JOY Is a Great American Epic In Search of A Plot

 JOY Review:

- On paper, JOY seems like it's got the goods to be another successful David O. Russell / Jennifer Lawrence collaboration. But in practice, this one - while it has its moments - lacks the energy and momentum of Russell's recent films. Say what you want about Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle, but both of those movies zoomed along with a constant barrage of sharp dialogue, visual fireworks, and quick-moving plotlines. JOY, on the other hand, feels like a would-be epic in search of a plot that can actually fill its over-two-hour running time. There just doesn't seem to be the raw material here with which to craft the Great American Story that Russell seems to be grasping for.

JOY tells the true-life story of Joy Mangano - a woman of modest means from a working-class Italian-American family. As a child, Joy was a dreamer and a maker of things - her doting grandmother was sure, and told her repeatedly, that she was destined for great things - and Joy thought so too. But then, life got in the way. Joy's father left her mom (his second wife), Joy got married young to a Venezuelan sometimes-singer, had two kids, and then got divorced soon after, and Joy got stuck living with her soap opera-obsessed mother and grandmother cleaning up after their messes. Also, her father and ex-husband moved back in - both live in the basement, even though they hate each other. Joy sees no way out of the less-than-ideal life she's fallen into, until one day, she strikes upon a spark of inspiration. After injuring her had while mopping up broken glass, she comes up with the idea of a self-wringing mop. It's a simple but clever idea, and Joy sees it as her ticket out and onward to a better life.

The first part of JOY is a lot of fun. Russell tends to be at the top of his game when he's directing scenes of rapid-fire comedic banter - and that's exactly what we get as we're introduced to Joy's dysfunctional family. Robert De Niro in particular is in top form here as Joy's dad. De Niro kills it as the owner of a body shop who, despite living in his ex-wife's basement, has quite the active dating life. Virginia Madsen is also really funny as Joy's homebody mom, content to stay curled up in bed all day watching her soaps. Out of the gate, it's a lot of fun just spending time with Joy's wacky family.

There's also a really well done sequence in which Joy pitches her Miracle Mop to the then-fledgling QVC shop-from-home TV station. Joy's astonishment at the TV studio, coupled with Bradley Cooper (as QVC head Neil Walker's) enthusiasm for the on-the-rise operation, makes for some really entertaining moments.

The problem here is that the interesting part of Joy's story is essentially over once she finds success through QVC. After that, there's lots of manufactured drama about finances and patents - but the emotional arc of Joy's story is already long-complete. The larger problem lies in the fact that Joy's story is a good one, but it's also a fairly simple one. And Russell seems to struggle to find the right angle with which to elevate it into a sprawling cinematic parable. Seemingly as a way to overcompensate for the lack of meat to this story, Russell layers in a lot of overlong music-set montages of Lawrence's Joy strutting her stuff and looking really determined and ready to take on the world. By the fourth or fifth time we've seen Joy dramatically put on a pair of sunglasses as if to say "yeah, I'm a badass now," well, we sort of get the point.

And so, it's up to the always-great Lawrence and the excellent supporting cast to really carry the film with their performances. Lawrence gives it her best shot - and she really is great. She makes potentially throwaway moments - like Joy grabbing a shotgun and doing some impromptu target practice to get out her aggression - memorable and iconic. But Lawrence does actually feel a bit miscast here. Joy as written seems like she's got to be someone worn and tired and aging. But Lawrence has too much youthful spunk and energy to be 100% convincing as someone who's had to raise two kids and two parents on her own. Still, Lawrence makes even the movie's draggiest scenes at least watchable, so there's that.

I will mention though that one of the best supporting cast turns here is Isabella Rossellini as Trudy - De Niro's new special lady friend, a rich widow who Joy hopes will be an early investor in her mop. Rossellini is hilarious here - playing a woman who increasingly reveals herself to be a left-of-center oddball, with all sorts of out-there ideas from her late husband about the cutthroat nature of business. 

JOY starts off pretty strong, but it loses a lot of momentum as it goes. It's clear from the beginning that this is a story about female empowerment and about how, with grit and determination, anyone can make it in America with the right idea. But I kept waiting for another spin on these ideas, a twist, turn, or some ultimate takeaway that would cap the movie off with a profound exclamation point. But that exclamation point never really came, and the film ends with more of a whimper than a bang. JOY feels like exactly the *kind* of movie that David O. Russell wants to make. But it doesn't quite feel like the movie it should have or could have been.

My Grade: B

AMERICAN SNIPER Is Gripping But Problematic Return to Form For Clint Eastwood

AMERICAN SNIPER Review:

- Since its release, AMERICAN SNIPER has been a hotbed of controversy. In terms of where I stand, in all honesty, I find myself slightly torn. Personally, I'm a big believer that, too often, we let opinions about what a movie is "saying" get in the way of its merit as a movie. There are plenty of movies I like and love that also seem to advocate viewpoints I don't necessarily agree with. At the same time, the tricky thing with movies is that we don't always *know* what a movie is saying - it's often a matter of personal interpretation, and even then, a movie often gives off mixed-signals about its true intentions. War movies are particularly problematic. There are some movies that are blatantly jingoistic and propaganda-ish when it comes to war. Think back to any number of old World War II films that were blatant us-vs.-them, good vs. evil epics. There are some films that are clearly anti-war, whose entire point is to de-glamorize combat and emphasize the cycle of violence perpetuated by war as a zero-sum game. The Hurt Locker was, I think, a great recent example of that sort of movie, as was the darkly satirical British film Four Lions. But most war movies fall somewhere in between on that spectrum - acknowledging the high cost of war while also making sure that the combat scenes are super-badass. And this is where we get into some very tricky grey areas. In just the last year, a number of movies - from Lone Survivor to Fury to AMERICAN SNIPER - have been part of this category. They are movies that can be problematic, because their version of war is both something to be reviled and celebrated. The first two movies mentioned, however, can probably have their issues chalked up to mere tonal inconsistency. But with AMERICAN SNIPER, you can't help but think about Clint Eastwood's real-life politics as part of the film's DNA. And that's where, again, we get into some very tricky conversation about art, politics, and the merits of a movie that surprisingly became a hot-button red vs. blue talking point.

But let's forget about politics for a second, and simply talk about Clint Eastwood the director. In a lot of ways, it sort of makes me sad as a movie fan that politics is now such a lasting part of the Eastwood legacy. I wish we could go back to just talking about him as one of the all-time great (if not *the* all-time great) cinematic badasses, and as one of the great actors who transitioned into one of the great directors. But politics aside, there's no question that Eastwood as a director has been in a slump. The last movie of his I truly enjoyed was Gran Torino. Since then, his films have felt stiff, slow, and so blandly directed that you wondered if Eastwood was doing much more behind the camera than simply pointing and shooting. With that said, AMERICAN SNIPER is a huge directorial triumph for Eastwood. It's by far his best and best-directed movie in many years. I've seen some reviews deride the film as shoddily directed, and I think those reviewers are on crack. I think that action and badassery elevates Eastwood's game. If only he'd been doing action all this time and not Jersey Boys, we could have potentially avoided this quality drought. But Eastwood is in top form for AMERICAN SNIPER - a film that in some ways reminds me of his classic Unforgiven. The film is mostly a pretty straightforwardly-shot drama, but the action is edge-of-your-seat riveting. Here, Eastwood shows that he's got a bit of juice still left in the tank. He shoots combat scenes with a clear-eyed, easy-to-follow yet chaotic intensity.

He also gets a phenomenal performance out of Bradley Cooper, in quite possibly his best role yet. As real-life Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, Cooper transforms himself into a jacked-up good ol' boy who happens to be the best in the biz at killing from a distance. I give Cooper credit for bringing a ton of nuance to the performance. Cooper shows us the different sides of Kyle - the soft-spoken family man, the take-charge military veteran, and the haunted-by-PTSD survivor. The film does an admirable job of  showing the many aspects of Kyle - the good, the bad, and the part that was irrevocably damaged by his time overseas.

The various sides of Chris Kyle are spotlighted as the film veers back and forth between his time at home and his time on duty. To me, what's effective here is the repeated juxtaposition of the normalcy of life as a civilian in America vs. the insanity and harsh conditions of life on the battlefields of Iraq. The film hammers home just how difficult returning home can be for a soldier - in some ways, as much if not more so than returning to active duty. Sienna Miller does a fine job here as Kyle's rock-steady wife, who can't help but be concerned when her calls with her husband are interrupted by gunfire. As the drama of Kyle's home life unfolds, the action in Iraq hits hard with nail-biting tension. Kyle's role as a sniper is one that we've not seen fully explored in many war films. In the world of videogames, sniping is now a standard action mechanic, and so there's an air of un-reality to Kyle's actions. But Eastwood, I think, mostly grounds the movie enough so that the action is suitably intense without simply becoming Call of Duty: The Movie.

With that said ... there are some things in the film that do feel a bit "off." The film does a nice job of showing Chris Kyle as a three-dimensional human being, but it also depicts him with the kind of larger than life reverence a film might show to a superhero. In some ways, Eastwood seems to depict Kyle like a modern version of the old Western heroes he used to play - a duty-bound warrior for whom violence was simply a way of life. But it's one thing to mythologize the Old West. It's another to give the same treatment to a very recent - in some ways still ongoing - war, whose legitimacy many question. And it's strange - while some parts of AMERICAN SNIPER do feel on-point (i.e. Kyle's struggle with PTSD), other parts feel oddly cartoonish. For example, Kyle's nemesis in the film - a rival Al-Qaeda sniper - is portrayed as a dastardly villain right out of G.I. Joe. In a way, it's easy to get caught up in these parts of the film as a classic good vs. evil showdown - when Kyle gets the drop on his nemesis, my theater cheered wildly in approval. But the contrast between the adult gravity of the PTSD stuff, and the more anachronistic, us-vs.-them material in some of the combat scenes, was often jarring. What really made me wonder though was the film's ending. Without spoiling anything, the movie's finale uses real-life footage to paint Kyle as a true American hero - a symbol of all that is great and good about the U-S-of-A. But in a film that repeatedly touts Kyle's sniping (aka killing) prowess, it just seems odd and in many ways inappropriate to give him that sort of treatment. I - and I think most others - owe a huge debt of thanks to our armed forces. But when thinking about why we should honor a soldier, I think about acts of bravery, acts of courage, acts of selflessness. To tout someone as a hero because of how good they were at killing - to me that seems like an antiquated and morally suspect concept. Chris Kyle as portrayed in the film seems like a man with a story worth telling - a story that drives home the hardships our troops go through, and a story that reminds us of the difficult price we pay in the fight for peace. But AMERICAN SNIPER seems to treat acts of grave necessity as worth celebrating.

And here's where that somewhat questionable point-of-view affects the movie as a whole: a great war movie tells us something not just about one soldier, but about the nature of the war itself. That's why The Hurt Locker was Best Picture-worthy - Jeremy Renner's war-addicted soldier was emblematic of America's addiction to conflict. But the story of American Sniper - while a moving and intense depiction of Chris Kyle's life - feels told in a vacuum, lacking real context or greater meaning that truly puts his service and sacrifice in a broader perspective. In doing so, it implicitly feeds the dogma of neo-con conservatives that feel all wars are good wars, and that the only real issue is that we don't support the troops *enough* to give them the help they need to keep on fighting. I don't think AMERICAN SNIPER is an overtly political movie at all, one way or the other. But some of the tonal inconsistencies can be troubling, and actually hurt the movie artistically. Basically, the film presents Chris Kyle's story without much in the way of larger thematic context. And that prevents it from being great.

By the same token, those who dismiss the film - just because they fear it may indirectly promote suspect politics - are not being fair to how well AMERICAN SNIPER works as pure cinema. Even if part of the film's box-office success stemmed from it becoming part of a political rallying cry, there's also no way it would have become the sensation it did if it was poorly-made. Eastwood really shines here, and Cooper knocks it out of the park. In many ways, the film works well as the antithesis of the overly-cluttered, choppily-paced action films that crowd theaters today. Eastwood's straightforward style feels oddly refreshing, creating good old-fashioned tension without much in the way of gimmicks or tricks. It's old-school, but unlike Eastwood's other recent output, it's never dull.

I could write a lot more about this film. In many ways, the controversy around it has less to do with the film itself, and more to do with a country still fiercely divided over the war in Iraq and the extent to which we should be engaged in bloody foreign conflict in the modern era. But I do think there's a weird cyclical thing at play here. I think that a generation raised on old Westerns and ra-ra World War II movies has a hard time separating the classic American myths from the current American reality. And trust me, I love that stuff. I love the stories of the stoic cowboy riding up to a lawless town and violently cleaning it up, ridding it of all the scumbags who've infested it. But that's escapist fantasy. Eastwood himself helped to shatter that fantasy with Unforgiven, when his aged gunslinger ruminated that killing a man was a hell of a thing. AMERICAN SNIPER is sort of a riff on that, but the problem is that Cooper's Kyle isn't some lone-wolf gunslinger riding around a lawless frontier. No, he's a highly-trained cog in a military-industrial machine. Big difference. But Eastwood doesn't fully seem to acknowledge it. That's why those old Westerns are so appealing - they were simple stories - good, bad, and ugly - problems solved with a bullet, and then it was off to the next town and next adventure. Is it any coincidence that Eastwood has always excelled at giving us those modern myths, those tales of hard-traveled cowboys and vigilantes? It it any shock that his take on the Iraq war is a version of that story? It's too simple an approach to very complex recent history. Interestingly, Eastwood is the same director who gave us the WWII-from-the-Japanese-perspective film Letters From Iwo Jima. Eastwood at the time felt compelled to humanize the Japanese soldiers of WWII and tell a story from their POV. But there still remains the idea that war is in and of itself noble. But Eastwood never took the next leap, to tell a story of war that might be essentially pointless, even from the point of view of its participants. Some characters in AMERICAN SNIPER touch on that idea, but they seem quickly brushed aside - perhaps the film's way of saying that it ain't got time for that nonsense. But that makes it seem ever so slightly tone-deaf to the story's larger context. And so, AMERICAN SNIPER is really good for what it is. But what it is isn't quite enough to be great.

My Grade: B+

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Is One Rocking Cosmic Comic Book Jam

 GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Review:

- Here it is. What we've been waiting for. Now ... we get to the good stuff. I said it back when I reviewed Thor: The Dark World, but I'll repeat: Marvel is boldly going to some very weird places with its big-budget movies, and I'm lovin' it. Think about where we've come from. When this whole big-screen superhero renaissance started with movies like X-Men, the colorful comic book heroes of Marvel made it to cinemas in a whitewashed, scrubbed-up fashion. "Yellow spandex" was a punchline. Black leather was the order of the day. The characters were mostly intact, but the sci-fi grandeur and acid-trip visuals of Kirby and his ilk were all but gone. Now, slowly but surely, Marvel Studios has brought the weird and cosmic aspects of its comic book universe to its movies - and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is the apex of that evolution, a loud-and-proud color-burst of a movie that feels like a statement from Marvel: the Marvel universe has officially been cracked open, and there really are no more limits to what can happen in these movies.

The man who makes it all happen is director James Gunn. Just saying that is sort of weird and sort of awesome. Until recently I knew Gunn as an outside-the-system director of genre movies that were, by and large, insane. I saw an opening-weekend screening of his movie Super a few years ago, featuring a Q&A with Gunn. Super remains one of the strangest movies I've ever seen. And Gunn seemed like the kind of guy who'd perhaps be happiest doing these oddball, limits-pushing, low-budget movies filled with his usual cast of go-to actors. But here's the remarkable thing: GUARDIANS is very much a Marvel movie, but, no question, it's also a James Gunn movie through and through. The movie revels in its own weirdness, much like Super and also Slither. It features the oddball, oddly-perverse sense of humor that Gunn is known for. It's got his brother, Sean Gunn, appearing in a supporting role, as he always does in James Gunn films. It's got other Gunn regulars like Michael Rooker. Gunn's movies push boundaries and go to unexpected places, and this is no exception. This is rock n' roll filmmaking like we haven't see yet in the Marvel cinematic universe.

However, what keeps all of the cosmic craziness of the film grounded is the real humanity at its core. As out-there as things get, even the movie's strangest characters have surprising depth. At the center of it all is Chris Pratt as Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord. Quill is a classic, swashbuckling rogue in the grand tradition of Han Solo and the like - but Gunn (along with screenwriter Nicole Parlman) also give him a tragic backstory and a real warmth. Also credit the gifted Pratt for making Star-Lord into a character both empathetic and hilarious. Pratt - so good for years on Parks and Recreation - is a natural at this sort of action/comedy leading man role. The guy has the bravado for epic adventure, but also the dude-next-door affability that makes him easy to root for and care about. He nails it in this film.

I can't say enough about the rest of the film's eclectic cast. It's no major surprise that Zoe Saldana is fantastic as the traumatized adopted-against-her-will daughter of Thanos, Gamora. Saldana is now a multi-franchise sci-fi superstar, but Gamora is an interesting new twist on her usual badass persona - a woman hated and feared because of her father, out to prove that she is, in fact, nothing like him. Gamora is also the moral center of the movie's ragtag team - the only one who, from the outset, has an altruistic agenda. What is more of a surprise though is that wrestler Dave Bautista is actually really, really good here in a scene-stealing role as Drax the Destroyer, a muscled-up alien hellbent on revenge for his wife and child, killed at the hands of the power-mad Ronan. What is also a surprise is how a character that I assumed would be pretty awesome - Rocket Raccoon - is not just awesome, but also the emotional center of the movie. I would never have expected that the talking raccoon would have some of the movie's most emotionally-charged moments, but James Gunn and co. go all-in with the Bradley Cooper-voiced creature. Rocket rules, but he's much more than just comic relief. Same goes for talking tree-man Groot, elegantly voiced by Vin Diesel. Groot is funny and weird, but also the source of several moments of awe, wonder, and emotional resonance. Give both Cooper and Diesel some major, major props here for their voice work. Cooper is the lovable, fast-talking, Brooklyn-accented, chip-on-his-shoulder badass we all hoped and wanted Rocket to be. And Diesel pulls an Iron Giant with Groot, making the lumbering tree-creature somehow full of pathos.

I could go on an on about the cast. Michael Rooker is just great, in a distinctly Michael Rooker sort of way, as the blue-skinned alien outlaw Yondu. Yondu is a perfect example of how Gunn just flat-out embraces the craziest aspects of these characters and goes all-in. Yondu isn't *just* a badass blue alien who talks like a southern-fried redneck, you see. He's also got a deadly blowing-dart that he controls by whistling, which he can use to take out armies of enemies simply by whistling a tune. Holy $^&#, people ... James Gunn isn't messing around. That same wholesale embrace of comic book insanity is evident in the film's chief villain, Ronan The Accuser. Played by Lee Pace - of late the master of over-the-top genre movie grandstanding - Ronan is a straight-from-the-comics cosmic bad guy of epic proportions. There's a similarly otherworldly sheen to Karen Gillan's Nebula, another daughter of Thanos, whose metallic blue skin and cybernetic enhancements make her a truly alien creature. We caught a glimpse of Benicio Del Toro's enigmatic Collector at the end of Thor: The Dark World, and the character is yet another that is just plain nuts, in the best way possible. And of course, the mighty, mad titan Thanos lurks in the background of the film - menacingly voiced by Josh Brolin and looking straight out of a Jim Starlin-drawn comic book page - waiting to stake his claim as the Marvel Universe's most-wanted.

In fact, the comic book literalism in GUARDIANS is pretty crazy. There's a clear reverence for the architects of Marvel's weird and cosmic corners - Jack Kirby, Jim Starlin, etc. - and I don't know if I've ever seen a comic book adaptation that so faithfully reproduces the costumes and colors of its source material. As others have pointed out, the movie is not just visually jaw-dropping, but also bursting with color in a way that the dulled-out modern superhero movies have mostly avoided to date. Star-filled cosmos flooded with neon-colored splashes. Gleaming alien cities filled with colorful locales. Space-bars to rival the Mos Eisley cantina. A legion of Nova Corps agents wearing their trademark gladiator-helmets and Kirby-ringed uniforms, riding around in a battalion of starburst-shaped attack ships.

Gunn shoots the film in a classical manner that calls to mind 70's and 80's sci-fi films. The movie's action is fast and furious, but also well-staged, easy-to-follow, and impactful - littered with character moments both funny and poignant. The film's exotic alien locales are all unique and memorable and teeming with detail and motion and easter-eggs. And the movie's various depictions of the vast reaches of the cosmos are both awe-inspiring and fit for framing.

The film is also very funny. Sure, other Marvel movies have had quippy humor and self-referential gags, but GUARDIANS is the first true Marvel action/comedy. The movie's got a plethora of extended comedic scenes that go for big laughs. Comedy vet Chris Pratt anchors the humor with his great timing and delivery. And, despite its massive kid-appeal, Gunn sneaks in plenty of scandalous little moments that may go over the heads of the younger set, but that are guaranteed to get a chuckle from adults. But what's really remarkable is that the movie can switch gears and deliver epic action, romance, and space-opera - all while being very funny and light-on-its feet. In that way, it really is a throwback of sorts to the classic sci-fi cinema of the 70's and 80's. Action, humor, and moments that kids will later look back on and wonder "how did they get away with keeping *that* in there?".

The movie packs in so much that it does, inevitably, leave you wanting just a bit more. While an opening prologue nicely establishes some backstory for Quill, other characters' origins are often only briefly alluded to, left to be further fleshed-out in future sequels, tie-ins, etc. Certainly, I would have loved to have gotten some additional history around Gamora - to really get a sense for what her childhood must have been like under the thumb of Thanos, and what it was like to be raised alongside his other "children" like Nebula. There was also plenty of untold story with Rocket and Groot. Some mystery is good, but having just a bit more to chew on for the non-Star-Lord characters would have made things feel a bit more substantive. Same goes for chief villain Ronan. I know some of his background from the comics, but here he gets only minimal screentime to properly explain his sinister motivations.

Overall though, what James Gunn and his team have accomplished here is pretty remarkable. They've brought the Marvel cosmic universe to the big-screen, and they've taken characters and concepts that were long thought too weird for the mainstream and made them work - not by watering them down, but by going all-in and just fully embracing the awesome. For many months I've heard speculation that GUARDIANS would bomb, that Marvel movies worked because of a particular formula, and  that any deviation from that formula would spell box office disaster. But this is a new dawn, a world where weird is accepted and where comic book adaptations can let their freak flag fly high. It's funny, because in this film alone there are several concepts that have clear DC Comics analogues, that Marvel has now beat them to the punch in doing right on the big screen. As Marvel has done Thanos, DC could do Darkseid. As Marvel has done a pretty epic take on the Nova Corps, man, that's how DC could do Green Lantern. Seeing the visuals on Groot made me realize how cool a Swamp Thing film could be in 2014. And seeing Marvel embrace its comics' weirdest corners on the big-screen made me realize that there are no more limits. Because as a young comic book fan, sure, I loved the big heroes and the iconic stories, but most of all I loved the way that these comic book universes seemed to expand across all of space and time, filled with an endless collection of characters and concepts that ran the gamut of genres and artistic influences. With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, the Marvel cinematic universe now feels ever closer to the kind of place that made comics so cool to generations of readers. The kind of place where Steve Rogers can rub shoulders with The Hulk, who can pick a fight with Thanos, who can run afoul of the Kree empire, who might tangle with Spider-Man, who might just share an adventure with Howard the Duck. The beauty of these organic fictional worlds is that anything is possible. And GUARDIANS - complete with an off-the-wall end-tag that serves as a sort of exclamation point for this idea - confirms that this is now true of the movie-verse as well.

It's fitting then that the iconic object of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY turns out to be Peter Quill's mix-tape cassette - a memento from his mother - that provides the soundtrack for his adventures, and for much of the film. The tape jumps from "Hooked on a Feeling" to "Cherry Bomb," a diverse playlist of pop  favorites that somehow adds up to Peter Quill, in miniature. So too is the film an anything-goes mix-tape of pop-art - a color-soaked genre mash-up that evokes the same anything-goes spirit of the comics it adapts. Those books were rock n' roll. This movie is rock n' roll. And it delivers one awesomely groovy space-jam.

My Grade: A-

AMERICAN HUSTLE Captures The Spirit of '78

AMERICAN HUSTLE Review:

- David O. Russell's latest, AMERICAN HUSTLE, is a stylistic exercise in 70's-era excess - packed to the brim with big-name stars, over-the-top moments, and energy to spare. You might call it Scorsese lite. The film pays homage to the twisty, whip-crack narratives of films like Goodfellas and Casino, and borrows heavily from Scorsese's trademark crime-as-rock-n'-roll aesthetic. The "lite" part comes from American Hustle's relatively breezy plotline. Whereas Scorsese's crime films are about dangerous men doing dangerous things, Russell's movie is about con-men, poseurs, and wannabes trying to be something other than what they really are. So the "lite" label isn't a knock - instead, the jokiness and satirical nature of the film is intentional, a mirror of the characters, their rather absurd schemes, and of the era in which they lived. A flip disclaimer at the top of the film claims that it's only partially based on true events. As American Hustle progresses, you can see why: this is a film less about capturing the details of what really happened, and more about capturing the spirit of 1978 - in all of its gaudy glory.

The film follows small-time partners-in-crime Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) - two opportunistic con-artists who meet at a party, bond over a shared love of Duke Ellington, fall in love, and quickly go into business together - dealing forged art and handing out fake loans. The film opens with a painfully comic scene in which we see Irv put in place an absurdly elaborate comb-over, and from the get-go, it's clear that he is a man living out any number of lies upon lies. In fact, Irv's marital situation is revealed, at least at first, as merely a casual inconvenience. We soon find out though that Irv is married to a piece-of-work woman, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), and has a young son, which further complicates his relationship with Sydney. Sydney, meanwhile, has taken to using an English accent and telling prospective clients that she can get them a large and quick loan through banking connections in London. Soon enough, she all but completely hides her true self from others. Eventually, Irv and Sydney's scams attract the attention of an ambitious FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Rather than simply apprehend the pair, DiMaso has plans to use them to achieve a larger goal: utilizing Irv and Sydney's con-artist expertise, he plans to set up and entrap a number of high-profile politicians, convincing them to take political funds from disreputable sources, including the mob. One of the key targets: a well-meaning, much-loved politician - Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who Irv and Sydney must set up to take a big fall. This is all based on the real-life ABSCAM operation that was run by the FBI in the 70's.

Like I said, AMERICAN HUSTLE is populated by a total all-star cast, and just about every star shines brightly. My pick for MVP of the film is Christian Bale. His Irv feels like the most nuanced, well-rounded character in the movie - a guy who was taught from a young age to succeed at all costs. Irv is a walking contradiction: an outwardly smooth operator who bottles up stress to the point where he frequently collapses and needs emergency heart medication. He's madly in love with Sydney, but can't bring himself to run away with her, for fear of abandoning his son (he'd likely leave his unhinged wife without a second thought). Aside from the character work that Bale puts into Irv, the sheer physical transformation is pretty astonishing. Bale walks with a slight hunch and a hint of pain, he moves deliberately but confidently. He inhabits this character to the last detail.

Amy Adams is also pretty spectacular as Sydney (aside, even, from her rotating wardrobe of plunging-neckline dresses). It's incredible to me how versatile of an actress she is - she's played everything from Disney princesses to tough Boston broods to Lois Lane - but here, she again knocks it out of the park. Sydney parallels Irv in many ways. Outwardly, she's glamorous and sharp and magnetic. But beneath the surface is a troubled woman harboring a lot of sadness, rage, and a major identity crisis.

Bradley Cooper emerged as a legit actor in David O. Russell's last film, Silver Linings Playbook - and his hot streak continues here. Cooper is funny and semi-disturbing as DiMaso, who is prone to Pesci-like bouts of violent rage, and whose "good guy" status as an FBI agent is seriously compromised by his propensity for lying and manipulation. He plays DiMaso as a coked-up, hyperactive guy who is semi-blinded by ambition. Despite his denials, he clearly wants to be the guy to find and expose the next Watergate scandal.

As for Jennifer Lawrence, she's great as Rosalyn, although it's the one part that feels a little like stunt casting. Lawrence is capable of playing older than she is, but it still feels like this boozy, had-it-up-to-here housewife character was meant for an older actress. Even so, Lawrence turns in a typically fantastic performance, and she nails the kind of melodramatic, comedic tone needed to really sell the part.

The film is also littered with great supporting performances. Some of them are, I think, supposed to be a bit of a surprise, so I won't spoil them all here. But I will say that when you've got even minor roles in a film filled by great actors like Shea Wigham and Jack Huston of Boardwalk Empire, you know you've got a stacked cast.

What's interesting about the film is how lies bleed into truth and vice versa. Sydney's insistence that she cozy up to DiMaso to get a leg up on him becomes real-life mutual attraction. Irv's dealings with Polito form a genuine friendship between the two that makes Irv question his plans. And Rosalyn ends up getting mixed up in Irv's plans after she becomes a favorite of Polito and his wife. Through it all, Irv and Sydney get pulled apart, played against one another by DiMaso, and see a rift form between them. But they keep circling one another - and the movie posits that, perhaps, their relationship is the one real, true thing in this whole crazy mess.

AMERICAN HUSTLE suffers a bit from a problem that plagues too many films these days: it's too long. While I normally am a long-film apologist, this one definitely feels dragged out beyond what was needed to tell its story most effectively. Part of the problem is that the movie seems to stumble a bit, in general, to figure out what it's all about. There are some obvious overarching themes - some of which I've talked about above. But sometimes, the movie feels unpredictable in a way that's not necessarily good - meaning, there's a sense that Russell and co-writer Eric Singer are trying to figure out, as they go, where and how things end up for these characters. Whereas the Scorsese films that this emulates tend to play out like clockwork, American Hustle seems messier and less sure of itself. The emphasis is on the style (prepare to be wowed by a psychedelic disco scene) and the big, melodramatic moments. But the plotting ends up taking a back seat.

Still, as a style exercise, the film is second-to-none. And as I've insinuated, the movie's semi-hollowness is, in a strange way, keeping with its biggest theme. Just as DiMaso's entrapment plan is really a desperate career-advancement move disguised as a noble pursuit of justice, you might argue that AMERICAN HUSTLE is gaudy kitsch disguised as serious cinema. But hey, that's okay, because that's the point. That may, ultimately, prevent this film from being held up alongside the Scorsese classics it's being compared to. But it does not, certainly, prevent it from being one of the most dazzlingly entertaining films of the year.

My Grade: A-

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES Is An Ambitious Genre-Mashup

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES Review:

- The Place Beyond the Pines is one of those films that I'd easily recommend that any real film fan check out asap, but also one that I had some reservations with. It's frustrating, because the movie is admirably ambitious, features some incredible performances, and has certain sequences that are truly memorable. But it's also a movie that feels like it's overreaching a bit, halting its own momentum with a clunky structure and a number of plot points and twists that feel contrived. There is greatness in this film, but it's weighted down by a number of elements that just don't quite work. Still, it's easily worth watching as an interesting and discussion-provoking film - an example of a movie that has a lot on its mind, but can't quite articulate it all in a cohesive and fluid fashion.

This is a film, primarily, about fathers and sons. From Derek Cianfrance, the guy behind Blue Valentine, The Place Beyond the Pines has a similar moody darkness that permeates throughout. It's also a hard movie to talk about without giving away major spoilers, so bear with me as I try to talk around any major plot points. I will say this though: in my opinion, the first third of this film is incredible. If the film had simply stuck to its initial narrative, expanded it, filled in some of the gaps, and called it a day, I think we'd be looking at a possible Oscar contender. But Cianfrance isn't necessarily interested in telling that sort of story. Instead, he divides the film into three distinct but interconnected segments, with each segment completely shifting its focus to a different set of characters. And unfortunately, the film seems to lose momentum each time a new segment begins.

To back up though, the first segment is an amazing piece of filmmaking. It features Ryan Gosling as Luke, a down-on-his-luck drifter circa 1990 or so. Luke, perpetually sporting a tattered Metallica t-shirt, feels like a slightly de-mystified version of Gosling's character from Drive. He's a loner, a vagabond who makes end's meat by working as a motorcycle stuntman in a travelling carnival. One day, however, while at a show in upstate NY, Luke runs into a woman, Romina (Eva Mendes) who he'd had a brief fling with a year prior. Luke discovers that Romina has a son - it's his - and Luke becomes determined to force his way into Romina and their child's life (despite Romina shacking up with another man and wanting little to do with him). But Luke is persistent. He quits the carnival and gets a job working for a burnout mechanic named Robin (an amazing Ben Mendelsohn). Eventually, Robin convinces Luke to partner with him to rob banks. Luke goes along with it, and becomes quite good at it to boot. And so a classic sort of story begins to unfold - the kind that will be familiar to fans of Breaking Bad. Even as Luke finds something he's good at, his life of crime creates two problems for every problem it solves, and even as he enjoys success, it's only a matter of time until the other shoe drops.

Man ... this initial segment with Gosling is so well done - it had me captivated. From a visual perspective, the entire first third is incredibly shot. The heist sequences are gritty, visceral, ultra-intense. Other scenes have a moody, foreboding, neon-lit film noir atmosphere. And Gosling, Mendes, and Mendelsohn are absolutely at the top of their games. Gosling brings the same sort of quiet intensity that he brought to Drive, and delivers a powerful, magnetic performance. Mendes is at her best, world-weary yet ever so slightly curious about the mystery man who's come back into her life. And Mendelsohn is wonderful - funny, charismatic, and memorable as a ne'er do well small-time hood who sees Luke as his ticket back to the bigtime. The absorbing characters, the top-flight performances, and the visually-stunning direction make this first segment positively electric. As the segment culminated in a shocking chase scene (as we are introduced, on the fly, to Bradley Cooper as the driven cop Avery Cross), I was on the edge of my seat, and my jaw was on the floor as the screen faded to black.

But that is only the first of three segments. In the second segment, the focus switches to Cooper's character, who we learn is also the father of a young son. The tone of the film switches - no longer a neo-noir, the look and feel of the movie takes on the stylings of a procedural cop drama. The film adopts a more drab, more dull look. And the story, while compelling, lacks the all-or-nothing drama of Luke's tale. As it turns out, Cooper seems to be one of the few good cops in his precinct - hailed as a hero cop following an on-patrol injury, Cross seems to be a sort of white knight figure - especially in contrast to the corrupt, racist lawman played by Ray Liotta. But as the story progresses, we begin to see that Cross is partly motivated by altruism, but also partly by an aggressively political streak. Cross may not be as inherently corrupt as his colleagues, but he's got a survivalist instinct that makes him dangerous. Similar to Luke, we see how Cross makes a series of decisions that come, initially, from a pure place, but that end up becoming corrosive and corrupting.

The movie's middle section is carried by a great performance from Bradley Cooper - right up there with his work in Silver Linings Playbook. It's nice to see Cooper continue his streak of fantastic performances - and even more impressive, he's very much playing against type here - Cross is quiet, measured, carefully masking his motives with a mild-mannered demeanor. Liotta is also characteristically excellent - scary and imposing. But while the story works well in and of itself, it unravels a bit as it becomes apparent how Cianfrance wants it to connect thematically with the first segment. The ways that Cross' story mirrors Luke's - they don't quite hold up to scrutiny. And there starts to be a contrivance to the way that Cross keeps running into characters from Luke's story. Cianfrance is going for a "we're all connected" vibe, but as that increasingly becomes what the movie is about, it comes off less as profound and more as stretching.

And it feels like stretching to the breaking point when the film gets into its third and final segment. I won't spoil what this segment is about, but it continues Luke and Cross' story in an interesting, but ultimately forced-feeling manner. The highlight is, easily, Dane DeHaan (who was great in last year's CHRONICLE), playing Jason - a high school outcast. DeHaan does some fantastic work here, but it's offset a bit by the extremely over-the-top performance of Emory Cohen as AJ, a friend/rival of Jason's. This may be one of those love-it-or-hate-it things, but Cohen's performance in the film - where he seems to be trying to channel the ghost of Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire - really took me out of the film. It was just too much - too cartoonish, too weird. And the backstory of his character - which has some major gaps and makes little sense - is also an issue. And so this third segment - which is essentially a mini high school coming-of-age drama - is easily the film's weakest. As Cianfrance attempts to tie up his ambitious saga in a bow, it collapses a bit under its own weight. There's two much we as an audience must blindly accept for it all to work, and the jumpiness of the narrative ends up hurting rather than helping the film.

And yet ... the last ten minutes or so of the film are quite strong, and function as a moving, memorable, and iconic epilogue to the first segment. It really made me wish that the movie had focused on Gosling's Luke, kept Cooper's Cross as a side character/rival, and perhaps featured a short epilogue with DeHaan's Jason. The ambitious structure, ultimately, makes the movie feel less fluid and much more clunky than it might have been otherwise. Like I said, it's frustrating, because I feel like the movie has all the ingredients to be a masterpiece. And for the first forty minutes or so, I was convinced I was watching a classic unfold. It's a great cautionary tale about how to tell (or perhaps not to tell) this sort of generation-spanning saga (and who knows, perhaps the story would have been better served as a TV miniseries). As is, THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES is a movie overflowing with incredible scenes and moments and performances. This is in many ways a must-see, because the film's best moments will likely be, at the end of the day, some of the best of any movie this year. It just, sadly, doesn't quite come together as it should. But ... what is there is well worth taking in, flaws and all.

My Grade: B+

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Is Gold

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Review:

- I went into Silver Linings Playbook knowing very little about the film, and I came away fairly shocked by how great of a movie this turned out to be. Throw away any preconceived notions about the film based on its marketing - this is a dark comedy that definitely does not fit neatly into any one genre. There are elements of screwball and romantic comedy, shades of psychological character studies, and bits of slice-of-life quirkiness. But the sum total is an unexpected surprise - one of the year's flat-out funniest films, and also one of its most joyous and applause-worthy. There's a Little Miss Sunshine-style vibe to this one, and the  film's pleasures are felt all the more deeply thanks to the outstanding, awards-worthy cast. David O. Russell has made a great film in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. I mean, look, most people will tell you that I have a strong distaste for overly sentimental rom-coms that go for cheap melodrama. But I'll admit, I wanted to stand and cheer as this movie raced towards its well-earned climax.

