12 Years a Slave

Just a year ago or so in theaters, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was a huge hit with audiences and critics alike, making over $425 million. It was a story about a pre-Civil War slavery that was horrific and over the top, almost cartoonish in its portrayal of slavery. An interesting companion piece because it tackles the same historical issue in far darker, far more somber fashion, 2013's 12 Years a Slave.

It's 1841 in Saratoga, New York, and Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man. He works as a carpenter, is also a skilled musician and lives comfortably with his wife and two young children. When his family goes away on a quick work/vacation, Solomon is approached by two musicians who offer him a two-week job working with their traveling circus performers. Solomon is intrigued by their offer, dining and drinking with them one evening. He wakes up the next morning in chains, realizing he was drugged the night before. Solomon has been kidnapped and will be shipped south to be sold as a slave in the deep south. Listening to other kidnap victims in the same situation, some runaway slaves, he learns he's in more of a spot than he thought. If he tries to convince anyone of his plight, they'll punish him (with the possibility of whipping) if not kill him. Can he survive? Can Solomon find a way to endure and somehow gain back his freedom?

Wow. What a movie, one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've had watching a film in years. Technically speaking, it's excellent, but this next part might sound obvious. Anyone who knows their history -- or even those who don't -- realize that slavery existed in the U.S. less than 200 years ago in the 1860s. It's a known thing, but knowing and seeing the horrors are different. It is a terrifyingly uncomfortable movie, and it's supposed to be. It pulls no punches in telling the true story of Solomon Northup, director Steve McQueen (not that one) at the helm of a movie that won Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Be forewarned heading in. This is a film, not a popcorn movie that you come away with with a smile on your face. '12' is a film to watch and appreciate for what it is. A true story from one of the darker periods in American history. I won't be revisiting this one anytime soon. Once was enough.

Chiwetel Ejiofor or Matthew McConaughey? Which actor for the Best Actor Oscar? Having seen both '12' and Dallas Buyers Club, it's fair to say that either man deserved the win. It's a push, both performances worthwhile in their own respect. For Ejiofor, this is a great performance and hopefully one that propels him into stardom. I've always thought he was a solid actor with some poor choices in films (2012, Four Brothers), but this film shows his ability. Playing Solomon Northup, this is an emotionally draining, physical, very expressive part. Ejiofor allows the rest of the cast to chew scenery at times, letting a quick, hard-hitting diatribe here and there fill in the blanks. He does so much with a look here, his tired eyes telling the story. Dubbed Platt (the name of a runaway slave from Georgia), Solomon tries to survive however he can, almost willing himself to keep on and return to his family. This is a human, visceral performance. Unbelievable stuff.

In a part that won her the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Lupita Nyong'o delivers a gem as Patsey, a young slave who's hard-working, does her job and puts her head down, unfortunately becoming a favorite of the plantation owner, Epps, played to evil perfection by Michael Fassbender (nominated for his part, didn't win). Nyong'o is strong across the board but won the Oscar with one key, emotional gut-wrenching scene late. A great supporting performance. Fassbender (a favorite of mine) is intensity personified, a vile slave owner who quotes the Bible at all times, making his slaves do odd, bizarre things to suit his random wants and desires, Sarah Paulson playing his equally unhinged wife. Some other key supporting parts include Benedict Cumberbatch as Ford, a decent slave owner but still a slave owner, Paul Giamatti as a bottom-line slave dealer, Paul Dano as an angry, clueless overseer, Alfre Woodard as a slave woman turned mistress, Garret Dillahunt as Armsby, a hopeful overseer, and Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam as the men who kidnap Solomon.

As I mentioned, this was a difficult movie to sit through. It's not boring, the subject matter just hard to watch. '12' is 134 minutes long and does drag at times. The story isn't the most pointed thing, drifting along at times. My biggest issue is that there is no sense of time having passed. I kept waiting for a title card or something to pop up on-screen and say '8 Years Later.' There's no way to tell how much time has passed. Has it been weeks or months? Has it been years? The incidents are horrific, the truth of the story hard to fathom, but then out of nowhere there's a solution to it all. That was my biggest issue with '12,' no idea of the time that's passed. It sounds simple and something minor to complain about, but it's a legit issue.

This is a difficult movie to watch, plain and simple. I do like where it heads in the last third or so, Brad Pitt making a memorable appearance as a Canadian carpenter working in the south who meets Solomon while working on Epps' plantation. We get several scenes analyzing the horror and truth of slavery that come across as slightly heavy-handed, but that said, I guess there's very little subtle about slavery itself. The ending is heartbreaking in itself, especially the title cards that play out before the credits. Also worth mentioning is Hans Zimmer's score, almost minimalist in its execution, a simple, soft, trance-like theme resonating the most. Listen HERE. An interesting movie, one you're not necessarily going to like, but one you'll be able to appreciate and experience.

12 Years a Slave (2013): ***/****

Saving Mr. Banks

There are few names as instantly recognizable, as iconic as Walt Disney, the hugely successful businessman who helped create the immense Disney empire. I grew up watching animated Disney movies with my sister, family and friends having been introduced to the older Disney genres at the same time so for me the 1950s and 1960s were the empire at its ultimate best. Think of all the backstories, all the explanations, all the little tidbits explaining how all those movies and TV shows came to be, like the classic 1964 film Mary Poppins, which we see in 2013's Saving Mr. Banks.

