Her is a Breathtaking Experience about Relationships, and the role Technology Plays in our Lives

Her (5 out of 5 Stars)

Directed and Written by Spike Jonez (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation)

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and Scarlett Johansson

As I was staring at my phone this morning, the Grindr application looked me square in the face, and I realized at the moment it's a modern version of the OS (operating system) in the film.  No, our current modern day "dating" applications are not exactly the same thing, but the goal often feels similar.

Her centers around a lonely writer named Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) who has been dealing with his marriage failing.  Theodore finds solace in an OS designed to meet the need the individual.  Theodore's OS names itself Samantha (voiced by Johansson).  Samantha like any computer can edit letters, look up information, but there is something more intimate to the design of this computer system.  As Theodore and Samantha talk more there is a connection which grows, and the relationship between man and machine reaches a new level.

There is brilliance in the work from director/writer Spike Jonez, which not only highlights the difficulty of recovering from a meaningful relationship, while also commenting on the way people use technology as a means to cope with anything.  Jonez is masterful at creating films, which on paper seem  out of this world, but are grounded in the recesses of emotional experiences, like Being John Malkovich, and Where the Wild Things Are.  Her is meant to live within the future of Los Angeles where the style feels like a blend 60s clothing, and modern office layouts.  K. K. Barrett's production design sets the stage so well making you feel as though you do and don't know time and place, adding to the mystique of the film.

With the design set Jonez has one thing in mind, get Theodore over his marriage ending.  Joaquin Phoenix tackles the pain/innocence of someone going through this perfectly.  Phoenix has played all range of characters over the years, last year's The Master was his best, but his acting in Her proves the range of Phoenix as an actor.  Most of this performance is about his eyes, they convey every little moment from the pain as he reminisces to the joy as he starts to find happiness with Samantha.  Johansson's voicing of Samantha is some of the best acting I have seen this year, but yet she's only a voice.  Johansson plays an OS a computer, a machine, but you feel as though she is going through the same emotional journey Theodore experiences.

Jonez is brilliant at building the syntax to connect these bridges; he sets up this great romance between Theodore and Samantha, makes you root for their relationship like any other film.  On the other hand Jonez also conveys the message that in today's society humans fear the rejection from others so much we are willing to cling to machines, in this case an OS named Samantha.  Like with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this film has you question the value in an OS.  In Mind you question erasing a past relationship in this you wonder "would I get an OS to get over someone?"

Has society already moved toward using technology as a modern form of the OS, back to Grindr, and then take that further to twitter, porn, and even blogs like this.  We seek sexual release without human contact, we slam a restaurant without even a worry because there is no face to face contact.  Theodore's writing job in the film involves writing letters for other people, whether for a birthday or anniversary.  In Her people are using a professional interface to write something to someone else.  Is a machine less complicated, would an OS solve the problem or is it the human contact?  

One of my favorite parts of the film is when Samantha acts as though she is out of breath, and Theodore questions how a machine can gasp for oxygen.  An argument begins, and poses the question of a machiens evolution, to mimic humanity.  Yet at the end of the film Theodore gasps for air as though its a sigh of his own release, brilliant connection, which gets at understanding how to deal with life.  Jonez's film takes your breath away, this is one of the best films of the year.

American Hustle is an Entertaining Story about ABSCAM and the Con Game with a Great Ensemble

American Hustle (3 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by: David O. Russell (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook)

Written by: Eric Singer (The International), David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence

American Hustle starts out with a warning saying "These events happened" but maybe not exactly this way.  In the late 1970s and early 1980s the FBI ran stings they code named ABSCAM, short for Abdul Scam, the name of their front company.  This film takes these real life events, throws in their con men and women, and the game begins.

Hustle centers around Irving Rosenfield (Bale) and Edith or well Sydney Prosser (Adams) both of whom never wanted to be the victim in their lives.  Irving grew up watching his old man get pushed around with his window business, but as a young kid began the con breaking other people's windows so his dad would succeed.  Sydney, or Edith charmed her way into a job at Cosmo, and never looked back.  When the two meet at a party they fall madly in love with one another, and soon begin to run cons on people through their fake business.

While working one of their latest victims Richie DiMaso (Cooper) the two find out that he is an FBI agent, and instead of going to jail they get brought into this ABSCAM business with the FBI trying to catch other people in the con game.  What happens next is to fun to spoil, but needless to say this ensemble works so well together its hard to not smile as each aspect of the story unfolds.

Over the years David O. Russell has been a master at creating films centered around great ensembles from 1996's Flirting with Disaster all the way to this film.  Within this film their an ease to his direction, something more whimsical like his early work.  Within his last two films there was always something missing, the ensemble worked, but his direction did not feel cohesive enough or felt manipulative.  In this film O. Russell who directed and wrote the script with Eric Singer has created a much more balanced experienced that is more whimsical, and entertaining.  

The most successful thing about the film/script is defined by Bale's character himself, who defines morality as neither black and white, but rather grey.  Within this film O. Russell and Singer create more dense characters who live within the grey.  None of these characters are heroic nor do they fit within the cookie cutter modules O. Russell defined within his last two pictures, hence creating a much more rich ensemble piece.

Bale's performance was the strongest in the film, every time I watch him act I lose myself in his performances this has happened in almost every role he has taken on from The Machinist to his other film with O. Russell The Fighter.  You have to wonder if you are always being played by Irving, or where the vulnerability lies, but Bale is so convincing you can't see through the character. 

The rest of the ensemble is good, Cooper is hilarious, playing to his strength of comedic timing as an actor.  Adams is both striking to look at, but is better than I expected she plays the game as well as Irving, and there is so much strength within her performance.  The one person who did not fit into the ensemble as well was Jennifer Lawrence.  Critics have been singing her praises within this role, and she is funny, and does not do a bad job, but there is something lacking within this performance.  First and formost Lawrence's spotty New York accent is distracting; she could not pull it off.  Lawrence has always exuded maturity within her roles like Winter's Bone, and Silver Linings Playbook, but in this film she was playing a an immature person trying to be mature, and it did not work.

At the end of the day American Hustle is an entertaining film, with a great ensemble, solid direction, and great costume design.   

Man of Steel Attempts a Batman-Like Reboot with Christopher Nolan as a Producer but Fails to Provide Joy to the Franchise

Man of Steel (2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen)

Written by David Goyer (Blade, Batman Begins)
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, and Russell Crowe.

It's a bird, it' a plane, no it's reinvention man.  I swear, Superman has been reinvented more than Madonna, and the two have one thing in common most of their new material just can't hold up.  Back in 1938 with the first appearance of Superman in Action Comics; he was just man a who could leap tall buildings, and had super strength.  Eventually Superman could fly, and his origin story from Krypton was explored.  In 1978 Superman hit the the big screen for the first time (in live action form) with newcomer Christopher Reeve.  In the 1990s and 2000s Superman came back to television, with one incarnation being teenage Clark Kent battling his development as Superman along with his teenage years.

In 2006 director Bryan Singer attempted the first reboot/continuation of the old comic book film starring Brandon Routh.  Singer's interpretation was much more in line with classic Superman blending humor, and action to tell the tale.  While Kevin Spacey was great, and the direction nothing which reinvented the wheel, critics were mildly approving, but fans felt that this version no longer fit within this era of comic book films.  Enter producer Christopher Nolan, screen writer David Goyer, and director Zack Snyder.

Man of Steel is a clear reboot, starting with the birth or Kal-El.  As the planet Krypton faces destruction Jor-El (Crowe) goes before the elders of the planet begging them to try and change the way things are run.  Soon after Zod storms in, and the beginning of the end for Krypton ensues.  Before the planet is destroyed by internal planetary forces Jor-El and his wife Laura send their baby boy to planet Earth where he must navigate the uncertainty of his own existence, does he reveal himself, save humans, fight back, protect loved ones, and embrace both his human, and alien nature?

Without giving the plot away there is not much plot to this film, other than the beginning, which is the destruction of Krypton, and the continuing flashbacks, which help Superman (Cavill) or Clark explore the evolution of him finding himself within this hero.  The other thing missing from this film is character development, this falls flat on that level never letting you feel a part of the world of anyone.  I want to know more about these people, Lois, Zod, Martha.  Goyer's script wanted everyone to know these people, but in a reboot (even Superman) shouldn't audiences get the opportunity to know these characters once again, and if they are going to change thing around, in new context?  Goyer's misses the mark, he does let some heart and emotion out, but misses the added whimsy.  There is one joke where Lois and Clark are sitting talking about the "S" on his chest, but this is one of the few light moments of this film.  This is a Nolan produced DC film after all.

Christopher helped write the story (different from the screenplay), and produced Man of Steel, and it's honestly pretty obvious.  One of the few successful aspects of the film, was the flash backs, which showed Clark as a young boy harnassing his powers, saving children on a bus, and working through what it meant to be a super hero.  Powerful stuff, considering the past films and television series rarely explored this character on such a deep level.  The other problem with this film, and the Superman character today is that he is not Batman, and giving him a Bourne like bad ass make over does not work in the same context it did for Nolan's Batman franchise.  Enter the constant action sequences.

Put screenwriter Goyer with famed 300 and Watchmen director Zack Snyder together, and what do you get a film so action packed you often wonder where is the dialogue?  Snyder's direction style is interesting, one which values style over substance.  Look at 300 and Watchmen, they are shiny objects meant to distract and entertain, and never delve deeper into their subject matter.  This was a shame for Watchmen, especially since the graphic novel is one of the best books I have ever read.  I will applaud Snyder for growing within his direction, this is better directed than both 300 and Watchmen; he does delve somewhat deeper into the context of the back story, and made me care about Superman, a super hero I have never followed, or enjoyed.  I think that's where this film succeeds, it tugs on emotional heart strings, making you mourn the challenge this outsider, or well alien faces.

I would say that's where the successes begin, but also diminish.  I re-watched Singer's 2006 Superman Returns in preparation for this film, and while I think that film has flaws, it still captures the essence of Superman much better.  The flaws within that film resonate in Man of Steel as well, namely some of the casting.  Brandon Routh was probably the most miscast Superman, cast mainly for a resemblance to the former Man of Steel Christopher Reeves.  Cavill has no opportunity to convince me he is Superman because there is little or no joyless dialogue does not allow him to convince movie goers.  I think Cavill has the magnetism, and if given a better script could pull this off.

In the 2006 version Kate Bosworth attempts to be tough, but boy does that fall flat, even Teri Hatcher was a better Lois Lane.  In this version Lois has evolved into much more than a "Girl Friday" she is a hard hitting tough as nail journalist who is along for some of the action herself.  Progress.  Yet with progress always comes some regression.  Adams looks uncomfortable in the role, never giving off enough charisma, or chemistry with her leading man.  Adams is a great actress, but this is a case of too much action, and not enough for her to sink her teeth into.

The rest of of the cast feels as though they are along for the ride.  I love Michael Shannon, but Snyder's villains always feel too close to moustache twirling caricatures rather than well developed characters.  Lane is wasted, Costner does the best with what he is given, and Crowe looks bored; he needs to amp up his energy.  Everyone looks and feels so serious, and while I like the darker emotional exploration, there needed to be some joy and levity, to make this film series ring true.  The only joy I got was seeing the tanker which said LexCorps explode proving that Luthor will be next villain.

Oh and if you were wondering, what other companies were sponsors of this film than look no further than Sears, 7-11, Nikon, I-Hop, and many more.  This film's fight scenes were blatant ads for these companies, hosting more product placement that I have noticed in a long time.

I can get past the product placement, but when I walked out of this film, I just did not know how to feel.  There were moments where I was moved, the visual effects were cool, the flashbacks were neat, but there was something missing from this film experience which did not leave me wanting more.  Sure the ending was cute, and made sense, anyone could have seen that happening.    There are things to respect about the films ambitions, but the film does do enough to help re-energize the franchise.  Superman has not returned (again), this film feels like its just trying to fit within a canon of darker comic book films, rather than be true to roots of the hero himself, and adapt accordingly.

LA Film Critics Changes Things Up, Picking Amour for Best Pic, and Many New Acting Winners!

If you thought the critics group winners had become stale and boring, then you thought wrong.  Most of the critics groups have anointed Zero Dark Thirty and helmer Kathryn Bigelow as the winners, but LA went with a different track.

LA picked the French film Amour, which is a favorite in the Best Foreign Language category at this oscars.  The big question on the table is does this film stand a chance in the Best Picture race?  Over the last twelve years (starting in 2000) 9 of the 12 films were nominated for Best Picture.  The films that missed out were About Schmidt (2002), American Splendor (2003), and Wall-E (2008).  Splendor is the only film that did not, or was not ever taken seriously for an Oscar.  Splendor was obviously in consideration, but was not an "Academy" film.  Does this bode well for Amour, or because the Academy sees it as a genre picture will they keep it out of top ten, and give it a bunch of other nominations?  This helps get the film more attention, but does not guarantee a nomination.

Paul Thomas Anderson won his first critics award this year (although Bigelow was the runner up).  Anderson's The Master, which was seen as early threat at the critics awards, finally made it to the big show.  The film won for Best Actor (Joaquin Phoenix), Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams), and Best Production Design.  The film was a runner up in many other categories including Best Picture.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman being left off the proves that many critics may not be fooled into thinking he is a supporting player.  

jennifer Lawrence finally won her first award this year, for Best Actress.  I am a bit surprised she bested Emmanuelle Riva, who starred in the Best Picture winner Amour, but this win proves how disjointed opinions are within this category this year.  The critics are all over the map with this category, proving that this award can go to anyone, although my money is on Jessica Chastain.

Beasts of the Souther Wild did quite well her also, winning three prizes including Best Supporting Actor (Dwight Henry), Best Score, and the New Generation Award for director/composer Benh Zeitlin.

Skyfall's win in Cinematography can't be ignored, and shows Roger Deakins may finally get that unattainable Oscar win, which I hope he does.

Three things to take stock of Zero Dark Thirty only had one win, Best Editing, Lincoln was nowhere to be found, and Argo claimed its first victory at critics awards with Best Screenplay.  LA certainly shook things up and made this race a little more interesting.

Best Film: Amour
(runner-up:  The Master )
Best Director: Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
(runner-up: Kathryn Bigelow)
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
(runner-up: Emmanuelle Riva)
Best Actor: Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
(runner-up: Denis Lavant, Holy Motors
Best Supporting Actor: Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild
(runner-up: Christof Waltz, Django Unchained)
Best Supporting Actress:  Amy Adams, The Master
(runner-up: Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises and Les Miserables)
Best Editing: Dylan Tichenor and William Goldenberg, Zero Dark Thirty
(runner-up: William Goldenberg, Argo)
Best Cinematography: Roger Deakins, Skyfall
(runner-up: Mihai Malaimare Jr., The Master)
Best Score:  Benh Zeitlin & Dan Romer, Beasts of the Southern Wild
(runner-up: Jonny Greenwood, The Master)
Best Screenplay: Chris Terrio, Argo
(runner-up: David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Production Design: Jack Fisk, The Master
(runner-up: Adam Stockhausen, Moonrise Kingdom)
Best Animated Film: Frankenweenie
(runner-up: It’s Such a Beautiful Day)
Best Documentary: The Gatekeepers
(runner-up: Searching for Sugar Man)
Best Foreign Language Film: Holy Motors
(runner-up:  Footnote)
New Generation Award: Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild

The Master Should be Worshipped as Quality Film Making at its Best

The Master (4 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed and Written by Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights)

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams

I may have found a new spiritual film God in Paul Thomas Anderson.  All jokes aside, the concepts of self-worth and faith are at the center of The Master.  This film will get a lot of attention because of the comparisons to Scientology, and its found L. Ron Hubbard, and there are numerous similarities.  This film is more than just a comparison to the modern day cult with followers like Tom Cruise, and Kirstie Alley. This film is about the journey of a lost soul and his master.

The film centers on the tragic and disturbed Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a navy vet from World War II who is looking to find his own place in society.  Quell attempts to find solace in making his "hooch," with numerous jobs, and in the hope that "his girl" will wait for him.  As Freddie stumbles onto this boat party one night he finds himself getting lost in the world Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) the master of the group called the Cause.  Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) travel around with their family to the homes of their followers helping folks find the connection to things like the cure or Lukemia through the science of exploring their past lives.

Sounds like a cult right?  There are numerous connections between the progression of Scientology by Hubbard, especially the way his work was an outgrowth a book he wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  Yet there is something brilliant about the way Anderson constructs this film to not be a bio-pic of Hubbard, or an expose on this real life cult.  Although some of the practices are apparently similar.  Anderson uses his incredible screenplay and direction to make this a film about so much more.

One of the brilliant aspects of this film is the way Anderson focuses on Phoenix's Quell and the disillusionment he faces in a post World War II society.  Most people always painted the 50s as this golden era of family values, the husbands/men came home from the war they got their plot of land in Levitttown, settled with their "girl" and led a happy life.  Anderson uses the concept of this lost soul and the newly developed "religion" which takes advantage of those people had no place when they came back from the War.  The one flaw is that film has a bit of a slow start, and while it does not take off right away, the film sets an intense pace once the three leads take the stage.

Anderson and his casting team created one hell of a trio.  Phoenix who plays this shell of a disturbed man makes you lose yourself in his character; he is effortless, which is almost frightening.  Freddie is someone who has always been repelled from the establishment yet he joined the Navy; he has gone from place to place, and abandoned all institutions, but he is drawn into the world of the Cause, but as Lancaster and Peggy both question, is this man beyond help.  Phoenix needs no help, he all but disappears within this role, and gives one of the best performances of his career; he is a true chameleon.

I could go on and one about the performances in this film, namely because they add such great depth to the script.  While Phoenix disappears, Hoffman as usual is another frighteningly believe able actor.  Is Dodd a villain, no because Hoffman never takes him to that place.  Even as Lancaster Dodd steals from his members of the Cause, goes to jail, you still believe in almost as though you are a member of the cult.  This proves just how talented Hoffman's acting skills are, and if there were a ever a year where there could be a tie in the Best Actor race at the Oscars I would it to be for these two men.

The ambition of the performances from these two men, and the supporting work of Amy Adams proves to be on of the films strongest aspects, but the film is also a technical marvel.  Anderson shot this film with the larger 70 mm technique, and hats off to the beautiful cinematography done by Mihai Malaimari Jr.  The visuals of the camera are so gorgeous you can find yourself getting lost in the visual imagery.  The visual marvel combined with outstanding score from Johnny Greenwood makes this film one of the best films of the year.

I was hypnotized by this film as though I was sitting on the couch hoping Lancaster Dodd would help me connect my past lives in order to make sense of it all. Paul Thomas Anderson has created a film that explores the concept of of religion/spirituality/faith/cults without being heavy handed; he never shoves his message on the audiences, and in a post Summer haze it's nice to go to the movies and be shown a film that does not intend to brain wash me, or did it?