A good heist story is always entertaining as long as it is executed effectively. Stephen Soderberg's Oceans 11 is a big screen remake of a heist film from the 1960s, that had a hip reputation but was not a terrific heist movie. The remake corrects that. A heist movie depends on a clever plot, multiple complications in the execution of the heist, and usually a twist the audience didn't see coming. This version of Ocean's 11 has all of those in abundance, and it also has a great cast of characters to round out the story.
It may be true the George Clooney is not the star he once was, because his films have not drawn the box office numbers that they did Once Upon a Time. However he still has charisma, and this 23-year-old film demonstrates that in spades. Along with "Out of Sight" from two years earlier, Clooney was at the apex of charming criminal masterminds at the turn of the century. The plot here, involves a complicated intrusion into the vault that contains the cash flow of three major casinos in Las Vegas. The crew is attempting to steal the money from that vault, which is impenetrable and is protected by a vast security force. How will they do it, and will they get away with it?
The first two acts of the film set up the characters and the situation that they are faced with. We are given as much as possible to sympathize with them. The mark they are after appears to be a brutal, heartless, chiseler who has double crossed one of their team, and is stealing love of the team leader. Clooney, as Danny Ocean, is cool calm and collected as he assembles his crew with the assistance of his friend played by Brad Pitt. The two of them create enough cool in this movie to make it competitive with the Frank Sinatra movie that it's based on. When you layer on top of it, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Elliott Gould, and as the villain, anxious cold-eyed Andy Garcia. You can put your beer in the refrigerator now because this film is cooler than anything you're going to see this year.
The twists in this movie are fun, and well plotted. Like all movies of this ilk, the plot depends a little bit on certain characters behaving in a way that is anticipated by the other characters, to a T. Other than that old trope, the movie works well in disguising what's really happening, both to the characters in the film and for us the audience. When we realize how they're going to get away with it we smile with indulgence because we have been fooled by the cleverness of the master criminal. It's just too much fun.
The screening was packed with a variety of people, many of whom had not seen the movie before, as you could tell by the way they were reacting to some of the twists. Don Cheadle's accent, Elliott Gould's cigar and robe, and Casey Affleck and Scott Caan bickering with each other, all add humorous moments to the film, that aren't necessarily cool but are clearly a lot of fun. The film combines some really basic physical comedy, with some sophisticated dialogue and plot devices which amuse us in a completely different way.
Matt Damon is sort of the standout in the film, because he's a young buck on the rise, but he's still naive enough to fall for some of the bits that the older duo of Pitt and Clooney engage in. He's capable of playing comedy given the right material, and boy is this the right material. I shouldn't neglect that one of the characters in the film, is played by Julia Roberts, and although she's not one of the 11, she is critical in the execution of the heist. When the follow-ups of "Ocean's 12" and "13" appear, she finally gets counted as a member of the team. I'd be perfectly happy if they counted to 20 in the next few years, so we can enjoy these clever heist movies in greater abundance.
You would think that a film from one of the Coen brothers would draw a lot more attention and interest from the film community than this slightly misbegotten exercise in excess has received. I didn't hate the movie but I was surprised at how over the top some of the things were in the film, and that the director's choices were also obviously designed to provoke and be distinctive, without being particularly creative. Ethan Cohen has created another crime drama about off-center characters, and crimes gone bad. From the makers of Fargo and No Country for Old Men, this is natural except that the comedic elements are created to accentuate the odd instead of using those odd elements to highlight small parts of the story. The result is an over full collection of vulgarities, violence, and elegant dialogue that would work a lot better if it was used more sparingly.
I had originally planned for this to be a film that we covered on the Lambcast. Unfortunately not a single one of the podcasters or bloggers of our 2,000 members signed up to talk about it. This should have been a signal to me that there was something not quite right about the project. I read after deciding to cancel the podcast, that the original title of the project was Drive-Away Dykes. The change in title was probably designed to avoid putting off people who didn't care to have that element of sexuality front and center in their crime story. However, a title change doesn't change the script, and we still get lots of lesbian love, phallic foreplay, and some of the most vulgar and descriptive language that you can imagine. While there are moments of nudity in the film the vast majority of those things that sexualize the film are in the dialogue. And they are not sexy but rather obnoxiously provocative.
