Lincoln (2012)

In describing Lincoln, one adjective comes to mind: subdued. Now, think about the meaning of this word, the subject matter for which the film revolves around, and the creator of the film itself: good ‘ol Spielberg.

In my Invictus review, I stated, quote, “[Clint Eastwood] deserves a film where his ideas can be executed in a way that’s visually gargantuan yet narratively humble.” However, if there is any other director who deserves this, to me, it’s Steven Spielberg. This man has pretty much left his fingerprints on pretty much every genre known to man: comedy, science fiction, horror, pulp-style adventure, film noir, drama (lots of drama), animated, and war. Hell, he could make an Asian kung-fu film and it’d probably be one of the best films ever.

So, a historical film based on one of the most fascinating figures in U.S. history, unquestionably, had to be made by Spielberg. Everyone knew it and everyone knew it would be exceedingly competent. What other standards did he have to meet? Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? While that film (also released in 2012) was surprisingly better received than it had any right to be, a guy with an indecipherable name and who has the credits of Day Watch and Wanted under his belt directed it. Point goes to Spielberg!

The question was how he was going to tackle it? He has previously made historical films and all of them were maturely grandeur with out-sized emotions and scenery. From the black-and-white beauty that juxtaposed the macabre and revolting subject matter of Schindler’s List to the opening twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan, subtly wasn’t exactly this man’s forte. However, he has demolished all preconceived conceptions of him with this breath of fresh air that both purifies and mildly poisons me.

I’m sure shallow New Age folk would just pass this off as a biography of Lincoln’s life. Wrong! The film actually starts when Lincoln is the current president and it focuses on Lincoln’s final four months of living. The specific storyline revolves around Lincoln desperately and tenaciously trying to get the 13^th Amendment passed whilst in the midst of the Civil War. Would this end the war? Was a method to directly end the war more important? Whatever the answer to these questions were, Lincoln felt that freeing the slaves was crucial to a better country and was willing to do anything to achieve that goal including bribing conflicting Democrats. Lincoln, also, had to juggle personal problems involving the family he has built; a major problem involves his son, Robert, passionately wanting to fight in the war against his family’s wishes.

Now, in my Argo review, I secured a majority of space as a diatribe of the Academy for naming it the best picture of 2012. I still don’t agree with their decision, but I digress. I feel I should begin my critique of the film by connection to the film and its corresponding Oscars. Or at least the main Oscar: Best Actor for Daniel Day-Lewis.

It is pretty much fate that one of the most masterful directors to handle this material would snatch one of the most masterful actors working in Hollywood currently. After a streak of playing cynical characters in films such as Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood, the latter of the two is currently unseen by me, he has decided to step into the hat and beard of Abraham Lincoln. And thank God for that. His Oscar was well deserved because he is utterly hypnotic and completely embodies Honest Abe with a warm voice and an occasionally threatening tone that’s mannered in nature.

Of course, Spielberg has finesse for selecting a well-rounded and replete supporting cast. Sally Field as Lincoln’s wife is bold, intense, and committed. Her performance is nostalgically great, bringing her back to her Oscars days in the 70s and 80s. The way the dynamic between Lincoln and his wife unfolds is intense and the actors play it to a tee. This film and Men In Black III also provided us with a Tommy Lee Jones double feature. While filmgoers were either satisfied or disappointed with M.I.B. III, people were united in praise of Lee Jones’ passionate performance as Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who is depicted with a raspy voice and gruff personality. Lee Jones is always blasé yet intense, but the level of that depends on the film. In this film, he is somewhat blasé and very intense. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who must have a contract that he must do at least two films a year and is shaping up to be Shia LaBeouf of the 2010s and the male Emma Stone, shines as Robert, Lincoln’s son.

The film, also, won an Oscar for its production design. And…they weren’t wrong. The whole mise-en scene is insidiously sumptuous. With the exception of the occasionally circular, carousel-like motion of the camera that starts out artistic and then becomes annoying, I appreciate the modest yet colossal camerawork of the film, which almost feels like a stage play and continually evoked HBO.

The camera bathes itself in a dank color pallete. It’s grimy, lugubrious, austere, and sophisticated; the perfect way to film this. Even when the camera is bright, it doesn’t allow itself to be overly bright, still retaining that dark and cleverly musty shade. There is, however, one shot of the Capitol on voting day for the Amendment that is implicitly gorgeous. Of course, Spielberg’s heavy orchestral music manipulated me and played me like a piano. And that’s just fine with me.

However, the film is not a perfect one. The major flaw involves the fact that certain aspects of the screenplay and structure that do work work against itself. For example, I appreciate the minimal, dialogue-oriented structure, in theory. I appreciate its meticulous, absorbant pace, in theory. I appreciate the multitude of conversations that makes the viewer more anxious for the arrival of the central goal. However, those three aspects work against itself, in the sense that there are some conversations that aren’t interesting. When they appear, they bring the film to a halt and makes the measured pace feel sluggish and monotonous.