Struggling financially to make ends meet in her London home, Pamela 'P.L.' Travers (Emma Thompson) has agreed to do something she's avoided for 20 years. She agrees to meet Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) in Los Angeles to discuss selling the rights to her hugely successful children's book, Mary Poppins. While she could clearly use the money, Travers also is less than psyched to sell the rights to her most famous book, the one that put her on the literary map. The book, the story and the characters, they all mean too much to her, and she worries Walt Disney will "Disney-fy" it, adding animation and songs and a far-more lighthearted tone than her original book intends. Having long wanted to turn Travers' book into a feature film (having promised his daughters he would do so), Disney is going to put the full-court press on the author to get the job done. Who's going to buckle first?

There's something to be said for movies like this. Blend a well-written, entertaining story with some fun, memorable characters, throw some style in there for good measure, and let things fall where they may. It isn't trying to rewrite Film, instead it is content to tell that story and hopefully resonate that way. Director John Lee Hancock is a specialist at that type of film, and I mean that in the most positive sense. In terms of what it is trying to accomplish, it reminded me of two other Hancock films, The Rookie and The Blind Side. It certainly helps if you're a fan of the original Mary Poppins to get some of the jokes, the lines, the background, but it's not essential. The story is a good blend of drama and comedy, and don't be fooled. Hancock's film is most definitely trying to pull at your heart strings. Oh, and it does, and does it well.

The movie's success rides on the shoulders of stars Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. I don't know if either will get any Academy Award nominations, but these are two very human, very layered performances. Over the last couple weeks, 'Banks' has taken some public grief because of its portrayal of Disney -- not too many flaws in view, read more HERE -- as that flawless, pretty perfect hero, but at no point was this a huge, digging character study of a movie. This is about two very stubborn folks who are willing to stick to their guns, Thompson's Travers and Hanks' Disney. Their scenes together crackle, Thompson perfectly cast as the icy, brutally honest author who wants to protect her own story, Hanks breathing life into a likable, charming and even then iconic Walt Disney. Thompson makes it hard at times, but you like both these characters. You're rooting for both of them.

So while I point out this isn't a movie too interested in the characters' real-life flaws, it also doesn't gloss over too much. While much of the story is spent in Los Angeles in the 1960s, a fairly large amount of time is spent in a flashback in the early 1900s in Australia, watching a young Travers grow up, seeing what becomes her inspiration for Mary Poppins and its characters. We see young Ginty (Annie Rose Buckley), her well-meaning father (Colin Farrell) with a drinking problem, her mother (Ruth Wilson), overwhelmed by her husband's drinking problems that affect all aspects of their life, and ultimately, Aunt Ellie (Rachel Griffiths), Travers' inspiration for Mary Poppins. Of the two halves of the story, I enjoyed the 1960s Disney portion more, but both hold their merits. It's never overdone even if its obvious where the 1900s Australia part is going. I was just more interested in how Mary Poppins came together, a battle of wills between Travers and Disney.

There isn't a weak performance in the movie. The supporting parts are filled out with some big names too, parts that are meant to flesh out the lead roles. My favorite part went to Paul Giamatti as Ralph, Pamela's appointed driver to chauffeur her around L.A. as she decides whether to sell the rights to her book. An eternal optimist with a bright outlook on life, even Travers' almost non-stop negativity can't weight on him. Bradley Whitford, B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as Don DeGradi, the screenplay writer, and Robert and Richard Sherman, Mary Poppins' writers of the music and lyrics. The trio's scenes with Thompson are pretty perfect, three talented individuals seemingly working against a brick wall. It's also fun to see these rehearsal scenes coming together, seeing a handful of iconic scenes from Mary Poppins coming together, including some of its best and most memorable musical numbers. Also worth mentioning are Kathy Baker and Melanie Paxson as two secretaries working with Disney and Travers, almost as middlemen.

An underrated aspect of 'Banks' is the style. Immediately I felt transported back to Los Angeles in the 1960s. The look of the film is perfect from seeing Disneyland in the 1960s to the big boats that were once called cars to everyone wearing immaculate suits to work. The early 1960s were the Disney empire at a high point -- Swiss Family Robinson, 101 Dalmatians, The Sword and the Stone among many others -- and on a simple level, it's just fun to get an inside look at the making of one of Disney's most iconic films. Another positive is Thomas Newman's score, good without being overbearing. Mostly though, it's the moments that work. Through all the laughs, the emotional, dramatic moments work the best, especially as Thompson's Travers opens up a little, 'Let's Go Fly a Kite' providing a great moment.

It's a really good movie. That's it. Go see for yourself.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Parkland

How quick time flies. Fifty years ago today, November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas as he drove in a motorcade through the downtown area, sniper Lee Harvey Oswald doing the shooting. It was and still is a tragic moment in American history, one explored in pop culture with books like Stephen King's 11/22/63 and films like JFK and Executive Action. Add another flick to the list, 2013's Parkland.

To describe the plot here would more than defeat the purpose. With a little build-up to the actual assassination on that November morning, we're shown the actual shooting Dealey Plaza, mostly from the people that see it. We never see President Kennedy get shot, never see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot him. This isn't a movie about Kennedy, instead it is how the President's death sends ripples throughout Dallas, including the hospital, law enforcement, Kennedy's staff, the witnesses, the FBI, how they all responded to it and handled the assassination. The story follows the immediate aftermath and the subsequent days, mostly from the perspective of Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy died less than an hour after being shot. Plot? Not really, it's more a lot of characters in an episodic story that packs a whole lot of stuff into its 94-minute running time.

