THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Is a New Scorsese Classic

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Review:

- There are directors whose legend is, perhaps, overhyped ... and then there's Martin Scorsese. 2013 has been a fantastic year for movies - one of the best - but before all is said and done and the book is closed, here comes the master with a film that shows all of the year's almost-great films how it's done. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET completes a thematic trilogy that started with Goodfellas, continued with Casino, and now ends with a third look at the mainstreaming of crime in America. This movie is stylistically similar to those two previous Scorsese classics, and it's just effortlessly amazing. Others have mentioned this, but what quickly shocked me about the film is that, while it builds on themes and aesthetics that Scorsese has dealt with in the past, it feels like the work of a young, hungry, boundary-pushing director - not a 70-year-old veteran. The Wolf of Wall Street is 100% pure cinematic rock n' roll.

Early on, the film delivers a scene so good that it's destined to become an instant-classic. In it, Leonardo DiCaprio's Jordan Belfort - at this point a young, just-starting-out Wall St. broker - has lunch with one of the big-shots at his new workplace. The big-shot is played by Matthew McConaughey (who I'm now ready to officially declare as the MVP of the movies in 2013), and the conversation between the two is electric. This might very well be the best one-scene performance in a movie since Alec Baldwin explained the principles of "Always Be Closing" in Glengarry Glen Ross. McConaughey breaks down the world of Wall St. in colorful fashion, but basically, his advice boils down to this: being a stock broker is not about helping others make money, it's about creating the illusion of helping others make money. The real trick is to reel suckers in and keep them in with the on-paper promise of future rewards, while you, the broker, rakes in actual cash at their expense. It's here that we start to see the world that Belfort is about to enter - a world based on lies, a world based on greed, and a world that's fueled by excess - sex, drugs, and an insatiable desire for more money at all costs.

Belfort soon becomes a skilled broker, but he gets a bad break when his firm goes under. He finds himself back at the bottom, and takes a job at a small-time brokerage that specializes in penny stocks. But Belfort's salesmanship quickly makes him a big fish in a small pond, and soon enough he strikes out on his own - recruiting old friends to help him form his own firm. Known for its slick sales tactics and debauched excesses, the firm quickly recruits an army of employees who worship at Belfort's altar with cult-like fervor. Soon, Belfort and his cohorts are making more money than they know what to do with, even as they increasingly become immersed in a whirlwind of corruption - attracting the attention of the FBI, who become eager to topple the empire that Belfort has built.

As the film progresses, McConaughey's early advice looms large. Belfort and his cronies don't care about who they're scamming, ripping off, or manipulating to get what they want, and what they want above all else is the all-important sale. That same drive for more, for heightened sensation, is there in Belfort's addictions to drugs and sex. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is a drug-trip movie, no question. There's more coke snorted, pills swallowed, and crack smoked here than in just about any movie ever. Scorsese shows us this in excess so that we can feel the excess, so that it wears us down in a way where the drugs lose all glamor and we just think "enough is enough, these guys are nuts!". And that's exactly the correct response, the response that Scorsese aims for. This is not a film that overtly moralizes. There's no heavy-handed condemnation of Belfort or his destructive actions. Instead, the condemnation is there between the lines. The repetition of scenes of drug-use tell the tale. In this film, the drugs initially seem exciting, and the early scenes of drug use are energetic and almost triumphant. Later, they become darkly comedic - an extended scene of of Belfort and his right-hand-man Donnie (Jonah Hill) slowed to a cartoonish crawl by an overdose of quaaludes is an absurdly hilarious bit of physical comedy. Eventually, the drugs start to seem pathetic. "He's going to that well again?", we think. And so it goes throughout the film. Sex goes from sexy to comedic (Belfort literally screwing his wife atop a pile of money) to pathetic. Belfort's way with words, his gift for inspiring others and creating a cult of personality around himself, follows a similar downward spiral - from triumph to comedy to tragedy. So for those who will misguidedly denounce this film for glamorizing Belfort, I say watch more carefully. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, is, ultimately, a rather brilliant takedown of not just Belfort, but of the kind of immoral hucksterism that set the stage for modern Wall Street culture and the modern financial collapse that that culture led to.  

The film goes to very dark and very depraved places, but it's also, largely, a comedy - with numerous over-the-top sequences that are flat-out hilarious in their absurdity. Scorsese's defense-mechanism response to the sheer repulsiveness of Belfort and his Wall St. culture is to send it up in grand fashion. In one of the film's most clever repeated conceits, Belfort, via narration, will often begin to explain some facet of Wall St., only to cut himself off shrug off the lesson as not-that-important. However, he does explain in full the history of the quaalude and the exact nature of the high it provides. And it's in these details that the satirical brilliance of the movie shines through. For Belfort, Wall St. is a fantasyland bacchanalia - a playground for arrested-development adults to live without consequence. Wives are cheated on, kids neglected, and clients scammed all to achieve a neverending high. But the illusion of that high vs. the ugly reality is the source of much of the movie's humor. We see the ridiculous havoc that Belfort wreaks on his mind and body via his drug abuse, contrasted with his belief that the drugs are what give him his power, like spinach for Popeye. We see how these stockbrokers psych themselves up, believing in Belfort's rhetoric that labels them as killers and assassins. And yet, Scorsese depicts them as spineless sheep, as brainwashed losers. This is apparent in Jonah Hill's Donnie - who first appears as a geeky, creepy sort of guy who's widely mocked (and rightfully so) for marrying his cousin. Donnie quickly latches on to Belfort and becomes his Number 2, and as he gains wealth and power, Donnie starts acting like a douche - humiliating young employees and picking fights with others in Belfort's inner circle. Donnie clings to the idea that Wall St. success has made him into something more than he once was. But really, he's still just a sad sack who's married to his first cousin.

Both Hill and DiCaprio do fantastic work here. Speaking first about DiCaprio, this may be his best-yet collaboration with Scorsese. This is DiCaprio unhinged - he goes big, he goes crazy, and he even delivers scenes of physical comedy that show him to be incredibly gifted in that regard. This is the actor's most fully-inhabited role to date. He nails it. Hill, meanwhile, I really didn't know he had this in him. He hangs with DiCaprio and holds his own. I was shocked by how good he was in this film.

Hill is a surprise, but another surprise was Margot Robbie as Belfort's second wife, Naomi. When first introduced, I assumed that Robbie was just there to play a small role, to help further the rift between Belfort and his first wife, whom he married young and quickly grew apart from. Soon enough though, I realized that Naomi was a major character in this story, and that - wow - Robbie had some serious acting chops to match her seriously stunning looks. She too goes toe-to-toe with DiCaprio, and she too holds her own and doesn't give an inch. There are some other fine supporting turns in the film: Rob Reiner as Belfort's bemused dad, and Jon Bernthal as an old buddy of Belfort's who becomes their money-man. I also enjoyed seeing The Artist's Jean Dujardin show up as a rule-bending Swiss banker.

The film is impeccably shot and edited by Scorsese and his team. The stylistic trademarks from Goodfellas and Casino are back - the freeze frames, the slo-mo, the voiceovers, the visual dynamism. Scorsese mixes chaos and precision like no one else. He bobs and weaves through large crowd scenes and visually dense action, but he does so with a care and purposefulness that most directors lack. I've also got to give credit to the sharp script by Terence Winter. The movie is jam-packed with memorable and quotable lines - there's some great dialogue here that's got a lot of snap and a lot of sizzle.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is masterful on many levels. It functions as a biting, razor-sharp attack on the worst aspects of a capitalist society that's lost its way - a society that's built on and feeds off of corruption and false promises. We too are complicit in Belfort's evil, because we as a people willingly buy into what he and his ilk are selling, and enable the system that is ultimately, in many ways, a house of cards. In many respects, Belfort is America. Before his rise to Wall St. power, the old-money guys were, mostly, left alone by law-enforcement. But his story was that of a self-made man. That allowed him to surpass his born-with-a-silver-spoon competition, but it also left him vulnerable. To succeed at the level he hoped to, he had to get dirtier, meaner, and more ruthless than the establishment ever did. To achieve his version of the American Dream, he had to essentially lose his soul. But is it better to dance with the sinners than starve with the saints? THE WOLF OF WALL STREET pointedly asks that question, arching a mocking eyebrow at the pitfalls of unbridled excess.

My Grade: A

GRUDGE MATCH Doesn't Rage Or Rock, But It Does Put On a Good Show

GRUDGE MATCH Review:

- Thankfully, GRUDGE MATCH doesn't take itself too seriously. It's very much in on the joke that, here in 2013, Stallone vs. De Niro is not the dream match-up that it once was. What makes the movie work is that it's a breezy sports comedy about two way-past-their-prime ex-boxers who never had their tie-breaking fight, and have a score that's been left unsettled for thirty years. This is a light, fluffy, feel-good crowd-pleaser. It's not going to win any awards - it's a far cry from Raging Bull and a long way from Rocky - but this is a movie that's highly watchable and overall, lots of fun.

Stallone does not play Rocky Balboa, and De Niro does not play Jake LaMotta, but GRUDGE MATCH clearly plays off the iconography of the two actors' famous roles. In this movie, the two are former champions who had a bitter rivalry - De Niro won their first fight, while Stallone won their second - that never got a real resolution. For reasons that remained a mystery to the public, Stallone's character dropped out before the decisive third bout could take place. As we learn, there's more to the rivalry than simply the in-ring competition, and there were personal motivations that kept Stallone from having that third contest. As the years went on, Stallone loses most of his money and settles into a blue-collar life, working a factory job and taking up an art hobby. De Niro owns a car dealership and a bar, and while he's more financially successful, his life is more of a wreck. He's a drinker and a gambler, and has not aged gracefully. Decades after their last fight, however, the two cross paths once more thanks to a hustling promoter - played by Kevin Hart - trying to make a name for himself. Hart helps sign both boxers to a contract to have themselves motion-captured for an upcoming videogame. But when the two come into contact, old hatreds reignite, and the two get involved in a knock-down, drag-out brawl in the studio. The fight gets captured on cell phone cameras and becomes a YouTube sensation. Suddenly, there is interest from fight fans in seeing - finally - that fabled, never-happened third fight grudge match between the two rivals.

