“Spotlight” (2015)

Comes to Pittsburgh in limited release (only one theater- The Manor on Murray Ave) heavily hyped by accolades from all over as a fantastic film, destined to sweep the Oscars.

Not so much. It’s an interesting film with a bunch of really good actors but it’s all been done endlessly before and many times better.

It’s all about the meticulous inquisitorial collection of small bits of otherwise inconsequential data that when correlated over a period of time yields an informational goal intentionally obfuscated by interest groups. “All the Presidents Men (1976) did it better and “Zero Dark Thirty (2012) did it exceptionally well. The newsroom drama has also been done better- “Newsroom” (HBO 2012-2014).

The characters slowly come to realize that there has been a massive cover-up of some really egregious goings-on right under their noses for 20 years. The undercurrent is controversial and inflammatory to say the least. The more they sniff around, the bigger the mess gets, until it finally draws in a large number of Boston bureaucrats and Church authorities.

Interestingly also is the journalists acceptance in deadpan that the lawyers who went way, way out of their way to protect suspect priests were “just doing their job” and the city fathers opinion that if there was any hanky panky going on, it was acceptable collateral damage for all the benefits the city received from the church.

Interesting also, as you may recall, was the tirade of Irish singer Sinead O’Connor who famously tore up a photo of the pope on Saturday Night Live, Oct 3, 1992. “Fight the real enemy.” The stunned audience went completely silent. It has been speculated then and now that Sinead knew a lot more than she’s ever publicaly said about the roots of this tirade way back in ’92.

The slow, plodding progress of the film facilitates the emotional impact all around to be “spotlighted”. But in the end, the coherent driving force of five investigative reporters are diluted somewhat by each stepping out to showcase their own individual talents instead of blending as the real personages probably did in 2002. If it’s, as one critic opines: “Arguably one of the best movies about journalism ever made”, then journalism is pretty boring and maybe not good fodder to while away two hours enduring the mundane efforts thereof.

I give it three of five Micheal Keaton scowls. Interesting but others have done it better.

Disclaimer: Contents are extremely political and potentially inflammatory. This review is not to argue about content, just to dissect the film’s dynamics.

———————–

Eagerly anticipated: “In the Heart of the Sea” (Directed by Ron Howard) Out mid-December, 2015.

VERY eagerly anticipated: “The Revenant”, directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu and starring among others, really interesting author Tom Hardy. Out end of Dec, 2015.

53 years of James Bond, a perennial “Man’s Man”. Men want to be him, women want to be with him and adventure follows him.

The 24rd Bond film, “Spectre” deftly but subtly nods to the past 50 odd years while portraying a more contemporary Bond than the Bond of the past. The film transitions Bond into a new world, and accordingly, many of his previous associates and logistics are in the process of age renewal.

At 47 years of age with greying whiskers, Daniel Craig is getting a little long in the tooth for the rigors of this kind of physical action, but he does an excellent interpretation of an aging Bond with all of his inadequacies rising very conspicuously to the surface.

Having seen all 50 years of Bond- the first one (Dr. No) as a high school student in 1962, (six years before Daniel Craig was born), allow me to point out some of the more interesting accouterments of Mr. Bond’s past.

In “Dr. No” (1962), Sean Connery flashed a brand new style of wristwatch in one of the action scenes, a black face Rolex Submariner. This was a radical departure for wrist wear and ushered in the era of “sport watches”. I lusted so heavily for one I drooled for years, but they cost US$200.00 in the early 60s, a lot of money from a watch. It was years later when I finally obtained one and I wore it for many years. It is still a superb timepiece, and phenomenally expensive now.

In “SPECTRE” Bond wears an Omega Seamaster 300 Spectre Wristwatch, a limited edition created only for Daniel Craig. Only 7007 made. US$7500 if you want one.

1964’s “Goldfinger” introduced the ”Bond Car”, a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 replete with numerous gadgets, including a rudimentary GPS screen, passenger ejection seat and revolving license plates. Jerry Lee, Owner of WBEB Radio in Philadelphia, PA originally bought the car from the Aston Martin Company in 1969 for US$12,000.  The DB5 was sold for 2,600,000 British Pounds Sterling in 2010. The silver car in mint condition is still capable of 145mph and most the gadgets still work.

