Articles by Carl Kozlowski
Movie reviews: 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty'
Dec 20, 2013 / 00:00 am"The Wolf of Wall Street" and "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"By Carl KozlowskiIf the Occupy Wall Street movement had any lasting impact, it was in embedding on the American public consciousness that there is a dangerous income inequality building in our society. The top 1 percent of our society are the new kings of our economy and by extension our entire way of living, and the other 99 percent of us are sliding into serfdom.Two new movies – which both come out Christmas Day - offer distinctly different visions of this problem this week. Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” offers a shocking yet often funny and epic immersion into the debauched life of 1980s financial jetsetter Jordan Belfort, and “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” offers writer-director Ben Stiller’s take on the classic James Thurber short story of a nearly anonymous office drone – easily a 99-percenter - who has to fantasize his ways through life just to make it tolerable.An overwhelming and overstuffed display of debauchery and greed, “The Wolf of Wall Street” follows Belfort’s exploits over the course of four years as he rises from being a young newlywed with ethics to become an utterly craven manipulator of both people and the law. Belfort, played by Leonardo DiCaprio in fine fire-breathing form, is corrupted by his first boss (Matthew McConnaughey), who encourages him to drink a lot of alcohol and start using cocaine in order to be competitive with the insanely fast-paced lifestyles of his peers.When that initial job shuts down due to corruption at the firm, Belfort takes a job selling penny stocks – largely worthless stocks that trade for a few pennies per share - and applies his high-end sales techniques to this under-the-radar financial racket. He soon is raking in a huge income, and leads his colleagues into rebranding themselves as a long-standing trading firm with a largely fictional history.As the money rolls in, he befriends and partners with Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), a jovial yet none-too-bright family friend who seems to go along with and even escalate Jordan’s bad behaviors. But as they get too flashy for their own good and draw attention to their operation from a by-the-books Federal agent (Kyle Chandler), they begin a dangerous game of chicken with the feds in order to see who will back off first.While “Wolf” is made with impressive skill and a dazzling pace by director Martin Scorsese, it is also an exhausting exercise in excess. He’s basically made “Goodfellas” for Wall Street instead of the Mafia, and substitutes a wave of flesh and sex for that prior film’s over-the-top violence, while keeping the drug-fueled paranoia.Scorsese and his ace leading duo of DiCaprio and Hill make some astonishingly awful behavior very funny, but given any moment to reflect, viewers might start to wonder what’s wrong with themselves for doing so. There is wall-to-wall profanity, including easily hundreds of F words, as well as several brief but graphic orgy scenes including one homosexual one, as well as brief but graphic encounters involving perverse behavior with prostitutes.Even more staggering is the amount of drug use depicted in the film, as the lead duo and their employees indulge in massive amounts of cocaine and Quaaludes. While Belfort ultimately realizes he has a raging drug addiction, seeing him put others - including his own baby daughter - in danger from his reckless behavior eventually becomes tiresome no matter how many attempts are made to be funny.The movie also runs three hours long, yet while it is entertaining throughout, it really could have been 30 to 60 minutes shorter and still made its point, because how many times do we have to see Belfort and Azoff get laid and loaded along the way to their inevitable comeuppance?Meanwhile, “Mitty” is a lot more fitting for its Christmas Day release, as it tells a powerfully uplifting story the whole family can enjoy together. The movie stars Stiller as the title character, a humble man who works in the basement at the legendary “Life” magazine in its photo procurement and processing department.Mitty’s life is hopelessly boring, and he constantly drifts into daydreams in which he heroically saves the day amid outlandish adventures, such as leaping off a high subway platform and into a burning apartment across the street to save people and a pet from a fire when in reality he just hears a baby crying while waiting for his morning train. He also is too timid to approach the cute new woman at the magazine (Kristen Wiig), but when a corporate takeover that will result in mass layoffs is announced and Mitty can’t find a photo that their top photographer (Sean Penn) insists has to be the cover image for the last issue, he has to finally make the leap into taking action and saving the day for real.That adventure is an amusing one, but more unexpectedly, Stiller has managed to create a true epic film that sends Mitty to Greenland, Iceland and ultimately Afghanistan as he surmounts ever more incredible challenges in his quest to find the photographer and ask where the lost photo might be. Yet when he does learn what it is and where it went, the answers come in a surprisingly intimate and personal scale that leaves viewers with a stirring consideration of where the American dream is going and about life itself.While one has to wonder what Paramount Pictures was thinking in deciding to release "Wolf" on Christmas Day, "Mitty" is a perfect present for families. Its jaw-dropping adventures - including outracing an explosive volcano - and whimsically funny moments are refreshingly devoid of smut and innuendo, with barely any inappropriate language to be found.This was a dream project of Stiller’s for more than a decade, but he had to overcome the easy labeling of himself as a mere comedic lightweight in order to take the reins of a story with such worldwide scope. The fact that he pulls it off is impressive, and should give hope to the Everyman and Everywoman viewers to not give up on their own deepest wishes.
Movie reviews: Saving Mr. Banks and American Hustle
Dec 17, 2013 / 00:00 amEveryone has a dream in life. And if they’re serious about it, they’ll do almost anything to make it happen.Two new movies follow people who use highly creative means to pull off their impossible dreams. The Disney drama “Saving Mr. Banks,” about the insane amount of hoops that the legendary Walt Disney had to jump through in order to bring the beloved children’s book “Mary Poppins” to the screen, is one of the season’s top family films despite some dark yet touching undertones involving addiction.Meanwhile, distinctive writer-director David O. Russell (“The Fighter,” “The Silver Linings Playbook”) satirizes the 1970s U.S. government sting known as Abscam in his latest film, “American Hustle”. It features the most unpredictable ensemble acting of the year, as Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and a very big surprise cameo all come together to work a series of cons that will leave audiences’ heads spinning.“Banks” is the more conventional of the two, as Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney opposite Emma Thompson as British author P.L. Travers, whose “Poppins” has become a favorite of the Hollywood mogul’s young daughters. As a powerful Hollywood kingpin who was accustomed to people jumping to make his visions a reality, Disney was surprised to find that Travers wasn’t eager to hand over control of her book for a film adaptation.Travers particularly loathes Disney’s expressed wish to meld musical numbers and animation sequences into the film, and threatens to put the kibosh on ever allowing the film to get made. But Disney had promised his daughters he’d make the film in their honor, and he was determined to keep his word – a process that involves him having to peel back the layers of mystery inTravers’ life and help her come to terms with her troubled relationship with her own father (Colin Farrell in a very moving turn), a dreamer who also suffered from addiction. “Banks” is an impressive effort from writer-director John Lee Hancock, who follows up his Oscar-winning 2009 blockbuster “The Blind Side” with this film. From the lush early-1960s settings and costumes through a deep cast (including Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak) at their charming best, this is a glossy and thoroughly winning film that provides a lot of insights into the magic of the Disney creative process. While it’s not inappropriate for younger children, it is serious enough in tone to make it likely to be enjoyed more by teens and adults.Meanwhile, “American Hustle” is filled with fast-talking dreamers each looking to get ahead in their own desperate, yet often funny, way. It follows the story of Irving Rosenfeld (Bale), a New Jersey con artist, and his mistress/con partner Sydney (Adams) and how a highly ambitious FBI agent named Richie DiMaso (Cooper) uses them to bust a bunch of congressmen and Newark, New Jersey mayor Carmine Polito (Renner) for taking bribes in a notorious real-life U.S. government sting operation called Abscam.The wild card in this bunch, however, is Irving’s wife, Rosalyn (Lawrence), who got stuck married to the shady loser at way too young an age and is constantly looking for any way to make his life miserable. As the stakes get higher in both the sting and in the personal lives of its participants, it’s the seemingly naïve yet extremely willful Rosalyn who stirs things up to dangerous levels that could bring everything down like a house of cards.“American Hustle” is the perfect name for this movie, because each and every one of its superbly drawn and colorful characters is indeed hustling their own unique dreams: to be the best at art forgeries, to be the best federal agent, or the best mayor. Writer-director Russell shoots them all with a comically outsized swagger in their public moments, yet a haunting vulnerability in their private ones.The cast all rise to their respective challenges, leaving viewers with an embarrassment of riches to enjoy from the year’s best ensemble of actors. The terrific late-70s period details and costumes meld with a perfect soundtrack of the era’s overly earnest pop hits to fully immerse viewers in the story’s time and place, and Russell bring it all together with fun zest that recalls “Boogie Nights.”Yet Russell thankfully handles the proceedings with class and restraint, even despite the film’s R rating. While there is enough foul language to definitely fit that rating, it rarely feels excessive within the context of its characters and scenarios (by comparison, one of the films I reviewed for next week – “The Wolf of Wall Street” has a seemingly non-stop tapestry of F words and the like filling the movie from start to finish).Similarly, while Amy Adams plays a stripper who climbs the socioeconomic ladder via her con artist ambitions, she’s shown just briefly onstage and wearing pasties on her breasts. Her sex scenes with Bale are extremely brief and largely implied, and when she tries to establish control over another male character by misleading him into thinking she’s wanting to have an affair, she manages to keep clothed and mostly modest, never actually engaging in any illicit activity with him.And for that, writer-director David O. Russell deserves kudos for elevating the material to a classier level – an approach that works in this tale of desperate dreamers wanting to elevate their own lives.
