The Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review

A Change of Venue

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:05:00 -0800

All good things must end, some rise from the ashes.

by Hunter Isham

Things have pretty much come to a halt here at the DMI Review, as it's been quite some time since anything has been posted. Our weekly review model broke down a long time ago, and if you've stuck with the blog despite its anemic state, I'd like to offer my gratitude. It's a wonderful thing to have someone take the time to read something you've written, and it's even more meaningful when they continue to do so as you continue to write. As things were winding down here, it occurred to me that I still love writing these reviews, and I would absolutely love to keep on writing them. However, commandeering this blog for my own use would be wrong, having begun it as a group venture, and so that is what it shall stay, albeit an inactive one.

After a good deal of work, I've relocated my reviews to the brand new Film & Television Review, a blog that will ultimately function like this one, but which is under my full creative control, at least for the time being, as I'm the only one contributing to it. My goal is to post reviews as often as possible, perhaps even once a week, but as a student and a writer with a tendency to write long, that will ultimately be a flexible schedule. I simply hope to share my thoughts whenever I'm moved to do so, and hopefully there'll be someone there to listen.

This will likely be the very last post on the Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review blog, and I must say that while this endeavor has come to an end, it's been hugely meaningful for me, opening a new avenue I was previously reluctant to try. Though a relatively short experience, writing for this blog has been one of the most rewarding experiences I've had all year, and I hope the path it's started me on is a long and satisfying one. It's sad to fully end one chapter, but exciting to begin another, and whether or not you join me on this continuing journey, I'm glad you were here for part of it. Thank you, and, as the late Roger Ebert would always say, see you at the movies.

About Time

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 4 Nov 2013 00:46:00 -0800

About Love, About Life, About Loss

by Hunter Isham

I'm a sucker for a sappy movie, even more so when it's a funny and playful one. Writer/director Richard Curtis brings the same warmth and charm he gave to Notting Hill and Love Actually to his newest creation, the time-travelling romantic comedy About Time. The film's trailers it paint as your typical time travel rom-com (or at least as you'd picture one to be), and seemingly give away the entire plot. The benefit of that every-so-slightly science fiction-y element of the story is that you have to expect the unexpected, and while About Time may hit too many familiar and predictable beats to satisfy the more jaded members of the audience, there's certainly more to it than meets the eye.
The film begins as the awkward yet goodhearted Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) turns 21, when his father (Billy Nighy) informs him that all the men in their family have the ability to travel in time. Specifically, they can travel within the events in their own lives that they have experienced, lest the film turn into Back to the Future. Tim decides to use his gift to get a girlfriend, and so the events of the film are set in motion. He begins to grasp how and when he should use his powers, and what kind of effects they have on his life. Tim eventually meets Mary (Rachel McAdams), the beautiful girl that he instantly loves. But then he meets her again... and again. Curtis plays with time casually to great effect in a way that made Groundhog Day so fast and funny with its ability to revisit and revise the events of its story.
About Time also successfully borrows its formula from that excellent Bill Murray film in that it disguises itself as one kind of movie while it becomes another. Groundhog Day is a fantasy comedy that develops into a romantic comedy with fantastic elements, meanwhile making a point about how to live each and every day to its fullest. Curtis' film delivers the pathos halfway through as About Time settles its romantic elements and asks questions about life in general. So what if you can make your love life perfect by repeating it until it's just right? What about everything else? How do you help and hurt the people you love? What sacrifices do you make? All of these questions are factored into how Tim approaches his experiences from day to day, turning About Time from a romantic comedy with an interesting premise into a comedy/drama that wants you to cherish every moment.
Much of this unexpected depth comes from the dynamic developed between Nighy and Gleeson as a wonderful onscreen father/son pair. The former is always cool, funny, and ready to help his son, while the latter is always eager to learn and share a fun game of table tennis with his old man. Their bonding feels real, and their relationship is the heart of the film. Gleeson excels in these scenes, but he truly shines as he sets out to conquer the world of romance with his new found abilities. He's charmingly goofy and clumsy, and his personality carries the film's premise a long way, helping us to accept the time travel conceit without a concrete explanation for its existence. Rachel McAdams is similarly perfect for her role as she is once again smart, funny, and just about as adorable as a person can be. She and Gleeson have excellent chemistry, and it's readily apparent why he should go through all the trouble with the timey wimey stuff to get the woman of his dreams. The two lovebirds, along with the comically sublime Nighy, perfectly anchor About Time, making sure the clichés don't rob the film of its heart.
The few sins that Curtis' film does commit—it's a little on the long side, and there's no denying that it can be a bit on the nose—are swept away by the utter charm (there's that word again) and wit of the whole thing. If you're like me, and you enjoy movies on the sweeter side, then you'll probably love this one. Balanced by a wry sense of humor (Tom Hollander is excellent as Tim's hilariously bitter landlord) and a deeper understanding of life than you'd expect, About Time brushes past its average contemporaries with ease. Twenty years ago, Groundhog Day became a modern classic by digging for profundity where no one expected it, and Richard Curtis' film follows in its footsteps in the best way possible. A meditation on love, life, and loss, About Time recognizes that there's more to romance than simply falling in love and living happily ever after. 9/10

Breaking Bad

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:12:00 -0700

This is the story of Walter Hartwell White.

by Hunter Isham

On January 20, 2008, following the critical success of Mad Men, the basic cable movie channel AMC premiered its second scripted original series. This show, pitched to the general public as a drama about a high school chemistry teacher stricken with terminal lung cancer who decides to cook crystal meth to leave his family financially secure, has surpassed its 1960s ad man predecessor in acclaim and, arguably, cultural resonance. Breaking Bad is now hailed as one of the greatest television series ever to be broadcast, and I can hardly disagree. It's exciting, moving, and an experience that can never be forgotten. September 29, 2013 saw Breaking Bad air its series finale, bringing to a close a story that will outlive both its creators and its current audience, and few television shows can claim to be as daring and satisfying as this one was.
Created by Vince Gilligan, a writer for The X-Files, and starring Malcom in the Middle actor Bryan Cranston as teacher Walter White, Breaking Bad seemed like a curiosity when it premiered. Although there was acclaim, I was certainly among the crowd who had no interest in the subject matter, and the season one promotional art (seen above) only made me raise in eyebrow and think "what?". Add to this characters like Aaron Paul's Jesse Pinkman, a former student turned drug dealer whom Walt turns to for help who has a propensity for calling people "bitch," and I was absolutely certain I would never watch this show. I have a tendency to think I'll never like things I eventually love (see: The West Wing, The Simpsons, all action movies), but thank goodness I'm not too stubborn to give something a try. Breaking Bad broke open a world of characters and events that is as addicting as the methamphetamine Walt and Jesse spend so many hours cooking.
Breaking Bad is the kind of show that is best unspoiled, even with the vaguest of summaries, so for the purposes of this reflection/recommendation, I'll try to keep it simple. Walter White breaks bad and cooks meth with Jesse Pinkman, but that's not all there is to the story. Walt has a pregnant wife, a son with cerebral palsy, and a brother-in-law in the DEA. This may sound more like a miniseries than a full-fledged television show; after all, how long can Walt and Jesse cook in an RV (once more, check the above ad)? Well, this show is all about change, something Vince Gilligan pitched the show with, and the story and characters certainly evolve. There are dealers, hitmen, kingpins, cartels, and so much more than you could possibly imagine. It's mind blowing to think of how the show started when you see how it all ends, and that's an unbelievable achievement.
Gilligan and Cranston have thrown around a certain phrase every time they're interviewed: "We'll take Mr. Chips and turn him into Scarface." This was the former's pitch to the latter for the role of Walter White, and it's an unofficial motto of the show. Walt begins as a meek man struggling to live the boring life he's wound up with, and his show-opening 50th birthday is only a sad reminder of that fact. His lung cancer diagnosis, though apparently a death sentence, is when he truly wakes up and does something. This is a central arc in Breaking Bad, and it's perhaps the one quality that keeps us watching (and for some, rooting for) Walt as he embarks on a journey that changes his entire universe, making him much more than just your average anti-hero.
Breaking Bad has cemented itself as one of the greatest television series of all time, and unquestionably the best that I have ever seen. I may have my sentimental favorites, but I have to respect the riveting, unwavering quality on display here. So much happens over the course of Breaking Bad's five season, six year run*, involving so many characters and events worthy of analysis and dissectoin, that more deserves to be said than what I can provide here. Jesse Pinkman alone could warrant more discussion than most lead characters on television. Everything that happens and every character that makes a memorable entrance and exit are a part of the greater whole of this series, but it's undeniably a show with a single element at its core. Breaking Bad is the story of Walter Hartwell White, a desperate man who found salvation in change.

P.S. I tried to recommend this series as strongly as I could without giving away much more than the basic premise. I hope those of you who have not yet given Breaking Bad a try seek it out. It's wholly worth your time, and I can't think of a series (of those I've seen) that better exemplifies the notion that we're currently in a golden age of television. Breaking Bad is quite simply the kind of accomplishment that the medium will likely not see again for some time.

*AMC extended the fifth season's 13 episode order to 16, and aired them over two years (8 in 2012, 8 in 2013).

The Fugitive

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:53:00 -0700

On the run, searching for the one-armed man.

by Hunter Isham

"A murdered wife. A one-armed man. An obsessed detective. The chase begins." That's the tagline to the 1993 thriller The Fugitive, based on the popular television show about Dr. Richard Kimble, a man wrongly convicted for the murder of his wife who sets out to find the killer, a one-armed man, while playing a game of cat and mouse with a U.S. Marshall. This film is probably the best adaptation of a TV show ever made, validated not only by strong box office and high praise from critics, but also by a slew of nominations and awards, including a nomination for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It's a gripping film that succeeds in every way imaginable, and while I wasn't around when it was first released in August 1993, I can say that as the film turns 20 it's held up for me over the seven or so years that I've been a fan.
Harrison Ford is Kimble, and he gives one of his best performances as a man who struggles to cope with his wife's violent death while he sets out to solve the mystery and clear his name. Ford no longer needs to prove himself in the action/thriller genre, having years of excellent genre films under his belt, but his turn as Kimble shines through what, in a lesser film, would have been mundane chases and fights. An early scene in which he's interrogated about the murder demonstrate's his truly great, and rarely recognized, ability as an actor, with Kimble's fragility at the forefront, and the now trademark Ford gruffness nowhere to be seen. Richard Kimble is hardly an action hero in the mold of Indiana Jones, and Ford perfectly plays him as a smart man caught in one desperate situation after another. Of course, the chase would seem like nothing were it not for the dedicated Marshall Samuel Gerard, played to Oscar-winning perfection by the incomparable Tommy Lee Jones. He has had many roles that perfectly suit his look and demeanor, Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln being the most recent, and Gerard fits in with that group splendidly. However, one thing that stands out about the U.S. Marshall is his wit and spry personality. Jones is more active in The Fugitive than I had remembered, and it's wonderful to see him in a role that makes him just as much an action star as the lead character. The rest of the cast is rounded out with some familiar faces (Sela Ward, Julianne Moore, Jane Lynch, Joe Pantoliano), and they're all great in their roles, but there is simply no mistaking that this is Ford and Jones' movie.
Director Andrew Davis takes his top-notch cast and uses it to populate a sprawling rural Illinois and Chicago, making great use of the city and some of its trademarks. One chase scene is even staged amidst the famous Saint Patrick's Day Parade, adding a bit of local flavor to the film, something that gives it a fine texture rather than a generic, forgettable big city backdrop. Davis also stages some fantastic stunts, the most breathtaking of which comes early in the film when a train barrels down the tracks toward the crashed bus carrying the convicted Kimble. A real train was used; no miniatures or computer work here. Like the tube train crashing through the old station in Skyfall, it's the kind of spectacular effects work that makes you think, "How did they pull that off? It looks so real!" Davis and his screenwriters, Jeb Stuart and David Twohy, keep things moving at a good clip, as the film never drags or speeds along too quickly. We get all of the pertinent information in a way that's both clear and intriguing, and best of all, the twists of the plot don't distract from the thrills. Helping to tie everything together, James Newton Howard contributes a score that keeps your pulse racing while you stay firmly planted on the edge of your seat.
When a movie based on a television show is nominated alongside Schindler's List* and In the Name of the Father, attention must be paid. Even more so when such a film contains some of the best work of two legendary actors' careers. Harrison Ford has starred in so many classics that it's easy to forget the ones that don't involve bullwhips and lightsabers, and The Fugitive is unfortunately one of his triumphs that falls through the cracks. Most people probably remember it more for Tommy Lee Jones, something that they would do without fault, but Ford is the emotional center of the film, and it is his work in conjunction with Jones' that makes the film work so spectacularly. There are many films I watch without finding any faults, and The Fugitive is certainly one of those movies, but it becomes something greater by being a film that is not only perfectly executed, but also a film that rises above the conventions and unoriginal story that sink so many films of both the thriller and TV adaptation classes. The Fugitive defies expectations in every way possible, and it does so with such heart-racing style and substance that you'll be left wondering why it hasn't reached the classic-status it so rightfully deserves. 10/10

*Funny story, Ford presented the Best Picture Oscar to his buddy Steven Spielberg for Schindler's List.

All Of Me

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Fri, 6 Sep 2013 01:15:00 -0700

A Wild and Crazy Concept

by Hunter Isham

Director Carl Reiner's 1984 film All Of Me is about as high concept as a comedy can get before it requires the special effects budget of Ghostbusters, but strong performances sold me on the strange twist on a body-swap that occurs in this film without the presence of big thunder and lighting or any other such effects that tell you something supernatural has occurred. When the soul of the terminally ill millionaire Edwina Cutwater (Lily Tomlin) is accidentally transferred into the body of the slightly boring Roger Cobb (Steve Martin), we're treated to a hilarious sequence in which they struggle to coordinate by moving the respective halves of Cobb's body they each control. The film's humor isn't as consistent as Martin's pitch-perfect performance, but when such a talented comedian is given material with so much potential, it really doesn't matter that the finished product isn't an all-time classic.

All Of Me is essentially Freaky Friday with just one person, it's the kind of premise that is sold on the talents of the cast, and Martin absolutely nails his performance as he carries the film and its fairly simple concept through its 93-minute runtime. He's proven himself a competent actor throughout his career, and his comedic abilities were known long before he made this film, but this film offers a perfect melding of the "wild and crazy" persona Martin built up and the regular, relatable type he plays so well in films like Parenthood and Father of the Bride. Roger Cobb is the latter, while the Cobb partially inhabited by Edwina Cutwater is the former. Martin can play a character who is the joke of a movie, but here he plays a normal guy whose life becomes the joke. He's naturally funny in All Of Me, but he rarely elicits a hearty laugh when not struggling with Lily Tomlin's haughty and inexperienced Edwina, a fact that makes his focus in this part all the more incredible.

Given how many sentences in this review I've devoted to Steve Martin, it may come as a surprise that other people make this movie a success too, but they do so, even if it's Martin's show. Lily Tomlin, though not onscreen for most of the film (once she's dead, we see her as Cobb's reflection in mirrors), is perfectly cast as Edwina, as her personality is omnipresent, and we often hear her speaking to Cobb in his head. Tomlin steals her early scenes with Martin, and provides the perfect blueprint on which he can base her mannerisms and specific vocality. Perhaps one of the best scenes for this balance between Tomlin's mind and Martin's body comes when Cobb falls asleep in court, and Edwina is left to "act like a man" without letting down her host. The rest of the cast is fairly unremarkable, although this really isn't anyone else's film. Victoria Tennant is fine as a love interest and the intended destination of Edwina's soul, but her strength here is providing Martin with an interesting character off of which he can bounce his different personalities.

Writer Phil Alden Robinson (Field of Dreams, Sneakers) provides Reiner, Tomlin, and Martin with a strong script to work from, and their collective focus is what makes All Of Me a success. Steve Martin has quite possibly never given a stronger performance, as he takes some of his strongest qualities as a performer and blends them together into a character that can be both wild and crazy, and completely relatable. Like many other films Martin's starred in that are good but not great, All Of Me is a story worth telling because its cast is populated with, and led by, professionals who elevate the material. I can only imagine how terrible this film could have been had the physical comedy Martin executes and Tomlin's portrayal of the trapped soul not meshed as exceedingly well as they do. Some comedies, like Ghostbusters, go big because so much of their humor can be derived from the hilarity that ensues when you think of the wrong monster, but others, like All Of Me, have big concepts with relatively small executions, yet they can be just as funny*. All Of Me falls short of greatness because it lacks a consistency that makes legendary comedies just that, but the great elements here are so good, with all the necessary pieces aligning, that we can forget the shortcomings and simply marvel at how Steve Marin can make playing two people in one body a fresh, fun idea. 8/10

*I must say that Ghostbusters is a towering comedy classic. A 10/10 if there ever was one, if only because of Bill Murray in the Twinkie scene. All Of Me excels because Martin is as good in it as Murray is in Ghostbusters, but the latter film is so strong in every other way (Aykroyd, Ramis, Weaver, Moranis, the title theme song) that it's no wonder why it's the one of these two 1984 comedies that has become a revered part of pop culture.

Clear History

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:42:00 -0700

Curb Lite

by Hunter Isham

Larry David doesn't know if he wants to do another season of his hilarious HBO comedy series Curb Your Enthusiasm, so while we anxiously wait for him to decide, he's delivered a fun and funny movie for the masses to enjoy in the meantime. Co-written by and starring David, Clear History is the story of Nathan Flomm (David), a marketing executive who leaves an electric car company just before it becomes a massive success, missing out on billions and living with the public humiliation. Ten years later, he's changed his look and lives under a new name on Martha's Vineyard, but he's driven to revenge when his former business partner shows up on the island with a young attractive wife to oversee the construction of a brand new mansion. David and his Curb and Seinfeld co-writers, Alec Berg, David Mandel, and Jeff Schaffer, along with director Greg Mottola, have crafted a story only David's television alter ego could inhabit, and so while it's true that Clear History isn't much more than an extended Curb episode with a lot of fresh faces, I don't think I'd want it any other way.
David is great at playing his usual TV persona under the name of Nathan Flomm, although he does a very nice job of trying to balance his less palatable characteristics (the ones that get him into trouble as Flomm) with a more subdued, passive approach to unfiltered complaining and commenting. As we soon learn, Flomm's Rolly Da Vore is the nicest guy on the island, but seeing his old boss brings out the old LD that Curb audiences know, and we start getting moments like him complaining to the owner of the local diner about putting silverware on napkins instead of a tabletop cleaned with rags. She gets more indignant as he gets more satisfied with making a suggestion he likely kept locked away for a decade. A cause for concern one might have with leaving the Curb cast behind for this endeavor is that David might lose his wonderful improvisational co-stars (the script, like on Curb, is more of a detailed story outline that the actors fill with their own improvised dialogue), but the many talents corralled for Clear History prove to be welcome additions to this world and sensibility.
Jon Hamm plays the Ayn Rand-loving Will Haney, the head of the company whom Flomm insults when he insists their new car cannot be called 'Howard,' a name also give to Haney's son, and derived from the main character in Rand's The Fountainhead. Hamm has proven his comedic chops alongside Tina Fey on 30 Rock, but here he plays a perfect straight man to David, even more so as the film advances in time. Danny McBride very effectively fills the shoes of Curb's Jeff Garlin as David's best friend and partner in crime, the man who introduces Flomm to a crazy operator of the quarry (a very funny Michael Keaton) and his employee (Bill Hader), a pair that will ultimately play into Flomm's quest for revenge. Kate Hudson, playing a fairly sweet character, is well-suited to her role as Haney's wife, but ultimately has only a few hilarious moments (she's generally a straight man here). Amy Ryan and Eva Mendes have some great moments as two locals and friends of David's character, and they accentuate the plot in some great comedic scenes. Liev Schreiber is an uncredited standout as a Chechen thug with a sensible and sensitive approach to his professional and personal lives, while J.B. Smoove and Philip Baker Hall are the only Curb personalities to show up, and they deliver as one would expect.
For all of the wonderful comedic performances in Clear History, and the unmistakable and hilarious sensibilities of Larry David, the film doesn't quite hit as well as you average episode of David's series. The only thing that holds it back from being as excellent as the best of Curb is that it's telling full blown story. Rather than giving us the beautifully arranged, dovetailing beats that David and his writers perfectly honed on Seinfeld and Curb, we get some true character moments thrown into the mix. Now, don't misunderstand; Clear History is still fairly entrenched in the Larry David school of "no hugging, no learning," but the man who's helped create two shows about nothing has delivered a movie that is actually about something, and it can't stand up against movies that strive to be what Clear History is by circumstance. With all that in mind, David's first HBO movie delivers in big, zany ways that Curb doesn't because of its relatively small focus episode-to-episode, and for that slight change of pace I'm thankful. Like Woody Allen and his own onscreen persona, Larry David will likely always be playing Larry David, but I don't really care as long he's funny, and that's exactly what he is here. Clear History isn't perfect, but as Larry himself might say, it's pretty, pretty, pretty... pretty good. 8/10

Note: If you're wondering what the title Clear History means (as I did before I read an article explaining it), it refers to how one can erase their web browsing history on a computer, the kind of act Nathan Flomm wishes he could do to his life.

This Is The End

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:41:00 -0700

Curb Your Apocalypse

by Hunter Isham

The general premise of celebrities playing exaggerated, or even completely fake, versions of themselves is not a new concept, although it has had somewhat of a renaissance in the past two decades with television comedies like The Larry Sanders Show and Curb Your Enthusiasm putting these elements at the forefront, rather than just having a quick cameo. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's This Is The End takes the generally fun framework of a show like Curb (minus the fully improvised dialogue), and applies a story that sees all of these familiar faces trying to survive as the apocalypse hits. The results are amusing, and certainly not just your average Apatow-era comedy, but ultimately the film leaves you wishing it were more than some funny moments strung together by a strange plot.
Jay Baruchel arrives in Los Angeles to stay with his old (if now distant) fellow Canadian friend Seth Rogen, and before long he reluctantly agrees to accompany Rogen to party at James Franco's house, attended by a bunch of people he neither knows nor likes. At Franco's we see familiar faces like Jason Segel, Aziz Ansari, and Mindy Kaling, as well a coke-addicted and promiscuous Michael Cera. Emma Watson pops up, and later has a very funny scene when she returns to the mostly abandoned house following the deaths of most of those famous people I just mentioned. Through many apocalyptic events, Baruchel, Rogen, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride are ultimately the main characters who survive and barricade themselves in Franco's fortress-like new home.
Problems arise with rationing food and supplies, demons appear, and there are even some heart-to-heart moments between some of the trapped comedians, but hard as Rogen and Goldberg may try, the film ultimately just amounts to an intriguing journey that isn't as funny as it could be. If anything, the problems seem to arise from the fact that there's just not much to get out of the film as a story, so I can easily recommend seeing the film for some of its humorous moments, but it doesn't leave you feeling like you've experienced something special, or that you've gone a journey with the characters. There are some good performances here (beyond the comedic stuff) by Baruchel, Rogen, and Robinson, brining enough heart to make you care, but the overall arc fails them because the laughs don't come fast enough to gloss over the fact that the film's story isn't wholly successful.
There are many elements and moments to like in This Is The End, but compared to The Heat—another summer comedy that I didn't think was excellent, but which is funny and charming enough to make up for its fairly generic plot—the film seems like a clever concept that didn't amount to much given its execution. The Heat isn't revolutionary in its storytelling, but its characters and situations are often funny, and almost always somewhat charming. This Is The End moves along in spurts of funny that have too many gaps between them, never quite reaching full speed. This Is The End is not the funniest thing out there this summer, and if it wasn't so strange I likely wouldn't remember it as well as I have, but it's worth a look when you have the chance, if only for the sight of Emma Watson waving an axe around at Rogen and company. 6/10

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:06:00 -0700

Make a sequel that's actually bigger and better? Not so impossible.

by Hunter Isham

The Mission: Impossible film franchise, now more than 15 years old, has had its ups and downs as it produced four action-packed espionage adventures. The first film—directed by Brian De Palma, written by David Koepp, Steve Zaillian, and Robert Towne, and starring Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Ving Rhames, and Vanessa Redgrave—was a very strong start, both as a fun and thrilling film and as a box office success story (more than $450 million on an $80 million budget). The second film, directed by John Woo, was an even bigger hit on an even bigger budget. Then the franchise lay dormant for six years, an eternity in blockbuster time, until Tom Cruise brought aboard a television writer/director/producer by the name of J.J. Abrams, resulting in the fantastic Mission: Impossible III. Unfortunately for M: I fans, the film was released at the peak of Cruise's couch-jumping zaniness, leading to a mildly successful run at the box office. Mission: Impossible IV kicked around for a few years with rumors swirling that a new character would be introduced to replace Cruise's Ethan Hunt, but then the pieces fell into place, producers Cruise and Abrams hired The Incredibles and Ratatouille director Brad Bird, and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol found its way into theaters with a 93% Rotten Tomatoes score, and an eventual $694 gross. If that's not a Hollywood success story, I don't know what is.
Ghost Protocol finds Ethan Hunt sprung from prison by the Impossible Mission Force to go after a madman who believes a nuclear winter will give humanity a new start. The team that springs him becomes his squad of surviving agents when he finds out that "Ghost Protocol" has been initiated (I won't spoil why), wiping clean the entire agency and disavowing all of its agents. Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, and a returning Simon Pegg all play off each other very well as the film focuses on their team dynamic rather than Cruise as the sole hero. You may recall that he's always had a team at one point or another in past films, but here his backup is front and center. Making matters worse is that their few gadgets and supplies malfunction more than once, giving their plans unanticipated hiccups along the way as they try to navigate the world and save the day completely off the grid. Constantly having to rely on their own ingenuity and abilities, the four keep things light and fun when things go wrong, and play the more intense action moments with the appropriate focus and quick thinking, not to mention fear and determination.
Of course, these four characters, as much fun as they are, would be nothing in the Mission franchise without some spectacular set pieces, and Brad Bird delivers in spades. Making your live-action directing debut on a known property could be intimidating, so why not add on the more-difficult-than-usual approach of shooting some moments for IMAX, with the massive cameras that come with the format? If Bird had any trepidation, it never shows, as he's crafted a thrilling romp that has some unbelievably great action. Perhaps the moment everyone knows from Ghost Prtocol is that which finds Ethan climbing up the side of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world. All green screens and stunt doubles, right? Wrong. Cruise was actually up on that building, held on by what was no thicker than a piano wire. Climbing in high places has certainly been done before, but here you absolutely feel the scale and danger of it all here. It's quite simply breathtaking.
Although the Burj Khalifa sequence is the most stunning in the film, there are plenty of other thrilling moments that keep you on the edge of your seat. In fact, the fantastic action helps to mask some flaws in the film you may not be likely care about. For example, Ghost Protocol lacks a villain with the ferocity of Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Mission: Impossible III, and Michael Nyqvist's nuclear madman is more imposing via his intentions than what he does on screen. However, the antagonists are placed in great action set pieces, such as a chase through a sandstorm and a fight in a multi-level automated parking structure, so there is a constant and immediate threat of physical danger. This film is a rare case when a villain doesn't need to be as fleshed out as Hannibal Lecter to be scary, he just has to threaten our heroes with impossible situations.
Mission: Impssible - Ghost Protocol is one of the best action films I've seen in recent years. It aims neither for the lofty messages of a Nolan Batman film nor for the B-movie range of The Expendables. This movie is fun without sacrificing its intelligence, but doesn't ask the viewer for anything more than their undivided attention. This is a popcorn film, through and through, and I can't give it higher praise than that. If you're still hesitant, just sit down, and watch the film through its opening credits. If Michael Giacchino's arrangement of Lalo Schifrin's classic theme doesn't put a big smile on your face then I don't know what will. Even if Tom Cruise isn't your cup of tea, or if you see M: I as a cheap Bond knockoff, give Ghost Protocol a chance. Enjoying this film is your mission, should you choose to accept it, and it's hardly impossible. 9/10

*Note: I just thought I'd mention something that's been banging around in my head the past few weeks. When I rate a film like Ghost Protocol a 9/10, I mean that it's a great action movie on par with other great action movies. I don't necessarily mean it's a Best Picture contender; a Silver Linings Playbook or an Argo. You've probably figured out that it's really hard for me to hate a film, and quite easy for me to enjoy the hell out of one. That enthusiasm is how the fourth film in an uneven franchise gets an excellent score.

The Simpsons

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:13:00 -0700

America's favorite family. (L-R) Bart, Maggie, Homer, Marge, and Lisa.

Best. Show. Ever.

by Hunter Isham

Having been running The Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review for almost six months now, Tyler, Harry and I have decided to introduce a little variety into the mix. As you may have guessed, we'll be doing some writing about television from time to time. Unlike our film reviews, we're not currently planning to write about TV together each week, but rather whenever one of us feels like writing about a show. I can't speak for Harry and Tyler, but I myself have several complete series bouncing around in my head without an outlet for expressing my thoughts. If possible I'd like to bring attention to shows that most may not see these days, whether they were a hit during their original run, or if they went (or are going) unwatched. There will be plenty of time for the Arrested Developments and Parks and Recreations of the world down the line, but for now I thought I'd start with my favorite TV show of all time, The Simpsons.
Matt Groening's unbelievably long-running, animated comedic series is the show I grew up with. The show began its run with a Christmas special in December 1989, followed by a first season in January 1990, which is more than three years before I was born. I didn't start watching the show until the point when most would say it began to decline ever so slightly in quality, in the early 2000s. Running in heavy syndication on the local UPN channel, I saw three Simpsons episodes a day, five days a week (plus new episodes on Fox). 6:00pm, 7:30pm, and an 11:00pm episode that I would record and watch the next morning before school. The Simpsons became a window to popular culture for me, as I was inundated with everything from sharp political references (the Kennedy caricature that is Mayor Quimby) to guest appearances by people I otherwise may not have been aware of (Michael Jackson voicing a man Homer meets in an asylum who thinks he's Michael Jackson). The window in the culture that the show became was a crucial part of informing my interests and taste in humor and entertainment.
For the uninitiated, The Simpsons focuses on middle aged, bald, overweight, dimwitted and caring Homer Simpson and his dysfunctional nuclear family. Blue-haried bee-hive wearing wife Marge, a loving homemaker and often a moral center for the family; brainy eight year old Lisa, a lover of books and jazz; baby Maggie, the mute but wise member of the family who's far more capable than she seems; and last, but not least, Bart, the smart-ass 10 year old prankster with a heart of gold and an insatiable craving for Butterfingers (not really, but they're fun commercials). Then we have the cast of thousands that inhabits Springfield, USA, the hometown of Simpsons, which includes everyone from the pig-like police Chief Wiggum to the delightfully cynical and troubled children's television star Krusty the Clown. Check out the below image for a wide array of Springfieldians even the most ardent fan couldn't possibly memorize (I'd be lucky to recognize half of them).

This cast of colorful characters is brimming with stereotypes, parodies, and caricatures that helps to inform the show's central theme as a comedic take on life as a middle class American family, but it also broadens the possibilities of what can be done with the stories from episode to episode. The first few seasons of The Simpsons, especially the first, are really a look at the humorous possibilities of a regular sitcom family in an animated world, such as when Homer buys a cheap RV, accidentally destroys it in the wild, and tries to survive with the family with his limited knowledge of nature. Maggie is practically adopted by a family of bears; try doing that on a soundstage, in front of an audience. As the show grew in popularity and creativity, it branched out into smart cultural parodies, such as the Beatles-style rise and fall of Homer's barbershop quartet, or Bart's dangerous encounters with the murderous Sideshow Bob in the Gilbert and Sullivan-laiden episode "Cape Feare" (a take off on both murder-driven Cape Fear films). The show could also be wonderfully self-aware, as in this potentially clairvoyant clip from 1992 that is hilarious in the face of the show's impending 25th season:

Despite the fact that The Simpsons did what few shows can do by staying relevant and funny for nearly a decade, it inevitably saw a dip in quality, though most fans (myself included) would likely agree that it was still pretty darn good. Entering the its early teens, the show was more apparently lacking that which made it so successful early on: its heart. This is the curse of the shows sliding timeline, during which the world around the characters changes but they remain the same age. Bart has been 10 since 1987, when the Simpsons first appeared as characters in animated segments of The Tracey Ullman Show, and he's turned 10 many times since. The characters could only learn so many life lessons before they started to repeat themselves in different episodes down the line. The saving grace of the show ever since has been its continuing comedic quality, something that has certainly wavered but never completely died. Though never seemingly ready to wrap up the show for good, Groening (pronounced "graining") and his army of showrunners, producers and writers are well aware of the The Simpsons' sometimes strained run. Season 11 concluded with "Behind the Laughter," a tongue-in-cheek look at how Homer first decided to shoot a TV show based no his life, and how it took off and became a massive success, nearly destroying the personal lives of its stars. The episode pokes fun at the merchandising giant created in the show's wake, proclaiming that, "Simpsons gin was wetting whistles worldwide," while also noting that the fictitious "Simpsons Christmas Boogie" was a triple-platinum hit at the Grammys. What really stands out when I revisit this episode is the closing song, in which a narrator sings that, "Have no fears, we've got stories for years," before citing examples like Homer gets a cellphone and Marge becomes a robot. Although not quite that inane, some plots from the last 13 seasons have been shockingly similar, but I'm sure the irony isn't lost on the Simpsons team.

I would argue that the best Simpsons story since that time, and the one that affirms just how good the show can still be, is actually the long-rumored and wished for film that arrived in theaters July 27th, 2007. The Simpsons Movie was written by eleven of the show's best writers, and directed by one of its veteran directors, David Silverman. It took a well-worn plot device, Homer does something selfish and stupid, and turned it into a touching and hilarious big screen adventure for fans and newbies alike. Although there's no denying that having watched the nearly two-decade run of episodes that preceded the film would help inform jokes about characters and past events, the movie is funny enough to carry itself as an independent story, and it keeps the jokes flying and the plot moving, making for a nice brisk 87-minute tale that reminds us why The Simpsons has become an institution of entertainment.
I would be remiss not to mention the many talented folks who put their time and effort into the show. Beginning with Matt Groening, James L. Brooks (writer/director of Terms of Endearment, co-creator of The Mary Tyler Moore Show), and Sam Simon, the original development team, and evolving into a revolving door of comedic and cinematic talents that include Conan O'Brien, Pixar director Brad Bird, and people who have gone on to create and work on shows like The Office and The Larry Sanders Show. Like writing for Saturday Night Live, working on The Simpsons has become an unofficial of a requirement for comedy writers in Hollywood. The show would be nothing without its brilliant scripts, but of course it takes a talented team of vocal artists to bring to life such a varied group of characters, and Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, and Harry Shearer are just that. They have created characters that can be so authentic yet very much caricatures and thinly veiled copies of real-life figures. They know how to sell a joke for all its worth and bring the raw emotion when need be (a particular scene in the movie with Marge bearing her soul to Homer is absolutely heartbreaking, and Kavner nails every second of it). Joining the regular cast members (and semi-regulars like Tress MacNeille, Pamela Hayden, Maggie Roswell, and Marcia Wallace) is a legendary list of guest stars who appear as themselves and as original characters, including everyone from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (the only sitting politician to appear) to Johnny Carson. SNL veteran Phil Hartman was, during his lifetime, perhaps the most valuable guest, appearing several times as a variety of characters, including washed up star Troy McClure and shady lawyer Lionel Hutz.

The Simpsons' cast.

The Simpsons premiered on the Fox network as a gamble. It was the first animated show to air in primetime since The Flintstones in the 1960s, and it originally aired Thursday nights, against The Cosby Show. It would go on to become the longest running animated series, the longest running sitcom, and the longest running scripted primetime series of all time. Not too shabby. With 528 episodes and counting, The Simpsons continues to endure, having spawned not just a movie but also endless forms of merchandising (Do you own a talking Homer Simpson pizza cutter? I know I do.) and, true to form, a theme park ride that comments on the banalities of theme park rides. The über-nerd character known as Comic Book Guy is quite fond of pointing out when something is the, "Worst. _____. Ever." Somehow, I think he'd find room in his heart to admit that The Simpsons has become one of the greatest television shows of all time. It's an unabashed force of nature that can't be stopped, and every time I catch an episode—new or old, favorite or not—I'm reminded of exactly why it's my favorite show. Homer Simpson may be yellow and stupid, and he may unintentionally subvert your expectations, but you'll never forget that he's a real person (even if he's not).

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman."

- Homer Simpson, "Lost Our Lisa" (Episode 24, Season 9)

Monsters University

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:01:00 -0700

National Lampoon's Monster House

by Hunter Isham

Don't panic, but Pixar's made another film that revisits old characters. Monsters University thankfully is not Cars 2, although it's not Toy Story 3 either. It's a film that doesn't match its predecessor, but finds some new ground wholly worth visiting. In fact, the only aspect of MU that even approaches the territory of a retread is the fact that it's a college movie, featuring a classic students vs. jocks and students vs. dean structure, but the brain trust at Pixar knows how to creatively milk well-worn story beats by infusing them with the visual charm and wit the animation studio is known for. They even find a way at the end of the film to make far more unique than you'd ever think it could turn out to be, but that's the genius of Pixar.
The original Monsters, Inc. focused on Sulley (John Goodman) and his protective relationship with a young human girl he names Boo. His pal Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) was always by his side, providing comic relief and nervous exasperation throughout their adventure together. Monsters University, featuring virtually no human characters, focuses on Mike as a smart and precocious young monster who dreams of attending Monsters U and becoming the greatest scarer of all time (because children's screams power the monster world, of course). Though Mike knows the science behind scaring, the short, goofy cyclops is not an inherently frightening creature, causing sparks to fly when his peers are so impressed by the lazy slacker James P. "Sulley" Sullivan who has the physique and family legacy of a world class scarer. Their squabbling gets them into trouble with Dean Hardscrabble, menacingly voiced by Helen Mirren, and soon all bets are riding on the Scare Games, a fraternity competition that sees Mike and Sulley join the smallest and wimpiest of all the frats.
A story ripped straight from textbook college movie plots might sound like a rehash of things far below Pixar's abilities, but their knack for comedy shines in Monsters University as they have the opportunity to send up college culture via stereotypes (nerds, jocks, slackers, hippies, etc...), common experiences (dreary weather and monotone professors after the winter break), and visual gags (dorm food is literally garbage at MU). The comedy and fun assortment of characters, including Mike and Sulley's fraternity brothers, are what keep the film moving until its final act, in which it manages to break free of college-driven confines of its plot and surprise us with a message that few, if any, big family movies have ever tried to communicate. I won't spoil the ending, but as we all know from Monsters, Inc., Mike didn't become a scarer, he became Sulley's scare coach and partner at work, and Monsters University deftly handles the notion that sometimes our dreams can't quite come true, and our lives are fulfilled when we can do something we love for which we actually have a talent.
Billy Crystal is key to communicating this eventual revelation in Mike, as he channels young optimism and determination, not to mention a brainy, know-it-all attitude, all of which let him think that his brains can make up for his sever lack of brawn. John Goodman brings depth to Sulley's internal conflict, being a slacker who seemingly doesn't deserve his family name, and he and Crystal together bring to life characters that still have fantastic chemistry, more than ten years later*. Mirren is an excellent choice to play the imposing dragon-centipede hybrid that is Dean Hardscrabble, perfectly inhabiting a role that is more bone-chilling than flat out terrifying, which is perhaps the best way to portray a dean. Nathan Fillion is well cast as the hotshot head member of Roar Omega Roar, the top fraternity on campus, just as Aubrey Plaza and Tyler Labine are smart choices for the disparately enthusiastic Greek Council president and vice-president, respectively. Mike and Sulley's frat, Oozma Kappa (because it's members are just OK), is brimming with fun personalties brought to life by Joel Murray (Freddy Rumsen on Mad Men), Peter Sohn, Charlie Day, and Dave Foley and Sean Hayes as the heads of a two-headed monster with differing tastes and majors. Monsters veterans like John Ratzenberger, Bonnie Hunt, and Steve Buscemi lend their voices once more, as do reputable newcomers Julia Sweeney, John Krasinski, and Alfred Molina.
Director and co-writer Dan Scanlon, along with producer Kori Rae, have reached an agreeable and realistic middle ground on which future Pixar sequels and prequels can safely land. Monsters University is a Pixar film that falls short of its studio's greatest efforts, lacking the unparalleled emotional depth found in Up and Toy Story 3, but retaining the heart and charm that are Pixar's trademark qualities. The brain trust in Emeryville consistently delivers films that are a cut above the rest, and Monsters University is most certainly a welcome addition to its growing library. As composer Randy Newman's rich, academic alma mater proclaims about MU, "No matter where life takes us, Your light will come shining through," and as someone who's grown up on Pixar movies (and is now quite appropriately in college), no statement could be more true of the animation studio. "Oh, Monsters University – Alma Mater, hale to you." 8/10

*Yes, I'm aware that Crystal and Goodman likely did not record their voices together for Monsters University together, which is quite normal in animation, but they do such great work individually that when the Pixar editors put it together it works seamlessly.

The Heat

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 8 Jul 2013 00:53:00 -0700

(Insert funny title of choice here.)

by Hunter Isham

The Heat is a very likable and often very funny comedy. It's also a bit ordinary, leaving something to be desired that I can't quite put my finger on. It stars Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy as an FBI agent and Boston police detective, respectively, on the trail of a drug lord. Bullock's agent Ashburn is a type-A, promotion-minded hotshot who isn't shy about demonstrating why she's such a good agent. She's also very buttoned down and by the book, which contrasts strongly with McCarthy's rough, tough, and slobbish Detective Mullins. Two fine comedic actresses can take this premise a long way, and a good script can take it even further, and that's what happens in The Heat, but for everything it gets right, the film still coms up short as the excellent whole it should be.
A lot of credit must be given to Bullock and McCarthy, as they keep this film afloat. Those of you who've listened to the DMI Review Podcast may know that I've never been a big fan of Sandra Bullock; not because I think she's a bad actress, but because it's rare that I see her in good films (or rather in films that seem good enough to see). She was very good in Speed and The Blind Side, the latter a case where I think she was better than her film, and she is equally good here. Bullock is able to play an abrasive character with charm and a bit of sadness, not to mention a goofy bewilderment when she and McCarthy work on their case. Where Ashburn is uptight and restrained, Mullins is loose, vulgar, and unfiltered, something McCarthy similarly delivers with just the right amount of likability and repulsive tendencies. Together, they make for a team where from scene to scene we can root for at least root for one of them, if not both, when they square off against each other before facing the real bad guys. The rest of the cast is filled out with comic talents who all perform perfectly, including Tom Wilson (Biff from Back to the Future), Saturday Night Live's Taran Killam, Arrested Development's Tony Hale, Marlon Wayans, Veep's Dan Bakkedahl (fantastic as an albino DEA agent), and Jane Curtin, woefully underused but still plenty hilarious.
Director Paul Feig and writer Katie Dippold keep the jokes and sight gags coming at a quick pace with never a dull moment to be found, but the plot is never particularly compelling, which is really what holds the film back from something more. What they could have added I don't know, as it's already quite entertaining, but I suppose it lacks a sense of invention. Its pieces are all pretty funny, but the whole leaves something to be desired, something that may have only been remedied had this film been made years ago when the buddy cop comedy genre was a bit fresher. The presence of two strong female leads in this kind of film is something of a revelation, one that should have occurred much earlier, because at least providing different gendered versions of familiar characters allows talents such as Bullock and McCarthy to deliver finely tuned comic performances that might otherwise have been a bit hard to come by.
The Heat is a very funny film in need of more than just a framework on which to attach jokes. Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy make the film worth the price of admission, creating a fine comedic chemistry that they can hopefully rekindle in future films. Neither actress is one that I've followed before, but I look forward to seeing what they do next, especially McCarthy, as I know she has a range beyond vulgar comedy, and Bullock herself has proven to be a talent far better than the material she's often given. Comedy is of course a very tough thing to pull off, so I can be thankful that The Heat is as entertaining as it is, not to mention that gives a lot of quality material to two very funny women. At the end of the day, I guess it's a lot to ask that a comedy provide more than just a bunch of laughs, but when the alternative looks like Grown Ups 2, I'll happily take The Heat any day. 8/10

The Heat

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:50:00 -0700

By Harry McPhaul

Buddy cop movies tend to come out as cheesy or predictable. Yes, The Heat can be predictable but it was funny cheesy. I went into this movie not knowing it was rated R. Based off what rating I thought it was (PG-13) I was expecting a little cursing to try to make the movie more funny. Actually the cursing was not how few times they would use those words but more like how many times. I already knew that Melissa McCarthy can be pretty funny.

This was McCarthy’s funniest movie I have seen. I was almost crying in most of her scenes. A lot of cursing is usually a staple to good comedy for me. Her whole “bad cop” routine through the whole movie never got tiring. The feel to her role seemed improvised which can work well because it feels more like a actual conversation. I presumed she was going to funny but not Sandra Bullock.

Bullock had her funny moments but overall she was as mediocre. I am used to seeing her in more serious or non comedy roles like Crash or The Blind Side so seeing her in this role did not look right. Anytime she was dancing it felt like a cheap way to get a laugh. Then again I was not on the edge of my seat hoping for her to comical. A movie where both characters are constantly trying to be the funniest ones usually does not turn out to well. That is why I was glad she was not pushing too hard to be funnier than McCarthy.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I actually was not planning on seeing this movie but because Despicable Me 2 was packed with kids (at 9:30 pm) I ended up watching it. In hindsight it was probably a better choice. If you like vulgar comedies than this is your kind of movie. Plus it was good see a buddy cop movie featuring two women in the lead roles. I would recommend this movie. I would give it a 8/10.

Skyfall

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:53:00 -0700

Nobody Does It Better

by Hunter Isham

2012 saw the James Bond film franchise turn 50, an event that called for much celebration. Retrospectives were done, books were released, and DVD/Blu-ray sets were cobbled together for sale, but the one thing every Bond fan could look forward to was the release of the 23rd film in the franchise, Skyfall. This would mark Daniel Craig's third outing as Bond, and the first in four years, what seems like an eternity in sequel-years*. Skyfall would also be a redemption of sorts after the maligned Quantum of Solace took Craig's hardened, realistic Bond from 2006's Casino Royale and pushed him further away from what we know the character to be. Thankfully, Skyfall is not The Bond Identity, but rather a thoughtful, franchise-changing film that rights the course for future films by mixing just the right amount of the old Bond charm with a post-9/11 espionage mentality that doesn't take itself too lightly.
Unlike Quantum of Solace, which was a direct continuation of the story told in Casino Royale, Skyfall tells an independent story that brings an emotional heft to the relationship Bond has with his profession, his country, and his boss, M, once again played by the excellent Judi Dench. The film opens with a rousing chase through Istanbul, including motorcycles atop the roof of the Grand Bazaar and a fantastic sequence on a speeding train, as Bond and fellow agent Eve (Naomie Harris) are hot on the tail of an assassin who has stolen a hard drive containing the identities of every undercover agent from the nations belonging to NATO. M makes a quick call that leads to a terrible accident (those who know the film's marketing likely know what it is, but I'll keep this review spoiler-free), costing her the drive, and as we soon find out, her job. Government official Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) is brought in to oversee M's transition out of power as she herself instructs Bond to hunt down who is targeting her and putting MI6 risk.
Aside from the Bond actors themselves, the James Bond films have always had good casts, with talents such as Robert Shaw, Diana Rigg Christopher Lee, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, and Halle Berry appearing alongside their respective 007s as friends, foes, or a mixture of the two. Skyfall is no different in this respect, with the returning Craig and Dench joined by Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw (as the new Q), the aforementioned Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem as the film's sure-to-be-classic villain Raoul Silva. Bardem steals the show anytime he's on screen, a bleached-blonde, flamboyant hacker who seeks revenge against the institution, and woman, that betrayed him long ago. Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe make for fine Bond girls, the former playing the field agent 007 works, flirts, and jokes with, while the latter plays one of Silva's pawns, caught in an unfortunate situation Bond could possibly remedy. Although both Harris and Marlohe fit the more traditional mold of a Bond girl, they don't have as much screen time as their predecessors, and that's because it's Dench who is front and center as the woman in Bond's life in Skyfall. The film explores the quasi-maternal relationship she has with 007 (who was an orphan, after all), something that informs Silva's motivations, and Dench and Craig play this relationship beautifully, especially as the film nears its conclusion. Although it likely doesn't need to be stated, Craig continues to inhabit the role of James Bond with a distinct tough exterior and playful attitude that makes the part his own, the latter characteristic being something that the writers sought to restore to Bond after a fairly dower Quantum of Solace.
The screenplay for Skyfall, written by Bond veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, along with franchise newcomer John Logan, is a key element of what makes the film work. It returns the trademark sense of humor that this film series has long been identified with, all the while adjusting and strengthening the darker tone set by the reboot that was Casino Royale. That film got away with quite a few departures given that it was essentially Bond's origin story, so if all the key ingredients weren't there, we could forgive them, enjoy new and exciting ride, and expect to see those things in the next film. But that didn't happen, and so Skyfall became the reboot of the rebooted Bond, and the work done by Purvis, Wade, and Logan deftly balances paying homage to tradition and forging a new path. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were wise to hire the creative team they did, and perhaps the most important hire of the entire crew was director Sam Mendes. An Academy Award winner for his film American Beauty, Mendes was the kind of non-action director that few would normally consider for a Bond film, but he turned out to be the one person who made it all come together.
One thing that many hated about Quantum of Solace was its shaky, quickly edited action sequences, something familiar to Bourne fans, so one of the immediately noticeable differences in Skyfall is the steady camera that keeps everything in the frame easy to see and understand. Yet another visual piece of Skyfall's success is its absolutely gorgeous digital cinematography by Roger Deakins, a Mendes and Cohen brothers regular who has created with Mendes a beautiful set of images; from to neon-clad skyscrapers of Shanghai to the fog covered moors of Scotland, everything is stunning. Team Mendes also includes composer Thomas Newman, who delivers a very Bondian score with not just a proper use of the classic theme, but also some electric guitar-infused moments that remind us that this is a James Bond film, not just another spy thriller. Another quintessentially Bond element that is a massive success here is Adele's title song, which invokes the Shirley Bassey tunes of old while delivering some ominous themes for the film's story as it plays over the wonderful opening credits. I can't say whether or not Mendes had a hand in approaching Adele for the theme (I think it may have been the producers), but her work is undoubtedly excellent, and well-deserving of that Best Song Oscar. Overall, watching Skyfall, I could easily tell that a great director was at the helm, because my mind was always on the film, and I was completely wrapped up in the story and spectacle on the screen before me.
Now, that would seem like a fine place to end this review, but ~~I'm trying to break the world record for longest film review~~ I think it would be a wasted opportunity if I didn't address some complaints I've heard expressed about this film. One concern is that Skyfall is too dark, or even joyless when placed alongside the lighter (but in no way lesser) fair that Sean Connery took part in, and while I can't deny that, I think the James Bond film series is the rare entity that needs to evolve with the times, and with the Bond of the moment. Connery was a winking balance of sly, suave, and powerful, Roger Moore was far goofier yet still refined, Timothy Dalton was cold and intense, and Pierce Brosnan was an action hero blended with a Bond not too dissimilar to Connery's. Daniel Craig gives us a 007 along the lines of what Dalton attempted in the late 1980s, a cold killer (something closer to Bond creator Ian Flemming's original vision), although he adds his own level of charm and wit that brings to mind Connery's work. The Bond franchise has always evolved with time, and with Skyfall it's found the right way to introduce a more serious atmosphere to its inherently playful world. The one other major criticism I've heard voiced about this film is that its action is too big and bombastic, essentially a great deal of noise. Compared to Dr. No, the 23rd Bond film does seem like a Transformers movie, but looking back at the 007 outings from 1987 onwards (I'm less familiar with Moore's films) reveals Bond has been in the middle of an action extravaganza series for more than two decades, and Skyfall handles the action quite artfully compared to some of the recent Bond films.
I'm sure we'd all like to see Sean Connery back in that classic Aston Martin as his 1960s self, but ever since George Lazenby and Roger Moore inherited the role of Bond from Connery (the Grover Cleaveland of 007s), it's been understood that once an actor leaves the role, their interpretation of the character can never live twice. Daniel Craig has proven to be a worthy successor to the Bonds that came before, and Skyfall only enforces that he's the right 007 for our times. Sam Mendes' entry in the James Bond franchise has set a new standard for this long-enduring series. Following legendary work that's come before is an unbelievably daunting task, let alone altering a tone and formula that's been so successful in the past, but when it comes to rebooting a franchise, charting a new course for the future, nobody's done it better. 10/10

*The first four Bond films starring Sean Connery were released four years in a row, from 1962 to 1965.

The über-mega-length review returns! And I thought my Man of Steel review was long. Well, I suppose a 50 year old franchise demands quite a few words.

Man of Steel

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:47:00 -0700

By Harry McPhaul

I realize that saying Man of Steel is the best recent superman movie is not exactly saying a lot. They succeed in that making this one have a different portrayal of superman. It felt more like they trying to do what the Dark Knight series did by making the character seem more human. Another part of the film I liked was the special effects.

I am sure technology has changed a lot since the last superman came out but this one just looked so much better. All scenes that involved him flying or jumping looked exceptionally realistic. The only part that looked fake right away was the people of Clark Kent’s (superman) home planet. They were wearing protective armor and I could easily see when the head and body were not in sync. Something as small as that did not change my opinion on the film. The acting also helped to make this film better than the previous ones.

I have not seen Henry Cavill in anything before this film so I was not sure what to expect. Altogether I would have to say I did enjoy his performance. A few times he did have a few corny looks on his face but sometimes its hard not to over act on some scenes. I think Amy Adams is a quality actress but she has reached her limit as to how great she can be for me. I see her as an actress that will not ruin the movie but can not be the one main reason the movie is great. I liked her in this role because she was not required to hold the whole weight of the movie but just hold her own piece. She does perfectly fine in doing that in her role as Lois Lane.

Overall, Man of Steel is probably going to be one of the best movies to see this summer. It had a great combination of action and drama. If you like the most recent batman films then you will like this one. It was a film that I was certainly entertained by. I would recommend that you see it before it goes out of theaters. It really needs to be seen on the big screen. I would give it a 8.5/10.

Man of Steel

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:49:00 -0700

Grounding Superman

by Hunter Isham

It's been seven years since we last saw Superman on the big screen, and that film, Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, came up a bit short where Zack Snyder's Man of Steel succeeds, although the opposite can be said as well. Returns was both a throwback to and continuation of the Richard Donner Superman films that starred the irreplaceable Christopher Reeve, even featuring the now famous John Williams march that helped the audience believe that a man could fly. It's moments of reverence proved to be what held it back from being the smash hit Warner Bros. wanted, and so here we are, with Christopher Nolan's (a writer/producer on this film) Dark Knight Trilogy concluded, a shortage of DC Comics characters on the screen, and the competitors at Marvel riding high on their Avengers-laiden cinematic universe. Superman is arguably a bigger cinematic hero than Batman (or at least he was before Nolan's films), and if Warner Bros. wants to reach Marvel-ous heights without rebooting and retreading Gotham's caped crusader, they need a fiscally robust Clark Kent to propel them forward.
Reversing directions of the often upbeat Superman Returns, the studio accepted a story pitch from Nolan and co-writer (and sole screenwriter) David S. Goyer that poses the question of how humanity would react if it found an individual as strong as Superman among its own. An essentially indestructible, one-man weapon of mass destruction. We'd probably be wary that his interests lay with our own. This, and the film's non-linear structure, are what give it an interesting edge, and they're what make the film worth seeing. Somewhat strangely, the film begins to stumble as it heads into its massive action climax, but at least they deliver enough story in the first half to make me want to see the next installment.
That story is a smartly rewritten and rearranged version of the origin story we all know, the one that is prominently featured in Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie. Kal-El, born on Krypton to Lara (Ayelet Zurer) and Jor-El (Russell Crowe), is sent from his soon to be destroyed planet to Earth, home to flawed but potentially capable individuals. After crash landing in Kansas, he's discovered and raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Swap in Marlon Brando for Crowe and we're back in 1978 again, right? Wrong. This Krypton is more than the background for a quick prologue, it's the fuel that keeps the villain crusading against Superman, not to mention a cinematic science fiction marvel to look at. Once Kal-El leaves his homeworld, the majority of the film is spent in the present day, as a grown up Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) lives out his days as a drifter intent on using his world-changing powers as little as possible. The film often flashes back to Clark's younger years, when he learns to reconcile his human home with his alien abilities, all under the guidance of his adopted father. When Clark eventually discovers who he really is (this time under the guidance of a simulated Jor-El), he begins his journey as the Man of Steel, a process that is accelerated as the last survivors of Krypton, a militant group led by the snarling General Zod (Michael Shannon), come looking for him.
All of this works fairly well, but my enjoyment of the film was suspended as the following action continued. It begins with a good ol' brawl in Smallville (the Kents' hometown), and it continues into Metropolis. But then it ends... until it continues some more. If you see Man of Steel, you'll know what I mean. Part of the problem with the Metropolis action is the sheer scope of damage done to the city (quite a bit is already done to Smallville). Buildings collapse and city blocks are razed, leaving me wondering how the big blue boy scout could allow so much collateral damage. Even forgiving that destruction, the mass-anihilation that occurs during Superman's final confrontation with General Zod will make your jaw hit the floor given that it's just two people fighting. Punching most often, which is another problem entirely; after so much action, the super-sonic punches that the Kryptonians deliver to each other get a bit derivative (there is some human action going on as well, but not as much). Much of the action in Man of Steel is quite spectacular, but don't count on leaving your seat until the last punch has been thrown, not that you should or could keep count.
As you may have guessed, the character elements of this film are its saving graces, and a lot of that has to do with its wonderful cast. Henry Cavill, though not given as much of the character's trademark levity as Reeve, is perfect for the role of Clark Kent/Superman, providing the proper amount of confusion and solemnity, with just a few sly remarks that inform where this character is headed in the sequel. Crowe is solid as the regal and intelligent Jor-El, although it's Costner who tugs at your heart strings as the young hero's moral center. He brings Jonathan Kent a wisdom and uncertainty that informs this film's take on the character of Superman, guiding his son as to when the right time will be to step up and become the hero he was born to be. Diane Lane, though not given as much to do, is equally good, struggling to help her son deal with his inherent differences. Michael Shannon is appropriately angry and imposing as General Zod, although he lacks the trademark interesting quirks of a Joker, or (as is the case in the Superman mythology) a Lex Luthor. One of the film's undeniable strengths, a character and actress I have yet to mention, is Amy Adams' Lois Lane. Superman's persona of "Clark Kent, bumbling reporter" doesn't really appear until the film's conclusion, so there's no screwball comedy intrigue between the thinly veiled Superman and his whip smart colleague. Instead, Adams gives us an intrepid reporter who is tracking a mysterious, godlike drifter, until their paths eventually cross (this film doesn't waste time by retreading a will they/won't they scenario involving Kent's true identity). Lane has plenty to do in Man of Steel, and we can be thankful for the fact that she will likely have even more in any future films. The rest of the cast is excellent, including Harry Lennix and Christopher Meloni as members of the U.S. military, Richard Schiff (Toby from The West Wing!) as a military scientist, and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Editor in Chief of The Daily Planet.
Man of Steel is an attempt to ground Superman in a more serious reality, much like Christopher Nolan's treatment of Batman. Director Zack Snyder and his creative team mostly succeed, forging a new path for the character, although they go too dark at times, losing the winking humor the character is known for, and making the action too thunderously derivative of itself to enjoy beyond a certain point. The fantastic cast saves the film, as does an invigorating score by Hans Zimmer that bares no resemblance to the Williams music, making this the rare summer movie that does more right with its characters than it does with its action. If you make it through to the film's climax, its epilogue will hopefully leave you with the notion that Superman is in the right hands, headed in the right direction, even if he faces his share of turbulence on the way there. I'm more than curious to see where Snyder and Goyer take Clark Kent, as I hope we get a few more jokes and a more interesting foe next time. Man of Steel is the Superman film we asked for, if not the one we need, and if the filmmakers keep listening to the audience, we may actually get the Superman movie we deserve. 7.75/10

P.S. I saw this film in 2D Imax (the film already has a drab, desaturated look, so the tint from 3D glasses will likely make for an unpleasant viewing experience), and while it looked great on a massive screen, its very loud soundtrack was too much to handle on the powerful sound system that comes with those 70 ft. screens. It may have just been where I saw the film, but if you value your ability to hear things, you may want to go with a conventional screening.

Star Trek Into Darkness

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:54:00 -0700

Boldly going? Kind of.

by Hunter Isham

J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness is a film that's often at odds with itself. Abrams and his team of writer/producers aim to create a Trek that is faithful to what has come before yet broad enough to attract a wide audience. A "Star Wars Audience," if you will. 2009's Star Trek was successful in doing this, creating an action-packed adventure that told the story of how Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the crew wound up on the bridge of the Enterprise. It found the balance between the character-driven, cerebral formula that is the basis for the best of the Trek films and the awe-inspiring set pieces that can quicken one's pace and put a crowd in the seats. I remember telling people that the 2009 Trek was "smart entertainment," and it still is, but it's sequel strains to go in both of the aforementioned directions, leaving a final product that is very entertaining at first glance, but lacks the logic that makes Star Trek tick.
The last film, which established these new adventures as taking place in a separate timeline than those of the original Shatner/Nimoy films*, brought Kirk and co. through the academy and gave them the Enterprise. This film is purportedly about them truly earning the right to serve on that ship, and sure enough, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise is put to the test by facing a very powerful nemesis (no Trek pun intended). Into Darkness opens with a rousing opening that would feel at home in an Indiana Jones adventure before introducing us to John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch, pictured above), a rogue member of Starfleet whom Kirk must track down. From that point on the story gets into spoiler territory, including the big reveal of Harrison's actual identity (or is he just John Harrison?).
Did I say big reveal? Well, for someone like myself who's followed every stage of production for this film, I can honestly say that Harrison's identity did not need to be a secret. Trekkers figured that he was probably who he turned out to be (if you really want to know, click here), and for those who've never seen Star Trek (or at least no more than the 2009 outing), the reveal held no weight. Abrams and co. have taken a legendary Trek villain and made his identity the central mystery to a film that is supposed to appeal to the masses. I'm not angry about it, but their marketing campaign could probably have drawn even more of that broad audience on the villain's name recognition alone. The mystery wrapped inside of an enigma here is luckily not the film's only surprise, and the other twists work in a more classically story-driven manner.
What continues to work well in this rebooted Trek universe is the excellent cast that populates this film. Chris Pine takes Captain Kirk to a new emotional depth while Zachary Quinto brings more humanity to the inherently logical Mr. Spock. Scotty, one of my favorite characters from the previous film, thankfully gets quite a bit to do here, and Simon Pegg makes a great comic foil for the serious tone Into Darkness takes as it progresses. Zoë Saldana, though not given as much to do as in the last film, is still good as Uhura, giving more depth to a previously (in the original films) somewhat underwritten character. John Cho and Anton Yelchin, though also not terribly active this time around, are still fine as Sulu and Chekhov, respectively. Cumberbatch is excellent as the villain, even if the part could have been better written, and I hope he is given the opportunity to return to Star Trek someday. Bruce Greenwood returns as Admiral Pike, while Peter Weller effectively imposes fear as Admiral Marcus. Last, and unfortunately kind of least, is Alice Eve, who has little to do as Dr. Carol Marcus (a love interest for Kirk from the original Star Trek II), and who will hopefully be a fine addition with a fleshed out role in the inevitable sequel.
The cast, though given lopsided attention, is uniformly great, and they can only be let down by their script. Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Damon Lindelof have crafted a script that has plenty of fun action and some funny one-liners, but ultimately it cannot decide how to handle its villain. Cumberbatch is given a great scene to play where he explains his true identity and how he came to be a fugitive of Starfleet. This moment, and some interesting beats involving Weller's Admiral Marcus, are quite intriguing, but they get muddled with a sort of two-villian scenario the film paints that ultimately hinders the power of Cumberbatch as a true antagonist. That's a basic problem of how the story is constructed, but another issue for which I can't quite land on an opinion is how this film not only borrows elements from past Treks (which is perfectly acceptable), but it outright pulls scenes from them and tweaks the way they play out. This may not bother those who have no connection to the Star Trek of old, and it didn't entirely bother me, but after leaving the theater it felt like Abrams and the writers were just pandering to the fans too much (themselves included as fans). For example, someone gets to shout the villain's name in a way that evokes an original Shatnerian scene, and I liked it in the moment, but afterwards I wondered why it had to happen.
These flaws are very specific to franchise films, and even more specific to Star Trek, and if I had not seen any of the older films, my initial reaction of, "that was pretty darn good," would have stuck with me. Don't get me wrong, this film is still a thrilling action-packed, popcorn movie that doesn't insult the audience's intelligence, but that reliance on spectacle isn't so inline with Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, and aping the previous films is not the best way to hold onto some of what makes Star Trek the smart space-bound series that it is. This film ends (after a lackluster bit of final action), however, with something that everyone can appreciate. The Original Series' five year mission to boldly go where no one has gone before is about to begin, and here's hoping that next time, Star Trek takes its own advice and forges a new path that reminds us why we love it and demonstrates how it can still surprise us. 8/10

*Check out the 2009 Star Trek if you want to understand this dynamic (which explains an appearance by Nimoy in Into Darkness).

The Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:11:00 -0700

Before PRISM, there was Hackman.

by Hunter Isham

This week we take a trip back to 1974, the year that gave us Chinatown and The Godfather, Part II, the latter of which was co-written and directed by the same man who wrote and directed The Conversation, Francis Ford Coppola. This quiet but chilling thriller won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1974, and it was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards alongside the two aforementioned films, but it just wasn't Coppola's year, as The Conversation lost out to that Godfather sequel and its director (oh, wait...). A remarkable movie that may slip under some people's radars these days, The Conversation tells the story of private surveillance expert Harry Caul as he records a mysteriously ordinary conversation between two people for a powerful corporate client, only to be haunted by the thought that his work may bring that couple harm.
The Conversation captures attention through its silence and apparent simplicity. Much of the film is Caul living his life as he struggles with trying to understand the conversation he recorded while debating what to do with the tapes. As an invader of privacy, we get to see how he lives, trusting no one in his life, and living in a fairly barren apartment in San Francisco as a way to appease his own paranoia given how well he knows his isolation can be anything but. The film doesn't really kick into high gear until its third act, and by then the slow simmer of revealing Harry's quiet, secluded environment and lifestyle have prepared us for just about anything, but not the quick and satisfying resolution it provides to the mystery it set up in its opening moments. We begin to feel just as paranoid as Harry, unwilling to let our guard down or enter a public space without checking over our shoulder.
A key element in keeping such a low-key film engaging is the lead, Gene Hackman. He brings Coppola's creation to life with the proper amount of remorse, intelligence, and hardened professionalism, making him sad, but not pitiful; smart, but not arrogant. He seems like a regular guy who's decided to cut himself off from the world when he's not listening in on it. Although this film is essentially a one man show that rests on Hackman's strong performance, a fantastic supporting cast fills out the remaining parts, including John Cazale, Cindy Williams, Harrison Ford (pre-Star Wars, post-American Graffiti), and, briefly, Robert Duvall. Cazale is good as one of Caul's associates, Williams is intriguing as one of his surveillance targets, and Ford is steely and intimidating a representative for Caul's client. Ultimately, their collective strengths simply help to bolster Hackman.
Francis Ford Coppola had quite a year in 1974, releasing both The Conversation and The Godfather, Part II, although the former isn't as widely publicized as the latter. He crafted a tense thriller that grips you if only because of its peculiar solemnity while also finding a nice showcase for San Francisco, his personal Hollywood of the north that proves to be fine backdrop without distracting from the action. Hackman and the rest of the consummate pros at Coppola's disposal inhabit a world that, for all its reel to reel tapes and pay phones, is startlingly similar and relevant to our own. Hardly dated, The Conversation can still send chills down your spine and surprise you with its twists, reminding you that while you don't have to isolate yourself, it's probably not a bad idea to monitor your privacy, lest someone else do it for you. 9/10

The Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:35:00 -0700

By Harry McPhaul

The Conversation was a detective film unlike any other I have seen. It was different in that it was not about a detective going around gathering evidence to build a case against a person or company. All the evidence we ever see is right in the beginning and it’s only a recording of a conversation between man and a woman in Union Square.

The protagonist, Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) is a type of private investigator that only records audio of the people who he is hired to follow. He is not required to analyze or interpret the data or start building a case for his client. Harry sticks to this policy even though he believes he has chance to save someone from being murdered.

I have not seen many films starring Gene Hackman but from what I saw from this film I can see why many people appreciate his acting ability. He perfectly portrayed a surveillance expert throughout the whole film. In every scene you could see him watching every single detail. The fact that he never gave out his phone number or where he lived to even his friends was another part I liked about the character. It was as if Coppola spared no detail in creating this person who has become the best in industry by being the most paranoid.

The film did feel a little slow for most parts because Harry is not trying to obtain more information about the people he was hired to follow. It sort of all comes to head toward the end when we finally get to see the plot of the murder. After Harry puts together the pieces to the murder (after the murder has already happened) he gets a phone call saying that he is being watched so he will not call the police. He proceeds to tear up his apartment looking for the “bug.” Then the credits start rolling and I was left with this feeling of: what was the point. I could not really understand why he was hired by the same people who were committing the murder. Overall I did enjoy the film. It was no Godfather but I’d give it a 9/10.

Drive

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:33:00 -0700

Just a little dark. Maybe.

by Hunter Isham

Before formally jumping into this review of Drive, I'll say that I've had a whirlwind of a weekend that kept me fairly busy, and I've been away from the keyboard for a bit. With official business out of the way, let's get down to why we're all here. I was one of the intrigued few who decided to catch Nicolas Winding Refn's 2011 crime drama Drive while it was still in theaters. It's a film that is at once quiet and subtle yet pulsing with energy and bursts of violence. Ryan Gosling stars as the Driver, a movie stunt driver and freelance getaway man who gives his criminal clients strict rules about how long they have before he takes off. He makes the acquaintance of an attractive neighbor, Irene (Carrie Mulligan), watching over her and her young son. From there he works to help settle her husband's debt, freeing them from the watchful eye of those who dwell in Los Angeles' seedy underbelly.
To be quite honest, I haven't seen Drive since it's theatrical release, and while it's certainly a film that sticks in your mind, I haven't been eager to see it again, despite my own curiosity as to how I'd perceive it now. There are many great elements of this film that make it quite good, specifically the cast, including the stoic Gosling, a tender Mulligan, a cowering Bryan Cranston (as Gosling's mechanic pal/manager), and a slimy, menacing Albert Brooks as a movie producer whose got more than just a little business on the side. Gosling does a great job of holding our attention despite the low key character, making it absolutely necessary to watch him when he suddenly bursts into bouts of violence, such as a now infamous scene in an elevator involving the Driver's shoe and a henchman's head. With such a wonderful and varied cast, which also includes an appearance by Mad Men's Christina Hendricks, it may be hard to imagine there being a standout, but Brooks gives a truly powerhouse performance. He shares a scene late in the film with Cranston that is hard to forget, and divulging any details would spoil both the plot and ruin the nuances of the performances (contrasting Cranston's relatively weak character here with Breaking Bad's Walter White shows his own fantastic range).
Another strong element that gives the actors a beautiful sandbox in which to play is the gorgeous cinematography that Drive features. This film can be a feast for the eyes at times, even if it's when Gosling is walking down the corridor of a strip club, clutching a hammer that will soon be a tool of coercion. Winding Refn (of Denmark, for those who are curious) certainly knows how to direct a film, matching the wonderful photography (for which cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel must largely be responsible) with a steady pace that doesn't lurch forward as one might expect given the many quiet and relatively explosive moments. Cliff Martinez' score must also be given a good deal of credit for helping to set the mood of the film.
Good actors? Check. Taut direction? Check. Solid screenplay? (Not mentioned, but yes, it's solid) Check. Everything seems right, so why haven't I wanted to revisit the world of Drive. Well, it's dark. I don't have a problem with dark, but Drive is dark in that melodic, occasionally ponderous way, where bad things happen and the audience is supposed to sit and admire how beautiful everything looks, no matter how violent it is. Is it the violence? No, I don't mind the film's violence (although I did cringe a bit when viewing the film), but when Drive gets violent, it gets violent. It sounds like I need to watch more Rock Hudson and Doris Day comedies, but I really don't mind the intensity of it all. I suppose my main beef with Drive is that I simply didn't love it with a capital L. Many proclaimed it one of the best films of 2011, and thought it was a dark horse candidate for some Oscar nominations (Brooks is deserving here), but I merely considered it very good. That's definitely not an indictment of this film's quality, but rather a statement about my reaction to it. I suppose the worst thing I can say about Drive is that when the end credits rolled I immediately felt the need to watch something light and funny, and I settled on Mel Brooks' classic Blazing Saddles. That film takes you about as far in the other direction as is possible, but that's a topic for another review. For now, feel safe that if you don't mind lots of blood and a potential craving for insane screwball comedy, Drive is a trip worth taking. 8/10

Chinatown

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:09:00 -0700

By Harry McPhaul

Chinatown was a classic detective movie. It was the story about a private detective investigating an alleged cheating husband only to find out he has been murder. The detective (Jack Nicholson) traces the evidence to discover that the man’s death may have been caused by a corrupt water department. The story alone seemed like one of the first of its time which made the film more interesting. It did not have many slow parts which can often happen in detective movies because they have go and gather evidence.

I liked how it kept me interested but without a lot of gun fights or knife fights (weapons in general). Yes there were a few scenes with weapons but it was only occasional and only lasted for about a minute. This is what made the film more realistic because no one really goes around shooting up a whole city to solve one murder. Also another part that made the film more believable was the acting.

Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Detective Gittes was highly effective. I liked how he was keeping almost all the evidence he was gathering to himself and then using it to persuade people to give him more information. Another great part I liked was how he only mentioned he used to be a police officer a few times. Many times in similar films we hear numerous stories about the protagonists’ past history as cop which can get repetitive and irritating. Detective Gittes only shares about 2 stories and says he used to be a police officer maybe 3 times.

Overall, I can see why many people would enjoy this film. The only part of the film I felt was disappointing was the ending. It kind of ends abruptly and leaves you with the feeling that the bad guys got away with everything. It is movie that I think should definitely be watched multiple times to help understand the ending better. I would still recommend that viewing this film. I would give it a 9/10.

Chinatown

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:54:00 -0700

Forget it, Jake.

by Hunter Isham

Roman Polanski's 1974 mystery film Chinatown is neo-noir at its best, introducing elements to the film noir genre that before would have seemed far too controversial. Our hero is the unsavory yet decent snoop J.J. "Jake" Gittes, a man who deals mostly in finding and revealing the adulterous acts of his clients' spouses. He doesn't exactly seem in it for the good of the people. Hired to look into the personal life of Hollis Mulwray, chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Gittes quickly begins to uncover a devious scheme of corruption, the kind that is a hallmark of the detective film. Chinatown gives us a tale that's about as dark as they get, and the film's famously shocking ending is a reminder of that tone, yet it stands as one of the greatest mystery films of all time.
For all of the iconic roles he's inhabited, Jack Nicholson has the ability to become his characters while also being unmistakably Nicholson, and his first performance as Jake Gittes is typically fantastic, and one of the many keys to this film's success. Nicholson's many characters over the years have included those who have their own crazy idiosyncrasies and moments of apparent insanity, such as Jack Torrance in The Shining and the Joker in Batman, but as Gittes he is restrained while retaining all of his charm and personality. He can talk his way into (or out of) just about anything, and his wilder moments come only when he's forced to literally spring into action. Such a slick personality needs something to counter it and Faye Dunaway does this as Evelyn Mulwray, the mysterious wife of Hollis who always seems to be hiding something. Dunaway's performance is a true balancing act as she is able to go from an overly protective enigma to a real, softened person caught up in a whole lot of deceit. The trifecta of wonderful actors in Chinatown is complete with John Huston as Noah Cross, a man partially responsible for bringing water to Los Angeles with Hollis Mulwray. Huston—known mostly for his illustrious career of a director of such classics as The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The African Queen, The Man Who Would Be King, and Annie—is excellent in his few scenes as Cross, a formidable persona with whom Gittes crosses paths. The remainder of the cast is filled with character actors who provide all the right touches, be they hardened cops or shifty henchmen (a role Polanski inhabits here quite well).
The rest of what makes Chinatown work like a well-oiled machine is hardly minor. Robert Towne's screenplay is smart, dark, and complex, creating a mystery around the real life water wars that took place in pre-War Los Angeles while swapping out real figures for fictitious ones for the good of the story (for example, Mulwray is a stand-in for Mulholland, now famous for the twisty road that bears his name). Now legendary composer contributes a period-specific score of haunting brass and strings that helps pull you into the film's world during its throwback opening credits. The man who puts it all together (and who nixed Towne's original ending) is Roman Polanski. Given that his personal life has sullied his name for many, we'll just avoid his indiscretions as they have no affect on how his work should be viewed (although interestingly, Chinatown was his last American film, just a few years before he made it impossible for himself to return). Whatever you may think of him as a human being, there's no denying that Polanski can direct, something the Academy confirmed decades after he'd fled by awarding him for his work on The Pianist. Of all his films, which also include Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown will likely remain that one "classic" that everyone admires. Polanski successfully recreates 1930s Los Angeles with the locations untouched by still-growing development, leaving the film with an authentic atmosphere that feels just right. Some films like Chinatown are more about the period than the story taking place within it, but here it is just the opposite, where everything feels real but never heightened.
Chinatown has become the ultimate neo-noir film, reaching into the darker depths that were often hinted at in earlier motion pictures. Classics like 1955's Kiss Me Deadly approached the line, and even a limb over from time to time, but Polanski's film firmly plants itself in a new generation of genre. Even if Chinatown weren't toying with a formula, it would still be one hell of a movie, with Nicholson, Dunaway, Towne, and Polanski all operating at the top of their respective professions, creating an endlessly entertaining experience that should not be missed. Many films have tried to follow in its footsteps, including a worthy but somewhat lesser follow-up (1990's The Two Jakes, written again by Towne and directed by Nicholson) and the phenomenal L.A. Confidential, but this one remains the gold standard. It's Chinatown, and I don't think we'll ever forget it. 10/10

Behind the Candelabra

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:36:00 -0700

By Harry McPhaul

Behind the Candelabra was the story of the relationship between Liberace and his much younger lover Scott Thorsen. I went into this film knowing very little if anything about Liberace because he was little before my time. From what I could tell, Michael Douglass’ portrayal of Liberace seemed spot on.

Michael Douglass gave the best performance out of the whole cast. He had Liberace’s mannerism down to every single detail. From the way he talked to way he played the piano, he was the most believable character. Also the makeup applied Douglass to make him look more like Liberace was outstanding. The makeup overall I felt was an underrated aspect.

During one part of the film, Matt Damon’s character (Thorsen) is required to have plastic surgery. Once the surgery was over Damon looked like he actually did have the surgery. They also showed the surgery being done which was a hard to watch at some times but still interesting. It just goes to show the amount of detail Soderbergh went to show the price of being one of Liberace’s lovers.

I was not eager to see this film because of the story but more because of the actors. While watching I began to following every detail and felt the emotions being expressed. As someone who had never really heard of Liberace I was able to still able to feel like I had seen his performance many times. For readers who do not have HBO it will difficult to watch this film, legally. But I would still recommend this film. I would give it a 9/10.

Behind The Candelabra

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Sun, 2 Jun 2013 21:25:00 -0700

Shinier Than Your Average Biopic

by Hunter Isham

When Bob Black (Scott Bakula) takes his new friend Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) to see his buddy Liberace's (Michael Douglas) show in Las Vegas, Scott quickly wonders how (in the 1970s) so many people could be drawn to, and adore, such an obviously gay performer. "Oh, they don't know he's gay," Bob explains. Well, if there was any doubt before, that can be laid to rest with Steven Soderbergh's supposedly final* film, Behind The Candelabra, which takes a look at the relationship between an aging Liberace and the young Scott for a number of years. Of course, I don't think there were many who doubted Liberace's private life, at least not in the years since the great pianist passed away, but this film is a compelling view of a rather ordinary relationship twisted by Liberace's penchant for the gaudy life of a celebrity that was every bit as glittery and surprising as his show in Vegas.
The oddities on display in this film are brought out through its characters, although it remains grounded due to the wonderful performances by Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. I've never seen much footage of the real Liberace, but based on photographs and stories alone, Douglas seems to capture his personality with the appropriate amount of flamboyance and charm while never tipping over into a caricature. One review I read prior to the film's debut noted how this may be Douglas' best performance since the original Wall Street, something I wholeheartedly agree with, because this is yet another commanding performance (though not forceful like Gordon Gekko) in which he simply disappears into the character. Damon doesn't have the same luxury of such a public persona on which he can base his performance, but he nonetheless conveys an appropriate naiveté while helping to create a believable relationship with Douglas. The fact that I never doubted their bond as real, or thought they might be winking at the camera, is a testament to their ability to perfectly inhabit their roles.
While Damon and Douglas ground the sometimes crazy elements at play here, as I said before, they along with the rest of the cast are what give Behind The Candelabra its unmistakable quirk. Scott Bakula has fun as that man who first introduces Scott and Lee (as Liberace like to be called), and Dan Aykroyd is very good as the manager who tries so desperately to keep his client's personal life from the public eye. An unrecognizable Debbie Reynolds is a treat to see in a few short scenes as Lee's mother, sporting a big prosthetic nose and a thick Polish accent. The cast member who damn near steals the show is Rob Lowe as Liberace's horrific plastic surgeon. With an accent I couldn't quite place (New York?) and a face pulled as tight as humanly possible, it's great fun to see speak so seriously about the work he does (which, for the squeamish out there, gets a bit of cringeworthy screen time). The casting itself is hilarious as Lowe is no stranger to parts where his characters are considered handsome, yet here he plays someone who's so flattened and pulled that it hurts just looking at him**.
Soderbergh had a lot of the hard work done by casting such fantastic actors to portray these distinctive characters, and a wonderful script by Richard LaGravenese keeps things moving while providing the proper amounts of humor along the way (some dark, some just plain funny). However, the director creates a deft balance between of tone, not just with the comedy provided him in the script, but also with how much he should wink at the audience with Liberace's personality and lifestyle. Soderbergh never betrays his subject, yet he also allows us to laugh at the excess on display, gently poking fun at how Lee had a garish home that included a ceiling mural of his own face. The film is also quite beautifully shot, especially the performance scenes in Las Vegas, and that can also be attributed to Soderbergh, who acts as his own cinematographer (credited as Peter Andrews).
"Too much of a good thing is wonderful," said Liberace, and while that may not be the case for Scott Thorson and those who orbited around Lee, it is certainly true for this film. Great direction, a fantastic script, and a potential all-time best performance by Michael Douglas help communicate an inherently gonzo tale with heart and humor. Matt Damon and Douglas' chemistry make us believe that Scott and Lee were just like any other couple going through tough times, no small feat for such recognizable screen personas (especially Douglas). Although it's a shame this possible last film for Soderbergh is on HBO rather than in theaters, it's still a biopic well-worth your time, whether you DVR it, stream it, or catch it later on DVD. Liberace's story has been dragged into the spotlight in the past, but here it's told with just the right amount of glamour and heart. 9/10

Note: For those curious, Michael Douglas' head was digitally put on to the body of a pianist trained to play exactly like Liberace, so no, Gordon Gekko has not been hiding a secret prodigious talent for playing the piano.

*He's taking an indefinite break (but may work in TV).

**Lowe has stated that the makeup process involved a migraine-inducing procedure of pulling skin and holding it in place while they were shooting.

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 5

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:21:00 -0700

Back For More

by Hunter Isham

It's been quite some time since our last podcast, but after many scheduling setbacks we're finally back with a great discussion covering the films we've reviewed since our last episode. This fifth installment of The Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review Podcast finds us discussing 42, Bully, Moneyball, The Lake, and The Great Gatsby. As a special treat, Tyler, Harry and myself were actually able to sit down and record together, rather than via Skype, so it should make for some interesting listening. Here's hoping we can get another episode out before too long.

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 5

P.S. We recorded this episode just before Memorial Day Weekend, but aside from some personal stuff I was a bit distracted by something that occurred that weekend.

Iron Man 3

noreply@blogger.com (The DMI Review) — Tue, 28 May 2013 10:48:00 -0700

Built to Last

by Hunter Isham

2008's Iron Man was a breath of fresh air, giving us a superhero who is neither a brooding, injured individual nor a chipper do-gooder. Tony Stark was a narcissistic playboy weapons manufacturer who quickly found himself on the wrong end of a terrorist attack. Reborn as Iron Man, the hero who was a narcissistic playboy billionaire with a cause, Stark still had some growth ahead of him. Jon Favreau's film also kicked off the multi-billion dollar franchise now known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which culminated for the first time last year in The Avengers. Just about everyone loved that film, but the same can't be said for Favreau's 2010 sequel Iron Man 2, which spent too much time preparing for Avengers, and not enough time telling Stark's story (not bad, just not Tony-centric). Now that the super-team-up is behind them (for now), the folks at Marvel have given us a stellar third entry in the Iron Man series, creating a personal story that handles the dark stuff without forgetting its light-hearted, snarky roots.
Set during Christmastime after the events of The Avengers, we find Tony Stark a bit of a mess. He can't sleep, he's having panic attacks, and he can't escape the feeling that he's just a man in a suit next to a super soldier, a god, and a Hulk. To add to the trouble, a bin Laden-esque super terrorist known as the Mandarin is making unexpected attacks all over the country. When an old friend is caught in the crossfire, Tony invites the wrath of the Mandarin, and boy does he get it. As the film's trailer depicts, Stark's Malibu mansion is destroyed, as are his suits, and this is what really sets the plot in motion, as he's left alone without his armory or super-pals, working to uncover the mystery behind the Mandarin while attempting to rebuild with the same ingenuity he used when he was trapped in that cave in the first film. From this point forward, Iron Man 3 plays out with the expected levels of fun and intrigue, involving everyone from the President to a cute kid who helps Stark when he's down and out while avoiding the cliché of being a cute kid who helps our wounded hero.
This wide range of characters is brought to life by a top-notch cast. By now, Robert Downey, Jr. simply is Iron Man, and here he thankfully doesn't coast on his success, giving the audience a Tony Stark who, for the first time since donning his suit, can't handle the obstacles put in front of him. It helps that he's matched by excellent villains, including Ben Kingsley's Mandarin, a growling iconoclast bent on teaching America a lesson. Chameleon actor Guy Pearce is equally excellent as an oily figure Stark rebuffed more than a decade earlier. Rebecca Hall is fine as another figure from Tony's past, a scientist developing a treatment that can regenerate limbs, although she has less to do than her experiment. Don Cheadle, returning as Tony's best friend Col. James Rhodes (who himself has a weaponized suit), similarly has a sporadic amount of material, but he makes the best of his scenes. The one series regular who gets a boost in importance here is Gwyneth Paltrow, whose Pepper Potts even gets to join in some of the spectacular action sequences as more than just a damsel in distress.
Speaking of those action sequences, it should be noted that Iron Man 3 features Stark out of the suit perhaps more than any of the previous films, but when he is flying high and battling the bad guys, it's pretty great. Two standout scenes come late in the film, the first being a daring rescue when members of the Air Force One flight crew go shooting out of the back of the plane, and the second being the film's climactic battle involving more than a few Iron Man suits of armor. There's also some fun that harkens back to Tony inventing without his wealth and infrastructure there to protect or provide for him. Overall, the film creates a nice balance between the character moments and the action that allow the human element to breathe in the face of the big explosions and swooping cameras.
Iron Man 3 simultaneously takes itself seriously while keeping its tongue planted firmly in cheek, giving Tony Stark the standalone follow-up he deserves. Although we've seen moments of fledgling growth from Tony in the past, he truly reaches new ground with this installment, finding out whether or not his Iron Man suit was the key to leaving his old ways behind him. Shane Black does a wonderful job of providing material that is so perfect for Robert Downey, Jr. to play, and the fantastic supporting cast does a great job making this film more than just a one man show. The end of Iron Man 3 leaves the future uncertain for Stark, just as it is for Downey, Jr.. This film fulfills his existing contract with Marvel (a famously frugal bunch), and he's now in negotiations to return for more Avengers outings, which he seems ready to sign on for. More solo endeavors are the big question, and if this third film in the Iron Man trilogy is Downey, Jr.'s last front-and-center outing, we can all rest safe knowing that this Iron Man is one that will satisfy for years to come. 8.75/10