The Martian

I'm gonna tweak an intro I like to use from time-to-time. I've used it before talking the ocean and huge bodies of water but am twisting it up a bit to outer space concerning a film in theaters that's raking in the dough and piling up positive reviews. Rightfully so as well. So what's scarier than outer space? How about being trapped in outer space millions of miles and months and potentially years away from rescue? Yeah. Pretty...freaking...scary. So goes 2015's The Martian.

It's two-plus weeks into a NASA mission on Mars when a horrific storm forces the six-man crew to abort ahead of schedule and head back to Earth. In the evacuation though, one member of the crew, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), is struck by a piece of flying debris and swept away. The Ares crew leaves before they too are lost, suspecting that Mark was killed in the accident...but he wasn't. With the crew having left Mars behind, Mark wakes up the next day, wounded, running out of oxygen and very much on his own. All he has is a habitat that isn't intended for long-term living and with stockpiles of supplies but only to a point. If he intends to survive, he's got some serious work to do. A potential rescue is at least four years away -- it takes awhile to get to Mars -- and that's only if he can somehow get in touch with NASA. If he can. First things first, Mark has to provide for himself with the food and water (even rationed) scheduled to run out long before any potential rescue arrives. The clock is ticking...

'Martian' is based off a best-selling novel by Andy Weir. I read it this past spring and I loved it. LOVED it. Mark Watney quickly climbed onto my list of all-time favorite characters. At different points reading Weir's novel, I felt physical ill I was so nervous, my eyes teared up with extreme worry about Mark's fate and what I took away most, I laughed out loud over and over again. It's one of the best books I've read in years, funny, emotional, smart and dramatic, all rolled into one. So how about the movie...

It's a gem. Director Ridley Scott is at the helm of an excellent, almost great movie. I don't have any huge flaws to call into question, but I can't call 'Martian' an all-timer. It's just really, really good from beginning to end. Scott has had a string of so-so to meh to not very good movies, but this is the veteran director at the top of his game. It can be daunting adapting any novel, but the effort here is spot-on. Filming was done in Wadi Rum in the Jordanian desert, giving the film a startling, far-off look to the "location" shooting on "Mars." I really liked composer Harry Gregson-Williams' score, unassuming and quiet that more than suits the action. We don't need aggressive, in-your-face music telling you how to feel. You need quiet, companion music that underplays the emotions and action.

When I read Matt Damon had been cast as Mark Watney, I was skeptical -- a little -- because the character is in his late 20's and though it suited Damon regardless of age, something didn't seem spot-on about the choice. Well, I'll admit when I was wrong. Mr. Jason Bourne himself was a perfect choice. Part of the appeal of the Watney character is his response to his isolation and potential death. We see him break down in a couple instances, but this is a man who takes every problem as it comes and attacks it head-on. He never gets too down no matter how hopeless or impossible it seems. It's one of Damon's best performances, showing off what a versatile talent he is. You're rooting for him from the start and that never lets up. Intelligent, funny, stubbornly persistent and quite sure he's going to survive no matter what's thrown at him, an excellent part for Matt Damon.

Damon's Watney is -- not so surprisingly -- on his own during his time on Mars. In other words, it's kind of a one-man show during those scenes. Here, Scott uses some cool style points. In the book, it was quite acceptable that Watney kept a diary of all his day-to-day activities. Short of narration playing over his actions throughout the entire run-time, that wouldn't work here. Instead, Watney films video diaries, keeping us updated on one fiasco or success or observation after another. Damon injects the character with the same energy and dark sense of humor and stubborn hope that Weir's novel presented. It's a straigthforward call on style, but it works. The days pass with a simple 'Sol 18' and so on appearing on-screen, a sound effect like a radar ping playing over it. Not aggressive in the style department, but it works in subtle, underplayed fashion.