Movie review: Inside Llewyn Davis
Dec 13, 2013 / 00:00 amOver the course of 18 films in 30 years, writer-director duo Joel and Ethan Coen – aka The Coen Brothers – have introduced viewers to an endless array of inventive characters, from The Dude in “The Big Lebowski” and Marge Gunderson in “Fargo” to Anton Chigurh in “No Country for Old Men” and H.I. and Edwina McDunnough in “Raising Arizona.” But in their latest film “Inside Llewyn Davis,” they’ve created perhaps their most realistic character study yet in depicting a struggling folk singer in the heart of the folk explosion in 1960s New York City – and while the film is impressively made, it’s more solemn than entertaining.The film opens in almost documentary fashion, as Davis (brilliantly portrayed by Oscar Isaac) performs a full song in a smoky club. The effect is mesmerizing, as the Coens and their ace cinematographer Roger Deakins settle into the groove amid the gritty details of the audience and their surroundings and literally make viewers feel like they are in the room, transported across the decades into Greenwich Village.As soon as he’s done with his tune, Davis is told to step outside in an alley because someone’s there to see him. He’s instantly punched and kicked by a mysterious tall redneck who dashes off in a car after warning him not to mock the other performers, and we’re immediately aware that while Davis is talented, he’s also a self-absorbed jerk.That defining personality trait is the focus of much of the movie, as Davis bounces from one couch to another across the city while subtly manipulating people for a dinner, a drink or an easy one night stand. But as he learns that he’s gotten the live-in girlfriend (Carey Mulligan) of a fellow singer friend (Justin Timberlake) pregnant, that he’s lost the cat of his biggest benefactor and that his gigs and money are drying up ever since his former singing partner committed suicide, Davis finds himself grasping at straws and taking a random road trip that brings him into contact with a string of strangers, including a mysterious man who seems on the verge of comically dying at any moment (John Goodman, in another scene-stealing turn).Currently in release in Los Angeles and New York City before opening nationwide December 20, “Davis” is somewhat troubling viewing for discerning Catholics due to a subplot in which Davis agrees to set up a then-illegal abortion for the woman he’s impregnated. The idea of aborting the baby comes up immediately and without question from either Davis or the woman, who adds to the anti-life attitude by ranting with dark sarcasm about how she would have the baby if she could be sure it was her live-in boyfriend’s rather than his.On the other hand, while on his road trip, Davis is shown briefly looking with haunted regret at a road sign for Akron, Ohio, where a past girlfriend returned home while pregnant with another child of his. Isaac and the Coens nail the moment perfectly, providing some sense of the sadness that comes from a life of empty promiscuity.There’s also a profusion of profanity that comes in bursts during fights both serious and humorous, with about 50 F words scattered throughout. therwise, no actual sex is seen and the violence is limited to the couple of brutal punches and kicks Davis receives from the mystery man in the alley.I won’t give away much more of what happens, because building a coherent string of events that add up to a dramatic payoff isn’t the point in this film. It’s more a collection of events, occasionally funny but mostly sad, that add up to a rich depiction of a long-gone era when musicians actually played real instruments and wrote and sang songs that had intellectual depth.Rather, much like music itself, “Davis” grabs you emotionally. While it’s centered around a guy who seems like a real jerk much of the time, it also manages to make him sympathetic at the moments where his dreams are most in danger of being crushed. It is there – in the depiction of the indomitable artistic spirit, the irrational yet inexorable drive within all artists to succeed even in the face of constant failure – that the movie finds its quiet power.Packed with affecting music, strong acting, stunning cinematography and a unique sense of place, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is one of the most intriguing movies of the year. But the film as a whole is just like its title character: easy to admire for its rich display of talent, but hard to love.
Film review: 'Out of the Furnace'
Dec 4, 2013 / 00:00 amIn the new modern film noir thriller “Out of the Furnace,” Christian Bale plays a man who just can’t seem to catch a break. As Russell Baze, a good-hearted Everyman who works hard in the same mill in which his father toiled, he lives a life that feels stuck in neutral as he now cares for his dad, who’s waiting to die while lying on a couch at home with an IV drip in his arm.Russell also cares deeply about his brother named Rodney (Casey Affleck), a war vet traumatized by four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rodney can’t stop drinking, fighting and gambling due to his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And one night, after a few too many beers himself, Russell gets behind the wheel for his trip home and winds up sideswiping a car and killing a mother and child, landing in prison as a result.When he gets back out from behind bars after four years, he finds that his longtime girlfriend (Zoe Saldana) has given up, moved in with and had a baby with the town police chief (Forest Whitaker). And just when Russell doesn’t think things can get any worse, he finds that Rodney has racked up a gambling debt that’s too big to handle and is proposing desperate measures to settle up with local crime boss John Petty (Willem Dafoe).Rodney offers to be a human punching bag in an underground fight club run by a vicious backwoods criminal named Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), but even Petty thinks that Rodney is going too far. With this confluence of disastrous circumstances coming to a head, Russell digs deep into his Catholic faith for the strength to save the day.It may sound like a hopeless downer, but “Furnace” works as a gritty modern noir set in the rarely seen world of the small-town Northeast, with well-written and acted characters making it deeply affecting. Bale makes Russell particularly three-dimensional, as he struggles to keep his dignity and faith alive in brief yet touching moments of him at Mass both behind bars in prison and the bars of his own regular life in the dying real-life steel town of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Affleck is a boiling caldron of emotions and frustration with the limited options afforded him after he risked his life in numerous tours of duty. And Harrelson has said that DeGroat was such a horrendous person that he was the one character in his lengthy career that he was most eager to shake off.Indeed, DeGroat occupies the flip side of the moral and behavioral spectrum from Bale’s Russell. Harrelson has made a career of playing both lovable nut jobs and diabolical psychopaths, taking the portrayal of evil to controversial new heights in “Natural Born Killers” in 1994. Now, nearly 20 years later, he’s outdone himself once again, making DeGroat, a meth-dealing operator of a fight club that makes Brad Pitt’s underground endeavors in the 1999 cult classic look like schoolyard mischief.But “Out of the Furnace,” which hits theaters in limited release today before expanding nationally throughout December, is not just another simpleminded exercise in gutbucket brutality. Rather, it’s the second film by writer-director Scott Cooper, who directed Jeff Bridges to an Oscar in his filmmaking debut “Crazy Heart” in 2009.Cooper came from a town like Braddock and knows how to get under the skin and into the hearts of the Baze brothers, and by extension, the lives of millions who have suffered from the Great Recession and its aftermath. In speaking about the film at a press event, he said that he knows most people in a town like Braddock would lean on their faith to get them through intense hardships, and that’s a positive thing to see in a film.“Furnace” is violent and at times hard to watch, but it is not exploiting its harsh scenarios or asking the audience to cheer along. It also has a lot of foul language, particuarly F-words from the angry and frustrated Rodney and the monster that is Harlan. But it offers plenty to chew on for discerning adult viewers of crime dramas and connoisseurs of Southern Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor.There may not be much beauty or holiday joy in “Out of the Furnace,” but one would be hard-pressed to say there is no meaning.
