Starring: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence
Plot: A loose adaptation of the Abscam sting operation carried out in the 1970’s in which a couple of con-artists are paired up with an FBI agent to bring down corrupted political figures.
“The truth and nothing but the truth”: “American Hustle” was one of the movies I anticipated the most in 2013. Maybe it was about the premise or my wish to see any sort of follow-up to last year’s “Argo” (2012) that inflated my expectations for the new movie by David O. Russell. Whatever reasons may be I was happily surprised with what I saw in the screen. In a nutshell this is the best movie Martin Scorsese never made.
David O. Russell reunited with four of the stars of his previous two movies (which brought him two Academy Awards for Best Director): Christian Bale and Amy Adams from “The Fighter” (2010) and Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper from “Silver Linings Playbook” (2012) to tell a story loosely based on the Abscam operation that took place in the US during the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Irvin Rosenfeld (Bale) plays a con-artist that teams up with Sydney Prosser (Adams) to set in motion a scam: concede fictitious loans to highly desperate “customers”, while reaping a generous $ 5.000 fee for them. The chemistry between the two is noticeable in every scene they share and is perhaps one of the main highlights of the movie. No other character is able to expose Irvin’s vulnerability like Sydney.
In order to avoid getting arrested the two of them cut a deal with FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper) that ties them to the sting operation that aims at bringing down Mayor Carmine Politio (Renner) and other politicians. This is to DiMaso’s way of setting the record straight for America after Watergate and Vietnam. In fact, the references to the disappointment of the characters with the environment they were confronted with made me fear that the movie would turn to an Alan J. Pakula paranoia product. Luckily it didn’t.
Last but not least, shaking things up is Rosalyn Rosenfeld (Lawrence), Irvin’s loose cannon, wild card of a wife who delivers the best supporting performance I’ve seen this year. Unlike Katniss Everdeen, Tiffany or Ree, Jennifer Lawrence appears to play herself for the first time. Based on her interviews and her speeches on each of the times she won for last year’s “Silver Linings Playbook”, Rosalyn is Lawrence if she completely eliminated her “filter”.
Like his two previous movies, “American Hustle” focuses on its characters and their interaction are the only true reminder of the plot. And what an excellent job the actors pull off: It’s hard to believe that the man who once was Patrick Bateman and Batman is now sporting a highly complex comb over and a beer belly that could make Homer Simpson jealous. Perhaps the most convincing aspect is the fact that in a way or another all the actors appear to shadow or display traits of actual 1970’s actors at the height of their fame, especially on the female side of the cast: Something in Amy Adams eyes made me think of Jane Fonda, the way Jennifer Lawrence owns every scene in which she appears reminisced of Faye Dunaway.
The actors fully commit to deliver the 70’s vibe and groove, from the clothes to the whole self-therapy and indulgence of what became known as “The Me Decade”.
A worthy highlight is the soundtrack: the cutaway to Tom Jones’s “Delilah” sing-a-long, the “Live and Let Die” sequence enriched by a “duet” between Jennifer Lawrence and Paul McCartney, America’s hit “Horse with no name” which reminded me of “Breaking Bad” and, of course, the Bee Gees-must have scene that gives the movie a true disco feel are some of the examples on how well the chosen set list works.
Keep an eye out for Robert DeNiro’s cameo. A true tribute to some of the actor’s previous excellence. You know…before “The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinke” (2000) and “Showtime” (2002). Also, allow yourself to fully appreciate the ironic cast of Louis C.K. as an FBI chief. I never thought it could work, but the fact is that it does.
Driven by plot-twists, a full 1970’s experience, a fun and entertaining plot and the redeeming features that almost deliver what can be considered a happy ending, David O. Russell once again delivers the goods and makes me want to give his early work a second chance. I strongly advise you to watch it in the big screen, because never before has the director brought us such a loud (in a good way) movie.
“Money-Shot”: Any of the music sequences has my vote. Pick yours.
Bottom-Line: 9/10.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Vithaya Pansringarn, Kristin Scott Thomas
Plot: Set in Bangkok, American
expatriate and drug-smuggler Julian is pressured by his mother to avenge the
death of his brother which leads him on a journey that forces him to face his
inner deamons.
“The truth and nothing but the truth”: In 2011, I was caught up by surprise with "Drive". The slick
and stylish movie that combined the best of Michael Mann with what seemed to be
a terrific update and improvement on "The Driver" (1978). The movie
worked in every level and prompted me to name it "Best Movie of
2011". As such, the expectations for a new Refn-Gosling collaboration were
sky high.
So here I am, writing the review of "Only
God Forgives", 4 days after seeing it...after everything has sunken
in...after having a clear opinion about it.
