Denzel Behaving Badly: A Pilot Under The Influence

Movie Review: Flight

Director: Robert Zemeckis

Reviewed: 13 November 2012

jamesintexas rating--**

Despite the best efforts of Denzel Washington, "Flight" stalls before take-off, never reaching lofty heights.  Robert Zemeckis curiously directs this film, and though the airplane disaster is filmed with intensity and skill, the rest of the film fails to reach any sort of emotional power.

The script raises an intriguing question.  What if the person responsible for saving hundreds of lives was also the person partially responsible for putting them at risk?  What if we found out that Captain Sully who landed the Miracle on the Hudson was high at the time?

An elaborate backstory is set up for Whip Whitaker, a boozing, drug-using pilot who takes the controls while still recovering from the night before.  When a terrible incident occurs in the air, Whip makes choices that end up saving nearly everyone on the plane.  But, in the aftermath and investigation, his addictions come out, leading to serious questions about how far he (and those around him) are willing to go to hide the truth.  "Flight" feels like director Robert Zemeckis trying to be gritty, showing us Denzel Washington behaving badly, having John Goodman march into the film to "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones while rattling off so many drug names that I have never even heard of, clumsily layering Red Hot Chili Peppers' songs from 1992 over a drug scene, having a supporting character semi-involved with the porn industry.  Kelly (Nicole Reilly) is introduced as a fellow addict and given very little to do as Whip's friend.  Her story line is particularly unsatisfying.  

The story is less about the process of recovery than I would have hoped.  There are marvelous actors in supporting roles (Melissa Leo and Don Cheadle) who have little to do.  The plot hinges on a joining door in a hotel room being left open, which just feels lazy.  Whip put lives in danger every time that he flew under the influence some sort of drug or alcohol, and the film glosses over why his crew, especially Margaret (Tamara Tunie) would lie for him and protect him for so many years.

There is little sense to make of why Whip was able to invert the plane and save so many lives.  Perhaps there is no reason.  It could have been luck.  However, the same creative quick-thinking resides in the mind of the man whose aggressiveness and stubbornness, whether alcohol and drug-fueled or not, allowed him to take the controls while not at his best.

I like a quiet conversation in the stairwell of a hospital best in this film, with two characters getting to know each other through a third.  I like that this film is about serious things: addiction, enabling, fleeing from the truth.  Denzel Washington is always credible and here he is strong, probably nomination-worthy.  The ending of the film is not earned, and the emotion for me is simply not there.

Cohen's Failure: Unfunny Dictator

Movie Review: The Dictator

Director: Larry Charles

Reviewed: 19 November 2012

jamesintexas rating--*

A comedy is supposed to be funny.

And Sacha Baron Cohen's latest vehicle "The Dictator" is simply not funny.

I loved "Borat" for its daring and chaotic glee.  This film seems to have taken away everything that has worked for Cohen in the past.  The script shackles him to a flimsy story of a dictator transplanted to New York City and replaced by a double.  Ben Kingsley is wasted here, as is Ana Faris, as the owner of the organic grocery store where Cohen's character finds work.  There's zero nuance, zero shading, and despite a willingness of Cohen to say or do anything, it just doesn't work.

There's just little to like here, and I don't think that it delivers on any of the promises of the preview (much funnier).

I laughed less than five times.

A comedy is supposed to be funny.

We Bought A...Forget It.

Movie Review: We Bought A Zoo

Director: Matt Damon

Reviewed: 12 November 2012

jamesintexas rating--*

Cameron Crowe has lost his touch.  The director of "Almost Famous" and "Say Anything" almost completely delivers a disaster of a film in "We Bought A Zoo."  The charming Matt Damon cannot do anything with his role as Benjamin Mee, grieving (horribly misguided) father who purchases a zoo and uses it as way to heal the wounds within his family.  There are no stakes in this film; money just appears whenever main characters need it, and a villain is contrived from a regulator who wants to make sure the zoo is up to code and safe.

