rate the last movie you saw

[jkholm]

THE BIG SHORT 8/10
SPOTLIGHT 9.5/10

Two new movies delve into America’s recent past to tell two different stories that have the common theme of moral outrage. Spotlight tells of the Boston Globe’s investigation into the Catholic Church’s cover-up of repeated sexual abuse of boys by numerous priests. The Big Short is about the greedy and fraudulent behavior of American banks that led to the financial crisis of 2008.

The Big Short, directed by Adam McKay, takes a broad, loud and humorous approach to its complicated subject matter. Knowing that most people will have a hard time understanding the financial terms critical to the story, McKay uses a variety of techniques to simplify matters, such as celebrity cameos and breaking the fourth wall. The terrific cast helps a lot too. Steve Carell stands out as a brash fund manager with an intense hatred of both fraud and stupidity. Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt are also good.

Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight takes a much quieter approach. While the finance wizards of The Big Short express their outrage in loud, profanity filed (and funny) rages, the journalists of Spotlight keep their emotions in check as they pursue the truth about the sexual abuse scandal. McCarthy’s direction may not be flashy but he takes a complex and lengthy investigation with many different characters and never allows the movie to drag or become confusing. The acting is superb all around with great work from Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber among others.

[AndyDursin]

I have no doubt SPOTLIGHT is a finely acted film but stories like this (which actually ran in the Globe!) make me severely doubt its accuracy:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/1 ... story.html

[AndyDursin]

IRRATIONAL MAN
6.5/10

“Irrational Man” isn’t likely to be remembered as one of Woody Allen’s better films, yet this oddball mix of academic apathy with “Crimes and Misdemeanors”-esque domestic thriller eventually proves to be interesting – provided you can make it through to its final act, which is far more compelling than anything that precedes it.

Joaquin Phoenix stars as a mopey professor who takes a new job at a Rhode Island college. Emma Stone is one of his students, who sees in Phoenix’s “Abe Lucas” a brilliant mind that’s currently wasting away in disillusionment and drugs. After the duo overhear a mother bemoaning her frustration with a local judge, Phoenix takes his outrage and channels it into a device that brings his tormented spirit back to life – but with deadly consequences.

The first half of “Irrational Man” is filled with stilted dialogue and dull conversations between its various characters. Several times I thought to myself that I wasn’t actually hearing how normal people actually converse, but rather Phoenix – especially – doing a poor job reading Allen’s dialogue in a flat, monotone delivery. Eventually, the movie does prove to have a pulse, with Allen mixing in some surprising mystery-suspense elements in its concluding portions. Had the establishing section of “Irrational Man” been more effective, it’s possible these elements would have pulled together (like “Crimes and Misdemeanors”) into a cohesive whole, but alas, “Irrational Man” is one-third effective, one-third meandering and one-third of an Allen misfire, all in one.

Sony’s Blu-Ray boasts a detailed 1080p (2.40) transfer that nicely represents Darius Khondji’s cinematography of the assorted Newport (and Providence) shooting locations – one of the nicer on-screen representations of the Ocean State in some time. Extras include an L.A. premiere segment, photo gallery, DTS MA 5.1 sound and a digital copy.

[AndyDursin]

EVEREST
6/10

Mountain climbing is a task only a specialized few want to undertake. After watching “Everest,” it’s unlikely to win any new fans.

This tautly directed film from Baltasar Kormakur tells the true story of a group of climbers besieged by a surprise storm after climbing to the peak of Mount Everest in 1996. The group includes a seasoned guide (Jason Clarke) and several climbers – Josh Brolin among them – who find themselves buried in snow and ice and with no easy way out – or, for some, a way out at all.

“Everest” is well-acted but its first half nearly functions as a glorified disaster movie, introducing us to mostly thankless female characters watching from afar (Emily Watson, plus Robin Wright and Keira Knightley as worried spouses) and several big stars (like Jake Gyllenhaal) who you just know aren’t going to make it into the movie’s second half. Once the storm hits, “Everest” turns into a brutally depressing film that alternates between a survival story and a heartwrenching account of slow, painful death – not exactly the stuff that’s easily classifiable as “entertainment,” despite its 3D IMAX photography and the presence of “family film” outfit Walden Media as a producer.