With a storyline that's more complicated to
follow than the family tree of the kid from the dueling banjos scene in
"Deliverance" (1972), Refn delivers a movie that displays a constant
tense Oedipal environment with an outline of implied incest that makes the
viewer uncomfortable from the beginning. While this sets the tone of the whole
movie, the director successfully combines them with the other key values and
themes approached in the movie, such as the perception of justice, masculine
vs. feminine roles, revenge and religion. The conflicting interpretations of
all of the aforementioned aspects by both Julian (Gosling) and Chang
(Pansringarn) set the tone for the action.
Heavy on the symbolism and relying more on
image than on actual dialogue, the movie successfully conveys it's message
through it's excellent cinematography storytelling method that somewhat
reassembles what has been seen in most of David Lynch's movies and the
claustrophobic atmosphere seen in "The Shinning" (1980). This is complemented
with the equally tense soundtrack by Cliff Martinez.
Based on this premise, I do believe that the
movie sets the tone for multiple intrepretations. I, for one, perceive the
scenes that occur within the dark and red rooms (excluding the pub) to actually
reflect Julian's subconscious, where he deals with his very own insecurities,
his unresolved issues with several women and the inner eagerness for justice.
Still, it's around Julian's character where half of the problems I found
with this movie lie. First, I do not perceive Ryan Gosling as an adequate
choice for the role of Julian, having preferred to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt
interpret
the lead role. Gosling simply doesn't cut it here and most of the
sequences where an idle state is required from the character, he simply keeps
doing what he did before. The second problem is in the treatment of the
character of Julian itself. While the relationship with his mother Crystal
(Scott-Thomas, in a terrific performance which is clearly one of the high
points of the movie) is very well developed, there's a large absence of the
development of the character itself. No space, nor room for that, with only
hints and subtle traces of what Julian really is.
(SPOILERS AHEAD!) The second issue I have with this movie is the conclusion and the
catharsis vehicle presented in the screen and this is intertwined with Chang's
character. The character is a God-like figure, seeking justice and revenge
(according to his own interpretation). A bushido-like entity that uses a blade
to restore equilibria. While one can easily understand the importance of the
character, the ending of the movie proves to be unsatisfying since there are
indications that his vision and interpretation of justice and right
are the correct ones and that he's above judgement.
After watching the movie and while discussing it,
a comparison was drawn by a friend of mine, between Anton
(Javier Bardem) from "No Country for Old Men" (2007) and Chang.
I truly agree that the both are driven by similar principles and I even believe
that if a similar fate had been applied to Chang, the movie would have been
more satisfying.
Moreover, even as not opposing to the excessive use of Thai, it would
have been helpful to have some subtitles on the karaoke sequences as I do
believe the lyrics may include some clues as towards what motivates the
character. Again, my interpretation of those sequences is of a
religious figure, a superior entity that is addressing its followers
and promoting not only allegiance but enlightening the way of
its actions. (END OF SPOILERS!)
"You
have proved to be a real human being...and a real hero"
In conclusion and focusing on the criticism the movie has been subjected
to, I do not feel that the violence is extreme or hardcore but well included in
the story, leading to the conclusion that violence only draws more violence.
The pace of the movie is in my opinion borderline adequate, but not one of the
negative downsides in which the viewer should dwell.
“Money-Shot”: (SPOILERS AHEAD!) Despite not
being consistent with my review, the torture and execution of Byron by Chang
remains one the best sequences in the movie. (END
OF SPOILERS!)
Bottom-Line:7/10.
As long as you're not expecting "Drive II" or a Ryan Gosling movie
and keep an open mind towards what you'll be seeing, it's an enjoyable ride
that requires you to think and a second viewing to fully understand and absorb
what happened on those 90 minutes.
But of course, this is just my opinion,
I could be wrong…
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John
Goodman, Alan Arkin
Plot: The joint-venture secret operation
of the CIA, Hollywood and Canada to extract six diplomatic employees of have
managed to remain hidden after the taking of the US embassy in a revolutionary
Iran in 1979.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: Going beyond the praise and the
obvious statement that Ben Affleck is a better director than he is actor (to be
fair let me use a past tense on the “actor” part), we have a movie that
delivers what has been lacking in the big screen for some years now: a
top-notch spy thriller with a lot of action involved (with the latter part
being absent from “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (2011) ). Maybe the movie had an
amplified effect on me, being a die-hard fan of the post-Watergate era movies
of the 1970’s; but the box-office numbers show that perhaps I’m not the only
one.
Affleck was able to turn the uneven pace found
on his last entry “The Town” (2010), from a weakness into a strength in “Argo”,
going from a fast paced first act, to a slower second act to finally top if off with a third act climax
that will forever haunt my memory.
But the true essence of the movie’s success lies
in the supporting cast. Affleck himself delivers a good performance, but hardly
one that will get him on of the five slots at the Academy Awards. Alan Arkin,
John Goodman and Bryan Cranston to name a few are the true reason why the movie
works so well, with a special praise to both Arkin and Goodman who are able to
turn a set of clichéd Hollywood stereotypes and jokes into a somewhat refreshing
portrayal of what goes on at Tinseltown. (The fact that there’s a montage
including Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away” was an added bonus to me).
What makes this story so compelling is that old
expression “truth is stranger than fiction”: Both the CIA and the extractor and
the brain behind the whole idea, Tony Mendez (Affleck) develop a preposterous
plan to shoot a Star Wars-like production (and God only knows how many rip-off
were produced during the late 70’s and early 80’s) in Iran. This would allowed
to extract the six Americans, by making them pass as a Canadian film crew on
location scouting. The whole tension and “stranger in a strange land” feeling among
the six members of the diplomatic personnel who have successfully avoided being
captured by the Iran forces is almost reminiscent of a mix between the Anne
Frank story and “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1978).
So, in a nutshell “Argo” is a successful
combination of comedy bits with a tense portrayal of the years in which
American pride wasn’t being displayed as it used to in the past and you can see
it. It’s a criticism to both sides of a war, with both the excesses of the political
reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the impotence of Jimmy Carter analyzed
under the microscope with a dash of drama that only adds interest to a real
event.
It’s pretty much a serious version of “Charlie
Wilson’s War” (2007), a brilliant piece of revivalism and to me simply one of
the best, if not the best movie, I’ve seen the whole year.
“Money-Shot”: The whole final sequence at the
airport. Hands-down, the best sequence of the year and one of the best I’ve
ever seen ranking up there with the execution of the heads of the other four
families in “The Godfather” (1972), for example.
Bottom-Line:10/10. A political/spy/comedy/thriller action paced movie
that is easily one of the best, if not the best, movies of the year. A must-see
for those who have enjoyed “Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) and those who enjoy
political thrillers altogether.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael
Caine, Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman
Plot: Eight years have gone by after the
events of the “The Dark Knight” (2008), Batman has disappeared being blamed for
the crimes and death of “Gotham’s Savior”, Harvey Dent. With a period of
apparent peace numbing the city’s ability to react, Gotham falls under the
attacks of Bane, a “law enforcer” carrying out the mission of the League of
Shadows, requiring the Dark Knight to rise once again.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: The concept of “zeitgeist” is tossed
around so lightheartedly these days that its meaning and the examples that are
assumed to be encompassed by it lose their relevance. However, a clear example
of a work of art that captures the gist of the present is “The Dark Knight
Rises”. A far superior superhero movie with the depth and relevance, only
achieved by a restricted number of movies, regardless of the genre.
The movie deals, among other aspects, with the
current financial crisis (well…duh) and the ultimate effects of the capitalist
system (with the levels of subtlety used in the analysis varying throughout the move). But instead of providing a totally biased
portrayal of the “evils of the western civilization” and greed, Nolan showed
the other side of the coin by representing the downside of the exact opposite
ideological point, a “Dictatorship of the proletariat” if you will, in a
sequence that resembles the excesses committed by the people during the Russian
revolution, and thus displaying a chance of redemption and catharsis for
society as we know it (thumbs up for Capitalism!). Nolan’s overall study of the
effects of “Social Darwinism” and the corruption associated to it, while a
constant throughout his saga, take a completely different turn in this entry.
The enemy, or rival if you will, presented on
this entry is far different from both Dr. Jonathan Crane (a.k.a The Scarecrow)
and the Joker, two villains who enforced the mind and ideals over physic
strength, and ultimately couldn’t be eliminated (the ending of “The Dark Knight”
left the Joker alive, and Dr. Crane continues to roam around Gotham) and thus
representing the notion that all the evil seems to live forever (Yes, the song “Only
the Good Die Young” by Iron Maiden just came to mind). Anyways, Bane is the
first villain who combines the two types of aforementioned strengths: the
belief on an ideal (no matter how distorted the notions associated to said
ideal are) and physical power, a threat that didn’t menaced Batman in the
previous movies.
Tom Hardy delivers a believable performance (No
comparisons to “Batman & Robin” nor Heath Ledger’s Joker should ever be
made) albeit not one free from criticism (and surprisingly enough not all came
from Republicans [
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57474527/batman-and-politics-the-bane-bain-name-game/ ]): from his dictation being incomprehensible to
his pose that mirrors a folk dancer or a really smug villain holding his
suspenders. I for one tend to compare Tom Hardy’s Bane in some specific moments,
such as his speech at the stadium, to Sean Connery’s campy character in “The
Avengers” (1997) (no…not that one).
For all it’s worth, Hardy manages to transform Bane
into a human like character, with the ability to display weakness and emotions
and (SPOILER!) that ultimately can be eliminated as opposed to the previous
villains (END SPOILER!)
