Mockingjay Part 1

Down and Dirty: Is it a set-up for the finale? Yes. Is it a worthy addition to the franchise? Absolutely.

Director: Francis Lawrence

Big Names: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman (RIP)

Why all the hate? Especially during the holidays.

A large portion of the critical reviews I’ve seen about the latest Hunger Games installment refer to it as a ‘filibuster’ or ‘monetary filler’ for the eventual finale due out November 2015. This of course suggests that Mockingjay Part 1 does not have the legs to carry an enthralling story arc – and while it has more drawn out instances of exposition than the previous movies, this film stands on its own quite well.

Francis Lawrence returns to direct his second film of the franchise after his wildly successful adaptation of Catching Fire. A wise decision. The continuity felt from the get go of Mockingjay Part 1 allows the viewer to slip right back into the environment, story, and emotion that define the hallmark of this generation’s dystopian storytelling. That uninterrupted flow is the single ingredient that awakens the viewer’s nostalgia after a yearlong hiatus from Katniss’ butt-kicking sass. It is the seamless transition from friendly banter to politico debate one can always count on at Thanksgiving dinner – you know Aunt Carrie will bring the liberal hammer down, it’s a welcome expectation. 

That’s what this movie did. It provided the smelling salts to reinvigorate our love for revolution and then it set out the mouthwatering sample for what is to come. But that’s all it really needed to do. There’s no reason to knock this film for executing plot set up in a meaningful way. This iteration of Hunger Games was going to carry the weight of the story no matter how the producers chose to slice it. By breaking Mockingjay into two films they have allowed for vast swaths of space to develop characters that will undoubtedly make or break the authenticity of the final movie. Francis Lawrence definitely makes the most of this opportunity.

He develops Katniss’ pain like a sculptor. You get the breadth of her sorrow in one fell swoop and then it is refined throughout the film. Her agony is at first widespread, covering a multitude of issues - the struggle of being the reluctant leader, the losses she experiences both at home and abroad, and the brutal pain of love, unrequited and reciprocated alike. But it eventually narrows, targeting Katniss’ deepest cuts (see: Peeta). The director utilizes his Oscar-winning actress to illustrate the raw emotion and J-Law yet again delivers as this tumultuous but driven version of Katniss Everdeen. Jennifer Lawrence embraces the shift and embodies a woman of conviction. It is terrific acting and there are even a few nods to her off-screen personality that make the performance feel truly authentic. The viewer knows J-Law and it serves to make Katniss even more accessible. We can empathize with her stress, anxiety, and passion because it feels like the real emotion we’ve seen from her before.

Despite all of these components that come together in Mockingjay Part 1 it is still a stepping stone for another (hopefully more complete) film come next Thanksgiving.  But don’t let any critic tell you it’s not worth the viewing. The characters alone will take you where you’re looking to go in Panem. 

Fury

Down and Dirty: Gruesome, honest depiction of the mantra – ‘War Is Hell’

Director: David Ayer

Big Names: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman

Fury, David Ayer's latest directorial effort, is a film about a fictional American tank squadron in the latter stages of World War II. The group, led by seasoned killer Sergeant Don Collier (Brad Pitt), begins the advance into Germany whilst inheriting a new machine gunner (Logan Lerman). Unfortunately for the squad, he is as green as it gets. Inexperienced, unconfident, and scared, his struggles to find an identity within the Sherman tank are equal parts heartbreaking and invigorating. The film itself is a stark depiction of what war can do to men – and in that it stands in good company.

The HBO miniseries 'Band of Brothers' captured the following ideas about war with emotional tact.

1) War will always create absolute agony.

2) There is no greater bond than that of men in battle together.

Fury captures these same notions in a similar fashion. And while I thought Band of Brothers had a monopoly on compelling World War II imagery, Ayer proves otherwise here.

The violence in this movie is overwhelmingly graphic. Cringe-worthy even, though it doesn’t quite reach Tarantino levels of gore. You won’t see it and think ‘Those are some really good special effects!’ No, you will think ‘That man’s head just got blown off.’ This makes Ayer’s purpose of showing that war is indeed hell much more accessible. The film is filling your mind with realistic depictions of violence and death at every turn of the tank. But the violence also starts to leave you anesthetized. It is almost too prevalent to have the impact the director desires. The audience grows numb to the kill shots by the end of the narrative. Although it’s never comfortable, it doesn’t shock you like it did initially. Hell starts to feel like purgatory. Perhaps Ayer is a genius though. Maybe this is a nuanced denunciation of the trend society exhibits on the whole in regards to violence. Up the pain threshold until censorship has dissipated altogether – keep watching the evil that unfolds before you and then ask yourself the question of why you’re immune to it.  

