The great space coaster

Every day seems to bring new awards nominations or critics top ten lists, which is a sign that I need to start watching some of these movies so I can tell whether or not I agree with everyone else. First up is a film that is generating quite a lot of Oscar buzz, Alfonso Cuaron's space thriller, Gravity.

There have been a lot of movies that focus on a main character having a "very bad day", but few could rival the one that astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) experiences in this movie. Stone is a medical engineer, but because of her knowledge and expertise in her field has been asked to go on a mission in space. One of her fellow astronauts is Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), who is veteran space traveler. He's done so many trips that he has to humor himself by retelling the same stories to mission control as he floats around. While on a routine spacewalk, the crew learns that debris from a damaged satellite is floating in their direction. Before they can get back inside the ship the debris hurtles towards them causing damage to their ship and severing Stone's tether.

From there we spend the next 90 minutes or so in a state of sustained tension as we watch whether or not Stone will be able to survive this perilous predicament. So may argue that the plot is too simplistic, but this is a case of less is more. The trials and tribulations that this character encounters are simply enthralling. We are presented with a "worst case scenario" of events for this character, yet all of it remains grounded and plausible. Even though most of us will never have the opportunity to experience what it is like to go up in space, you feel as if you are right there besides Stone as she struggles to find her way back to her ship.

The primary reason for such a shared sense of experience while watching this film comes from its amazing visual artistry. Cuaron has simply created a wonderfully looking film. I was thankful to have the opportunity to see this film in 3D and it's the first movie since Avatar to feel like it's worth the upgrade in price. Cuaron does not just have the look of space correct, he creates these long tracking shots to really make you feel where you are. This has been a hallmark of his filmmaking in the past, but it has never been better than it is here.

This is also a director who is more than someone who has fallen in love with his location. He knows how to shoot his actors. There is a beautiful looking shot midway through the film where he depicts Stone as if she was an infant still in the womb. This adventure puts her into a whole new world for sure and it is captivating to watch her try and catch her bearings in such a foreign environment.

While Bullock will likely get the majority of attention for her tour de force performance here, I do not want to slight George Clooney in any way (not that he's struggling without my endorsement, but that's neither here nor there). Although his time on screen is brief, he holds your attention like few other actors today can for the time that he is there. The interplay between him and Bullock ranges from light-hearted to deeply philosophical and all of it is interesting.

Simply put, this movie works on all levels. It's a visual wonder, a captivating thriller, and a display of everyone involved working at their highest level. Without having seen enough of the other potential contenders, I cannot say for certainty that this should win, but I have no qualms about it if it is bestowed that highest honor. Cuaron and company have reached for the stars and somehow managed to soar even above those lofty expectations. Grade: A

Balls to the Wall

After aiming at families with Hugo, Martin Scorcese returns to more adult fare with his latest, The Wolf of Wall Street, starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Matthew McConaughey, and Jonah Hill. This looks to be in the vein of Goodfellas, as it focuses on the excesses of people in power but you all know that it will inevitably all come crashing down on them. You can check out the first trailer for the film below.

RBR: The Master

I actually watched this several weeks ago, but have had difficulty finding the time to write this review. And I don't mean that I haven't had any free time, it's that this movie had a more profound impact on me than most that it made it more difficult to put my thoughts into words. This is the latest film by noted director Paul Thomas Anderson, who also helmed films like Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood. Once again he displays visual mastery with the way he depicts the action that unfolds on the screen. He also has another sprawling, yet captivating narrative that establishes interesting characters that equally puzzle and fascinate audiences. Anderson seems to frequently tell stories that rely on the theme of mentor/protege and in this film, that relationship is brought to the forefront. The Master earned a lot of buzz prior to its release when it was believed that this film was intended to be a scathing commentary on Scientology. While some parallels can be drawn, I found myself not really caring whether or not this was based on any actual group and was instead just invested in these particular people. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the charismatic leader of a group referred to as The Cause, who takes Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a Naval veteran struggling with issues of anger and alcoholism, under his wing. As we listen to Dodd and watch the way Freddie follows him, it becomes apparent that this movie is more than just determining whether or not Dodd is a charletan. This is about control and the tenuous nature of staying in control. When do we let others control us and when, if ever, do we take control of our own lives? The answers aren't always clear and Anderson doesn't make it any easier for us to try and find out those answers with the way he presents this story. Certain scenes take on an almost dreamlike state to make you further distance you from a grounded reality. This is not the easiest film to follow, but those who are up for a challenge will be greatly rewarded. The film looks great, is filled with terrific performances (included an understated performance by Amy Adams playing Dodd's wife), and gives you plenty to think about long after you've finished watching it. I can't say this is a movie that I eagerly want to watch repeatedly, but if I get a chance to see it again, I feel I will no doubt uncover even more about what's going on than I did in my first viewing. It's a shame that this did not get even greater recognition during the awards season, because it's certainly worthy of it. Fans of Paul Thomas Anderson need to do themselves a favor and check out this spellbinding film. Rating: **** 1/2

