood for, or whether they were decent men or not. I wasn’t rooting for or against Jane because although I recognize her character is riddled with regret, I didn’t have a good feel for where her heart truly lies; remorse, atonement, or resignation. That would make an interesting character study.

The film is harshly bleak and cynical, and that is coming from a cynic. I didn’t enjoy this nearly as much as I was hoping, and whatever message was intended didn’t come through very clearly. 5/10.