"Pain Demands to Be Felt" - THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS
2014 - 125 minutes - Drama/Romance
Director: Josh Boone 
Country: United States 
IMDB: 8.5
Metacritic: 69
RT: 82%

EpicEnthuisiast's Rating: A-

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• John Green's novel 

• teen dramas

• romance films 

• Shailene Woodley

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• sad stories 

• book adaptations 

• young adult stories 

• sad stories (can't emphasize this enough)

Sometimes, you go into a movie knowing you're going to love it. You approve of the cast, get excited by the trailer, and in this case, race to finish the book before the film comes out. You think it'd be almost impossible to be disappointed, and start counting down the days until release. 

For a number of reasons, this is how I felt going into The Fault in Our Stars. 

The Novel: When I saw the movie was coming out this summer, I had to get my hands on John Green's novel. I had heard great things about it, and really enjoyed Looking For Alaska, another one of his books. I cut it close and finished The Fault in Our Stars the night before it came out, but it ended up making the film that much better. I was already attached to the characters and engrossed in the story, and was ready for them to come to life. My only thought was: Just don't mess this up. 

John Green: While he wasn't credited with composing the screenplay, Green was on set with the actors for the duration of filming, giving tips and collaborating with director Josh Boone and others. This happened when two of my other favorite coming-of-age stories were adapted into films. In both The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Spectacular Now, authors Stephen Chbosky and Tim Tharp were on the set of the movie contributing in some way, and in Chbosky's case, directing the film himself. Both films turned out to be great, and they each stayed true to their respective novels. I didn't know what Green would be doing on the set of The Fault in Our Stars, but I knew that his presence would have a positive impact on the final result. It surely did. 

Novelist John Green with actors Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort on set

The writers: Most moviegoers wouldn't care to look at who is putting together the screenplay of a film, but the writing is what stands out the most to me when I'm watching. So, when I saw that Scott Neustadtler and Michael H. Weber, who previously wrote 500 Days of Summer and The Spectacular Now together, were teaming up for a third time, I was instantly drawn. They were experienced in the genre of young romance, and knew each other well. Thankfully, my prediction of them doing Green's novel justice turned out to be true. 

Shailene Woodley:  Perhaps what got me most excited for The Fault in Our Stars was actress Shailene Woodley, who plays Hazel. She was already one of my favorite actresses after The Descendants and the above-mentioned The Spectacular Now, and I was hoping that her role in The Fault in Our Stars would solidify her as one of my absolute favorites. She single-handedly raised my expectations, but definitely didn't disappoint. 

I'll start by continuing on about Woodley, because I simply can't say enough about her. In The Fault in Our Stars, she plays Hazel Grace Lancaster, who at 17, has cancer and must have an oxygen tank by her side at all times. Hazel is unique not just because of her condition, but because of her charismatic personality, her intriguing intelligence, and her complex view of the world. When she meets an equally interesting Augustus Waters at a cancer support group, she falls in love, and receives "a forever within the numbered days." Woodley captures her perfectly, and has everything from her mannerisms to her narration down to a science. 

Shailene Woodley as Hazel

I had a particular perspective of Hazel going into the movie, because I knew Woodley was going to play her when I started reading the novel. As I read, I pictured Woodley as Hazel throughout, and felt more connected to her character because of it. In the film, she dominates the screen, and gracefully tells us Hazel's heartbreaking story. Not only is she immensely talented, but she's absolutely stunning. (even with oxygen tubes in her nose and a short haircut) She was everything I could have hoped for as Hazel. 

That's really the biggest question when it comes to book adaptations: How similar is it going to be? What are the characters going to be like? What will they put in the film, and what will they omit? Josh Boone and company were faced with the daunting task of choosing what elements of Green's novel to put on screen, and while I'm sure he helped make some of those decisions, it was inevitable that memorable parts of his story wouldn't make the cut. 

Fans of the book might be slightly disappointed to know that minor characters like Kaitlyn and Caroline didn't make it into the movie, along with some other memorable moments like the little girl in the mall, or Gus's dad telling Hazel that he thanks God for her every day, but again, it would have taken at least a three-hour runtime to cover every last bit, and films of that length rarely make it into theaters. 

That being said, the moments that needed to be there were, and they were very well done. Everything from Isaac smashing basketball trophies in Gus's basement, to the raveshing dinner at Oranjee, to the gut-wrenching moment in the gas station parking lot seemed to come straight from the novel, and were every bit as moving as Green's words. Some lines were changed, some interactions were meshed together, and some scenes were altered, but everything worked. Everything was fitting. 

A memorable moment from the novel 

In fact, because the book was so fresh in my mind, I even found myself mouthing lines before the characters on screen said them. Despite the necessary changes, the movie stays very true to the book, and fans won't have many complaints. 

Fans will also approve of the entire cast of The Fault in Our Stars, but more specifically Ansel Elgort, who plays Gus. As readers of the novel know, the story is driven by the connection between Hazel and Gus, which meant a suitable actor was needed to play the illustrious Augustus Waters. With the opening stare down in the Literal Heart of Jesus, Elgort proved he fit the mold. Like Green's Gus, he's tall, handsome, confident and rocks an unlit cigarette quite well. His eyes aren't blue, but his connection with Woddley makes up for it. The two are actually friends in real life, and it seemingly had an impact on their interactions. Their scenes together are undoubtably the highlights of the film. 

Perhaps fittingly so, though, the real strength of the film comes from John Green's written foundation. Neustadter and Weber put forth another fantastic screenplay, using Green's novel selectively, and getting the most out of the actors. Their script is featured in a number of different ways, varying from standard dialogue and voice overs, to text message bubbles popping up on screen. Visually seeing all the facets of Green's novel took the already powerful story to new heights, but in the end, it's still the words that make The Fault in Our Stars such a beautiful film. 

Josh Boone's adaptation isn't a perfect one. It's not going to light up the Oscars, and it's not going to go down in history. The production value isn't off the charts, and truthfully, they probably tried a bit too hard to implement lines from the book at certain points. But the final product is honest. It's well-made, and it's captivating. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry (I'm not ashamed to say I even teared up a bit), and it might even change your view on everything that is love. It takes a special movie to do that. 

Read the book, then go see the movie. Or see the movie, then go read the book. Just make sure you don't miss A Fault in Our Stars. 

- EE 

As of June 14, 2014, The Fault in Our Stars is in theaters everywhere. Here's the trailer:

The Definitive Action Film of Our Time - THE RAID 2

THE RAID 2: BERENDAL
2014 - 150 minutes - Action/Crime
Director: Gareth Evans
Country: Indonesia 
IMDB: 8.9
Metacritic: 71
RT: 80

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Incredible action sequences
• Martial arts films
• Gorgeous cinematography
• Ultra-violence
• The first film

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Extreme violence/gore
• Action films 
• Subtitled films
• Convoluted plots
• The first film

Ladies and gentlemen, look no further, for The Raid 2: Berendal is the definitive action film of our time. The sequel to 2011's international smash hit The Raid: Redemption, this Indonesian crime thriller has some of the most spectacular action sequences ever put to film. The first film is a taut and brilliant action flick in which an elite SWAT team storms a dingy apartment building to take down a ruthless drug lord. (Much violence and mayhem ensues, of course). It features absolutely mind-blowing and cringe-inducing fight sequences showcasing Indonesia's martial art, pencak silat. The Raid 2 ups the ante in nearly every way possible. Why it is by no means a perfect film, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time in the theater and could barely contain myself from yelling in excitement by the time the credits rolled around.

One of the film's most brutal sequences takes place in a muddy prison yard

Whereas the first film is a brisk 100 minutes and consists almost entirely of action sequences, The Raid 2 features a much expanded story arc and much more exposition. The story is not particularly original, and calls to mind other crime films like Infernal Affairs and The Departed. The dialogue is a little wordy at times, the plot occasionally convoluted, and the pacing awkward. There are a few scenes that drag a bit or feel unnecessary. I won't go into the story (as that's not really the point of the film), though I will note that the transition from the end of the first film to this sequel was done in a rather clunky manner. All of this makes the whole film feel a little rough around the edges, but ultimately I didn't end up minding too much. One doesn't go to a movie like this for a brilliant screenplay or original story. I came for the action, and wasn't disappointed. More on that later.

Rama (Iko Uwais) and The Assassin (Cecep Arif Rahman) face off in the film's climactic duel

Welsh-born director Gareth Evans exploded onto the international film scene with The Raid, demonstrating that few others can choreograph and shoot action sequences with the same level of mastery that he brings to the table. His camera moves fluidly as a part of the action, ducking and weaving through combatants and immersing the audience in the fight. Unnecessary shaky cam and obscuring closeups make no appearance; Evans' direction lets us see all the action, while also making us feel like we are a part of it. His excellence doesn't stop there though. A bigger budget (though still only a paltry $4.5 million) and longer film allows Evans to showcase some absolutely gorgeous visuals, from a rain-soaked prison complex to a snow-covered alleyway splattered in blood. He has a really unique eye, and I can honestly say I've never imagined some of the camera angles on display in The Raid 2. In a stroke of brilliance, one sequence where our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) fights four men in a moving car is partially seen from above. 