There is a more blatant purpose for the violence. When you step back and consider that this is legitimately how men died 70 years ago, the queasiness starts to set in. This is not Call of Duty. There’s no ‘+100’ bonus for a headshot. Instead there’s just the headless body of a man lying in the dirt: a man who had brothers in arms within his unit.

Brothers in arms. Ayer uses the violence to bring these men together – to bond them in a way that no other human being can possibly understand or empathize with. These unique and deadly experiences serve to forge a connection that can only be shared by those in the trenches. Those who know what it means to sacrifice your life and put it in another man’s hands. On that front, Fury is impeccable. Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Bernthal, and Micheal Pena all put in top dollar performances as the veteran tank squad and Logan Lerman may have landed his breakout role. He plays the innocent and inexperienced typist turned soldier perfectly, bringing the full emotional range he displayed in ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower.’ He is shaped and molded by the men of his unit, especially Sergeant Don Collier. Pitt’s Sgt. Collier is ruthless, efficient, and loyal to the death. It is inspiring to watch him lead a group of men into battle - even if it’s a fictional one on a giant screen. He harvests components of his Inglorious Basterds character, but only the best shades of Lt. Aldo Raine seep through.  Jon Bernthal and Michael Pena also put in solid performances as the glue guys who keep everyone together. But it is Shia LaBeouf’s character that I found most intriguing.

Boyd ‘Bible’ Swan is a devout believer of the Christian faith. Within the unit, he fields the typical harassing questions like whether Jesus loves Hitler, but he also provides the compass in a moral wasteland. His faith and reliance on scripture prove to be representative of the goodness man can find in God while traversing the valley of sin and death. When scripture like Isaiah 6 and 1 John 2 affect the hearts of the men in times of trial it is truly moving. It is exciting to see Shia LaBeouf so adamantly and respectfully take on the identity of a man of God in the medium of Hollywood film. Ayer is a Christian himself and I believe that he does the film a service by including his faith in a tasteful manner.

The characters are layered, the brotherhood is unbreakable, and the violence is prevalent. Fury is a war movie through and through. If graphic content is palatable to you, it’s worth a watch. Just keep in mind the message behind it.

A Most Wanted Man

Down and Dirty: A real character study, super slow, good but definitely not for everyone. (thumbs up)

Director: Anton Corbijn (The American)

Big Names: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rachel McAdams, Willem Defoe, Robin Wright

A Most Wanted Man is the film adaptation of a spy novel. It could most aptly be described as a fascinating thriller about terrorism, though that is still a bit of mistaken identity in my opinion. Anton Corbijn, a Dutch man known for his music videos, directs the movie with fervor. But let me be clear, it is not James Bond. The pacing is extraordinarily slow, however, it is deliberate and makes the experience worthwhile. You are drawn into the world of terrorism in Europe where each player has a different role, a different bureaucratic authority, and a different demon to face.

It is, at its core, a slow-burning thriller – though not by Hollywood’s standards. There are no exceptionally choreographed action sequences that get you pumped. Graphic content is at a minimum (which I must say is refreshing). No, this is not a Bond film. This is a character study. The film focuses on an anti-terror unit in Germany, but if you look past the skin you’ll find a human portrayal of what drives us to work so hard. When did this vocation switch from their job to their identity? These characters are working desperately to accomplish something in the name of peace. These characters are methodically destroying people’s lives in the name of peace. It is a thankless, tortured, morally ambiguous profession.

Nowhere is that better seen than in Philip Seymour Hoffman’s face. This is his first film released posthumously and you can see the effect that his drug habit had taken on him. His tired eyes and the sharp creases in his face reveal everything about where he was personally. But they also complete his character, Gunter Bachmann, in a way no one else could have hoped to capture. That tragic look of despair and resignation mixed with an unbridled work ethic – it is eerie to see him portray something that was such a direct reflection of himself. Hoffman truly was a master craftsman.

There are many fine performances in this film including those of Willem Defoe, Rachel McAdams, and Robin Wright (shouts out to House of Cards). But Hoffman is the star that they revolve around and they complement him brilliantly in the bureaucratic solar system of government agency. Aside from the acting, the dark cinematography captures Hamburg in a beautiful way. The characterization of the city does not distract the viewer, but its heavy presence is always apparent.

For all the things it does well (the ending is especially good), the movie does struggle with pacing here and there. Sometimes the slow lurch is building to something and other times you feel as though everything is moving in slow motion. Again, this isn’t James Bond. Don’t see this if you cannot handle theatre because that’s what this is closest to – a really good play that they happened to film. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who loves film as art or just a good character study. The many layers of complexity will keep you engaged throughout; and if they don’t, just observe the magnificently heartbreaking descent into despair by Philip Seymour Hoffman.  

