The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

How do you explain the Holocaust to a little kid? For that matter, how do you explain it to anyone? One of the most horrific, truly awful things in the history of mankind, the Holocaust claimed the lives of millions as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis tried to wipe out the Jewish race among several other ethnicities and entire cultures. As difficult as it can be to fathom now, in 2013, how would you explain it to a child growing up in the 1940s? How about an eight-year old boy growing up in 1940s Germany? That question provides the background for one of the best movies I've seen in quite awhile, 2008's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

It's Berlin in the 1940s, and a young boy named Bruno (Asa Butterfield) is more than upset when his father, a S.S. officer (David Thewlis) in the German army has received a promotion, one that requires the family to a new posting and home in the countryside. Removed from his friends and isolated in the country, Bruno hates the new home. One day, exploring in the woods beyond the house, young Bruno finds an expansive barbed-wire fence, a little boy, Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), wearing pajamas sitting on the other side. The boy sees other people dressed just like Shmuel and assumes they're living on some sort of farm, but he can't tell for sure. From his tutor, from his sister, from his father's fellow officers, he hears about how the Germans are the master race, the Jewish people one step above scum. Bruno tries to get answers of what's going on, but nothing seems to click for him, his friendship with Shmuel seemingly one of the few positives he does have.

Semi-SPOILERS if you want to skip this paragraph, Semi-SPOILERS. Bruno's father is the new commandant of a concentration camp tasked with exterminating thousands of Jews and other ethnicities. His father -- unnamed -- keeps the secret from his family, especially Bruno, and it's only after living there for several months that Bruno's mother (Vera Farmiga) figures it out and is horrified at the truth. The camp is never identified by name and for the most part it isn't shown clearly. We get glimpses of what's going on, hear some conversations, see some paperwork about massive crematoriums, but nothing is ever aggressively shown to the audience....with one major exception. I think it's a great stylistic choice because we hear/see what Bruno hears and sees. We're left to draw our own conclusions without anything obvious. End of SPOILERS.

Based off a novel from author John Boyne and directed by Mark Herman, this is a beautifully told, unsettling, tragic film that I can't recommend enough. Will you like it? It's hard to say you "like" a Holocaust movie, but this was an excellent film from beginning to end. Movies about the Holocaust are typically seen from two perspectives; the prisoners and the Nazis/Germans in charge of the camps. How different is it then to tell this story through the eyes of a curious, friendly, lonely 8-year old boy? It's a perfect storytelling device. It is a World War 2 movie, a Holocaust movie, but because it isn't handled directly with the subject matter, there's a certain charm to it, both good and bad. There is a beauty to the film in its visual look and appearance. Filming out in the countryside goes a long way in its natural beauty, comparing it to the cold, sparsely decorated house that reflects the quickly-turning opinion on what's going on.

So go figure, a movie about the Holocaust is really more of a coming of age story. This is a movie about an eight-year old boy growing up, albeit in one of the world's most turbulent, violent periods in history. The recent star of Ender's Game, Butterfield delivers an amazingly real, personal and heartbreaking performance as young Bruno. He's proud of his Father because boys should be proud of their fathers, even if he questions exactly what his father's job is. He loves reading adventures, exploring the woods, all the things a little boy should do. Bruno is also looking for a friend and finds it across a barbed wire fence in Shmuel, a young Jewish boy who's always hungry but enjoys just sitting and talking to Bruno. Their unlikely friendship is perfectly handled, Bruno curious to what's going on, Shmuel not sure how to explain what is going on, only knowing whatever it is, it isn't right.

The performances across the board are pretty perfect, starting with Butterfield and Scanlon as the two boys. Farmiga does a fine job as Bruno's mother, supportive of her husband but not fully knowing what he's in charge of. I did question why/how she couldn't know what he has been assigned to do, but it provides an interesting character arc for her. Thewlis as the Father/commandant is a difficult character to wrap my head around, a loyal soldier, committed to his duty, blind to the horror he's been assigned to do. Amber Beattie is very good as Bruno's sister, Gretel while Richard Johnson is memorably obtuse as their grandfather, a loyal German. Also worth mentioning are Rupert Friend as Lieutenant Kotler, Father's right-hand man, Jim Norton as Herr Lizst, the children's tutor, and David Hayman as Pavel, a Jewish man who does odd jobs around the new house after they move in. Is it weird all these Germans have English accents? Sure, but reviews that point that out are simply missing the point.

This was a movie I couldn't quite figure out. I was never quite sure where it was going, knowing there an end game here, a message that would land heavy, hard and effective. I'm not going to reveal anything or give away any spoilers, but the ending here is beyond heartbreaking, composer James Horner's score bringing it to life (sounded a little like A Beautiful Mind and Enemy at the Gates). I was pretty much ruined for the day after seeing the finale. Unbelievably tragic, heartbreaking, incredibly moving, any and all, it's an amazingly emotional ending. Maybe this isn't a movie to truly enjoy, but to experience. A must-see.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008): ****/****

Safe House

Denzel Washington is one of a rare breed in Hollywood. He's an Academy Award-winning actor who has shown that regardless of the role he's in, he is truly an actor. On the other side, he's also a movie star, a true movie star. There aren't many actors/actresses around who have the cache that Washington does. Oh, he's in a new movie? Sign me up. It doesn't hurt that with 2012's Safe House, it's also a good movie.

Having been stationed in Cape Town, South Africa for 12 months, CIA agent Matthew Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is at the end of his rope. His lone task is to care for and watch over a CIA safe house, one that in his year on duty has seen absolutely zero visitors. That is, until now. One day, a CIA extract team (led by Robert Patrick) arrives at the safe house with a prisoner, Tobin Frost (Washington), a rogue agent suspected of selling intelligence secrets to the highest bidder. Before the interrogation can begin though, the safe house is attacked with Tobin as the target. Weston takes him out and finds himself on the run, needing to hide long enough until help can arrive. What isn't Tobin telling him though? And how did the attackers know the time and place to attack? Someone most definitely wants Tobin dead, and Weston may be the collateral damage.

An espionage thriller set in South Africa with Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, and a crew of more than reliable actors in supporting roles? Oh, count me in. From director Daniel Espinosa, Safe House doesn't break new ground in the genre. There is a familiarity with the story and characters, but not that overdone feel of having seen everything done before and done to death. With its washed out colors and quick editing, it has the look and feel of a Tony Scott flick crossed with a Jason Bourne movie. It isn't like those movies, just similar. Espinosa handles the twisting, fast-moving story very professionally. As a viewer, you're always aware the revelations are coming (somewhat predictably), but the enjoyment comes from the ride along the way. The action is impressive, but there's not too much. The twists make sense and fit logically into the story. And the characters? Stock characters from the spy/espionage genre, but good ones at that.

Much of the appeal from Safe House will no doubt come from Denzel Washington as spy come in from the cold Tobin Frost. Washington isn't the type of actor who's in 9 or 10 movies a year, picking and choosing his roles more carefully. When they come along, you've got to enjoy and appreciate them. When he's on-screen, Washington is effortlessly cool, making him an ideal choice to play a possibly rogue agent looking to come in. Tobin is a master manipulator, highly intelligent, very capable of handling himself, and ready and willing to use a wide network of associates and contacts to help his cause. His motivations are kept in the dark to a point -- left in the dark -- but it's clear he's fed up with living a hidden life. He's the one who sets the action in motion, and when it starts, it never slows down. There are very few must-see actors, but Washington is one of them. The actor and character leave you wanting more.

As his counter, Ryan Reynolds shows again why he's one of the rising stars in Hollywood. We meet him in the beginning; an inexperienced agent looking for actual field work, wasting away in a pointless job. He keeps secrets about his job from his girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder), hoping to get reassignment somewhere. As he's thrust into the world he's only dreamed of up to this point, we see a transformation, a young agent learning in a do-or-die situation. His comedic abilities as an actor have never been in question, but with parts like this and 2006's Smokin' Aces, Reynolds shows he is very capable of being an action star. Let's not talk about Green Lantern which looked like all sorts of awful. Most importantly though, Reynolds isn't overshadowed by Washington. Their scenes together keep things flowing when the bullets aren't flying. Tobin is playing Weston to a point so can the inexperienced agent figure it out and fight back?

Who else to look for? Washington is the drawing card, but there's no drop-off between him and the rest of the cast. Back in Langley at CIA headquarters, Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga play CIA supervisors trying to piece everything together. What exactly is going on in South Africa, and who's on who's side? Ruben Blades makes a quick appearance as Carlos, an old associate of Tobin's who helps him out as he tries to get out of South Africa. Patrick helps legitimize the small part as Keifer, the leader of the CIA extract team, with Liam Cunningham briefly appearing as an MI6 link to Tobin. Two other worthwhile parts include Vargas (Fares Fares), the killer tasked with killing Frost and Weston, and Keller (Joel Kinnaman), another safe house operative looking for any sort of excitement.

With a 115-minute long movie, director Espinosa keeps things flowing and never really lets up in the action department. Expansive, loud shootouts, harrowing car chases through Cape Town's crowded streets, and knock down, brutal hand-to-hand fights pepper the story throughout. The editing is lightning-paced, but you're always able to keep up and see what's going on. Thankfully, the brakes were tapped before 'Safe' reached Bourne-editing territory. The shaky camera never goes too far, but you do feel like you're there with the action. South Africa is an exotic, different location for the thriller as well, not the typical backdrop for an espionage story. A classic? No, but it's an above average flick with its fair share of unique qualities.

Safe House <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Source Code

The beauty of science fiction movies is that anything can happen. Can a real, red-blooded person do what is being portrayed in real life? No, of course not, but that is what a movie or a book or a graphic novel can do. They allow you to believe, to experience, to question, to ask, to wonder, and that's part of the reason what works so well in science fiction and across countless other genres.  That's what I thought about quite a bit as I watched 2011's Source Code.

Part science fiction, part mystery/thriller, 'Code' was a moderate success in theaters this past spring, earning over $50 million. Reviews were somewhat mixed, one claiming it was a poor man's Vantage Point because of a plot gimmick the story uses where we see the same (or at least a similar thing) on repeated viewings.  Just one more review that made me mad. It's not fair to compare movies at times, especially on something as minor as a plot device that has little to do with two completely different movies. Maybe you missed 'Code' in theaters, but don't miss it this time around. It is an above average, sometimes great science fiction thriller.

Army captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) doesn't know where he is or who he really is. He keeps waking up in the body of a complete stranger on a train outside of Chicago heading to Union Station. Across from him is Christine (Michelle Monaghan), a woman who apparently knows who he is. As Stevens tries to figure out what's going on, the train explodes as a bomb rips it to pieces, killing everyone on-board. He wakes up in some sort of hydraulic chamber, greeted on a television screen by an army officer, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), and a scientist, Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), who in cryptic snippets of conversation explain what they expect from him. A terrorist -- domestic or foreign -- bombed the train and indications are another attack is imminent. Through a controversial but innovative technology, Stevens can be transported into the body of one of the passengers just eight minutes before his death. He now is given the unwelcome challenge of finding out if the bomber was on-board, gathering any clues he can before he is "killed" over and over again. Can he do his mission in time though?

I'm not proud of that plot synopsis, but I think that's about the best I'm going to be able to do.  Attempting to explain too much will ruin your first viewing because the fun -- or the gimmick depending your level of cynicism -- is going along for the ride. How do all the pieces fit together? Is there something more sinister going on that we're not aware of at first?  All the questions are answered though, and unless I missed something major, I felt like the pieces fit together perfectly.  The science actually makes sense -- to my naive analytical, not so science oriented mind at least -- and doesn't try too hard to WOW! you with a new concept. Director Duncan Jones lays out the premise, explains it, and either you go along for it or you don't. I went along with it, falling for it hook, line and sinker. 

What took the movie to another level for me was the last half hour.  There was a moment where I got a little worried, sure the story was going down a road it just didn't need to go down.  I was wrong in my worries.  Some criticisms of the movie were about the ending, viewers and critics upset that the story went for a so-called happy ending.  I really couldn't disagree more. This is not a happy ending by any means if you actually think things through as to what the 'source code' really is.  Instead, we get an ending that is emotionally effective, delivering a message about the simplicity of life, enjoying the little things in a big world where it can feel like one person can't make a bit of difference.  Sappy? Maybe a little bit, but with ideas of fate, predetermination and destiny thrown around, the ending worked for me.

Now for the gimmick, and again, I don't want to ruin the movie for you by trying to explain the science. Here's a cliff notes version. When a person dies, the brain stores the short term memory going back about eight minutes. Imagine a light bulb being switched off, and that light that remains for the quickest of seconds. That is the source code, an alternate reality that exists in some other plane.  That is where Gyllenhaal's Colter Stevens continually finds himself in, always being killed once his eight minutes are up. From the director's chair, Jones never overplays the angle of repeating the same thing over and over, Ben Ripley's screenplay to smart to make that choice. The script has some fun with the repeating 8-minutes, making it enjoyable and never tedious for us. A truly unique premise, and one that delivers. If it fails, the movie sinks quickly.

One of the rising stars in Hollywood, Gyllenhaal is a great choice as the lead here. An actor who can also do thrillers and action, the 31-year old actor is convincing and believable in his part at all times. He handles the action and high-intensity scenes as easily as the softer moments, giving this character a heart as we find out his background (a surprisingly moving, effective sub-plot). Monaghan is good too in a part that through no fault of her own just doesn't have much for her to do.  She looks good though so there's always that. Farmiga and Wright are the opposite sides of the spectrum, those two people with all the answers, but will they be used for good or bad?  Four all-around really solid performances.

Quick addition as I realize the review is getting a little long in the tooth, the on-location shooting in my hometown, Chicago, is a great choice for this science fiction thriller.  The ending especially utilizes the beauty of the city on a crisp, clear fall day.  That's all.  Just wanted to put that out there. Chicago is awesome.

Source Code <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Up in the Air

I watch my fair share of 'big' movies, stories where the fate of the world or a country depend on one key moment.  Those tendencies goes well with war, action, Bond, superheroes, anything similar because a bigger scale is key to their success.  So watching those movies, it can be an enjoyable twist to just watch a movie every so often that is about one or two people and who they really are as individuals.  You don't need supervillains trying to take over the world, or a country about to go under.  It was a critical favorite, but I missed it in theaters, 2009's Up in the Air.

The economic struggles the world has gone through in the last half-decade or so sets the groundwork for this story.  Companies and corporations worldwide were forced into firing thousands of employees because the money just wasn't there to pay them their salaries.  Families and individuals alike were forced to improvise on the fly and adjust to their new job-less lives.  But what about when a company/corporation wanted nothing to do with the actual firing process?  That's where Up in the Air steps in with the always cool, always suave George Clooney handling the firing duties.

Working for a nameless company, middle-aged Ryan Bingham (Clooney) spends 300-plus days a year traveling across the country going from company to company helping them fire their employees one-by-one in  a face to face situation.  It's a horrific job, but Bingham is good at it, and even weirder than that, he likes it.  Bingham lives out of his suitcase and dreads the time he has to spend at his bland, sparsely decorated apartment in Omaha.  He's called back to headquarters though where a new hire fresh out of college, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), has brought in a new technology that will erase the need for Ryan and his co-workers to travel to these places, instead firing people on a computer.  But first, Ryan's boss (Jason Bateman) wants him to take Natalie on the road for a few weeks and show her how it's really done.

Nominated for a handful of Oscars including Best Picture, Best Directing, and three different acting categories, it's easy to see why director Jason Reitman's movie did so well critically and in theaters pulling in over $80 million.  Just like Reitman's Juno, it's a slick, professionally made movie that reeks of talent in front of and behind the camera.  The dialogue is quick and sharp as the characters talk in ways that ordinary people could never sound like, and the story has a visual edge as Ryan's airport/hotel life is shown in detail, quick cuts and all.  This might sound negative, but it really isn't.  It sounds like I'm resenting a movie that is well-made, but if anything it's too well-made.

Starting with the casting, the three main parts are all home run roles, all of them earning an Oscar nomination but none of them winning.  Clooney is a great actor, and about as safe as an actor currently out there in terms of turning in a great performance.  He somehow makes Ryan a likable character even though there's not much to root for in terms of personality, beliefs, or principles.  Bingham is charming though and that always helps.  He has an interesting relationship with a woman, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who is basically the female version of him. Neither is really looking for any sort of commitment, and in that way they bond.  Playing Natalie, Kendrick is the anti-Ryan so she naturally clashes with him, especially forced to work with him on the road.

Joining Bateman in the supporting cast is a handful of comedic actors who get to show their dramatic chops off.  In some cases, their appearances aren't anything more than a minute or two, but even with a limited amount of time they come across well.  J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifianakis play two employees at different companies Ryan must fire, each of them handling the news in their own unique way.  Melanie Lynskey and Danny McBride (in dramatic scene-stealing mode, one monologue especially) play Ryan's sister and her husband-to-be with Amy Morton playing the sister trying to bring the family together.  Also look for Sam Elliott to make a quick appearance.  In a nice touch, Reitman also had actual fired employees play themselves in many scenes, giving an authentic feel to these already difficult scenes.

For me I thought the movie was at its best when sticking with Ryan -- and later Natalie -- on the road as they travel from airport to airport, always moving to another company that needs help.  There's drama, some dark humor thrown in, and a style that is visually pleasing and enjoyable to watch.  The story goes downhill a bit at Ryan's sister's wedding though, and even though it features some fine moments, it feels a little off.  The last 30 minutes featured a twist that I saw coming but was still bothered by it because one, it brings up some big plot holes, and two, I didn't like the revelation a character makes.  Still, the first hour builds up a lot of credit so the struggles in the second half aren't a deal breaker.

The ending itself is far from a happy ending, but it works for the Ryan character.  Depressing?  You bet, but it comes together for me.  Ryan's changed, but at the same time he hasn't.  He wants something else, but maybe he is too scared to look for it, or maybe he just doesn't know where to start.  It was a bit of a jarring ending, especially considering the last line.  You may not like the ending -- I didn't -- but for a realistic, feasible way to end the story, it fits together.

Up in the Air <----trailer (2009): ***/****