THE BANG BANG CLUB

March 31, 2012 (DVD)

It’s movies like The Bang Bang Club that remind me how many good films exist that never get public notice. Even with the “star power” of Ryan Phillippe, this movie just didn’t get any kind of marketing or attention. And perhaps that was for the best since it is always a delight to discover a film without any preconceived ideas.

The film’s title refers to a group of four photojournalists working in South Africa in the early ’90s and bearing witness to the explosive days leading up to the first free election. Their photos of the combat and violence that took place in the townships won them global acclaim and brought the South African stories to the attention of the world. That these men worked side by side in the center of the action made them brothers, and that is the heart of the movie. The criticism seems to be that the movie fails to adequately shed light on this historic moment in time, but Bang Bang is not meant to be a documentary of the last days of apartheid but rather a look at the lives of four men who jumped into the fray in order to capture the truths of that moment. Each was scarred, in one way or another, by their shared experience, and the movie tells this story well. It is a somewhat intimate portrait of a group of friends and colleagues who supported each other as they sought to chronicle the country’s unrest.

Despite the initial shock of hearing Phillippe and co-star Taylor Kitsch speak in some sort of South African dialect, both actors were superb in their performances. Equally impressive were South African actors Neels Van Jaarsveld and Frank Rautenbach as the other half of the “Club.” Watching them in action did not feel so much like a movie as following a team, and that is what made the film so engaging. I appreciate when movies based on true stories are actually presented on a small scale, as if you are being allowed to explore a private journal. The Bang Bang Club doesn’t try to be “important” or convincing or even convicting; it simply walks you through the retelling of the story. And that’s a rare thing in movies these days.

movie still via IMDB

IN TIME

March 31, 2012 (DVD)

My great love of movies and the fact that I respond emotionally to every one has caused me to only seek films that interest and intrigue me. Whether it be the story or the casting of actors I love or even an interesting concept, I find that I only watch movies that I feel I’m going to love for one reason or another. But in doing that I’ve forgotten that some movies can be entertaining without any of the factors I usually look for. For some reason I’ can overlook a multitude of things in a television show but seem to have no patience for movies that don’t offer me some big draw. Tonight I was reminded how it feels to just watch a movie for the sake of seeing a movie… for pure entertainment and nothing else.

You may have never heard of In Time, a 2011 movie starring Justin Timberlake and Cillian Murphy. I only found it while perusing the rental options at Redbox. I assumed it was just another of the straight-to-DVD flicks, and that is generally my cue to avoid. But when I had a series of free rentals set to expire at the end of this month and my top picks were exhausted, the DVD options became very limited and I was forced to lower my expectations and start considering movies I’d probably never have cared to see in a cinema. The current state of comedy is not entertaining to me in any way, and so many drama offerings substitute gratuitous sex and violence and profanity for good writing, so that left me with very little to choose from. And then I saw an actual preview for In Time on another rental disc this week and took note that many familiar faces appeared in the movie, including Johnny Galecki, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser, Amanda Seyfried, and even Matt Bomer of White Collar. It also featured a sci-fi premise and seemed to be somewhat of an action movie. So I put it on my list. Then a pal texted me mid-week to mention that he’d just watched this very movie and wondered if I’d ever heard of it. Suddenly it seemed the right time for In Time.

Though it is not a great film and makes no real impact at all, the movie is enjoyable. It’s not the action-packed thriller that its trailer purported it to be, but it is a decent story with a truly original concept about a world in which minutes and hours have become society’s currency and every person has only 25 years available to spend for the rest of their lives. The world is such that one cup of coffee costs 4 minutes and rent could cost you months at a time, and when your 25 years of time is depleted your heart simply stops and you collapse dead where you stand. Despite some extremely awful one-liners, such as a time thief talking about “cleaning the clock” of his victim (bah!), the movie isn’t really that bad. It’s not that good either, but I was engaged enough to want to see the story play out. The best thing about In Time is Timberlake, whose acting is always so easy and unforced, and Murphy, as a “time keeper” (aka police officer), who is charged with chasing down Timberlake’s character when he violates the laws on time acquisition. Both actors did their jobs well and allowed the story to take center stage. Sure, it could have had much more depth in exploring the concept of knowing when your life will end or the injustice of class differences or even the ramifications of population control, and perhaps some will see wasted opportunities in not exploring those things. Personally, I like that In Time was really just an entertaining movie, and I’m grateful for the reminder that not every film has to compete for my personal top 10 list.