Another issue I have with the film is the occasional emotional inertia of the film. Again, I understand that the film is centered on logistics, opinions (which are expressed via mesmerizing debates), and situation, but when the film tries for emotion, there are a couple of times where the film doesn’t deliver totally on that level.

For example, the revelation of the status of Lincolns’ son, Willie, feels forced and doesn’t land an emotional punch. In addition, the subplot involving Robert craving to fight in the war against his parents’ wishes, to me, simply boils down to the generic “child-has-a-dream-but-the-parents-are-unsupportive-but-they-eventually-realize-the-error-of-their-ways-and-support-their-child’s-dream” plotline. It was old when Disney did it. I don’t even care if this part of the film was real or not. It still, in my opinion, adds up to nothing.

There are, also, little things that irritated me. For example, there is a political debate that has a line that foreshadowed women’s suffrage that I felt was forced, idiotic, and unnecessary, almost as if the speaker was looking at the camera and winking with irony. Also, while I love the speeches for the most part, some of them become uncomfortably elongated and almost self-consciously portentous.

However, there are a multitude of genius moments to make up for that. The climactic voting scene is modestly made but vastly intense, to the point where I was lingering on every word. It’s also genius that the verdict of this scene is said off screen. While most of the film is dialogue-oriented, the reaction is, in this scene, portrayed via camerawork, ambiance, the stalwart eyes of the actors, and minimal yet hefty scenes that follow it. And the scene of all the deceased and rotting corpses from the Civil War is harrowing. And the ending is constructed in a lyrical and absolutely beautiful way. And the film, also, works as a biting, barbed, and yet sly political commentary. The incessant disagreements, the heated debates, the constant put-downs, the acceptance of bribes in exchange for their true beliefs, etc; all of these aspects seem to skewer and mock, in an almost embarrassed tone, politics and their inability to detect what is morally correct. However, the commentary is executed obliquely and secretly. And in the midst of the magnificent performances, the fetching, ingenious production values, and the over-the-top facets of the film, the film is elevated, and can be labeled as laudable, because of one adjective: subdued. That’ll do Spielberg. That’ll do.

RATING: Three and one quarter stars out of four

Argo (2012)

To the public eye, one of the most fascinating figures in Hollywood has been Ben Affleck. Unfortunately, I believe the consensus agrees that, for a while, he’s been fascinating in all the wrong ways. His career has been rocky, to say the least. Lemme explain. He started his career in films such as Mallrats, and Chasing Amy. Yet the fascination in Ben Affleck most likely began in 1997. This marked the year that Good Will Hunting was released; a film exalted by critics and won him and co-writer Matt Damon an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. I’d like to think that people expected great things to come from him.

With the exception of some Kevin Smith comedies and Shakespeare in Love, people’s expectations were not met. This actor who had so much potential quickly tapered into doing simplistic and unmemorable action films, reviled comedies, and gaining a reputation of hooking up with every chick in Hollywood until John Mayer came along. Affleck had practically abandoned his Oscar potential and turned himself into the commonplace action hero or the incessant crybaby, neither of which the public believed he could believably portray or justify with concrete acting abilities. However, these past couple of years, Ben Affleck’s career has been a rags-to-riches story.

In 2007, he showed how much of a powerhouse he was as a director with the release of Gone Baby Gone. In 2010, he showed how much of an expertise he possessed as being both a director and an actor with the release of The Town. So, clearly he showed that his unimpeachable cinematic craft had never left him. All he needed was that one bulls eye as a artistic thrust into the cementation of him as an excellent filmmaker and for his directing and acting talents to collide head-on.

Argo was that film.

Right from the beginning, he practically beats us over his head with his exceptional composition. After the old-fashioned Warner Bros. logo fades away, which really places up into the time period of the film, Affleck introduces us to the backstory thoroughly, allowing the viewer to comprehend the film and have more of a feel for it. The film is based on a true story and the text that reveals this fact seems to bear an unsettling undertone.

The film takes place in 1979. As the film previously explains, Iran is run by shahs, or kings. In 1941, Reza Pahlavi was appointed as the shah. He was a shah who loved the West (the United States). However, he was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. When President Jimmy Carter sheltered Pahlavi (partly to treat him for cancer) in the United States, the Iranians were outraged.

Under the rule of newly appointed shah, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranians ambushed the U.S. embassy in Tehran. 50 people were taken hostages, but six people escaped and found security and safety in Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor’s house. The U.S. hears of this dreadful situation and CIA exfiltration specialist, Tony Mendez, is brought in to help the situation. He’s lost for a legit solution until he finds “inspiration” in Battle for the Planet of the Apes, as opposed to other people who would just be repulsed by it. After watching this, the solution is clear to him: Create a fake science-fiction film, Argo, go to Iran, claiming to scout for locations, grab the hostages, and fly them back to America.

OK. Before I begin with my critique, KNOCK IT OFF! You over-hyping bastards, knock it the hell off. Was it a good movie? Yes. Was it a really good movie? Yes. Once again, I’ll get to that in a minute. But I say this in my most sincere and militant opinion, Argo was not, repeat not, the year’s best picture. To all the critics who call this the best film of the year, isn’t that a little extreme? I mean, I can accept the film critics, but the Oscar for Best Picture? Really? The film was pretty much 2012’s Wag the Dog, except this film was based on true events. It didn’t have the creativity of Beasts of the Southern Wild, it didn’t have the grandiose and theatricality of Les Miserables, it didn’t have the simmering tension and captivating build-up of Zero Dark Thirty, and it certainly didn’t have the expertly executed drama and impeccable character development of my favorite film of 2012, Silver Linings Playbook.

Seeing how I am already on a roll now, I guess I should explain why Argo wasn’t worthy of the Best Picture award. First of all, I discussed earlier of the “impeccable character development of Silver Linings Playbook.” This film doesn’t have nearly as great character development as that film. The characters aren’t bad. Once again, we’ll get to that later. What I am saying is that the characters are not fully-fledged into anything complete. Tony Mendez just seems like the standard government genius (isn’t that an oxymoron). Oh, I forgot the classic cliché that he’s distant from his son and his wife (or, I guess, ex-wife. The movie is pretty vague and convoluted on that aspect). This section of the film is too nonchalant, painfully rushed, and mildly ungainly. He’s not one-dimensional, but not two-dimensional. I guess he’s more in the middle. One-and-a-half dimensional, I guess (boy, that isn’t going to catch on).

Also, the hostages are also flatly written. They’re just banal, uninteresting caricatures just waiting to be saved. Of course, one of them conveniently is literate in Arabic and one of them is the classic wary, hesitant archetype; the only one of the bunch who fits in this description. This, in addition, connects to another reason Argo shouldn’t have won Best Picture. The film, in general, is emotionally inert and distant, in terms of the situation. Thinking of this flaw reminds me of Schindler’s List, a Best Picture winner and one of my favorite films. That film had an obvious opinion and perspective on the Holocaust. The filmmaker was clearly horrified and disgusted by it.

One of the positive aspects I’ve heard in various reviews was that it was “ideologically neutral.” Well, I feel that the neutrality of it is part of the problem. It just doesn’t deliver, totally, on a visceral level. I wouldn’t even have an issue with the neutrality of the film if it didn’t try not to be neutral. The film, as expected, shows scenes of anarchy and terror, seeing how this took place during the Iranian Revolution. However, when these scenes happen, as gut wrenching as they may be on the surface, it, intrinsically, feels studied and agonizingly calculated. It feels as if the filmmakers felt obligated to insert those scenes. I understand the film’s not entirely revolved around the Iranian Revolution, but in order to feel for and buy into the plea of the hostages, it must be viscerally rewarding. It isn’t. Good thinking, Oscars. Sorry that the torment and obstacles of two mentally ill souls who fall in love with each other isn’t as deep as this. God!

However, to continuously rant on the undeserving award this film received would be denying the brilliance of the film. The cinematography is vibrant and pristine, complete with an incredible overhead shot that made me feel like I was floating in mid-air. While the hostages aren’t developed with any sort of finesse, seeing them in the process of getting on the plane (C’mon. Everyone knows it ends happily) is unbearably tense and seeing the plane take off was inspiring and expertly done. The combination of the actual film with real news footage from the 1970s is brilliant, sonorous, and evocative. And in the film’s coda, the credits placed over science-fiction memorabilia and use of sparse music is alternately shrewd and solemn, ironic and grave.

In addition, the performances are excellent. While Ben Affleck isn’t given much meat on his character, he does give a very good performance. Bryan Cranston ditches his meth lab from Breaking Bad and gives a strong performance as Mendez’ supervisor, Jack O’Donnell. John Goodman is very good as the gruff, mordant John Chambers, a make-up artist, and Alan Arkin simply shines as the cynical, wry producer, who delivers a joke relating to the film’s title that it’s heavily quoted within my film class.

The bottom line is: Argo works. It is a very well made movie. It works as a thriller, a comedy, a love letter and a middle finger to Hollywood. However, I am still persistent in my belief that the acceptance of the Best Picture Oscar by the film was incorrect. Was the film, at least, worth being nominated? Definitely. I mean, what other nominee options were there? Breaking Dawn: Part 2? Over my dead body!

RATING: Three and a half stars out of four

Iron-Jawed Angels (2004)

Have I mentioned before that I admire HBO? Have I mentioned that I deeply admire HBO, because I really admire HBO. Although, seeing how they are the company that has released my all-time favorite film, Temple Grandin, it shouldn’t be unexpected for me to be biased towards them. However, as I pondered on HBO’s library of television films, I realized something: the success of HBO’s television films makes no sense.