Heavy-handed, slow, and just awful in its sentiment, "We Bought A Zoo" brings very little to the screen to like beyond some shots of animals being cute.  The animals and Matt Damon's earnestness have earned this film one star, but I caution anyone against seeing this film.  The first twenty minutes of "Life of Pi" depicts zoo life and a family with far less cloying children, cliche, and Scarlett Johannson.
 

A Political Film For The Ages: Lincoln.

Movie Review: Lincoln

Director: Steven Spielberg

Reviewed: 1 December 2012

jamesintexas rating--***1/2

Wow.  To see Daniel Day-Lewis acting is a cinematic event, and a performance from the actor who played Christy Brown, Hawkeye, Gerry Conlon, Bill The Butcher, and Daniel Plainview is a rare treat.

And Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our most beloved president, has yet to be rendered cinematically.

Adding director Steven Spielberg to the mix is intriguing but also risky because of Spielberg's difficulty handling more serious stories.  Spielberg remains our most popular modern director, lending an air of excitement that such a populist is constructing such a challenging story.

However, the director of "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" works with an innovative, dazzling screenplay from playwright Tony Kushner to construct "Lincoln," a film with as much to say about our world in 2012 as it does about the slice of January 1865 that it depicts.  The screenplay and a focus on the telling of a meaty, complex, political story is what saves this film.  Spielberg had to reign in his tendencies in order to keep the focus on Lincoln, the man in the White House, surrounded by his family, trapped by the public, consumed with his devotion to ending slavery through the political process before the ending of the war.  There is one battle scene here, but Spielberg could have made this "Saving Private Ryan" set in the Civil War and doesn't.  He is more keen to focus on Lincoln's curling up on the floor next to his youngest son whom he then carries to bed in a tender scene that communicates more than narration or speeches ever could.  He focuses on the messiness of the political process and the way ideals have to be compromised in order to achieve anything truly great.  It seems radical, but "Lincoln" shows us the world of politics with its passion and zeal as duplicitous, ugly, and vital.

To be clear, Spielberg made a film about Abraham Lincoln and does not have him read the Gettysburg Address, does not show any Civil War battles beyond the opening scene, does not show the actual reading of the vote of the amendment in question, does not show the signing of the treaty at Appomatox Courthouse, does not show his reelection in 1864, does not show his assassination, and only allows us a narrow glimpse into the president giving the famous Second Inaugural Address to close the film.  He has constructed a film that is so unconventional in its treatment of a revered public figure that there's no other word for it but astonishing.  The narrow focus on the few months in 1865 involving the amendment abolishing slavery has much to do with this film's success.  It never overreaches.

As for Daniel Day-Lewis, he anchors the film with gravitas, humor, and weariness.  The actor who is known for his physicality inhabits Lincoln with all of his complexity, making him a quieter, quirkier figure than I think I ever saw him.  His grabbing of the hand of his Secretary of War while anxiously waiting word on an impending battle is one of my favorite moments.  Lincoln's penchant for stories leads to many laughs in the film, yet the folksy stories uncover the past of the man, his values, and his ability to be two steps or two plays ahead of everyone in the film.  Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Tim Blake Nelson, James Spader, and others deliver fantastic performances.  The focus of the film on the passing of the amendment abolishing slavery necessitates showing less of Lincoln's relationship with Mary Todd (Sally Field) or his son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and if I had a complaint against the film, it would be its lack of screen time or depth with both of those characters.  However, there is something remarkable about seeing how open the White House used to be, with Lincoln cradling his youngest son in his arms while still dictating policy and hearing complaints from citizens who just show up at his door. He's a man, a father, a husband, the supreme military commander of the Union Army during a vicious struggle, and he's exhausted the entire film.

Ultimately, "Lincoln" resonates with more modern fights for equality.  As it delves into the political theater of Washington and the world of Senate votes and compromises, Senators on both sides of the aisle decry giving African-Americans or women the right to vote.  And now, here we are in 2012, with an African-American president and a female Secretary of State who had vied for the presidency.  In twenty years, will we look back at some of the speeches and vitriol of this day with the same cringing?

