Originally Reviewed – 4/3/2012

Growing up, I never had much of a connection to the TV series 21 Jump Street. While I knew of it’s existance, I had never seen a single episode of the popular series. Alf, Star Trek: Next Generation and Perfect Strangers were more my speed. Little did I know, I was missing out on a cultural hit. Spanning five seasons and over one hundred episodes, the original Jump Street became a hit among young TV fans. A serious yet fun police procedural about undercover cops investigating crimes among high schoolers, the series quickly became a cult classic. Now, over twenty years later, a film has been made, rebooting the popular franchise. The result is a foul mouthed yet clever comedy piece that modernizes the now stale formula while staying true to the roots of the original series.

In this Jump Street, our investigative twosome is Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum). Growing up, Schmidt was a geek and Jenko was a jock but due to a bonding experience while attending police academy, the two become dear friends. After a bust gone bad, the two friends are reassigned to 21 Jump Street, an undercover division of the local police force. Their task is to pass as high schoolers, infiltrate the school’s various social strata and find the source of a new drug that’s sweeping the campus. This very simple setup lays a good if unbelievable baseline for the resulting gags and jokes, most of which work quite well in the context of the film. Much of the success of the movie is in the self referential way it treats this story. Many times characters mention how “writers have no new ideas” and how they “recycle old crap”, a willing wink to the audience. This removes all expectations of realism and allows the viewer to relax and get swept up in the silliness. The film also takes the time to provide links to the original show through cameos and inside jokes, all of which never hinder the story. Suffice to say, you don’t need to have seen the original series in order to get a laugh or two out of the movie, but if you have, these subtle winks are a scream.

And there is plenty of screams to be had. From ill fitting Peter Pan costumes to ridiculous chase sequences, 21 Jump Street doesn’t lack in the “things to see” department. While the middle section gets a touch bloated, the film rebounds nicely with a satisfying final twenty minutes. By that time, some of the gags have worn a little thin, but there’s more than enough laughs to keep audiences interested. Much of this is due to some fine chemistry between Hill and Tatum. Although neither actor really excels, you can tell they are having a genuine good time, and in a farce like this, it’s more than enough. The film also features a very strong script, penned in part by Mr. Hill. One of the more interesting plot points is a modern day role reversal with Tatum and Hill. In the seven years since the two were in high school, sensitive kids are now sitting at the cool table. Watching Tatum struggle with now being a dork and Hill soaking up being popular is strong storytelling and gives the characters some unexpected weight. This drama creates a natural tension that develops between the two friends and gives the characters a much needed shot of believability. The other standout performance is that of Ice Cube as Capt. Dickson. Labeled as the standard “angry black boss”, Cube’s straight forward and cutting delivery steals many of the scenes he’s in.

The film isn’t all perfect, however. Many of the jokes miss the mark and the film feels a little overlong, especially around the 80 minute mark. There’s also one very uncomfortable scene where a neighbor threatens to blow Hill’s cover, prompting him to push her into a pile of shoeboxes. Played simply for the physical comedy of seeing an old woman eat it, the scene slows the action to a crawl, ruining the movie’s momentum. There’s also an awkward romance between Hill and a student named Molly (Brie Larson). Despite the film reminding us numerous times that she’s supposed to be 18 in the movie, she doesn’t look it and seeing Hill fawn over someone who doesn’t look legal is a little creepy. While the script doesn’t go beyond the attraction, the romance could have been nixed entirely as it does little for the main plot.

When all is said and done, this is the only way you could have done a modern 21 Jump Street movie. Back in 1987, procedural police dramas weren’t on every channel and the serious tone was welcomed by fans and critics. Now, the method is ripe for parody and directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller know it’s all supposed to be one big joke. If you’re looking for a serious reboot of the series, you’d be better served dusting off those old VHS tapes of the original show. However, if you’re in the mood for a clever, raunchy and mostly funny film that knows exactly what it is, 21 Jump Street is right up your alley. Just don’t be too offended when the leads get high, party with the kids and stare up at Korean Jesus. Just sit back, relax and be happy that it’s supposed to be stupid. Anything else would have been unbearable.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 90%

What would it feel like to be forbidden.

It’s a strange word isn’t it. Forbidden. The first image that brings up for me is one of a barrier, sometimes tangible, sometimes not, that prevents us from doing something or going somewhere. A wall, usually imposed by somebody else, that forbids entry or restricts access. Now imagine if that word was applied to you. Think for a minute if you were forbidden to watch a certain movie, listen to a piece of music or even leave your home. Forbidden to do what you love. In that context, the term takes on a whole new meaning, one of personal restriction and censorship. Famed Iranian film director Jafar Panahi has been slapped with that very word, forbidden by his government to talk to the media, write screenplays or direct films for the next twenty years. Trapped in his home for months on end, awaiting the beginning of a trial that could mean a six year prison term, Panahi doesn’t rebel, doesn’t make a fuss. He simply does what he was born to do.

Luckily for Pahani and his defense attorney, this is not a film. It’s a 70 minute series of scenes and shots that track one day in his long term interment. During this day, he eats breakfast, chats with his lawyer and documents the drudgeries of his daily life. Throughout the piece, Pahani is an exceptionally sympathetic character. At first content with the camera simply on and pointing, he slowly starts to tell us about his theories of filmmaking and his vision for a film he likely will never make. The piece is one giant metaphor, giving us a chance to watch a trapped artist naturally reach out with the only tools he has. The effect is fascinating and at times breathtaking, especially during the heart stopping final shot.

But the result is not a film. Even when Panahi makes a clandestine call to a cinematographer friend of his to stop by with a camera, the meaning is not to make a documentary. The purpose is just natural, to shoot because he’s meant to. The beauty of the piece is not in the completed product. Panahi says time and time again that what they are doing isn’t filmmaking. It’s more than that. The intrigue of the project is not in the shot design, camerawork or even story. It’s an act of artistic revolution that we get to not only watch, but feel a part of. But this isn’t the kind of revolt that’s loud or even intentional. This is a personal upheaval, the product of a gifted artist rising against the cynicism and oppression of his government. And we get to watch his defiance grow.

While the piece isn’t perfect, it’s hard to critique because it’s not a film. The beginning runs slow, there are long shots of nothing going on and the film feels bloated, even at its abbreviated running time. But all that matters little. This Is Not A Film may not be cinema but it’s certainly something more. Combining shots from an iPhone, an adorable iguana and a filmmaker who just wants to film, the piece is a grand statement of stunning quiet, the type of silence your teacher used when she wanted you to shut up in English class and just pay attention. An artistic expression that rises above the simplicity of its shots, This Is Not A Film is a worthy watch for anybody who believes in freedom, art and the notion that sometimes, you have to do what you’re born to do. And even though Panahi had to smuggle this movie into Cannes on a Flash drive embedded in a birthday cake, he shouldn’t have much to worry about. This really isn’t a film. It’s an unintentional middle finger to those who would jail him for the rest of his life if it were one.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 3/10/2012

Growing up in high school, circa 1997, Austin Powers was the bees knees. You couldn’t pop your head into a homeroom or hang out at a lunch table without somebody doing an impersonation of the rotten toothed super spy. Teachers were annoyed by it and our parents thought it was crass, but to a generation that had nothing but things to look forward to, it was a scream. Now, in viewing this film fifteen years later, some of the shine has worn off. The jokes are dated, the laughs less hearty and I no longer have the urge to yell, “Yeah Baby, YEEEAAH” whenever somebody asks me what time it is. At the core, the first film in the Austin Powers trilogy is a very entertaining diversion, bolstered by strong characters, simple storytelling and a funnier than it should be script. Just don’t expect the cult classic from over a decade ago.

Canadian SNL alumnus Mike Meyers stars as both Austin Powers, a swinging spy from the 1960’s and Dr. Evil, a generic mad scientist bent on world domination. Cryogenically frozen in 1967, Austin is thawed out thirty years later to help rid the world of his nemesis, who escaped capture in a space probe shaped like a Big Boy. The rest of the film is standard sixties era spy movie fare, all for good reason. The film relishes in clichés such as “the slow, yet easily escapable trap” and “the overblown plot to rule the world”. The script takes great pains to show exactly how ridiculous these scenarios are, making the audience well aware of the in joke, even if they’ve never seen You Only Live Twice.

In both lead roles, Meyers is manic yet endearing, and much of the film’s sustainability stems from the fine development of the characters. Both Austin and Dr. Evil are having a hard time adapting to the 90’s and it’s this bumbling vulnerability that helps us like the characters beyond the one liners. That’s not to say there aren’t good good gags in the script as well. Watching Austin gyrate on a rotating bed or seeing Dr. Evil struggle with exactly how much to set the world’s ransom at, still hold up for a few laughs. That said, the film didn’t age particularly well. Although the original doesn’t rely as much on topical humor as the sequels do, moments like Austin accessing an AOL account or Dr. Evil doing the Macarena just don’t work anymore. They just make you cringe.

The rest of the cast is works quite well for the limited time they have on screen. Elizabeth Hurley as Dr. Kensington, Austin’s nineties era partner and eventual love interest, is bookish yet charming. Initially repulsed by Austin’s swinger behavior, she soon sees beyond the atrocious teeth to the man within, nicely arcing as the story goes on. Other standouts include Michael York as Basil Expedition, head of the Ministry of Defense and the always reliable Robert Wagner as Evil’s number two man, Number Two. Write your own joke. The film is also helped by some good comedic directing by Jay Roach in his first ever feature. Comedy is a tough nut to crack for a director and while I’m sure Myers had more than a little say in the direction of the film, Roach does a fine job keeping the timing fresh and funny.

To say the Austin Powers series of films isn’t exactly landmark cinema would be an understatement. The movies are silly, crude and overly dependent on period era references to keep the funny going. Still, at least in the case of the original, there’s enough in the way of good writing and strong characters to keep this ship sailing, even if the course charted is one you’ve been down numerous times before. A worthwhile viewing, even to just reminisce about a time when the budget was balanced, people had jobs and we weren’t at war, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is a light hearted farce that gets most of the comedy right even when it’s doing an outdated dance from the band Los del Rio. Just make sure we don’t catch you doing the, “Yeah Baby, YEEEAHH” line out in public anymore. No matter how funny something was fifteen years ago, in certain cases, you can never go back.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 3/3/2012

In preparation for this review, I’m typing this from an underground bunker. Six hundred feet below the earth’s surface, hunkering down from an impending storm. Water is scarce, food is scarcer and despite the waning battery on my back up laptop, I remain defiant. A single light bulb hangs lightly from the cement ceiling and while I realize sunshine is just an open door away, once this is done, I can never go back. But I don’t care if this bulb burns out and I care even less if my actions cause a tidal wave of retribution. My resolve is firm and absolute. I know what I must do. Despite the poor reviews, critical panning and Michael Bay’s direction, I kinda like the movie Armageddon.

OK. I kinda love it.

Now, before the negative tides rise to swallow me, let me make one thing clear. This is a bad movie in nearly every way you can be one. This overblown tale of a group of oil drillers turned astronauts, led by cliché American name # 52 (Bruce Willis as Harry Stamper), is ludicrous. Harry and his band of misfits need to land on a speeding asteroid, drill a hole, drop a nuke and take off before the rock reaches the ominous Zero Barrier. If they fail? The Texas sized meteor will slam into our waiting planet, ending mankind as we know it. In the meantime, small bits of the asteroid destroy major cities, the cast members make tampon jokes and Liv Tyler falls in love with Ben Affleck. Obviously, all things in this film are exaggerated.

Armageddon, at the core, is a silly action movie and director Michael Bay follows every beat of the genre, including the bad ones. The script is silly, the editing is manic to the point of confusing and the moments where the film slows down are the points where I get a refill on my snacks. And yes, there’s even that God forsaken Aerosmith song that bleats through the film like a young child afflicted with the rickets. At nearly every turn, the critical portion of my brain screams to my irrational side, saying, “Stop watching this movie! Don’t you know The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is playing again on AMC”?

But I never listen. To me, the film’s biggest strength is the simple likability of the characters. And while I use the term loosely, the main cast is genuinely enjoyable, Ben Affleck aside. From Steve Bushemi as the sex crazed geologist to an affable Owen Wilson to the teddy bear charm of Michael Clarke Duncan, the cast is well chosen and seems like an offbeat family. Not to mention the film features the best bad Russian stereotype ever put to film in Peter Stormare’s mad portrayal of a society removed cosmonaut. While the situation the crew finds themselves in defies all semblances of logic and sense, it’s a nifty roller coaster ride featuring people you can easily care about it. Yes, these cookie cutter personalities never grow beyond caricatures, but they’re witty and enjoyable enough to pull you through the silliness.

But it’s not just good casting that pulls Armageddon along. The film is injected with a genuine sense of fun with a script just dopey enough for us not to care. The movie doesn’t try to be a scientific theorem on the destructive potential of asteroids. It’s a semi serious action flick that provides explosive set pieces involving quip happy protagonists you can easily root for. Unlike Bay’s other film atrocities, Armageddon manages to be camp you can care about, even if you completely forget the experience five minutes after the screening. If you need a dumb movie that somehow, someway draws you in, Armageddon is an easy choice. And if you really like it, head out to the weeds of East Rutherford, New Jersey. Walk three hundred paces south of Giant’s Stadium, turn left at the Texaco and head for a small, windowless shack in an abandoned parking lot. Knock three times and come on in. There’s plenty of room down here in the bunker.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 2/19/2012

Here’s a shocker for you. Meryl Streep is one of the finest American actresses to have ever graced the silver screen. Even in lackluster films, her work shines through the muck. Julie and Julia anyone? At this point in her career, if Streep were in a Volvo commercial, somebody would be handing her a trophy. Celebrated for good reason, she’s one of those performers that can literally do no wrong. Holding the record for most nominations in both the Golden Globes (26) and the Academy Awards (17), Streep is also well recognized in the film industry. Basically, if she’s in a movie, it’s going to get some Oscar buzz. Care to take a guess on what’s going to happen when you take Meryl Streep, put her in some makeup and have her play Margret Thatcher in a British biopic? If you answered “awards pandemonium”, you get five points, two and a half happy faces and a gold star. Luckily for Meryl, The Iron Lady supports her acting chops with some good direction and a well written screenplay that humanizes the controversial Prime Minister while working within the staid biopic genre.

The Iron Lady, directed by famed British theater director Phyllida Lloyd, follows two separate paths. The first one, a standard tracking of Thatcher’s rise to Prime Minister in the sexist world of British politics, follows the usual biopic rhythms. Peppering in live action footage with Streep’s mesmerizing performance, the effect is interesting yet uninspiring. We’ve seen this type of film before with different figures plugged into the roles. The second path, however, is what gives the film a pulse and elevates the experience beyond the rules of the genre. In this path, we see Thatcher in 2008, long removed from her political life and struggling with dementia. Here she converses with her long dead husband, efforts to maintain strained relationships with her grown children and struggles with a life where she no longer has an impact. These scenes do a great job of giving the character depth and feeling, surprising if you know anything about Thatcher’s ultra-conservative public image.

Streep takes this ball and runs with it, filling the screen with her usual brilliance. The Oscar nominated actress disappears into the role, not only nailing the vocal cues of the former Parliament leader, but the emotional cues as well. The real life Thatcher was a Randian figure, a politician who believed everyone should work for their way in life and despised those who took without giving back. In a film adaptation, this one noted character would have been intolerable, but Streep, with the help of screenwriter Abi Morgan, delves deep into the motivations of Thatcher, creating someone we can care for, even if we disagree with her politics. This depth alone makes Streep’s performance one of the finest of the year .

The rest of the cast does a great job of giving the film historical accuracy and genuine color. High marks need to be given to Jim Broadbent who plays Dennis, the now deceased husband of Margaret. The direct result of Thatcher’s dementia, Dennis haunts our lead character with equal parts whimsy and accusation, pulling Margaret between the extremes of comfort and self regret. The result is the main source of tension in a film that desperately needs it. The film also utilizes some interesting shot selection and cinematography, again elevating the experience beyond the standard beats of the biopic genre. The film also ends symbolically, giving the movie a very nice bookend that rewards viewers paying close enough attention to get the reference.

As I said in my Week With Marilyn review, biopics are almost a direct road to Oscar nominations and can be seen as an easy one. Problem is, you still need to play those parts well in order to get on the highway. Meryl Streep again reminds us why she is a national treasure in The Iron Lady, filling the screen with a pitch perfect portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in both style and personality. Unlike the aforementioned Michelle Williams film, we leave the movie knowing a bit more about the central character than we did arriving. That in itself, is worth the price of admission. Carefully crafted and thoughtfully directed, The Iron Lady surpasses expectations by giving viewers a candid and well balanced look into the life of a controversial political figure. And no, it doesn’t hurt that it stars one of the finest American actress to have ever graced the silver screen.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/16/2012

If there’s one certainly in the world of cinema, it’s that we love going to space. A place few of us will see in our lifetime, film gives us a window to a mysterious world where gravity fails, stars shine bright and, no matter how hard you try, nobody can hear you scream. Every imaginable genre has taken trips to the great beyond. From Georges Méliès groundbreaking A Trip to the Moon to the surrealistic nightmare of 2001, filmmakers have been fascinated with the skies above since the beginning of the art form. Hell, even Abbot and Costello went to Mars.

Problem was that space had always been situated in the realm of science fiction. Fantasy tales of thunderous rockets, starship battles and grotesque aliens, nobody ever bothered to simply get it right. Depict space travel as it really was for the brave men and women who stepped into a tiny capsule strapped to 800,000 pounds of rocket fuel and blasted into the heavens. Not quite Wile E Coyote strapped to an Acme rocket, but close. Luckily for us, director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks had that a singular vision to bring the real life drama of space travel to the screen. The result was 1995’s Apollo 13, an emotionally stirring story of tragedy and triumph wrapped in the real life drama of a doomed NASA mission.

When I first saw this film in the late nineties, I had no clue of the real Apollo 13 mission. My dad brought the VHS home one day, we popped it in and I was blown away. The story tracks the strange set of circumstances that took the voyage of Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) and turned it into a fight for survival. Not satisfied with simply tracking the mission, the movie also tells the story of Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise), the astronaut left behind, the mission’s gruff flight director, Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) and Jim’s wife (Kathleen Quinlan). The movie boasts an extraordinary accuracy in not only how they deal with the science, how they handle the relationships between the different players. Simply put, the film feels real from performance to blast off.

Tom Hanks stars as the captain of the doomed vessel and you can tell he loves every minute of his portrayal. A self-professed space nut to begin with, Hanks hurls himself into the role with surprising restraint, getting every beat of the eagle eyed captain down to a tee. Harris is also noteworthy in the role of the flight director, giving a grounded and restrained performance. The film also boasts the most accurate depictions of the science of space travel ever put to film. From the inside of Mission Control, to the interiors of the spacecraft to the launch itself, Apollo 13 set a standard for space realism, a benchmark no film has exceeded since.

The story itself is treated with the same attention to detail, sometimes to the detriment of the film. Side stories like Jim’s wife losing her ring in the shower or the networks not running the crew’s TV broadcast may come off as emotionally leading but actually took place in the real life events. These scenes may come off cheesy to the viewer but they never dull the impact of the events that took place. Viewers who are unaware of the actual story may find the suspense artificially enhanced but the effect is downright riveting. Every element of the movie, from the sound design to the score, are all perfectly pitched to heighten the drama and creating genuine suspense.

As I said in the outset of this review, if space movies are a dime a dozen, Apollo 13 is the statistical outlier. While it may not have any standout performances, the film is a well-mixed combination of acting and directing. Standing on the bedrock of historical accuracy and providing more than enough suspense, Apollo 13 is an entertaining docudrama that holds up even today. Suffice to say, when NASA astronauts not only approve the production but use scenes from the film for historical purposes, you know you got it right. A fine film in nearly every regard.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/1/2012

In the opening scene of Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation, a modern Iranian couple sits before a judge, explaining why they need a divorce. As an audience, it looks as though these two characters are talking to us, explaining their case as if we were judge and jury. She wants to flee to America with her family intact, he wants to stay to care for his Alzheimer’s addled father. Tempers flare and words exchange, but the conversation never turns bitter. Never turns harsh. The love is there but it’s being torn by time and circumstance and as an audience, our hearts start breaking from minute one. This first scene sets the tone for the entire film, a tone that elevates the film beyond the subtitles and low budget camerawork. A heart-rending combination of acting, writing and directing, A Separation is a perfectly made movie, one that film fans need to seek out any way they can.

