The Walk

Robert Zemeckis, 2015

IMDB

2/5

Robert Zemeckis has had a long career of directing unique / interesting films that have a lasting impact. Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump, Contact, Cast Away.. the list goes on. So much of his work is open for multiple viewings. So for me personally, he’s someone who I will see everything he does.

His latest work is a biopic of famed wire-walker Philippe Petit. Petit gained recognition for his daring stunt when he walked on wire between the two Twin Towers shortly after their construction in 1974. The stunt was the focus of the popular 2008 documentary Man on Wire. So going into the film you already know that it’s going to be a period piece / computer-generated simulation of the event, seeing as virtually everyone on Earth is aware that the Towers are no longer in existence. The casting of Joseph Gordon Levitt is welcomed, seeing as he is one of the more consistent modern working actors. 

But The Walk isn’t able to maintain that lasting impression that Zemeckis’ other films do. It’s a CGI-scape filled poor accents and not enough substance. First off, the Petit character comes off a purely arrogant, selfish man who doesn’t appreciate the people around him. One of which is girlfriend Annie (Charlotte Le Bon) who is nothing more than a extension of Petit’s huge ego. She, like the other partners, are barely allowed to show any identity. Petit is a person with tunnel vision. He cares about nothing more than walking the wire and making the front page. So you are forced to spend a great deal of time with someone who is really not all that like-able and challenging to become invested in. The only redeeming qualities of Petit’s character is really Levitt’s natural charm that sneaks through. 

It becomes obvious that the only real reward of the film is going to be his inevitable wire-walk in the end. At that point it’s just frankly hard to believe that Levitt is suspended above anything but a green screen. And his defiant back and forth across the wire while the police wait anxiously on both buildings actually feels dragged out and aggravating. Not to take away from the quality of the effects. It's quite amazing that buildings like the Twin Towers can be so beautifully reconstructed on film. It all looks real, no doubt about that. The cars below, the 1970's Manhattan skyline, the ant-sized cars slowly moving 100 stories below. Maybe it's the fact that the buildings themselves cause such an visceral reaction because of their historical importance, that it's difficult to the trick the mind into believing what you are seeing - specifically with those buildings. It’s understandable that Zemeckis would be interested in making the picture because it’s certainly an interesting story. But maybe it’s better preserved in the documentary category.

Steve Jobs

Danny Boyle, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Not many people in our modern age will likely see such legendary status so shortly after their death as Steve Jobs, who passed away in 2011 after a battle with cancer. After his passing we were treated to stories of what kind of person he was, good and bad. Walter Isaacson’s bestselling biography of Jobs was a warts and all guide to the complicated person.

Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is built upon the material contained in Isaacson’s book. It’s really a bold approach in terms of it’s cinematic treatment, because it doesn’t pull a lot of punches in showcasing some of Job’s faults. It largely focuses on Jobs negative traits. His obsession with control. His bitterness towards those who wronged him. And quite possibly his biggest flaw as a person, his denial of his biological daughter Lisa. The biopic itself was involved in a long game of hot potato in Hollywood. A lot of names were thrown around to play Steve: George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Dicaprio, Christian Bale. All of the big names that seem to come up with any high profile film these days. The choice of Michael Fassbender was an intriguing one. How could a German-Irish who doesn’t possess any of the physical qualities of Steve Jobs actually play him on screen?

Fassbender handles the role quite well. He seemed to have studied Jobs mannerisms through the seemingly endless sources of media available. There are moments where he was able to capture a few sentences where he sounded almost exactly like the real Steve. But Fassbender isn’t really doing a dead-on impersonation of Jobs, it is more of a reinterpretation or a channeling of a person through a series of fictional scenes based on accounts of others.

There is certainly a lack of Danny Boyle’s stylistic personality to the film. The superimposition of the rocket take off on the hallway wall may be one of the only visual elements that feels like Boyle. Because of this, it feels like a film belonging more to Sorkin. Especially with it being so dialogue heavy. Almost as if the script itself was blowing through the alleyways in Hollywood and finally Boyle stepped on it with one foot and decided to pick it up. Sorkin’s script isn’t just normal people talking. It’s people talking to each other in that very intense, very important manner. Everything that comes out of everyone’s mouth is quotable. But with all of that dialogue comes fatigue. By the third Apple event depicted, you are bound to feel winded.

The Theory of Everything

James Marsh, 2014

GoWatchit

3/5

This biopic shows the life of renowned physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) from his college days at Cambridge to his later years after suffering a rare neurological disease.

Theory is just a simple love story between two simple people. Nah, not really. It's actually a complicated love story involving a sweet young English girl named Jane (Felicity Jones) and a theoretical physicist who happens to be one of the most brilliant minds of our modern history. The film begins in Hawking's college years. His life is similar to that of many college kids. Roommates, beers with with buddies, busting chops. He has surrounded himself with loyal friends. They are close, respectful of each other. They encourage each other in their successes. Maybe that's an English thing. He meets Jane and it's quite obvious that it's love at first sight. There is the obligatory boyfriend roadblock that Stephen must endure (shortly) but after he does the sparks fly. But it's a unique relationship in the sense that Stephen can literally quantify the atomic mass of those sparks to interested Jane. Theory sort of takes on the Good Will Hunting approach of showing the guy working away on the chalkboard. He may as well be writing Chinese poetry for those who aren't fluent in advanced physics. But fortunately for dummies like me, the movie is more about the relationship between Jane and Stephen. And of course his sudden tragic illness. His illness hits at a point that is normally a healthy peak for most young men. At an age where most young men feel invincible. And why wouldn't they? You can literally go out with your mates and throw back pints all night and not even have a trace of a hangover the next day. Stephen is told that he has two years to live, misdiagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease. The doctor describes how his body will shut down slowly to the point that he will be completely paralyzed. He is quick to ask about his brain. Of course in pure ironic fashion, his precious brain will be unscathed. It's not only Stephen that realizes that he has this precious mind. Everyone around him is stunned to hear the news, and you get a sense that everyone is eager to preserve Stephen's mind. Jane is the one willing to take on the biggest workload. Through sickness and through health, as the saying goes. Her patience is tested, her commitment to the marriage. The movie examines the personal sacrifices and the devotion to your mate. Dealing with the unpredictable elements that life throws at you. Stephen can look up to the sky and make advanced calculations and probabilities of the universe, but he is so limited that he must rely on poor Jane to put his sweaters on or to feed him.

It's a really nice looking film. Lots of shifting colors. There is a constant golden glow that is reminiscent to fellow sharp mind story Limitless. Felicity Jones proves that she's one of the better young actors working right now. And Redmayne, well his performance is nothing short of remarkable. He so impressively manages to push through his physical deterioration with such authenticity and careful restraint. His smile shifts to one of young innocence to one of pure struggle as the story progresses. But it's a film filled with good acting - not one bad performance. It will have you appreciating the things you have, the people around you. You will sympathize, you will try to understand. Figures like Hawking are rare gems. Many are aware of his scientific achievements, but it's welcoming to see it on film. This biopic is right on time.

American Sniper

Clint Eastwood, 2014

GoWatchIt

2/5

Adapted from the biography of the same name, This biopic tells the story of Chris Kyle, considered the deadliest sniper in American History with 160 confirmed kills out of 255 probable kills.

To call the opening portion of American Sniper excessively Patriotic would be an understatement. It is like a Budweiser commercial starring Kenny Chesney with two Bald Eagles sitting on his shoulders. Bradley Cooper delivers a restrained, subdued energy to his Chris Kyle character. He's a man that keeps his feelings bottled up, a tradition pased on by the now-overly-cliched 1950's style father. There are attempts to show the origins of Chris Kyle the person, but they are short. They show you the beginnings of his shooting skills with a quick opening hunting scene with his father. They show you his strong devotion to his country when he sees the 9/11 attacks on television, and he is basically on the next plane to Iraq. They are light touches. Instead of constructing a layered protagonist you are served a mumbling Cowboy. You never get a true sense of his sniping numbers piling up. The battle scenes themselves are largely one-sided and never really cut into the complexity of the Middle Eastern conflicts.

To be fair, it is still an important story without question worthy of a movie. If it continues the national dialogue about PTSD sufferers than it succeeds. People like Chris Kyle need to be commended and praised for their service to our country. If it weren't for him, soldiers like him, we would all be living a much different life. Heck, we'd probably be speaking German. But this movie fails to properly examine Chris Kyle the person. Instead it creates a hollow hero image but its a character thats lacking. And in terms of judging this as a Great War film, it isn't even in the conversation. It doesn't have the intensity or impact of a Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty. Instead, it belongs in the same category as not-so-good also rans such as Jim Sheridan’s 2009 PTSD drama Brothers starring Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal. Eastwood is likely to blame. He’s certainly not Kathryn Bigelow. He’s an 84 year old filmmaker whose sensibilities have probably changed. He probably doesn’t have the energy to piss anyone off anymore. Even with the ending of the film, he takes the Werner Herzog approach. It feels like a cop-out. Chris Kyle was an American Hero, and his story would have probably been served better through the eyes of a different filmmaker.

Mesrine: Public Enemy #1

Jean-Francois Richet, 2008

4/5

          Part Two of the Mesrine films (sequel to Killer Instinct), Public Enemy #1 is a continuation of the story of Jacques Mesrine. Mesrine continues to elude police, successfully rob banks, and uses his quick-wit and charm to attract beautiful women. 

          A satisfying and consistent sequel to the original. While Part one possessed more story, Part two certainly provides more action. The film jumps head-first into the action within the first twenty minutes. Very effective, erratic cinematography through suspenseful street-chases. Vincent Cassel continues to be chameleonic in his role, with his mood changing as quickly as his disguises. Mesrine, who is consumed by the fame, becomes complacent with it. His hunger grows for something MORE than notoriety, something more than glory. His unpredictable, violent nature becomes radicalized and begins to shift into a more political mind-set. His ideals shift from anti-establishment to a more anarchistic motivation. He even turns on the press, the one loyal force that had always embraced him. But the women on the other hand, always embrace him. His charismatic abilities have a magnetic ability with the women who are looking for the bad-boy. It takes him little time to seduce Sylvia Jeanjacquot, even in disguise.

          The final moments are a book-end conclusion, with an expected call-back to the opening scene in Part One. The fact that it's seen in a different perspective gives it a fresh feeling. Mesrine is the "French Robin Hood", "The Man of  Hundred Faces". In the end it's quite clear that he was a danger to society, a clear sociopath. But the fascination with a notorious criminal is clearly a global phenomenon. 

Mesrine: Part 1 - Killer Instinct

Jean-Francois Richet, 2008


5/5

If Scarface and A Prophet had a baby, it would be Mesrine. The comparison may be a bit misleading, because this film is on a different level than Scarface. It's one of the best gangster films I've ever seen. Its the biopic of Jacques Mesrine, a real-life notorious French gangster. The setting is in the late fifties through the late sixties. Vincent Cassel plays Jacques Mesrine, and its the best performance I've seen from him. All of the acting in this film is spot on. There a noticeable Scorcesian sense of grittiness. Cinematography is perfect. Not one bad shot in the film, and the scenery in France, Spain and Canada only added to the overall beauty. I really enjoyed the opening of the film with the split-screen multi-angle shots. Because the film's timeline spans across a decade, there are some sudden jumps but it always remains fluid. It doesn't dumb itself down for the audience, one of my favorite qualities of foreign films. Jacques Mesrine is a fascinating character. There is a warm-hearted innocence to him early on in the film but that quickly washes away and gives way to a dark, depraved core. He doesn't mind blood on his hands, and develops a distorted set of principles. He is abusive, doesn't respect women, and is over-compensating for his fathers pacifistic dynamic he had with his mother. I won't detail any of the film because I do not want to give away any plot points at all. I can't wait to jump into part two. Had no idea it was a two part series until the final credits started rolling.