The times, they are a changing, Bob Dylan sings, and "Lincoln" reminds us of the fervor of now must not prevent us from looking forward to the possibility of what the future can be. Spielberg ends the film with Lincoln reading these famous lines: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

What those words mean to me is a recommitment to democracy, to our process of working together, to our belief that binding up our disagreements and wounds is vital and necessary.  We are a country of greatness, just as Lincoln says about himself, "clothed in immense power" that we can use to achieve greatness and kindness and peace.  Those are words that can give us pause despite which side we supported in the last election or any election.

And, both North and South and West and East should agree in private and in public, Daniel Day-Lewis deserves his third Academy Award for Best Actor this winter for "Lincoln."

What a gift his performance is.  

Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master: An Evocative Journey

Movie Review: The Master

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Reviewed: 25 September 2012

jamesintexas rating--***

"The Master" exists within a class of films that I didn't always fully understand on first viewing.  I will start this review by stating that I must see this film again.

Joaquin Phoenix is Freddie Quell, a sailor adrift after the end of the second world war.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic religious cult leader.  Amy Adams is his wife Margaret Dodd, and she may be the eponymous master, pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Filled with tension, the battle of wills between the two men is complex and confusing.  Director Paul Thomas Anderson, the master himself behind "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia," and the epic "There Will Be Blood," seems to be commenting on the post-World War Two malaise in America, the sense of drift felt by veterans who have returned home from war, perhaps addicts, perhaps damaged.  Phoenix's performance is completely mesmerizing; I simply have never seen him this way before.  He's a jumble of hunched shoulders, marble-mouth speeches, capacity for violence, and obsession.  Hoffman is at least his equal as the charismatic, fatherly Lancaster Dodd, a man who instructs others on a shadowy belief system called "The Process."  Amy Adams does supporting work as Margaret Dodd, the woman behind the man.

I was struck by how nervous this movie made me feel.  I really didn't know where it was going, what could happen from scene to scene, and I think that there is a real focus brought to the work by zeroing in on the two men.  The film tells American history, wrestles with the rise of religious belief, addresses philosophy and the construction of meaning.  Lancaster Dodd tells Freddie, "If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know, for you would be the first in the history of the world."

Those are compelling words and this is a contemplative film, rich in imagery to match the performances.  I hope to see it again soon and amend this review, but for now, let me say that it is rich and evocative and most certainly worth a viewing, though it will disturb and sicken and frustrate.  Paul Thomas Anderson certainly knows how to do all of those things in his films.

(To be continued...)

Best Visual Effects, yes, but who is Pi?

Movie Review: Life of Pi (3D)

Director: Ang Lee

Reviewed: 2 December 2012

jamesintexas rating--***

Ang Lee is a tremendous directorial talent, and both "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" made my short list for the top ten films of the last decade, so a new film from him is an event. Despite the occasional misfire (I'm looking at you, "Hulk"), Lee directs with a visual style that includes a love of manners and grace, motion and place, a strong color palette, and he always seems to elicit strong performances from fine actors like Heath Ledger, Emma Thompson, and others.  He has won the Academy Award for Best Director, and I will always watch his films.  His most recent film "Life of Pi" is more of a technological wonder than a living, breathing film, but I admire the work that Lee does here to render the world of the young Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma), an Indian boy who grew up in a zoo and survives a sinking freighter ship (a terrifying storm) that wipes out everything and everyone he knows.  Pi finds himself cast away on a life boat alongside a hyena, an orangutan, a wounded zebra, and a ferocious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.  More, I will not say.  Lee fully employs the 3D effects in an almost painterly fashion, using them not to throw things at the audience or make us duck.  Instead, Lee places the life boat swimming as if in a seaof stars, making it appear that Pi is floating in the sky more than the ocean.  Whales dance with translucent colors, and fish fly.  Lee changes perspective at moments, taking us inside a tiger's eyes and then inside of a fish's eyes, swirling through the ocean with its colors and lights.  At one moment a painting literally comes alive with images spiraling and turning every direction.  To frame the story, the journey of survival becomes a tale told by the older Pi (Irrfan Khan) to a young man interested in both faith and being a writer, a set-up that I was not totally convinced was needed.

