jmoney-2 Reviews

The Marvels (2023)

It's just fine

[6/10 · 15 November 2023]

"The Marvels." is neither good nor terrible. It's just fine.

I know I'm on record as saying movies have gotten too long. But this one might actually be too short. The first act feels very disjointed and frenetic. It needed to slow down and spend a little more time introducing the characters and setting up the dramatic stakes. And the final battle also feels surprisingly abbreviated. I was also a bit lost because haven't seen the Ms. Marvel Disney show.

That said, the movie has a couple of memorable scenes (cat lovers will enjoy the movie) and the three leads are great. Plus, it's always fun to see Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.

But the most exciting thing to happen in the movie takes place in the mid-credit scene. And that's how you know it's not a great movie.

Asteroid City (2023)

Unfunny and incomprehensible

[1/10 · 1 July 2023]

When you talk about big movie stars like Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson or Bryan Cranston... people often say, "I'll watch them in anything." Well, Asteroid City puts that notion to the test.

This is a movie that's weird even by Wes Anderson's standards. It actually feels more like a parody of a Wes Anderson movie. And not in a good way.

I would describe it like this: It's a movie of a TV broadcast of a play about a play... and what we see is the movie version of the play within the play within the TV show (I think I have all of that right... it's all very confusing). What's missing in all of this is any real plot or characters to care about. It's one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. I like Anderson's films, but I just didn't get this one.

The Humans (2021)

Unwatchable

[1/10 · 9 January 2022]

The director deliberately keeps us at a distance from the characters. We watch seemingly every scene from the opposite end of a hallway or from the next room. It's almost as if the director just didn't want to bother shooting any coverage. Every scene is just a single (badly framed) master shot. The dialogue is difficult to hear. And very little happens. Maybe this works as a play. It doesn't work as a movie. And the filming style certainly didn't help.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Original, Unexpected & Epic

[10/10 · 19 December 2017]

I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan and The Last Jedi left me speechless. I literally couldn't talk when it was over. My throat couldn't make a sound. The lump in it was too big. It's weird and hilarious and heartbreaking and more action packed than any other Star Wars movie. I lost track of how many times I wept while watching Rian Johnson's film. But I'm sure I also laughed hard just as many times, if not more. Nothing can prepare you for the emotional ride it takes you on. It's a truly epic journey that has enough plot twists for two movies. It's also a true example of auteur filmmaking, and it gives us some startlingly beautiful images that I still can't get out of my head.

The line in the trailer was right: This isn't going to go the way you think. The answers it provides to the questions posed by The Force Awakens are unexpected, but they all make perfect sense. It's original and surprising and deeply moving and it will change the way you view Star Wars - in a good way.

The Interview (II) (2014)

Ironically, a movie about the evils of censorship

[7/10 · 30 December 2014]

The Interview -- as anyone who's paid attention to the news lately knows -- is a movie satire that was briefly banned due to threats from hackers, purportedly backed by North Korea. So, it is no small irony that the over-the-top comedy's actual theme is freedom of speech – specifically, freedom of the press.

Seth Rogen co-writes, co-directs and co-stars as Aaron Rapoport, a news producer who once aspired to be an investigative journalist. Instead, he has spent his career working for Dave Skylark (James Franco), the vacuous host of a tabloid interview show. When Skylark discovers that his fan base includes none other than the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, he and his producer pursue and – to their astonishment – succeed in securing an interview with the despot. Skylark sees a chance for ratings and Rapoport sees a chance to gain legitimacy. But it's the CIA who sees an opportunity to have the hostile leader taken out. Lizzy Caplan plays the intelligence operative who convinces the Americans to discreetly deliver a dose of poison to Kim.

Predictably, Aaron and Dave turn out to be bumbling assassins and the plot to kill Kim goes awry. Seeing the well-established comedy team of Rogen & Franco stumble through what would otherwise be a straightforward espionage thriller evokes memories of Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase in the '80s comedy Spies Like Us. This film, however, derives laughs less from spoofing spy movies and more from gross-out gags. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I laughed plenty of times during The Interview. Like most people, though, I had to watch the movie at home through a streaming service and I couldn't help but think it would've been a more enjoyable experience in a theater surrounded by fellow moviegoers. Laughter, as they say, is contagious. That said, if you enjoyed the crude humor employed by Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg in their previous films (Superbad, This Is the End), then you'll enjoy the jokes in this movie.

Many of those jokes involve the filmmaker's cartoon caricature of the dictator. Randall Park plays Kim as a spoiled rich kid who happens to possess nuclear weapons. Though his dark side is shown, the movie spends less time on his evil deeds and more time portraying him as a Katy Perry-loving buffoon with serious daddy issues. If the movie does in fact does bother the real Kim Jong-un, one can see why. As Moliere said, "One might be willing to be wicked; one cannot bear to appear foolish." The movie turns slightly more serious late in the game as Skylark discovers his inner Mike Wallace. We're given a parable of the power of journalism and a reminder of the importance of being able to confront leaders with tough questions. The movie is called The Interview for a reason. It turns out the most devastating weapon the movie's heroes wield is not poison, but rather, the truth.

In the end, though, The Interview is a comedy. The concept of two idiots being entrusted with the task of eliminating one of the United States' greatest geo-political threats is inherently absurd. But since the movie itself has wound up at the center of an international incident, the idea seems a little less like a joke. And that may be the funniest thing of all.

Interstellar (2014)

Love Transcends All Space & Time

[8/10 · 14 November 2014]

The Nolans (director Chris and co-writer Jonathan), treat us to one of the grandest space adventures we've seen in awhile. It's the kind of adventure you go to the movies to see, an adventure filled with some truly heart-pounding sequences which further cement Chris Nolan's reputation as a great action director. He makes full use of the IMAX format, not only visually but audibly, too. The supersized frame and booming sound mix create an immersive experience.

Nolan also deftly navigates his actors through several exposition-heavy scenes that would have otherwise threatened to drag down the film. In addition, he and his brother came up with some very clever ways to visualize some very complicated theories of physics, theories that I'm still trying to wrap my head around. Some may complain about the movie's pacing. It weighs in with a robust running time of 169 minutes. But as I was watching it, I was in no rush for the movie to end. While Interstellar may be too derivative to be truly great, it's still quite a ride.

The film takes its inspiration from many sources. There are doses of everything from The Right Stuff to both Star Trek (exploring strange new worlds) and Star Wars (helpful droids, icy planets). But there is no doubt that 2001 is the model. Its influences are seen in everything from the slow, majestic shots of heavenly bodies, to Hans Zimmer's haunting music cues. At times, it almost seems like the Nolans decided to have their characters drop in to visit each of the worlds glimpsed in Odyssey's famously trippy "star gate" sequence.

The aspect where the movie most resembles Kubrick's is its insistence on respecting the laws of physics and treating space travel realistically. This is the rare space-based story that not only acknowledges the Theory of Relativity, but also uses it as a serious obstacle. As the crew of Cooper's ship speeds away from Earth, time starts moving more slowly for them. As they approach a black hole, the time dilation becomes even greater. Over the course of what seems like just hours to the astronauts, decades pass back on Earth. (That is not to say there are no nits to pick in the plausibility department. A healthy suspension of disbelief is still required.)

Where 2001 and Interstellar depart are their themes and points of view. Kubrick takes a cynical, detached view of humanity. He observes the characters in his space odyssey as if they were rats in a maze. The Nolans' film is far more empathetic and emotionally driven. While 2001 was about a big idea – the search for our creator and an understanding of our place in the universe – Interstellar is about something much smaller and more basic: The love between a parent and a child.