Now of course, 'Martian' isn't a one-man show. The overall cast is excellent, Damon on Mars and the expansive rescue effort playing out back on Earth with the Ares crew also traveling back to Earth. Lots of potentially excellent parts and they don't disappoint. Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis and Donald Glover lead the NASA rescue effort in a variety of roles. The "surviving" Ares crew includes Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan and Aksel Hennie. If that's not a cast powerful enough to melt your face, well, I don't know what is. There isn't a weak link, but I especially thought Daniels, Ejiofor, Bean, Wong, Chastain and Pena did especially good jobs bringing characters to life that could have been cardboard cutouts. What a cast!

It's hard not to watch Scott's 'Martian' and not think of countless other science fiction films. For every comparison you can make from similarly-themed movies like Gravity or Apollo 13, you get the sense that while familiar, Scott's film is carving out its own niche and heading out on its own. I thought Gravity was excellent as a visual medium -- a true experience of what being in space is like -- but I never felt emotionally connected with it. That isn't the case here. It's a spectacle movie, an astronaut wasting away on Mars while a rescue effort is mounted, but it connected far more with me emotionally. That's a credit to Weir's novel, the screenplay adaptation, Scott's directing and an amazingly talented cast. An all-around excellent film. And one more thought...

I liked -- maybe loved -- the humanity of 'Martian.' The trailer introduces the concept that often times when a man/woman, men/women are in trouble, people come to help, to rescue, to save. Racial and cultural differences are set aside, all in the hope of helping those that so desperately need it. It's a highly effective storytelling technique here as billions of dollars are spent to bring one man home. That's where this story is so effective emotionally. You're rooting for Mark, you like him, and you want him to survive. What drives him? He's stubborn and man, he does not want to die on Mars. Watney has some great narration late as a potential rescue effort draws nearer, a man doing a long list of firsts on a planet that is untouched by human hand (or feet). Very well-written, well-executed and well-delivered lines by Mr. Damon.

Reading Weir's novel, Mark Watney became one of my favorite literary characters, and Damon more than does him justice. A heck of a movie that succeeds on basically every level you could ask for. Highly recommended for a great sci-fi spectacle, a moving story with some very high highs and some very low lows with a ton of dark humor sprinkled in here and there. Go see it and read the book too!

The Martian (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Interstellar

There aren't a lot of huge, big name directors making movies in Hollywood right now. You know, those directors that if they're behind a film makes it a must-watch film. I put Christopher Nolan high up on that list. The director of the most recent Batman trilogy, Nolan is a big old talent so I was more than curious when I first saw the trailer for his Batman follow-up, 2014's Interstellar. Where does it come down?

It's sometime in the not too distant future and Earth is in trouble as a crop blight is causing the planet to slowly but surely run out of food. Society has changed in countless ways with those people still alive forced to become farmers in hopes of continuing to provide food, among them a former NASA pilot, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and his family. Something needs to be done if humanity has any hope of surviving long-term, and Cooper and his daughter may unknowingly hold the key to it all. The former pilot begins to work with NASA on quite the alternate solution. A wormhole has been discovered around Saturn that can transport a spaceship and its crew into far-off galaxies that otherwise would have been impossible to reach. Could there be an alternate galaxy that offers a planet that can sustain human life? Can it be reached? Knowing that the trip will take years to complete, will Cooper go along? The depths and mysteries of the universe await through the wormhole.

In the same way I loved the Batman movies, Inception, The Prestige, I loved Interstellar. This most recent Nolan film has flaws -- no doubt about it -- but there's a sense of what movies could and should be. Even those who are critical of Nolan should be able to admit that this talented director tries something different. He aspires to direct something more, something bigger and something you can't look away from. The story is obviously pretty big (can't do much bigger than the end of Earth) with stunning visuals, solid casting, a memorable score from composer Hans Zimmer, and overall, just something different that I thought worked so smoothly and ridiculously well together. It's a long movie at 169 minutes and could have been trimmed here and there but this is an excellent movie. Highly recommend this one.

