In the Company of Heroes

Every war has its own cinematic stories.  World War I has “War Horse” and “Paths of Glory,” World War II has “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Longest Day,” the Vietnam War has “Platoon” and “Apocalypse Now,” and the present-day War on Terror has “Zero Dark Thirty” and “The Hurt Locker.”  Although these films capture different wars, the horrors that are experienced within these films are common throughout them all.

Director Peter Berg brings this next film that depicts the war America is currently fighting, and that film is “Lone Survivor,” based on a true story of a failed, but brave, mission of four men who get sent into the mountains of Afghanistan to track down a Taliban leader.  In terms of films depicting the War on Terror, it doesn’t quite reach the high tension of “Zero Dark Thirty” or “The Hurt Locker,” but still expresses the horrific dangers of war as it drops the audience into the action.

In June 2005, Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), and a team of Navy SEALS, including Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matthew Axelson (Ben Foster) set out for Operation Red Wings to capture Taliban leader Ahmad Shah (Yousuf Azami).  As they take part in their hunt for Shah, the group begins to face ambushes from Taliban fighters that put their mission in jeopardy.

Seeing as the soldiers are in the middle of near-constant combat, there isn’t much time for them to have some moments of character development, but that’s remedied, sort of, when they briefly talk about their lives, and near the beginning when we go to each of their rooms at their base and we see photos of their families, as well as what’s shown before the end credits.  Although, seeing as these individuals are heroes, the film would have benefited greatly from stronger moments of characterization.  Out of the four main performances, however, Ben Foster easily gives the best one.

Berg’s screenplay, which is based on Luttrell’s book of the same name, keeps much of the film within the dangers of warfare.  Once the film moves to the actual mission, there are long stretches of the story where it just focuses on the SEAL team, instead of transitioning back and forth between the soldiers and their military bases.  This allows to feel a sense of the growing threat that the soldiers are facing.  The negative is that the war scenes become prolonged and a little repetitive as the SEALs take on members of the Taliban.

Berg has a history of directing a couple of big-budget films, such as “Battleship” and “Hancock.”  So, it’s easy to see why he includes a few action-movie touches during the ambush scenes, such as handheld-camera movements (cinematography by Tobias Schliessler) and some slow-motion shots, particularly one in which the four soldiers jump off a cliff as an explosion erupts behind them.  It’s unfortunate, however, that he didn’t focus a little more on the characters, as he did successfully with his football drama, “Friday Night Lights,” which is definitely his best film.

Although “Lone Survivor” isn’t quite as noteworthy as some other films that deal with the War on Terror, it still offers a glimpse at the bravery that these SEALs expressed in the line of duty.

Final grade: B

“You May Say I’m a Dreamer, But I’m Not the Only One…”

That is what we all are: dreamers.  When you dream, there aren’t any boundaries for your imagination.  You can go anywhere you want and be anything you want to be.  It’s in the movies where there are the ultimate dreamers, where the filmmakers bring their fantastical visions to realization, and it’s appropriate that a director brings a character to the big screen who is such a vivid dreamer.

Directed by Ben Stiller, “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”has him in the role as the titular character who always seems to have his head in the clouds, being so invested in his daydreams to the point where it’s almost a lifestyle.  With decent central performances and a premise that can relate to the dreamer in all of us, Stiller’s film may not be as great as it could have been, but still has a certain fanciful degree to it.

Walter Mitty is solitary man who works in the photography department at Life magazine as a negative assets manager and has a crush on his friendly coworker, Cheryl (Kristen Wiig).  The magazine staff is told that Life is heading towards its final printed issue, in order to begin working as an online magazine.  When Walter receives a package with the latest negatives from photojournalist Sean O’Connell (Sean Penn), a note is also included that tells him to use negative 25 for the magazine’s last cover, as it contains what he believes to be the embodiment of what the magazine stands for.

As it turns out, that negative is missing, but there are clues in some of the other negatives that Walter hopes will lead him to Sean so he can be given the location of the missing one.  Walter soon embarks on a journey that will make his vivid and wild imagination into a reality.

Ben Stiller delivers a more dramatic performance than what we normally see, which is refreshing, and it’s wonderful to watch Kristen Wiig in a more grounded and serious role, instead of seeing her do her usual comedy shtick.  Seeing two typically comedic actors take on roles that are against-type is great to watch, and the two easily connect every time they’re on screen together.  

The screenplay by Steve Conrad is the second adaptation of James Thurber’s 1939 short story of the same name, with the first adaptation being released in 1947.  Conrad puts many daydream sequences in the film that are terrific fun.  In the first 30-45 minutes, however, I got the feeling that there were going to be too many of them, and that the film would rely too heavily on the flashy special effects for these scenes.  As the movie progresses and Walter begins to bring his dreams to life, we travel with Walter, knowing that what he’s experiencing is real and not in his head, and we know that the film isn’t just throwing us one daydream after another.

Although the two leads are likable characters, they are somewhat underwritten.  We get a little bit of a backstory for Walter’s character, but not enough.  As for Cheryl, because of how kind of a person she is, I would have preferred to know more about her, other than that she’s a single mom.  They deserve to have more to their characters, seeing as Walter goes on interesting adventures, and Cheryl gets involved with helping him find the missing negative, as well.

As a director, Stiller, thankfully, doesn’t overload on humor to tell his story.  Yes, there are some comical bits, but he keeps them reined in to make the more dramatic scenes work.  It’s a fun, diverting two hours of a man sharing his dreams with moviegoers.

Final grade: B

In This Future, Humans Aren’t the Only Ones Who Can Feel

One thing that a director should do at some point in his career is tell a story that has striking relevance to modern society.  It will be cinema that’s both stimulating and reflective, encouraging the viewers to compare what’s on screen to what they’ve experienced in reality.

Director Spike Jonze has done that with “Her,” and he has made an astonishing achievement in depicting a society and its attachment to technology.  Science-fiction films often depict views of what filmmakers fantasize the future to look like, but sometimes, there can be that touch of reality to a sci-fi film, a prediction of where we’re headed.  Judging by the look of his film, we’re alarmingly close to what he presents.  On the other hand, we may be already there.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a solitary man who works as a writer, crafting letters for people who have trouble expressing their feelings.  He’s currently in the process of divorcing his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara), but he’s reluctant to let go.  

Feeling desperate for a woman’s compassion, he purchases an operating system with artificial intelligence, which is designed to evolve, psychologically, like a human being.  Theodore chooses for the OS to have a female identity, and she names herself “Samantha” (voiced by Scarlett Johansson).  The two form a bond, and Theodore couldn’t be happier, however, as the two spend more time together and Samantha begins to learn a lot about the world and who she is as an OS, their relationship begins to face unforeseen complications.

Joaquin Phoenix delivers a heartfelt performance as Theodore, one that he makes searingly relatable because of the way it mirrors how, just like him, we take certain comfort in technology.  He’s a soft-spoken individual who wants to be loved.  When Theodore interacts with others through technology, before he meets Samantha, Phoenix’s grip on the role  shows you that Theo is still feeling the emptiness of being without someone with whom to truly connect.  

He has a poetic soul bottled up that he wants to share, but he doesn’t have anyone with whom to share it.  When Phoenix expresses Theodore’s happiness around Samantha, he evokes a conflicted response from us because we want to feel glad for him that he’s becoming less antisocial, but at the same time, we can’t help but feel sorry for him because it’s a computer that he’s connecting with, not an actual person. 

Scarlett Johansson, in a purely vocal performance, brings the warmth and soul of a human to her computer character.  Samantha is like a benevolent and emotional version of HAL 9000 from “2001: A Space Odyssey.”  She’s affectionate, analytical and curious, and although she’s not human, Samantha displays an adventurous spirit with an eagerness to learn.  This is all because of Johansson’s ability to make this operating system one with intense humanistic qualities.  She doesn’t sound robotic in any way, and is instead more like a digital specter with a voice you can trust.