Not because they’re bad; far from it. It’s because they shatter every conformist aspect of, not merely other television films, but films in general. They are so anti-conventional. They march to the beat of their own drum. They are the indie rock of cinema. Their cinematic skills are on a level that I wish most films released in theaters were on. For a station whose major success was found in The Sopranos, which I have finally seen and I can conclude that it is good, these self-effacing, unorthodox films shouldn’t be as hugely popular and widely successful as they are. There truly must be a God up there.

I believe that the reasons that they shouldn’t be popular are the exact reasons why they are popular. HBO does have a huge reputation, even though the general consensus could probably only name, like, seven of their shows. It is the hometown for the blockbusters and it used to shelter stand-up comedy specials before Comedy Central robbed them of that. Stars like Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Claire Daines, Macy Gray, and Al Pacino have lined up to get a taste of the HBO hummus (I’m weird). So, with all this in mind, I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that HBO’s television films are hugely successful and suck up Emmys like a…uh…Emmy vacuum (I’ll stop with the weird descriptions). It also shouldn’t surprise me that a station that has a catalog of broad and fascinating topics would choose to make a film revolving around women’s suffrage. Folks, meet the Iron-Jawed Angels.

The film, as previously stated, revolves around women’s suffrage, particularly around passionate and outspoken suffragist, Alice Paul, played by Hilary Swank. It chronicles the efforts made by female suffragists to retain voting rights they believed they were entitled to. Folks, don’t worry. This isn’t some moronic Lifetime film. Read on. The film brings to life the extreme hardships of the suffragists, including the torture that some endured at prisons.

I believe my verdict is clear: HBO has a prowess for crafting visual poems. The cinematography is extremely versatile, covering all areas. It can be fleet and quick and it can also be slow, although the slow-mo sequences can be awkward, at times. It is just orgasmic (just another way of saying liberating. I like the sound of it.) to see camerawork that is so quick-witted and alive.

The camera, also, used to great effect in the end credits. Spoiler alert: Women get voting rights! SURPRISE! The credits consist of Alice Paul and her friend and fellow suffragist, Lucy Burns, played by Frances O’Connor. The camera spirals around them, as the two ladies perennially smile and the brightness of the setting illuminates them. Those end credits are as strong a symbol of triumph as I’ve seen in a while.

The intro evokes the craftsmanship and creativity of poems. The intro merely displays an array of images, all of which are virtually unconnected with each other. This forces the viewer’s mind to conjure up many thoughts, just like a poem should. I, also, admire the film’s controlled and almost insidious use of music. At one point, the music is as modest and sparse as HBO and the next moment, it blares some unknown modern song. While the clashing of cultures can be questioned, I trust and respect HBO’s judgment, whatever it may be.

Writers Sally Robinson, Eugenia Bostwick-Singer, Raymond Singer, and Jennifer Friedes have all crafted a marvelous screenplay that clashes tonally like the music clashes, culturally. Surprisingly, for a film of this potent subject matter, there’s a lot of mordant humor, some of which is directed towards Helen Keller. And here I thought Family Guy was the only product on television that poked fun at her. The script, at the same times, expertly executes its mood, sometimes in unique ways. Consider a scene where Alice, after going on a hunger strike in prison, is dragged into a room, where she is force-fed. In a typical film, you would most likely hear some muffled audio and maybe some uninterrupting orchestral music would play. In this film, the other female prisoners, mostly comprised of the other female suffragists who were jailed, sing a hymn, a capella, while the torture ensues. It may not be the most grandiose emotional moment, but it is more elegiac and haunting than most films that use the aforementioned tactic to elicit emotions. The script also incorporates the key element of HBO’s success: restraint. Consider the climactic scene where women’s suffrage laws have finally been passed. There isn’t any raucous cheering and accumulating orchestra music. The screenwriters know that the subject is intrinsically triumphant and the end credits will take care of everything.

As expected from HBO, the acting is first-rate. Hilary Swank has a tricky character. Tonally, she has a variety of areas to cover. For a character whose moment of starving herself nearly to death is preceded by scenes of her crying in agony over the loss of a former suffragists and questioning her own cause and of her fingering herself in the bathtub (tastefully done, I might add), this character portrayal is daringly written and depicting her wouldn’t be a walk in the park. Hilary Swank does it impeccably, assured and confident as ever. Bob Gunton is very believable as President Woodrow Wilson. Thank God Gunton’s allowed to play a character, as opposed to some one-dimensional, outlandish stereotype in Patch Adams. Veteran actress Anjelica Huston is stern and strong in her role and Julia Ormond is very good, despite her restricted screen time (she’s the suffragist I told you about who dies).

