THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Is a New Scorsese Classic

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET Review:

- There are directors whose legend is, perhaps, overhyped ... and then there's Martin Scorsese. 2013 has been a fantastic year for movies - one of the best - but before all is said and done and the book is closed, here comes the master with a film that shows all of the year's almost-great films how it's done. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET completes a thematic trilogy that started with Goodfellas, continued with Casino, and now ends with a third look at the mainstreaming of crime in America. This movie is stylistically similar to those two previous Scorsese classics, and it's just effortlessly amazing. Others have mentioned this, but what quickly shocked me about the film is that, while it builds on themes and aesthetics that Scorsese has dealt with in the past, it feels like the work of a young, hungry, boundary-pushing director - not a 70-year-old veteran. The Wolf of Wall Street is 100% pure cinematic rock n' roll.

Early on, the film delivers a scene so good that it's destined to become an instant-classic. In it, Leonardo DiCaprio's Jordan Belfort - at this point a young, just-starting-out Wall St. broker - has lunch with one of the big-shots at his new workplace. The big-shot is played by Matthew McConaughey (who I'm now ready to officially declare as the MVP of the movies in 2013), and the conversation between the two is electric. This might very well be the best one-scene performance in a movie since Alec Baldwin explained the principles of "Always Be Closing" in Glengarry Glen Ross. McConaughey breaks down the world of Wall St. in colorful fashion, but basically, his advice boils down to this: being a stock broker is not about helping others make money, it's about creating the illusion of helping others make money. The real trick is to reel suckers in and keep them in with the on-paper promise of future rewards, while you, the broker, rakes in actual cash at their expense. It's here that we start to see the world that Belfort is about to enter - a world based on lies, a world based on greed, and a world that's fueled by excess - sex, drugs, and an insatiable desire for more money at all costs.

Belfort soon becomes a skilled broker, but he gets a bad break when his firm goes under. He finds himself back at the bottom, and takes a job at a small-time brokerage that specializes in penny stocks. But Belfort's salesmanship quickly makes him a big fish in a small pond, and soon enough he strikes out on his own - recruiting old friends to help him form his own firm. Known for its slick sales tactics and debauched excesses, the firm quickly recruits an army of employees who worship at Belfort's altar with cult-like fervor. Soon, Belfort and his cohorts are making more money than they know what to do with, even as they increasingly become immersed in a whirlwind of corruption - attracting the attention of the FBI, who become eager to topple the empire that Belfort has built.

As the film progresses, McConaughey's early advice looms large. Belfort and his cronies don't care about who they're scamming, ripping off, or manipulating to get what they want, and what they want above all else is the all-important sale. That same drive for more, for heightened sensation, is there in Belfort's addictions to drugs and sex. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is a drug-trip movie, no question. There's more coke snorted, pills swallowed, and crack smoked here than in just about any movie ever. Scorsese shows us this in excess so that we can feel the excess, so that it wears us down in a way where the drugs lose all glamor and we just think "enough is enough, these guys are nuts!". And that's exactly the correct response, the response that Scorsese aims for. This is not a film that overtly moralizes. There's no heavy-handed condemnation of Belfort or his destructive actions. Instead, the condemnation is there between the lines. The repetition of scenes of drug-use tell the tale. In this film, the drugs initially seem exciting, and the early scenes of drug use are energetic and almost triumphant. Later, they become darkly comedic - an extended scene of of Belfort and his right-hand-man Donnie (Jonah Hill) slowed to a cartoonish crawl by an overdose of quaaludes is an absurdly hilarious bit of physical comedy. Eventually, the drugs start to seem pathetic. "He's going to that well again?", we think. And so it goes throughout the film. Sex goes from sexy to comedic (Belfort literally screwing his wife atop a pile of money) to pathetic. Belfort's way with words, his gift for inspiring others and creating a cult of personality around himself, follows a similar downward spiral - from triumph to comedy to tragedy. So for those who will misguidedly denounce this film for glamorizing Belfort, I say watch more carefully. THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, is, ultimately, a rather brilliant takedown of not just Belfort, but of the kind of immoral hucksterism that set the stage for modern Wall Street culture and the modern financial collapse that that culture led to.  