Stallone and De Niro are both in ham mode here, but ... there are glimpses of them - flashbacks, if you will - at their Oscar-worthy best. There's not the kind of intensity or high drama that you'd find in a Rocky film here, but look, these are two of the greatest movie stars of all time squaring off. There's still some juice left in both Stallone and De Niro, and both have enough charisma to sleepwalk through a scene and still make it interesting. Not that they're sleepwalking. Sure, Stallone is playing a more homogenized version of his usual brooding strong-and-silent persona, but it's a nice contrast to De Niro here, who has a certain, undeniably youthful spark in his eye and bounce in his step. De Niro is perhaps the true surprise here, because though he looks old and flabby in comparison to the still-jacked Stallone, he makes up for it by bringing some humor and heart to the table. Just as we see glimpses in his character of the champ he once was, so too do we see some glimpses in De Niro of the kind of powerhouse, Oscar-worthy fire that made him incendiary in films like Raging Bull.

Actually though, the true MVP of the film may be Alan Arkin, as Stallone's old trainer who's brought out of the nursing home and back into the fray to once again train his former student. The fact is that a lot of Arkin's lines - and a lot of the script in general - are cheesy and hamfisted. But Arkin sells them with such a sense of good-natured mischief and understated zing that they draw big laughs anyways. Like Stallone and De Niro, Arkin can do this sort of crotchety sourpuss role in his sleep - but the guy is simply the best in the biz, so he makes it work. The Walking Dead's Jon Bernthal, meanwhile, is also quite good as De Niro's estranged son. There's an obvious physical resemblance, but beyond that, the two have a nice chemistry. Adding additional humor to the proceedings is Camden Gray as Bernthal's son (and De Niro's grandson) - a precocious eight year old who, quite amusingly, overhears a lot of child-inappropriate banter from his boozing, womanizing grandfather.

Less great is Kim Basinger as the woman who, long ago, came between Stallone and De Niro. It's always nice to see Basinger pop up, but she seems sort of out-of-it in this one, and her relationship with both leads feels a little half-hearted. I'm also of mixed minds about Kevin Hart here - Hart is occasionally legitimately funny, but a lot of times he seems to cover for lame dialogue by just yelling and gesticulating a lot. He definitely brings some needed energy to the film though, and he's got an especially fun chemistry with Arkin whenever the two get a chance to go at it.

Overall, I think the biggest knock against this film is that we've seen this story done much better and more dramatically, as recently as in Stallone's own ROCKY BALBOA. We've seen better training montages, we've seen better big speeches about needing one more shot, and we've seen better from both Stallone and De Niro. There is, overall, a sort of low-stakes feel to this movie that works alright, but that makes the big, climactic fight less epic drama and more amusing curiosity.

The script and dialogue, meanwhile, is cutesy and full of lines that are groaners. We get a lot of old-guy jokes about Stallone and De Niro not knowing from iPads, viral videos, or cell phone cameras. We also get some cringe-worthy, non-PC jokes that movies in 2013 just shouldn't have, and that feel out-of-place in what is, mostly, a more family-friendly film.

But mostly, GRUDGE MATCH is a fun, light, entertaining flick that, like its stars, has a bit of a retro feel. But while De Niro's heyday was the 70's, when maverick movies challenged audiences, and Stallone's was the 80's, when ultra-violent actionfests ruled cinemas, Grudge Match feels like a 90's throwback - the kind of ready-for-cable, goes-down-easy schmaltz that will find a long and oft-repeated shelf life on TNT or Spike TV. That means that, no, this movie isn't even in the same weight class as its stars' best films - but, it is the perfect sort of movie for a lazy Sunday afternoon. And really, what more does one need from Grudge Match?

My Grade: B

47 RONIN Slices and Dices

47 RONIN Review:

- 47 Ronin bears the mark of a movie that's been through the proverbial wringer. Like a person who's had obvious plastic surgery, this is a movie that, clearly, has had work done. As you watch it, scenes feel spliced in, mashed together, pulled out, and re-inserted. The fact that this is a film that went through many re-shoots and re-edits over a multi-year period is visible up on screen. And yet, 47 Ronin works pretty darn well in spite of that fact. It tells a fun story, and there's a lot of cool stuff packed into the film. Once it moved past the cut-and-pasted set-up portion, I really started getting into it. At some point, I found myself surprised as I thought, Keanu-like, "whoah ... this got pretty epic, dude."

The cool thing about 47 Ronin is that it feels like a Japanese film that just so happens to be in English. The pacing, the look, the way the plot unfolds - it all feels very Japanese. This will likely surprise and possibly turn off those expecting a non-stop roller-coaster ride of an action film. But I really dug it. There is a lot of build-up here to the big action scenes, but that means that those action scenes feel more well-earned, more climactic, than in your typical mindless action flick.

Also, this might just be me, but 47 Ronin has one of those stories that is just inherently sort of awesome, and that lends itself to action-movie gravitas. The plot takes place in feudal Japan, and centers on Keanu Reeves as Kai - an outsider due to his mysterious origins. Kai is dubbed by others as a half-breed, because it is said that he is the offspring of a human woman and a demon. Kai is indeed the progeny of magical demons, but he fled their kingdom and found refuge in a nearby land. There, he fell in love with Mika, the daughter of the local lord. But their love was forbidden, since Kai was considered a lowly outcast. And so Kai lives on the fringes - alone, unable to be with Mika, and unable to fulfill his other ambition - to be a samurai. Eventually, however, events force Kai to step out from the sidelines. During a rare visit from the Shogun, the Shogun's sinister advisers - including a mysterious witch (Pacific Rim's Rinko Kikuchi) - plot to seize control from the lord of the land. Their play for power works - and soon the lord is dead, and evil forces rule the land. What's more, the samurai - numbering 47, and now masterless (thus becoming what is known as "ronin") - are exiled. The movie then picks up years later, when the gruff leader of the former samurai, Oishi (Hiroyuki Sanada), devises a plan to take back his land from the Witch. To do so, he knows that he must recruit Kai - though Kai was never a samurai, he was one of the land's best and bravest fighters, even if few would admit it.

So yeah, maybe I'm just a sucker for epic revenge flicks. Maybe I've got a soft spot for stories about outcasts realizing their destiny and leading a group of warriors into battle. But regardless, I found myself getting pretty caught up in the increasingly epic story of 47 Ronin. Like I said, the beginning of the movie is a bit of a chore to get through. We're told Kai's origin story in a seemingly endless montage that feels like the infodump to end all infodumps. However, once things finally settle down, and the story begins to unfold more naturally, it becomes pretty involving. Not only is there a simple but deeply-felt impetus behind the quest of the ronin (to seek revenge for their master and take back their land), but so too is there a nicely-developed arc about Kai's slow-but-steady journey towards acceptance with the ronin. The movie doesn't give us anything we haven't seen before, plot-wise, but it develops its key characters well, and delivers all the trappings that make this sort of revenge story work well - rousing speeches, stern vows of vengeance, and love-to-hate-'em villains who seem to seethe evil. As the Witch, Rinko Kikuchi is great - far-removed from the more innocent and lovable character she played in Pacific Rim. Here, she's a true femme fatale - slinky and seductive, but also full of killer intent. I've also got to give huge props to Hiroyuki Sanada as Oishi - most recently seen in The Wolverine. This guy is the real deal, and he brings a huge level of badassery and gravitas to the role of Oishi, leader of the 47 ronin. Many will be surprised to find that this is as much Oishi's story as it is Kai's. But given how great Sanada is, that's a very good thing indeed. Keanu Reeves is quite good here as well. This isn't a part that forces him to stretch too much - he's playing the stoic, sullen zen-master type - but Keanu does these parts well. I enjoyed his turn here as Kai - Keanu makes Kai a natural badass both through his acting and through the ease by which he swings and slices his way through the big action beats.

Also, this is just a pretty weird movie, in a way that's fun and will be much-appreciated by fanboys of a certain type. It's chock full of the kind of crazy-ass stuff you usually only see in the most whacked-out Japanese videogames: giant mythological beasts that look like the kind of thing you might summon in a Final Fantasy game, creepy-looking rock-demons, and of course, a Witch who turns into a mystical and deadly dragon. The movie takes a lot of left-turns into full-on fantasy, but for those who enjoy a magical, mythical take on Japanese history (and who doesn't?), there's a lot to like here. This is definitely not typical Hollywood blockbuster stuff - the monsters and creatures in this film are very unique, very Japanese.

The film feels Japanese not just in terms of pacing and visual design, but also in the way that its story doesn't pull punches for an American audience. Okay, it obviously features well-known American actor Keanu Reeves in a lead role, but what I mean is: if you've seen much Asian cinema, you know that it often goes to some dark places, story-wise, and often eschews the happy endings typical of Hollywood films. Without spoiling anything, I'll simply say that while, yes, this may be a big-studio blockbuster, it plays out much more like a Japanese import. Suffice it to say ... expect some seppuku!

