COWBOYS & ALIENS

February 14, 2012 (DVD)

I wanted to love Cowboys & Aliens. The casting alone made me want to love it, and Jon Favreau‘s involvement made me just as excited. It should have been a slam dunk. How then could it have gone so very wrong? My parents watched the movie a few weeks before me, and my mom told me it was awful. Still I believed, determined to see it for no other reason than Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. In a western! The aliens premise was odd, yes, but I was certain that could never derail such a promising project. I was certain it would add a quirky little element to a fine western. … I should have listened to my mother. The aliens storyline is exactly what killed this film. I could never decide if it was supposed to be goofy fun or witty drama or just plain tongue-in-cheek. I spent the entire movie wondering how I was supposed to feel about it. As the closing credits rolled I was still unsure how I was supposed to feel about it. All I really knew for sure is that the movie came across as so much wasted talent in such a stupid story. And that made me very sad.

Cowboys & Aliens suffered from a ridiculous alien plot. If that particular story had been better, the movie would not be such a disappointment. If I had made the film, I would’ve put a lot of TNT’s Falling Skies into Cowboys & Aliens, making the outer space enemies much more terrifying rather than played for disgusting effect. I would’ve given Ford and Craig more to do than just battle aliens. Two hours of watching them run around with wide eyes and shooting at grotesque creatures just isn’t a full use of their talents. The best parts of the movie came when they got to play off each other instead of fight off attackers. But those best parts were few and far between, leaving me thoroughly unsatisfied with the movie.

I did love one thing: the performances of the cast. Or rather, the performances of the male cast. Ford was wonderfully grizzly and Craig was beautiful and steely, and the supporting players of Clancy Brown (always fantastic), Sam Rockwell (surprisingly meek), and even Walton Goggins as a nutty dimwit were all pitch-perfect. But then came Olivia Wilde. At first she seemed to have no purpose and was simply meant to bring some kind of softness to the dusty Old West town, but then she was revealed as a major element to the story. I almost laughed out loud at the ridiculousness of it all. Even as a “key player”, Wilde had a non-role. Which she played beautifully… as a non-actor. Her entire appearance in the film seemed like nothing more than window dressing, and she was as stiff as I’ve ever seen an actress play in a film. Simply put, I longed for her to disappear from the time she first arrived. And come to think of it, that’s pretty much how I felt about the whole “aliens” portion of the movie. I’m looking for a do-over now. Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig deserve so much better.

movie still via Rotten Tomatoes

THE DEBT

February 14, 2012 (DVD)

photo: Jessica Chastain and Sam Worthington in The Debt, via Rotten Tomatoes

I’m always so surprised when a very good movie gets overlooked at the box office, and in the case of The Debt I’m even a little shocked. How could a Cold War spy drama starring Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Ciarán Hinds not garner attention? Is it that no one was really aware of its release, or is it simply that my radar is more attuned toward Mirren and Sam Worthington (as the younger version of Hinds’ character) that I watched for this to appear at the cinema? I do remember that the theatrical period was very short, so perhaps people really didn’t find this appealing. But having finally seen it, I have to wonder why not.

The Debt is the story of a trio of Mossad agents on an Israel-sanctioned mission in 1965 East Berlin to capture a doctor who had performed horrific experiments on Jews during the Holocaust. Due to a snafu, the mission is altered and the agents must improvise in attempt to complete the task without the support they once had. By the time the mission is completed there are secrets to keep, and the bulk of the movie is told in flashback as the three agents are faced with the price of their secrets after thirty years of living with them.

As the younger trio, Worthington, Marton Csokas, and Jessica Chastain are mesmerizing. Their relationships to each other are key factors in the drama, and each brings a very specific note to the overall story. While Csokas is brash and forceful, Worthington is quiet and controlled – a surprise for me as I expected him to be the bold one among the group. But in The Debt, it is Worthington who brings charm and grace to the film. Chastain is also a joy to watch, as her character transforms from green field agent struggling to control her fear to a steely, hard-hearted woman who chooses to bury the past. Chastain, in fact, is the treasure of this film, and she is the chief reason to see it. As the movie progresses, though, and the story catches up to the present day, it is Mirren who takes center stage, capturing all of Chastain’s nuances to show the affects of a 30-year secret buried in the soul. I’ve not seen Mirren play such a brittle character in some time, if ever, and it’s impossible to look away when she’s onscreen… even while struggling to find sympathy for her character.

There are unsettling scenes in The Debt, and there is a wealth of story that could have been (yet wasn’t) mined in this film, but every moment is engaging. I literally had to set aside everything in front of me because I was afraid to look away from the television screen. I love movies that make me feel as if every single moment is important to the story! And even when the tale concluded I hated that I’d reached the end. I wanted to see more missions by the younger Mossad agents. I wanted to see different relationships play out. I think I even wanted to see a different conclusion to the film despite the satisfaction I felt in the story’s chosen ending. In the end, I just really wanted these characters to appear again in another narrative. Which makes me wonder, again, why this movie didn’t find an audience. It’s certainly one that I will never forget.

THE TREE OF LIFE :: Oscar Ritual 2012

February 11, 2012 — DVD

Nominated for Best Picture, Directing (Terrence Malick), and Cinematography

The world of art becomes so much more rewarding when we move past our initial reactions of “I liked it” or “It was boring” into the arena of reflection, listening, reconsidering, and, in time, revelation. – Jeffrey Overstreet, “Sean Penn, The Tree of Life, and the difference between prose and poetry”

These words are helping me digest The Tree of Life. The minute this film by Terrence Malick came to an end I sought out commentary from appreciated film writers simply because I couldn’t form my own words. I couldn’t quite grasp what I’d just seen over the course of nearly 2.5 hours. I expected this to be the case, of course, having experienced a couple of Malick’s films in the past. I expected to not understand it. The fact that so many higher-minded people have gone before without being able to truly express all that the film means to them told me that my first viewing would simply be an introduction to this film. And so it is. But what an introduction it has been!

The most challenging aspect of The Tree of Life is the languid sequences of nature’s creative process that not only begin the film but are continually interjected within. There was a point at which I had to force myself not to tune out. Perhaps we’ve seen too many Discovery Channel specials on volcanoes and single-cell organisms and evolution of life and even the circle of life. Ultimately, my mind wanted to simply skim over these vivid depictions that felt somewhat endless rather than contemplate them in the context of the movie’s family narrative. To be honest, I didn’t really want to think about it so much; I just wanted the movie to be a simple story that was laid out before me. But I knew better than to expect this; I even put off my viewing of the film until I was ready to sit with these sequences and pay attention! Even so, I was distracted during these artistic pauses and sometimes felt anxious to return to the parallel story: a young boy’s memories of growing up with a stern father, his relationship to his younger brothers, and his constant questioning of God’s role in all that he experienced in his sorrowful youth. That story, though told in dreamy voiceover by himself and his father and mother, is really what mesmerized me throughout the film. The actors, especially, were perfect in their roles: newcomer Hunter McCracken as the boy (Jack); Brad Pitt as his very difficult father; and a very ethereal Jessica Chastain as his long-suffering mother. Each was astonishing, at times, and each carried the film to new levels as the story progressed. Sean Penn is also featured in a few segments as the older version of Jack, but I had difficulty connecting with him. It was his young counterpart who truly captivated me and whose story I most cared to follow.

I cannot help but compare this film experience with my favorite Malick film, The New World, simply because both require multiple viewings and personal introspection. I initially struggled to enjoy The New World, despite its familiar story of John Smith and Pocahontas, but its beauty and its tranquil storytelling drew me back again and again until it is now one of my all-time favorite films (in the top 15, even). But I didn’t think I liked it at all on the first viewing. And then I couldn’t stop thinking about it. What initially didn’t quite come together in my mind is now my favorite example of beauty and elegance in film-making. It is that very experience that stayed in my mind as I watched The Tree of Life. I knew I might not understand it enough to even discuss with others, but I also knew I wouldn’t be seeing it only once. Time will tell whether it haunts me in the way that The New World still haunts, but I’m excited to let The Tree of Life wash over me for a while and then return to it in short time. The one thing I do know from first viewing is that it’s worth a second and third look, if not many more throughout my lifetime.

image via Rotten Tomatoes

Star Wars 3D: THE PHANTOM MENACE

February 10, 2012 ~ Cinemark Allen 16 ~ Allen, Texas

It was never my intent to see the Star Wars movies in 3D, and most especially not The Phantom Menace which lives in my mind as the least of the films in the saga. But when the first boy brought it up and assumed that I would certainly accompany him… well, there’s no saying “No” to that. Thankfully, there are good elements to this first episode, not the least of which is Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor playing Jedi Knights. That alone is worth the (crazy expensive) price of admission.

Was the film better in 3D? No. But I did find moments of joy throughout, including the richness of detail that does make a movie more visually stunning when viewed in 3D. It wasn’t any more impressive in the cinema, though, than it is in Blu-Ray on a large television screen. It’s just, well, bigger. The one thing we did look forward to seeing in the 3D format was the pod race; unfortunately, it wasn’t as impressive as we would have liked. I wish George Lucas had turned it into a more personal experience, wherein we could have been in little Anakin’s seat and viewed the entire race from his perspective. I really wanted the stomach-lurching experience that three-dimensions ought to offer, and the pod race would have been the perfect vehicle for it (pun intended). Instead, the sequence was simply another cool ride with a little more depth of scenery. And that just seemed like a missed opportunity.

Still, the joy of seeing Star Wars isn’t really in the viewing itself. It never has been. The joy of these movies is in the sharing of the experience, and that made watching this first episode in 3D worth its admission. The first boy was four-years-old when this first film was released, and it was his first introduction to the saga that I have loved since my own childhood. The Phantom Menace is made for the young kids, not for us older ones, and I was reminded of that as we listened to a roomful of children watching the movie for the first time ever. They were mesmerized and joyous and just as captivated as we all were when we saw our first Star Wars films. There’s nothing like that experience, and hearing the kids around me in the audience reminded me just how precious is this movie saga. As adults, we complain at the changes that are made as Lucas continually tweaks and “updates” the films, but those complaints come because the memories are so dear to us. The reality is that my nephews may have never seen any of the Star Wars films had Phantom not been made. They don’t care as much for the original trilogy because those films look dated and had little of the technological wizardry that is so commonplace for them. No amount of defense on my part will ever convince the boys otherwise. So I’ve learned to accept whatever changes come along, like them or not, and be happy that new generations are given the opportunity to experience these beloved films on the big screen. Even with complete redo’s, that really is the only true way to appreciate Star Wars.

Now, bring on the Clones!

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS :: Oscar Ritual 2012

February 5, 2012 — DVD

Nominated for Best Picture, Directing (Woody Allen), Original Screenplay, and Art Direction

It has only been in the past decade or so that I’ve become a fan of Woody Allen’s films, and even then I’m reserved in my opinion. But when I do find one of his films interesting I tend to love it wholeheartedly. Such is the case with Midnight In Paris. The premise alone excited me – a writer finds himself transported to 1920s Paris while walking the streets of that city at midnight – and I was quite impressed with the casting of Owen Wilson as said writer. Yet the previews did not do the film justice. Had I depended solely upon the movie trailers I might never have seen the film since it simply did not give indication of the movie’s charm. Had I depended upon those previews I would have expected a comedy when, in fact, Midnight In Paris is far more romantic than comedic. It’s an exploration of life and love and the pursuit of dreams with only a bit of humor and wit thrown into the mix. Even with all of that going for it, it’s Woody Allen’s distinctive voice that truly makes the story come alive.

As the writer protagonist, Owen Wilson is a delight, as self-effacing as always but also incredibly generous as an actor, allowing the robust cast of supporting players to take center stage each and every time. The movie’s great wit comes with those supporting characters as Wilson finds himself face to face with such figures as Ernest Hemingway, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Cole Porter, Pablo Picasso, and Gertrude Stein, among many others. Night after night Wilson’s character walks to a particular Paris street corner until he encounters a vintage Peugeot and is beckoned by its passengers to join them for that night’s fabulous party with extraordinary artists. After the fantasy of the experience wears off, Wilson begins to seek advice of his new friends regarding his disenchantment with life, his novel in progress, and his upcoming marriage. As the nights pass and he meets one legendary figure after another, the pieces of his life do fall into place, even as he begins to fall in love with a French woman of the past.

It is rather difficult to make a romantic movie about Paris that does not cause the heart to flutter, and Woody Allen uses that to his advantage in this film. The opening sequence is actually an extended montage of the sights and sounds of Paris. After such a beginning I almost didn’t care what came next! Thankfully, Allen used that romanticism to set the stage for a truly charming film. I was enchanted by the many characters that popped into the 1920s storyline and by the actors who portrayed them, including Marion Cotillard as the French woman of Wilson’s affection and Corey Stoll as the hilariously brash Hemingway – although Adrien Brody was thoroughly underused as Salvador Dalí and ended up playing him as a fool. I was equally impressed with the heart of the film, but I did tire of the “present day” story, as Rachel McAdams was utterly vapid, Michael Sheen was nothing more than a caricature, and the characters of McAdams’s parents were over-the-top in their ridiculousness. Having the present day be so extremely unoriginal was disappointing and unnecessary; Paris past would have appeared grand even without diminishing the current age. But perhaps I wouldn’t have been so enchanted with Wilson’s story. As it stands, I loved Midnight In Paris because I already loved the romanticism of Paris in the Twenties. I saw a lot of myself in Wilson’s character. And when the final moment of the film came along, I actually clapped at the outcome. I’m not sure there’s ever been another Woody Allen film that brought me to that.

movie image via Film Master Journal