Cuba

Cuba

Cuba is just plain awful.  There is no other way to say it.  It's just a terrible, terrible film.  But it is also a good example of how awesome Sean Connery is and why he is one of the greatest movie stars in Hollywood history.

I will explain why later.  But first, let's talk a bit about this mess of a film.  Cuba follows the last days of the Batista presidency in Cuba, just as the revolution led by Fidel Castro is gaining real momentum. Realizing they are losing the war, Batista's generals hires badass mercenary Major Robert Dapes (Sean Connery) to help turn the tide against the rebels.  But in a bit of a crazy coincidence, guess who else lives in Cuba?  The answer is Alexandra Lopez (Brooke Adams) with whom Dapes had a passionate affair when he was serving in North Africa a decade earlier...when she was 15 and he was 30, mind you.  So, uh, that is already a bit uncomfortable...but moving on...

Alexandra manages a factory that is in theory run by her no good, philandering husband, Juan Palido (Chris Sarandon, clearly practicing the douchebaggering he would perfect later in his career as Humperdink in Princess Bride).  The factory is a hotbed of revolutionary activity that the movie would have you believe is all because Juan likes sleeping with one of his employees.  And what else is going on here?  Oh, yeah, there is a chubby American businessman (Jack Weston) representing American big business trying to take advantage of economic opportunities in the Cuban upheaval. And then there is a British businessman Donald Skinner (Denholm Elliot) who is in this movie for...I don't even know why he is in this movie.  Elliot is awesome and he's just wasted and I don't even remember any of his scenes except for one funny site gag involving a door...which is admittedly pretty hilarious.  This movie just plain makes no sense.  Apparently, it wasn't making any sense to the cast, either.  The script wasn't finished when they started production...and I actually don't think they ever finished it. This movie is just bizarre, and bizarrely bad.

And it is a shame, because there is some interesting things going on here.  First of all, it is interesting to see the British take on the Cuban Revolution.  Cuba kind of walks this strange tight rope.  It is completely anti-Batista, but not quite anti-American, who just come across as silly and in a bit over their heads.  And certainly Castro's men, who engage in several attacks against innocent civilians, don't come out looking good, either.  In fact, in a way, you could say this movie is pro-British.  The only character who comes out looking good is the British mercenary Dapes...and maybe that is the point.  Maybe this whole movie represents the British rolling their eyes at the whole situation and saying that they are above such shenanigans.  When Dapes arrives in Cuba, he quickly assesses the situation and knows that Castro is going to win.  He really only stays in order to rekindle his affair with Alexandra because well, he is too morally superior to engage in the silly war, even if that is what he was hired to do.  Oh, sure, he makes a few obligatory excursions with the troops, but I think those scenes exist only to reinforce that both sides in the struggle are lame and only Dapes is cool.  So, yeah, maybe this movie is ultimately all about why the United Kingdom is awesome.  

Or maybe I am just trying to force some order into what is otherwise an unorderly, horrifying mess. Take this MAJOR SPOILER for an example.  At the climax of the film, Dapes is captured by the rebels.  They try to engage Dapes in conversation and they are rebuked.  Dapes lets them know that despises them because they aren't real soldiers, they won't fight in real battles, they are terrorists who prey on the innocent civilians and are just generally loathsome human beings.  And then Batista's troops attack...you would think Dapes would be happy that he is about to be rescued...but instead he hijacks a tank and starts attacking Batista's men!!!

What.  The.  Hell.

So basically, Castro won the war because Sean Connery attacked the side he was supposed to be working for?  It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

This movie just sucks.  And with a director like Richard Lester (The Three Musketeers) and such a great cast...there is no excuse for a movie this atrocious.


BEST LINE:

Major Dapes: Why were those people shot?

Captain Ramirez: Perhaps because they were trying to escape.

Major Dapes: From what?

Captain Ramirez: From being shot.


MVP:

As I mentioned earlier, this movie is a great example of why Sean Connery is one of the greatest movie icons of all time.  He actually has had a unique career among Hollywood stars.  Allow me to explain myself: every star has hits and flops on their resume.  But if you take James Bond out of the picture, then Sean Connery's ratio of hits and misses is absurdly unbalanced.  If any other actor had made Zardoz, Meteor, First Knight, Shalako, and Sword of the Valiant, his career would have gone down in flames.  But Sean Connery not only survived.  He thrived.  And no matter how bad the movie was, it never seemed to affect anyone's opinion of him.  Unlike any actor I know, his persona existed separately from the body of his work.  His awesomeness was so awesome that...well, it didn't matter how many movies like Cuba he made...people were going to love him anyway.  Because he is Sean Connery.  And even in this trash, he elevates above it all with his badassness.  He really does fill a unique place in Hollywood history.  And it sort of makes him the automatic MVP in any film he is in...