Samantha is given terrific depth for a non-human character, a depth that becomes greater at one point in the film when she begins to question who she is.  It’s hard to think of a computer having an existential crisis, but it’s an aspect of her character that brings her closer to being human.  Although Samantha is a computer, Johansson’s approach to the character almost makes her one of the most human in the film because of how much of life she wants to experience, whereas everyone else has become conjoined with their electronic devices, being more concerned with what’s on their screens than with the action happening around them.

The women of the supporting cast have a significant impact on the narrative, despite the fact that a few of them have limited screen time.  There’s Olivia Wilde, who appears as a blind date for Theodore, and Rooney Mara, who plays his troubled ex-wife.  Amy Adams, meanwhile, has a bigger supporting role as Theodore’s understanding friend who tries to connect with him. 

One interesting aspect of the film is Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography, which he uses to capture the antisocial nature of Phoenix’s character.  When Theodore is alone, there are long shots of him in whatever environment he’s in, allowing the viewer to see him in the context of the space, as well as to see how solo he looks.  When he’s talking to Samantha in some of these shots, the camera zooms into him to have us feel closer to his character, just as he does with Samantha.  When he’s in the company of someone else, he and his companion are framed in close-ups.  While that is normal for any movie, it’s especially effective in this case because you become so attached to his character that you desperately want him to reach out to others, and these close-ups heighten the level of intimacy between Theodore and the person with whom he’s sharing the screen.

The production design by K.K. Barrett utilizes color schemes that are effectively dull in order to emphasize the plainness and lack of vibrancy in Theodore’s life.  One color that appears very often is red.  Being a warm color, it symbolizes the passion that Theodore is missing and wants in his life, and it’s more than appropriate that this is a dominating color throughout the film.

Jonze has written a screenplay that can be seen as part science-fiction, part romantic-comedy, part romantic-drama and part cautionary-tale.  The first couple of scenes are strange, but that’s to be expected with Jonze’s unique premise.  Actually, the strangeness benefits the narrative because it can cause the viewer to feel uncomfortable about the technology that is used in place of human interaction, scenes that call for reflection on how we ourselves handle technology.  

This is a techno-love story that raises the question of whether or not the love between Theodore and Samantha can be considered as real, a question that can sway you into thinking one way at a certain point of the film, only to sway you into thinking something else later on.  It’s all about how you view their relationship and the genuineness of their interaction.  The film, however, doesn’t just have to be viewed as a love story between the two characters, but can also be seen as a darkly funny commentary of our own love for technology.

The film is beautifully well-paced, and although it’s a two-hour story about a man who falls in love with an operating system, everything that happens in the film is essential for the plot, nothing can be taken out.  There’s a scene in the film that makes a significant emotional impact that involves Samantha hiring a surrogate (Portia Doubleday) to act as her body so she and Theodore can have a night of intimacy.  I won’t give anything else away, but it’s a scene that’s perfect and so smart for the story’s overall message, that you almost can’t imagine the film not having that one scene.

With “Her,” Jonze has created one of the most relevant film’s out there today.  He delivers a thoughtful look on society and the expansion of the digital age.  He doesn’t specify as to when in the future the narrative takes place; all we can decipher is that it’s pretty close to what we experience today.  To many, this love story will seem very unconventional, however, given the numerous ways that people connect with new technology, maybe it’s not so unconventional after all.

Final grade: A 

Breaking News and Breaking Rules

Nearly 10 years ago, “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” became one of the freshest comedies of 2004 as we were introduced to a new and wonderfully funny character for Will Ferrell’s talent to make memorable with his comedic skills.  Ron Burgundy is a character who’s as dedicated to his job as he’s insanely unpredictable, and his dialogue achieves the status of being endlessly quotable.  

After much anticipation, director Adam McKay has delivered a follow-up with “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.”  In what should have been a breaking-news type of event for movies, the story, for the most part, plays almost like a news recap, using several of the same jokes, but is saved by Ferrell’s out-of-the-box performance.

A few years after Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) became a news-anchor team in San Diego, the two are now living in New York City and working at an esteemed news station.  When Veronica is offered a job as an anchor for the nightly news and Ron is fired for his unprofessionalism, they separate soon after, due to Ron’s jealousy.  