"Life of Pi" is engineered best for the 3D experience, and there are more than five jaw-dropping sequences that seem assured to win this film an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.  The tiger itself is a triumph of digital creation, and there are sequences that are on par with "2001" and "Tree of Life" for their majesty and beauty.  Lee lovingly captures the underwater world and the world of the stars, forging a cinematic magical realism with colors and images rarely ever depicted on film.  Those sequences are what I will remember from this film.

Despite being engaged in the story and the technological marvel of it (Lee paints so much in CGI that nothing really stands out and seems inauthentic; he's blended things so well that there are no lines), I left "Life of Pi" feeling both a distance and a coldness.  I like the fact that despite some difficult, violent imagery (ship sinking, animals being animals), the film is suitable for all ages.  The lead performance by Suraj Sharma is fine, though the narration started to grate on me a bit.  I wonder if this film needed the outside narration or the framing device at all.  Probably yes, because it brings the audience into Pi's mind, and besides the tiger, there is really no other reason for him to talk at all.  He doesn't have a device like Wilson the volleyball.

However, what if Ang Lee had allowed himself to tell the story more by using imagery instead of words?  What if he allowed sequences to go on without narration for ten, twenty, or thirty minutes?  He could have pushed the limits of what an American audience would see in terms of purely visual filmmaking.  Lee wisely drops the framing device midway through the film in order to not interrupt the focus as the survival story builds in its intensity.  However, I would argue that the framing device doesn't add an emotional clarity to the story, and the ending does not really work.  In general, I think "Life of Pi" is an interesting story, but the framing devices and the ending (of both the book and the movie) failed to bring me resolution.  The story seems at times to be trying to tell us that it is about telling people good-bye.  It also examines what a person is capable of doing under extreme stress.  Is the film an advocate of faith or belief in religion because it is simply the better story?  Is there something about this Job-like struggle that is unique to Pi or his tri-religious philosophy?  Are the stories that we tell ourselves the lifelines which can keep us alive?

I'm just not sure.  I'm not sure the storytelling always matches the visual flair and wonder.  I'm not sure that the film's examination of religion and faith reaches any sort of depth.  But I'm sure of this.  You should see "Life of Pi" on the big screen with 3D.  I agree with fellow critics that this film is a great example of the power of 3D filmmaking if put in the right hands.  Ang Lee's hands are the right hands.

I Heart Silver Linings Playbook, Second Viewing.

Movie Review: Silver Linings Playbook

Director: David O. Russell

Reviewed: 1 December 2012

jamesintexas rating--****

Bradley Cooper proves that he can act, David O. Russell proves that he is a preeminent director of A-list talent, and "Silver Linings Playbook" proves to be an emotional, visceral film of strange power and grace.  It is one of the best films of the year.

"Three Kings" was a story of a community of soldiers during Desert Storm with Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Mark Wahlberg, and George Clooney.  "The Fighter" is nothing if not a family story with Mark Wahlberg's drug-addicted brother, smattering of sisters, domineering mother, and equally tough girlfriend.  "The Silver Lining Playbook" features multiple scenes that layer in family members, neighbors, friends, police officers, and extended family.  Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver play Pat Senior and Dolores. Jennifer Lawrence and Julia Stiles play sisters Tiffany and Veronica; Cooper and Shea Whigham play brothers Pat and Jake.  Danny (Chris Tucker, welcome back!) plays a friend Pat meets in a Baltimore institution, and Pat's best friend Ronnie (John Ortiz) who is married to Veronica.  There's Pat's psychiatrist Dr. Patel (Anupam Kher) and Pat's local Officer Keogh and a Pat's dad's best friend, a Cowboy fan and a bookie named Randy (Paul Herman).  Russell doesn't necessarily introduce anyone in this film; he just layers them in, one on top of the other. Everyone knows everyone. A character that begins the film as possibly being imaginary ends up being incredibly real. A character that I thought was dead magically shows up halfway into the film without explanation.  It is a magical, transporting film.