Universal’s 3D Blu-Ray combo pack offers a good looking 1080p MVC encoded 3D transfer and an equally impressive 1080p AVC 2D transfer. A DVD and digital copy are also included. For extras, the disc offers a pair of Blu-Ray exclusive featurettes along with two other segments, one of which looks at the real-life tragedy, plus a commentary with Kormakur.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm reminded of Roger Ebert, reviewing some mountain climbing movie (they're all exactly the same), writing about how, if he put himself in that situation and things went bad, he'd yell, "Stupid, STUPID...!" at himself all the way down.

Seriously, disaster movies are one thing (no one asks to get caught up in a hurricane, earthquake or tsunami), but when one goes out of their way to put themselves into a situation where they'll either fall 10,000 feet or freeze to death, it's hard to have much empathy for them. "Because it's there" is not enough of an excuse.

[AndyDursin]

Indeed. What you are left with is the feeling these people literally died for no good reason at all, leaving their families behind to pick up the pieces because of their dangerous "hobby".

[AndyDursin]

CRIMSON PEAK
6.5/10

All dressed up with nowhere to go, Guillermo Del Toro’s admirable but vacuous “Crimson Peak” stars Mia Wasikowska as a young woman and aspiring writer in upstate New York, circa the late 19th century, who meets an ambitious British man (Tom Hiddleston) desperately trying to mine clay. After the death of her father, Wasikowska’s heroine moves to England to be with her new beau and his strange sister (Jessica Chastain), only to find herself being part of a nefarious plot and ghosts, of all kinds, surrounding her.

With its opulent sets, costumes and three strong performances, “Crimson Peak” has all the visual trappings of a classic Gothic thriller – as Wasikowska’s author-heroine explains at one point, more a story featuring ghosts than a “ghost story” itself – but the script by Del Toro and Matthew Robbins is distressingly basic and mostly unappealing. At a full two hours, “Crimson Peak” tips its hand early on and offers few frights as its mediocre plot – involving incest, dead infants and horrors of the past – plays out. Ultimately, the movie is too light on horror for genre fans, and yet it’s too gross and explicit for those who might have better appreciated its Gothic flavor and character (as opposed to shock) driven story, making its failure to find an audience all too understandable.

Still a great looking film, “Crimson Peak” lands on Blu-Ray this week featuring a dynamic 1080p (1.85) transfer from Universal and a nicely designed DTS MA 7.1 soundtrack from master audio engineer Randy Thom. Extras include a handful of format-exclusive featurettes plus deleted scenes, commentary with Del Toro and other Making Of materials, a DVD and digital copy.

[Eric Paddon]

My Fair Lady (1964) 8.5 of 10

-First time in a number of years since I revisited this as I just got the new Blu-Ray release today at last. While Rodgers and Hammerstein were responsible for the beginning of the golden age of Broadway musical theater, "My Fair Lady" by Lerner and Loewe remains the crowning achievement of the entire era IMO. It's perhaps hard for people to realize the great phenomena this show was when it came out in 1956, but consider that the original cast album was a bigger best-seller than just about any of the vaunted hits of the rock and roll era which should offer a reminder that rock was not the only music symbolic of the era.

-Theater purists who saw the show on Broadway and its London production (which saw Rex Harrison and Julie Andrews reprise their roles) often say the movie fails to live up to what was experienced on stage. They say Harrison at this point was more bored with the role compared to when he did it on stage (you can tell that in the film he talks the lyrics of some of his numbers more than on the Broadway and London albums where he makes a greater effort to sing in numbers like "Why Can't The English?" etc.). They bemoan Julie Andrews being passed over for Audrey Hepburn or that Cukor failed to open up the material properly for the film medium.

-But as one who was too young to experience Broadway's Golden Age (if I had a time machine, one of my side hobbies would be seeing many shows of the 50s and 60s that are lost to the ages), the film for me has always served as an overally fine representation of the basic essence of what made the show a success. I've seen too many other film musicals of Broadway classics of this era that were mucked up beyond belief by bad casting ("Camelot"), or by senseless cutting or rearranging of the score and material. Thankfully, "My Fair Lady" was filmed almost 95% intact from its stage libretto (the only changes were the deletion of a final reprise of "With A Little Bit of Luck" and the addition of a final section to "You Did It" that had been cut prior to Broadway) and by retaining two of the four big name principals of the original in Harrison and Stanley Holloway we get I think as good a grasp of why this was such a classic.

-People always like to debate if ultimately there is a silent love story underneath between Higgins and Eliza. I'd first note that what a lot of people never realize is that the "Where the devil are my slippers?" ending was not a creation of Lerner for the musical, but in fact appropriated the end of the Leslie Howard "Pygmalion" film of 1937 which Shaw had given his approval to. In that version, there was by far a more romantic undercurrent but MFL IMO still has it and Audrey Hepburn I think in one of the strengths of her performance does bring out her underlying regard for Higgins in her unbridled joy of "I Could Have Danced All Night". It's probably at first more of a feeling borne of gratitude for what he's taught her and how its made her succeed in becoming a new woman. It's no coincidence that the big moment before she says "The Rain In Spain" correctly is when Higgins for the first time in the movie has said something positive and encouraging to her about his belief that she can actually succeed. When that disappears from Higgins after the ball in a tone of indifference treating the whole thing as a game on his part and not a time of congratulating his pupil for proving him right and complimenting her......Eliza's devastation is a lot easier to understand.

-And of course there's Higgins' epiphany in the brilliant "I've Grown Accustomed To Her Face" number, which is the love song that never uses the word love and represents the only way Higgins can acknowledge how he really feels. Why is that enough for Eliza to come back when she's told him she can do without him? Because that shows that the Higgins Liza developed feelings for first in the "Rain in Spain"/"I Could Have Danced All Night" moment really is there and that's all she needs from her standpoint.

-As for flaws in the film, I wish they had used Audrey Hepburn's vocals for "Loverly". Her version better captures the unrefined flower girl and fits the scene at that moment. I think if they had let her vocals stand for that one number (in addition to her partially retained vocals for "Just You Wait") the whole flap over the Marni Nixon dubbing for the rest of her numbers I think would have been less severe and maybe she would have gotten the Oscar nomination that I think she deserved (though I'm not yet prepared to say she should have won). Interestingly, the 1994 Laser Disc gave one the option to hear her vocals for "Loverly" and "Show Me" in the context of watching the whole film by using the analog audio channel. I wish this kind of option existed for DVD and Blu-Ray instead of making them stand-alone supplements. I'm also a little puzzled as to why the commentary track from the original DVD release wasn't retained or a new one created for this better looking restoration.

[mkaroly]

THE HOBBIT (all three extended edition films): When I first saw these movies back in their theatrical release I complained primarily that the series should have been at the most two films; I still believe that to be the case. But this past weekend I watched all three back-to-back-to-back with a couple of friends, and I have to be honest and say that I really enjoyed them this time around despite feeling like it should have been no more than two films. The third film does drag on with Thorin's madness and reluctance to enter the battle; the battle itself goes on way too long. But I am able to overlook the complaints I have about them because these films and the LOTR films all are films I can connect with emotionally.

There are several sequences in the LOTR films that move me almost to tears, and the final goodbyes are moving as well. I felt the same way this time around with THE HOBBIT films - in particular, I really resonated with Thorin's moment of facing himself and sinking into the gold...I am not a king or anything but it all just resonated very deeply with me. And the goodbyes at the end were just as moving as the goodbyes in the LOTR films, albeit in their own way. I also loved Smaug (or "Shmaug" as Peter Jackson pronounces it...there's no 'H' in there Peter! Lol...) - the moment when he shows his full stature to Bilbo ("What do you think of me now??") cracked me up as he looked like an animal preening/showing off before some other animal or its owner. I really enjoyed the acting throughout, especially from Martin Freeman and the company of dwarves, and I do enjoy Shore's score (though I feel that his LOTR scores are more epic and satisfying overall).

