The Spy movie you should see VS. The Spy movie you will see

vs. 

We are on the brink of a major motion picture extravaganza. In just a little over a week from now the final installment of the Hunger Games franchise will be released followed shortly thereafter by the first Star Wars film in over a decade. I’m not here to talk about any of that yet. We have a short window of dead space between now and then where you may find yourself at the movie theater deciding what to watch. I’m here to help you make that decision.

Chances are you will end up seeing a spy movie. I know that because there are only two new films at the box office worth seeing (not counting Matt Damon in Space) and they both revolve around espionage. You’ve probably heard that James Bond is back in his newest film ‘Spectre.’ You may not have heard that Tom Hanks is running around lawyering the hell out of the Soviets in the film ‘Bridge of Spies.’ Speaking as a millennial, I believe that younger people will gravitate towards the former and not the latter. Huge mistake! “Big deal” you might say. “Sounds relatively inconsequential” you might say. “Still enjoyed the Bond film” you might say even after you realize YOU BLEW IT once you finish this post. Wrong-o. Indulge me.

Generation Y people have grown up with total national security. I would argue that September 11^th even deepened our belief that this nation will be made safer at all costs. We truly have never feared being attacked by another global power. We can’t even comprehend what that type of fear feels or looks like. Generation X lived during the Cold War. They learned to fear the danger of nuclear war and tried to grasp the threat of another global superpower, Soviet Russia, usurping the United States. Communism was an ideology that swept over Eastern Europe and changed the entire international climate for better and, often times, for worse. Speaking for Gen Y, as people who weren’t alive during that time how can we possibly understand what that was like? The answer is film! Specifically a new film titled ‘Bridge of Spies’ starring Tom Hanks. Because this blog is titled ‘No Spoilers’ I’m not going to dig into the plot here. I just want to appeal to the reader to consider seeing an incredibly intriguing, slower film that is sure to broaden your horizons as opposed to an entertaining, cookie-cutter, action film (Spectre) that is sure to make you appreciate Daniel Craig’s fashion sense. The story telling in ‘Bridge of Spies’ is top notch and it will not only give you some understanding of a past generation, but it will help you empathize with the dangerous international climate that still exists in other countries today. The situations in Syria, Iraq, and the heightened Israel/Palestine conflict all feel more ‘real’ after seeing this film. People abroad are still living in this state of fear and imminent threat. We shouldn’t do our best to avoid understanding real conflict, historical or current, because it seems like a slower story.

Don’t get me wrong, James Bond is fun. But going to see a film can be used as an opportunity to change the way you think about real life. Movies as a medium can be incredibly educational and eye-opening, though we must take special care to acknowledge inherent bias. ‘Bridge of Spies’ is an American movie opening in America so you can expect the Soviet Russians to be demonized a bit. Regardless, the film will have you thinking about international diplomatic relations in a way you probably haven’t thought about before. This is in large part a result of some truly great & honest acting from the entire cast - most notably Tom Hanks. If you find yourself at the theater I implore you to take the opportunity to absorb a worthwhile message. But hey, James Bond is guaranteed to blow shit up by shooting a gas tank so whatever floats your boat. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Down & dirty: The second superhero reunion is a hollow joyride - fun and disposable.

Director: Joss Whedon

Big Names: Seriously everyone...RDJ, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, ScarJo, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, the cast of Pitch Perfect, my dog, Obama, just everyone ever.

Do you remember eating Dunkaroos back when you were a kid? I recognize this reference panders to 90’s babies but bear with me. Dunkaroos were great. Endearing kangaroo mascot, chocolate cookies with a little bucket of vanilla frosting you could dip them in! What’s better than that? The problem was that there were about four tiny cookies per pack. It just wasn't satisfying…even as an 8 year old. Eventually people caught on and realized they were an overpriced, unfulfilling sugar bomb.

That’s Avengers: Age of Ultron. Four chocolate cookies with delicious vanilla frosting and a feeling of ‘but I wanted more!’ upon its completion. Every single person I've spoken to has said they enjoyed this film. I get it. There is a lot of action, funny moments, recognizable superheroes. It is enjoyable. But it could have been so much more.

Maybe I’m being pretentious – I accept that is entirely possible. But when I say more I don’t mean more explosions, more robots, or more infinity stones (certainly not more infinity stones). I mean more depth. This film has already made more money than the GDP of a small nation so I’m not questioning it’s marketability or its basic entertainment value. I’m talking about humanizing the film: moral code and familial obligation. Let’s take those one at a time.

Morally the film tries to tackle the idea of artificial intelligence and the problems it creates when we get too close to creating life. I guess I was hoping for more ‘Ex Machina’ and less ‘iRobot’. More nuanced arguments and less total destruction. It felt like ground that had been tread on so many times before that I already knew exactly how it would end. I won’t spoil it for you but I’d bet my salary that you could guess how the final battle unfolds (See: The Avengers). What if the filmmakers had utilized this massive platform of film distribution to seriously ask a meaningful question like ‘is an intelligent and unemotional machine better suited than us to be judge & jury?’ instead of just showcase said machine as a furiously blind executioner.

In terms of familial obligation I appreciate the effort the filmmakers put into trying to humanize Hawkeye. Guess what? That still fell flat. I’ll give you a tease of a spoiler here: you are introduced to Hawkeye’s family. Implemented as an interesting aside to the major story line, it is completely disposed of when the plot device has served its initial purpose as if to say “Look! Real life! We included it! – Now let’s get back to laying waste to everything.” Again, I’m not asking a superhero movie to be a Shakespearean exploration of human interaction but come on - if you’re going to include real family dynamics at least make it honest.   

Those are my gripes. I accept the title of 'only person who didn't love it'. Again, it was still incredibly well made. It’s worth watching. I just thought they missed an absolutely monstrous opportunity to say something meaningful. I enjoyed the film and I enjoyed Dunkaroos…while they lasted.

Boyhood

Down & Dirty: Epic coming of age drama, worth the time investment
Director: Richard Linklater
Big Names: Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette


SO PROUD to announce my first guest review........courtesy of my Mom!!!

Take it away Suze...

BOYHOOD is an epic drama tracing the life of a boy and his family as he grows up from age 6 to age 18. The film takes viewers seamlessly through the years with scenes from young Mason’s life, evoking nostalgia, warmth, and sadness. Strong characters Mom, Dad, and Mason develop incrementally along the way—flawed, yet genuine and sympathetic. Viewers will identify with different characters in particular scenes. In one especially poignant moment, Mom (played by Patricia Arquette) breaks down as Mason is about to leave for college, crying out “You are so happy!” capturing the gulf between the rocky emotions of the soon to be empty-nest parent and the eager-to-leave home adolescent.

                It is impossible to watch this movie without looking forward, backward and inward at one’s own life. The film, through character studies, explores the themes of human resiliency and redemption, questioning “what’s the point?” from the perspectives of Mom, Dad, and son. Without directly answering the question, later scenes allude to a spiritual aspect in the father’s life revealing how he has matured emotionally, vocationally, and spiritually. The film compels the viewer’s respect for Mom’s survival instinct and tenaciousness. Meanwhile, Mason’s teenage sloth behavior morphs into philosophical exploration; later into more mature reflection and signs of an emerging work ethic.  All three main characters explore the question of timing in relationships with the benefit of doing a “fly over” of their lives over the last dozen years.

                As a person who is very picky about watching 3-hour movies, I am glad I did not know the length before watching the film. It was well worth the time.

-Suzanne Keating 

The Best Film of 2014

The Imitation Game

Down & Dirty: The best film of 2014

Director: Morten Tyldum

Big Names: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Occasionally a film will come around that does a little bit of everything perfectly. Solid amount of drama. Tiny dose of comedy. Good bit of intrigue. Snippets of romance. These elements are interwoven seamlessly to create a flush montage – a well told story. Of course none of this is possible without a good premise. And where do the best premises come from? True stories. Drama rooted in reality.

The Imitation Game does what Unbroken could not do. It takes a true story and makes it so powerful, so urgent and personal that it commands your full emotional attention. Angelina Jolie’s film focused on human triumph in the face of unfathomable adversity. But in that movie the viewer only knows Louie in the context of several mostly horrific situations. It doesn’t feel real until you walk out of the theater and remind yourself, “Wow that legitimately did happen.” The Imitation Game suffers no such delayed empathy. This is the tale of Alan Turing, an Einstein-like genius who accelerated World War II about five years in the Allies favor. How? He cracked the unbreakable Nazi communication code known as Enigma using the earliest computer engineering. To tell you the machinations through which he did it and the opposition he faced throughout the process would be to rob you of a most fulfilling cinematic experience. But I will give a shameless sales pitch on why it is worth watching.

The penmanship of the script can and should be appreciated by all. A World War II political thriller revolving around the life of a mathematician is such a mundane premise to history-handicapped millenials, but the dialogue is sharp enough to stay relevant. Cumberbatch’s Sherlock-like demeanor captivates the viewer right off the bat. Don’t know about WWII? Don’t sweat it. The film does a phenomenal job of informing the viewer without condescending, unlike the character of Alan Turing.

Turing can truly be a prick. His abrasive nature is seemingly the social deficiency manifested in his genius. I’ve never seen an actor so completely embrace this stigma of genius. Cumberbatch is believable in every moment of bewilderment at his own unpleasantness. The ticks, the arrogant looks, and the obsessive behavior - it’s all beautifully portrayed in Cumberbatch’s committed performance. The Oscar nomination for Best Actor is fully deserved. As is the film’s overall nomination for Best Picture.

(SPOILER AHEAD)

I will spoil one bit for you because it deserves talking about: Alan Turing was gay. You might be asking yourself why you haven’t heard of Alan Turing before. The answer is shocking, unfortunate, and straight-forward.

England buried him. Both figuratively and literally.

His country failed to recognize him for his accomplishments (War-time and otherwise) until one year ago due to the fact that they persecuted him for his sexuality back in the 1950’s. He was forced to undergo hormonal treatment which eventually drove him to suicide. Take that in. It took until one year ago to recognize this man’s accomplishments because he was attracted to the same sex. Just remember that we as a society have the capacity for extraordinarily inhumane treatment and we often still refuse to own up to those mistakes in retrospect. Forgiveness is consigned to oblivion.

During the Oscar campaign, the film’s promoters really pushed the angle of The Imitation Game being a platform for the rights of homosexuals and the historical persecution homosexuals have faced. Rightfully so – but it would be a shame to pigeon hole this film as a socio-political rallying point.  It’s so much more than that. The entire filmmaking process blends together to create an unforgettable cinematic experience. Movies like The Imitation Game only come around once in a while. Don’t miss it.

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.