Review: Zero Dark Thirty

I don’t turn to movies for history lessons (a surprising number of people actually do) and I don’t let filmmakers and actors influence how I think.  Movies are entertainment for me – no more, no less.  So in regards to Zero Dark Thirty, I have blocked out the noise as to whether the film is politically motivated, pro-torture, historically accurate from start to finish, and so on and so forth.  Everyone with an interest in the on goings in and around Capitol Hill seems to have an opinion on this.  What I can say about Zero Dark Thirty is that it is an ambitious and comprehensive look at the post 9/11 search for Osama bin Laden through the lens of a singular agent.

The plot of the movie follows Jessica Chastain's Maya from her first days in the field as a CIA agent and her twelve-year search for a thread to lead her to Osama bin Laden.  The film details her efforts against the backdrop of major events that have unfolded between the 9/11 attacks and bin Laden’s eventual demise.  Agency politics, political machinations, and hostile skirmishes play out onscreen building to a crescendo until the film’s climax.

This film is right up my ally in subject matter.  The Kingdom, The Recruit, and Body of Lies – I tend to find films that focus on the agency and counter terrorism incredibly interesting even when they are not particularly good.  Zero Dark Thirty is a better brand of film than the aforementioned three.  Brought to the big screen by Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal – the team behind The Hurt Locker – the film does a great job of humanizing events that could easily have been sensationalized.  Everything feels personal and real, and this is done by taking an immensely large story and telling it on the smallest of scale.

The success of this film is tied to Jessica Chastain’s performance and she does a good job of portraying a character that develops from a very green agent into someone with a singular focus and determination.  She strikes a good balance between being a person and an agent, and while it probably is not her best performance, it is my favorite from her resume.

Playing opposite Chastain is a host of accomplished actors who bring a lot to the film in limited screen time.  Jason Clarke as veteran agent Dan does a great job of setting up a contrast to Chastain’s Maya and provides a reference of one direction that her career could ultimately take.  Jennifer Ehle’s performance as a fellow agent helps to draw out the personal aspect of the film’s protagonist.  Mark Strong and Kyle Chandler deliver professional workman-like efforts as the physical embodiment of bureaucracy, while Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt turn in my favorite performances in the film as U.S. Navy Seals. 

The finished product is a very strong movie, perhaps a bit longer and more comprehensive that I had anticipated, but as you watch the scenes unfold, you become aware that you are watching accomplished filmmaking.  The lone drawback for me in this film is that it is so layered and the subject matter so incredibly real that there is little joy to be garnered from it.  Sure, there is great catharsis as the climax takes place  (it is palpable as you watch it with a crowd in the cinema), but the film leaves you with an understanding that it only offers a bit of closure to a story that never really ends.

I would recommend you see this movie on the big screen as it warrants this type of viewing.  It is in limited release now (Los Angeles, New York) and drops nationwide the second week of January.  While I don’t think it is the best picture of 2012 as many pundits have claimed, I do think it is a meaningful and expertly executed exercise in filmmaking.

Standout Performance: Chastain gets the nod here since it is her movie from start to finish, but Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, and Chris Pratt deserve some notice as well.

Read More

Review: John Carter

It is hard to go into a viewing of John Carter without some sort of predisposition towards the movie, which is noted as not only being a huge financial flop that almost singlehandedly put Disney in the red for the second quarter of 2012 thus putting an end to Rich Ross’ tenure at Disney Studios but also for being one of two theatrical disasters this summer starring Taylor Kitsch formerly of Friday Night Lights.  When you get past all the noise in regards to why the movie tanked – the weak theatrical marketing, the lack of consumer awareness, the head-scratching decision to remove “of Mars” from the original title (“John Carter of Mars”) because of the poor performance of “Mars Needs Moms,” what you realize is that the final product is incredibly mediocre.

The scope is grand and the source material full, but somewhere along the way from novel to script to motion picture the lush grandeur of the full-blown sci-fi epic is lost.  The story focuses on civil war veteran John Carter, who is mysteriously transported to Mars and joins the war that has gripped the barren planet.   From large-scale battles to alien mythology to a romantic love interest, all the elements are present for writer/director Andrew Stanton to orchestrate the kind of compelling narrative that plays to a large target audience. That the final product falls well short of this, I believe, is the product of three key problems.

The first problem is Taylor Kitsch.  The man has two followings – fans of Friday Night Lights and the Twilight crowd, but thus far he has failed to show he has the charisma and acting chops to carry a movie.  A surly demeanor and limited voice inflection can only take you so far on the silver screen and Kitsch has failed to show he has another gear to switch to.  In John Carter, it is his usual formula –  stern glares, deep monotone delivery, and the aforementioned surly demeanor.  It’s hard to care about the protagonist when he is neither interesting, nor likeable, nor charismatic, and that is a huge cinematic setback.

The second problem with the film is that the bar has been set very high for CG heavy sci-fi fantasy films set on other planets by Avatar, which represents a strong mix of creative storytelling, top notch CG, and solid acting.  Unfortunately John Carter pales in comparison across the board.  Mars is hardly a rich visual backdrop for a film and this is exasperated here because the best acting talent in this film (Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Bryan Cranston) is buried beneath bland and unimaginative computer generated characters.  As for the live action cast, the movie features C level actors (i.e. Mark Strong, Dominic West, James Purefoy) who are best known for being the fourth lead in every other mediocre action movie.

The third problem with the film is that the source material has served as the inspiration for so many other narratives that the film feels contrived, uninspired, and predictable.  Nothing feels riveting; there are no surprises; and thus the payoff is muted.  One might ask whether the film should be punished for not being groundbreaking?  The simple answer is no, but this film feels oddly like a B-level retread despite the fact that it came with a $250M price tag.

I wouldn’t suggest you go out of your way to see this movie or throw any money at it.  Put it on your Netflix queue or borrow it from a friend; maybe even catch in on cable in a few months.  It’s not going to wow you and you’ll probably at some point after watching it mistake it for some other movie, but it’ll help you pass the time if you’re bored.  If you’re interested in following the theatrical box off train wreck that is Taylor Kitsch, he next appears in the Savages opposite Blake Lively.

Standout Performance: Lynn Collins delivers her lines with conviction.

Read More