MOVIE: Dallas Buyers Club

Dallas Buyers Club: a masterpiece performance by Matthew McConaughey.  Earlier this year I praised McConaughey’s performance in Mud, which remains on my list of 2013’s Best Movies.  McConaughey’s character in this film, a real person named Ron Woodroof, is more complex than the Mud character.  The year is 1985.  Woodroof is a rodeo rider with a day job as an electrician.  He is an over the top heterosexual with serious homophobic issues.  When he is initially diagnosed with H.I.V., he is in denial because in Woodroof’s mind, H.I.V. infects only “certain types” of folks.  Woodroof is very street smart and learns there are drugs available that can help but that the FDA is impeding their distribution.  He also learns there is a suspended American doctor (Griffin Dunne) practicing in Mexico who is dispersing the medicine.  The film’s title derives from Woodroof making the the drugs available to anyone who joins his Club.  To obtain and bring the drugs into the U.S., Woodroof plays a priest.  He also visits Japan and Israel where the drugs are made and sold.  The film is directed by Jean-Marc Vallee.  Among other things, the storyline provides a sharp contrast of doctors’ attitudes:  those driven by the revenue from AZT drug studies (Denis O’Hare) and those who know there are real alternatives are out there (Jennifer Gardner).  Jared Leto gives an extremely strong performance as Rayon, a cross dresser disowned by his moneyed family, who introduces Woodroof to the gay community.  Through Woodroof’s interaction with Rayon, the McConaughey character changes from a serious homophobe to a complex individual acting to save both his life and lives of others.  Woodroof battled the FDA in court (he lost the legal battle) but these scenes are short.  Most of the 117 minute film focuses on an evolving character, a Texan stereotype at the beginning who is a survivor and through his survivor attitude becomes a spokesperson for gay individuals needing alternative treatments in order to live.  McConaughey’s performance is reason enough to see the film.  So, too, is the story behind Dallas Buyers Club.  The AZT story is not pretty nor is the attitude of the FDA, who is shown as being more concerned with procedures than with actual treatment outcomes.  This is an excellent film.  I usually don’t bother seeing films whose trailers leave me flat but I made an exception for this film because of McConaughey.  The movie is so much better than the trailer.

MOVIE: Saving Mr. Banks

Saving Mr. Banks: if you are a Mary Poppins fan (and there must be someone who isn’t), this is a film you should see.  A second reason to see this film is the fabulous performance by Emma Thompson as P. L. Travers, the creator of Mary Poppins.  This film takes place around 1961 and is about Walt Disney obtaining permission to make the movie Mary Poppins.  Tom Hanks plays Walt and, as expected, he is excellent.  Hanks and Thompson play well off each other but this is clearly Thompson’s movie.  There are other excellent performances including Paul Giamatti as Ralph, Travers’ chauffer in Los Angeles, who has some of the best lines.  There is a running joke in the movie as to Disney only using first names and Mrs. Travers, being a formal Londoner, not wanting to be called Pam or Pamela.  The script also has some good lines as to why people may dislike L.A., especially when their presence in the city is prompted by an economic need to sell  their treasured creation, Mary Poppins.  Unfortunately, the movie also spends a lot of time recounting Travers’ childhood in Australia.  I didn’t carry a stopwatch but it felt like a third of the movie was devoted to Travers’ childhood in the Outback.  Once we learn that her father was an alcoholic, we know things will not end well for him or the family.  Knowing that the father worked as a banker and loved his children and that Mrs. Travers was the eldest, we are armed with important facts that explain who Mrs. Travers is and how she ended up creating her characters.  Collin Farrell plays the father and he is quite credible.  However, the movie has too many scenes of the young Travers just staring at her father.  The film’s running time is exactly two hours.  If they had deleted about 10 minutes of the Australian backstory, this would have been a much better movie.  There is an interesting scene where Walt informs Travers of his childhood as an 8 year old delivering newspapers.  It is a long monologue.  After all the Outback scenes, imagining a young Walt in the Missouri snow delivering newspapers would have been an interesting contrast and a visual view would have been more interesting than the monologue.  The movie was directed by John Lee Hancock, who seems to specialize in sentimental movies (The Blind Side).  I don’t know how literally true the story is but the movie validates one sequence as the credits are running.  Mrs. Travers insisted that her interaction with the Poppins screenwriter, Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford), and the Sherman brothers, who wrote the score, be taped.  A segment of the tapes is played as the credits are run after showing us snapshots of the real Travers, Disney, DaGradi, etc.  A nice touch to a nice movie that spent too much time telling us that we are a product of our childhood.

