A Poignant Look At Rural America - NEBRASKA

NEBRASKA

2013 - 115 minutes - Dramedy
Director: Alexander Payne
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.1
Metacritic: 86
RT: 91

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Gorgeous B&W cinematography
• Bruce Dern
• Quirky family relationships
• Road trip movies

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Slow-paced films
• Profane/crude language
• Potentially offensive caricatures of Midwesterners

I entered the theater looking forward to seeing Nebraska because of its intriguing premise and excellent critical reception. I enjoyed director Alexander Payne's previous film, The Descendants (reviewed on this blog by my colleague EE), but was not blown away; however, Nebraska completely exceeded all of my expectations. It is now by far my favorite film of the year (and I've seen many excellent films, including Gravity, 12 Years A Slave, and American Hustle), an incredibly poignant and touching glimpse of familial and social decay in rural America.

Woody (Dern) and David (Forte) on the road

The plot of Nebraska is relatively simple: 77-year old Woody Grant (an astoundingly moving Bruce Dern) receives a gimmicky marketing promotion in the mail proclaiming that he has won $1 million. After Woody attempts to walk all the way to Lincoln, Nebraska from his home in Billings, Montana several times, his exasperated son David (Will Forte) agrees to drive him there, allowing his aging father a chance to indulge in his fantasy. Thus the stage is set for a road trip that introduces the audience to all the members of Woody's dysfunctional family while showcasing social and economic decay across a bleak Midwestern landscape. 

Before I discuss the top-notch writing and acting of Nebraska (which comprise the backbone of the film's story), I'll begin by stating that the film's visual composition and cinematography perfectly suit the events occurring onscreen. Director Alexander Payne's decision to shoot in black and white is a masterful one. Characters and locations appear in various shades of dull grey, emphasizing the aging nature of the small Midwestern town of Hawthorne, Nebraska in which most of the film takes place as well as those who inhabit it. Long, expansive shots of the empty countryside and the dilapidated hamlets that dot it further reinforce the feeling that this region of the country is long past its prime, just like the protagonist, Woody. 

Woody upon seeing the old family homestead

Like all good road movies, Nebraska is more about the journey itself than the destination. All of the characters are fairly static, and the film lacks any grand, sweeping conclusion or message. Instead, the plot focuses on the inter-familial dynamics of the Grant clan, specifically the relationship between Woody and David. The characters don't necessarily change significantly during the course of the film; however, David's interactions with his family members and the citizens of Hawthorne (birthplace of Woody) reveal quite a bit about the history of the family and the town and shed some light on their respective declines. 

The excellent and understated script by screenwriter Bob Nelson allows the performances of the actors to come across as quite genuine. Equal parts laugh-out-loud hilarious and deeply sorrowful, the script never becomes preachy or sappy. I was genuinely moved by the story and the relationships between the characters. Some have criticized the film's portrayal of many characters as offensive, claiming that it perpetuates stereotypes about rural Midwesterners. I see where they are coming from, as a few characters (depicted as complete idiots) seemed a bit over-the-top. However, none of this ever truly bothered me, as such educational and vocational deficiencies are widespread in rural America. Additionally, both the director and screenwriter hail from that region of the country (Payne was born in Nebraska, Nelson in South Dakota). 

David once again attempts to convince Woody not to walk to Nebraska

In addition to its excellent direction and writing, Nebraska features some of the best acting performances I've seen all year. Indeed, every actor in the film (from the leads all the way down to the local townsfolk, played by non-actors) does a superb job. As many critics have said, Bruce Dern gives the performance of a lifetime, playing the worn-down Woody Grant so naturally he could have emerged from a documentary. Dern is both hilarious and heartbreaking, yet consistently compelling. He ought to be a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, and I wouldn't be surprised if he won it (he already won the Best Actor award at the Cannes International Film Festival). Will Forte also puts on a very genuine performance as Woody's concerned son, David. Typically a comedic actor, Forte portrays a son who has been continually let down by his father his entire life but is not willing to give up on him. In a supporting role, Bob Odenkirk plays Woody's older son, Ross, who is initially skeptical of David's efforts to drive their father to Lincoln but eventually joins in. 

Woody and his wife Kate (June Squibb) share a rare moment

Of special note, though, is June Squibb as Kate, Woody's husband. Kate tells it how it is with outrageous sass, telling off family members and deceased relatives without any mercy. I sometimes had trouble deciding whether to burst out laughing or cover my mouth in shock at her raunchy and deliciously crude lines. The film probably got an R rating solely because of her! Some of her best excerpts:

"I never knew the son of a bitch even wanted to be a millionaire! He should have thought about that years ago and worked for it!"

