"The Master" (2012)

The Master

Rated R (for language, sexual content and graphic nudity)

2 Hours 17 Minutes

Starring:

Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams.

Storyline:

A striking portrait of drifters and seekers in post World War II America, Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master unfolds the journey of a Naval veteran (Joaquin Phoenix) who arrives home from war unsettled and uncertain of his future - until he is tantalized by The Cause and its charismatic leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman)

Rotten Tomatoes Score:

87%

(Smart, powerfully acted, beautifully filmed, and solidly engrossing, The Master extends writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's winning streak of challenging films for serious audiences.)

My Grade:

C+

Well folks, we have our first major Oscar bait movie of 2012 in Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master". Hist first film since his masterful "There Will Be Blood". He also directed one of my all time favorite movies, "Magnolia" back in 1999 and is responsible for "Boogie Nights" and "Punch Drunk Love". With The Master, it's now become clear that he is become more strange and obscure with each new movie he churns out. The Master is not a direct retelling of the creation of the religion of Scientology, but it's pretty damn obvious that there are some parallels here. It's about a war veteran drunk drifter who stumbles upon a group of people who are part of The Cause. A new religion (as far as we know) led by the charismatic Lancaster Dodd. 

Like I said, there are clear cut similarities between The Cause and Scientology. However, it's never truly stated in this story as exactly what the Cause believes in. We get some of the practices they do and some of the smaller parts of their belief system. For instance, they believe invaders are after our souls, and our souls travel from one vessel to the next in various lives. It focuses a lot on past lives. But the film never really dives deep into the heart of what they truly believe, of what their focus is, what their goal is. The leader is just making it up as he goes (as is stated a few times in the movie) but what is his purpose? I would have loved if they spent some time prodding into the head of Dodd and showing us what his motives were and if he really believed that crap he was peddling or if he knew exactly what he was doing was BS and what his plan was. Was he in it for the riches the fame? Was he doing this so that he was able to focus and not drift like Joaquin Phoenix's character. This is one of the biggest aspects of the movie, and yet it felt empty and left completely open.

The primary story here was about the drifter. He was the prodigy of the Master. He is what would seem to be a lost cause suffering badly from post traumatic stress disorder and various other ailments. Not to mention he is a drunk who concocts drinks out of fuel from torpedoes and paint thinner.  The Master sees him as a potential version of himself. At least, that's what I got from it. And maybe if he can help him, and I genuinely believe he really truly wanted to help him, maybe it gives him hope for himself and his cause. But the drifter never really attaches himself to anything. There is never any actual hope for him. He is a loose cannon. In a way, the two main characters are very similar yet also completely different. It certainly created a beautiful dynamic between the two. But again, even the drifters tale didn't feel complete to me. This was a movie with a very large scope and had huge intentions, but it's as if Paul Thomas Anderson didn't really know where it was going. Perhaps he too was drifting with no clear destination. The Cause didn't seem to have an actual cause. Or they didn't let the audience fully in on the act. It would have helped establish the leader of the cause and his beliefs.

It concludes with not much being resolved or anything major truly happening. Was that the point? Was the drifter the masters first major failure? Yes, for sure...but what does that mean for the master? Is the drifter a total lost cause and is now lost in the world? I guess I would have liked more answers and a more cut and dry story. I'm well aware that not all movies need to spoon feed their answers to it's audience, and I usually love movies that are subtle. But if the answers and the message of the movie were there, I fear they were a little to hidden or a little to lost in the grand scope of the story. What was the point here?





The story may have been a little off kilter for me and definitely a bit disappointing, but where this movie truly succeeds is in it's performances. Granted, it was hard at times to understand what Joaquin Phoenix was saying with his weird lip thing, but when I could grasp on to what he was saying, he delivered arguably his finest performance. It was strong, powerful and moving. He really captured the essence of what it means to be lost, not only in your own mind, but in the world in general. He's a guy you aren't really sure if you are supposed to hate or root for and he does a masterful job conveying that. Remember when Phillip Seymour Hoffman played Rusty in the movie Twister?? Ha! He has come a long way. I never saw his Oscar Winning performance in Capote, but dear God can this man act the hell out of a movie. To me, he was the strongest performance in the film. It borderlines on haunting. He is brilliant at playing these eccentric characters and if I had to pick one Oscar contender for this movie, it would certainly be him. On a side note...can anyone else vaguely see Jim Gaffigan in him?? Hehe. Amy Adams rounds out the cast nicely. She always is good in every role, and I think this is probably the most fierce I've seen in any of her performances.

