Cloud Atlas (Theatrical Review)

Cloud Atlas (2012)
Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi, 164 minutes
Directed by Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski  
Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, Susan Sarandon and Hugh Grant

How do you even begin to write a review for Cloud Atlas? I saw it two days ago, and woke up at 4:15 this morning, thinking about how to organize my thoughts into a coherent assessment. 

I will probably fail.

If I were to attempt to sum up the movie in a single paragraph, I would say that it deals with how souls change over time. We are shown six distinct time periods. Several actors appear as six different characters across these six moments in time. Oh, the time periods all feature different genres too. I would imagine the movie is attempting to make us question the meaning of life itself, and how it might be represented on some sort of eternal scale. It's like watching the offspring of Mulholland Dr. and Inception playing on a holodeck, featuring six worlds across 500 years, using a Memento-style narrative.

In order to make sense of the movie and give it an accurate grade, I would have to read the book (unlikely), and watch it at least one more time (very likely when the Blu-ray is released). For now, I'll document my thoughts to see whether subsequent viewings change my opinion.

The movie is based on the book by David Mitchell, who reportedly wrote stories for the six different time periods, utilizing six different genres, and then drew them together as the story progressed. That structure reminds me of Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos, although I doubt it matches Hyperion in terms of quality. I highly recommend Hyperion to anyone who appreciates Cloud Atlas. In terms of subject matter, I'm reminded of the Deverry series, written by Katharine Kerr. It also jumps around in time, across centuries, and uses the theme of souls being continually drawn to one another. I wonder whether Mitchell is a fan?

The six time periods used in the movie are 1849, 1936, 1973, 2012, 2144, and the twenty-fourth century.

Through these six stories, we learn that the souls of some of the characters involved also travel through time. However, they may change from male to female, and change race, or sexual orientation. Some souls are evil in every setting, while others switch from evil, or neutral, to good. I won't reveal any of that information because it's better to discover it for yourself.

The biggest problem with the movie is the way the story keeps switching from one time period to another. Instead of showing each story arc from beginning to end, we are often shown two or three minutes in one time period before jumping to another. This has the effect of making it clear that the characters (or souls) exist in several or (in some cases) all of the time periods, and that's a good thing. But it also prevented me from becoming too emotionally attached to any of the characters. I found that I didn't really care about their struggles.

The earliest story takes place on a ship (South Pacific), and moves through a hotel in the 1930s (Scotland), to San Francisco in 1973, a party set in an English hotel in the present day, before visiting the future (Neo Seoul) and far future. So you'll see two period pieces, a sequence that reminded me of The Streets of San Francisco, a story set in our current time, a science fiction segment that looks like Blade Runner, The Matrix and The Fifth Element, and a post-apocalyptic tale set more than 300 years in the future.

Technology ranges from primitive to futuristic, with the final segment being a curious blend of both.

The strongest of the stories are the final three chronologically. In 2012, Timothy Cavendish (Broadbent) is a book publisher who desperately needs money. This segment features a lot of humor and had the audience laughing throughout. The Neo Seoul story features Sonmi-451 (Bae), who is aided in her quest by Hae-Joo Chang (Sturgess). Here we see plenty of futuristic shots and an elaborate chase scene which would fit well in any science fiction movie. The final segment sees Zachry (Hanks) meet Meronym (Berry). Although the two are from vastly different backgrounds, they form a bond. It's here that the biggest struggle between good and evil takes place, and it shows how Zachry's soul evolves from what it once was.

None of the stories are straightforward. Most are not properly resolved. I think the point is not the quests themselves, but the overall passage of the souls of the recurring characters.

I'm probably not making much sense.

Cloud Atlas is something you need to experience for yourself, but only if you are the kind of person open to analysis and repeat viewings. This is not a coherent story with a linear structure. If you do decide it's for you, try to enjoy the individual scenes for what they are. If you are anything like me, you'll reflect on what you have seen over the next few days and things will start to take on some kind of meaning. It's certainly one of the most ambitious cinematic undertakings I have ever witnessed.

Overall provisional score 3.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Skyfall (Theatrical Review)

Skyfall (2012)
Action, Adventure, Crime, 143 minutes
Directed by Sam Mendes
Starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes

The first thing I noticed about Skyfall was the vast amount of talent involved. With apologies to Sean Connery, Daniel Craig gives the best acting performances of any Bond. It's not that he's a better actor than Connery, but he's asked to play the role with a lot more realism, and that works well for me.