I'm not sure that this is a film that will be embraced by the LGBTQ+ community, because the stereotypes in the film seem to be at odds with what would be a more inclusive approach. There is a caricature of a lesbian relationship that seems particularly offensive, and there are sexually based sequences that seem to cater to offensive stereotypes about lesbians. I am also dubious about the desirability of flexible phalluses as the love toys preferred by committed gay women. For a movie about the empowerment of lesbians, the perspective it takes seems to be one of amusement rather than real agency.
Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Vishwanathan, are the two leads and each of them has some pretty effective moments in the film. Qualley was familiar to me from “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, where she played Pussycat, the hippie girl that gets Brad Pitt's character up to the Spahn Ranch where the Manson family is living. Vishwanathan, was very appealing 3 years ago and a fill my liked quite well, “The Broken Hearts Gallery”. In this film she plays a more innocent character to her partner’s Wild Child. The story involves a mis-matched pair of women who take a road trip and inadvertently have in their possession what at first seems like a McGuffin. Later the secret does in fact get revealed. You might think it was drugs, because of the violence involved and obtaining the suitcase with the soon to be revealed contents, but unlike the mystery of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction, we finally see what the contents are, and it's another one of the crude jokes that the film is based on.
The girls are pursued by a team of inept criminals, similar to the pair in Fargo, or Pulp Fiction. Their dialogue is also frequently over the top, with just enough wit to make it interesting but not enough to allow it to be compared to some of those sparkling sequences in those other films. When we discover what the whole Enterprise is about, it makes even less sense, because most of this could be dismissed without anybody having to be murdered or any money exchanged. A simple denial would be more than sufficient to eliminate the risk that the ultimate antagonist seems to feel exists. We have no providence for the relics, except some perv collectors. The movie has a couple of prominent actors in secondary roles that might almost count as a cameo. Pedro Pascal shows up at the start of the movie, and then a part of him continues to be a present in the film. He was perfectly fine but I'm not sure why director Cohen thought that it was necessary to have such a well-known actor in the part. Conversely when Matt Damon shows up near the end of the film, we understand his casting because the film needs someone with some charisma, to become the antagonist that the movie needs at this point. Once again though, his motivation seems to be highly exaggerated. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it is a legitimate strategy for public relations. It just doesn't seem to have been considered.
I probably already given away more than I should have about the film. There are three or four transition sequences that feature psychedelic visuals and remind me of a Saul Bass James Bond title sequence. They don't make much sense, until the end, and even then they don't really do much to make the film interesting, they mostly just make it weird.
There are plenty of films that go over the top as a stylistic choice to try and make the movie interesting to a specific audience. I enjoyed the movie “Shoot ‘em Up”, from more than a decade ago, but by the time it was finished I was bored by the excess. This film provides excess on a different subject, and I was bored by it in the first 20 minutes. There is some clever stuff here, and I think you will laugh a few times, but I also think you'll shake your head and say " I've seen this before”. There's nothing new to see here, it's recycled and overdone. You'll forget about it almost immediately, which is not something I've said about many Cohen Brothers films before. Perhaps Ethan needs his brother Joel, to rein in the more preposterous elements of the movie, and make it feel less like a cartoon and more like a satire of crime dramas. That is really what it wants to be. You can safely skip this, but if you watch it at home later, maybe you should send your parents to bed before it starts, trust me it's a little awkward.
When a Christopher Nolan film opens, you can count on a fan base to show up, regardless of the subject matter. Nolan has established himself as the preeminent film director of the last fifteen years. Ever since "The Dark Knight", film fans have looked forward to a film with his name attached, regardless of the acting talent involved. His technical excellence, commitment to film and theatrical presentation and his intricately plotted films have given him a reputation deserving of respect. That said, there is such a thing as overhyping a film, and that is exactly the defect that I had with this movie.
“OPPENHEIMER. The best, most important film of this century. If you see one film in cinemas this year it should be Oppenheimer. I’m not a Nolan groupie but this one blows the doors off the hinges,” wrote Paul Schrader. This sort of statement will raise expectations beyond reason, and should be a flag that the writer has an agenda in his praise. My guess is that the subject of the first Atomic Bomb and the impact that achievement had on subsequent weapons development, is what generates this type of enthusiasm. Look, no advocates a nuclear war. Everyone recognizes the dangers to the planet should such an event occur. This has not been a secret for the last 78 years. So a movie that warns us of those dangers, is not groundbreaking, and how important it is depends a great deal on what issues matter to you personally. Writer/Director Paul Schrader has tipped his hand at what he sees as critical, I don't know that the film lives up to that standard.