MOVIE: Philomena

Philomena: a drama starring Judi Dench based upon actual events.  The past year saw a number of strong roles for actresses.  Dench’s performance was up to the task and she will probably receive another well-deserved Oscar nomination.  The movie is based upon the nonfiction book “The Lost Child of Philomena Lee”.   It is the story of a woman who, 50 years after her 3 year old child has been adopted, tells her adult daughter that she has a brother.  Philomena then leaves to search for her son.  A teenage Philomena, played by Sophie Kennedy Clark, is left at an Irish convent by her father after she becomes pregnant.  We are told how it came about that Philomema was relegated to the convent.  We are also told that her mother had previously died.  There are flashbacks to 1952, including a scene where her son is taken away by the adopting parents.  Philomena’s daughter connects with a reporter, Martin Sixsmith, played by Steve Coogan.  The movie opens with the reporter and we first meet Philomena through his eyes.  Sixsmith is upper class English, and there are amusing scenes where he and Philomena play off each other’s very different backgrounds and attitudes towards life.  These differences include Philomena remaining a practicing Catholic and Coogan no longer believing in God.  Other contrasts including Philomena being a people person while Martin is arrogant and dismissive.  As this 98 minute film unfolds, we learn that the women who were left at the convent paid off the costs incurred for their care and that of their young children through virtual slave labor in a laundry.  Later in the film Philomena learns that the convent received compensation from the Americans who adopted these Irish children.  As the search in America continues, we learn that Philomena is much more complex than her original demeanor had indicated.  The script, co-written by Coogan and Jeff Pope, provides Dench with an opportunity to present a wide range of emotions and she takes full advantage of it.  The film, directed by Stephen Frears, does not present a kind view of the nuns.  Their negative attitude towards sexuality is at the heart of the storyline.  Philomena does not lose her faith despite the information she learns, both as to her own son and the women who were under the nuns’ care.  This movie walks a fine line between noting the bad deeds of the nuns in the context of the Catholic church’s institutional condemnation of premarital sex while showing why people maintain their faith.  An excellent film with excellent actors.  

MOVIE: American Hustle

American Hustle: a superb fabricated version of what led to the Abscam scandal in 1978.  As stated on the screen before the film begins:  “Some of this actually happened”.  For those of you either too young or too old to remember Abscam, the federal government indicted a number of New Jersey politicians, including 6 Congressmen and a Senator (Harrison Williams), who received bribes from an individual whom they thought was an Arab Sheik seeking an Atlantic City gambling license.  The story starts shortly after gambling casinos were legalized in New Jersey.  While American Hustle is a tale as to what led up to the bribes from the perspective of the con artist, part of the story’s joy is in the backstory.  Christian Bale is excellent as Irving Rosenfeld, con man extraordinare.  This film has an excellent cast.  Jennifer Lawrence, in a supporting role, plays Irving’s wife, Rosalyn.  Her character is as distant from Hunger Games’ Katniss Everdeem as Jack Benny is from Clint Eastwood.  Amy Adams, as Irving’s mistress, is the female lead.  This may be Adams’ best performance yet.  The two FBI agents are played by Bradley Cooper and Louis C. K.  Cooper’s character is the only one I did not find realistic.  In the telling of the story, however, C.K., who plays Cooper’s boss, has some great scenes.  Robert De Niro has a small but riveting role as mob boss, Victor Tellegio, an associate of Meyer Lansky.  Initially, the FBI is after the Mafia; they then switch to the politicians.  The primary politician is the mayor of Camden, Carmine Polito in the movie and Angelo Enichetti in real life.  The mayor is played by Jeremy Renner.  Bale and Renner are an excellent combination.  The movie exploits the times, including the ugliness of men’s clothing, in a glitzy, funny and ever expanding con.  While the details about the characters are not accurate, there is quite a bit of truth in the storyline itself.  The director is David Russell, and he keeps you involved with a script he co-wrote with Eric Warner Singer.  You will have a delightful 129 minutes watching this film.  A comedy-drama is a difficult combination but when it works, as it does here, the level of enjoyment is outstanding, which is why I watch movies.  Yes,  I really liked this film.  

MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  Episode 2 of the trilogy.  If you did not see the opening movie or read the Suzanne Collins novels, you will probably not appreciate this film despite some excellent acting performances, particularly Jennifer Lawrence’s continuing role as Katniss Everdeen.  The games are an annual survivalist test sponsored by a suppressive government called Panem.  The opening episode introduced us to the Game and the surviving couple, Katniss and Peeta.  This episode opens with Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) embarking on a tour of the government districts.  Panem is a society comprised of a very rich elite living in the capitol city while the rest of the population, who reside in twelve different districts, are required to support the elite while working for minimal wages and with no political freedom.  Panem’s leader, President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, is aware that Katniss has become a symbol of freedom to the population and would prefer her dead.  As she travels, Katniss observes revolutionary graffiti.  The individual in charge of the games, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, suggests to President Snow that there be a rule change as part of the 75^th anniversary celebration of Panem surviving a catastrophic war.  The new rules are that prior winners must again play the survivor game.  There are a number of good actors in this film, including repeat performances by Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks as well as the addition of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer.  The majority of the 146 minute movie  is spent laying the ground work for the revised version of the Hunger Games and episode 3.  Frequently the middle film in a trilogy is a transitional link and Catching Fire is more so than most.  If you come into the film without knowing anything about Panem or the Games, it will only be the acting that holds your attention.  Lawrence proves once again that she is the best among the young film actresses.  While the storyline kept me involved, the movie itself felt longer than its almost 2 and half hours - not a good sign when I catch myself looking at my watch.  My hunch is that episode 3 will be superb and may even require Sutherland to do more than just read his lines.  Unfortunately, as in “Harry Potter”, it appears the final episode will be split into two parts.  Bottom line on this film is that if you enjoyed episode one or have read the trilogy, there are enough good things about the movie that you should see it.  However, the opposite is equally as true.

 