The supporting cast is strong and consistent
with Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon and Freeman’s Lucius Fox taking the spotlight
from Caine’s Alfred. Alfred’s absence in a considerable portion of the movie
contributes to the increase of the significance and impact of his character and
also allows the viewer to ultimately experience the dependence relationship
that exists between him and Bruce Wayne.
The scene stealer is of course Anne Hathaway’s
Selina Kyle/ Catwoman, the perfect counterpart to Bruce Wayne/Batman and a more
than optimal “replacement” for Rachel. While I have to admit that I had
reservations towards how Hathaway would handle a role that was near-perfected
by Michelle Pfeiffer in “Batman Returns” (1992), but she managed to handle the
task combining sexy and tough in a way only Pfeiffer could.
Marion Cotillard’s Miranda Tate, at first, just
seems to tag along and fulfilling her purpose to the story and while comic book
fans surely saw the twist coming from miles away, I for one was pleasantly surprised
as the character revealed its true significance.
Bale gives a great performance and truly
captures the essence of wounded hero. His recluse version of Bruce Wayne is, in
many ways reminiscent of the eccentric millionaire Howard Hughes (Nolan
had always planned to do a biopic about him but after Scorsese’s “The Aviator”
(2004) the idea was dropped). He really matured as an actor, settling the
ancient doubt I had about him when I first saw “American Psycho” (2000): is he
really a good actor or the fact that the character he’s playing, Patrick
Bateman, happens to encompass the traits of his acting: wooden and aloof?
While the excessive hype may have endangered
it’s potential success, the movie is by all means a masterpiece. I address the
criticisms, mainly fuelled by misguided expectations and safely state that it
was never Nolan’s intention to surpass the previous entry. Each movie is
simultaneously linked with the remaining parts of the saga and an independent
movie with its individual and unique message, allowing the story not only to
move forward but also to come full circle. And there lies the beauty of Nolan’s
saga.
Focusing on the on-going “The Dark Knight” vs.
“The Dark Knight Rises” comparisons, such analysis is futile and the viewers
who expect a carbon copy of former with a different villain will be disappointed.
For me, like its predecessor, this movie required
a second viewing and along with all of his prior works cement Nolan as the best
director currently working. A must-see. Let’s hope his contribution to the
Superman reboot “Man of Steel” (2013) yields such a satisfying outcome.
“Money-Shot”: The whole movie is the money shot, but the final
wrapping up sequence is worth of mention, simply because it will be the last
time we will see it for the first time.
Bottom-Line:10/10. It’s more than a blockbuster. It’s an event. I urge
anyone to watch this epic in a movie theater and give it without reservations
the exact same grade I gave “The Dark Knight”. The best movie of the year, so
far.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth
MacFarlane
Plot: During a particular tough childhood,
John Bennet (Wahlberg) befriends a teddy bear, who ends up becoming his best
friend. Now, with 35 and with the negative effects of Ted and John’s mutual
influence clearly showing, John is forced to choose between moving on with his
life or getting stuck on an arrested development condition.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: When the news that, after some buzz
for some years, Seth MacFarlane finally decided to direct a movie, the first
concerned that crossed my mind was that we, the audience, would end up watching
something along the lines of “Family Guy: The Movie”. Despite being a fan of
the aforementioned show (as well as “American Dad”) for several years I stopped
watching it in 2010 because the humor had ran dry. Let’s face it: MacFarlane is
a one trick pony relying on a mix of pop-culture and “fart jokes” source of
humor, which is abundant in today’s airwaves.
Still, with “Ted”, he is able to reinvent
himself without needing to make major adjustments to the sources that made him
famous. And while on TV it looks over saturated, on the big screen it looks
fresh and new.
Despite some flaws, “Ted” picks up on a regular
rom-com blueprint adds a certain dose of stoner comedy and tops it of with a
great CGI lead, and the output is a successful combination of all of the above.
Regarding performances, Mark Wahlberg delivers
a believable character and the best relationship with a full CGI character
since Bob Hoskin’s in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” (1988) and is also one of the
movie’s main strengths. Mila Kunis as Lori adds little much to what we have
already seen from her on last year’s “Friends with Benefits” (2011), but still
plays out a decent and likeable character.
There’s room for some drama, but the director
and the characters successfully prevent it from damaging the pace of a story that doesn’t take itself
too seriously set in a light hearted environment.
The backdrop stories and the secondary
characters are interesting and don’t feel unrelated to the main plot, avoiding
to excessively dragging out: from Ted’s girlfriend Tammy Lynn to the psychotic
villain Donny (played by Giovanni Ribisi) and not forgetting Lori’s sleazy
boss. In a way they work as more thoughtful cutaway gags, which are the
cornerstone of both “Family Guy” and “American Dad”.