The upper middle class family A Separation examines consists of Nader, his wife Simin and their eleven year old daughter, Termeh. When Simin moves back in with her parents, leaving the exceptionally bright Termeh with her father, Nader hires a devout woman to care for his ailing father. This leads to a series of circumstances and little lies that escalate beyond anybody’s expectation. The film has a number of fascinating themes running through it, all dealt with honesty and emotional integrity. From the white lies one tells to keep a family together to the minor deceits inherent in keeping your ego intact, the film creates tension from insight, not plot contrivance. This is a personal film at the core and the effects are immediately palpable.

The film also benefits from having one of the best casts you’ll see this year. From the stern nature of Nader (Peyman Moaadi) to the emotionally torn Simin (Leila Hatami), the entire cast is perfectly pitched, creating relatable characters that are easy to root for. Most impressive, however, is the work of Sarina Farhadi as young Termeh. Vulnerable yet wise beyond her years, Farhadi pushes herself to the limit in her performance, creating a sad little center the rest of the cast storms around. The movie is also bolstered by an Oscar nominated screenplay that never wastes a line of dialogue or a second of screen time in telling the story.

When the Oscars roll around, most people go to the bathroom during the Foreign Language awards. These films rarely get to American theaters before the ceremony and the ones that do are relegated to limited release. Two years ago, it was The Secret In Her Eyes, last year it was In A Better World and this year it’s going to be A Separation. Shame too, as most audiences never get a chance to see these remarkable movies unless they hear the winners over the flush of a toilet and think to throw it on the Netflix queue. The sad thing is that A Separation is not only the best foreign language film released this year, it happens to be my second favorite film of 2011, bar none. A wonderfully made film that examines the little lies and deceptions inherent in the unnatural tearing of a relationship, A Separation is a triumph of international filmmaking.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 1/26/2012

Note: Being this is my 100th review on Rotten Tomatoes, I decided to write a piece on one of the films that helped spur my love of cinema. Luckily for me, one of those films, Apocalypse Now, just happened to be next on my Review My Collection list. While this follows the traditional review format, I look some liberties in talking about my personal connection to the movie. Also note, this is a review of the original 1979 film, not the Redux edition from 2001. Thanks for your continued readership!

—-

I’m not quite sure when I first ran into the subject of review #100, but my first sharp recollection was a viewing for my Literature in Film class, junior year of college. The opening scene struck me from the get go. The glaze eyed stare of Martin Sheen as helicopters juxtapose with ceiling fans to the drive of The Doors marked a manic, perfect beginning to a manic, perfect film. Like Martin, I was beginning a journey of sorts, his a slow river ride into the surreal world of Vietnam, mine a struggling step into the world of film criticism. I had already brushed against this film once or twice thanks to my father, but this time was different. My goal was to take a scene and dissect it bit by bit. Take a classic piece of a landmark film and break it up into a series of pans, tilts and pulls.

The scene I chose was the first landing of the PBR on the shores of a Vietnamese colony, the scene where Willard first meets the manic Colonel Killgore (Robert Duvall). The scene always fascinated me but this time it was different. Separated from the drama of the moment, I looked for the first time beyond the story, beyond the frame and understood exactly why it was engaging, why the entire film is brilliant. Technique. Director Francis Ford Coppola treated every shot with a meticulous eye and perfect composition. No shot wasted, no line of dialogue squandered, this five minute scene told me everything I needed to know about how filmmaking could be approached given the hand of a master. Suddenly, it all meant sense.

The plot itself is a deceptively simple one. Captain Willard (Sheen) is on a secret mission to “terminate the command” of one Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly decorated officer who has gone rouge, fighting his own brand of warfare in the Cambodian jungle. Escorting the captain on his slow cruise down the Nung River, is a tidy cross section of the US forces in Vietnam. From a no nonsense boat commander to a professional surfer just looking for his next tan, the crew captures the random nature of the US occupation. Most of these draftees were bottom feeders, souls nobody gave two ticks about and Coppola perfectly illustrates the dichotomy between the men on a mission and the boys who just want to go home.

Coppola also gives his actors plenty of room to work and build engaging characters. No one cast member, from Sheen on down, is given the short end of the dramatic stick. Be it Chef’s wild ramblings about a tiger attack or Lance’s slow metamorphosis, the cast is well directed, bringing small snippets of life to the somber journey. Sheen himself is near brilliant in a career defining role, teetering between unhinged and dutiful throughout the feature. As Sheen rolls down the river, he learns more and more about the mysterious Kurtz and with every passing page of the dossier, starts to respect him. The journey is both a physical and emotional one and Sheen does a great job in balancing both sides. Brando is also fantastic as the brooding Kurtz, chilling in voiceover, tape recordings and in the final reveal in the Cambodian compound.

In writing this review, I find myself feeling connected to this landmark picture in a way I didn’t expect. From the patient photography, to the unorganized madness of a bridge embattlement, Coppola poured his heart, soul and finances into a film that can only be called a masterpiece of 20th century filmmaking. From my perspective, the movie is more than a surrealistic ride down a Vietnamese river. It’s a statement of human nature, a piercing look into change, progress, and our baser impulses. In Apocalypse Now, Coppola took a short novella written in 1903 and adapted it into one of the most complete Vietnam films ever made.

My connection is a more personal one. Back on that day in 2002, I looked at a movie beyond the gun fire and explosions, the pure entertainment of it all. That day I discovered a world of art and beauty, a place I felt closest to with a notebook in hand. A journey of my own started that afternoon, a trip that’s taken me through a hundred reviews, some glowing, some scathing but all of them honest, heartfelt and a joy to write. Like Captain Willard in Coppola’s Vietnam epic, I started out with dim expectations of what was to come and while I’ve yet to reach my credit roll, I know I’ll be infinitely surprised when I get there.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 1/15/2012

An orange glow washes over a boy and horse, framing them in silhouette against the late day sky. The thunder of hooves and hilts as an equine legion gallops towards an infantry unit. The giggle of a small girl as she tries to teach our protagonist how to jump. Two rivals become friends in the oddest of situations. War Horse is filled with glorious moments, expertly crafted by one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, Steven Spielberg. The classic book turned award winning play has been getting a lot of attention this year, culminating in this Oscar season film. Gloriously shot and filled with the filmmaking flourishes only a master like Spielberg can muster, War Horse is a visual marvel. Unfortunately, looks can only get you so far as this film misses great by a number of small missteps. War Horse is worth a watch but don’t expect an experience that ranks among the director’s greatest work.

War Horse tells the story of a boy named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) and a horse named Joey. Albert was witness to the birth of Joey and when his father randomly purchases the colt at auction, Albert takes up his training. However, things take a turn for the worse when a little thing called World War 1 breaks out and an attempt to save the farm (yes…that old gag), Albert’s father is forced to sell Joey to the English army. The film then chronicles the adventures of Joey as he travels in and around the war, touching a number of people along the way.

Remember what I said about the movie being beautifully made? Wow, is it ever true. With the help of long time collaborator Janusz Kaminski, War Horse is painted in the award winning cinematographer’s signature style. While some may find the textures over bright and unrealistic, I found them to be emotionally stirring. The film is also punctuated with the little directorial flourishes that make Spielberg a master storyteller. From a the turn of a windmill hiding a somber moment to a little girls shocking discovery as she crests a hilltop, War Horse is an easy film to get swept up in based on the visuals alone.

Oh yeah. Remember what I said about the film being very flawed? Wow, is it ever true. The film suffers from a lackluster first half that’s predictable and episodic. While things pick up considerably in the second half, right around when Joey meets a farmer and his granddaughter, the film has already lost momentum due its inherent lack of tension. In a film called “War Horse”, it’s not too much of a spoiler to say that the horse is going to succeed throughout most of the film. Or course one could say the story is really about the relationship between a boy and his steed but even there the film doesn’t quite work. While the movie goes to great lengths to show you the relationship between Albert and Joey, I never quite felt it. To further the issue, Albert disappears from the film 45 minutes in only to resurface towards the end. By the time you pick up his story again, I didn’t even recognize the character, a bad sign for a film about a human/equine relationship.

Through all of the film’s faults, there does remain one glimmer that pushes us through the predictable tale. Steven Spielberg loves the material and loves making movies. A perfect example of a director giving his all, War Horse survives solely on the breath of its director. If somebody else had helmed this film, it would have been a clichéd disaster. With Spielberg’s direction, War Horse gallops above the contrivances of the plot, and provides an easy to enjoy film that everybody can find something to enjoy in. Just don’t expect to get caught up in the tension, rooting for the characters or discovering something you didn’t already know. Just sit back, grab some munchies and let the stunning visuals take you above and beyond the plot points. You’ll enjoy the movie much better that way.

Score – 75%

Originally Reviewed – 1/10/2012

One word: NC-17.

Kinda freaks you out, doesn’t it. The Scarlett Letter of film ratings, NC-17 has the potential to doom a film to obscurity. Major theaters won’t pick it up, Walmart won’t sell the DVD and the film gets looked at with a crooked glance, as if you’d have to go to a creepy place with “viewing booths” to watch it. Usually given for explicit sexual content, the lines for warranting an NC-17 are ridiculously blurry. Industry pressure causes filmmakers to cut, crimp and tone down their work just to avoid the damming label. Even last year’s Blue Valentine was at risk of falling victim to the NC curse. Luckily it was saved at the last moment by an appeal from the Weinsteins and received the R without any additional editing but imagine if you had to go to Helga’s Adult Emporium to see an Oscar nominated film. Despite the stigma of the rating, British filmmaker Steve McQueen (Hunger) decided to pull no punches with his latest film, Shame, an unflinching look into the world of sexual addiction. Unfortunately, nearly every jab misses the mark in one my biggest disappointments of the year.

Michael Fassbender plays Brandon, a thirty something New York sex addict who spends his hours surfing scandalous websites and spending time with various women of the evening. Despite his life consuming desires, Brandon is functioning quite well. He just landed a big deal with his firm, he has the money to satisfy his urges and life isn’t too shabby. That is until his sister (Carey Mulligan) comes knocking on his door. She needs a place to crash while restarting her singing career and just like that, Brandon’s routine of decadence is thrown out of whack, forcing him to examine the lifestyle he’s created.

First the good and despite the low score, there are some positives. Director Steve McQueen does a very good job at setting the right tone for the film. Although the movie deserves every letter of its NC-17 rating with some very gratuitous sex scenes, McQueen never does so to titillate. Instead, the trysts are somber and joyless, perfectly conveying the compulsion of sexual addiction. Fassbender also does the best he can with a terrible script (more on that later) and delivers a performance that has flashes of brilliance, except when he starts crying or tries to hide strong Irish brogue. Again, not the fault of the actor as this is a pitch nobody could hit.

And what a hollow pitch it is. Supported by a god awful script, Shame languishes in dialogue that goes nowhere and one cut scenes that drag on indefinitely. The script is twenty minutes worth of ideas stretched out to ninety and the filler drags the pacing to a crawl. Scenes such as a long jog across midtown Manhattan and a funeral dirge version of New York, New York sung by a sleep inducing Carey Mulligan do nothing to further the story or give us insight into the characters. What the film calls ambiguous, I call lazy writing, the mark of a filmmaker who isn’t aware that having people suffer isn’t enough to make an audience care. While I did like Fassbender in the difficult lead role, Mulligan again disappointed as his eccentric sister. Playing more a caricature than a character, Mulligan flips from manic to depressive with little insight into her characters true motivations.

All that aside, Shame can be best described as a well-meaning mess, a film that does its best to take viewers on a cringe inducing journey into the heart of sexual addiction. The premise is good, Fassbender has some amazing moments and the film has a nice ending twist that highlights the central theme beautifully. Problem is, you need to give us characters we can care about and a story to pull us through their pain. Shame fails at both those goals, instead filling the screen with fluff and filler. Featuring banal dialogue, pretentious film techniques and boring scenes that chased people out of the theater, Shame offers much but, in the end, provides very little. A good try at pushing the envelope, Steve McQueen’s latest is a cold, desperate and utterly painful film to sit through. Not since Showgirls has NC-17 been so boring. Tsk, tsk. What a Shame.

Score – 40%