Without giving anything away (since deferred information is one of the strengths of Russell's screenplay of Matthew Quick's novel), Pat is recovering from a violent episode, hopes to reconcile with his wife, and checks out of the hospital with his mom. The film begins with his return to his parents' home, and then it centers the concentric circles surrounding Pat.  He literally runs in circles around his neighborhood, trapped in his head and his past, triggered by the world around him, struggling with his mental illness.  He meets Tiffany, a recent widow, and they forge an unusual, unconventional connection.

Everyone in this film is interesting.  Everyone.  Even bit parts.  I wanted to see an entire movie with Chris Tucker's character Danny.  And Ronnie.  And Randy.  And the mom.

Russell's use of setting is inspired.  The film takes place in a community, a neighborhood where a screaming episode wakes up all the neighbors who stand out on their stoops.  Most scenes take place inside homes.  The film breathes Philadelphia in with a lived-in quality and few obvious references beyond one scene at Lincoln Financial Field.  The film features Halloween trick or treating, eating at the Llanerch Diner, running around the winding roads around Pat and Tiffany's Philadelphia neighborhood, Christmas celebrations, outside of the Eagles game with the tailgaters, at a dance competition happening the same time as an Eagles-Cowboys game on television. Russell is uncovering some deep stuff here, exploring where mental illness ends and rabid fandom begins.

Put another way, isn't being a Philadelphia Eagles fan (or, insert your favorite sports team or television show or website or musician here) just another form of mental illness?  Is Pat any different, worse, or exactly the same as the E-A-G-L-E-S-EAGLES! shouting fans outside Lincoln Financial Field eight Sundays a year?

The way sports can be used in lieu of communication in American culture is insightful.  Pat Senior wants to spend time with Pat watching the game.  Let's watch the game together.  Let's have something to talk about.  Russell is commenting on our national cultural practices in a way rarely depicted.  He's not mocking them but questioning our habits.  He's wrestling with the rituals of American life: wearing costumes, decorations, watching games, superstition, gambling, competitions, eating, recovery, rallying.

In short, family.

The performances are spectacular.  I'm expecting multiple acting nominations, starting with Cooper and Lawrence who are both deserving.  I loved seeing Chris Tucker again.  The filmmaking layers in sound: the doorbell, Cooper's rapid-fire no-filter conversation, the spectacle of watching two, three, four characters speaking over each other.  Russell's philosophy is to cram a scene full of as many people as possible and have it absolutely work, have it absolutely make sense.  Because really, all these people are a part of the story, know each other, care about each, make sense to Pat, and for economy of storytelling, why not have them in the same room?  

I think the filmmaking mirrors the feelings of mental illness, and I'm in awe of Russell's powers as a filmmaker with specific cinematography and editing choices.  He avoids cliches and mawkishness, cutting deep into characters in pain.  Yet, the film is ultimately one of hope and joy, earning its ending, and surprising me in the amount I was moved by it.

A must see film from one of our greatest living directors.

Update: I've seen the film twice now, and it is even more rich and wonderful in a second viewing. Some of the tension dissipates, yet I'm still enthralled by Russell's techniques: swooping cameras, layers upon layers of sounds (telephones ringing, doorbells ringing), and his casting.  The film should earn nominations for Cooper, Lawrence, De Niro, and with any luck, Weaving.  Best Film, Best Director, and Best Screenplay should also be forthcoming.  I'm ordering the soundtrack and preparing to read Matthew Quick's book.  I teared up even more in the second viewing than in the first.