Again, where 47 Ronin suffers is that it quite simply feels majorly disjointed in parts. There's a rough-draft feel to the movie that likely speaks to all of the re-shoots and re-edits. In some ways, it feels like a multi-movie epic was crammed into a single film. And yet, the movie works best when it breathes, takes its time, and lets the story build for maximum drama.When it's cramming in exposition or seemingly rushing through some of its big action scenes, you can only guess at the sorts of band-aids and duct-tape that had to be applied to get this movie completed. That unfinished feel is also noticeable during a few key scenes in which it feels like something is missing or left on the cutting room floor. For example, a key sequence, in which the Witch believes all 47 ronin to be dead by her army's hand, makes little sense based on what we've seen (namely, many of the ronin clearly, well, not dying). It feels like a last-minute plot-insertion to get from Point A to Point B, but it ends up disrupting the flow of the film and taking us out of the movie. Other instances of odd editing are just odd, like the awkward narration that closes out the film. For the life of me, I can't figure out why it's there - it totally saps the power of the real ending that happens moments earlier. Again, it's that feeling that the movie was assembled, in some instances, Frankenstein-style from disparate parts that had to then be glued together.

Still, 47 Ronin has a lot of charm, and I think it has enough cool-factor to eventually gain a cult following of sorts. Despite its flaws, I admire the movie for clearly having so much passion for its subject matter and the mythology that surrounds it, and for having the guts to go all-in to really feel like a Japanese-style revenge epic. There's badassery and cool visuals aplenty, and I'll say this: the movie got me pretty pumped-up as it went on. This is one that people will forever wonder about, in terms of whether there's a a smoother, cleaner, more coherant director's cut that exists or that could have been. But what we did get, while oddly edited and chopped-up feeling at times, still has enough epicness to be well worth a watch.

My Grade: B

ANCHORMAN 2 Is I'm Ron Bergundy?

ANCHORMAN 2 Review:

- I remember being skeptical going into the first Anchorman. Up until then, I was only mildly a fan of Will Ferrell, and hadn't loved the sorts of cheap-laugh fratboy antics he'd become known for in movies like Old School. But Anchorman - which teamed Ferrell with SNL writer Adam McKay - brought Ferrell back to the style of comedy that had resulted in his funniest moments on Saturday Night Live: big, weird, crazy, out-there. Anchorman was so funny because it dared to ditch frat humor for absurdist humor - lampooning 70's-era alpha-male bravado while also not being afraid to throw in randomness like talking dogs and ultra-violent gang fights between rival teams of newsmen. Anchorman won me over, and it opened up the door for further hilarious Ferrell-McKay collaborations like Talladega Nights and Step Brothers. Suddenly, Anchorman - a movie that felt like Ferrell and McKay were getting away with something - became the template for more, increasingly absurdist comedies. I suspect that the success of Anchorman also opened up the door for guys like Seth Rogen and Adam Goldberg, David Wain, and others to do more over-the-top comedies at big studios, like This Is The End and Role Models. Sort of awesome, in my opinion. But funny in that Anchorman 2, a movie that its studio didn't even want to fund for many years, ended up becoming one of the most hyped and hotly-anticipated comedy sequels of all time. Weird, random humor becoming the norm? I'm okay with that.

So how is ANCHORMAN 2? It's funny - really funny. And it goes even bigger and broader than Part 1, with numerous bits that are very random and oddball and out there. The crack team of comic actors from Part 1 - Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, David Koechner, and Christina Applegate - are all back, and in fine form. And when you've got such a talented line-up of comedians, it's hard to go wrong. Carell, as loony weatherman Brick, gets a lot of big moments in this one, including a hilariously insane romance with an equally loony Kristin Wiig. Other notables joining the cast include Meagan Goode as Ron Bergundy's tough-customer new boss, and James Marsden as a slick rival reporter.

Interestingly, just as the first Anchorman tried to tell a story that was sort of socially relevant to its period setting (where Applegate's Veronica Corningstone caused upheaval at the local news station by being its first female anchor), so too does the sequel try to place Ron Bergundy and co. in the context of history. This time, it's 1980, and 24 hour cable news emerges as a competitor to the networks. After getting fired by his boss at the network - passed over for a promotion in favor of Veronica - a distraught Ron gets a second chance, when he's offered a shot at being a cable news anchor. Ron gets his old team back together, and they beat the odds and rack up ratings by inventing the sorts of schlock-tactic "news" coverage (car chases, for one) that is commonplace today.

Where ANCHORMAN 2 hurts itself is by trying to do too much at once. I feel like Ferrell and McKay are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by indulging in both a lot of media satire and social commentary-comedy, yet still taking extended side-trips into the wacky and absurd. We go from scenes that take not-so-subtle jabs at today's 24-hour news cycle, to scenes where Ron Burgundy nurses a wounded baby shark back to health and sings a song about it. There's interoffice rivalry with James Marsden's character, and romantic rivalry, with Veronica taking up with a new man (an on-point Greg Kinnear) following a falling-out with Ron, and Ron taking up with his new boss, Linda. The result is a long and at times rambling comedy that tries to do a LOT, without necessarily having a single through-line to tie it all together. By the time the movie ends, you start to wonder what the movie was actually *about* to begin with.

And that's not to say that it had to be about anything. But McKay and Ferrell, as mentioned, squeeze in a ton of plot. Not content to *just* be a riff on the modern era of news, this film packs everything and the kitchen sink into its two hour runtime. This means that when scenes don't elicit big laughs, they tend to really bomb, because they're often disconnected from the rest of the story. One example: when the movie plays the race card and has Ron attend an awkward dinner with Linda's African-American family, the jokes are more cringe-worthy than laugh-worthy. And the fact that the scene mostly bombs, combined with how tangential it is to the main plot, makes you wonder why it didn't get chopped in the editing room.

That said, when the jokes work, they often work big. From Carell and Wiig's oddball pairing, to a gang-fight scene that rivals the first movie's for sheer audacity and shock-value (and in terms of applause-worthy cameos), the movie gets more than enough belly laughs to make it a worthwhile watch. I'm a fan of the random stuff, so I didn't mind the film indulging in it. Honestly, I think Ferrell and McKay are funnier when they're going broad than when they try to do satire. And to that end, I have mixed feelings about, but ultimately support, the extended sequence in which Ron Bergundy goes blind, and becomes a lighthouse-dwelling hermit. On one hand, it comes so late in the movie that part of you thinks "really? they're doing this *now*?". And yet, the funniest moments of the whole film, I think, come as Ron struggles to adjust to being blind in the most hilariously misguided fashion imaginable. The whole thing comes off as an extended SNL sketch randomly thown into the middle of an Anchorman movie. And yet, it's hilarious, so it's hard to find fault. I guess you sort of wish Ferrell and McKay could just ditch narrative altogether and do a longform sketch film or something. As is, Anchorman 2 zips back and forth between its various plotlines and numerous divergent bits of randomness. So yes, there's a lot of funny packed in, but there's also a feeling that the movie is a bit overstuffed.

If you dug the first Anchorman, as I did, you can't go wrong in checking out its sequel. It's a funny flick, and I was laughing pretty consistently throughout. If there's to be a third though, I think that it'd wise to go back and re-tool the formula before things go too off the rails. I love seeing movies where it feels like people are getting away with something, but sometimes, more does not always equal better. One equation that does still very much hold up, however, is that Ferrell + McKay = funny. I'm glad that they are out there making weird $#%& like Anchorman.

My Grade: B+

HER is a Romantic-Comedy-Sci-Fi Stunner

HER Review:

- In the wrong hands, HER could very easily have been a major bust. The premise - in the near future, a lonely man falls in love with his computer's operating system - is both fascinating but also rife with potential to go very wrong, if not handled with care. That, I think, is what's so astonishing about Spike Jonze's film: he never goes where you think he's going to go, never takes the easy or obvious route, and crafts a funny, humanistic story that surprises with its nuance and intelligence. This is, quite simply, a masterfully done film - a surprisingly cerebral sci-fi film that's also a romantic comedy. What's more, HER is one of those rare films that manages to say something profound about the way we live our lives today, all while managing not to hit you over the head with its themes. Jonze seems less set on making a definitive statement about what's right or wrong with the film's unusual central relationship. Instead, he's interested in simply examining it - trying to figure out, in his own head, how this all works, and what that says about us in a world that is not all that far removed from the film's future. To go along with Jonze on that journey is to experience one of the great films of 2013.

HER is set in the not-too-distant future. Our protagonist is Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix). Theodore is a gifted writer, who works at a company that creates and sends faux hand-crafted love letters - a sort of novelty gift, like a more elaborate Hallmark greeting card. Theodore's job is an odd one: he dictates meticulously-composed prose to create these highly-personal seeming letters, but the whole thing is a fiction, a rouse. The feeling of loneliness that such a job would seem to foster is doubly apparent with Theodore - he's recently split from his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara), but still holds off on making the divorce official, unable to fully let go. Unable to shake thoughts of Catherine, he lives a mostly antisocial life, content to play videogames and stay in, reluctant to date or put himself out there. However, Theodore's life unexpectedly changes when, one day, he updates his computer operating system via a popular new OS update. It's a seemingly mundane thing, but Theodore quickly realizes that this new OS is something else, something unique. With an uncannily human-sounding female voice (Scarlett Johansson) - that speaks to Theodore through various devices and earpieces - the OS dubs itself Samantha, and begins a shockingly fast evolution from simple machine to complex being, capable of real emotion and feeling. At least, it seems real. As Theodore becomes closer and closer to Samantha - thinking of her, over time, as a person, a friend, a lover - he, and we, begin to wonder whether Samantha is truly, essentially, human ... or merely a very sophisticated simulation - a clever illusion designed to sucker in lonely guys like Theodore.

Jonze doesn't just present Samantha as a bit of magical movie-fantasy. To his credit, he really considers her evolution from all angles, and there's a surprising amount of science behind the fiction. What I found really fascinating was the idea that Theodore's relationship with Samantha wasn't unique - he's not just some nutty guy who falls in love with a computer. No, the movie's most brilliant twist might be that this new OS becomes a phenomena, and all over, people begin "dating" or befriending their OS's. And so, thanks to some very crafty plotting, HER becomes about more than just one man's eccentricities, but about something that affects everyone, alters the world at large. The movie morphs into a very eerily accurate extension of the way we live now - glued to our phones and tablets and increasingly shutting off the real world in favor of the digital one. Jonze builds this world so smartly and cleverly that you can't help but be enthralled. What's even better is that Theodore's relationship with Samantha is only the beginning, as Jonze isn't content to end things where you suspect they might end. No, Jonze keeps pushing the story and pushing the world of the movie to see how far he can take things, to what logical extensions of the plot he can get to. And man, that's fun to watch unfold. How rare is it in film to see things push past the usual third-act finale and go even deeper and farther? To me, part of what elevates HER to greatness is that it just keeps defying expectation. It left me constantly confused and delighted as to where it was going and how it would get there.

The other pretty incredible thing about this film is its triple-threat acting combo of Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, and Amy Adams (who appears in a somewhat small but absolutely crucial role as Theodore's geeky friend and confidante Amy). 

Phoenix has been on a tear of late. Even though I had some issues with The Master, I was floored by his work in it, and he's almost as good here. Phoenix plays the part of Theodore in a manner that feels completely raw and exposed. Theodore is sort of a sad sack in some ways, but he's also very human, very real-seeming, and very empathetic. What's remarkable is that Phoenix gives just the right mix of skepticism and wonderment with regards to Samantha. This is a guy who, on one level, is lonely and wounded and ripe to find solace in an artificial intelligence that essentially evolves to be his perfect (albeit non-corporeal) woman. But on another level, there is an awareness that what he's getting into is strange and in many ways unnatural. Phoenix's Theodore approaches his relationship with Samantha with a similar mix of optimism and doubt that we, today, might approach online dating or long-distance relationships. Phoenix sells it wholly and completely. 

As for Johansson ... going in, I found it hard to believe that a performance as a disembodied voice could truly be Oscar-worthy. But - holy crap - this is an absolutely incredible, very much Oscar-worthy performance from ScarJo, even despite the fact that she never actually appears on screen in any way, shape, or form. She kills it as Samantha, believably evolving her digital persona from human-like to almost-fully-human in a way that's both remarkable and slightly scary. Again, it's amazing just how much we come to buy into the Theodore-Samantha relationship. What seems potentially silly on paper feels genuine, in large part because of how well Johansson makes us believe in this disembodied voice as a real being - not quite human, but naive and curious about the world in a way that's endearing, at times heartbreaking. Samantha's voice is the key to making this movie work, and Scarlett's performance is totally convincing.

Seeing Amy Adams in HER is sort of amazing if you've also recently seen her fantastic performance in American Hustle. There, she's a glamorous, scheming con-artist. Here, she's a mousy, slightly awkward videogame developer. Her character, Amy, is an old friend of Theodore's from college, and she's stuck in a relationship with a stuffy guy who doesn't take an interest in her creative ambitions. Amy - in her own way lonely and struggling - is a fascinating counterpoint to Theodore. I won't spoil the ways in which Amy's story ends up paralleling and intertwining with Theodore's, but again, Jonze never hits you over the head with obvious developments. The way that Adams makes Amy into this vulnerable, and again, all-too-human and relatable character is another reason why the movie succeeds beyond expectation.

There are some other excellent turns in the film. One standout is Rooney Mara, as Theodore's ex - a woman who Theodore remembers as happy and vibrant, but who, over time, grew colder and more distant. Another is Chris Pratt, as Theodore's jovial co-worker who is probably the movie's least-quirky character. Having a more alpha-male character like Pratt's around is another subtle stroke of genius. It gives us yet another perspective on how the wider world might view an OS like Samantha. In a lesser movie, Pratt would probably have just played the bully who beats up on Theodore. But his character here is actually Theodore's buddy, and their dynamic is a lot of fun.

HER blends humor, romance, and sci-fi more seamlessly than it's got any right to. There are a lot of really funny moments in the film, like the scenes where we check in on the motion-controlled videogame that sucks up Theodore's time, in which his avatar is led around by a foul-mouthed cartoon character. The movie is also, legitimately, one of the best romances I've seen on film. Like I said, there's a realness and rawness to the Theodore-Samantha relationship that you don't see captured on screen in most stories about two actual people. Finally, the world of this film is just so well thought-out, from fashions (high-waisted pants are in) to tech (pocket-watch style smart phones). I don't think HER was quite sold as a sci-fi film, but it really is. Shot in LA and Shanghai, Jonze creates a fascinating near-future cityscape that is, truly, a reflection of the world we live in now.

I've tried to be relatively careful with how I talk about this film, because there are so many great little moments that I didn't see coming, but that make for some excellent and thought-provoking post-movie discussion. HER is a film that hits your head and your heart. Its pacing is at times a bit methodical, but soon enough I was absorbed in its narrative, and just when I was sure I knew where and how it would end, a new twist came along that reshaped the whole film. What Jonze has accomplished here is right up there with his other great directorial efforts like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - like that one, this is a film that will provoke discussion for many years to come.

My Grade: A

AMERICAN HUSTLE Captures The Spirit of '78

AMERICAN HUSTLE Review:

- David O. Russell's latest, AMERICAN HUSTLE, is a stylistic exercise in 70's-era excess - packed to the brim with big-name stars, over-the-top moments, and energy to spare. You might call it Scorsese lite. The film pays homage to the twisty, whip-crack narratives of films like Goodfellas and Casino, and borrows heavily from Scorsese's trademark crime-as-rock-n'-roll aesthetic. The "lite" part comes from American Hustle's relatively breezy plotline. Whereas Scorsese's crime films are about dangerous men doing dangerous things, Russell's movie is about con-men, poseurs, and wannabes trying to be something other than what they really are. So the "lite" label isn't a knock - instead, the jokiness and satirical nature of the film is intentional, a mirror of the characters, their rather absurd schemes, and of the era in which they lived. A flip disclaimer at the top of the film claims that it's only partially based on true events. As American Hustle progresses, you can see why: this is a film less about capturing the details of what really happened, and more about capturing the spirit of 1978 - in all of its gaudy glory.

The film follows small-time partners-in-crime Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) - two opportunistic con-artists who meet at a party, bond over a shared love of Duke Ellington, fall in love, and quickly go into business together - dealing forged art and handing out fake loans. The film opens with a painfully comic scene in which we see Irv put in place an absurdly elaborate comb-over, and from the get-go, it's clear that he is a man living out any number of lies upon lies. In fact, Irv's marital situation is revealed, at least at first, as merely a casual inconvenience. We soon find out though that Irv is married to a piece-of-work woman, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), and has a young son, which further complicates his relationship with Sydney. Sydney, meanwhile, has taken to using an English accent and telling prospective clients that she can get them a large and quick loan through banking connections in London. Soon enough, she all but completely hides her true self from others. Eventually, Irv and Sydney's scams attract the attention of an ambitious FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Rather than simply apprehend the pair, DiMaso has plans to use them to achieve a larger goal: utilizing Irv and Sydney's con-artist expertise, he plans to set up and entrap a number of high-profile politicians, convincing them to take political funds from disreputable sources, including the mob. One of the key targets: a well-meaning, much-loved politician - Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who Irv and Sydney must set up to take a big fall. This is all based on the real-life ABSCAM operation that was run by the FBI in the 70's.

Like I said, AMERICAN HUSTLE is populated by a total all-star cast, and just about every star shines brightly. My pick for MVP of the film is Christian Bale. His Irv feels like the most nuanced, well-rounded character in the movie - a guy who was taught from a young age to succeed at all costs. Irv is a walking contradiction: an outwardly smooth operator who bottles up stress to the point where he frequently collapses and needs emergency heart medication. He's madly in love with Sydney, but can't bring himself to run away with her, for fear of abandoning his son (he'd likely leave his unhinged wife without a second thought). Aside from the character work that Bale puts into Irv, the sheer physical transformation is pretty astonishing. Bale walks with a slight hunch and a hint of pain, he moves deliberately but confidently. He inhabits this character to the last detail.

Amy Adams is also pretty spectacular as Sydney (aside, even, from her rotating wardrobe of plunging-neckline dresses). It's incredible to me how versatile of an actress she is - she's played everything from Disney princesses to tough Boston broads to Lois Lane - but here, she again knocks it out of the park. Sydney parallels Irv in many ways. Outwardly, she's glamorous and sharp and magnetic. But beneath the surface is a troubled woman harboring a lot of sadness, rage, and a major identity crisis.

Bradley Cooper emerged as a legit actor in David O. Russell's last film, Silver Linings Playbook - and his hot streak continues here. Cooper is funny and semi-disturbing as DiMaso, who is prone to Pesci-like bouts of violent rage, and whose "good guy" status as an FBI agent is seriously compromised by his propensity for lying and manipulation. He plays DiMaso as a coked-up, hyperactive guy who is semi-blinded by ambition. Despite his denials, he clearly wants to be the guy to find and expose the next Watergate scandal.

As for Jennifer Lawrence, she's great as Rosalyn, although it's the one part that feels a little like stunt casting. Lawrence is capable of playing older than she is, but it still feels like this boozy, had-it-up-to-here housewife character was meant for an older actress. Even so, Lawrence turns in a typically fantastic performance, and she nails the kind of melodramatic, comedic tone needed to really sell the part.

The film is also littered with great supporting performances. Some of them are, I think, supposed to be a bit of a surprise, so I won't spoil them all here. But I will say that when you've got even minor roles in a film filled by great actors like Shea Wigham and Jack Huston of Boardwalk Empire, you know you've got a stacked cast.

What's interesting about the film is how lies bleed into truth and vice versa. Sydney's insistence that she cozy up to DiMaso to get a leg up on him becomes real-life mutual attraction. Irv's dealings with Polito form a genuine friendship between the two that makes Irv question his plans. And Rosalyn ends up getting mixed up in Irv's plans after she becomes a favorite of Polito and his wife. Through it all, Irv and Sydney get pulled apart, played against one another by DiMaso, and see a rift form between them. But they keep circling one another - and the movie posits that, perhaps, their relationship is the one real, true thing in this whole crazy mess.

AMERICAN HUSTLE suffers a bit from a problem that plagues too many films these days: it's too long. While I normally am a long-film apologist, this one definitely feels dragged out beyond what was needed to tell its story most effectively. Part of the problem is that the movie seems to stumble a bit, in general, to figure out what it's all about. There are some obvious overarching themes - some of which I've talked about above. But sometimes, the movie feels unpredictable in a way that's not necessarily good - meaning, there's a sense that Russell and co-writer Eric Singer are trying to figure out, as they go, where and how things end up for these characters. Whereas the Scorsese films that this emulates tend to play out like clockwork, American Hustle seems messier and less sure of itself. The emphasis is on the style (prepare to be wowed by a psychedelic disco scene) and the big, melodramatic moments. But the plotting ends up taking a back seat.

Still, as a style exercise, the film is second-to-none. And as I've insinuated, the movie's semi-hollowness is, in a strange way, keeping with its biggest theme. Just as DiMaso's entrapment plan is really a desperate career-advancement move disguised as a noble pursuit of justice, you might argue that AMERICAN HUSTLE is gaudy kitsch disguised as serious cinema. But hey, that's okay, because that's the point. That may, ultimately, prevent this film from being held up alongside the Scorsese classics it's being compared to. But it does not, certainly, prevent it from being one of the most dazzlingly entertaining films of the year.

My Grade: A-

THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG - An Action-Packed Return to Middle Earth

THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG Review:

- The first HOBBIT film had its share of haters, but when I reviewed it last year I just couldn't bring myself to jump aboard the "I hate Hobbit" bandwagon. The facts are these: a.) no, The Hobbit was not quite on par with Peter Jackson's three Lord of the Rings films, b.) there was a sense that not only was Jackson a bit rusty when it came to crafting tales of Middle Earth, but that he was indulging some of his worst tendencies (overly-long narratives, overreliance on CGI wizardry) at the expense of the good, old-fashioned epic filmmaking that made LOTR great, and c.) these problems were further compounded by the rather unpleasant experience of seeing the movie in 48 frames-per-second, which gave the whole thing an overly-slick, overly-fake visual quality. But STILL ... with all that said, there was that magic in The Hobbit that was there, also, in LOTR. It was there in when the dwarves sang their Misty Mountain song, it was there when Gandalf reassured Bilbo that he could be of value to the group, and it was there when Bilbo encountered Golem for some long-anticipated Riddles in the Dark. You can't wholly quantify that magic, and to me the fact that it was still there in The Hobbit made it a movie that, despite its flaws, was still something special. Now, with the second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug, I'm happy to say that those magical moments come faster and more frequently that in the first film. There's a sure-handedness to Jackson's direction that wasn't always there in Part 1. And there's a feeling that this, again, is something special. Yes, there are flaws. But I still came away with a feeling that these are the movies that Peter Jackson was born to make, and a Jackson-directed film set in Middle Earth is still one of the best things going in the modern era of movies.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up soon after the end of The Hobbit. Thanks to his ring of power, Bilbo Baggins is now more confident, and has become a more valued member of the group - comprised of himself, Gandalf, and a dozen or so dwarves - led by the increasingly driven Thorin Oakenshield. Thorin is more determined than ever to reclaim his people's now-abandoned homeland. In his way, however, are bands of roving orcs - including their leader (and Thorin's nemesis) Azog. The orcs - gaining numbers thanks to the increasing power and influence of their enigmatic leader (the Necromancer, aka the-once-and-future Sauron) - are an ever-present threat. But Bilbo and company also come across giant spiders, unstable shape-shifters, and not-so-friendly elves on their journey. It is the elves who sort of open up the movie and begin to expand its scope even further. Orlando Bloom's Legolas, of LOTR fame, re-emerges as a major player, along with Evangeline Lily's Tauriel.

Tauriel is a new, made-for-the-movies character who I have to say, is pretty great. She adds a great, kick-ass female character to what was a completely male-dominated storyline. And she adds an element of romance - as part of a quasi-love triangle with Legolas and dwarf Kili. I can see why some might be wary of this, but I've got to admit that the relationship between Kili and Tauriel actually ended up being one of my favorite parts of the film. There's some great, epic-romance dialogue between them that calls to mind some of the best scenes between Aragorn and Arwen in LOTR. And as for Lily, man, it's about time that she got to play a big blockbuster role like this one. She not only meets expectations as Tauriel, but far exceeds them. I mean, look, the woman was born to play a badass elf. I've also got to think that this will open the door for Lily to take on more high-profile action roles, because she effortlessly makes Tauriel into a strong, intriguing, and pretty-damn-badass character ... that I think even hardcore Tolkien devotees will warm to.

Overall, this film just seems to handle its characters better than in the first. Some of the dwarves still blend together a bit - but, in addition to Kili's role as love-struck rebel, there are several other standouts. Ken Stott's Balin, for example, really solidifies himself as the heart and soul of the group here, laying claim to numerous memorable moments as the group's elder statesman. And Thorin seems like a better-defined character here - showing shades of LOTR's Boromir - with his resolve to achieve victory slightly corrupting his sense of morality. Because of the film's expanded scope, Bilbo inevitably takes a backseat at times. But I wasn't too distressed about it, as Bilbo is still front and center for the film's biggest moments - including his fairly epic, climactic confrontation with the dragon Smaug. Martin Freeman seems a little more at home as gaining-confidence Bilbo (as opposed to the first film's more whimpering version), and he is, again, really really good in the role.

Sir Ian McKellan as Gandalf ... I've said a lot about this role and this actor over the years, but the guy is phenomenal and a cinematic treasure. I feel like Gandalf needs special mention here because he's got so many fantastic scenes in this film. Here's the thing: I totally get the complaint that some of Gandalf's side stories in this one may seem to some a bit extraneous and tacked on. And yet, how can you not love them? In The Desolation of Smaug, Peter Jackson gives us some of the coolest-ever Gandalf scenes. Namely, the imagery and epicness that we get during Gandalf's infiltration of the Necromancer's fortress is just off-the-charts. Nothing brings a smile to my face when Jackson gives us larger-than-life imagery that feels right out of a storybook painting ... and Gandalf fending off an orc horde on the crumbling stone walkways of Dol Guldur is exactly that.

Despite those storybook-like moments, I think that Jackson, overall, does a better job in this film of blending over-the-top action with more grounded moments. Visually, the orcs and other creatures look better than in Part 1. In the first film, Azog and his cohorts looked straight out of a Playstation game. Here, there seems to be a better mix of CG characters with practical FX and old-fashioned costuming and make-up. So, for example, when the elves hold a captive orc at knifepoint and interrogate him, in a crucial scene, it feels more real, more substantial, than most of what we got in the first film. Azog in particular still seems too videogame-ish and unreal for my tastes, but overall, it seems like Jackson better uses the various artistic tools at his disposal this time around.

Interestingly, the movie takes on a much grittier, more intimate feel when we get to Laketown. Laketown is where much of the action of the film's final third is set, and suddenly, the movie's focus shifts from elves and orcs to very human political drama. It's sort of interesting to see the introduction of Luke Evan's Bard - a smuggler who rebels against Laketown's corrupt and oppressive ruler. Bard brings a similar sort of brooding nobility to the story as Aragorn did in LOTR. But Jackson sets up an interesting juxtaposition of this sleepy, human fishing village that is suddenly beset by the problems of the larger, wider world - even as its own people's rebellion catches fire. Fans of Tolkien's The Hobbit (myself included) may find it a bit odd to have so much of a Hobbit film taken up by this darker, less fantastical Laketown section. But I did find that Laketown helps to give some nice context to all of the more out-there and magical elements of this world - sort of like Rohan did in LOTR. There aren't just dwarves, elves, and wizards who are in danger from Smaug, but also these more regular, everyday sorts of people. There are enough loose ends in Laketown where it and its people still seem only half-explored, but I still found the tonal shift it brings to the table to be welcome and surprising.

Overall though, I'd still categorize these Hobbit films as lighter, more over-the-top, and more storybook-like than their LOTR predecessors. That is most evident, perhaps, in the movie's big action scenes. And let me say: The Desolation of Smaug has one of the great over-the-top action scenes we've yet seen in a blockbuster film. This is what I will call "the barrel sequence." While some may criticize the barrel sequence as being *too* cartoonish, too silly, too much, I can only say that I found it to be completely enthralling and joyful - along the lines of the best Spielbergian set-piece action sequences to ever grace the screen. Jackson has always had that Spielbergian influence in his action (perhaps even more evident in King Kong than in LOTR), but the barrel sequence is full-on Spielberg - a rip-roaring rollercoaster ride of an action scene that is exciting, hilarious, surprising, and just flat-out amazing on both a creative and technical level. To me, LOTR was an epic, and The Hobbit is an adventure. There's a difference. And I think that difference opens things up for Jackson to be a little more playful with the action here. In LOTR, the barrel sequence may have been too much, and not keeping with the tone of the films. But here, in my view, it works - and works wonderfully, at that.

The barrel sequence is perhaps the set-piece highlight of the movie, but other scenes show off Jackson's horror-movie chops to great effect. I talked about Gandalf's sequences at Dol Guldur, which definitely have a creepy, creature-feature vibe at times. But the most horror-ish sequence in the film has got to be the spider-attack. The spider sequence is done fantastically, with a mind-melting combo of action, horror, and humor that is vintage Jackson. It's a great character moment, as Bilbo plays the hero and saves his friends with the help of his ring. But it's also an expertly-staged, awesomely-visualized bit of action that is breathtaking to watch unfold.

There are any number of great little bits in The Desolation of Smaug that work brilliantly. John Bell's shapeshifting Bain is a fun, menacing character - and he has some fantastic dialogue after letting the dwarves take refuge in his remote home. Stephen Fry is excellent, of course, as the slimy Master of Laketown. I do wish that his character got a little more fleshing out, but he does a great job with what's there. Elf king Thranduil is another character whose screentime is relatively brief, but who makes a strong impression thanks to actor Lee Pace. And then there's Smaug, who is voiced so well and so menacingly by Benedict Cumberbatch that it's hard to now imagine anyone else playing the part.

By the way, the music here continues to be top-notch - with Howard Shore's score an ear-pleasing mix of old and new themes. I really liked the Laketown theme, and think it's up there with previous LOTR classics. The one glaring omission to me was the lack of a reprise of the Misty Mountain song when the dwarves finally arrive at their long-sought after destination.

The film does, again, get a bit draggy in parts. Part of me does still, inevitably wonder if we needed three films to tell this story, and if all of the setup of LOTR was really necessary. But this is what Jackson and team decided on, and it helps that the additional material he's added or elaborated on has been, mostly, pretty cool. In any case, there's less here that feels tangential than in the first film. The story flows more organically, and there's more a sense of it all building towards something. One other complaint though: Jackson seems to develop an unwelcome habit of occasionally, almost compulsively cutting from the action right before a key beat. The timing of the editing, at times, seems a little off - and once in a while (as with an abrupt cut during a key moment between Kili and Tauriel), it's even a bit jarring.

But mostly, Jackson seems to more fully find his footing than in the first film. His direction seems more confident, more free. And there is a narrative momentum here that wasn't there in The Hobbit. When The Hobbit ended, there was not that old LOTR feeling of "must see the next one ... right now!" But here, I think Jackson recaptured that. Despite the long running time, I was ready for Part 3 immediately, and so too was the majority of the audience in the theater. Jackson tantalizingly, teasingly ends this one on one hell of a cliffhanger - prompting one young boy in our audience to cry out "aww, come on!" as the credits rolled. And you've got to love that. I don't know that this prequel trilogy will ever be held in the same esteem as the original Lord of the Rings movies, but I do feel that Jackson got some of his mojo back for Part 2, and is poised to deliver a fairly epic Part 3. So yes, there are things about The Desolation of Smaug that bother me. But when a movie is so exciting, so full of magic, that you forget about those flaws and just get caught up in this world and this journey - well, that's something special, and rare in the world of blockbuster filmmaking.

My Grade: A-

OUT OF THE FURNACE Is Badass, Almost-Great

OUT OF THE FURNACE Review:

- I was quite impressed with director Scott Cooper's first film, Crazy Heart. Not only did that film get the deserving Jeff Bridges his first Oscar, but it also signaled the arrival of a potentially great new director in Cooper. Now, Cooper's second film, OUT OF THE FURNACE has arrived after a lengthy wait, and again, Cooper emphasizes atmosphere. OUT OF THE FURNACE is a film that positively radiates a dingy, blue-collar, steel-town vibe. It's appropriate, since the film is, on one level, a gritty crime-caper. But on another level, it's an American tale about a community that's come upon hard times, and the extremes to which they have to go to scrape by. The movie looks amazing, and it's got an all-star cast that's almost unbelievably stacked with big names. I think it's got all the ingredients for greatness, but it falls just short due to a plot that feels a little directionless at times. Still, the sheer thrill of seeing a dream-team of badasses like Christian Bale, Forest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Shepard go at it (plus a spark-plug performance from Casey Affleck), makes this well worth checking out.

The film is the story of a Rust Belt community that has fallen on hard times. It's also the story of two brothers, Russell (Bale) and Rodney (Affleck), each in very different places. Russell, the older brother, works in a steel mill, a tough, dangerous, and low-paying job that is, nonetheless, an honest day's work - something that Russell takes pride in. Rodney is a recently-returned-from-active-duty veteran, and he's struggling to re-acclimate to civilian life. Instead of taking a job at the mill with his brother, he's fallen in with a small-time crime kingpin, John Petty (Dafoe), who runs a gambling ring centered around underground fighting matches. Rodney, likely suffering from some serious PTSD, seems compelled to be a part of the fights and essentially get beat up (often taking dives) for money. However, Rodney starts getting in way over his head when Petty hooks him up with a psycho drug-dealer named Harlan (Harrelson), who also runs his own fighting circuit. Meanwhile, Russell, normally the more level-headed of the brothers, ends up in jail after a drunk-driving incident. He emerges to find his brother missing - gone off to work for Harlan and never heard from again. And so, Russell, despite repeated warnings from an overly-cautious sheriff (Whitaker), goes off on a shotgun-toting mission to find and save his baby brother.

If that sounds like one hell of a badass premise for a movie ... well, it is. The issue is just that the movie sets all of this up in a somewhat meandering, roundabout manner. It takes a long time to get to the point where Affleck and Harrelson finally meet, and that means that the film's final act feels a little rushed and underwhelming - lacking that big, final, exclamation point that I was hoping for.

That said though - there really are some phenomenal moments that are part of the movie's slow-but-steady build-up to it's endgame. The combination of gritty, well-drawn characters and all-star actors is a potent one. In fact, the film's opening scene - showing just how mean and nasty Harrelson's Harlan is - is a jaw-dropper. Harrelson has played his share of scary mother$%^#'ers, but this is right up there as one of his meanest, scariest, most unhinged roles to date. Similarly jaw-dropping are the first few big scenes for Casey Affleck's Rodney. Affleck gives us a hell of a performance in this one - he really drives home the fact that this guy - who is still outwardly a quiet, unassuming kid - now has a monster inside of him, and has demons that he can't fully control. Bale is quietly badass and intense, and there's also an interesting (though sort of left-field) love triangle with him, Zoe Saldana, and Whitaker (she leaves Bale for Whitaker after he's arrested). Whitaker, who seems to oddly be doing a riff on Bale's Batman voice as the gruff sheriff, is also quite good, while Saldana doesn't get a ton to do. Dafoe is strange, because he walks the line here of doing full-on "insane Willem Dafoe" in this film, which is always entertaining, but doesn't fully match the tone that Cooper is going for. But hey, if one character in the film was just going to be weird as hell, it might as well be the slick small-town crime boss who runs an illegal fight-club gambling operation. Oh, I've also got to mention Sam Shepard as Bale and Affleck's super-badass old uncle. As you might expect, he pretty much rules it for every moment he's on screen (and what a year he's had, between this and Mud).

Cooper makes all of the drama and grit extremely operatic and absorbing. There's a hard-boiled, grimy tone to the film that reminded me of a feature-length episode of Justified - and that's not at all a bad thing. Still, despite how much works here, there does seem to be a slight contrast between the film's sprawling, semi-epic plotline and it's tone. It feels like there's a more streamlined, more ultimately satisfying version of this movie somewhere beneath, that ends up being weighted down by a lot of extra padding. Cooper ends up stuffing a sprawling family drama on top of a gritty revenge flick, and the result is a movie that doesn't quite nail either as effectively as it might have.

OUT OF THE FURNACE remains, however, a dark, violent, immensely entertaining film, that looks great and has one of the best and most badass casts of any movie this year. Bale, Affleck, and Harrelson in particular bring their A-games, and Cooper shows that he is still very much a director to watch.

My Grade: B+

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS Is Cinematic Music and Top-Tier Coen Bros.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS Review:

- A new Coen Bros. film is, for me, a true movie event. The Coens have made several of my all-time favorite movies, and even their lesser films are more interesting than most filmmaker's best. What's fascinating about the Coens is that, while there are certain themes and signatures that crop up in all of their films, their works are each incredibly unique - covering an wide variety of genres and tones. But no matter the genre, and no matter if the film is a drama, a comedy, or some hybrid of the two, what you can always count on is a brilliant script, mesmerizing and atmosphere-soaked direction, and a thematic sophistication that invites discussion and individual interpretation. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is no exception. It's a challenging movie. It's got a lot of dark humor, but it's also not as overtly comedic as The Big Lebowski or Burn After Reading. And there's a real element of nightmarish, existential dread to the film - but it's a much lighter and more humanistic film than, say, No Country For Old Men. What Coen Bros. film is it closest to? I'd say that the closest comparison is, perhaps, A Serious Man - a movie that also mixed black humor with a slightly surrealistic feeling of foreboding. That said, LLEWYN is its own beast - a unique an hard-to-categorize entry in the Coen Bros. cannon that's funny, sad, thought-provoking, and, on top of all that ... it's a musical (sort of). What can certainly be said, however, is that film fans need to rush out and watch this immediately.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS takes place in Greenwich Village, in 1961, set amidst a folk scene that was changing and dying and on the verge of rebirth thanks to a new wave of musicians led by Dylan. Other filmmakers may have simply chosen to dramatize the story of Bob Dylan, but the Coens, as always, like to focus in on those on the fringes. To that end, this is the story not of a great folk-music hero, but of a would-be star who could never quite get his break. That guy is Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac), and when we meet him, he's jumping from couch-to-couch, living off scraps and the kindness of strangers. Llewyn was once part of a folk duo, but his partner died - killed himself - and ever since, Llewyn's been struggling to leave his past behind, and carve his own path as a solo artist. He plays gig after gig at the same assortment of dingy music clubs, rubbing shoulders with a rotating cast of fellow troubadors. Some seek to make it big, some are content living the bohemian life. Some, like Lllewyn, hope for a break, but also pridefully refuse to sell out. How to do both? There may not, in actuality, be a way. And so Llewyn finds himself in an endless causality loop - two steps forward, two steps back - living a lifestyle that's both self-defeating and yet one comprised of patterns that Lllewyn can't seem to break.

What's so brilliant about the film is how its very structure loops around and circles back in a way that parallels Llewyn's day-to-day existence. We are led to imagine that Lllewyn and his late partner were, perhaps, on a path to commercial and artistic success. But ever since his partner died, Llewyn seems trapped in an inescapable downward spiral. It's all sort of encapsulated by his couch-jumping: he goes from friend to friend, always assuring them that his stay will only be temporary. And yet, there's a permanence to Llewyn's life - a sense of him being doomed, and damned, to simply repeat the same mistakes over and over - just as sure as a few months after having left someone's apartment, he'll inevitably return when he's exhausted his list of couches and starts the rotation anew.

The film shows various forces pushing and pulling at Llewyn, and him pushing back. But always, inevitably, he finds himself back where he started. When Llewyn's friend Jean (Carey Mulligan) reveals that she's pregnant (possibly with his child), Llewyn immediately starts talking about her having an abortion. When Llewyn gets the opportunity to record an infectiously-catchy novelty song with his friend Jim (Justin Timberlake), he hastily asks for his check without bothering to sign a contract to receive royalties. And when Llewyn decides to journey to Chicago to track down a record company exec who'd been sent his demo, well, it seems to be the hardest that Llewyn has ever pushed against the universe to alter his fate - but again, inevitably, the universe pushes back.

And so it is that INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is much more than just a story about a folk musician. It's a story that's packed with larger themes and big questions about life, the universe, and everything. The Coens often seem to enjoy playing the part of cruel gods with their characters, and as they did to their protagonist in A Serious Man, they seem to relish putting Llewyn through the ringer to see what happens. Indeed, there's a very noir-ish bent to the film, in which Llewyn constantly seems to be at the mercy of the cruel hand of fate. And there's a lot of interesting use of recurring imagery and symbols that provide a lot of fodder for post-viewing discussion. Again, if you go in thinking this is *just* a story about folk music, prepare to get more than you bargained for.

At the same time, this is one hell of a movie about folk music. The Coens expertly capture the mood and ambiance of 1960's New York - dim, dingy, cold, and claustrophobic - and they also capture the folk scene of that time, and pepper the movie with several fantastic musical moments. What's so impressive is that each musical number in the movie tells a story when you read between the lines. Whether it's Llewyn's soulful demo of his song before the record-label exec in Chicago, or the cheesy yet undeniably catchy collaboration between Llewyn and Jim on peppy pop song "Please Mr. Kennedy," (which remained in my head for days), each song gives us insight into Llewyn's headspace.The music, in and of itself, is incredibly well-done and impeccably performed. But what makes it so special is how it's used - as part of this profile of a guy trying to navigate between art and commerce and past and future. Every moment, every song, feels integral to the larger whole.

The cast is exceptional. Oscar Isaac is a guy who's deserved the spotlight for a long time - he impressed me with his villainous turns in films like Robin Hood and Sucker Punch, but this is, hopefully, a true breakout role for him. As Llewyn Davis, Isaac is sort of a jerk. And yet, there's a haunting sadness and soulfulness behind the snarky veneer that makes you pull for the guy. Isaac also pulls off the film's musical numbers to perfection - an impressive feat given how crucial it is to the movie that the music come off as genuine and genuinely good. Cary Mulligan is also a standout - her exasperated, on-edge portrayal of Jean is funny and forceful. John Goodman, well, he and the Coens always work magic together, and this film is no exception. Goodman's character, a beat-up jazz musician named Roland Turner, is awesome. Self-styled like some sort of huckster pimp, Turner is a cautionary tale about the toll of a long life lived on the road as a career musician. Turner is accompanied by his enigmatic valet, Johnny Five, played as a Marlboro Man-esque man-of-few-words by Garrett Hedlund. Goodman and Hedlund enter the film as part of an extended stretch in which the movie morphs into a surrealistic road-trip - as Llewyn hitches a ride to Chicago with the odd-couple pair and drives straight into the abyss. The tonal shift is a little jarring, but it's classic Coens. It's through this segment of the film that we come to realize the larger themes of the movie - where all the ideas about looping spirals, repeated patterns, and about being trapped in a strange sort of artist's purgatory finally come into full view.

The movie goes to some dark places, but it's also, at times, hilarious. I was cracking up with laughter during Llewyn's scenes with his ancient manager Mel, and during his strange back-and-forth dialogues with Goodman's Turner, and at many other moments throughout the film. Life as a strange, dark comedy is one of the Coen's pet themes, and they mine humor from the darkest and weirdest of moments. It's like what the Stranger says in The Big Lebowski:  "I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself." 

It's funny though, because INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS does have a stronger emotional undercurrent than most Coen Bros. films. The sadness of Llewyn resonates - and we're constantly reminded of the emotional toll that the death of his old partner still takes on him. And so it is slightly difficult to stomach when the Coens don't ultimately give us the catharsis or resolution that we want. Perhaps no surprise to those who've seen the unconventional endings of A Serious Man or No Country For Old Men, but still, if Inside Llewyn Davis has a flaw, it may be that the Coens veer too much, at times, between sincerity and aloofness. They tease us with moments that seem to be building towards send-'em-home-happy payoff, but ultimately, it's clear that that's not what they had in mind for this film.

So what is the point? Some may ask this as the credits roll. And it's a valid question. There's a lot to ponder about this movie, and as always, it's sometimes hard to know what, precisely, the Coens are getting at with the more esoteric aspects of the film (a lot of people, myself included, will likely long be wondering what, exactly, the recurring character of the stray cat means/symbolizes/represents in this movie). But the Coens are smart - brilliant, even - and I think it's all there on the screen, and it's all there in a way that gives me confidence in their ability to tell this type of story that's rich in meaning and subtext. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is filled with great performances, best-in-class direction, and on top of all that, numerous, superbly-done musical performances. But this film is more than just the surface elements - it's two master filmmakers giving us yet another deep thought - a meditation on life's great and small cosmic jokes. The film's greatest piece of music is the film itself.

My Grade: A-

FROZEN Is Very-Nearly Magical

FROZEN Review:

- There's so much to like about Disney's latest animated musical. It has all the trappings of vintage Disney animation, but the characters and story feel fresh and modern. The music is mostly fantastic, and from a visual perspective, the look and feel of the film is positively stunning. This is very nearly a new Disney classic. What's frustrating about Frozen is that it's got all the ingredients to be a home run, but it just misses the mark due to an overall feeling of incompleteness. The movie is packed with fantastic moments, but as a whole, it feels loosely-sketched. Still, Frozen's high points make it a must-see for animation fans young and old. And at it's best, the film summons that old-school Disney magic in a way that reminds you of what put Disney animation on the map in the first place.

I give Frozen credit for giving us a different sort of story than we're used to in a Disney fairy tale. This is a tale of two sisters - two very strong, well-developed female characters who have full-fledged personalities independent of any star-crossed romances. In a year when there's been a lot of talk about movies failing the so-called Bechdel Test, Frozen passes with flying colors. In princesses Elsa and Anna, Frozen presents two iconic-yet-relatable characters who both radiate personality. Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) is the eldest of the two sisters - she was born with magical powers, able to create ice and snow from her hands. But those powers made her a danger, since she could not fully control them. After accidentally injuring her younger sister, Elsa is isolated by her parents - the king and queen of an ice-covered kingdom - and kept away from her sister, and from the rest of the world. Years later, when Elsa comes of age, it's her time to be anointed as Queen - she finally emerges from her isolation and nervously presents herself to her very curious subjects. Over the years, she's become a mystery and object of fascination. However, during the coronation festivities, Elsa's powers go haywire, and the people deem her a monster and a freak. Elsa retreats to an ice-palace far away in the mountains, and blankets the kingdom in a deep, unnatural freeze. It's up to Elsa's plucky sister Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) to find the Snow Queen and convince her to come home. Anna, too, spent years isolated from the rest of the kingdom. But while Elsa locked herself away with a grim and steadfast determination, Anna yearned to go outside and explore and interact with others (shades of Tangled). Now, Anna is out in the big wide world, on her first adventure, on a quest to find her sister.

Anna, really, is the star here. Kristen Bell makes her utterly likable - funny, brave, determined, dorky, and just a bit naive about the way the world works. Bell's singing is wonderful, but her overall performance is even more winning. This is probably the best the fan-favorite actress has been since her Veronica Mars heyday, and a reminder of just how talented Bell really is. What's more, the heart and soul of the film is likely Anna's relationship with rough-and-tumble Kristoff (Jonathan Groff). It's a relationship that works so well in part because, like I said, neither character seems defined by it. We spend a lot of time with Anna before she even meets Kristoff, and even then, there's nothing star-crossed about them. Just as Anna is an atypical Disney princess, Kristoff is an atypical Disney male lead. He's shaggy, schlubby, and occasionally prickly. That's what makes the song "Fixer Upper" a true highlight of the movie - it dresses down these characters to make them seem less like fairy-tale heroes and more like just a couple of crazy kids who might just have a certain spark between them, flaws and all. And yet, that ordinariness makes their eventual acts of heroism that much more resonant. Rarely have Disney characters had this much real-feeling personality.

Elsa, however, is much more of an enigma. And it's with Elsa that the movie seems unsure of what story, exactly, it wants to tell. Elsa's story starts as a familiar one for those who have watched any number of superhero movies in recent years: a child finds out that they're different, a "freak", because they have some sort of strange power, and hides away, keeping their ability a secret - until they eventually learn to control, master, and embrace it. It's a story we've seen before, but also one that is an undeniably effective storytelling device - a perfect metaphor for real issues of identity, individuality, and coming-of-age. And when Elsa does have her big moment where she embraces her true nature - singing the defiantly powerful "Let It Go" as she goes all glam-rock amidst her newly-erected ice-fortress - it's a transcendent moment - absolutely an instant classic and a defining moment for Disney in the modern era. But after the high of "Let It Go," the movie disappointingly seems to drop the ball on Elsa. She is finally comfortable with who she is, and yet ... she remains isolated in her remote palace, and seems to increasingly grow colder and less human. In a weird way, "Let It Go" is both the film's hero song and its villain song. The movie can't seem to decide which Elsa is. We barely get into Elsa's headspace after that moment. But we do see her attack her own sister via a hulking Abominable Snowman construct, and then mortally wound her sister with her powers.

Elsa is a fascinating character because of how completely she breaks the mold for a Disney animated film. But she's also a problematic character because the movie gives her this tragic - but ultimately inspirational - origin story, only to make her less and less sympathetic as the movie progresses. Instead, our attention increasingly turns to girl-next-door Anna and her sweetly-scripted relationship with Kristoff. All the while, I kept waiting for some kind of twist to occur with Elsa. Would the movie go full-villain with her, and make her into the film's true antagonist? Or would it be revealed that she was being manipulated by some as-yet-unrevealed uber-villain, whispering in her ear and making her turn against her sister? Ultimately, Elsa gets exactly one half of a great story. Frustrating, because the build-up through "Let It Go" is so incredibly well-done.

Frozen, therefore, ends up conspicuously lacking a great villain. Sure, there's some sleazy scheming from deceptively charming nobleman Hans. And there's some politically-motivated skulduggery from weaselly Duke of Weselton (voiced amusingly by Alan Tudyk). But the movie has no equivalent of an Ursula, or Jafar. Hans is sort of like a wannabe Gaston, I guess. But as a character, he's a bit flimsy and unmemorable. And his true motivations are revealed so late in the film that it all feels a bit rushed. In general, the movie seems to have a number of things mysteriously missing. We get hints of an intriguing origin for Kristoff - raised by Trolls, away from other people - but we never get the full story. Olaf - the wacky Snowman who becomes Anna's companion - is interesting, and thankfully non-annoying, but it feels like a major story beat between him and Elsa is missing from the movie. It definitely feels like we're getting a chopped-up version of what was once a longer and more complete (and presumably more satisfying) story.

Back to Olaf for a second. As voiced by Josh Gad, he's a funny and fun comedy-relief character. I will say though - Olaf's big song, "In Summer," is a bit weak, in my opinion. Definitely not a classic on the level of other Disney-musical "fun" songs like Hakuna Matata or Under the Sea.

The music as a whole though is quite good. The high points are really, really good, with the standouts being the aforementioned "Fixer Upper" and "Let It Go." I'm also partial to the mood-setting opening number "Frozen Heart," which has a folk-chant ominous quality that reminded me a bit of The Little Mermaid's "Fathoms Below."

And visually, it can't be understated just how eye-popping the animation is in Frozen. The majestically ice and snow-covered landscapes give the film a dark-fantasy fairy-tale look that I really dug. And when the movie cranks up its visual fireworks - like during the "Let It Go" number - it really becomes total eye-candy. I also continue to be blown away by just how expressive Disney's CGI characters are these days. Similar to Tangled, Frozen's characters are slick, ultra-fluid computer-animated figures that nonetheless have facial animation deliberately designed to evoke the kind of expressive hand-drawn animation of the older Disney classics. It really does feel like an evolution of the old Disney style. Overall, Frozen's visuals are truly epic - some of the best yet in an animated CGI film.

Frozen feels like only 3/4 of a classic, but I think that fans will really embrace it despite its faults. For one thing, there's the stunning animation. For another, there's the strong female characters and progressive-seeming storyline - big picture, Frozen rather brilliantly combines classic fairy-tale trappings with very modern themes and characters. On top of that, while the music isn't as consistently great as in some of Disney's best, the movie's best songs are undeniably fantastic, catchy, and bound to be beloved by kids and adults alike. Frozen's complex themes have and will provide a lot of interesting discussion fodder, but I'm also not sure if the movie will hold up as an all-time Disney classic. There's just a lack of coherency to the plot, and a feeling that the movie isn't quite sure what to do with its theoretical lead character, Elsa. For that reason, the movie's lasting impression is that of a film with a handful of magical moments, but one whose parts are stronger than its whole.

My Grade: B+

HOMEFRONT Is a Strange Brew

HOMEFRONT Review:

- HOMEFRONT isn't amazing, but it is pretty damn entertaining, in a vintage B-movie sort of way. The script was written years ago by none other than Sylvester Stallone, and originally he was set to star in the film. And in many ways, this feels like a vintage 1980's-era action flick, with Stallone's particular sensibilities very much retained in this updated take. But instead of Stallone, Homefront stars his Expendables brother-in-arms, Jason Statham. Meanwhile, James Franco, in what has to be one of the oddest hero/villain pairings in quite some time, plays a sleazy small-time drug dealer who runs afoul of Statham's ex-undercover DEA agent. There's not much nuance to this story, but there's a pleasingly simple, down n' dirty southern-gothic-noir vibe to the whole thing (the Louisiana setting doesn't hurt). If you're down for a 70's/80's-style B-movie that makes up for a flimsy script with a serious vibe of badassery, you could do worse.

In HOMEFRONT, Statham plays Phil Broker, a guy who once lived on the edge doing undercover work for the DEA, but who now lives a quiet and unassuming life with his young daughter, Maddy, under a new name and identity. As the movie shows in flashback, Broker spent years posing as a member of the Outcasts biker gang (yep), only to get serious heat on himself when he finally pulled the trigger and helped the DEA take down the gang, which ran a high-level drug trade. Not only was Broker exposed as a traitor to the Outcasts, but he became their sworn enemy when the gang-leader's son was killed in the crossfire during the DEA raid. Around that same time, Broker's wife died, leaving him alone with Maddy. The two assume new ID's and move to his wife's hometown in Louisiana, where Broker takes a construction job and tries to live a quiet, small-town life. However, trouble finds him when he runs afoul of local drug dealer Gator (James Franco). Gator stumbles upon Broker's true identity, and sells him out to the Outcasts. Soon enough, the trouble that Broker had hoped wouldn't find him again descends on him with a vengeance.

The movie follows a predictable arc of "just when I thought I was out ...", but it doesn't overplay that hand and become self-parody. What impressed me about HOMEFRONT was that the film maintained a dark, atmospheric, pulpy tone throughout. Statham is, mostly, in "real actor" mode here, which helps. That said, the movie does have a select few interludes where it becomes pure Statham-style action. These action scenes are fun, but there's a little bit of disconnect between their high-octane style and the rest of the film's lower-key aesthetic. That aesthetic seems more in line with director Gary Fleder's usual style, and Fleder seems to embrace the film's grittier aspects. Fleder helps keep the movie relatively grounded, and seems to reign in the action so that it's never too over-the-top (with perhaps one or two lapses).

As for Franco, he's good as Gator, delving into the same white-trash vicinity as his celebrated character Alien from this year's Spring Breakers. Franco doesn't take Gator to quite the same iconic heights as Alien, but he still adds some spark to the film and does well as a small-timer who gets in over his head. The real scene-stealer of the movie though is, believe it or not, Kate Bosworth. Playing Gator's trailer-trash, drug-addicted sister, Bosworth turns in a gloriously unhinged performance that I didn't know she had in her. Meanwhile, a few welcome faces turn up in supporting roles: Clancy Brown as a crooked sheriff, Winona Ryder as Gator's street-smart girlfriend, and Frank Grillo as the intimidating heavy of the Outcast gang. I'll also mention that child actor Izabela Vidovic is quite good as Statham's daughter. She really sells her big scenes, and helps us invest in Broker and his quest to shield his daughter from harm.

Where does HOMEFRONT falter? I think it loses its way in a couple of respects. One is simply that the plotting is only so-so. I like the premise and initial plot set-up, and I like the notion of this small-time drug-dealer exposing Statham's ID and unleashing an angry gang onto this small backwoods town. But the way the movie plays out, it never feels like it's fully taking advantage of its premise's potential for drama. I felt like Broker's transition from unassuming small-town dad to pissed-off ass-kicker on a mission just sort of happens, and it's never quite properly built up to in a satisfying manner. Especially as compared to action movies like Taken, that do a great job of creating that build-up to their heroes going full-badass. I suppose the larger problem here is a movie that is a bit at odds with itself. Is it a Taken-style action flick? A gritty crime noir? Fleder obviously favors the latter, but there are lots of teases of the former. And the movie rarely meshes both in a way that works (unlike, say, this year's Mud, which mixed genres in unexpected and thrilling ways). In any case, an example of this is that on one level, the movie seems to be building towards an epic shoot 'em up climax, but said all-hell-breaks-loose finale never quite comes. From a tonal perspective, I see where that makes sense. From a plot perspective, you feel a bit shortchanged. So again, the two seem at odds.

The other way in which the movie goes a bit off the rails is, hate to say it, the script. Again, it may be a matter of Stallone's unsubtle style clashing just a bit with a director who likes to go the more subtle route. I mean, how subtle can your movie be when it opens on a gang of 80's hair-metal rejects called "The Outcasts" as the main antagonists? To that end, you sort of wonder if this movie would be better served were it trying to be less No Country For Old Men and more Cobra. In a way, it's fun to see the sorta-weird mash-up of Stallone and Fleder and Statham come together. On the other hand, the end result is a movie that feels a bit schizophrenic.

Still, there is a definite pleasure in HOMEFRONT's B-movie oddness. It's fun to see all the elements of 80's-style cheese and Statham-style hyper-action pop up amidst Fleder's attempt to make something a little more sober and soulful. And there's a madcap sense of fun in seeing Jason Statham, James Franco, Frank Grillo, Kate Bosworth, Winona Ryder, and Clancy Brown mix it up - an eclectic cast if ever there was one. Perhaps not a must-see, but if you're a certain brand of film-fan, you'll definitely want to give this a look.

My Grade: B