For those who aren't sure they agree with my theory, just look at his filmography on IMDB.  He has a handful of movies that performed decently at the box office (Rising Sun, Entrapment, The Wind and the Lion) and he has a couple of movies that are genuinely good but flopped for some reason (Robin and Marian).  But when you remove James Bond, how many blockbusters are there?  Murder on the Orient Express and A Bridge Too Far, but he only had a small role in both.   Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and The Untouchables, but he is in a supporting role in those (even if he is easily the best thing in both those films).  Hell, technically he is even the second lead in The Hunt for Red October and The Rock, even though he was clearly the major draw for both those films.  That leaves us with...wait, what does that leave us with?  Nothing else really...that's it.  Those are his big hits. And it doesn't matter.  Because nobody cares.  Because Sean Connery is that amazing.  Has any other actor achieved such status?  It's remarkable.  In a way, it makes me like Connery even more!

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying he is MVP.

TRIVIA:

As the production could not film in Cuba, the majority of the filming took place in Spain.

Harry Brown

Harry Brown

Now here is a nice return to form!  Michael Caine is one of the greats, but age has kept him from starring in as many films these days.  I'm sure the selection isn't the best either for actors his age, no matter how talented.  Thank goodness for Christopher Nolan who has had the good sense to use Caine in his Batman trilogy, The Prestige, and Inception.  But as great as Caine is in these movies, his roles are supporting.  I think an actor of his caliber still has the goods to carry his own movie; we just need a director willing to give it a go.

Enter Daniel Barber and Harry Brown.  Sort of a pensioner version of Death Wish, Harry Brown is about Harry, a retired Korean war veteran living in a gang-ridden English slum.  Harry is not doing so well.  Recently widowed, he walks around his neighborhood like a ghost, waiting for his emphezema to finish him off.  At least he has a good friend in Leonard (David Bradley), but even their conversations aren't very peachy.  The gang problem in the neighborhood is getting worse, and Leonard is getting pushed around.  The old man wants to strike back.  Harry advises him not to.  But when Leonard is brutally murdered, enough is enough.  Harry might be in his 70s, but it is time to take back the neighborhood.

This might sound silly, but the film gets a lot right.  First of all, Harry never acts younger than he is.  In a Hollywood version, Harry would be able to take on some of these youngsters in a real fight.  While watching older folks kick butt can make for a fun movie (hello, Expendables!), it's hardly realistic.  And Harry Brown takes a very real approach.  If you were 70, and trying to figure out how to kill everyone in the local gang, how would you go about doing it?  It's a good question, and one that Harry Brown enjoys answering.

I also admired that fact that the movie admits that Harry might not even be right in his pursuit of vengeance.  Sure, some members of the gang are just plain evil, but the movie doesn't present all of them as cartoon bad guys and admits that these young men could very much be a product of a failed economic system or other societal problems.  The movie makes very clear that one of the kids has been dealing with years of sexual abuse.  Harry doesn't care.  Harry just wants them all dead.  And that makes for an interesting movie. 

Harry Brown is also Daniel Barber's first film, and he directs with a sure hand and a good feel for atmosphere.  I'll have to keep an eye on him as his career continues to develop.  And the acting is quite good along the board.  Caine is ably supported by a great cast including Emily Mortimer and Liam Cunningham, but make no mistake - this is Caine's show and he is nothing short of terrific.  In a different actor's hands, I'm not sure the movie would have worked quite as well.  I think it would have been interesting, but that's about it.  But Caine's performance is so compelling, it completely absorbs us into the storyline. 

Admittedly, the film does kind of fall apart at the end.  For some reason, they felt the need to add a twist which was completely unnecessary.  But apart from the last 10 minutes, this is quality filmmaking, and shows that Caine is still at the top of his game.


BEST LINE:

Detective Frampton: It's not Northern Ireland, Harry.

Harry Brown: No, it isn't.  Those people...were fighting for something, for a cause.  To them out there, it's just entertainment.