Thirty shades of grey

The moral ambiguity in real life historical events seems to be a big theme among this years Oscar nominees. This is perhaps no more true than in Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty, which depicts the events that ultimately led to the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden. Covering nearly a decade of history, the film claims to be giving an accurate representation of these events based on CIA reports, even if they do not always paint our country in the most favorable light.

The first half of the film focuses on the investigation and interrogation of several suspects hoping that they will divulge information on Bin Laden's whereabouts. Most of the film's controversy centers around the fact that the questioning of these suspects reportedly also involved torture tactics like waterboarding. Bigelow pulls no punches in her depiction of these scenes, which can often be difficult to watch. And yet, the film doesn't try to make the argument that torture is effective. Ultimately our discovery of Bin Laden was more due to dumb luck of finding key information in a lost file than it was by anything given up by detainees who were tortured.

Let me be clear that I in no way support these torture tactics, and yet from the perspective of the film's narrative I had almost wished that the torture had been more successful. The film spends a long time depicting the various dead ends the CIA deals with in trying to find Bin Laden. The resolution to this just falls flat and disappointing. I understand that history can't always provide the perfect Hollywood story, but I question why the film chose to spend so much time on this part of the story when it doesn't provide a proper payoff. I should also mention that the storytelling is also hurt by the fact that Bigelow chose to place the date on the screen before each key event. If you're someone who follows the news at all, then you would immediately recognize the dates and understand what was about to happen before it actually did occur on screen.

At the center of this investigation is a woman named Maya, played by Jessica Chastain. Maya may be a real life figure or an amalgam of many individuals involved. Chastain does her best to illustrate the steely resolve of this woman. She is committed to solving this case and will not let anything stop her. As strong as the performance is, I also would have liked more insight into what was driving her. Obviously, there were other people besides her who wanted to see Bin Laden dead, so what made her go on despite the numerous setbacks she deals with. Had there been more background on her personal life or even her career prior to 9/11, then I may have appreciated her determination that much more.

But for as frustrating as the first half of this film is, it turns around in the second half as it shifts towards planning the attack on the compound that is believed to be housing Bin Laden. At this point, the drama is ratcheted way up and is utterly captivating. It begins with the quest to get some sort of tangible evidence to confirm that he is actually inside this building. As the film progresses to Seal Team Six's actual raid, you find yourself getting completely caught up in the story, even though you know exactly what is going to happen. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say it is exploitative, I was actually surprised with how much of Bin Laden being killed was depicted. Some will find some catharsis in this, while others may cringe at the cold savagery of the events.

This is not the easiest film to watch and I certainly don't see myself seeing it again, especially any time soon. However, there's no denying that Kathryn Bigelow is a talented director. In both this film and her Oscar winning effort for The Hurt Locker she has proven that she knows how to effectively present this particularly period of our history. She finds a way of making you feel as if you're are right there amid all the action. And while some will criticize her and the film for its debated accuracy, I believe that a film like this should be seen so that productive conversations can be had both about the actions of our country and the film itself. I applaud the director for her effort to bring this subject matter out of the dark and into the light. Grade: B

Covert tops

Picture it...the year was 1980. I was a mere speck in my parents' eyes as the world was in turmoil thanks to unrest in Iran that led to several U.S. embassy employees to be taken hostage. A few select Americans managed to avoid capture and fled to the nearby home of the Canadian ambassador. Though free, these individuals have no was of getting out of the country without being recognized as the missing embassy workers. Realizing this, the CIA must find a way of safely bringing them back home.

This sets the stage for Argo, the terrific film by Ben Affleck who is turning into quite the polished director despite only having three films under his belt. He has managed to turn a story that most people already know the outcome into one of the most thrilling, gripping stories in a long time. Part of that is due to the stranger than fiction approach that the CIA used in order to extricate these people

Affleck also stars as Tony Mendez, the man who comes out with the wild rescue plan. Mendez works with a producer in Hollywood (Alan Arkin) in order to create a fake movie. Mendez then travels to Iran under the guise of wanting to shoot scenes in the country. He then pretends that the embassy workers are members of his crew in order to bring them back with him. Argo refers to the name of the fake movie.

With the way the film is constructed, you really get three films in one. One story involves Mendez's time in Hollywood trying to put all of the pieces together for this fake movie. Along with Arkin, these scenes also feature John Goodman playing a visual effects expert who serves as a sort of liason between Washington and Hollywood. Being a film lover, I truly enjoyed these scenes and the ability to see some of the inner workings of the film industry. It turns out it's pretty easy to earn buzz for a film, even a fake one.

The second story involves the drama and political maneuvering taking place in Washington. We see a lot of hesitation from some of the political bigwigs to go along with Mendez's plan. They even pull the plug on the whole plan at a critical point, which provides some great tension. Bryan Cranston, who plays Mendez's boss is simply terrific here. You feel the dilemma he goes through between appeasing the higher ups and supporting Mendez.

Finally, we get the scenes in Iran. One of the most impressive things about this film is that Affleck does not simply paint them as the 'evil foreigner'. We understand their perspective on this matter. In that way, we see how tenuous of a situation the Americans were in. These were people who felt very strongly about their beliefs and wanted an injustice (from their perspective) rectified. I have no doubt that some creative liberties were taken when depicting the effort to get these Americans back home, but when the end result is such a captivating film, you don't really mind.

Regardless of how familiar you are with this story, I whole-heartedly recommend that you check it out. Affleck does a great job of transporting you back to this period of history. The costuming and music are authentic. Actual news footage is also expertly interwoven into the film. You will find yourself just as captivated with this film as you were with the actual events back in the day. And given the Oscar buzz that this movie is receiving, I'm clearly not alone in thinking this. This is one history lesson you'll have no problem staying awake through. Grade: A

A Hitch in time

This trailer has been out for a while now, but I'm just getting around to post it. There may be a late entry into the Oscar race as this film about famed director Alfred Hitchcock's effort to get Psycho made seems to be just the type of film that the Academy loves. The fact that it stars award winners Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren only helps. Anyways, you can check out the trailer below.

Frack attack

There's a late entry into this year's Oscar race, but given the pedigree associated with the cast and crew, it could very well play a role in this year's awards season. Here's your first look at Promised Land starring Matt Damon and John Krasinski (The Office) and directed by Gus Van Sant.

Presidential order

Here's your first look at Daniel Day-Lewis as Honest Abe in the upcoming Steven Spielberg historical drama, Lincoln

RBR: Contenders and pretenders

There had been a handful of films that came out at the end of last year, now on DVD, that I had, for various reasons, been putting off renting. Now that some of the early 2012 films are starting to be available to rent, I wanted to take care of them asap. I had a movie weekend and decided to lump all of the reviews together in this one post.

The Descendants Director Alexander Payne (Sideways, About Schmidt) always seems to choose products that feature central characters at their very lowest point in life. His latest dramedy is no different as it centers around Matt King (played by George Clooney) struggling with a wife who is near death after a boating accident while also trying to finalize a land deal in Hawaii to could potentially earn his family a lot of money. On top of that he also struggling with being a parent to his two difficult daughters. Like in most of Payne's films, I found the journey we take with the film's central character to be compelling. While not his strongest performance, Clooney does fine work here as he attempts to take on one of his least glamourous roles to date. On the other hand, the two daughters grated on me and I struggled to empathize with the situation they were going through. Furthermore, we're never really given any suitable justification as to why King has such a strained relationship with them. Given how hands-on he is with everything that goes on in the movie, he doesn't strike you as they absentee-father type. I also wish the film had been infused with a bit more humor. It's not that the film is completely downbeat, but in comparison to some of Payne's films, I felt this one lacked the wry sense of humor that is typically infused into his movies. I certainly would not call this my favorite of Payne's films - the terrific Election still holds that distinction for me. This is a good film that kept me engaged throughout. I can easily see why it garnered the number of Oscar nominations that it did. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's as enjoyable as a Hawaiian vacation, I do feel you'll enjoy watching this one if you give it a rental. Rating: **** 1/2