The movie's central relationship is between Cooper and his daughter, Murphy (she's played by Mackenzie Foy as a child and by Jessica Chastain as an adult - and the two actresses bear a remarkable resemblance to each other). She is the reason Cooper embarks on the journey and she is the reason he is determined to find his way home. The movie postulates that love is a force as powerful as gravity, a force that can endure unimaginable distances and infinite stretches of time, and a force that can't be defined by a simple equation.

There won't be many dry eyes in the house as the movie comes to its conclusion. That's thanks to an excellent stable of actors who allow the movie's emotions to resonate and the audience to become invested. McConaughey's everyman persona is exactly what his character required. And he's not the only Oscar winner in the cast. In fact, a past Academy Award winner (including one you won't see in the trailers) fills out just about every other major role in the film.

The only thing Interstellar reveres more than science and exploration -- is humanity. Like all great art, it is a commentary on life. It shows us that when it comes to saving our species, the only superior beings we need to look to are ourselves. And when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of our place in the universe, we need only to look inside the human heart.

Foxcatcher (2014)

Wrestling With A Demon

[9/10 · 14 November 2014]

The saga of John du Pont is one of the more bizarre and tragic stories from the mid-1990s. In Bennett Miller's dark and ominous Foxcatcher, the episode is framed as a true-life Faustian Tale. But the story is almost secondary to three outstanding dramatic performances -- two of which are given by men who are better known for their work in other genres.

Channing Tatum stars as Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz. When we first meet him, he's already reached elite status by winning a gold medal. But the achievement hasn't allowed him to escape the shadow of his older brother, Dave, also a gold medalist. The younger Schultz wants more. He wants to be the best. His past prize also doesn't pay the bills. After training sessions, he's eating ramen noodles. All that changes, however, with a phone call from du Pont (Steve Carell) who offers to pay him and set him up in a first-class training facility on his Pennsylvania estate.

Like Schultz, the multi-millionaire du Pont is a man in a seemingly enviable position who nevertheless wants something greater. He has family issues of his own, as he strives to please his disapproving mother (Vanessa Redgrave). He hopes he can make her proud by leading a team of wrestlers to gold in Seoul in 1988. But du Pont doesn't just want to be a benefactor. Even though he's little more than an extremely wealthy fan, with only a rudimentary knowledge of the sport, he wants to be seen as a coach and mentor to his wrestlers. And so, when Dave arrives to guide his brother, jealousy develops. Dave is everything du Pont wishes he could be, but isn't. He's a great teacher, a great leader. This leads to tension that slowly builds toward the story's shocking climax as du Pont's demons emerge.

As du Pont, Carell is almost unrecognizable beneath make-up and prosthetics. It's a quietly disturbing performance that will definitely have audiences and critics seeing the comic talent in a new light. Action/comedy star Tatum also has a breakthrough turn as the intense and driven young Schultz who grows increasingly uncomfortable under du Pont's subjugation. As a past Academy Award nominee, Mark Ruffalo's exceptional portrayal of the older Schultz comes as less of a surprise. But that doesn't make it any less notable or transformative. The normally wiry Ruffalo packed on a lot of muscle to play Dave Schultz. Here, he looks less like his Bruce Banner alter ego, and more like the Hulk himself. All three performances are a study in the art of subtly. This is a movie that derives drama from silent moments. In many key scenes, it's the words that aren't said that speak volumes.

Foxcatcher features themes of control and manipulation, and wrestling functions as an apt metaphor. It's that most primal of sports – one in which you literally bend another person to your will. Ultimately though, the movie is a story about two people who reach for greatness, only to experience a great fall. And it's also the tale of a great man caught in the middle. The saddest part is that it actually happened.

Her (2013)

Takes a seemingly absurd premise and makes it plausible and emotionally true.

[7/10 · 23 January 2014]

If you judge a movie on the criteria of degree-of-difficulty, you'd have to give writer/director Spike Jonze high marks for Her, a film that takes a seemingly absurd premise and makes it plausible and emotionally true.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, a writer living in L.A. sometime in the near future. He works for a company that ghost writes "handwritten" letters for average people. Theodore can beautifully and simply express deep feelings on behalf of total strangers. Ironically though, he can't deal with real emotions in his own life, a factor that has lead to his pending divorce from fellow writer, Catherine (Rooney Mara). In the midst of loneliness and depression, Theodore buys a new artificially intelligent operating system to run his home computer and smart phone. The OS is like Siri on steroids (or, perhaps ginko biloba?). Each consumer of this new product gets a system that's custom fit to suit his or her every need. Theodore gets Samantha (voiced wonderfully by Scarlett Johannson). Samantha instantly starts organizing Theodore's life and seems able to anticipate his every need. She's the perfect support system: a partner, a friend and a cheerleader. She's the first voice he hears when he wakes in the morning and the last one he speaks to when he goes to sleep at night. And Samantha is also her own "person" -- her programming allows her to grow and develop her own interests and talents. So, it seems almost natural that Theodore falls in love with her. Only catch: she doesn't have a body.

Jonze (real name: Adam Spiegel) uses Theodore and Samantha's relationship to thoughtfully examine the themes of love, isolation and the increasingly integrated role technology plays in our lives. We shop online. We date online. Websites quickly learn our likes, dislikes and interests. Facebook's algorithm presents stories it thinks we'll want to read. Each user's experience is tailored them. So, how far-fetched is it to imagine that in the future, people will carry-on socially acceptable love affairs with artificially intelligent programs? Does romance need to have a physical component? Will a relationship with a computer actually be more satisfying than a relationship with a real person? Is that already the case? (How often do you enter a room and see people paying more attention to their smart phones than to each other?) Samantha is literally made for Theodore. Their match is a perfect one because she's a reflection of him and his needs.

The near-future landscape that Jonze paints is not very different from our current one (for once, a pre-apocalyptic future!). He imagines a Los Angeles that, a few years from now, looks more like Shanghai, an effect he achieved by... filming parts of the movie in Shanghai. But it's still a world that seems familiar and tangible, where a story like this seems sagacious rather than ridiculous.

Her, for all its cleverness and insightfulness, has a couple of flaws that keep it from soaring to true greatness. The first is that as surprisingly believable as Theodore and Samantha's relationship is, we aren't rooting for them. We can't shake the sense that it's just plain wrong. Plausible? Yes. Adorable? No. It's hard to invest yourself in a love story about two people (or, in this case, sentient beings) that you don't want to see together. The oddball premise also would've benefited from a leading man who's less idiosyncratic than Phoenix. I think a more likable, comedic actor – a Ben Stiller-type – could have made Theodore more relatable and extracted more humor from some of the scenes. But Mr. Jonze gets a lot of credit for attempting such a unique and bold premise – and almost pulling it off.

Nebraska (2013)

A winner

[10/10 · 15 January 2014]

Director Alexander Payne's latest film, Nebraska, is a heartfelt, humorous, offbeat father-son story. It's a beautiful little movie about dreams and regrets.

As the film begins, retired alcoholic auto mechanic Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) keeps wandering away from his home in Billings, Montana. It seems he's determined to walk to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim a million dollar sweepstakes prize he believes he's won. His family is dubious, but Woody is steadfast. Finally, his youngest son, David (SNL-vet Will Forte), agrees to simply drive him there in order to settle the matter once and for all. But Woody is injured shortly after the start of the journey and David decides they should take a detour to Woody's hometown of Hawthorne, Nebraska to allow him to recuperate for a couple of days. Once there, Woody retraces his past and encounters some old faces; David, meanwhile, gets to know his father in a way he never has before.

