George's Top 10 Films of 2013

Just a quick view of my personal favorite films of the year.  This is my opinion; it is completely biased. If you don't agree with the list, cool.  I'm just giving you some insight into my taste in film.  Without further ado, my Top 10 of 2013.

10. 'Gravity' 

9. 'Prisoners'

8. 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

7. 'Fruitvale Station'

6. 'Mud'

5. 'Her'

4. 'Inside Llewyn Davis'

3. 'Out of the Furnace'

2. 'Lone Survivor'

and number one, my favorite film of the year is:

1. 'The Place Beyond The Pines'

'The Place Beyond The Pines' affected me emotionally like no other film I have seen this year or any year.  It is filmmaking at its finest and is an original, bold, emotional, real and beautiful film.  Pines is the type of film that makes people want to become filmmakers and stands as my number one film of 2013.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET REVIEW

'The Wolf of Wall Street' is the latest film from Director Martin Scorsese and Writer Terence Winter.  The film spans a long period in the life of real life stock broker Jordan Belfort.  Belfort is played flawlessly by Leonardo DiCaprio; give the man an Oscar nomination!  Jordan Belfort begins as a young man with big ambition on Wall Street and becomes a money hungry, power hungry man.  

The true trouble begins when he meets Donnie Azoff, a young man who Belfort partners with and creates his own unorthodox firm.  When the money builds and builds, Belfort begins to embezzle.  The characters in the film are all despicable people but they are so smart and so outrageous, you can't help but be intrigued by them.  They are womanizers, drug addicts and thieves but they are brilliantly written by Terence Winter.  These characters' actions are so ludicrous and crazy, they become remarkably interesting and entertaining to watch. 

This film is also extremely funny.  It is one hundred percent a dark comedy/dramady.  Scorsese hasn't tackled a film of this nature yet and he pretty much nails this one.  The direction is completely on point and fits the style and tone of the time very well.  My one issue with the film is it could have been maybe 5 - 10 minutes shorter.  At a certain point, it started to drag but that's a minor issue.  All in all, 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is a sex filled, drug filled, crime filled comedy unlike anything I've seen this year.

4.75/5

- George McCann

AMERICAN HUSTLE REVIEW

'American Hustle' is Director David O. Russell's follow up to last year's Oscar winning film 'Silver Lining's Playbook'.  'American Hustle' stars Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Jeremy Renner.

This film is the story of two small time con-artists (Bale and Adams) who get caught up with an over zealous FBI Agent (Cooper).  While the FBI agent tries to catch these con-artists, he also attempts to con and entrap US Senators and the Mafia.

If this plot sounds convoluted, that's because it is.  Sitting through this film is like driving down a random road without a map.  Despite good acting, the film doesn't know what to do or where to go.  David O. Russell and Eric Singer's script was nearly non existent.  I wanted to love this film but in the end, it's just great actors acting without much of a plot and that doesn't make for a strong film.

Don't waste your time or money with 'American Hustle'.

2/5

- George McCann

LONE SURVIVOR REVIEW

LONE SURVIVOR REVIEW

'Lone Survivor' tells the true tale of Operation Red Wing and the Navy Seals sent on the mission in 2005. Four Navy Seals were sent into Afghanistan in hostile enemy territory with the objective to take out a Taliban commander.  In the course of the mission, the Seals encounter Afghan children, compromising the operation.  They make the choice to let the boys go and high tail it out of the area.  In that process, these men are pinned down for days, out manned and out gunned fighting the Taliban.

This film stars Mark Wahlberg as Marcus Luttrell, Taylor Kitsch as Mike Murphy, Emile Hursh as Danny Dietz and Ben Foster as Matt Axelson.  These characters often refer to each other as brother and I felt that these men all felt like a tight knit group who had each other's backs, no matter what the cost.

Peter Berg wrote the screenplay for the film, which was based on Marcus Luttrell and Patrick Robinson's book.  The script is great and we bond with these men before and after they go through a barrage of assaults from the enemy.

Peter Berg's is direction is some of the best I've seen all year.  He did a phenomenal job with 'Lone Survivor'.  The film doesn't feel gratuitous but it is brutal and very real.  It felt very similar to 'Saving Private Ryan' in that sense.  'Lone Survivor' is a war film grounded in reality that doesn't take political sides.  The film just throws us into what we can only imagine this battle must have been like. 

One of the best things I can say about 'Lone Survivor' is this, every time someone fell, tripped or got hit, I felt it.  Not literally but about as close as it gets.  This film is so real and raw that watching it almost hurts.  That is a testament to the acting, direction and screenwriting. 'Lone Survivor' is a superb film on every level.  The film is a serious Oscar contender and one of the best of 2013.

5/5

- George McCann

HER Review

'Her' is the latest film from writer/director Spike Jonze.  Set in Los Angeles in the not too distant future, the film follows Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix who gives a superb performance) a down and out anti-social writer who can't connect with people due to a troubling past relationship.  When Theodore decides to pick up the latest OS (Operating System) named Samantha (voiced marvelously by Scarlett Johansson) he kindles an unorthodox relationship.

'Her' is something very, very special.  Spike Jonze has done something truly brilliant with this film.  The movie has a lot to say about relationships and our technologically driven society.  It is not only a beautiful, different original love story, but it is wickedly funny and is one of my favorite romance films of all time.

The performances are all top notch and Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson are both award worthy, as is Jonze's script.

Minus the film being a tiny bit too long and brief pacing issues, it's almost perfect.  Rooney Mara, Amy Adams and Chris Pratt also give fantastic supporting performances.

4.5/5

- George McCann

OUT OF THE FURNACE REVIEW

'Out of the Furnace' is the new film from writer/director Scott Cooper.  The film is written by Brad Ingelsby and Scott Cooper.  Scott Cooper may sound familiar because he directed the 2009 Oscar winner, 'Crazy Heart'.  'Out of the Furnace' is the story of two brothers, Rodney Baze, (played by Casey Affleck), and Russell Baze, (played by Christian Bale).  Rodney is in the military and has served several tours in Iraq and is paying the price mentally.  He is haunted by his experiences and that takes him down a dark path whereas, Russell is a straight laced mill worker whose one poor decision and bad luck land him in hot water.

When Rodney gets caught up in a debt with a dangerous sadistic man, Harlan DeGroat, (played by Woody Harrelson, he turns to bare knuckle boxing to off set the money issues.  When Rodney doesn't return home after the fight, Russell takes matters into his own hands to find him.

'Out of the Furnace' is not simply a revenge film or action thriller.  As a matter of fact, it's really neither.  'Out of the Furnace' is a hardcore, rough, disturbing family drama.  The film examines the bonds of family (especially brothers), as well as the hard life of the working class in America.  There are really only brief moments of violence but when they hit, they hit hard and are all in service of the story.  

Scott Cooper is a somewhat new director.  His first film was 'Crazy Heart' in 2009.  New director or not, Cooper hits the ball out of the park with this film.  The movie is very layered with issues of society and family.  There are some beautiful, real scenes in this film and when I say real, I mean, I could see a person taking these actions in real life.  I think what I loved most about the script and direction is the film never once felt "Hollywoodized." It always felt authentic even though the film has an unconventional narrative.