The film goes to very dark and very depraved places, but it's also, largely, a comedy - with numerous over-the-top sequences that are flat-out hilarious in their absurdity. Scorsese's defense-mechanism response to the sheer repulsiveness of Belfort and his Wall St. culture is to send it up in grand fashion. In one of the film's most clever repeated conceits, Belfort, via narration, will often begin to explain some facet of Wall St., only to cut himself off shrug off the lesson as not-that-important. However, he does explain in full the history of the quaalude and the exact nature of the high it provides. And it's in these details that the satirical brilliance of the movie shines through. For Belfort, Wall St. is a fantasyland bacchanalia - a playground for arrested-development adults to live without consequence. Wives are cheated on, kids neglected, and clients scammed all to achieve a neverending high. But the illusion of that high vs. the ugly reality is the source of much of the movie's humor. We see the ridiculous havoc that Belfort wreaks on his mind and body via his drug abuse, contrasted with his belief that the drugs are what give him his power, like spinach for Popeye. We see how these stockbrokers psych themselves up, believing in Belfort's rhetoric that labels them as killers and assassins. And yet, Scorsese depicts them as spineless sheep, as brainwashed losers. This is apparent in Jonah Hill's Donnie - who first appears as a geeky, creepy sort of guy who's widely mocked (and rightfully so) for marrying his cousin. Donnie quickly latches on to Belfort and becomes his Number 2, and as he gains wealth and power, Donnie starts acting like a douche - humiliating young employees and picking fights with others in Belfort's inner circle. Donnie clings to the idea that Wall St. success has made him into something more than he once was. But really, he's still just a sad sack who's married to his first cousin.

Both Hill and DiCaprio do fantastic work here. Speaking first about DiCaprio, this may be his best-yet collaboration with Scorsese. This is DiCaprio unhinged - he goes big, he goes crazy, and he even delivers scenes of physical comedy that show him to be incredibly gifted in that regard. This is the actor's most fully-inhabited role to date. He nails it. Hill, meanwhile, I really didn't know he had this in him. He hangs with DiCaprio and holds his own. I was shocked by how good he was in this film.

Hill is a surprise, but another surprise was Margot Robbie as Belfort's second wife, Naomi. When first introduced, I assumed that Robbie was just there to play a small role, to help further the rift between Belfort and his first wife, whom he married young and quickly grew apart from. Soon enough though, I realized that Naomi was a major character in this story, and that - wow - Robbie had some serious acting chops to match her seriously stunning looks. She too goes toe-to-toe with DiCaprio, and she too holds her own and doesn't give an inch. There are some other fine supporting turns in the film: Rob Reiner as Belfort's bemused dad, and Jon Bernthal as an old buddy of Belfort's who becomes their money-man. I also enjoyed seeing The Artist's Jean Dujardin show up as a rule-bending Swiss banker.

The film is impeccably shot and edited by Scorsese and his team. The stylistic trademarks from Goodfellas and Casino are back - the freeze frames, the slo-mo, the voiceovers, the visual dynamism. Scorsese mixes chaos and precision like no one else. He bobs and weaves through large crowd scenes and visually dense action, but he does so with a care and purposefulness that most directors lack. I've also got to give credit to the sharp script by Terence Winter. The movie is jam-packed with memorable and quotable lines - there's some great dialogue here that's got a lot of snap and a lot of sizzle.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET is masterful on many levels. It functions as a biting, razor-sharp attack on the worst aspects of a capitalist society that's lost its way - a society that's built on and feeds off of corruption and false promises. We too are complicit in Belfort's evil, because we as a people willingly buy into what he and his ilk are selling, and enable the system that is ultimately, in many ways, a house of cards. In many respects, Belfort is America. Before his rise to Wall St. power, the old-money guys were, mostly, left alone by law-enforcement. But his story was that of a self-made man. That allowed him to surpass his born-with-a-silver-spoon competition, but it also left him vulnerable. To succeed at the level he hoped to, he had to get dirtier, meaner, and more ruthless than the establishment ever did. To achieve his version of the American Dream, he had to essentially lose his soul. But is it better to dance with the sinners than starve with the saints? THE WOLF OF WALL STREET pointedly asks that question, arching a mocking eyebrow at the pitfalls of unbridled excess.

My Grade: A

GRUDGE MATCH Doesn't Rage Or Rock, But It Does Put On a Good Show

GRUDGE MATCH Review:

- Thankfully, GRUDGE MATCH doesn't take itself too seriously. It's very much in on the joke that, here in 2013, Stallone vs. De Niro is not the dream match-up that it once was. What makes the movie work is that it's a breezy sports comedy about two way-past-their-prime ex-boxers who never had their tie-breaking fight, and have a score that's been left unsettled for thirty years. This is a light, fluffy, feel-good crowd-pleaser. It's not going to win any awards - it's a far cry from Raging Bull and a long way from Rocky - but this is a movie that's highly watchable and overall, lots of fun.

Stallone does not play Rocky Balboa, and De Niro does not play Jake LaMotta, but GRUDGE MATCH clearly plays off the iconography of the two actors' famous roles. In this movie, the two are former champions who had a bitter rivalry - De Niro won their first fight, while Stallone won their second - that never got a real resolution. For reasons that remained a mystery to the public, Stallone's character dropped out before the decisive third bout could take place. As we learn, there's more to the rivalry than simply the in-ring competition, and there were personal motivations that kept Stallone from having that third contest. As the years went on, Stallone loses most of his money and settles into a blue-collar life, working a factory job and taking up an art hobby. De Niro owns a car dealership and a bar, and while he's more financially successful, his life is more of a wreck. He's a drinker and a gambler, and has not aged gracefully. Decades after their last fight, however, the two cross paths once more thanks to a hustling promoter - played by Kevin Hart - trying to make a name for himself. Hart helps sign both boxers to a contract to have themselves motion-captured for an upcoming videogame. But when the two come into contact, old hatreds reignite, and the two get involved in a knock-down, drag-out brawl in the studio. The fight gets captured on cell phone cameras and becomes a YouTube sensation. Suddenly, there is interest from fight fans in seeing - finally - that fabled, never-happened third fight grudge match between the two rivals.

Stallone and De Niro are both in ham mode here, but ... there are glimpses of them - flashbacks, if you will - at their Oscar-worthy best. There's not the kind of intensity or high drama that you'd find in a Rocky film here, but look, these are two of the greatest movie stars of all time squaring off. There's still some juice left in both Stallone and De Niro, and both have enough charisma to sleepwalk through a scene and still make it interesting. Not that they're sleepwalking. Sure, Stallone is playing a more homogenized version of his usual brooding strong-and-silent persona, but it's a nice contrast to De Niro here, who has a certain, undeniably youthful spark in his eye and bounce in his step. De Niro is perhaps the true surprise here, because though he looks old and flabby in comparison to the still-jacked Stallone, he makes up for it by bringing some humor and heart to the table. Just as we see glimpses in his character of the champ he once was, so too do we see some glimpses in De Niro of the kind of powerhouse, Oscar-worthy fire that made him incendiary in films like Raging Bull.

Actually though, the true MVP of the film may be Alan Arkin, as Stallone's old trainer who's brought out of the nursing home and back into the fray to once again train his former student. The fact is that a lot of Arkin's lines - and a lot of the script in general - are cheesy and hamfisted. But Arkin sells them with such a sense of good-natured mischief and understated zing that they draw big laughs anyways. Like Stallone and De Niro, Arkin can do this sort of crotchety sourpuss role in his sleep - but the guy is simply the best in the biz, so he makes it work. The Walking Dead's Jon Bernthal, meanwhile, is also quite good as De Niro's estranged son. There's an obvious physical resemblance, but beyond that, the two have a nice chemistry. Adding additional humor to the proceedings is Camden Gray as Bernthal's son (and De Niro's grandson) - a precocious eight year old who, quite amusingly, overhears a lot of child-inappropriate banter from his boozing, womanizing grandfather.

Less great is Kim Basinger as the woman who, long ago, came between Stallone and De Niro. It's always nice to see Basinger pop up, but she seems sort of out-of-it in this one, and her relationship with both leads feels a little half-hearted. I'm also of mixed minds about Kevin Hart here - Hart is occasionally legitimately funny, but a lot of times he seems to cover for lame dialogue by just yelling and gesticulating a lot. He definitely brings some needed energy to the film though, and he's got an especially fun chemistry with Arkin whenever the two get a chance to go at it.

Overall, I think the biggest knock against this film is that we've seen this story done much better and more dramatically, as recently as in Stallone's own ROCKY BALBOA. We've seen better training montages, we've seen better big speeches about needing one more shot, and we've seen better from both Stallone and De Niro. There is, overall, a sort of low-stakes feel to this movie that works alright, but that makes the big, climactic fight less epic drama and more amusing curiosity.

The script and dialogue, meanwhile, is cutesy and full of lines that are groaners. We get a lot of old-guy jokes about Stallone and De Niro not knowing from iPads, viral videos, or cell phone cameras. We also get some cringe-worthy, non-PC jokes that movies in 2013 just shouldn't have, and that feel out-of-place in what is, mostly, a more family-friendly film.

But mostly, GRUDGE MATCH is a fun, light, entertaining flick that, like its stars, has a bit of a retro feel. But while De Niro's heyday was the 70's, when maverick movies challenged audiences, and Stallone's was the 80's, when ultra-violent actionfests ruled cinemas, Grudge Match feels like a 90's throwback - the kind of ready-for-cable, goes-down-easy schmaltz that will find a long and oft-repeated shelf life on TNT or Spike TV. That means that, no, this movie isn't even in the same weight class as its stars' best films - but, it is the perfect sort of movie for a lazy Sunday afternoon. And really, what more does one need from Grudge Match?

My Grade: B

47 RONIN Slices and Dices

47 RONIN Review:

- 47 Ronin bears the mark of a movie that's been through the proverbial wringer. Like a person who's had obvious plastic surgery, this is a movie that, clearly, has had work done. As you watch it, scenes feel spliced in, mashed together, pulled out, and re-inserted. The fact that this is a film that went through many re-shoots and re-edits over a multi-year period is visible up on screen. And yet, 47 Ronin works pretty darn well in spite of that fact. It tells a fun story, and there's a lot of cool stuff packed into the film. Once it moved past the cut-and-pasted set-up portion, I really started getting into it. At some point, I found myself surprised as I thought, Keanu-like, "whoah ... this got pretty epic, dude."

The cool thing about 47 Ronin is that it feels like a Japanese film that just so happens to be in English. The pacing, the look, the way the plot unfolds - it all feels very Japanese. This will likely surprise and possibly turn off those expecting a non-stop roller-coaster ride of an action film. But I really dug it. There is a lot of build-up here to the big action scenes, but that means that those action scenes feel more well-earned, more climactic, than in your typical mindless action flick.

Also, this might just be me, but 47 Ronin has one of those stories that is just inherently sort of awesome, and that lends itself to action-movie gravitas. The plot takes place in feudal Japan, and centers on Keanu Reeves as Kai - an outsider due to his mysterious origins. Kai is dubbed by others as a half-breed, because it is said that he is the offspring of a human woman and a demon. Kai is indeed the progeny of magical demons, but he fled their kingdom and found refuge in a nearby land. There, he fell in love with Mika, the daughter of the local lord. But their love was forbidden, since Kai was considered a lowly outcast. And so Kai lives on the fringes - alone, unable to be with Mika, and unable to fulfill his other ambition - to be a samurai. Eventually, however, events force Kai to step out from the sidelines. During a rare visit from the Shogun, the Shogun's sinister advisers - including a mysterious witch (Pacific Rim's Rinko Kikuchi) - plot to seize control from the lord of the land. Their play for power works - and soon the lord is dead, and evil forces rule the land. What's more, the samurai - numbering 47, and now masterless (thus becoming what is known as "ronin") - are exiled. The movie then picks up years later, when the gruff leader of the former samurai, Oishi (Hiroyuki Sanada), devises a plan to take back his land from the Witch. To do so, he knows that he must recruit Kai - though Kai was never a samurai, he was one of the land's best and bravest fighters, even if few would admit it.

So yeah, maybe I'm just a sucker for epic revenge flicks. Maybe I've got a soft spot for stories about outcasts realizing their destiny and leading a group of warriors into battle. But regardless, I found myself getting pretty caught up in the increasingly epic story of 47 Ronin. Like I said, the beginning of the movie is a bit of a chore to get through. We're told Kai's origin story in a seemingly endless montage that feels like the infodump to end all infodumps. However, once things finally settle down, and the story begins to unfold more naturally, it becomes pretty involving. Not only is there a simple but deeply-felt impetus behind the quest of the ronin (to seek revenge for their master and take back their land), but so too is there a nicely-developed arc about Kai's slow-but-steady journey towards acceptance with the ronin. The movie doesn't give us anything we haven't seen before, plot-wise, but it develops its key characters well, and delivers all the trappings that make this sort of revenge story work well - rousing speeches, stern vows of vengeance, and love-to-hate-'em villains who seem to seethe evil. As the Witch, Rinko Kikuchi is great - far-removed from the more innocent and lovable character she played in Pacific Rim. Here, she's a true femme fatale - slinky and seductive, but also full of killer intent. I've also got to give huge props to Hiroyuki Sanada as Oishi - most recently seen in The Wolverine. This guy is the real deal, and he brings a huge level of badassery and gravitas to the role of Oishi, leader of the 47 ronin. Many will be surprised to find that this is as much Oishi's story as it is Kai's. But given how great Sanada is, that's a very good thing indeed. Keanu Reeves is quite good here as well. This isn't a part that forces him to stretch too much - he's playing the stoic, sullen zen-master type - but Keanu does these parts well. I enjoyed his turn here as Kai - Keanu makes Kai a natural badass both through his acting and through the ease by which he swings and slices his way through the big action beats.

Also, this is just a pretty weird movie, in a way that's fun and will be much-appreciated by fanboys of a certain type. It's chock full of the kind of crazy-ass stuff you usually only see in the most whacked-out Japanese videogames: giant mythological beasts that look like the kind of thing you might summon in a Final Fantasy game, creepy-looking rock-demons, and of course, a Witch who turns into a mystical and deadly dragon. The movie takes a lot of left-turns into full-on fantasy, but for those who enjoy a magical, mythical take on Japanese history (and who doesn't?), there's a lot to like here. This is definitely not typical Hollywood blockbuster stuff - the monsters and creatures in this film are very unique, very Japanese.

The film feels Japanese not just in terms of pacing and visual design, but also in the way that its story doesn't pull punches for an American audience. Okay, it obviously features well-known American actor Keanu Reeves in a lead role, but what I mean is: if you've seen much Asian cinema, you know that it often goes to some dark places, story-wise, and often eschews the happy endings typical of Hollywood films. Without spoiling anything, I'll simply say that while, yes, this may be a big-studio blockbuster, it plays out much more like a Japanese import. Suffice it to say ... expect some seppuku!