movie still via IMDB

EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE

March 30, 2012 (DVD)

In the years since I read the book Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close I’ve come to regard it as one of my top 5 favorite books of all time, so a movie based on the novel was one of the most exciting adaptations I could imagine. The casting of Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock as parents of the young protagonist was also a treat for me – not because I could imagine them in the roles (far from it, actually) but because they are both beloved and always seem to elevate any production. I wanted the film to live up to my high expectations and to take great care with the story. It felt very important that filmmakers “get it right” with this novel. I believe they did.

While it’s not possible to include every single episode from the novel into a two-hour film, the core story did remain. Oskar Schell finds a key in his father’s closet and believes it to be a mystery created by his father for him to solve. But since his dad is no longer able to assist him in the quest, Oskar spends every possible moment traveling throughout New York City in search of the one person who can lead him to the lock that fits the key. Instead of meeting every person that Oskar meets and hearing every story given him, the movie introduces a few key individuals but focuses solely on Oskar’s inner dialogue. Along the way he is joined by a mysterious mute man (played beautifully by Max von Sydow) who rents a room from Oskar’s grandmother, and together they traverse the city in search of answers. Though I missed meeting some of my favorite characters from the book, the movie’s story is so well-told that I didn’t realize who was missing until I read back through my own notes. It is certainly a successful adaptation that is able to do that.

Just as with the book, this movie made me cry and laugh and count my blessings in life. It had all of the heart and all of the beauty of the novel, and though some plot points seemed a bit more “tidy” than I remembered from the book, it was everything I hoped the movie would be. It also made me want to reread the book. Such is my love for the character of Oskar and the stories that surround his life and his quest. All I wanted from the film version of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close was to emerge with the same great love that I felt after reading the novel, and in that regard I am overflowing.

movie still via IMDB

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

March 28, 2012 (DVD)

To round out this Movie Madness month I finally took time to rent the two remaining flicks that were meant to be predecessors to this summer’s Avengers extravaganza. First was Thor, which I wrote about yesterday, and I immediately followed that with Captain America: The First Avenger, which was also released last summer. The viewing order was intentional, assuming that Captain America was the better of the two movies and, therefore, the one that would garner most of my attention. Interestingly, this did not prove to be true. I liked it well enough, but Captain America just didn’t have the same “fun” factor that I found in Thor. And lead actor Chris Evans (whom I really didn’t like in his first superhero appearance as The Human Torch) doesn’t even begin to compare with the adorable Chris Hemsworth. Sometimes I can even surprise myself with what I’m drawn to and what I’m not.

What did work in Captain America was the story itself. It’s beautifully shot with gorgeous World War II period design and a straight-up dramatic narrative. It also features the always-delightful Hugh Weaving in yet another unforgettable role as the villain, Red Skull. And there are a lot of small details that connect this movie to the other films in the Avengers franchise, such as Iron Man Tony Stark’s father in a key role and a mention of the nine realms that are integral to Thor’s story. Of course, the title of The First Avenger tells you to expect such interconnectedness, but I was honestly surprised by mention of other superhero origin stories, expecting this film to be where it all started and for the other films to hearken back to this one. But I suppose it makes sense to mention them in Captain America since it was actually released after all of the other Avenger films. Not that any of that matters, really. And it was definitely a fun feature to watch for as I sat through the movie.