From director/writer Peter Landesman, 'Parkland' had a $10 million budget and was given little to no theatrical release, making about $600,000 in theaters. Why did it struggle so mightily? I'm not really sure. I liked it a lot. With a short running time, it is slightly schizophrenic in terms of storytelling. It is basically on the go non-stop. We meet countless individuals -- from known individuals like Oswald, Jackie Kennedy and LBJ -- to lesser known but very real people, the hospital staff, the FBI, the witnesses, all affected by the assassination that rocked the nation. I liked that Landesman's film gives an almost fly on the wall look at the history that we've all heard about, all knew it happened, but to actually see it, it's interesting, startling and unsettling, like we're a witness to history.

Maybe that's why it struggled getting much of a theatrical release, why it couldn't get much of a positive word of mouth. Beyond being a turning point, a defining moment in American history, the Kennedy assassination is one of the first spawns of a real conspiracy theory. Was Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his attempt? Were there other shooters? Was the government involved? Was there a massive cover-up in the wake of the assassination? So for all you conspiracy theorists out there....this may not be the movie for you. 'Parkland' isn't interested in a single tidbit of that 'what if?' aspect. In general, it doesn't take a stance about much. It shows rather than tells what happened. We see it as it happened, nothing else. If you're looking for a comprehensive, analytical investigation of the Kennedy assassination, this isn't it. Instead, it's a well-told, interesting, informative look at a part of history that we've never seen before as a viewer.

To tell the countless stories, Landesman assembles quite the cast to fill out the countless speaking parts here, all those involved and effected by Kennedy's death. The Parkland Hospital medical staff includes Marcia Gay Harden, Zac Efron , Colin Hanks, Rory Cochrane and Jackie Earle Haley appearing briefly as the hospital priest. James Badge Dale plays Oswald's brother, Robert, surprised as anyone at his brother's actions, Jacki Weaver playing their delusional mother, Marguerite, Jeremy Strong giving a strong portrayal of Lee. Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Welling play Secret Service agents pursuing all leads, especially the film of the assassination shot by Abe Zapruder (Paul Giamatti). Ron Livingston and David Harbour have good parts as the FBI field agents working in Dallas who make a startling revelation about Oswald. Not necessarily huge stars, but one really solid actor after another.

I liked this movie, simple as that. The style is simple and straightforward, blending archival footage from the Kennedy's trip through Texas that eventually ended in Dallas with footage shot for this film. It is eerie and uncomfortable watching the archived footage, knowing in the matter of an hour or two President Kennedy would be dead. The sense of doom hanging over that footage is unreal and beyond uncomfortable to watch. The whole movie is, and it'd be hard not to be difficult to watch. Exactly 50 years later, it's still hard to believe this tragic event actually happened. This film had little to no buzz upon its release, but Parkland is definitely worth catching up with.

Parkland (2013): ***/****

Rock of Ages

If there is a time more ripe for the picking in terms of a musical spoof extravaganza, I can't think of a better one than the late 1980s. Glam rock and hair bands ruled the world with their huge power ballads, filling arenas and venues wherever they went with their screaming, adoring fans. Over 20 years later, it's easy to see how cliched, stereotypical and easy to pick on this time was, but treading that fine line down the middle is 2012's Rock of Ages. It's struggling in theaters so if you want to see it, don't wait too long.

Having left small-town Oklahoma behind, Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) gets off a bus in Los Angeles on the Sunset Strip and gets a job as a waitress at the famous rock club, The Bourbon Room. She has dreams of hitting it big as a singer, and hits it off immediately with a bar-back at Bourbon, Drew (Diego Boneta), who has similar dreams of becoming a star. The Bourbon Room is in trouble though as a crusading mayor and his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) want to shut down the rock scene for the "sake of the kids." The club looks like it's got one shot at saving itself, and that's the first show of rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) and his band Arsenal's farewell tour.

Oh, did I mention this is a musical? No? Okay, well more on that later. From director Adam Shankman comes an odd but interesting, off-beat but funny and in the end, entertaining movie. Considering the source material, 'Rock' thankfully doesn't take itself too seriously, having some fun with the general extravagances of the music industry in the late 1980s. It's all pretty ridiculous with a pretty thin script, but it's fun just the same. With so many (we're talking lots of songs) musical numbers, there just isn't enough time to actually develop much of a story other than 1. Girl falls for boy. 2. Club must save itself. 3. Huge star begins to question himself. 4. Parents' groups try to ruin rock. Nothing particularly new there in other words.

Maybe it was just the commercials (or lack of) I saw, but not all of them painted this as a musical. Thankfully before seeing it, I did figure that out, but it was clear when Hough's Sherrie bursts into song 6 seconds into the movie that....hey, I think this is a musical. Brace yourself, but here's a list of the bands featured here, the cast doing their own covers. And away we go with....Night Ranger, David Lee Roth, Poison, Foreigner, Joan Jett, Pat Benatar, Extreme, Warrant, Bon Jovi, Twisted Sister, Def Leppard, Quarterflash, Whitesnake, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Starship, Guns N' Roses, and Scorpions. Disappointed in that listing? That's just the songs that get the full treatment. There's another handful or so that are sampled at different point. Some songs fit better than others, some are more entertaining than others. Certain songs seem jammed into the sake of the story for the sake of having it there, but I guess that's what happens with a rock opera featuring that many different songs.

I'll get into the cast more in a minute, but Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx is getting his own paragraph here. Nearing his 50th birthday, Cruise has found ways to stay fresh with his film roles, and this is a prime example of that. Lead singer of Arsenal, Stacee is planning to go solo and is everything good and bad about the industry at the times. A diva who guzzles liquor, has countless groupies with him at all times, and has a baboon as a servant named 'Hey Man.' In one great scene with a Rolling Stone reporter (Malin Akerman, surprisingly funny), he goes on this rant about who and what he is, getting more out there with each passing word. A one-on-one with club owner Alec Baldwin is hysterical, neither man sure if the other one understands what's being said, symbolism and metaphors flying, Cruise questioning "Can you house a rising phoenix?" Cruise alone -- committing full force to the exaggerated portrayal -- is worth the price of admission.

The rest of the ensemble is more hit or miss unfortunately. Hough is a stunner to look at, and a very talented singer/dancer, but as an actress she's just not there yet. The same for Boneta as Drew, neither lead character producing much interest for the viewer (for me at least). Baldwin and club partner Lonny (Russell Brand, who I'm typically not a fan of) are a match made in heaven, Baldwin's Dennis Dupress desperate to keep his club open, Lonny a diehard rock fan at his side. Some of the funniest scenes -- including one priceless duet -- comes from them seemingly working on the fly. Zeta-Jones and husband Bryan Cranston are tolerable but nothing more. Paul Giamatti is an appropriately slimy manager for Stacee, and ends up being a suitable villain. The very talented Mary J. Blige is given little to do but belt out some songs as Justice, owner of a high-class strip club.

My objection here has little to do with the fact I'm reviewing a musical (brace for lightning strike) but more the actual music. Your enjoyment/hatred will no doubt come from your background with the music. Do you love big 1980s music? You'll love the movie. Using the songs though as the script though comes across as lazy to me. In certain places, it feels like a square peg into a round slot, getting a song into the story for the sake of it being there. And at a sometimes slow 123 minutes, there's a lot of singing. It gets to be like celebrity karaoke at a certain point. Good songs? Yes, you bet. Too much of a good thing? Yes, you bet. Still, the movie is genuinely funny, and some members of the cast -- Cruise, Baldwin, Brand, Giamatti -- make it worthwhile. Just know what you're getting into.

Rock of Ages <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 /****

Duplicity

How far can charm take a movie? A story, an actor, a soundtrack, they can all have charm, but to what point? Usually it's a jumping off point to at least liking a movie, and hopefully somewhere in the process, you like something more. Thanks to a misleading trailer, I watched 2009's Duplicity, thinking I was getting a light espionage mystery relying on the charm and star power of two bankable stars. Even charm -- or lack of -- could save this one.

Two former intelligence agents, Ray (Clive Owen) from MI6 and Claire (Julia Roberts) from the CIA, have a bit of a history together...a checkered one at that. Several years ago in Dubai, Claire drugged Ray and took some valuable information he had hidden away. Now they're meeting up again but under different circumstances and different emotions. For one, they've fallen for each other, well, sort of, if they can trust each other. Wanting to retire to a life of luxury, they've decided to go into corporate espionage, working from the inside as two warring corporations (run by rivals Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) do battle over a new product that could revolutionize the market with billions of dollars at stake.

For starters, the trailer for this flick definitely made it look like a light, even romantic comedy a la Spy vs. Spy with Owen and Roberts going toe to toe. Yeah, about that...not quite. It's not like that at all, and it's not even close. Instead, director Tony Gilroy (of the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton) has crafted a twisting, weaving and generally pretty dark story about a corporate espionage where everything is not what it seems. I'm not claiming the movie isn't any good because the trailer was misleading. I'm claiming the movie isn't any good because it's dull and drifting with characters who aren't even close to sympathetic territory and a story that wraps itself up in its own cleverness.

Not surprisingly, the message boards are divided as to the quality of the movie. Some claim it's stupid and boring because the story isn't linear. Then there's the posters who blindly defend it because it's smart. Can both sides be wrong and right at the same time? I resent it when holier-than-thou moviegoers claim someone doesn't like a movie because they "didn't get it." It's also mindblowingly dumb to claim a movie is dumb because you simply didn't understand it. The odd thing about Duplicity is that nothing really works, and both sides are in fact very right. The story is flashback heavy, bringing us up to date (as much as possible) with how the characters got into this spot. Then, there's the current story, Ray and Claire working from the inside. None of it is particularly interesting, and it doesn't change much over the course of a slow-moving 125 minutes.

As far as bankable stars go, it's hard to top Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Their parts in Duplicity are lacking in so many ways, and neither looks that interested in the story or their characters. Like the story, they look bored with the proceedings. And charm? Chemistry? Yeah, I'm still looking for that. The two stars never click, their scenes lacking any real passion. Their relationship gets repetitive almost immediately, two intelligence agents who struggle with trust issues because their job requires it of them. Roberts questions Owen, Owen flips, Roberts reveals she's joking and trying to pull a fast one on them. Repeat to your desire three or four more times, the joke falling short over and over. As for Giamatti and Wilkinson, it's about what you'd expect. They're playing themselves in extended cameos, neither given a chance to do anything.

More than a few times during the slowly developing story I was close to bailing, but I stuck with it and was at least partially rewarded with the ending. It features a twist that works in terms of the story and characters, but also is surprisingly entertaining and unique. It is far from a happy twist either, adding a dark element to the already pretty dark proceedings. Not enough to recommend the movie, but enough to say 'stick with it' if you're struggling mightily to make it through like I did.

Duplicity <---trailer (2009): */****

The Ides of March

As friend and fellow blogger Chris said so succinctly in his review of this movie....politics are bad. Let that sink in for awhile. Comes as quite a revelation doesn't it? Check out his review HERE. I guess it's safe to say as a viewing audience we're not going to get many in the way of happy-go-lucky political movies these days. Yeah, recession! Political thrillers are usually pretty reliable though -- however familiar -- so I at least wanted to give 2011's The Ides of March a fair shot.