The performances in this movie are truly marvelous.  Casey Affleck is heartbreaking and Christian Bale shows his massive range giving an understated performance for the majority of the film.  All this being said, the film had a few minor issues.  There is one scene that didn't fit the tone/arc of the film and at brief points the pacing slowed a little bit.  All in all, 'Out of the Furnace' is a heartbreaking, must see film.  It will disturb you and sadden you, but it is remarkable, must see filmmaking and it was a story worth telling the unconventional way Cooper told it.  Go see 'Out of the Furnace'.

4.75/5 Stars
- George McCann

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS REVIEW

Tonight I was fortunate enough to see an early screening of the Coen Brothers most recent film 'Inside Llewyn Davis'.

'Inside Llewyn Davis' takes us on a journey with a struggling folk singer during the 1960s Greenwich Village folk scene.  Llewyn Davis is played brilliantly by Oscar Isaac and this film really is Llewyn's story.  Llewyn is in literally every scene of the film.  A few supporting characters drop in... Jean (played by Carey Mulligan) a woman who Llewyn has a relationship with, as well as Jim (played by Justin Timberlake) Jean's boyfriend and singing partner.  Other actors pop up as well in small but important and entertaining roles, such as John Goodman as Roland Turner and F. Murray Abraham as Bud Grossman.

Oscar Isaac plays Llewyn masterfully and to be honest, to say he plays this character isn't fair. Oscar Isaac became this character.  He really played the guitar.  He really sang the songs. There was no lip syncing and no sound looping with him.  This was basically LIVE music put on film, which is rare and is even more rare when it is done well in narrative.  Here, it is done masterfully.

The Coen Brothers took us back to the 60s with their beautiful direction and writing.  I sat in a time capsule for two hours and loved every second of it.  This film is so detailed and filled with a palpable atmosphere.  The audience walks in Llewyn's wet shoes when he is on the road.  We smell the smoke of the cigarettes in the cafe where he performs.  All of us feel his pain as well as his passion.

The story of the film seems very simple.  We follow this man, Llewyn, on his travels; but this film is anything but simple.  There are tons of little nods to the real folk scene, hidden plot points and character tropes that we (the audience) find and figure out by the end of the film. This movie has tons of themes -  family, art, passion, love, drive, perseverance, etc.

I tip my cap to Joel and Ethan Coen because they told a beautiful and relevant story in a non-traditional and unconventional way.  The film leaves you wanting more (in a good way) and you think about the film long after you are out of the theater.  It helps to have T-Bone Burnett's beautiful music and Bruno Delbonnel's gorgeous cinematography.  'Inside Llewyn Davis' is the one must see film of 2013 and it should bring home some gold come awards time.

I think the best thing I can say about the film is this: it made me think about my life and it made me want to watch it again, immediately after the screening.  This is the art of The Coen Brothers.  This is why they are so great and so well known and respected in the industry.  I implore anyone and everyone to see 'Inside Llewyn Davis'.

5/5 Stars

- George McCann

Some Films are Sacred: Why 'It's A Wonderful Life' Doesn't Need A Sequel

“Attaboy, Clarence”.  This is the last spoken line of one of the greatest films ever made.  Not one of the greatest holiday films, one of THE GREATEST FILMS EVER.  The film is ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  For those of you who may not know, ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ was released in 1946.  The film was directed by a master of cinema named Frank Capra and tells the tale of George Bailey, a man who does everything for others, the most selfless man in town and the richest.  When I say the richest, it’s not in the literal term.  George Bailey grew up in a small town with big world dreams but never accomplished them, (so he thought).  He lived in the same town his whole life and during the great depression saved that town and saved many people’s homes.  He and his wife gave away their money to keep his father’s small “Bailey Business & Loan” open, so a corrupt swindler wouldn’t rob families of their homes.

Enough with the synopsis of the film; all you need to know is George Bailey (played by James Stewart) never thought he’d accomplished anything but, in the end, an angel named Clarence shows him how different the world would be had George not been in it.

‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ truly is a wonderful and remarkable film.  So, when I heard that Hollywood is looking to make a sequel, I think of Mister Potter, the rich corrupt swindler trying to take people’s homes in the film.  Let me make one thing clear, I’m not saying Hollywood is corrupt and I’m not saying Hollywood Executives are swindlers.  What I am saying is, THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.  There is absolutely no reason to make a sequel to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  There are some films that should not be touched.  ‘Gone With The Wind’, ‘Casablanca’, ‘Rebel Without A Cause’, ‘In The Heat of the Night’ and ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ all fall in that category.  These are films that are so close to perfect, so revolutionary (each in their own way), that they should be left alone.  Let them stand the test of time without having a sequel attached.  It all feels very wrong.  I have no doubt that the production company and everyone involved want to make a great film, but we already have one.  What is the reason for a sequel after 67 years?  Why is this a conversation?  Many generations have been and will be exposed to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ and in the end, George Bailey is the richest man in town.  What else do we need to know?

With All Due Respect,

  

-  George McCann

How Blockbuster/Big Budget Films Have Killed Character Studies

There was a time when blockbusters were films like 'THE GODFATHER' and 'JAWS'.  There was a time when blockbusters were quality films.  Unfortunately, that time has past.  That time past long ago.  Now, the film industry is in a phase of great big films with massive budgets and minimal story.

I understand that people enjoy comic book films and action blockbusters.  My major question is why do these genres control the industry?  We rarely see films with great story and character and when we do, the films get a limited release.  'IRON MAN 3' was released on May 3rd and since then it has played in over 4,000 theaters this year.  The film has made over $400 mil and had an estimated budget of around $200 mil.  'MAN OF STEEL' opened on June 14th and also spent time in over 4000 theaters and the film has made a little bit under $300 mil.  'THOR: THE DARK WORLD' opened November 8th (today is November 14th) and has played nearly 4000 theaters and has already made over $100 mil.  The list goes on and it's not just comic book films.  'FAST AND FURIOUS 6', over 3000 theaters and has made over $200 mil.  'DESPICABLE ME 2', nearly 4000 theaters and made nearly $400 mil.  'WORLD WAR Z', over 3000 theaters and over $200 mil.  These films are ALL blockbusters; three are comic book films and 5 of the 6 are sequels or reboots.  The one exception being 'WORLD WAR Z' which is solely a blockbuster.  Although, on a side note, a sequel is in development.  Anyhow, all of these films have made huge numbers with their time in theaters and 'THOR: THE DARK WORLD' just came out.  

So, those are a few bigger films, action films, summer films.  Let's look at some different films like 'MUD'.  'MUD' was, in my eyes, one of the best films of the year.  It opened in less than 400 theaters and made around $21 mil.  Is that a bad number?  After all $21 million dollars is a lot a money, right?  Not when the budget of your film is around $12 million.  It's a nice bump but it's not huge numbers.   It's not the type of number that make (most, not all) studio executives say, let's make more films like this.  We need more character studies.  'MUD' is a brilliant film that deserved to be in more than 400 theaters and to make more than $21 million dollars.  Another marvelous film and one of my personal favorites, 'THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES', had a budget of right around the $15 mil mark and only made around $21 mil.  'FRUITVALE STATION', another powerful, emotional film...made around $16 mil.  The last film on the list is 'THE WAY WAY BACK' which had an estimated budget of around the $5 mil mark and made, right around, $21 Mil.  So, smaller films are making less money and getting less exposure.  Why? Maybe because great stories don't sell anymore.  If that's the case, it's on US, the consumer.  Moving along...

When 'THE GODFATHER' was released in 1972, the films budget was around $6 mil. $6 MILLION DOLLARS!  That is less than every film on this list, minus 'THE WAY WAY BACK'.  'JAWS' had an estimated budget at $8 million dollars.  The film made an estimate of a hair over $21 mil by April of 1972.  People saw 'THE GODFATHER.  People saw 'JAWS'. Everyone saw 'THE GODFATHER' and everyone saw 'JAWS'.  People still see them.  'THE GODFATHER' has been re-released in theaters and so has 'JAWS'.  Why?  The reason is because they are great stories with great characters and raw emotion.  They aren't blockbusters because of explosions and action.  These films are what created the term "blockbuster."  'JAWS' and 'THE GODFATHER' are blockbusters because there were lines around the block to get into the theater.  Not to see zombies or fast cars or explosions, but to see amazing, quality cinema.  That is what a blockbuster was; that is what a blockbuster should be.  

I ask whoever reads this, when did we decide that action was better than story?  That fast cars were better than great writing?  That zombies were better than real characters?  When did it become ok for studios to release huge action films without the character?  Why is it ok to push character studies to the side?  If someone can tell me when and how that became ok, I'd appreciate it.  Until then, I'm going to watch the films like 'MUD and 'THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES' because at this rate, they won't be around much longer.

- George McCann 

12 YEARS A SLAVE REVIEW

'12 Years a Slave' is directed by Steve McQueen and is the true story of Solomon Northup, a free man who is kidnapped and sold into slavery prior to the Civil War.

Solomon Northup is played marvelously well by Chiwetel Ejofor and he will receive some Oscar attention.  Solomon is an expert violinist and an educated, married man.  He is sold into slavery and the audience is taken through the atrocities that occurred on many plantations in the South at that time.  Solomon is sold to many slave owners and despicable people throughout the film but none worse than Edwin Epps and Mistress Epps, played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender and Sarah Paulson.  As an audience member, I feared and hated these two characters.

This leads me to my issues with the film.  This movie feels very much like a brutally accurate documentary.  That would be fine if the film was in fact a documentary but it is not.  '12 Years a Slave' is a narrative film and I didn't feel like I knew Solomon Northup.  I was appalled and disturbed by what he went through but I wasn't emotionally attached to him because I didn't know him.  There wasn't enough development in his character.  While watching the film, I thought of 'GLORY' and how much I cared and learned about Denzel Washington's character.  That type of emotion was lacking in '12 Years a Slave'.  The movie has a 2 hour 13 minute running time, but that time felt doubled.  Overall, the film has some amazing performances and at times marvelous direction by McQueen.  The cinematography by Sean Bobbitt is beautiful.  In the end, '12 Years a Slave' is a very mixed bag. It shines in some areas, but falls flat in some as well.
3/5 Stars

- George McCann

ALL IS LOST REVIEW

'All Is Lost' is Written and Directed by, J.C. Chandor and the film stars Robert Redford.  This film is the tale of a man (Redford) who's sailboat is hit by a floating container on the Indian Ocean.  When the man's boat begins to flood, he must try to stay afloat, battle the elements and survive.

I really enjoyed 'All Is Lost'.  The film only has about three lines of dialogue.  The rest of the film is all emotion and physical actions.  This film is a dramatic survival thriller.  'All Is Lost' is remarkably tense and beautifully directed.  I must say, the sole reason this film works is Robert Redford.  I don't think any other actor could do what Redford did in this film.  He was incredibly compelling to watch and although he rarely spoke, I felt a deep connection to the character.

That being said, this film has issues.  The movie is a bit too long.  There are some scenes that are repetitive and could have been cut.  Even though Redford was great, I wanted more depth to this character and that issue falls on the shoulders of the writing.  There were also a few continuity issues that took me out of the film.

Having said all that, 'All Is Lost' is a very intense and beautiful film that I thoroughly enjoyed.  The film begs the question, what would you do to survive and where is your breaking point?

I give 'All Is Lost' 3.75/5 Stars.

- George McCann

Why 'The Walking Dead' is a Dead Television Show

‘The Walking Dead’ was once a very good show.  It was a good show when Frank Darabont was the show runner in Season 1.  The show had a way of captivating you, scaring you and making you feel, and I mean, REALLY feel for these characters in a completely unrealistic situation… the zombie apocalypse.  The show was atmospheric and edge of your seat.  Then Frank Darabont left the show for what I am assuming (this is pure speculation, not fact) was creative differences.

The reason I feel there were creative differences is because in Season 2 this show slows down…to a halt. The pacing became beyond slow. At this point, I believe Glen Mazzara had taken over as show runner.  Glen Mazzara is a writer for whom I have a massive amount of respect. Season 2 picks up about half way through the season and got really good, the pacing got going and the story propelled but it was never Season 1.  What I mean by it was never Season 1 is the show wasn’t AS captivating, not to say it wasn’t good but something was off.  As Season 2 ended, there was a great possibility for the show to get back to Season 1 material.

As Season 3 kicked off, I felt like the show hit a stride.  We were back to Season 1 and it was awesome.  After the first 3 episodes, the show died.  (At some point in this process, Glen Mazzara left as show runner. That means by Season 4 of this show, there have been 3 different show runners.  That is a big indication that something is wrong.)  ‘The Walking Dead’ had become a dead television show.  The episodes were filled with filler (meaning scenes that waste time and don’t further plot or characters) and the dialogue became off kilter and stale.  This show is based off of some amazing source material and only the 1^st Season did that justice.  In Season 3 new characters were brought in, important characters from the graphic novels AND NOTHING HAPPENED.  Season 3 was the most anticlimactic Season of television I have ever seen and the finale was the worst finale in the history of television.  The show tried to build up to something fantastic and failed.  It failed miserably.  I remember watching the finale end and I turned to my Father and said, “Well that sucked.”  My Dad nodded in agreement.

So last night, Season 4 of ‘The Walking Dead’ premiered.  What we got was a lot of walking (literally), a lot of awful dialogue and blood.  This show has become reliant on blood and action as opposed to story and character.  That pisses me off!  This show started as an amazing character driven story with action and violence to further the story and characters.  Now, that is gone.  There are no more characters.  They are all interchangeable and one dimensional.  What once was fantastic has become stagnant and honestly, boring.  It saddens me to say this but ‘The Walking Dead’ has literally become The Walking Dead.  There is no longer any meat on the bone with this show.  The meat left with the great writer/creator, Mr. Frank Darabont.

   -  George McCann

GRAVITY REVIEW

GRAVITY REVIEW

‘Gravity’ is the new film from Director Alfonso Cuaron, who also co-wrote the script with Jonas Cuaron.  ‘Gravity’ tells the story of astronauts, Ryan Stone (played by Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (played by George Clooney).  Kowalski is a veteran astronaut, on what may be his last mission and Stone is a rookie who seems to be on one of her first.  They are up in space fixing a satellite when debris begins flying in every direction, destroying their ride home.  Now these characters must survive in space with nothing but each other.  Both of the characters balance one another very well and Bullock and Clooney have great chemistry.  Although the acting is great, the beauty and heart of this film really lies in the hands of Cuaron.  This film is a visual masterpiece and is directed remarkably well.  There is not one scene that looks fake.  That says A LOT about this director because the ENTIRE film is in space.  During the course of watching this movie, my jaw literally dropped, twice, due to how stunningly beautiful the film is; it’s gorgeous.  This film also has a marvelous script that has a lot more to say than meets the eye.  ‘Gravity’ is a thriller in every sense of the word and possibly one of the best in the past 15 years.  If you have the time, I HIGHLY recommended seeing the film in both IMAX and 3D.  I give ‘Gravity’:

5/5 Stars         

   -  George McCann 

Let Me Clarify My Thoughts on "Breaking Bad"

My thoughts on the now finished AMC Television Series “Breaking Bad” have been the topic of much controversy lately; both in my personal life and on social media.  So here’s the deal.  Everyone and I mean EVERYONE  I know, urged me to watch “Breaking Bad”.  “George, you gotta watch this show.”  “George, you are going to love this show.”  “George, this is the best show of all time.”  “George, as an aspiring writer, it’s an obligation that you watch this show.”  Those were just a few of what my friends had told me.  So I started watching the show…

Here is where the trouble began.  Now before I go any further, I want to say, ON RECORD, overall “Breaking Bad” is a remarkably well written, directed and acted show.  That is not in dispute.  I do feel that Season 1 was a little bit weak but that’s not the point.  The point is this; I don’t like the show.  I don’t enjoy it.  Although the show is filled with remarkable talent across the board, I don’t enjoy it.  I feel like that is the key word here, enjoy.  The subject matter in the show I find to be sad, disturbing and overall it just puts me in a bad mood.  I don’t enjoy watching Walter White go through hell with cancer, lie to his family AND himself and then go cook crystal meth.  It doesn’t make me want to watch the show and it doesn’t make me like the main character.

Walter White is a man who feels like he’s been screwed over his whole life; so after he gets cancer and can’t afford treatment, he decides to cook meth?  Friends offered to pay for his treatment.  He wouldn’t accept due to pride.  I get it.  The fact remains, this man is dealing drugs, killing people and slowly dying inside.  Not a cheery day at the office. 

Some people say to me, “George you love “Sons of Anarchy”; isn’t that the same thing?"  My answer is, no.  It is not.  “Sons of Anarchy” is an over the top, pulp action show.  It is so over the top that it is not based in reality.  You can’t take it too seriously.  The same cannot be said for “Breaking Bad”.  I understand the quality of this show is phenomenal but I also understand that much of it feels real.  Maybe too real for me and while it is fantastic television, it’s too much for me. 

   -     George McCann

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS REVIEW

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS REVIEW

“Captain Phillips” is the latest film from acclaimed Director, Paul Greengrass.  The film tells the true story of Captain Richard Phillips (played exceptionally well by Tom Hanks).  Captain Phillips is the captain of a container ship sailing around the horn of Africa delivering food and water.  He has clearly been doing this for a while and he runs a tight ship.  He knows exactly what he is doing.  This all changes when his ship is boarded by armed Somali pirates, led by Mose (played by Barkhad Abdi, who gives a riveting supporting performance).  Once this band of pirates board the ship, Captain Phillips plays a cat and mouse game trying to get the upper hand and stay alive.  This film is marvelous on many levels.   Paul Greengrass shows the Somali point of view, which I found to be a bold and riveting move that pays off big time for the film.  The film does have its issues.  It is 134 minutes and at times you feel it; although the film does pick up with a vengeance.  Also, there are a few scenes that just missed the mark and felt very unnatural.  However, all in all, “Captain Phillips” is a very strong film with great performances and great direction.  Paul Greengrass is the only director who makes shakey-cam work and brings the tension full force with this film.  “Captain Phillips” is definitely a film worth seeing.

4/5 Stars

“Captain Phillips" is released on October 11^th.

   -   George McCann  

PARKLAND REVIEW

PARKLAND REVIEW

‘Parkland’ chronicles the day of the Kennedy Assassination and the three days that follow.  The film is written and directed by Peter Landesman.  This movie is very interesting because it goes beyond the conspiracy theories and just goes through the emotions of ordinary people in an extraordinary situation.  ‘Parkland’ tells the story through multiple points of view specifically, Abraham Zapruder, the man who filmed the famous footage of the assassination.  Zapruder is played very well by Paul Giamatti.  Another one of the main characters in this HUGE ensemble film is Jim Carrico, a young surgeon thrust into performing surgery on President Kennedy after the shooting.  Carrico is played by Zac Efron and, let me say, he is not just a “Disney actor”.  Efron gives a strong emotional performance in this film, one of my favorites.  Out of the many characters in the film, my favorite storyline is of Robert Oswald, played very subtly, emotionally and beautifully by James Badge Dale.  However, there are issues with the film.  Due to the fact that there are so many interwoven storylines and characters, there are a few weak links in the acting.  Also, if you are not a huge fan of the history, you may not be as engaged as I was.  That being said, I loved this film and think it is absolutely worth the price of admission.  Peter Landesman did a remarkable job, mixing both real footage with the film he shot and that is a testament to the direction, editing and cinematography.  This film also stars Billy Bob Thornton, Marcia Gay Harden, Ron Livingston, Tom Welling and Jacki Weaver.  I give ‘Parkland’:

3.7/5 Stars.

‘Parkland’ is released in theaters on October 4^th.

   

     -  George McCann

What Does the Title “Prisoners” Mean? ***THIS WILL SPOIL THE ENTIRE FILM IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT***

Over the weekend I saw the film “Prisoners” twice.  This is NOT a happy, uplifting film.  This is a film about two children who are kidnapped on Thanksgiving Day in broad daylight.  So why did I see it twice?  Why did I put myself through that intense, brutal emotion?  The answer is because I couldn’t NOT see the film again.

“Prisoners” has a simple premise: kidnapping.  The premise is simple, yes, but the film is far from it; a major reason being the main characters and what they represent:

Keller Dover: 

Played flawlessly by Hugh Jackman, is a father trying to find his daughter; simple?  No.  Keller IS a father BUT he is also incredibly flawed and in my eyes disturbed.  Something haunts this man.  Something haunted this man way before his daughter was taken.  It could have been his father’s suicide but I feel it is more than just that.  Keller’s past haunts him.  He is an alcoholic although it is only spoke of in two lines in the film.  He is also a violent man.  The film begs the question, was the violence brought out due to a horrible situation OR was it coming inevitably?  That I do not know, but it is a question and I do wonder.  Was this man always haunted by violence OR was it this due to this terrible ordeal?  My inclination is his anger and violence came out do this terrible, violent ordeal.  That being said, there is/was darkness in Keller Dover and no one had to point it out to us (the audience).  All of this came out organically through story, something not often seen nowadays. 

