The Wolf of Wall Street reviewed

Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures

     I have never seen a movie as disdainful as The Wolf of Wall Street.  With that out of the way, make no mistake that this movie shines for its entire 180 minute running time.  The manner in which Scorsese treats Jordan Belfort's life of excess is nothing short of masterful.  Rarely do I find myself cheering for the antihero in a film the way I was here.

     Let me be up front for any of you considering seeing this movie.  If you have any strong sensibilities surrounding good, clean, family-oriented values and are built of a strong moral fiber, then DO NOT go see The Wolf of Wall Street.  This movie will offend you, disgust you, and make you feel filthy inside.  Also, this movie is rated 'R' and it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to take anyone under the age of 18 to see this.  Sure, lots of times you hear or see or know some 14-17 year olds going to 'R' movies, and maybe sometimes that is okay depending on what they are.  THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.  Be a responsible parent.  Teens aren't Scorsese's audience for this movie anyhow.

     So, who is the audience then?  Well, I'd wager anyone not easily offended--which means you are okay with an excessive amount of vulgarity, drug use, nudity, sex, more drug use, more nudity, more vulgarity, cheering for thieves, liars, and cheaters, and laughing at other's misfortune.  I think if you lived through the 70's and 80's and/or can relate to the excess of the yuppie lifestyle, if you are familiar with Gordon Gecko, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, or have watched Boiler Room (2000), that probably works, too.

     On to the good stuff (I will try to limit spoilers): Cameos/ small parts by Rob Reiner, Matthew McConaughey, Jon Favreau, Joanna Lumley (Absolutely Fabulous), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), and an insanely slimmed-down Ethan Suplee all brought their remarkable talent to this game and Scorsese wove their roles into the film in a complimentary way within every scene's action and dialogue they appear.

     This movie is laugh-out-loud funny for probably close to two-thirds of the 180 minutes (again, as long as you are the intended audience).  Not only does DiCaprio and Hill work their accents through the movie, but deliver their lines with gusto.  Some of the physical humor they are called to perform is handled perfectly and the entire theater was in stitches.

     Strong writing, passionate acting, and Scorsese's direction allow the audience to experience the fiasco that was stockbroker Jordan Belfort's drug-fueled, hooker-filled, life-destroying ride for a decade on Wall Street.

     The score and soundtrack are all over the place as we progress through Belfort's years and transitional moments, never over-shadowing or forcing the scene or emotion on the audience, but offering a seamless addition to what we are witnessing on-screen.

Go see it.  Just remember what you are getting yourself into.  I'm giving it:     9.4 out of 10

The World's End reviewed

Image courtesy of Focus Features/ NBC Universal

     With The World's End hitting theaters yesterday, we are looking at the last of the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy movies, with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz being the first two released.  Just what sort of trilogy is this? one may ask.  By the power of Grayskull, it is a trilogy of Cornetto ice cream flavors.  Really.  A different flavor appeared in each of the three movies.

     Don't go looking for anything deeper that connects these movies together, other than the stellar cast that has continued to entertain us with their wit and antics for almost the past decade.  Does The World's End follow suit?  You bet it does, so let's dive right into it.

     Written by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright and directed by Wright, The World's End has a story that, somehow, is more over the top than either of the ones that came before it.  Sure, a lot of us can relate to getting out of high school and expecting some great times that summer.  Those of us with a few more years of living even know what it is like in our mid-lives to want to get some of the old crew together for another chance to relive the so-called glory days.  And most of us are very familiar with the wonderful thought of dropping a pint... or 12... while pulling ourselves around a pub crawl.

     The manner in which Wright and Pegg tell the story is what really puts it out there, though. What we might consider "living", or moving ourselves through the usual rote, mundane daily chores and habits of our lives, is brought to vivid life by the very adolescent needs of the very grown-up Gary King (Pegg).

     As usual, I really try to steer away from spoilers, but the gist of the plot surrounds Gary wrangling up his four best buddies from high school days and going out for a pub crawl roughly 20 years later.  Along the way, we meet up with Argus Filch (not really, but it is David Bradley playing a crotchety old man.  Wait, that sounds just like Walder Frey from Game of Thrones.  But we won't typecast him.) and Rosamund Pike (Jack Reacher, Die Another Day) playing the sister of one of our motley bunch.