It is a week away from the all-important but not quite decisive Ohio primary for the Democratic party, and campaign adviser Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is riding high. He is second only to veteran manager, Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the campaign of Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a popular, likable and seemingly shoe-in candidate for the next presidential election. The Republicans have no counter for him so all Morris needs to do is gain the Democratic bid. Stephen genuinely believes in Morris, thinking he has a chance to help make things right in America where others will certainly fail. As the Ohio primary draws closer though, their Democratic rivals for the bid have news that could cripple the campaign, not to mention Stephen finding out something about the supposedly-perfect Governor Morris.

There is a certain comfort level when watching a political thriller. From older classics like Fail Safe and The Manchurian Candidate to more recent entries like Spy Game, the Jack Ryan films, and The International, it is an enjoyable genre to watch. You know what to expect going in; betrayals, under-handed deals, conspiracies, murder and who knows what else? While I don't think 'Ides' is a classic by any means, I can say I enjoyed it. The story telegraphs everything that's going to happen -- okay, there's a twist here and there -- and the characters are stock characters we've all seen before and will see again. It isn't particularly unique, new, or even that memorable, but in the moment? It's good enough. Put as much talent together as was involved here (Clooney also directed and wrote), and it's hard to mess that up.

A star on the rise, Gosling had quite a year in 2011 with starring roles here and also in Drive and Crazy, Stupid Love.  I'm not completely sold on him yet, but I think there's potential if nothing else. Just 31 years old, he is excelling of late at playing that smart, preppy, well-spoken young man able to get what he wants because he's smooth, charming and likable. In other words? Feels like he's playing himself. Of all the characters though, Gosling's Stephen is given the only real character arc from beginning to end. It sounds dumb, but it is cool to actually see a character change some over the course of a film. It is a somewhat obvious change -- idealistic and naive to bitter and manipulative -- but because Gosling is so likable, I went along for the ride. His character is supposed to be disarming and able to convince you of something without revealing he's doing that. Good if not great performance to lead the way.

The rest of the cast definitely comes from the Stock Characters 101: Political Thrillers Edition. If there was lesser talent involved, it'd be a dull movie to watch. Clooney is Clooney, a similarly charming presidential candidate who is respected and even loved by some of his followers. Some thinly veiled comparisons to the Obama campaign fall flat by the way. It's not an out of this world great part, but a necessary one. It amounts to what the Morris character means more than what we actually see. Hoffman is his typical solid self, intense throughout as the veteran campaign manager with far too many campaigns under his belt, Paul Giamatti as Tom Duffy, Hoffman's rival in the other Democratic camp. Giamatti is a scene-stealer in a small but very effective supporting role. Evan Rachel Wood is also good if a little cliched as Molly, the 20-year old intern who similarly believes in Morris, but also has her eye on Gosling's Stephen. Marisa Tomei does what she can as a walking cliche, a reporter looking for a scoop and not caring who gets taken down in the process.

It is a story that is focused on politics so are we supposed to be surprised when we find out that everyone has secrets they'd like to keep to themselves? Nothing about 'Ides' should shock viewers, absolutely nothing. If the movie is at fault, it's there. While the twists and turns in the campaign are key, they don't exactly come out of left field. Jeffrey Wright as a Democratic senator who will pledge his delegates to Morris....if he gets a cabinet seat?!? Gasp! 'Ides' shouldn't surprise you. People making decisions not on like or dislike, but the bigger picture seems like Politics 101 to me. Manipulation, betrayal, blackmail, back-alley deals, under-handed arrangements, conspiracy theorists, all the ingredients of the game.

With that said, I did like this movie. It isn't a great political thriller, but it is a good one if nothing else. If it's not particularly original or innovative, well, so be it. A good political thriller can still be a good thing.

The Ides of March <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Planet of the Apes (2001)

So within the last few weeks I reviewed Rise of the Planet of the Apes, this summer's movie that is attempting to reboot the Planet of the Apes series/franchise.  As I reviewed, it was a surprisingly good effort, taking a concept that didn't need to be remade and finding something new and interesting about it.  What the 2011 film confirms is how truly bad 2001's Planet of the Apes was, a straight remake of the original 1968 classic.

My curiosity got the best of me on this one. The original five 'Apes' movies are some of my favorites, and the newest entry was highly enjoyable. I've avoided director Tim Burton's addition to the series for years for a couple reasons. The biggest reason? I thought it looked like a pile of awfulness. More than that though, it looked like a dumbed-down, mindless remake that didn't need to be remade. I was in the right frame of mind though to watch it, hoping my enjoyment from 'Rise' might boost the 2001 version. Long story short? It didn't. The 2001 version is everything I was afraid it would be and more...or less I guess depending on how you look at it.

An astronaut/scientist on a U.S. space station in 2029, Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) is working with a large staff, exploring all space has to offer, including studies with chimps. As the station moves through space, an electromagnetic storm is discovered in front of them, Leo following one of his test chimps into the storm which turns out to be a wormhole. His pod crash lands on a strange planet full of jungle and deserts. Just minutes after crash landing though, he makes a bizarre discovery. The planet is ruled by a war-like tribe of apes, and the humans are slaves. Leo is caught almost immediately so what can he do? An ape general, Thade (Tim Roth), is suspicious of this more intelligent human, leaving Leo to come up with a plan. Can he get free and then get off this planet? 

