'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
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Friday, December 27, 2013
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
'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
Monday, December 16, 2013
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
'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
Saturday, December 7, 2013
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
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
Thursday, December 5, 2013
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
'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
Monday, November 18, 2013
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
Thursday, November 14, 2013
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)