Again, where 47 Ronin suffers is that it quite simply feels majorly disjointed in parts. There's a rough-draft feel to the movie that likely speaks to all of the re-shoots and re-edits. In some ways, it feels like a multi-movie epic was crammed into a single film. And yet, the movie works best when it breathes, takes its time, and lets the story build for maximum drama.When it's cramming in exposition or seemingly rushing through some of its big action scenes, you can only guess at the sorts of band-aids and duct-tape that had to be applied to get this movie completed. That unfinished feel is also noticeable during a few key scenes in which it feels like something is missing or left on the cutting room floor. For example, a key sequence, in which the Witch believes all 47 ronin to be dead by her army's hand, makes little sense based on what we've seen (namely, many of the ronin clearly, well, not dying). It feels like a last-minute plot-insertion to get from Point A to Point B, but it ends up disrupting the flow of the film and taking us out of the movie. Other instances of odd editing are just odd, like the awkward narration that closes out the film. For the life of me, I can't figure out why it's there - it totally saps the power of the real ending that happens moments earlier. Again, it's that feeling that the movie was assembled, in some instances, Frankenstein-style from disparate parts that had to then be glued together.

Still, 47 Ronin has a lot of charm, and I think it has enough cool-factor to eventually gain a cult following of sorts. Despite its flaws, I admire the movie for clearly having so much passion for its subject matter and the mythology that surrounds it, and for having the guts to go all-in to really feel like a Japanese-style revenge epic. There's badassery and cool visuals aplenty, and I'll say this: the movie got me pretty pumped-up as it went on. This is one that people will forever wonder about, in terms of whether there's a a smoother, cleaner, more coherant director's cut that exists or that could have been. But what we did get, while oddly edited and chopped-up feeling at times, still has enough epicness to be well worth a watch.

My Grade: B

ANCHORMAN 2 Is I'm Ron Bergundy?

ANCHORMAN 2 Review:

- I remember being skeptical going into the first Anchorman. Up until then, I was only mildly a fan of Will Ferrell, and hadn't loved the sorts of cheap-laugh fratboy antics he'd become known for in movies like Old School. But Anchorman - which teamed Ferrell with SNL writer Adam McKay - brought Ferrell back to the style of comedy that had resulted in his funniest moments on Saturday Night Live: big, weird, crazy, out-there. Anchorman was so funny because it dared to ditch frat humor for absurdist humor - lampooning 70's-era alpha-male bravado while also not being afraid to throw in randomness like talking dogs and ultra-violent gang fights between rival teams of newsmen. Anchorman won me over, and it opened up the door for further hilarious Ferrell-McKay collaborations like Talladega Nights and Step Brothers. Suddenly, Anchorman - a movie that felt like Ferrell and McKay were getting away with something - became the template for more, increasingly absurdist comedies. I suspect that the success of Anchorman also opened up the door for guys like Seth Rogen and Adam Goldberg, David Wain, and others to do more over-the-top comedies at big studios, like This Is The End and Role Models. Sort of awesome, in my opinion. But funny in that Anchorman 2, a movie that its studio didn't even want to fund for many years, ended up becoming one of the most hyped and hotly-anticipated comedy sequels of all time. Weird, random humor becoming the norm? I'm okay with that.

So how is ANCHORMAN 2? It's funny - really funny. And it goes even bigger and broader than Part 1, with numerous bits that are very random and oddball and out there. The crack team of comic actors from Part 1 - Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, David Koechner, and Christina Applegate - are all back, and in fine form. And when you've got such a talented line-up of comedians, it's hard to go wrong. Carell, as loony weatherman Brick, gets a lot of big moments in this one, including a hilariously insane romance with an equally loony Kristin Wiig. Other notables joining the cast include Meagan Goode as Ron Bergundy's tough-customer new boss, and James Marsden as a slick rival reporter.

Interestingly, just as the first Anchorman tried to tell a story that was sort of socially relevant to its period setting (where Applegate's Veronica Corningstone caused upheaval at the local news station by being its first female anchor), so too does the sequel try to place Ron Bergundy and co. in the context of history. This time, it's 1980, and 24 hour cable news emerges as a competitor to the networks. After getting fired by his boss at the network - passed over for a promotion in favor of Veronica - a distraught Ron gets a second chance, when he's offered a shot at being a cable news anchor. Ron gets his old team back together, and they beat the odds and rack up ratings by inventing the sorts of schlock-tactic "news" coverage (car chases, for one) that is commonplace today.

Where ANCHORMAN 2 hurts itself is by trying to do too much at once. I feel like Ferrell and McKay are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by indulging in both a lot of media satire and social commentary-comedy, yet still taking extended side-trips into the wacky and absurd. We go from scenes that take not-so-subtle jabs at today's 24-hour news cycle, to scenes where Ron Burgundy nurses a wounded baby shark back to health and sings a song about it. There's interoffice rivalry with James Marsden's character, and romantic rivalry, with Veronica taking up with a new man (an on-point Greg Kinnear) following a falling-out with Ron, and Ron taking up with his new boss, Linda. The result is a long and at times rambling comedy that tries to do a LOT, without necessarily having a single through-line to tie it all together. By the time the movie ends, you start to wonder what the movie was actually *about* to begin with.

And that's not to say that it had to be about anything. But McKay and Ferrell, as mentioned, squeeze in a ton of plot. Not content to *just* be a riff on the modern era of news, this film packs everything and the kitchen sink into its two hour runtime. This means that when scenes don't elicit big laughs, they tend to really bomb, because they're often disconnected from the rest of the story. One example: when the movie plays the race card and has Ron attend an awkward dinner with Linda's African-American family, the jokes are more cringe-worthy than laugh-worthy. And the fact that the scene mostly bombs, combined with how tangential it is to the main plot, makes you wonder why it didn't get chopped in the editing room.

That said, when the jokes work, they often work big. From Carell and Wiig's oddball pairing, to a gang-fight scene that rivals the first movie's for sheer audacity and shock-value (and in terms of applause-worthy cameos), the movie gets more than enough belly laughs to make it a worthwhile watch. I'm a fan of the random stuff, so I didn't mind the film indulging in it. Honestly, I think Ferrell and McKay are funnier when they're going broad than when they try to do satire. And to that end, I have mixed feelings about, but ultimately support, the extended sequence in which Ron Bergundy goes blind, and becomes a lighthouse-dwelling hermit. On one hand, it comes so late in the movie that part of you thinks "really? they're doing this *now*?". And yet, the funniest moments of the whole film, I think, come as Ron struggles to adjust to being blind in the most hilariously misguided fashion imaginable. The whole thing comes off as an extended SNL sketch randomly thown into the middle of an Anchorman movie. And yet, it's hilarious, so it's hard to find fault. I guess you sort of wish Ferrell and McKay could just ditch narrative altogether and do a longform sketch film or something. As is, Anchorman 2 zips back and forth between its various plotlines and numerous divergent bits of randomness. So yes, there's a lot of funny packed in, but there's also a feeling that the movie is a bit overstuffed.

If you dug the first Anchorman, as I did, you can't go wrong in checking out its sequel. It's a funny flick, and I was laughing pretty consistently throughout. If there's to be a third though, I think that it'd wise to go back and re-tool the formula before things go too off the rails. I love seeing movies where it feels like people are getting away with something, but sometimes, more does not always equal better. One equation that does still very much hold up, however, is that Ferrell + McKay = funny. I'm glad that they are out there making weird $#%& like Anchorman.

My Grade: B+

HER is a Romantic-Comedy-Sci-Fi Stunner

HER Review:

- In the wrong hands, HER could very easily have been a major bust. The premise - in the near future, a lonely man falls in love with his computer's operating system - is both fascinating but also rife with potential to go very wrong, if not handled with care. That, I think, is what's so astonishing about Spike Jonze's film: he never goes where you think he's going to go, never takes the easy or obvious route, and crafts a funny, humanistic story that surprises with its nuance and intelligence. This is, quite simply, a masterfully done film - a surprisingly cerebral sci-fi film that's also a romantic comedy. What's more, HER is one of those rare films that manages to say something profound about the way we live our lives today, all while managing not to hit you over the head with its themes. Jonze seems less set on making a definitive statement about what's right or wrong with the film's unusual central relationship. Instead, he's interested in simply examining it - trying to figure out, in his own head, how this all works, and what that says about us in a world that is not all that far removed from the film's future. To go along with Jonze on that journey is to experience one of the great films of 2013.

HER is set in the not-too-distant future. Our protagonist is Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix). Theodore is a gifted writer, who works at a company that creates and sends faux hand-crafted love letters - a sort of novelty gift, like a more elaborate Hallmark greeting card. Theodore's job is an odd one: he dictates meticulously-composed prose to create these highly-personal seeming letters, but the whole thing is a fiction, a rouse. The feeling of loneliness that such a job would seem to foster is doubly apparent with Theodore - he's recently split from his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara), but still holds off on making the divorce official, unable to fully let go. Unable to shake thoughts of Catherine, he lives a mostly antisocial life, content to play videogames and stay in, reluctant to date or put himself out there. However, Theodore's life unexpectedly changes when, one day, he updates his computer operating system via a popular new OS update. It's a seemingly mundane thing, but Theodore quickly realizes that this new OS is something else, something unique. With an uncannily human-sounding female voice (Scarlett Johansson) - that speaks to Theodore through various devices and earpieces - the OS dubs itself Samantha, and begins a shockingly fast evolution from simple machine to complex being, capable of real emotion and feeling. At least, it seems real. As Theodore becomes closer and closer to Samantha - thinking of her, over time, as a person, a friend, a lover - he, and we, begin to wonder whether Samantha is truly, essentially, human ... or merely a very sophisticated simulation - a clever illusion designed to sucker in lonely guys like Theodore.

Jonze doesn't just present Samantha as a bit of magical movie-fantasy. To his credit, he really considers her evolution from all angles, and there's a surprising amount of science behind the fiction. What I found really fascinating was the idea that Theodore's relationship with Samantha wasn't unique - he's not just some nutty guy who falls in love with a computer. No, the movie's most brilliant twist might be that this new OS becomes a phenomena, and all over, people begin "dating" or befriending their OS's. And so, thanks to some very crafty plotting, HER becomes about more than just one man's eccentricities, but about something that affects everyone, alters the world at large. The movie morphs into a very eerily accurate extension of the way we live now - glued to our phones and tablets and increasingly shutting off the real world in favor of the digital one. Jonze builds this world so smartly and cleverly that you can't help but be enthralled. What's even better is that Theodore's relationship with Samantha is only the beginning, as Jonze isn't content to end things where you suspect they might end. No, Jonze keeps pushing the story and pushing the world of the movie to see how far he can take things, to what logical extensions of the plot he can get to. And man, that's fun to watch unfold. How rare is it in film to see things push past the usual third-act finale and go even deeper and farther? To me, part of what elevates HER to greatness is that it just keeps defying expectation. It left me constantly confused and delighted as to where it was going and how it would get there.

The other pretty incredible thing about this film is its triple-threat acting combo of Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, and Amy Adams (who appears in a somewhat small but absolutely crucial role as Theodore's geeky friend and confidante Amy). 

Phoenix has been on a tear of late. Even though I had some issues with The Master, I was floored by his work in it, and he's almost as good here. Phoenix plays the part of Theodore in a manner that feels completely raw and exposed. Theodore is sort of a sad sack in some ways, but he's also very human, very real-seeming, and very empathetic. What's remarkable is that Phoenix gives just the right mix of skepticism and wonderment with regards to Samantha. This is a guy who, on one level, is lonely and wounded and ripe to find solace in an artificial intelligence that essentially evolves to be his perfect (albeit non-corporeal) woman. But on another level, there is an awareness that what he's getting into is strange and in many ways unnatural. Phoenix's Theodore approaches his relationship with Samantha with a similar mix of optimism and doubt that we, today, might approach online dating or long-distance relationships. Phoenix sells it wholly and completely. 

As for Johansson ... going in, I found it hard to believe that a performance as a disembodied voice could truly be Oscar-worthy. But - holy crap - this is an absolutely incredible, very much Oscar-worthy performance from ScarJo, even despite the fact that she never actually appears on screen in any way, shape, or form. She kills it as Samantha, believably evolving her digital persona from human-like to almost-fully-human in a way that's both remarkable and slightly scary. Again, it's amazing just how much we come to buy into the Theodore-Samantha relationship. What seems potentially silly on paper feels genuine, in large part because of how well Johansson makes us believe in this disembodied voice as a real being - not quite human, but naive and curious about the world in a way that's endearing, at times heartbreaking. Samantha's voice is the key to making this movie work, and Scarlett's performance is totally convincing.

Seeing Amy Adams in HER is sort of amazing if you've also recently seen her fantastic performance in American Hustle. There, she's a glamorous, scheming con-artist. Here, she's a mousy, slightly awkward videogame developer. Her character, Amy, is an old friend of Theodore's from college, and she's stuck in a relationship with a stuffy guy who doesn't take an interest in her creative ambitions. Amy - in her own way lonely and struggling - is a fascinating counterpoint to Theodore. I won't spoil the ways in which Amy's story ends up paralleling and intertwining with Theodore's, but again, Jonze never hits you over the head with obvious developments. The way that Adams makes Amy into this vulnerable, and again, all-too-human and relatable character is another reason why the movie succeeds beyond expectation.

There are some other excellent turns in the film. One standout is Rooney Mara, as Theodore's ex - a woman who Theodore remembers as happy and vibrant, but who, over time, grew colder and more distant. Another is Chris Pratt, as Theodore's jovial co-worker who is probably the movie's least-quirky character. Having a more alpha-male character like Pratt's around is another subtle stroke of genius. It gives us yet another perspective on how the wider world might view an OS like Samantha. In a lesser movie, Pratt would probably have just played the bully who beats up on Theodore. But his character here is actually Theodore's buddy, and their dynamic is a lot of fun.

HER blends humor, romance, and sci-fi more seamlessly than it's got any right to. There are a lot of really funny moments in the film, like the scenes where we check in on the motion-controlled videogame that sucks up Theodore's time, in which his avatar is led around by a foul-mouthed cartoon character. The movie is also, legitimately, one of the best romances I've seen on film. Like I said, there's a realness and rawness to the Theodore-Samantha relationship that you don't see captured on screen in most stories about two actual people. Finally, the world of this film is just so well thought-out, from fashions (high-waisted pants are in) to tech (pocket-watch style smart phones). I don't think HER was quite sold as a sci-fi film, but it really is. Shot in LA and Shanghai, Jonze creates a fascinating near-future cityscape that is, truly, a reflection of the world we live in now.

I've tried to be relatively careful with how I talk about this film, because there are so many great little moments that I didn't see coming, but that make for some excellent and thought-provoking post-movie discussion. HER is a film that hits your head and your heart. Its pacing is at times a bit methodical, but soon enough I was absorbed in its narrative, and just when I was sure I knew where and how it would end, a new twist came along that reshaped the whole film. What Jonze has accomplished here is right up there with his other great directorial efforts like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - like that one, this is a film that will provoke discussion for many years to come.

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-

LONE SURVIVOR Is War-As-Videogame

LONE SURVIVOR Review:

- Lone Survivor delivers some of the most intense, non-stop action I've seen in a movie in a long while. Few films present such a sustained level of rapid-fire violence, and few films present it in such a hard-hitting, visceral manner. When you come out of Lone Survivor, you feel like you've just endured one hell of a battle. And yet, Lone Survivor is not ostensibly an action movie. This is meant to be a true-life tale of heroism and bravery, and the subject matter it deals with is still very raw, very fresh, very political. Oddly though, the film does little to acknowledge the context of it story. This is a survival story, plain and simple. And for that reason, I came away from the film feeling empty, unfulfilled, and to be honest, a tad bit disturbed. On one hand, the movie's ultraviolence and high body count made me question big-picture ideas: the price of warfare and violence, the cycle of violence and hate, and the cowboy mentality that often seems to characterize American military culture. The film is, after all, set in modern-day Afghanistan during a war that is still ongoing. On the other hand, the film has little interest in the issues that it inevitably raises. Really, this is a film about a bunch of badasses being badass. It's the "Call of Duty" movie, essentially.

Director Peter Berg brings the patriotic, ra-ra mentality he's known for to the film. He builds up his squad of SEALS as likable yet tough-as-nails ass-kickers. And he deserves credit for taking the time to give us some nice character moments that give each of the main players some personality, before the proverbial $#%& hits the fan.

Mark Wahlberg is the titular hero here, and he's good in the part. He is able to pull off that delicate balance of seeming like a legit badass while also coming off as an everyman. On the other end of the spectrum is Ben Foster, who may just be the show-stealer. Foster is the grizzled, dead-eyed, slightly-crazed warrior of the group, and his was likely the film's most purely entertaining performance. Foster is a guy who seems underutilized by Hollywood in general, but this is the kind of role he excels at. Even if the script doesn't go too far into the underlying psyches of these guys, a lot of what you need to know is right there in Foster's eyes.

The rest of the cast, from Emile Hirsch to Taylor Kitsch to Eric Bana, is quite good. There's no shortage of great actors in the movie, and there's a natural chemistry between the leads. They do indeed feel like a band of brothers, like a group of guys that's been to hell and back together.

Where Lone Survivor gets sort of weird though is in its conspicuous lack of focus on the big-picture of its plot. Once the action ramps up - once our SEAL team's mission goes to hell and they end up being exposed and hunted in the Afghan hills - the entire movie is 100% concerned with being in-the-moment. But there's a weird discrepancy between the film's nonstop, visceral run n' gun action and the larger context of what we're seeing. We're seeing members of the SEAL team shot at, injured, bloodied, and brutally killed. We're seeing them coldly and dutifully do the same thing to Afghan foot soldiers. Yes, it's kill or be killed, and yes, the guys the SEALS are shooting down are presumably linked to terrorist organizations and are acting with the goal of protecting the terrorist leader whose assassination was the SEAL's primary objective. But still. The movie lacks any real meditative or self-reflective quality about the sheer horror of what it's presenting to us. The movie creates videogame-like you-are-there intensity, but there's a remove from any real political or moral context. As the body count piles up, my mind began to drift: the movie was in no way overtly trying to make me ruminate on the horrors of war or the endless cycle of violence that war perpetuates. And yet, that's where my thoughts were going. Like I said, a clear disconnect was forming between the story that the movie was *trying* to tell, and what it was actually telling.

And honestly, that's a bit of a problem in a movie like this. We are basically told to accept it as a given that these SEALS were great men who died valiantly. But there's also a strong feeling that they, perhaps, died needlessly. But the film is about as contemplative as your typical Medal of Honor or Call of Duty game. To his credit, Berg creates a pretty riveting, rapid-fire-assault, edge-of-your-seat action film. But to reduce an ongoing war and a real-life story of fallen soldiers to a bro-tastic videogame seems a little hollow, in my book.

It's a Catch-22, I suppose. By not politicizing the film (in an effort to have it serve more as a tribute to these real-life SEALS), it becomes politicized. It feels too gung-ho and too caught-up in paying tribute to the badassery of its protagonists. But what is the lesson of their sacrifice? What are we to take away from it? Without finding that deeper meaning in death, the film quickly fades from memory and exists only as momentary distraction.

My Grade: B