For “SPECTRE”, a new Aston Martin DB10s is introduced, one of only ten made. Zero to 60 mph in 3.2 seconds. This car will not be offered to the well-heeled public but one of the DB10s will be auctioned next year at an undisclosed asking price.

Bond is nothing if not clad in cool gear. Daniel Craig wears a dark charcoal grey fine gauge mock turtleneck made of cashmere and silk from British company N.Peal, reminiscent of Steve McQueen in “Bullitt” (1968). The list of Bond fashions goes on and on:

http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/news/ultimate-guide-spectre-bond-24-products-and-locations

“SPECTRE” offers up a much more unsympathetic version of Bond’s basic persona than that idealized in the past. I get the distinct impression that Daniel Craig does NOT personally like his character and goes way of his way to portray him as a sociopathic sadist more than any previous 007. An Armani suited pathological narcissist who came in from the cold.

It’s magnificently filmed in Mexico City during the “Day of the Dead” celebration. The breathtaking opening scene begins with the predictable demolition derby leaving a trail of carnage that would make Quentin Tarantino consider retirement. After being grounded by “M”, Bond goes rogue, travelling to various beautiful European spots to track down the “Source of all his pain”, impeccably villainous Christolph Waltz and his evil organization “Spectre”, reviving a piece of 007 folklore dating back to the Sean Connery era.

Although It’s the most expensive 007 movie to date, at $250 million, “Spectre” is not as good as “Skyfall”. The film does explore new millennium questions of cyber-security, data privacy, and government authority, although somewhat simplistically. It’s too long at 148 minutes. The final hour is rather bloated with too many predictable plot twists and too many contrived characters. “The script of SPECTRE” is suspiciously close to the plot of “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation” (2015).

I think two things about James and his films:

1.  I think James is an anachronism of the past and needs to fade away, much like Jack Bauer. The entire scenario of licensing to kill on the whims of secret government organizations, improbable gadgets and always getting the girl has run its course. It’s all post –facto cold war stuff and this really is a new world with more politically correct people and institutions in it. James would be busted by ten cops during the first three minutes of his films, tasered then shot dead and a grand jury would hold that the officers had valid justification.

2. I think the next James Bond will be a dumpy, mixed lineage transsexual with a “license to ill”, riding around in a rusted 1982 Ford Taurus shaking his (her) finger at passersby doing blatantly illegal things like sprinkling their lawn during a drought. In the pre-credits opening-scene, the screen will suddenly burst open and thousands of hungry, molten, pan sexual, meat eating, disease bloated monster snails will erupt and swarm over the audience before they could stagger to the door, which was locked anyway by someone who was also gummed up and eaten while screaming for help.

I give it three and a half of five shaken, not stirred martinis, professionally watered down by the bartender at a “no tip” watering hole in New York City.

A really interesting and creative diversion from the usual film biopic. All of the previous films portraying the life of Steve Jobs have been simply biographical. Replays of chronologic events, interpreted by actors interpreting what they think Jobs might have acted as he plodded through his life. Most of these previous films (starring Noah Wile and Ashton Kutcher) bombed at the box office because a chronological history of anyone loses interest in direct proportion to the length of the chronology.

This film chooses three different seminal episodes in Job’s life, exploring the 40 minutes in real time before each. The public launch of the original Macintosh in 1984, the follow-up neXT computer in 1990 and the colorful first iMac in 1998.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-XwPjn9YY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07Xjom_GQA

The screenplay writer Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and Director Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) make no bones about the fact that this film is neither a biopic or a documentary. It is a fictional substrate for the principle actor Michael Fassbender to deliver a performance said by many now to have the Oscar wrapped up for this year.

Job’s wife is said to have tried to block release of the film and all of the principle persons portrayed say the portrayals are not “accurate”. The film does not delve into whether the events portrayed are “accurate” or “Truthful”. In “Absence of Malice (1981), Paul Newman suggests to Sally Field that some facts may be “accurate” but not necessarily “truthful” because the truth depends on an observer’s interpretation and as per Heisenberg, observations change the behavior of variables. The “truth” is then a very sticky business to interpret, the writer and director wisely choose not to address.

Sorkin suggests he was “trying to do a painting, not a photograph. The film is (sort of) based on facts but Fassbender is given free reign to interpret those facts as he desires, and he pulls it off absolutely magnificently, even hampered by the fact that he does not look anything like Jobs. Steve Jobs passionately wanted to change the world and Fassbender passionately taps into that ethos with brilliance. Supporting cast Kate Winslet, Jeff Daniels and usually mediocre Seth Rogan are magnificent.

This is in direct contrast to a remarkably different aspect of changing the world, Johnny Depp’s said-to-be accurate portrayal of brutal thug Whitey Bulger in Black Mass (2015). A pointless exercise in “accurately” depicting cruelty and mayhem that goes nowhere except to maximum security.

“Steve Jobs” is an absolutely brilliant and outstanding fictional portrayal of a fascinating and complex man who did, in fact, go on and change the world. The portrayal of Jobs and his daughter Lisa’s relationship is psychologically brutal and difficult to watch. In the end Jobs explains his actions: “I’m poorly made”. It is superbly written and performed.

I give it five of five black turtlenecks. Highly recommended by me.

Tom Hanks is not merely a “bankable” star. He’s a star that has not made a major mistake in his entire career, not just star power but reliable watchability. Stephen Spielberg is the new millennium’s generation’s Stanley Kubrick. Combining the two virtually guarantees a wonderful film, even if it’s theme is a cold, bleak cold war setting. Bridge of Spies doesn’t disappoint. The Tomatometer gives it a solid 92% and I must agree, with only a minimal reservation as to the grim setting.

It’s the late 1950s. Hanks as James Donovan is charged with defending the undefendable Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Donovan’s face ends up on the front page of New York newspapers making him persona non grata in New York City. Unpopular Donovan defends his client, successfully, arguing Abel off death row by suggesting he’d be a valuable bargaining chip if the Soviets ever capture an American. Of course this is exactly what happens in 1960 with U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers (Not Bono, who was not born yet).

Spielberg can make an interesting film about the Kardashian’s broom closet. Much like the coldly observational “Schlindler’s List (1993), the austere backdrops evolve to a fascinating potboiler. Tom Hanks as an unlikely insurance lawyer juggling world-threatening intrigue brings life to the chilly proceedings.

Hanks has a remarkable ability to get completely lost in his character and it’s impossible to take your eyes off him when he gets on a roll, even with a touch of overacting. When Hanks gets into gear, he owns a film. The writing is sharp, the cinematography appropriately period correct and the directing classic Spielberg.

However, Viewers addicted to crash, burn and blast may think it a snooze fest, but if one is willing to absorb the nuances, it’s a festival of grey areas worth the watch.

I give it a tightly fitted 4 of 5 grey fedoras.

Sicario (2015)

“Homeland” (Showtime cable TV) mind melded with Jack Bauer (“24”) all spot-landed at the Mexican/American border.

I had actually not planned to review this film as it didn’t get much notice and this was just a boring Saturday afternoon with everyone out of town but me. However, I was spellbound absorbing the blistering tale of the politics of revenge, the value of human life and the creative methods of saving/taking it.

Emily Blunt is superb as the otherwise idealistic FBI field agent, expertly trained in the tactics of drug interdiction, but by the book. She’s drawn into a densely woven strategy to do whatever is needed to take out a major drug kingpin. By “whatever is needed”, I mean no rules, no boundaries and no convention in an escapade run by very, very focused special-ops guys with varying rational for their actions.

This interestingly brings up the role of women in special-ops.

Recently, women were allowed to undergo U.S. Army Ranger training at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Three candidates successfully completed this incredibly intense training. I say more power to them. If they can hack it, they absolutely deserve to wear the black & gold patch as well as anyone else.