Say what you want about Nolan as a storyteller, but I think he's at his best as a big picture sort of guy. Unique ideas, scope and scale, the bigger the better. Where better to bring that to life than the science fiction genre? Nolan tweaks the world we know, adding a few years but a world that seems pretty inevitable for our planet. The plight that ravaged crops worldwide is never addressed head-on. It happened. Let's try and fix it. Humanity's time on Earth is running out with the end fast approaching. With a few quick scenes, some dialogue here and there, we're introduced to this world. What does our future hold? That's the beauty of Nolan's vision. We see future technologies, including robot assistants (voiced by Bill Irwin and Josh Stewart) with unique movements. We see a world far less populated where the accepted ways of living have changed. That's what Nolan does so well. He creates a world with broad strokes laying out the groundwork. He aspires to do something different, something better.

Before I delve into some technical "analysis" (or at least as much as I can imagine), let's deal with some casting. McConaughey makes the most of his first film with Nolan, his Cooper a kind of wild-eyed dreamer with an inventive streak and intellect that makes him seemed destined for bigger and better. I wish McConaughey didn't mumble so much, but the performance itself is very strong, especially his relationship with his 10-year old daughter, Murph (Mackenzie Foy). There's a human side that works really well here, a single father who makes an impossibly difficult decision that could take years away from his time with his daughter and son (Timothee Chamalet) but could potentially preserve mankind's existence. That question pervades much of the second half of Nolan's film. With so much on the line, do you think selfishly or do you think for the bigger good?

There's plenty more in the old casting department. Anne Hathaway plays Brand, a scientist who travels with Cooper into the Saturn wormhole, another intellectual trying to wrap her head around their situation, about making decisions that could cost years and millions of lives. Michael Caine plays her brilliant scientist father with Wes Bentley and David Gyasi playing the other two members of the Saturn wormhole. Now who else to look for? Here's some semi-SPOILERS for you. SPOILERS I don't want to explain much about the rest of the cast in terms of characterization, as in who and what the roles are. That's the fun of where this story goes with some unexpected appearances and characters twists. Those names include Ellen Burstyn, John Lithgow, David Oyelowo, William Devane, Topher Grace, and with some big old-fashioned star power, Jessica Chastain, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. Chastain and Damon especially leave the best lasting impressions. END OF semi-SPOILERS.

It's hard not to watch Interstellar and not see influences from previous sci-fi movies, most notably Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey but also including Contact (also starring McConaughey), Planet of the Apes and Armageddon among many others I'm probably forgetting. With the openness of our galaxy and beyond, Nolan is like a kid in the candy store. Much like last year's Gravity, the spacial visual is a stunning backdrop as we see the spaceship Endurance heading into deep space, unexplored space to find something, anything. We're introduced to two quasi-Earth like planets -- one as frightening as the other -- in a galaxy centered around an immense black hole dubbed Gargantua. You get a sense of the immensity of space, of the vastness of what surrounds us and the time it would and does take to get there and back. The screenplay has some fun in the department, time in one dimension moving far slower than someone close by. What's an hour for one character in real-time is several years for another. It's a unique, thought-provoking technique that's used well throughout Nolan's film.

I'm writing this review almost a week after seeing it in theaters. I definitely needed some time to process it, to really think things out. What was my conclusion? There are some plotholes, some issues in storytelling that I thought could have been tightened. As many other far better writers than me have written -- check out Chris' review HERE over at Nothing is Written -- Nolan has a knack for long scenes of exposition that explain everything that's going on. For me, I appreciated these scenes because I wasn't always sure what was actually going on. So yeah, there are issues but none of them did me in to the point where I couldn't take anymore. I loved the idea and thought behind the film, I loved the execution from the spectacle to the visual to the musical score to the cast to a mind-bending story and a moving ending.

Highly recommended. Definitely worth seeing in theaters if you get a chance. It feels like a movie where it will lose some of its impact on a TV.

Interstellar (2014): ****/****   

Texas Killing Fields

I'm gonna be honest here. I was aware of this movie, even thought it looked pretty decent despite some middling reviews. I liked the cast and was curious what it would off. But then it sat there on Netflix glaring back at me for quite awhile. What changed my mind? I fell hard for HBO's True Detective -- still working my way through Season 1 -- and wanted to watch a gritty police procedural, hence our sitdown with 2011's Texas Killing Fields.

In Texas City, Texas, a darkness hangs in the air. Unsolved mysteries seem to plague the police department, dead bodies turning up far too often in the maze-like, trance-like bayous that surround the oil fields to the point the area is dubbed 'the Killing Fields.' Two detectives, Mike Souder (Sam Worthington) and Brian Heigh (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), are called in to investigate when a dead body turns up, a teenage girl who may have had ties with drugs and prostitution. A former NYC cop, Heigh is still adjusting to a different style, a different way of investigating while Souder grew up learning the system. The clues don't seem to lead anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Heigh begins to suspect they may be dealing with a serial killer, but can the two detectives put it all together? When they receive a call from the killer as he executes a victim, their motivations become amped up even more.

This movie should have been better. There, I said it. 'Fields' comes from director Ami Canaan Mann -- daughter of Michael Mann -- and certainly has a lot of potential. The story is loosely based on a true story of the murders of many women along a stretch of road in Texas along the I-45 corridor. I really liked the style, the darkness, the sense of doom that hangs in the air. Cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh films a story that is uncomfortable, dark and eerie, like evil is hanging in the air, composer Dickon Hinchliffe's score aiding the cause in creating that ever so dark mood. The bayous just have something dark about them, these expansive yet claustrophobic fields holding all sorts of doom and evil. It doesn't have much of a positive outlook on life, evil waiting to descend on all of us. Hard to beat that in a police procedural where the detectives are pushed to their absolute limits to find the murderer.

With some obvious dark drama, the variation here is on the buddy cop flick (hold the laughs of course). I'm a fan of both Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Sam Worthington so it was cool to see them paired up as two very different cops. Their differences, their dynamic works well. Morgan's Brian is the crusader, wanting to save everyone and anyone he can, becoming obsessed with the cases that cross his desk. Worthington's Mike similarly wants to solve each case, but he's also been worn down by the region he's worked in for so long. Murder is far from accepted, but there's also little surprise in this veteran cop when new bodies pop up. Their differing outlooks clash, their arguments fueling the case. Brian sees the potential that the newest victim is tied in with other unsolved murders. Mike simply wants to find the murderer as it impacts his jurisdiction. Two solid if unspectacular performances.

Because the case drama isn't enough, we need some personal drama. Mike's ex-wife and a detective from the state police is played by Jessica Chastain in a wasted part, the drama never really clicking. Chloe Grace Moretz is good as little Anne, a teenage girl who Brian keeps helping because her mother works as a prostitute at home. Jason Clarke, Stephen Graham, James Hebert and Jon Eyez play possible suspects in the case.

So style to burn, stock characters who are still interesting, what's missing? Simply put...the story. It's so convoluted that nothing ever clicks together. There's the one victim, then there's others, then there are others that may have been from other murderers. Who are we looking for? Are the killers those ones or these ones? Sure, I'm convinced that's what actual police and detective work is really like. Leads that don't go anywhere, leads and clues that are misleading, suspects who can't be convicted. It's all there. But in a 105-minute movie why pack all this in there? I was never quite sure what was going on, a huge red herring going absolutely nowhere. Realistic? Most likely. Good for the sake of the story? Nope. A disappointing end result.

Texas Killing Fields (2011): **/****

The Tree of Life

Terrence Malick has been downright busy the last couple years. His first feature film, Badlands, was first released in 1973, and over the next 32 years the director made just three more films. Over the last two years and looking ahead to 2014, Malick will have made five films total. Talk about picking up the pace, huh? Picking up an Oscar nomination for The Thin Red Line, Malick recently picked up his second nomination, this one for 2012's The Tree of Life.

