Rust and Bone Review

Sony Pictures Classics

Rust and Bone Review

2012, 120 minutes

Rated R for strong sexual content, brief graphic nudity, some violence, and language

This is a perfect case of what happens when some great acting (almost) saves a mediocre story.  Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose, Inception) and Matthias Schoenaerts (Bullhead) give what are easily two of the best performances of the year.  I am so glad that Schoenaerts is starting to star in more higher-profile films as he truly is fantastic.  Before I delve into more details regarding the acting, let me talk about the basics of this film.  Rust and Bone is the new film by Jacques Audiard, director of 2009's masterful Oscar-nominee A Prophet and follows a whale trailer, Stephanie (Cotillard), who falls for a single dad who's also a bare-knuckle boxer, Ali (Schoenaerts), after she loses her legs in an accident during a show.

The acting is, as mentioned, some of the best of the year.  Cotillard is nothing short of a revelation as Stephanie.  She is not afraid to do anything and lays it all bare.  In one scene, towards the beginning after the accident, Stephanie wakes up in her hospital bed and realizes that her legs are gone.  With this realization, she breaks down.  Cotillard once again strips down her movie star image to turn in one of the most natural, real, and beautiful performances of the year.

And Schoenaerts is the perfect match.  After an impressive performance in the Oscar-nominated Bullhead, Schoenaerts gives another performance as a brute that is as good, if not better.  It is made all the more impressive given that his character isn't developed much.  The lack of character development is a major flaw of the film, as is the fact that Schoenaerts' character is very unlikable.  Unlikable characters can be good if it fits in the film (as in a Noah Baumbach movie), but here it takes out all emotional connection to the character.  The ending of the film is contrived and melodramatic (as is much of the latter half of the film), which deprives the film of the emotional punch that it needs to be a complete success.  The first chunk is great, though; full of compelling story and interesting scenes.  And, on a side note, the cinematography for Rust and Bone is gorgeous.

Overall, Rust and Bone is a movie about acting and individual scenes.  It isn't a great film, but is not by any means a bad one.  It will definitely work for many people, but it just didn't pack the punch that I wanted it to.  Expect an Oscar nomination for Cotillard's performance.  It's that good.

2.5/4
-Joshua Handler

Django Unchained Review

The Weinstein Co./Columbia Pictures

REVIEW by Joshua Handler

Django Unchained

2012, 165 minutes

Rated R for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity 

"Adult supervision is required," says Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) in Quentin Tarantino's brave new film Django Unchained.  And he could not be more right as Django is brutal, gory, and twisted.  Not to mention gut-bustingly funny.  Django Unchained is Tarantino's latest film to take the best elements of a '60s or '70s fringe genre, put his own spin on it, and make it great.  The genre this time is the spaghetti western.  Spaghetti westerns were westerns made in Italy primarily during the 1960s.  Sergio Leone and Sergio Corbucci were arguably the most famous spaghetti western directors.  Leone made The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Corbucci made Django, from which this film takes nothing but its title.  

Django Unchained takes place in 1858 in the deep South.  Tarantino wanted this not to we a western, but a "southern".  The film follows Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German bounty hunter who teams up with a slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), to find a vicious group of outlaws called the Brittle Brothers.  In return for his help, Schultz will help Django rescue his wife Broomhilda from evil plantation owner Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) in Mississippi.

Django is a really interesting film in that it is one of the first films to truly show an in depth, honest, brutal portrayal of slavery in Hollywood history.  Tarantino doesn't hold anything back in his depiction of the horrors of slavery.  He shows brandings, forced slave fights, dog attacks, and whippings, all in graphic detail.  Uncharacteristically of Tarantino, none of these are played for laughs.  Don't get me wrong, much of the violence in this film is played for laughs, but that which is is against the white plantation owners and workers.  The violence mentioned above is directed against African-American slaves and is extremely disturbing.  This was a very gutsy move of Tarantino, but I think it is great.  He doesn't use that violence as exploitation, but simply as a means to expose America to the true brutality that they want to forget.

