The Martian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interstellar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interstellar (2014): ****/****   

Good Will Hunting

Just a few weeks ago, I reviewed 1989’s Dead Poets Society, a film featuring one of Robin Williams’ best dramatic roles. It even picked him up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance. For me, it’s a push though when you stop and consider Williams’ overall acting parts. That conversation includes both Dead Poets and 1997’s Good Will Hunting.

Working as a janitor at M.I.T., Will Hunting (Matt Damon) has a pretty simple life. He works, reads, and enjoys hanging out with his friends in south Boston. There’s something special about Will though, something he only lets out in small doses. Will is an absolute genius, able to understand complex mathematical equations at will, an almost photographic memory aiding the cause. It’s more than that though. He gets in trouble with the law though, but when a professor (Stellan Skarsgard) at M.I.T. finds out what this janitor is capable of, he cuts a deal with the court to earn Will’s release. One of the requirements of the release is simple; Will must go to a psychiatrist and talk about his past, his anger, his life. He chases one away after another until he finally meets Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), a psychiatrist who finally challenges him.

Like ‘Dead Poets,’ I sought out ‘Hunting’ after the tragic passing of Robin Williams a few weeks ago. His death is still settling in weeks later, the tributes still revealing themselves as fans continue to realize what a true talent he was. Both for William’s performance and the entire cast, ‘Hunting is a gem, director Gus Van Sant helming a film that picked up nine Oscar nominations, ultimately winning two; Best Supporting Actor for Williams, Best Original Screenplay for Damon and Ben Affleck. It is the best kind of drama, a story interested in the people, the relationships, the real life drama. There are some true BIG dramatic moments, but they never feel forced. They feel very real. This was the movie that put Matt Damon and Ben Affleck on the map in a big way, a huge window into the talents they were and would become. The reason for revisiting the movie was unfortunate, but the movie itself is a gem.

The script from Damon and Affleck is a pretty perfect jumping off point. It paints a great picture of the characters and a true variety of characters. We’re talking full-fledged, red-blooded, 3-D characters that act and talk like real people. That starts with Damon’s Will Hunting. We learn as the story develops what makes Will the way he is, his checkered past littered with violence, his life growing up in foster homes. Rocking an epic Boston accent, Damon kills the part. Will isn’t an easy character to like because he does such a good job pushing people away, but you’re rooting for him just the same. You want him to figure things out, to open up, to trust some. Damon is one of the best actors currently working in Hollywood, a true talent, and this is definitely one of his best.

Damon’s performance is uniformly strong, but the scenes that resonate the most are those in which he interacts with Williams’ Sean. These scenes take place in Sean’s cluttered, homey office, a lived-in feel for sure as Sean, a psychiatrist and professor at a junior college, gets to know the troubled Will. These scenes develop like a chess match, two professionals duking it out, looking for strengths and weaknesses. Why does it work? It plays effortlessly. This isn’t acting but two guys having a conversation. It isn’t always easy to watch, but it’s always fascinating. Will’s early “analysis” of Sean, Sean’s shot back at his brilliant mind, Sean’s explaining about his own past, including a great scene about the 1975 World Series and Carlton Fisk’s famous home run, they all ring true. A true talent in Robin Williams, bringing out the best in all his scenes.

Who else to look for? This isn’t a huge cast, but what’s there is prime. Helping give a window into Will, again, is the script as we see his day-to-day life, meeting his friends as they go bar-hopping, hang out on the weekends. Affleck is a scene-stealer as Chuckie, Will’s longtime best friend, loyal to a fault but also wanting his friend to reach out and take what he can with his gift, his mind. Also look for Casey Affleck and Cole Hauser as two other close friends. Minnie Driver is a gem too as Skylar, an incredibly smart med student who clicks instantly with Will but struggles to get to know him as he puts his walls up. As well, Skarsgard is excellent as a professor with a similarly brilliant mind but not one on the same level as Will. An incredibly talented cast, not a weakness in the bunch.

As I mentioned, this is a movie about the personal drama. If I delve into the story anymore, it’s going to involve giving away some great scenes that should come naturally in the process of watching the film. Me talking about it would be one spoiler after another. Great story, great characters, cool locations in and around Boston, and a pretty cool ending on so many levels. Well worth catching up with. Highly recommended, and again, R.I.P. Robin Williams.