A straightforward plot description really wouldn't do this one justice, plain and simple. Even the more linear Malick stories/films like Days of Heaven or Thin Red Line basically refuse to be tied down by a straightforward description. Here's a general gist of it all....very general. A middle-aged man, Jack (Sean Penn), works in modern times in a major city as an architect. He one day gets word that one of his brothers has died, opening up wounds from a odd, turbulent childhood that still haunts him. In flashbacks, we see that childhood, a younger Jack (Hunter McCracken), growing up with his two brothers and his parents, his father (Brad Pitt) and mother (Jessica Chastain). What did it all mean? What does it mean now in relation to his life?

Look, I get it. Terrence Malick doesn't make movies. He makes films. These aren't easily digested, popcorn movies you watch on a rainy Saturday afternoon. You've got to be primed, psyched for what you're about to watch. You've got to be in the right frame of mind. More than that? Don't even be slightly tired. If a nap is in your future, try the movie after your nap. A Malick movie is all about the style, the narration, the visual, the love and appreciation of nature and Earth and living and life. That sentence should do one of two things. One, encourage you and entice you into watching this film. Two, pack up your belongings and run for the hills. I have a love/hate relationship with Malick and often within his movies. One scene, one visual, one line of narration can be profound in its beauty (accompanied by Alexandre Desplat's worthy score), but that moment of brilliance can be lost in wave after wave of nauseous, overdone scenes that wallop you over the head in an attempt to be brilliant.

That ultimately is what prevented me from actually liking Malick's Tree of Life. I'd like to say that it is really trying here, really trying to say something profound, deep and all-meaning about life and growing up. Life can be equally beautiful and equal parts ugly in terms of personal relationships, emotions and interactions. It's finding that middle ground that makes it worthwhile. The word that came to mind over and over again while watching 'Life' was 'pretentious'. Then, reviews one after another I read used the description. Then, supporters of the movie said anyone who said it was pretentious was stupid, didn't get the meaning and should go back to watching Transformers. Very mature, huh? I debated even using the word itself because it is a pretty damning description in my mind. Maybe it is just trying too hard, but I keep coming back to it.

The biggest issue is that the message is....well, muddled? I don't know what it's trying to say. At 138 minutes, it is rather leisurely (to say the least) in its pacing. There is no linear story, but that in itself isn't a deal-breaker. The biggest focus is on Jack growing up as a child, specifically his teenage years, a turbulent time in any young man's life. What kind of person will he be? Kind and caring? More calculated and less emotional? Jack finds himself in a tug of war between his ultra-caring, sympathetic Mother (a solid part for Chastain) versus his ultra-tough, always teaching Father (a decent Pitt, nothing special). It really should be Mother and Father, the sense of an existential message doused in symbolism and a deeper meaning. Not just father and mother, but Father and Mother. Is that what Malick is going for? An all-meaning, all-told story of life and birth, ups and downs, living and learning, mistakes and victories? I really have no idea what he is going for in the least.

I don't know either if it is a movie that leaves so much up to the viewer/audience to make his own interpretation. I felt like it actually said very little, dragging on in a 138-minute film. It says a lot (or at least thinks so) while actually saying very little. As I write this review, it has now been a full week since my first viewing, and I still struggle to put into words what happened here. 'Life' is not a "Bad" movie. It strives to be something different, profound, maybe even something great. It is visually a stunner, something to sit back and appreciate like all of Malick's previous ventures and most likely his future films. But is that enough? If a movie strives to reach for the stars....and fails, how do you reward or penalize it? I can give credit where it's due, but on almost all levels I felt this one falls short. No story to speak of, narration that borders on the inane because it's trying to be profound, a 20-minute evolution sequence that shows the development of the universe, asides that may or may not be dreams/hallucinations/death/afterlife, all add up to a painful movie to watch at times.

As I've pointed out, I don't need a movie spelled out for me scene by scene, but a little help would have been appreciated. A little help, that's all. Even Penn in interviews said maybe Malick should have tweaked his film a little here and there, make it slightly more palatable to audiences. As is, I don't know what it's trying to say other than 1. Life can be tough. 2. Life is an ongoing, learning experience. 3. Life is full of constant tough decisions and 4. Appreciate it every minute because it's fleeting. An incredible disappointment to say the least.

