Reviews

Ready your preparatory standard procedures for filmmaking pretentiousness. Also, maybe just a couple small spoilers which are revealed early on anyway.

"Upstream Color" is an independent film, written, directed, and acted by second-timer Shane Carruth (Primer). One of my professors in college spent the better half of a class session raging about it when he saw it's premiere at Sundance Film Festival in January. His general impressions were that of intrigue, wonder, and a higher form of confusion. Practically anyone who has had the chance to see "Upstream Color" would agree I'm sure.

I mentioned pretentiousness earlier because many films that are edited in a timeline jumping, non-linear fashion are usually credited as such, or worse. Within the first five minutes of this film, you quickly realize it will not be something you can easily digest. I once heard a quote about Hitchcock's "Vertigo", where the reviewer (possibly Roger Ebert) said something to the effect of, "this is a film that is to be enjoyed for it's complex story during your first viewing. It is only after you have made sense of its plot that you can return for a second visit, this time attempting to recognize the thematic message the film works to convey." While I agree with Ebert, this is a movie that probably needs more explanation after your first watch, or perhaps a second time through to understand things more deeply.

I'll try not to spoil anything, which isn't saying much, considering even if I explained the plot, it would still seem non-sensical to you. We start off with some grub worms of some sort, living around some kind of plant with a curiously blue tint to it. We soon realize that tint is being scraped off and through some foreign process, with the help of our little worm friend, is made into a pill. Enter Kris (Amy Seimetz). She works for a film agency or something, and is eventually tazed and force-fed this pill. We soon gather that the pill allows the pill curator, or the Thief (Thiago Martins) to control Kris. As long as she doesn't sleep or eat, the Thief keeps her busy with mind numbingly tedious tasks, including reading and writing from Henry David Thoreau's, "Walden". This is all a senseless ploy, and only exists to keep her busy long enough for him to get Kris to transfer funds and basically sell off everything she owns. This money is then given to the Thief, and he leaves her, stuffing her face, never to be seen again. The cycle continues to some extent, but eventually Kris meets a guy named Jeff. I'll stop there.

"Upstream Color" is something to be seen, and maybe not so much for the fact that I can't really describe it on paper. It is a rare occurrence that something so marvelous would grace the screen in our current generation of filmmaking. Carruth has used one of the most interesting and effective filmmaking techniques of montage, and has essentially edited together a 90 minute one here. "Upstream Color" is a strange animal which exists in a constant state of flux. As soon as we believe we have become familiar and comfortable, it suddenly warps and twists into something new and mysterious, yet possibly dangerous.

I discovered a few extra tidbits whilst scouring the internet for a solution to the 90-minute puzzle I had just uncovered. First off, there are explanations for "Upstream Color" and Carruth has gladly helped to explain them. Second, lo and behold, Netflix does carry some gems from time to time and I was able to watch "Upstream Color" through it. Quickly, run with haste to watch it before they take it away!

Finally, and this may be a moot point to some, but I read that director Shane Carruth claims to be a believer in Jesus Christ. Obviously it is impossible to assume he is legit based off some posts on IMDb, and an article in Christianity Today, but nevertheless. There is something absolutely fascinating in knowing a Christian was mostly responsible for the writing and creation of a creature like "Upstream Color". Folks, this clearly is not a movie about Christianity per say, but it can indeed link heavily into spirituality and faith. For me, this is a prime example of filmmaking by a believer that doesn't follow the cheesy and frustrating pattern as films like "Fireproof" or "Courageous" or even the upcoming "God's Not Dead" (which I can only presume will be a flop at Christian theaters nationwide--oh, wait). "Upstream Color" is also not a massively successful film that follows the footsteps of "Les Miserables", a motion picture that does present faith as an obvious and major theme.

Carruth has quite the talent, and with something like this under his belt, I feel confident in believing there are only more great achievements in filmmaking in his future. My fellow Christian filmmakers and aspiring filmmakers, this is not only a call to strive for excellence in our field, but it is also encouragement that there are extremely talented believers out there who are already breathing life into stories that didn't even exist before.