Django is undeniably messy towards the end, but works on so many levels.  The acting, unsurprisingly, is top-notch from everyone.  The standout is Leonardo DiCaprio who turns in a performance that is not only his best to date, but one of the most frightening and menacing villains in recent memory.  DiCaprio's Calvin Candie is, like Waltz's Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, a charming, but vile villain who I just loved to hate.  He commands the screen every time he is onscreen.  I sometimes think DiCaprio is a little stiff when executing a dramatic performance as he was in J. Edgar, but here he was relaxed and comfortable.  He seemed like he was having a blast shedding his nice-guy image for this new face as the ultimate bad guy.

Jamie Foxx is surprisingly good in the lead as Django.  He, too, is charming, witty, and cool.  However, behind the coolness is a sense of shame and longing which Foxx shows with heartbreaking authenticity.  Christoph Waltz is Oscar-worthy as Dr. King Schultz.  Tarantino really knows how to get the best out of him.  He speaks the language of Tarantino like a natural and delivers every syllable perfectly.  While this seems like a bizarre piece of praise, it is not, as Tarantino's dialogue is written in a very particular way that, if not delivered correctly, could sound unnatural (in the Tarantino film's world).  Finally, we come to Samuel L. Jackson who steals nearly every scene he's in as Jackson, Candie's slave who is also his right hand man.  Jackson's facial expressions are pee-your-pants funny and the energy and charisma he brings here is a joy to watch.

Django Unchained contains all of the usual anachronistic music that Tarantino usually uses and contains the usual black humor.  There are some scene in Django that should not be funny, but I couldn't help but laugh.  And, as an homage to spaghetti westerns, Tarantino nails the style with everything from a new Morricone song to the dramatic extreme close-ups.  If you've seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and other films of that era, this film will be that much funnier.

Much as this is a typical Tarantino film, it is different in a couple of very noticeable ways.  One of them is that there is an emotional connection to Django and Broomhilda.  Tarantino's movies ride on their style and smarts normally (and this one does too), but with the added emotional romance element, I felt more connected to the characters which made the ending more satisfying (and if there's anything Tarantino knows how to do it is pull off one hell of an ending).  Another big difference, as mentioned,is the dead serious historical context.  After viewing Django, I really thought (and still am thinking) about the effect of slavery and racism on America and how it can still be felt in some ways today.  While trying to show a dark side of history, Tarantino never preaches or tries to convey some large message.  He just gives us the cold, honest facts and lets us make of them whatever we want.  That was Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal's strength with Zero Dark Thirty: they never let a political message get in the way of the honest truth.  They let us, the audience, decide what to make of them.

While Django is most certainly a great film, it does have some issues.  One of the most glaring is the editing.  Fred Raskin took over for Tarantino's usual editor, Sally Menke, after her death a few years ago and it is very noticeable.  The film is not as tight as Inglourious Basterds or other Tarantino films and due to the extensive cuts made on the film to bring down the running time, there are some weird, seemingly out-of-place shots and transitions.  In addition, the film could have ended in many places, but didn't.  While the places it went were very interesting and fun, a little tightening wouldn't have hurt.  

Overall, while not the best film Tarantino has made, Django Unchained is still excellent and will satisfy most of his fans.  It is an honest, moving, brutal, and hilariously funny take on the spaghetti western set during our nation's darkest hour.  This should get a substantial amount of Oscar nominations come January.  A warning: if you are not a Tarantino fan, stay far away from this one.

4/4

Zero Dark Thirty Review

Sony Pictures

Zero Dark Thirty

2012, 157 minutes

Rated R for strong violence including brutal disturbing images, and for language

Zero Dark Thirty Review

by Joshua Handler

So many films this year have been disappointments.  The Dark Knight Rises wasn't the brilliant conclusion that I had hoped it would be, Argo was good but lacked suspense and emotional resonance, and Cloud Atlas was ambitious but never came together.  When I saw that Oscar-winner Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) was making another war film, I immediately became suspicious that she would simply try too hard to make a film like The Hurt Locker and fail.  However, much to my surprise, I was completely wrong as she has crafted what is, for my money, the best film of 2012 (I still have yet to see Django Unchained and Les Misérables, but that will be taken care of soon enough).  

Zero Dark Thirty is the story of the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden and the CIA agent, Maya (Jessica Chastain), who invests everything into finding him.  Written by Mark Boal (Oscar-winner for The Hurt Locker), Zero Dark Thirty is very smart and fast-paced, while still being easy to follow and riveting for all 157 minutes.  Boal writes some great dialogue and always makes sure that everything is believable.  His script keeps the drama mixed well with the thrills which sets the foundation for this film.

From the start of the film, it is obvious that Zero Dark Thirty is not going to be a fun ride as it starts off with 15-20 minutes of torture; waterboarding, sleep deprivation, you name it.  While the men being tortured are terrorists, it is nonetheless no easier to watch these scenes.  Director Bigelow doesn't shy away from the graphic details and that is one of the reasons that this film is what it is.  Bigelow tells her stories with no sugar-coating and an unflinching sense of reality that makes her films the most around.  I get more white-knuckled with Bigelow films than any other.

If this film doesn't earn Kathryn Bigelow a second Best Director Oscar win, something is wrong.  She has a knack for catching the audience off guard during a quiet moment and subsequently setting a bomb off when you least expect it.  This kind of approach to scene construction ratchets up the tension.  When something comes out of nowhere, it turns the audience on high alert.  But, Bigelow knows how to turn off the high alert and bring the audience back down so that she can go for another shock.  Also, she knows that action does not always equal thrills and suspense.  The raid on Bin Laden's compound sequence uses silence to build suspense; a very smart directorial decision.

Oscar-nominee Jessica Chastain (The Help, The Tree of Life) gives a powerful performance as Maya.  Whenever I watch Chastain, no matter what film, I never remember that I am watching her.  I always believe that I am watching whatever character she is playing.  As Maya, she captures the ambition and personal pain convincingly.  However, what distinguishes her performance more than anything is the change that her character goes through from rookie CIA agent, barely watching during a torture session, to tough, no-nonsense agent with a drive like no other.  Her arc is really interesting.

The supporting cast is also phenomenal.  Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, James Gandolfini, and Mark Strong all play crucial roles in the film and all do really well in their respective roles.

Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech, Fantastic Mr. Fox) creates an Oscar-worthy score for this film. It is subtle, haunting, and gets the heart pumping when needed.  Greg Fraser's cinematography is excellent.  The use of (steady) handheld camerawork added a sense of grit and realism to the film that made the film feel documentary-like.

Watching a film like Zero Dark Thirty because it is one of the only historical films in recent memory in which I vividly remember the history.  I distinctly remember President Obama announcing the death of bin Laden last year and I remember the attacks on 9/11.  Seeing these events unfold in a time that I remember is very frightening, but also all the more satisfying.  I could connect emotionally to the death of Osama bin Laden.  When he is finally killed, I felt such a sense of pride simply because I remember this event happening, not because the film uses any manipulative devices.

One last note about Zero Dark Thirty is that I find it admirable that it refuses to be political.  It doesn't pass judgments about the War on Terror, torture, or any other controversial topics.  It is simply out there to tell a great story.

Overall, Zero Dark Thirty is another masterpiece from Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal.  I'll leave it at this: they are quite the team.

4/4

Hitchcock Review (RE-POST)

Fox Searchlight

Hitchcock Review

2012, 98 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, and thematic material

This is a re-post of my 11/10/2012 review of Hitchcock.

Fox Searchlight has done it again; Hitchcock is one entertaining, if slight, film.  I do not understand how Fox Searchlight has pulled off at least two consecutive years (I have seen nearly all of their releases from 2011 and 2012) with almost universally fantastic slates.  Look at this year alone.  They have released the outstanding Beasts of the Southern Wild, Sound of My Voice, The Sessions, and the sleeper hit, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  And now, they have the wildly entertaining Hitchcock, directed by Sacha Gervasi (Anvil!: The Story of Anvil), which follows Alfred Hitchcock's relationship with his wife as he makes his masterpiece Psycho.

The main reason why this movie works is the stellar acting from leads Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Relville, his wife, respectively.  Hitchcock dons a fat suit and is very convincing as Hitchcock.  He seems to touch the complexity of the notoriously mysterious Hitchcock, but doesn't get too deep (this is due to the script also).  Mirren is once again brilliant as the tough, but loving Alma Relville.  Relville, while never credited in Hitchcock's films, helped Hitchcock with his films, particularly with the script.  Relville was Hitchcock's backbone.  Mirren and Hopkins' line delivery is spot on and sparks fly from the scenes in which they are together.  Their chemistry is so great that it seems as if they really have been married for years.

The supporting cast doesn't disappoint either.  The two standouts are James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins and Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh.  D'Arcy nails Perkins.  I forgot that I was watching him and not the real Anthony Perkins.  Johansson, one of my favorite actresses, does a great job at playing Janet Leigh.  She makes Leigh a really professional, likable person who had a lot of class.

The screenplay by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) follows the generic biopic structure, but has enough entertaining moments and clever lines to rise above the structure and clichés.  One complaint I have with the script is that it should have focused more on Hitchcock's troubles making Psycho instead of his marriage.  While this was not the intended focus of the film, the scenes where he is shooting Psycho are far more interesting than the ones about his marriage.  A little more balance would have done it good.  In addition, the pace sags a bit in the middle when the focus switches entirely to the marriage.  That being said, McLaughlin's script has plenty of fun sequences and gets the job done pretty well.

The editing of certain sequences was noteworthy as well, as was Danny Elfman's sly score.  A fun fact about the score is that Danny Elfman scored Gus van Sant's remake of Psycho and has now scored Hitchcock, a film about the making of Hitchcock's 1960 original, Psycho.

Overall, Hitchcock isn't a great film, but I would definitely recommend it, as it is certainly entertaining and will especially resonate with fans of Hitchcock and his work as it did with me.  The film has some fun subtle references to Psycho thrown  in [i.e. the candy corn in Janet Leigh's car (Norman Bates nervously munches on candy corn when Arbogast pays him a visit in Psycho)] that make the experience that much more fun if you know the film well.  One note: see Psycho before seeing this if you haven't already because naturally, there are spoilers for the film in Hitchcock.

3/4

-Joshua Handler

Life of Pi Review (RE-POST)

Fox 2000

Life of Pi Review

2012, 120 minutes

Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril

This is a re-post of my 9/28/2012 review of Life of Pi.

Life of Pi is the new film by Oscar-winning director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and was screened tonight as its world premiere at the opening of the New York Film Festival.  Ang Lee was present at the screening tonight and said that he had been working on the film for four years and that he had two weeks to make some tweaks before handing in the film to Fox.  Life of Pi is obviously the work of a master director working at the peak of his powers as it boasts a huge heart and the best cinematography, visual effects, score, and 3D (the film was actually shot in 3D, not turned into 3D during post-production) that you will probably see all year.  The film follows a young Indian teen, Pi (newcomer Suraj Sharma) who gets stuck in the middle of the ocean on a lifeboat with a tiger after the ship carrying him and his family sinks.

Let me get my gripes out of the way before anything else, so that it doesn't seem like this is a negative review.  Every problem with this movie came from the screenplay by David Magee (Finding Neverland).  The pacing was uneven.  There were sequences that were heart-stoppingly stunning and suspenseful, such as the shipwreck sequence, but after that, the movie literally seemed to stop, especially in the scenes with Pi at sea.  It also became quite repetitive and some scenes were too dramatic (in terms of the dialogue, the tone was perfect).  

With that out of the way, let me mention all of the wonderful parts of the movie.  First off, the score, by Mychael Danna (Moneyball, Little Miss Sunshine) is the best of the year.  It is subtle, moving, and sets the tone of the film.  It never overwhelms and gave me chills.  

Claudio Miranda's cinematography is perfect.  Each shot is exquisitely and carefully picked and the images that Miranda captures are breathtaking.  The way he works with the 3D is especially impressive (you'll see what I mean when you view the film).

The 3D effects for this film are the best that I have ever seen.  The film uses 3D to both deepen the image onscreen and to also have the occasional object pop out of the screen into the theater.  It immersed me in the film's world.  Also, it is amazing what a difference it makes to shoot a film in 3D as opposed to post-conversion.  The image has depth and each object onscreen looks three-dimensional as opposed to two-dimensional with a little shading on the background (as it typically looks in post-conversion).

The visual effects were jaw-dropping.  Much of the water and the animals were rendered with CGI and it was very hard to tell what was real and what wasn't.  The animals, particularly the tiger, have emotional depth in their animated faces.  The backgrounds are colorful and are colored much like some Bollywood films.  While it was obvious that backgrounds and images like many portrayed in the film do not exist, in the context of the movie, they looked very realistic.

While technical work is very important, especially for a film of this scope, what really matters is the amount of care and humanity that is put in the film.  Ang Lee and crew really made sure that this was not another $100 million CGI-fest with no heart or soul.  Lee captures moments of such humanity that it brought tears to my eyes.  In one sequence, the tiger is clinging to the side of Pi's lifeboat, its head bobbing in and out of the water.  It knows that if it doesn't get aboard, it will die.  Pi looks over the side of the boat and looks into the tiger's eyes.  The tiger looks back at him, sad, alone.  This image was captured beautifully as we stare right into the tiger's eyes; into his soul.  We see the humanity in this wild beast.  He is as alone as Pi is and realizes this.  Lee carefully places the formerly majestic tiger's face in the middle of the frame with the dark blue ocean around it, showing the desolation.  Less experienced filmmakers would have simply shown Pi looking over to see if the tiger is there and then just show a brief image of the tiger.  

Overall, Life of Pi is a solid film, partially undone by a weaker-than-it-should-have-been script.  But, it is redeemed by its big heart and outstanding technical work.  This is a film that will appeal to people of many ages and will surely do well (in the least in the technical categories) come awards season.

3/4

-Joshua Handler

Silver Linings Playbook Review

The Weinstein Co.

Silver Linings Playbook Review

2012, 122 minutes

Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity

Now this is one of a handful of films that actually deserves the Oscar buzz that it is getting.  Argo was good, but wasn't suspenseful or emotionally engaging enough, Life of Pi had some serious emotional moments and was visually stunning, but had an uneven script, and Lincoln was flat-out boring, but technically solid and featured an amazing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis.  But, we have a winner on our hands with David O. Russell's (The Fighter, Three Kings) Silver Linings Playbook, a film that follows Pat Solitano, a man with bipolar disorder who, after getting out of jail on a plea bargain, tries to look for the "silver linings" in life and get his wife back.  But, while trying to accomplish this, he meets Tiffany, a young woman with problems similar to his, who helps him in his quest to turn his life around.

The acting in this film is all-around fantastic.  Bradley Cooper, an actor not known for his superior acting ability (he is always good, however, just nothing stellar), but known for his roles in big mainstream films like The Hangover, nails his performance as Pat.  He gets almost every nuance of his character and shows some serious heart and soul in this role.  He was magnetic every time he was onscreen and I would not be surprised if his performance gets some awards attention.

Co-starring with Cooper is the always-amazing Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany.  As Tiffany, she is tough, but sweet and vulnerable at the same time.  Like Cooper, she nails every nuance.  Do not be surprised if she too gets some serious awards attention (a second Oscar nomination is very likely coming her way).

The supporting cast is all great, but the standout is Robert De Niro as Pat's incredibly superstitious father who either has or borders on OCD.  He brings a real passion and warmth to his role that he hasn't shown in years (this could be because he has been in some awful films).  Expect an Oscar nomination for him.

David O. Russell is on a roll.  The Fighter was one of the top five best of 2010, and now Russell made this?  Two hits in a row.  He seems to have a way with actors that very few other directors have.  He and his actors get into the characters and really bring them to life.  The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook both are very character-driven which makes for really compelling films.