The comedy is there but lies on a very specific
demographic: I had the misfortune of getting stuck in a row in front of a bunch
of kids who certainly didn’t catch the humor on the “blink and you’ll miss it”
Indiana Jones reference, the Pink Floyd lyrics joke, Tiffany’s cheesy video
clip and of course Tom Skerrit, among others. But still in a sea of cultural
references, any movie that does a frame by frame reenactment of one of the best
comedies ever made ( “Airplane” (1980) ) has to be a great movie.
And for a movie that puts so much emphasis on a
long-running sketch about “Flash Gordon” (1980) and is still able to maintain
an entire audience interested, the only conclusion we can retrieve is that it’s
a success.
That being said “Ted” is the best comedy of
this summer and one of the best of the year.
A word to the wise: for every “Purple Rain”
(1984) there’s an “Under The Cherry Moon” (1986) and for every “Borat” (2006)
there’s a “Bruno” (2009). So before venturing on a sequel or your following
project, plan extremely well what your next step will be, Mr. MacFarlane.
“Money-Shot”: From the “Flash Gordon” slo-mo entrance to the
“Thunder Song” there are plenty of great moments that will surely make you want
to see this movie a second or even third time.
Bottom-Line:8/10. To put it simply, the best R-rated Comedy since “The
Hangover” (2009). Delivers the laughs and belongs to my definition of “a feel
good movie”. If you’re not easily offended and you believe that “The Dictator”
(2012) fell short on the expectations, then this is your movie.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert,
Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Jeff Bridges
Plot: Set in 1890’s, the movie tells the
story of Johnson’s County Wars in Wyoming, a conflict involving the rich cattle
owners and the immigrant settlers. Between them lies Sheriff James Averill, a
renegade privileged man who sets out to defend the European immigrants and
fight for the values he believes in.
Along the long line of great American cinema
epics arrives “Heaven’s Gate” (1980), Michael Cimino’s very own take on the Old
West. With the ambition set on creating the next “Gone With the Wind” (1939),
Cimino set out to implement every single step mentioned on the “How to Create Your
Own Epic” rulebook (to the point of even including an “Intermission”).
Unfortunately, he appears to have engaged in that myth called “speed reading”
and ended up missing a step or two. The result is an infamous reel of film,
whose process of making is more notorious than the movie itself. From the
delayed schedules, the excessive number of takes, to the “screened for a few” 5
hour long version of the movie which included a battle sequence that lasted the
same as your average movie, and the overall stubborn and megalomanous behavior
that puts Cimino a grey suit and cat away from becoming a quintessential
1960’s James Bond villain.
Until this day, “Heaven’s Gate” is a movie that
polarizes critics: from the trashy remarks voiced by the American critics to
the somewhat pedantic approach taken by European reviewers who state that the
movie is a misunderstood piece of art.
But let’s start from the beginning…
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: Fresh from his two hits “Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot” (1974) and the Academy Award winning “The Deer Hunter” (1978), Cimino
had the credibility to pursue his most personal and most ambitious project
yet. United Artists executives lay down
the terms: the movie had to premiere at Christmas 1979 (As if…). When an
additional extension on the budget was required those very same executives were
copasetic with the request. After this single action, things started to get out
of hand, with Cimino indulging himself and playing with the studio, leading
them believe that they had a potential “Apocalypse Now” on their hands: a
costly but worthwhile labor of love. This couldn’t be further from the truth…
Without going too much into detail on the
production process, I must state that I’m not a movie intellectual (The fact
that I can get a couple of laughs at “Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol”
(1987), immediately disables me from belonging in such a category). With that
being said, I can safely write that a considerable share of sequences that
comprise Cimino’s third outing as a director are simply boring. (See Exhibit
A).
Exhibit A
The movie is a result of the director’s very
own vision, and that same vision insists up on itself for the whole 3 hours and
40 minutes, or what he calls “The Directors Cut”. The cinematography is
outstanding, but it appears that the notion “nothing exceeds like excess” is
taken too seriously. The clearest example that immediately comes to my mind to
illustrate my point is that of a lengthy trip I took in Norway to the fjords
near Bergen: the first few are truly amazing and are an impressive
landscape…after that it’s more of the same. That’s exactly what happens with
this movie. In addition, the sepia tone adopted in key moments of the movie
somewhat misses its purpose and contributes for a set of poorly executed
scenes, an aspect I find strange given Cimino’s perfectionism. The bottom-line
feeling I got from this movie was that the first hour could easily be trimmed
down to half an hour, without any loss of storytelling effect.
But besides length and an uneven space, I
hereby point the additional two main problems I have with the movie: Kris Kristofferson
and Isabelle Huppert. I have only seen two movies starring Kristofferson, and
coincidence or not both got him nominated for a Razzie (“Heaven’s Gate” (1980)
and “Rollover” (1981)). He delivers a wooden performance and he’s simply
unconvincing. While the negative impact of his acting his is minimized on the
latter, he causes some serious damage on the former. Either De Niro or Beatty
would have been suitable alternatives, both being able to carry a cast of such
extension on their very own shoulders.
