The Wolf of Wall Street

So big money, huh? Yeah, it scares the hell out of me mostly because the only time we ever hear about Wall Street and huge international corporations is when they're getting taken down for all sorts of tax frauds, insider trading and stock manipulation. How can the rich get richer basically. Like politics, right?!? Yeah, the world's a scary place. Nowhere is that more evident than in director Martin Scorsese's latest, 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street.

Arriving on Wall Street in 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young, ambitious and even naive stock broker looking to make a career for himself. He also has horrific timing. Within months of becoming a full-time broker, Jordan is out of work as quick as he had it, a result of Black Monday. Looking for work, Jordan ends up working in a New Jersey boiler room selling penny stocks. The money is there, his aggressive selling style winning over customer after customer. It's not enough though. Jordan wants more. He needs more. He gets it his own way, starting his own start-up scam selling stocks with the very official sounding name, Stratton Oakmont, and a new right-hand man, Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), goes to work. He gets an office, gets some salesmen, teaches them the selling techniques, and it works....a lot. Money starts flowing in, ridiculous amounts of money, and Jordan's empire grows. Millions of dollars, a luxurious, self-indulgent life of sex, drugs, and everything in between, everything is attainable. Has Jordan's company gotten too big though?

You know what's the most terrifying thing to take away from this movie? It happened. This all happened. Read about the real-life Jordan Belfort HERE and know that as ridiculously over the top, as self-indulgent, as ludicrous as the movie is, IT HAPPENED. Belfort's story also served as the inspiration for 2000's Boiler Room. 'Wolf' doesn't delve in too much to the gory financial details, trying to introduce what's going on and moving on to the life and empire Belfort has created for himself. Not surprisingly, it has picked up some Oscar buzz, garnering nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, picking up five overall. It's a loaded Academy Awards so it will definitely be interesting to see what comes of it all.

What's the end result here? A terrifying, truly funny, unsettling, amazingly entertaining story. Scorsese's style is there at all times. DiCaprio's narration -- mostly heard over the action, at times seen as Jordan addresses the camera -- is almost non-stop, keeping things going, explaining all the new developments that the ever-crooked Stratton Oakmont is up to. 'Wolf' clocks in at a robust 179 minutes (that's almost 3 full hours for you non-math fans like me), the script from Terence Winter covering a ton of ground and a lot of years, but it never feels rushed. If you didn't know this was real, you'd think it was a drugged-up fantasy, a dream-like trip into a bizarre nightmare. There isn't one linear story, no one plot, just an ever-building doomsday scenario we all know is coming. The first hour is the rise to power, the second the stay at the top, and the third the inevitable and crushing downfall. Replacing mobsters with Wall Street brokers, 'Wolf' did remind me of Scorsese's Goodfellas at times in terms of that rise to power story arc.

As the appointed Wolf of Wall Street (earning the nickname 'Wolfie'), DiCaprio picked up another Best Actor nomination, his third Best actor and fourth overall (he remains winless), for his part here. It's a part that is hard to look away from. It is a trainwreck, and we're just waiting for the train to wreck. DiCaprio's performance is a gem as we watch Jordan's rise to power and inevitable fall from grace. He learns the ins-and-outs of the stock market from a veteran broker, John Hanna (Matthew McConaughey, a truly scene-stealing part, and he's on-screen about 10 minutes, maybe), and from there, Jordan is on his way. It's ego. It's pride. It's vanity. It is having everything the world can offer. His life becomes a cliche of the rich and famous as he visits prostitutes on a regular basis, does ridiculous amounts of drugs, becomes addicted to quaaludes, and commits himself to a life he loves and embraces, a life that will lead to his doom. From the narration to the decadence, DiCaprio brings this scumbag to life. It's not a likable character. Jordan is a deplorable individual, but he's epically, grandly good at his profession. Will DiCaprio win the Oscar? I don't know considering the opponents -- Dern, McConaughey, Bale, Ejiofor -- but he more than deserves that nomination. 

DiCaprio isn't alone though, 'Wolf' featuring an impressive list of performances. Some are like McConaughey, quick, effective and lasting in terms of influence, while others figure more prominently, like Jonah Hill's Best Supporting Actor nominated part as Donnie. It's hard to put this character into words, a motor-mouth, a troublemaker, a loyal right-hand man, and just as greedy as Jordan, especially when the money starts to pile up (quite literally). Another really strong part goes to relative unknown (but not for too much longer) Margot Robbie as Naomi, Jordan's second wife, a former model and the definition of a trophy wife....who becomes much more. Adding to the scene-stealing list (how many such parts can a movie have?) is Rob Reiner as Jordan's Dad, helping his son with the business but quite aware where his son is heading. The link for these three parts -- and really the entire cast -- is the chemistry. As ridiculously goofy and off the wall as the story can be at times, it's at least somewhat grounded because of the chemistry, the believable qualities.