After a several months, Ron is back in San Diego, and his life is falling apart.  He is then approached by an agent who works for the innovative GNN (Global News Network), an up-and-coming 24-hour news station in NYC.  Before Ron heads back to the Big Apple, he rounds up his old news team: field reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), sportscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner) and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell).  Once at the station, the team must deal with a big-shot reporter, Jack Lime (James Marsden), the station’s manager, Linda Jackson (Meagan Good) and the changes to the field of broadcast journalism.

Will Ferrell is still every bit as funny as he was 10 years ago when he first sat down and read the news.  The spontaneity of Ron Burgundy is still fully intact, making his actions humorously unforeseeable.  The way Ferrell approaches his character paints Ron as an overly dedicated news anchor, being so attached to his job that it’s ridiculous, especially when he’s about to do a broadcast at the start of the film, and he takes part in some rather strange, but funny, speech exercises.  It’s absurdity that only Ferrell can bring to the role, similar to how it’s hard to imagine anyone else, other than Ferrell, playing Buddy the Elf in “Elf.”

Steve Carell is given more scenes this time around as the dimwitted and lovable Brick, and he remains fully committed to his character’s stupidity, making his Michael Scott character from “The Office” look like a scholar by comparison.  

Despite Carell’s great take on the character, there’s the problem of having too much of Brick.  I get that he’s a fan favorite from the original, but they overuse him to the point that you begin to think whether or not the filmmakers are contemplating giving him his own movie.  He was fine as a supporting character in the original, but he’s pretty much upgraded to a main character for the sequel.  His first few scenes are funny, particularly when he sticks up for his new girlfriend, Chani (Kristen Wiig), against a rude coworker.  Most of his scenes after that, however, just seem to be shoehorned into the film to make him more prominent and to give the two an unnecessary romantic subplot.

The screenplay by McKay and Ferrell is an adequate commentary on news culture, and having an interesting premise such as that is the reason why the movie deserves better jokes.  There are new characters, a new location and a new story.  So, why can't there be new jokes?  There are also a few plot points that go underdeveloped, and some scenes that should have been hysterical are merely just chuckle-worthy, particularly the segment where Ron meets Linda’s family.

The first half hour has most of the best jokes, with the rest of the first hour having a few good ones as well.  It's the second hour that tends to be trying too hard to be so out-there, especially in the big news-team brawl.  In a scene that should have been hilarious, it's just downright ridiculous.  I understand that these films go for random humor, but the original supplied it in moderation, and that’s one of the things I liked about it.  In the sequel, it just seems like the writers threw everything on the news desk with the purpose of being as erratic as possible.

Speaking of the big fight scene, it isn't a surprise that the film offers another news-team brawl, and it's one joke that I didn't mind having them repeat, until I saw its execution.  The scene assembles more and bigger cameos for the fight, but it still manages to be pretty underwhelming.  Ron Burgundy doesn't even do much in it because he's trying to get to a piano recital for his son, after not be a great father for most of the film.  I get that it's supposed to be a character-development moment for him and having him participate in the fight would have negated that, but at the same time, don't gather all of these stars knowing there won’t be a good payoff.  We see some fighting and an unusual amount of talking during the fight, and then the film transitions back to Ron, so we don't get to see much fighting after that, which is a shame, considering the celebrity talent that appears for this sequence.

Director Adam McKay is a frequent collaborator with Will Ferrell, and their usual flair for wit is present for certain parts of the film, but it seems like they were content with giving viewers the jokes they expected, instead of giving them some that were new.  This goes back to the unfortunate tradition of comedy sequels reusing jokes.  Will Ferrell is already funny enough as the title character, so he deserves some new material.  If the writers can’t give him that, then it might be time for Ron Burgundy to sign off.

Final grade: B- 

For This Couple, Hustling is a Job and a Lifestyle

After films such as “Silver Linings Playbook” and “The Fighter,” I'm at the point where I’ll watch anything that David O. Russell directs.  If you want a movie that thrives on skillfully and passionately written dialogue and performances that are memorable from everyone involved, whether the performances be leading, supporting or minor, then Russell is your man.