Isabelle Huppert is also a major flaw, both on
acting (at least on this movie) and as a key component of the storyline: the
notion that a heavy French accent actress can portray a non-French character is
simply laughable. She chews the scenery with an excess of emotions and
Huppert’s Ella Watson simply fails to interact with either of the main
characters.
David Mansfield soundtrack is uneven at best.
Sometimes, it just feel straight out of place.
But there are some redeeming aspects towards
this film. Deep within this mess there’s a good story to be told. As you
probably picked up from the resumed plot, this is not your traditional Western.
The label of “Anti-Western” is usually associated to this movie. Never have
John Wayne or Clint Eastwood starred on something like this. The political tone
and message conveyed in this movie are a portrayal of something we still see
today: Kristofferson’s James “Jim” Averill, is a rich and privileged Harvard
graduate and somewhat of an authority figure in Johnson’s County, Wyoming.
Unlike his peers, he attempts to use his influence to improve the situation of
the poor European immigrants who have settled on the land. He’s a flawed person
but one with strong and high morals and a defender of the values in which he
believes. In his character I find similar traits to the ones found in several
Democrat figures such as John F. Kennedy, Gary Hart and John Kerry (Ironically,
John Wayne, a hard core Republican, was the first choice for the role of Jim
Averill during the early stages of the project in the 1970’s). Diametrically
opposed to Averill, we have Christopher Walken’s Nate Champion, an aspiring and
ambitious gunmen hired by the Cattle Owners Association elite to eliminate
those who occupy the land. Champion is the sort of self-made man, and
represents an excessive and biased portrayal that liberals make of a
Republican. Their social aspirations and personal agendas conflict, a conflict
which is extended on their common interest, the whorehouse madam, Ella Watson.
The main action is complemented by the backdrop
story: The class struggle between the aforementioned elite and the poor who
fall victim of injustice and termination, which transforms this wanna-be epic
in what I personally call “Karl Marx’s Wild Wild West”. Still, a very
interesting story (with great potential, if told correctly) even for
non-socialist viewers such as myself.
Picking up on this particular point, critics
and viewers alike have blamed, in recent years, the timing of this release,
using it as a scapegoat to justify both its flop 32 years ago and their recent
reappraisal. While this is a compelling argument, one must take into account
the release of another epic “Reds” (1981): a mix between documentary and biopic
about the life of John Reed, the American Communist and author of the book “Ten
Days That Shook The World”. Directed by Warren Beatty and nominated for 10
Academy Awards, this controversial movie was met with excellent reviews and
strong box-office revenues. Come to think of it, this was far more
controversial than “Heaven’s Gate”. The success of “Reds” is a tool that allows
to dismantle the previously written argument.
Speculating that releasing this movie several
years before or after is…well…just pure speculation.
Another strong point that saves this movie’s
grace is the supporting cast: Billy Irvine (Hurt), the physical representation
of wasted potential, a lush and former Harvard valedictorian, who idly sits by
and condemns the actions of his counterparts without doing nothing to prevent
them, Frank Canton (Waterston), Averill main antagonist and the true source of
power behind the Cattle Owners Association, John Bridges (Bridges), the sheriff’s
main communication channel with the people. Three strong performances that make
this movie worth watching.
With the potential to be a powerful story,
“Heaven’s Gate” stands, for better and for worse, as a monument to the
excesses, partly represented by the ballooning budget which went from $7.5 M to
reportedly $50 M (some sources say $44 M), around $ 148 M in 2012 USD, and as a
movie whose failure drove United Artists into bankruptcy and ended once and for
all the “New Hollywood” era: The loonies no longer controlled and managed the
asylum (By the way, for those of you interested I recommend Peter Biskind’s
“Easy Riders and Raging Bulls”, a book that chronicles this particular period
of movie history).
For those of you who cannot relate to classic
epics produced by Hollywood, just think of “Heaven’s Gate” as a less artificial
and a more “should-have-worked” feeling than that awful Baz Lurhmann’s “Australia”
(2008).
Despite being a hit in Europe, it was Cimino’s
last act as a Hollywood A-List director.
Perhaps, it was for the best: Had “Heaven’s Gate” been a hit, Michael
Cimino had already a couple of projects on the pipeline, each of them more
ambitious and riskier than what was his last attempt to make an epic. Among
them a remake of the adaption of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”, which
ironically would have been suitable for the director as the book deals with the
principles of Objectivism, one of them being the praise for the individual and
his vision and also an Indian Western titled “Conquering Horse”, a movie that
would have been filmed in Sioux language with subtitles.