MVP:
Hey, there is no doubt.  This is Michael Caine's show.  He dominates this movie, showing us that his acting powers have not diminished.  I'm glad Nolan is keeping Caine in quality films, but other movie producers have to step up, too.  This guy still has it!  Let's get him in more good movies now while we can!!

TRIVIA:
Michael Caine took the role because he saw a lot of himself in Harry Brown.  They were both combat veterans (Caine served in the Korean War) and Caine used to live in the area where Brown does.

Promised Land

Promised Land

No!!!!  So close, Hollywood, so close!

When I first heard about Promised Land, I thought, "ah, another Hollywood, environmental, anti-corporation" movie.  I get tired of these films because the politics are so one-sided.  And it doesn't matter if I agree with the political stance or not (in fact, I often do).  My problem is that some of these films are telling me what I am supposed to think and then tells me I am a close-minded, foolish simpleton if I disagree.  Personally, I don't think that is a very good way to start a dialogue on a serious topic.  In fact, that kind of myopic view is part of the problem in Washington D.C. today.

So I was surprised when I started watching Promised Land, and it did the unexpected and actually tackled the topic in an intelligent and though-provoking way!   Matt Damon plays Steve Butler, who works for Global Crosspower, an energy company focusing on extracting natural gas through a method called fracking.  Steve's job is to go to these small towns, generally full of farmers, and convince them to lease their farmland to Global by offering profit sharing deals.  The town, hit with hard economic times, is of course enthusiastic until an old farmer/teacher Frank Yates (Hal Holbrook) brings up major environmental concerns at a town hall meeting.  Steve's job gets even more difficult when a bothersome activist Dustin Noble (John Krasinski) rolls into town to start a grassroots campaign against Global.

For a good chunk of the runtime, I was rolling with Promised Land, which is buoyed by a terrific cast, which also includes the great Francis McDormand and Rosemary DeWitt, working with a nice script co-written by Damon and Krasinski, and under the sure hand of director Gus van Sant (who also directed Damon's Good Will Hunting).  And I was impressed with the movie's mature take on the fracking issue.  Steve is presented not as a corporate stooge, but as a real three dimensional character who believes in what he is saying.  He came from a small farm town.  The life blood of the town was a local factory and when that factory closed down, the town just withered away and died.  Steve still seems shell shocked about his childhood, and he honestly believes that fracking is a way out for the dying small town.  Sure, there is a small chance that something horrible could happen, environmentally, but maybe it is worth the risk so that money can be pumped into these small towns.  The other side of that argument comes from Dustin Noble and Frank Yates.  The environmental risk is not small and the invasive measures used by fracking companies will destroy the land, destroy the livestock, destroy the farms, and ultimately destroy the town.  Both sides are committed to their argument and I admired that they seemed to be letting the audience make up their own mind. 

Sort of a spoiler here: then suddenly the movie decides to throw the audience a curveball in a twist so blatantly ridiculous that it ruins the whole movie, taking everything intelligent about the debate and turning into a diatribe about how corporations are manipulating the world and destroying America.  This was infuriating because it undermines the film, which up to this point had really been working.  Look, I am not deluding myself.  I knew the movie was anti-fracking, but by presenting a logical discussion and actually addressing the opposition's perfectly reasonable arguments, the movie was able to prove its point and hopefully convince people on the fence.  But the twist at the end alienates those in the middle and when that happens, you are just preaching to the choir and you're not going to convince anyone of anything.  Maybe if the twist had been handled better, I wouldn't have been so annoyed, but the script and direction just start to flounder here, despite the cast's best efforts.  Very frustrating experience.  What a shame. 


MVP:
Promised Land also one other flaw.  It tries to shoehorn a love triangle into the film, with both Dustin and Steve chasing the same woman, a local school teacher named Alice, played by Rosemary DeWitt.  Beyond the Hollywood contrivance of this rivalry, it also bothered me because it made Alice a weak character - would she just randomly go out with anyone as long as they came from out of town?  But I only noticed this afterwards because Rosemary DeWitt's performance is so good.  She is a strong and confidant woman, full of good humor and grace, and you can see why Steve and Dustin would both be chasing her.  In fact, it is a bit odd that everyone else in the town is not chasing her.  It's a fine performance and she completely charmed me, elevating the love story scenes from their inherent cliché nature.  It doesn't hurt that she has remarkable chemistry with Matt Damon.  So all in all, a win for Rosemary DeWitt!  A decisive MVP win.