After becoming involved in a romantic comedy and a sports drama, he has now turned his attention to a crime-caper comedy with “American Hustle.”  Loosely based on the ABSCAM FBI operation of the late '70s, the film delivers a deep look at a high-powered story, complete with hustlers, feds, politicians, and gangsters.  

Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) and Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) are a pair of con artists who have made successful lives out of ripping off others.  When they are caught by FBI Agent Richard DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), he has them work for him in order to expose some corrupt politicians, particularly Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), the mayor of Camden, New Jersey.  The conning couple soon realize that there are more dangers to this mission than anticipated, and Sydney and Irving will have to do their best job yet if they are to succeed.

Christian Bale, once again, completely fades into his role, as he did in Russell's “The Fighter” three years ago.  With a look that's completely different from his skin-and-bones appearance from when he played a washed-up boxer, he almost cons the audience into thinking he's not Christian Bale because of how much he doesn't look like himself.  

Irving is a sly fox who knows how to turn his trickery into an art form, and he’s a perfectionist when it comes to his craft.  The opening scene alone shows how meticulous he is in carrying out his conning, showing him carefully placing his hairpiece into place as he gets ready to do his job.

Amy Adams, as radiant as ever, portrays her character as someone with both beauty and brains, a mistress of cons.  Besides Adams’ skillful shifts between her character’s accents, she also perfectly expresses Sydney’s confidence in her newfound profession, as well as her vulnerability when she’s caught and interrogated by DiMaso.

Bradley Cooper continues to have a flourishing, post-“Hangover” career.  As an over-eager FBI agent, he so desperately wants to be successful in his profession.  At one point in the film, he tells his mother, “Everybody thought, ‘Oh, Richie DiMaso’s gonna stay in the office.’  I’m outside on the field.  I’ve got people working for me.  My ideas.  I’m running the show.  I’m the quarterback, and I’m not gonna settle.”  It’s this quote he says with excitement and wide-eyed earnestness that ultimately sums up his major flaw of wanting to be in control, but to say anything else would give too much away. 

Jennifer Lawrence continues her increasing reign of the screen as Irving's unpredictable, fragile, and anxiety-prone wife, Rosalyn.  Although she’s afraid of change, she’s, ironically, married to someone who requires change as part of his business.  She has a moment in the last half hour of the film where she confides in someone that she’s scared of change, which is then followed by one of the film’s best laugh-out-loud moments when she’s cleaning her house while dancing around to the Wings’ “Live and Let Die” as she finally begins to cut loose.

Jeremy Renner is a sympathetic character as the mayor of Camden.  He becomes involved in corrupt dealings, but simply does it for the benefits of stimulating New Jersey's economy, not for any personal gain, so you’re left with mixed feelings for him.  There's a scene where his character presents Irving with a gift for what Carmine perceives as their new-formed friendship.  During this, you can't help but feel a bit of sadness for Carmine because of how sincere he is to Irving, while the latter is beginning to realize the conflict of gaining a new friend and preparing to expose him to the feds.

The screenplay by Russell and Eric Warren Singer is a full deck of leading and supporting characters, complete with catchy dialogue.  With the way the film ends, and because of how much fun the whole story is, you’ll want to watch it again in order to pick out some clues that hint towards the film’s conclusion.

One of the story’s highlights comes in the scene where we’re informed of how Sydney and Irving first met.  During this time, they take turns narrating what they felt as they were attracted to each other, and it’s a scene that gives you an idea of who these two people are, while also drawing you into their world.

Director Russell has the continued capability of working with ensemble casts of more-than-considerable talent.  He’s a real actor’s director, understanding how to get the best performances out of everyone involved, and knowing that a movie rests on the shoulders of many actors, not just one. 

One of the best parts of “American Hustle” is Russell's detail-oriented approach to recreating the '70's.  The costuming captures a distinctive look of the era that's too showy, but still committed to expressing the decade’s essence, and you certainly can’t go wrong with the outstanding soundtrack.

Russell gets better with each movie he makes, leaving this one to be his best yet.

With Russell’s reliably impressive filmmaking, it’s safe to say that he won’t con you out of a good time at the movies.

Final grade: A