Althought his career was over he was still able
to produce a crime classic that has aged well and overcame the criticism it was
subjected to at the time of its release, “The Year of the Dragon” (1985)
starring Mickey Rourke, who has a cameo in “Heaven’s Gate”, a movie superior to
this one and personal favorite of mine (Oh…and a guy named Quentin Tarantino
also thinks it’s awesome).
“Money-Shot”: Without doubt a sequence that was still
perfect clearly in my mind after the movie ended was the first killing carried
out by Nate Champion. Impressive to say the least. The depressing message delivered
in the final scene of the movie, resorting to minimal dialogue and strongly
depending on image remains a sample of what the movie could have been.
Bottom-Line: 7/10. A missed out epic that will
forever remain part of cinema history. There is a great story beneath the
somewhat messy collection of frames that compose this work that embodies Cimino’s
vision of the real West. Worth a shot for all of those who enjoy bold epics and
who are willing to give this movie a shot (pardon the pun).
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys
Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field
A little introduction to my personal feelings towards
comic book adaptations is required before proceeding with this review. My opinions
and thoughts on this particular genre are best compared to the relationship
between Ronald Reagan and air traffic controllers. From a critical standpoint,
I’m biased as during my childhood I always preferred to play outside rather
than reading superhero comics and, as a result, the whole mythology and
affection displayed by the fans passes me by. Still, I have seen my fair share
of superhero movies and contributed to the monstrous box office grosses that,
for the last decade have taken over Hollywood.
To me 90% of the superhero action movies are
seen as mere last resort source of entertainment and enjoyment on a slow Summer
day, and as such aren’t subjected to any meticulous analysis from my part.
However, there are exceptions: Some weeks ago I
heard about a concept I was oblivious to, and a personal trait I possessed and
did not know of: I am an assumed “Nolanite”. A person who praises Christopher Nolan
as the man who single handedly revolutionized a whole genre and created a
superhero saga to the those that aren’t particularly fond of those type of
movies, while at the same time delivering the goods for the comic book aficionados.
And yes, during the process with both “The Prestige” (2006) and “Inception” (2010) he was able to create
what can be called of “Elite Popcorn Blockbusters”: the kind of movies filled
with action but also with content and a storyline that allows one to sound and
look smart while discussing the movie with friends.
Anyways, I always take the enthusiastic reviews
of a non-Nolan superhero movie with a grain of salt, and that’s what happened
with “The Avengers” (2012) earlier this year. Sure it is a great entertainment
movie, with good action sequences, funny performances by most of characters and
it captures, without a doubt, the whole essence of what Summer Blockbuster
should be. But the fans, the industry
and the critics are taking it way too seriously (BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR?
Yeah, sure…). Movies like “The Avengers” should be seen and perceived like
“Independence Day” (1996) was: good fun, improbable plots, a couple of flaws,
millions at the box-office, and NOT TAKING ITSELF TOO SERIOUSLY. (The latter
point being completely missed by the excessively high praises from fans and
critics alike)
Now don’t get me wrong, every two years I need
my “Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.” shot of sarcasm , good humor and AC/DC riffs,
but somehow “The Avengers” is taken a step further, seriousness-wise, than it
should. (Still a 7/10, in my opinion and a superior movie within its genre).
AND NOW, for the actual review…
Plot: Average teenager Peter Parker is on
the lookout to find out the truth about the mysterious departure of his
parents, and while attempting to find out more on a file left by his father, at
the Oscorp HQ is bitten by genetically modified spider. While discovering the
use and range of his newly acquired abilities he bumps into Dr. Curt Connors
mutated self, the Lizard: a result of a failed genetic enhancement experience.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: It
doesn’t take a math genius to understand that when the revenues of a product
decline and the cost of producing said product increases, the profit margin you
get from it grows thinner. While in most industries the average product is made
extinct, in Hollywood a new solution exists: areboot. This is exactly what
happened to Sam Raimi’s Spider Man trilogy (2002,2004,2007), a record breaking,
mixed opinion generating, studio Summer tent pole, revenue generating set of
movies which made Sony executives smile harder than Ash whenever he killed a
“Deadite” (Those who have seen Raimi’s less profitable and more modest “Evil
Dead” (1982) will know what I’m talking about).
10 years after the release of “Spider Man”
(2002), now comes “The Amazing Spider Man” (2012), a new and improved version
correcting all the “bugs” and inaccuracies of the prior version AND presented
to your fully enjoyment in the glorious splendor of 3D! (That Tony Stark
sarcasm shot starts to reveal its effects).
Let me tell you something: back in 2002 I had
no idea of what critics and fans thought about “Spider Man”, because back then
I couldn’t care less, and thus I went to see it anyway. Apparently it was
inaccurate and flawed in a way that it distorted the facts presented in the
comic books. I guess the $130 M budget wasn’t enough to settle the fact that
Peter Parker’s first crush was Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane and I guess it
takes an additional $100 M ($230 is the reported budget for this movie) to set
the record straight.
