Seven Psychopaths* (2013) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5

         First, I watched this one with the small guilt that I feel watching extraneous films during Oscar prep season. I have numerous films that I'm not going to get to. I will miss Amour. I also will probably miss Beasts of the Southern Wild and Life of Pi, but I have been looking forward to this one since before I heard of Lincoln. The truth of that statement is that I have been waiting with rapt anticipation for Martin McDonagh's next movie since the end of the first time I saw In Bruges. I am a fan of McDonagh from his plays, starting with my friends rendition of The Pillow Man to my reading of the Leenane trilogy on my own time. I absolutely treasure his morbid sense of humor and his tendency to portray peripheral characters who do terrifyingly violent things to other people. I treasure this as a call-back to Flannery O'Connor and the idea that our society can truly see itself most clearly in the monsters it creates. I've had long discussions with friends about this and I agree with some people's conception that the glimmer of hope and the possibility of grace and redemption entering these stories is lacking from the Southern gothic style of Flannery, but I believe in the power of looking well into the void and the power of that critique on the way we allow our world to work.
          That said, Mairtin (as he often spells it, I believe to emphasize an Irish pronunciation) takes a step back from his normal tack in this film and does something reminiscent of what Charlie Kaufman achieved in Adaptation. The story is about a borderline alcoholic Irish screenwriter in Hollywood named Martin. Not quite what Charlie did, but he takes other steps into the surreal world of commenting on his own process.
          Thus, for wit, I gave it a 9.5. This is .5 lower than Adaptation, but that one is nigh unapproachable. I also compared it to A Serious Man, which would have dropped it below 9.5, but it was as well written and acted as Rushmore, a statement that will get people on my case, I know, but it is true. McDonagh tears apart his obsession with psychopaths and his tears apart his categories and he gets Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson to help him.
          The whole cast really gets involved and creates a magnificent story here. Colin Farrell does what he normally does, no offense, but nothing new. This is not an insult, because what he does can be gut-wrenching and captivating, but Irish drunk is his schtick. I love it. Sam Rockwell has also gotten used to being the crazy guy. But here it is clearly above and beyond, both on the crazy and on the sane end of it. Christopher Walken is at the top of his game, not completely out of character, but more reserved and even less violent. Woody Harrelson plays another over-the-top sort of character, very much in the vein of Tallahassee from Zombieland. Too many great actors to name, but none that struck me as jumping out of there comfort zones.
          For wisdom, I'm a little conflicted. Mairtin's decision to deal with the seeming conflict between his feelings about violence and his ease with depicting it seems wise. That may not be how he would describe what he's doing, but it's hard to describe. It's hard to pin down these points without ruining it, but he clearly comes down on a side that is against the idea that violence solves problems, yet simultaneously against the idea that violence is never the answer. It is all about changing your life when you see a problem developing and sending the right sort of message. For this, I give it a 9.5. There's just a couple of small niggles in my brain about the nature of a psychopath and religious mumbo-jumbo. That will certainly come up when I review Life of Pi.
          Lastly, I will give him a 9.5 for wonder on the basis of the use of voice-over and cutaways effectively, good music choice, and good work for a director without a lot under his belt. There seems less to say here, but it really is a "wonder"ful movie. That seems silly as soon as I type it, but I'm alright with it.
          I can think of all sorts that I would not suggest this movie to. My grandma and all my dad's family. Cursing and violence absolutely abound and all the characters are pretty messed up, but there is something really good behind it all, I truly believe. Enjoyez!