BEST LINE:
STEVE: I'm begging you, don't do this.  Because the truth is we will walk away.  We always do. And then after every single town within three states has signed up and with the blows of this economy almost unbearable, we'll come back.  And we'll offer you nothing.  Every lease we've signed, every piece of the pie we've offered.  It all goes away...and we will buy this place for nothing.

TRIVIA:
This film was supposed to be Matt Damon's directorial debut.  But with a very short time to prepare for the film (and because of some rumored creative conflicts), Damon stepped down as director and Gus van Sant came onboard.

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook
You know, I have to hand it to David O'Russell.  There are not a lot of good dramas out there.  Oh, there are some that are diverting enough, I suppose, but nothing to write home about.  And most are sappy, formulaic, cookie cutter messes.  And then here comes David O'Russell (fresh off the equally excellent The Fighter) with his terrific adaptation of Matthew Quick's novel, Silver Linings Playbook.

Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) suffers from bipolar disorder.  As the movie begins, he is being released from the mental hospital, where he was sentenced after almost beating his wife's lover to death.  Now living at home with his parents (played by Jacki Weaver and Robert DeNiro), Pat is trying to get his life back in order and hopefully convince his wife to get back together with him...of course, that would involve finding a way around that darn restraining order.  The solution to his little problem presents itself in the form of Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young widow who knows Pat's wife.  And she will pass on a letter for him if he agrees to help her with her dance competition.

So this sounds like a serious drama until you read the dance competition part of my synopsis, which makes this sound like just another one of those formulaic romantic comedies.  Well, yes and no.  There is a bit of a formula here, sure, but when it is so superbly acted, written and directed, you can still find yourself surprised by what you are seeing on screen.  And make no mistake, Silver Linings Playbook is superb, full of heart and humor and a lot of crazy. 

O'Russell supposedly wanted to make this film because his own son is bipolar.  He tackles the subject with a great deal of heart and wisdom in both his directing and writing.  But his greatest strength is the way he depicts family.  I don't think anyone working today is as adept at creating a real family dynamic as he is.  He showed this skill in The Fighter, too.  There are no neatly defined family "roles" here like in other films; this is family and it is messy.  They love each other, they hate each other, they talk over each other, play little manipulative games, bicker and feud, and then hug it out.  These scenes are among the most heartfelt and funny in the movie.

And the acting is excellent!  This is the first film in a long time that has received an Oscar nomination in all four acting categories, and deservedly so.  Cooper, Lawrence, DeNiro and Weaver all develop fully formed human beings, with both good qualities and bad.  Cooper shows a true depth and maturity in his performance that you would not have imagined from his other films like A-Team or The Hangover.  Let's give this guy meaty roles like this!  And as for Jennifer Lawrence...between X-Men: First Class, The Hunger Games, and Winter's Bone, I am beginning to wonder if there is anything she can't do.  All the supporting players are all terrific, as well, including Julia Stiles and Chris Tucker.  And where the hell has Chris Tucker been anyway?  He hasn't made a movie since 2007's Rush Hour 3.  And while I was growing tired of his shtick by that sequel, I forgot how effective he can be when he is used in the right way!

There is one thing that bothered me in the movie...it's a small thing, but it kept nagging at me.  The police are pretty clear that if Pat has one more bipolar outburst, he is going back to the mental institution.  He proceeds to have a bunch of violent and destructive outbursts (in public even!), and yet he is never sent back.  He just keeps getting more warnings.  But poor harmless Chris Tucker keeps getting dragged back for no reason.  Okay, this is a small complaint, but it bothered me.  Silver Linings Playbook is a great film, funny and touching, and I definitely recommend it.  Go see it!

MVP:
I know I should say O'Russell, but I just can't.  And here is why: Red Lights, Righteous Kill, Being Flynn, Little Fockers, Stone, Freelancers starring 50 Cent, for crying out loud!  Not DeNiro, but 50 Cent.  What has Robert DeNiro been doing the last few years?!?!?  It has been a long time since I have seen DeNiro knocking the ball out of the park in a good movie.  I don't know if it is the roles being offered or if he is just on a bad streak, but it's been far too long since I have seen him in something great.  And one of life's great pleasures is to see the arguably greatest actor of his generation do what he does best.  And he vanishes into the role of Pat, Sr., who has a very complicated relationship with his son.  It is a good part and there might be some under-the-table nature vs. nuture stuff going on here, because you can definitely sense some of Pat's violent tendencies coming from his obsessive compulsive father as opposed to just his bipolar disorder.  Pat, Sr. has a lot of anger and a lot of regrets in his life.  But at the same time, when he looks at his son, you see such love in his eyes, no matter how sick he is or how disturbed he can be.  Pat, Sr. could have been played for laughs, a one dimensional, walking OCD joke, but DeNiro captures the heart of the role.  He is terrific and I was so happy to see him back in all his glory.  MVP!

BEST LINE:
Pat, Sr: I gotta rethink this whole thing.  I didn't trust it before, but I gotta say, now I do.

TRIVIA:
Lots of interesting casting trivia on this one!  Russell originally wanted to make this film with Zooey Deschanel and Vince Vaughn.  Then Mark Wahlberg was in the mix.  Russell came to Cooper in a different way.  The two had been in discussions to collaborate on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.  I think it was a good decision to make this instead!  For the role of Tiffany, Anne Hathaway was actually cast, but filming for The Dark Knight Rises interfered, so Russell looked elsewhere for his leading lady.  I think this all worked out for the best.  Cooper and Lawrence were both excellent!

Valhalla Rising

Valhalla Rising

Uh.  Huh?

Valhalla Rising is an odd duck.  It's one of those movies that I completely admire and deplore at the same time.  In many ways, I just can't make up my mind about it.

One Eye (Mads Mikkelson, Casino Royale) is a Viking slave, horribly scarred (he is missing one eye and his tongue) and forced to fight in bloody gladiatorial matches by his owners.  He is exceptionally good at it - and I mean brutally so.  These fights are pretty gruesome.  And of course, One Eye is such a good fighter that he escapes and kills his owner and all of this men - only leaving alive a small boy who begins to follow him around the highlands.  Eventually One Eye and the boy come across some Crusaders.  Together they all set off for the Holy Land, but their boat ends up hitting ground in a mysterious, densely wooded land.  I think this place is supposed to represent North America, probably Canada where Viking artifacts have really been discovered, so I would say they were pretty off course.  It might be time for a new navigator.

Anyway, the place is weird, evidence of the native life is eerie and dangerous, and the Crusaders begin to think they are in hell. You know this because every speaking character says at least once, "We're in hell."  This film has very little dialogue, and this repeated line probably accounts for half of it!  Okay, we get it. Crusaders don't like Canada.  Get on with the story, already!

But in all honesty, there is a lot to like here.  The acting is terrific, the costumes and art direction, though sparse, are very effective and well used.  The cinematography is superb.  The small budget is well hidden by solid direction by Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive).  And the pacing is odd...this narrative flows like no other movie I've seen...it's slow...with lots of staring.  Lots of staring.  The editing is all over the map, jumping through time, playing with filters and colors, and the music is monotonous.  Sometimes this pacing is effective, and sometimes it really hurts the movie.  At best, this creates an otherworldly feel...something that is genuinely hypnotic and fascinating.  At worst, all the monotony and staring grows tedious and boring...and then it gets weird.  The less said about the "let's drink some water and get high" scene, the better.  This is when the film just gets scary and I began to be concerned for director Refn's mental health.

So, uh, did I mention there is a lot of staring in this movie?

I kind of don't know what else to say.  This might be a case where the director is trying to be a bit too different for his own good.  Valhalla Rising is brilliant, frustrating, boring, fascinating, compelling and painful all at the same time.  I'm glad I saw it.  I'd probably watch it again...I think?

SPOILER: 
Do not read this if you have not seen the movie!  I am giving away the ending!!! 
So for all of you have seen the movie, what did you think of the ending?  I think it kind of makes no sense.  I don't mind One Eye being killed by the Native Americans, sacrificing his life so that the kid can live...And I understand the symbolic significance with the color filtering...the whole movie, we see the same shot of One Eye, the whole screen colored blood red.  There's a bit of a demon in this guy, a murderous and violent man.  But in the end, when he sacrifices his own life, we see the same shot, only now, he is bathed in heavenly white light.  So it is clear that One Eye is a changed man. But what makes him think that surrendering himself will save the boy?  The Native Americans never give any indication that they will let the kid live.  Where does this all come from?!  And what's the boy going to do now?  He's on the island by himself, with nowhere to go and no way to get off, with no food or water,  and surrounded by a hostile native tribe.  And the one guy who could probably keep him safe in a cool Lone Wolf and Cub kind of way just surrendered himself to be slaughtered. Huh?  Anyone else have any questions about this?

Anyway....SPOILER OVER!!!  

Best Line:
As I mentioned, everybody (except One Eye) says at some point: "We're in hell." 

Is that really the best line from the movie?  No, not really.  But it is certainly the most memorable because by the 415th time I heard it, I started to feel like I was in hell.

MVP:
Mads Mikkelson is pretty awesome.  Without a single line in the film, he is still easily the most compelling character.  Most of his emotions are displayed through body language.  Is he about to pounce and murder everyone?  How does he feel about the little boy that circumstances put under his protection?  What does he think about the natives?  You get it all from his stance or facial expressions.  Even then it is understated.  There are no grand gestures.  Generally, he stands still with a blank, lifeless look on his face.  But in the slightest variation in his shoulders or eye, and you know what he's thinking.  In a movie where you don't understand why the characters are doing or saying certain things, you never wonder about One Eye...it's pretty impressive work.

TRIVIA:
The original ending had One Eye flying away in a spaceship.  But Refn though that would be too easy for the audience to interpret, so he took it out. 

That is too easy for an audience to interpret?!?!


 

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I had never seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  Can you believe it?  Embarrassing, I know. Here was one of the major films of the 1970s, a sci fi classic from one of the greatest directors of his generation, and I had never taken the two hours to just sit down and watch it.  So after kicking myself profusely, I decided to do just that.

Close Encounters is the story of Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), who one evening has a run-in with an alien spaceship.  It is a brief encounter, but the aftermath has done something strange to Roy.  He starts to become obsessed with a mountain, constantly picturing it, ranting about it, and even shaping it in his mashed potatoes.  What does the mountain mean?!  Meanwhile, scientists led by Frenchman Lacombe (played by legendary French director Francois Truffaut) are making contact with the aliens, using musical notes as communication.  What does that have to do with Roy?  And about those other people who have also had close encounters?  How do they figure into the puzzle?

So since almost everyone has seen Close Encounters, my review is going to go a bit into spoiler territory. For the few who have not seen the movie: here is my summary - in many ways, this film is a masterpiece.  But Roy is such a tedious main character that it kind of ruins the whole movie for me. There you go.

Now for more details.  SPOILER ALERT.

So does this film live up to its "masterpiece" status?  In many ways, absolutely.  There are some brilliant moments of supreme filmmaking.  Spielberg's direction is superb and inventive.  The appearances of the alien spaceships, for example, are ingenious. Take for instance Roy's encounter.  He sits in his truck in the middle of the night, lost and frantically looking at a map.  The headlights of a car pull up behind him and Roy waves him by.  The headlights don't go around; instead they lift up above him, and when Roy looks up he sees the UFO flying over him.  I was struck at such a creative and cool way to introduce the aliens.  The whole film is full of inventive moments like that. The spinning ships chased by police cars, the alien arrival at Jillian's house (which truly is a terrifying scene), the arrival of the mother ship at the end of the film.  Spielberg uses the same technique he did in Jaws in that he holds back from showing too much until the end of the film.  Until the climax, you don't see any aliens; the ships are either moving too fast or are hidden by clouds, and what you do see is a kaleidoscope of light (brilliantly filmed by Oscar-winning cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond). There are moments where the film transcends into something truly sublime; such as Lacombe's visit to India and the arrival of the mother ship.  That is when I felt like I was watching the masterpiece Close Encounters is reputed to be.

But there is a 'but.'  And it is a big one for me in this movie.  Roy Neary is a jerk.  His obsession tears his family apart.  And at the end of the movie, he happily accompanies the aliens to space and just leaves his wife and kids behind without a second thought.  Even Spielberg has said that this was probably a mistake and he would have played the ending differently had he made the film today.  But my problem goes back further, to even before the alien encounter fries Roy's brain. Because he is a selfish and obsessed jerk even before that.  Just look at the introductory scene, where he is playing with a giant train set assembled in his family's living room.  The house isn't that big and he's hogging most of the space with his trains.  His son needs help with his homework and Roy doesn't care.  His attention is completely on his models...and when he finally agrees to help, he tries to explain the math problem using the train set...in a way that doesn't even really make sense.  He already has a selfish and obsessed personality.  All the alien encounter does is amplify that.  So even if that makes the movie consistent, it still makes it hard to root for the guy.  He's just a jerk and not someone I want to follow around for two hours, even if I love everything else going on in the movie.  And the fact that he gets a happy ending that he frankly doesn't deserve...the fact that he basically tortures his family and then just deserts them and then gets to go live happily ever just really rubs me the wrong way.  And it sort of ruins the movie for me.

So there you go.  In some ways, this film is a real masterpiece, but Roy is too much of a problem and drags the movie down with him.

TRIVIA:
When designing the mothership, the special effects team hid all sorts of cool items on it, including model airplanes, a mailbox, a cemetery, and most awesomely, R2D2.

MVP:
I think I have to go with the Visual Effects team.  They really did some remarkable work that is still awe-inspiring today, decades after the film's release.  The use of the lights on the ships is a brilliant visual stroke, and beautifully executed.  And when you see those bright orange and red lights lighting up the clouds, it is truly an eerie site.  And I was in awe when I saw the giant cloud formation circling around the Devil's Tower, and then the mother ship emerging.  It was amazing.  When I heard it had lost the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, I was infuriated.  Then I saw that the movie that beat it was Star Wars.  So...well, okay then.  There's really no competition there!  It's Star Wars!!!

OSCARS: Best Cinematography, Special Achievement Award for Sound Effects Editing

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Melinda Dillon), Best Director (Spielberg), Best Visual Effects. Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score (an amazing score by John Williams that would have won the Oscar if not for...well, John Williams' Star Wars, only one of the greatest film scores of all time!!!) 

BEST LINE: 

Organist (while having a musical "conversation" with the mother ship: "What are we saying to each other??"

Les Miserables

Les Miserables 

Look, I'm not gonna lie.  I usually don't like musicals.   I respect them, and I appreciate the power of music to evoke emotion, but all too often I find the singing actually takes me out of the movie as opposed to emotionally connecting me.  There are exceptions, of course.  Singing in the Rain is a classic.  I really enjoyed both Chicago and Dreamgirls.  So what about Les Miserables?  Would this all-star film based on one of Broadway's most beloved shows be one of the few musicals that crosses over?

Les Miserables is based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. I'll keep the synopsis vague as to not ruin anything for those who don't know the story.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been released from 19-years imprisonment and decides to break parole in order to rebuild his life as a better man.  Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is a tough-as-nails soldier who devotes his life to catching the convict, ignoring all the visible signs of how Valjean's newfound compassion affects everyone around them.  It's an epic story, spanning decades, and even includes a climactic battle set during the Paris Uprising in 1832.

The story sounded interesting so I was definitely curious, especially with this superb cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bodham Carter...this is quite a cast.  And I was a big fan of director Tom Hooper's last movie, The King's Speech.  But unfortunately, Les Miserables did not totally win me over. 

First of all, there is a lot to like in this movie, starting with the cast.  Everyone is absolutely superb, both in the acting and singing department.  Hooper made a brave choice with the film by recording the songs live instead of recording them in the studio, which is the common practice with musicals.  This experiment pays off in spades, giving the music an immediacy and raw emotional power that is missing when the songs are "produced" in a studio booth.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Anne Hathaway's show-stopping "I Dreamed a Dream," which is about as raw as you can get.

I was also very impressed with the art direction and the overall look of the film.  It's a superb looking film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it scooped up most of the Costume and Art Direction Awards.

What I liked most about Les Miserables was the epicness of it all.  I truly felt like this movie was a massive journey and I had gotten to know these characters over two decades.  When the movie ends, you do not feel like you've watched a movie; instead, you've experienced something.  And that is kinda special.  Ironically, this epic length is also the movie's greatest weakness.  When the movie is not working, it just grinds to a halt...and it is those moments where I literally feel like I am spending twenty years with these people.  There were a few times where I thought, "oh, please, Jean Valjean, if you have any real compassion, you would just stop singing and get on with it!"

There are a few other things I don't like.  I had never seen the stage musical so a lot of this was fresh for me.  And the songs are all quite good and memorable.  But most musicals have dialogue between the songs.  Not Les Miserables.  This movie is all song. There might be all of six lines of non-singing dialogue in the whole film. I wouldn't mind this so much if the music were good, but I actually found much of the this 'inbetween' singing to be tuneless and meandering.  I know many of you are screaming and smashing at your keyboards: BLASPHEMY!!!  Look, I'm not badmouthing the music as a whole.  The major songs are all pretty good, some of them superb, but the music inbetween the big numbers is just kind of painful.