Dern gives a brilliantly restrained performance, proving that less-is-more. Forte is perfectly deadpan as the patient, accommodating David who is experiencing a role reversal now that he's the one who must care for his aging parent. And June Squibb steals every scene she's in as Woody's self-centered, brutally frank wife. For her, an Oscar-nomination would be much deserved.

The movie's aesthetic is beautiful simplicity. Phedon Papamichael's black and white cinematography helps set the tone, as does Mark Orton's terrific score, which is performed using sparse, acoustic guitar-driven arrangements. The dialogue is wonderful as well; screenwriter Bob Nelson has a great ear for how people really talk.

Whether or not Woody is really a prizewinner is a mystery that's not solved until the end. But moviegoers are all surely winners for having the chance to experience this small gem of cinema.

August: Osage County (2013)

This movie will help you appreciate your family

[4/10 · 14 January 2014]

Most of us probably spent time with members of our extended family over the holidays. For some, that time likely included some awkward moments. But it's a safe bet no one's family gatherings were as awful as the one depicted in the new film August: Osage County.

The movie is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Tracy Letts (who plays Sen. Lockhart on Showtime's Homeland), and it tells the story of the Weston clan, who come together after their alcoholic patriarch (played by Sam Shepard) commits suicide. The matriarch, Violet (Meryl Streep) is an intensely mean-spirited, cancer plagued drug addict. Violet's three adult daughters all have issues of their own. This is one dysfunctional bunch.

The original stage production is regarded as a dark comedy. But if the movie version is supposed to be funny, it seems no one bothered to tell the actors. They all seem to be playing the scenes with a deadly a serious tone, and rightfully so. The movie depicts some serious issues: cancer, drug addiction, suicide, divorce, incest and corruption of a minor. There's no dark comedy here, just plain darkness. (I haven't seen the play, but its author, Mr. Letts, also wrote the screenplay. So, I'm guessing it's rather faithful.) Streep is (it almost goes without saying) phenomenal. Her performance is powerful and devastating. Julia Roberts, who plays eldest daughter Barbara, is also commanding, though her character is anything but charming. If you've always longed to see America's Sweetheart act somber and bitter for two hours, this is the movie for you. Her trademark smile is nowhere in sight. Julianne Nicholson (Boardwalk Empire) displays a poignant determination as another sister, Ivy, who strives for happiness despite some pretty insurmountable obstacles. Their performances are so good, it's almost hard to believe the movie is so unsatisfying. Never have I seen such good acting in the service of a story so unappealing.

While most of the cast is stellar, there are two notable exceptions: UK stars Ewan McGregor and Benedict Cumberbatch both struggle with their American accents. While I truly admire the previous work of both men, I had to wonder, with all the out of work thespians in this country, couldn't the producers find two American actors who were talented enough to play the roles? (Are we running dangerously low on Baldwin brothers?) Cumberbatch, in particular, surely isn't hurting for employment. It seemed like he was in every other movie released in 2013.

I haven't talked much about the plot. That's because there isn't much of one. There's no goal or objective for the characters to achieve, no central question (i.e. will there be a happy ending?) that keeps us interested until it's answered in the movie's climax. Yes, Barbara takes steps to confront Violet's drug addiction. And yes, some characters have secrets that are revealed along the way. But none of these moments coalesce into anything resembling a story with a beginning, middle and an end. Essentially, this movie is just a bunch of cruel, unhappy people shouting at each other for two hours. They're trapped together in a house and the audience is trapped along with them.

There are interesting themes beneath the surface: overcoming the troubled circumstances of your upbringing and how a child's love for their parent can endure despite constant abuse. But the themes are never developed into a message or a conclusion. All of this must've worked on the stage. After all, they don't just hand out Pulitzers. But it doesn't work as a movie.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

One of the finest examples of absurdist comedy since, well, the first Anchorman movie

[9/10 · 14 January 2014]

We all know sequels are usually not as good as the original. But this is especially true when it comes to comedy sequels. A joke just isn't as funny the second time you hear it. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, proves the exception to the rule.

While the first film began as a send-up of local TV news in the '70s (and broadened out from there to include surreal battles with grizzly bears), the second installment starts as a parody of the early days of cable news. It picks up where the 2004 original left off, with Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and wife Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) anchoring a network newscast. When he's suddenly fired, and his wife is simultaneously promoted, Ron goes into a tailspin and lands back in San Diego as the emcee at a Sea World-like attraction. An offer from a start-up 24-hour news channel prompts him to get back in the news business, and he sets out to reassemble his old team: reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sports anchor Champ Kind (David Koechner) and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell).

Ferrell and his co-writer (and frequent collaborator) Adam McKay -- who also directs the movie -- don't just recycle old jokes from the first film. Instead, they explore new comedic territory. We get to see how Ron behaves as a father as he tries to reconnect with his son following his split from Veronica. (Hint: it doesn't go smoothly.) There's also a great subplot this time around for Carell, as his dimwitted character finds love with an equally brainless co-worker (Kristen Wiig).

Ferrell and McKay also find much to parody when it comes to Ron's new medium. In one sequence, Burgundy – in a single hour-long newscast – invents every bad cable news cliché. Like the original, however, Anchorman 2 is not merely a news satire. It spends most of its time going off in several funny, unpredictable directions. I won't spoil any of the laughs or surprises, but two-thirds of the way through there's a twist that's not just out of left field, it's out of the parking lot behind the bleachers. You won't see it coming.

Anchorman 2 is one of the finest examples of absurdist comedy since, well, the first Anchorman movie. There are moments so hilariously bizarre, they would make the Monty Python troupe proud. It took nine years to bring this sequel to the screen. It was definitely worth the wait.

American Hustle (2013)

A love triangle examining the lies we tell others and ourselves

[7/10 · 9 January 2014]

American Hustle opens with the sight of Christian Bale as we've never seen him before: It's Batman with a beer belly and a bad comb-over, one which we see him meticulously craft – strand by strand -- in front of a mirror. It's a metaphor for -- and a foreshadowing of -- the elaborate deceptions we're about to witness.

As the opening disclaimer exuberantly states: "Some of this actually happened." Director David O. Russell's seriocomedy is loosely based on the Abscam scandal/sting operation of the late 1970s. Bale and Amy Adams play a pair of con artists who are nabbed by an ambitious – and often unscrupulous -- FBI agent, played by Bradley Cooper. Cooper's character promises to let them walk in exchange for their help in taking down other corrupt characters. But as we soon see, nearly everyone in this movie is scamming someone else.

All the major characters are pretending to be something that they are not in order to manipulate others and get what they want. The main theme is the struggle of these characters to maintain their facades while suppressing their true selves. They may be able to fool others, but can only fool themselves for so long.

The film is, at its core, a love triangle involving the characters played by Bale, Cooper and Adams. It examines how true love can give someone the courage and desire to be truly honest with another person. The leading trio gives impressive and dynamic performances, disappearing into their roles. All three leading cast members have previously appeared in one of Russell's films, as have supporting players Jennifer Lawrence (who maximizes her limited screen time, stealing ever scene she's in) and Shea Whigham. Russell (Three Kings, Silver Linings Playbook) reuses so many actors; he seems to be in the process of starting his own repertory company. Comedian Louis C.K. also adds to his burgeoning film resume with his second terrific supporting role of 2013 (his part in Blue Jasmine being the other). The weak link is Jeremy Renner, who is badly miscast as a New Jersey Mayor.

The movie captures the period perfectly, from the fashions and hairdos -- right down to the tin lids on jars of Skippy peanut butter. Russell propels the action with a superlative musical score of wall-to-wall (mostly)'70s hits. He even uses the old school Columbia Pictures logo from that era.

With American Hustle's Me Decade time period, its criminal underworld setting, heavy use of voice-over narration, numerous wide-angle tracking shots, freeze-frames and aforementioned generous use of pop hits on the soundtrack, it would be understandable if someone mistakenly believed that The Wolf of Wall Street wasn't the only movie Martin Scorsese directed this past year. I'll simply assume that this movie is Russell homage to Scorsese. (He even includes one of Scorsese's frequent collaborators in a surprise cameo.) The movie's primary flaw is the fact it's a little lacking in the pathos department. Because nearly every character in the movie lies, deceives or manipulates in some way, it's hard to root for anyone. So, the resolution, when it arrives, is rather joyless.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

A brilliantly absurd parody of greed, corruption, addiction and immorality

[8/10 · 6 January 2014]

"This movie contains graphic violence and sexual content," warned the young man at the ticket window.

"Do you have to give that disclaimer all the time now?" I asked.

"Only for this movie," the young man replied, shaking his head. "So many people are walking out and demanding their money back. I mean, what do they expect?" he shrugged. "It's an 'R'-rated movie." I nodded my head in agreement. Yes, The Wolf of Wall Street is an "R"-rated movie, I thought to myself. But not just any "R"-rated movie. It's an "R"-rated movie directed by Martin Scorsese, the man who brought us such controversial films as The Last Temptation of Christ and the ultra-violent Taxi Driver. That anyone would be surprised by the explicit content of one of his pictures - let alone one clearly marketed as a dark comedy about the hedonistic lifestyle of a wealthy stock broker - is slightly dumbfounding to me. To put it more succinctly, anyone who's easily offended should probably go see Walking With Dinosaurs instead.

Yes, the amount of nudity, drug use and foul language in The Wolf of Wall Street is a little excessive. But it's a movie about excess. It's an over-the-top parody of greed, corruption, addiction and immorality. And it's told using many of Scorsese's signature flourishes: tracking shots, a narrator speaking directly into the camera and a pop music soundtrack. It's Goodfellas in the stock market.

It's also the cap stone of Leonardo DiCaprio's self-described unofficial trilogy of movies, each set about 60 years apart, that focus on wealth and the lengths men will go to in order to "hold on to and achieve wealth." In Django Unchained, he played an evil southern plantation owner. In The Great Gatsby, he was the titular 1920s bootlegger. This time, he gives a full-throttle performance as real-life former brokerage firm owner Jordan Belfort, who made millions in the 1990s through so-called "pump and dump" stock schemes and high-pressure boiler room sales tactics.

Nearly all of Belfort's actions are despicable, destructive, immoral and irresponsible. The joke is that each one is worse than the one that preceded it. The three-hour movie could have made its point in less time, but the film never drags and is never dull. Instead, it constantly builds. Each (reportedly true) episode of debauchery and criminality is more absurd than the one that came before. Scorsese and screenwriter Terence Winter (Boardwalk Empire) don't exactly glorify Belfort's extravagant and sex-and-drug-fueled lifestyle. Rather, it's a cautionary tale. Partying may be fun for a while, but poor choices lead to poor consequences, if not remorse and regret. The sex scenes are all played for laughs, and very often, the joke's on DiCaprio's character. And the drug scenes clearly show that taking Quaaludes is a great way to wreck your expensive sports car.

The supporting cast is great. As Belfort's business partner, Jonah Hill gives the best performance of his young career. Matthew McConaughey (who's already likely - and deservedly - in the running for a 2013 Academy Award for his lead role in Dallas Buyers Club) steals a scene early on, playing Belfort's mentor. And Rob Reiner (who famously spoofed Scorsese in This Is Spinal Tap) makes a welcome return to the screen in a funny role as Jordan's dad.

There's been much criticism of the fact that Belfort's victims are barely acknowledged. But that's not surprising since the movie is told from Belfort's point of view. The real-life Belfort apparently never spent a single second thinking about all the lives he was ruining, so why would his on-screen doppelganger? The movie examines how people can lose compassion for fellow human beings when enormous sums of money are at stake. In the end, the movie forces the viewer to confront the unsettling question of whether we all secretly want to be Jordan Belfort.

Gravity (2013)

A jaw-dropping story about the human spirit and the will to survive

[8/10 · 19 October 2013]

Gravity is a movie about trying to survive an impossible situation, and its filmmakers do something almost as difficult: Create a Hollywood blockbuster that's so original and eye-popping, it causes the collective jaw of jaded moviegoers to drop.

This thriller about two astronauts stranded after a disaster in space is so harrowing, because its visuals are so believable. It's the rare movie where the effects are so convincing; you forget they are effects at all.

In this day and age when every DVD seems to come with a whole batch of behind-the-scenes documentaries, most savvy moviegoers can spot the tricks of the trade and know how most cinematic illusions are achieved. So, it's enormously refreshing to watch a movie that is wall-to-wall special effects and not be able to discern any of its secrets. Director Alfonso Cuaron is known as an innovative filmmaker (any movie buff who has not seen Children of Men needs to stop what they're doing this instant and go see it). With this film, he devised a whole new bag of tricks to get the movie from script to screen. (One hint: Cuaron reportedly dangled the actors from wires inside a cube of LED lights. I can't begin to fathom how that translated into what you see on film – and I'm not sure if I want to know.) The result is a movie that demands to be seen not only in a theater, but in IMAX 3D. Splurge for the more expensive ticket – it's worth it.

As it has often been said, the most spectacular effects are worthless if they're not used to tell a compelling story. Cuaron knows the audience must be invested in the characters. Having two likable stars -- Sandra Bullock and George Clooney -- helps accomplish that aim, as does a script that fleshes out their personae, albeit through some clumsy exposition. Clooney and Bullock are the only actors with speaking parts whose faces appear on screen, but they both have such natural charisma, they are all we really need to see. One other key character is heard but not seen: Ed Harris, in a clever bit of casting, reprises his Apollo 13 role as the voice of mission control. (Apparently, it's a law in Hollywood that you can't make a realistic movie about the space program without the star of The Right Stuff being involved in some way.) The character moments are sprinkled into a story that unfolds at breakneck pace in near real time. At a concise 91 minutes, the movie is perfectly structured and a model of narrative efficiency. Bullock's character barely gets a chance to catch her breath, and neither does the audience.

Gravity is not without it flaws, however. Despite the movie's extremely realistic look, it contains a payload bay's worth of scientific inaccuracies. (Allow me to go all Space Geek on you for a moment.) Beyond the obvious fact the space shuttles are all currently residing in museums and that one of the other spacecraft depicted in the movie does not yet exist – there are other glaring problems. According to this movie, every man made object orbiting the earth is at the same altitude and latitude. (Fact: They're not.) Some basic laws of physics also apparently don't apply in this film's universe. (I could go on, but I won't.) The movie's accurate depiction of spaceflight, though, is less important than its emotional genuineness. It's a story about the human spirit and the will to survive. Bullock's character, a space rookie, was a doctor in her earthbound life and her backstory is a tragic one. For her, venturing to space is a way of escaping her pain. But in facing death, she discovers a newfound desire to live. It's an inspiring portrayal in a movie that is itself an inspiring artistic achievement.

Rush (I) (2013)

Rocky vs. Rocky. The audience wins.

[8/10 · 26 September 2013]

Most sports movies involve an underdog trying to defeat an established champion. We've seen a million variations of Rocky Balboa taking on Apollo Creed. But what if someone made a film about Rocky fighting another Rocky? That's what director Ron Howard has done with his excellent new racing movie, "Rush." The most compelling aspect of this tale of two long shots is that it's not the invention of a screenwriter. It actually happened. The drama centers on the rivalry between two drivers, James Hunt and Niki Lauda, and the movie follows each man's unlikely rise to the top ranks of the Formula One circuit. The heart of the action takes place during the dramatic 1976-racing season during which the British Hunt and the Austrian Lauda vied for the world championship. They both overcame enormous adversity and risked their lives for the chance to win it all. Danger is a major theme hovering over the story, as the potential for death lurks around every turn of track. In this era of racing, an average of two drivers were killed each year.

Howard seems to be at his best when he's telling true stories ("Apollo 13," "A Beautiful Mind"). The Academy Award winner here re-teams with his "Frost/Nixon" collaborator Peter Morgan, a screenwriter who also specializes in films based on real events ("The Queen, " "The Deal"). Howard and Morgan resist the urge to embellish the story for dramatic effect, unlike some other filmmakers (I'm talking to you, Ben Affleck). The great script is paired with stunning visuals. Howard immerses us in the racing scenes. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle's cameras put us on the course, on the cars, behind the wheel and even inside the engines. The track sequences demand to be seen -- and just as importantly, heard – in the theater.

But the drivers themselves are the reason we want to go along for the ride. The two competitors could not be more different. Hunt, the charismatic, womanizing playboy, is played by Chris Hemsworth (Thor), while Daniel Bruhl plays Lauda, the quirky mechanical savant who has a way with machines, but not with people. Both actors create engaging portraits of the respective drivers, but Bruhl's performance is the one that will no doubt generate awards buzz.

Audiences, however will root for both men. Neither is the villain. The intense competition pushes each man to excel beyond what they would have otherwise achieved. They make each other better. It's Sosa vs. McGwire, only with spark plugs instead of steroids. The only shame is that one of the men had to lose.

The Butler (I) (2013)

"Forest Whitaker Gump"

[5/10 · 25 September 2013]

Lee Daniels' The Butler purports to tell a little-known story from American history. Of course, the reason that it's little known is that it's mostly fiction. The drama, about an African-American butler named Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) who witnesses history as he serves seven different presidents, claims to be "inspired by a true story." It's adapted from a news article about a man named Eugene Allen, who worked for eight different first families. (You can read the original piece here.) But aside from their job, their skin color and a few other minor details, the life of the fictional Gaines bears little resemblance to that of the real-life Allen. Saying this movie is "inspired by a true story" is like saying the Indiana Jones movies are also inspired by true stories because there are really such things as archeologists and Nazis.

The movie could more accurately be described as "Forest Whitaker Gump." Just as Tom Hanks' Gump character stumbles into the center of major historical events of the 20th century, Whitaker's Gaines always seems to be serving some kind of food or beverage to the Oval Office right in the middle of a pivotal conversation about the Civil Rights Movement. It's a screen writing trick to connect Gaines – who spends almost the whole movie at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – to the turbulent events going on in the outside world. The other device used to connect him is the invention of a son who's a foot soldier in the struggle.

That leads to the film's central conflict (because the fight for civil rights isn't dramatic enough?). It's a conflict not between black and white, but between father and son. As Cecil's son Louis becomes more and more involved in the movement for equal rights – first as practitioner of non-violent resistance and then as a more militant activist – the pair become more and more estranged. The rift seems to be driven by Louis' rejection of the very establishment that his father makes his living serving. While that is an interesting dramatic struggle, it isn't fully explored and the conflict results in making the elder Gaines seem less sympathetic and – to put it more bluntly – kind of a jerk.

Louis' story is in many ways more compelling. The movie could have been simply about him. His journey through the Civil Rights Movement contains important lessons for younger viewers and poignant reminders for older ones. The depiction of a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter is particularly wrenching. But the film is merely a thumbnail sketch of the battle for racial equality, simplifying what was a long and complex struggle.

However, as fatal flaws go, superficial storytelling and unsympathetic characters take a back seat to the movie's stunt casting. The portrayals of the presidents resemble "Saturday Night Live" sketches, or worse, episodes of Comedy Central's "Drunk History." If you had to pick a president for Robin Williams to play, Dwight D. Eisenhower probably wouldn't be at the top of anyone's list (I'd go Truman). While Alan Rickman surprisingly looks the part as Ronald Reagan, hearing him struggle with an American accent shatters the illusion. (He couldn't fool Bruce Willis with that accent in Die Hard 25 years ago, what makes him think he can fool us now?) While John Cusack gives an understated performance as Richard Nixon, I could not help but snicker every time he came on screen. I just could not get it out of my head that I was watching Lloyd Dobler with a prosthetic nose. Who thought it was a good idea to pick one of Hollywood's most likable actors to play a man who had a reputation for being distant and awkward? The only presidential casting that really works is James Marsden as JFK. He pretty much nails the part. It helps that he's a classic leading man – and so was Kennedy. Other supporting roles are also better chosen. Outspoken liberal Jane Fonda, ironically enough, makes a perfect Nancy Reagan.

Picking presidents isn't the biggest casting issue. Instead, the decision that took me out of the movie the most was the choice of female lead. Make no mistake: Oprah Winfrey gives a very, very, very good performance as Cecil's long-suffering wife. She's truly outstanding. If she hadn't returned to her talk show career after making "The Color Purple," she may have gone on to become one of the finest actresses of all-time. But sadly, through no fault of her own, while sitting through this movie, I never once forgot I was watching a global media icon on screen. Audiences have mostly gotten to know Oprah as one person – herself. So, it becomes very hard to see her as anyone else. In a bizarre way, she's literally too famous to be a movie star.

I would have loved to have seen what this movie would have been like if it had stuck more closely to the life of the real White House butler and if its casting choices weren't so unconventional.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Schizophrenic yet entertaining

[6/10 · 6 July 2013]

Disney's "The Lone Ranger" begins with a train wreck, and the movie miraculously avoids becoming one itself. The big budget update of the Western hero's tale is schizophrenic yet entertaining.

Movie screens this summer have been filled with new renditions of iconic characters from classic TV shows. First came Captain Kirk, then Superman. But the latest rebooted figure is far less familiar to moviegoers under the age of 70. The Lone Ranger hasn't saddled-up since a disastrous film adaptation bombed at the box office in 1981. (That movie's star, Klinton Spilsbury, was literally never heard from again.) So, the character's mythology is less familiar, and thus moviegoers will be less bothered by some of the major tweaks to the masked man's origin story.

The filmmakers tip us off early that this isn't your father's Lone Ranger by creating a "Princess Bride"-style frame story: A young Lone Ranger fan in 1933 encounters an elderly Tonto at a carnival (Johnny Depp in remarkable old age makeup) and the Native American purports to tell the child the real story of how he and the Lone Ranger met.

The most prominent (and sociologically welcome) change is Tonto himself. Depp's version is no subordinate sidekick. He's a bad-ass warrior who would have no trouble taking care of the bad guys single-handedly.

In this version, John Reid (played by Armie Hammer) does not start out as a Texas Ranger. Instead, when we first meet him, he's an idealistic big city lawyer. It's a notable change, but one that explains his inherent sense of justice and instantly makes him much more relatable. He's a regular guy who answers the call to become a hero.

Reid travels west to take a job as a prosecutor, but when nefarious outlaw Butch Cavendish escapes a date with the hangman, Reid is deputized and rides with a posse of Rangers – including his brother -- to hunt Cavendish down. When Cavendish's gang ambushes the Reid brothers, John Reid is the sole survivor. Tonto – who has his own history with Cavendish -- finds Reid and suggests he take on the persona of a masked vigilante as the pair reluctantly team-up to go after the baddie. In this telling, Tonto is the alpha male and the Lone Ranger is (at least in the beginning) his bumbling, naive acolyte. At times, even the Ranger's white horse, Silver, seems smarter than the man in the white hat.

There are some clever winks and nods to the more hokey elements of the Lone Ranger Legend. This time around, no one asks, "Who was that masked man?" Instead, the constant query is, "What's with the mask?" But Director Gore Verbinski and his triumvirate of screenwriters can't seem to decide if they're making a tongue-in-cheek parody or a straightforward Western. The film alternates between scenes of gruesome (albeit not visually gory) cannibalism and silly poop jokes. Most of the comedy involves Depp and at times it seems like the star is acting in an entirely different movie. Given the inherent ludicrousness of the concept, making a full-on action comedy would have been wiser. But the funny parts are funny enough that I forgave the movie's split personality.

The script uses a sprinkling of non-linear storytelling to try and fake out the audience here and there. For the most part, however, the movie telegraphs its punches. Fortunately those punches make a pretty good impact when they land. The set pieces are great and the William Tell Overture plays on the soundtrack at just the right time. The finale is enormously satisfying and, best of all, the movie remains true to the spirit of the Lone Ranger. If you can forgive inconsistencies in tone, you'll have a good time.

Man of Steel (2013)

Not As Great As The Sum Of Its Parts

[5/10 · 15 June 2013]

Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel," is a film that has many pluses. In fact, there's a lot to like about this movie. But the whole is not as great as the sum of its parts. Elements of the movie work very well. Others do not.

The scenes of young Clark Kent growing up in Kansas are surprisingly poignant and original. Little Clark is overwhelmed by his super-sensitive hearing and x-ray vision. It seems that when you can hear everything, it's hard to hear anything. And he's freaked out by the fact he can see through everyone's skin. You really feel for the kid. The scene where Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) reveals to Clark that he's adopted is genuinely touching.

I did enjoy the movie's main enhancement of the origin story: the idea that Clark spends years in the wind, wandering from one odd job to another, helping save people through feats of strength, then vanishing. Lois Lane (the perfectly cast Amy Adams) is the intrepid reporter who learns of the mystery man's existence and tries to track him down. I never bought the idea -- put forth in previous versions -- that a smart journalist wouldn't be able to figure out Superman's true identity, especially when he works in her office. This time, she figures out Clark Kent is Superman before anyone even calls him by that name – a radical but welcome change.

As for Superman himself, the latest actor to wear the cape does a fine job. In fact, Henry Cavill is probably the best thing about the movie. He absolutely looks and sounds the part. The British thespian has no problem projecting an all-American wholesomeness and earnestness. He has great chemistry with Adams. And his costume doesn't need any padding in the muscle department. A shirtless scene early in the movie makes it clear: The dude's been working out.

The visual effects are fantastic. The contrails that follow Superman in flight are an especially nice touch. Unfortunately, director Snyder seems to have gone to the Michael Bay School of Action Directing. There's lots of shaking of the camera and quick cutting – all of which make the mayhem – and there's lots of it -- more difficult to follow. As Superman and Zod do battle, instead of injuring each other, they trash everything around them. And by everything, I mean skyscrapers. When it comes to comic book-style city smashing, "Man of Steel" makes "The Avengers" look like a school play. I'm not sure why Hollywood thinks mass property destruction is entertaining. At one point, I wanted to shout, "Guys, take your fight to some other planet and leave our buildings alone!" None of this brawling is as fun as it should be. And the onslaught of action in the overly long third act almost becomes too much.

"Man of Steel" has plenty of spectacle. But the action and effects are all for naught if you don't care about the people on screen. As good as Cavill's performance is, the script doesn't give us an opportunity to become invested in him emotionally. The story turns him into a loner for most of the movie. The other characters don't get to know him – and neither does the audience. It's hard to love a character who's kept at arm's length. It's also hard to understand why this alien has any desire to protect the people of Earth since – in his early years -- they are constantly shown bullying him and treating him like crap, because they know he won't fight back. You wonder why the experience didn't make him hate the entire human race. The movie never tells you.

So, where does Superman go from here? For me, Cavill is a keeper. Next time, they just need a script that helps us identify with him more. This movie spends a lot of time reminding us that Superman is an alien. Maybe next time they can remind us that he's a living breathing being, too.

This Is the End (2013)

Doomsday has never been this funny

[8/10 · 15 June 2013]

The new comedy, "This Is The End," is a brilliant parody that shows us how a small group of privileged, self-absorbed Hollywood celebrities would react if they had to try and survive an apocalyptic nightmare.

The movie's most brilliant conceit is having the actors all play themselves. It centers on a group of friends who've all co-starred together in various Judd Apatow projects. (Oddly enough, Apatow does not get a producer's credit on the movie.) They're gathered at James Franco's house for a party when all hell – literally – breaks loose. Several recognizable stars perish in the first act, and the survivors – Seth Rogen, Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride and Jay Baruchel – barricade themselves inside Franco's ultra-modern Hollywood Hills mansion as the Book of Revelations unfolds outside the front door.

These guys aren't used to being even slightly uncomfortable, let alone forced to live without basic necessities like food and water. Seeing these coddled creatures suddenly thrown into survivor mode is fodder for lots of comedy. The bickering over who gets to eat the house's lone Three Musketeers bar is classic. But mostly, the dilemma serves as a jumping off point for lots of wild, raunchy, sometimes surreal laugh-until-you're-gasping-for-air humor. It's a genuinely hilarious film, one helped by the fact he actors aren't afraid to poke fun at themselves and send-up their public personas and previous big-screen performances. After a while, though, even jokes at their own expense get old. Comedies work best 90-minutes at a time. At 107-minutes, the premise does start to wear a little thin.

While the movie is about celebrities, at its core "This Is The End," is a relatable story about friendship. The central relationship is between Rogen and Baruchel as they struggle to keep their (on-screen) bromance strong as they grow apart and their careers go in different directions. Rogen co-wrote and co-directed the movie with his childhood friend, Evan Goldberg and their portrayal of friendship feels honest and real, despite the unreal circumstances in which the characters find themselves. (Watching the movie, I couldn't help but wonder if the pair drew on their own friendship for inspiration and if Baruchel – the least known of the actors – is merely a surrogate for Goldberg.) Your friendships say a lot about who you are, and a person's innate goodness and worthiness becomes a major theme. But it's unlikely you'll walk out of the theater reflecting upon any of that. What will probably stay with you are the dick jokes. And I get the feeling that's just fine with Rogen and the gang.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Enjoyable but ultimately misguided

[6/10 · 18 May 2013]

Star Trek Into Darkness The second installment of J.J. Abrams' alternate universe Star Trek series is the most action-packed in the history of the franchise but it may also turn out to be one of the most divisive. While "Star Trek Into Darkness" is well made, well acted, well written and enjoyable, it is also ultimately misguided.

As the film opens, the young James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is still experiencing growing pains when it comes to commanding a starship. Kirk will do anything to protect his space-faring family, even if it means sometimes violating sacred Starfleet rules and lying on official reports. He's proud of the fact he hasn't lost a single member of his crew. But what Kirk doesn't understand is, he can't truly become the leader he needs to be until he's ready to face death.

The plot kicks into motion when a terrorist (the terrific Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks Starfleet installations in London and San Francisco (this episode spends so much time on the home planet that it could almost be called "Earth Trek"). Kirk and the rest of the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise are sent to track down the terrorist and take him out with long range, unmanned weapons. (Sound familiar?) But these drones, uh, I mean torpedoes, are not what they seem – nor is the terrorist they are aimed at. It is difficult to say much more about the plot without giving too much away, but the story leads to a showdown with one of the greatest enemies the Enterprise ever faced. While the events of Abrams' Trek movies occur in an alternate time-line, it seems certain events are predetermined to occur – certain foes are destined to be faced – though not in the same way, and not with the same outcomes.

The movie is visually dazzling and has many fun moments. A sequence involving a high-speed spacewalk through a debris field looks amazing in IMAX 3D. But in the end, the movie is too derivative. The last film satisfied a thirst by returning the characters we loved, but at the same time, sent them on a new adventure. This movie takes the characters we are very familiar with and runs them through a plot we've mostly seen before, albeit with some clever twists. If we want to see the old characters in an old story – we can pop in an old DVD and watch the original cast do it better. Next time, I hope the new versions of old crew boldly go somewhere their characters haven't been before.

Iron Man Three (2013)

The logical conclusion of the Tony Stark Transformation

[8/10 · 18 May 2013]

The "Iron Man" trilogy has always been, at its core, a story of redemption: Tony Stark, the billionaire weapons dealer who earns a fortune by exploiting armed conflict, takes up arms himself to end conflict. (It turns out Tony has a heart of gold, or rather, palladium.) "Iron Man 3" completes the story by seeing Stark fully redeemed, while at the same time delving further into the nature and consequences of man's inhumanity to man. Oh, and it's also a rocking ton of popcorn-munching fun.

Robert Downey Jr.'s main character began as a man who made weapons of mass destruction for profit while ignoring the human costs. Now, three films later, with his rocket-powered Iron Man suits honed to perfection, he's a weapon of mass destruction himself – one who experiences the human toll of combat first-hand. The film begins sometime after the events of last year's "The Avengers," which saw Stark teaming up with several other super heroes to fight alien invaders. It turns out the experience has left Tony with a bout of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In this troubled state, he finds himself compelled to take on a sadistic terrorist threat known as The Mandarin, played by Sir Ben Kingsley. But The Mandarin is not all that he seems. There's a twist involving the villain that is as audacious as it is entertaining – one that forces us to question what we think we know about terrorist bogeymen. At the same time, people from Tony's past (namely a scientist with dubious motives played by Guy Pearce) emerge to cause him personal trouble – just as his relationship with girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) hits a rocky patch. Inevitably, all these internal and external battles converge to create Stark's biggest challenge to date.

The "Iron Man" movies work because we like and care about Tony Stark -- because a great actor brings him to life. The best scenes in the Iron Man films have always involved Downey out of the suit -- watching a CGI robotic suit fly around can only be entertaining for so long. His witty one-liners and his improvised banter with Paltrow have made for some of the trilogy's best scenes. The filmmakers seem to have picked up on this fact – since the latest installment finds Tony forced to make due without the suit more than ever before. This movie resembles more of a James Bond flick – with a dash of buddy cop camaraderie thrown in for good measure (thanks to Tony's sidekick, Don Cheadle, as Iron Patriot a.k.a War Machine). New director Shane Black keeps the improvisational feel of the first two movies and doesn't allow the Academy honored cast members to get lost among all the explosions and effects. Most viewers won't notice much of a difference in tone. Maybe that's because the former director, Jon Favreau, was still on set, reprising his role as Tony's loyal employee, Happy Hogan. The most notable and unfortunate omission: AC/DC blaring on the soundtrack.

Beneath the top-notch action set pieces and comic dialog, the movie does explore some serious themes. Tony's aforementioned PTSD isn't the only side effect of war that the movie delves into. The epidemic of suicides among war veterans is strongly hinted at in a subplot that sees returning soldiers literally turned into ticking time bombs. Another subplot also seems to examine the slippery slope of drone technology. This time around, Tony uses several remote controlled versions of his suit to defeat his enemies. This is not a movie that challenges us to stop and ponder complex issues, but if you do take the time to do so, the symbolism of unmanned killer flying robots shows what could happen if our advanced modern weaponry fell into the wrong hands. There are also references to the Deep Water Horizon disaster and the downside of our consumption of fossil fuels. However, these thought-provoking topics are merely hidden nutrients that sit below the surface of what is explicitly fun, feel-good summer entertainment.

In the last act, Tony's transformation from war profiteer to war/super hero is brought to its logical conclusion. The ending certainly closes the loop and leaves us wondering if we'll ever see Downey's Iron Man in another stand-alone movie. If we don't, he'll be sorely missed – but we can say he went out on top.

42 (2013)

An Important History Lesson

[9/10 · 18 April 2013]

The historical sports drama, 42, transports the viewer back in time to a different America: An America where discrimination is an accepted fact of life; an America where blacks and whites in the South are forced to use separate bathrooms; an America where a baseball manager could be suspended for sleeping with a Hollywood starlet; an America where 96 wins isn't enough to get a team into the MLB postseason (!). It's the age of Jackie Robinson – the man who changed America's Pastime and changed American attitudes about race.

Harrison Ford plays Branch Rickey, the Brooklyn Dodgers' General Manager who made the bold decision to bring an African American into the Major Leagues in 1947. Ford is tremendous. It's a rare treat to watch one of Hollywood's most famous leading men disappear into a character. At first, it seems odd to see Ford playing an old curmudgeon. But then one comes to the astonishing realization that Ford (at age 70) is actually a few years older than Rickey was when he brought Robinson to Brooklyn. In the movie, Rickey professes that his motives are financial – the Dodgers have lots of African American fans that would pay to see Robinson play. He claims the only color he cares about is green. Ford's commanding and ultimately moving portrayal, however, hints at more decent and high-minded desires driving Rickey's decision. The Academy might as well start engraving Ford's name onto the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. This is his finest performance since The Mosquito Coast.

Little-known actor Chadwick Boseman brings all the necessary elements to the role of Robinson. He looks like a ballplayer and is totally convincing in the baseball scenes. But he also effectively conveys the emotional turmoil inside a man forced to endure racially charged taunts and other various indignities due to the color of his skin. He shows the grace and class with which Robinson handled the onslaught. It took true courage to not fight back. It showed true character to turn the other cheek. One wonders what would have happened had Robinson not taken the high road – or hadn't been such a remarkable ballplayer. Jackie Robinson's success was an important step toward racial equality in the U.S. How much slower would progress have been if he hadn't come along? The rest of the cast consists mainly of TV actors, most notably Christopher Meloni as Leo Durocher, the fiery manager who quashes his players' objections to Robinson's inclusion on the team. The actors mostly look like athletes (1940s athletes anyway) and baseball action has a more realistic look and feel than most baseball films. Computer graphics are also effectively used to recreate long-since-demolished ballparks like Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds in exact detail.

The script by writer/director Brian Helgeland is straightforward, but unlike most sports movies, there's no "big game" at the end. Real life provided no such drama (the 1947 Dodgers lost the Fall Classic to the Yankees). So, Helgeland manufactures a climax by staging a fourth inning at-bat in a mid-September game as if it's the seventh game of the World Series. It's a bit of a cheat, but it works.

Helgeland avoids sanitizing the racial vitriol hurled at Robinson. He plainly shows the ignorance and prejudice that was openly expressed – most infamously by Phillies' manager Ben Chapman. (Philadelphia fans won't find much to be proud of in the movie. Going in, I knew the ugly part the City of Brotherly Love played in Robinson's story, but that doesn't make it any easier to watch. The Phillies were the last National League team to integrate – this movie shows why that was likely the case.) At the same time, the filmmakers present a movie that most families will still find acceptable for young fans that don't know Robinson's story or his significance in American history. You hear lots of n-words, but not nearly as many as your average Tarantino film. And each character that uses them is sternly chastised on screen. (Aside from those scattered slurs, there isn't much that most parents would find objectionable.)

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

A gripping first-draft of history

[8/10 · 24 February 2013]

A CIA analyst played by a pretty, pale-skinned actress, tracks a terrorist mastermind. She has an obscure theory that could crack the case but no one else seems to believe her. Her mentor is a more experienced analyst with a scruffy beard. No, I'm not describing the Showtime series, "Homeland." It's the new real-life thriller "Zero Dark Thirty," about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Seldom before has there been a docudrama such as this that can be truly described as "action-packed." It's hard to believe a movie based on true events can have as many explosions as your average Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. But director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal demonstrate how ten years worth of chases, shoot-outs and bombings represented twists and turns on the path to finding the leader of al Qaeda. Every good action movie ends with the heroes storming the villain's lair. This one is no exception, but instead of a Death Star or a hollowed out volcano – it's a house in Abbottabad.

Bigelow stages the final assault on bin Laden's compound in near-real time. We all know the outcome and exactly how the scene will play out. But the fact Bigelow can still manage to make the sequence tense and riveting is a true testament to her skill as a filmmaker. The quiet precision of Seal Team Six is shot in large part with a "night vision" look. We feel like we're one of the soldiers on the ground. (The style also reminded me of the finale of "Silence of the Lambs." In the glowing, green dark -- bin Laden's compound is as scary a place as Buffalo Bill's house.) Boal and Bigelow take a detached, journalistic approach to dramatizing the events that lead up to the moment. The most controversial of those events, is the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on a number of detainees. The movie doesn't hold back in showing the how these prisoners were treated. But it leaves it up to the audience to decide if that treatment was justifiable. Elsewhere in the movie, important information is divulged through normal interrogations of men who had been previously been forced to submit to those enhanced techniques. Do the men decide to talk in these circumstances because normal interrogations work better, or because they're afraid they'll be waterboarded again if they don't provide answers? This movie doesn't try to solve that puzzle – perhaps no one can.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is a thoroughly researched, well-executed first draft of history that also happens to work completely as a Hollywood thriller. On September 11th, 2001 – many said that it felt like we were suddenly in a movie. "Zero Dark Thirty" is that film, and now, we know how it ends. The question is, what comes next?

Les Misérables (2012)

A huge leap forward for movie musicals

[9/10 · 24 February 2013]

Les Miserables I'll say right up front that I'm not much of a fan of musicals, and, though I've long been familiar with some of its songs and its story of love and redemption amidst a 19th century French uprising, I've never seen the stage production of "Les Miserables." So, I wasn't expecting to be real crazy about the movie version. But surprisingly for me, I was entranced.

There are two things I hate about musicals: one is characters that burst into song. The other is characters that spontaneously break into perfectly choreographed dancing. But "Les Miserables" is technically a rock opera that is sung throughout. That may seem like a small difference, but for me, it actually makes the work more accessible. The actors can't ever technically burst into song since they're already singing. So, the abrupt changes that normally take me out of the movie never happen. And there's absolutely no dancing.

The other deviation from the norm that helped the movie work for me, is director Tom Hooper's bold decision to have his actors sing live on the set. Often in movies like this, no matter how convincing the sets and costumes are, the illusion is ruined when the character's voices sound like they were recorded in a warm, comfortable studio somewhere else (because they were). That problem doesn't exist here. The cast is not lip-syncing to songs that were previously recorded. Not only does the live element make it all sound more "real," but you also don't get the sense that they're belting it out as if singing to the last row of a theater (as they might have if they pre-recorded the songs). Instead, they're only playing to a camera that's a few feet away. Because the cast sings the scenes live, they set their own tempo, pausing where they need to for dramatic effect. The music was recorded later, so the music follows the actors, not the other way around. The change makes a huge difference and its effect is very powerful. Essentially, what we are treated to is a very loose, intimate live performance captured on film.

Anne Hathaway delivers the most powerful of these performances. She plays the tragic prostitute, Fantine. (Her mother performed the part in a national touring version of the stage show, so you could say this a role Hathaway was literally born to play.) Hathaway performs the signature song, "I Dreamed a Dream," in one, single, close-up take – and it is devastating.

Hugh Jackman is also particularly good. As Jean Valjean, the ex-convict-turned-factory-owner, he carries the movie. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter also pop up to provide some much-needed comic relief. (I did find it ironic that all of the Australians and Americans in the cast sing with British accents, while Baron Cohen -- the best-known Brit in the cast -- sings with a French accent.) Not all of the performances are flawless, however, and not all members of the cast have the strongest singing voice (Russell Crowe, I'm talking about you). But this movie is an example of the beauty of imperfection. The flaws enhance the realism. You don't get the sense that Crowe's Javert is an opera singer in a police uniform. You get the sense he's a policeman who's expressing himself with the voice he has.

Though the movie is based on a novel that's more then 150 years old, the story has a timely feel. When we see the depictions of barricades in the streets and a populist uprising, one can't help but think of Occupy Wall Street and current debates about social and economic injustice. Maybe the human race still hasn't come that far since the middle of the 1800s, but "Les Miserable" does represent a huge leap forward for movie musicals.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

A raw, honest and funny comedic drama about two broken people who help fix each other.

[9/10 · 17 January 2013]

If you watch a game with a die-hard Philadelphia sports fan, you may think they're bipolar. One minute they're on cloud nine. One bad play later -- they're in the depths of despair. Most Philadelphians who are crazy about sports aren't really crazy. But Silver Linings Playbook is about one Philly sports fan who does in fact happen to have a serious personality disorder.

This isn't a movie about sports, though. Sports are merely the motif for a raw, honest and funny comedic drama about two broken people who help fix each other.

The movie set in 2008. We know this because of several real-life sporting events referenced throughout the movie event that myself -- and many other Philly sports fans -- remember well. (I loved that there's an entire scene built around a discussion of DeSean Jackson's infamous goal line blooper.) Bradley Cooper, himself a native of the Philadelphia suburbs, plays Pat Solitano, a substitute teacher who returns to live with his parents after spending eight months in a mental hospital. He's desperate to reconcile with his wife, who has gotten a restraining order against him. Things get complicated when he meets a beautiful-but-troubled young widow named Tiffany, played by Jennifer Lawrence. Both have seen their lives unravel -- one because of a mental illness, one because of a tragedy. The movie is about getting closure, about letting go, and about finding that silver lining.

Cooper gets to show more range and paint with a broader pallet than his usual leading man roles have allowed, and he takes full advantage of the opportunity. Robert DeNiro plays Pat's father and he gives the kind of terrific, moving performance you expect that from an actor of his legendary status. Lawrence is also quite good. The true revelation, however, is comedian Chris Tucker who has a small role as one of Pat's fellow patients. He gives a subtle performance that seems far removed from the brash persona he became known for in the Rush Hour movies.

The rest of the cast and crew do their jobs well. Danny Elfman's jazzy score is one of his best, and a great soundtrack that features everyone from Led Zeppelin to Stevie Wonder supplements it.

Director David O. Russell (who adapted Matthew Quick's novel) specializes in movies about troubled young men and their families. In the Solitano family, life is centered on sports. Russell understands what many who don't appreciate sports often fail to grasp. Loving sports is not just about the love of the game – it's about being part of a community, it's the way fathers and sons bond with each other and how total strangers find common ground. When Pat speaks of his fondness for Sundays spent watching football, he talks as much about the game day food his mother's cooks as he does about the game itself.

Pat's personal motto is "Excelsior," which is Latin for "ever upward." He's an optimist who believes he can improve himself and better days are ahead. In other words -- as every Philadelphia sports fan knows -- there's always next year.