"I ain't fiddlin' with no cow titties. I'm a city girl!"

[looking at graves] "There's Woody's little sister, Rose. She was only nineteen when she was killed in a car wreck near Wausa. What a whore!"

Squibb steals every scene she's in and gives an absolutely delightful performance. She's been nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe - I really hope she gets an Oscar nod as well. 

Kate (Squibb) tells off members of the Grant clan

Alexander Payne's new film expertly balances humor and sorrow, featuring some of the best performances of the year, a top-notch script, and gorgeous cinematography. Accompanying all of this is a somber soundtrack by Mark Orton that perfectly mirrors the mournful nature of the film. Nebraska definitely isn't for everyone - it moves along a relatively slow pace (just like the protagonist, Woody) and is a bit over-the-top at times - but if you enjoy compelling dramas that offer a sincere look into the lives of ordinary people, you'll love it. My favorite film of the year thus far, and highly recommended.

-CC

As of December 26th, 2013, Nebraska is still in theaters. Check out the trailer:

Yet Another Sappy Holocaust Film - THE BOOK THIEF

THE BOOK THIEF
2013 - 131 minutes - Drama/War
Director: Brian Percival
Country: United States/Germany
IMDB: 7.4
Metacritic: 53
RT: 49%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: C+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Geoffrey Rush or Emily Watson
• Excellent cinematography
• Gorgeous use of color

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Ridiculous accents and strange language selections
• Sterilized depictions of war and death
• Slow, episodic pacing

Disclaimer: I have not read the novel by Markus Zusak (The Book Thief) upon which this film is based.

The Book Thief is okay. Just okay. Not great, not terrible, just average. Fans of the book should probably go see it to satisfy their curiosity, but I cannot say if the film serves as a faithful adaptation. Those who have not read the book probably shouldn't bother with going to see the film in theaters. If you're interested in Holocaust tales or the lead actors in The Book Thief, wait until it comes out online or DVD rental - it's not worth the price of a movie ticket.

The film focuses on the life of a young orphan named Liesel Meminger (played by an excellent Sophie Nelisse) who at the beginning of the story is adopted by the Hubermann household. Liesel quickly warms to her new papa, the benevolent Hans Hubermann (Geoffrey Rush), an unemployed painter. In contrast, her adoptive mother Rosa treats Liesel with contempt for a long while before finally warming up to her. The film chronicles their life before and during Germany's entrance into World War II and specifically revolves around the family sheltering a Jew in their basement.

Sophie Nelisse as Liesel Meminger

I'll start with what the film does well. Despite mostly mixed reviews overall, The Book Thief looks absolutely gorgeous. Director Brian Percival (best known by his work on Downton Abbey) has crafted a film that is very pleasant to look at. The camera moves austerely and deliberately, allowing the viewer to focus on interactions between characters. The cinematography features an excellent blend between personal close-ups and sweeping shots of both wintry and summer landscapes of the German countryside. The setting (shot on location in a small town in Germany) lends authenticity to the narrative and is quite beautiful in its own right. Also of note is the absolutely phenomenal use of color in the film. Blood red Nazi flags dot the small town where the Hubermanns live, children frolic through vibrant autumn forests, and steam billows out of trains rushing across the snow-covered wilderness. Despite all the other issues plaguing The Book Thief, it is a pleasure to look at.

In the bomb shelter

Aside from the stellar visuals, the acting also impressed me (for the most part). I love Geoffrey Rush, and he certainly did not disappoint (though his German accent was jarring - more on that later). Emily Watson also put on a fine performance as the strong caretaker who appears icy on the outside but actually has a heart deep down. I was particularly impressed by newcomer Sophie Nelisse, a 12-year old French-Canadian actress. Acting in a second language (English) with a German accent is no small feat even for seasoned actors, and newcomer Nelisse did a fine job, emoting childlike exuberance and tragic sorrow equally well. The rest of the cast were competent, if not spectacular. Many of the supporting actors (who I suppose were German) spoke their lines in a somewhat stilted manner, which brings me to my next point. 

