Daredevil

Year: 2003 (USA)
Genre: Superhero Movie
Directed: Mark Steven Johnson
Stars: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau, Scott Terra, Ellen Pompeo, Joe Pantoliano, Erick Avari
Production: Marvel Enterprises

From the director of Grumpy Old Men (1993), starring the guy who would go on to direct Argo (2012) and including the guy who directed Iron Man (2008), Daredevil (2003) is very much a movie of could haves and almosts. Much like the oft scorned Catwoman (2004) and the goofy but good-natured Fantastic Four (2005), Ben Affleck’s red leathered superhero suffers from a studio system not yet convinced of the viability of superhero films but still in the business of making money.


Affleck is Matt Murdock a trial lawyer by day and a masked vigilante by night. While still in grade school, Murdock was blinded by an accident involving toxic chemicals. While unable to see like you or I, he develops heightened senses including sonar-type hearing that helps him hunt for lowlifes and thugs. The thug Daredevil most wants to put an end to is the aptly named Kingpin aka Wilson Fisk (Michael Clarke Duncan), who runs the criminal syndicate in not-Batman’s neighborhood and huge swath of the city.


And part of New Jersey

Also in the mix is Colin Farrell playing a goofily dressed assassin, Joe Pantoliano as a New York Post reporter and debutante Elektra Natchios (Jennifer Garner) whose billionaire father (Erick Avari) has some shady business dealing with Kingpin he isn’t too proud of. A skilled fighter herself, she gets in on the action while simultaneously forming a bond with Matt.


Thus comes the part fanboys seem the most fussy about, the love story. In this writer’s opinion, the romance was laudable if flat and one-dimensional. The problem comes when a B-story of such flacid ordinariness becomes a larger focus than the capes and masks that inhabit the world of Daredevil. Just because both the lovers are semi-superheroes, it doesn’t make the romance any more interesting. You need more than schoolyard acrobatics, you need fun characters, good chemistry and dialogue that doesn’t sound like it was written by a gifted teenager.

He's a manic, maniac on the floor...

Though for me, the reason this film is ultimately placed in the bargain bin Daredevil-Elektra (2005) two-pack is because of it’s “been there, done that,” quality. Most of the inspirational moments in the movie are lifted from greater superhero films like Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002). Anything original is done sloppily which includes some laughable physics from Colin Farrell’s Bulleye character. There’s really only one creative scene that doesn’t feel like déjà vu; when Matt kisses Elektra in the rain so the droplets can create a consistent image of her face for him. It was romantic, inventive and genuine.

Daredevil ultimately fails because it attempts to tell a dark tale that isn’t dark enough, a romance that isn’t romantic enough and a hero story that isn’t heroic enough. All the ideas in it are unoriginal retreads from other films and the direction is too rudimentary to really be mentioned. While doing background for this review I became privy to a director’s cut version of the film which includes a subplot involving Coolio. Detractors have been silenced by this new version so I’m slightly curious as to its allure. Curious, but not curious enough to watch the guy from Mallrats (1995) and the third billed starlet from Juno (2007); get silly on a seesaw again.

Seriously? Can't you two stop fighting just once?

Final Grade: D+

Essentials: Patton

Year: 1970 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Biography/War Film
Directed: Franklin J. Schaffner
Stars: George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Stephen Young, Michael Strong, Karl Michael Vogler, Edward Binns, Jack Gwillim
Production: 20th Century Fox


“All victory is fleeting,” says a war wary George S. Patton (George C. Scott) in the last reel of the infamous 1970 film Patton. He had successfully led the invasion of Africa during WWII and commanded the U.S. Seventh army during the invasion of Sicily. After the invasion of Normandy, he led and commanded the U.S. Third army in a rapid armored drive to relieve allied soldiers experiencing the Battle of the Bulge. Throughout the war he was admired by his troops, the allied command and even his adversaries in Germany.

Rommel you magnificent bastard!

Yet Patton’s hard-driving personality and aggressive eagerness towards battle made him a bit of a pariah at times. His showmanship, controversial statements towards the Russians and vulgar morale speeches to his men ultimately overshadowed his accomplishments. Eisenhower stated that his lack of tact was a flaw which limited his leadership potential, in spite of his many accomplishments.