Good Will Hunting (1997): *** ½ /****

Elysium

With his 2009 debut District 9, screenwriter and director Neill Blomkamp had a Debut. Yes, a capital D. It was that good, a science fiction story that was smart and unique, visually interesting and unlike just about any other sci-fi flick out there. Blomkamp has been patient though picking his follow-up, finally directing his second feature film, 2013's Elysium.

It's 2154 and Earth as we know it is no more. Overpopulation has ravaged the planet, the rich and well-to-do creating an immense, luxurious space station named Elysium that floats around the planet, allowing them to steer clear of the unclean masses back on Earth. In the slums of Los Angeles, an ex-con, Max Da Costa (Matt Damon), is making it day-to-day, working in a manufacturing factory on an assembly line for the Elysium-run Armadyne Corp. A work accident exposes him to deadly amounts of radiation, Max given just five days to live. Elysium has Med-Bays that can cure any disease, any ailment, but Max has no way of getting there. With his days quite literally numbered, Max takes a deal with a black market dealer to try and "steal" a rich man's financial information by actually hacking his brain. The chances of success are slim at best, but Max has no better alternative.

What I'm about to say I don't say as a complaint, just an observation. Is it just me or does it seem like wave after wave of dystopian science fiction films keep hitting theaters? From Oblivion to The Hunger Games movies, Total Recall to Looper and many more, we seem to be in the Age of Dystopia, well, in films at least. Even Blomkamp's previous film, District 9, was the definition of a dystopian film. Is it a bad thing? Can you have too much of a good thing? When handled correctly, I don't think it matters if a movie is, for the lack of a better word, "familiar." And don't be confused, Elysium is familiar but almost always in a good way. It's somewhat predictable almost from the get-go and if you've read anything from 1984 to Fahrenheit 451, you have an idea of where it's going. There are haves and have-nots, the haves doing their damnedest to make sure it stays that way. If that ain't a good jumping off point, I don't know what is.

In the same way Blomkamp's 'District' was unique, so is 'Elysium.' Again writing the screenplay and directing, Blomkamp does what the best science fiction films do. He creates a world that is original, unsettling, realistic and quite a window into our society in the present. It works because it is rather easy to see our 2014 Earth becoming the 2154 Earth of Elysium. Overpopulation is a very real threat so it's easy to see developing this way. The overpopulated masses left behind live in expansive slums, Los Angeles turning into slums as far as the eye can see, not unlike the slums in Rio de Janiero. They work for minimal wages, kept under the oppressive thumb of the government and corporations of Elysium. That power seems to be waning though, something the Defense Secretary, Delacourt (Jodie Foster), is aware of and trying to combat. From the technology to the transportation, the unidentifiable accents that the people of Elysium have developed, it's Blomkamp developing a world, all those little touches combining to make it unsettling and dramatic and realistic, maybe most importantly, a frightening world.

For this all to work though, we need some sort of human component, and that comes from Damon's Max, a doomed anti-hero if there ever was. His background is hinted at, addressed some in fuzzy-edged flashbacks (Maxwell Perry Cotton playing Young Max), an orphan who turned to stealing cars (maybe more) and ended up in jail. Now, he's trying to go clean when his life is shortened with the work accident. Criminal past aside, Damon's Max is sympathetic. With nothing to lose, nothing that can happen to him is actually that threatening. Still, he desperately wants to live, and that's why he takes a ridiculously suicidal mission from black market dealer and smuggler, Spider (Wagner Moura). We're rooting for Max from the word 'go,' and we want him to make it. The radiation exposure has severely weakened him, forcing Spider to outfit him with a weaponized/armored exo-skeleton. That Blomkamp, he seems to have a fascination with engineered/mutated anti-heroes. Damon hits all the right notes as Max, sympathetic, intense and driven like nothing else to survive.

Beyond Damon though, Blomkamp chose not to use much in terms of recognizable star power. The biggest name is Jodie Foster as Delacourt, the icy, greedy and high-reaching Defense Secretary. She's fed up with limitations placed on her shoulders, especially by the peacefully idealistic President of Elysium (Faran Tahir), even though results are demanded above all else. Blomkamp favorite and District 9 star Sharlto Copley plays Kruger, a black ops agent who does all the dirty work for Delacourt. I like Copley (really liked him in 'District'), but there are times he gets to ham it up too much, too many one-liners. Still, he's a terrifying villain, a possible unhinged and very capable agent. Alice Braga plays Frey, a childhood friend/crush of Max's, now a single mom with a daughter (Emma Tremblay) dying from leukemia, William Fichtner plays an Armadyne C.E.O. and a target of Max's, and Diego Luna plays Julio, Max's close friend trying to help his wounded friend in need.

Where Blomkamp has made a name for himself and can hopefully help him have long-term success is his storytelling ability. His sci-fi stories are smart, no doubt about it. But just like District 9, he blends in that well-written, message-oriented story with some great, heart-pumping and visceral action story. He still relies too much on the ultra-hyper, shaky cam techniques, but the action isn't as indecipherable as some movies. This action is fast, bloody and gets the blood pumping. The finale really packs a punch in the action department, Max loose in Elysium with Kruger and his two enforcers (Brandon Auret and Josh Blacker) hot on his trail. My favorite though was near the midpoint of the movie, Max trying to pull off Spider's crazy plan, robbing the memory of Fichtner's brains, not realizing he's stumbled into something far bigger than he thought. It's a big, loud action scene, full of slow-motion and hyper editing that works together, composer Ryan Amon's score adding to that pulse-pounding shootout.

Filmed on the outskirts of the slums in an isolated, sandy flatland, it's a great action sequence. That's what I like most about Blomkamp's movies. They're a good mix of the smart, intelligent and thoughtful with equal parts action, exciting throughout, and some pretty cool characters. It isn't a classic sci-fi, but it's still very good. Easily recommended.

Elysium (2013): ***/****

The Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Che: Part II

So where were we? Ah, yes, wrapping up director Steven Soderbergh's two-part historical epic about infamous revolutionary Che Guevara. My issues with 2008's Che: Part II are much the same as the ones I had with the first part. Interesting to watch, but in deciding not to take sides or pick a message, it remains a cold, even heartless movie.

It is 1965, six years since the successful Cuban Revolution overthrew the dictator and his government, and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is heading to Bolivia. After failed revolutionary ventures in Venezuela and the Congo, Guevara now hopes to lead another revolution, getting the poor lower class to depose a government that has become a military dictatorship. Driven by his ideals and beliefs from deep inside, Che starts from the ground up with a small group of like-minded fighters. Nothing comes easy though, and the walls begin to close in on Che and his followers.

Having watched Soderbergh's epic -- a total of 4 hours and 30 minutes -- I came away both impressed and disappointed. As moviegoers, we just don't see ventures like this anymore in films (in theaters at least). Soderbergh has made a true epic, one in principle at least that is reminiscent of such epics from the 1950s and 1960s. Principle and little else though unfortunately. Positives aside, I think Soderbergh made a fatal flaw in not choosing to take a side...even if it was a measured attempt. The fly-on-the-wall, quasi-documentary style is effective to a point, but not nearly as effective as it could have been. The story moves along from date to date (thanks to an abundance of title cards), but it feels like major chunks are missing.

This will sound ridiculous, but I've never seen a movie this long (Che: Part I and II) that had so little going on. It can be difficult to sit through some of these slow-moving portions, and there's plenty. Repetitious comes to mind. Countless shots of Che's followers traversing through the jungle, talking at their night camps, quick firefights with the Bolivian army. This is where a message would have been helpful. We know Che's objective; defeat the government, leading an uprising that will unite the Bolivian people. Other than a few brief asides as we meet some Bolivian peasants, the focus is on Che's efforts. I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and my frustration is getting the best of me so I'm moving along.

What does work? The darkness. The sense of doom hovering over Che. Part I had some humorous -- if dark -- moments, but there is none of that here. Also from the word 'Go,' we see that Che's Bolivian efforts will go for naught. His men argue over food, over working rather than fighting, and that the Bolivian people will not back him. Seeing him try to counter and combat those efforts produces some of the more dramatic moments. Del Toro again is solid as Che. It's such a quiet, understated performance that it's hard to judge to harshly or too glowingly. The film is a visual stunner, contrasting the deep, vivid colors of the towns and villages with the harsh, washed-out feel of the mountains. Alberto Iglesias' score is again a winner, a bright spot in the slower moments.

Beyond Del Toro though, no one stands out in the supporting cast. Demian Bichir returns briefly as Fidel Castro as does Catalina Sandino Moreno as Alieda, Che's wife, and Rodrigo Santoro as Raul, Fidel's brother. As far as Che's followers go, the movie swings and misses. We hear countless names but learn nothing about any of them. They're the same sea of faces covered by unkempt facial hair and green uniforms and caps. They make no impact, lessening any degree of effectiveness the movie is shooting for when they are eventually killed. Franka Potente plays Tania, a loyal follower of Che's, while Joaquim de Almeida plays Bolivian president/dictator Rene Barrientos. Jordi Molla and Yul Vazquez are effective in small parts as officers leading the hunt for Che. Also look for Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon in small, one-scene parts.

A ton of potential here, especially considering Soderbergh takes an honest, un-opinionated look at the life and death of such a divisive individual as Che Guevara. I came away feeling untouched though. When Che is finally captured and executed, the scene had no emotional impact on me in the least. Do I feel for him? Do I hate him? Instead, there's nothing, and that's never a good sign. I come away disappointed. I wanted to enjoy these more, but with no message or objective, we get four-plus hours of tedium. There are positives, but you have to find them amongst a sea of negatives.

Che: Part Two <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****    

Contagion

For a lack of a better description or word choice, there are a lot of hack directors currently working in Hollywood. No real specialty or ability, they point the camera and let things take care of themselves. Steven Soderbergh? He ain't one of those talents. I come away more impressed with each film he directs, including one of his most recent ventures, 2011's Contagion.

After visiting Hong Kong on business, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns home to her husband, Mitch (Matt Damon), and isn't feeling quite well, thinking she picked up a bug along her travels. The next morning she drops dead after going through a series of violent seizures. Mitch doesn't believe what he hears, claiming she was fine just minutes and hours before. It wasn't just Beth though. Something else is going along in various cities, regions and countries around the world. People are dropping dead with a variety of symptoms, a disease that the medical community can't quite pinpoint. The death toll grows and grows with each day. What is this new virus? Can it be stopped in time?

This is not an easy film to review, mostly because it isn't a film that's trying to entertain you. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of the wave of big budget disaster movies that hit theaters in the 1960s and 1970s. All-star cast in a perilous situation, who will survive? I guess it's appropriate that a 2010s version isn't an ocean liner overturning or a jet airliner struggling to stay in the air. Instead, we get a smart, well-written pseudo-documentary/medical thriller that seems more relevant in our time than any old disaster movie. Mostly though, it's not a movie you come away from thinking 'Man, that was great.' I finished it thinking 'Great movie, and a well-made one' but great? I don't think it wants to be great. It's content to be different from the norm, and I always give points for that effort.

That's where Soderbergh's film succeeds on so many levels. Yes, it is a feature film, but it feels very real from the start. Some of the director's touches are there -- title cards introducing locales and background -- but it is a very self conscious film for a 2011 audience. News spreads like wildfire of this new disease, Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet in general going crazy. News turns into rumors, rumors turn into chaos, and then it's the individual for himself. A condemnation of our society? Yeah, a little, but it isn't heavy-handed or forced. Instead, it's probably spot on in its portrayal of how our modern society would react in this situation. When survival is on the line, rioting, stealing, killing, everything becomes blurry. Where do you draw the line then as what's too far? Kudos to Soderbergh for handling the situation so smoothly and even effortlessly at times. Just one more sign of a very talented individual behind the camera.

His cast assembled here is an impressive one, starting with Damon as Mitch, a widowed husband trying to protect his daughter (Anna Jacoby-Heron) from something he can't see. It is an ensemble cast with pretty equal screen-time divided among the group, but Damon's Mitch is the most personal of the stories. Damon as always is very likable on-screen, especially when fighting for his daughter. And you know you're in for it when a big name like Paltrow is dead 10 minutes in. Oops, "spoilers" I guess. Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play doctors at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Fishburne working from headquarters, Winslet in the field trying to isolate the virus. Jude Law is perfectly slimy as a blogger with quite a following and therefore, a whole lot of power at his disposal. The beautiful Marion Cotillard humanizes a small part as a World Health Organization (WHO) doctor trying to find the source of the virus in Hong Kong. Jennifer Ehle is also very good as Dr. Hextall, a scientist/doctor working diligently to try and find a vaccine. Also look for Elliott Gould, Bryan Cranston, Enrico Colantoni and John Hawkes in small but important supporting parts.

With so many characters and storylines, 'Contagion' does bounce around quite a lot, but it never loses track of where it's going. Title cards show the day and location so we get a sense of how quick the virus is moving, the cells reproducing quicker and quicker. We learn what the virus is as the characters do. The movie has a very distinct look, colors filtered and washed out, the impending doom hanging in the air. Cliff Martinez's score is a gem, part electronic, part synthesized like so many solid Tangerine Dream scores. Listen to track one HERE and follow along with the other links for a taste of it. These are the elements that are easier to critique, but the movie on the whole is well worth recommending.

Don't be confused heading into Contagion. It is an at times very disturbing, highly upsetting story. It isn't always an "easy" movie to watch. Know what you're getting into, and I imagine you'll appreciate it more than if you thought were getting some glossy, superficial medical thriller. It feels based in reality, like this could easily happen to us in our current, modern society. And I'll bet you something. If you weren't a germaphobe before, you will be now. Washing your hands, not touching anything, not touching your face, all the little things I took away and have been on my mind since. A movie well worth checking out.

Contagion <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

My usual stance on remakes is pretty simple; if the original is good, why bother? If the original is awful with some sort of potential, okay, go ahead with it. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule. A minor classic in its own right based solely on entertainment value, 1960's Ocean's Eleven didn't need to be remade. If you're going to remake a quality movie, you better improve on it, and 2001's Ocean's Eleven is the rare remake that's better than the original.

After being released from prison following a four-year sentence, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has plans...huge plans. A thief and con man, Danny heads to Los Angeles where he signs on friend and fellow thief, Rusty (Brad Pitt), to join him. What's Danny's plan? He's going to do what no one has ever done; rob not one, not two, but three Las Vegas casinos and their impregnable vault on a fight night when over $160 million will be waiting if the job can be pulled off. The owner of the casinos? Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), the cutthroat businessman now going out with Danny's ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts). To pull the job though, Danny's going to need help so he starts assembling a team of con men, thieves and specialists. Impossible for this group? Nah.

This is a fun movie. There, that's all I really need to say. Everything else is just fluff. This 2001 remake is the definition of what a fun, entertaining, popcorn movie should aspire to. It's smart but not condescendingly smart. It's funny but it doesn't try too hard. It's ridiculously unrealistic, but who cares?!? Look at that cast! Director Steven Soderbergh made one of the most polished, stylish caper movies ever, improving on the groundwork set up by the 1960s Sinatra version. Las Vegas is a crazy, over the top place and that translates well to the movies. A score/soundtrack from David Holmes is a funky, cool retro mix of music, as fun and energetic as the story itself. HERE is the main theme. I defy you to not bob your head, tap your foot as you hear it.

The script is great here, the thing that keeps it all moving. It sounds so simple, a well-written script in a dramatic but not heavy drama film. It is a smart script without being in your face smart. Putting the team together, Danny asks Rusty "You think we need one more?" Rusty's face is buried in his arms, and he says nothing. Danny answers "You think we need one more," a statement now. He finishes "We'll get one more." The script gives a very talented cast a chance to shine and interact, especially Clooney and Pitt, but there's not a single character who isn't given a chance to shine. What came first in a chicken or the egg scenario? Does a good script boost a cast, or does a great cast make a script better? Short answer....who cares? The movie's great either way.

An ensemble-cast worthy of a 1960s epic, I still wonder how a cast this big was assembled. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Garcia would be enough for most movies but not here. Danny's crew includes Frank (Bernie Mac), the inside man working in the casino, Reuben (Elliott Gould), the former Vegas casino owner and bankroll, Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) Malloy, two brothers providing transport, Livingston (Eddie Jemison), the tech specialist, Basher (an uncredited Don Cheadle), the explosives expert, Saul (Carl Reiner), the aging con man, Yen (Shaobo Qin), the acrobat, and Linus (Matt Damon), a young pickpocket and thief on the rise. You couldn't ask for a better cast. The scene post-heist is a gem too, the team standing in front of the Bellagio fountains to Claude Debussy's Clair de Lune. Watch there <---- and listen HERE.

Fun and entertainment value aside, this is a heist film, and the casino vault heist doesn't disappoint. Now anyone who's been to a casino knows how ridiculous security is, but that's the fun of it. Could a job like this ever really work? No, but I'm sure Clooney, Pitt and Co. could pull it off nonetheless. A full 45-minutes, the heist goes down on a fight night, the 11 pulling a long list of cons and tricks to take down the vault. Things have been hinted at but nothing specific so seeing the twists and turns provide a great ride. Even on repeated viewings, the twists still work. How often can you say that? It's a great movie, one you can watch over and over again.

Ocean's Eleven <---trailer (2001): ****/****   

Syriana

When Syriana was released in 2005, reviews were almost uniformly positive, speaking of a dramatic story that was intelligent, well-written, and smart. I'm usually a tad-bit skeptical when I hear descriptions like that so I was wary going into the movie when we rented it after its DVD release.  Call it whatever you want, but less than 30 minutes into the movie, and I was bored to tears. I stopped the movie, not willing to wait it out until it got better. Well, since then I'd see the DVD at video stores or at Netflix, and I felt like in a weird way it was judging me.

So here I sit in late July 2011 having revisited the movie, a political, current issue thriller with a non-linear story focused on oil and all its effects on the world (mostly bad if you don't watch the news).  My second viewing -- first all the way through to the end -- was basically the same as the first viewing with a more stubborn point of view on my part. I was going to stick it out through hell or high water, fighting off the need to take a quick nap as the story developed s..l..o..w..l..y.  That's 'slowly' for those who didn't get it. I watched it all the way to the end, re-read reviews, read some plot descriptions and came away feeling the same way. Not impressed even though I felt like I should have liked it.

Before writing and directing this 2005 thriller, Stephen Gaghan was most well-known for his work with the screenplay for 2000's Traffic. It is easy to draw parallels between the two movies with a handful of stories -- seemingly different but all heading in the same direction -- with the oil business taking over for the drug trafficking business.  Syriana demands you pay attention to every scene (novel concept, huh?), but I say that having paid attention and still coming away confused. Call me naive or stupid in my movie-going and viewing ways, but just because everything is needlessly complicated and even unexplained does not mean a movie is "smart." It just means that someone, in this case writer/director Gaghan, wrote a weaving story that takes some odd routes to get there. He's clearly talented, but I felt lost with this story from the word 'go.'

The plot can be divided into four main storylines, sometimes connected and others times not so much. First, there's aging, veteran CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) who has caused some trouble for talking aloud about a problem he sees in the Middle East. His superiors are noticing him for the wrong reasons, sending him on a dangerous mission into the Middle East. Second, there is Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), an oil company representative involved with a multi-billion dollar oil company merger, but problems arise almost instantly, and his beliefs and morals may come under fire. Third is Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), an energy analyst working closely with the possible future emir of an immense oil field, Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) who isn't going along with U.S. interests. Last, there is young Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Muslim teenager searching for who he really is in turbulent, chaotic times.

As much talent is involved though with all these characters, the only one that left a truly positive impression was Clooney as Agent Barnes, a long-time field agent for the CIA who is at a bit of a crossroads in his personal life and his career. Clooney gets a bad rap at times for being a movie star, not an actor, but I think his acting ability is criminally underrated. At this point in his career, his Barnes is confused, frustrated and fed up, forcing him to make decisions he normally would not. The problem with the rest of this talented cast is that no one really comes to life.  You don't see Bryan Woodman, you see Matt Damon. Not a dig at Damon because it's a problem across the whole movie. In addition to all those names above, there are also supporting parts for Christopher Plummer as a high-powered oil executive, Chris Cooper as a high-strung oil rep, Amanda Peet as Woodman's wife, Tim Blake Nelson as an oil rep clearly in the crosshairs for his actions, William Hurt as Stan, an old source from Barnes' past, and Mark Strong as Mussawi, an overseas contact Barnes will use on his mission.

A day since watching the movie, I'm struggling to put into words why I struggled to get through this movie. At just over two hours, it feels much longer than that.  The non-linear story (read: confusing) is too disjointed and never gets into any sort of rhythm. As one portion of the story actually gets interesting, it jumps to another story. Mostly though, my issue comes down to boredom and lack of any emotion at all. Call it smart, call it well-written, call it educated. I was BORED, downright bored. I fell asleep again watching this movie...twice...forcing me to rewind and watch over what I'd missed. As for the emotion, there isn't any. The movie and all its intertwining stories keep you at an arm length. There are quick instances where you feel connected to the story or the characters, but they're fleeting moments. So I was bored and didn't really care about any characters, good combination, don't you think?

What next? I don't intend this as a 'I'm not smart so I'm going to lash out at the movie that threw me for a loop' rant regardless of how it sounds. Gaghan's script looks at all these different ways that oil affects the world, mostly in a negative way as greed, terrorism, corruption, betrayal and murder take over.  Is this supposed to be surprising, or am I just missing something? Am I that cynical? Is this supposed to be innovative, groundbreaking or in any way a new look at the world? I don't feel like it takes a stance that hasn't or hadn't crossed my mind at some point.

The one saving grace is the ending, brutally efficient in its effectiveness.  Honest and violent, it just works as we finally see the personal, human side of all these things.  Lives are lost in an instant because there are bigger concerns and worries at play, more than one individual's life.  It isn't enough to save the movie as a whole, but it does help Syriana end on a positive note, even if it is a little too late.

Syriana <---trailer (2005): **/****