Captain America succeeds in all the right ways: concise story-telling, engaging characters, relatable hero, and quirky supporting players. It doesn’t feel jingoistic, which easily could have been part of a story about the war against Hitler, but it does hit all the right notes about patriotism and freedom and fighting with purpose and honor. I also loved that Captain America himself never acted like a superhero, which is part of the character’s charm. [His origin as sickly young man, Steve Rogers, transformed into a super-soldier ensures that his humility remains intact.] The movie was truly a breath of fresh air within the superhero genre.

It’s a shame this movie didn’t appeal to me on the same emotional level as so many other comic book flicks. There’s nothing wrong with Captain America. I should have loved it. My beloved Neal McDonough even appeared in a few scenes as one of Rogers’s mission recruits, as did Tommy Lee Jones as his commanding officer, but even that wasn’t enough to make me love the film as much as I’ve loved so many others. Still, it won’t keep me from enjoying Steve Rogers in The Avengers later this year. It’s just that he’s not likely to be a focal point for me. And that’s okay. I’ll just leave him to the legions of fans who have literally loved him since 1941. That’s pretty impressive on its own.

THOR

March 28, 2012 (DVD)

It’s no secret that I love movie adaptations of comic books, but I’m not one to see any and every superhero flick. Unless the heroes truly appeal to me (such as Superman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, and The Dark Knight), I’m not one to rush out and see every single comic movie that gets made (or remade). There really needs to be some kind of draw, whether that be a fun story (Iron Man) or, more likely, the addition of actors I enjoy (Hulk). With Thor, there really wasn’t too much of a draw on any count. I didn’t know Chris Hemsworth as an actor – although I later realized that he played the role of Captain Kirk’s father in the Star Trek reboot by J.J. Abrams, and I had been so impressed by his performance that I actually looked up his name in the credits… only to forget it entirely by the time Thor came along. I also didn’t have any interest in a story about the God of Thunder and his “magical” hammer. A hammer? It just didn’t appeal. And everyone I knew who saw Thor when it was released had said it was a mostly awful film, including my twelve-year-old nephew, and when a pre-teen says a comic movie is terrible, I believe it to be worse than the worst. So I never really intended to ever watch Thor.

Yet, this year is the release of the Avengers movie, and I knew that the character of Thor was part of that team. I also knew that all of the origin movies regarding those superheroes had been designed to lead right into The Avengers. And when it comes to movies that like, I really do want to have all the information. I hate the idea of missing the little jokes and winks and nudges that will surely be included just because I don’t know the backstories. So I bit the bullet this week and watched Thor under the guise of getting all the facts, and also because I just find Chris Hemsworth kinda darlin’. Interestingly, that’s all it took for me to really enjoy the movie.

Thor is not a good movie, but it’s also not as horrible as I imagined. It’s told in equal measure on two planets, Earth and Thor’s home world of Asgard, with Thor being banished to Earth while a war begins in his homeland. I enjoyed seeing the two arcs play side-by-side and found the stories on Asgard to be much more enjoyable than the ones on Earth. That’s likely because I’m a sucker for special effects and really cool artistry, and the realm of Asgard has that in abundance. It also far greater villains than those in the Earth story, and that goes a long way toward my enjoyment. Still, what I truly loved about the movie was Hemsworth’s performance. He played the entire film with great joy and abandon. Even when Thor was brought low by humility, Hemsworth seemed to have a twinkle in his eye that said, “Look at me! Dude, I’m playing a superhero!” It was like watching a boy with new toys, and I found it utterly charming, making the movie a great lot of fun to watch.

Ultimately, I’m happy to know the story of Thor but I’m more excited to see him take up his place among the Avengers. I’m also thrilled that Hemsworth has been “discovered” by Hollywood now and will get more opportunities to grow his talent. I’m especially excited for his involvement in the remake of Red Dawn, coming later this year. He has taken up the role of Jed, originated by Patrick Swayze, and I honestly can’t think of anyone better suited for it. What Thor has done for me is place a new actor on my radar and prepare me for a much-anticipated project. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a big win!

Oh, and also… that magic hammer is insanely awesome! Who knew?!?

movie stills via IMDB