With the previously written statement proving
to be implosive the reader finally gets to my problem with the whole reboot
story: Why didn’t the writers, the director and the whole creative team got it
right, 10 years ago?
While, some clear improvements on the original
story are noticeable, even for a comic book heretic like me, it’s still not
enough to overcome the fact that I’ve seen this before and not so long ago.
The casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone
is an upgrade and both deliver solid performances, with Garfield being able to
deliver a hipster/modern version of Peter Parker that most audiences will immediately
associate with a familiar face and Stone delivering an impressively believable
performance of Gwen Stacy. Martin Sheen and Sally Field add some panache to the
supporting cast and Denis Leary’s Capt. Stacy interaction with Parker providea
much needed and well-suited comic relief (See the “Godzilla remarks”)
Some overall points, concerning the storyline,
can be raised, indulging my own belief that this new version is in some aspects
superior to Rami’s and to the overall movie genre outputs that reach theaters
on a worldwide scale: For once, Spidey doesn’t catch the man who killed Uncle Ben
(a SPOILER WARNING! shouldn’t be required here, I think), leaving some room for
this issue on the upcoming sequelS. Also, like in Nolan’s Batman, (SPOILER) the
villain isn’t killed at the end of the movie, a standard practice on this
particular genre that gives everyone the “wrapped up story” good feeling when
leaving the movie theater.
Among the major downsides, is the villain: Dr.
Curt Connors / The Lizard is an adequate villain but while there could be some
room for a deep and intense transformation process in the style of Jeff
Goldblum in David Cronenberg’s “The Fly” (1986), the story prefers to award
style over substance, and still manages to fail by delivering a Lizard that is
a serious candidate for “The Most Overused Meme in 2012” Award.
Moreover, the “new” Spider Man acts, talks and
walks like a cross between David Lee Roth circa 1986 and Sam J. Jones in “Flash
Gordon” (1980), and even in some moments the supehero’s action have drawn my
memory to that campy and dreadful sequence in “Spider Man 3” (2007). (THE
HORROR!)
The proverbial “plot device”, which on this
case is an actual device, is a bit too “in your face” and the explanation of
its use and obvious relevance dumbs down the viewer.
Sure, there are several values well represented
in the movie such as the role of science vs. religion, with the Oscorp building
being a clear representation of the “Tower of Babel”. The notions of
redemption, power and responsibility (exhaustively used in the original
trilogy) are vaguely represented, but in a movie so self-obsessed with the
visuals, there’s few room for further development on this field. Still, fans
who over analyze the movie will, I’m sure, find new and deeper meanings in some
moments. (Apparently, now viewers state that there’s an anti-corporation
message hidden in “The Avengers”. Again, TAKING IT WAAAAY TO SERIOUSLY)
Still, and despite the aforementioned aspects,
“The Amazing Spider Man” is a balanced effort and an average superhero movie
that amuses you as long as it lasts. There’s a lot of potential for this entry
to be perceived as a build-up for a greater and bigger thing, that years from
now will be seen as a landmark within the genre. Sadly, I won’t be around any
movie theater to see it happen, unless the rumors of having either Jon Hamm or
John Slaterry from “Mad Men” (2007-) as Norman Osbourne prove to be true.
“Show Me The Money”: With a six-day earning of $ 137,022
M, the movie fell short of the prior’s entry results for the same period. With decreases of 38%, 49% and 62%
(historical values) for each entry of Raimi’s trilogy, respectively, an expect
fall of around 50% over this 6 day period amount can be expected for next
weekend (with projected earnings between $65-70M), implying that it’s almost a
given fact that this movie will be cruising the $200 M revenue line, next
weekend, and breaking even (with the reported budget) sometime along the week
after that. The premiere of “Ice Age 4: Continental Adrift” (2012) won’t pose
as a threat, as this movie will likely open in #2, counting with the majority
of its revenue coming from international markets, since this release will be
met in an condensed market that is currently being served by “Madagascar 3”
(2012) and “Brave” (2012). The main conclusion to be retrieved here is that
“The Amazing Spider Man” has two weeks to make the big bucks before “The Dark
Knight Rises” premieres and takes over the box office. So in a nutshell, if,
and that’s a big IF, it crosses the $300 M line it will still be the lowest
entry of the Spider Man saga.
“Money-Shot”: The overall sequences of Spider Man
cruising New York are always a good sight. And, I’m afraid that’s all there is
to say here….
Bottom-Line:6/10. An average entertaining movie, that doesn't add or
deliver as much as it could simply because of the existing oversaturation (but
apparently that's just my percption) of the market associated with this
specific genre along with the short time span, since the original was released.
Still, it will be a crowd pleaser that packs a strong enough punch that will
ensure a couple of sequels before this decade ends.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