One actress who surprised me was this woman Molly Parker, who played Emily Leighton, the wife of a senator. He is against women’s suffrage and she is not. This actress, apparently, played a major role in Deadwood and has received various bit parts in various films. She was superb in her role as a woman who begins as reluctant and ends as courageous. One of my favorite moments with her was a scene when she’s in prison. The women’s suffragists’ petitioning has been seen as a crime and thus, the women spend time in jail, as previously stated. Her husband visits her and they have a conversation, which is one of the best moments in the film. The things they discuss evoke an ambiance that is both heartbreaking and hopeful. She knows that, one fine day, women will overcome, but will she?

However, not everything about the film is excellent. While we do have a plethora of incredibly talented actors and actresses, we still have to put up with that useless waste of space that is Patrick Dempsey. This film made me realize something: I hate him!

I didn’t realize that before, but this film makes a case for my newfound hatred of him. In everything I’ve seen him do, he has that annoyingly chirpy, putso smile that makes him look like Sean Penn with Down’s syndrome. When he’s not aggravating me with his smile, he aggravates me with how lost or tired he looks. In addition, his character is a tool. With the exception of one scene where he reveals to Alice that his wife dies, which is actually one of the few moments his torpid acting is actually justified, there’s no weight to his character.

The, I guess, romance between him and Alice is clichéd and banal. There is one scene where it is a montage of them together being romantic and silly, and interspersed with that is the aforementioned moment of Alice fingering herself. Sure, it’s hot, but the way the scene’s structured is incoherent and fragmented. The whole fingering business feels like a deleted scene that they half-assedly tied in to the film. It’s like if someone watched Schindler’s List and someone randomly scattered pieces of a porno into the film. In addition, as much as I love the camerawork, there was one moment where Julia Ormond was talking over some moving sky background that felt more at home in a 1980s music video.

Regardless of that, Iron-Jawed Angels is the kind of the film that affirms HBO’s reputation as a sly powerhouse. This is definitely one of the quintessential women’s suffrage films to view. It’s informative, eye opening, and well acted, written, and filmed. Plus, while it is still a weirdly placed moment, you still see Hilary Swank finger herself. Can’t go wrong with that. ;-)

RATING: Three and a half stars out of four

Catching Fire trailer reaction!

Well, as all seven of my readers recall, I proudly proclaimed that Catching Fire, along with Oblivion, is my most anticipated film of 2013.

For the uneducated or unaware, I want to introduce you to the word, "retraction." A retraction is in a newspaper or various other things to take something back. In this post, I have a retraction to make: Catching Fire is now my second most anticipated film of 2013 with Oblivion taking the stark, solid 1st place.

Now, I know what you're wondering. "Stephen, why the change of heart?" Well, this is what this trailer reaction is for. Now, if you think that I'm one of those guys who will give you the link to go see the trailer, go screw yourself! You guys have the internet. You guys have brain cells. Go to YouTube or IMDB or whatever and see it yourself. This is strictly to report my reaction to the newly-released trailer for Catching Fire. BT dubs, I love how the release of a trailer is, like, breaking news nowadays. On YouTube, I see at least three videos that say, like, "New Hunger Games Trailer! OMG!" It's as if One Direction was coming to their hometown or something. (If that was the case, by the way, gun sales would go through the roof.)

Anyway, I saw the trailer and the film looks...really good. The direction is competent, Jennifer Lawrence is as badass as ever, and the rebellion and chaos depicted in the book, which I am currently reading and I feel that it's better than the first book, is portrayed to a tee. HOWEVER! With that said, I do have a couple of quibbles with the film, based on the trailer.

Now, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not expecting Catching Fire to be perfect. The Hunger Games wasn't and I don't believe this one will be either. Having said that, here are my issues with the film. First of all, Josh Hutcherson looks freaking asleep in the film. From the little bit I saw of him, it looks like he's saying, "Well, seeing how the Twilight film franchise is over, we need another lifeless, droning young actor to replace Robert Pattinson. And seeing how I am raking in the Benjamins from the first film and from that pointless Red Dawn remake (just barely), I guess I have to take that role."

My second and actually final quibble with the film is actually a huge one. It's the portrayal of the government. As I previously stated, I am currently reading the book. In the book, the President is angry at Katniss for her actions at the end of The Hunger Games that not only went against the government, but inspired rebellion from the other districts. One thing leads to another and, as axiomatic yet never entirely blatant punishment, all the previous victors are forced to go back into the Arena, meaning Katniss and Peeta must go, too.

My point is that the President is portrayed as frustrated with Katniss, but he's portrayed as a reasonable yet devilishly intimidating leader. How does the trailer portray him? Pretty much as a cartoon villian, along with some other bullcrap government official, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who I don't remember in the book, at all. They're pretty much sneering dictators and their dialogue is idioticly candid. Some of it includes, "She has to be eliminated," "I agree she should die, but in the right way. The right time, "They're gonna hate her so much, they might just kill her for us. HAHAHA!!" and "Her entire species must be eradicated...because of her." Ugh!

