American Sniper ****
Short Take: Solid but not spectacular. Clint Eastwood’s straightforward adaptation of Chris Kyle’s autobiography benefits from his no-nonsense direction and quality performances from Bradley Cooper & Sienna Miller.
REEL TAKE: What is one to make of American Sniper? When I watched it as a potential Oscar contender back in December, I thought it was a good, solid, well made movie but nothing spectacular. I also thought that it had the potential to be an audience pleaser despite its somewhat grim scenario. However when the film was released in mid-January, it became a cultural phenomenon with an unbelievable opening weekend gross of $105 million.
By the time you read this, American Sniper will have crossed the quarter million mark towards an overall unknown total although the subject matter will surely keep it from being as big a hit overseas as a typical Marvel franchise picture. Yet in some circles it is being compared to them with the caveat that it’s about a real life hero. I wouldn’t go that far but with the international situation being what it is, I can see where Sniper’s surprising popularity is coming from.
Putting aside cultural and historical discussions, what about the movie itself? Unlike a number of critics, I had no problem with American Sniper. I felt that Clint Eastwood’s non-flashy nuts and bolts directorial approach suited the material perfectly. It contained just the right mix of Zero Dark Thirty’s you-are-there shaky cam footage with what can only be described as a Lifetime movie-of-the-week naïve quality that suited the characters in their respective environments.
The real standouts in American Sniper are the lead performances. Bradley Cooper, almost bulked up beyond recognition, gives a direct, heartfelt portrayal of the central character unlike any other that I have seen him give before. Even though I knew he was playing Chris Kyle, I had a hard time recognizing him as Bradley Cooper. As for Sienna Miller, I was over halfway through the film before I even realized that it was her! She was completely and heartbreakingly believable as a Texas housewife.
I was also halfway through the movie before I remembered who Chris Kyle was. My next thought was, how would the ending be handled? Although there are those who don’t like the ending, I’m glad that it ended the way that it did. It was perfect for Eastwood’s “print the legend” approach. In fact if this had been made 60 years earlier, John Ford would have directed and John Wayne would have starred.
For those unfamiliar with the book on which the movie is based, Chris Kyle was the number one American sniper in military history with more acknowledged kills than anyone in his profession. Trained as a Navy Seal, he came back from his tours of duty in the Middle East with severe PTSD but like Louis Zamperini of Unbroken fame, he overcame it. However his life ended differently.
You’ll be hearing a lot more about American Sniper between now and Oscar time both good and bad. With all the buzz surrounding it, it will ultimately be up to you to decide how you feel about it. In some ways it resembles Saving Private Ryan in its matter-of-fact war time violence so keep that in mind when you go to see it, but see it you should.
Rated R for disturbing war violence and language throughout.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Imitation Game ****1/2
Short Take: The story of Alan Turing, the mathematician who cracked the Nazi’s Enigma code and helped changed the course of WWII.
REEL TAKE: Largely touted and long awaited, The Imitation Game finally made its way to wide release at Christmas. As expected, it’s garnered several Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress and its most deserving nomination, Best Actor. The film is very much the type of Oscar bait we see at this time of year, but it’s very, very good Oscar bait.
The Imitation Game tells the story of Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), the mathematician who built the machine that that cracked Nazi Germany’s Enigma code during World War II and helped win the war (it was also the machine from which all computers derived). He and his team at Bletchley Park helped shorten the war by two to three years, saving an estimated 14 to 21 million lives. The story unfolds in a series of flashbacks, which sounds rather simple, but is anything but.
The various moments in time are layered articulately and elegantly interwoven to take us from Turing’s life in present day [1952] England to two other pivotal parts of his life; his work during the war and his adolescent years at boarding school. Both of which frame the story which build to the sorry circumstances Turing finds himself in after facing prosecution from the British government for the crime of being a homosexual. (So, you can save 20 million lives, but shag a guy and you are a morally bereft beast?!)
Turing was not a particularly likeable chap. Socially inept and relentlessly bullied as a child, he found comfort working crossword puzzles and passing encrypted notes with his best [and only] friend at school. By the time England is entrenched in WWII, Turing is working against the clock to break Enigma, Turing is as socially awkward as ever, but now a cocky mathematical genius to boot. Neither characteristic warms his team to him but his confidence in his ability to build a machine that can sort through and decode millions of possible encrypted Nazi codes far faster than humans can, ultimately does.
The Imitation Game falls prey to some of the familiar trappings of standard biopic fare, but rises above them on the merit of its actors and Morten Tyldum’s direction. It is mainstream enough to be a crowd-pleaser, but sharp enough to pay tribute to a brilliant mind. Cumberbatch turns in one of the best performances of the year, deftly balancing Turing’s positive and negative attributes to eloquently portray this complex man and simultaneously entreat our empathy. The supporting cast is top drawer as well, especially Keira Knightly as Joan Clarke, the only female member of his team in a male dominated profession and world. Clarke befriended Turing, loved him in spite of his sexuality, and believed in him, even after the world destroyed him.
Clarke’s faith was not ill-placed. She knew his work was important. His ‘Turing Machines’ paved the way for the world we live in today. Most of you reading this know that Turing killed himself after suffering chemical castration as punishment for his ‘crimes.’ What you may not know is that he laced an apple with cyanide and took a bite. Sound familiar? The next time you see that logo, take a moment to say thank you.
Rated PG-13 for some sexual references, mature thematic material and historical smoking.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Selma ****1/2
Short Take: A timely and eerily relevant portrayal of the months leading up to the pivotal march from Selma to Montgomery and its impact on the civil rights movement.
REEL TAKE: The fact that Ava DuVerNay’s Selma is being largely snubbed this award season may have something to do with the fact that the film was scarcely screened until well into award season. The distributor’s reluctance to provide screenings and screeners to critics and industry insiders seems to have hurt it in the end. Keeping it a closely guarded secret didn’t help build critical or audience appeal.
This is a real shame because Selma is one of the year’s must-see movies. The film never quite achieves greatness, though it does possess truly great moments, but it is an utterly compelling and [I think] important film. Sadly, it’s eerily relevant at this point in our nation’s history.
David Oyelowo gives a magnificent performance as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the months leading to the historic march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965 and turned the tide in the civil rights movement. The film has been criticized for taking some liberties with history, but the liberties are minor in comparison to the light and the truth it sheds. DuVernay smartly shows King’s flaws and human failings, without demeaning his greatness or casting any disrespect. If anything the film and the man’s legacy is the better for it.
Selma is not a biopic about Dr. King. The film provides glimpses into Dr. King’s life, his marriage, his dedication to the cause and the toll it was already taking on his life three years before that fateful day in Memphis. Rather, Selma is about the movement, a movement that Dr. King shepherded with non-violent action. The film showcases the pivotal players in the movement as well as the everyman / woman. It also depicts the differences of opinions among the key players, the chaos and confusion of it all and the figure-it-out-as-we-go aspects of the movement. This is not a sanitized history lesson about the civil rights movement. Instead we see how the sausage is made so-to-speak.
DuVernay has taken some heat for the scenes depicting the negotiations between President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) and Dr. King in regards to King’s push for the Voting Rights Act. As a history major I didn’t take much umbrage with them. Again, I thought the film smartly showed the man’s strengths and weaknesses and moreover gave a wonderful and complex political context for the time, a context which shaped LBJ’s approach to many issues.
What flaws there are in Selma are easily forgiven because of what the film ultimately accomplishes. While Oyelowo gives a standout performance he is very much an ensemble player, and what an ensemble it is. The supporting cast, of which there are too many to name here, doesn’t miss a beat. The film is beautifully photographed and tightly edited. Every element of this film was a labor of love and it shows. See it on the big screen while you can.
Rated PG-13 for disturbing thematic material including violence, a suggestive moment, and brief strong language.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Taken 3 ***1/2
Short Take: Although mauled by most critics, I found this third (and reportedly last) installment in the Taken series more entertaining than the last.
REEL TAKE: What a difference a movie makes. Earlier last year Liam Neeson was in the quality production A Walk Among the Tombstones, where he was given one of his best roles in quite awhile. He followed that with this sequel, and while it is not in the same league, I found it to be an improvement over Taken 2, and it no doubt provided a healthy paycheck for Neeson.
The title is somewhat misleading as the principal abduction doesn’t occur until late in the film, but at this point in the game the title is a pre-sold commodity, so it really doesn’t matter. In lieu of a kidnapping, the screenwriters have actually come up with a more interesting variation for the series, although the idea is hardly original.
In a set-up, former CIA operative Bryan Mills (Neeson) is accused of murdering his ex-wife and after quickly escaping, must track down the real killer or killers. Pursued by the LAPD, headed up by Inspector Dotzler (Forest Whitaker), he uncovers a plot involving not only a former KGB man but his ex-wife’s husband (Dougray Scott). After a protracted cat and mouse game involving his daughter (Maggie Grace), loose ends are tied up and it all comes to a satisfactory end.
That it would, is already a foregone conclusion, especially if you’ve seen the previous two films. But that’s not the point. Audiences go to see Neeson kick the stuffing out of the bad guys and emerge triumphant in the end. In that respect he’s like a 21st century John Wayne, although he more closely resembles the aging Burt Lancaster in a movie like Scorpio (1973).
While Neeson, Whitaker and Grace fulfill what is expected of them, the film belongs to Dougray Scott who is the best thing about it. Director Oliver Megaton keeps the action flowing and the cameras rolling in the best Bourne like manner (perhaps Neeson as a geriatric version of Jason Bourne would be a more fitting description).
In the end Taken 3 is just another big budget potboiler. An order of good ol’ sequel hash reheated in the celluloid (now digital) crockpot. It satisfies a craving without providing any cinematic nutrition. That’s all right with me. Not every movie can be or should be a high end meal.
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and for brief strong language.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
The Woman in Black 2: The Angel of Death **1/2
Short Take: Sequel to the hugely successful first film not only doesn’t have Daniel Radcliffe, it has little else outside of some gorgeous photography and the occasional creepy moment.
REEL TAKE: I didn’t hate Woman in Black 2, in fact I rather enjoyed it, but that still doesn’t alter the fact that it just isn’t all that good. The setting is the same, the title character is still there and there are children-a-plenty. All that’s missing (aside from Daniel Radcliffe) is a semblance of a coherent storyline. If you hadn’t seen the first film, you wouldn’t have a clue as to what’s going on. Oddly enough, in some cases, that worked in the film’s favor.
Box office tabulations showed that more than 50% of the ticket purchasers were women. This is the opposite of the usual horror film today, which is usually male dominated. Perhaps the period setting, the heavy clothing, and a minimal gore factor kept them away. The other interesting statistic is that the majority of those who hadn’t seen the first film liked it much better than those who had.
To describe the storyline as incoherent is a kindness. The basic points are these: the time is World War II England some 40 years after the original story. Children are being evacuated from London and deployed to the countryside for their protection. One group is sent to Eel Marsh House, which the title character haunts and proceeds to terrorize the children and their teachers, with predictable results.
Virtually no background from the first movie is given, which makes the goings on extremely confusing. Yet a number of people said that this contributed to their sense of unease. It’s as if they saw the film from the children’s point of view. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but, having seen and liked the first movie, my reaction was colored by that.
The Woman in Black 2 is beautifully shot, effectively scored, well performed, and highly atmospheric. However, the key to a successful ghost story is a STORY (as in The Changeling or the first WIB), which WIB2 doesn’t have. While proper atmosphere is very important in a film of this type, it needs more story. The movie did make money, so we’ll see if there’s a WIB3. If there is, I just hope that it’s better.
Rated PG-13 for disturbing and frightening images and for thematic material.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