My rant being over, and my viewing of "Upstream Color" finally coming to a close, I can do nothing but recommend this movie. It may be a bit much for some, but for those who are willing to work a little harder than the average moviegoer, this is indeed a treat. And a tasty piggy- stream blue one at that… Maybe that joke will make sense after you've seen it… Eh, that joke kind of sucked. Sorry… Not sorry.

"The Family" is a film that tries to be a laugh out loud gangster flick with a deep story and lots of character development. It only succeeds in a few of these areas, but it is in those areas that "The Family" works very well.

Luc Besson of "Léon: The Professional" and "La Femme Nikita" fame takes the lead role of director, and along with the help of the legendary Martin Scorsese, we have "The Family". This is the story of Fred Blake (Robert De Niro), or Giovanni Manzoni, or whatever his name is this week. He is forced to change his name and where he lives pretty constantly because his family is in the witness protection program. This week in the lives of the "Blake" family, they find themselves in Normandy, France. What exactly Giovanni did to upset his mob ties is never explicitly said, and we work under the assumption that he ratted out some of the higher-ups in the mob hierarchy. This is all good and well, but some audience members might feel left out never knowing exactly why the Manzoni family lives in a never-changing state of flux.

Giovanni shows murderous traits throughout "The Family" and we firmly believe he is capable of a lot of bad stuff. While his family likely didn't participate in mob activities back in the day, they all seem to have learned violent tendencies. Giovanni's wife, Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer) has interest in traveling and sight-seeing to get her mind off of her unpredictable lifestyle, and despite her attempts to return to the Catholic church (the only familiar thing that she sees can bring her family to safety), has a short temper that can burn down a grocery store within a few moments; a fun joke, unfortunately ruined by the movie's trailer. Giovanni's daughter Belle (Dianna Agron) is a righteous fox, searching for her future soul mate. She is the kind of girl you have to worry about getting hit on by the wrong crowd, but she is also the kind of girl you don't have to worry about the safety of. In other words: she can take care of herself. Finally, John D'Leo plays Gio's son. Imagine a snarky, too intelligent for his age 16-year-old drug kingpin who recognizes, and then runs a high school's black market within the period of a week, and you have Warren Blake. This is the "Blake" family, and we feel like we know them pretty well by the end of "The Family".

Robert Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones) is Giovanni's parole officer of sorts and tries to keep him out of trouble. They bicker back and forth and never did you think you would see two greats like Jones and De Niro get so old and complain about one another with such comedic contempt. It's really quite funny, and I might add that you would never expect the "F" bomb to have so many uses and become such a versatile word in the mouth of De Niro.

Of course the family tries to adjust to life in France, and while it's all good fun, "The Family" is haunted by an emotional roller coaster that the audience may never have even bought tickets for. In one moment, a character is head over heels for a french boy who breaks her heart, and the next moment Giovanni is breaking a wooden bat over the kneecap of a greedy plumber, and then deeply contemplating a future career in writing. Again, with comedy, "The Family" delivers. With keeping us engaged, and following and tracking with the characters, perhaps not so much. One might argue that these extreme moments are used only to push the comedy along, and I would tend to agree with that viewpoint.

The original score here feels a bit forced, and overall, pretty cheesy. It maybe doesn't work so well. You can tell Besson worked under Scorsese's tutelage to some extent when exploring popular music themes throughout "The Family". The Rolling Stones have a way of making music that never seems to perform poorly in film.

I saw "The Family" with two girls, who haven't been introduced to great gangster classics like "Goodfellas" or "The Godfather". Despite the black comedy, and sometimes randomly violent bits of "The Family", I realized that this movie actually could work quite well as an introduction to crime films for those who haven't seen them. We see some of the violence, and we hear the lingo and accents, and while it's sometimes over the top, it never feels like too much. "The Family" is almost a more family friendly "The Untouchables" in some very strange way. Eh, but don't have a family screening of "The Godfather" with your five-year-olds after reading this review.

"The Family" is a good watch for some crime-based black comedy laughs, but may be more widely accessible once it hits DVD and Blu-Ray.