MOVIE: All is Lost

All is Lost: Robert Redford battles for survival in the Indian Ocean.  Redford is on screen for virtually the entire 107 minutes of this movie and, when he is not on the screen, there are primarily ocean scenes.  There is no appearance by any other actor.  To say the dialogue is minimal is to exaggerate.  The movie opens with Redford’s voice describing his situation then the words “8 days earlier” appear on the screen.  Thereafter, words are spoken only twice: a mayday sequence when Redford gets his radio to work briefly; and a one word yell when a particular negative event occurs.  The movie action consists of a survivor’s tale.  We never learn the name of Redford’s character.  We surmise that he is on a solo around the world journey and somewhere between Indonesia and Madagascar.  The sail boat is well stocked with both food and emergency items.  Clearly, Our Man (closest we come to a character name and appears in the movie credits) is a skilled, experienced and organized sailor.  As the film unfolds, we learn things about him.  He has, for example, a wedding ring.  The boat is named “Virginia Jean”.  Connected? Probably, but if so, it is our conclusion.  His problem starts - shown at the beginning of the film right after the “8 days earlier” screen shot - with ocean trash.  While Redford is in the cabin asleep, an ocean container that had fallen off a cargo ship punches a hole in the boat’s hull.  Our Man is able to patch the breach but water had entered his cabin and damaged his navigational and  electrical systems.  More bad things happen including a world class storm.  Through all the problems, Our Man addresses as best he can what he is forced to deal with, including navigating with the use of only a traditional mariner’s sextant.  Despite all the technology on the boat, the elements push him towards a fundamental fight for his survival.  As with Gravity, it is not obvious how the story will end.  Redford is 77 years old.  To give this type of performance, which is remarkable regardless of his age, is awesome and it may be his best performance ever.  Based upon his movie history, I had to think about whether such praise is warranted.  It is.  The writer and director of this impressive film is J. C. Chandor.  The cinematographers are Frank G. DeMarco and Peter Zuccarini, the latter being in charge of the underwater scenes which are truly beautiful.  These individuals along with Redford should receive Oscar nominations.  The movie takes Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea to a whole new level.  This is a movie you should see.  Due to the level of Redford’s performance and Chandor’s skills, this is much more than just a boat adrift at sea movie. 

MOVIE: 12 Years a Slave

12 Years a Slave: a brutally honest portrayal of slavery.  This film is neither a Gone with the Wind whitewash nor like any other Hollywood production you have seen regarding the pre-Civil War South.  The film tells the true story of Solomon Northup, one of the few free Black individuals who successfully regained his freedom after being kidnapped and sold into slavery.  Solomon wrote of his experience 8 years prior to the Civil War (1853 publication date).  I will be shocked if John Ridley is not nominated for an Oscar for his screen play adaption.  The director is Steve McQueen, a British citizen, and I’m confident that he, too, will receive a nomination for Best Director, as should the film.  The movie opens with a brief slave quarter scene that is reshown in part later in the film.  You are then presented with the life Solomon had been living in upstate New York with his wife and two children prior to being tricked, chained and sold into slavery.  Solomon, played brilliantly by Chiwetel Ejiofor, made his living as a violinist.  Solomon is introduced to two men who ask him to accompany them to Washington D.C. for a 2- week job playing with a circus.  In D. C., they buy him an expensive dinner and drug his wine.  Solomon awakes chained and his 12 years as a slave commences.  The year is 1841.  The cast is excellent with appearances by well-known actors in brief but critical roles.  Paul Giamatti plays the heartless seller of humans.  Alfre Woodard has a short scene as the well cared for mistress of a slave holder.  In a more extended role, Benedict Cumberbatch, one of my favorite actors, plays the so-called good slave master while Michael Fassbender, another excellent actor, is the abusive plantation owner, Edwin Epps, who buys Solomon’s contract from the Cumberbatch character.  Both the good and evil slave owners conduct Sunday church services and quote bible passages to justify their behavior.  The savagery of the system is shown, including the common use of whippings, the prevalent rapings of Black women, the ease with which people were killed, and the physical and psychological violations committed.  The film also depicts the twisted mind-set of the slave owners’ wives.  The character played by Brad Pitt, a Canadian who is hired by Epps to work on a construction project, is a bit odd but perhaps it was just the accent Pitt chose to use.  Pitt was a co-producer.  The second half of the 134 minute film takes place on the Epps’ Louisiana cotton farm and these scenes will stay with you.   There are many strong performances.  Of particular note is Lupita Nyong’o’s portrayal of Patsey, Epps brutalized favorite.  Both Fassbender and Nyong’o will probably receive nominations for best supporting actor and actress.  The fact that a significant percentage of the U.S. population once supported the slavery system is deplorable.  So, too, is the fact that it has taken until now, 150 years after Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, to finally and accurately dramatize the absolute evil and horror of America’s slavery system.  This movie is not entertainment but rather a realitistic depiction, the consequences of which continue to impact us today.  This is a must see film.