Patton remains a controversial figure even to this day though his profile was likely raised by the release of the Academy Award winning movie bearing his name. In it director Franklin J. Schaffner doesn't paint the man in hagiographic tones, nor does he make him a dilettante. He and screenwriters Edmund H. North and Francis Ford “I made Godfather (1972)” Coppola wisely checks under the hood to see what drives a man of such particular talents. As the various war campaigns unfold, we see a considerable intelligence at play; along with a tremendous ego. Patton, as George C. Scott plays him, finds comfort and honor in the savagery of war. He imagines past lives where he had seen battle and is insulted by soldiers suffering from shell-shock. “You, know George, you’d have made a great field Marshal for Napoleon, if you’d lived in the 18^th Century.” Says a British General to the esteemed Patton; “Oh, but I did, Sir Alex, I did,” retorts Patton.

Patton’s most melancholic scenes, such as his spat with General Bradley (Karl Malden) and forced relief of the Seventh army are interiors while his largest triumphs take place outdoors.  To take advantage of a wider canvas than his successful blockbuster The Planet of the Apes (1968), Schaffner made most of the action and drama to take place in vast and awe-inspiring settings. All the interiors are comparatively short scenes, often taking place in tents, just out of reach of rugged terrain. Even then the viewing audience can see open flaps, windows and corridors glimpsing at natural surroundings within the peripheries.

The film was shot on 70mm film and was meant to accommodate a large curved Dimension 150 screen. Think a Samsung 4K HDTV only three stories tall. Only two films were released though the cinematographic process: Patton and The Bible (1966). While technology of this magnitude and excess has been done before in films like How the West Was Won (1962), Patton brought in a new age of pan-screen presentation that would pave the way for films like Star Wars (1977), shot for a Panavision cinematographic process and ultimately Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) filmed for 2K Digital Intermediate. In other words, Patton was among one of the first films to perfect the large screen IMAX-type experience that we all love and are used to. As a result, the action is larger than life featuring some of the best faux-battle scenes ever captured on film. As for the infamous speech at the beginning of the film; the larger canvas makes the tableau truly breathtaking.

Who's this Patton guy and how is he better than me?

Patton was not a man before his time nor was he a man immersed in the past. He was the right man, at the right time, there for the right reasons. Was he as brilliant as General Ulysses S. Grant or as foolhardy as Captain George A. Custer? The real life of such a distinguished and complicated man can never be surmised asking such questions. What I can conclude is based on the performance of George C. Scott Patton is an accomplished film. With the inclusion of new technology and sympathetic characterization provided by the confident writing and directing of Franklin J. Schaffner, Edmund H. North and Francis Ford “I made Apocalypse Now (1979) too” Coppola, Patton is an incredible and unforgettable cinematic experience.

Final Grade: A

The Last Station

Year: 2009
Genre: Drama/Biography
Directed: Michael Hoffman
Stars: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, John Sessions, Patrick Kennedy, Kerry Condon, Annie-Marie Duff
Production: Egoli Tossell Film


On paper, The Last Station (2009) seems like the perfect movie for the older, fussier set to enjoy. It features the amiable talents of former Von Trapp patriarch Christopher Plummer and The Queen (2006) herself Dame Helen Mirren, in a true to life story about the last days of Leo Tolstoy. To further bolster Last Station’s Oscar-bait pedigree, it costars Paul Giamatti as Tolstoy-ian neophyte Vladimir Chertkov and also features Professor X himself James McAvoy playing the audience’s perspective a likely composite of multiple people. If only things translated well from paper to celluloid. For like many period pieces, The Last Station suffers from being a beautiful canvas with no moving parts.

Help! I'm stuck in this painting and can't get out!

In Soviet Russia, Tolstoy hippie you!

Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) has been widely considered one of the best authors in the world, certainly among the best of the 19^th century. By the time the movie begins, he had already written War and Peace, Anna Karenina, The Death of Ivan Ilyich and founded a utopian communal tenant farm in his boyhood home of Yasnaya Polyana. The leader of a new quasi-religious movement, Tolstoy’s most outspoken critic is not Tsar Nicholas but his wife Sofya (Helen Mirren) who is upset by plans to give away their fortune and the copyrights of his novels to “the people”.

As alluded to earlier, the plot is largely taken from the point of view of James McAvoy’s character; a Tolstoy-ian with enormous respect for the aging author, scholar and theologian. His sympathies ping-pong between Tolstoy and his wife who still loves him but cannot get over the ideals he propagates but struggles to live up to. He struggles to see her perspective while she fails to take into account the changing times and a radicalized serf class that loathes nobility. It’s all very complex emotionally, politically and philosophically.

At least it likely was in real life. In the film however, all the characters, subplots and attempts to frame things in a larger context are color coded and ranked for your convenience. Instead of giving his audience the benefit of free thought director Michael Hoffman insults the intelligence of his audience by making good characters speak in profound statements while villains dwell in cynicism and pomposity. The music swells when it should and our McAvatar wonders down hallways and fields where only narrow perspective can be applied. In The Last Station, it’s impossible to truly sympathize or form an independent mindset of any character because all is seen through a non-objective perspective.

Now I’m not saying narrowly tailored movies are intrinsically bad. Most don’t come from a place of omnipotence but enjoy subjectivity through the mind of a specific character, in this case Valentin. But his character arc is so bland as to make everything around it seem pedestrian. Patton (1970) and Malcolm X (1992) were biased in their treatment of the WWII era and the Civil Rights Movement respectively; yet the trials and tribulations of the central characters made for good drama. The fact that both films had strong social and political perspectives was almost beside the point.

The story of Tolstoy and Sofya is a tale worth telling and has been told before in films like Lev Tolstoy (1985) and Departure of a Grand Old Man (1912). Yet the movie isn't told from either person’s perspective yet places itself clearly in Sofya’s camp. As a result, the film has layers of Hallmark Channel sentimentality. As Sofya’s plight becomes more immediate, the film devolves into a movie about a woman fighting for her rights in a divorce before divorce was a thing.

The Last Station was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Actress for Helen Mirren and Best Supporting Actor for Christopher Plummer. In both cases their considerable talents were overshadowed by other admittedly better performances; Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side (2010) and Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (2010). I say considerable because their performances alone made The Last Station slightly more than a mediocre historical biography. Yet despite this, The Last Station will ultimately be remembered for giving Christopher Plummer his first Oscar nomination in a 54-year screen acting career. He would go on to become the oldest winner of a competitive Oscar only two years later for Beginners (2012). So I guess in his case this Oscar-bait flick helped him out.

Eat it Max von Sydow!

Final Grade: D+

Guinevere

Year: 1999 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Romantic Drama
Directed: Audrey Wells
Stars: Sarah Polley, Stephen Rea, Jean Smart, Gina Gershon, Paul Dooley, Carrie Preston, Tracy Letts, Emily Procter, Gedde Watanabe, Sandra Oh, Carlton Wilborn
Production: Miramax Films

What would make a smart, young, beautiful woman fall in love with a photographer three times her age? What would possess her to give up a spot in Harvard for the opportunity to live with a tortured artist? Could it be a human desire to create and having the room to do so? Could it be he offers sage-like wisdom that outweighs the adjunct creepiness of the situation; Perhaps. It also helps to have low self-esteem and little direction in life. In the non-committal words of Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley), “He was the worst man I ever met, or maybe the best, I'm still not sure. If you're supposed to learn by your mistakes, then he was the best mistake I ever made…I was his Guinevere whatever that means.”

Philandering isn't just a city in Spain you know

As you can imagine the basic outline of Guinevere (1999) is one of a relationship between an aging photographer (Stephen Rea) and a colleen with a self-image problem. As their relationship progresses, Harper uncovers Connie’s bohemian lifestyle extends to his love life as well has his approach to art. Can she properly balance their love, her family’s expectations of her, his expectations of her and a menagerie of rival “Guineveres”? Stephen Rea’s Connie asks for five years of his muse’s life. Five years rent free for Harper to coax and develop the artist inside herself. Can she truly accomplish this task?

Okay enough with the rhetorical questions. The fact is those who will like this movie will like it because it is a mediocre film made relevant by its subject matter. Self-proclaimed artists and photography buffs will likely see Guinevere as a diamond in the rough; a romantic take on their struggles living with their gift. Luckily I have no artistic talent so I can speak for the majority when I say Guinevere is diminutive and not worth sitting through. There are moments that bring to mind other, better films about similar subject matters like Blow-Up (1966) and La Dolce Vita (1960). Those moments however are interspersed with conversations about which picture is better, whether Uncle Tom’s Cabin was art or a product and these are not my boobs.

It's all about artistic license...also boobs.

As one gets older, the libido takes a back seat to the heart so I can sympathize with Stephen Rea’s character a little. He craves seeing a young artist blossom and loves seeing Harper slowly come out of her shell and eventually become a photographer. That being said he is also craven for a woman’s touch and gets it with a clockwork obsession. He doesn’t necessarily cheat on Harper, though it is implied. Instead he reinforces his own ideals of love while never really loving Harper to begin with. He loves her potential not who she is.