The Master is also shot magnificently. Easily one of the most beautiful films of the year. Stunning cinematography. Beautiful set pieces and locations. With that and the performances, it almost makes up for the weakness in the story. But not quite. The movie focuses so much on the tale of the drifter and the master so you expect things to have a purpose and reason, but they never truly do. And if they did...well I clearly missed it. Don't call me an idiot for not seeing it either, we aren't all Harvard graduates like you clearly are. I just wish the movie wasn't so subtle. Man, I miss when Paul Thomas Anderson created such huge character stories like Boogie Nights and Magnolia. He seems to be drifting away from that (pun intended). Don't get me wrong, he is still a great writer and director, but I just think for me he kind of missed it this time around. But what do I know, I'm just a silly little blogger.

"Resident Evil: Retribution" & "The Tall Man"

Resident Evil: Retribution

Rated R
1 Hour 57 Minutes

Starring: Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 27%
My Grade: D+

I've only seen the first film and now the two most recent ones in the series. So I have missed a few. However, it doesn't matter, because this movie gives you a wonderful little "Previously on Resident Evil" montage right at the beginning to catch us all up. I liked the first movie, it was fun, it had a point and a decent story that blended with great action. Now we are up to number 5 and I think they have gone as far as they can with trying to develop more story so they just gave up on that aspect. Literally nothing major happens in this movie. The only thing it's about is our main character Alice trying to escape the Umbrella Corporations main hub. Any other significant plot points are a distant, faded memory. It's all about getting from point A to point B as loud and gory as you can. And that's all this movie is...just one very long action sequence with a lot of bullets and blood. And maybe that's all you want in this kind of movie, and that's great! Usually I don't mind action movies with no plot or real story as long as the action is makes up for it. There are a lot of cool action scenes in this movie, but after a while it just becomes so over used and tiresome. If this movie didn't have a single slow mo shot of a bullet traveling or someones face being punched, I think the movie would clock in at 25 minutes. But alas, 75% of this movie is in slow motion, or at least it seemed that way. Way to much of that going on. Nothing new surfaced here in terms of bad ass or action. It was just same old same old. And a lot of it was cool, like I said...just I got bored of it. And half of this cast I think were reading their lines from cue cards or something, they were terrible. But in the end, we get a cliffhanger that will inevitably lead to yet another chapter in the Resident Evil saga. And I'm sure I will be there to see it. Yay.

The Tall Man

Rated R
1 Hour 40 Minutes

Starring: Jessica Biel and Jodelle Ferland

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 45% (limited amount of reviews)
My Grade: B+

I didn't see a preview for this movie ahead of time, and I didn't know what it was about before I watched it. I just saw the poster, and watched it. Looking at the poster by the way, I got nervous chills that this was a sequel to the movie ATM. But thank our lucky stars it was not. I guess it was supposed to be a horror movie, but if that's what you are looking for, look again. It's about a small town in Washington state where kids are constantly going missing and never returning and the townspeople create the legend of The Tall Man who lurks in the woods and snatches their kids. Maybe this movie came out based off the recent popularity of the "Slender Man". But there really is no connection as the Slender Man was all made up. Anyway, I was very shocked by how much I enjoyed this film. About half way through it takes a turn that I honestly was not expecting to happen. Then you spend the rest of the movie trying to figure out what the hell is going on here. At one point I was nervous it was going to take the "High Tension" route which would have made this movie suck by the way...but it didn't. Phew! The movie was taught and tightly wound in a good way, ha. It kicked into high gear about 10 minutes in and never lets up. It's intense and full of little twists and turns. It actually had some depth to it, which is not something we expect from a thriller like this. It's a movie that will make you think. I picked up on a few similarities between this movie and the brilliant movie Gone Baby Gone. Now this film isn't on the same level, of course, but it still sends a jolt to our hearts and and makes us wonder. Yet I feel the clear right answer to the questions this film poses is more apparent than the one given to us in Gone Baby Gone. But it's there nonetheless. The movie is well written, and paced beautifully. It doesn't drag on to much and doesn't go to far in depth, because after all this is still a "horror" thriller. Jessica Biel gives probably her best work here, she was the biggest surprise of all. This is not an instant classic or a tour de force motion picture of the ages, but I thought it was a nice little surprise. I liked it a lot.

"The Amazing Spiderman" (2012)

The Amazing Spiderman

Rated PG-13 (For action sequences and violence)

2 Hours 17 Minutes

Starring

Andrew Garfield

Emma Stone

Rhys Ifans

Dennis Leary

Sally Field

Martin Sheen

Rotten Tomatoes Score:

72%

("A well-chosen cast and sure-handed direction allow The Amazing Spider-Man to thrill, despite revisiting many of the same plot points from 2002's Spider-Man.")

My Grade:

A-

I must admit, I was one of the many people who thought the idea of Hollywood rebooting the Spiderman series ALREADY was the last straw. I mean, Spiderman came to us in 2002 and Spiderman 3 was just back in 2007.  Yes, the third film in the trilogy was an absolute train wreck of a movie, but the first two were excellent films and the whole series made a TON of money world wide. I didn't see the justification for rebooting the series so damn quickly. But I finally got around to watching The Amazing Spiderman, and I think I have to eat my words.

This movie was probably my favorite summer super hero movie of 2012. I know, I will be berated and hated on for saying that given that this was the year of the almighty The Avengers (all hail AVENGERS!). Quite frankly, I thought that movie was incredibly overated. I enjoyed The Avengers, but I didn't go all ape shit over it like all the fan boys. It was a super fun popcorn action flick, but it was seriously nothing more than that to me. But, I still appreciate that millions of other people think that The Avengers is god's gift to earth in 2012.

 That being said, I got more out of The Amazing Spiderman. What I got from it was a well balanced action film, centered around a good, well written story and excellent performances from the whole cast. This was not a shot by shot remake of the first Spiderman, but yeah, I noticed a lot of similarities in the story lines. Yet they also changed a lot, gave us a different villain, a different damsel in distress, and thankfully...a new Peter Parker. No offense to Tobey MaGuire, and I know Peter is supposed to be this nerdy kid and all, but he was just a little to weak and silly to play the role. Andrew Garfield filled the shoes wonderfully, and hey...he was certainly easy on the eyes as well. I never read a comic book in my life, so I have no clue how accurate the characters are or the stories, and I don't care either. I'm watching a movie, and I know that movies usually need to take liberties with their original source material to translate well into a 2 hour flick.

This was a much darker version of the story than any of the previous films. I liked that a lot. I thank Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight trilogy of kind of inspiring the darker tones to these comic book heroes. See now, with the Avengers, it was more light and fun, but with this film you get a more serious tone. More grounded to reality (even though obviously it's way out of reality). This is an origin story, so it's packed more of storytelling than it is with action sequences. It probably moves a little slower than most action films, but that's OK with me as long as it can grab my attention and it certainly did. When the action occurred, it was fantastic. It was fast paced and it was exciting. It never looked to overly cartoony either. Great visual effects and I also loved the score in this film, it added a lot to the movie than most other super hero films.

Honestly, this was my favorite Spiderman film of all the movies put together. After that horrid third movie, it was going to need some serious kick starting to get back into high gear, and they really succeeded at that. I give them an A+ for finding the perfect Peter Parker/Spiderman in Andrew Garfield who is one of the most talented younger actors surfacing today. Loved him in The Social Network and the guy was robbed of an Oscar Nomination. Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses working today and while she didn't have a ton to do here, she was also a much needed improvement over Kirsten Dunst (even though she was playing a different character). It's nice to see Dennis Leary getting some good work on the big screen as well. I was very surprised by how well this movie turned out, and honestly I can't wait for the next one.

"The Cold Light of Day" & "Premium Rush"

The Cold Light of Day

Starring: Henry Cavill, Sigourney Weaver and Bruce Willis
Rated PG-13 - 1 Hour 33 Minutes

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 6%
My Grade: F

I'm not going to go on for to long about this gem of a movie. I will say that it is probably one of the top ten stupidest movies I think I've ever had the pleasure of watching. The plot is incredibly weak, even for an "action" movie. The action is poorly choreographed and not exciting at all. In fact, most of the action is pretty laughable, especially the climatic car chase scene in the end. Could I do it any better? No of course not, because I'm not a film maker who is paid shit loads of money to make a movie, so don't even go there with me. The acting, namely from star Henry Cavill is atrocious. He is one of the worst action movie characters/stars I've ever seen. He bumbles his lines like this was a half assed high school play or something. What is Sigourney Weaver and Bruce Willis thinking? They still have slight careers going for them, at least Bruce Willis knew to get out of the movie 25 minutes in, good for him! This was a train wreck of a movie for me, I just hated it. Sorry.