Movie reviews: 'Homefront' and 'Oldboy' make for slim pickings of family-friendly Thanksgiving films
Nov 27, 2013 / 00:00 amRemember when Thanksgiving weekend marked a great time for the whole family to gather around the TV to watch a network broadcast of a classic family movie like “It’s a Wonderful Life” to kick off the most joyous season of the year? Or the movie theaters had bright sunny comedies the whole family could enjoy together after a turkey dinner, like “Planes Trains & Automobiles”?Good luck this year, as Hollywood has inexplicably decided to foist the following cinematic smorgasbord of choices upon us: “Hunger Games 2,” which features people killing each other for sport in a despotic future America; “Delivery Man,” which is a great movie but its plot about a guy who learns he donated enough sperm to produce over 500 kids isn’t exactly easy for grandma or little kids to handle; and “Frozen,” a 3D Disney cartoon that feels like an uninspired leftover from the Pixar rejected-ideas pile.And then there’s the two winners I’m about to discuss here: “Homefront” is a movie that stars action hero Jason Statham in a screenplay by Sylvester Stallone, about a former undercover DEA agent who finds his retired life in the Louisiana swamps disrupted by a feud with a local gang of meth-making bikers.Meanwhile, “Oldboy” is a Spike Lee-directed remake of a nasty cult-classic South Korean thriller about a man who is held prisoner for 20 years, then seeks revenge while solving the mystery of who put him away. It’s extremely well-made, but it’s dark, brutal, has a graphically acrobatic sex scene and involves a series of final plot twists that give a whole new and disgusting meaning to close family relations.Let’s start with “Homefront,” which features Statham in the latest in a string of gritty B-movies in which the filmmaking level is way better than you would ever expect. He plays Phil Broker, who in keeping with Statham tradition, is extremely soft-spoken and even seemingly gentle until someone talks to him the wrong way, at which point he punches, kicks or hurls them into submission.Broker quit the DEA after killing the son of a biker drug kingpin two years before, and went into hiding in retirement to avoid revenge from his fellow gang members. But when his 10 year old daughter impressively beats up a fat and stupid class bully in their backwoods town, the townspeople start to wonder what kind of dad knows how to teach his daughter such incredible fighting skills.Thus begins a surprisingly twisty and deviously fun story of escalating revenge between Statham and local meth kingpin James Franco, the Oscar-nominated actor whose presence is just one example of the fact this movie is way better than it has to be. Add in surprisingly gritty turns from formerly glamorous actresses Kate Bosworth and Winona Ryder as trailer trash who are pawns in the games between Statham and Franco, plus a propulsive pace from director Gary Fleder and impressive cinematography in unique rural settings, and “Homefront” is solid entertainment for adult action fans in the family to get away from the homefront during the drawn-out holiday weekend. Be forewarned, that “Homefront” is definitely R-rated fare. There is an over-abundance of F-words in several scenes, but nothing that should be too shocking for adult fans of R-rated action, while the violence is frequent but mostly consists of gun battles, explosions, a couple of car chases and then the kind of chopsocky hand to hand combat that is so ridiculously fast-paced that it’s more humorous and awe-inspiring than seriously brutal. The movie scores points for positivity overall in its portrait of Statham as a man who will use any means necessary to protect his daughter.“Oldboy,” on the other hand, is an utterly baffling choice for a holiday release. As mentioned above, Josh Brolin stars as Joe Doucette, a hopelessly alcoholic cad who hits on a client’s wife after landing a major business deal and winds up wandering the streets of his city drunk out of his mind before approaching a mysterious Asian woman that’s been following him.He wakes up naked in a spartanly furnished room, with only a Bible, a set of Encyclopedia Britannica, and a TV that plays a bizarre mix of infomercials, old kung fu movies and a reality show about famous crimes to keep him occupied. He then learns from the TV show that he’s been accused of raping and murdering his ex-wife while their daughter was at home with them, and then disappearing from the authorities.He spends the next 20 years in that room, a time span that Lee conveys in riveting fashion using TV reports of the most famous incidents of the past two decades, including 9/11 and President Obama’s inauguration.But he finally escapes, and embarks on a quest to seek revenge on his captors and find his now-grown daughter. But things get really weird when a man with a high-pitched European accent calls to tell him he has 48 hours to figure out who captured him and why, or his daughter is going to be killed by his mysterious nemesis. But if he can solve the mystery and relate the answers in time, Joe will not only get his daughter back, but will also receive $20 million in diamonds and the satisfaction of seeing his captor commit suicide before his eyes.Sounds like a real family charmer, doesn’t it? As director, Lee draws incredible performances from Brolin and Elizabeth Olson as a young social worker who offers to help him in his quest, and the complex script certainly should keep audiences riveted. But it also features sequences of brutal violence, a horrifying torture scene, quick video glimpse of Joe’s wife’s rape and murder as well as a near-assault on Olson’s character, and a graphic, fully nude and lengthy sex scene between Brolin and Olson.But worst of all is that the big reveal of what’s actually going on - involving parallel incidents of incest - is as disturbing as it gets and sexually oriented to boot, leaving audiences with a movie that’s akin to “Seven” and “The Silence of the Lambs”: well-made but that will leave you feeling awful about humanity afterwards. It’s a must-avoid for all discerning Catholics.Don’t worry, there are a couple of family films coming up in the next month, including Tom Hanks as Walt Disney in “Saving Mr. Banks,” and we’ll be getting to those as they come out. Until then, “Delivery Man” is great for teens and adults, and “Frozen” is a passable way to keep the kiddies entertained if they’re dying for a movie
Movie review: Delivery Man
Nov 22, 2013 / 00:00 amNo matter how prepared you think you are, having a child always comes as a surprise. But imagine the shock of learning that you’re the biological father of more than 500 children who are now adults and want to meet you, just as you’ve learned you’ve fathered a fresh new baby with a girlfriend who doesn’t know if she can trust you to be a good husband and dad. That’s the premise of Vince Vaughn’s latest movie “Delivery Man,” which is based on a hit French Canadian film called “Starbuck.” It may sound like a premise that could easily veer into offensive territory (particularly to us Catholics, due to the Church’s opposition to in vitro fertilization methods), but the big surprise here is that the movie handles its subject as tastefully as possible en route to delivering a beautiful pro-family and pro-child tale that’s packed with both laughs and tears. The movie follows an irresponsible yet charming slacker named David Wozniak, who is a delivery man for his family’s Brooklyn butcher shop. As the film’s zippy opening moments show, Wozniak is constantly racking up parking tickets, making late deliveries and preparing to get rich quick by growing plenty of pot in his cluttered apartment. He needs money fast because he owes big money on gambling debts, and his longtime girlfriend (Cobie Smulders) is dumping him because she’s pregnant and afraid that he will never become a suitable father. As if his life isn’t chaotic enough, Wozniak finds himself served with court papers alerting him to a class-action lawsuit by over 140 people seeking the right to meet him because they are claiming to be his biological children. They are part of a larger group of more than 500 children that his sperm helped produce after he made a good number of “donations” to raise money two decades before. He had never given a second thought to the results of those sperm donations, simply pocketing the money and moving along his merry way. But despite the warnings of his best friend (Chris Pratt), a harried and married father who’s also his attorney, Wozniak starts to track down some of his kids even prior to the courtroom proceedings out of curiosity. Of course he doesn’t tell them he’s their father, instead pretending to be just a new friend who’s stumbled upon each of them. But as he finds he can serve as a guardian angel and make their lives better, Wozniak learns that he actually wants to be a good father and starts to upend his life. “Delivery Man” maintains a strong blend of laughs and emotion as well as a strong sense of character from its three leads all the way down through Wozniak’s father and siblings and about a dozen of his offspring. That impressive feat is due to the strong hand of writer-director Ken Scott, who was wisely hired to adapt his own prior film “Starbuck” to English and an American setting. One could easily expect that the movie would have plenty of laughs by returning Vaughn to the fast-talking wiseguy comedy fans used to love. But the real surprise of the film comes from its strongly played serious moments, as Wozniak finds that one daughter is battling a serious drug problem, while a son is severely disabled. Both storylines have their starkly real moments, but they have beautiful emotional payoffs that make the movie resonate strongly and make it a perfect holiday-season entertainment for discerning older teens and adults. Thankfully, Scott, Vaughn and the rest keep the film’s focus on the positive elements of the story, and avoid getting bogged down in what could easily have become a morass of sexual humor. The film acknowledges Wozniak’s past actions just long enough to establish the premise, but then wisely move right into the story of how an utterly irresponsible man is transformed by his sudden responsibility to hundreds of people. As such, I believe that most teens and adult Catholics can easily move past the in vitro part of the premise and gain tremendous entertainment and insight from this movie. And on a Thanksgiving weekend that’s dominated by family anyway, what more could you hope for it to deliver?