So, Keller Dover was disturbed, was violent and was prepared for anything.  One of his first lines in the film is to his son, saying something to the effect of: the best thing your grandfather taught me was always be prepared.  Oil goes dry, no food in the grocery stores.  People turn on each other.  Keller was prepared.  He was prepared for everything as his basement shows.  He is stocked for the apocalypse with guns, ammunition, food, water, a gas mask and many other things.  This man was prepared for anything and everything, accept what happened to his family, what happened to his daughter.  He wasn’t prepared for her to be taken.  He couldn’t be.  No one could.  This is a horror no parent expects or can imagine and Keller wasn’t prepared but he did turn on people.  As he stated in that line, HE turned on people. 

I think in many ways Keller turned into whatever he despised or was running from.  Keller went from victim father, to perpetrator kidnapper.  When the police let a suspect go due to lack of evidence Keller Dover becomes a man obsessed.  He becomes so obsessed he tortures, starves and beats a man with the IQ of a 10 year old.  So, did the victim remain the victim or become the perpetrator or both?  I say, both.

Detective Loki:

The best performance I’ve ever seen from Jake Gyllenhaal.  It is stated very early in the film that Loki has a 100% success rate.  He saves people.  A lot of people had issues with Loki’s eye twitch.  I found it very, very interesting because ever time Loki twitches, it is an intense or important scene.  There is brief mention that Loki was in a boys home… is that why he has the twitch?  Every time Detective Loki was in a scene I couldn’t help but focus on the pain behind his eyes.  Was Loki hurt as a child, kidnapped, molested?  I tend to think so.  He is SO focused, he doesn’t sleep.  He doesn’t have a family.  After all, the first time we meet him is Thanksgiving night and he is eating dinner at a Chinese food restaurant ALONE.

When Loki works this case, when he interrogates suspects, you see it in his eyes.  He is NOT okay.  This is a damaged man.  This is a hurting man and this is another man who is obsessed.  He is obsessed with helping find people who were hurt.  Does this represent his past the way the violence represents Keller’s?  I think so.  Loki goes to the home of a suspect to talk to their aunt.  The suspect is the man with the IQ of a 10 year old who Keller kidnaps.  In the man’s possessions, Loki finds a toy car.  This seems like nothing in that scene, but later it is not.  When the case for the girls goes cold after a suspect who may have the girls dies, Loki goes to his desk, smashes everything on it and we once again see that toy.  He takes that toy and like a child pushes it back and forth, once again the pain behind his eyes.  This man is as damaged as Keller but for very different reasons. 

In the end of the film, the man Keller tortured turns out to be a drugged kidnapped man himself.  So lost, so drugged, he now has the IQ of a 10 year old boy.  That man did lead Keller to his daughter’s kidnapper but instead of trusting the police, Keller took matters into his own hands and winds up in a hole, with a bullet in his leg, still without his daughter.  Loki finds the kidnapper and saves Keller’s daughter.  The last scene of the film is Loki and the police at the kidnapper’s home casing the ground because numerous children had been kidnapped over time.  As it begins to snow and the ground goes cold, the police leave.  We, the audience know Keller is in a hole - not fifty feet from Loki with a whistle but Loki, does not.  The lights go out and the wind picks up.  There is a faint whistle blow.  Loki looks around and decides it’s the wind.  This happens twice more and then the whistle blows loud.  Loki looks to the direction of the hole and the screen blacks out and the word PRISONERS appears.

In my eyes, the word PRISONERS appearing shows that every character in the film is a prisoner.  The girls were prisoners to their captors.  Keller was a prisoner to his violence and his past and Loki was a prisoner to his past and his obsession to his work.  They are all prisoners to something….

The film asks us, what are we prisoners to?

    

     - George McCann

PRISONERS Review

PRISONERS REVIEW

“Prisoners” is a new film from director, Denis Villeneuve and is written by Aaron Guzikowski.  This film tells the story of two families, the Dover family and the Birch family.  These two families are meeting for Thanksgiving dinner, when their two youngest daughters step outside and go missing.  When these two girls go missing, Detective Loki is called in to head the investigation (played brilliantly by Jake Gyllenhaal).  There is an intense drive for Loki to find these girls that goes beyond the normal police officer.  When the case begins to go cold, Keller Dover played by Hugh Jackman considers taking matters into his own hands.  This film is a gut punch of emotion.   Hugh Jackman portrays a distraught, angry, disturbed father uncomfortably well.  As for Gyllenhaal, he steals the show.  There is an intensity that goes beyond the surface.  His eyes are mixed with full force outward emotion and anger, an Oscar worthy performance and my favorite of the year.  Also, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Viola Davis, Paul Dano and Melissa Leo all give great supporting performances.  Roger Deakins’ cinematography is beautiful and haunting.  The writing and direction is top notch; you never know where this story is going to go.  For a film that could easily have been very generic, this film is not.  “Prisoners” is one of the best films I have seen this year BUT it is intense and disturbing, so be aware of that before entering the theater.  This film is worthy of MAJOR Oscar consideration and wins.  If you can handle the subject matter, see “Prisoners”.

   

    - George McCann

The Glory of “Glory”

***SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN “GLORY”***

There are some films that make such an impact, they can never be duplicated. “Glory” is one of those films.  For those of you who may not be familiar, “Glory” is the story of the first black company in U.S. military history.  The 54^th Infantry was formed during the Civil War and was a volunteer company; but enough with the history lesson.  Edward Zwick directed “Glory” and it, in my opinion, is one of the most important films of all time.

“Glory” is such an important and amazing film for many reasons.  One that resonates with me is the fact that it pulls no punches.  Although the film does take some historical liberties, it does not portray the North as “the good guys” in the Civil War.  The film shows the honest truth; there were just as many racists in the North as in the South. This was a brave step for Zwick to take.  It would have been very easy to portray the North as “the good guys” - the people fighting for justice, a righteous cause.  The simple fact is not everyone in the North was good and righteous and for the film to point that out, gave it great credibility. 

“Glory” is a very emotional film.  We see a small glimpse of what some of these men went through up until this point, (joining the 54^th).  Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best supporting performance from an actor ever.  His character is a man filled with rage and anger and why wouldn’t he be angry after what life has put him through?  The beauty of his character is we see his anger, but we also see his heart.  It is never one sided and it is never forced.  The places these men went and the hardships they went through just to get a pair of shoes are heartbreaking.  One scene always stands out to me. It is a scene with one tear; when that one tear drops, so do our hearts.

Although there is clearly anger in the men of the 54^th, there is even more heart.  Morgan Freeman’s character gives a perspective that adds so much to the film.  He is the man who says what is what and who is who, but never in an obnoxious way.  The character is always honest and always brave and possibly the core of the infantry men of the 54^th in the film.  Freeman has a scene with Washington that makes your hair stand up.  That scene changes Washington’s character for the rest of the film.  That scene also shows the morals and code that Freeman’s character has lived by and continues to live by throughout the film.

When you think of historical films, you don’t think of the lead actor as the guy from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” but it is.  Matthew Broderick stars as “Colonel Robert Shaw” (a real man).  Let me end any doubt in anyone’s mind, Matthew Broderick was amazing in the film.  Colonel Shaw started the 54^th and brought these men together and that changed history. 

In a film that lives in a grey area, Shaw is flat out a good man.  The men of the 54^th were good men.  It was the rest of the world that needed to get on board. 

In the climax of the film a formerly bigoted character says “Give ‘em hell 54^th” as the regiment marches to a certain death.  When those words are spoken, I always get the feeling that some of the world has gotten on board.  Maybe not everyone… but that line from that character says, there is hope.

The definition of the word glory is praise, honor or distinction by common consent.  That is also the definition of the film “Glory”.  This film is a true story of truly glorious men who died trying to do something honorable and dignified.  The men of the 54^th deserve that dignity and “Glory” is truly a glorious film.

To the soldiers of the 54^th Maine, thank you.

-  George McCann

Why Steven Spielberg is the Greatest Living Director

There is one director who I believe will go down as the greatest director of all time; his name is Steven Spielberg.  Spielberg is truly a master of his craft in every way.  The man knows how to not only tell a story through visuals but he knows how to make you feel like you are IN that story.  When I watch films like “ JAWS”, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”, “The Indiana Jones Trilogy”, “Schindler’s List”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Hook”, I feel like I am in that film with those characters.  I am with them through every laugh, heartbreak and challenge they must face.  This truly is the mark and stamp of an amazing director.

In Hollywood there are tons of great, truly talented directors but there is something about stepping into the theater to watch a Spielberg film that is extremely different compared to sitting down to watch a film from any other director in the industry.  I think this man was just born with a gift that had to be shared with the rest of the world.  His films transcend the imagination. You are there.  Something I find very interesting about Spielberg’s work as well, is the fact that every single film he has made has re-watch value, some more than others but all of them have it.  Even if you look at “Saving Private Ryan” or “Schindler’s List”, it may not be a fun visit to go back to those films but people do, for the historical importance as well as the masterful filmmaking. 

Look at “Schindler’s List”.  In that film, all the choices made in production were so impactful; for example, the choice to shoot the film in black and white or the one scene of color with the red dress.  These choices could easily have never come up in production.  The film could have been filmed in color but it would have had much less of an impact.  The film is SO emotional and SO impactful and SO amazing that we need to watch it now and again so we don’t forget, so no one forgets.  I think that is a gift from Mr. Spielberg.  He showed harsh truths in a brilliant film and now schools show the film in history classes. 

The other film in that same vein would be “Saving Private Ryan”.  “Ryan” takes the viewer out of their seats and transports them to Normandy for 3 hours.  We experience D-Day as close as one can, who wasn’t there firsthand.  This is a tremendous feat for a director to accomplish and another history lesson from Mr. Spielberg.

Another thing I find fascinating about this man is the way he can jump from genre to genre.  The man has worked in Sci-fi, Drama, Horror, Action/Adventure, Family and Animation and done it all with ease and grace, which is astonishing.  I can’t think of another director in history to jump from genre to genre that way and excel with success. 

I have gone to this topic in many of my articles and it seems to be a common theme and that is story.  I think Spielberg always goes with story first.  Look at the man’s resume. It is very far and few in-between to see a film that doesn’t have an amazing story.  This may be what is so very different about Spielberg compared to other directors working today.  Nothing and I mean NOTHING this man directs, lacks passion.  To be honest, it is the exact opposite. His films ooze passion.

 “JAWS” is a great example of passion and perseverance for the craft of filmmaking.  There were tremendous production difficulties with the filming of “JAWS”.   There was a pesky character on set named Bruce who didn’t always cooperate. (Bruce was the mechanical Shark, for those of you who may not know.) Anyhow, this damn Shark malfunctioned left and right.  Due to all the technical issues with the shark, Spielberg and production decided to not show the shark and that decision, that bold move, made “JAWS” so much more frightening.  We have the fear of the unknown. What is below our feet as we swim?  These are the types of things that Mr. Spielberg comes up with that make him both an innovator and a master of his craft.  Not to mention his remarkable execution.

Let’s jump ahead to the year 1981, shall we?  That year, we got the adventure film that defined adventure, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.  The use of practical effects in “Raiders”, as well as heart and story made the film a genre of its own.  It is a genre that will never be repeated, a film that can never be topped.  This is the power of a master at the top of their game.

In 1993, we were handed “Jurassic Park” on a silver platter - a film that changed the way the world looked at special effects.  “Jurassic Park” is yet another film that transports the audience to another world.  This is the way of Spielberg, transporting rather than just entertaining.  Yet, he never sacrifices story or substance for beautiful scenery and “Wow Factor”.  He earns “Wow Factor” through story first and the rest falls into place on its own.

Steven Spielberg will go down as the greatest director of all time because he transports.  The man puts the audience in a time machine and sends them to the past, future or someplace not existing in the present.  The talent this man has is immeasurable and the best may still be yet to come because when you have a master, you never know what card they will pull next.  I, for one, can’t wait to see what it is because if I need a history lesson or a trip to the future, Mr. Steven Spielberg is always there to open the door.

 For that, Sir, I salute you.

  - George McCann

Why Ben Affleck Should NOT Direct a Batman Film

So, last week Ben Affleck was cast as Batman in the upcoming “Man of Steel” sequel.  Now, I personally love Affleck as the choice to play Batman/Bruce Wayne.  I believe Ben Affleck has come a long way in his career and is, at this point, a great actor.  Over time, people grow as artists and, generally, as human beings.  However, that isn’t entirely what I want to talk about.  While everyone is talking about Affleck playing Batman, I want to talk about why he shouldn’t direct a Batman spin-off of any form. 

I feel that Affleck really came into his own after he directed “Gone Baby Gone”.  Personally, I feel Affleck’s work on that film made him a better actor and proved he was a great director.  When we all were blown away with his second directorial effort “The Town”, in which he also starred; he essentially said I’m here to stay and this is what I can do.  Then at last year’s Academy Awards, he was snubbed for best Director but won his second Oscar.  He now has a Screenwriting Oscar and the Award for Best Picture for his work Producing “ARGO”.  Ben Affleck is a star in front and behind the camera; that is a fact.

So with the news of Affleck being cast as Batman, there has been speculation by many that he may want to direct a Batman spin-off film.  Now, while I really like the choice of Affleck playing Batman, I HATE the chance of him directing a Batman film and it’s not because he wouldn’t direct the film well.  His track record has shown the guy can direct the daylights out of a film.  The reason is because of the type of films he has directed - “Gone Baby Gone”, “The Town” and “ARGO”.  I feel his wheelhouse is gritty, realistic and, dare I say, more artistic films… character driven films. 

At one point there was news that the rights to “Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution”, a book by Nathaniel Philbrick based on the Battle of Bunker Hill during The Revolutionary War was picked up and passed to Chris Terrio, to pen the screenplay.  For those of you who may not know, Terrio wrote the screenplay for “ARGO”.  “Bunker Hill” is another film that takes place in Affleck’s beloved city of Boston.  It would be a film that I would LOVE to see him direct.  It would be fantastic to see a great Revolutionary War film.  If Terrio is writing, a man who works extremely well with history (“ARGO” was a true story) and Affleck is directing, the movie could be a film for the ages.

Yet another film Affleck has in the works right now is “Live By Night” which is based on a book by Dennis Lehane, the author of “Gone Baby Gone”, Affleck’s directorial debut.  The film adaptation of “Live By Night” will be written, directed and produced by Affleck and he will also be acting in the movie.  The story takes place in Prohibition Era Boston during the roaring 20s.  This is another story that sounds like it would be right in Ben Affleck’s wheelhouse and a bull’s-eye considering what he did with “Gone Baby Gone” for which he also had a screenwriting credit.