As you've probably guessed by now, the highlight of the film are the spectacular fight sequences. Since all of the baddies from the first film ended up dead by the its conclusion, we are introduced to a host of new antagonists, including two of the most memorable villains I've ever seen, a brother-sister duo named "Baseball Bat Man" and "Hammer Girl." (I'll let you use your intuition to figure out why they have those names.) As The Raid 2 focuses on two rival Jakarta crime syndicates, there are many other bad guys who come into play as well, such as local kingpin Bangun, his suave son Uco, and the ambitious and ruthless Bejo. Needless to say, there are a lot of characters (probably a few too many), and you probably won't remember everyone's name, but again, none of that really matters. 

Which finally leads me to the fight scenes. Never have I witnessed a film with such exhilarating and brutal action sequences. The film is a veritable symphony of death, an orgasmic cacophony of splattered blood and broken bones. The kills (and killers) are merciless, and Evans' camera lets us see it all in its full, unadulterated glory. Quite frankly I am flabbergasted as to how this film managed to avoid a NC-17 rating. It seriously makes Tarantino films look relatively tame. The only non-horror film I've seen that compares is Drive, which of course has none of the crazy martial arts present here. The choreography is lightning-fast and extraordinarily inventive, the set-pieces spectacular, and the blows completely visceral. The editing is also spot-on throughout the whole movie. One incredible fight scene between two characters took 12 days to shoot, but you would never know it with the way the sequence unfolds seamlessly. While the first film takes place entirely in dingy corridors and dirty apartments, the fight scenes in the second are much more varied. From a tiny restroom stall to a spotless white kitchen to the wide open streets of Jakarta, it's really fun to watch how the combatants adapt their fighting styles in acclimating to their surroundings.

There's even an excellent car chase!

The Raid 2 is made for a very specific audience. Those who love intense action and who don't shy away from blood and gore aplenty will find much to love. Anyone who doesn't fit this description probably should stay away (a shame though, as the cinematography is truly outstanding). The film's shortcomings in the story department, while noticeable, don't take away too much from the overall experience. It definitely drags at times (the pacing of the first film is much better), but the last 45 minutes of nonstop mayhem more than compensate for any weaknesses. Bottom line: there is really nothing else out there right now that compares to either of the Raid films action-wise. They have set the bar exceedingly high, and are hugely refreshing in today's era of sterilized, CGI-filled, trite PG-13 crapfests that pass for action movies. 

One final note - the Raid films display perfectly how independent filmmakers can produce outstanding films on modest budgets. The Raid 2 was made for just $4.5 million; the original just a scant $1.1 million. Yet the action is better executed and shot than any $100 million blockbuster you'll ever see come out of Hollywood. If this film sounds even remotely appealing to you, give it a try. It's definitely not for the squeamish, though.

-CC

Check out the trailer:

 

A Modern, Monumental Take on a Classic Tale - NOAH

NOAH
2014 - 138 minutes - Adventure/Drama
Director: Darren Aronofsky 
Country: United States 
IMDB: 6.6
Metacritic: 67
RT: 77% 

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: B

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Emma Watson

• biblical tales (albeit loosely based)

• visually appealing films 

• adventure or survival stories 

• Emma Watson 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Emma Watson...ha, just kidding 

• religious films 

• special effects 

• PG-13 violence 

Noah: The classic biblical tale of heroism, survival and rebirth.

Well, sort of. 

From the very beginning of Noah, it was clear that director Darren Aronofsky was aiming to tell the story in a modern fashion. He wanted to use special effects to create a visually stunning world and bring the arc and its animals to life. He wanted to use makeup to convey the raw and rugged nature of Noah and his family. He wanted to loosely follow the familiar tale of the Old Testament, while also implementing a fresh, relevant message. And for the most part, he succeeded.

Russell Crowe as Noah

Not surprisingly, the story revolves around Russell Crowe as Noah. This was expected not only because his character was the title of the film, but also because of Crowe's proven track record. Here, he gives one of the most famous biblical figures a new identity. Soon after receiving his message from The Creator, (the only term used to reference God in the film) he establishes a focused, yet grouchy and stern mindset. His stubbornness sometimes reaches cruelty, but he knows what must be done, and won't let anyone, not even his family, get in the way. A hero in the end,  yes, but a cynical one. Crowe does a marvelous job, and puts forth a dominant performance.

His surrounding cast excels as well. Anthony Hopkins is fitting as the old and wise Methuselah, and provides a subtle sense of reliability and hope throughout. Jennifer Connelly flourishes as Noah's wife Naameh, and produces one particularly gut-wrenching 
sequence.

Emma Watson as Ila 

The real hidden gem of Noah, though, is Emma Watson as Ila. As one of the few women in the film, she lights up the screen with both her ravishing looks, and evident talent. Ila's range of emotion is perhaps the most widespread of all the characters, having to battle infidelity with love, and eventually miraculously giving birth, and caring for children. Watson portrays doubt, deprivation and innocence for half her role, and later switches to a mother that is determined and nurturing. Late in the film, she even consoles a broken Noah, and reassures him of his controversial decisions that birthed a beginning. The role of Ila proved to be a demanding one, but Watson shines the brightest in a very strong cast.

What makes the acting even more impressive is the fact that, at times, the actors don't have a whole lot to work with. It's clear that Aronofsky had a firm grasp on his visions and intentions for Noah, but his script isn't up to par with his production. He collaborated with longtime contributor Ari Handel, which is why the sometimes lackluster writing comes as a bit of a surprise. Handel is more known for producing Aronofsky's films, (The Fountain, Black Swan, The Wrestler, and now Noah) but he did help compose the The Fountain, and you'd expect a little something more from such a frequent partnership.

Oftentimes, the actor's dialogue weighs down otherwise powerful scenes. Suspenseful and gripping confrontations call for realistic and apt words, but they regularly disappoint. For such an intelligent and daring adaptation with complex characters, Noah's script is fairly elementary.

The arc under  construction

That being said, Aronofsky and cinematographer Matthew Libatique make up for it with their stunning visuals. From beginning to end, Noah is an absolutely gorgeous film, and the aesthetics really make it a worthwhile experience. They're especially impressive when the arc begins to form and Libatique creates sweeping shots through the structure, and gets up close and personal with the arriving creatures. The film has the budget and frequent special effects usage of a hollywood blockbuster, but where it differs is the reasoning behind it. The biblical world that Aronofsky and company create is not only pleasing to look it, but it's also vital to the story.

Overall, Noah is well worth seeing. It has caught some major flak from various religious groups, and I will admit that if you're looking for an entirely accurate re-telling of the famous story, you'll probably be disappointed, if not shocked, but that's far from point. Religious or not, you'll appreciate the strong acting and visual beauty, and you'll relate to it's compelling message. It puts an emphasis on human nature, and how we must make difficult decisions in the hardest of times. Noah is an iconic figure, but he was a human just like the rest of us. Aronofsky's version emphasizes this fact, and it makes for one captivating movie.

-EE

As of April 10, 2014, Noah is in theaters everywhere. Check out the awesome trailer here: 

P.S. - Just a quick note on the scores. I'll reiterate that the religious debates that Noah sparked were plentiful, and can most certainly account for the low user score of 6.6 on IMDB. Religious movie-goers that were upset by the accuracy of the film most likely just rated it 1/10, which is simply unfair. The solid Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores of 67 and 77% are more telling. 

TV Review - HOUSE OF CARDS

HOUSE OF CARDS (Season 2)
2014 - 13 episodes - Political Drama
Creator: Beau Willimon
IMDB: 9.0
Metacritic: 80
RT: n/a

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B

Watch this show if you enjoy:

• Excellent acting 
• Excellent cinematography
• Kevin Spacey
• The first season
• Did I mention Kevin Spacey?

Avoid this show if you dislike:

• Occasionally cheesy writing
• Unresolved plot lines/characters
• Political dramas
• The first season
• Kevin Spacey (wat?)

(some minor spoilers)

CinemaChagrin is breaking new ground with our first TV review. Audiences have eagerly anticipated the premier of the second season of House of Cards for nearly a year now. The first season, while not perfect, was a tense and well-crafted political drama that depicted a polarized and cutthroat Washington. The second season for the most part continues that tradition of excellence; however, it still suffers from several of the issues that plagued the first season.

The classic Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) all-knowing look

 House of Cards continues to do a lot of things very well. For one, the show just looks good. The direction across the board is still excellent again this season (with wide variety of directors shooting different episodes this year, including actresses Jodie Foster and Robin Wright). The cinematography is film-level quality. The show is beautifully shot - very aesthetically pleasing from a visual standpoint. I usually don't appreciate or notice the visuals of TV dramas, but House of Cards is a beauty (despite having little-to-no action). 

The beautiful Claire Underwood (Robin Wright) - looks can be deceiving

Once again, the show's strong point is the acting. Across the board, every actor in the show does a phenomenal job. Kevin Spacey as the ruthless Frank Underwood makes the show worth watching all by himself. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants and obliterate his opponents. His monologues to the audience are once again hilarious and entertaining (though he does have a habit of speaking in cliches during these moments). As Underwood's wife and co-conspirator Claire, Robin Wright delivers perhaps the best performance of the season. She is every bit as conniving and vicious as Frank, but with a gorgeous and deceptive exterior. Their interplay together is incredible to watch. They are both despicable people that do horrific things solely for personal gain, but one can't help being attracted to them because they are so confident. They know what they want, they know how to get it, and they won't stop until they achieve their goals. In many ways, they serve as an escape for the viewer - after all, who doesn't want to get everything they want without having to care about hurting others?