I am not a Tolkien scholar and never will be, so I cannot say what his intentions/hopes were for the reader as he/she read, interpreted, and reacted to the book emotionally or otherwise. What Jackson managed to do with the story was to infuse a deep sense of loyalty and sense of honor among the protagonists, and the hope/strength of true friendships that again just resonates deeply with me. I find religious elements in the films as well (more so in the LOTR films than THE HOBBIT), but watching THE HOBBIT this time around I walked away feeling inspired and like I had been on an adventure (which still should have been two films...lol...). I can overlook the things I am not crazy about in the films because THE HOBBIT and the LOTR present a meta-narrative whose central themes are friendship, good overcoming evil, and hope on several levels. And for those reasons I give THE HOBBIT two thumbs up (or as Dave Chapelle's Rick James would say, "Five thumbs up!").

[Paul MacLean]

Mockingjay Part 2

A roundly satisfying conclusion to The Hunger Games "trilogy", although it doesn't have quite the same emmotional punch as the first two films. I think it was a mistake to pad the third book into two movies (as not much actually happened in the previous film) and judging by the tepid box office figures, the hype surrounding this franchise seems to have died-down.

That said, it is a solid, watchable and at time even compelling picture. Jennifer Lawrence proves as charismatic and sympathetic as ever. The whole cast is terrific really, particularly the supporting players (Sutherland, Harrelson and Hoffmann). There are some superb (even frightening) action sequences, and the effects work is some of the most realistic-looking I've seen recently. The climax and resolution also prove satisfying, and James Newton Howard turns-in one of the few real scores you're likely to hear these days. Perhaps not a masterpiece, but it has more believable characters (and offers more perceptive insights about society) than most genre flicks we've seen in recent years.

[AndyDursin]

BLACK MASS
5/10

Immensely disappointing look at the life and times of infamous Boston mobster Whitey Bulger, whose brother became President of the Massachusetts Senate at the same time he became one of the most wanted gangsters in the nation.

Bulger is embodied here by Johnny Depp in a performance that drew some acclaim upon “Black Mass”’ release last fall, but to me, with its vampiric make-up, comes off as unauthentic – along with most of this film, which despite being based on Dick Lehr and Geard O’Neill’s book, fabricates entire scenes and leaves out crucial details in Bulger’s story. Where, for instance, is Bulger’s female compatriot Catherine Greig? She’s nowhere to be found in director Scott Cooper’s film, which seems to have made some crucially misguided decisions on how to dramatize Bulger’s story right from the get-go. The final film is chock full of familiar faces – from Joel Edgerton as the corrupt FBI agent who dangles too far with Bulger and a hugely miscast Benedict Cumberbatch as brother Billy – but it’s fragmented and haphazardly edited, making it not only hard to follow, but also care about.

Cooper did shoot “Black Mass” on location and the movie looks great in Warner’s Blu-Ray combo pack (with its 1080p transfer and 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack), but it’s all surface with little going on underneath.

[AndyDursin]

DEADPOOL
8/10



Yes, it’s yet another super-hero movie – but at least “Deadpool” is a refreshingly off-the-wall, almost spoof-like Marvel adaptation that provides the perfect vehicle for star Ryan Reynolds’ sense of humor.

Built on top of a typical genre origin tale, “Deadpool”’s plot – Reynolds’ mercenary-for-hire is turned into a disfigured mutant after receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis, and struggles to reconnect with his lady love (the luscious Morena Baccarin) while seeking revenge – doesn’t sound like anything special. Yet the Paul Wernick-Rhett Reese script takes off and riffs on its basic structure, enabling its wise-cracking, smart-ass hero to not only talk directly to the audience throughout, but send up well-worn comic-book cliches and even skewer the likes of Hugh Jackman and the “X-Men” as well.

Reynolds, who seemed uneasy as “Green Lantern” in one of the genre’s biggest flops, is splendid in a role that fits him like a glove while generating fun chemistry with Baccarin, bantering with pal T.J. Miller (from HBO’s sublime “Silicon Valley”), and trading barbs with special guests from the “X-Men” series like Colossus, who rather endearingly reprises the more wholesomely heroic aspects from that franchise. Not all of the jokes hit (and Leslie Uggams’ blind sidekick comes off as a missed comic opportunity), but many of them do, especially a hysterical opening credits sequence that’s as unique as any you’ll ever see.

With its soundtrack of Chicago and Wham! pop tunes, plus shout-outs to ‘80s box-office hits (be sure to stay through the end credits), “Deadpool” is one of the most entertaining and memorable comic book adaptations of recent years, and reason enough to be thankful Disney – which likely never would’ve produced a film like it – doesn’t control every element of the Marvel movie empire.

SILENT RUNNING
6/10



Treacly early '70s sci-fi was never a favorite of mine growing up -- as kid, watching it on TV, I was always depressed by the movie's tone and resolution for its robot drones -- but watching it now, I really should have been put off by Bruce Dern's borderline psychotic "hero" who goes to extremes to preserve the world's forests...floating in outer-space domes after mankind has wiped nature off the planet.

It's a "message movie" that offers some nice visuals courtesy of director Douglas Trumbull and a pleasant Peter Schickele score, but the syrupy Joan Baez ballads seem to run counter to Dern's unhinged and nearly unsympathetic protagonist, whose off-kilter personality virtually poisons the movie's message -- which couldn't have been the point of what Trumbull was trying to do here.

A definite product of its era, "Silent Running" has been released on Blu-Ray in the US and UK -- I haven't seen the former but apparently its colors are stronger than the latter (which I own). That said the transfer on the UK Blu is fine, but the extras are even better: a vintage hour long documentary is a lot of fun to watch, particularly in its depiction of how the production used an abandoned US battleship as the movie's main set!

[Paul MacLean]

Trumbo

Impressive biographical picture centering on Dalton Trumbo, one of Hollywood's greatest screenwriters, and the dark years of the Hollywood blacklist and its victims. Bryan Cranston gives a phenomenal performance in the title role, and is surrounded by an equally-great supporting cast -- Helen Mirren, Diane Lane and John Goodman among them.

Despite a rather unceremonious "Lifetime Original Movie" look and feel to the film, Trumbo -- artistically speaking -- is almost beyond criticism. However, seeing as it is based on historic events and real people, it is hard to judge the film on its artistic merits alone.

The film paints Dalton Trumbo's ideology (and the fundamental philosophy of communism itself) as born of a desire for social justice and equality. Basically Trumbo's character is depicted as "center-left". The film does not address the real Trumbo's generally naive understanding of communist regimes (or the fact that he was in fact an admirer of Joseph Stalin!).

The picture is also ambiguous about who was responsible for blacklisting in Hollywood. Stock footage of Joe McCarthy is shown, to infer he was personally behind it, but the truth is it was studio bosses who banned communists (and ex-communists) from working, not Joe McCarthy himself. The film tries to get the studio executives off the hook in a scene where Hedda Hopper (Mirren) threatens to expose Louis B. Mayer and other studio bosses as Jews (as if their identity was some big secret that would ruin their livelihoods were it revealed -- everyone knew most Hollywood executives were Jewish).

Stock footage of Ronald Reagan cooperating with Washington comes-off as heavy-handed, and smacks of an attempt to demonize those who were anti-communist as ignorant bigots who opposed communism because they were against equality and social justice (when the truth is they opposed communism because of the USSR's military aggression, copious human rights violations and anti-semitic pogroms).

Again, the film is unassailably well-made from a dramatic perspective, with a compelling script and believable characters. Trumbo is well-acted, inspiring, touching, and offers an revealing glimpse into a shameful chapter in Hollywood history. But it is also naive and misinformed (as, ironically, the writer himself was too), and thus lacks credibility. I wholeheartedly agree Dalton Trumbo was unfairly persecuted, but I wish the film had depicted this without lionizing his naive socio-political views.

[Eric Paddon]

Honestly, my patience with Hollywood constantly revisiting this subject and beating audiences to death with it has long since been exhausted. More than twenty five years after the Berlin Wall came down and more than 20 years after Soviet archival sources revealed the extent of how Moscow controlled the American Communist party and how men like John Howard Lawson and the rest of the Ten based their actions *entirely* according to Moscow Party Line edicts, and thus put their devotion first and foremost to one of the 20th Century's greatest mass murdering regimes, Hollywood is still trapped in a 1970s, early 1980s time capsule of waging the anti-Cold War line (that they resort to that Reagan gimmick is further testament to how these people are trapped in a 1980 mindset viewing Reagan as the evil man anxious to start a nuclear war) in which the United States was evil for ever thinking there was something horrible about Communism. This is by my count upwards of a dozen major movies Hollywood has made about blacklisting, McCarthyism etc. and all they do is give us the same-old, same-old line in which not a single attempt at revisionism or nuance is ever to be allowed. It's always some sinister cabal of evil anti-Communists ruining the lives of noble social-justice crusaders because the sinister anti-Communists are really closet Nazis at heart (of course the real irony there is that so many of the Hollywood Communists became joined lock-step with the American First movement between September 1939 and June 22, 1941) and how we were living in some "American Inquisition" and but for Edward R. Murrow, evil Joe McCarthy would never have been slayed etc. etc. (the Murrow as Savior thesis is so laughable because it requires preying on a mass ignorance of today's audience that has forgotten the name of Drew Pearson, who long before Murrow's broadcast was habitually throwing all kinds of dirt at McCarthy, some true, some false, but insomuch as Pearson was the most powerful political gossip columnist of the day, the D.C. version of Hedda and Louella if you will, the idea that no one was speaking out against McCarthy before Murrow is pure BS) and oh, why couldn't we have just gotten along with the USSR in the 1950s and made peace sooner.......

The ultimate hypocrisy is how this industry that likes to bleat over and over about a non-existent American Inquisition of the 1950s gladly performs blacklists of their own (take a look at all the Hollywood activists signing petitions to the Mozilla Firefox CEO fired because he *privately* made a contribution to a group that held a view on marriage favored by more people than ever favored the Communist Party) to this day in the name of political correctness that is more to their liking than the 1950s standard that it wasn't a good idea to have nice sentiments about Joseph Stalin, who murdered more people than Hitler did before Hitler sent his first Jew to a death camp.

Sorry for that vent, but my patience is long exhausted with Tinseltown's constant pushing of a storyline that provides future generations with a totally bogus context regarding the Cold War and America in the 1950s. Every victim of a Communist regime, whether in the USSR or Mao's China (30 million slaughtered at decade's end in a forgotten Holocaust called The Great Leap Forward) is shamed again and again by movies like these that try to depict people whose collective hardships in life wouldn't even begin to approach what they went through as victims of the dictators Hollywood Communists held in such adoration as the ultimate martyrs.

[AndyDursin]

ZOOPTOPIA
6/10

A lightly entertaining, but over-plotted and heavily overpraised "social engineering" project from Disney. Not nearly upbeat or funny enough to engage younger kids, this "toon noir" finds an aspiring bunny heading into the big city where she becomes Zootopia's first bunny-cop, investigates the disappearance of a Mr. Emmett Otter(ton) (nice homage to Jim Henson, apparently), and works with a fox in dispelling prejudices about his "predatorial condition" while unmasking the true culprits behind Zootopia's increasingly aggressive animals. I won't give away the mystery, but look out: the "least threatening" and "educated" are probably to blame.

The reviews this film has received seem to go out of their way to praise this movie's transparent, and heavy-handed, preachifying about diversity, inclusion, race and gender -- to the point where they seem oblivious of, or disinterested in, this picture's shortcomings. The convoluted plot is likely to be lost on any child under the age of 8, while the overriding fun factor is diminished by a film light on laughs and action. In fact I remember the audience at STAR WARS laughing more at this movie's 3-minute trailer than the audience at the actual film yesterday.

There are some shout-outs to movies like The Godfather and -- even stranger (and somewhat offensively) -- Breaking Bad, but those kind of adult-homages don't actually make this material clever, and the script isn't nearly written on the high level you would see with a typical Pixar product.

In all, this colorfully animated film is going to make a lot of money -- but don't believe the hype, or the high-minded critics believing Disney's talking points negate its flaws, which most don't seem willing to even acknowledge.