None of the reservations I have expressed so far are intended to suggest the movie is unworthy, quite the contrary, it is an excellent historical biography about a misunderstood giant of science from the last century. You should certainly go and see it, just tame your ambitions for the film to a practical level and focus on the film making and story telling. The people who are writing about how gut punched they were by this movie, must not have seen a Cold War Thriller in the last fifty years. "Nuclear War=Bad" , got it.
Nolan's films are famous for the use of time manipulation to tell the story. In this film, there is the smallest amount of that approach in any of his films since "Insomnia". There are black and white segments that distinguish timelines in the story from the vivid color sequences, but it is more a technique for indicating flashbacks and flash forwards than it is for advancing the plot. The plot of the movie is basically the rise and fall of Robert Oppenheimer. This is surely a valid project because Oppenheimer was indeed a critical figure in science and the key figure of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. His complex life lead to his successes and ultimate embarrassment in being denied an extension of his security clearance, in spite of his service in creating the bomb.
The first third of the film is a long recap of his academic and personal quagmires. Many of the incidents are relevant to later criticism of him, but as a film subject, they feel like they are slowing our progress to the subject of the Manhattan Project itself. As a biography, these segments are acceptable, but the film is sold in part as a thriller concerning the development of the weapon, and that part of the story takes a long time to arrive on screen. The time at Los Alamos is the most effective act in the film. This is where Nolan's expertise with visuals seems key to the movies success. Seeing the film in the large screen IMAX format with the XD enhancements, made the audience feel like they were there with the other observers at Trinity. The sound design is outstanding and the visual largely eschew CGI in favor of more practical effects.
Other than the weapon itself, the two hearings that bracket the story, provide the fireworks for the plot. Lewis Strauss, from the Atomic Energy Commission, becomes an antagonist to Oppenheimer, and his plotting to deny the security clearance produces blowback several years later in his own hearings when nominated to be in Eisenhower's Cabinet. It is the crossing of these two men's paths that sustains the film since we largely are familiar with the bombs results. The drama surrounding Oppenheimer takes place in the early fifties and the Strauss confirmation hearings were in the late part of the decade.
Cillian Murphy is Oppenheimer personified, with his thin and tall build he is a physical match for the scientist. The makeup team does a terrific job helping him play a character that moves across thirty years of time. His youthful gaunt looks in the early years are echoed by a more skeletal visage in his later life. Murphy has a way of speaking that sounds authoritative, cocky, and inquisitive. The one time that it is suggested that Oppenheimer was showing off was when he demeans Strauss's reservations about sharing isotopes with a friendly country. Otherwise, Murphy plays him as respectful of other physicists and intellectuals, although in private he could be dismissive. The personal moments are the least clear in the film. He has a passionate affair with Jean Tatlock, played by Florence Pugh, but other than their physical connection, it was had to see how these two triggered one another. Oppenheimer's wife is played by Emily Blunt, and she is seen as a fragile woman with deep problems, but one who is fiercely committed to her husband and his legacy. Her best scenes are in the hearings where she listens to derogatory information about her husband and she looks like she wants to stab the people testifying, without having to move.
The cast is packed, and I won't take time to salute everyone who probably deserves it, but there are two other performances that stand out. Matt Damon, in a second film this year (Air being the first) is terrific as Leslie Groves, the military commander in charge of the project. He has to be persuasive, belligerent, patient and intelligent in a lot of sequences in the film, and he nails it every time. If I were taking bets on the Academy Awards for the year, I'd put a large wager down on Robert Downey Jr. for supporting actor. I literally did not recognize him in the film, I did not even know he was in it until the credits rolled. As Lewis Strauss, he is venal, powerful and ridged in his persona. The conniving scheme may be an exaggeration of the real events, but Downey Jr. sells us on Strauss as a villain, at least in regard to his dealings with Oppenheimer. Nolan as writer/director and Downy combine to make an accomplished man with insecurity issues, feel like a vindictive bureaucrat with petty personal animus toward Oppenheimer.
So the film is overlong, over praised, but still a great achievement. Like his other films, especially "Interstellar" and "Inception", Nolan is showing off his intellectual credentials a bit, but it would not be undeserved. He has clearly put in the work to understand the basic physics of the atomic process, as well as the political landscape of Washington D.C. . The movie could have been as compelling as "Dunkirk" was, if we had a little more story devoted to the competition with the Nazi group that the Manhattan Project was trying to catch up to and beat, instead of the personal drama that does not feel very clear in the long run. The technical details, production design and performances compensate a bit for the flagging story, but if you have a realistic expectation of the film, you will enjoy it a lot more.
Well you know that you have something solid, when your immediate thought is, "This is the movie I will be comparing everything else to for the rest of the year". It's already April and we have a contender for the best film of 2023. It stars Matt Damon and was directed by Ben Affleck, yea, those guys. They did not write the movie but their presence certainly gives it the vibe of their collaboration from twenty-five years ago. This is a drama, set in 1984 and it focuses on the greatest basketball player of all time with him being a practically invisible character for the story. The plot focuses on a business deal and that hardly sounds like the subject that would make a movie compelling. Also, we know the outcome before the film even starts. So how does this end up working?
First of all, you have intrigue that most of us were unaware of. Getting Michael Jordon to commit to a shoe company that had negligible impact on basketball in the time was an arduous task. The competitors were better prepared and financially able to fulfill the athletes wishes, his agent was aggressively dismissive of Nike's attempt to set up a meeting, and Michaels parents were naturally suspicious of everyone as he is making the leap to the pros. Phil Knight to founder of Nike was a successful shoe innovator but his athletic apparel di not have any cache with the basketball community at the time. What Nike did have was Sonny Vaccaro, a basketball scout for talent in the endorsement industry, who had a deeper understanding of the game than his rivals, and a better instinct about Jordan than anybody outside of his family.
Damon plays Sonny as a driven gambler with good instincts and a dogged personality. He is also not an athlete or user of Nike products. He is a middle aged guy working in a rapidly changing environment, but he is never put off by the obstacles in front of him. Damon gives him the conflicting auras of passion and hopelessness. Fortunately, he is also better able to articulate his vision than any one else. There are two great spots where he has to be persuasive, primarily on the spot. In a sequence where Sonny talks with his friend Basketball coach George Raveling, he learns that Martin Luther King Jr. extemporized the second half of the "I have a Dream Speech", and learned the lessons that you have to read the audience. When we get to the pitch that he makes to the Jordans, he does basically what King did, listen to his audience and speak to their inspirations and aspirations.
Of course the characters in the film have to be interesting to hold our attention. Vaccaro is a gas, flippantly joking about Nike's dismal reputation in the basketball field, while simultaneously projecting the conviction of his visions. Jason Bateman plays Rob Strasser, the marketing executive at Nike who wants Vaccaro to succeed but doubts his gambler's instincts. His realization that Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." is not quite the world affirming anthem he thought it was is very amusing. The two of them are great exchanging criticism, life lessons and gallows humor. Affleck plays The founder, Phil Knight, who has delusions of eastern insight, moderating his business sense. Chris Tucker is another executive with a story to tell and a personality to match Sonny when it comes to speaking enthusiastically. Once again, Viola Davis shows off her thespian chops as the gracious but steel minded mother of Michael Jordon. The phone call she has with Sonny, trying to close the deal with a set of unprecedented demands, is another standout sequence in the film.
Those of us who remember those days will recognize the production design and soundtrack of the era. There is great fidelity to the times and the sense of the world. The story is a salute to the vibrancy of an entrepreneurial attitude and the power of capitalism, combined with the right vision and direction. Everting ultimately depended on Vaccaro being right about Jordon, and we know how that turned out. This movie almost does the same thing, we'll see how it all comes out eventually.
I looked it up to see how it came out, Ridley Scott has directed 26 feature films, including some classics that are award worthy, and some that have been left on the curb to be disposed of. I have seen 18 of those films, so I am pretty familiar with his work, and frankly I am a fan. This movie came up and I had not heard anything about it in the production process. He has a second film that is coming in a couple of weeks that will no doubt get a lot of awards potential due to the cast. "The Last Duel" ought to have the same sort of cache because it's cast is nothing to sneeze at, but I think because this is a Twentieth Century Films release, which means it was one of a handful of movies the Disney Company acquired when it bought 20th Century Fox, it feels like it is an unwanted child. Little P.R., no Oscar talk and it is disappearing from theaters rapidly (look for it on Disney + any time now.