Argo* (2012) 8, 8.5, 9.5, 26

          I can readily admit that I was not excited by Argo as a concept, when I first heard about it. It gave me pause to know that Ben Affleck directed it, as I am a very big fan of his feature-length directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. I really felt for the lone samurai insisting on doing the right thing. Well-made, but most of all well-acted and well-written. This is to be attributed to Ben as well, both as director and as co-writer. This got me excited about it, but the look of the movie seemed ridiculous, but it occurred to me that this was historically. Silly period. This ended up being nearly my favorite part.
          For wit, I gave the film an 8. Overall the writing did not deserve anymore. I compared it with American Gangster, which did not seem right, that one being slightly better acted, but definitely better written. It compared more to Artois the Goat or American History X. Though I haven't seen it, the comparison with Gangster Squad occurred to me. They both seem like great historical, true stories that need to be told, but they deserve something better than the way they are being portrayed. History demands nuance. Another problem with the incompatibility of the two major stories is important, but I'll come back to that when I deal with wonder.
          As far as acting goes, kudos to Bryan Cranston for playing it solid, but simple on the first time I've seen him out of Breaking Bad. Kyle Jordan also practically reprises his role from Zero Dark Thirty with nearly the same effect. Not a lot, but certainly not bad. Alan Arkin and John Goodman were solid, if unspectacular. Lastly, positive points for each of the hiding Americans, just solid characters that will make me look again at a movie I see them in in the future. I should mention Ben, but what is there to say.
          On to wisdom, which could definitely have been higher if there had been more cohesion. The beginning was something like an admission of responsibility by America in the reign of the Shah and the deposing of Mossadeq. This was refreshing to begin with, but it seemed to turn quickly. I would not have objected to a turn that made the point that the takeover of the embassy was a huge clustercuss, but the result was a complete abandonment of the original subplot. It was all, 100% American spy thriller. Fun, but confusing. The end became nearly identical to the end of Charlie Wilson's War, which, though it was fun and funny the first time, this time it seemed unnecessary. Overall I chose to give it an 8.5, not for bad morals, but confused presentation.
          Wonder is a 9.5. I came to really like the period nature of it and appreciated the apparent attention to detail, not that I know what '79 looked like, really. I think Ben did alright, but it was kind of a let-down after Gone Baby Gone and The Town. Maybe he needs to get back to material that he wrote, or at least co-wrote, because I trust him as a writer, since Good Will Hunting. I hope the next one is better.

Les Miserables* (2012) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28

          This film, as a musical, makes it awkward to delineate the boundary between wit and wonder. Normally, the acting and the music work together but are demonstrably different elements. In this case, they are not. I will thus, try to analyze these in connection. Another issue is that this is a record of production of a musical with a long history (particularly a long personal history for me) and thus it almost feels silly going over how well written the songs feel, but I'll try to imagine you all meeting me from scratch, as I like to think is true for some of you.
          The script/music for this musical is very well-done. The depth of a book like Les Miserables, a challengingly long and intricate novel, is played out here with a surprisingly large amount of detail, given the disparity in size between the two incarnations. The story in its original form is one of my very favorite stories, the passion (in the sense of the word used to describe the trial and execution of Jesus) of a man who endures some of the most despicable treatment possible for one person to put upon another without someone being killed and is yet transformed into the kind of force that changes the lives of everyone around him, not without failures and mistakes, but without a relapse into darkness. The little kindnesses we undertake, such as Monseigneur Bienvenu does for Jean Valjean, truly can have tremendous consequences. This ignores the deep and complex romance of Marius and Cosette, on the level with Romeo and Juliet, and the human tragedies of Fantine, Eponine, and Gavroche. The story is almost too big to consider in this forum, even in its abbreviated musical version. Needless to say I am a fan.
          The music gives life and verve to this beautiful tale, creating one of the most stick-in-your-head feelings of any musical I've ever known, or any music for that matter. I'm actually listening to the 10th Anniversary Recording now. It cannot help but bring me a flood of memories. The film fails this tradition slightly in the way that far too often the actors, almost all of whom could actually sing quite well, undersung the dialogue. They seemed to find something synonymous between whispery singing and the display of emotion. That said, the acting rarely had anything lacking. Before I dive into that, I should mention that listening to some of the 10th Anniversary Recording, I decided that they definitely are guilty of oversinging and underacting. Who knows where the golden mean is? How we need you now, Aristotle.
          Back to acting, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are eminently deserving of all the adulation they have received. Their respective soliloquies are the best part of the movie acting-wise. No shame should be placed on Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried either, though. They embody the two young lovers as well as anyone I can think of. Some comparison with the 1998 incarnation could be instructive.
          Hugh vs. Liam Neeson leaves me preferring someone over Liam for the first time I can remember. Jackman is just more capable of making me feel both the destitute Valjean, fresh from prison, and the saintly Valjean at his death, are the same person, even if they are nearly unrecognizable. That should  be put down in no small part to costume design and makeup. I'll come back to that. If I compare Anne to Uma Thurman, there is no comparison. Anne really owns this part like no one I've ever seen before. When I hear the musical, I hear her behind the other singer and she judges her harshly. When I read the novel, I now clearly see Anne. Except that "the Blonde" shouldn't have such dark hair. Russell Crowe does not, God forgive me, compare with Geoffrey Rush. Absolutely not. Too bad, I imagined such good things. Amanda vs. Claire Danes is hard. I've loved Claire for a long time and this is the first time since Mean Girls I've really liked Amanda. I'll give them a tie. With Claire, I felt the clear-cut sense of innocence more palpably. I cannot choose between one pair of doe eyes and another, but Claire's portrayal is just more nuanced. Claire and Hans Matheson clearly have a better chemistry than Amanda and Eddie, though. Eddie on his own is better than Hans. Eddie makes me believe the dichotomy between the revolutionary and the lover more fully, with no little help from the music. He doesn't seem shallow for being preoccupied with Cosette on the eve of the revolution, but he also doesn't seem like just a jerk for being miserable about his dead friends when he has Cosette forever.
          This could be too academic for many, but I really enjoy the comparison. I do not know whether to place the aforementioned undersinging on the negative of wit or wisdom, so I take it 2.5 off each and incidentals place them each down at 9.5, but I cannot ignore it as much as I have. I would love to have the .25 measure in my methodology, but that's not going to happen now, so I absolutely must make wit a 9. I can't make it wonder, even though it seems like a failure of the director, but the costumes and makeup need recognition.
         Wisdom comes last. I have few complaints. The bishop is underplayed and the chorus too often becomes cynical. The final number is absolutely wonderful. I also like the interpretation of what must have been envisioned as a simple musical finale as a glimpse at the afterlife, that is, the inclusion of all the dead in the scene and exclusion of the living and the lost dead, a.k.a. Javert. Add Valjean and Fantine's soliloquies and Fantine's calling of Valjean as he dies, and the mysterious, religious, libertarian, republican themes of the whole thing makes me quiver with the chill of hearing truth clearly and lovingly expressed. I will again point out the scene when the whores recruit Fantine as an example of the unfortunate ambiguity of the musical on these kind of social/moral issues that keeps me from giving it a straight 10.
          I know that a large percentage of the good friends I've had the longest have long since seen this for the same reason it was so important to me, but if you haven't, even if you know nothing of Les Miserables, especially then, I suggest you do.

Zero Dark Thirty* (2013) 9.5, 10, 9, 28.5

          Sometimes films dictate the order in which I approach the questions I choose to put to myself. The controversy that has engulfed this film, that is to say my willing awareness thereof, forced me to consider this movie first and foremost in terms of its moral content. I'd like to make a couple of simple points prior to my assessment. This film has been accused of being pro-torture. As per numerous statements of the director and writer, this may not have been intended to support torture, but this film makes a clear argument for torture and not an unconvincing one. I will willingly admit that I was forced to confront the possibility that without torture, which I desperately want to call "enhanced interrogation techniques" because it simply feels better, without torture groups like Al-Qaeda cannot be defeated. This would not make torture right, but it would complicate the issue significantly. I would argue, even though I wasn't convinced by the argument, that this film does us all the fine service of confronting us with a version of events that makes us confront the dichotomy between freedom and security, that makes us question the easy answers we live behind while other people do work that we might not be comfortable with that nonetheless keeps us safe. That may be my favorite part about this one as far as wisdom goes. There is no simple answer. It is a film that sparks questions that countries like the US, that is, countries with a great deal of power and thus responsibility, must ask themselves, questions that are often left unanswered in the minds of people protected from these hard facts. For this reason and not because I totally agree with the movie's point of view, I gave it a 10 for wisdom.
          I would like to make a simple argument that this film is making an argument for the detention program. It's story argumentation 101. They introduce two major characters who have differing opinions about how to counter Al-Qaeda. One says that we can use money and incentives to lure terrorists into giving up their superiors, tactics that worked well in the Cold War. The other insists that because Al-Qaeda is made up primarily of true believers that getting the information needed to capture the leaders of Al-Qaeda will require interrogation and, though not stated explicitly, perhaps torture. The film later shows the former's theory violently squashed and the latter's theory violently vindicated. Maybe this is simply the story that they were given, but the story reads like a pro-torture fairy-tale, in which the Big Bad Wolf is thwarted by torturing his second cousin.
          Beyond this, I'd like to step to the question of wit. In general, this film is well written. There are a number of one-liners that made me laugh and the scenes of intense emotion make you either want to cry or shout. This should, of course be attributed to actors as well. But one more thing about the writing. Pacing a story that takes ten years to unfold cannot be easy. From the beginning, with the haunting, but utterly discreet reminder of 9/11, to the end with the end well-placed addendum, this film managed to keep me interested despite the large amounts of real-world time between the interesting events. This is truly good work.
          As far as acting goes, Jessica Chastain holds your attention even when she's in the background of a scene. I genuinely watched for her reaction to almost everything that happened around her. Hers is not the only good performance. Jason Clarke is the closest anyone comes to stealing Jessica's spotlight. His work in the torture scenes is impeccable and his line about the CIA taking his monkeys is the perfect mix of hilarious and gut-wrenching. James Gandolfini gives a good performance, the sort of beautiful over-the-top to set off Jessica's subtlety. One of the most amazing performances of the year is Reda Kateb, the subject of the torture. He blew me away and I knew I knew him, so I checked. He features prominently in one of the best French films I've ever seen, Un Prophète.
          Overall, I give this movie a solid 9.5, really just barely not a 10. I just lacks that edge.
          As far as wonder goes, the film has a strong core of action and music, but nothing that stands out. The director did not astound me in The Hurt Locker and I'm less than impressed by the overall skill here. I praised the script and I cannot know what exactly was script and what direction, what the actor's skill or director's suggestion, but no one does more than I thought they could do. The story works, but I don't get the sense that this working is because of that one thing falling into place. That is to say that I don't have any big complaints. Overall, I give it a 9. What's missing is that thing that would make it a real contender for Best Picture. That is what I don't see. I've only seen four of the nominees and I already feel confident that Zero Dark Thirty shouldn't win.
          Forgive the last paragraph. I might have made it sound all too dire, but the film astounding. When I came home after watching it, I could only tell my dad that it was "heavy." If you're in the mood to have your morals questioned and "your worldview rocked," to quote my alter-ego, the Ice King, then find time to see this film.
          P.S. I have already watched Les Misérables and Argo since this one and I expect to have reviews soon. Thanks for reading, faithful friends.

Silver Linings Playbook* (2012) 9.5, 9, 9.5, 28

          I got to see this film with one of my oldest friends without really knowing at all what it was about. I was fortunate. This one is a beautiful little tale about a struggling individual overcoming adversity, but not in the normal, humdrum, Hollywood manner. I carves a new path for himself and Bradley Cooper really knocks this one out of the park. Let's begin.

          For wit, I gave this one a 9.5. There are very few points of complaint here. The writing is ingenious in the way that the dialogue is funny and heartfelt, never pulling punches and the plotting is bravely offbeat never heading quite where you expected it to go and not being ashamed of a happy ending. I hope saying that the ending is happy doesn't give too much away, but there you go. There are some anti-climactic and improbable moments, but they still manage to feel organic to me. I leave room for others to disagree as even I felt my leg being pulled a couple times, but that was only .5 off in my view. Thus the 9.5.

          The acting should  also get some high praise. Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence blew me away with their portrayals of people who have endured significant trauma and come out the other end, some times more and some times less intact. Bradley Cooper is rather mesmerizing in his outbursts. He makes me watch him fall apart. Jennifer Lawrence delivers some of the best lines of the film like a pro.

          It's hard to compliment De Niro without insulting him by underselling him. The best thing I can say is that he doesn't take over the scene unless it's appropriate. When his time comes, he captures you and even out of focus he steals the scene, but when it's not time, he plays the background part as well as anyone. This same compliment applies to Chris Tucker. He can be a loudmouth and can takeover things when you don't want him to. In this film, he takes his one scene and steals it, but the rest of the time he plays his part without getting on your nerves.

          The wisdom was a little more disappointing. My views on mental health are probably far from orthodox or even very coherent, but I worry a little bit about the conclusions the film makes on the main character taking his medicine. I may be a little biased on this. The affirmation of the father's obviously ridiculous gambling habits seemed hard to take as well. This I feel more confident about. It is more than enough to keep this from being higher than a 9.

          The 9.5 that I gave this for wonder is utterly well deserved. The cinematography is bold. The decision to allow Robert De Niro to talk to Bradley Cooper while out of focus and various other odd places for the camera, done well for effect, really endeared this movie to me. Music as well was well picked and really worked well in the film.

          I would suggest this to anyone who can take some swearing and some very serious situations. Its hilarious and thoughtful as well as heart-warming. Watch this with someone you care about. The last point I'd like to make is that this is the first post I've made since the page went over 1000 views. Thanks to everyone who reads this. If you care about me or just enjoy it, feel free to argue with me and comments galore.

          

Ruby Sparks* (2012) 9.5, 10, 9, 28.5

          Often since beginning this blog, I have found myself writing out of a sense of obligation. This isn't awful, because I know that without obligation, I would only take in and never produce. But, I'm on a plane from Paris to Chicago, so I figured I'd write my review for Ruby Sparks now. I watched this film under the worst possible circumstances. The screen can't be more than 5"x4" and the whole time I was could hear, slightly louder than the film I was watching, Finding Nemo in German. But despite these inhibiting factors, I really loved this movie.
          I normally insist on having my list of movies open so I can compare with previous films I've seen. But I can't do that now. Because I'm on a plane. So here are the reasons I liked this movie.
          First, Paul Dano. I wanted to give Zoe Kazan first pick, because she wrote it and knocked it out of the park as the co-star as well, but Paul Dano is a revelation. I think that word normally works when you didn't already know that something was good, but every time I see him in a movie, he truly opens my eyes. I gushed on him after Looper too. He was in that for ten minutes. He executed perfectly. He lived on that edge where you, or I anyway, get so nervous for that character who is deliriously happy but you know he's going to chuck it away. He managed to sell abject misery and delirious happiness with the same clarity and truth. He truly wiped the floor with me emotionally. And all I can do is thank him.
          Let's not forget Zoe though. The movie is fantastically written to the romantic comedy genre specifications, but it goes way darker and plumbs the absolute depths, before bringing you back. In this way, I would compare it to (500) Days of Summer. There were so many points in which I forgot that Paul's character was not Paul writing, but also those moments that worked so brilliantly, as one-liners or whatever, that you want to kiss the writer...I literally cannot stop myself as I write, "yes, she's also quite pretty too."
          Beyond her writing, she played a silly part without being campy. She makes the fantasy/sci-fi concept believable. Steve Coogan and Chris Messina are quite good too. They play their little parts quite well without being too much.
          As far as wisdom goes, I think the film doesn't make a particularly new point. It's really easy to take for granted those we love. It's really easy to be selfish, even when we are in love, which ought to be the least selfish time of our lives. This message is simply given new life in this odd story. I think this is the best mode of science-fiction or fantasy. It uses a fantastical concept to show us the same truths that we ought to know by now.
          For wonder, the film is so straightforward that I gave it a 9. I am starting tot think that something may be wrong with my rating system that a simple film can't go above a 9. I'm not sure. One caveat. I could barely hear, so music appreciation was out of the question. A better viewing could easily elicit a 9.5. I would guess it would as the directors we the same ones from Little Miss Sunshine. And the music in that, oy veh. For those who don't know me, that sound has become so integral to my language that I say it completely without thinking.
          I hope anyone who sees this film after reading this loves it. I did. I was so happily surprised, and I was super-psyched for this one. When I watch a trailer that gets me really excited, I put it on my list with a plus sign or a cross next to it(+). I often refer to this, in the lengthy conversations that I have with myself, as crossing a movie. I crossed this and I was still pleasantly surprised. I don't know how many times that's happened. Maybe never. I'm usually just affirmed. I expected good things and I was right. In this case, I expected good things and I was given a great film.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey* (2012) 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, 25.5

          I come to this review with a heavy heart. I know many of my dear friends in the U. S. will still be impatiently awaiting the first of a trilogy of movies based upon The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien. The first thing I can say is that I was extremely disappointed. I don't want to get too into generalities, so I'll get specific from the start.
          I gave this film a 7.5 for wit. It fell so under films like JFK and The Kite Runner that I could not conscionably give it an 8. I compared it to The Ides of March, which was also a huge disappointment. The writing was the biggest flaw. Incident suffered most. Dialogue actually worked almost all the time. Moments that are extremely flawed. The opening gets really technical and tells a lot more back story than necessary about the dwarves and the circumstances they come from. It explains the loss of the Lonely Mountain in excruciating detail. All before the introduction to Bilbo and the main heft and weight of his story. Then we go to the world immediately previous to LOTR. We get cameos from Elijah Wood and Ian Holm, as if to say "Remember how much you all liked our last movie?" This again takes too much time. I continually wished we would just arrive at Martin Freeman and the story that we really want to hear.
          To be fair, the scene with the entrance of the dwarves to Bag End was hilarious and they genuinely made me feel at home. I was totally satisfied until they really got going on their journey. They encounter a number of very general threats and the beauty of Bilbo's intelligence getting them out of scraps is missed. For those who know the story, I thought the troll sequence was mishandled, which is unfortunate, as that is my favorite sequence in the early part of the book.
          The relationship between Bilbo and Thorin Oakenshield has an all too neat and tidy conflict-escalation-resolution structure that seems forced. The decision to show the Lonely  Mountain at the end also seems overly convenient, as they haven't even entered Mirkwood yet. In many ways it seemed like they were trying to fill space since they decided to do a trilogy. I really hoped that maybe Peter Jackson had found enough genuine material to make three films and now I'm nearly sure he hasn't.
          A lot is lost, but some highlights in terms of acting deserve praise. Martin Freeman gets the beauty of Bilbo's reluctance, that it is simply the modern man's reaction to adventure. He has pleasure and security. Why should he risk his own life for this adventure? He doesn't see the emptiness of his life in the same way that so many materialists now do not see how much more meaning life ought to have. But he has compassion for the dwarves.
          Besides this, all the old cast slip back into familiar and comforting roles. Sir Ian brings Gandalf the Grey back to life in a way I thought would be hard after seeing Gandalf the White. Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, and Cate Blanchett bring back Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel with ease and never betray any sign of weariness in playing these characters, which is inspiring. Andy Serkis again inhabited Gollum so convincingly that I forgot there was an actor again. I also thought most of the dwarves played their parts to perfection, but I did feel as if Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield felt weird, even awkward.
          A special note should be given to Sylvester McCoy's shining performance as Radagast the Brown. This was truly inspired and made the middle of the movie more bearable for me.
          For wisdom, I gave the film an 8.5. Many parts of it did well in this category, better certainly than in wit, but the aforementioned loss of some of the spectacular nature of Bilbo's wit bothered me in the construction of the themes. Beyond this, I can only think to complain about the loss of the joy and lightheartedness of the book. The Hobbit won so much acclaim as itself, a children's book. It wasn't about all the dark pieces of the mythology like LOTR. It uses the depth of that world, but doesn't feel the need to constantly invoke it. It leaves it as background so it can tell an adventure story. This gives too much focus to the background and we lose the childish sense of adventure that is the lesson that Bilbo's story has to teach us.
          I have very little to complain about in terms of wonder. The film is beautiful from beginning to end. WETA blows me away with how intelligently and painstakingly they conceive and bring forth a world of such depth visually. There are a couple complaints, without which I would probably have given this a 10. First, the dwarves are rarely given in a context that reminds you they are short and stocky. When Thorin fights the great goblin, he looks like a full-grown man. Enforcing the size of the dwarves does not seem to have been done as painstakingly here as it was with Gimli in LOTR. Second, I think again the darkness comes across visually and they don't contrast it with LOTR, as I think they should have.
          I can't say to anyone that they shouldn't go see it immediately, because I know that no human being on earth could have told me that before I saw it that I would have listened to. I only forewarn that some might not get their hopes up. Good luck.