Movie review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Nov 22, 2013 / 00:00 amIt’s amazing how quickly “The Hunger Games” has changed the culture in the few years since the first in the three-book young adult novel series was published, and especially since the first movie adaptation of the series premiered in March 2012. All three books became massive best-sellers worldwide, while the first movie made nearly $700 million globally and launched the career of its star Jennifer Lawrence, who by year’s end had served up an Oscar-winning performance in “The Silver Linings Playbook.”Now, the second movie in the trilogy – “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” – has been released, and it admirably fulfills its duty in being the part of the story that has the darkest moments and the biggest cliffhanger of all. In that respect, it follows in the footsteps of “The Empire Strikes Back,” and is wildly entertaining as well. But as anyone who’s familiar with the concept behind the series of books and films, that sense of entertainment comes with some caveats.The series is set in a dystopian future America that has become a dictatorship and renamed Panem, with the country divided into 13 districts, of which only a dozen are believed to remain. Everyone, except a highly elite ruling class who live in a lavish capitol city, is subjected to a life of grinding poverty and hopelessness that forces them to survive as if they’re living in the colonial era.But each year, to distract the masses from their misery, a national competition called The Hunger Games is held. The government’s armed forces force teenagers to submit their names in a drawing, and the “winner” whose name is chosen has to represent their District in the games. The 12 youngsters selected then have to engage in training and eventually the nationally-televised games, in which they are expected to kill each other with a variety of weapons in a rugged terrain until only one is left standing – and that victor is then given a lavish lifestyle for the rest of their days as a smiling (yet secretly miserable) representative of the government.In the first movie, a girl named Katniss Everdeen (played by Lawrence) won the games despite orchestrating a twist in which she refused to kill her final opponent – meaning that she shared her win with a boy named Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). In the new movie, they’re living their falsely happy life of luxury while a revolution is starting to brew among the populace, so the president (Donald Sutherland) announces new games that will force them to fight again.This time, Katniss and Peeta will have to face off against the surviving winners of the previous 25 years, meaning the competition will be far more ruthless than before. If Katniss refuses, the president will kill her mother and sister, and possibly her entire District. And so it goes that Katniss re-enters the games and finds herself using her wits more than ever to stay alive and slyly make life difficult for the tyrant who controls her people.The first “Hunger Games” was extremely well-made, edge of your seat entertainment, yet still left many discerning viewers queasy with its depiction of teens forced to kill each other for sport and survival. The new movie’s use of past winners in the competition largely eliminates that concern, because the heroic duo are fighting older, adult former winners. Yet they also have to contend with poisonous fog that induces awful boils on their skin, and fight off a pack of wild baboons that are truly terrifying.Regardless, the violence is nothing those who are teens and older can’t handle, and the positives far outweigh the negatives in these films, as its two main teens are trying to win as nobly as they can, finding any possible alternative to avoid killing their opponents while staying alive. And the fact that the films are set in an America that slowly slipped away from its ideals is a valuable wakeup call and lesson to viewers of any age that to preserve a healthy democracy, citizens must always stay vigilant no matter what leader is in charge.The movies are admirably profanity-free and free of sex scenes, but in this chapter, Katniss and Peeta are forced by the president to pretend to be in love for the ever-present TV cameras. While it’s clear they don’t have sex, they start crossing the line emotionally when Katniss has horrific nightmares about the Games and asks Peeta to start sharing a bed with her for comfort – and that is potentially a bad message to convey to teenagers, who in real life would be in a high state of temptation if they engaged in such behavior.Put it all together and the new “Games” comes out a winner, although parents should definitely take the PG-13 rating seriously and not allow kids under 12 to see it.
Movie review: 'The Best Man Holiday'
Nov 15, 2013 / 00:00 amYou can’t choose your family, but you can choose your friends in life. Yet if you’re lucky, your friends become a second family to you, there for you throughout the years and even decades of your life. That can be a good thing most of the time, but it can also be really awkward as well – say, if you ever had a fling with someone who wound up marrying your best friend and now you have to see them every holiday season.That’s the kind of dilemma that’s central to the core of “The Best Man Holiday,” the long-overdue sequel to the 1999 romantic-comedy “The Best Man.” That film starred a cast of some of the hottest young African-American actors in Hollywood – including Taye Diggs, Terrence Howard, Nia Long and Morris Chestnut - while also marking the writing-directing debut of Spike Lee’s cousin, Malcolm D. Lee.With its highly positive portrayal of African-Americans twenty-somethings who are successful in the white-collar world rather than gangsters or jive-talking clowns in the vein of Chris Tucker in the “Rush Hour” movies, “The Best Man” became a trendsetter and perennial favorite on DVD and cable TV. And I’m happy to report that the new film is a vast improvement on the original in every way.The first film followed its characters as they came together for the wild wedding weekend of Lance (Chestnut), a pro football running back who was getting married to Mia (Hall). The conflicts began when Harper (Diggs), a writer who is Lance’s best friend but once had a one-night stand with Mia, was busted by his friends for writing a juicy novel that was a thinly veiled tell-all about his friends’ darkest secrets and romantic entanglements, with a mix of funny and serious consequences ensuing over the course of the weekend.In the new film, the gang is getting back together for Christmas weekend at the sprawling mansion of Lance and Mia, as Lance is approaching his final NFL game – and the chance to set the all-time rushing record – on Christmas Day. But all is not well, as Mia is secretly very ill and Harper has just lost his New York University professor gig and had his latest novel rejected by his own agent.Desperate to make money as his own wife Robyn (Lathan) is about to give birth after multiple miscarriages, Harper decides to sneak his way through the weekend, taking notes and trying to convince Lance to let him write his biography. The problem is, Lance is still angry at Harper for the fling with Mia, and for the betrayal of sneaking their lives into his first book.The other characters have well-drawn conflicts as well, but don’t make the mistake of thinking “The Best Man Holiday” is overly serious or morose. Rather, Lee and his ace cast find an impeccable balance of laughter and tears throughout the film, which has an impressive energy from the get-go while its predecessor dragged through its overlong first hour before catching fire in its second. The zippy and sharply funny opening credits also bring new viewers up to speed immediately, so that those who missed the first “Best Man” won’t be lost.Lee manages to use the Christmastime setting to genuine effect, rather than feeling like a clichéd backdrop, because the struggle Lance and Mia’s bedrock Christian faith and Harper’s agnosticism forms an important subplot in the film. In fact, the importance of faith and prayer in this movie is almost stunning to behold for an R-rated comedy, as Lee and his cast pivot between the sacred and profane parts of life in a way that I’ve never seen pulled off so well before.To be sure, there are about 50 uses of profanity, including about 30 uses of the F word and its variations, scattered throughout the film, but mostly in clusters during arguments. There’s also a two-minute, unnecessarily tacky discussion of male genitals and sexual shenanigans that could have easily been dropped, and the two single characters revel in laughing about their promiscuity, while one man also smokes marijuana for comedic effect in a couple scenes and shares medical marijuana with cancer-stricken Mia in another.However, I guarantee that adults who give this movie a chance will forgive these offenses in dialogue when faced with the overwhelmingly positive view of faith, family, children and prayer that this movie has in addition to its being very funny.I went to see “The Best Man Holiday” with my friend Clive, an African-American twentysomething like these characters were in the first film. He asked me before the screening why I had chosen this movie to review, expressing surprise that a Caucasian reviewer would care about a film so obviously targeted at the black community.The answer to that is twofold: on the one hand, yes, “The Best Man Holiday” has this weekend to itself at the box office as the only major-studio release of the week. But far more importantly, it is so well-done and even standard-setting for the romantic-comedy genre that it completely transcends its racial roots and becomes a thoroughly universal movie that anyone can and should enjoy.If you want to see a romantic comedy done right, “The Best Man Holiday” is easily the best example in many years.
Movie reviews: 'About Time' and 'Dallas Buyers Club'
Nov 8, 2013 / 00:00 amCompassion is a human trait that should be natural to everyone, but is sometimes hard to deliver.This week, two new movies deal with compassion, and of looking outside of one’s own self-interest to develop a strong sense of the greater good.Both movies also use the concept of time in intriguing fashion , albeit in vastly different ways. “About Time” is the latest film from romantic-comedy master Richard Curtis (“Love Actually,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral”) and follows the escapades of a young man who learns that he has the ability to time travel within the space of his own particular life and alter past events to create better present-day results.Meanwhile, “Dallas Buyer’s Club” offers up the stark yet heroic true story of Ron Woodroof, a homophobic straight man who contracted AIDS in the mid-1980s from risky sex with needle users and managed to save both his life and those of countless gay men by taking the chance on importing unapproved new drugs from Mexico to fight the disease. Starring Matthew McConnaughey and Jared Leto in performances that will likely earn them Oscars nominations, it hits home by showing that even the hardest of hearts can be moved to care for those that seem to be the most undesirable elements of society.“About Time” is the easier film to digest, offering up a romantic fantasy that almost anyone could wish for. Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) is a geeky man in his 20s who is always unlucky in love, until one day his father (Bill Nighy) tells him that all men in their family have a secret ability to transform the past of their own personal lives and circumstances through very specific time travel.Tim uses this skill to romantic and humorous effect in order to try winning over a beautiful woman during a summer vacation, but fails. When he makes another attempt to lure an American woman named Mary (Rachel McAdams), however, he wins her over in glorious fashion but realizes he can never tell her what he’s done, or else risk looking crazy or dishonest.As the couple gets married and has children, “About Time” shifts from being a clever comedy to a richer drama about the changes one goes through in life and in longtime marriages. Along the way, Tim keeps trying to use his secret ability to save or improve his loved ones’ lives, including saving his alcoholic sister from a terrible car crash caused by her being DUI.The problem is, that writer-director Richard Curtis has given viewers too much of a good thing, for while the movie is expertly acted and touchingly crafted, it feels somewhat stretched out and overlong as it goes through one touching relationship resolution after another and yet another.But the actors are all solid, and the concept is an inventive one for the often-predictable genre. That fact, and the first half’s frequently funny situations, should keep men from being too bored while women will likely love it all the way through.Meanwhile, “Dallas Buyer’s Club” features a man with an entirely different dilemma. Ron Woodroof (McConnaughey) has checked into a hospital because he’s feeling dizzy and gaunt after dropping a ton of weight in a matter of months. He learns that he has full-blown AIDS and that doctors are giving him 30 days to live, a double shock because he has only heard that AIDS is a disease afflicting gay men.But when he accepts his fate, and learns that the only drug being tested to fight AIDS – AZT – is in fact hastening most patients’ deaths in trial runs, Woodroof heads south of the border and learns that a rogue doctor has a variety of other medications and proteins that are succeeding. Making deals with that doctor as well as Rayon (Leto), the drag queen who was in the next bed over from him in the hospital, he beats the system and charges of illegally selling the drugs by setting up a “buyer’s club” in which any person who pays $400 a month can have all the drugs they need to survive.Of course, this means that the unlikely duo of Ron and Rayon are left to not only fight for their lives but also fight the FDA every step of the way. Director Jon-Marc Vallee and writers Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack have given the superb stars plenty to work with and audiences plenty of compelling material to consider, as “Club” mixes dark humor, dramatic tension, and well-earned tears to share the tale of an unlikely hero who not only survived for years but led the way to saving millions of lives.“About Time” is as soft an R as one can imagine, with barely enough foul language and sex talk to merit its rating. There are perhaps a total of 25 profanities and obscenities, with four F words, about six S words and a total of about 15 uses of God’s name in vain, including nearly 10 JC’s, a couple of GDs and the rest OMGs. Aside from that, sexual techniques are discussed graphically in a couple of lines during a very brief scene that is played for laughs, as the young man nervously blurts out a few too many details to her parents during their first meeting. Its pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-baby scenes far outweigh the negatives.“Dallas Buyers Club” is a whole other story, often pushing the limits of its R rating with a barrage of profanities, including easily 50 F words, and a full array of other obscenities and many uses of God’s name in vain in various forms. However, as the movie goes on and Woodroof settles into being a kinder and gentler person, his language and demeanor improve greatly as well, meaning that while it is rather extreme in the first half, the filmmakers were trying to show Woodruff’s transformation even on the language level.Aside from that, “Club” has several graphic and extended scenes of casual sex between two and three partners as well as a scene of implied masturbation. “Club” also features Woodroof and his drag queen business partner Rayon entering several gay dance clubs, where other men are shown dancing passionately with each other, and a couple of brief passionate male-male kisses are shown. This disgusts Woodroof at first, but eventually he feels compassion for the people who become his clients and fights to the death to find better medicine to help not just himself but others – resulting in him earning credit for stopping the use of AZT as the primary anti-AIDS drug and finding medicinal combinations – or cocktails - that earned years to his and others’ life spans.“Club” may sound like an extreme movie, and some of its content is indeed pushing the limits of morality. However, it is clear that the filmmakers are trying to provide an accurate portrait of Woodroof’s life and the illicit behaviors that gave birth to the AIDS crisis, rather than trying to be exploitative – and Woodroof never fully endorses their lifestyle, but rather sees the positive sides of his partner and clients outweighing the bad.For those discerning adults who can handle some strongly immoral content, “Club” offer viewers not only a fascinating history lesson in how AIDS was prevented from becoming an uncontrollable epidemic and also a valuable lesson in compassion and understanding towards those who are deemed the pariahs of society.
Movie Review: Last Vegas
Nov 1, 2013 / 00:00 amLas Vegas has gone through plenty of changes over the past 60 years, since it was the playground of Frank Sinatra and his Rat Pack, and had an air of class and mystery to go with the wicked fun it offered visitors in a myriad of ways. And in the new movie “Last Vegas,” four lifelong buddies come to realize that they’ve changed a lot too over the 58 years they’ve known each other, while trying to reclaim their youthful magic over the course of a wild and surprisingly meaningful bachelor party weekend.It would be easy to assume that the movie is just an attempt to make some easy money off the success of “The Hangover” movies by altering the antics for its older generation of stars: Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline. That’s a winning cast, indeed, as all four of those master thespians are Oscar winners who amazingly have never worked together in any combination before – and they’re buttressed further by Oscar-winning actress Mary Steenburgen, who plays a lounge singer who beguiles both Douglas and DeNiro and gives the movie its surprisingly strong sense of heart.The movie kicks off in 1955, when the friends were 12 years old and called themselves the “Flatbush Four” as they chased girls and engaged in neighborhood escapades. But in a hilarious switch, the movie cuts to the present day with a title card reading “58 Years Later” and shows that Sam (Kline) has been married 40 years and is already trapped in a retirement community with much older people, while Archie (Freeman) recently suffered a minor stroke that resulted in his over-concerned son keeping him on house arrest, and Paddy (DeNiro) has spent the past year wearing a bathrobe in his apartment and mourning the loss of his wife.That leaves it up to Billy (Douglas) to be living the high life, shacked up with a 31-year-old girlfriend in a Malibu beach house until he’s forced to perform the eulogy at the funeral of a friend who was just two years older than himself. Feeling his mortality while up at the pulpit, Billy vows to live life to the fullest and proposes to his girlfriend right there at the service.And so the four friends reunite in Vegas for Billy’s bachelor party weekend, with each of Billy’s buddies hoping to recapture some magic of their own while Billy suddenly has cold feet. The reason for his reticence is a lounge singer (Mary Steenburgen) he stumbles upon and has an instant connection with: a connection that is age-appropriate and makes him realize that even at 70, it may be time to grow up.There are plenty of rowdy moments along the way, as Sam is surprised to find his wife has given him an envelope with a condom, a Viagra pill and a “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” note and sets out to use his free weekend pass. Archie is dying to gamble and drink, with funny results, and Paddy is desperate to break out of his depression.There are plenty of moments in the movie that appear to be heading into morally questionable territory, especially in Sam’s quest to commit adultery and his wife’s bizarre decision to encourage that behavior.Additionally, the men ogle seemingly every attractive female in town, particularly during a largely pointless bikini contest in which they bribe their way into being judges. But ultimately, Sam makes the right decision in touching fashion and DeNiro provides a strong moral voice to the proceedings as he warns them that their quest to make poor moral choices will only lead to lasting unhappiness.The fellas also drink too much and wind up with big hangovers, but Catholics are one Christian denomination that can handle some drinking, so adults and older teens shouldn’t have any problem handling this movie. Otherwise, there is a frequent smattering of mild profanities including the S-word, A-word and some rude ribbing among the guys, but just one F word in addition to about 20 uses of God’s or Jesus’ name in vain. Even if it’s not morally right, it doesn’t stand out as intentionally abusive in the context of four old men on a rowdy weekend.Perhaps the biggest positive is that the men’s friendship is truly built on love and concern for one another, and for each others’ well-being. Most of all, “Last Vegas” shows that in these times of medical miracles, one shouldn’t discount the Boomer generation’s (or those even older) willingness and ability to live and love vibrantly, and that’s a winning message indeed.
'The Counselor', 'All is Lost', and 'Kill Your Darlings' make for a good weekend to skip the movies
Oct 25, 2013 / 00:00 amThis week, there are three new movies out that focus on people you would never want to spend time with in real life. So the question is, why bother spending time with them in a theatre?The biggest movie of the weekend is “The Counselor,” which features an assortment of stars who should really know better. Among them are Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz, Michael Fassbender, Javier Bardem and especially Cameron Diaz, who tries to look sexy but winds up with an even grosser scene than the hair-gel moment that made her famous in “There’s Something About Mary.”Perhaps they were pulled together by the fact legendary director Ridley Scott (“Alien,” “Blade Runner,” “Thelma & Louise”) was at the helm, or the fact that it was written by Cormac McCarthy, who did a great job with the dark modern film noir “No Country for Old Men” but unleashed one of the most depressing movies ever made with “The Road” a couple years later. But no matter the lure, the result is a sleazy and incomprehensible mess that is utterly disrespectful to Catholics and the sacrament of Confession to boot.The movie attempts to follow the story of a lawyer named only The Counselor, who’s called “the counselor” by a shady new client who’s a Mexican drug lord (Bardem). He has never taken on a dirty job before, but he wants to get engaged to his longtime girlfriend (Cruz) and the lure of working on a job that involves $20 million in drugs and international travel seems like an easy way to set himself and his love up for life.He’s warned by a mysterious international money launderer (Pitt) that crossing paths with Mexican drug deals and major money means that his life could be endangered at any time. And in fact, there’s an immediate threat to everyone on the scene in the form of Malkina (Diaz), Reiner’s lover who is basically a sociopath obsessed with being as sexually perverse and murderously ambitious as possible.Basically, everything that can go wrong does – both in the events onscreen and in the way in which the movie is made, but almost none of it wound up making a lick of sense to either myself or my guest, a British director with 10 feature films to her credit.Backstabbing, murder, perverse sexual behavior, and the profanity-laced discussion of all of the above along with the non-stop use of Jesus’ name as a noun, verb, adverb and adjective make “The Counselor” must-avoid viewing for discerning Catholics and frankly viewers of any kind.Add in the scene where Diaz mocks Cruz for admitting she goes to Mass and Confession before sneaking into a Confessional herself and attempting to make a priest listen to her laundry list of sexual sins (he leaves before she can start), and you’ve got to wonder if Diaz needs to attend counseling herself. Between this and her other epically tasteless turn in “Bad Teacher” in 2011, she definitely at least needs some career advice.Meanwhile, “All Is Lost” and “Kill Your Darlings” are good illustrations of the fact that a film with the “right” people or subject matter will be lauded by critics, even if audiences can’t stand them. In this regard, “All is Lost,” starring Redford as a man who finds himself alone on a yacht far out on the open ocean, is the bigger offender of the two.As the story goes, Redford’s character is awakened one night after his vessel is hit by a giant metal shipping container that apparently fell off a cargo ship, leaving a gaping hole in his boat that quickly starts taking in water. Redford must figure out how he’s going to save himself once his electrical outlets blow out and he’s left without a radio in the middle of a watery nowhere.Along the way, Redford’s character, unnamed in the film and listed only as “Our Man” in the credits, must battle storms, leaks, dwindling supplies and near drowning. This might sound exciting, but Our Man has no one to talk to throughout the entire movie.There’s barely any music, either, except in a few dramatic moments, leaving audiences left with about as much entertainment as Our Man gets to enjoy. If you want to see an old man get sunburned, eat a lot of canned beans, lie around in desperation, pump water out of a ship and fight drowning three separate times, this is your movie.At the screening I attended, at least half the audience abandoned ship, grumbling loudly about either feeling seasick or thoroughly bored or both. At one point, Redford treats us to a single moment of him screaming the F-word at the heavens. The audience will entirely relate to his frustration.It’s a shame, because Redford once made meaningful films and cared about entertaining people. But apparently not anymore, with the iconic actor making one dirge-like film after another, all focusing on various aspects of old age and mortality that have invariably bombed.Unfortunately, viewers trapped in this movie, which lacks a straight narrative, will feel that they’ve lost time and money to two hours of unrelenting dreariness.Also lacking a straight narrative, albeit in a different way, is “Kill Your Darlings,” the story of how the Beat Generation of poets and writers — Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs — all seemed to be bound together by secret homosexual trysts and a now largely forgotten murder. Following the young artists as they meet in college and attempt to break through what they see as the prisons of conventional art and expression, the movie spends chunks of time depicting their heavy drinking and drug experimentation, as well as the roundelay of relationships they went through as some had to maintain marriages to cover the tracks of their closeted lives.Despite all the partying and illicit sex, all of these guys seem utterly miserable and behave obnoxiously toward the rest of society. No one’s saying that a movie has to be about positive heroic characters, but “Kill” is likely to make audiences feel like they’ve been invited to a party populated by people they can’t stand. The big casting coup in this film is Daniel Radcliffe, who’s making about as far a leap away from Harry Potter as possible to avoid being typecast. Let’s just say that between the drug use and the graphic man-on-man bedroom action, this isn’t a movie you’ll want your youngsters to touch with a 10-foot wand.Last year’s film adaptation of “On the Road” ended decades of aborted attempts to turn Kerouac’s largely shapeless, mood-driven novel into a movie. It failed miserably, again likely because the people who seem so romantic and exciting on the page are almost sociopathic on the screen in their endless drive to satisfy any desire that comes their way.For those interested in seeing this film, take my advice: Read the book instead.