Jean Smart, who plays Harper’s bourgeois mother, does a spot-on analysis of Connie and his warped relationship with Harper. Upon discovery she comes to their apartment and points out that only a young naïve girl would look at a bohemian photographer like him with a modicum of admiration. “No woman of experience would ever stand in front of you with awe in her eyes.” She being a woman with experience may have a seemingly unpleasant marriage but at least her children are talented and they live in a home filled with expensive stuff so of course she knows what she’s talking about
.

She wears paint covered overalls
She must be misunderstood

Now one can get a sense of legacy from a movie of this kind. Jean Smart’s character might see her legacy through her accomplishments in her career and economic success, while Connie might see his accomplishments highlighted in the pursuance of beauty. It’s a fair question, whether you yourself would prefer to be remembered for being monetarily successful or being artistically talented. If only such heavy themes were put into a better movie where the whole story wasn’t treated so glibly; then we’d have something to talk about.

Final Grade: D-

Essentials: Die Hard

Year: 1988 (USA)
Genre: Action/Hostage Film
Directed: John McTiernan
Stars: Bruce Willis, Reginald VelJohnson, Bonnie Bedelia, Paul Gleason, William Atherton, Alan Rickman, Hart Bochner, Alexander Godunov
Production: 20th Century Fox


NYPD cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) has been having a bad day. Not only is he at a Christmas party for a bunch of corporate nitwits and not only did his attempt at reconcilement with his estrange wife (Bonnie Bedelia) not work, now he has to deal with Euro-trash terrorists who have taken everyone but himself hostage. To make matters worse, he’s in Los Angeles for the holidays; Merry Christmas. That in a nutshell is what Die Hard (1988) is all about, one ordinary guy put in an extraordinary circumstance, making the best of a bad situation and picking off the bad guys, one guy at a time.

Dammit! Why is there one less of you than there was before?!

Yet that simplicity, that clear-cut, no B.S. approach to unrecompensed violence and explosions is exactly what makes Die Hard so appealing. It’s a culture piece, an ambassador of action-thrillers meant to make the pulse quicken. Not just a standard of hostage film excellence but the only standard there is.

Surprisingly enough, no one had ever thought of making a movie like Die Hard before 1988. There were smatterings of the idea in American westerns like The Silver Lode (1954) and police procedurals like The Dirty Harry movies (1971-1988). The screenplay for Die Hard is based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp so it’s not like an elongated hostage situation is unheard of in literature. But it wasn’t until director John McTiernan and writers Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza put their collective talents together did something like Die Hard truly pop into existence.

It really is obvious when you think about it

The tropes introduced in Die Hard would later become imperious parts of action-movie mayhem. A running joke in Hollywood is using Die hard as a common descriptor for screenwriters to get their products produced. “It’s like Die Hard only on a bus,” brought us Speed (1994). “It’s like Die Hard but in Alcatraz,” gave us The Rock (1996) “It’s like Die Hard only on a battleship/train,” got us Under Siege (1992) and Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995). Very few movies can lend themselves to a rhetoric trick so easily.

It's like Finding Nemo only shittier

After the films release Bruce Willis, who had mostly done comedy, rocketed to action icon status. He exemplified a new kind of hero, one with frailties and fears, who occasionally freaked out and was limited. Bruce Willis’s John McClane was not a muscular tough man like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jean-Claude Van Damme. He was a leaner, smarter, everyman kind of guy who wasn’t above getting glass stuck in his bare feet. Later versions of John McClane in the sequels would have him saving entire cities, surviving helicopter crashes, jumping on trucks and jets, ship explosions; car chases, and Justin Long. Yet the original John McClane is and will remain a symbol of cowboy weltanschauung with a lack of pretension. “Yippie-ki-yay, motherf***er.”

Want to see me save the world in Die Hard 6?

Final Grade: A

Badlands

Year: 1973 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Romantic Drama
Directed: Terrence Malick
Stars: Martin Sheen, Sissy Spacek, Warren Oates, Ramon Bieri, Alan Vint, Gary Littlejohn, John Carter, Terrence Malick
Production: Warner Bros.


It’s interesting to see what talented, game changing and notorious filmmakers created before they became big names in the industry. Steven Spielberg’s first theatrically released film is a little known Goldie Hawn starring popcorn flick called The Sugarland Express (1974) while Christopher Nolan full length student film was a black-and-white mind-bender called Following (1998). First films have their faults of course but they’re exciting to see in a “before they were famous” kind of way. Lacking signature touches and emphasis on niche placements, the only commonality between a truly great director’s freshman film and his entire repertoire is unbridled energy coming from behind the camera. Like a lost treasure, these films can give a cinema-phile like me quite a high.