Also look for Kyle Chandler as Denham, the FBI agent leading the case against Jordan, Jon Favreau as Riskin, the security officer trying to help Jordan around the S.E.C. sanctions, Jean Dujardin as Saurel, the helpful Swiss banker, and Jon Bernthal, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi, Brian Sacca, and Henry Zebrowski as Jordan's crew of "vice presidents" who become his inner circle. Even look for actor/director Spike Jonze in a small, effective part.

I have a concept of Best Picture nominations as being almost exclusively dramatic. This year's nominations certainly back up that assumption, from 12 Years a Slave to Captain Phillips, Nebraska to Dallas Buyers Club (American Hustle obviously had some laughs too). So what to take away from 'Wolf'? It is funny, ridiculously funny. This isn't physical humor laughs. These are scenes so far out of the ordinary that their unique qualities are funny just because. These are scenes played straight that produce countless laughs. My personal favorite? Jordan and Donnie overdo it on some old quaaludes (Lemmon 714) thinking they've lost their potency. Well...they didn't. The extended scene as both try to overcome some heavy duty effects are hilarious. I was crying. 'Wolf' has plenty of these moments, from analyzing a contract of a little person who agrees to be used as a throwing dart to McConaughey's Hannah's monologue about how to truly become a successful stock broker. It's incredibly dark humor, often uncomfortable, but these were genuine laughs.

Is there a complaint here? Yeah, the length of the movie. It never drags but the almost three-hour movie.....yeah, it felt as I was walking out that I'd been there three or four days. I don't know what you cut, but just be known it's a long movie. Mostly though, it's really good. It's the general negative outlook on, well, everything. Lost in the shuffle of the drama and debauchery is such a negative tone and outlook on life. Everyone is out for themselves, and no one really cares who gets caught in the wake. A trip of a movie full of drug use, nudity (some scenes far more graphic than others), truly interesting characters, lots of illegal stock and Wall Street activity, style to burn, and just a treat to watch. Scorsese does it again. I can't wait to see what, if any, awards it takes home at next month's Oscars.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Broken City

When you find something you're good at, stick with it, right? Actors can find their niche, that genre where audiences love seeing them in no matter how many times they come back to the well. For me, I've always been a Mark Wahlberg fan, an actor who finds himself playing a police officer in The Other Guys, The Departed, Max Payne, We Own the Night, and The Corruptor. We have a new entry to the listing, 2013's Broken City.

A veteran detective in New York City, Billy Taggart (Wahlberg) is exonerated for the murder of a young Latino man accused of rape and murder. The trial creates all sorts of waves though amongst the population, forcing NYC Mayor Nicholas Hostetler (Russell Crowe) to ask for his resignation. Taggart is stunned but goes along with it, starting up his own P.I. agency. Seven years go by, Billy struggling along to keep the business afloat as he dates his longtime girlfriend (Natalie Martinez). Preparing for another election, Hostetler asks Taggart to take a job for him, investigating the mayor's wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who he suspects of having an affair. Promised an impressive payday, Billy takes the job but quickly realizes he hasn't been told everything that's going on. Big business, billions of dollars and even murder is just some of what the ex-cop has stumbled into.

Politics are bad and/or corrupt, the police can be caught up in some shady, criminal stuff, and people in general tend to be pretty greedy and will do anything for a payday and to protect their own behinds. Nothing too crazy, out of left field in that statement, huh? Crime movies use all three premises as jumping off points to the point that they become ultra-familiar. Using all three, 'Broken' doesn't have much new going for it. It adds little to the crime-political thriller that we haven't seen before, but I found myself liking it just the same. Go figure. There is a familiar comfort zone with the story, recognizable characters and a story that does its best to keep us guessing (even if it's never too hard to see where it's going). It struggled in theaters thanks to some less than positive reviews, but it's a movie that genre fans will hopefully get some enjoyment out of.

As a movie fan, it doesn't take much to get me interested in a movie. Case in point? Wahlberg vs. Crowe, two of my favorite actors going toe to toe. Wahlberg is playing that familiar role, the everyman cop who's had some trouble/demons in his past but has seemed to gotten a grasp on his life. Crowe is a hammy scene-stealer as the longtime NYC Mayo who knows the ins and outs of City Hall, NYC and all the city has to offer. It's cool to see him as a bad guy -- albeit a pretty smooth one. Their scenes together are solid, two toughs bouncing off each other well. Wahlberg's part unfortunately goes a little too cliched, his fiery relationship with longtime girlfriend screaming Cop Cliche, especially as it develops in the second half. As the evil, manipulative politician, Crowe's Hostetler doesn't offer much new, but there's talent here to appreciate.

Director Allen Hughes has quite a cast beyond his two leads too, starting with Zeta-Jones in more of a window dressing part as Hostetler's disgruntled wife Kathleen. Also look for Jeffrey Wright as Taggart, the police commissioner who has a less than pleasant working relationship with the mayor, Barry Pepper as the opposing mayoral candidate trying to take down the longtime mayor with Kyle Chandler playing his campaign manager, Alona Tal as Kate, Billy's lone employee and assistant and Michael Beach as Taggart's former partner who has risen through the ranks in the NYPD.

For the most part, this crime-political thriller kept me entertained throughout. It develops through the first hour about the way you would expect. It's near the halfway point that things get thrown for a loop. A twist is thrown our way that I didn't see coming, and then another and another. 'Broken' barely manages to tread that fine line between trying too hard to surprise us and just delivering a good story. It gets a little too dramatic, a little too intense, but the NYC shooting locations provide a good backdrop and composers Atticus Ross, Leopold Ross and Claudia Sarne turn in a good, New Wave-ish musical score.Good, not great and a little cliched crooked cops and politicians story.

Broken City (2013): ***/****

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): ***/****

Argo

Having made a name for himself as an actor, Ben Affleck has turned to the director's chair over the last six years. His first two movies were crime thrillers, 2007's Gone Baby Gone and 2010's The Town, and both showed a knack for really solid filmmaking, both of which I liked a lot. For Affleck's third film though, he had a little change of pace with 2012's Argo.

In November 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed by angry Iranians upset that a deposed Shah is being sheltered by the U.S. In the chaos of the embassy takeover, six Americans escape and manage to make it to the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber) undetected. Some 70 hostages have been taken though, and a long waiting game follows. Over 70 days later, the U.S. government and the C.I.A. are still trying to figure out what to do when C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plan. Posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi film (a Star Wars rip-off), Mendez intends to get into Iran and get the six out safely. The plan is ridiculously dangerous, and the potential for failure is high. Time is running out though, and it's the best plan available.

I've always been a fan of Affleck as an actor going back to his first few roles in movies like Good Will Hunting and Armageddon. As much as I like him as an actor, I'm starting to think I like him more from behind the camera. Maybe it's being around the movie business as much as he has, but he seems to have a knack for this camera. The reviews were uniformly positive here, and the IMDB rating is at a very high 8.4 as I write this review. Is it an all-time classic that the rating suggests? No, but it's very well done and well-executed. It's refreshing to see a story that focuses on just that; the story. While it's rated 'R,' it can mostly be attributed to the language. Little in the way of violence, sex and explosions, everything is streamlined for the story. Nothing wasted here.

This is based on the real life events that took place between 1979 and 1981 with some 80 hostages under Iranian control. Affleck has said in interviews that some liberties were taken with the story, but that's the point. It is based on a true story. He never said it is a true story. What appeals to me about Affleck's work is why I like his acting. It's understated when it is at its best. Argo feels like a throwback to the great crime/political thrillers of the 1970s (interesting because it takes place after those movies were made, but you get the idea). It is not flashy or anything freakishly new. What is it? Lots of good actors, a dramatic, incredibly intense story, and tension that is so well-handled it gets to the point it was uncomfortable by the end. Groundbreaking? Nope, but there's something to be said for a no-frills thriller that knows what it is trying to accomplish.

Like in The Town, Affleck stars in his own flick, but like his story, it isn't a flashy part. His Tony Mendez is an exfiltration specialist, an expert in getting people out of places, who concocts a hair-brained scheme to get these 6 Americans out of harm's way. Tony is quiet and a thinker, but he's always working on something. Give him a mission, and he's not going to stop to accomplish his objectives. A solid leading part for Mr. Affleck. Joining him in two scene-stealing parts are John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Goodman plays a respected Hollywood makeup man while Arkin is a director a little past his prime, both men signing on to help Affleck's Tony create a fake film that will convince Iranian officials and armed forces his backstory is legit. Both parts fade into the background once Tony heads out on his mission, but the scenes among Affleck, Goodman and Arkin are gems. I loved all three performances. Also look for always reliable Bryan Cranston as Tony's CIA supervisor, Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff, Titus Welliver as a State Department official and plenty of familiar faces popping up in quick one and two scene appearances.

I liked the movie throughout as the story develops. We're given background, see the fake movie -- dubbed 'Argo' -- come together, and then Tony's mission. The actual mission getting the six Americans out of a bloody, chaotic and paranoid Tehran is by far the best thing going for Affleck's movie. Tension doesn't begin to describe these scenes as Tony's "film crew" tries to get through airport security. The six Americans include Tate Donovan, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy and Kerry Bishe. Farshad Farahat does an incredible job with as a checkpoint guard investigating the backstory. The ending is Affleck showing his ability. He doesn't blare music at you or demand you feel a certain way as a viewer. He presents the action, lets it develop and allows the actors to do their thing. Another winner. Looking forward to see what's next for Affleck, as an actor or director.    

Argo (2012): ***/****

Super 8

With his involvement in one of my all-time favorite TV shows in Lost, director/writer/producer extraordinaire J.J. Abrams cemented himself as a must-watch sort of guy in the movies. That was the case for his most recent movie, 2011's Super 8, when it was released last summer. Even hearing negative reviews, I was definitely intrigued by this sci-fi throwback, a movie that looked like a modern Close Encounters and E.T.

It's the summer of 1979 in Lilian, Ohio, and 14-year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is still dealing with the sudden death of his mother several months prior. He lives with his dad, Jackson (Kyle Chandler), a deputy sheriff in town. Mostly though, Joe spends his free time helping his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) make a zombie movie with his Super 8 camera. One night while filming a scene with Charles and four other friends, they accidentally film a train derailment, and within minutes the Air Force and Army are on the scene. Weird, unexplainable things start to happen all over town. What was on the train? And more importantly can it be caught and stopped?

Like Abrams' 2008 film Cloverfield, I was sucked into Super 8 because of a teaser trailer. Check it out HERE. Mostly it's the 'what if?' factor that works so well. As was the case with some of the best episodes of Lost, Abrams' sci-fi flicks are at their best with that sense of mystery. He keeps you guessing, letting your own imagination fill in all the blanks as needed. Your imagination will almost always be scarier than what you actually ends up seeing. Super 8 isn't nearly as dark as Cloverfield in tone or depiction of an alien visitor, and the comparisons to both Close Encounters and E.T. are very, very fair. Steven Spielberg even worked with Abrams as a producer here so there's clearly a ton of talent working here.

When was the last time a movie with a big twist, a huge surprise lived up to that building anticipation? It doesn't have to be a sci-fi thriller. It can be anything. I'm guessing 9 times out of 10 I end up being disappointed with the reveal. Super 8 is one of the nine unfortunately. The fun of the movie (and the main reason I'll give an above average, positive rating) is because of the build-up, the first 80 minutes of a 110-minute movie. Those last 30 minutes? Like Cloverfield, Abrams hides the creature for the most part, only revealing him in glimpses and shadows. The full reveal just isn't as good. The unknown is always creepier than the known/visible. The whole sugary sweet tone of the last half hour just doesn't work. The creature has been tortured and abused and just wants to go home....oh yeah, he rips people's heads off too. Are we supposed to feel pity or see him get killed? The resolution is disappointing to say the least.

Drawing the comparisons to Close Encounters and E.T. is a huge positive. Setting the story 1979 serves as a great throwback addition to the story. Super 8 is a little slice of Americana in the 1970s. Lilian, Ohio is a close-knit town built around a mill where much of the population lives. It's a little town, but not too little. And in that town are a group of kids making the jump from being kids to teenagers. The performances from the younger actors are great, starting with Courtney as Joe, the quiet but well-meaning kid coping with the death of his mother. He has a crush on the seemingly unattainable Alice (Elle Fanning in an excellent, moving part) Griffiths is especially good as Joe's best friend Charles with Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso and Zach Mills representing themselves well as the rest of the group of friends. A coming of age story in the midst of a possible alien invasion? Who would have figured that would work?

That's the main reason I can give this movie a positive recommendation in spite of the disappointing ending. It is a personal story, the story of a kid growing up in the most chaotic of situations. So even through all the craziness, there is that personal attachment and involvement with the story. Chandler does a good job as Joe's dad and Noah Emmerich is appropriately mysterious as Nelec, the Air Force commander leading the investigation, but this is a movie about the kids. Does a different ending drastically alter the overall rating? Maybe, but probably not without altering the tone of the entire movie. I'm not a fan, but I can see what Abrams is going for. Still very much worth seeing.

Super 8 <---trailer (2011): ***/****

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself

It is a name that is instantly recognizable when heard, even if the reason isn’t well known. He was a revolutionary and dubbed by some a murderer and a coward even in his home country where he fought for the poor and downtrodden against the powerful dictator and his government. He is even infamous for “invading” the United States however briefly before retreating across the border back into Mexico. His name was Pancho Villa, and there have been few people in the last 100 years of history to stir up as much controversy as him.

Because of the controversy that hovers over his memory and reputation, Villa has not been dealt with much through movies.  When there are movies about him, they range from comically bad like Telly Savalas playing Villa in an awful Euro-western appropriately titled “Pancho Villa” or a straight action, shoot ‘em up flick like Villa Rides!  From what I’ve read about the infamous revolutionary, there’s very little that isn’t interesting about him.  An HBO Films production, 2003’s And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself (odd title, cool movie) jumps right into the historical personality, looking at both the good and the bad.

It’s 1914 and with motion pictures still in a fledgling stage, Mutual Films agrees to a contract with Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa (Antonio Banderas) who is fighting Mexican president Huerta and his army. Frank Thayer (Eion Bailey) leads the film crew that will document the revolutionary struggle, including filming real live battles.  The finished product is panned critically and is a miserable, costly failure. Frank comes up with a better idea, go back to Mexico and work with Villa on a second movie, a longer one that will explore Villa’s life that will take some liberties with the truth. But as “filming” begins, Frank begins to see that the man he’s come to respect so much isn’t everything he’s cut out to be. Amidst a bloody revolution, Thayer may pay for his errors with his life.

Just like controversial historical figures such as Che Guevarra, Adolf Hitler, and any number you care to add, you’re working on thin ice when making a feature length movie about them.  Viewers are going to have a preconceived notion about the person going into the movie.  With Villa at least, this isn’t as much of an issue. He’s been dead over a 100 years, and anyone who met him would have been a child when doing so.  For awhile in ‘Starring’ I was worried that the portrayal of Villa was too whitewashed, painting him in this adoring light that ignored all his flaws.  But as the movie moves along and we see more of Villa, we see a man who contradicts himself with his words and actions, combining the thoughtful and good with the horrific and cringe-inducing. A balanced look is always a better one, and ‘Starring’ is better for exploring the person through all the good and bad.

Besides the obvious physical resemblance, Banderas is about as perfect a choice to play Pancho Villa. No matter the role, he has an incredible physical presence on-screen. With a part like a revolutionary who leads thousands of followers with his charisma and personality, that’s a must for the actor.  Banderas sells it that he could lead a rebel army into battle, riding at the front into a wall of gunfire.  It is a role that allows him to show off his charming side while balancing it out with a side where rage and fury boils just beneath the surface waiting to explode.  You’re never sure what to expect of the man, and that makes it impossible to take your eyes off him.  The relationship that develops between Banderas’ Villa and Bailey’s Frank is our view point, our perspective as we see all of the man’s flaws and imperfections.

Title cards, prologues, and epilogues all point that the story being told is a true one.  Now as you might know, there’s no actual “The Life of General Villa” silent movie out on DVD.  Thayer’s narration states it “has been lost to posterity.” That’s the surreal part of the movie whether you believe the claim of historical accuracy or not. Thayer and his crew film during battles as bullets fly by and explosions sound in the distance. I wish this angle would have been played up more as it provides some hilariously dark humor. Citing the contract they’ve both signed, Thayer even requests Villa attack from the west in an epic charge not because of a strategic decision but because the LIGHTING from the west is better than the east. A minor complaint there because what’s there is funny without overdoing it.

The parts for Banderas and Bailey (of Band of Brothers fame) dominate the story and the screentime, but that doesn’t mean the supporting cast isn’t worth mentioning. Alan Arkin is a scene-stealer as a machine-gunning mercenary from Brooklyn fighting for Villa and $1,000 a month, Michael McKean is the director working on-location in Mexico, Kyle Chandler plays future director and then-actor Raoul Walsh (playing young Pancho in the movie), James Broadbent as the studio head pulling the strings, and Alexa Davalos in a wasted role as Thayer’s love interest.

Just like its flawed title character, the movie has its flaws sprinkled here and there.  But overall, the positives more than outweigh the negatives.  Banderas carries the movie in one of his best performances in a movie with a large scale that never overshadows the personal side in this possibly – just maybe –accurate historical epic.

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself <--- trailer (2003): ***/****