The Tree of Life (2012): * 1/2 /****  

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

The Help

By no means did I avoid 2011's The Help, but I never actively sought it out either. A success at the box office and during awards season, I just wasn't dying to see it regardless of all the positive reviews. I'm stubborn that way apparently. So here we sit, a year later, and I caught up with it. Definitely worth the wait, and another lesson I shouldn't be so stubborn when it comes to movies.

Having just gotten her college degree, Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) heads home to Jackson, Mississippi hoping to get a job writing for a local newspaper. She gets that job, ghostwriting a column about cleaning advice. Skeeter seeks the help of Aibileen (Viola Davis), a maid who works for one of the richer, well-to-do families in town. Having grown up in Jackson, Skeeter has seen the inner workings of the town; white families served hand and foot by their African-American servants with no regard for feelings. Talking to Aibileen, Skeeter thinks it would be a great idea to write a book written from the perspective of "the help." Aibileen and her friend and fellow maid, Minny (Octavia Spencer), agree, but they're scared to death of the possible consequences.

From director Tate Taylor, this is an interesting movie to watch, digest and review. While it is a highly enjoyable film to watch, it is also intensely uncomfortable to watch because of.....well, it's honesty. Set in early 1960s Mississippi, the focus is clearly on the racism and segregation that ran rampant in the South and around much of the U.S. for years (and still does in different ways). It is a difficult movie to watch, difficult to comprehend people treat others like this. The help are treated like dirt with some believing they carry "different diseases" to the point their own bathrooms are built in garages.

Credit to Taylor and his crew though for making the movie. Set just 50 years ago from the present, it feels like we're traveling as viewers in a time machine. You watch this movie and feel like you've been transported to 1960s Jackson. Everything from the wardrobe to the sets to the big boats of cars gives 'Help' an air of authenticity. We see people smoking anywhere and everywhere, we see the violence that erupts from the developing Civil Rights movement, and the way the maids and help are treated like second-class citizens. I especially liked Thomas Newman's score as well, an underplayed score that moves the story along nicely.

By far though, the best thing going for Taylor's film is the cast. It's a deep cast. Very deep. Up until this point in her career, Emma Stone had done mostly comedic work, even some light drama. In a major starring role, Stone doesn't disappoint. It isn't a performance that requires her to carry the movie, but that's the beauty of such a strong ensemble. She develops quite the interesting character, and one that ends up being a means to an end to introduce the deeper, more dramatic parts. Also look for Allison Janney as Skeeter's mother, Charlotte, Ahna O'Reilly as Elizabeth, a young married woman who has Aibileen as a maid, Sissy Spacek as an aging Southern belle and the mother of another character (more on Hilly later), and Cicely Tyson as Constantine, the Phelan's maid who was a key figure in Skeeter's childhood.

 All those performances are solid, but four other performances end up being what many viewers took away from the film. Octavia Spencer won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her part as Minny, the fiery, opinionated maid who ends up butting heads with Bryce Dallas Howard's Hilly, the -- pardon my language -- Queen Bitch in Jackson. Spencer is the showier part while Viola Davis gets the more understated and underplayed part that provides the perfect counter to Spencer's Minny. It is an epically appropriate duo, two genuine friends who have also bonded through their similar trials. Davis was also nominated for an Oscar but lost to Meryl Streep from The Iron Lady. Her motherly relationship with Elizabeth's daughter is the crux of the movie. Howard is a despicably unlikable villain in a great performance. The third nominated part goes to Jessica Chastain as Celia, an outsider in Jackson because Hilly hates her. Her relationship with Spencer's Minny ends up being a key part of the movie, a highly effective emotional relationship. Four great performances though.