Like many, I don't know why, exactly, but I've developed sort of a distaste for Bradley Cooper over the last several years. Maybe it was ill-will from the annoying Hangover franchise, maybe it was the endless string of lame starring roles of late, but I wasn't running to see a prestige flick with Cooper in the lead. After seeing Silver Linings Playbook ... scratch all that. Cooper is phenomenal in this one, playing Pat, a mentally-ill guy freshly released from the psych-ward - trying to restart his life, going back to live with his overbearing parents in small-town suburbia. As Pat, Cooper is a tightly-wound ball of chaos - speaking in an awkward, unfiltered manner that makes those around him cringe. Cooper brilliantly shows Pat in various degrees of psychosis - at times, you can see him reigning himself in and doing his best to fit in. Other times, he comes unspooled, lashing out, lacking social graces, becoming fixated and obsessed with certain things or ideas. David O. Russell's adapted screenplay of the novel by Matthew Quick gives Pat all sorts of recurring fixations - a song that drives him insane with rage whenever he hears it, for example. But Pat isn't just some crazy guy - Cooper and Russell mold him into a fully fleshed-out character that feels real and plausible, even if his particular brand of crazy isn't necessarily "real-world" crazy. But I give Cooper a ton of credit - this is easily his best screen performance ever, and it's one that casts him in a new light as a legitimately great actor capable of Oscar-worthy turns. I am now a Bradley Cooper fan.

And yet, equally awesome is Jennifer Lawrence. This girl is mind-blowing. She's been consistently fantastic in everything she's done, and yet she's played completely different characters in each of her films so far. She's certainly never played anyone like Tiffany before. Her character in this film matches Cooper's crazy pound for pound. They're two peas in a crazytown pod. But Lawrence gives Tiffany a brilliant madness all her own. Like Pat, she is a wounded soul with a lot of darkness inside her. But Lawrence plays her a vulnerable yet badass, manipulative yet gullible, totally lovable yet scarily unhinged. It would be easy for this character to come off as just the usual manic pixie dreamgirl type. But Lawrence takes the character to another level ... making her fully-formed, fully-developed, with a subtlety and a nuance that is rare for this sort of character. Point being, she's far, far from just being the stock love-interest. It's her movie as much as it is Cooper's. And in fact, this is one of my favorite performances of the year so far. How often does a character start off as weird and semi-off-putting and then make you want to stand up and cheer for her by movie's end? Lawrence has the acting ability equal to any other actress out there - yet's she's also got the movie star ability to make audiences fall in love. What I'm trying to say is: can Jennifer Lawrence just be cast in everything?

Oh, and then there's Rober De Niro. Whoah. Someone woke the slumbering giant and lit a fire under De Niro - this is the best acting from him I've seen in years. As Cooper's father, De Niro plays a guy who seems to be  the level-headed one in the family, but who slowly reveals his own obsessions and mental instabilities. Like father, like son. His character sort of drives home the movie's central message - we're all a bit crazy, but if we stick together, we can shake off the cobwebs that keep us down and move forward with out lives. But man, De Niro is just great - he's got some moments of true hilarity in the film, and some that are guaranteed  to not have a dry eye in the house.

Jacki Weaver is also great as Cooper's beleaguered mom. So too is Anupam Kher as his beleaguered psychiatrist. John Ortiz is also a scene-stealer as Cooper's best friend Ronnie - married to a ball-and-chain of a wife (Julia Stiles), Ronnie is a great and often hilarious counterpoint to Cooper - a mild-mannered everyman on the outside, but with plenty of pent-up rage within. And, oh, I have to mention Paul Herman as Randy - De Niro's old buddy who constantly bets against his friend in a series of ridiculously escalating wagers. I found it incredibly funny - yet oddly touching - how these two old guys are in a fashion so cruel to each other, and yet they sort of thrive off of their competition and remain friends despite it all. Finally, Chris Tucker is in this movie. And he is actually really good, and fairly restrained (for Chris Tucker). As an escaped mental patient who is fiercely loyal to Cooper, he is a great asset to the film.

The film perhaps works best if you don't know a ton about the details of its plot going in. The story is told in such a way that a lot of plot insight is revealed gradually, with many twists as the film goes. It's a fascinating take on the Unreliable Narrator conceit, as the version of events we originally hear from Pat - about his reasons for going into the mental hospital, about his relationship with his wife, about his life in general - well, there's clearly more there than he initially divulges. And the movie becomes so engrossing partially because it's about the lies we tell ourselves, and about the need to break through and accept things as they really are ... not just how we perceive them to be in the fantasy-version of our lives that we've created. And therein lies one of the key distinctions between Pat and Tiffany. Pat lives a fiction - he's constructed a narrative around his life where he is the victim, the hero, the misunderstood genius. But Tiffany - she's comically upfront about all of her failings and mistakes.

Ultimately - yes, there is romance in this movie - but I'd argue that it's not a movie *about* romance so much as it is a movie about breaking through our inner cloud of chaos, and finding some sort of sanity in a mostly insane world. Just about every character in the film surprises by not being what they seem. And SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK surprises by being much, much better than perhaps it looks on paper. Director David O. Russell brings his A-game. The direction is at times personal and in-your-face, at times sweeping and cinematic. But it has a sort of ADD, chaotic quality that mirrors Pat's chaotic mind. I loved the script of the film as well. The dialogue is fantastic, and the script somehow feels both naturalistic and cinematic in the best way possible. My only main gripe - and I suspect this will be the gripe of many ... is that the ending of the film just feels ever-so-slightly too neat and clean. Given how complex these character are, I felt slightly let down that Russell sort of wraps things up in a bow as the credits begin to roll. Even just a single added moment - a reminder that, for these characters, things would always be at least a little messy and weird - would have helped. Don't get me wrong ... the feel-good moments in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK are some of the *most* feel-good, most well-earned, most applause-worthy moments I've seen in a movie of this sort. But most of the film balances out those moments with some real darkness and complexity and characters who you like and root for, but who also feel genuinely screwed-up and off-kilter. Mostly though, the film has a sort of gleeful chaos that reminded me of the uproarious family scenes in Russell's previous film, The Fighter.

With an incredible cast and a just-right mix of humor, heart, darkness, and quirk, SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK was one of the big movie surprises of the year for me in 2012. I'll put it right up there towards the top of my list for movies of the year.

My Grade: A-