Other actors of note are even better than Craig: Judi Dench is wonderful as M, Javier Bardem is over the top and hilarious as Silva, and Ralph Fiennes appears as Gareth Mallory. It's rare that Oscar winners and nominees have so many key roles in an action movie.

In addition to the acting talent, Sam Mendes (American Beauty) directs, Thomas Newman (10 Oscar nominations) is responsible for the score, and Roger Deakins (9 Oscar nominations) does his usual excellent job with the cinematography.

While I enjoyed Quantum of Solace, it was definitely flawed. It was too short, so everything felt rushed. It was also rather unbalanced, with five major chase scenes in the first 30 minutes, and an abundance of quick cuts and shaky-cam. Skyfall has a couple of major chase scenes, but the action never eclipses the overall story.

The plot is pretty simple. A computer hard drive has been stolen, and it contains the identities and missions of MI6 agents. M's computer is hacked and she is informed that the identities of five agents will be released each week. It becomes clear that the knowledge originated from MI6, or from someone with intimate knowledge of the organization.

Bond is injured and believed to be dead after an accident early in the movie, but he turns up alive when he feels that his services are needed. However, he's clearly not completely healthy. Is he fit for duty? Is age catching up with him? Would it be dangerous to allow him to resume duty while he is recovering? I like that Bond is portrayed as vulnerable. He can be hurt, and he can make mistakes.

Craig's Bond is a different beast from any that have come before. He's colder and tougher, and the campy humor is gone. That's not to say that the humor is completely absent, it's just smarter and funnier. Many of the best lines are possible because of the relationship between Bond and M. Check out the word association scene for an example.

Most of the expected elements are present. The movie visits China, Turkey, England and Scotland. There's obviously a new Bond girl, but she's in fewer scenes than you might expect. The music, action sequences and humor all add to the familiar feel. There's even a few references to previous Bond movies, and fans will love the inspired inclusion of an old piece of machinery.

The movie also continues to establish characters that we have come to know and love from previous entries in the franchise, but I'll let you make those discoveries for yourself.

After 23 movies and 50 years, the Bond franchise is alive and well. Many critics are suggesting that Skyfall is the best Bond movie to date. They may be right, but I can't decide between Skyfall and Casino Royale. Skyfall wouldn't work as well without the relationships and story arc established in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The three Craig movies don't quite have the depth of the Bourne movies, but the gap is miniscule.

Skyfall will appeal to fans of Bond, spy movies, and action movies. I only hope that Craig's next two appearances as Bond are up to this standard.

Overall score 4.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Flight (Theatrical Review)

Flight (2012)
Drama, 138 minutes
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring Denzel Washington, John Goodman, Bruce Greenwood, Kelly Reilly and Melissa Leo

***This review contains spoilers, but nothing that isn't shown in the trailer. If you want to go in knowing nothing, stop reading now.***

Denzel Washington rarely disappoints, and his role in Flight is one of his most interesting performances in years. Unlike many of his roles, this one casts doubts about whether Washington's character is a hero or a villain.

If you haven't seen any reviews of the film, you might think that Flight is going to feature a lot of action, but the action is over once we experience the crash sequence. This is very much a drama.

The opening scenes show Captain Whip Whitaker (Washington) in bed with a flight attendant. He's been awake all night and he's drunk and high on cocaine. That's not exactly the best preparation for work when you are going to be entrusted with the lives of everyone on board a plane. Would you be happy if you knew that your pilot was in such a state?

Whitaker feels the need for another drink before the plane takes off, and drinks vodka without anyone noticing. When he takes his seat next to the co-pilot, Ken, his behavior appears a little odd. Whitaker orders coffee and Aspirin and takes off as though nothing is wrong. Ken's suspicions heighten when Whitaker exceeds the recommended speed while climbing to escape bad weather.

If you remember the crash in Cast Away, you'll know that Robert Zemeckis knows how to portray such an event effectively. In Flight, the crash is even more terrifying. If you are nervous about flying, this won't help you overcome it. The plane starts to fall apart at 30,000 feet, but Whitaker remains calm, although everyone else is panicking. In one of the best scenes in the film, he takes the aircraft into a controlled roll and flies upside down to recover from an uncontrolled dive, before landing it in a field. Six of the 102 people on board are killed.

That all happens during the first 30 minutes of the film. Whitaker is apparently a hero, and we later learn that what he did was something that other pilots were unable to duplicate in simulated tests. So why isn't that the end of the story?

