CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER - Movie Review

For the first 123 minutes of the surprisingly good “Captain America: The First Avenger,” I had somehow forgotten I was watching a Marvel Comics movie.
While lining their pockets with cash through an endless procession of their comic book heroes onto celluloid, Marvel Comics, more than any other company over the last few years, has spearheaded the overwhelming stupification of the American public. Yes, I’m aware that’s not a real world. What can I tell you, I’ve been watching too many Marvel Comics movies.

They started out well enough. The first Spiderman movie with Tobey Maguire was quite good. The second even better. Despite the stories cartoon origins, they took their stories seriously and spun a nice web (apologies to Spidey for the pun). But like Starbucks, the world only needs so many superhero movies. So even though some of the X-Men films have been mildly entertaining, hardly any of the films resulting from Marvel’s multi-picture distribution deal have really served any cinematic purpose at all other than to line the pockets of their investors.

The “Iron Man” series is loud and bright and gives Robert Downey Jr. a franchise of his own. But ultimately you’ve forgotten the entire story as soon as you leave the theatre. The X-Men franchise is steady, but has yet to ever rise to the level of greatness. They’ve tried twice to make “The Hulk” work. They’ve failed twice. And “Thor.” Oh, “Thor.” I imagine one day when Natalie Portman looks back on her long career while polishing her multiple Oscars, her great grandchildren will run into the room and sweetly ask her to pop in the “Thor” Blu-Ray for the thousandth time at which point Miss Portman will have to fight very hard from smacking them, or worse, smacking herself for ever signing up for such a monumental piece of junk in the first place.

So, along comes “Captain America: The First Avenger” starring Chris Evans as the patriotic soldier tasked with taking on a renegade Nazi (Hugo Weaving of “Matrix” fame) hell bent on world domination. Honestly, after the two hours of endless torture I suffered at the hands of “Thor” I don’t even know why I bothered to give this one a chance.

But I’m glad I did.

Like the early Spiderman movies, here the storytellers get back to, duh, telling a story. And like those early Spiderman films, our hero in the full body spandex is a regular guy. In the case of Steve Rogers (the real name of our tri-colored hero), he may even be less than regular. Height-wise at least. Repeatedly turned away from servicing his country during World War II due to his physical limitations, Steve constantly tries to make up for it by having the biggest heart. He never backs down in a fight. Proves during a training exercise that he has more courage than even the most striking soldiers in his unit. And shows that while not big on stature, he’s the best soldier in the Army.

Of course no one else can see that except the scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (played with usual charm by Stanley Tucci) and the tough but beautiful British agent Peggy Carter (played by Hayley Atwell). Not sure if it’s the British accent or not, but I haven’t fallen this hard for a Marvel Comics heroine since Kirsten Dunst in “Spiderman.”

This all makes the events of “Captain America” that much more compelling. The hero of the film isn’t a Scandinavian God whose only real trouble in the world is wondering when he will ascend to the throne. Instead, Steve Rogers has to spend life wondering whether he’ll ever measure up at all. When will he get his chance to fight? Will he ever be the one who gets the girl?

So when he runs into danger to save civilization, on a basic level he’s getting a chance to prove his own worth and repay the faith of the one woman who actually believes in him. Forget the superhero angle, this is a solid love story. A rags-to-riches tale of a small town boy who makes good.

And then…. Marvel steps in.

The first 123 minutes of the 124 minute movie were wonderfully and honestly rendered. For a second, I’d forgotten I was watching a comic book.

But, sadly this is Hollywood. And, for the money men, this film is never going to be anything else than a prequel for the upcoming “Avengers” movie that joins Captain America with his Marvel brethren Iron Man, Wolverine, The Hulk, and damnit, Thor!
So after an effective and emotional climactic scene, it’s a tremendous letdown when we are treated to an epilogue that completely undoes all the goodwill engendered by the first 123 minutes. I won’t tell you what happens in that last tacked on scene. Actually, if you’re quick enough with the remote, you may want to just press stop on the DVD player after the initial fade out so you won’t even have to see it. Because what happens in the scene not only cheapens the authenticity of what comes before, but adds an unnecessary level of sadness while simultaneously nullifying the emotional truth of the scene that comes before.

But Bravo for those first 123 minutes. This is a comic book movie that works. Take that, you stupid Thor!

LIKE CRAZY - Film Review

Why do we go to love stories?

Is it to escape the reality of our own romantic entanglements, if only for two short hours, and revel in a love that we've always dreamed of yet never knew? Or is it to see an honest reflection of the way love really is? Messy. Unpredictable. And without the guarantee of happily ever after.

Some of the greatest screen romances ever told have taken the latter route. From "Annie Hall" to "Once," filmmakers have been taking honest looks at both the ups AND downs of modern romance. And while the new indie romance "Like Crazy" may not reach the same stratospheric level of success as those two films, it clearly aims to occupy the same territory.

In this present, we are concerned with the fortunes of Jacob and Anna (Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones). The two meet in college and have one of those whirlwind romances that are usually only reserved for the under 25 set. But like all solid movie romances, their courtship comes with an obstacle. While Miss Jones' British accent may have had both Mr. Yelkin and myself at "hello," it seems as though United States Customs and Immigration agents aren't so charmed. As if conspiring to keep these two apart, the laws of the land keep throwing speed bumps into their fairy tale and threaten to tear the two apart.

Not that this film is an indictment or deep comment on immigration. If you want that, you're better off going for Thomas McCarthy's excellent "The Visitor" from 2007. Come to think of it, that film may also offer more in depth perspective on unspoken love as well.

But, as often is the case, the problem for Jacob and Anna isn't the number of times they verbalized their feelings. Or even the strength of them. It's the fact that in the movie, like outside of it, life too often gets in the way.

I've often compared love to launching a space ship. Simply everything has to go right for it not to end in tragedy. First, you have to meet the right person. Then, you have to meet them at the right time. Then, that person has to actually like you too (therein lies my own usual stumbling block). So, let's say you've miraculously met all the first three requirements and somehow fallen in love. Now, immigration comes along and takes them away and your too poor (or I suspect in the case of Jacob's character too selfish) to fly to England to be with them.

It sucks.

This film asks a number of poignant questions. Why is it that Jacob can't move to England? Doesn't it seem like she's always the one making the sacrifice. Amazingly enough, it's the beautiful Miss Jones that even makes the first move. Talk about things that only happen in the movies! Just because you have an amazing love with someone, does this mean that you're really meant to be with them long term? Can a love like this even survive forever?

This film gets so many things right. That is, if you're one of the people who prefer their fairly tales with a touch of reality. If not, there are plenty of the alternative. "Jerry Maguire," "Notting Hill," "When Harry Met Sally," or any other love story that ends with either one or the other partner literally running to catch the other. And if you prefer those, that's okay. All three are among my favorites and have made me cry on more than one occasion.

But if you're looking for something to remind you of the soul crushing roller coaster ride of love in the real world, this film is for you.

IN TIME - Film Review

We are the 99 percent!!!!

Such is the theme of Andew Niccol's latest mash up of futuristic thriller and cautionary tale, "In Time." Mr. Niccol has a knack for such films with a resume that includes Gattaca, S1m0ne, and The Truman Show. And this is one of his best efforts to date.

Staring Justin Timberlake and my wife, I'm sorry I mean Amanda Seyfried, the story concerns a futuristic present where money has been replaced by time itself. Seconds are literally the currency in a land where only one year past the age of 25 is guaranteed.

Timberlake stars as Will Salas, a kid from the wrong side of the tracks and a hero streak. My wife, I mean Seyfriend, plays Sylvia Weis, the wealthy heiress of the richest man in town.

The untitled town, by the way, is played admirably by Los Angeles itself. And as an Angeleno I'm proud to say that LA remembers all it's lines and hits all it's marks. From the fabled LA reservoirs to the new CAA building standing in for at least two locations, the director makes positive use of his surroundings.

The film veteran also teaches new Hollywood a thing or two about the power of NOT using CGI.

While watching this films excellent production design, I was reminded of the great Terry Gilliam film, "Brazil." While this film is by no means in the same league as that, they share the same passion for taking everyday objects and making them seem somehow otherworldly. The cool cars, sleek black wardrobes, and designer digs are all things within our reach in the real world. Well, at least within the reach of those with an American Express Black Card. But by using these accessible items to accent his world, Nicol also makes the world itself accessible as well.

That's an important thing, because this is clearly a world of its own.

Though the screenplay can be a bit heavy handed in its exposition, it moves along at a brisk pace. Sometimes literally as Will and Sylvia run through the city, an action reserved for the poor. The rich have all the time in the world, why would they run?

As a sidetrack, allow me to pose a question. Perhaps you have the answer. How is it that movie stars can still look cool when running at top speeds? I caught a glimpse of myself jogging the other day in an overly reflective mirror and it looked something akin to a perspiring Woolly Mammoth with some kind of apparent rhythmic foot condition laboring to a sure and ugly death every time I attempted a new step. Here, Timberlake and Seyfried run around and still manage to appear to be fresh out of an advertisement for Louis Vitton.

But I digress. As he's proven in a recent string of films, Justin Timberlake has charisma to burn. We like him instantly and Re willing to follow him through preposterous events and far more preposterous dialogue.

And as for Miss Seyfried? Sigh.

The movies are an amazing thing. Despite having never met Miss Seyfried, I walk out of every one other movies feeling the same way. I'm so in love! Pitiful? Probably. But she's one of the few actresses working today whose work I will see simply because she is in it. Like "In Time," these films rarely rise above the level of simply good. Watchable, but not "great." Yet admittedly her presence puts a smile on my face. I fall in love with her every time. And I feel like she could be mine.

Then I wake up.

All in all, a fun diversion. An enjoyable film, even if not a great one. And a filmmakers who deserves beau coup credit for proving you can make a Hollywood thriller just as exciting without the use of obvious and distracting special effects. All you need is an interesting premise. A charismatic leading man.

And... Miss Seyfried.

Film Review - Martha Marcy May Marlene

The difference between a good movie and a great movie is often the same as the difference between a good and bad relationship. Attention to detail.

From the opening frames of the wonderful new film "Martha Marcy May Marlene," it's the attention to detail that lets us know that we're in for something special.

Case in point. There's a scene midway through the film where Martha (alternatively known as Marcy May or Marlene), overhears a conversation between her stiff but patient older sister Lucy, played by Sarah Paulson, and her new, increasingly less patient husband Ted, played by Hugh Dancy. The mysterious Martha has just reappeared after a two year absense. What the couple doesn't know, and the audience only learns piecemail through a series of flashbacks is that she's spent this lost two years living on a commune in upstate New York as the willing captor or a menacing patriarch Patrick, played by the brilliant John Hawkes (more on him later). The happenings of the commune more than explan her behavior (well, most of it) but, at the moment, all the charming but frustrated Ted can think about is how do I get her out of my house. As the couple bickers in the other room, the eavesdropping Martha turns away as if to block out the sound. Sounds fairly straight forward, right? But here's where the detail kicks in.
Rather than simply giving us a standard shot of the tear streaming down her face as she wails audibly over the sounds of soarin harps, instead director Sean Durkin, making his feature film debut, allows us only a narrow angle of her face. Enough to read the emotion. Not enough to make it the same cookie cutter shot we've seen a thousand times. When the tear gently emerges from the corner of her eye, it's perfectly placed. As is the back of the couch where Martha lies. Just in frame enough to obscure our view and add interest to the frame.

It is with this level of attenton with which Durkin and his cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes infuse every frame of this film. It's also a level of detail demands from the film's performers.

Most of the attention for this film's success will undoubtedly be focused on the elfin titular character, played with aplomb by Elizabeth Olsen. Yes, that last name does sound familiar for a reason. In fact, we should probably just go ahead and get it out of the way up front. Yes, she IS related to the Olsen twins. No, she is not actually an Olsen twin. Instead she's the 22 year old younger sister of the "Full House" twins turned media magnets, which I imagine is both a blessing and a curse. Surely, being related to billionaires doesn't hurt your chances of meeting the right people on your path to Hollywood. However, it surely takes a little doing before people start to recognize you on your own and not just as Mary Kate and Ashley's little sister.

After this film, I don't suspect she'll have that problem for very long.

Seeing Miss Olsen's performance in the movie is nothing short of a revelation. She may share her sisters' high cheek bones and large beautiful Joan Blondell-style saucer eyes. But Olsen Part Three puts her gawkers to work as a canvas for emotion. She's able to convey feelings without the use of words. Love. Jealousy. Anger. Fear. All role out of her without having to roll her tongue. When she does speak, it's with a natural cadence which lends her character and situation added authenticity. Combined with excellent direction, photography, and production design by Chad Keith (who helped give 2008's excellent "Goodbye Solo" such a lived in feel), she makes you feel as if you're in a real place. That's what makes the events of the film feel so harrowing. They are so absolutely plausible.

If this is your first time seeing Miss Olsen, I can guarentee you it won't be the last. This is the kind of star is born movie that Hollywood was made for. I liken it to when Scarlett Johansen burst onto the scene after "Lost In Translation." You knew you were watching something special and that the next few years of your life would be filled with trips to the movies to see an endless string of movies featuring this new discovery. The last time I felt that was with Jennifer Lawrence in last year's "Winter's Bone." A young actress, built for stardom, standing opposite... that's right, John Hawkes. I don't know if he has some kind of gift for launching careers or not, but, if I were a young actress in Hollywood, I'd be begging my agent to get me any role he can opposite this man.

He is simply brilliant. In this film, sure. But apparently in everything. His portrayal of Teardrop in the previously mentioned "Winter's Bone" was one of the best I've seen in years. I won't have a Kanye West moment and declare that he should've won the Oscar when I don't even remember who did win, but I will say... No, really, he should've won the Oscar.

But I will make this bold prediction. He will win one of those pesky little golden men in the next five years.

Whether it's brilliant comedy like 2005's "Me and You and Everyone We Know," a brilliant western like HBO's "Deadwood," or a dark brooding drama like "Martha Marcy May Marlene," Hawkes slips into his roles with ease. And that's no small feat. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting John Hawkes and he's far from being a mountain of a man. Yet as Teardrop, and again here a Patrick, he has a way of portraying intimidating characters who, let's face it, scare the living bejesus out of you. And what makes his character so affecting here is that he does so much of his violence without a shred of force. Patrick operates much the same as pimp might. He seduces his young followers by making them feel special. He slips in an off hand comment to a still naive Martha early in the film about her father's neglect. Now, we never see her father and have no way of knowing if he was in fact neglectful, but he's so smooth in his delivery that the audience has to wonder. Worse yet, Martha begins to wonder. It's not a far jump for her to then begin wondering if everyone in her life has been neglectful. So when this delicate predator starts showing interest in her, she's putty in his hands. And because the character has been placed in the loving care of an actor like John Hawkes, we in the audience are as well.

When strolling through IMDB in preparation to write this review, I was struck by the sheer novelty of most of those involved. This is director Sean Durkin's first feature film. Cinematographer Jody Lee Lipes' bio reads as mostly a series of short films. And the diminutive lead, though an add-on in several of her more famous twin sisters' movies for the tween sect, has nothing on her resume suggesting she could carry such a deep and intricate film as this. Like their stellar lead, I expect everyone involved to get a major career boost from this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if their agent haven't already booked them for the next three years on the buzz for this movie alone. All I know is when they do, I'll be the first one in the ticket line.

Wonderful film. A must see. And, for heaven's sake, someone please give John Hawkes an Oscar already.

Film Review - The Ides of March

If you could win an Academy Award for a combination of performances, this would be Ryan Gosling's year.

In the last month he's played such a wide array of convincing characters that one can't help but to wonder which man Ryan Gosling really is. Is he the strong silent type as he plays so effectively in the brilliant noir thriller "Drive?" Or is he the womanizing loveable cad with a gift for gab he portrays opposite Steve Carrell in "Crazy Stupid Love?" Or, is he something in between.

That might describe the character Gosling plays in his latest masterstroke as the ambitious Stephen Myers in the George Clooney directed political drama "The Ides of March." Stephen isn't the verbose ladies man on the prowl. But he's got enough charm to talk the world's most beautiful intern, Molly Stearns (played by Evan Rachel Wood) into bed. He's a man of few words, like his character in "Drive." And like that character, when he speaks, it's with a distinct purpose. In this case that purpose is to get his candidate elected president of the United States. He's dedicated to his job, and dedicated to his candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney in a thankless role). He's proud of saying that he's a veteran of more political campaigns than most will see in a lifetime. But even the pre-jaded Stephen Myers can't help but fall a little in love with this Democratic wet dream who, not so coincidentally, bears a striking resemblance to Obama circa 2008. Temperament and policy wise, of course. Physically, not so much. But, in case you miss the connection, production designer Sharon Seymour drives home the point with the same kind of pop-art Hope (or in this case Believe) posters that drove Obama's first campaign. Yet, the question remains, can we believe? And, despite the references, this film is by no means a condemnation of the current administration. or any administration for that matter. Instead, the question on Clooney's mind behind the camera seems to be, can we believe in the integrity of anyone? And if we do, is it even possible for any candidate to make it to the White House with that integrity intact? And, if we can't, then what are we all fighting for? Is the object of politics to help the people? Or to get elected?

Far too big a question of course to be answered by one movie. Instead, Clooney chooses to focus on the moral crisis faced by one man. And he wisely chooses to have that man played by Ryan Gosling.

Anyone who's seen "The Notebook" (and yes, that includes you, even though I won't make you admit it out loud) knows that Ryan Gosling is bursting with charisma. He has "It." Whatever "It" is. He holds your attention on screen. Like coming across a tiger in an alleyway. You can't turn away because you want to know what he's going to do next.

But Gosling, like his director and co-star Clooney, has made a career out of harnessing that charisma into characters who are greater parts substance than show. We can see in the way he carries himself that he IS a hardened campaign manager. But we can also see as the story goes along that a bit of that idealist that drove him into politics in the first place still remains. The moral question at the heart of the film is whether or not the two can co-exist.

You'll have to watch the film to find out. Like every element of life circa 2011, you're reaction may be slightly tinged red or blue by your personal politics. But you hardly have to be a bleeding heart liberal to enjoy the film. We've all wondered whether or not idealism can survive the coarse reality of life. If you haven't wondered about that, you're either the sweetest idealist in the history of the world. Or, you're already so jaded that you may just have a future in politics.