This next part is going to sound stupid, but I can't come up with a smart, semi-intelligent way to say it. You're watching a movie called 'Planet of the Apes,' right? It's clear at some point a human main character will discover he's on a planet ruled by intelligent apes, right? With the 1968 original, there's a sense of mystery, and when the apes are revealed in the human-hunting scene, there is a genuine shock and surprise...even knowing it's coming. That is a fundamental problem of Burton's 2001 remake. Wahlberg's Leo crash lands, runs, sees intelligent apes and never seems to question what's going on. He just goes along with it. To a point, Burton and the script seem to take that element for granted, assuming the audience just isn't going to be shocked/surprised and throwing that chance aside.

As I brought up in the 'Rise' review, there was a cheese-ball charm to the original, humans dressed up as apes. 'Rise' went the other route with computer-generated apes (<---that sounds cool). 2001's 'Planet' is somewhere in between, but the effort falls short. The apes, gorillas and chimps are both too human and too simian-based. At times, they are like skittish cats, and other times are far too much like humans. Also, monkeys apparently can leap hundreds of feet into the air from a stand-still. Who knew? Roth's Thade is too over the top as a villain, finding a way to be both unintentionally funny and not intimidating at the same time. Helena Bonham Carter is Ari, a sympathetic monkey, Michael Clarke Duncan is the angry army ape, Paul Giamatti is a finnicky slave-trading monkey, David Warner is a monkey senator, and even Charlton Heston himself -- star of the original Apes movie -- makes a quick appearance.

Now as much as I like Mark Wahlberg, I think he is not the right choice here to play the lead, U.S. astronaut Leo Davidson.  Some of it is his fault as he doesn't bring a whole lot of charisma to the part, brooding and growling through his situation. He also never seems to question anything. If it's me, and I crash land on a planet ruled by apes....I don't know...maybe I ask some questions. In the matter of hours, Leo becomes this heroic human who all the slaves are drawn to, and I'm thinking....really? That's all it took? Punch an ape and lead a poorly planned escape? The script gives him absolutely nothing to do though so it's not entirely on Wahlberg. Also wasted in human parts is Kris Kristofferson as Karubi, a chief of a fleeing tribe, and supermodel Estella Warren as Daena, a young, babely human girl. I imagine at some point the script called for a random hot girl who had to do nothing except look good. She nails the part in that sense.

There is something missing in this movie that I can't put my finger on.  The look of the movie isn't quite right, appearing like it was shot on a poorly-built studio set. The ape village/town certainly looks pretty clean as does the whole movie. Jungle, village, expansive desert, it feels faked.  The whole movie is boring though on top of that. There is a certain B-movie campiness to it, but basically nothing happens, Leo becomes a hero, leads a revolution, and then there is a brief ape vs. human fight. The original explored in some depth the idea of what was happening, animal mistreatment, fate and destiny, bigger issues. Not so much here. Dumbed-down was pretty spot on, the final product a mindless two hours that doesn't even touch its predecessors.

And how about that ending? The 1968 original was a gem, one that still is remembered for its shock value. How about this one? Shock value, yes, but it makes absolutely no FREAKING sense. Burton has said in interviews he left it up to the audience to make up their mind, and that a possible sequel would have explained things clearly. That's a weak excuse on the part of a director. It certainly goes for a surprise, and it is that...surprising. But nothing is explained, and no logical, reasonable explanation comes to mind. You've got to watch it yourself though, and revel in the badness.

Planet of the Apes <---trailer (2001): */****

The Hangover Part II

So 2009's The Hangover was pretty fun, right?  Yeah, I thought so. It was that perfect blend of really smart humor, really raunchy humor, and just a genuinely good, funny movie that became the highest-grossing R-rated comedy of all time.  It was only a matter of time, wasn't it?  I was one of the masses to go to a midnight show last night for 2011's The Hangover Part II, a sequel to the comedy that regardless of reviews or word of mouth will no doubt make boatloads of money. 

For starters, yes, I did like the movie. I like the cast, and there were some genuine laughs.  But the second I heard a sequel was hitting theaters, my first thought was "Really? Where are they going to take this?"  Well, my concerns were legitimate. The Hangover Part II is literally the same movie as the original with Bangkok, the capital of Thailand (or Thighland according to one character), stepping in for Las Vegas.  I don't mean similar or with shades of its predecessor. I mean THE...EXACT...FREAKING...MOVIE almost scene for scene.  Oh wait, it's raunchier, a lot filthier, and it still manages to be funny. But don't expect an update or a tweak on the original. It's the same damn movie.

After the debacle at the bachelor party of their friend, Doug (Justin Bartha), groom-to-be Stu (Wes Helms) wants nothing to do with another bachelor party before he marries his fiance, Lauren (Jamie Chung). The wedding will be in a remote part of Thailand, and the whole crew is making the epic trip there. Phil (Bradley Cooper) is more than disappointed there will be no bachelor party, but he goes along, and of course, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is along too. The Wolfpack is reunited. They celebrate lightly on the beach only to wake up the next morning in a dingy, sweaty, nasty Bangkok hotel room. Lauren's 16-year old brother, Teddy (Mason Lee), is missing (short a finger apparently), and there's no sign of him. Stu, Alan, and Phil remember none of what happens and start to put the pieces together, all in hopes of keeping the wedding on.

That may have been the most needless plot description I've written in over 600 reviews these last few years. If I was in a lazier mood or hadn't enjoyed the movie, I would have either linked to the original's review or maybe more cynically, just said 'See the first The Hangover and repeat (in Bangkok).' This is my problem with most things in Hollywood.  The original movie was great, a truly funny movie that was original and unique and damn entertaining.  It was so good they just had to go back to the well.  I get it, this movie will make a bajillion bucks, and it's as close to a sure thing as is out there.  But director Todd Phillips -- and I can't make this point enough -- makes the same EXACT movie.

To a certain point, you just know you're in trouble when the lines 'It's happening again' is used several separate times.  Still, above all else and any complete lack of originality, The Hangover 2 is an enjoyable movie. The whole gang is back. The next-morning scene of the trashed Bangkok hotel room -- while not as perfectly made as the Vegas shot -- is a gem.  The reveal of what happened (Stu's facial tattoos, Alan's head has been shaved) is the gimmick because we want to know how it happened. Mr. Chow (Ken Yeong) is back for more chaos, and the debauchery continues. The Wolfpack is reunited, searching for 16-year old Teddy and hoping to find him before the wedding. The best is saved for the end, the reveal of what actually did happen, all courtesy of the pictures on Teddy's phone.  That is the one thing that is significantly improved from the original. The pictures are priceless.  Alan also has a reveal about the pictures from the first movie that is priceless.

Thankfully, the whole cast is back for more. Lame retread of a successful story, yes, but the appeal of the first movie and now the sequel was the interaction among the cast. Cooper's Phil is the unofficial leader of the group, basically a likable a-hole.  Helms' Stu is wondering if his future father-in-law is going to approve of him EVER, and is the dupe of all the worst stuff (see Face Tattoo if you missed that). Galifianakis' Alan is the weirdo, glad to be back with his "friends," especially with his man-crush on Phil.  Their chemistry and interactions make this sequel worth watching, a fair share of surprises revealed along the way. Their misadventures are amped up, and the shady underworld nature of Bangkok adds a whole other level to the story. Joining the cast is Paul Giamatti as Kingsley, an American businessman up to no good who needs the guys to bring him Mr. Chow. And yes, Mike Tyson is back for an odd, somewhat falls short cameo as himself.

All criticisms aside, I did like this movie. It is a blatant rip-off of the original that never tries to take another step forward.  The mystery and misadventures produce a fair share of laughs, and it's fun seeing the cast reunited.  Galifianakis not surprisingly steals the show again, but the whole cast is worth mentioning.  But as I watched the movie and things moved along, a thought came to me (I know, they're rare). At what point will Hangover 3 be out? It will be stupid, a retread of a retread, and will almost assuredly make lots of money. I'll probably be seeing that one too.  But I feel duped because I've paid to see the same movie twice...two years apart.  Funny from start to finish so it gets a positive review even if it does lack some of the energy of the first The Hangover.  Still good though.

The Hangover Part II <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Confidence

For every actor/actress you swear you see in every other movie ever released, there are those who are a little bit more picky with the roles they take.  For today, that's Edward Burns, star of a major movie like Saving Private Ryan but typically in smaller, independent movies that barely make a dent in theaters. Limiting his roles on-screen in front of the camera, Burns also writes, produces and directs behind the camera.  So with the few movies he has done, you've got to take advantage when the opportunity presents itself, like 2003's Confidence.

The timing of watching movies just seems too spooky sometimes.  Two days ago I reviewed 1973's Charley Varrick, a story about a small-time crook who knocks off a bank holding mob money. What's Confidence about? A team of con men who pull a successful con only to find out their mark is giving them mob money. Still, that's the only huge similarity in this overlooked, very stylish, sometimes needlessly confusing con job flick.  It bombed in theaters upon its release in 2003 and has receded into that sea of box office bombs.  It isn't anything different from so many other similar movies, but with an impressive cast from top to bottom it's hard to let this one slip by.

New in Los Angeles, Jake Vig (Burns) and his team of con men, Gordo (Paul Giamatti) and Miles (Brian Van Holt), run a successful con on a mid-level businessman that nets them $150,000. Bad news though, the money is linked to a crime boss known as the King (Dustin Hoffman), and the man wants his money back.  Instead of leaving town and going on the run, Jake and his crew decide to go to work for King, pulling another con job on a target of his choosing. Their target is a crooked banker with money laundering ties who has a past with King, but now Jake must figure some way to get to the impossible target. With a beautiful pickpocket, Lily (Rachel Weisz), joining his crew, he goes to work.  But when things start to come together, Jake finds out that an old nemesis of his, government agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia), is closing in on the team.

Directed by James Foley, Confidence is nothing new when it comes to the last con, the last heist, the specialists working together genre. It's well-made, polished, and stylish to a point.  The problem is that it's very aware that it's polished and stylish in its execution.  It tries too hard to be a cool movie at times. The script is well-written -- even if there are some unexplained plot elements -- but relies heavily on the use of the word 'fuck' just for the sake of saying it.  None of this is to say I disliked the movie, but instead it's just something I noticed.  The best examples of successful movies like this just are cool. They don't need to try, and at times this is that movie that so desperately wants you to like it that it gets caught up in itself instead of just being a good movie.

As is so often the case with movies with some major flaws, a solid cast can be a saving grace even if the materiel isn't up to par. Burns is a surprisingly good choice to play Jake Vig, this very smooth, quick on his feet con man who can pull a job off because he's 20 steps ahead of you. He can lie, manipulate and steal like nobody's business, and you won't even know you've been had when he's done. Weisz is one of the best actresses around in Hollywood today so it's fun to see her do more of a commercial, mainstream role. Her looks never hurt either as she pulls off a great femme fatale part that film noirs would have been jealous of. Garcia is criminally underused but does his best with an underwritten part while Giamatti and Van Holt look to be having a lot of fun in parts that don't require them to do much. Also worth mentioning are Donal Logue and Luis Guzman as two LAPD cops on Jake's payroll, John Carroll Lynch as the new con's mark/target, Franky G as Lupus, King's henchman, and Morris Chestnut as a gunman looking for answers.