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Down and Dirty: Thrilling action movie that asks the right questions. A worthy sequel.

Director: Matt Reeves  (Cloverfield)

Big Names: Gary Oldman, Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, Andy Serkis

Imagine this film: A prisoner of war has been released upon the dissipation of conflict. His anger and resentment towards his captors remains. He allows it to infect his thoughts and fuel his actions. His extremist views put him at odds with his fellow nationalists. How far is he willing to go to exact revenge on his nemesis?

An interesting plotline. Now imagine that this is just one of several sinuous, intriguing stories happening in the film. All of them relate to the main course of what nationalism looks like for individuals on opposing sides of a conflict, or even the same side. Pepper in some leadership models, emotional connections, and violent conflict for taste. Bake at four hundred degrees for two hours. You should see the story rise and expand through the screen over the course of the movie. Once it’s golden brown, remove from the oven and frost with beautiful cinematography.

Wait I’m forgetting something.

Ah, that’s right.

Don’t overlook the talking monkeys. That’s the most critical ingredient here…or is it?

In my opinion, the film could be just as entertaining with an entire cast of human characters (perhaps even more character depth?). But the primates’ inhuman identity brings subtlety to the question of where the viewer’s sympathies are drawn. Now that’s an effective use of an unrealistic plot device.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the sequel to last year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It is undeniably superior to that James Franco infused treat. Rise was entertaining and it hinted at the important question of the morality of genetic testing on animals; but Dawn actually has some kick to it. Unlike the huge scope of the issue of genetic testing, here Director Matt Reeves opts to pose several smaller questions surrounding leadership, loyalty, and nationalism all of which feel relevant and palatable in the two hour run time. The best part though? The talking monkeys are a bonus, the cherry on top of the sundae. The entire plot of this film would still be interesting and viable if it were tweaked to be solely about humans from different countries. That means you can enjoy the science fiction without being caught up in the world of science fiction. Movies like Looper drag you into the weirdness of the alternate reality because of the glaring difference between their world and ours (in Looper’s case, time travel). Here, the idea of genetically enhanced hyper-intelligent primates becomes a subtle acceptable truth because they are analogous to humans in ways that make them very relatable. The story is good enough that you are along for the ride without feeling lost in the whacky environment bombarding your senses.

Everything feels familiar about this post-apocalyptic San Francisco. You’ve seen this before. The human race battling for survival against a futuristic foreign power isn’t a new concept. That’s not what makes this original. The originality stems from Reeves and how he manages to weave several characters’ stories together with simple common factors in a thrilling way with the ultimate common factor being peace. He demonstrates how each character views and searches for the common good. What might be mundane in other films feels critical here – meaning that other films skimp on the dialogue and skip straight to the conflict; this one takes you through how the characters strive for peace. You’re invested in how the diplomacy plays out. These issues feel relatable to our political atmosphere. When the tension builds to battle, you’re heart rate builds with it. Reeves creates this atmosphere with extraordinarily smooth cinematography, a truly tense score, and solid acting from Gary Oldman, Jason Clarke, and Keri Russell. Andy Serkis’ (Smeagol aka Gollum from LOTR) motion capture acting as the leader of the primates, Caesar, is something to behold. You might think it easy to emulate the movements of a monkey, try doing it on horseback with an M-16 rifle. Which brings us to the CGI animation. The movie has its very own look and feel: overgrown, dark, and intense. It’s impossible to tell what is a Hollywood set and what is animated, which monkeys are real and which aren’t. Just kidding, but seriously the movie looks really good. I commend the filmmakers for keeping the action sequences enticing without being ridiculous. You will surely enjoy the action scenes of this film while you ponder the many moral questions thrown at you. What does it take to be a leader? Was Machiavelli right? What should we fight for? And just how much is peace worth?

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a fun ride with some unexpected depth. If nothing else, go see it for the talking monkeys.

Noah

Down and Dirty: An outsider’s intriguing retelling of the biblical epic of Noah

Director: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan, The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream)

Big Names: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson

Different people have different problems with the film Noah, but everybody finds something they don’t agree with. It was designed that way. Director Darren Aronofsky knew it was going to be controversial when he decided to adapt a biblical story as a Non-Christian in a predominantly Christian nation - understand that before you go see this, or at the very least try to appreciate his perspective. I understand why Christians might be offended. This is one of the cornerstones of biblical faith being re-imagined by a man who does not understand the nature of a personal relationship with God. But I truly believe that Aronofsky’s take holds true to the thematic elements within the biblical version of the story. Does he take artistic liberties? Absolutely. Does he deviate from the timeline and details as presented in the Bible? No doubt. But does he show that mankind is broken, worthy of death, and redeemed only through God’s mercy? I think he does.