Movie review: Escape Plan
Oct 18, 2013 / 00:00 amSylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger once strode the earth as the twin Tyrannosaurus Rexes of the 1980s movies, challenging each other for the box office crown in a series of non-stop action movies that were invariably blockbusters. But just as the real dinosaurs eventually fell extinct, these two action icons fell victim to changing times as moviegoers eventually decided they’d rather watch more sensitive heroes that Arnold would have derided as “girlymen.”Their demise at the box office deprived fans of ever seeing the titans from clashing onscreen during their prime, but in 2010, Stallone pulled off the once-unthinkable task of luring then-California governor Schwarzenegger back to the big screen for a cameo in “The Expendables.” That movie and its sequel (which had a much bigger role for the Governator) proved to be a hit, creating a stairway to action-fan heaven with this weekend’s release of the new movie “Escape Plan.”That title is a bold choice for a movie featuring two guys whose movies often inspired critical derision, as it could have easily spawned reviews stating things like “audiences will be wishing they had an ‘Escape Plan’ from the theater.” But I’m happy to report that while the movie has a few plot holes big enough to drive one of Arnold’s beloved Hummers through, it’s got plenty of great action, a way better than expected premise and that the big guys are having just as big a blast as audiences will while watching them.The story follows Stallone as Ray Breslin, the world’s leading authority on prisons, who gets paid millions by the US government to point out the defects in prisons by breaking out of them after being placed inside under false criminal identities. But when a mysterious woman shows up offering him $5 million – twice his normal fee – to test a top-secret prison that houses criminals and terrorists who are so dangerous they aren’t even offered trials, he agrees to enter “The Tomb” against the advice of his business partners (played by Amy Ryan and rap star Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson).Ray quickly finds that the mission is a horrible setup when the clients who are supposed to pick him up peacefully instead taser and drug him into unconsciousness before dropping him into the prison. To compound the problem, he finds that The Tomb is run by an entirely different warden than he was promised. That means he no longer has an inside man willing to release him in case of emergency, but rather a well-dressed sadist named Hobbes (Jim Caviezel) who acts like a humorless version of Dr. Evil from the “Austin Powers” movies.It turns out that someone wants Breslin locked away forever, and the only way he can get out is by agreeing to help Hobbes find out where the world’s top financial criminal is hiding. Hobbes thinks that Breslin can only get the info by tricking information out of a fellow prisoner named Emil Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger), but the warden is unaware that Breslin and Rottmayer have already befriended each other and hatched a secret plan to pull off the greatest escape ever and that Hobbes’ offer of trading Breslin’s release for information is playing right into their hands.Thus, the pieces are in place for a surprisingly complex plot that on the surface is far more impressive than the ones found in the often-ridiculous movies that made its stars famous in their heydays. In fact, the movie has one doozy of a central plot twist when Breslin figures out exactly what and where The Tomb is. It is a fun and well-played shocker of a moment.Add in the fact that director Mikael Hafstrom (who last made the Anthony Hopkins exorcism thriller “The Rite”) uses flashy computer graphics to explain the layout of the prison and knows how to keep the pace popping, and “Escape Plan” is enough of a sensory treat to satisfy action fans and anyone looking for big dumb fun at the theater. The problem is that if you think too hard about the details and especially the final twist – which is supposed to be a huge surprise but instead will leave viewers scoffing at the fact it makes no sense – it doesn’t hold up as well.But who ever went to a Stallone or Schwarzenegger movie for coherent plotting – or even coherent dialogue readings – anyway? The whole point is to see two superhuman guys square off and then team up, and they do that in fully fun fashion. It’s great to see them together onscreen and if you’re an action-movie fan, it’s best to check these old guys out now before they realize it’s time to retire.While there are a few relatively brief scenes of guards beating prisoners – including our heroes – in nasty fashion and a scene in which guards subject Schwarzenegger to an experience that makes waterboarding feel like a relaxing bath, “Escape Plan” keeps the action rolling without being excessively graphic and bloody. And while there is foul language including a fair amount of F-bombs detonated throughout the movie, those words are limited enough to avoid being really offensive in the context of this kind of movie. After all, we are watching the world’s toughest criminals inside the world’s worst prison.You already know if “Escape Plan” is your kind of movie or not. If it is, and you’re the age of 17 and above as the R rating requires, you’ll find it to be decent-quality escapism indeed.