OK, so they are trying to convey how awful the government is. A lot of science-fiction surrounding a utopia, or dystopia, or whatever the correct term is, provides us with some kind of social commentary or even satire. I get it, but why are they overdoing it?

In the book, the subdued execution of the President's anger added to the tension of the book. He pretty much warned her to make sure she can justify her actions or else something bad will happen. It's portrayed sincerely. I can believe it in the book. In the trailer, they seem to water it down for the most accessible and simplistic audience consumption. It's not realistic enough to appeal to fans of the book, but the film itself probably wouldn't appeal to anybody but people who have either read the books, seen the first film, or both. So who are they marketing it for?

To be fair, it is only the trailer and sometimes trailers can hide things or mislead audiences. The trailers for Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked make the film look like a apathetic, moronic, and vacuous waste of time that stays distant of the adoring fan base. However, I thought that film is one of my all-time favorite childrens' films. Yeah, I'm a fan. Hatas gon' hate!

So, maybe all my quibbles will be proven unjust. Maybe Josh Hutcherson won't be a walking zombie. Maybe the film's hiding something about the government aspect of it. Maybe I need to finish the goddamn book (definitely true). One can only hope that on November 22, audience members will give thanks to director Francis Lawrence, writer Michael Arndt, and, of course, Katniss! I hope the odds are in our favor.

Well, folks, that was my reaction to the Catching Fire trailer, which can now be viewed online on many websites. I wanna know what you guys think of the trailer. Does it do the book justice or does it send the book to prison? YOU be the judge! Go ahead. Voice your opinions! Later!

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Folks, we got him.

On May 2^nd, 2011, we got him. The ringleader of one of the most horrific and unfortunately unforgettable events in U.S. history was killed. Mr. Osama bin Laden is dead. While this hasn’t starkly terminated terrorism and while I predict further issues ahead, we are certainly one step closer to ending al-Qaeda. It was one of the most liberating moments in the U.S.A. The arrival of death for a human being isn’t usually greeted with such a jovial attitude, but there it is.

Doing a film on this may not be the boldest decision ever, but it certainly is a risky one. Given the reaction of bin Laden’s death to Americans, it would be easy to delve into some shameless, pandering propaganda. I resume to quote Matt Stone and Trey Parker, “America, F*** Yeah!”

I believe the only tactful way to handle this subject would be to do a procedural that tracks the progress of the hunt for bin Laden. This film does just that. I, also, believe this project calls for a respected, competent director. Kathryn Bigelow? Hell yeah!

Starting from 2003, the film observes the advancement for the extermination of bin Laden. Given this information, the film’s central character is not Osama bin Laden. Instead, the focal point, character wise, is a CIA officer named Maya. The film is, not merely, a procedural, but also a character study on Maya and how her desire for finding bin Laden turns into a healthy yet dominant obsession and how she fully fledges into a true woman.

In order to properly portray a plucky, no-nonsense woman, one would need a praise-worthy, beautifully versatile woman. Well, Hollywood and Lifetime Television certainly has provided us with a lot of them. Jessica Chastain was chosen and she is fantastic in her role, creating one of the most memorable protagonists in movie history. She shows persuasion and an impressive acting range, switching from ferocious determination to humble, teary-eyed liberation.

Of course, the supporting cast is excellent, as well. Of the supporting cast, Jason Clarke is the standout. He infuses his character, Dan, with an ideal blend of intimidation and humility. His dynamic with Maya provides a great dichotomy of logic versus instinct, seeing how Dan uses terror tactics during the bin Laden search. Other performers such as Kyle Chandler, and, (hey!) James Gandolfini are quite good, as well.

I recall seeing the trailers for this film and was incredibly hyped for it. My first viewing left me thoroughly impressed, albeit a little restless. I appreciated its methodical, plodded pace and understood that it was a procedural, but I still had a minor request for the film to pick up the pace a little bit. While it left me tense throughout, I think I was viewing the film in the mindset of making sure the film lives up to my intense hype and I guess it somewhat fell short.

Then, I saw Bigelow’s film, The Hurt Locker, which is one of my all-time favorite films. That film really made me understand Bigelow as a filmmaker. Once I understood that, I viewed Zero Dark Thirty a second time in class and I had a deeper respect for the film. All the great qualities of The Hurt Locker (the masterful screenwriting, done once again by Mark Boal, the way Bigelow designs an anxious atmosphere for the audience, the slow tempo, the restrained yet epic use of music, the unsullied, flexible cinematography, the well-choreographed action) all transferred to this film.

The opening of the film gets it. It begins on September 11th, 2001, certainly a memorable, albeit unfortunate, period of time. However, we find ourselves looking at no captions. No visuals. Just a dark, blank screen with the sounds from 9/11 spliced in. This is the absolutely perfect and ideal way to alert the audience of what lies ahead, to evoke frightening ideas, and to sends chills down the viewer's spine faster than a crack addict sending a text message.

This film also goes further and provokes deep thought. This film has ignited heavy debate on torture tactics and the morality (or lack thereof) of them. I am personally in favor of torture tactics when they are needed. The genius of this film is that it makes an argument for both sides of the terror tactic debate without it being the central topic at hand. The aforementioned dynamic of Maya and Dan provides this non-biased argument. The film, also, provides a final 25 minute sequence that shows the climactic raid of bin Laden’s compound (spoiler, much?). Believe me when I say it’s one of the most flawlessly executed and agonizingly tense action scenes I’ve ever seen. This film establishes Kathryn Bigelow as a cinematic powerhouse. I will greet the trailers to her next film with giddy ecstasy.

RATING: Three and three-quarters stars out of four

My most anticipated films of 2013

2013? Wow. The world didn't explode. What a shock!

Well, either way, we are currently residing in the year 2013. So far, it sounds like it has been a very middling year for film so far. The highest-grossing film is Oz: The Great and Powerful, a film that has garnered mixed reviews from critics. Texas Chainsaw 3D is said to be the bottom of the barrel for the franchise (I haven't seen that film, but for some reason, I believe those people). And need we mention Movie 43? It's currently unseen by me and given the vitriol and disgust for the film, I feel any comment about it will force the world into a vomiting epidemic, so I'll cease commenting. I might end up seeing it, seeing how I hate myself.

Anyway, I was thinking that Identity Thief was one of my anticipated films of 2013. However, that film has received a heavy heaping of scorn. Even Spill.com awarded the film with a rare F**k You rating! Damn. Maybe I'm missing something.

However, I started thinking of this one film that looked astonishing to me and then one thing lead to another and then, the idea occured to me to post my anticipated films of 2013 because all five of my readers might care! Now, I'm not going to post a list. In fact, I only have two anticipated films because, like a woman pregnant with twins on her 9th month, I am equally ecstatic for their arrival.

So, drumroll please! My two most anticipated films are...Oblivion and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire! Why? Well, to quote Shrek 2, "Let's explore that, shall we?"

I was instantly excited for Oblivion the moment I saw the trailer for the first time. The effects...look...PHENOMENAL!! I actually had no idea what it was about until I looked it up on WIkipedia and the PLOT sounds awesome! The fact that Tom Cruise has been in Minority Report AND Vanilla Sky? Yes! Morgan Freeman? OH, FRACK YEAH!!

Now as far as Catching Fire, anyone who has read my Hunger Games review knows how much I adore the source material the first one was based on. I am actually currently reading the second book as part of my goal to finish the book before the film comes out. So far, it's spectacular! Better than the first book! Plus, I trust the material in newly-appointed director Francis Lawrence's hands. One of Lawrence's credits is I Am Legend. If Lawrence follows that and makes something of a junior version of that, it could end up being one of my favorite films of all time. Plus, I just wanna see Jennifer Lawrence again                                                                                                                   

• a) because of her constant sexiness
• and b) because of her breathtaking performance in my favorite film of 2012, Silver Linings Playbook, that preceded this film

However, those two films actually do have a common bond that makes me anxious and giddy for their arrival. Both films have a writing credit, in some manner, of Michael Arndt.

OH. HELL. YEAH!

Michael Arndt is a screenwriter who has built up quite a reputation. His screenwriting debut was Little Miss Sunshine, a very good film. That film won him an Oscar for the screenplay. His second screenwriting foray was Toy Story 3. It got him nominated for an Oscar and the film was loved by everyone, including me, and it is currently the highest-grossing animated film of all time! That's why I am anticipating these two films. Plus, I am putting out a guarantee that if Oblivion rocks, Catching Fire is gonna rock!

However, while I can't see Catching Fire faltering, maybe Oblivion will. Michael Arndt is merely a co-writer for the film, so maybe the other writers don't put Arndt to any legit, exceptional use. Maybe Tom Cruise didn't bring his A-game. Maybe it just drags for long periods of time. Maybe the storytelling is incoherent. Maybe it's just a big bag of style over substance. Couuld this be true? Possibly. I sure as hell hope not. However, seeing how the rest of 2013's selections either come off as weak, unoriginal, or both, I'm putting ALL of my faith and trust in these two films.

Will I see these two films in theaters? Maybe. Seeing how I don't work a job and I don't get paid for writing these reviews (because no one has smartened up and realized that I am a good writer who should receive fame and payment), I may not be financially able to. Will I try to go see them? Damn straight!

Well, now that you all know my most antipicated films of 2013, what are yours? Comment down below. Plus, if by chance you have a free screener copy or free pirated copy or a free link to either of these two films, let me know. ;-) Just kidding! Anyway, tell me what your most anticipated film, or films, of 2013 is. Go ahead! Fire away! Later!