Michael Gill as President Gareth Walker

Other returning actors continue to deliver convincing performances. Michael Gill's portrayal of the naive President Walker, who is hopelessly out his league competing with the Underwoods, is quite convincing and very tragic. Meanwhile, Gerald McRaney excellently serves as Frank Underwood's archenemy, billionaire Raymond Tusk. He proves to be just as brutal and unrelenting as Frank.

Molly Parker as Minority Whip Jackie Sharp

Interestingly enough, several returning characters also display quite a bit of vulnerability. Michael Kelly as Doug Stamper, Underwood's chief of staff and go-to-guy to get the job done, shows a different side of himself when looking after a young woman who happens to be a major political liability. Meanwhile, lobbyist Remy Denton (Mahershala Ali), who appeared in the first season as a skilled enemy not to be trifled with, faces a dilemma when he falls in love.

Gerald McRaney as billionaire industrialist Raymond Tusk

Several new faces come into play in the second season as well. Most memorable is Congresswoman Jackie Sharp (Molly Parker). Initially portrayed as a kind and incorruptible politician, the audience quickly discovers that her ambition (like the Underwoods) knows no limits. She does anything and everything to gain more power. The corrupt Chinese politician Xander Feng (Terry Chen) also serves as an interesting antagonist, albeit one that ultimately is just a pawn in the battle between Frank and Raymond.

Like the excellent HBO series Game of Thrones, the overwhelming majority of characters in House of Cards are power-hungry and vicious people who do many despicable things. More honest and trusting characters are portrayed as naive idiots destined to fail. If you don't like shows/movies where the protagonists are morally ambiguous/bankrupt, then House of Cards probably isn't for you. On the other hand, if you like watching well-acted but nasty characters go at it, you'll probably love the show (even if you aren't particularly interested in politics and government).

Exhibit A

While the show is supremely entertaining, it is also frustrating at times. As previously mentioned, some of Underwood's monologues are quite cheesy. Many plot points are completely implausible or make little sense. (For example, the AtlanticWire asked why anyone still trusts Frank Underwood.) The conclusion of the season is pretty far-fetched as well - I had a difficult time buying it. However, the biggest negative of the show for me by far is its irritating habit of failing to wrap up subplots well (or at all). Characters are routinely introduced and never seen/mentioned again, seemingly major events happen and are never mentioned again, and pretty important occurrences that should come back to haunt certain characters for some reason never resurface. It makes for a very frustrating viewing experience at times. This was a major problem in the first season as well, and it is disappointing that it wasn't fixed. That's just sloppy writing.

Frank's AWESOME cufflinks

Fortunately, I can overlook these flaws mainly because of the incredible acting on display in House of Cards. The show looks good, the characters are interesting (and extremely well-portrayed), and the plot is quite captivating (especially for anyone interested in politics). However, don't get scared away if you don't necessarily know much about government/politics; the show is pretty accessible to anyone who isn't put off by immoral characters. If you are new to House of Cards and want to see what all the buzz is about, by all means get on Netflix and binge-watch both seasons! If you were a fan of the first season, I'm not sure why you haven't watched the second season yet!

-CC

P.S. - don't be put off by the trailers for season two - they are pretty terrible and not very representative of the show.

"I'm a lover, I'm a fighter, I'm a UDT Navy Seal Diver" - LONE SURVIVOR

Lone Survivor
2013 - 121 minutes - Action/Biography/Drama
Director: Peter Berg
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.9
Metacritic: 60
RT: 74%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: C

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• military films 

• films based on true stories 

• action/gunfights 

• Mark Wahlberg 

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• military films 

• blood/violence 

• dramatization 

• tragic stories 

Peter Berg's Lone Survivor tells the incredible true story of Marcus Luttrell and his team of Navy Seals who get caught behind enemy lines in Afghanistan in 2005. Their mission to kill a notorious Taliban leader takes a turn for the worse when they cross paths with three civilians on a mountainside overlooking their target's location. Their decision regarding what to do with those civilians leads to a massive firefight, and changes the course of Luttrell's life forever. 

Ben Foster as Matt 'Axe' Axelson 

From a production standpoint, Lone Survivor is by no means perfect, but is made well enough. The opening shot consists of Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) narrating over an image of himself being stretchered to an army base hospital. This opening takes a bit of the drama out of the film because we already know he survives; however, it does set the tone for an ultimately tragic ending. We get a decent amount of background from Luttrell's team (Taylor Kitsch as Michael Murphy, Emile Hirsch as Danny Dietz and Ben Foster as Matt 'Axe' Axelson) - it's just enough to make us care about them, but again, not nearly as effective as it normally would be because we all know how they're going to end up. In fact, a different title for the film wouldn't have been such a bad idea, because it would have added a certain shock value for people like me that weren't familiar with Luttrell's book or mission. But all in all, the opening third of the film was its strongest portion, and when the time comes, you're ready to suit up and head up into the mountains with the team. 

Disappointingly, like the fate of the Seals, Lone Survivor takes a turn for the worse when the action begins. It's not that the firefight sequences weren't well done; quite the opposite actually. Berg delivers fast paced, rugged, and for the most part very realistic scenes that definitely keep you on the edge of your seat. They're bloody and bruising, and they back up the film's two Oscar nominations for sound mixing and sound editing. Unfortunately, they also get weighed down by some unnecessary dramatic cliches. 

The team of Navy Seals

Some of these cliches come from Berg's script (co-written by Luttrell and Patrick Robinson). While fighting, the soldiers were often uttering words of patriotism or brotherhood that just seemed forced and out of place. For instance, at one point Axelson was aiming his weapon at an enemy, and with no one else around him says: "You can die for your country; I'm gonna live for mine." A line like this surely looks great on paper, but is it really something that would be said aloud during a hectic gun battle? Even for the most ruthless of warriors like the Seals, it just didn't seem natural. It was as if Berg attempted to implement little nuggets of dramatic dialogue to display just how brave the men were. Especially in a story like this, actions speak louder than words ever could. 

To quote Keith Uhlich of Time Out New York: 

"Berg may be adhering to the basic facts, but his movie's childish machismo is a disgrace to all involved." 

While Uhlich's take is a bit much, I can't help but agree that there was a certain "proud American macho man" feel that was simply overkill. There were also cliched slow motion deaths, and some unrealistic reactions to wounds and overall fatal situations. The men's bravery and camaraderie was utterly clear already, and the fact that Berg felt the need to dramatize the story even more was frustrating. 

Emile Hirsch in Lone Survivor

All that being said, the acting in Lone Survivor was excellent. Kitsch, Hirsch and Foster all did splendid jobs as members of the ill-fated team, and Wahlberg dominated the screen as the lead man. Again, I point the finger at Berg and the screenwriters for the misplaced dialogue, and give the actors the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this common issue. As far as I'm concerned, the script held them back, and kept the film from blossoming to its full potential. 

Overall, Lone Survivor is worth seeing, but is certainly flawed. It's a pulse pounding action thriller that tells an amazing true story, but tries too hard to overstate an already clear example of bravery and heroism. It's well-acted and well-made, but dampened by a sometimes immature script. In the end, Marcuss Luttrell and the men that lost their lives deserve a better film. 

-EE

Lone Survivor Trailer:

"Ever Want To Be Someone Else?" - BEING JOHN MALKOVICH

BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
1999 - 112 minutes - Fantasy/Comedy
Director: Spike Jonze
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.8
Metacritic: 90
RT: 93%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: A

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Comic fantasies
• Unique and witty screenplays
• Totally meta films
• John Malkovich

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Contemporary fantasies
• Unconventional storytelling
• John Malkovich
• John Malkovich

(some mild spoilers below)

I must admit, the first time I saw Being John Malkovich, I didn't know exactly what to make of it. Well acted, directed, and written, for sure, but I just couldn't wrap my head around the thing. A second viewing completely altered my perspective. Not only is the film excellent from a technical standpoint, it remains perhaps the most original and creative film of the 1990s. 

It is an impossible task to summarize succinctly the plot of BJM, but it goes something like this: Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), a down-on-his luck puppeteer, gets a day job at the insistence of his wife, Lotte (Cameron Diaz). While on the job as a file-puller on the mysterious 7 1/2 floor of a Manhattan office building, Schwartz discovers a tiny door behind a filing cabinet. He crawls inside to discover that the door is actually a portal to the head of John Malkovich (played by himself). After 15 minutes in Malkovich's head, seeing through his eyes, Schwartz gets dumped out onto the side of the New Jersey turnpike. After telling one of his co-workers, Maxine, about the experience, the two decide to set up shop selling trips in Malkovich's head for $200 a pop. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and Craig (John Cusack) Schwartz

BJM functions on so many different levels. As a fantasy, the universe it establishes is enthralling (plus, Carter Burwell's dreamlike musical score helps a lot with setting the mood). As a comedy, it is absolutely hilarious, though typically not in a completely laugh-out-loud way (it also gets much, much funnier upon repeated viewings). The film raises insightful questions about self-identity, narcissism,  and human sexuality. Finally, it is super meta (self-aware), featuring cameos from several big-name actors and of course John Malkovich himself. It's difficult to imagine any other actor filling the role, as Malkovich is well-known enough to be recognizable, but not a superstar who would overshadow the entire film. Malkovich's stage and theater background also become relevant to the plot, as he becomes a puppet in a play larger than himself. (After reading the script for the first time, he reportedly asked the writer, Charlie Kaufman, why the film couldn't be called "Being Tom Cruise." Kaufman argued adamantly that he would never rewrite the screenplay with another actor to serve as the central figure.) 

Craig on the side of the NJ turnpike after his first Malkovich experience

Speaking of Charlie Kaufman, one cannot help but marvel at the creativity and originality of his screenplays. They are truly unlike anything else in Hollywood today. In addition to BJM, Kaufman has written perhaps the most inventive book adaptation ever put to screen, Adaptation, as well as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a very unconventional love story. His irreverent and smart writing style in BJM ensures that the audience can never quite predict where the story is headed. So many exciting and unexpected twists and turns fill the plot, but it never becomes overwhelming. Dialogue between characters is both hilarious and appropriately crazy for the fantasy world the film creates.

An excellent screenplay alone does not a movie make, however. In his first feature film, Spike Jonze proved a competent and creative director. His camerawork manages to keep up with all the zany craziness of the plot, and does so in very satisfying ways. The viewpoints from inside Malkovich's head immerse the viewer in the film, as we are allowed to see the action both from within and outside him. Fortunately, Jonze does not rely on fancy editing and rapid cuts, unlike many directors who got their start in music videos.

Schwartz and his coworker Maxine (Catherine Keener)

Though the film's standout element is the screenplay itself, all the actors in BJM are at the top of their game. John Cusack plays the obsessive puppeteer Craig Schwartz with surprising sympathy, despite the nature of the character. Catherine Keener as Maxine is pitch-perfect as the antithesis of Schwartz in every way possible (she nabbed her first Oscar nomination for the performance). Orson Bean's performance as the CEO of Lestercorp is absolutely hilarious, a delight to watch. Finally, Cameron Diaz serves as the heart and soul of the movie as Craig's wife, Lotte. Practically unrecognizable under a frizzy wig, Diaz's naive and loving Lotte is the most sympathetic character in the film. After seeing her excellent acting skills in BJM, I am somewhat saddened that Diaz seems to have acted mostly in mediocre films since (with the notable exceptions of Shrek and Gangs of New York). 

The entrance to Malkovich

Of course there is one actor I haven't mentioned yet, an actor whose name happens to appear in the title of the film. John Malkovich delivers an astounding performance. He not only plays himself, but also the role of a puppet under the control of others. As the linchpin that holds the film together, Malkovich is an absolute joy to watch. Playing an actor being forced to act, he traverses all ends of the emotional spectrum with surprising physical intensity. The fact that the Academy passed up Malkovich for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for the likes of Haley Joel Osment is infuriating to me. And don't even get me started on the fact that The Sixth Sense was nominated for Best Picture and BJM wasn't. In the wise words of the late Roger Ebert: 

"Either Being John Malkovich gets nominated for Best Picture, or the members of the Academy need portals into their brains."

Well said, Roger. Apparently they do. BJM is easily the most creative film of the 1990s. It may not be the most expansive or impressive film of the decade, but in terms of sheer originality, I have yet to see any film that rivals it. It's definitely not for everyone - if you have trouble accepting fantastical premises for films set in the real world or prefer more conventional storytelling, then I would steer clear - but if you appreciate zany films that make you sit back and ponder, "What the hell did I just watch?", then you'll love it. Supremely enjoyable, infinitely re-watchable, and never dull, I highly recommend Being John Malkovich.

-CC

P.S. I think the trailer for the film spoils way too much, so here is my favorite track from the score to the film. I think Carter Burwell is an underrated film composer.

Compensating for Something? - THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET
2013 - 180 minutes - Biography/Comedy/Crime
Director: Martin Scorsese 
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.7
Metacritic: 75
RT: 75%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 9/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• crime comedies 

• stories (loosely here) based on actual events

• Martin Scorsese 

• Leonardo DiCaprio 

Avoid this movie if you dislike: 

• profanity

• drug use

• graphic nudity/sexual content

• long films (three hours) 

(a couple very minor spoilers below)

Heeeeeeeee's baaaaaaaacckk. 

The Wolf of Wall Street marks director Martin Scorsese's first crime drama since his best director-winning The Departed in 2006, and his mastery of the genre is totally reiterated. Leonardo DiCaprio is back as his lead man for the fifth time, (Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Shutter Island) and Scorsese's quintessential black comedy and narrated storytelling is as strong as ever. 

In this film, DiCaprio plays the role of Jordan Belfort, one of the most infamous stock brokers of the 1990's. At just 22 years of age he got his first job as a broker and fell in love with the crazed world of Wall Street. He learns the ropes, develops an effective selling strategy, and finds his niche, only to be forced into a sleazy job selling penny stocks in Long Island when his firm goes under. He takes that office by storm, and eventually starts his own firm, called Stratton Oakmont, with Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill). Cue the success, money, women, drugs, sex, and law breaking, and let the games begin. 

Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort

Like many of Scorsese's crime sagas, The Wolf of Wall Street is driven by very strong acting. DiCaprio leads a great cast, and gives yet another dynamite performance as his voice over moves the story smoothly along. This role was similar to his in The Aviator, in that he had to balance a roller coaster of emotions while portraying the money hungry, drug-addicted, and sex-crazed Belfort. The depiction of Belfort (and the film as a whole) was intentionally over-the-top, and Dicaprio did a superb job. Is it enough to earn him his long-awaited Oscar? I don't think so, but that's partially due to the stiff competition this year. Among others, I think Bruce Dern in Nebraska, Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years a Slave, and Christian Bale in American Hustle will have something to say about the best actor award, but DiCaprio should at least receive a nomination. 

Also thoroughly impressive was Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff. I must admit I was skeptical of Hill coming in, primarily because of seemingly insincere comedic films. But to be fair, I've yet to see Moneyball, where he's supposed to be very strong in a supporting role. Here, his comedic background was far from concealed, but he held up very well in a few serious scenes. He also put forth some fantastic quotations: 

Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff 

"You show me a pay stub for $72,000, I quit my job right now and work for you."

"Hey Paulie, what's up? No, everything's fine. Hey listen, I quit!"

 "What are these sides, they cure cancer?!?!" (Max Belfort)
"The sides did cure cancer there, that's the problem, that's why they were so expensive." 


The cast also featured a number of interesting cameo appearances; three of which were directors. Rob Reiner (This is Spinal Tap, Stand by Me, The Princess Bride) played Jordan's father Max Belfort, Jon Favreau (Elf, Iron Man, Iron Man 2) played Manny Riskin, a financial agent, and Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Where the Wild Things Are) played Dwayne, an associate in Belfort's firm. Reiner, who has acted in over 60 films, was the strongest of the three in his first major role in over a decade. He had the impossible job of attempting to control his son Jordan and all the antics at the firm. Jon Bernthal, best known for his role as Shane on The Walking Dead, was very convincing as the drug-dealing muscle man Brad, and Margot Robbie coupled her astonishing physical appearance with some strong acting chops as Naomi Belfort. Not to mention a hilarious scene or two with Matthew McConaughey as Mark Hanna. The acting very much stood out, and was film's most redeeming quality. 

That being said, great acting alone doesn't make a great movie. Another staple of Scorsese pictures is his fluid and compelling technique of storytelling. The above-mentioned narration from DiCaprio is one of a few different styles he used to move the story along in The Wolf of Wall Street. In a plot jam-packed with relationships, it was important to distinguish which ones were meaningful and which ones weren't. For instance, it was clear from the beginning that Belfort's first wife Teresea Petrillo didn't mean a whole lot to him, and so we fittingly didn't see much of her. There were a couple scenes early in the film, and one emotional scene when she finally catches him in the act with another woman, but Scorsese made sure that the audience saw much more of Naomi, the wife that Belfort really cared about. With her, a number of different highs and lows were put on screen. We saw the first time they met, their wedding, Belfort gifting her a yacht with her name on it, their compassion, their hatred, and everything in between. Like all the relationships in the film, emphasis was placed exactly where it was needed. Scorsese's variation of quick, punchy clips and drawn out, oftentimes painful scenes was essential to the story flow. 

Naomi denying access to Jordan 

This was also true of regular plot development. The three hour length of The Wolf of Wall Street is one of the the aspects of the film that has gotten some flak (certainly second to the very vulgar content.) While I think Scorsese's longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker did her typical fantastic job, I can definitely see where some of the criticism is coming from. The story was filled characters and they needed a considerable amount of time to develop, but I can't deny that it could have been trimmed a bit. In particular, there was a sequence on the yacht where Jordan and Donnie were attempting to sail to Monaco with their wives and got caught in a tsunami-like storm. The captain warned them of the rough waters beforehand, and the whole shipwreck and rescue thing just seemed very out of place, and irrelevant to the plot. The unneeded scenes were small in number though, and the 180 minutes really flew by for me. Scorsese used a handful of action-packed montages to speed things up, and the original cut was over four hours, so it could have been much longer. 

To conclude, The Wolf of Wall Street will someday be considered another classic from Martin Scorsese. It's very different in tone from his other crime sagas like Goodfellas, Casino, and The Departed, but it's every bit as entertaining. The characterization is top notch, the acting is award worthy, and the production is everything you'd expect from one of the legends of cinema. If you can handle the profanity and sometimes graphic content, it'll be the most fun you've had at the theater in a while. 

-EE


As of January 9th, 2013, The Wolf of Wall Street is in theaters everywhere. Here's the trailer: