The Batman

12 Years a Slave

Directed by Steve McQueen.

2013. Rated R, 134 minutes.

Cast:

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Michael Fassbender

Benedict Cumberbatch

Lupita Nyong'o

Paul Dano

Paul Giamatti

Sarah Paulson

Brad Pitt

Alfre Woodard

Quvenzhane Wallis

Garret Dillahunt

Dwight Henry

It's 1841 in Saratoga Springs, New York and Solomon Northrup leads a somewhat idyllic life. He is a free black man living with his wife and children and interacting with whites as a near equal. He is also known around town as a excellent violinist. When a couple of out-of-towners offer him a job playing in their traveling show, he takes them up on it. Assured they'll go no further south than, Washington DC things seem to be going well when he goes to a celebratory dinner with his new benefactors. However his world is turned completely upside down when he wakes up in chains, is taking below the Mason-Dixon line and sold into slavery. Based on the real Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name.

There is one word that I've seen used repeatedly to describe this movie. That word is visceral. The reason I keep seeing it is because it is an entirely accurate description. Every epithet hurled and whip cracked is both physically and emotionally jarring. Each indignation is repulsive. The shame of it all is that this is as much American history as any story that could possibly be told. It depicts the roots of problems we're still dealing with all these years later and it does so unflinchingly.

To make it all work, we need totally committed performances. There can be no a moment where any actor appears even the least bit unsure of his/her character's situation in this world. Throughout the movie there are none. As Solomon, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a man who cannot hide his sophistication in spite of his circumstances, and is powerless to change them. His frustration bleeds into every frame, none more than when he is forced to administer the punishment of a fellow slave. However, he still tries to see the good in people and appeal to that side of them. As you might imagine, the results aren't always pleasant.

As good as Ejiofor is, the performance that makes the movie is Michael Fassbender's as Master Epps. For quite a bit of the film's run time, everything that happens is either his own action or a reaction to him. He is a man who fully believes what he is doing is divinely right. Without even a hint of doubt, Fassbender brings this across with such assuredness that is downright frightening. Playing a less empowered, slightly less scary version is Paul Dano. That he is less scary is not a function of his acting which is excellent, but of his role as someone a bit further down the food chain.

Of course, we can't conclude any discussion of the acting in this movie without giving serious consideration to the work done by Lupita Nyong'o. She became a media darling even before winning the Best Supporting Actress for her work here. She plays Patsey who is something of a star slave on Epps' plantation. She picks more than twice as much cotton as any man on a daily basis. As such she is his favorite. Her reward? He oddly dotes on her and rapes her from time to time. In his own very twisted way, he cares for her. This makes the cruelty she endures feel even worse than it does when suffered by others. Nyoug'o masterfully brings this to life. It is actually Patsey, not Solomon, who gets the lion's share of our sympathy. What happened to Solomon is undeniably cruel and unjust. What happens to Patsey is even beyond that. Much of it is done upon the encouragement of Mary, Epps' wife, in an under-appreciated performance by Sarah Paulson. She has a coldness that permeates the screen whenever she appears. what makes her such an important figure is that she is the one person who bends Epps to do her bidding. She holds a demented moral authority over him. Paulson completely owns this every time she comes into the picture.

Enabling these actors to disappear into the roles, and more than believably reconstructing the world as it was in the mid-nineteenth century, is director Steve McQueen. I've already mentioned how he doesn't let his camera flinch. More impressively, he places it in very intimate positions. The viewer is not just seeing the atrocities take place but feeling them. Making us feel them, no matter how uncomfortable we might get is clearly the goal. This is why he frames the story in a manner that forces us to deal with Patsey's plight, as well as Solomon's. Even as the movie ends, McQueen's still hasn't let us off the hook. It's an effective move. A friend of mine, both of us African American, watched 12 Years a Slave weeks before I did. He immediately texted me that he didn't like it much. Its not that he thought it was bad. It just put him in a bad place. He was infuriated by the visual reminder of the unbridled cruelty of slavery. My response? Dude, that's kind of the point.

Prisoners

Looper

Directed by Rian Johnson.

2012. Rated R, 119 minutes.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Bruce Willis

Emily Blunt

Jeff Daniels

Piper Perabo

Paul Dano

Noah Segan

Pierce Gagnon

Qing Xu

Tracie Thoms

Our story focuses on Joe (Gordon-Levitt). He’s an assassin known as a looper. His job is killing people sent back from the future by mobsters who live in a time where disposing of bodies is virtually impossible. At some point, whenever they decide they want to completely disassociate with a particular looper, they “close his loop” by sending him his future self to gun down. Needless to say, when Joe fails to kill the older Joe (Willis) who has been zapped back to him, all sorts of problems arise. Young Joe trying to kill his loop, Joe’s boss (Daniels), plus a slew of henchmen, trying to kill Joe and/or his loop and his loop doing some killing of his own ensues.

Despite the focus on shooting people, Looper is a thinking man’s action flick. It disguises that fact pretty well until it’s final moments. Until then it plays out like a wonderful game of cat and mouse and mouse (not a typo). As you might imagine, such a scenario makes it difficult for us to figure out who to root for. This is a good thing. Both the younger and older Joe have compelling reasons for their actions. Since they’re not presented simultaneously our allegiances sway.

Eventually, we meet Sara (Blunt) and her little boy Cid (Gagnon). They figure heavily in the proceedings, but we’re not sure what to make of them, either. Again, this is good. It’s good because we’re never confused, just conflicted. Our confliction adds to the tension between chase scenes and shootouts. We find ourselves on the edge of our seats as pending danger for one person or another creeps closer. The trick is, through more character development that we had any right to expect from a shoot 'em up sci-fi flick, we become vested in these people. We really understand why each of them feel their actions are the only way to deal with the issues at hand. This is used to much greater effect than rushing us off to the next action sequence, or trying to dazzle us with special fx. Even though, like I said, at it’s core it is science-fiction, Looper is not about showing off whatever futuristic gadgets the filmmakers can dream up or giving us a laser and lights show. It’s a rather human tale that happens to contain time-travel.

Humanity not only drives the movie, but ends it as well. One character makes a decision many of us would like to believe we’d make but I’m not sure how many really would. Once it happens, Looper instantly becomes a parable addressing several issues pertaining to current-day society. I choose the word parable because it is not terribly different from some religious stories. Still, that’s not why it has the immediate impact it does. It has that because it poses a simple question you can debate with your friends. Would you do it?

Cowboys and Aliens

Directed by Jon Favreau.

2011. Rated PG-13, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Daniel Craig
Harrison Ford
Olivia Wilde
Sam Rockwell
Paul Dano
Clancy Brown
Keith Carradine
Noah Ringer
Adam Beach
Abigail Spencer
Ana de la Reguera

Occasionally, I go into a movie not really knowing what to expect. Such is the case when I sit down to watch Cowboys and Aliens. Yup, it’s yet another movie based on a graphic novel I’m not cool enough to even have heard of. Judging by the title, I sorta think I’m in for a wild, campy ride that’s possibly so bad it’s awesome. Let’s be honest, Cowboys and Aliens doesn’t exactly scream art house cinema. On top of that, Jon Favreau is the director. He’s injected so much well-timed humor into the Iron Man franchise it should be easy doing the same for something with such a kooky title. Then again, the star is Daniel Craig. As an actor, I’ve seen him in a number of different guises: action hero, crusading reporter, lover of old women, etc. A barrel of laughs, he is not. Sure enough, once the movie starts it’s pretty obvious we’re playing things straight.

Our hero wakes up quite literally in the middle of nowhere and remembers nothing of his life to that point except how to fight. We gather that from the way he handles the trio of bumpkins who happen upon him. More importantly, he notices a futuristic metallic bracelet locked onto his left wrist. He wanders to the nearest town, learns his name is Jake (Craig, duh) and he’s an outlaw. We get a few scenes to establish Jake as a real badass then the aliens show up. A bunch of townspeople get snatched up, Jake’s bracelet seems to activate on its own and he takes down one of the extraterrestrial planes by firing a blast from it. One of those abducted is Percy Dolarhyde (Dano). He’s the son of wealthy, ruthless cattleman Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Ford). Don’t call him colonel, though. He hates that. As always, there’s a girl. This one is named Ella (Wilde). She seems to know more than Jake about his own past. The two of them plus the grumpy old colonel set off trying to find the missing folk.

Aside from the fact that all the good guys ride horses and fire six shooters or shotguns, Jake’s bracelet aside, C and A isn’t much different from other alien invasion flicks. The creatures exist merely to destroy everything in their path. Humans exist merely to stop them. Playing it straight, without even a hint of satire or self-awareness dictates that this is how it must be. It’s uniqueness is completely tied to its setting. The storytelling and characters are all fairly stock. It helps that Harrison Ford is exceptional in his role and gives us much of the humor. A few of the bit characters are also great in this regard. Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but doesn’t give us anything special. He’s pretty much doing Bond in a western. Olivia Wilde is pretty. Sorry, that’s all she gives us. It’s a Megan Fox-like performance: a gorgeous face doing nothing.

What’s left then, are the action scenes. They come frequently enough and entertain. The mixture of old-school western and high-tech aliens gives us an interesting juxtaposition. They’re never a preposterous pair. Though these scenes are fun, they’re hardly tense. They should be, particularly when humans are getting snatched off their horses and appear like tails on a kite as they trail the alien ships. However, it rarely rises above the level of “did you see that?” That works out okay. I guess. However, it would be so much better if we could not only see it, but actually feel it. We never do. Part of the problem is that like most recent movie aliens, the invaders are faceless and seemingly thoughtless snarling creatures that do little to justify the higher intelligence assigned to them. The humans only fare slightly better.

The whole thing does what it sets out to do, but fails to set itself apart. It feels like a massive opportunity has been missed. The alien invasion genre is ripe for skewering. Clichés are abundant, even within this film. There is ample material to examine. C and A never attempts anything deeper and/or funnier than a straightforward affair. It takes an inventive premise and does nothing with it, satisfied with being run-of-the-mill. At being run-of-the-mill, it’s not terrible. It moves along quickly and supplies us with a solid amount of visual thrills. It’s light on the chills, but fun enough to compensate. For a movie night gathering, it should do the trick. It’s just a shame that something with the potential to be so memorable is so not.

MY SCORE: 5/10

There Will Be Blood

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
2007. Rated R, 158 minutes.
Cast:
Daniel Day-Lewis
Paul Dano
Dillon Freasier
Ciaran Hinds

Plot: Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an oil tycoon who gets alerted to a small town that has a veritable ocean of oil flowing beneath its grounds. He sets out to purchase as much land in the area and begins drilling to get the oil out.

The Good: The first thing that jumps out at you is the look of the movie. The cinematography is top-notch. The wide panoramic shots give us some really nice images that don’t seem forced while the tight or in-close shots always come at the appropriate time to crank up the tension. Story-wise, it tactfully avoids giving us a hero and villain by substituting people with two opposing viewpoints. That, along with the ample symbolism helps the movie work in multiple layers. It’s fine on the surface level. Watched that way, it’s a decent but slow movie about a crusty old man dealing with some local yokels and has a peculiar ending. Dig a little deeper and that ending becomes an extremely powerful and ambiguous result of the conflict. That conflict appeared to me to represent the current war in Iraq this country is embroiled in. To clarify my thoughts for you, Daniel represents the United States, Eli and the townspeople represent the religious extremists and other natives of the Middle East. Of course, that makes the land so rich in oil as Iraq itself. Now back to that ending. The way the movie struck me as a whole its an ending that’s very fact of the matter without judging which side is right or wrong. Though, it could be seen as siding with Lewis. Then think about what has happened to the town and what will likely happen to it after the credits have rolled. Without giving too much away, I’m reminded of a quote from Gen. Colin Powell speaking about our going into Iraq: “If we break it, it’s ours.”

The Bad: For some viewers, it will move a little slow. For those that don’t make the same connections to current events that I make, the ending will just remain odd, over the top and lack meaning. The biggest problem is the character Paul who’s played by the same person that plays Eli, Paul Dano. Paul is never sufficiently explained and we only see him once. Still, he’s referenced constantly throughout the movie. I’m just smart enough that it took me ¾ of the movie to decide that Paul was definitely maybe not the same person as Eli. It’s an odd distraction to have watching a movie not based on whether he is or isn’t. Luckily, there’s symbolism to be had there as well. I see him as those natives who actually asked the U.S. to help them.

The Ugly: We get to see how one of Daniel’s guys gets killed while he’s down in the well. Ouch.

Recommendation: For me, it’s an absolutely great movie. However, I have to be careful making a recommendation for it. Like I felt with 2006’s Children of Men and ‘07’s No Country for Old Men the more you get into the symbolism and metaphors the better it gets. If watched just on a surface level, you’ll probably just wonder what the big deal is and have a little less trust in my judgment.


MY SCORE: 10/10

Knight and Day

Directed by James Mangold.
2010. Rated PG-13, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Cruise
Cameron Diaz
Peter Sarsgaard
Viola Davis
Jordi Mollà
Paul Dano
Celia Weston
Jack O’Connell
Maggie Grace

We learn something about Roy (Cruise) long before June (Diaz) finds out. Right at the start of Knight and Day, we find out he’s got some pretty powerful people after him. For some reason, they set it up so that she’d be the only other person aboard a flight with Roy and assassins they’ve sent to kill him. After spectacularly escaping that situation, with June in tow, he goes on the run dragging her along and generally not telling her much of anything. Is Roy the good guy, or the bad guy? Is he lying, or not? What about the people chasing him? Where does June fit into all this? These questions drive all the action and gags that follow. With the next shootout, car chase or fist-fight never more than a couple minutes away, its definitely an action flick. Since much of that action, and nearly everything else fused with jokes, it’s also a comedy.

The near constant action is a big plus. It keeps things moving along. Our runtime breezes by. The whimsical nature of the script helps with this, too. There are no heavy scenes for us to slow down and ponder. The basic pattern goes like this: everything goes boom, a few silly lines of dialogue reveal ever-so-slightly more of the plot, everything goes boom again.

Where it falls apart is in the story. It only gives us a little at a time because its trying to stretch what little is there. What’s there is simply a rehash of something we’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands, of times before. For all the mystery its presented with, it actually holds none. On top of that, the entire movie could’ve been done without the Cameron Diaz character. She’s completely irrelevant, aside from the fact that the filmmakers obviously wanted a female lead to create sexual tension. Otherwise, she just gets in the way, screams hysterically and puts herself in harm’s way on a regular basis merely so she can be rescued. She is a classic damsel in distress, except she’s a damsel our dashing hero just met.

This is strictly for those knights you just want to see a lot of explosions while Tom Cruise does the impossible. Did you see that? Anyhoo, its not terrible popcorn fare, but it isn’t especially memorable, either. About ten minutes after the credits roll, it will simply blend in with all the other action flicks you’ve seen.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Where the Wild Things Are

Directed by Spike Jonze.
2009. Rated PG, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Max Records
James Gandolfini
Catherine Keener
Paul Dano
Catherine O’Hara
Pepita Emmerichs
Mark Ruffalo
Vincent Crowley
Sonny Gerasimowicz
Nick Farnell

Tiny Max (Records) is going through a crisis. His big sister hardly pays him any mind and since his single-but-dating mom works all day, he’s left mostly to his own devices. One night, after throwing a particularly dramatic temper tantrum he runs away from home, goes down to the nearby coast, hops in a boat, crosses a raging sea and winds up on a strange island filled with bickering and depressed creatures that look like out-of-work mascots. When he figures out they want to eat him, he makes up some cockamamie reason why they shouldn’t. He tells them he’s got special powers and promises to make all the sadness in their lives disappear. Of course, the mascots do the only logical thing they can and make him king.

I’ve given you the first thirty minutes. For the next hour plus, we watch Max run, jump and play with the mascots, trying his darndest to keep his promise about ending sadness. Obviously, the task seems impossible. It is especially so when dealing with such a morose group. Conflict raises its head time and again. Most of the time, it involves the easily upset and heartbroken Carol. Carol is voiced wonderfully by James Gandolfini. Yes, Carol is a he. Just a little fyi: Tony Soprano is not actually in the suit. That would be Vincent Crowley. Anyhoo, we come to see Carol largely as this island’s version of Max. Between Carol, Max and the rest of the group, life lessons and dirt clods are bandied about.

It’s an odd watch that ignores any plausible real-world consequences of his actions, including just how much time actually passes. Then again, the movie never definitively says that Max went to a real place. That much is up to you. Whether or not the island is real, the movie focuses solely on the wonderland this particular Alice has fallen into and the therapy it provides. I can see some kids being totally enthralled by watching another child just play while also empathizing with the mascots. I can see others bored to tears because once you get past how these creatures look, it lacks the fizz and pop of most movies aimed at the pre-teen audience. The personalities of our friends are droll, at best. The movie seems to drag on and on…and on. There’s also not much in the way of special fx and though there is humor, it’s not made up of pratfalls and fart jokes.

The lack of crassness may be a welcome reprieve for parents. However, the same sentiments apply. You’ll have to think your way through this one. Normally, that’s not a problem for me, but here it was a chore. Unfortunately, big action scenes where our hero battles the bad guy and hordes of his minions never come. Therefore, if you don’t mind the slowness of the proceedings then this will be a nice treat for you. If you’re easily bored, don’t bother.

The Opposite View: Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly

What the Internet Says: 7.2/10 on imdb.com (8/11/10), 73% on rottentomatoes.com, 71/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Taking Woodstock

Directed by Ang Lee.
2009. Rated R, 121 minutes.
Cast:
Demetri Martin
Imelda Staunton
Dan Fogler
Henry Goodman
Jonathan Groff
Eugene Levy
Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Emile Hirsch
Liev Schreiber
Paul Dano

Plot: Elliot Tiber (Martin) is desperately trying to save his parents’ motel from being foreclosed upon. When a nearby town pulls the plug on “a hippie music festival” he calls the organizers to see if they want to move the event to his town. “Inspired” by the true story of Woodstock.

The Good: Visually, it’s an interesting movie. It’s not interesting in a big special fx blockbuster way, but there’s so much going on your eyes willingly dart around the screen trying to take as much of it in as possible. It effectively captures the feel of Woodstock as thousands of people seem to be incessantly milling around. More importantly, we get three interesting stories of self-discovery. To that end, the way Elliot’s relationship with his parents plays out is very well done. Overall, the movie is at its best when it goes for the stoner vibe. That aspect supplies us with the best humor.

The Bad: It can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. It tries to be a straight comedy but unless Elliot’s mom (Staunton) is on screen it’s not quite funny enough. At other times, it tries for gut-wrenching melodrama. However, it never quite succeeds at that, either. Without the ability to commit to any style in particular, it’s not effective enough at any one of them. Finally, the music that makes Woodstock legendary is strangely absent.

The Ugly: Liev Schreiber in a dress is disturbing on a Patrick Swayze & Wesley Snipes in To Wong Foo level.

Recommendation: TW is a movie with some interesting parts but they never seem to work all together. As a result, it’s a terribly uneven watch. There are stretches of flatness interspersed with a few moments of greatness.

The Opposite View: Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (6/3/10), 48% on rottentomatoes.com, 55/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 5/10