Review: Philomena

Twentieth Century Fox/The Weinstein Company

Going into Philomena, I thought I knew what to expect. A movie starring Judi Dench about a little, old Irish woman looking for the son who was taken away from her at the age of 16 and hasn't seen since sounded like a very melodramatic, touching piece of filmmaking that my Mom would love. So, of course I decided to see it with my Mom instead of Out of the Furnace (a review of that to come shortly!) because it looked too intense/dark for her. Besides, Steve Coogan co-stars as the reluctant journalist, Martin Sixsmith, who decides to help Philomena (Dench) search for her son in order to rebuild his recently shattered career, and I find Coogan generally very funny, entertaining, and a decent actor to boot. So why not?

I guess I should have remembered that Stephen Frears directed this one too. He's a veteran when it comes to drama, and not unused to grit and grim either as evidenced by Dirty Pretty Things and Dangerous Liaisons. But he's also accustomed to effectively portraying grief and subtle bewilderment as seen in The Queen, and Frears brings all of his talents together to deliver a very unexpected, more complex story with Philomena. 

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Lionsgate Pictures

Well, finally getting around to writing a review of this one. I saw it the Monday after it came out in theaters, and I must admit that I don't have much at stake in this trilogy or the story hence my neglecting to write a review. Sure, the first film was quite good, and I was impressed with the performances and direction most of all. Jennifer Lawrence is always good and Lionsgate is quite lucky to have roped her into all three films (although she did increase her salary drastically after the first film's overwhelming success). I haven't read the books either, so knowing nothing about the series aside from the fact that it's a mish-mash of other stories (specifically Battle Royal) I was excited to find that I could enjoy the first film without already being a fan.

But of course, with a enormously successful start to a film series, the most pressure generally falls on the sequel. Early news had original director Gary Ross decline the offer to direct Catching Fire as well as a couple new writers taking the place of the old ones. Thankfully, Ross and the original team successfully established a specific look and feel to everything in Pan-Am (or however you spell it), so the new guys had a lot to work with the second time around. And of course, the whole original cast returned along with some more big names including Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright. So as always, we wonder if the sequel will maintain and ideally improve on what the first began.

Review: Dallas Buyers Club

Focus Features

Much of this year and reaching back into 2012, film audiences have been stunned by the overhaul that is Matthew McConaughey. The pretty boy actor formerly known for taking his shirt off in every movie he was in and only producing chick flicks and romcoms took a couple years off from acting and came back with the proclamation that he was only going to take roles that "scared him." Many actors have said similar things, but none have had the turn-around we've seen from McConaughey. With Magic Mike, Killer Joe, and Mud, McConaughey has proven that he can handle roles outside of being shirtless including comedic ones but also dark, ruthless killers. With Martin Scorses' star-studded Wolf of Wall Street still to be released this Christmas, McConaughey seems to be putting everything he's got into winning an Oscar this year.

But first, we must consider Dallas Buyers Club, the movie many critics are saying could potentially win McConaughey the Oscar. The film received early attention due to behind-the-scenes shots of a shockingly emaciated McConaughey who underwent extreme weight loss to portray real-life AIDS victim Ron Woodroof. Like Robert De Niro, Christian Bale, and others before him, McConaughey seemed to be going the route of extreme body-makeover to draw even more attention to his new dedication to serious acting. Along with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I eagerly awaited Dallas Buyers Club to be released in a city near me. I didn't expect too much from the movie as a whole, but I figured it'd be worth seeing for McConaughey's undoubtedly great performance. Because as many Oscar hopefuls have demonstrated in the past, often times a film doesn't have much more to offer other than an impacting protagonist.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Fox Searchlight Pictures

The picture above is a still frame from a shot in 12 Years a Slave that lasts at least a full minute. The camera remains fixed on Solomon Northup's (Chiwetel Ejiofor) face as he simply stares. This shot occurs late in the film so the audience has already witnessed a host of atrocities committed against Solomon. You half expect the camera to cut away to reveal some horrendous sight or the beginning to a new scene, but it does not. Such a long, lingering shot of his downcast face forces the audience to try and imagine what he is feeling. Solomon was kidnapped from freedom with his family in New York and forced into slavery to suffer at the hands of several, very cruel slave owners. What could he possibly be thinking and feeling, nearly 12 years later?

In the end, we really cannot know. I think director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) had this intention all along. He's mentioned in interviews how he wanted to make a realistic depiction of slavery and felt that Hollywood had not done a sufficient job up to this point. He came across the true story of Solomon, written by the man himself, and figured he'd finally found a story that would do justice to years and years of injustices against an entire race. It was a very ambitious plan, but McQueen's previous films more than demonstrate that he is an expert when it comes to directing highly emotional and intense content.