I had that feeling watching Badlands (1973) for the first time the other day. I wouldn’t go as far to say director Terrence Malick is among my favorite filmmakers of all time, but every film I’ve seen of his has managed to surprise and impress me. He’s an artiste unlike any other, often employing an expressionistic narrative coupled with an uncompromised visual composition. His 1978 followup to Badlands, Days of Heaven is one of the most visually beautiful films I have ever seen while The Tree of Life (2011) is not only a beautiful picture, but a movie that touched my very soul.

Badlands is an excellent beginning to a revelatory career. The film doesn't employ Malick’s omnipotent observational narrative quite to the point of The Thin Red Line (1998). The camera remains objective while Sissy Spacek’s Holly informs the story with voiceover that is not entirely neutral from the story but opaque and third person. Like most of Malick’s films, the dialogue is minimalistic and occasionally cryptic but the consequence of this is the audience becomes fully immersed observers. The film bids us into the world of Kit (Martin Sheen) and Holly from their detached perspectives; inviting onlookers with original photography of the eerily empty northern American plains.

 

Very empty.

 The film begins with Holly and Kit first meeting each other in their small, desolate South Dakota town. Kit is a garbage collector ten years her senior. He emphasizes everything he says with a sad-sack swagger but cannot cover up his desperation for recognition. “He looked just like James Dean,” swoons Holly when first getting to know Kit. Her personality is also informed and defined by the fantasies of disaffected youth. A world populated by vapid movie star magazines and escapist fairytales. When Kit shoots her father, they run away, at one point even abandoning roads in favor of driving his Cadillac through open range. They leave the civilized, adult world of responsibility in favor of a romanticized life on the run. Holly notes that at one point, “The world was like a faraway planet to which I could never return. I thought what a fine place it was, full of things that people can look into and enjoy.”

The body count starts racking up throughout the film as bounty hunters, the police and innocents are ensnared in their world of violence. Neither Holly nor Kit reacts with any kind of remorse or regret or even fear. They see little meaning outside of their idyllic odyssey filled with red helium balloons and buried buckets filled with meaningless trinkets, why would they have feelings of any kind towards complete strangers?

Badlands postulates perpetual violence as our natural state made most evident in youth. Holly spends most days on the road reading stolen teen magazines contemplating love affairs of movie stars. She experiences wearing makeup for the first time and dances around one of their hideouts like she was in a ballroom. She never actively participates in the killing yet doesn't cognitively recognize it as an evil action. Kit maybe in his twenties but his actions are those of a child. He uses his gun to ward away minor trivialities from bothersome people to a pointless football. At one point their heading is decided by an empty Coca-Cola bottle and in another they construct a tree house and spend their mornings coming up with the password of the day.

Characters that claim responsibility and assume adulthood seem envious of Kit’s stature as one of America’s most wanted; that is when they are not dispatched or displaced. Kit revels in his new found glory much like the titular characters of Bonnie and Clyde (1967) did. Unlike that movie however Badlands doesn't succumb to gallows humor, preferring an adult attitude of contemplation; an attitude that would come to permeate all of Terrence Malick’s subsequent films.

The Japanese word Shibusa I feel perfectly articulates the meaning behind Malick’s work. It’s a word literally meaning “spirit of poverty” His approach to his art is similar to that of artist Jan Vermeer and poet Walt Whitman: contemporary yet timeless, affecting but therapeutic, humble yet grand. In the words of film critic Chris Wisniewski, “[Terrence Malick] is a filmmaker with a clear sensibility and aesthetic who makes narrative films that are neither literary nor theatrical.” To put it another way, Badlands is one hell of a first feature.

Final Grade: B+

Monsters University

Year: 2013
Genre: Animated Comedy
Directed: Dan Scanlon
Stars: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, Peter Sohn, Joel Murray, Sean Hayes, Dave Foley, Charlie Day, Alfred Molina, Tyler Labine, Bobby Moynihan, Aubrey Plaza
Production: Pixar Studios

Walt Disney never went to college; neither did John D. Rockefeller. Bill Gates did, he dropped out of Harvard before he graduated. Those who have seen The Social Network (2010) probably recall Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg also dropped out of Harvard. I suppose college isn’t for everyone including *spoiler alert* Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James “Sully” Sullivan (John Goodman). Academics can be stifling after all.

In the prequel to the celebrated Monster, Inc. (2001) movie, the beloved Mike and Sully are students of the prestigious and aptly named Monster University. Both lack the je ne sais quoi to be graduating material at the College of Scaring according to Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren). That is until Mike comes up with a plan to win the Greek Council Scare Games. If he and his newly assembled fraternity can do so, they’re all accepted into the College of Scaring and don’t have to spend their college days constructing scream canisters. But can the initially antagonistic duo pull it off?

What do you think this is a Dreamworks film?

Think a family-oriented cartoon version of Revenge of the Nerds (1984) and you got yourself the basic premise of Monster University. Seriously Pixar, if you were going to rip off comedy staples at least lift from something better like Animal House (1978). All said and done, while there are some flickers of originality in the visuals, the story is a retread of College Humor jokes redressed and sanitized for the kiddies.

Of course unoriginality isn't exactly a cardinal sin in the film industry. When was the last time you saw something truly unique at the movie theater? But there’s something insidious about the message behind Monsters University (2013) that doesn't compute. The two of course become good friends; understand the value of teamwork, blah, blah, blah. But instead of being allowed into the College of Scaring, they are expelled for reasons I won’t expand on here; after all, I can’t spoil everything. They end up starting in the mailroom of Monsters, Inc. eventually making it to the scare floor.

While that would be a nice message about how hard work can pay off, the message kids will undoubtedly receive from the last five minutes of the movie is success isn't dependent on college enrollment. Maybe fifty years ago the moral of this story would have been forgivable but in this day and age it’s foolhardy to tell kids they too can start in the mailroom and be fine. You don’t need a college education or failing that trade school/certification; it’s all about hopes and dreams and elbow grease; yeah, not in today’s economy. Not unless you're a reality celebutard which isn't exactly  high calling.

I don’t want to demean those who don’t have a diploma from Student Debt University. Going to college does not make you smarter and certainly doesn't make you happier. Plus as I said before, there are a lot of successful people who chose a different career path that didn't involve a student meal plan and drum circle in the quad. But those people are the exception. The fact remains those who attain a bachelor’s degree or higher have a better quality of life overall. College graduates earn almost twice as much as high school grads over the course of their careers, they’re more marketable, can adapt to new jobs quicker and as highlighted in Monsters University, they make lasting social connections.

Plus all the beer man! All the beer!!

One thing I tell kids all the time is college indeed isn't for everyone. You just have to ask yourself two questions when you get to that age. Does what I want to do require a college degree? And, if I’m undecided, can I afford college? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then don’t go after high school and ask yourself again next year. It was my way of telling the youth if they’re not economically or socially mature enough to handle college don’t waste your time and enjoy flipping burgers until they are.

Final Grade: C+

Before Midnight

Year: 2013
Genre: Drama
Directed: Richard Linklater
Stars: Ethan Hawke, Julie Deply, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, Jennifer Prior, Charlotte Prior, Cenia Kalogeropoulou, Walter Lasselly, Ariane Labed, Yiannie Papadopoulos, Athina Rachel Tsangari, Panos Koronis
Production: Castle Rock Entertainment

The first time I saw Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise (1995) I was about the same age as the characters in the film. It was also 2008 so the film series Before Sunrise, Before Sunset (2004) and now Before Midnight (2013) had a bit of a headstart on me. The film hit me like a freight train providing a very, very accurate foil for the things I was dealing with. I had just ended a long-term relationship…well she ended it, and I was stuck in an existential funk, unable to really find a proper place in life. Yet through it all I was still optimistic. In essence, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) was me in a nutshell; the fact that he and Celine (Julie Deply) were walking around Vienna where I spent three years of my childhood was another added bonus.

Yea, I lived here. Jealous?

Eighteen years after their first encounter and nine years since the last movie Jesse and Celine live in Paris. Before Midnight sets up the situation; the couple is spending the last few days of their Grecian vacation at the summer home of a fellow author. They have twins (Jennifer and Charlotte Prior) and Jesse is seeing off his son from his previous marriage (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) who is about to start high school in the States. Jesse is troubled that he hardly ever sees his son and has been fiddling with the idea of moving back stateside. Meanwhile Celine fiddles with the idea of starting a new job in Paris.

Lived here too!

The film follows roughly the same format as the first two in the series. Jesse and Celine converse and weigh the options they have while enjoying the breathtaking scenery around them. There is more interplay between other characters in this one but most of the dialogue takes place between Jesse and Celine. You would think that things would get tedious after a while yet the dialogue crackles with a stylized realism that keeps you interested in the conversation. It’s as if they say all the things you’d say if in a nine year relationship only uttered by two beautiful people who don’t stammer as much.

Well...when, when, you did...you know what? Fuck you!

I’ll admit Before Midnight is probably my least favorite of the trilogy (thus far) not because it’s a bad movie; very, very far from it. It’s almost too good of a movie in fact. As I have said before, the film series has a headstart on me thus I am not a parent, a career man or even consider myself a full-fledged adult. The conversations to be had in Before Midnight are less the ones I would have and more the ones my parents had when I was younger. To that extent, Before Midnight makes me want to evaluate the man I am becoming.

Who am I? Batman?

I tried to have my girlfriend sit and watch Before Sunrise. We had to shut it off after twenty minutes as she was bored to tears by a movie consisting of largely dialogue. This is a girl who loved Seven Samurai (1954) so I’m not about to judge her harshly for brushing off what I consider to be arguably the most genuine movie about love. Regardless, I hope that our love stays as lively and as beautiful as that of Jesse and Celine. What happens after a romantic finds what he’s looking for and walks slowly into the sunset? Watch Before Midnight to find out.

Final Grade: B-

Essentials: Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is a bit of an oddity everywhere its title is listed. Considered by the American Film Institute to be among the best American films, Lawrence of Arabia is hardly an American film. Its protagonist is decidedly British and the film was a co-production between Horizon Pictures in London and Columbia Pictures in Hollywood. In addition, the British Film Institute also claims it as its own, so there’s that.

America stop stealing our fucking movies!!!

While considered an epic and features breathtaking natural vistas, the film is an epic quite unlike any other. Lawrence of Arabia isn’t Gone with the Wind (1939) and it’s certainly not a production of the Hollywood hagiographical machine churned by Cecil B. DeMille. It’s a movie that has no equal and apart from maybe The English Patient (1996) has no real imitators either.

The film is based on the true story of T.E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole), a British intelligence officer who fermented Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks during WWI. Lawrence is considered a very controversial figure both in his native Britain and in the Arabian Peninsula. His personality alone isolated him from his fellow officers in the British Army who found his assuredness awkward. When he gained the loyalties of King Faisal (Alec Guinness) and helped unite Arab tribes under the Arab National Council to occupy Damascus, the British and the French became worried of his intentions and reined him in.

Those who know the history of the region will recall that after the events depicted in the movie, the French occupied Lebanon in 1920 thus fulfilling the Sykes-Picot agreement. The Arab National Council was disbanded in 1930 though were never the most competent administrators, and the region didn’t enjoy the fruits of free determination until the 1940’s.

...And nothing bad ever happened in the region again.

While politics and political brinksmanship is an aspect of Lawrence of Arabia it isn’t the only aspect, or even the most important theme in David Lean’s masterpiece. Lawrence of Arabia aspires to embolden the unconventional. To make us aware of an individual who, while being a small cog in a big machine, was too unique to be replaced, altered or replicated. The famous tableau in which Lawrence slowly moves towards the frame from a mile away against the harshness of the desert is a visual metaphor of such an aspiring theme.

Heck, even Peter O’Toole’s physical shape and body language is a visual metaphor for the value of unconventionality. His frame is lanky and frail and his body language and speech patterns balance between discreet and cocksure. Yet while his physical appearance is the antipathy of modesty, his every action is done with grandeur. While everything he says is said softly, what he says is self-assured. He has the heart of Othello born in the body of Iago.

At 216 minutes long, Lawrence of Arabia may not be for the huddled masses populating today’s movie theaters, but the film has been a must see for the last 50 years for good reason. Anyone who claims to love films and does not like Lawrence of Arabia must loose all credibility. Tough talk coming from someone who didn’t think 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was all that and a packet of bubble gum. But the plain truth of the matter is Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece in storytelling, in filmmaking, in entertainment and in artistry. The fact that it’s an hours-long sprawling epic just makes it all the more impressive and all the more required viewing.

