The Fighter

Hostiles

Versatility. Range. To me, these are the hallmarks of great acting – and they have served Christian Bale (The Big Short) well, from The Fighter to American Hustle. Hostiles marks his return to the Western, his first since 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma. One would hope that the genre has evolved enough to be devoid of stereotypes, while maintaining historical accuracy in a way that doesn’t sacrifice artistic merit. Hostiles didn’t break new ground within the genre, but emotional dramatic turns from Bale and co-star Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl) make it a worthwhile film.

Set in 1892, the film depicts a rough and tumble American landscape of centuries past. Bale stars as Joseph Blocker, an Army captain tasked with a final mission before retirement, which he begrudgingly accepts. He must transport a dying Apache chief and his family back to their home state of Montana, as the elder is riddled with Cancer and has been granted mercy to die on his homeland. Violent and racist, Blocker’s visceral contempt for Native Americans could not be more obvious, and he pleads in futility to be excused from the mission. His superior officer ignores those complaints, and Blocker leads a small party of soldiers in the transport of Chief Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi, A Million Ways to Die in the West) and his family, including his adult children and grandson.

Historical accuracy is important, and while it is true that some early Native Americans terrorized White settlers expanding West, it is equally true that White colonizers terrorized the indigenous populations already here. Be that as it may, the film did an effective job in its first act, presenting both sides of a philosophical coin in its depiction of brutality. In a riveting opening scene, a Comanche tribe descends upon a family to steal their horses. They slaughtered them all, save for Pike’s character Rosalie, now a grieving mother and widow. Blocker and company encounter the woman en route, and she joins their small, weary procession.

Hostiles is quite simply a movie about a journey from point A to point B. The strength of the film is in the richness and depth of the characters and the performances. The Captain is a figure whom you can’t quite root for or against. Initially Blocker is cruel, failing to see the humanity in his charge. However, in moments with the soldiers under his command and in his interaction with Rosalie, we see genuine affection and tenderness, a reminder of the complexity of human nature and the duality that lies within all of us. He is an effective leader, engendering loyalty that is met with a deep and loving gratitude. As they encounter peril in their journey, circumstances force Blocker to amend his dealings with Yellow Hawk and to forge a new, albeit begrudging respect as they face a common enemy together.

An air of sadness hangs over the film, giving it a somber tone throughout. I was moved by its theme of reflection, as several characters bleakly assessed their own careers and lives, burdened by the weight of loss. I was particularly struck by a poignant scene between two lieutenants, as the younger (Jesse Plemons, The Post) reflects on his first killing. The contrast between the two men was powerful, the older immune to regret over certain lives but not others. This emotional compartmentalization exemplified the cynicism of war and of life generally, and it was portrayed beautifully.

My critique of the film boils down to a matter of taste, of whether or not one can get past the limitations of the genre and the fact that it isn’t a “feel good” movie.  Hostiles was a fine film, featuring another excellent performance by Christian Bale, and a rich emotional turn from Rosamund Pike, which may be enough for some moviegoers.

Grade: B+

The Gambler

I wouldn’t necessarily list Mark Wahlberg among my favorite actors, yet I find myself enjoying many of his movies. He’s capable of turning in really good performances – whether it’s Lone Survivor or The Fighter. On the other hand, he’s also good for the occasional dud (see Broken City), though not for lack of effort or talent. When I got wind of The Gambler, I thought it might have been a stylish crime movie something like Rounders meets The Drop. The film could have been an effective character study and examination of addiction – but instead it fell flat, leaving me bored and disappointed.

The Gambler is a remake of a 1974 movie of the same name starring James Caan. The newer version keeps the same basic plot, with Wahlberg starring as English professor Jim Bennett, a man with a profound gambling addiction. We’re introduced to his weakening vice immediately, as he impulsively wagers and loses large sums of money on blackjack and roulette in a backdoor casino. He is not a man who will ever quit while he is ahead. Despite his penchant for reckless living, Jim seems to be doing ok for himself. However, every addict faces rock bottom at some point, and it’s only a matter of time before his lifestyle catches up to him.