*SPOILER* In closing, I might add that De Niro's character ends up sharing his life story at a film critique of "Goodfellas" in France. It hits you the hardest when the opening notes of Tony Bennet's "Rags to Riches" sounds out loud on-screen, and it's possibly one of the biggest laugh out loud moments I've seen in quite a while. I never really thought about pop culture inside of pop culture… Pop-cultureception, if you will. *SPOILER*

Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind," contains a visual treat that I won't soon forget. I'm talking about a scene a little over halfway into the film, where our protagonist John–played by Russell Crowe (of "Gladiator" fame)–sits in the kitchen with his wife Alicia, played by Jennifer Connelly ("Requiem for a Dream", "Blood Diamond"). He's beginning to fall back into his disorder, and sits at a table, playing with a strange suction cup unicorn toy. Alicia is starting to grow increasingly more frustrated with John, and steps over to the refrigerator.

There is a clear divide in their marriage, and even though it is portrayed so clearly on-screen, we are provided with a powerful, yet subtle reminder here. A wall literally separates the two of them, their backs are turned to one another, and although they are having a conversation, they are both concentrating on different things.

This is the kind of provoking imagery that Ron Howard has put together for his audience, along with ASC Roger Deakins ("No Country for Old Men", "Skyfall", "Shawshank Redemption").

"A Beautiful Mind" follows the true, yet flawed, story of a brilliant mathematician, named John Nash, who struggles to live with schizophrenia. We begin our excavation into his life starting first at his entry into Princeton, and our journey ends with Nash in old age. As grumpy and–for the most part, socially inept–an old fart as he was in his younger years. Regardless of his laughable social ability, he makes lifelong friends (and gets hitched) despite his strange behavior; even though he's kind of a jerk. He is quite lovable. Whether this is the beauty of Crowe's fantastic work as an actor, or the tediousness of a well-designed script, I will leave that decision up to you.

Even though we focus mostly on Nash, we do spend a good portion of time with Alicia. I must say that I truly appreciated her character's devotion to John. Unfortunately, many times in film, a love interest is thrown in as an afterthought to spice up the sex appeal, but here is not the case (although, Connelly looks somewhat stunning as an older woman). What I admired most about her screen time is her unrelenting sense of hope. Granted, she does grab their child and begins driving away at one point (but you would too if your husband nearly drowned the little tot.) Alicia inspires a true feeling of redemption for Nash's character, and she sees it through until the end. A marvelous picture of the difficulties of marriage and endless perseverance through it, I assure you.

Of course, Howard would never let his audience go without extra fun, and this comes in the form of actors: Christopher Plummer, Paul Bettany, and Ed Harris, who play respectively: Nash's psychiatrist, Charles (one of Nash's friendly hallucinations), and Parcher (a government agent hallucination, hell-bent on pushing Nash to decipher non-existent Russian codes from various publications and magazines.)

Something that Howard does excruciatingly well here is not spoon-feeding the story to his audience. The plot isn't simple, even though the "Fight Club-esque" reveal of "multiple personalities" is somewhat predictable; if you know much about the film. It definitely isn't a tidy film presented in a gift-wrapped box. There are a few short scenes that make you just a bit queasy to help you understand more fully just how emotionally and physiologically painful Nash's condition was on himself and those around him. It is necessary in my opinion.

There is a bit of cheese, in the form of a special pen gifting scene directed towards Nash, representing the level of respect that he had gained over the years, again, despite his medical condition. To explain the symbolism of these "pens," one should simply watch the film to understand. Very shortly afterwards, Nash gives his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. As he gazes out into the audience, he says, "I have made the most important discovery of my career – the most important discovery of my life. It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logic or reasons can be found. I am only here tonight because of you…" His eyes fixate on Alicia, as he toys with a pocket square in his coat; a nod to an earlier moment in the film.

These moments are excusably cheesy, and serve to fully send home the idea that if it was not for the persistence of Nash to push through his disease in his fashion, and if it was not for Alicia's complete devotion to him as a wife, he likely would have driven himself mad and lived in an asylum for the remainder of his life. Fortunately, this is not the case, and in light of his random outbursts at home and on-campus at Princeton, he is able to live out a strange, yet somewhat regular life.