Aronofsky weaves a gripping account of the Ark, the flood, and God’s will through beautiful CGI and cinematography coupled with a dramatic human interpretation of the events in the book of Genesis. That’s what he does best here; he connects the human element to the spiritual story. In Christian culture, the story of Noah often becomes a mythical children’s tale with a hero who saves humanity by the grace of God; and I think that’s truly Aronofsky’s understanding of it as well. But he takes that premise and shows how the trials associated with understanding God’s will can result in tangible arguments and struggles between human beings. Does he over do the subtlety of God’s presence? It depends on whom you ask. It certainly can feel like it is Noah making all the tough calls instead of God, who feels absent and aloof through most of the film. But that’s an outsider’s take on the relationship that God has with man.

As a Christian, it’s hard to watch the relationship between Noah (a devout believer) and God trimmed down to apocalyptic visions and unanswered cries to heaven. Were those aspects of communicating with God? For sure, but it’s clear that based on a Christian understanding of faith Noah definitely had a reciprocal relationship with the Lord. That is the essence of prayer, which is largely absent in this film but also not exactly spoken to in the biblical account. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the Bible shows conversations with the Lord taking place during a time of prayer, so it can possibly be inferred that is how Noah communicated when it says the Lord spoke to him. All of this is to say that Christians cannot expect Aronofsky to understand the delicate nature of issues like this when he has no skin in the game. I don’t take offense to it; but instead I’m working to explain where my differences lie in a considerate manner. Lambasting the ‘Hollywood scene’ and its ‘secular ways’ will further remove me from the conversation about the nature of the Bible and God’s character. Quite frankly, that is the last thing I want to do – this film has already served to start great conversations in my life. I realize this review is more of an opinion piece, but I think it’s important to talk about. I would encourage you to read the book of Genesis and see the film. Form your own thoughts that allow you to discuss these issues in a diplomatic way. Movies are a human medium for telling stories. Each story means something different to everyone. Take the time to learn about what it means to both yourself and the people around you.

Her

Down and Dirty: An unusual but worthwhile examination of relationships

Director: Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are)

Big Names: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, and Amy Adams

This film is nominated for the Academy Award of Best Motion Picture of the Year for several reasons. The acting is brilliant, the near-future environment looks incredibly realistic, and the music is perfectly form fitting. But the one distinction that soars over all the others is the writing. That is also why this film brought home the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay. Spike Jonze has been working on the script for ‘Her’ over the course of the last several years. He honed it, refined it, and finally directed it this past year. You might only know him as the director of ‘Where the Wild Things Are,’ but that’s okay. That film is the perfect precursor to this one. It showcased his style as a uniquely interpretive artist who uses concise and realistic dialogue to convey a complex and emotional message. This ability has enabled Spike to create a film in ‘Her’ that challenges the audience to explore love and connection in real-life relationships.

In typical NoSpoilers! fashion, allow me to break down what you will be walking into without ruining the movie for you. This film is unlike most any other I have seen. It is intimate, awkward, emotional, funny, and ultimately an honest picture of how we interact with one another. It does not attempt to glorify love. It does not try to celebrate volatile romance. It simply shows us how we tend to be. Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore Twombly, a writer for a company in near-future Los Angeles that sends personalized love letters. He is in the midst of a divorce when he decides to try out a new operating system on his all-in-one device. The OS is named Samantha and is an artificial intelligence counterpart played by the voice of Scarlett Johansson. What follows is a slew of emotional interactions between Theodore and his many loved ones – his ex-wife, his friends, his OS. He works on one relationship, tidily manages his friends’, and develops yet another with Samantha. Central to the film, his relationship with Samantha starts as casual niceties and conversation quickly evolves into something serious. Theodore must wrestle with the notion of engaging in an emotional connection with a nonhuman. He finds that an OS can provide a moment’s relief from the physical responsibilities of a relationship, but struggles to find all the elements of human comfort in a machine.

While the idea of computerized companionship might seem foreign to us now, it is probably not that far off in terms of technological advances in my opinion. But that isn’t the point. The point is how do our personal relationships transcend our media counterfeits and how do we truly engage with each other on a personal level? Do we seek other nonhuman outlets because we cannot deal with the realities of human relationships? People are fallible. We will get hurt inevitably. Is it so wrong to want to escape that? Or is it something we need to learn to work through? What are the costs of opting out?

Jonze asks these questions with some very witty, funny, hard-hitting dialogue. But he also hints at the answers through his characters’ growth and change.  Clamming up and shutting people out of your emotional spectrum, as Theodore does, will indeed come at a great cost - though it’s not always immediately visible. Those emotions buried deep below the skin slowly boil and bubble up, manifesting themselves in unhealthy ways. We tend to conceal our emotional issues as if that will preserve our current state of equilibrium. Instead, all this serves to do is further eliminate the vulnerability in our relationships and we are never taught how to fix the problem. This idea of the damage hidden emotion can cause becomes evident over the course of the film in much the same way. You won’t feel it there until it has crept over you and taken hold in a gutting moment of stark realization. Only then do we realize honesty would have allowed for the necessary conversation and growth in the first place.

Jonze preaches a gospel of vulnerability and honesty.  It is the emotional equipment that will set you free. And it is illustrated vividly through three things: cinematography that captures unique perspectives, a score that embodies the vibe of every scene, and a performance by Joaquin Phoenix that elicits pure catharsis.

Do not skip out on this movie because it looks weird and unusual. Challenge yourself to see a film that will force you to examine relationships in a new way and then force you to talk about what you just felt. That’s what ‘Her’ wants from you. That’s what humans want from each other.

American Hustle

Down and Dirty: A worthy crime drama that shows you what it means to hustle

Director: David O. Russell

Big Names: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence

Director David O. Russell decided to follow up his incredible ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ with this throwback crime drama about a federal sting operation surrounding con artists in the 1970’s. It is a worthy successor to say the least. Russell tackles a different genre than any he has previously worked in, but he navigates the new terrain masterfully.

In short, the story follows a couple of top class con artists (Christian Bale, Amy Adams) who are forced to work on behalf of the FBI (Bradley Cooper) in order to maintain their freedom. They begin targeting a local politician (Jeremy Renner) who has extensive power in the New England area.  Though we don’t spoil anything for you on this blog, you should know what you’re walking into. This movie revolves around not knowing – meaning that you’re constantly guessing who’s double crossing who, where people’s allegiance lies, and what’s in it for the parties involved. It keeps you thinking. It keeps you engaged.

This is due, in large part, to the cast Russell has assembled. Christian Bale put on a good amount of weight to portray a sleazy but lovable con artist and it paid off. He embodies this part to a T. From the comb over to the gut to the tinted shades, his physical appearance is endearingly comical. Amy Adams has an amazing scene where she voices over why her character is interested in Bale. It’s fantastic. It puts you in her character’s head while providing you with the up-and-down visuals that make Bale so spectacular. He really embraces the role. He is effortlessly smooth, smart, and sly in nearly every scene. You’ll quickly find yourself rooting for him despite his vices and broken understanding of how to be successful.

And that’s the biggest thing. His understanding of what life is about is truly broken. He has a family and a wife, albeit a crazy one played sufficiently by Jennifer Lawrence, who loves him. But he would much rather be spending his time with a woman who matches up to his own caliber of deception – a true con artist. Amy Adams plays the love interest incredibly well. Sexy, sensual, and just as smooth as Bale, they formulate a dynamic duo ready to take on the world. Unfortunately, this lifestyle simply isn’t sustainable. Illegally preying on the financially ignorant is equal parts dangerous, lucrative, and immoral and when the FBI catches up with you they don’t play around. They use you for their own gain. If there is one thing you learn from this movie it is that everyone has an angle. Everyone is in it for something. There is no shortage of skin in the game. What might surprise you though is who really represents what. Can the immoral con artists be used as tools for eliminating corruption? Is that corruption worth taking down when it actually helps the greater good? Who decides what defines the greater good? What happens when the lines get blurred?

This movie tries to answer those questions while also taking you straight back to the 1970’s. As a 90’s baby, I simply don’t know what it was like back then. Thanks to this film I now have some idea. The impeccable soundtrack and the outrageous outfits (Bradley Cooper jerry curl included) truly set the scene for the audience. As a reference point, my parents left the theatre feeling absolutely nostalgic and giddy about the representation of the 70’s within the film, even singing some of the songs they had just heard for the first time in a few decades.

As far as crime dramas go, this ranks up there with the best of them. It feels like The Sting or L.A Confidential for the next generation (check both of those out if you haven’t seen them). Overall though, there have been too many other good films this year for me to put this in award contention, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Bale got a nomination for his role. His versatility as an actor cannot be understated. Russell chose him for a reason. If this genre tickles your fancy or you appreciate a really terrific ensemble of actors, I would highly recommend American Hustle. Don’t let the critics con you, this film won’t disappoint.