So there you go: Les Miserables in the end is a mixed bag.  When it is firing on all cylinders, it really is terrific.  Usually this is when the show's major numbers are featured: "I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," and "One Day More" are stirring and wonderfully performed, and showcase the raw power that musicals can have when done well.  But it just drags in a lot of other places, sometimes painfully so.  But like I said in the beginning of the review, take my opinion with a grain of salt because musicals just aren't my thing!

But all that said, I do want to address a few points in SPOILER territory.  For those who have seen the movie or know the play really well, here are the moments I liked and disliked.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bodham Carter stage the film's funniest scene when they perform "Master of the House," but with every subsequent scene they appear in, they become less and less amusing and more and more annoying.  Until by the end, they were just tedious.

Damn.  Hugh Jackman can sing.  And I was a bit terrified by his chest hair.  To be honest, I was surprised by most of the cast.  They all have pretty terrific voices.

Anne Hathaway just won her Oscar.  I am sure of it.  She isn't in the film for very long, but she is so heart achingly good in "I Dreamed a Dream."  It's downright haunting.

Almost as good is the relatively unknown (but not for long) member of the cast, Samantha Barks, as Eponine.  She knocks "On My Own" out of the park!

I do want to defend Russell Crowe for a second. He seems to be catching some heat as Javert.  I actually thought he was fine.  It's a different role for him, and while his voice doesn't necessarily sound Broadway to me, I thought his singing got the job done.  I think people are not responding well to him for a few reasons.  His introduction is handled clumsily, with his singing literally coming out of nowhere, causing some snickering in the audience.  And the director does not do Crowe any favors by staging his solo numbers in really goofy ways (i.e. always balancing on railings and silly blocking like that).  In fact, while most of the camera work is fine, I was distracted by the horribly quick pullbacks that seemed to happen whenever the actors hit a big note.  This was just awkward and clumsy and he does it to poor Russell Crowe constantly.  It just seems like they are setting him up to fail.

Speaking of Crowe, I really like the confrontation in the hospital when Javert explains why he refuses to believe in Valjean's reformation.  That Javert came from the same lowly background as Valjean, picked himself out of the muck, and transformed himself into a symbol of law and order...that explains a lot about his character and I think Crowe nails this moment.

Not meaning to go back to this, but those zoom outs really annoyed me!

And why the horribly gruesome bone-breaking sound effect when Javert dies.  It was so loud, it was almost comical.  And why do that to a poor character who just seemed to see the error of his ways??

I also have a problem with the very end when the whole cast appears on a super huge barricade, singing the People's song.  I feel the movie gets its themes mixed up.  Onstage, I'm sure this makes sense because it is a chance for the whole cast to come out and sing one more time. But in the film, it just muddies the waters.  It makes it seem like this whole movie was about The People, the need for Revolution, and the Paris Uprising.  Really, the uprising is just a plot device - and it only really matters to Marius.  And actually, even then, it doesn't seem like it really means that much to him since he is about to abandon the revolution in order to chase after Cosette.  Cutting back to the barricade at the finale, and including Fantine, Cosette and Valjean with the group just doesn't make much sense to me.

Okay, SPOILER OVER.

MVP:
Well, I think I've already made it clear that my MVP is Anne Hathaway.  "I Dreamed a Dream" is usually belted out by powerhouse singers.  Every time I've heard it, it's produced as a big, huge number for a singer with a powerhouse voice.  That doesn't make much sense in the movie, since Fantine is weak, desperate, and dying of tuberculous.  Kinda hard to hit the big notes when you have tuberculous. So she takes the opposite approach.  She doesn't push the song out, she pulls it in, makes it personal, ignores the power and just focused on the anguish and emotion.  It's a remarkable performance.  And yes, she is good in her other scenes, as well.  But it is this performance that wins her my MVP (and probably the Oscar, too).


TRIVIA: 
A lot of actresses auditioned to be in this movie.  For Eponine, you had the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Hayden Panettierre, and Rachel Evan Wood.  Supposedly, Taylor Swift was really close to getting the part.  No offense to any of these ladies, but I think they cast this role perfectly.  Samantha Barks, who had already played the part on stage, was perfect.