As it turns out, this film does not stack up to Scott's best work, but it is not down at the bottom with "Exodus: Gods and Kings", or "the Counselor", neither of which I have bothered with since I never saw a single recommendation for either. "The Last Duel" is a very well made film, it looks great, it contains some great action sequences, and the story is intriguing. The problems with the film have mostly to do with pacing and story structure, which may be partially the fault of two of the films stars since they co-wrote the script. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon have collaborated with Nicole Holofcener to bring this story, based on a book which is based on an historical incident, to the screen. Like a medieval "Rashomon", "the Last Duel" gives us different perspectives on the same event, each one favoring the person at the center of that section. So one of the problems is that we are seeing the events again, already knowing large amounts of information that are not going to change. The smaller changes, in tone and character probably needed to be emphasized in shorter segments because the length of each of these chapters is tedious. The film runs two and a half hours and unfortunately, that run time is noticeable.
Maybe this was an attempt by Affleck and Damon to answer critics who wondered how they could have worked with Harvey Weinstein and not noticed his reprehensible behavior. As a #MeToo story, Jodie Comer plays a woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted, but in a society that treats marriage as an economic contract and the wife as property, her needs in this situation seem to be the least important. Sir Jean de Carrouges (Damon), has plenty of reasons to have animosity toward his former friend and warrior, Jacques Le Gris, played by Adam Driver. While not the most sympathetic of husbands, he engages in a strategy to clear his wife of fabricating the story and also exacting revenge on his opponent. Driver's character on the other hand is supposedly shown in the most favorable light in his segment of the film, and Le Gris, still comes off as a cad, deserving of the dirtying of his name that he objects to. Marguerite de Carrouges (Comer) is trapped as a pawn for the most part in a misogynistic society that treats women as suspect simply for being women. The questions that get asked in the inquiry are humiliating and the "science" accepted at that time makes the process even worse for her. There is also a clear stigmatization of women as sexual beings, despite their sexuality being critical to the purpose of marriage which was to prove heirs. In a nod to some of the hypocrisy we see in the #MeToo movement of today, women are just as capable as men of bending events to their prejudices. Marguerite cannot even count on her best friend.
All of the soap opera and segments of battle and political intrigue that took place in the first two hours is largely there to set up the climatic title moment. Scott is in his element here, having made "Gladiator" as well as "Robin Hood" and "Kingdom of Heaven", he knows his way around brutal one on one combat. Damon and Driver go at each other both mounted and unmounted . There are staves, axes, swords, daggers, gauntlets and assorted blood sweat and tears in the arena. All the while, we are reminded of the stakes because they are sitting right there, waiting to burn under the woman in question if the combat goes the wrong way for her. This actual historical event is the last recorded case of trial by combat to determine who is the just party. Since I did no background research before seeing the film, and I did not know the outcome, that probably added to the impact the combat sequence had on me.
So I suspect this film will soon be forgotten, but it does have some strong elements to recommend it. Affleck plays a conniving count who uses political power to protect his prized friendships, Damon builds more action hero cred with his battle scenes, Driver gets to be tall, dark, and handsome, but Jodie Comer is the one who emerges with the most credibility after our two and a half hours spent on this arcane event.
Let me start by saying, I am not a fan of racing. I have nothing against it but the idea of watching cars travel at high speeds is attractive to me for about five minutes. After the first thrill, it seems like a lot of waiting around. I know I am an exception because NASCAR is incredibly popular and the Indy car circuit has been around for more than a century. The same can be said for formula one racing which enjoys international enthusiasm that I can't muster. With that out of the way, I can say I am a fan of racing films. Several years ago, I listed "Rush" as my second favorite movie of that year. Earlier this year I enjoyed "the Art of Racing in the Rain". I even liked the Stallone racing film and "Days of Thunder". So how is it that I ended up liking this film so much?
My appreciation for a film about a subject that I am not well versed in or passionate about comes down to the simple fact that film making is all about controlling the audience perspective. As an illustration, I posted a list a few years ago of my favorite sports films, three of the ten films were hockey movies. I've never been to a hockey game, I've never watched a whole hockey game on television and the idea of a sport played on ice is appalling to me, I hate the cold. Film makers however, are not worried about the contest, they know the outcome already. They don't worry about the rules, they can ignore them or alter them to suit their purpose. What screenwriters and directors do care about is the audience, what is it we want out of the experience? That is the thing that makes a movie like this work for us.
In "Ford v Ferrari" we see the races from the best angles. We focus on the key moments and not all the drudge work that gets to those points. Best of all, in a racing film we are in the cockpit and we see the race from the perspective of the driver as well. That creates the drama that keeps us focused on the story of watching someone drive a car. In this film Christian Bale plays driver Ken Miles and his character is one worth following. He is a hothead who also happens to be an excellent driver. His volatile relationship with the car designer and the corporation that is backing the team is emphasized not just in scenes played out in garages and offices, but while he is driving the vehicle they are all counting on. I think he nails the English accent spot on [those of you who don't get the joke are excused from making a comment on my ignorance]. He has to act opposite a big movie star, a child and a piece of machinery. He makes each of those relationships work in a realistic way.
My friend Doug is a big race fan and he will tell you how there is a better story somewhere else, or how the film is not accurate is some way that matters to race fans. The rest of us don't have to worry about that because we know what we are seeing is a fictionalized version of the events. Like all story tellers, the three screenwriters and the director, exaggerate to make a joke work or emphasize a dramatic beat with a piece of information that we need just at the right moment. The film does center on racing, but most of Matt Damon's work is in the garage or board room rather than behind the wheel. The background on the Ford Company attempt to purchase Ferrari may not have happened in the sequential order that the film presents but that presentation makes the rivalry more meaningful and interesting. You could easily be fooled into thinking that Christian Bale also played Henry Ford II, since the portrayal is a mirror image of the Dick Cheny performance he was responsible for last year.
Since the events depicted are based on real historical incidents, you will be aware of the outcome of some of the suspenseful moments, but James Mangold manages to make them suspenseful anyway. Having worked with Christian Bale in "3:10 to Yuma", Mangold probably felt comfortable in the casting of Bale and Damon in parts that were originally scheduled to go to Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. While I would have enjoyed seeing those two reunited on screen, I think this pairing works really well. The loyalty but pragmatism of Damon as Carrol Shelby is a good counterpoint to the flashier Ken Miles and it is to Damon's credit that he lets Bale drive not only the vehicle but the film as well.
Ridley Scott is one of the most ambitious film makers of our time, he is closing in on eighty years old, but like Clint Eastwood, he continues to prove that he still has it. This is a smart, big screen entertainment with a good mix of drama and humor and a well realized visual environment in which to play. As a consequence, this film should be a smash, coming as it does at the end of a long stretch of mediocrity in the cinema year.
A combination of "Cast Away", "Apollo Thirteen" and "Macgyver", "the Martian" tells the story of an astronaut abandoned accidentally on the surface of Mars, and the effort that he and others make to try to bring him home. It is heroic in the sense that an individual facing incredible odds, continues to strive to live, but it is equally heroic to think of the sacrifices and efforts made by a litany of others who would bend heaven and Earth to help him. The complexities of a journey to Mars are outlined in the continuing series of crises that Matt Damon's character has to face. Basic survival requires ingenuity that would challenge the wisest of us, but driven by hope and an indefatigable will to live, a smart guy manages to find ways. From a storytelling perspective it works really well. As a slice of imagined reality, it squeezes by on some convenient fictionalized story points. If "Gravity" got criticized for playing fast and loose with some aspects of physics, then this movie should end up in a jailcell right next door. The truth is that story is more important than physics when it comes to cinema, and the theme of hope trumps all.
Most of the plot that takes place on Earth and on Mars, feels real. There are political considerations and bureaucratic power issues at home that spice up the dilemma on Mars. A solid cast of actors makes the NASA organization recognizable to anyone who has worked in a large environment. Government regulations on transparency complicate the problem solving on Earth, but allow a decision to exclude the crew of the expedition vessel from some of the early events in the film. Fortunately, Matt Damon, looking like Leo in the upcoming film "The Revenant" manages to inject enough humor and personality into the story to keep us interested. The talking and planning and arguing that takes place at home plays second fiddle to the adventure on the red planet. I will say however, that it was an amusing touch to have "The Lord of the Rings" referenced while "Boromir" was sitting right at the table.