But there’s a “Catch-22”. Technically they are Rangers with all the rights & privileges but they are not allowed (yet) into “real” combat situations. It still remains unclear how they would function in a really nasty combat situation, no matter how well they trained for it. Training isn’t the real thing and they are different breeds of cat.

Women (females) are wired for nurturing and to some degree “rules following”. Through history, there are very few steely-eyed female killers; most of it involving sex in some fashion. Emily Blunt was thrown into a situation where she was well trained for her job here but in the clinch she backed off when faced with real steely-eyed killers in situations where the traditional rules of engagement weren’t being followed. Unclear if this is because of female hard-wiring or just individual taste. Unknown to the military as well.

So several interesting issues explored in this excellent film. The traditional rules-of-engagement for dealing with drug cartels are said to be about as effective as emptying an ocean with a teaspoon. The cartel leaders have no rules and so our rules simply hamper the effort to curtail them. The film suggests that if we are to really put a dent in the drug cartels, it will be necessary to simply play dirty, Jack Bauer-style.

That will, of course, require players that possibly have marginal interest in saving the world from drugs; more like having an interesting, adventurous career. Different species of players entirely and arguably “no place for a lady”. Is that the future of dealing with monsters? Do we have it right now and we just aren’t aware of it? After recent “leaks” of otherwise secret material, have they learned to hide it most effectively?

French-Canadian Director Denis Villeneuve creates extraordinary sets utilizing the amazing, color-saturated compositions of cinematographer Roger Deakins. The actors, Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and especially Benicio Del Toro are intense and impassioned. It’s an excellent, nail biting story line. It is Del Toro who holds the audience in a hushed but rigid grip, the embodiment of an action character. A study in which the concept of ethics becomes moot to obtain a righteous goal, and if course, what constitutes a righteous goal.

This is an impeccably well-crafted film, highly recommended by me.

Disclaimer: some intense and disturbing scenes.

I give this film four of five Josh Brolin salacious smirks.

“The Martian”, a melding of “Robinson Crusoe on Mars” (1964)…..

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robinson_crusoe_on_mars/

and “Gravity” (2013).

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gravity_2013/

Stellar special effects, partly filmed in the Red Desert of Jordan. Better effects than the ’64 film and better acting than “Gravity.

An astronaut (Matt Damien) is thought dead from an accident and left on Mars when his team exits to avoid a deadly storm. But he’s very much alive and spends the rest of the film creatively fighting to survive until a rescue can be effected.

Based on Andy Weir’s best-selling novel, directed by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, 1982), The Martian is a tour de force for Matt Damon, who definitely rises to the occasion aided by an excellent cast. He has a multiplicity of cool gadgets he MacGyvers, including high tech versions of “Wilson the volleyball” in “Castaway” (2000).

The Martian is a top-notch survival thriller, well acted and superbly photographed. A real potboiler that keeps you one the edge of your seat. 3-D really does a great job of bringing the film to full life without intentionally throwing junk at the viewer. Matt Damon is excellent, and halfway through the film, he brings up a very interesting facet of the maritime laws that might be expanded to inter-planetary exploration.

(Truncated) “If you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies. So Mars is “international waters. After I board the rover, I will take control of a craft in international waters without permission. That makes me a pirate! A space pirate!”

A few words about the new 3-D process. In the past, I have disparaged 3-D on several levels. It was originally developed to give the audience a sense that things were being thrown at them just for shock effect, the glasses were uncomfortable, much of the process was nausea-genic and most great films really didn’t need the effect.

Not anymore. The new 3-D process isn’t for shock value. It lends more subtle perspective and attitude to the film. The viewer sees the action as it might actually be happening in real life. I have not heard any complaints of queasiness. I very much like the experience.
I give it an easy four of five really cool helmets I’d like to have one of.

“Longmire” now fourth season on Netflix, all ten new episodes streaming. A Western crime thriller adapted from the series of mystery novels by Craig Johnson had moderately successful three seasons on (cable) A & E, then was cancelled as A & E figured it had pretty much run it’s course after ratings dropped. They were decidedly wrong. Netflix has turned into a radically different audience than the “family” oriented A & E channel.

Longmire is the third major show Netflix has picked up after they were cancelled by other channels. Notably “Arrested Development” and “The Killing.”, both of which were superb. “Longmire” is a series for viewers who feel dumped for advertising ratings that otherwise mean nothing. They like cops and robbers and an interesting case to solve each week. “Longmire” is also a western filmed with beautiful cinematography in New Mexico. The show is also notable for the significant place it gives to Native American characters. Underrated actor Lou Diamond Phillips shines in his tense performances as does A. Martinez as a shady Indian tribal leader, Katee Sackhoff’s female interest and Gerald McRaney as a aggressive businessman. But the true shining belongs to the lead role of Robert Taylor, an Australian actor who totally aces the laconic American Southwestern Sheriff, craggy face and all.

Netflix has done two really important things with Longmire
“. They made it streaming so viewers could watch as much or as little as they desire to follow the progress of the show and they let the show take chances not available in a family oriented channel. A refreshed format with little concern over conventional ratings, elevated to a “mature” audience. In it’s new incarnation, it masterfully does exactly that. Season 4 wrapped up the lingering questions of Season 3 with a much stronger punch, riddled with subtlety and and kicking off new storylines.

Longmire is an EXCELLENT series and you can watch as much or as little as you like. The pilot episode and the surprising followup are about as good as it gets in cable TV.

I give it an easy 4 of 5 Winchester model 1873s, with a bullet. Highly recommended by me.

In virtually all his films, Tom Cruise does a great job in bringing his character to life. He’s been in some truly good films: Risky Business, Top Gun, The Color of Money, Born on the 4^th of July, A Few Good Men. Everything he does reliably brings in a ton of money and big crowds, but Cruise has never received any serious artistic accolades. Never an Oscar in his 34-year career.

The thing about Tom Cruise is the differentiation between an “actor” and a “Movie Star”. For whatever reason, Cruise doesn’t fit the profile of an actor. He’s a true movie Star and they’re different breeds of cat. Actors generate “critical acclaim” even if their films flop after two weeks but movie stars always generate enthusiasm, crowds and money.

The differentiation between an actor and a Movie Star” is difficult to articulate. In 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart grappled with the definition of obscenity. He said he couldn’t define it but he knew it when he saw it. Similarly, moviegoers know a Movie Star when they see one and they embrace him or her, but when they desire to see an actor, they embrace Robert De Niro, Tom Hardy, Brad Cooper or Clive Owens.

Tom Cruise’s audience knows a movie star when they see one in the contemporary “Mission Impossible” series, began in 1996 and the current iteration: “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”, number five in the series.

By history, the original television Mission series began in 1966 and ended in 1973. It originally starred Steven Hill as IM leader Dan Briggs (1966 only). The phrase “Good morning, Mr. Briggs…” began each episode as a tape recording which detailed that week’s task.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziIh6TKVwpI

After a year, Hill, an Orthodox Jew, left in a dispute over working on the Sabbath. Hill went on to star as NYC District Attorney Adam Schiff in “Law & Order” (1990-2000). Beginning in 1967, Peter Graves assumed the role of Jim Phelps, who remained the leader through 1973 for the remainder of the original series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2KmJMKFrQ

In 1996, the series moved to the big screen with Tom Cruise playing the super-spy Ethan Hunt. Leader Jim Phelps (John Voight) opens the film in similar fashion as the original series with a self-destructing tape, but the character is deleted from the series when found to be traitorous. The original cast members from the 60s were not happy with the film’s portrayal of Phelps and several walked out of the theater before the end of the film. However, the critics were generally kind to the 1996 film.

The Mission Impossible series, including the most current iteration, is VERY entertaining and very well photographed. The action sequences rival (but are not quite as good as) the James Bond franchise. Ethan is clearly a clone of Bond, but without Bond’s subtlety and character flaws that make him consistently interesting above and beyond the action sequences.

Tom Cruise is famously said to do a number of his own stunts, including riding at speed on a superbike (no helmet) and clinging to the side of an aircraft in “Rogue Nation”.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/post/123117423601/tom-cruise-says-mission-impossible-5-plane-stunt

The action sequences of “Rogue Nation” are VERY well done and Cruise is convincing. The motorcycle chases alone are incredible and scary enough to give Cruise’s insurance agent chest pain. Technically, best I can tell the bikes appear to be somewhere in the range of Honda CBR900RR models:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSYCcHdlJ0

They’re scary, scary fast and these sequences with them appear for all the world to be real, with experts handling them (including Cruise cornering with his knee down in full racing position).

The 2015 iteration is very entertaining, the action sequences are excellent and it’s worth the bucks to see it on the big screen. Not out in 3-D which would have been interesting.

I give it three and a half of five toothy, windblown Tom Cruise grimaces.

Recommended by me if you like action flicks.

(Eagerly Awaited, “Spectre” (2015), the twenty-fourth James Bond film)

As more truly contemptible “reality programming” garbage appears on network television, stinking up living rooms near you, a few very interesting series do pop up (on cable). I can’t tell you how many people I know that simply don’t watch TV anymore, but this isn’t fair because if you look around, there are some really well written, expertly performed and magnificently produced series around.

One of the more interesting is the British-American series “Humans” (with the “A” upside down), currently appearing on the AMC channel (and available in sequence on the venerable Pirate Bay for torrent freaks).

http://www.amc.com/shows/humans

The series debuted in June, 2015 for only eight episodes, but there promises to be more as the series has been well received by both critics and audiences on both sides of the pond. Renewal talks in progress right now.

The series is set in suburban London, taking place in the near future where a very useful addition for any busy family is a “synth” – an android eerily similar to a human in virtually every respect. The original creation by an MIT graduate scientist is meant to be pretty much devoid of any emotion, simply serving their families with a flat affect, doing virtually every kind of household chores, including driving the kids to school in the morning.

The “starring” Synth, “Anita” (London actress Gemma Chan) and her fellow synth actors were trained in a ‘synth school’ run by the show’s choreographer to rid themselves of any human physical gestures and become convincing in their roles. They are benignly creepy nearly to the point of being scary.

In time, there appears a hint that some of these androids are a little more intuitive than they’re supposed to be. It becomes apparent that Anita can do more than the laundry when the family’s husband discovers a patch that allows Anita to consummate sex, which he cheerfully indulges. Then of course, gets caught by his wife, whereupon a discussion occurs as to whether sex with a machine is the same kind of “cheating” as sex with another human. (Probably not a discussion you want to have with your wife).

Another intuitive synth informs Dr. Elster’s former partner (William Hurt) that she’s better than humans and lists the ways including no fear of death, whereupon Dr. Millican (Hurt) suggests that any creature without a fear of death doesn’t “live”, they only exist.

It turns out that their creator, MIT scientist Dr. David Elster, has surreptitiously endowed several of them with the ability to reason intuitively and pass for human in many ways. As these synths start to pop up in London causing trouble, it dawns on those involved that if machines can become as human as real humans, the entire fabric of society could be in danger.

The show’s creators try to show a potential for the consequences of unrestrained technology and how it could affect us in many ways we don’t think much about. We use iPhones continuously and rarely talk to each other now. The series explores interesting questions about how humanity would react to what amounts to extensions of an iPhone, a “singularity,” when machines are able to think and act on their own.

“Humans” is a variation on the theme of a previous film I reviewed that was equally interesting:

Film Review: Ex Machina (2015)

These creatures look and act like real humans but they wouldn’t be human in many very important ways. How would such creatures affect the development of human emotions such as empathy and social interaction if they evolved to simulate these features with near-perfect accuracy?

Unfortunately, there are only three more episodes left and it’s unclear whether the series will be continued. If you can find this series, probably on The Pirate Bay, I highly recommend it. I will take all eight episodes off the Pirate Bay when they all run and give them out on DVD to anyone with an interest.

I give it four of five deadpan glances from a spectacularly beautiful Asian woman. Very interesting series.