Hans Hubermann (Rush) and Liesel (Nelisse) embrace following his return from war

Unfortunately, Americans are infamous for their intense dislike of subtitles. I understand that making a movie intended primarily for the US market in a language other than English is financial suicide. Nevertheless, the language choices and accents in this film irritated me to no end. The characters were all German, yet they all spoke English (with varying degrees of German accents, since not all of the actors were German); however, their speech patterns were riddled with German words, such as "ja", "nein", "und", "danke", etc... Additionally, certain characters spoke German throughout the movie. The book burning scene had the Nazi spokesman screaming in German (I suppose you couldn't have an authentic anti-Semitic rant in English), the school choir sang in German, and the gravedigger at the start of the film delivered last rites in German. Either have everyone speak English, or everyone speak German! Mixing the two completely shattered my suspension of disbelief and made me constantly question why people were switching between the two languages. Did everyone in Nazi Germany like to practice their English? This irregularity even extended into the books in the film! The covers were often in German with English text on the pages!

Aside from the strange language choices, a number of groan-inducing movie cliches also served to shatter my suspension of disbelief while watching The Book Thief. You have the scene where a character dives underwater and the camera pans over the surface for an overly-long period of time, leaving the audience waiting in "suspense" to see if he will emerge (and of course he does). You have the scene where a female character that displayed fighting prowess earlier in the film is suddenly weak and helpless when a bully beats up her best friend. You have the oh-so-classic scene where the family rushes to conceal the Jew hiding in their basement as SS officers are sweeping the street. You have the romantic who dies while professing his love. And of course you have the pointless narrator (in this instance, Death), who serves really no purpose at all other than providing a ham-handed introduction and conclusion. The list goes on.

Every family has their secret

Probably the film's biggest single weakness is the pacing. The first 2/3's of The Book Thief amble along at a slow but steady pace (though the timeline is somewhat confusing - the film jumps months at a time with few transition scenes). About 3/4's of the way into the story, the film suddenly throws climatic event after event at the audience as characters are sent to war or disappear only to reappear without any explanation at all. The viewer has no time to process what is happening. Then, the film abruptly reaches its conclusion in a very hurried and jarring manner. I have no problem with drastic shifts in pacing in cinema if done well and with a purpose; however, The Book Thief just felt like the screenwriter attempted to cram in all of the really important events of the book while leaving out everything else (a regrettable if understandable occurrence, as the novel is over 500 pages long). 

Liesel retrieves a book following the Nazi book burning ceremony

My final major qualm with The Book Thief involves the distortion of morbidity in cinema. (Obviously this doesn't apply to films that deliberately go over-the-top or are aiming for certain moods.) It is apparent that makers of the film were aiming for a PG-13 rating (which typically appeals to the widest possible audience and brings in the most money). However, I can't stand it when films obscure or sanitize death when depicting horrific events, especially historical ones. Near the end of the film, an Allied bombing raid kills many people in the town. As the camera pans over a line of dead bodies in the street, each one appears like a perfectly-embalmed corpse - perfectly preserved, no blood, etc. How exactly did they die? Did Death magically swoop down and steal their souls while leaving their bodies untouched? I imagine with the firebombs and collapsing buildings one would see crushed/missing limbs, severe head trauma, burn wounds, and the like. Maybe they died from a shockwave? I kid. But seriously, that's actually one reason why I prefer "serious" films to go all out on violence (even if it warrants an R-rating). PG-13 films sanitize violence and present it in a totally disingenuous manner, downplaying the realities of war and death. (Hotel Rwanda was one of the worst perpetrators of this phenomenon - a movie about mass genocide should not be rated PG-13, IMO). While I am not a huge fan of Schindler's List, it definitely portrayed the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust quite well in this regard. Just my $.02.

Anyway, I'll step down from my soapbox now. As I've stated previously, The Book Thief is an average film. It's by no means terrible, but it is nothing to write home about either. If you are interested, by all means go see it in theaters. But I'd recommend saving your hard-earned money for the slew of excellent films coming out this December, including American Hustle, The Wolf on Wall Street, and Inside Llewyn Davis.

-CC

As of December 13th, 2013, The Book Thief is in theaters everywhere. Here is the trailer:

"Sometimes Your Battles Choose You" - OUT OF THE FURNACE

OUT OF THE FURNACE

2013 - 116 minutes - Crime/Drama/Thriller
Director: Scott Cooper
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.4
Metacritic: 64
RT: 52%

EpicEnthusiast's Score: 8/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• character studies  

• stylistic films

• northeastern United States landscape

• Christian Bale and/or Woody Harrelson 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• violence

• slow-moving plots

• limited action

Scott Cooper's Out of the Furnace is a character-driven story centered around two brothers in Braddock, Pennsylvania. Russell Baze follows in his father's footsteps and works at the local mill in town. His younger brother Rodney is a soldier in the army, and returns home to seek a job when his service in Iraq is completed. During that search for work he goes missing, and forces Russell to decline insufficient law enforcement efforts and deliver justice himself. 

The story is driven by its characters as the characters are driven by their actors. Christian Bale, Casey Affleck, and Woody Harrelson lead a lush cast that blend fluidly and create a handful of very powerful scenes. Willem Dafoe, Forest Whitaker and Zoe Saldana are featured in supporting roles, but are all very meaningful in their own ways. The script that Cooper and Brad Ingelsby put forth is solid enough, but it's nothing special. Top-notch acting from everyone involved is ultimately what makes Out of the Furnace a compelling story. 

Christian Bale as Russell Baze

Bale plays the lead of Russell Baze, and conveys a subtle dominance throughout. Russell is soft-spoken and content on the surface, but has his fair share of troubles. A seemingly comfortable life turns for the worst when he drunkenly kills two people in a car accident, and gets sent to prison. His time inside is rough, but not nearly as rough as it will be when he gets out. He finds that his father has passed away, his girlfriend is now seeing the police chief of a town where everyone knows each other, and his brother has been traumatized by war. On top of all of that, it's rumored that the mill he's working at is going to be closing.

What Bale does best is balance the emotions of it all. He's still and collective when he can be, and firey and impassioned when he has to be. He controls the screen and makes it impossible to doubt that the movie is his. It's tough to compare this role to that of his as Batman in Christopher Nolan's trilogy, but it's right along side his leads in American Psycho, The Prestige and 3:10 to Yuma as one of the best of his career. (I've yet to see The Fighter, for which he won an academy award for best supporting actor)

Casey Affleck as Rodney Baze

Russell's younger brother Rodney is played by Casey Affleck, who I believe is one of the most underrated actors working today. (see: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) Perhaps he's a bit overshadowed by his brother Ben Affleck, but as he displayed in Out of the Furnace, he's immensely talented. Rodney is determined to find work when he gets back to Braddock, but is severely shaken up by his experiences overseas. He doesn't have any desire to work in the mill like his brother and father, and is ultimately lost. Affleck masterfully portrays a man changed by war who is simply looking for answers. He eventually takes up fighting as both a means of money, and a way to let off steam. He's quite convincing despite his lean frame, and gives off a real sense of anger, confusion and liveliness. Despite their differences, he meshes perfectly with Bale as his brother, and puts out a dynamite performance. 

"I have a problem with everyone"

Woody Harrelson is Harlan DeGroat in a role that reminded me of his lead in Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. DeGroat is a borderline-psychotic drug abuser that heads a fight club/drug cartel up in the Appalachian mountains near the New Jersey Border. He's the kind of guy that starts a fight for the hell of it, and won't hesitate to kill. I don't know what it is about Harrelson playing violent psychopaths, but it works. He dominates every scene he's in, and has you fearing that he's going to clock anyone he's talking to. It takes a special kind of actor to depict this type of monstrous character well, and although he was slightly over-the-top at times, it was a job well done.

The biggest flaw of Out of the Furnace comes from the plot and its structure. It has trouble transitioning smoothy from one sometimes emotionally draining scene to the next, and feels choppy throughout. It's not that the scenes weren't well done, but rather that their endings were occasionally abrupt, and it felt like events were being thrown up onto the screen in no particular order. They were in chronological order of course, but it seemed to me that the editing could have been sharper. Along with that, the plot contained a few minor, but noticeable inconsistencies. Certainly not any gaping holes, but a couple head-scratching moments, as well as a little disbelief. They didn't ruin the film by an means, but they definitely dragged it down a bit.

That being said, the strong acting and other redeeming qualities outweigh the above issues. Not only are the characters well developed, but they're captured wonderfully too. Cooper and cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi do a splendid job of creating unique shots of their characters, and immersing the audience in the landscape. It's very artsy at times, but steers clear of pretentiousness. The pleasing aesthetics may have come partially from renowned producer Ridley Scott, who constantly directs beautiful films. (Leonardo DiCaprio was also a producer, and was originally set to play the Russell Baze.) It was very much a movie that got much of its identity from its setting, and Cooper and company used it to their advantage. The soundtrack was also well chosen, and very fitting to the area and storyline.

The filming location of Out of the Furnace - Braddock, Pa

Overall, Out of the Furnace is a supremely acted film that uses its characters to tell a powerful story. Bale, Affleck and Harrelson give memorable performances, and are supported by a worthy cast. Uneven editing and minor plot issues hold it back from greatness, but it's well worth watching. I'd put it right at a 7.5/10, but I round up because of those performances, and overall production quality.


-EE


As of December 9, 2013, Out of the Furnace is in theaters.