The one place where the movie does not quite fill it's potential is in the main ship and crew that left their colleague behind. They are cut out of the story for a big chunk of time and then when they are brought back into it, the answers to problems that were at least a struggle for Damon's character, get resolved a little too quickly with some of the same scientific hocus pocus that would fix a problem in "Star Trek". By the end of the film, we can live with that as well because the movie really is a little long. The visuals on the ship are fun to look at but never seem as real at those on the surface of the planet. The jokes about the music selection available suggests that in the future, we have less technology available for an app than an ipod from 2004 had. These are minor quibbles but the film is strong enough to overcome some of that.
A whole planet comes together in a way that we would hope it would with a situation like this. International cooperation might be expected but this might be a fantasy as well. If it is too fantastic to believe, it's still inspiring to fantasize about. Duct tape and the human heart can overcome almost any obstacle, and that feels true, even when the science says it is not.
The reviews have not been great and the buzz almost killed this for me. Then two things happened to make me once again want to see this movie. I read a review from one of the sites that I visit (which I usually avoid if I am planning on seeing the film) and I saw a repeat of the original story on CBS Sunday morning from four or five years ago. The story of what American forces were trying to do during WW II to save art history was compelling in a 6 minute slot on a news show, so how could this be a problem? I also trust the taste of my blogging colleague Keith and the Movies, and he was very enthusiastic. So since it is President's Day and I had the morning off before class this evening, I went ahead and saw this terrific film. (Thanks Keith)
"Monuments Men" tells the story of a small group of Allied art experts who were tasked with trying to locate the art that Hitler had looted from across Europe. There are some back-story inserts about particular works of art that are then used as focus points for the dramatized version of the story. I suppose if you read the book that the film is based on, you would get a clearer idea of what was fiction and what was invented. I think I can pick out enough of the dramatic bits to say that this film is mostly an imposition of plot on top of a real world story. The plot is serviceable enough and even better, it highlights the elements that make you proud to be an American. As the CBS story pointed out, we did not take these works back to American Museums, we tried to return them to their rightful places. The story also mentioned that art pieces are still appearing seventy years later, in private collections and the work of clearing the legacy of theft is ongoing.
George Clooney stars in and directed, from a script he co-wrote. When he did "Good Night, and Good Luck", he was the toast of the town, by the time he did "Leatherheads" he was just toast. His last few films as director have not been well received. I did not see the "Ides of March" but I think I know what turns some other critics off. He keeps the story straight and does not shy away from sentiment. Cynicism is the coin of the realm in critical circles and there is not an ounce of it in "Monuments Men". There are clear heroes and villains and a task that is difficult. Sometimes a race to the treasure aspect or a dramatic incident is used to make the audience stay invested, but never in a way that talks down to them. His style may be just too direct and workmanlike to please cineastes, but the average film goer should be plenty satisfied with this story.
I especially enjoyed the pairings in the film that carry much of the entertainment value. Clooney and Damon play off one another like the frequent partners they have been. John Goodman and Jean Dujardin have a nice sequence in a truck that plays up humor at first and then tragedy. Bill Murray and Bob Balaban get the most opportunities to make us smile, both in the warm embrace of home and the smug satisfaction of besting an evil opponent or a scared kid, and knowing the difference. The truth is that all of the real Monuments Men were in a real war with real bullets flying. There are sometimes a few too many words in the speeches that tell us how important this project is, but they are sincere words and I did not think they hurt the story at all. I guess one of the criticisms is that by being so sincere the film plays flat. I found it refreshing that the soldiers did the same kinds of things I member seeing in B & W WWII films starring John Wayne, Errol Flynn or a dozen other stars from the forties. No one takes out a baseball bat and pounds the truth out of someone, they use deception, reason and righteous anger to get the job done. There are several points where the story does have to payoff given the way the script is written, and those outcomes were fairly satisfying to me. In a flash forward coda, I thought at first I was seeing an amazing make up job but than I realized the director managed to get his father into the film and that was a kick. The former host of AMC, before commercials and "Breaking Bad" was a nice presence and suggests just how heartfelt the whole enterprise was.