Review: Captain Phillips

Columbia Pictures

I was hesitant about Captain Phillips at first for a number of reasons. For one, I find many, recent "based on a true story" films unnecessary. Part of the reason being a clear attempt by Hollywood at jumping on the bandwagon of any recent, big news story. They rightly estimate that enough people will be curious enough to pay to see a cinematic rendition of something they saw plastered all over CNN and Fox News for weeks. And they do so out of sheer curiosity or the idea that they'll somehow learn something new from an often largely fictitious reenactment. Or, what I'll never understand, is that so many people actually go to see many movies solely based off of the "based on a true story" tagline because that makes a movie somehow "better" or more "worthwhile." I don't believe a movie, or story for that matter, loses any of its meaning or impact just because it happened once upon a time or it didn't. I don't know about you, but the movies and stories that have impacted me the most have been fiction. After all, most "true" stories aren't that at all. So, obviously, I had my reservations about Captain Phillips' largest claim to fame besides the presence of one of every American's favorite actor, Tom Hanks.

Secondly, I am not the biggest fan of Paul Greengrass' directing style. The Bourne Supremacy was Greengrass' first big hit as a director followed closely by United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum. Greengrass' shaky-cam, quicking cutting (the average shot in The Bourne Supremacy is something like 1.5 seconds or 2 seconds long, I don't remember exactly but it's crazy short) style thrilled Bourne fans and is an effective, albeit easy, way of creating high tension and forcing the audience to focus as hard as they can on what the hell is going on. In the case of the Bourne films it was usually a matter of keeping track of who was still holding the knife in a very intense, hand-to-hand fight in a dirty hotel room in Berlin or something like that. Suffice to say, Greengrass' style, while definitely effective, is generally uncomfortable to watch. I much prefer smoother, more graceful styles of cinematography and editing. So, Captain Phillips also sounded like a rather unpleasant viewing experience that I'd rather not inflict upon myself.

Before Midnight and Living Life in a Straight Line

Sony Pictures Classics

Almost 20 years ago, we first met Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) in Before Sunrise in Vienna when Jesse runs into Celine on a train. The two begin to talk, there are obvious sparks, and they proceed to spend the whole evening and night together, but part ways in the morning. 10 years later, we see them again in Before Sunset when Jesse (now a successful author) is on a book tour stop in Paris and Celine comes to meet him again. Once again, they talk for the entire duration of the film and the film ends at Celine's apartment as the sun goes down. The ending is a bit ambiguous, but we can guess that the two finally decide to come together as a couple. 

And now, almost 20 years later, Before Midnight confirms where they left off. Jesse and Celine are together, they have twin girls, and Jesse's 14 year old son lives in Chicago with his ex-wife while he lives in Paris. The entire film follows Jesse and Celine as they begin vacation on the beautiful Peloponnese coast in Greece (some seriously beautiful scenery here) with some friends and take the first evening to walk to a hotel in the town nearby where they plan to spend a romantic evening. In true director Richard Linklater fashion and like the other films, Before Midnight consists of nothing but all the characters conversing, but there is never a dry moment. Every conversation is highly interesting, and yet feels very natural and real for all the characters and not just fashioned for the audience's enjoyment. Linklater is in top form in the masterfully handled long shots and directing of Hawke and Delpy who deliver fantastic performances. Linklater is definitely inspired by Woody Allen's unique ability to capture the awkwardness and complexity of human interaction, and he takes it one step further in the meaningful content that can be found in each one of the conversations we witness.

Review: Gravity

Warner Bros.

Ever since 2006's Children of Men, I've been on board with anything director Alfonso Cuaron does. Coupled with Emmanuel Lubezki's (a childhood friend of Cuaron's) amazing cinematography (using some jaw-dropping long-takes and handheld camera), Cuaron proved himself a master of directing suspenseful action but able to keep a hold of the humanity and depth of the characters. The only problem was that was back in 2006. Cuaron didn't make any feature film again till rumor of a project related to space or sci-fi of some sort surfaced back in 2011, and of course, now in 2013 we finally get Cuaron's next film, Gravity.

Early reports said that some serious special effects and 3D work were going to be involved in this project. And then it became known that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were going to be the only stars of the film as astronauts involved in a space shuttle catastrophe who are launched, adrift, into space (basically a living nightmare for a lot of people right up there with drowning). A couple of things become apparent immediately. One, only two actors means more pressure on the actors and the script to keep the audience emotionally invested in the characters beyond just the action. Two, a whole host of potential factual inaccuracies as far as space stuff goes. Three, will the 3D work?