The Ides of March (2011)

The Ides of March takes place during the frantic last days before a heavily contested Ohio presidential primary, when an up-and-coming campaign press secretary (Ryan Gosling) finds himself involved in a political scandal that threatens to upend his candidate's shot at the presidency

The Ides of March is a political thriller through and through. It follows the path countless other films have taken with manipulation, morale dilemmas, and back stabbing. It won’t ever be touted for its incredible creativity, but it does establish a solid story, filled with rich characters, and leaves you with an ending that isn’t exactly jaw-dropping but leaves the audience with a question where the answer is different for every person watching. It’s about the only great thing this good film actually accomplished.

In such a small role, George Clooney ends up being the focus of the entire film. It’s not necessarily the character that is glorified but the idea he represents that’s at the center of this web involving the lives of many. For Stephen Meyers, Mike Morris (Clooney) is everything he’s ever wanted. He truly believes he’s the man that can change the country and affect the lives on many positively. In doing so, he’ll go to great lengths to make sure he wins, but ends up becoming the very person he looked at with disgust. This characters transformation is believable, sort of depressing, and is consistently above of the line of entertaining with small dips into the stale category.  At the end he’s left with a choice that has two drastically different consequences based on the route he chooses. This is where the audience gets involved and asks what you do?

The cast is filled with an all-star cast featuring the names of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, George Clooney, and Marisa Tomei. These names round out just the supporting cast with little to almost no screen time. It’s just amazing the talent Clooney was able to round up as a director. He must have called in a lot of favors. Ryan Gosling as the main attraction does his usual somewhat less impactful performance, but still manages to cement himself as one of the best actors working today. The true standout here comes in the form of the young interim played by Evan Rachel Wood. She out acts everybody and captures the audience’s emotions in a small amount of time. You begin to care for her, which is important because her character is vital to the moral struggle at the root of the film. When you think of the cast all together, it is really impressive that Wood stands on top.

If you’re into a carefully structured thriller with a consistent level of tension, The Ides of March should be right up your ally. It’s not the runaway hit it was supposed to be, but it still ends up being a very solid flick with good intentions that don’t impress as much as we all would’ve liked. The worst thing I can say about the film is that it’s only solid.   

Overall Score: 7.5/10

My Week With Marilyn (2011)

In the early summer of 1956, 23 year-old Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), just down from Oxford and determined to make his way in the film business, worked as a lowly assistant on the set of 'The Prince and the Showgirl'. The film that famously united Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) and Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams), who was also on honeymoon with her new husband, the playwright Aurthur Miller (Dougray Scott).

My Week with Marilyn is a film that knows exactly what strings to pull to give the appearance that what you are watching is incredible. It flashes its stars with “epic” speeches right about where they should be and glamour them around in some great costumes/set designs. The process of this story makes the film feel entirely clichéd, but it’s done so well that the impact it leaves on you is not deteriorated in the slightest.

The story that is told in My Week with Marilyn is obviously centered on Marylyn Monroe and how the publicity drowned her into a state of chaos. She’s actually acting when she’s in front of an audience, but behind the scenes she’s an unstable immature woman that is controlled as a mascot for Hollywood. It’s nothing that truly blows you away, nor comes as a surprise, but the pace of the film is executed extremely well. Just when the movie feels a bit too cheesy, light hearted drama, it turns into a far more serious spiral reveals the struggles Monroe went through when she was placed in the spotlight at the wrong time in her life. It’s a trend that stands true for actresses today and will last for as long as the business remains.  

As for the performances, Michelle Williams has worked her way out of my hated pool the last few years and slowly ended up climbing all the way to the top for me with her performance as Marilyn Monroe. Instead of trying to imitate the real woman, she portrayed her own vision of the character and it works wonders because you never spend time trying to compare the two. She lays herself on the reel and shows the vulnerabilities and consequences that came with her fame. In the supporting role, Kenneth Branagh is dynamite. He plays a character I have almost to no information about, but there are numerous moments of the film where the entire scene is focused on him and he speaks with such control and precision, that all of your attention is entirely zoned in on him. It may even be the better of the two in a film that is full of wonderful performances. The weak link here though has to be Eddie Redmayne. He doesn’t do a terrible job, but the script limited his character to be more of a shadow following everyone else around. He feels overmatched and powerless.

This is a film that you may have a hard time falling in love with. It’s a good film filled with great moments that make it feel better than it actually was, but it doesn’t really matter because regardless of your opinion of how much you enjoyed it, you will enjoy it nonetheless. The performances alone by Williams and Branagh should get you to watch it, but everything else can just be icing on the cake.  

Fun Fact: Kenneth Branagh actually directed Thor. He’s the double threat.

Overall Score: 8/10

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011)

Following years of growing apart, Harold Lee (Cho) and Kumar Patel (Penn) have replaced each other with new friends and are preparing for their respective Yuletide celebrations. But when a mysterious package mistakenly arrives at Kumar's door on Christmas Eve, his attempt to redirect it to Harold's house ends with the "high grade" contents-and Harold's father-in-law's prize Christmas tree-going up in smoke. With his in-laws out of the house for the day, Harold decides to cover his tracks, rather than come clean. Reluctantly embarking on another ill-advised journey with Kumar through New York City, their search for the perfect replacement tree takes them through party heaven-and almost blows Christmas Eve sky high.