If there is a complaint I had, it's that at 146 minutes, 'Help' is a tad on the long side. It's never boring and always interesting to watch, but in certain parts of the second half it felt like I had been watching the movie for quite a long time. The ending makes up for any draggy portions with a kick right in the crotch in the emotion department. It's a heartbreakingly real ending, one that while appropriate is depressing nonetheless. A very good movie overall that deserves all the kudos and accolades it's earned. Glad I caught up with it.

The Help (2011): ***/****

Take Shelter

If you're a movie fan and stay somewhat up to date with new releases, you almost assuredly know the face if not the name. His name is Michael Shannon, a Kentucky-born character actor who has carved a niche for himself in heavy dramatic roles, usually playing key supporting roles. The last few years though, his star has risen, including a large part in HBO's Boardwalk Empire and a starring role in 2011's Take Shelter, a part that should have earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor.

Living with his wife, Samantha (Jessica Chastain), and his deaf daughter, Hannah (Tova Stewart), hard-working Curtis LaForche (Shannon) is a loving, caring father who has quite a life built up around him. He's got a solid job, a loving family and leads a good life. Curtis though has started to seeing things. He has hallucinations and wakes up in a sweat at night because of vivid, very real dreams he's had. Everything points to something major happening in the future, a storm of epic proportions unlike anything the world has seen, or so Curtis thinks. He starts acting oddly, questioning what is to come. Are Curtis' dreams visions, a predictor of the future? Or is his family bloodlines passing along the paranoid schizophrenia that his mother had?

Being a small-scale, low budget movie that did well through the Festival circuit with all sorts of critical acclaim but no major release, the only reason I was aware of 'Shelter' was a trailer preview on a DVD. The trailer immediately caught my attention, and I'm glad I sought it out at Netflix. From writer and director Jeff Nichols, this is an intimate, very personal and small scale story that hits almost all the right notes. It has a feel of small town and middle class America that feels authentic. Art house film? Indie film? Or more straightforward? I think in an odd way, it works on all three levels. It isn't a straight drama. It doesn't try to deliver a profound message. Somehow, it just works.

The biggest reason for its success is the acting, especially Shannon and Chastain. Shannon becomes the Curtis character, a husband and father in his 30s who should be happy and carefree. His mother (Kathy Baker) though was diagnosed in her mid 30s with schizophrenia, causing Curtis to question if he's going down the same road. Shannon underplays the role, a man torn up inside about what he's become but rarely showing outward emotion. Shannon does a pained, tortured look like nobody's business. He's going to solve it on his own and doesn't want anyone -- even his loving wife -- to try and help. Curtis intends it in a positive fashion, trying to protect her, but it's easy to see why she doesn't feel that way. The Queen of 2011, Chastain is similarly excellent as Samantha. Skeptical, suspicious and questioning, she wants what's best for her husband, but he won't allow her to help.

Other parts include Dewart (Shea Wigham), Curtis' best friend and co-worker, Nat (Katy Mixon), Dewart's wife and Samantha's close friend by association, Ray McKinnon as Kyle, Curtis' worried and possibly estranged brother, and young Stewart as Hannah is solid in a background but essential part.

This is a personal, dramatic story that is supposed to unsettle you to a point. The trailer does a hell of a job establishing that. The musical score from composer David Wingo goes a long way, an eerie, ethereal score that looms and hangs over the story. I can't place the sound, but moral of the story? It works in a big way. Listen to part of it HERE. Everything about the script, the acting, and the visuals points to an impending doom. The shots of raging storms -- thunder and lightning, odd natural occurrences -- are a sight to behold, majestic and beautiful in a way where something can frighten and impress at the same time. Curtis' dreams especially stand out; intense and truly frightening in a way that horror movies should and could hope to replicate. From the first scene to the last, we're questioning what it all means. Where is it heading? What's the resolution? In that sense, it has the feel of a longer episode of The Twilight Zone.

Which brings us to the ending. It's the type of movie you know the ending is going to either make or break the story. Does it all come together or does it sink like a rock? Without giving anything specific away, I can say that it is an ambiguous ending that allows for viewer interpretation. I wrapped my head around it one way, and I'm cool with it. Did I love that ending? No, I would have ended it about 5 minutes earlier at a natural and very moving conclusion. Does it work? That's probably up to you and your interpretation. However you interpret it, I think it works. Just pick your best option. No matter how it's interpreted though, it is a beautiful, startling final shot that can certainly open the door for debate.

The movie on a whole isn't perfect. It struggles to sustain momentum at some points, ending up at 121 minutes. Some scenes feel like a little work in the editing department could have been used. At the same time, that's part of the appeal of the movie. The camera work allows for long, extended shots, beautifully choreographed shots that aid that unsettling feeling that develops. Some minor issues aside with pacing, the movie is an easy one to recommend. Smart, well-made, well-acted and a visually interesting movie to watch...and smart. Yes, I pointed it out twice. It's a rare thing in movies these days. Enjoy it.

Take Shelter <---trailer (2011): ***/****

The Debt

In the closing days and months of WWII, Nazi officials saw the end in sight and started to plan their escapes, retreating into new lives, knowing that their actions would eventually catch up with them. Intelligence agencies from countries around the world did their best to bring these men to justice as seen in movies like Marathon Man or The Boys from Brazil, and most recently 2010's The Debt.

It's 1997 and Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson) and David Peretz (Ciaran Hinds) have been holding onto a secret for 30 years. Now that secret might be coming out. Rachel's daughter has a written a book about her mother's exploits as Mossad agent in 1965, working with Stephan and David as part of a three-man team to bring a Nazi war criminal to justice. What they told though happened isn't the truth, and now after 30 years of inner turmoil, it may finally be time for that hidden truth to reveal itself. What will be the price? At what cost can their struggles be revealed?

A smart, well-written thriller. They seem few and far between actually arriving in theaters, don't they? Director John Madden has done it though with this thriller, crafting a story that weaves in between 1965/66 and 1997 fairly effortlessly. Early in the story, we're thrown for a loop as an audience, seeing what we believed happened only to find out later that it wasn't based in the truth. The East Berlin setting of 1965 is dark and gloomy (appropriate) with the flashback occupying much of the movie's middle portions only to bounce back to 1997. The look of the movie is great, and as a whole, it's more content in telling a human, interesting and still entertaining story than getting wrapped up in gunplay and explosions thankfully.

A surprising problem though is the division of the story between the two separate years. In the 1965 portion, Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas play Rachel, David and Stephan. All three do a fine job with their characters, Mossad agents on a nearly suicidal mission deep in Communist-run East Berlin. Worthington especially makes a positive impression, showing he's more than only an action star, and Chastain too carries herself very well. Even with the mystery though of what happened on the mission, these 1965 Berlin scenes lack a certain energy. We know some sort of twist is coming yet somehow it isn't all that interesting. There's also the always reliable, always cliched love triangle thrown into the mix, one of my all-time least favorite plot devices.

So with a story that has three main characters, we're really seeing six characters, not to mention Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau, a Nazi war criminal who played a major role in the Holocaust (and loosely based on Josef Mengele). Of the two storylines, I was more interested in the 1997 plot. Mirren is one of the best actresses working in movies today, and Wilkinson is no slouch either. Hinds has the least screentime but does not disappoint either. I can't explain the differences because all the acting is above average and pretty top-notch. The more current story just came across better to me while the rest back in Berlin drags at times.

What divided many reviewers/critics was the ending after the twist and an additional surprise are thrown into the story. I for one, liked it a lot, thinking it was a very emotional fitting end for the character. There is a certain amount of viewer interpretation allowed in the ending, but this is where the debt in the title comes into play. These characters have suffered with a decision they made some 30 years back and are now forced to deal with it. The solution is no easier than the original problem, and the final scene is incredibly moving. Credit goes to composer Thomas Newman and his score, balancing the tense scenes (kidnapping Vogel in Berlin) to the quiet moments. A flawed movie in terms of story, but the acting is worth mentioning on its own.

The Debt <---trailer (2010): ***/****