What I am getting at is this; although I think Affleck is a tremendous talent, I feel he thrives in certain areas of filmmaking and that is dramatic character studies.  There is not much of that in Hollywood right now with the Superhero Generation of film.  So, I REALLY don’t like the possibility of one of the best young directors who thrives in character studies, jumping to direct a Superhero film.  Let Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder stick to that.  In a day and age where we get less and less character and less and less depth, do we want Ben Affleck, one of the best talents at giving us character and depth, stepping out of that genre? 

- George McCann

Life and Death of the Western Genre

Once upon a time there was a genre of film called the Western.  The Western genre was HUGE in the 40s, slowed down in the late 60s, and virtually came to a halt in the late 70s .  When the Western was in its prime, we had amazing directors like Howard Hawks and John Ford.  I give credit to these two men (especially Ford) for giving the audience locations to marvel, stories to dazzle and direction to influence future directors, such as Sergio Leone.

It seems that the time of the Western, in the 40s – 50s, was a simpler time.  We knew who was good.  We knew who was bad and we knew what we were in for - a great adventure across the western frontier at the movies.  When Westerns ruled the screen, things were simple.  The stories were tales of grandeur.  We were served stories about life - working, fighting, grazing; stories of justice and injustice, yet it was not complex. 

Today everything is more complicated both in the real world and on the screen but why can’t we go to the movies and just see Gary Cooper protect his town like in Fred Zinnemann’s classic, 'High Noon' or watch John Wayne try to protect his family after the Civil War in John Ford’s masterpiece 'The Searchers'?  Why is everything so complicated?  Here’s the only logic I can come up with.

In the mid 60s, an Italian director came along named Sergio Leone.  The man was a great director and he revived the Western with 'A Fistful of Dollars', 'For a Few Dollars More' and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly'.   The films would later be known as, 'The Dollars Trilogy'.  They single handedly launched the career of Clint Eastwood.  As the Western was dying in the United States, Sergio Leone took it to Italy.  These films coined the phrase “The Spaghetti Western”.  I don’t know if Leone did this intentionally but his films are what started making Westerns more complicated (along with the changing times).  As 'The Dollars Trilogy' progressed, the filmmaking evolved as well as the stories.  The films introduced The Man with No Name.  The lead character in all three of the films (played by Eastwood) never had a name thus raising more questions and asking more of the audience and the genre became less simple.  The trilogy blurred the lines of good and bad.  We had an antihero, a game changer.  Westerns were no longer simple.  You had to think a bit more, evaluate and form an opinion. Things were no longer black and white.  Some people would say this was revolutionary in many ways.  I would agree but it was so revolutionary that there weren’t many Westerns after the trilogy to have a simple hero.  The simplicity was lost and it changed the Western genre and it changed film. 

After 'The Dollars Trilogy', Leone did one more Western, hailed as one of the greatest of all time - 'Once Upon A Time in the West'.  'Once Upon A Time in the West' did two things; one, solidified that there is no simplicity in the west; and two, and possibly more revolutionary, took a well known actor, who had never played a villain in his life and put him in the most evil role possible.  The actor was Henry Fonda.  Without Henry Fonda playing Frank, things might have been very different for a very long time.  Fonda’s choice to play an evil character and Leone’s choice to cast him changed the future of Westerns.

In 1973, Actor/Director Clint Eastwood stepped onto the stage full force with 'High Plains Drifter'.  The film took literally everything anyone knew about the Western and flipped it with the lead character being less of an antihero and more of a villain.  A bold move for Eastwood but one that proved he was here to stay and he was here to change the genre… forever.  Eastwood had done other directing work with 'Play Misty for Me' but this was his first shot at directing the West and it paid off.  It paid off big.  'High Plains Drifter' is an intense, violent and disturbing tale of the West but it is good.  It is REALLY good.  After 'Drifter', Eastwood’s next directional Western was 'The Outlaw Josey Wales', a film that is immensely close to Eastwood and, dare I say, his best Western.  'Josey' said a TON about society.  The film was and is possibly one of the most accurate films about what soldiers did to homesteaders during the Civil War and it is the first scene in the film.  The tone is set and off you go.  'The Outlaw Josey Wales' is Eastwood’s Western masterpiece and was way ahead of its time. 

So, as you can see, as time went by, Western’s evolved.  In 1990, after a long halt, the Western tried to make a comeback with 'Dances with Wolves', the story of the horrifying acts that took place on the plains.  We saw what United States soldiers did to the Native American people.  It is an amazing film and Kevin Costner earned his Oscars but the film made people uncomfortable with the West.  Then in 1992, 'Unforgiven' was released, another Eastwood film and probably the truest tale of the darkness of the West - no beauty, just honesty, very similar to 'Wolves' in that sense.  After the honesty in those films, the genre died.  I think people had seen enough of the West and wanted to leave the past in the past.  With these films, the illusion of the West was gone.  The glory and grandeur was lost.  Folks would never look at another Western the same way.  They would see only the brutality instead of the beauty.  That being said, the West had heroes and villains, violence and heroics.  If the hero were still shown along with the villain, would the Western still be in theaters today?  Would people be at the box office or would the Western still remain a part of cinema’s past?

       

        - George McCann

Horror Films, What Gets It Right?

The point of a horror film is to scare you and there was a time when horror films were amazing, “The Exorcist”, “The Omen” (1976), “The Shining”, “Psycho” and “Halloween”.  These are films that set up a story with characters you care about with whom you are invested.  The task is met through story and characters. 

Look at “Halloween”.  The back-story of Michael Myers, as well as the character of Dr. Sam Loomis (played brilliantly by Donald Pleasence) creates both intrigue as well as atmosphere.  We get great lore and that lore gives us connection.  It is a damn scary film and a fantastic achievement.  The film was made on a low budget and had a limited time to shoot.  John Carpenter made a classic horror film and his score will bring chills down your spine all on its own.

If you want to talk about another truly scary film look at “The Omen”.   One of the most fascinating and scary things about that film is the unknown.  That film has the truest tone and sense of the unknown possibly in horror film history.  This is a film that doesn’t rely on jump scares or blood or even violence when you think about it.   It simply relies on the fear of the unknown… the “what ifs”, so to speak, and at the same time we care enough about the Thorn family to be invested.  The audience is also wondering about the photographer character, Jennings, who for a good part of the film we know nothing about…again, the unknown.  These are some of the tools that make for great horror and why “The Omen” is a classic that still holds up.  The last frame is one of the scariest things I have ever seen on film.

Now, let’s look at “The Shining”.  In “The Shining”, we have a family, the supernatural and insanity.  If that isn’t a setting for an awesome horror film, what is? The thing about “The Shining” that makes it SO damn scary is we care about the Torrance’s and we not only watch Jack deteriorate but we watch his family deteriorate with him.  The supernatural combined with the setting of The Overlook Hotel in the middle of nowhere, adds terror.   When that film ends, you are left with an unsettling feeling… a feeling of something being off so to speak.  The same can be said for “The Exorcist” and all the other films I listed up top.  After watching these “true horror” types of films, you are legitimately scared.  You get in your car and it creaks and the sound leaves you unsettled.  You might not sleep so tight. 

In my eyes, half the battle with horror films (or any films for that matter) is having a character or characters to care for; this is the main task of filmmaking.  That’s what is lacking the most in horror, the connection to the stakes and to the characters.  You can easily have high stakes in a horror film but if I don’t care about any of the characters then I’m not going to care if they live or die, get away or get possessed.  I need to care.

In 2013, there aren’t many horror films that that leave a lingering effect and make you care and connect to the characters.  It seems the horror genre has become about making a quick buck in October.  The art of truly evoking emotion, both in connection to the characters as well as scaring the daylights out of you has been lost like a leaf blowing off a tree on a cool October day.

-George McCann

When Will Brad Pitt Win An Oscar?

I don’t usually write about specific actors, but this actor I feel is worthy of discussion.  In my opinion, Mr. Brad Pitt is one of the best actors of this generation but never seems to get the honor he really deserves; an Oscar.  In 1996, Brad Pitt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for, “12 Monkeys” but lost to Kevin Spacey for, “The Usual Suspects” a HUGE snub in my opinion.  I think “The Usual Suspects” is very over rated but that’s a different article for a different day.  Then, in 2009, Pitt got his first Best Actor Nomination for, “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” but lost to Sean Penn for “Milk” (Right call in my opinion). In 2011, Pitt got the Best Actor Nomination again for the fantastic film, “Moneyball” and lost to Jean Dujardin.  Hey, it happens; but it happens to Brad Pitt A LOT.  I’m waiting for Mr. Pitt to accept an Oscar for a career that really has had very few poor films and rarely, even if there is a poor film, is it due to Pitt.  If you read the man’s filmography, he has done at least a dozen great films and no real stinkers.  

Look at “Se7en” directed by David Fincher.  When Pitt first got that script, he read three pages of it and put it down.  A friend of his talked him into reading the script all the way through. (You can hear the whole story on “Inside the Actor’s Studio”.)  He didn’t want to do the same cop film we had seen a million times before, which shows he cares about what films he makes and the characters he plays.  The other reason I bring this up is because a lesser actor could have easily made the character of Mills just what Pitt wanted to avoid, a generic character that we have seen a million times before.  In “Se7en”, Pitt pulls off lines in a dark film that will make you laugh.  For example, “Just because he has a library card doesn’t make him Yoda.”  This line is in reference to a serial killer on the loose, but we laugh.  The character portrayed is multi-layered - Mills the cocky cop, Mills the family man and Mills the broken man at the end of the film.  The “WHAT’S IN THE BOX,” scene in my opinion is an Oscar worthy scene on its own.  The glazed look in Pitt’s eyes when the film ends, is heart breaking.

The list goes on.  In “A River Runs Through It”, he plays a brother who can’t get himself out of trouble but has no problem getting into it.  We would think this is an easy role to pull off and maybe it is, but Pitt raises the bar.  He uses his charisma and charm making you worry about the character.  He creates relationships with the character’s brother and father that feel REAL on every level.  So, we care and cry about events that are never shown on screen near the end of the film.  In the film “Inglourious Basterds”, he plays an unorthodox Nazi Hunter.  This character could easily have been overacted and become one of the most annoying characters in film history, but not with Pitt in the role.  He creates interest with an accent that is SO out of the box, it’s loveable.  It’s also something he has never done.  There aren’t many actors that can spew out Tarantino dialogue.  It’s more like singing an Opera than speaking lines but that twang and arrogance that Pitt brings to the character makes us go along for the ride without question.  

“Fight Club” is an amazing film where he plays a man who runs an underground fight club.  The line, “I want you to hit me as hard as you can” doesn’t make much sense in reality, but the character of Tyler Durden makes it real and Brad Pitt makes Tyler Durden real.  This was also somewhat of a departure for Pitt.  He plays a character who, at his core, is just a nut case and a pretty bad dude.  So why do we care about a nut case and all the pain that he feels, the punches he takes and antics he goes through in his day to day life?   The reason IS because Brad Pitt is playing a nut case and doing it so well, it’s at times uncomfortable.  We are intrigued by this but the actor has to keep you invested to bring the intrigue.   Pitt has fully immersed himself in the role and is no longer anything but that character.  In “The Devil’s Own”, Pitt plays a terrorist IRA gunrunner living in the United States with a New York City police officer.  What makes that role special is Pitt brought out the character’s passion for his home and the brutal, open honesty and emotion of what the man believes in… where his moral core is coming from.  We feel what the character feels and we see things from his point of view.  The role is played so well that we are rooting for this guy.  That honesty and raw emotion makes us sympathize and rationalize what this man is doing and see life from his perspective.  It also doesn’t hurt that he does a Northern Irish accent pretty damn well.  In “The Devil’s Own”, there is a scene in a church at a Confirmation ceremony with a long shot of Pitt’s eyes and you feel like you are looking into the character’s soul and feeling all he feels - the pain, the sorrow, the regret and the passion for his cause.  At least I felt that way.

The aforementioned mentioned “Moneyball” is another film that has many shots of Pitt’s eyes whereby you know exactly what the character is feeling.  That shows the caliber of Brad Pitt’s talent.  You feel what the character feels just by seeing the look in his eyes.  I never feel like I am watching Brad Pitt the movie star on the cover of magazines.  I feel like I’m in a world with a man I have never met before and I am invested.  The man’s love of his craft and the talent he has makes you care about these characters.  Every single time he steps on screen, he is no longer Brad Pitt. 

What I am saying by rattling this list of a few of the characters Pitt has played, is the guy NEVER (with the exception of the “Ocean’s” films) plays the same character twice.  He’s not someone who can be type cast.

I’m sure you are all sitting at home saying, “Tons of actors can do this. It’s not just Brad Pitt.” The sad truth is not as many actors as you would think can do this type of work and some of the actors that can, choose not to.  For example, look at Tom Cruise.  Tom Cruise is a very talented actor but he doesn’t take roles anymore that hold much emotional weight.  He does his action movies and puts great effort into them but the big emotional films like, “A Few Good Men” or “Born On The 4^th Of July” or even “Jerry Maguire” aren’t coming out anymore and let’s face it the man can’t do accents to save his life.  I mean did you see “Far And Away”?  Another example I would throw out there is Matt Damon.  I love a lot of Damon’s work but I don’t think it’s at the caliber of Pitt’s.  “Good Will Hunting” and “The Departed” are probably the only two films I would put in the same category as the majority of the films I listed from Brad Pitt and the real emotional storyline in “The Departed” revolves around Leonardo DiCaprio’s character (who is not quite at Pitt’s level yet. That being said, he’s getting there very quickly.)  Matt Damon is a great actor but he doesn’t evoke the same emotion that Pitt does, not since “Good Will Hunting”.  Damon seems to be another extremely talented actor to jump on the action train.  Not to the same extent as Cruise, but he’s heading in that direction.  The actors that are doing what Pitt does would be guys like Christian Bale, Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington.  These men are actors that hold you by the throat and don’t let go until the film is over; but guess what?  Those men all have an Oscar to show for it.  Brad Pitt still does not.

-George McCann