The first film in this series was a fun mildly successful comedy that was funny in all the right ways. The second one is a much divided film. Some loved it, but I was a part of that other group that thought it was a lazy cash grab sequel that was high on receptiveness and low on laughs. This third one released a red band trailer that was just too god damn funny to not anticipate it, so there it went, sucking back in. Only this time was different, this time it was creative, this time it was original, and this time it twas actually funny.

The story this time around isn’t as Christmas related as its advertised. Its more along the lines of an adventure film with the guys trying to find the perfect Christmas tree to replace the old one they burned down. Its linear plot moves them from outrageous scenario to outrageous scenario, but this time around they decide to try new things instead of bringing back countless cameos that the second film did. They make you laugh but never outstay their welcome. This quick pace kept the film allowing little in-between time to catch your breathe. The one reappearance that they just had to bring back was NPH playing NPH. This is the perfect definition of a cameo. He pops up, brings a ton of laughs and moves the characters right along their path. Quick, funny, and to the point. He even sends them off with a message telling them” See ya in the 4th one boys!.” Just classic. His “massage” had me rolling.

This isn’t some groundbreaking new film; it throws confetti at the screen simply because it can. With the 3D it actually looks fine. It reminds you that these characters need to comeback for another adventure because with a little effort, these films are fun. You can pretty much tell yourself if you’d give this one a go, but if you were in my situation, don’t let the second film throw away your experience with this one. It’s a hoot.

Overall Score: 6/10

J. Edgar (2011)

Leonardo DiCaprio stars in this riveting biopic as J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director as notorious for his overzealous methods of law enforcement as for the rumors regarding his cross-dressing and close relationship with protégé Clyde Tolson(Arnie Hammer).

J. Edgar was going to be a great movie. It just had to be. It had an all-star cast led by the always great Leonardo DiCaprio, Clint Eastwood was behind the camera working with a script from the screenwriter of Milk, and the film was placed in prime real estate to make an Oscar run. Funny how it was supposed to be. Instead what we got was a dynamite performance carrying a messy and cautious script that couldn’t establish a comfortable pace or focus on a clear subject.

There was plenty of material they could have dug up and thrown on screen through the life of J Edgar Hoover, but they seemed to get carried away a bit with just how much they could tackle. Important moments in his life are shown but quickly pushed aside trying to tackle on the next best thing that awaits you. This feels messy, rushed, and most importantly too vague. It might have turned out much better had they picked four or five defining moments for Hoover and ran away with them. Most of the interesting moments in Hoover’s professional career came from his contributions to the FBI and making it become the agency it represents today. He was a very intelligent man who used that very knowledge to work his way to the top and quickly I might add. It’s his field work and shady dealings that actually became a bore. They jump too much time without notification and sometimes can become a bit confusing to catch up. A simple years later at the bottom of the screen could have done wonders.

The films biggest strengths and weakness come when they explore J Edgars sexuality and the complicated relationship he forms with Clyde Tolson. The film certainly applies that he’s gay, but quickly cuts away from these moments between the two as if telling you to look away, this is wrong. It didn’t take enough risks and paid for it. The performance laid out here by DiCaprio is simply outstanding. It’s arguably the best performance of his career. Despite the script holding back, he shows the vulnerable and egotistical man Hoover was said to be. His counterpart Arnie Hammer as Clyde Tolson shows he is an young actor to watch out for following closely in the show of DiCaprio. The rest of the cast turned in fine, but very minor roles in comparison.

One of the film’s most curious aspects was using actual makeup to age the actors as they move along. It’s something that takes the eyes to adjust too, but outside of Arnie Hammer, they did an exceptional job of them. Leonardo DiCaprio was barely recognizable under all that rubber and makeup. This seemed to be the only risk the film decided to take, and if the rest of the film followed suit it might have been the quality it was expected to be. It’s not a bad film by any means, but years from now we’ll look back at this project and just wonder, what if……

Overall Score: 7/10

Straw Dogs (2011)

David and Amy Sumner (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth), a Hollywood screenwriter and his actress wife, return to her small hometown in the deep South to prepare the family home for sale after her father's death. Once there, tensions build in their marriage and old conflicts re-emerge with the locals, including Amy's ex-boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard), leading to a violent confrontation.

I have never seen the original Straw Dogs, which has somehow escaped my list, but from what I’ve gathered, it was a vicious film that went on to become a critical darling. With all this acclaim and recognition, this remake ultimately seems unnecessary. There is no reason to remake a film that you cannot improve. It defeats the purpose of a remake. Despite the wave of caution, I sat down and watched Straw Dogs and by the end wished I had just gone out and got the original instead.