J. Edgar This was originally thought to be a strong Oscar contender until a series of bad reviews sunk its chances. While I won't go as negative as some with regards to film, it does warrant some of the criticism it received. For me, the biggest problem with this film was its purpose. In detailing the life story of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, Clint Eastwood does not shy away from a lot of Hoover's flaws. His vanity, paranoia, cross-dressing, and possible homosexual lifestyle are all front and center in this depiction. And yet I question why. What is gained by smearing someone who also did a lot of good for this country in establishing the FBI? I felt the film was needlessly exploitative and I took no joy in seeing the salacious side of Hoover's life be such an integral part of this film. I would have much rather seen more of the forensic sciences that Hoover and his crew perfected in order to solve several notorious crimes. Aside from the film's purpose, this simply is not a quality film on par with some of Eastwood's other films. He only managed to get a distant performance from the usually strong DiCaprio. And perhaps most glaring of all is the awful makeup that is on display when the film is set in Hoover's last years. I know aging someone isn't easy, but I'd like to think most major films could do a better job than what was achieved here. This is disappointing all around and probably is not worth your time. Rating: **

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close Many people were shocked when this garnered a best picture nomination even though less than half of the nation's critics gave it a favorable review. Watching the film, I could understand why it managed to earn a nom while also seeing the same flaws that most critics did. After losing his father on 9/11, young Oscar Schnell discovers a key in his father's room and sets out on a quest (prior to his death his father loved creating mysteries for him to solve) to learn what the key belongs to. Of course, this quest is more than just finding a lock that fits the key. It's about coping with death, embracing life, and coming together in support of one another. Given that the film centers around the events and aftermath of 9/11, the film is shamelessly manipulative in playing with the audience's emotions. However, I did not necessarily have a problem with that. It exists in order to do just that. My bigger problem comes from the focus being on the boy. While there are allusions made, it's unclear as to whether Oscar is suffering from a learning disability (like Asperger's) or if he's just eccentric. Regardless, the character and the young actor's portrayal of the boy make it difficult for the audience to enjoy going on this journey with him. He doesn't yield the sympathy that the character should. Instead, we sit there wanting to know the answers ourselves, but don't exactly care whether or not the boy gets them. While there are some problems with the child acting, the film does feature several good adult performances including Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock in limited roles and Max Von Sydow doing some great work as a mute who may be the young boy's grandfather. The subject matter is not for everyone, but if you have an interest in it, I think you'll be glad with you did. Just make sure to have the Kleenex box nearby. Rating: *** 1/2

War Horse I struggle with how exactly to review this film. From a technical standpoint, it is near excellent. The camera work, cinematography, the score, and all other facets of the film are just great. They prove once again why Spielberg is in a class by himself. And yet I found myself extemely bored by the entire story. I just could not get myself interested in seeing early 20th century history being told from the perspective of a horse. In fact, in doing so, I actually felt like they trivialized a lot of the major events that they depicted in this film. While a horse may be a majestic animal, it does not make for a compelling character. To make matters worse, with a run time of two and half hours, the film felt endless. The production value is too good for me to give the film a truly terrible grade and yet I can't in good conscience actually recommend it to anyone either. If you truly love horses, I suppose you may get some value out of the film Or if you're looking to get into the film business on the opposite side of the camera, you may find value in looking at quality of the production, but that's about it. Everyone else is better off taking a trip to the glue factory instead. Rating:***

Taken hostage

Ben Affleck has turned himself into quite the director it seems based on this first trailer for Argo, a film based around a true story involving a rescue effort to save Americans taken hostage by the Iranians in the 1970s.

