Rush (2013)

So do we have any auto racing fans out there? Nascar, Formula One, dirt track races, drag racing, anything? I've never been a fan, never been able to sit down and watch a race on TV from beginning to end. On the other hand, I love racing movies from older gems like Grand Prix and Le Mans to more current movies like the Fast and the Furious series. Released in theaters last year to basically uniformally positive reviews and a decent box box, 2013's Rush is one of the best racing movies out there.

It's 1970 and two young drivers, James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), are trying to make it from Formula 3 racing to the Formula 1 circuit. The two racers are complete polar opposites, James a smooth, charming ladies man with an incredible knack for racing, Niki the perfectionist who works incessantly at being the best driver he can be. Going down vastly different routes, both James and Niki make it to the pinnacle, finally getting to Formula One. Niki even wins the 1975 World Championship at the circuit's best racer. It all seems primed for the 1976 season, Niki signed with Ferrari while Hunt works with McLaren, both drivers at their prime with the best possible cars to drive and staffs to keep the cars driving at an optimum level. Can this rivalry be pushed too far though? How far will each man go to ensure a win?

What a really, really good movie. One of the most positive things to take away from this movie? Ron Howard is directing! He's had a relative rough patch of late recently, movies that didn't seem up to his talents like The Dilemma or the Dan Brown movies, The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. Even considering his career films, 'Rush' seems like a bit of a departure for Howard, but that's a positive. A big positive. There is a hard-edge here to the story from the personal interactions to the intensity, even smaller things like language or nudity (Hemsworth does a nude scene. You're welcome, ladies). The story from Peter Morgan's script is a nice fit for a 123-minute long movie. It covers almost six full years but hits the necessary moments without feeling rushed, much of the focus on the 1976 season. There's not one high-reaching thing 'Rush' does well, one huge thing that sets it apart from the field. It just does a lot of things really well.

Nowhere is that more evident than the two leads, Hemsworth and Bruhl, and for different reasons. Making a name for himself as Thor in the Avengers movies, it's hard to believe Hemsworth has only been in the public eye for a handful of years. Bruhl is a less well-known actor probably most known to American audiences because of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Their on-screen chemistry is the heart of the movie. It's not a hatred between the two men, just an intense, palpable rivalry that at times brings out the best and worst in them. Within sports, rivalries fuel it all, and when it is individuals more than teams -- especially in a film -- it works better. Bruhl even picked up some Oscar buzz for his performance here but ultimately didn't get a nomination for his past as Niki Lauda. SPOILERS Don't read the Wikipedia biography if you don't want to know where the movie heads. SPOILERS

It just works, the pairing between Hemsworth and Bruhl. The two men are different, but they've got more in common than they probably want to admit. Watching a movie about either man would have been intensely interesting so seeing the Formula 1 season play out between the two of them is even better. I'm struggling to explain it, but it's just a good dynamic. They don't hate each other -- maybe intensely dislike -- but for the most part their confrontations are hard-edged and brutal...with smiles on their faces. Through it all, there is a mutual respect that grows between the two men, something grown out of a profession that is inherently dangerous (Lauda's narration claims 2 drivers die a year) as the drivers live on the edge with each race. They push each other to the absolute limit, their intense desire to win becoming obsessive. It wears on their persona lives, their relationships, everything. Kudos to Hemsworth and Bruhl.

The focus is almost entirely on that duo, Olivia Wilde making an almost cameo-like appearance as Hunt's wife, and Alexandra Maria Lara as Marlene, Niki's wife who questions if he can ever be invested in a marriage. Pierfrancesco Favino is solid as a rival Ferrari driver, but the rest of the cast is almost entirely background. We meet some of the backers, the pit crew, but nothing in depth.

What works so well beyond the casting is the racing sequences. Stylish and edited at a freaky fast pace, these sequences are still easy to follow. Because 'Rush' covers so much ground, there's only that one big race, most of the build-up a quick, hard-hitting race that isn't wasting any time. The finale is a gem, the race for the World Championship coming down to one final go on a rainy, almost suicidal course, Nurburgring. The races have an almost washed-out look that stylistically works surprisingly well. Howard filmed on many of the courses where the story is set, acquiring a bunch of vintage cars. The 1970s setting definitely adds to the proceedings as does composer Hans Zimmer's score. There wasn't one huge theme that stuck out for me, but it's a great score that adds a lot to the racing sequences. I was impressed especially because it tries to do so much as a score, not just big, booming epic music.

An excellent movie all-around. Well worth tracking down. Without any knowledge of the actual history, the story surprised me, especially one decision Lauda makes that greatly affects everyone on the circuit, including Hunt. Crazy to think this actually happened, Howard more than doing it justice.

Rush (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Drinking Buddies

I have a theory about movies and the critics who review them. Sometimes I think critics get together as a group, grab some lunch and collectively agree whether or not to give a positive or negative review to a specific film. That's the biggest thing I took away from 2013's Drinking Buddies, currently rocking an 82% from critics (that's good) at Rotten Tomatoes but only a 56% from audiences (strictly mediocre) and 6.2 at IMDB (a "Meh" if there ever was). Which one is it? Critical darling or audience dud?

Working at Revolution Brewery in Chicago, Kate (Olivia Wilde) and Luke (Jake Johnson) are the best of friends. They hang out together, go drinking after work, bust each other almost non-stop about...well, everything and more importantly trust the other one about just about everything. Their friendly(ish) flirting goes on almost non-stop as well, but there's a problem. Both are in relationships, Kate dating Chris (Ron Livingston), who signs promising artists for a record label while Luke is quasi-engaged to Jill (Anna Kendrick) as the couple figures things out for the future. Could anything come of their friendship like the perfectly compatible Kate and Luke deciding they should date and be together? Or will their significant others in their relationships end up being 'the one'?

I don't know if I've ever written a more cliched plot description than that. I remember watching the trailer for this gem at some point late last summer, the thought that maybe it would be good, and then...it just wasn't. If you're looking to save 90 minutes of your life, just watch the trailer. It hits seemingly all the necessary plot points and then ends. Wanna know the catch? That's the entire movie. It doesn't get any better than that. The entire movie is based on the 1990s TV sitcom cliche that Pretty Girl A is meant to be with Quirky but Perfect Guy A. The problem? Pretty Girl A is with Quirky but Not Perfect Guy B. Quirky but Perfect Guy A....yeah, he's all over the place. I didn't like this movie, and I was real close to completely bailing late in the 90-minute flick. For you loyal readers, I stuck with it though.

If I'm going to criticize, I've got to have it all figured out, right? I watched this movie from director and writer Joe Swanberg and couldn't quite put my finger on it. Just about each and every scene had this weird tone to it, an uncomfortable back and forth, silences that are too long for their own good. These are conversations and dialogue that just seem, well, forced. Why is that exactly? The entire movie was improvised. Yes, Swanberg provided a rough outline for his cast to work off of, but nothing definite in terms of actual lines. Instead, the cast just went with it, making up dialogue as they want. You know what? It shows. Beyond any reality of the awkwardness of male/female relationships, there are too many scenes that are just uncomfortable to watch. They're either too short or gone on for too long. There is little to no rhythm from scene to scene, slowing down an already glacial-like pacing.

There is talent here though so there has to be something worth recommending, right? Nope, Swanberg's outlined script making it really hard to be sympathetic with any of the four main characters. We know basically from the start that Kate and Chris aren't going to make it, and that Luke and Jill similarly have some pretty serious issues to deal with if their relationship is going to last. Maybe it is the entire lack of a script -- just that lovely outline -- or just the acting in general, but I didn't like any of the four main characters. Wilde's Kate seems too dumb and goofy for her own good, Johnson's Luke is too nice and equally clueless, Livingston's Chris is just odd, always off a beat or two, and Kendrick's Jill is very twitchy and awkward and uncomfortable. The issues they're dealing with, their emotions and relationship struggles are all pretty real, not some contrived movie relationship issue, but the characters range from dumb to annoying to unpleasant and the story never brings any of it to life.

'Buddies' does take some interesting twists about the halfway point, but by then I was almost completely checked out. It had already dug its grave way too deep by that point. It ends on a disappointing note, not resolving much and leaving too many plates spinning all at one time. And then for a couple other things worth mentioning. Jason Sudeikis is the only other supporting part worth mentioning, Kate's absent-minded boss who tries to avoid work at all costs. Also, the film is set in Chicago, featuring references from everything to Revolution Brewery to random mentions of streets, schools and suburbs in the area. All well and good, right? Yeah, especially for Chicago viewers. It's all a cop-out I tells ya!!!! We never see Chicago in the least. What a city tease, Drinking Buddies, for shame.

A movie about late 20-somethings dealing with the hell that can be life (and set in Chicago) sounded moderately appealing even if the trailer was less than convincing. Nothing comes of it, the lack of a script being the biggest impediment to anything good as a finished product. It's called Drinking Buddies, and that's what we see, four people drinking a lot of beer (and some wine), brooding over their relationships, flirting with their friends, and in general, being pretty annoying. Steer clear, just go to a local bar and people watch. It'll be more entertaining.

Drinking Buddies (2013): */****

The Words

It's September, and for a moviegoing audience, you know what that means. It's that time of the year in between the summer blockbuster and the award season. Translated? Time to dump the crappy movies in theaters that don't fit anywhere else. Thin pickings in other words, but if you're looking for a worthwhile venture, try 2012's The Words.

With several years of struggles and rejection letters to show for his work, Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) is at a career crossroads of sorts as an aspiring writer. He lives in NYC with his wife, Dora (Zoe Saldana), hoping to write the novel that will put his name on the literary map. Finally, Rory gets his chance. In a hidden panel of a briefcase he carries, Rory finds an unpublished story that is profound and perfect in its message. Wanting nothing more than to become a respected writer, Rory turns in the transcript as his own and fame and accolades follow. "His" novel opens all sorts of doors until one day, an old man (Jeremy Irons) confronts him, claiming the story is his own. What should, or can Rory do?

That's the most streamlined plot description I can come up with because for lack of a better description....this is a gimmick movie. It is actually a story within a story within a story. Confused much? Don't be, I'm making it more complicated than necessary. Rory's story though is actually that of a novel written by acclaimed novelist Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid), doing a reading of the story for a captive audience. As Clay reads the story, we see the story of Rory, Dora and the plagiarized novel. On top of that, we also get the Old Man's background, Irons explaining to Rory how his story came to be. Maybe gimmick isn't an appropriate description, but it's not enough you see a story like this. Confusing? No, not once you get in rhythm. A little odd? Yes, but acceptable as long as I kept reminding myself what was going on.

So with that gimmick, your enjoyment will come from how much you're willing to go along with that twisting story. The Quaid portion was the least interesting for me. His Hammond must deal with an adoring fan (Olivia Wilde) who knows everything about him, bordering on stalker territory. A minor issue here; Hammond's novel he reads from has the simplicity of a Dick and Jane story. 'Rory likes Dora...Rory and Dora move in together...Rory and Dora get married.' The Rory and Dora relationship is some familiar territory if predictable, but it's interesting to watch the moral dilemma develop in Rory's eyes. The highlight though in a too short late 1940s post WWII Paris is Irons' story of how he originally wrote his novel that Rory claims as his own.

Across the three stories though, the casting is solid to above average. Cooper is showing he can do a wide variety of roles -- drama, action, comedy -- and doesn't disappoint as the aspiring writer. What he does through his actions are despicable, but his head and heart start tearing away at him almost immediately. Saldana as the loving wife who wants what's best for her husband is well-cast as well. Quaid is acceptable in a workmanlike role that doesn't give him much to do while Wilde is subtle but more than a little creepy. Jeremy Irons as the unnamed Old Man is the highlight though, his deep, scratchy voice bringing the movie up a notch. Also look for J.K. Simmons as Rory's dad, Zeljko Ivanek as Rory's publisher/editor, Ben Barnes as Irons as a young man, and Nora Arnezeder as his wife, Celia.

Where 'Words' struggles some is the end. In a story about personal integrity, morals and ethics, how one bad decision can derail the lives of so many, of paying for that mistake or skating by, 'Words' doesn't how to end. It doesn't always know how to get there either. At just 96 minutes, the last 30 minutes drags as Rory decides what to do about his dilemma. There's also some twists and turns in the Quaid storyline, but it's an open-ended finale. Now all that said I enjoyed this movie, the story and the performances. It's refreshing to see a story-driven movie without a ton of sex, violence, drugs and explosions. Gotta take your chances when you can get them.

The Words <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Cowboys & Aliens

When I first read that the movie was going to be made, my first thought was that it could possibly be the stupidest idea for a movie I'd ever heard.  When I heard that James Bond and Indiana Jones/Han Solo were then going to star in said movie, I was slightly curious.  Then, I saw the trailers this past spring and thought once again "Dear Lord, that looks like the biggest pile of drivel I've ever seen....should I go to the midnight show?"  You hear the title and right away you've made up your mind. Are you going to go see it?  That's 2011's Cowboys & Aliens.

As I write this review, I've written over 100-plus reviews in a little less than three years of westerns.  When I first started doing this blog, I debated doing an exclusive western movie review blog. If you haven't figure it out by now, I L-O-V-E westerns.  Even the worst ones I watch -- usually with an open mind -- so that's what ultimately pulled me into this science-fiction western.  Not surprisingly the western aspects of the story appealed to me more, and it's got a lot of them; the quiet, lone drifter, the tough as nails old man, stock characters galore, big, wide open locations, the dusty one-street western town, and a showdown in the end that will settle everything once and for all.  There just happen to be aliens around who want to wipe out mankind so yeah...that's the movie.

In the Arizona desert in 1873, a man (Daniel Craig) wakes up miles from civilization with no idea where he is or more importantly, who he is. All he knows is that he's got a weird contraption on his wrist that he can't remove. He makes it to the nearest town where he figures out who he is, an infamous bandit named Jake Lonergan.  As he's about to be put on an armored stage to Santa Fe, something weird appears in the sky. Fast-moving, powerful spaceships swarm all over, blasting the town to pieces and in the process, kidnapping countless townspeople. A posse is formed to pursue this new species by the local cattle baron, a Civil War veteran named Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford), with Lonergan and his wrist cannon along for the ride. What do these alien creatures want, and more strangely, why are they kidnapping people left and right?

I don't know what to say or where to start here.  You head into this movie knowing that you will in fact be watching a movie where cowboys fight aliens, but then manage to still be surprised when you see it.  How often -- if ever -- do you see a genre-bending movie with such two different genres, science fiction and western?  What works best (and remember, this is coming from a die-hard western fan) is the western elements of the story.  The movie looks great, the California and New Mexico locations being a great scene-setter.  Harry Gregson-William's musical score works without being overbearing or obnoxious -- it is at its best in the quieter moments -- but isn't particularly memorable.  There's something unexplainable why I did like this movie, mostly because it is a western, and they are becoming few and far between, especially major studio productions.

So how can you go wrong with James Bond and Indiana Jones? Long story short...you can't. Craig is at the point in his stardom where if he's in a movie, I'm in line to see it.  The British actor looks extremely comfortable in the western setting, an easy fit for the silent anti-hero, a drifting gunman with little ties to hold him down.  He belongs in westerns, and I'd be curious to see what the result would be if just made a straight western, hold the aliens.  Ford plays against type to a point, not quite a bad guy but not exactly a good guy either.  His Dolarhyde is the tough as dirt cattle baron who growls and grimaces and glares as forms of communicating.  It's hard to believe Ford is almost 70 years old, but whatever his age, he's still cool as hell.  That qualifies for both men; two badass leading men kicking some alien ass.  If that doesn't appeal to you, steer clear.

Watch a western, and you're going to see stock characters appear repeatedly.  Director Jon Favreau assembles a crazy (in a good way) supporting cast, making these familiar characters interesting and worth watching because of the talent involved. Olivia Wilde is Ella, a beautiful woman who seems to know more than what she's letting on, a lady with a secret. The mystery comes out late, but who am I kidding? Wilde is drop dead gorgeous so it doesn't matter. Then there's Sam Rockwell as Doc, the saloon owner, Clancy Brown as Meachem, the town preacher, Paul Dano as Percy, Dolarhyde's entitled son, Adam Beach as Nat Colorado, Dolarhyde's Indian tracker, Ana de la Reguera as Maria, Doc's Mexican wife, young Noah Ringer as Emmett, the wide-eyed kid, Keith Carradine as Sheriff Taggart, and Walton Goggins, David O'Hara and Julio Cedillo as members of Jake's former gang.  Familiar characters but fun characters too.

There is something primal comparing two genres that are so loved as the western and science fiction. There is something cool about seeing cowboys with Winchesters and six-shooters going toe to toe with aliens wanting nothing more than to wipe us out.  The action scenes are that perfect mix of CGI and actual stunts, blending nicely together. The action is on a large-scale but without overdoing it.  The ending goes on for a little too long, dragging in parts, but the final shot is an appropriate one, an ending any western fan should be able to appreciate. The movie has its flaws -- the violence is pretty grisly, there isn't much dark humor when there was the potential to have it -- and I'm probably overrating it a bit, but I did like this weird little oddity of a movie.

Cowboys & Aliens <---trailer (2011): ***/****