The film is filled with fake characters played by untalented actors that chug through a half assed storyline that brings all them onto a one way collision into each other. When David decides to move into his wife’s hometown, a group from the community harasses him because his city lifestyle doesn’t fit in with the town. Because of his reactions to these harassments, his wife begins to question his manhood. All of this coils inside him just waiting to be released. This is supposed to be crucial for his character because the latter half of the movie turns into a home invasion flick, but James Marsden plays the character all wrong. He’s too confident, too charming, and too comfortable in the role. You never believe in the character and cannot root for him to overcome these obstacles.

On the flipside, the villains are a little more developed, placed in situations that create more of an intrigue to them. The main source of it comes from the ambiguity of the rape scene. It makes you question the motives behind them and the wife. It’s not disturbing by any means, but the difference in intention between the characters gives the audience something to think about.  They do a good job here, specifically, Alexander Skarsgård, who is recognizable as Eric from True Blood. His deadly calm stare can burn a hole right through you.

If you’re looking for a decent film with some thrills and some violent death scenes, you could definitely do worse than this remake. It does enough to not be terrible, but not enough to be considered good.  It’s a film that you can watch and enjoy, but you don’t really have to.

Overall Score: 5/10

In Time (2011)

When Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is falsely accused of murder, he must figure out a way to bring down a system where time is money - literally - enabling the wealthy to live forever while the poor, like Will, have to beg, borrow, and steal enough minutes to make it through another day.

With such an intriguing universe, In Time set itself up to open a completely new world to its audience. Money has become useless and actual time has become the only form of currency available. At the start, this bizarre new world that is thrown at us becomes overwhelming with information about how this world operates and the inhabitants that function within the society. It keeps it fresh and appealing, showing off a new perspective on things we do every day and how much they have changed now that the population has become ticking time bombs that can die if their time runs out. But considering just how many possibilities they could have went, part of me feels like the appeal wore off faster than it should have. If the world of the film was the sole reason you walk into the film, you’ll most likely walk away with disappointment.

On the other hand, most of the characters are entertaining, albeit a little underdeveloped.  Justin Timberlake in the lead role in an action film may not feel right on paper, but the guy is just fun to watch. He won’t blow you away here, buts he’s completely solid. His chemistry between Amanda Seyfried (who is looking far hotter than I am accustomed to) allows to the film to work past some of its weaker elements like the films antagonist Raymond, played by Cillian Murphy. The character feels far less potent then he should be and he spends too much time making mistakes that allow the leads to get away just in the nick of time. He also seems to bicker to the protagonist about this universe past but always stops right before he actually gives you a full answer. It’s very frustrating.

If you’re in the mood to watch a purely entertaining film, In Time will be just enough.  If you’re feeling for something that will challenge your mind, give it a pass. Outside a few creative and heart pounding scenes, this feels a little better than generic. It’s a film that is easy to recommend to the average moviegoer, but I feel hesitant with everybody else. If you don’t watch a lot of movies, why waste your time with something above average when you can watch something great.

Overall Score: 6.5/10

Real Steel (2011)

In a future world where flesh-and-blood boxers have been replaced by towering mechanized fighters, pugilist-turned-promoter Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) reconnects with his estranged son, Max, to convert a discarded machine into a World Robot Boxing contender.

They didn’t seem to wait very long to reboot the Transformers franchise, and this attempt didn’t seem to fare much better than the previous two installments. All joking aside, this is actually just a live action rock’em sock’em robots movie. With it comes a very familiar underdog boxing story that is filled with plenty of clichéd cheesiness but is bailed out a bit by some surprisingly fun fighting sequences spread throughout the film.

With the boxing aspect of the story, you get absolutely nothing new from the predicable formula that comes with it. An undervalued robot with no chance in hell of winning, since it was found in a god damn junkyard, rallies up the strength to take on some of the best fighting robots in the world. It’s easy on the mind, and the simple plot is easy to follow. You have fun with this aspect of the film. It’s a tiny change of pace seeing how the robot handles itself rather than an actual human being. Where the film strays off and falls off the cliff is with the robots owners, the father and the boy he sells for money. This relationship between the two is so fake and forced; you just simply cannot get by just how terrible Hugh Jackman is as a father. It just isn’t possible for you to root for this guy to succeed, yet the film plays it off as one big funny joke. When you get to the climax, it goes completely over the top bad, and you realize that this is just a shot for shot remake of Rocky 6. That isn’t the type of film you should strive to become because it was awful.

 Hugh Jackman plays the funny asshole of a father pretty well if that’s what they wanted to aim for, but something tells me that is not the idea they were looking to achieve. He doesn’t hurt the film, but it’s hard to root for a protagonist that isn’t relatable in the slightest. What makes matters worse is the child actor who I refuse to even look up the name for, comes across as a spoiled, bored, brat. Maybe it would have been better if the kid just fell off the cliff a quarter into the film. Then maybe we would have got a gritty robot fighting movie that would have ended up being a whole lot better.

Real Steal has some good action scenes that are pretty entertaining but they come at the cost of watching a terrible relationship bond that feels like filler material to just get to the next fight. If you have a kid, nephew, or mentally challenged adult with you, I am sure they will enjoy it. They seem to be the target audience for a film like this and at least you have an excuse to why you took time out of your day to see a film of this quality. Watch if you must, but try and avoid.  

Overall Score: 3/10