About eight years ago, right after I read Yann Martel's immensely popular novel, Life of Pi, I heard there was a film adaptation in the works. While I loved the book, my immediate thought was that it was unfilmable, that the story just wouldn't lend it self to movie adaptation. Because I really liked the book, I was relieved to hear about the several attempts at filming the story that fell through.
The problem was the story. Basically, it's a story about a teenage boy and tiger sitting on a boat, with the boy's thoughts on life, religion, and everything becoming the subject of his inner monologue. Those ruminations were compelling in book form, but no one wants to watch some kid think about God for two hours. Yet, it is the thoughts and epiphanies of the main protagonist, not the story of what takes place on the boat, that gave the book it's emotional weight. That won't make for a good movie.
I need to get something off my chest: I'm not much of a James Bond fan.
There, I said it.
It's not that I don't like James Bond movies. What's not to like? They can be mindless fun and, at least some of them turn out to be pretty entertaining. I just don't usually find myself caring about when the next 007 movie is going to come out.
For example, there was a couple years time when it looked like Skyfall, the 24th Bond installment, might never get made, that the James Bond franchise was dead in the water. And, I remember feeling nothing but apathy about that possibility.
I had friends who were of a different mindset. The conversation went the same way every time.
"Casino Royale was awesome," they'd respond when I told them I didn't care if there was never another Bond film, "Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever...they have to make another one."
Of course, then I'd remind them about Quantum of Solace, the follow-up to Casino Royale. It starred Daniel Craig, and it blew. And, Craig didn't help it, in fact he was pretty gosh awful. Apparently, committed Bond fans -- at least those with whom I am currently friends -- conveniently wiped Quantum of Solace from their memories.
But, I didn't. No, after that mindless piece of cinematic garbage -- seriously, the super-villain's plot in that movie was to take control of some South American country's water supply and charge them a lot of money for it...seriously -- my feelings on the Bond franchise had soured from apathy into vague negativity.
But, then came Skyfall, a fantabulous piece of action filmmaking that manages not to just be a great Bond film, but a great film, period. It delves further into the 007 character than we've ever gone before, giving him a fully-fleshed back-story. And, it takes what started with Casino Royale -- instilling Bond with some amount of weakness and vulnerability -- and turns him into an actual character with layers hidden beneath the vodka martinis and promiscuity.
That's not to say they've turned Bond into a wuss. Craig isn't emo-Bond. He's still a badass. But, he's far more brooding, with hints of anger and loss that were never present in previous versions of the character. All I can say is that it works.
I won't go into the plot specifics, because, though this is an atypical Bond character, it's a pretty typical Bond story. There's some women, an over-the-top villain, some gadgets, an Aston Martin, and a bunch of crap gets blown up.
All I'll say is that, in the early going, Bond gets shot by one of his own (it's an accident) and uses it as a chance to fake his own death. He returns to MI6 after it is attacked by an unknown terrorist. Though he is injured and not physically up to the task, he accepts the assignment to find the man responsible.
The proverbial Bond villain is played with furious, scenery-chewing intensity by the always brilliant Javier Bardem. He's a former MI6 agent-turned-cyber terrorist who has a long-standing beef with Bond's boss, M (played by the also always brilliant Judi Dench). He is also, I believe, the first gay Bond villain. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Though the acting is outstanding all around, the real stars of Skyfall are director Sam Mendes (Oscar winner for American Beauty) and cinematographer Rodger Deakins (not an Oscar winner, which is one of the greatest travesties in the history of the Oscars). The action sequences -- from the stunts to the car chases -- are fresh and imaginative. The imagery is glorious to behold. This is simply a beautiful film, possibly the best looking movie of the year.
As this review is coming over a month after the movie's release, you have probably either seen Skyfall or you have no intention to see it. If you fall in the latter category, you're a moron. Skyfall is one of the best movies of the year.
So, yeah, I'm combining two reviews in a single blog post. I've been hoping to avoid posting capsule-style reviews and to keep writing longer reviews of the movies I see. However, at the current moment, I'm about six or seven movies behind in my reviews (not including those for movies I've watched on DVD or Netflix). This is the only way I can think of to catch up.
That said, I've combined these two movies -- Flight and The Sessions into a single post because, in my mind, they are very similar. While the stories and the style of film-making couldn't be any more different, both of these movies have the same strength and suffer from pretty much the same weakness.
To sum it up: Both Flight and The Sessions are three-star movies anchored by four-star performances by their leading men.
Flight tells the story of Whip Whitaker -- played by Denzel Washington -- an airline pilot with a drinking problem. It opens with a harrowing depiction of an emergency plane landing wherein Whip miraculously and heroically lands the plane with minimal casualties despite almost a total loss of control.
That sequence is among the most thrilling you'll see at the movies all year long. If you've seen the previews, you know how it's going to turn out. Still, I was captivated and my heart was pounding as I watched it unfold. Sadly, I was never as interested in the rest of the movie as I was in the opening moments.
After the crash landing, Whip becomes a hero in the press and in the public. Of course, those heaping praise and accolades onto Whip don't know he was drunk at the time. The main storyline of the film deals with Whip's efforts to work with his lawyer (Don Cheadle) and union rep (Bruce Greenwood) to cover up the fact that he had been drinking before and during the flight.
But, for the most part, that story is in the background. Flight is basically a character study of an alcoholic. And, in depicting the physical and psychological symptoms of Whip's disease, Washington gives one of his finest performances in years.
Denzel always has a way of classing up and giving credibility to every movie that he's in, even if that movie happens to be ridiculous. But, without fail, his best, most memorable performances come when he's playing sinners instead of saints and Flight is no exception. Book it: Denzel will be nominated for yet another Oscar for this performance.
The problem with the movie is that it doesn't delve very deep into Whip's character. He is a man dealing with demons that are only hinted at in the story. We see the physical manifestations of Whip's alcoholism and we get a glimpse as to what it does to his personal relationships. But, the movie only hints at the backstory.
Don't get me wrong, a backstory isn't necessary for a movie like this to work. In fact, the movie does work on most levels. But, at the heart of the movie is this one character and the script just doesn't give enough depth to that character to make it fully compelling.
These shortcomings don't make it a bad movie, they just keep it from being a great one, and, given that it was director Robert Zemekis's first live-action movie in years, I really hoped it would be great. Still, it's a solid piece of work and worth your time.
The Sessions tells the true story of Mark O'Brien -- played by John Hawkes -- a poet and journalist who was struck with polio at a young age, forcing him to live the majority of his life in an iron lung. While doing research for an article about the sexual habits of disabled people, Mark decides that he wants to lose his virginity.
He enlists the help of a sex surrogate -- played by Helen Hunt -- who provides such services legally on a therapeutic basis. But, because he is a devout Catholic, he only does so after getting the go ahead from his priest -- played by William H. Macy.
Hawkes is simply outstanding in the leading role. As with Flight, the entire success of The Sessions hangs on the top-line performance and, for the most part, he hits it out of the park. His role is among the more physically demanding that you will ever see and, in most other years, he'd be a shoe-in to win the Best Actor Oscar.
This is great to see because Hawkes has been around for a long time and has become one of the go-to character actors in Hollywood. It's good to see him this kind of attention for his talents.
The supporting cast is also very good in the film. Helen Hunt appears to be headed toward a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role as the sex surrogate, which will also be well-deserved. Though I do have to say that, while I hate to sound like a prude, she was naked for far too much of the film. William H. Macy has been getting some justified Oscar buzz as well.
As you might expect, given that I've coupled these two reviews, The Sessions suffers from the same near-fatal flaw as Flight. While the early scenes of the film begin to uncover the inner workings of the main character -- his loneliness and occasional despair, particularly when his condition has shut him out of a fundamental part of the human experience.
There's a sequence in the film depicting Mark's relationship with one of his former assistants. They become the best of friends and, eventually, he tells her he's in love with her only to be rebuffed in his affections. This is the only real moment where we get a sense of how emotionally painful and difficult his condition can be. But, for the rest of the movie, this element is ignored in favor of a focus on the physical limitations of his disease and awkwardness of his first sexual encounters.
So, while you feel for O'Brien and are sad for his plight, there are precious few scenes wherein you get a sense how this has all affected him. And, once again, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if not for the fact that the movie relies almost entirely on your sympathy for the lead character.
Like I said, Hawkes is great in the movie. But, there really isn't a big emotional moment for his character in the story. There's no Oscar-clip moment for him that I can recall. I walked out of the movie missing that moment and wishing that it had been there.
Still, the movie works, so long as you're not entirely turned off by the subject matter.
It's kind of strange writing this blog post about Cloud Atlas weeks after seeing the movie. Though I saw it during the opening weekend, I'm now aware that it bombed at the box office and that critical reviews were pretty mixed. In other words, opinions about the movie have been set and I'm unlikely to change anyone's mind about seeing it.
Still, the more I think about Cloud Atlas, the more I admire it. More importantly, the more I think about it, the more I like it.
This is, to put it mildly, an ambitious piece of work. From the minute I saw the first trailer, I said that it was either going to be a masterpiece or a total train wreck. I may have been off by a little -- While I'm not ready to call it a masterpiece, I will say that it works, it works very well.
As I watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a fine movie with some very strong performances, I realized that I'm just not the target audience for movies like this. You see, I'm just not one of those people who's life was defined by what happened in high school. So, throughout the movie, I kept hoping that the story about a group of high school misfits would expand into later years -- that we'd at least get an epilogue or something.
My wish didn't come true. The movie is entirely about high school, which wouldn't be a bad thing or even all that remarkable if it didn't take itself and its characters lives so seriously.
Remember when all of you people were like "Ben Affleck sucks," and I was like "No he doesn't, he's just chosen some really bad roles." Then, you were all like "Whatever, dude, Ben Affleck is a joke, stop trying to convince me otherwise," and I was like "Shutup, dude. Your mom's a joke..."
I bet you all are feeling pretty silly right about now.
Argo is Affleck's third directorial effort after Gone Baby Gone and The Town. So far, he has amassed a record that the vast majority of filmmakers in Hollywood would kill for. And, along the way, he's become one of Hollywood's go-to directors for high-quality movies aimed at adults. I think it's safe to say that he'll be longer remembered for his skills as a director than as an actor. Indeed, on all counts, I'd say he has a great chance to be his generation's Clint Eastwood.
I shouldn't be writing a review of The Master just yet. I need to see it again.
It's been a couple weeks and I still don't know what to think about it. What I do know is that I've never seen anything like it before. I can think of very few movies that I've found so fascinating and perplexing. I've pondered it enough to understand the its overall meaning -- at least I think I have. I just need see it again so I can A) confirm that my understanding fits and B) re-experience the film from the beginning with my new understanding in place.
Who knows? Maybe I don't get it at all.
At this point, I know enough to say that I enjoyed the film immensely and that I'd recommend to it to others. That's why it gets four stars.