From the time he burst into movies in the late 1960s, Dustin Hoffman was a star. Now in 2011 or here in 2003, he's an icon, one of the great actors in the history of Hollywood.  Here as the King, he's playing a role that is mostly a glorified cameo that requires him to show up for three or four scenes all told.  He gets to ham it up playing this crime boss who we're not quite sure what he's involved in.  Hoffman plays so perfectly off of co-stars like Burns and Weisz that he raises their scenes up a level on his own.  His King is a frantic, hyper and ADHD, and a lot of fun to watch.

It is a movie about a con so you know a twist is coming in the finale. This is where the movie tries too hard attempting to pull the wool over the audience's eyes.  It's revealed so quickly all the twists and turns are wasted. The best reveals are the ones that lay out every little thing so we know what happened too.  Confidence gets so wrapped up in trying to trick us too that even after going back and watching the ending again, I'm still not sure exactly what was going on. The movie itself is entertaining and never boring.  But at just 97 minutes, there is way too much going on. Nothing is allowed to breathe and develop, meaning actors like Garcia and Giamatti are wasted in parts where they'd usually shine.  It is still a solid movie that's worth a watch, but don't expect a classic.

Confidence <---trailer (2003): ***/****

The Illusionist

So let's talk about some magic, huh? Who's excited?!?  Since we were all little kids, there's been magic around whether it's the form of some crappy magician at a friend's birthday party, a B.S. Magician Reveals All show that explains the tricks, or even David Blaine being a toolish street performer.  But that's now, in the 21st Century.  Through points of history where there wasn't always oodles of entertainment around, people went to see magicians perform on-stage.  I reviewed Christopher Nolan's The Prestige last fall, and I'm adding the 2nd half of the magician movies that came out a few months apart from each other, 2006's The Illusionist.

Other than the fact that both movies deal with late 19th century magicians, it's really not fair to compare the two movie.  The Prestige has an epic feel to it with scope and style to burn while The Illusionist is a smaller movie that makes up for its lack of scope with some a real feel of what a period piece movie should be like.  Just because they're different doesn't mean either are worth passing up, they're both excellent, highly entertaining movies.  Watching 'Illusionist' though, I had the feel of a classic Hollywood movie in terms of the simplicity of the story but also the filming techniques.  Moral of the story? Check both out, they'd make an interesting double-bill.

In late 19th century Vienna, a magician named Eisenheim (Edward Norton) opens a show to huge crowds and critical favor with his vast array of tricks that he is able to perform. His tricks are not just sleight of hand and deception, seemingly having something deeper and more sinister.  Could he actually have supernatural powers?  One night on stage, he asks for a volunteer and a beautiful woman walks on stage, Duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel) the fiance of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), the heir to the throne. As teenagers, Eisenheim and Sophie were very close only to be torn apart because of their class differences.  Now as Leopold makes a play for the throne, the reunited couple plans to run away, but nothing comes easy.  A police inspector by the name of Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is on their trail trying to figure out exactly what they're up to.   

Without giving away some major plot revelations, that is about as detailed as I'm going to get with the story.  Know that the story takes a big turn about halfway through, but a good, smart turn.  It's not a difficult movie to follow but if I can say anything it will be this; pay attention because everything you see is not as it seems.  Director and screenwriter Neil Burger fashions a good old fashioned story that's a blend of romance between lost loves, the mystery of a magician and all his tricks, and the always reliable dogged detective trying to piece clues together as he goes.  With all that in the mix, the movie could have been overwhelming, but it finds that nice balance among all three.

As for the movie on the whole, it has a very distinct feel of a throwback to the classic Hollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s, albeit with the technology from the 2000s.  The film was shot on location in the Czech Republic so right off the bat, the story looks like it should, taking place in the events where the story actually takes place.  Novel concept, huh? Cinematographer Dick Pope puts together a beautiful finished version with full colors and great visuals.  At times, the corners of the screen are even fuzzy -- a little faded -- as if the movie was released 60 or 70 years ago.  He also uses some cool-looking, very stylish scene transitions that catch the eye.  Also, composer Philip Glass's score varies between a soothing main theme and a quicker version -- that still sounds time appropriate -- when the story requires a little brisker pace.

One thing that definitely caught me by surprise when I read about a magician story period piece was the casting.  Norton, Biel and Giamatti just didn't seem like appropriate choices for a 19th century period piece, but I guess the joke was on me.  As Eisenheim, Norton is able to go back and forth between this intense on-stage performer with this low-key man off the stage.  Then when pushed too far, this brooding anger comes through in an underrated performance from Norton. In the past, I've never thought much of Biel as an actress, but she nails this part.  She looks the part in period clothing and manages a believable accent.  The best performance for me though was Giamatti as Uhl, the police inspector balancing a desire to improve himself with a curiosity as to how Eisenheim does his tricks.  His last scene especially stands out in a scene-stealing part.  Sewell is appropriately evil/dislikable with Eddie Marsan good in a small part as Eisenheim's manager.

There's not much to complain or be critical about here.  The pacing early on can be a little slow, but it never drags.  The slower portions of the story are necessary so when some twists and turns do start popping up it's non-stop the rest of the way.  Also, I think Berger made a wise decision leaving Eisenheim's abilities a mystery.  Is he just a highly skilled, very talented illusionist able to deceive audiences, or is there something else there?  Does he have some sort of other-worldly supernatural powers?  I guess it depends on the viewer, but it's a question and a movie worth looking into.

The Illusionist <---trailer (2006): ***/****