JFK (1991)

November 22, 2013

jfk1 Greetings again from the darkness. Fifty years to the day after the tragic assassination of President Kennedy seems like the best time for me to finally write something about Oliver Stone’s controversial 1991 film. As a Dallas resident, the hallmark event has never been far removed, either mentally or geographically. I periodically see movies at the Texas Theatre where Oswald was captured. It’s impossible to drive downtown and not regularly pass the Texas School Book Depository and Dealey Plaza. The reminders are always present and maybe that’s a good thing.

When this movie was released, it shook the dust off the story and brought much attention back to the crime that had once seemed so quickly solved. The conspiracy theorists embraced Mr. Stone’s work and even those who knew little of the Warren Report were swept up in the details and accusations. It was so easily accepted as an investigative presentation, and it was a way for the people to finally get what they wanted … the answer to what happened and why.

jfk2 Viewing the film this week again for the first time since 1991, it’s understandable why so many were swept up in the frenzy. This is an expert presentation of a staggering number of theories and details and characters. With a run time well over three hours, the only opportunities for an exhale come during the somewhat lame interactions between New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and his wife (Sissy Spacek). Othewise, it’s a very well written parade of movie stars that is exceptionally photographed and expertly edited. Newsreel footage, reenactments, and dramatizations of events successfully create a mind puzzle. The film grabs you and does not let go … and this is 22 years after release and 50 years after the assassination.

Now don’t mistake that praise for believability. While Stone’s approach has been attacked from all sides, he did publish an annotated script “proving” his details. Still, his blending of theories is staggering: the military, the CIA, the FBI, LBJ, the Mafia, the pro- and anti-Castro types, the Russians, and even a likely corrupt businessman. The latter is Clay Shaw, played with evil enjoyment by Tommy Lee Jones in a role worthy of a movie unto itself.

jfk3 In Stone’s version, Garrison is the voice of truth. He’s the guy that doesn’t buy off on the Warren Report. In fact, this movie version of Garrison represents us as the viewer … the citizens who want to believe our government, but are too rational to accept things spoon fed to us. This isn’t so much a courtroom drama or investigative report, it’s more like a data dump. Stone is delivering all of the little doubts in one fell swoop. In other words, with all of these possibilities and unexplained events, how could it not be a conspiracy? Was it a coup d’etat with LBJ waiting in the wings? That makes sense if you believe defense contractors were unwilling to sit quietly as JFK pulled out of Vietnam. Was Oswald a patsy as he claimed? That argument can certainly be supported. More than one gunman? 5.6 seconds, a tree in the eye line, and smoke from the grassy knoll can lead to that conclusion. The movie serves as our emotional outburst at not knowing why this happened and who was responsible. We like our mysteries solved and this one apparently never will be.

Roger Ebert once said that facts are for print and emotions are for film. Oliver Stone seems to excel at the latter. He gives us permission to be paranoid. He takes extreme dramatic license with two extended soliloquies: Donald Sutherland as “X” (Fletcher Prouty) and Kevin Costner as Garrison in the courtroom. Neither of these events are probable, in fact the courtroom scene is borne from numerous Garrison speeches, quotes and book passages over the years.

This 50th anniversary has brought at least three new JFK inspired films: Parkland, Killing Kennedy, and Letters To Jackie. Three very different approaches to the man and the event that changed the world … it changed our perceptions and our expectations. Oliver Stone’s film gave us permission to do so out loud.

**NOTE: on the anniversary of this event, it’s important to remember that Officer JD Tippett was also brutally gunned down that day by Oswald

**NOTE: the real Jim Garrison appears in the movie as Earl Warren (yes, of the Warren Commission)

**NOTE: Unitended humor occurs with a sweaty John Candy saying “Daddy-O” and when Kevin Bacon says “People GOT to know”

 

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB (2013)

November 11, 2013

dallas1 Greetings again from the darkness. It’s not unusual for an actor or actress to alter their physical appearance for a movie role. Sometimes those changes become the story: Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull, Christian Bale in The Machinist and Charlize Theron in Monster are a few that come to mind. Regardless of the transformation or make-up, what really matters is the performance and the character. Just ask Eddie Murphy (Norbit) or Gwyneth Paltrow (Shallow Hal). In Dallas Buyers Club, we actually get two incredible transformations that lead to two stunning performances.

dallas2 Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto each lost approximately 40 pounds for their respective roles as Ron Woodroof, the redneck, three-way loving, alcoholic, drug-addicted electrician/rodeo cowboy; and Rayon, the sensitive, street-savvy, would-be transsexual so desperate for a kind word. Their physical appearance will startle you more than once, but is quite effective in getting across the struggles of those infected with HIV virus in the 1980’s. The number of victims impacted exploded and the medical profession was ill-equipped to properly treat the patients.

This is based on a true story and a real life guy (Woodroof) who became a most unlikely beacon of hope for AIDS patients. Woodroof fought the medical industry, Pharmaceutical companies and the government (FDA, DEA, IRS). It’s impossible to miss the message and accusations that most of these had a single goal of increasing profits, rather than dallas3curing the disease. And that’s where the story lags a bit. Michael O’Neill and Dennis O’Hare are the faces of greed and bureaucracy, while Jennifer Garner, Leto, and Griffin Dunne represent the side with a heart (though Ms. Garner is clearly out of her class here). Woodroof seems to be a guy who just doesn’t want to die, sees a business opportunity, and even learns a little bit about humanity along the way.

There have been numerous other projects that deal with AIDS, including: Philadelphia with Tom Hanks and the recent documentary How to Survive a Plague. This may be the first with a protagonist who is distinctly unlikeable, despite his passion and strong survival instincts. McConaughey doesn’t shy away from the homophobic personality and cruel manner of speech that Woodroof possesses. We never doubt his frustration at those controlling the big picture, but we never really see him connect with those his brash tactics help.

dallas4 McConaughey is on a dream run as an actor right now, and it certainly wouldn’t be surprising to see him garner an Oscar nomination. But it would be a mistake to chalk that up to his losing so much weight – he really delivers a character that we won’t soon forget. And let’s not overlook Mr. Leto, who has been away from acting for 4 years touring with his band. He is a remarkable talent and a true screen presence. Compare this role to his Mark David Chapman in Chapter 27. It’s not just the range of weight, but moreso the range in acting that so impresses.

Also worth noting here is the outstanding cinematography of Yves Belanger. This movie is shot in a way that brings out the intimacy of the moment, while not losing the big picture. Director Jean-Marc Vallee (The Young Victoria) and co-writers Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack work together for a solid foundation, but it’s McConaughey and Leto that we will most remember … and of course, the pics of the great Marc Bolan on the wall.

**NOTE: for you baseball fans, that is in fact slugger Adam Dunn as a bartender.  He was also an investor in the film.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you want to see two of the best and most startling acting performances of the year OR you want a glimpse at the confusion and panic that the AIDS epidemic brought to the mid 1980’s.

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are looking for an elegant treatment of AIDS … this one will make your skin crawl.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvMPU0WaPcc

4 Comments | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

LAST VEGAS (2013)

November 9, 2013

last vegas1 Greetings again from the darkness. I’ve been writing about “Gray Cinema” for the past few years and the understandable desire of Hollywood to capitalize on the aging population. Take that trend and mix it with new-age buddy pictures like The Hangover and Bridesmaids, and you can at least imagine what director Jon Turteltaub (the National Treasure movies) and writer Dan Fogelman (the very entertaining Crazy Stupid Love) were attempting to create.

The film’s poster recalls the glory days of the Rat Pack, so taking this foursome of sixty-something year old childhood buddies to Las Vegas presents many possibilities. There is no shortage of enthusiasm from the four leads: Michael Douglas as Billy, the smooth-talking lifelong bachelor who proposed to his thirty-ish girlfriend at a funeral; Morgan Freeman as Archie, suffocating in a cocoon of family over-protection; Robert Deniro as Paddy, the isolated widow wallowing in grief for the past year; and Kevin Kline as Sam, the stir-crazy Florida stereotype bored with 4:00 dinner parties and his marriage.

last vegas2 These top notch actors give it all they have, but there is just no rescuing such fluff and lack of substance. The script is frustrating throughout and just gives no credit to an audience that might appreciate even a gag or story line that wasn’t obvious from the opening credits. Mary Steenburgen‘s character provides a brief respite, but the developments are so absurd that neither her character or the story line can be taken seriously.

Toss in a bar fight, bikini contest, mandatory viagra jokes, a world class Casino penthouse, an inconceivable party that would be shut down by fire code, and a wasted cameo from 50 Cent … and you get a lame, flat, mostly unfunny story that barely skims the surface of an endless stream of possibly interesting topics.  It’s certainly not at the level of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel … or even Space Cowboys.

I’ll end by stating that I am a huge fan of Gray Cinema, but my request is that some effort go into the script and production so that viewers are provided with an entertaining and intelligent and respectful experience. There is no need to dwell on the bits of culture that have passed them by or the physical ailments that plague their activities. Luckily, the stellar cast prevents this one from flopping to the level that the script deserves.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you can appreciate the novelty of a cast of leading men all in their sixties and seventies OR you get a kick out of knowing the punchline of every joke before it actually happens

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you expect a certain level of “smarts” in movies … even comedies.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnr-R7BkkU

 

2 Comments | Comedy, Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

ALL IS LOST (2013)

November 2, 2013

all is lost1 Greetings again from the darkness. In Cast Away, Tom Hanks makes friends with a volleyball. In The Old Man and the Sea, Spencer Tracy talks to the whale. In Harvey,  James Stewart chats it up with a tall imaginary rabbit! It takes the great Robert Redford to show us how to face isolation with silent dignity (save one well-deserved F-word).

Writer/director J.C. Chandor brought us the very good Margin Call (2011), which was filled with many characters and mounds of dialogue. Here, he reverses field with a single character and no real dialogue – only the opening log entry and a couple of SOS calls into a short-circuited radio. This is one man’s struggle for survival. It’s that man vs nature. It’s our man facing mortality and isolation.

all is lost2 So you are probably wondering how this can hold your attention for two hours. The real answer is Robert Redford. At age 77, his screen presence is remarkable. Having never been a “showy” actor, his performance and this movie depend on facial expressions, his body language, and mostly his ability to connect with an audience immediately. In 1972, Redford was Jeremiah Johnson, another man of few words who fought nature (and native Americans in that one), but this one is more immediate with its pending doom.  Technically, All is Lost is exceptional, especially in sound design and in creating a terrifying and believable situation. But it’s Mr. Redford that causes us to feel thirsty with him, and to hold our breath as a storm shoves him underwater.

all is lost3 Alex Ebert’s music is subtle and effective, but let’s get real … Mr. Redford and his mop of red hair are the reason to see this movie. There is almost no back story on this character, other than what we infer from his opening log entry. We know his “I’m sorry” has many meanings to his family, but we soon realize his will to live probably comes from an internal drive connected to his apology. It’s nice to see a role for an older actor that doesn’t included stupid humor designed to make kids laugh. Not much humor in this one, and there is no need to be sorry.

**NOTE: Robert Redford’s acting career spans more than 50 years and 6 decades. Many think of a sexy Robert Redford in one of his numerous roles, but this is the first to pair him with a sextant!

SEE THIS MOVIE: for the extraordinary performance of Hollywood legend Robert Redford OR if you are tired of the incessant cute-talk featured in most movies and shows these days (this one gives your ears a break, though your other senses work overtime)

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are seeking guffaws or playful banter (it’s only filled with an excess of undrinkable water)

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_R04LfUQU

3 Comments | Drama | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

THE BICYCLE THIEF (1948, Italy, Ladri di biciclette)

October 31, 2013

bicycle1 Greetings again from the darkness. To understand why this is considered a masterpiece of cinema and one of the best films ever made, one must put the era of its release into perspective. It’s 1948 – post war Italy and poverty mandates the fabric of society. Humanity is difficult to come by. Self-interest controls actions and emotions. Hollywood is in a glitz and glamor mode, while Italian cinema has been dominated with light-hearted and simple films. Vittorio De Sica is a matinée idol as an actor and also, as a director, one of the driving forces of Neo-realism … a genre that focused on the struggles of real people.

There is nothing fancy or complicated about this story. Ricci is one of the masses looking for work at a time when jobs are beyond scarce. One day he is extremely fortunate to be offered a job posting signs around town. He is elated at the bicycle4opportunity to again provide for his wife and young son. The only catch … he must have a bicycle for the job. His wife pawns their bedsheets to retrieve the bicycle and we join in with their pride and happiness brought on by this job.

We see Ricci on a ladder posting a Rita Hayworth movie advertisement … an example of Hollywood’s polar opposite approach to movies as compared to the Italian neo-realism. While on the ladder, Ricci witnesses the theft of his precious bicycle. His frantic reaction demonstrates the loss means so much more than the loss of two-wheeled transportation. It’s actually the loss of hope.

Soon enough Ricci and his young son Bruno are searching the streets of Rome trying to find the bicycle. It plays like a road trip movie as they experience many interactions on the streets and back alleys. Their search is painful to watch, and father and son endure many emotions, none more powerful than the last few minutes and a touching final shot that is a tribute to the great Charlie Chaplin.

All three lead actors are first timers which adds to the realistic look and feel of the characters and stories. Lamberto Maggiorani (Ricci) was a factory worker who showed up for auditions. He is a very striking man with a Daniel Day-Lewis appearance. Enzo Staiola (Bruno) was a 7 year old boy just watching the whole movie process when he was picked out of the crowd and cast. Lianella Carell (Maria) was a journalist on set to interview De Sica when he cast her as the wife/mother. Additionally, most of this was filmed on the streets and on location in Rome (very few sets).

de sica The actual Italian title is “Ladri di biciclette” which translates into Bicycle Thieves, but it has been best known in the U.S. as The Bicycle Thief, the title I prefer. It’s based on a novel by Luigi Bartolini and the screenplay comes from the incredibly prolific screenwriter Cesare Zavattini, who worked with most of the great filmmakers from the 1940’s through the 1970’s. Also of note, Sergio Leone was an assistant to director Vittorio De Sica (pictured left) during production. De Sica directed many wonderful films including Sunshine (1947), which looked at juvenile corruption, and Umberto D. (1952) which examined old age.

The film received an honorary Oscar in 1950, as there had been no category yet established for Best Foreign Language film.  Many question the status of this film as a masterpiece all these years later, but I certainly still experience it’s powerful and sensitive message, and would recommend to anyone who admires world cinema and the classics.

 

watch a trailer from one of the re-releases:

 

 

Leave a Comment » | Classics, Drama, World Cinema/Foreign | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

12 YEARS A SLAVE (2013)

October 27, 2013

slave1 Greetings again from the darkness. Should this be labeled a historical drama? Is it one man’s extraordinary tale of strength and survival? Does this fall into the “art film” category that so divides the movie-going public? The answer to all is YES, and I would add that it’s a masterfully crafted film with exquisite story telling, stunning photography and top notch acting throughout.

The movie is based on the real life and writings of Solomon Northrup, a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery from 1841-53. Northrup’s story provides us a look inside the despicable institution of slavery. Needless to say, it’s a painful and sad process made even more emotional by the work of director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame). McQueen takes a very direct approach. Not much is left to the imagination. Torture, abuse, cruelty and misery take up the slave2full screen. The only subtlety comes from the terrific work of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Northrup. His facial expressions and eyes are more powerful and telling than any lines of dialogue could be.

You will not find many details from the movie here. This is one to experience for yourself. It lacks the typical Hollywood agenda when it comes to American history. Instead this era is presented through the eyes of a single wronged man and his quest to return to his wife and kids, no matter the inhumane obstacles. We see Paul Giamatti as an emotionless, all-business slave trader. Benedict Cumberbatch is a plantation owner who has a heart, but lacks business savvy. And finally we enter the world of cotton farmer Michael Fassbender, who twists Bible scripture into threats directed at the slaves – his “property”.

slave3 Fassbender dives deep into evil to find his character, and along with Ejiofor, Sarah Paulsen (who plays Fassbender’s icy wife), and Lupita Nyong’o (who plays slave Patsey, the center of the two most incredible scenes in the film), provide more Oscar worthy performances than any one movie can expect. You will also note Quvenzhane Wallis (as Northrup’s daughter) and Dwight Henry (as a slave) in their first appearances since Beasts of the Southern Wild. Other strong support comes from Scoot McNairy, Taran Killam (SNL), Michael K Williams, Alfre Woodard, a nasty Paul Dano, Garret Dillahunt and Adepero Oduye.

Steven Spielberg gave us a taste of the holocaust with Schindler’s List, but not since the TV mini-series “Roots” has any project come so close to examining the realities of slavery. Northrup’s story seems to be from a different universe than the slave4charming slaves of Gone with the Wind. I would argue that what makes this watchable (though very difficult) is the focus on Northrup’s story. While tragic, his ending actually deflects from the ongoing plight of those not so fortunate. It’s a story of a man who states he doesn’t wish to merely survive, he wants to live a life worth living.

McQueen’s direction will certainly be front and center come awards season, as will many of the actors, John Ridley (the screenwriter), Sean Bobbitt (cinematographer) and Hans Zimmer (score). The only question is whether the subject matter is too tough for Oscar voters, who traditionally lean towards projects a bit more mainstream.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you want to see filmmaking and story-telling at the highest level and based on the true path of one man during one of America’s most despicable periods.

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: slavery, complete with explicit scenes of turture and cruelty, is something you would rather read about than see depicted onscreen.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQNjfhlREk

2 Comments | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

KILLING KENNEDY (2013)

October 20, 2013

Greetings again from  the darkness.  The premiere of this National Geographic channel production was held for a group of national writers and, thanks to the Dallas Film Society, we were able to be there for the very first theatrical screening – the first even killing1for the writer and director, who were also in attendance.   The event was held at the historic Texas Theatre, which of course, is where Lee Harvey Oswald was captured on that fateful November day in 1963.

Kelly Masterson (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead) wrote the screenplay for this movie based on the book co-written by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, who also co-wrote “Killing Lincoln”.  It should be noted that neither the books nor their corresponding movies provide any new information, and actually stick very close to the traditionally accepted chain of events (in Kennedy’s case that’s The Warren Report). These works aren’t meant to add fuel to the conspiracy theory fires, but rather to allow for straight-forward re-telling and visualization for those too young to have the images from 50 years ago etched into their memories.

This version in particular focuses on a 3-4 year period leading up to the assassination, and the parallels of Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald, and John and Jacqueline Kennedy.  We witness the (fictionalized) account of Oswald renouncing his US citizenship and spending time in Russia where he meets Marina.  Their return to the US focuses on his continued work at spreading the gospel of communism, especially supporting Casto’s Cuba.   We see a bit more of Oswald as a family man killing3than what we are accustomed to, but we are never far from his Marine-gone-bad image … and there is certainly an emphasis on making the point that Oswald was an expert marksman (though the point is often debated) despite his alleged failed attempt on the life of Army General Edwin Walker.

On the other hand, the Kennedy’s are portrayed as a loving couple, though JFK’s flings are not ignored.  Here, Jacqueline is the devoted and extremely supportive wife of a man somewhat insecure in his new level of power.  Their love for each other is driven home with numerous (actually too many) lines of dialogue that basically say “the one thing I couldn’t bear is losing you”.   The behind-the-scenes glimpses include JFK listening to the “Camelot” soundtrack, his back pain and subsequent injections, and the numerous cracks and concerns from all involved about traveling to Dallas, a city viewed as politically volatile and dangerous.

The now very famous footage of Oswald’s final trek is expertly recreated mostly from the view point of Jack Ruby, though killing2not much insight to Ruby is provided.  Here he’s merely a justice seeking citizen who is frustrated that his beloved President was shot.  Of course many other theories abound, as with most every aspect of the event.  There is a very vivid re-enactment of the Oswald/Officer JD Tippit confrontation, and the Texas Theatre capture seems pretty authentic. We get very little attention on the FBI, CIA or Secret Service, and we are presented with the stark contrast in the funerals of Oswald and Kennedy. Minimal actual footage of Kennedy or Oswald is used until the very end of the movie, which allows the viewer to remain in “fiction” mode … much of what we see is speculation from the lives of these two families.

 Rob Lowe and Ginner Goodwin are effective as Jack and Jacqueline, and a hefty Casey Siemaszko has the look of Jack Ruby. Michelle Trachtenberg may be a bit too pretty for Marina, but her demeanor is as imagined.  Natalie Gold gets a few scenes as Ruth Paine, a piece of the puzzle often ignored in the story.  The best and most affecting performance here is that of Will Rothhaar as Oswald. He balances the passion for the cause with the mental instability, and we never view him a monster – just a misguided, desperate man.  Director Nelson McCormick (mostly TV work) never really judges these characters, and in the process leaves it to us to answer the real question on Oswald … patsy or no patsy?

**NOTE: See this on the National Georgraphic Channel, airing November 10.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHZqXcPZJOE

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

PARKLAND (2013)

October 15, 2013

parkland1 Greetings again from the darkness. Fifty years of investigation and research have spawned an endless number of theories about what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, that tragic day in 1963. President John F Kennedy and his lovely wife Jacqueline had captured the hearts of many Americans, and on a trip to Ft Worth and then Dallas, the streets were lined with eager citizens who just wanted to catch a glimpse … hoping some of that Camelot magic would rub off. Instead, a city and a country, went spinning off into feelings of anger and devastation. Rather than show us what we already know, this is a peek at a few individuals impacted in ways you might not have previously thought about.

Vincent Bugliosi made a name for himself as the prosecutor in the Charles Manson Family murder case, and then penning the corresponding book “Helter Skelter” (subsequently made into a movie). Parkland (the name of the Dallas hospital where Kennedy was taken after the shooting) is based on Bugliosi’s book “Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”.

parkland4 The main stories we follow are that of Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), Lee Harvey Oswald’s brother Robert (James Badge Dale), their mother Margueritte (Jacki Weaver), Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels (Billy Bob Thornton), local FBI Agent James Hosty (Ron Livingston), and the emergency room doctors and nurses who treated JFK and Oswald (Zac Efron, Colin Hanks, Marcia Gay Harden). You might think that’s too many stories for a single movie, and you are probably correct. However, it’s fascinating to see the frenetic pace and immediate fallout of just how these people were impacted. Sure, we would like more details and backstory, but that’s not the approach this film takes. It just provides a taste of the gut-wrenching decisions Mr. Zapruder has to make while grieving for his beloved President; and the shock of Oswald’s brother as reality hits; the jaw-dropping delusions of Oswald’s mother; the absolute frustration of the CIA and FBI agents knowing their historic failures will be their legacy; and the disparate emotions that enter the operating room with Kennedy and Oswald.

parkland5 The film doesn’t take any stance on the grassy knoll, CIA involvement, LBJ involvement, or number of shooters. This is not a crime solving story or research into conspiracy theories. No, this is a look at real people in extraordinary situations that no amount of preparation can pacify. There are so many little details revealed … one of the most powerful occurring at the Lee Harvey Oswald funeral, and another as the JFK casket is loaded onto Air Force One just prior to LBJ taking the oath. So many little things you have probably never before considered.

parkland6 If you were alive at the time of the assassination, you understand the impact. If you have read any of the stacks of books written about that day, you understand what happened and the messy investigation that followed. Bugliosi and director Peter Landesman effectively mix news reels from the day with dramatizations of the fallout, and the actors do a tremendous job of showing just how personally this affected those at the time. A different perspective brings with it interesting discussion … and a big thanks if your mother is nothing like Oswald’s!

**NOTE: Since I am a Dallas resident, I was relieved to see the film didn’t dwell on the hatred directed at the city following the shooting

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are interested in the stress and emotion experienced by so many after JFK was assassinated.

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are looking for another conspiracy theory in the mold of Oliver Stone’s JFK.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgPjt_BRLvY

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS (2013)

October 13, 2013

capt phillips1 Greetings again from the darkness. Director Paul Greengrass seems to thrive on finding the line for unbearable tension and hectic, claustrophobic action. He gained fame for helming The Bourne Supremacy and The Borne Ultimatum, but this one has more in common with his excellent United 93. Somehow he keeps us gripping the armrests despite knowing full well how the story ends. That is a talented filmmaker.

What adds to the stressed-filled fun here is that the world’s greatest everyman, Tom Hanks, meets his match with fire-eyed Somalian pirate Muse, played by first time actor Barkhad Abdi. The scenes pitting these two against each capt phillips2other are fascinating studies and the perfect example of vastly different worlds colliding. Hanks plays Captain Phillips, who is charged with guiding the cargo ship Maersk Alabama through the pirate filled waters. Phillips is not the warmest of guys, but seems to be a competent captain with respect from the crew.

Most of us remember watching on TV in 2009 as the 5 day sequence ended thanks to yet another perfectly executed Navy SEALs rescue mission. Greengrass does a terrific job of reenacting this moment. The other two moments that are sure to leave an impression both involve Mr. Hanks. The initial scene on the bridge as the pirates assume control of the ship … when Muse tells Phillips that he is now the captain, we see a flash of surrender in Phillips’ face. A stunning scene for both Hanks and Abdi (and congrats to Abdi for going toe to toe with the acting legend). The other scene worthy of discussion occurs after the rescue as Captain Phillips is escorted to sick bay to be checked out. His “in shock” actions are startling and very brave for an actor. Some may argue that Hanks took it too far, but I would encourage you to imagine yourself in that lifeboat and determine just how courageous you would be. Abdi also has a scene where he first discovers capt phillips3this is an American ship. He reacts as if he has won the lottery.  Since he is now serving time in a US prison, he has probably figured out that American roads are not paved with gold.

It was interesting to see how Greengrass and screenwriter Billy Ray (The Hunger Games) provide the contrast of the pressure the warlords put on the poverty stricken Somalian citizens and the high-tech, global view of the shipping company and crew.  This same contrast is apparent in the pirates vs. Phillips intrigue.  The film also begins with a peek at Phillips’ personal life and marriage (wife played by Catherine Keener).  We see the signs of a long-term relationship between people who communicate by talking around an issue (their kid and Phillips’ risky job).

Some scandal surrounds this story as there is a lawsuit against Maersk and Phillips brought by members of the crew. The contention being that Phillips knowingly steered the ship too close to the pirate waters in order to save time and money. Phillips went on to write a best selling book recounting the ordeal and he also returned to his job as ship captain. Hanks was the perfect choice to play Phillips as the story is more about a regular guy being thrust into an extraordinary situation. Phillips is no superhero … he doesn’t disarm four pirates. Instead, he uses guts and a will to live …  characteristics we all hope we would exhibit should we ever find ourselves in such a traumatic situation.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you enjoy tension-packed, based on a true story movies with expert acting

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF:  you prefer light-hearted Tom Hanks (Big, Larry Crowne) to heavy-drama Tom Hanks (Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan)

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzU3UJuV80w

 

3 Comments | Action, Drama, Thriller | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

RUNNER RUNNER

October 13, 2013

runner1 Greetings again from the darkness. I can sit in a theater and watch a mediocre movie, but when it comes time to write about it, there is no motivation or appeal. The most positive comment I can make about this one is that it stars two very pretty men.

This one has “paycheck project” written all over it. Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake simply go through the motions as if someone is feeding them their lines through an ear piece. Gemma Arterton should never stoop to such a mundane and lifeless role … though her hair and make-up are terrific. Only John Heard and Anthony Mackie come across as professional actors, and their minor roles are so limited, they barely register.

runner2 Writing partners Brian Koppelman and David Levien co-wrote the excellent Rounders, but this one merely teases the dark underbelly of online gambling with one preposterous turn after another. It has neither the depth, plot or character development that we would expect from a movie with this premise and cast. Director Brad Furman showed promise with The Lincoln Lawyer, but his latest comes across as being rushed through production and dressed up with fake style.

The closest comparison I can come up with is last year’s Savages, directed by Oliver Stone … and even that was more enjoyable than this one. Rather than a MPAA warning for Language, I would prefer a heads-up whenever the filmmaking team really doesn’t care much for the project. At least I could spend my money and time watching a different movie.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: two pretty men and Arteton’s hairstyles are somehow interesting to you

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you believe that the beauty of Costa Rica will overcome the weak story, acting and directing (SPOILER: very little of Costa Rica is shown)

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFPqyNvNzvU

 

 

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »