American Hustle (2013)

5/5

David O. Russell's American Hustle is a phenomenal piece of entertainment. The plot is what it is: interesting but predictable. It is very loosely taken from real-world events, so much so that Russell doesn't even say that it was "based on a true story." Instead he writes that "some of this actually happened." Who knows what did and didn't. But does it even matter? While parts of the story may proceed out of historical necessity, I get the distinct sense that Russell's real joy in writing act after act was to unveil backstories, to reveal motivations, to delve into his characters. He focuses on the people rather than the plot.

Russell's directing is a bit more on point than last year's Silver Linings Playbook. He downplays the camera as an active participant, although it is not quite the invisible observer we are accustomed to. The cinematography and editing are unexciting. He steps back as a director to showcase his actors, and it was the right move. Russell allows his actors to breathe, to inhabit their characters, to follow them wherever they go.

Christian Bale somehow offers us a charismatic, sympathetic view of an intensely unlikeable, unattractive man. Underneath his bad combover is a hyper-functioning brain and below that still is a broken, aching heart. We care for him, although any rational person seeing his character in real life and hearing about his actions would find him repugnant and deplorable. That we are able to cheer for him at the end is a testament to his acting ability. Jennifer Lawrence gives an equally impressive turn as his wife. She unwittingly manipulates, she foolishly destroys, she ferociously loves. She is a mess, a chaos of emotion that falls apart and builds itself anew daily. She finds strength amidst mental illness in such a way that it tears us up. Lawrence makes her character human in the most unexpected of ways, in the simplest of words, in the subtlest of gestures.

I could go on and on about the rest of the cast--Amy Adams and Bradley Cooper deliver perhaps the finest performances of their careers--but I would rather you experience it for yourself. It is one thing to read about these characters; it is an entirely different thing to watch them light up the screen. And seeing this ensemble perform is absolutely mesmerizing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1800241/

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

4/5

David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook is a delightful and surprising treasure. The story follows Pat (Cooper) on the day of his release from an 8-month stint at a psychiatric hospital. We discover that he has delusional bipolar disorder, that he hates taking his meds, and that he's trying to win his wife back (although she has a restraining order against him). He moves back in with his parents (De Niro, Weaver) while he continues his rehabilitation with a psychiatrist (Kher). On a dinner date with his best friend (Ortiz), he meets Tiffany (Lawrence) and they share an undeniable connection--while talking about the pros and cons of different psych meds. What happens next I'll leave for you to experience firsthand.

The writing and the acting are the film's strongest aspects. The story and dialogue are just the right amount of quirky and comedic to balance its darker tones of mental illness and dysfunctional families. Cooper and Lawrence both give knockout performances that are joys to watch: equal parts ferocity and vulnerability, strength and tenderness. Cooper's violent outbursts are matched by his emotional pain. Lawrence is mature and assured but also naive and scared. They are complex and real, and their chemistry is electric. There is an unexpectedly exhilarating dance number in the movie that has you stunned while watching it, on the edge of your seat and with a grin on your face, worried about the past but excited for the future. It was sensational. But the movie should have ended there, because after that it devolved into a contemporary romantic comedy happily ever after instead of giving us something novel and unique like before.

As a film, Silver Linings Playbook failed to impress me. The shots were mediocre and the editing was substandard. The camerawork was a bit too self-indulgent for me, with almost every shot pushing in or pulling back. And I just can't get rid of how disappointed that ending made me. But none of that invalidates what makes this movie so special. Everything about it just pulsates with life and vitality, enriching our own lives by watching it, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045658

New Year's Eve (2011)

2/5

New Year's Eve is the bland, uninspired follow-up to Garry Marshall's mediocre Valentine's Day. There is no story to speak of. There are instead about a dozen trite, overused blueprints of ideas that are empty and meaningless. They are all instead vehicles for the two dozen stars to be themselves on camera and try to make money without doing any acting whatsoever. The movie over-relies on archetypes, movie tropes, and celebrity status. Lea Michele sings. Jon Bon Jovi sings. Robert De Niro plays a gruff old guy with regret. And Sofia Vergara plays a sexy lady with an accent. It's the same thing we've seen over and over again. (And Sofia Vergara was significantly funnier on Conan than in this movie.)

The best thing about this movie is the Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer storyline. It had cutesy charm, much more than I expected. But even their portion of the movie lacked motivation and backstory. The other thing I liked about it is a line Josh Duhamel says (although he is in fact just quoting his dead father, and it seems to come out of nowhere): "What would you do today if you knew you wouldn't fail? Now go out and do it." Despite all the ridiculous star power in this movie, it holds no power and deserves only two stars. Avoid.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598822/

Righteous Kill (2008)

2/5

When I first heard Righteous Kill was getting made over two years ago, I was excited for two reasons: Russell Gewirtz was writing the screenplay (he also wrote Inside Man) and De Niro and Pacino were acting together. Both disappointed. The plot concerns two aging New York cops in pursuit of a serial killer who murders bad guys. The way the movie progressed, and the structure of the story overall, made the twist at the end obvious. There was also no build-up to the finale; you were simply watching stuff happen like it was some kind of indie slice-of-life movie. Additionally, the actions of most characters made little sense or were poorly explained. Characters' motivations were seemingly nonexistent or just plain ludicrous.

As far as the acting goes, what can I say? It's De Niro and Pacino, so it's not bad. It's just bleh. It's two old men talking about a case that needs to get solved. They're given nothing to show off their abilities. The best thing about this movie, which surprised me, was the cinematography and editing. They were far better than I expected (and better than the rest of the piece), although they were also a little out of place sometimes. Whether or not you were originally interested in this movie, just leave it behind. There's nothing here to satisfy you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034331/

Raging Bull (1980)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull is a true masterpiece, one that asks hard questions and gives no easy answers. Shot in gritty black and white, it tells the true story of boxer Jake La Motta's rise to stardom and eventual disappearance from the limelight. Watching it a second time, I found the film surprisingly noir. Here we have a man fated for self-destruction, unable to control his excessive temper and inhuman jealousy. We have a tragic antihero, a flawed man whose rage grants him success in the ring and ensures his downfall outside of it. We witness a filthy, vulgar underground; we are awash in blood and sweat and raw anger. It is an experience we will never forget.

What everyone remembers when they first see this movie is De Niro's undeniably skilled portrayal of La Motta. And for good reason--it is a powerful, gripping performance. Some have zeroed in on Pesci's equally talented acting job, and one equally worthy of praise. But what I cannot get out of my mind after this viewing is Thelma Schoonmaker's brilliant editing and Scorsese's unerring cinematic eye. Together, they are simply on a level all their own. The overarching structure reveals just as much as the content therein. The camera movements, the decision to film in long takes or quick cuts, are crucial to our experience of it. We remember snapshots in time, we remember the shift of conversations, of moments in time, and of changes in emotions because the techniques employed are subtle and subconscious. The sheer technical bravado on display is jaw-dropping. It is through the editing and cinematography that we truly live this movie, that it takes on realism that few other movies have been able to replicate. As I said before, it is an experience we will never forget.

To watch this movie is to submit yourself to a terrifying worldview, to violence in the ring and abuse in the home, to unwarranted jealousy in the face of true fidelity, to paranoia that can forever damage family ties, and to the fears of inadequacy. To a man who desparately wants to change and cannot. This movie is effective at bypassing your mental defenses, which makes it all the more difficult to sit through. It plays with time, color, and words, seemingly innocently but ultimately to devastating effect. The few short moments filmed in color we see happiness; these fleeting memories occur in the midst of pain and destruction. Is it to punish us or to encourage us? And at the end, is there redemption? You must watch this movie and determine the answers for yourself. For me, I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

A Bronx Tale (1993)

3/5

A Bronx Tale tells the story of a bus driver (Robert De Niro) and his son Calogero in the Bronx in the 60's. After an incident early in his life, he is taken in and befriended by the local gangster (Chazz Palminteri), much to his father's dismay. The movie charts the history of the time period alongside the development of the characters. What I liked most about the movie was the progression of the story and the emotional depth of the characters. It was refreshing and new, for the most part, although sometimes it strayed into predictability.

Nothing about the movie stood out from a technical perspective. I didn't think the casting decisions were very well-founded; there are vastly better young actors than the ones in this movie. The acting was below average for everyone except De Niro and Palminteri, where it was only slightly above average and not the best of their careers. The writing, by Palminteri, was rather simplistic and included unceasing, unnecessary voice-over. I wasn't too impressed with De Niro's directing, but I can appreciate this movie for his personal investment in the subject matter. Overall, I wouldn't suggest you go seek it out, but it's certainly not terrible.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0106489/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

The Godfather Part II (1974)

5/5

Some have named it the best sequel ever made. Some suggest it is better than the first and therefore place it on the pedestal of best movie ever made. No matter what hyperbole you give it, the quality of this film is undeniable. Nearly every scene found me muttering to myself, "This scene is amazing." To quote each memorable line would be to read the script entire. Nino Rota's score is better than in the first. The cinematography has also improved while remaining surprisingly noir. But the acting is definitely the finest moment of this movie.

This film is essentially 3 hours of character development with 20 minutes of violence thrust upon it. Characters like Kay and Fredo were minor in the first one, but essential in this one. And it works because all the acting are tours de force. I actually consider Cazale's acting superior to Pacino's in this film, and De Niro's on par with Brando. This is not an insult to Pacino--one of the most powerfully emotional scenes is in the night club when Michael realizes that his brother betrayed him--but the raw honesty of Cazale's acting is never on display more than when he whines. "It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things. I'm smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb, I'm smart and I want respect!" While Michael's reaction is more shocking, I can never forget the way Kay says, "Michael, you are blind." De Niro's Vito Corleone: every aspect of his portrayal is flawless. If I started describing each nuance, I would get too giddy remembering it to finish my thoughts. I love every scene with Fredo, every scene with Kay, and every scene with Vito. Whenever they are on screen, I am entranced.

The decision to intercut Vito's past with the present is well-founded. Though both Vito and Michael are gaining power and influence, we see Vito creating a family while Michael destroys his own, and each is all the more heartbreaking for it. Something in my stomach wells up just thinking about it; everything is so painfully touching. The last murder is outdone by the birthday scene, and is even itself outdone by the final shot of the film. Michael reflecting, pensive. Is that regret for his entire life that we start to see? Is there some redemption?

What surprises me most about The Godfather Part II is how different it is from the first. The first film was much more purposeful in its scenes and set-ups. I feel that this movie wanders, presents scenes as ambiance as a way of setting mood instead of plot points. It works well, but would much be missed if half an hour were trimmed? There was much more flamboyance in this film, overt violence in the streets instead of the underhanded threats in the dark, yelling in rage instead of fuming in silence. I also found editing to be a bit more problematic in this film. There were extremely jarring cuts that should not have been jarring. Not that all of these complaints are mistakes, but I think my preferences lie with the precision found in the first film. Either way, watching one just makes me want to watch the other.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0071562/