We feel only the utmost sympathy for John and Alicia, and by pushing against all odds, they find victory. We love these stories, don't we? The academy loved it enough to present it with four Oscars, including Best Picture. Isn't that nifty?

The only blotch I found on this wonderful tale is the true story of John Nash. In real life, he didn't actually begin experiencing hallucinations until after his marriage with Alicia. He also had a child with a previous girlfriend, and Alicia eventually divorced him and married someone else. They remained very close friends however, and she provided him a place to stay, and helped him through his disorder. A few Hollywood modifications, to be sure, but its always a little sad when the movies are prettier than real life, isn't it?

A humbling response is knowing that Nash was, and still is an astonishingly brilliant man. He still keeps office hours at Princeton, and he still walks to school everyday. An impossibly smart and beautiful mind.

Having seen the original Lord of the Rings trilogy too many times to count, I had certain expectations for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Fortunately, many of those inner-most needs I possessed were met, however, there will still a few stumbling points within the movie itself.

We will start with the good, nay, the amazing! Peter Jackson follows through on his commitment to honoring Tolkien's years of work as a successful writer. There are so many absolutely beautiful scenes in this movie. Whether it's a helicopter pan of our team making their way across the deserted, fantastic landscape of Middle-Earth, or a slow zoom-in to the delicate, yet wonderful Last Homely Home of Rivendell.

I wasn't in love with Gollum in the original trilogy, but I was completely in-tune and fascinated with the riddles in the dark scene. I saw Gollum in new light, where his desperation hadn't fully kicked-in yet (albeit, on it's way within a few decades though I'm sure.)

As mentioned earlier, I was once in love with a woman named Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as the same tales written by Tolkien himself in his six book series of the same name, so absolutely any inclusion of foreshadowing of the events of the Third Age to come, such as the existence of Sauron, as well as the Witch-king of Angmar sufficiently squelched my need, by feeding it, and then giving me even more juicy details through conversations between 'former baddies' such as Saruman, having a somewhat critical, yet joy-filled conversation with the Lady Galadriel, featuring 'former woman' from Cloud Atlas, Sir Hugo Weaving, reprising his role as Elrond.

Howard Shore again heads up the department with music, and does so to amazing effect, incorporating themes and motives from the Lord of the Rings, while making this soundtrack quite distinct, as you will see. You may feel a creep of goosebump-infected nostalgia roll over yourself as you hear some of them.

Now the bad, unfortunately. Or maybe not bad, but a little bit of a downer.

There were added pieces to this story that were entirely unfamiliar to Hobbit-aficionados, which works to an extent, but at some point, the warg chases grow to be somewhat repetitive. In the same way I tired of the non-stop, fabricated ringwraith chases in Fellowship. Also the inclusion of, said "one-armed orc king". Or, the inclusion of, said "fat-chinned, massively over-disgusting goblin leader/king/whatever".

The funny bit is, fans who are unfamiliar to the children's book will not notice these additions, and probably won't care. For those of us who are attached to page-by-page description, it might matter some, or become a deal breaker for others.

I should have added this into the pluses, but there is not a single character who was miscast in their role, neither were there any flat performances by any of our heroes, or villains, for that matter. I was, however, trying to distinguish dwarfs throughout the movie, and by the end, multiple dwarfs just looked to me as the same person. Lord of the Rings at least had different races of Middle-Earth denizens, that it worked, but here not so much. Which pains me to say, but 12 characters of the same, yet unfamiliar race make things hard for the audience in my opinion.

Finally, the 3D. I was blessed to view this film also at 48fps, which was quite wonderful, and I think works for Jackson, maybe not only to an extent, but fully. 3D has come off to me only as a gimmick, added to movies just for the effect, but since this was no cheap conversion of an already decent film, the 3D really works here. It's a little unsettling having arrows flying at your face, or a butterfly teetering it's way from one side of the screen to the other. The action and fight scenes were completely astounding, with so many humorous moments, yet so many very exciting ones as well. However, in 3D, I was sometimes lost in the action, which was a little disorienting, but a quick recovery will follow, nonetheless.

There were some very cheesy moments, like slinging dishes to the beat, but I think this is due in part to the Hobbit being a one book children's book... But this is inherently, one of the movie's few problems... It's not a six book epic. If anything, the Lord of the Rings should have been extended to something longer than a trilogy. For this Hobbit trilogy, a three movie spread will be very difficult without adding a lot of new material to Tolkien's work, and while it may be fantastic and loved by many, there will be some of us who grow tired of it. Additionally, outside of a two film spread, I don't see why we need three movies to tell an already short tale. MAKE THIS CLEAR, I loved The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I loved practically every minute of it, but I also have a hope deep down within me that this will repeat the same pattern of the original trilogy. Fellowship was filled with exposition, where The Two Towers capitalized on the exposition, and filled in an absolutely breathtaking three hours to set up the majesty and wonder that is The Return of the King, which is one of my favorite films of all time. May we pray that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy follows suit and amazes us in that very same way. Jackson hasn't let us down yet in Middle-Earth, so I don't fully expect him to now.

So quickly, fly on eagles wings, and cast a spell of amazement and bewilderment over yourself as you sit down for this nearly three-hour long spectacle. Hope you like motion sickness. But be very happy that this time, 3D is promised to not be a gimmick. I guarantee you will at least like, if not love, every minute you are in the theater.

This summer turned me into a Nolanite, and for good cause too. I missed the premiere by two days, and it was probably the longest two days of my life. I saw it in Imax. Lucky for Chris, Nolan likes Imax camera, so lucky for Chris, I saw what Nolan saw. Also, Cinematographer Wally Pfister put together some fantastic stuff in The Dark Knight Rises.

Tom Hardy continues to be an absolute TANK as Bane. Joseph Gordon Levitt steps into the fray as a "fake sidekick Robin" of sorts.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the story here, because the thing that I believe makes The Dark Knight Rises such a terrific movie is how well it ties the entire trilogy together. Some people are upset by the lack of Batman himself in The Dark Knight Rises, but I am amazed that Christopher Nolan could make a Batman movie that is so much more about Bruce Wayne than it is about Batman.

In Batman Begins, Batman is a man. Clearly real, and a part of Bruce Wayne. In The Dark Knight, Batman has become a symbol. Finally, in The Dark Knight Rises, Batman eventually turns into a myth, and he's not Bruce Wayne anymore. Batman does not need to be a specific person, because Batman could be anyone. It doesn't matter who's under the mask.

Did I mention the comparisons that The Dark Knight Rises gets away with making to Jesus Christ? A city who scorned the only one that has the capacity to save them from their own filth, and their own sins. Batman takes the blame for Harvey Dent's crimes, and he puts it all upon himself, and in the end, sacrifices himself to save all of those people who just wanted him dead or imprisoned in the first place.

Or maybe the theme of "rising from failure", or simply "rising" throughout the movie. Batman rises from being chased and hated, to becoming a hero, who saved Gotham. Bruce Wayne rises from his old hermit-like, miserness, and tries to do what he thinks is right (become the Batman again), only to get completely owned. But once he realized his mistake, and the reasons that he failed, he is able to rise out of his own depression, and his own selfishness, to become the man that he is being called to be. Or the blatant symbolism in Bruce rising from the jail pit. Out of darkness, into the light, yadda yadda… The list goes on and on. The Dark Knight Rises is absolutely rife with symbolism, and this is what makes it such a powerful story.

There is something more here than just a comic book hero film. It's an examination of the human condition, and just how far someone can fall. The reminder is, "no matter how far you fall, you fall so that you can better learn how to pick yourself back up."

It's a beautifully crafted story that I think bears reason to be told many, many times. Or in my case, seen in theaters four times. Beating The Avengers record. All of this to say, DC comics didn't have a chance until The Dark Knight Trilogy. Seriously, share this movie with those around you, and don't just leave it there. Talk about some of the themes behind this movie, because there is so much to be said about failure, and the purpose of failure. Not to mention it's really just a freaking BA movie that captures the essence of Batman so very well. If this doesn't get you excited for Man of Steel, then I have no idea how to help you.

The Dark Knight Rises is a 9/10.