     There is a constant battle going against King, because he just won't grow up and be what everyone else thinks he should be.  They are all just one great big hilarious mess, and that about sums up Wright and Pegg's portrait of humanity in this movie:  a mess.  Imperfect.  Contradictory.  Imbalanced.  And most importantly, possessing a vitality that demonstrates why the human race plans on sticking around this Spaceship Earth for quite some time to follow.

     A great soundtrack is woven through the movie and compliments every scene the songs accompany.  I thought the Doors Alabama Song (Whiskey Jar) was a standout inclusion, as was Silver Bullet's 20 Seconds to Comply.  I'm Free by the Soup Dragons makes an entertaining on-going joke throughout, as well.

     The humor is masterfully woven into the dialogue with minimal slapstick, and I'm afraid I probably missed even more to laugh at, as it was coming from all directions.  At the heart of all of this humor is really the dynamic between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, though.  Their ability to play off each other has been instrumental in the success of all three Edgar Wright films, and their own movie Paul.  In The World's End, this camaraderie is extended to the likes of Martin Freeman (The Hobbit, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), Eddie Marsan (Jack the Giant Slayer, Sherlock Holmes), and Paddy Considine (Hot Fuzz, The Bourne Ultimatum).  Freeman is far more Arthur Dent than Bilbo Baggins here.  I'm not used to seeing Marsan in a comedic role and I think he really gives one of the better performances.  Considine gets a far bigger role than just being one of the Andys in this one.

     As the premise was laid out, I felt the first five to ten minutes were slightly slower than I was anticipating, but after that, there was no stopping them.  In retrospect, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead took a few moments at the very start to establish the ideas, also.

     If I am going to pick a favorite, it is probably Hot Fuzz, closely followed by The World's End and Shaun of the Dead (they are within hundredths of a point).  If you enjoy a cleverly written movie with drinking and great friendships on display, and an inclusion of action and some crazy antics, then look no further and go out to see The World's End.  I'm glad I did.  I'm giving it:       8.8 out of 10

 

Elysium reviewed

Image courtesy of TriStar Pictures

     I was a big fan of Neill Blomkamp’s District 9.  So was Peter Jackson (producer), so I feel I’m in decent, qualified company.  His gritty, realistic sci-fi cinematography combined with usually seamless and immersive CGI/ special effects makes for a fantastic medium to deliver his vision of the story.  Complimenting the visuals is the depth of humanity that Blomkamp manages to convey in the characters he is putting into these scenes.  Whether it is Sharlto Copley’s Wickus Van De Merwe in District 9 or Matt Damon’s Max in Elysium, we are watching real people in challenging, emotionally-charged interactions throughout the movie.

     There is no time wasted prior to establishing the parallels of the modern day divide between the haves and the have-nots, and Blomkamp’s desolate Earth packed with the 99% while the 1% crowd enjoys all the perks of the space station Elysium, which includes the sort of all-encompassing healthcare that can do anything for you.  Provided you are part of the 1%.

     Elysium security is headed up by Jessica Delacourt (Jodi Foster), carrying a slightly maniacal, do-what-it-takes attitude wherever she goes—butting heads with the president, issuing covert commands, and ultimately looking out for no one but herself.  I really felt her character could have just made Jack Nicholson’s speech from A Few Good Men and it wouldn’t have seemed out of place.  You know the speech I mean… the one where Maverick couldn’t handle the truth.

     Far better, I thought, is Copley’s turn as Kruger.  A psychotic agent working for Delacourt stationed down on Earth.  Kruger’s mind breaks even further as the movie continues and Max (Damon) attempts to make a risky trip from Earth to Elysium.

     How does Max’s journey go? Well, you’ll just need to go watch Elysium if you want to know.  It is the movie, and I don’t like putting spoilers down.

     Other notable thoughts were that I neither liked nor disliked the score.  Ryan Amon now has one movie under his belt for Composer, so it will be interesting to see if he sticks in this genre, if Blomkamp uses him again, or if he goes a different direction entirely.

     It is always entertaining to see a “future” movie’s choice of product placement, too.  Apparently GMC is still around in the year 2154.  So is Homeland Security—I bet you are all feeling safer now.  Bugatti and Nissan find homes as well.  I know there were more, but I don’t remember them.  They didn’t feel out of place, though.  I was curious enough about this, so looked things up on Blomkamp’s choices.  Apparently there were some pretty conscious thoughts going into it, and I would suggest doing a search to see why he made his choices.

     I really enjoyed this movie, and like many sci-fi features, I would recommend catching it on the big screen.  I’m giving this:   8.5 out of 10

The Wolverine reviewed

    

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox and Marvel

As a long-time fan of Logan/ Wolverine, I enjoyed watching the first outing of Hugh Jackman as the titular character in 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  With that being said, I think they could have done a much better job for his origin or “first” story arc.  I feel character development surrounding the angst of Logan and his mutation was weak, Liev Schreiber played a passable Victor Creed, and Ryan Reynolds gave a decent enough performance as the maniac Deadpool to warrant discussion of a standalone movie for him.  Toss in some of Wolverine’s history working in Canada and his love interest (Silverfox, played by Lynn Collins), and now you have the makings of a busy, over-reaching mess.  Sure it was action packed, but is that what fans of Wolverine really wanted?  Probably not, as is evidenced by the strong support and turnout for Jackman’s new movie as Logan… The Wolverine.

     The Wolverine has successfully remedied most of the aforementioned issues that its predecessor suffered from.  Taking the general plot from Chris Claremont’s Wolverine mini-series (1982), we get a glimpse into Logan’s time he spent in Japan away from the X-Men.  While there, he learns to deal with his seeming immortality, manages to fall in love with someone other than Jean Grey (Mariko Yashida played by Tao Okamoto), and battles for his (and others) lives with the help of Yukio (Rila Fukushima) against the scheming Yashida clan.  Included in those battles are our first glimpse of Viper and the Silver Samurai (although I don’t think he is ever referenced as such).

     As far as I’m concerned, this is much closer to a character driven story than it is a comic book action flick.  There is plenty of action, but the interactions between Logan, Mariko, and Yukio are emotionally-driven, and I think that really helps tell this story.  When we get to an action sequence, it moves the story along between the characters as a useful accoutrement, rather than serving as nothing more than a simple, visual adrenaline rush .We learn more about who Logan really is in a few conversations—something that the first movie wasn’t really able to do in two hours.  Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) didn’t really work for me as a villain choice, and what director James Mangold (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma) felt he needed to show us includes a little over-the-top comic book action (I think there was just no escaping a bit of that).  Marco Beltrami provides a great soundtrack blending classically Japanese compositions with well-placed, action-ready pieces that compliment the scene, rather than overpower and force the feeling on you.

     If a third Wolverine movie could be written and directed as well as The Wolverine, I would definitely not look at it as a “trilogy” money-grab.  It would be a welcome addition to the cinematic story of one of the more complex characters in the world of superheroes.  I’m giving this:     8.0 out of 10

The Lone Ranger reviewed

Image courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

     If you've heard about The Lone Ranger at all, then it was probably nothing very flattering.  It's been critically panned by almost anyone who isn't your everyday movie-going audience.  You know.... the people that movies are actually made for.  The average person shelling out $8.38 for a ticket (National Association of Theater Owners) has enjoyed it for the most part.

     That's me, in case you haven't noticed from my past reviews.  Just an average movie-going guy, shelling out his cash and possibly sneaking in a box of $1 candy from Walmart.  So, here's what I thought of it:  It was a fun movie to watch, probably due to the amount of levity that followed John Reid, a.k.a. the Lone Ranger (played by Armie Hammer) and Tonto (played by Johnny Depp and brought to his usual levels of character eccentricity) throughout Texas.

     I'll be upfront about the amount of levity.  This movie felt all over the place, seeming to struggle to find its own identity.  It was a western, an action and adventure, a comedy, a little romance, and even a little mystery.  All rolled into one movie.  This didn't really bother me.  There was enough to like about all the different parts to find it enjoyable.  I do think Gore Verbinski should have spent a little more directorial effort in focusing on a more singular identity.  In that regard, I feel he had a much stronger performance in how he shot Pirates of the Caribbean.

     I remember watching Lone Ranger reruns in the eighties on some independent TV station (I imagine) out of Rockford, probably with my brother Matt and Dad; these are mostly just bits and pieces of memory, like him using silver bullets, never ever taking the mask off, going after the bad guy Cavendish, and not being in the business of killing anyone-- just bringing justice to their crimes.  The 2013 version stays fairly true to all of that.

     You'll want to keep in mind that like Man of Steel, this too is an origin story.  From the arrival of John Reid into Texas, through the events that spark him to don the mask, to his friendship with Tonto, we see it all again for the first time.

     I found some of the more enjoyable acting to come out of William Fichtner (Elysium, Prison Break, Entourage) and Tom Wilkinson (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Michael Clayton).  As the villains of our story, I thought they brought a some variety to their characters that fleshed them out more than the Lone Ranger.

     Hans Zimmer once again provides a movie with a well-composed score, and makes sure to tuck in Rossini's William Tell Overture, a Lone Ranger staple.

     I think it all works.  Will it continue to work?  Will this become a new, big Disney franchise?  Probably not, as the numbers at the box office have spoken.  Focus will be shifted to Pirates of the Caribbean 5 (I don't think there is a title yet) and The Lone Ranger will be left (ironically) alone, with the studio scratching their heads as to what went wrong.  I'm glad I saw it in the theater.  I'm giving it:      7 out of 10

Monster's University reviewed

Image courtesy of Disney•Pixar

It was easy to think that Pixar movies were incapable of being poorly created or received.  For 15 years they had put out nothing but fantastic, story-driven movies that were visually amazing and reached the audience on emotional levels.

And then the summer of 2011 was upon us and Cars 2 hit the theaters, proving to be something of a bust, running Pixar right off the track. What a terrible pun. I'm sorry.  So what did Disney•Pixar do?

They released Brave.  Which bounced the company right back into the sort of success they have always been known for.

But wait, you say.  I thought this was a Monster's University review.  All you've done is rehashed stuff we already knew.

I'm getting there.

Monster's University is a great movie.  There you go.  That makes two in a row now, so we'll call that a "new" streak going for Pixar.

In M.U., we are treated to a prequel of Monster's, Inc.  That gave the creative team some room to play with in terms of character development and storyline.  How did our main characters get to be where we last saw them?  What challenges did they have?  Where was John Ratzenberger's voice going to pop up?  Will Randy Newman's songs sound any different than they do in all the other Pixar movies he's done?  The answers to the last two questions are 1.  He does do a voice and 2.  No. Randy Newman's songs always sound the same anytime and everywhere.  Moving on...

Mike Wazowski and James "Sulley" Sullivan are a fantastic duo.  Like a modern day "odd couple", we are treated to the comedy that ensues from the battle between obsessive Mike and carefree Sulley as they embark on their journey through college together.

We glimpse at the movie's opening what drives Mike in his youth, and Sulley makes his first appearance in an unforgettable manner.

M.U. is filled with twists and turns for our pair of future Scare Floor heroes, as they team up with the less-than-cool monsters in a sprawling campus battle of scares and wits against the very system itself.  The storytelling in M.U. really gets you feeling as if you are a part of all the antics going on and provides an immersion in the environment amongst the characters that a lot of comedy and action movies frequently fail to deliver on.

With peeks at many characters' beginnings and changes, M.U. fills the audience in with more of the enjoyment we received in Monstropolis the first time around with Pixar.  On top of the obvious things we are shown in the movie, there are probably plenty of "Easter eggs" tossed in, as well.  Unfortunately, I was too engrossed in the story and characters to watch for stuff on my first viewing, so I can't tell you anything to look for.  There is a very short segment after the credits are finished if you want to stick around for it.

If you were a fan of Monster's, Inc. then I'm confident in saying you will really like Monster's University, too.  It's theater worthy.  Especially if you have children.
I'm giving this:        7.5 out of 10

Man of Steel reviewed

Image copyright Warner Brothers Entertainment

     Man of Steel is not your grandfather's Superman.  Nor was it my Superman.  Zach Snyder, under the production leadership of Christopher Nolan, has given audiences a son of Krypton with more modern appeal and action than probably any of the previous Superman movies combined.
     I went into Man of Steel with the expectation that this was a true reboot, unlike the 2006 Superman Returns.  I suggest doing the same if you go see it.  It's best to understand you are not going to be watching Richard Donner directing Christopher Reeve.  Man of Steel does to Superman what Batman Begins did for Batman.  It gives us characters we've grown up with and puts them into a darker, grittier today.  This isn't the age of world wars, nuclear families, peace & love.  We live in an era of globalization, diminishing privacy, and deep social debates of rights and wrongs with no end in sight.  The comic book version Superman keeps up with this.  Why shouldn't the movie version?

     So who were these new faces underneath such established characters?

     I had to look through IMDB to see who Henry Cavill was.  I have not seen anything he has been in.  Not even Immortals, which appears to be about the only one that would have held any interest.  Did this matter?
     Not in the least.  Coming in at about 3" shorter than Christopher Reeve, Cavill's stature as Superman in the movie was not measured by height, but by the maturity (he's 4 years older than Reeve was at the time), physique, and boyish-charm he brings to the screen.  Clark Kent is put through a range of emotions for much of the movie, and Cavill covers them all.  Like Reeve, he carries an air of goodness about him, sort of a benevolent caretaker for us on Earth.  We learn who he is, where he came from, and what we can expect from someone with the strength and power that Superman possesses.

     You know who else I had to look up?  Michael Shannon, who plays General Zod.  With a much more extensive background than Cavill, I feel like I should have known who he is.  After going through the IMDB list, the only thing I *might* have seen him in were the two episodes of Early Edition he apparently was in.  And that's just because I think I watched most of Early Edition.
     Anyhow, Michael Shannon was phenomenal.  His portrayal of Zod cuts right to the heart of the tenuous relationship between the House of El (Superman's family) and himself.  His battle to fulfill his role and preserve a way of life at any cost is not so different from extremists in the world today.  Evil terrorists to some, heroes in their own way to their followers.  The energy Shannon brings to this role is simply electrifying.

     I can at least say I have seen Amy Adams in some other movies.  How was her Lois Lane?  Well, she doesn't smoke, so +1 for that.  She does seem to get into the same sort of stupid messes that Lois always gets into.  Every time you turn around, Superman is saving her.  But she does bring the same grit and determination that the intrepid reporter always seems to have, as evidenced by her first scene in the movie.  Does the romance between Superman and Lois seem as natural as in the original movie?  Probably not, but not to say it isn't blossoming.  I think what keeps it more at bay isn't the lack of on-screen chemistry between Cavill and Adams, but how they have made Cavill's Superman feel far more like the all-powerful alien being he is, than Reeve's ever felt.

     Some quick blurbs on the only others I feel like mentioning:

     Russell Crowe's version of Jor-El is much cooler than what Marlon Brando had to work with.  They gave him a deeper, more meaningful character and allowed much more screen time to advance the plot.  It wasn't self-serving Russell Crowe time--it was important, story driven Jor-El time.  He clearly cares about his son.  Just as much as...

     Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who took over the reigns as Jonathan and Martha Kent, respectively.  They gave some emotional performances that made you feel their own difficulty in what it was like trying to raise someone as special as Clark.  Their support of their son in who he is never wavers and they share it well with the audience.

     I don't want to get into spoilers and specifics.  I will say that Man of Steel moves at a very quick pace, with plenty of action.  Clark Kent's backstory is tucked into relevant parts as flashbacks and the whole thing is fairly seamless.  Hans Zimmer composed the score for this, and once again hits another homerun with his choices throughout every scene.

     This is the sort of movie that is worth seeing in the theater.  I'm talking splurge on full-price tickets if you can't do a matinee.  I give this:          8.1 out of 10