While gambling at the aforementioned casino, Jim becomes indebted to its owner after losing big and adding to an existing debt. He borrows more money from a loan shark named Baraka (Michael K. Williams, Kill the Messenger), and soon he owes money to at least two people who are threatening to wipe him out in about a week’s time if he doesn’t pay up. Baraka challenges Jim’s moral code when he wants him to involve one of his students in paying the debt. Complicating matters is the strange dynamic he shares with another one of his students, who moonlights as a waitress at the casino. Their relationship is never fully explored, and the subplot remained undeveloped.

The plot was straightforward, and I appreciated its simplicity. However, the movie could have been much more entertaining. As a viewer, I never connected with Wahlberg’s character, even though his dire circumstances lent themselves to empathy. His performance was capable, but something about it felt too restrained. Where was the abject desperation? I never felt sorry for him, despite his obvious pathetic state. One could see that his addiction was crippling and that he was powerless to stop it, but that was the only aspect of the movie that resonated with me. I could see that he was desperate, but he never made me believe it.

The performances were fine, with some notable supporting turns from Jessica Lange (The Vow) as Jim’s wealthy, enabling mother and John Goodman (The Monuments Men) as yet another loan shark with whom Jim makes a high stakes side-bet. But once again, the movie never really went anywhere. Despite a lot of tough talk, the threats from his bookies felt hollow, and I only mildly cared whether or not Jim escaped with his life. The gambling scenes were taut with anticipation, but those moments were sparse.

In sum, The Gambler just didn’t leave much of an impact. The potential for a great story was there, but the movie never seemed to go anywhere. It could have been an exhilarating ride as we watched a man descend into total desperation – but Jim just seemed like a rich brat who never really “got it.” I thought it was just average. Grade: C+

2 Guns

What do movies and sports have in common?  Match-ups.  It’s all about the match-ups baby.  Some cinematic pairings just get us excited, like the prospect of Mark Wahlberg (Pain & Gain) and Denzel Washington (Flight).  Washington is a living legend, and Wahlberg has cemented his place in modern cinema with critically acclaimed turns in films such as The Fighter and The Departed, for which he received Oscar nominations.  The action comedy is on the rise lately, and 2 Guns tantalized moviegoers with the rare opportunity to see Washington bring levity to a performance.  Unfortunately, even charismatic leading men can’t save a goofy script.

Washington and Wahlberg are Bobby Trench and Michael Stigman (Stig), respectively.  When we meet the pair, they are hatching a plot to rob a small bank to swindle a drug lord named Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos) out of his holdings.  They each have distinct reasons for wanting to pull this caper, but each is keeping the real reason a secret.  At first blush we think these two are criminals, after all who else would be robbing a bank?  In actuality they are both “undercover” in their own way, with Bobby being a DEA agent and Stig having firsthand experience with naval intelligence, despite the appearance of being a career criminal.

As each plays fast and loose with the law, the viewer is left wondering if our protagonists are corrupt or just deep undercover.  Bobby tries to convince fellow agent Deb (Paula Patton, Mission:Impossible – Ghost Protocol) that the robbery will serve as a way to nab Papi, while Stig is beholden to corrupt superior officers (James Marsden, Straw Dogs) within the Navy.  Their plan goes awry when they find out Papi’s bank vault yields a much larger heist than expected.  Not only do they need to ascertain the origin of the surplus money, they must ward off several factions who will stop at nothing to retrieve it.  Complicating matters is the fact that Bobby and Stig can’t really trust each other after having lied about their true identities.

I’ll start with the positive.  Washington and Wahlberg have tons of chemistry and good comedic timing.  I don’t have an issue with their performances at all; my issue is with the source material.  The storyline was simply foolish and muddled, and much of the characters behavior was far-fetched.  The screenplay marks the big screen debut for writer Blake Masters, who has previously worked in television.  Maybe his next effort will be more successful, although 2 Guns appears poised to have a solid opening weekend.  Nevertheless, it takes more than two talented leading men to make a successful movie, even if the pairing looks like a “slam dunk.”  Even a dynamic duo like Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro aren’t a sure-fire success if the script is wanting (see Righteous Kill).  If those two legends can team up for a dud, no tandem is above reproach.  The rest of the cast did little to bolster the movie, and it will not be remembered as a summer standout.  I’m not saying it was horrible, just very mediocre – in spite of its two stars.  Grade: C

This article first appeared at Poptimal and was reprinted with permission

 

Silver Linings Playbook

Bradley Cooper burst on the scene in 2009’s The Hangover and has been pretty busy ever since. He went on to star alongside Robert De Niro in Limitless, which gave me the opportunity to witness him in a more dramatic role.  He continued to expand his more serious repertoire with last summer’s The Words, giving an authentic performance wrought with emotion.  I disagree with those I’ve heard question Cooper’s range and talents.  His latest Oscar-nominated feature may convince some that he has what it takes to stick around for a while, as he teams with talented director David O. Russell (The Fighter) for Silver Linings Playbook.

Cooper stars as Pat, a man trying to rebuild his life after an emotional betrayal sends him into a psychological tailspin.  His marriage is on the flimsiest ground, a fact that is apparent to everyone but Pat.  We are introduced to him on the day of his release from a mental health facility in Baltimore, where he was sentenced to a brief stint after the aforementioned wifely betrayal left another man in intensive care.  Cooper reunites with his Limitless co-star Robert De Niro in the movie, as the veteran actor stars alongside Jacki Weaver (The Five Year Engagement) as Pat’s parents Dolores and Pat Sr. They are loving towards Pat and his older brother Jake (Shea Whigham, Boardwalk Empire), though Pat’s recent troubles and attendant mental state have given them cause for concern.  During his hospitalization Pat was diagnosed as bipolar, which clarifies some of the turmoil he’s experienced in his life up to that point.  He learned some coping mechanisms while there, and he tries to apply his new positive philosophy to life by looking for the “silver lining” whenever possible.

Pat settles in back home in Philadelphia, reconnecting with friends.  He has dinner with his old buddy Ronnie (John Ortiz, Pride and Glory) and his overbearing wife Veronica (Julia Stiles, The Bourne Ultimatum), where he is reintroduced to her sister Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence, X-Men: First Class).  She is detached yet alluring, her grip on mental stability just as tenuous as Pat’s.  As Pat lives in denial about the possibility of reconciliation with his estranged wife Nikki, Tiffany continues her recovery from sex addiction in the aftermath of her husband’s recent death.  At Tiffany’s insistence, the pair form a friendship that initially begins as a quid pro quo where she will deliver a message to Nikki (who has a restraining order against Pat) if Pat will be her dance partner in a local ballroom competition.

Cooper’s performance was honest, and his chemistry with Jennifer Lawrence was effortless.  They both gave unguarded, nuanced performances, as their characters struggled for acceptance and affirmation in one another.  Lawrence shows incredible versatility, proving that she can shine in virtually any role: from popcorn fare like X-Men or The Hunger Games to grim material like Winter’s Bone.  I can’t recall the last movie I’ve seen that had so many standout roles.  The film has been nominated for eight Academy Awards, a whopping four of which are in acting categories.  De Niro put on a brilliantly understated display that began with subtlety but ended with layered complexity, revealing where Cooper’s character may have inherited some of his idiosyncratic and manic behavior.  Every performance was noteworthy, including Chris Tucker’s (Rush Hour) turn as Pat’s quirky pal Danny.  I don’t usually get caught up in the Oscar buzz, but in this case the hype is justified.  Grade: A

The Dark Knight Rises

Whenever I review movies that the fan boys love, I have to issue disclaimers.  As I’ve stated before, the only thing I claim to be passionate and knowledgeable about are movies.  If a movie was based on a novel, I may or may not have read that novel. That being said, I didn’t grow up reading comic books.  So I don’t approach The Dark Knight Rises as a person who is checking for accuracy or wants to make sure director Christopher Nolan “gets it right.”  The only measuring stick for me is other movies: other “superhero” movies and the first two Batman movies of Nolan’s trilogy.  I was looking forward to it because The Dark Knight, Nolan’s last edition – was simply outstanding.  It’s one of my favorite movies, and I saw it three times in the theater.  I also think that Christopher Nolan (Memento, Inception) is brilliant, so I’m inclined to see nearly anything he’s attached to (within reason).

When we last saw the Caped Crusader (Christian Bale, The Fighter), he was allowing Harvey Dent to live on in the hearts of Gotham as a hero.  Although Dent devolved into the nefarious Two-Face and held Commissioner Gordon’s son at gunpoint, Batman sacrificed his own reputation rather than shatter the city’s image of its fallen district attorney.  Sacrifice is the recurring theme throughout the trilogy, as Batman selflessly gives his all for Gotham’s residents, though the city doesn’t always appreciate him.  Eight years have elapsed since that fateful night where Dent and Batman swapped destinies, and Bruce Wayne has been a recluse ever since.  Having lost the love of his life and been vilified by many, he has been holed up in his mansion, and Wayne Industries has suffered significant financial losses.  This is where we find our hero, down and quite possibly out for the count.  The time is ripe for any one of the comic’s infamous rogues gallery to emerge and wreak havoc while Gotham is vulnerable.  The city passed The Dent Act, which resulted in the incarceration of many dangerous criminals – but the drop in crime lulls Gotham’s residents into a false sense of security.  That coupled with Batman’s prolonged absence leaves Gotham vulnerable, setting the stage for our latest villain.

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy, This Means War, Inception), successor to The Joker and Two-Face as Gotham’s newest tormentor.  Bane can best be described as a wrecking ball with legs.  He is simply massive, and ably portrayed by Tom Hardy in what is probably his most brutal role since his turn as a notorious British prisoner in Bronson.  Bane escaped from prison and subsequently organized a coup, funded by American businessman John Daggett, a competitor of Bruce Wayne.  Daggett brings Bane to the United States so that he can obtain a clean energy reactor held by Wayne Enterprises and turn it into a nuclear weapon.  Bane’s plan will come to fruition unless the Batman ends his self-imposed exile and more importantly proves himself a worthy adversary of the most physically imposing villain he’s ever faced.

I don’t want to fall into a recitation of the entire plot; nor do I want to give away too much.  There were many plot twists and turns, and several very good performances. The Dark Knight Rises delved deeper into Bruce Wayne’s psyche.  He wasn’t just reacting to things happening around him, rather we see him in a prolonged state of despair, pain, and defeat.  I felt like we journeyed with him as the familiar senses of justice and duty were rekindled within.  This time around we are also treated to Catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway (Love & Other Drugs, The Devil Wears Prada).  Hathaway is a very good actress and I thought she balanced the role perfectly.  Not too campy and corny, strong enough to help Batman instead of merely requiring his rescue.  While I didn’t grow up reading the comic books, I did watch the cartoon series that aired in the 90s.  I remember that Catwoman was a bit “on the fence.”  She wasn’t always Batman’s ally, but she wasn’t out to foil him at every turn, like The Riddler or The Joker.  The same was true of Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, as she betrays Batman one minute and saves him the next.  Also featured were strong supporting roles by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, 500 Days of Summer) and Marion Cotillard (Contagion).  Gordon-Levitt plays an idealistic young police officer that was orphaned as a youth, much like Bruce Wayne.  He instinctively knows Batman’s true identity and gently implores him to help Gotham.  Cotillard was effective as Wayne’s business investor, brief love interest, and…I won’t tell you anything else about her.  You’re welcome.

The best thing about the film was the way Nolan captured the atmosphere of a city on the brink of anarchy.  It always felt like something big was about to happen, at any minute.  But brace yourselves, because this was not “the best movie ever,” as people born in the 1990s might have you believe.  Pump. Those. Brakes.  This wasn’t the best movie made or even the best superhero movie ever made, because it wasn’t superior to The Dark Knight, in my opinion.  How can you be the best movie ever made when you’re not even the best installment of your own trilogy?  The Dark Knight had a more complex villain with a richer backstory and a more layered performance.  I’m not knocking Tom Hardy, and I’m not saying there is anything more that he could or should have done.  Nor am I saying there’s anyone who could have done it better.  I’m just saying it was different, that’s all.  Additionally, The Dark Knight explored deeper psychological themes, and I thought Two-Face nearly stole the show.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy came close, but there was no secondary performance that really jumped out at me.  But you know what?  Forget all of that, I can give you a very simple complaint that I had with the film: I couldn’t even understand what Bane was saying the whole time!  I know I’m not the only one who strained to decipher the dialogue when he spoke.  I liked the inflection of Hardy’s voice, and I noticed an almost imperceptible West Indian accent creep through.  When I researched his role after the movie I discovered that he did draw on his Caribbean (who knew?) heritage in the interpretation of the part.  That’s impressive, and it didn’t go unnoticed – but I couldn’t always understand what he was saying!

Of course I think you should go see The Dark Knight Rises, what are you stupid?  Nothing should stop you from seeing it; it will probably be the biggest movie of the year.  Some movies just feel big.  They feel like an experience.  I’m sure it will obliterate existing opening day records, despite the tragic shooting that took place at the midnight screening in Colorado earlier this week.  Now that the trilogy has concluded (Nolan’s not doing any more), I can safely say that it’s probably the greatest trilogy.  But don’t confuse that with me saying that The Dark Knight Rises is the greatest movie.  It’s not, for the aforementioned reasons.  But it was damn good. Grade: A.

Contraband

Mark Wahlberg (The Fighter) has got to be one of the coolest actors around.  His career has only gotten better over the years, and I’ve always been a fan.  I think the first movie I remember seeing him in was Fear, and he showed flashes of greatness even back then.  He’s been nominated for an Academy Award, and I hope one day he’ll take one home.  He’s demonstrated that he can do more than play the tough guy, but that’s one of the roles in which he excels.

In Contraband he portrays a tough guy but a family man, a reluctant hero thrust into a situation beyond his control.  He stars as Chris Farraday, a reformed smuggler of illegal contraband.  Chris has gone straight, and is now the owner of a small home security company.  With his wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale, Underworld: Awakening) and two sons, he has carved out a nice normal existence.  That safe haven is threatened when his wife’s little brother Andy (Caleb Jones, X-Men: First Class) gets himself in trouble with local drug dealer and scumbag Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi, The Rum Diary).  He was transporting cocaine on a cargo ship when it was busted by border patrol and he had to dump the product in the water.  Instead of chalking up the loss to the cost of doing business, Briggs will extract his debt in blood.  In an effort to save Andy’s life, Chris assumes the debt.  The only way he can repay what Andy owes is by agreeing to do a smuggling job for Briggs.  His best friend Sebastien (Ben Foster, The Mechanic) helps arrange the job and also keeps an eye on Kate and the boys while Chris is gone.

Contraband was successful because of its straightforward plot and relatable performances.  Even though the average person will never find themselves thrust into such a dangerous situation, there are few forces more powerful than self-preservation and the need to protect one’s family.  Initially Chris is focused on saving the life of his brother-in-law, but eventually his wife and children become the object of Briggs’ vengeful rage.  As a viewer, I never doubted Wahlberg’s resolve.  Maybe it was his blue-collar Boston roots shining through that made the performance so believable.  Additionally, he and Kate Beckinsale had great chemistry and their performances were delivered with remarkable realism, particularly Kate’s frustration with her brother.  Sometimes your family puts you in the worst position, but you never turn your back on them.  Beckinsale, Jones, and Wahlberg captured the unconditional love that characterizes the bond between family.

It looks like the movie will end up being #1 at the box office, and I think it’s a worthy entrant at that position, though it will probably be a short-lived stay at the top.  It wasn’t a terribly original movie, but that’s ok.  I mean, we’ve seen the overall plot of man saving his family about a million times, but Contraband was exciting and intense and kept me on the edge of my seat. You really can’t ask for much more from a thriller.  I particularly enjoyed the clever way Chris managed to evade authorities while loading the contraband on the boat.  A lot of movies falter at the halfway point, but writer Aaron Guzikowski crafted a storyline that started strong and maintained its intensity throughout.  Contraband had a throwback B-movie vibe that ultimately proved successful, and it’s definitely worth checking out.

This article first appeared at Poptimal at http://poptimal.com/2012/01/contraband-review-wahlberg-brings-it-in-his-latest/ on Contraband’s opening weekend, and was reprinted with permission.