Final Grade: A

Pain & Gain

Year: 2013
Genre: Drama
Directed: Michael Bay
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris, Rob Corddry, Bar Paly, Rebel Wilson, Ken Jeong, Michael Rispoli, Keili Lefkovitz
Production: Paramount Pictures

Is it possible that while being saturated with the familiar trappings of previous efforts, Pain & Gain (2013) might just be Michael Bay’s best film? Well it’s at least his smartest film to date. The grabbed-from-the-headlines story, the borderline goofy characters, the fast cars, gorgeous women and buff men when combined make a potent satire about the American dream and what it means to a certain kind of person. Yes I dare say, I think we have underestimated the much maligned director who gave us Armageddon (1998), The Rock (1996), Pearl Harbor (2001) and the Transformers trilogy (2007-2011). He attempted to make something more and partially succeeded!

Pain & Gain follows the exploits of three singularly desperate body builders. The leader of the muscle-bound group Daniel (Mark Wahlberg) has seen one too many get-rich-quick how-to videos and is convinced he has the perfect plan. Part one: kidnap a wealthy but vulgar Miami business man (Tony Shaloub), Part two: force him to hand over his assets to him, part three: kill him. Problem is Daniel needs help so he recruits fitness partner Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and new fish to the gym Paul (Dwayne Johnson) a born again Christian with a cocaine problem.

 Daniel and his coconspirators feel they deserve the money and feel they are the modern-day Robin Hoods of the sun State. They even plot another heist, stealing from another supposed bad man based on said man’s behavior towards them. They reason that since he’s a pornographer, no one would have a problem with them stealing his money. The fact that both men they bring harm to are self-made millionaires holds no weight for these muscle-bound jocks. They’re bad people by virtue of their personality while Daniel and his buddies deserve riches because they’re stronger and better looking.



Why can't I be a millionaire too!

Michael Bay’s characters act like petulant children who didn’t get the present they wanted for Christmas. It’s the cognitive dissonance between deserving and earning that the main characters in this movie have a problem with. Like spoiled children they think thinking it just makes it so, not bothering with the details. With the notion of the American dream embedded in their mind, they can’t help but feel shafted because things haven’t worked out for them yet everyone from their boss to the customers at their gym seem to have it good. All they can do to stop from feeling powerless is use their brawn to get what they want which is surprisingly successful…at first.

The incompetence of the Miami Police Department portrayed in the film and the unwillingness of anyone including retired detective Ed DuBois (Ed Harris) to approach these criminals directly leads the film on a satirical tangent. It goes far beyond just three muscle heads and makes one ponder just how thin that thin blue line of justice really is. Can these guys really get away with something so crass simply by virtue of being bigger than the other guy? It’s easy to tell a body builder the reason for his lack of upward mobility is based on his lack of formal education, his record and his roid rage; until you get tied to a chair and socked in the face. Then the whole social contract just breaks down. Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

With an assortment of despicable yet colorful characters, it only makes sense the story is assembled by a despicable yet colorful director. Those who complain about Bay’s frenzied editing and slap-dash handheld camerawork will have less to loathe in Pain & Gain. This isn’t a movie to give you nausea or epilepsy, at least not for the reason you figured. No Michael Bay’s innate ability to compose lyrical portraits of saturated color and beautiful photography is on full display here and for once it isn’t chopped up and rearranged like so much sushi. If only Bay went the way of Werner Herzog and started making naturalistic documentaries we could be spared another Transformers sequel. Plus in nature, there aren’t many windows or mirrors your camera operator can reflect from.

Unfortunately Bay doesn’t make documentaries but popcorn flicks complete with marginalized female characters. In Pain & Gain, the brunt of the sexism is flung on eastern European stripper Sorina (Bar Paly) and portly comic relief Nurse Robin (Rebel Wilson). Yet even through the female characters we see a quest for the idealized American dream torn asunder. Both are love objects to Adrian and Paul and both accept their new homes, cars etc. No questions are asked, even when Adrian comes home to take a shower drenched in blood and Paul snorts away his share of the wealth. I commend Bay’s effort to expand his female character’s motivations to include a yearning to be wealthy in addition to being hitched to whatever dweeb he pegs as our hero.

I'm sorry, I really don't know what I'm doing

Still, with all that in mind, I simply can’t give Pain & Gain a pass. It’s not a pleasant movie to watch by any stretch of the imagination, and the story, while interesting seems to always be stuck in first gear. It’s remarkable when filmmakers come out of their comfort-zone to try something new, even more so when they succeed in that endeavor. Unfortunately for Mr. Bay, Pain & Gain is not a down and out triumph; it rather crosses the finish line with a wheeze and for that I don’t think he’ll be f***ing the prom queen.

Final Grade: D+