RBR: Hugo

Throughout this most recent movie awards season, I struggled to muster up the same excitement I typically have during that time of the year. On paper, this year's crop of award winners just did not appeal to me in the same way that most years' critical darlings do. Hugo, directed by Martin Scorcese, is a perfect example of that. This is the story of an orphaned boy living in a Paris train station in 1930. Before his father passed away, Hugo had been working with him on rebuilding a automaton. Now alone, he's made it his quest to put it back together and unlock its secrets. Along the way he befriends a young girl (Chloe Grace Moritz) and a toy shop owner (Ben Kingsley), who may have some connections to the boy's project. Some of the mystery behind this robot had been spoiled for me, so I ended up not being as invested as I may have been in seeing Hugo get the answers. Without spoiling too much, there is a connection between this robot and early filmmaking. In one of the few really great sequences in the film, we see a montage of how early films were made. In this sequence, you really gain a sense of the creativity and inventiveness those men had to be able to put together their films. While many films today seemed to be made so effortlessly thanks to computers and visual effects, those men used their intuitiveness to convey what they wanted to on the screen. Scorcese remains one of the few guys who still can accomplish that and his direction here proves that. I just wish the story itself had been more engaging. As technically sound as this movie is, I just don't see many people falling in love with it in the same way they have done with other classic children/family films. Ultimately, this movie didn't do enough to make me love it, but it certainly reaffirmed why I love movies in general. Rating: *** 1/2

March on Washington

Finishing up the second part of the double feature I saw last weekend, we now come to The Ides of March, a political drama that has Oscar aspirations about a man with presidential aspirations. In this case that man is George Clooney, who also directed and co-wrote this film. The film, based on the play Farragut North, examines the dilemmas faced by everyone involved in trying to be, or help someone to be the next leader of the free world.

While Clooney is the candidate running for president, the film spends more time with his staff as they run his campaign. At the forefront of that is Stephen Meyers (played by Ryan Gosling), he's a hotshot assistant who claims to have already worked on more campaigns than anyone ten years his senior. That experience doesn't seem to help him much as he quickly gets caught up in the game of dirty politics. He takes a meeting with the chief of staff of the guy Clooney is running against (played by Paul Giamatti). When Clooney's chief of staff (played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman) finds out about the meeting, he's none too pleased.

When you have a cast that features four talented individuals like this film does, you expect to have scene after scene of scenary chewing taking place and yet most of the dialogue between these characters falls a bit flat. I was expecting these scenes to be more explosive where you really felt the emotion behind their words. Perhaps I've gotten too spoiled by Aaron Sorkin dialogue and expected too much here, but I just didn't find these talky scenes to be as gripping as I expected them too. This is not to say they are bad by any means. I was just suprised I didn't love them more.

A lot of their discussions and strategizing are a result of the actions of a young staffer on Clooney's campaign played by Evan Rachel Wood. She takes an interest in Gosling's character, which causes a number of problems. Without spoiling too much about what she does, I will say that I didn't buy into this subplot. Her actions and motivations don't seem realistic and they drag the film down. When it's focused on her, it strays from being a political potboiled into an area of tawdry melodrama.

What this film does do right though is give us a fair, albeit frustrating depiction of the nature of politics. You see as you watch these characters operate that anyone who enters the political game is unable to come out of it unscathed. Everyone has to get a little dirty, it's just a matter of whether or not you embrace it or not. Those who think their ideals can rise above the mudslinging are only fooling themselves. Some moviegoes may be frustrated with that theme since it prevents them from having anybody that they can root for or rally behind in this film.

Though I've pointed out some flaws in this film, it is by no means a bad film. These flaws only get pointed out because the expectations for this film were so high in the first place. In that way, The Ides of March may be very similar to real life presidential candidates. While they make a good first impression, the more you peel back the layers the more disappointment you find. That should in no way suggest that you should ignore this movie like so many people ignore potential candidates. Though this may not win the equivalent of the Oval Office come Academy Award season, it still has a lot to say that should be heard. Grade: B

Be Hoover

Leonardo DiCaprio has a terrific filmography, but no Oscar gold to show for any of those performances.  That may change this year with his portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover in this Clint Eastwood biopic.  Here's your first look at the film...