Someone has to be blamed for the crash.

A parallel story shows Nicole (Reilly), who is addicted to drugs. She meets Whitaker in the corridor of a hospital, when both sneak out to smoke a cigarette. Addiction is a key theme in the film and the two develop a kind of bond, recognizing similar character traits in each other.

The remainder of the story is a character study, and shows how Whitaker deals with life after the crash. Addictions to drugs and alcohol have affected some of the most important relationships in his life. We see him struggle to face that fact and the impact of the decisions he makes.

Whitaker isn't completely free to confront his personal demons as he is being investigated to determine whether he was at fault during the crash. We see him prepare for a hearing, which is not a trial in court, but could lead to him being found responsible for the six deaths, and ultimately result in him serving a life sentence. His preparation is aided by Charlie (Greenwood), a former pilot and colleague, and Hugh (Don Cheadle), who is a lawyer. Both give strong performances in small supporting roles. The most colorful character in the film is Whitaker's friend, Harling Mays (Goodman). If Goodman had played The Dude in The Big Lebowski, he would have looked something like this.

Melissa Leo does a good job as Ellen Block, who leads the investigation into Whitaker's performance. Although I would like to talk about that sequence, I have already given away more than enough details about the plot.

Flight contains elements that make it a little hard to categorize. It's certainly not an action movie, but the crash scene will have you on the edge of your seat. It's more about addiction and what drives people to do what they do. It also makes the viewer question what is right and what is wrong.

If you have seen the film, is Whitaker a hero? What about the airline itself? Is the outcome fair, or would you have liked to have seen a different resolution?

Whatever your opinion of the events on the screen, it's hard to argue about the quality of the film itself. Washington gives one of his best performances, and Zemeckis treats the audience with respect and raises a lot of questions.

Flight is one of the best films I have seen in 2012.

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011)
Comedy, Drama, Romance, 107 minutes
Directed by Lasse Hallström
Starring Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, Kristin Scott Thomas and Amr Waked

Some movies are written off because of their titles and it takes a while for them to gain an audience. Few people knew what The Shawshank Redemption was before it was released on VHS. Another confusing title is The World's Fastest Indian. Is it about an athlete of some kind? While other movies, such as Freedom Writers and The Reader, simply sound boring. Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is in danger of being dismissed due to its title, but that would be a mistake.

Dr. Alfred Jones (McGregor) is a fisheries expert, and he seems like a boring man. His existence is dull and safe. His relationship with his wife is one of mutual tolerance, and they do not share the same passions. He only drinks alcohol on the weekend, and only after 7pm. Nobody takes him seriously at work either, so he has little to look forward to.

Sheikh Muhammed (Waked) is a keen fisherman, but that's not an easy hobby to satisfy when you are surrounded by sand. He recruits a team to investigate the possibility of building a river in the desert, and populating it with salmon, so that he can pursue his passion for fishing. Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt) is given the task of recruiting Jones and anyone or anything else that might be needed to complete the project. She's in a new relationship and loves a soldier, but that is put on hold when he is called up for duty.

The movie is heavily influenced by romance. Harriet is in a hopeful new relationship, Jones is in a tired marriage, and could there even be the possibility of romance between the two with them working so closely together? The other main element is humor. The largely British cast influences the tone, and the humor is more subtle and understated than in typical North American comedies. I found myself smiling often, rather than laughing out loud. Most of the laughs come at the expense of Jones, who is set in his routines and is a quirky individual.

Jones doesn't treat the project seriously because it sounds so ludicrous, but his outlook changes when he meets Sheikh Muhammed, who is one of the most likable characters in the movie.

Blunt is not a typical beauty, but she's a good actress. I was impressed with her performances in Sunshine Cleaning and The Adjustment Bureau, and she's just as effective in this movie. She has a certain warmth and vulnerability that works well for a romantic lead. McGregor most recently caught my attention in The Ghost Writer, and he plays Jones perfectly.

However, the movie is more than a romantic comedy. The two leads are required to pull off several emotional scenes, especially in the final act.

One character who elicits laughs in every scene in which she appears is Patricia Maxwell (Thomas), who plays the British Prime Minister's aide. She's the main villain in the story and is always out to manipulate the situation in order to gain votes and positive mentions in the newspapers.

I'm not entirely sure who the movie is aimed at, but it worked for me. It won't change your life with a dramatic message that you've never seen before, but it's an enjoyable place to visit for a while.

The Blu-ray presentation is strong and the desert scenes look particularly impressive. Special features are sparse and total just over 16 minutes.

Overall score 3.75/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

The Master (Theatrical Review)

The Master (2012)
Drama, 137 minutes
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams

Every once in a while, a film is created by a visionary director at the top of his game, with memorable performances from some of the best actors working today, resulting in a cohesive, moving and powerful story that fully resonates with me.

This is not one of those times.

The Master is populated by unlikable characters who do nothing to redeem themselves at any point in the film.

The bulk of the story takes place in 1950. Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is an able-bodied seaman who has trouble adapting to life after the war. He may have been mentally disturbed before that, but we aren't shown enough of his background to make that determination.

We are shown something of Quell's attempts to hold down a regular job -- he seems to have a gift for photography -- but he's quick to anger and attacks one of his customers without apparent provocation. He's also an alcoholic, and we see him drinking all manner of questionable substances, some of which appear to be potentially lethal. When he's accused of poisoning someone with one of his concoctions, he seeks refuge on a ship.

This is where the film gives the audience a glimmer of hope that it will develop into something interesting. This ship is run by Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), who claims to be a writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and a great many more things. Dodd is fascinated by human beings and psychology, and wants to understand Quell and help him with his obvious anger issues. Dodd has his own way of doing things and his psychoanalysis produces the most memorable scenes in the movie.

Dodd is married to Peggy (Adams), but she's just as unpleasant as the rest of the characters. She barely had any lines, and most of the ones she did have were obscene.

Quell frequently fantasizes about women, as outlined in an early masturbation scene on the beach with a girl fashioned out of sand. This theme is continued when he pictures women naked at a gathering.

If this were a story about Dodd's quest to heal Quell, I might be satisfied with it, but the plot meanders along without any obvious conclusion.

I consider myself a patient viewer, and I appreciate all manner of films that have slow plots, hidden messages, and flawed characters. Unfortunately, The Master left me disappointed.

The final 30 minutes were thought-provoking. I found myself thinking whether I should walk out, and whether anyone would mind if I were to take off my right shoe and scratch my foot. I also wondered whether time was moving differently all of a sudden, and if this was the same Paul Thomas Anderson who gave is There Will Be Blood and Magnolia.

The individual components of the film were mostly in place; the acting was fine, the cinematography and score worked, and Anderson presented a convincing picture of New York in the 1950s. What wasn't present was a coherent story or a reason to care about these miserable characters.

I doubt that Amy Adams will ever work for Disney again after some of the words that came out of her mouth.

Overall score 2/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Seven Psychopaths (Theatrical Review)

Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Comedy, Crime, 109 minutes
Directed by Martin McDonagh
Starring Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Harry Dean Stanton, Abbie Cornish and Olga Kurylenko

I've been waiting for the release of Seven Psychopaths ever since I learned that Martin McDonagh was writing and directing. If you have seen In Bruges, you'll know that McDonagh has a dark sense of humor, not too far removed from something Quentin Tarantino might be involved with.

Does Seven Psychopaths match the brilliance of In Bruges? Not quite, but it's still an entertaining movie.

Marty (Farrell) is a struggling screenwriter, who has decided on little more than the title, Seven Psychopaths. The problem is, he wants his psychopaths to be Buddhist, and he can't see how they would go around killing people. He decides to make one Amish instead, for no particular reason. Marty doesn't have a clue about writing.

His friends, Billy (Rockwell) and Hans (Walken), make money by dognapping and returning the animals to their owners in order to claim the reward money. This backfires when they inadvertently take a dog belonging to Charlie (Harrelson), who is some kind of crime lord. You only have to read the tag on the collar of his beloved Shih Tzu to understand Charlie's outlook on life.

Seven Psychopaths is a comedy. It's also extremely violent at times, and has more than its fair share of foul language (including the word that almost every woman detests), with brief nudity and occasional racist remarks. But it's obvious that everything is tongue-in-cheek. It's almost impossible to mistake the movie for a serious drama; it's a fun ride, and the R-rated material does not seem offensive or out of place.

I've already mentioned Tarantino, and for good reason. The genre and setting are almost irrelevant; this is an exercise in style, and you'll either love it or hate it. Dialogue is everything in this type of movie and most of the writing is inventive, witty and intelligent. The opening scene is reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, with two hit men talking nonsense. The scene ends in an unexpected way, and I won't reveal it here, but it sets the tone for the whole movie.

McDonagh is aware of the course that Hollywood action movies are supposed to follow, and Seven Psychopaths challenges those expectations. One character suggests that they pitch a tent in the middle of the desert so they can just sit there and talk, rather than having a traditional shootout with the bad guys. In response, his friend asks whether this is a French movie. It's that kind of humor. Another interchange observes that women have a rough deal in this story; when they aren't being verbally abused, they are in danger of being removed permanently.

I won't say any more about the plot because it's enjoyable seeing things gradually unfold on the screen, except to say that my favorite scene featured Hans making a suggestion about how to end the movie. Walken's comic timing is excellent as always, and his scenes are funnier when you think about some of the characters he has played in the past.

The movie features good performances from Rockwell, Walken, Harrelson and Farrell in particular, although nobody else delivers a weak performance. The audience in my theater laughed often, and occasionally groaned at the unexpected violent scenes. If you go in expecting a dark comedy along the lines of In Bruges, Fargo, or The Guard, you'll likely enjoy the experience. The pacing feels just right.

One thing I should add is that it's best to sit through the credits, or you will miss the final scene.

I'm looking forward to the Blu-ray and the next McDonagh movie. It would be fun to see Brendan Gleeson involved too.

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Taken 2 (Theatrical Review)

Taken 2 (2012)
Action, Crime, Drama (91 minutes)
Directed by Olivier Megaton
Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen

I knew nothing about Taken when it was released in 2008, but it proved to be one of the best action movies I had ever seen. There was just enough information about the characters to care about them, and the action was intense and rather elegant.

That shouldn't surprise me because Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen wrote the script. Besson had previously grabbed my attention with Léon: The Professional, which is one of the best action movies ever made. La Femme Nikita was another notable triumph. I mention all that to explain why I was already sold on the idea of Taken 2 as soon as it was announced.

So, did it meet my lofty expectations?

The opening scenes were something of a surprise with Bryan Mills (Neeson) interacting with his ex-wife, Lenore (Janssen), and daughter, Kim (Grace) extensively. I like that we are shown how Mills has grown closer to Lenore. In the original movie, she was cold and spiteful, but the two are clearly on better terms now that Mills has used his skills to rescue Kim from her kidnappers. It made perfect sense and rang true for me.

The plot is simple. If you remember Marko from the first movie, you'll probably know that he was part of an Albanian gang. In Taken 2, Marko's father is obsessed with avenging the death of his son. He's not interested in why Marko was killed, or that he was guilty of many crimes, he's only interested in seeing Mills killed. When Mills takes Lenore and Kim on vacation to Istanbul, Marko's father instructs his gang to capture Mills and his family. He partly succeeds, but Kim escapes.

The opening setup is quite long and thorough, and I remember thinking that more than half the audience were probably anxious to see Neeson get on with the task of eliminating the opposition in as many unique and violent ways as possible. However, once the action starts, it's relentless and intense. We see car chases, shootouts, fights, threats, brief torture, and a rapidly increasing body count.

Mills wants Kim to stay out of danger, but eventually enlists her help. I'm half expecting a sequel called 'Miss Taken.'

It's unrealistic to expect a movie of this nature to be completely plausible. After all, the basic premise is that a 60-year-old man is capable of defeating gangs armed with automatic weapons. The method Mills uses to escape his kidnappers is so simple that I have to wonder why he didn't do it about 30 minutes earlier, but I'll forgive that.

The ending was quite inventive, and paves the way for another sequel should Neeson and the cast want to reprise their roles a third time.

I did have a few minor complaints, such as the kidnappers talking in English when it's obvious that they would stick to Albanian. Another minor annoyance was the use of shaky cam shots throughout most of the intense action scenes. There's a fine line between adding excitement and losing track of the events on the screen. The line was crossed a few times.

Overall, I was happy with Taken 2. It delivered more of what I liked about the first movie and added depth to the relationships between the main characters. I don't think it's quite as good as Taken because we now know what Mills is capable of, and some of the pleasure of the first movie was seeing Mills demonstrate his unique set of skills for the first time.

Taken 2 definitely works better if you have seen the first installment. Some of the actions and dialogue are direct references to events from the first movie, and you will miss some of the humor if you aren't aware of past events.

Fans of Taken will be more than happy with this worthy sequel.

Two things to remember:

1) Never agree to go on vacation with Bryan Mills.
2) If Neeson uses your taxi cab, you probably won't see it in one piece again.

Overall score 4.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.