"Wanna fight?" - ONLY GOD FORGIVES

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

2012 - 90 minutes - Crime/Drama/Thriller
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn 
Country: Thailand
IMDB: 5.9
Metacritic: 37
RT: 40%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 8/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• stylistic/artsy films

• films in foreign countries 

• unique styles/cinematography 

• Ryan Gosling

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• graphic violence/blood

• Thai language 

• slow pacing 

• seriously though: graphic violence/blood 

Before I begin, I'd like to note the very low scores above. They're certainly the lowest either one of us have ever reviewed, but they're slightly misleading. Only God Forgives is very much a film that you either love or hate. The IMDB score obviously reflects a lot of hateful reviews, but a lot of those users gave it a 1/10, which is simply unfair. You don't have to enjoy the film, but to say it doesn't possess any quality whatsoever is ignorant. A lot of the critics definitely didn't enjoy it, but five of them on Metacritic gave it a positive score. Also, for the 19 negative reviews, there are 14 neutral or yellow-coated reviews, potentially indicating that some quality was recognized, but still overshadowed by the film's content. I'll touch on this content below, as I think it also plays a role in the low scores. 

From the moment I saw the trailer for Only God Forgives, my expectations were sky high. I'm a huge Ryan Gosling fan, and I absolutely adore Drive, the first film he made with director Nicolas Winding Refn. Although I gave their second go-round an 8/10, I'd be lying if I said my expectations were completely met. But they almost were. For this review, I'm going to point out the main points of criticism the film has gotten, and then provide my take on them. 

The story revolves around Julian (Ryan Gosling), who is an American drug-smuggler operating out of a boxing club in Bangkok. His brother is along side him in the business, and when he is killed, "The Devil" (Vithaya Pansringarm as Chang) is summoned, and the violent revenge game begins. 

It's hard to watch: Yup. Even as a big crime genre fan, I'll be the first one to tell you that Only God Forgives is very tough to watch at certain points. Nicholas Winding Refn is known for heavy violence in his films, and although Drive is the only other one of his I've seen, I'll say that it was tame compared to this. There's blood, gunshots, stabbings, amputated limbs, lacerations, gauging, beatings and more. Even actress Kristen Scott Thomas (who plays Julian's mother Crystal) came out and said it was hard for her to watch. It's a brutal story and borderline disturbing, but it all served a purpose, and should not define the film in a negative way. 

The question becomes: is the violence necessary? And I would say to tell this type of story, yes it is. The setting is the crime underworld of Bangkok, which like any large crime-filled city, is certainly no stranger to violence. Not only that, but violence in Thailand is very different from the violence we're used to seeing in Hollywood. It consists of mostly gun violence, which is featured a bit in Only God Frogives, but is second to sword violence. Chang, the perpetrator of a lot of the brutality, is a retired cop who essentially still practices out in the city. He's from Thailand of course, and is a master fighter with both the sword and his fists. His development is very well done, and Refn makes it clear that his violence is simply part of his outlook; part of his culture. This doesn't make his actions any easier to watch, but it explains why they're there. 

Vithaya Pansringarm and Kristen Scott Thomas in Only God Forgives

It looks good, but that's about it: I can't emphasize the former enough. Only God Forgives is an absolutely beautiful film. Refn and cinematographer Larry Smith use a combination of vibrant lighting and masterful cinematography to give us a very clear picture of Bangkok's inner city. They take us through lavish nightclubs and dark alleyways with a certain stability and fluidity that makes it very pleasing to watch (despite the gory content). 

I think a lot of the latter criticism comes from a few aspects of the movie. One deals with that cinematography, and Refn's style overall. I get the impression that a lot of critics felt like it was overdone, or just artsy for the sake of being artsy, without any real purpose. As I'll explain in the next section, I didn't have any trouble recognizing the purpose, and I think the eurocentric style meshed well with the story's setting. I'll also touch on the characters, who I think had a lot of viewers wanting more. 

Some of the unique lighting in Only God Forgives

It's boring: While I can understand where this popular criticism comes from, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. I think some viewers being bored has a lot to do with the characters. Similar to his role in Drive, Ryan Gosling plays a very stoic character that doesn't speak a whole lot. In fact, he only says 22 lines in the film. But also similar to Drive, is the reasoning behind it. Julian is one of a few Americans in the Bangkok drug district, and from the very beginning of the film, we get the impression that he calmly watches from afar as people fight in his boxing club, and drugs move in and out. There's not much interaction until his brother his killed, and he plays the role of content leader. Even more so than his background though, is is mother. As soon as she comes into the picture, that stoic persona is taken to a different level. It's important to note Kristen Scott Thomas's acting here, because she plays an overbearing, convincing, and powerful mother figure perfectly. She freezes Julian, and has him in total control. Their relationship is very unique, but drives the film in a lot of ways. Most of the scenes with the two of them are there for development purposes, and show precisely why Julian is the way he is. Chang is also very quiet throughout the movie, but then again he's a cold-blooded killer. Refn's characters and their dialogue (or lack there of) are carefully depicted, and very well developed, but to some, it may have come off as boring. 

Julian (Ryan Gosling) preparing for a fight

Next is the pace of the film, which is quite slow. I imagine it was a long 90 minutes for some viewers, as many scenes moved about in a very methodical way. Along with his character development, I saw Refn's pacing as totally intentional. His goal was to put emphasis on those characters and implant their actions into our heads. Part of what makes Only God Forgives so hard to watch is the amount of time spent on certain images. They're wince worthy and piercing, but it's about conveying a message, and showing us how his characters react under those types of circumstances. I feel like a lot of people expected fast paced sword battles or bloody gang fights, but that type of violence wasn't relevant to the story. Not all revenge plots should be about relentlessly trying to kill someone else. They should include include thinking and logic. The slow pacing of the film serves as a developer, and emphasis placer. 

That leads right into our last boredom-related point: nothing happened. As I'm sure I've made clear, plenty happened in Only God Forgives, but not much in terms of action. Was it boring because an arm wasn't chopped of every five minutes? The climatic events of the film we're plenty for me, and I think they were made more impactful and suspenseful by the buildup in between. Perhaps I'm more patient than most moviegoers, but I was surprised at how many critics mentioned boredom in their reviews. I'd expect more seeing as they watch films for a living, and a lot of them being over two hours long. This is only 90 minutes, and I was certainly compelled for all of it.

The last note I'd like to make deals with budget. At a mere $4.8 million, the movie was produced for over $10 million less than Drive, and it looks even better. I'm sure filming in Bangkok had a bit to do with it, but to make a gorgeous movie with exquisite cinematography, special lighting, AND  another fantastic soundtrack for under $5 million? Really impressive. 

To end my ranting, Only God Forgives is simply a misunderstood film. It's masterfully crafted, visually stunning, and thoroughly gripping. Its characters are unique, and very well developed, and everything from the Bangkok landscape to the contemporary soundtrack will engross you. If you're patient and can handle the violence, I definitely recommend checking it out. 


-EE


After watching the film, I realized this trailer was a bit misleading, but it's still awesome:

The Odds Were Ever In Its Favor: HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

2013 - 146 minutes - Action/Sci-Fi
Director: Francis Lawrence
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.3
Metacritic: 75
RT: 89

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• The book (Catching Fire)
• Dystopian films
• Jennifer Lawrence (who doesn't?)
• Excellent writing

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• The Hunger Games book series
• Suspenseful sequences
• Some mild cheese
• Big-budget blockbusters

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is probably the most well-crafted and entertaining big-budget blockbuster I've seen since The Dark Knight. It is also one of the best sequels I've ever seen, along the lines of Aliens, Terminator 2, and TDK. After the relative disappointment of The Hunger Games, my expectations were not too high coming into the sequel. Fortunately, Catching Fire improves upon the first film in every way imaginable: direction, writing, acting, pacing, editing, effects, and casting - you name it, Catching Fire does it better. It is by no means a flawless film, but as far as purely escapist entertainment goes, it doesn't get much better than this.

May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor

Plot: Those of you who have read the book are familiar with the plot. Katniss Everdeen (an excellent-as-always Jennifer Lawrence), victor of the 74th annual Hunger Games, has become a symbol of the growing rebellion of the districts against the Capitol of Panem. To stifle dissent, Katniss and fellow District 12 champion Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are thrown into the 75th Hunger Games - the so-called 3rd Quarter Quell, a special edition of the Games consisting entirely of previous victors. While this may sound similar to the first movie (and it is), the way the plot is structured makes for a much more satisfying movie overall. Less time spent in the actual Games, more time spent developing the characters and the plot. 

Direction: Much like how Alfonso Cuarón took the Harry Potter film franchise to new heights with The Prisoner of Azkaban, Francis Lawrence has proved to be a highly competent director, transforming the series from a merely mediocre adaptation to something truly excellent. I was somewhat skeptical upon hearing that Lawrence had taken over direction from Gary Ross, given that he doesn't have much of a cinematic track record (aside from the so-so I Am Legend), but he totally knocked it out of the park. Gone are the unnecessary shaky camera and extreme close-ups of the first film that served no purpose other than to obscure action sequences. Instead, Lawrence pulls the camera back and lets us see what is going on (including the acual violence, which is quite satisfying). No longer do we have to endure sanitized violence and quick cuts away from the kills; instead we see everything on screen. Even the blood and gore got amped up a little bit - I can see why Catching Fire was almost slapped with an R rating.

By this point, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is a seasoned killer

Writing: More than any other aspect of the film, the script is a HUGE improvement over the first film - not altogether unsurprising given that the two screenwriters have several Oscar nominations (and one win) between them. The screenplay gives the actors a ton to work with, balancing exposition, action, humor, and sorrow expertly. There are a few scenes where the writing gets cheesy and sappy in the style of most blockbusters (including a completely unnecessary 'love' scene between Katniss and Peeta), but on the whole I was very impressed. I really appreciated how all of the supporting characters got their moment to shine. Characters that barely had anything to say in the first film (Gale, Effie, Haymitch) have expanded roles, while new additions are fully realized as well.

The District 12 Victors prior to the reaping for the 75th Hunger Games

Pacing/Editing: Thanks in large part due to Francis Lawrence's excellent direction, the film just flows extremely well. Action sequences are expertly crafted and edited, with a good balance between suspenseful anticipation and full-out combat. I was very impressed by the pacing overall. The actual Games don't start until more than halfway into Catching Fire, but like the first film, I actually enjoyed it more prior to the hostilities breaking out. Scenes between different characters (both antagonists and protagonists) are juxtaposed effectively against each other, as are action and non-action scenes. Despite its 2.5 hour run-time, I felt the pacing was spot on - never too fast nor too slow (quite the achievement, given the nature of big action/adventure films). By allowing for such a significant portion of the film to focus on drawing the audience into the world of Panem and introducing/developing the various characters, I was much more invested in the action once it started. 

An unfortunate victim of Capitol punishment (pun intended)

Acting: Like the screenplay, the acting in Catching Fire represents a huge step up from the first film. (On a side note, it's funny how acting quality seems so inextricably linked with the quality of the script. I wish more filmmakers understood or cared about this.) Jennifer Lawrence now has more substantive material to display her ample acting chops, and does not disappoint, conveying everything from extreme grief to raging anger. The supporting cast is absolutely spot on in every way. All of the returning actors are much improved from the first film. Woody Harrelson is great once again as Haymitch Abernathy, hilarious yet touching. Liam Hemsworth as Gale actually has more than two lines, which is really great! Donald Sutherland is appropriately menacing as President Snow, while Stanley Tucci once again perfectly embodies Caesar Flickerman. Elizabeth Banks is actually quite touching as Effie Trinkett; she has quite a few lines in Catching Fire, portraying Effie's oblivious yet caring nature perfectly.

The new faces to the franchise are for the most part excellent. Sam Claflin captures Finnick's charm and confidence expertly. Phillip Seymour Hoffman seems a little bit out of place, but performs well as usual. Overshadowing nearly everyone else in the entire movie though, is Jena Malone as Johanna Mason. Malone has come a long way since she portrayed the quiet Gretchen Ross in 2001's Donnie Darko. She brings the feisty and vicious Johanna to life in every way possible, stealing every scene she's in. Her performance was one of my favorite things about the entire movie - very memorable and just spot on.

Jena Malone as Johanna Mason

Production: The film's $130 million budget definitely shines in this regard. Production values are way up from the first film. The CGI actually looks passable for the most part, the sets varied and convincing, and the costumes, my god! Whoever did the costume design/makeup for this film deserves as Oscar. I have never seen so many varied and creative costumes in a single film - absolutely spectacular. From Effie's butterfly dress to Katniss' wedding gown to all the residents of the Capitol, I was blown away. Overall, the film's excellent production values facilitated my immersion in its story and world - quite the achievement for a movie of this type.

Even the film's promotional posters looked good...

Now at this point it seems like I've been praising the film to the high heavens for a while. Let me make myself clear: Catching Fire is by no means perfect. There are a few cheesy scenes from time to time, and the performances, while all excellent, are by no means Oscar-worthy. The music is largely recycled from the first film, and aside from the main theme, not very exciting to boot. Though the pacing for the most part is outstanding, the last 30 minutes or so of the film are somewhat erratic and not as convincing. Like the first film, the best parts of Catching Fire all occur prior to the start of the Games.

Despite these relatively minor details, Catching Fire is one of the most exciting and well-made blockbusters I've seen in a long time. Fans of the book will rejoice, for it is an exceedingly faithful adaptation. Fans of the first film will also rejoice, for the sequel is superior in every way possible. And people new to the franchise will probably love it as well - it's wildly entertaining and very engaging. Though it's no Citizen Kane, Catching Fire is about as good as Hollywood blockbusters get. It's shallow, escapist, entertainment, yes, but it is incredibly well-crafted shallow, escapist, entertainment. Lots of fun!

-CC

Artsy Assassins and Subtle Substance - THE AMERICAN

THE AMERICAN 

2010 - 105 minutes - Crime/Drama/Thriller
Director: Anton Corbijn 
Country: United States
IMDB: 6.3
Metacritic: 61
RT: 66%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• crime/assassins

• visually appealing films

• real-life sets/Italian landscape 

• George Clooney

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• violence

• nudity

• slow pacing 

• Italian language 

Anton Corbijn's The American has received some mixed reviews, and my score certainly contrasts the numbers from IMDB, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. What I'll say is the film is very much dependent on how the viewer perceives it, as well as how patient they are. 

The story revolves around an American assassin, Jack/Edward, who is forced to hide out in rural Italy after an ambush of Swedish counterparts. He's near the end of his career, and ultimately requests to get out of the game by the end of the film. In the seemingly quaint and quiet town of Castel De Monte, basic human desires end up getting Jack into trouble. 

Perhaps the lone aspect of the film that can't be debated is its visual presence. In both its production and its physical setting, The American is beautiful. Corbijn is an avid photographer, and his perspective proved extremely beneficial. He takes us through breathtaking parts of Sweden and Italy, and gives 

The primary setting of The American, Castel De Monte, Italy

us engaging shots of the characters and their surroundings. It felt european in its style, and captured a unique Italian culture. Some critics have called it pretentious or meaningless, but I didn't see any lack of purpose, and felt engrossed in the atmosphere throughout. It's one thing to shoot something in a certain way for the sake of doing it, but if it helps establish a setting and/or gives the audience an unexpected angle, I usually won't have an issue with it. A lot of those type of shots were featured in Corbijn's film,
and if nothing else, it was pleasing to look at. Not to mention George Clooney's face, which is attractive in any setting. 

George Clooney in The American

Speaking of Clooney, his performance is dominant, and worth noting. He's known for more comedic roles, but has proved capable of serious ones too with films like Michael Clayton, Syriana, and now The American. Here, his character is static and doesn't say much, but his actions and expressions are what develops him. He does a great job of portraying a killing expert, along with an aging man that's seeking a settled, honest life. Despite the lack of humor, the role seemed fitting for Clooney. He's on camera for much of the film, and is compelling without words. Following him through the rustic town may not be overly eventful, but it's thrilling nontheless. Something about George outfitted in black leather jackets, tattoos, and expensive watches just works. It's definitely his movie, and the kind that wouldn't be half of what it is without its lead actor. 

My main disagreement with the some of the critics regarding The American deals with its overall substance or storyline. I've read a lot saying the plot lacks purpose or explanation, but it's all perfectly clear to me. If you've yet to see the film, you may not want to read this portion until you have. 

The opening scene of the film depicts a content life from Jack. He's living out in the wilderness with his presumed girlfriend, and is enjoying a leave of absence from the assassinating business. When he's attacked and forced to kill her, it's the ultimate realization: He wants out for good. If he makes a friend, they end up getting killed. If he's not careful enough, someone is right around the corner ready to kill him. He's haunted by what happened, and just wants to move on. When he falls for Clara in Italy, he's close. They develop a connection and he's ready to complete his last job, and move away with her. He manages to intentionally alter a rifle and kill his hunter, only to be shot by his boss before he meets her back at the river. When he met Clara in town and told her to retreat to the river, you could see it on his face: jubilation, anticipation and relief. He sensed the start of a new life. One without blood, guns or looking over his shoulder. 

That's what I think Corbijn, Clooney and company did a fantastic job of depicting. A man striving for something he really didn't deserve, and coming up just short. His drive to the river says it all. He knows his fate, and hits the steering wheel in frustration and anger because ultimately, he regrets the life he lived. Again, it really depends on how its viewed, but that entire premise is enough for a strong story in my opinion. 

George Clooney and Violante Placido in The American 

To conclude, The American is a mature and intelligent film that demands patience, but rewards its viewers with aesthetics. It's artsy and eurocentric in style, but also features a meaningful storyline if you know where to look. A must see for George Clooney fans, as well as fans of film in general. 

- EE

As of November 26, 2013, The American is available for instant streaming on Netflix. Check out the trailer here: