BlacKkKlansman

31 Days of Horror: Beetlejuice

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

2015 Blind Spot Series: Glengarry Glen Ross

Blue Jasmine

Directed by Woody Allen.

2013. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.

Cast:

Cate Blanchett

Alec Baldwin

Sally Hawkins

Bobby Cannavale

Andrew Dice Clay

Peter Sarsgaard

Louis C.K.

Michael Stuhlbarg

Max Casella

Alden Ehrenreich

Jasmine (Blanchett) is no longer with her husband Hal (Baldwin), but can't stop going on about all the wonderful things they used to do together to anyone within earshot. It turns out they were once fabulously wealthy. Her days were spent having expensive lunches with her friends and planning charity events. Circumstances I won't spoil forced them apart and put her in the poor house. With nowhere else to go, and having to start over, Jasmine takes what money she has and flies to San Francisco to stay with her sister Ginger (Hawkings) who has a couple of young sons and is on the verge of having her fiance Chili (Cannavale) move in with her. To say all of this is a shock to her system is putting it mildly. Jasmine trying to put the pieces of her life back together while flashing back to what once was ensues.

Two things jump out at you as outstanding aspects of this film. The first is Cate Blanchett's performance in the titular role. She dazzles with her portrayal of a woman frayed at the edges, and with full knowledge of that, resolutely clinging to her self-righteousness. She's in touch with the reality of her situation, but not entirely sure how reality works. It's a complicated act akin to juggling chainsaws. One false move would mean certain death for her believability. Fortunately, each time she tosses a saw in the air she manages to catch it safely by the handle.

The other great aspect of this movie shines through Blanchett's performance. She makes it easy to recognize how well written Blue Jasmine is. Even during her least stable moments, it doesn't seem showy. It feels like a person having a difficult time coping, not an actor trying to impress the academy. Of course, that's exactly what she did and took home Oscar gold. A large part of that was the dialogue she and everyone else was given. From her, when talking to others, it is a constant stream of needling insults. No one thing she says could incite a riot, but her ever growing verbal combinations drives others insane. This is why the people around her blow up in her face from time to time, and take great joy in doing so. Her holier than thou attitude and complete stand-offishness gives them gless during the various moments in which she receives her comeuppance. When speaking to herself, whether others are present or not, she goes on strangely coherent rambles. By that, I mean what she's saying makes complete sense it just just lacks context to whoever is in her midst. They can easily figure out what she's talking about. They just won't be able to understand why. Writer/director Woody Allen pulls this off brilliantly. He puts his protagonist in a world where she can have control of her surroundings even as she is losing control of her life. If something is not about her, she makes it that way. The question is whether or not she can fix any of it.

It would be tough to sell a movie with one great performance and not much else going for it as worth the bother. Fortunately, I've already mentioned Allen's writing. His directing deserves credit here, as well. He shoots scenes with the appropriate intimacy or distance depending on what's happening with Jasmine. Whenever she's trying to separate herself from a situation, she's off to one side, almost detached from whatever is happening. When others are probing her for answers to personal questions they get close-up, putting them in our face to suggest that they're also in hers. It's a bunch of subtle touches that come together to form our picture.

To help this picture take shape, others in the cast also perform very well. Alec Baldwin is perfectly slimy as Jasmine's beloved Hal. Bobby Cannavale sweats his way through an excellent portrayal of a guy who is happy with his station in life and whiny when things don't go his way. Sally Hawkins does well as the smarter-than-given-credit-for Ginger. However, I'd be lying if I didn't say I thought Sarah Silverman might have stolen the show with this role. For me, the one weak link is a guy who received tons of prais for his work, here. That's Andrew Dice Clay. It's not that he was necessarily bad, just terribly miscast. An integral part of his character, Ginger's ex-husband Augie, is being a San Francisco guy not used to swimming with the financial sharks of New York. In fact, he's never even been to the city. It comes off as the most artificial part of the movie because whenever he opens his mouth, that unmistakable Brooklyn accent comes flying out of it. It was utterly impossible for him to sound more like a native New Yorker.

That small misstep aside, Allen has crafted a wonderful film. The dialogue is sharp and the camera is very purposely placed throughout. Both of these things add the finishing touches on an already sizzling story. Being a Woody Allen script, there is humor, for sure. However, it's of a darker variety than his usual fare. Helping it get that way is Cate Blanchett, standing in for Woody himself. She takes his normally neurotic and longing for love protagonist and adds a layer of growing instability and denial. Idiosyncrasies are no longer the joke, but symptoms of more serious problems. That this is going on within a person who has a huge ego only complicates things. By the end, Allen impresses by offering no easy explanations. He presents us with a set of events and asks us to draw our own conclusions. Yup, I'm a sucker for well done ambiguous endings. For my money, this is the best Woody Allen movie at least since Vicky Cristina Barcelona and possibly as far back as Match Point.

Rise of the Guardians

Directed by Peter Ramsey.

Rated PG, 97 minutes.

Cast:

Chris Pine

Alec Baldwin

Hugh Jackman

Jude Law

Isla Fisher

Dakota Goyo

Khamani Griffin

Jacob Bertrand

Kamil McFadden

Olivia Mattingly

Dominique Grund

Turns out there really is a slew of mythological beings collectively known as the Guardians watching over our children. As we learn very early on, in this movie if not in real life, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman are all indeed real. They've all been on their jobs since the end of the Dark Ages when they brought hope to the world, overthrowing the rule of the Pitch Back, AKA The Boogeyman (Law). Now, the bad guy is back to reclaim the world. On the advice of The Man in the Moon, The Guardians go outside of their ranks and turn to the reckless and mischievous Jack Frost (Pine) to help them stave off Pitch.

We immediately notice that the design of each character, with the possible exception of the Tooth Fairy, is a bit off from what we’re expecting. This is actually a stroke of genius that adds depth and personality to iconically mysterious figures. It brings them a bit closer to us, enough for us to identify with, as much as that’s possible. As intended, the one we relate to most is Jack. Far more than any of the others, he’s one of us. He’s unsure of himself and longs for attention and approval. That said, the Easter Bunny might be the most fun. He’s wary of Jack, downright dislikes him and lets it be known. Hugh Jackman has a great time voicing the character and it shows.

Character designs not withstanding, the movie has an interesting overall look. It seems to sit somewhere between full-blown CGI and traditional animation. This works nicely. Even better is the contrast between the bright, cheery colors surrounding our heroes and the gray pallet that adorns the villain. It reinforces the notion of good against evil.

Speaking of evil, it’s the bad guy that really makes the movie work. Jude Law is simply amazing. His methodical cadence is symbolic of Pitch’s carefully measured actions. Most of the time he’s also unsettlingly calm. To boot, he exudes confidence that he will be victorious, making him a very formidable foe.

On the surface, things boil down to that good guys/bad guy stuff. That aspect alone is fun, but there’s more to it than that. It plays on our childhood hopes and fears to create both excitement and dread. On an even deeper level, it’s possible to see the entire plot as a test of faith and what happens if we don’t have it. No, this doesn't get preachy and it’s not an advertisement for any religion. However, the theme is present. More than any of this, it’s just plain fun to watch.

MY SCORE: 8/10

Rock of Ages

Directed by Adam Shankman.

2012. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Cruise

Julianne Hough

Diego Boneta

Alec Baldwin

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Russell Brand

Paul Giamatti

Bryan Cranston

Malin Akerman

Mary J. Blige

Will Forte 

Kevin Nash

It is 1987 and The Bourbon Room is a legendary rock-n-roll club on Hollywood’s famed Sunset Strip. It’s where aspiring singers like Sherrie (Hough) come for a job when they’re fresh off the bus from their small hometowns. After all, rock god Stacee Jax (Cruise) got his start there and is coming back for his last show with his band, Arsenal, before embarking on a solo career. It’s where Drew (Boneta) already works. He fancies two things: Sherrie and being the next Stacee Jax. The Bourbon is also in the cross hairs of Mayor Whitmore (Cranston) and his high-profile and overzealous wife Patricia (Zeta-Jones). They are looking to clean up the strip, starting with its most famous den of sin. The Bourbon is run by Dennis (Baldwin) and his right hand man Lonny (Brand) and it is going broke. These story lines swirl about as now classic, pop infused rock songs blare through the speakers.

Rock of Ages is a musical in the most traditional sense of the word. Anytime and any place, people break into song while whoever is around dutifully provides background vocals and perform choreographed dance routines. Some are better than others, but all of them are cheesy. Regardless, they’re often saved by the sheer power of the songs they’re singing. You pretty much can’t help singing along if you've ever heard any of them before which is to say you've probably heard them a thousand times. However, after each song is done, we realize that what we just ate is not particularly filling. On the other hand, this changes a bit when there are actual stage performances. Most of them have more genuine emotion and edge to them thanks, in large part, to Tom Cruise. He seems to be channeling Axl Rose, both on and off the stage. It’s a mesmerizing turn by Cruise that, in a better movie, might have earned him some love during awards season.

The rest of the cast delivers mixed results and are not aided by the hackneyed writing. Paul Giamatti is great because that’s what he always is. Thankfully, he only sings a couple of bars in the whole movie. Bryan Cranston is mostly just there cheering on his wife, or sneaking out of the room to cheat on her. Russell Brand does his best Russell Brand impersonation, take it or leave it. Alec Baldwin is not as good as he is in those Capitol One commercials, except for when he gets to sing. He’s obviously thrilled someone was willing to pay him to croon. Now, he’s not the X factor or anything, but he appears to be having so much fun belting out tunes it’s infectious. That writing let him and Brand down in a major way, though. Musicals are, by nature, contrived. However, the turn their relationship takes feels so forced it’s beyond absurd. It only becomes what it is in order to wedge in the song they sing together. In contrast to Baldwin, we have Catherine Zeta-Jones. She is very good for most of the movie but terribly botches her big number. Her singing is okay, I guess, but watching her stiffly mimic old Michael Jackson moves is painful.

Speaking of painful, that’s precisely the way to describe the work turned in by our two young lovebirds. Julianne Hough is pretty, but hardly compelling and seems to be replaceable by any number of twenty-something Hollywood blondes. Ditto for Malin Akerman as Rolling Stone reporter Constance Sack. Believe it, or not, Diego Boneta fares even worse as Drew. His character struggles with being true to himself, and be a rocker, or do what his manager wants and front a boy band. Sadly, he’s not believable in either case. And more bad writing hurts him further. Early on, his character suffers from stage-fright. I get that even more suspension of belief is required to watch musicals than most other genres. Still, I’m hard pressed to accept that a guy whom I just saw give a rendition of “I Love Rock ‘n Roll” in a crowded record store, while dancing in the aisles no less, is afraid to sing once someone puts a microphone in front of him.

The better movie takes place when the two youngsters are not on the screen. It has considerable charm, again, much of which is due to Tom Cruise’s eccentric rock star. The rest is because of the familiar and still catchy songs. These tunes are fun no matter what, but a little less so when performed by Hough and Boneta who come off like a pair of posers. Perhaps, it’s because there is noticeably less grunge to either of them than anyone else in the movie. So, in addition to their blank acting, they’re both just way too glossy. Finally, that writing is just flat lazy as things are resolved suddenly without the end result feeling earned. In summation: see Rock of Ages for the music and Tom Cruise, skip it if you don’t think that will be enough.

It's Complicated

Directed by Nancy Meyers.
Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Meryl Streep
Alec Baldwin
Steve Martin
John Krasinski
Lake Bell
Hunter Parish
Caitlin Fitzgerald
Zoe Kazan
Rita Wilson
Alexandra Wentworth

Jane Adler (Streep) is a divorcee going through a bit of “empty nest” syndrome as her youngest child is graduating college and about to leave her alone in her big, beautiful home. She hasn’t been dating but has taken an interest in Adam (Martin), the architect helping her with additions to the house. The complicated part: after a night of drinking and dancing she finds herself involved in an affair with her ex-husband Jake (Baldwin) who is now married to Agness (Bell), a woman quite a few years her junior.

Except for the ages of those involved, the premise is fairly unremarkable. However, that one aspect is explored and exploited wonderfully. In keeping with the overall light tone, age is viewed as a simple matter of fact, not a death sentence to your pursuit of happiness. Even that’s not entirely accurate. For some, their advancing age is actually an excuse to pursue their happiness with even more vigor than they did when they were young.

As you can imagine, this eventually becomes a love triangle with Streep at the center. It is key that she is playing the lead role. Her acting ability is unquestionable and she is again fantastic. However, it’s her looks that make her performance. She’s a household name. We are familiar enough with her to have seen her at various stages of her career and life. We know what she looked like many years ago. Many of us, myself included, think that right now she looks better than she ever has. So, why wouldn’t her ex-husbandt think the same? On top of that, she exudes a certain regality that’s attractive. That’s what keeps the architect who’s just met her, sniffing around.

None of that would matter if it weren’t funny. Fortuanately, this contains plenty of laughs. They feel natural as the actors all seem to be having such fun as things just happen. They rarely feel like they’re simply performing jokes. Among those actors, John Krasinski as Jane’s son-in-law Harley, stands out. He has many of the movies best moments. That said, I have to be fair and say who thinks It’s Complicated is funny and who doesn’t may break down along generational lines. I’m guessing 30 might be the line of demarcation: above it, you’ll love it, below it you’ll loathe it. Maybe.

Romantic comedies are one of my least favorite genres of movies, a shade above romantic musicals. This rises above its contemporaries even though it includes many of their clichés. I wouldn’t call it a great film, but it is certainly an entertaining one. Streep plays perfectly off her male suitors and displays a comedic timing not often associated with her. Yup, I’m drinking the Streep kool-aid. She’s the best.

The Opposite View: Marjorie Baumgarten, Austin Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.7/10 on imdb.com, 57% on rottentomatoes.com, 57/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10

The Good Shepherd

Directed by Robert De Niro.
2006. Rated R, 167 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Damon
Angelina Jolie
Alec Baldwin
Tammy Blanchard
Billy Crudup
Robert De Niro
Michael Gambon
William Hurt
Timothy Hutton

The Good Shepherd is a dramatization of the events that led to the creation of the CIA. It also dramatizes the agency’s earliest days, specifically it’s involvement in the Bay of Pigs. We see things through the eyes of Edward Wilson (Damon). He’s a fictional character, but like almost everyone else in the movie, he’s based on a real-life person.

The film plays like Edward’s rise through the ranks to become the CIA director and the problems his unwavering dedication to country has caused in his marriage. However, from within the twists and turns of a spy movie emerges a film much more about father-son relationships. The absence of Wilson’s dad, who committed suicide when Edward was just a young boy, hangs over the movie. Then there are the various men who assume mentorship of Edward and the problems of trust bound to arise from associating only with people engaged in espionage. Finally, there’s Edward’s relationship with his own son that we don’t realize is important until the final act.

For enthusiasts of the genre, there are plenty of spy games played. These have the added advantage of being based on true events without stylizing them. Still, it’s not an easy movie to watch. It’s a largely monotone affair in which dialogue is almost always spoken calmly and often whispered. Matt Damon’s performance perfectly embodies all the movie wants to be. Some will be turned off by his emotionless portrayal but that’s precisely what his character is supposed to be. He handles the role well.

It is also a dialogue heavy movie that asks you to pay close attention. What happens between sentences and offscreen drive the movie. Offscreen is where most of what would be action scenes in another movie takes place. Because of this, many would consider it boring, and may have trouble following. It can indeed be difficult to delineate what exactly the point of all this is since it purposely builds slowly towards it. If you’re looking for an adrenaline rush, steer clear. If you want intrigue and don’t mind it in hushed tones, have at it.

MY SCORE: 8/10

My Sister's Keeper

Directed by Nick Cassavetes.
2009. Rated PG-13, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Abigail Breslin
Cameron Diaz
Sofia Vassilieva
Jason Patric
Alec Baldwin
Joan Cusack

Plot: Anna (Breslin) was conceived to be a donor for her sister Katie (Vassilieva) who suffers from leukemia. At age 11, Anna sues her parents for “medical emancipation” in hopes of gaining control of her own body and not be subjected to any medical procedures without her consent.

The Good: This is a movie that knows how to push your buttons. Scene after scene is played to its emotional hilt. In the process, it raises some interesting questions. Though we may not all have to deal with the extreme situation depicted here, we parents can all passionately discuss and debate just how much control we have over our children’s bodies. To facilitate all of this, we get some dynamite performances across the board from adults and children, alike. This surprisingly includes Cameron Diaz. Her portrayal of a mom unwaveringly dedicated to saving her daughter’s life makes for an intriguing villain.

The Bad: Remember that whole “emotional hilt” thing? Let’s just say manipulative doesn’t even begin to describe what’s going on here. It seems the movie’s main concern is making as many people cry as possible. Nearly every scene is a tragic occurrence or a set up for one. It gets to be too much. Also, this is the most overly narrated film I’ve ever seen. Every family member plus a lawyer gets to do a good deal of voice-over work. Of course, they mostly just tell us things we either already know or can easily delineate from what we’re actually shown. At times, it feels like trying to watch an audio-book.

The Ugly: Did she just throw up on her own hair? Ewww.

Recommendation: Because we all love kids and families and hate to see them going through tough times, this is a hard movie to hate. However, if it doesn’t totally hook you from the beginning, it’s hard to love. This means while some of you are crying, others may be vigorously rolling their eyes.

The Opposite View: Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 7.4/10 on imdb.com (6/7/10), 47% on rottentomatoes.com, 51/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 6/10