4 Reasons to Watch "American Hustle" and 3 Reason to Not.

4 REASONS TO WATCH:

4. BECAUSE JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS OFF THE RAILS…

But in a good way.  Sure, there are a few moments where you start to feel the twinge of your eyes rolling their way back into your head, but the character is over-the-top and Jennifer Lawrence unapologetically goes for it.

3. AMY ADAMS’ NEAR WARDROBE MALFUNCTION…

in every single scene.  The question most asked after seeing this film: “Did you see Amy Adams’ shirts?” and the response most often provided: “Yessssssss!”

2. THE BAD HAIR

If ever you need to feel good about being follically challenged, take a gander at the wig work in this film.  It’ll immediately pump your tires while reminding you that nothing good ever came out of the 70’s.

1. IT’S LIKE WATCHING THE NBA ALL STAR GAME

The movie is a collection of great talent (for the most part) performing at peak levels.  Sure the script is not that good and thus the production feels like a showcase of talent rather than one cohesive narrative, but like the NBA All Star game, there is just enough raw talent to overcome this and provide adequate entertainment value.

AND 3 REASONS TO NOT TO WATCH:

3. BECAUSE BRADLEY COOPER IS OVERRATED.

After one good turn in "Silver Linings Playbook," society as a whole has decided that Bradley Cooper is actually a great actor.  I've yet to see this point validated.

2. THE SCRIPT IS GENERIC AND INCONSISTENT.

This movie is the definition of a script written for the sake of making a movie.  Is it loosely based on real events?  Sure, but the key word is loosely.  What is fiction turns out to be pretty unimaginative and the consistency of the characters falter under the weight of this flawed plot.  And the minute you walk out of the movie, you'll immediately decide there's no need to ever see it again.

1. BECAUSE THE VIEWER IS LEFT WITH NO SKIN IN THE GAME.
Almost every good movie has a likable person to root for regardless of whether they are to come out on top or not.  Most everyone in American Hustle is drenched with the stink of deceit and corruption, making it hard for the viewer to become invested in any one character.

Read More

Review: Gangster Squad

Movies about organized crime forever remain en vogue.  Sure we love our nuts and bolts cops and robbers stories, but adding the element of the mob/mafia to the narrative is like putting the plot on a steady diet of steroids.  Whether captured from the law enforcement side or from the point-of-view of the crooked, they tend to be riveting tales of loyalty and betrayal against the backdrop of flying bullets.  If you’re a fan of this genre, then Gangster Squad is very much in your wheelhouse.  The problem here though is that if you love these types of movies, then you’ve probably seen L.A. Confidential and The Untouchables and if you’ve seen these two movies then there is absolutely no reason to see Gangster Squad.  It is a near perfect amalgamation of the two films sans any twist to differentiate itself.

The plot of Gangster Squad is set in 1940’s Los Angeles, a city where crime boss Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) holds a firm grasp on the city by way o drugs, prostitution, gambling, and guns.  Tired of citywide corruption, Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) commissions war hero John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) to put together a crew of edgy but clean cops to take back the city from Cohen by any means necessary.

The packaging on this film looks solid – great cast, highly stylized visuals, and a noir-ish quality that would seem to make the movie ooze with credibility.  That director Ruben Fleischer seemingly tried to channel the vibe from L.A. Confidential is not the worst thing in the world since Confidential is one of the best of its genre.  Still, the movie never really comes together as it should.  It’s a textbook example of the sum of the parts exceeding the value of the whole.  To me this problem begins with they style and tone.  Yes, the movie is stylized, but perhaps it is overly so to the point where the gritty tone is sacrificed.  Guns and fisticuffs aside, everything feels like it’s done for show rather than an organic product of the plot. 

Another issue with the film is that it borders on camp and not in a comedic way.  The movie strives for that hard-boiled film noir feel complete with the stoic narrative voice over, but everything feels a bit too pulpy for its own good.  The sets, the rhetoric, the overacting plays more like an off-off-off-off Broadway production rather than a full length feature with an A-list cast.  At times it feels like you're watching a bunch of Hollywood stars play dress up rather than immersing themselves into a narrative and that completely shatters the reality of the film, crippling what little credibility the film maintains.

As for the work of the cast, it’s a mixed bag from top to bottom.  Josh Brolin (as leader of the Gangster Squad) shows himself well as the protagonist of the film continuing his renaissance by delivering a tough performance.  It’s not perfect, but he plays it straight and consistently delivers throughout the film despite the uneven work of his cast mates.  Also landing in the plus column is Mireille Enos as Brolin’s wife.  She does a nice job portraying a street smart woman and the physical embodiment of the personals risks Brolin’s O’Mara is willing to take to fulfill his duty.  Giovanni Ribisi rounds out the good portion of the cast with his portrayal of Officer Keeler (the brains of the outfit).  Unlike his fellow officers, his character lacks the bravado and machismo of the others and brings a sense of balance to the group.

The performances that I found most underwhelming in the film were those of Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, and Emma Stone.  While I think Gosling is a fair actor, I fail to see this fountain of talent that so many gush about especially so when considering his last three outings (The Ides of March, Drive, and Crazy, Stupid, Love).  Of the entire cast, he is the most guilty of overacting and thus most responsible for undermining the credibility of the narrative.  As for Sean Penn, his regression into mediocrity has been a more rapid descent then the old guard in Hollywood is willing to admit.  His performances have become increasingly one dimensional as he has morphed into a caricature of himself right before our eyes.  His work in this film is lazy, unoriginal, and uninspired.  As for Emma Stone, it pains me to say this as I am a huge fan of hers, but she seems oddly out of place as the starlet in this movie.  Though she is well accomplished, her performance feels a bit green and short on the kind of emotional intelligence required to captivate the audience, thus leaving a huge void in the production.

I have spilled a lot of ink ripping this movie apart but it’s probably not as bad as I have made it sound.  The film is just entertaining enough to keep you watching until the end although probably not nearly as invested as you would be with a movie of greater merit and certainly high expectations does this film no favors.  It’s a movie; it’s make believe but you’re never able to shake that feeling from start to finish and thus this film feels like nothing more than a satisfactory way to pass two hours of your life.  Rent it.  Don’t rent it.  Either way you won’t hate yourself for it.  Just don’t expect to see anything new, fresh, or very well done lest you set yourself up for disappointment.

Standout Performance: Josh Brolin.  His O’Mara is not a particularly well written protagonist, but Brolin does a solid job of delivering the performance that the movie needs.

Read More

Review: End of Watch

Ninety percent of all action movies are just different iterations of the cops and robbers narrative.  Whether it is superheroes, spies, or soldiers, the paradigm remains the same - good guys chasing bad.  While it has been a while since I have found a straight-forward, meat and potatoes, boys-in-blue film to be truly entertaining (The Departed), it doesn’t mean this genre within a genre has become completely obsolete.  End of Watch is good reminder of this.  While I don’t know enough about wielding a gun and shield to say that the film is an accurate portrayal, it is gritty and raw and exudes a sense of authenticity.

The story tracks two partners in the LAPD – Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena) as they work their beat in South Central Los Angeles.  Through a combination of cameras built into the plot and the traditional third person view, we are privy to a slice of their lives as partners and friends as they stumble upon Mexican cartel activity in Los Angeles. 

What works best about this movie is the buddy aspect of the film.  A lot of the plot is driven by the interactions between Gyllenhaal and Pena, establishing their camaraderie and fleshing out the personal aspects of their lives that influence the way they police the streets.  Relatively young and full of bravado, it becomes evident that as their lives mature the sense of invincibility with which they man their jobs can and will eventually erode.  The sense of family they extoll as members of the police force must be balanced by the sense of family that exists in their home and rubbing elbows with ruthless cartel flunkies threatens this equilibrium. 

The movie in tone feels something like Training Day most likely because David Ayer serves as both writer and director.  He does an admirable job though my one complaint is the use of cameras built into the story.  Sure, I am not the biggest fan of overused unsteady cameras, but I particularly found the transition from entrenched cameras to third person shots to be distracting and confusing.  While it may have sacrificed a bit of the grittiness, the movie could have been equally as effective (if not more so) with traditional cinematography and would have lessened the burden of trying to reason the presence of a video camera in nearly every shot.

As for the acting, Gyllenhaal and Pena knock it out of the park.  The strength of the movie is fueled by their relationship as partners and friends and it is left to the two men to construct this visually through banter and verbal exchanges.  The chemistry that the two actors share is impressive and in the scenes where they muse about their lives while driving the streets of L.A., leaves you feeling like you are participating in a genuine ride along.  Gyllenhaal clearly takes on a physical transformation to disappear into the role of a headstrong cop with a military background.   Pena excellently balances this out by playing the heart of this partnership - the married man with a baby on the way who bears a close connection to the streets they patrol.  Not to be lost in the action and drama is the well-timed comedic relief that manifests naturally in the exchanges between the two actors.  It is a necessary layer that truly amps up the feeling of  authenticity.

As for the rest of the cast, Natalie Martinez (Gabby) and Anna Kendrick (Jane) each perform admirably as the significant others of Pena and Gyllenhaal respectively.  Limited in screen time, the actresses do a great job of helping to lay depth to the protagonists and remind the viewers what’s at stake every time the officers take to the streets.  Frank Grillo, David Harbour, and America Ferrera aren’t given much heavy lifting as fellow members of the force, but add another layer to this portrayal of life as a police officer in South Central.  As for the baddies, they are for the most part faceless and at times border on caricatures, but that is more out of necessity than anything else.  This film is about Gyllenhaal’s Taylor and Pena’s Zavala and rightfully so.

If you’re not a fan of unsteady camera work or if you find it gives you headaches of nausea, you may want to wait for this as a rental.  Rarely do you find a perfectly steady shot in this movie.  Otherwise, I would definitely recommend this film for a theatrical viewing.  It is gritty and it is raw and the streets of Los Angeles show well in this regard.  The action is fierce and besides a few hiccups the pacing is brisk and steady.  This isn’t merely a pedal to the floor action flick nor is it huge in scope.  What it is, is a very personal story and one that will leave you feeling as though you really know the characters, and that is the definitive sign of a well-told story.

Standout Performance: Michael Pena does some of his best work to date in this movie displaying a wide acting range seamlessly moving from gravitas to emoting to comedic relief.  In a movie with some very good performances, his is best.

Read More

Review: Tower Heist

When I first saw the trailer for Tower Heist, I thought it looked like a B-Level Ocean’s 11.  Then I saw that Brett Ratner had directed it and revised my expectations to D-Level.  But truth be told, what makes it onto screen for the first hour of the movie is a passable attempt at a caper flick.  Trump Tower in Columbus Circle makes for a very solid backdrop against which the Madoff-esque plot can unfold.  Don’t get me wrong, Ratner, Stiller, and Murphy aren’t exactly channeling Soderbergh, Clooney, and Pitt here, but this film is definitely a step up from X-Men: Last Stand, Little Fockers, and Norbit respectively.  The problem then with Tower Heist is the last thirty minutes, but more on that later.

So what worked?

- Alan Alda.  As Arthur Shaw, the veteran thespian proves once again just how accomplished he is – seamlessly slipping into a role that calls for the kind of duplicity one would expect from a swindler of Madoff proportions.

- The pacing.  Most of the movie moves at a brisk pace.  This is however partially due to the fact that Ratner rarely lets his films get bogged down in character development.  So while you will never get depth from one of his movies, at least you know that the man keeps the proverbial assembly line moving.

- Stephen Henderson.  As Lester the kind-hearted doorman, Henderson adds some much needed likability to the proceedings.  His presence alone makes you hope that in the end, Alda’s Shaw get his just deserts.

So what didn't work?

- Ben Stiller.  Stiller is miscast as the straight man in this film, which is ironic because he has made a nice career for himself playing the ultimate misfit.  Everything you like about a Ben stiller performance – oddball behavior, physical comedy, and painfully awkward les faux pas - is absent from this film.  As the lead, he is drab, one dimensional, and predictable.

- Eddie Murphy.  Nothing Murphy does in this film works.  He has no chemistry with Stiller and adds no comedic relief to the proceedings.  If delivering lines loud and over-the-top were an Olympic event, Murphy would have walked away with the gold for his performance.

- The third act.  It's dangerous when a flimsy script gets cerebral with its plot twists, because when that happens, things tend to come to a screeching halt.  I guess this derailment of Tower Heist was inevitable.  Just like any other team or individual who tries to defy the odds to accomplish the impossible, Brett Ratner’s attempt to make a decent movie was destined to run out of steam during crunch time.

- Underutilized Cast.  Tea Leoni, Judd Hirsch, Casey Affleck, and Matthew Broderick are given nothing to work with in this film - a total waste of comedic talent.

So…should you see it?

Should you ever see a movie that lists the director and the two lead actors as things that do not work in the film?  Of course not, but there is just enough in this film to make it tolerable under precise circumstances…in other words: for free, because honestly, the biggest heist about this movie is that it made $153 million worldwide at the box office.  So wait for it to show up on TBS or something.  At the very least, lower investment and expectations for this movie will decrease your disappointment.

Read More