Movie review: Captain Phillips
Oct 11, 2013 / 00:00 amEvery person has a public side that they show the world, and a private one that they reveal only to themselves and God. Yet it is in the moments where we stare death in the face – whether in a car accident, skydiving or a cancer diagnosis – that our inner self and its indomitable spirit rises to the surface.In the fact-based, nail-biting new thriller “Captain Phillips,” Tom Hanks puts that principle in action through his portrayal of Captain Richard Phillips, the American seaman who made worldwide headlines in the spring of 2009 when his massive cargo ship was attacked by Somali pirates and he was taken as a solo hostage aboard its lifeboat when the raid went awry and the marauders were forced to flee.Phillips is a gruff, no-nonsense man at the film’s start, the kind of boss who orders his crew back to work the moment they hit 15 minutes on their coffee break. We see glimpses of his upright personal life, in a brief exchange with his wife before he ships out, and via the rosary beads that dangle from his car’s rear-view mirror as he drives to the port.But it’s when he has to protect his crew from the pirates that we see the caring side of Phillips emerge for his men to see. He devises an elaborate series of maneuvers that enable his ship to outwit and evade the encroaching evildoers, in a thrilling sequence that ends with his crew’s vastly increased respect for him.Yet it’s Phillips’ by-the-book style that gets them back into much bigger trouble the next day. His crew wanted to speed their ship far out of the pirates’ range overnight, but Phillips insisted on following their scheduled route to deliver the thousands of tons of goods carried aboard their freighter.As a result, the pirates make a second, successful raid in which they board the ship, leading Phillips to offer them an escape in the lifeboat and the $30,000 in cash from the safe if they would just leave without harming him or his crew. But the pirates were desperate for more, believing they could get as much as $10 million in ransom for him from his ship’s insurance company if they can just land on the Somali shore with the captain.Thus results the film’s central dilemma: the pirates make a desperate run for it even as the US Navy arrived with contradictory orders: to try and resolve the situation peacefully, but to stop the pirates from reaching their homeland at all costs. Of course, the ending of Phillips’ ordeal is public knowledge, as an ace team of Navy SEALS parachuted onto a nearby aircraft carrier and in a daringly precise maneuver, shot the three remaining pirates aboard the lifeboat at the exact same time.The fact that director Paul Greengrass is able to still make it all feel exciting and unpredictable is a testament to the master craftsmanship of the man behind “The Bourne Ultimatum” and more aptly, “United 93.” With that 2006 film, Greengrass placed viewers smack in the middle of a dead-on recreation of one of the most harrowing tragedies in American history - the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on United Airlines Flight 93, which ended when passengers fought back and downed the aircraft in a field outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania.Greengrass used unknown actors in that film as a means of making them just as anonymous and average as the real-life passengers who rose to acts of heroism on that fateful morning. He applies that approach with “Captain Phillips” as well, hiring unknowns as the crew and especially among the pirates, whom he cast from the Somali refugee community in Minneapolis. The result is that because the audience isn’t expecting Brad Pitt to save the day, they can be surprised throughout by the story’s non-stop twists.It’s also a reflection of the deeper themes in “Captain Phillips”: of the strength that comes from an even unspoken faith in right triumphing over wrong, and the belief that decency will trump evil. In “Phillips,” Greengrass opted to hire Hanks – our modern era’s paragon of onscreen decency, akin to Jimmy Stewart – as a calming presence amid the chaos, a sign to audiences that no matter how harrowing the ride, things would turn out OK.That doesn’t mean that Hanks is his usual charming self in the role of Phillips. He is unmistakably challenged and scared, showing the mental and emotional shifts that Phillips makes from being a tough and cranky boss who keeps his feelings locked under a steely reserve into a wily negotiator for his own life and ultimately a man who endures unbelievable tension. His performance appears deceptively simple at first, but by the end the two-time Oscar winner pulls out all the stops and redefines the public perception of his capabilities.“Captain Phillips” also deserves credit for presenting the pirates as more than mere villains, as writer Billy Ray show the economic desperation and fierce yet wounded pride that drives these men to steal and kill in a failed nation that offers no legal options for survival. In doing so, it serves as a reminder that many criminals do wrong not because they are evil, but because they feel they have no options to succeed in life by doing right.“Captain Phillips” is a long movie, running 134 minutes, and perhaps it could have 15 minutes shaved off from the lifeboat’s scenes of circular arguments among the terrorists. But in giving viewers a challenging portrait of grace and resolve while facing down near-certain death, it is not only an exciting time at the movies but one that – in handling its violence in mostly non-graphic fashion and with a minimum of foul language, with no F words – is appropriate for teenagers and adults, and with parental discretion, perhaps age 10 and up.
Movie review: Gravity
Oct 4, 2013 / 00:00 amFrom the moment the lights go down, the movie “Gravity” pulls viewers into the depths of space. Against a black screen, we see a few basic, terrifying facts about just how dangerous it is for those brave few souls who dare to be astronauts: that temperatures in space can veer wildly from minus 260 to more than 150 degrees, that there is no sound, and that there is no oxygen.In other words, human life is impossible to sustain without the most precise safety measures. And over the next 90 minutes, we’ll see just how badly a space mission can go wrong, as two astronauts – Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) – endure the results of a pummeling assault of satellite debris from a Russian satellite that was accidentally blown to bits by a military exercise gone awry.That destroyed satellite set off a chain reaction in which the initial debris slammed into other satellites, unleashing a devastating stream of giant chunks of metal hurtling at 220,000 mph. Stone and Kowalski barely manage to survive and avoid floating helplessly into space thanks to getting tangled in tether cords attached to the now-hopelessly damaged satellite they had been repairing.Now they have to figure out how to use jet packs to reach their larger spacecraft before Stone’s oxygen runs out, only to find that the parachute on that pod has already been deployed, ruining their chance to safely return to earth on it.SPOILER ALERT: At that moment, Kowalski is nearly knocked into space by another mishap, with Stone holding onto him by one hand and a tether cord. Kowalski tells her if she doesn’t release him, they’ll both die, and so it is that he sacrifices himself into certain death among the stars. Now Stone is left to fend for herself, using every ounce of her physical, emotional, mental and ultimately spiritual strength if she is to survive an ever-worsening series of challenges to come. END SPOILER.Yes, you read right. “Gravity” could have been just an empty thriller on the order of “Armageddon,” with flashy special effects masking an utterly empty story devoid of relatable characters and human emotion. But in the hands of master Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron (“Children of Men”), who directs the film from a screenplay he co-wrote with his son Jonas, “Gravity” becomes a much deeper and richer experience in which the audience feels they are present with Stone for every harrowing aspect of her crisis.The magic of the movie lies not in its stellar special effects, which are a shoo-in to sweep the technical Oscars, but in the fact that Cuaron manages to make viewers care even more about the inner space that Kowalski and especially Stone must contend with. When we first see them floating 600 kilometers above earth, trying to repair a damaged satellite, space is an inky-black and beautiful environment offering a cocoon of silent peace, and the colleagues engage in glib surface-level patter.But once they realize their lives hang in the balance, the duo start revealing the hidden pain of their earthly lives. Kowalski is divorced because he learned his wife cheated on him during a prior six-week space mission, while Bullock’s only daughter died at the age of four in a freak playground accident.Thus they are loners bound together by the need to survive, with Kowalski raising the sad prospect that there may be no one on earth to mourn either of them if they died. That frightening fact adds emotional resonance as we follow Stone through what appear to be the five stages of death, from grief and bargaining to acceptance.But “Gravity” is not a film without hope. Rather, it is a story of transformation and transcendence, as this coldly calculating woman of science acknowledges that she never learned how to pray, only to prove true the adage that there are no atheists in foxholes.That spiritual battle gives “Gravity” an added powerful kick for believers, continuing what appears to be a trend in recent weeks of mainstream Hollywood movies featuring main characters who rely on their faith to endure tremendous challenges. “Prisoners” features Hugh Jackman as a Catholic family man who loses some but not all of his moral bearings while holding captive the man he believes kidnapped his daughter, while “Don Jon” features Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a younger Catholic playboy fighting off a porn addiction while trying to value true love.Make no mistake, both “Prisoners” and “Don Jon” are very “hard-R” movies, with “Prisoners” taking viewers on perhaps the most disturbing journey of any quality film since “Seven” nearly 20 years ago, and “Don Jon” packing its opening minutes and sporadic moments later in the film with montages that allude strongly to the destructive smut he’s allowing to pollute his mind and spirit. But both those movies’ lead characters absolutely maintain or strengthen their faith along the way, giving audiences that can handle some morally questionable material an ultimately positive experience, and more importantly, giving positive images of faith-filled men to audiences that would normally avoid preachy movies like the plague.“Gravity” takes that kind of spiritual journey to an even higher level without having any immoral content to worry about. Its PG-13 rating stems almost entirely from its harrowing stream of perilous moments, with no sex or nudity and language limited to Stone saying one F word and muttering a stream of “Oh God!”s at a couple points of crisis.But let’s face it, it would be unrealistic and almost impossible for any human being in the same situation to not say exactly the same things, so the language here is not exploitative and barely even noticeable. This may be too intense for kids under ages 10 to 12, but teens and adults are going to love it.