The Hurt Locker (2009)

I feel like it is absolutely essential to start this review off with a little blast from the past. The year was 2009. Sure, it may not be the most far-off year, but what a year it was. It was certainly a gargantuan year for movies. It began as kind of a weak year. But around April, the year took off. I’m not saying all of the films that came out were all masterpieces, but they certainly were memorable with blockbusters filling more cineplexes than we could count. Hell, seven films that were released in 2009 would place on the top 50 list of the highest-grossing films of all time.

However, there were two films that were distinct for that year, both of which were juggernauts in some manner. The first film was Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, the war film that specifically won the hearts of film critics. Most, if not all, of the major film critics in America placed this on their year-end best-of lists. It was a critical juggernaut.

The second film was James Cameron’s Avatar. In terms of this film, “juggernaut” would be an understatement. It completely swept through the consciousness of modern audiences and became the highest-grossing film of all-time, grossing over 2 billion dollars worldwide!

Naturally, when it was time to reveal the nominations for the 82^nd Academy Awards, honoring the achievements and acmes for film in 2009, two of the Best Picture nominations were The Hurt Locker and Avatar. Ironically, Bigelow and Cameron were married to each other at one point, so it was the quintessential “battle of the sexes.” Who would reign supreme? Would it be the critical darling or the massive box-office success? Or neither? Seeing how I was 13 at the time, I, aptly, predicted the box-office success would win. After all, the Oscars wouldn’t snub the newly crowned highest grossing film of all time, right? Wrong!

I woke up on March 8^th, 2010 to check the results and, to my surprise, under the Best Picture winner, I saw three words: The Hurt Locker. Eventually, it was time for me to decide which was the better film. In August of 2012, I finally checked out Avatar from beginning to end and was immediately caught spellbound by its imagery and creativity. This year, I checked out The Hurt Locker, not exactly knowing what to expect. All I’ll say is: Kathryn Bigelow, you win! All hail the queen!

The film alerts all spectators of its theme and plants its feet into the ground by opening with a Chris Hedges quote, “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” This immediately seems like a change of pace from the typical war film, which usually either depicts the horror, honor, or both aspects of war. Here, war isn’t merely that. To some men, war is a high, an obsession, and a way to get adrenaline flowing. One of these men is Sergeant William James, who has been recently recruited as the new leader of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal after another Sergeant dies after a bombing incident. Despite the uneasy response from his fellow men, he has an intense expertise for defusing bombs. The place of operation is Iraq where any minute of these men’s lives could be their last.

Whenever I review a film, it is my obligation and duty, in my opinion, to take notes beforehand to provide framework for a review and to use as an agenda for the points I aspire to introduce and evaluate. This time, I refused. No word or observation that I could write down could ever fixate and validate my true feeling for the film. I feel that that’s partially what being a critic is all about: feeling. Passion is a necessary facet for a critic to possess and I am most certainly passionate about this film.

I was utterly mesmerized by this film. Every frame of this is hypnotic. Every laugh is explosive. Every beat is excruciatingly tense. Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have flawlessly created an atmosphere of unrelenting and foreboding tension. Every single, solitary moment forced my spine to tingle and my nerves to chill. The fact that any misstep or trick can prove fatal makes this film scarier that most horror films I’ve seen.

Another person that creates anxiety is cinematographer Barry Ackroyd. He provides some of the most masterful camerawork I’ve seen in a while. I’m not flat-out against the use of shaky cam in films, but when one overuses it, my God it can be annoying! Here, Ackroyd knows precisely how to use it. It is a perfect compliment to the gritty nature and uneasy subject matter of the film. It gives the film a more realistic and powerful vibe. When the camera shakes frenetically, it seems to be the external justification of the inward anxiety felt by the audience and the characters. The music is spare yet haunting and just adds to the fear that the film exudes.

The acting is flat-out superb. While players such as Ralph Fiennes, Brian Geraghty, and 8 Mile’s Anthony Mackie do a bang-up job in their roles, the essence of the film belongs to Jeremy Renner as Sergeant James. For a film with such a unique theme, it is essential for the writing and the acting to click as a single unit to form a cohesive and fluid character portrayal. This film does exactly that. What’s remarkable about Mark Boal’s writing is that he doesn’t label Sergeant James. He merely depicts him. Is he a hero? Not exactly. An anti-hero? Probably not. An enemy? No. He is merely a person. A person who feeds off of the bizarre energy of war, but is stuck when he has to play a much larger role: the husband and father. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant James with every bit of the intense machismo, persistent courage, and sympathetic disorientation that the role requires.

This film is a miraculous achievement. On any level you want to judge the film on (be it sensory, technical, thematic, emotional, performance), the film excels. Currently, I have not seen a war film that plunged me into war and made me feel for the men like this film did. This is a classic that will endure for many years to come. I predict that years from now, film students who are studying war films will have to view this after they spend two months dissecting and analyzing Apocalypse Now. If God loves film as much as I do, hopefully that will happen.

RATING: Four stars out of four!