Premium Rush

Starring: Joseph Gordon Levitt and Michael Shannon. 
Rated PG-13 - 1 Hour 30 Minutes

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 75%
My Grade: B+

I saw the previews for this movie and thought the idea of having an action thriller based around bike riding would be ridiculous. And in a way...it kind of is, but you know what...this movie pulled it off pretty well. This movie kicks into high gear from the second it starts and I swear...it never stops. It's bang bang in this movie, and that creates are really taught, exciting thriller. The story is a little cliched and a bit on the weak side, but that is OK, because it is executed almost brilliantly. There were a few cheese-ball aspects to the movie like the slow motion scenes of our main character going through different scenarios in to which to ride his bike without being smashed (which led to some of the more unintentionally funny special effect moments). But there wasn't much to not like in this movie, which surprised me a lot. Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the hottest young actors working today (I don't mean look wise, I mean he's on a roll.......but he isn't bad looking...ya know...if I was a chick....) and he does a fantastic job once again with this role. Michael Shannon is the antagonist here, is SO damn good and playing a total creep (Revolutionary Road, TV's Boardwalk Empire) and he nails it once again. That guy is one good freaking actor and he has been robbed of several awards. Ultimately, Premium Rush was a total guilty pleasure movie. It's not a breath taking tour de force, but it was a lot of fun and packed full of entertainment. I like it!

"Lawless" (2012)

Lawless

Rated R (for strong bloody violence, language and some sexuality/nudity)

1 Hour 55 Minutes

Starring:

Shia LaBeouf

Tom Hardy

Guy Pearce

Jessica Chastain

Gary Oldman

Rotten Tomatoes Score:

65%

"Grim, bloody, and utterly flawed, Lawless doesn't quite achieve the epic status it strains for, but it's too beautifully filmed and powerfully acted to dismiss."

My Grade:

C-

I went into this movie without seeing a single advertisement for it, at least none that I could remember. While I love watching previews, sometimes I think it's fun to go into a movie with no preconceived thoughts on what to expect so that maybe you won't be all that disappointed. After seeing Lawless however, I kind of wished perhaps maybe I would have seen a preview or even a little TV spot for it, because I might have avoided it altogether.

Not to say this movie was horrible, but I've never been a huge fan of the western style of film. The only one I really love is the newest version of 3:10 to Yuma. You can maybe argue that Lawless isn't really a western, as it takes place in the 1920's prohibition era. But listen that all walk around like cowboys, spittin', and talking with that southern twang, so to me it all seemed to western. I apologize if you think different and I have bothered you for thinking this.

 

Lawless is based off a true story. Three brothers found themselves in the bootlegging business during prohibition and naturally all hell breaks loose for them. If you are going to make a historical moment in our time into a movie, at least chose an interesting story. To me, Lawless offered nothing that we haven't all seen before. Story wise, it didn't step up to the plate and deliver a home run. More like an infield single. While I'm on the baseball theme, this movie was like a 1-0 pitchers duel. It lacked of any true gritty excitement. The pacing was so dreadfully slow I almost thought nothing would ever actually happen in the movie. And almost nothing did if I'm being completely honest here.

The bootlegging aspect never seemed to fill up the story, it focused more on the family and the Shia LaBeouf character wanting to be "somebody" and that just didn't provide much heart. The characters were not all that fleshed out, they never really dug deep into this family. They made them a bit flat and one dimensional to the point where I really didn't care about any of them. This is no offense to the actual people the movie is based, I'm sure the film makers took a few liberties here.

 


And the performances did help any. I may be coming off a little to cynical here, and I'm sorry if I am. However, I cannot take LaBeouf seriously in these dramatic roles. He is by no means a horrible actor, but I just don't think he's cut out for anything more than being a sidekick to a bunch of robots, and I think he just needs to be running around a movie bumbling his words and screaming. Tom Hardy is a fine up and coming actor, but he honestly didn't have much to do here, even though he played the older brother, and leader of the pack. Between this and The Dark Knight Rises, I don't think I understood more than 15-20 words he spoke in either film. His accent was a little to thick, and I totally get he was playing a character here, but maybe ease up a bit. Guy Pearce was...a joke. I mean was the guy he was portraying really that theatrical and bizarre? Maybe, but dear God he was outlandish. And why did Gary Oldman even bother to agree to do this movie? They made it seem in the beginning that he was going to be a big part of the story...but he's in maybe 2 scenes in the entire film. That's it! Crazy!

The movie was shot very well however. It had some great set pieces, and beautiful cinematography. The action, while it was far and few between was done so quite entertainingly. There wasn't much of a musical score, but instead they pumped in a recorded song every 5 minutes or so. The movie seemed like a plug for a soundtrack or something.

For me, when I add up all the parts, I just did not dig Lawless. But hey, not every movie is going to be everyone's cup of tea. It just lacked in a lot of areas and didn't do anything new. If you want a better prohibition story, watch the HBO show "Boardwalk Empire", now that's awesome!