Another aspect of Russell's direction that is superb is the pacing.  He rarely lets the pacing slow and I was never bored during the movie.  It always helps when the director wrote the film too because they seem to know what pace to keep with their film.  Russell's screenplay is wickedly funny, but also moving and honest which is an impressive feat.  The film deals with mental illness in an honest way that never is exploitative and the comedy and drama are well-balanced (the film is definitely more comedy, though).  The film follows a familiar arc, but Russell infuses it with so much wit, humor, and life, that the familiarity of the arc is easily forgiven.

Finally, I must say just how much I enjoyed watching the film.  It is so rare to see a movie that actually inspires me to try to find the "silver linings" in life, but this one really worked some magic on me.  After the film was over, I felt invigorated and energized.  In short, I felt good, which is a hard feat for a movie to pull off.

Overall. Silver Linings Playbook, while not a perfect film, is still truly stellar, with a third act that is unforgettable.  This is a must-see film for anyone who loves going to the movies.  You'll see this one pop up on Oscar ballots.

4/4
-Joshua Handler

If I Could Pick the Oscar Nominees...

MY PERSONAL OSCAR PICKS AS OF NOW

Fox Searchlight

As of now, I have seen almost all films getting major awards attention, save for Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, The Hobbit, and Les Misérables and Rust and Bone.  Therefore, I decided that it would be fun to make an early list of films/people that I would nominate for Oscars before the societies and guilds release their award nominees and winners.  So, here it is: 

Best Picture:

Holy Motors (my review)
Skyfall (my review)
Silver Linings Playbook (review coming soon)
Moonrise Kingdom (my review)
Looper (my review)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (my review)
Amour (my review)
The Queen of Versailles (review coming soon)
West of Memphis (review coming soon)
Chicken With Plums (my review)

Fox Searchlight

Best Actor (I cannot decide on five):
John Hawkes for The Sessions (my review)
Bradley Cooper for Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln (my review)
Denis Lavant for Holy Motors
Denzel Washington for Flight (my review)
Joaquin Phoenix for The Master (review coming soon)

Fox Searchlight

Best Actress:
Emmanuelle Riva for Amour
Quvenzhané Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild
Helen Hunt for The Sessions
Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook
Helen Mirren for Hitchcock (my review)

Best Director:
Pablo Larraín for No (my review)
Michael Haneke for Amour
Sam Mendes for Skyfall
Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild
Leos Carax for Holy Motors

Best Supporting Actor:
Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
Javier Bardem for Skyfall
Robert De Niro for Silver Linings Playbook
Paul Giamatti for Cosmopolis (my review)
Matthew McConaughey for Magic Mike (my review)

Best Supporting Actress:
Judi Dench for Skyfall
Amy Adams for The Master
Gina Gershon for Killer Joe (no review available)
Emily Blunt for Looper
(No fifth choice)

Best Original Screenplay:
Amour
The Sessions
Looper
Moonrise Kingdom
Your Sister's Sister

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Silver Linings Playbook
Chicken With Plums
No
Skyfall

Skyfall Review

MGM/Columbia Pictures

Skyfall Review

2012, 143 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language, and smoking

The experience of watching Skyfall is something that I did not expect.  After the disappointment of Quantum of Solace and the hiring of Sam Mendes (a director who specializes in drama), I was worried.  However, after viewing the superb action scenes in Road to Perdition, I knew I was in for a treat.  And I was.

Skyfall follows Bond as he tries to protect M and MI6 from terrorist threats and actions.  The root of this terror is terrifying and personal.

I don't even know where to begin with my praise for this film.  But, I have to start somewhere.  The acting by the entire cast is impressive, a rarity for an action film.  Daniel Craig's Bond is developed in this film and Craig's ability to translate Bond's emotions from script to screen is incredible.  There are moments in Skyfall in which Craig expresses everything through his face that are simply incredible.  In addition, he has a quick wit and is a great action hero.  

Judi Dench also adds complexity to her final role as M (she is retiring soon).  Dench has played M with such stern authority throughout the years and nails it in her last outing.  Judi Dench is one of the greatest living actresses today and it is truly sad to see her leave the cinema.

Finally we get to Javier Bardem who plays Raoul Silva, the villain in the film.  Bardem, known for playing a variety of different roles, is blonde in this film and embodies pure evil.  The first scene in which we see Bardem, he gives a monologue that will send chills down your spine.  With Silva, he created one of the best Bond villains ever.

Due to the fact that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Bond franchise, there are multiple hilariously fun references to previous Bond films.  These got a rise out of all of us in the theater.  The screenplay delves into the characters' complexities and is alternately dark and funny, blending drama and action perfectly.  One huge departure that this film makes from the rest of the series is that it is not a film where Bond has a mission and goes on the offense.  In this film, while going on the offense, he is more defensive as he tries to protect M from threats on her life and on MI6.  This approach to the material allows for more character development and works very well.

Roger Deakins' cinematography is stunning; the best part of this masterful film.  Nine-time Oscar-nominee Deakins, best known for his work on the Coen Brothers' films, has shot some of the most beautiful sequences of the year, particularly one in which Bond and an enemy fight in a glass-filled room in a Shanghai building with colored lights illuminating the walls.  This sequence is thrilling.

The opening has to be the most thrilling action scene of the year.  Taking place in Istanbul, the filmmakers try every kind of stunt they can and succeed marvelously.  This scene was a huge adrenaline rush, and so was the last half hour of the film.  The final action sequence is brilliant and so is the ending.

While this is not a complaint, I did like Casino Royale better because it was slightly more mysterious and the action was brutal instead of stylized as it is here.  However, the action here is great.

Overall, Skyfall is a brilliant piece of filmmaking that shows Sam Mendes on top of his game.  Bond films rise and fall on their directors and this one really shows what happens when a great director takes the helm and brings along his talented crew.  The result is a thrilling, complex, and fascinating Bond film that is unlike anything that we have seen before.

4/4
-Joshua Handler

Hitchcock Review

Fox Searchlight

Hitchcock Review

2012, 98 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, and thematic material

Fox Searchlight has done it again; Hitchcock is one entertaining, if slight, film.  I do not understand how Fox Searchlight has pulled off at least two consecutive years (I have seen nearly all of their releases from 2011 and 2012) with almost universally fantastic slates.  Look at this year alone.  They have released the outstanding Beasts of the Southern Wild, Sound of My Voice, The Sessions, and the sleeper hit, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  And now, they have the wildly entertaining Hitchcock, directed by Sacha Gervasi (Anvil!: The Story of Anvil), which follows Alfred Hitchcock's relationship with his wife as he makes his masterpiece Psycho.

The main reason why this movie works is the stellar acting from leads Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Relville, his wife, respectively.  Hitchcock dons a fat suit and is very convincing as Hitchcock.  He seems to touch the complexity of the notoriously mysterious Hitchcock, but doesn't get too deep (this is due to the script also).  Mirren is once again brilliant as the tough, but loving Alma Relville.  Relville, while never credited in Hitchcock's films, helped Hitchcock with his films, particularly with the script.  Relville was Hitchcock's backbone.  Mirren and Hopkins' line delivery is spot on and sparks fly from the scenes in which they are together.  Their chemistry is so great that it seems as if they really have been married for years.

The supporting cast doesn't disappoint either.  The two standouts are James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins and Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh.  D'Arcy nails Perkins.  I forgot that I was watching him and not the real Anthony Perkins.  Johansson, one of my favorite actresses, does a great job at playing Janet Leigh.  She makes Leigh a really professional, likable person who had a lot of class.

The screenplay by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) follows the generic biopic structure, but has enough entertaining moments and clever lines to rise above the structure and clichés.  One complaint I have with the script is that it should have focused more on Hitchcock's troubles making Psycho instead of his marriage.  While this was not the intended focus of the film, the scenes where he is shooting Psycho are far more interesting than the ones about his marriage.  A little more balance would have done it good.  In addition, the pace sags a bit in the middle when the focus switches entirely to the marriage.  That being said, McLaughlin's script has plenty of fun sequences and gets the job done pretty well.

The editing of certain sequences was noteworthy as well, as was Danny Elfman's sly score.  A fun fact about the score is that Danny Elfman scored Gus van Sant's remake of Psycho and has now scored Hitchcock, a film about the making of Hitchcock's 1960 original, Psycho.

Overall, Hitchcock isn't a great film, but I would definitely recommend it, as it is certainly entertaining and will especially resonate with fans of Hitchcock and his work as it did with me.  The film has some fun subtle references to Psycho thrown  in [i.e. the candy corn in Janet Leigh's car (Norman Bates nervously munches on candy corn when Arbogast pays him a visit in Psycho)] that make the experience that much more fun if you know the film well.  One note: see Psycho before seeing this if you haven't already because naturally, there are spoilers for the film in Hitchcock.

3/4
-Joshua Handler

Suspiria Review

GREAT HALLOWEEN FILMS

Anchor Bay

Suspiria Review

1977, 99 minutes

Rated R

This is a superior example of horror.  Dario Argento did not earn his reputation as a horror master from nothing.  Suspiria follows a young woman, Suzie (Jessica Harper), who goes to a prestigious European ballet school, but upon her arrival, strange things start happening.

The storyline of the film is follows a familiar arc, but is done compellingly enough that it doesn’t matter.  What sets this apart from other horror films is its energetic pace and outstanding production design, both with contribute to the mood and scares.  Argento doesn’t go for the “slow-build” type of horror that was common for many horror films of that time.  He keeps the kills and chills coming rapid-fire along with the gore.  The energy is really fantastic.  While horror films with slow builds often work extremely well (Psycho and Rosemary’s Baby are two great examples), Argento’s method works quite nicely too.  I am not arguing for fast-paced horror films like people try that today by passing off constant gore as scares, but if done right, fast-paced horror is extremely effective.  Dario Argento knows that gore is not what scares people.  He knows that atmosphere is a key component to those scares.  Argento seems to have been influenced by Roman Polanski’s direction of Rosemary’s Baby, a film thematically very similar to Suspiria, as the storylines and effective use of eerie atmosphere drive up the tension.  But, where Polanski and Argento differ is Polanski goes for the atmospheric slow-build (very fitting for the material and very effective), whereas Argento goes for the constant creepy situations and gore.  Argento wants your heart rate up the whole time and he succeeds.  The technically superb and artful camerawork contribute to this mood.

The production design of Suspiria is something else that distinguishes it from other horror films of its time.  While films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween used their low budgets to great effect, going for the “less-is-more” feel, Suspiria is big and glossy.  To give the film a fever dream look, Argento has many shots, particularly those at nighttime, lit with bright blues, reds, greens, etc.  This lighting lends a surreal look that is particularly eerie.  In addition, the wallpaper and set decorations have a surreal, classic western European look that combine well with the lighting.  The ballet academy in which most of the film takes place is almost more threatening than the actual antagonist(s) because it almost becomes a character due to the bizarre and creepy design and feel.

The score by Goblin keeps the heart rate up and the energy going.  It is a pumping score that rarely lets up.  In most other films it would be overwhelming, but not here.  The music isn’t subtle, but neither is the movie, so they complement each other well.

Finally, I will tell you whether Suspiria is actually scary.  Fortunately, my readers, it is.  One of the opening sequences is very suspenseful and tension-filled, so are many other sequences around the middle.  The finale is more exciting than scary (Argento moves off of some of the colored lighting which provides much of the mood), but it is nonetheless a very good conclusion.

Overall, Suspiria is one of the best horror films.  With a bright-colored color scheme, beautiful production design, a creepy score, wonderful camerawork, and great scares, Dario Argento pulls off a rare feat.  With Suspiria, he created an artful, unsubtle, but frighteningly effective film.  This is a classic that truly deserves its reputation and should be more widely seen.

4/4

-Joshua Handler