Category: Movies

By Carolyn Williams

Steven Spielberg’s latest film, “Lincoln,” has been billed as a biopic of monumental proportions. In reality, it’s not so much a biography of Lincoln himself as a pointed interpretation of the process of passing the controversial Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

It’s 1865. Fresh off his 1864 reelection, Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis), is keen to push the proposed Thirteenth Amendment through the House of Representatives before the end of the Civil War. Realizing that completely abolishing slavery will only fly if the South has not reentered the Union to fight against its being passed, Lincoln knows the clock is ticking. The longer the war goes on, the more Americans on both sides die, but he just needs a little longer to serve morality. But just to be sure things turn out the way they should, Lincoln hires men to ensure certain Democrats vote his way.

The reality of the devastation wreaked by the Civil War is underscored by the Lincoln family’s own precarious happiness. With one son dead of illness three years before, and another desperate to join the cause, Lincoln only takes time out of his dizzying schedule to be with his youngest boy, Tad, who brings comic relief to most of his scenes. But Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Fields) creates more problems than she helps solve, as she tries again and again to violently demonstrate her grief over her dead son, and her steadfast opposition to allowing Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the eldest, to assert his independence by fighting for his father’s cause. Her dubious mental health clearly weighs heavily upon Lincoln, another burden for an already overburdened man.

But Lincoln manages to keep his troops smiling, both on and off the battlefield. Day-Lewis’s Honest Abe is a homespun scholar, delighting in the sharing and telling of silly, but always pertinent anecdotes, and the occasional quoting of Shakespeare or Pythagoras. Day-Lewis attempts to reconcile the massive shadow of one of American history’s greatest men with the reality of the fallible human he actually was. And his performance is genuinely spectacular.

“[‘Lincoln’ was] eccentric, though Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Lincoln is powerful nonetheless. He is the Lincoln we hope existed, charming yet sagacious, the beneficent father of America,” Liz Walker ’14 said.

To be frank, Spielberg bends the truth a little with “Lincoln,” not that we wouldn’t expect the same of any director with this sort of a film. Such a beloved figure as Lincoln inspires total confidence in an American audience, and Spielberg takes full advantage of this general understanding of one of our favorite presidents. There’s a reason he’s on both the penny and the five dollar bill, after all. But even if “Lincoln” glosses over some of history’s more realistic reasons for the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, it does make a concerted effort to act somewhat believably. When asked what he’ll think when African Americans have their freedom, Lincoln replies, “Well, I suppose I’ll get used to it.” And we, his fans, suppose he would have.

But all factual inaccuracies aside, “Lincoln” is a blockbuster for a reason; it’s fantastic to watch. With sparkling dialogue and a stellar cast, (particularly Tommy Lee Jones as the recalcitrant radical Thaddeus Stevens), “Lincoln” is a pleasure.

“Spielberg has done it again. ‘Lincoln’ took a historically powerful and intimate look at one of America’s favorite presidents. Recommend to all!” Emily Conners ’14 said.

Honestly, whether you’re a history buff or not, I can’t see many people disliking this movie; it’s just that good, and definitely one of this year’s strongest Oscar contenders.

Carolyn Williams
Writer

Ben Affleck’s latest directorial effort, “Argo,” tells the recently declassified story of a little known escape during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. Heavily hyped as being based on a true story, the actual events make for some pretty nail biting cinema.

The film opens on the hostile takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran. As fear mounts and American employees hasten to destroy government records and batten down the embassy’s hatches, a group of six covertly escapes through the back door, taking refuge at the Canadian ambassador’s residence a few streets away.

As their fellow countrymen live as hostages, these six hide out in relative comfort for several months. The Canadians don’t want the responsibility anymore, and the Americans fear that if the Iranians find them, the escapees will be made into examples by public execution.

Enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), a CIA staffer who specializes in “exfiltration;” basically he gets people out of dangerous situations. He immediately rejects the original escape plan: give the group six bikes, maps to the border and best wishes for their survival. As he’s brainstorming, Mendez chats with his son over the phone (he and his wife are estranged, another reason for the audience to sympathize) and has an epiphany–what if they were a film crew?

Given the late-70s trend for science fiction movies, Mendez decides that one of the most far-fetched (and therefore least suspicious) ways of exfiltrating these citizens is to pass them off as a Canadian film crew looking for an exotic location to film the next Star Wars rip-off. What’s even more unbelievable than this plan is the fact that the CIA okayed it.

To make the film seem legit, Mendez goes to Hollywood where he contacts John Chambers (John Goodman), a prosthetics designer who has worked with the CIA in the past. They begin spreading the buzz about their upcoming film–they choose a film called “Argo”–but things don’t really get going until they have their producer, played hilariously by Alan Arkin, who proclaims that if he’s going to make a fake movie, “it’s going to be a fake hit.” Once all the groundwork has been laid in stateside, there’s nothing left for Mendez to do but carry it out.

Once again, Affleck proves that as a director, he’s got chops. The real-life story is so outlandish that it’s automatically the stuff of good cinema. Kendall Woods ’14 called the film “better than I anticipated.” Affleck does slip into some bad Hollywood habits by exaggerating some of the escape sequences, and perhaps the denouement is overly indulgent, but most of the movie is interesting, tense and emotionally involved. Though probably not much of a contender come Oscar time, “Argo” is not too shabby for an off-season opener.

Carolyn Williams
Writer

Rian Johnson’s latest movie “Looper” is an unusual take on the classic time travel motif. Dark, and uncomfortably more believable than many others of its predecessors, “Looper” is guaranteed to spark conversation.

In 2044, things are not going so well. Poverty and crime rates are higher than normal, and the general attitude towards life seems bleak, but other than that, this close future is pretty plausible. Our hero, Young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), reveals that 30 years into his own future, 2074, time travel has been invented, but was immediately outlawed. However, future gangs abuse the illegal transportation system to dispose of their victims. They send back their enemies to pre-designated spots where current hitmen are waiting to shoot them. These hitmen, or “loopers,” are well paid, but the work has a heavy price. Every looper must eventually “close his loop,” or kill his own future self, then try to enjoy the next 30 years, knowing exactly what’s coming for him later on. Young Joe himself is a looper.

So when Young Joe finds himself faced with the prospect of his own murder, he hesitates, creating an opportunity for Old Joe (Bruce Willis) to escape. Next follows the requisite “what happens in my future?” scene, where the pair stare at their past and future selves, but it’s not as silly as in some other films–the antagonism between the pair outweighs Young Joe’s natural curiosity, and Old Joe’s disdain for his former life is palpable.

Young Joe knows that if he doesn’t succeed in closing his loop, he will be killed immediately, but Old Joe comes back with a mission. He reveals that his future wife was killed because of his past, and that if he is able to kill the unknown person responsible now, while that person is a child, he’ll stop it all from happening and return to the future and his wife. Young Joe gets in his way, though. Along the way, Young Joe meets a young mother named Sara (Emily Blunt), and learns that her child is part of Old Joe’s hit list. As Young Joe attempts to piece together the best plan of action, the current crime ring starts looking for him as a fugitive, and all of this comes to a dramatic and unexpected head with the film’s ending.

It’s evident immediately that “Looper” is trying to emulate science fiction cult movies like “The Matrix.” Johnson and Gordon-Levitt have worked together before, in “Brick,” but this has none of its predecessor’s film noir style. This is all Hollywood, from the big fight sequences and explosions to Gordon-Levitt’s prosthetic face makeup so that he and Willis look remotely alike. The supporting cast is very solid, with a corrupt Jeff Daniels and a small part for Paul Dano, but overall, the film doesn’t quite deliver. Critics and fans’ opinions were mixed.

“‘Looper’ is a gritty, cold, suspenseful thriller that isn’t for the faint of heart. If ‘Looper’ offers a peak into the future, I think I’ll keep my eyes shut,” moviegoer Mike Williams said.

The film is definitely unusual and gets its audience thinking, but if one thinks about it too much, “Looper” might have a few loopholes too many.

Carolyn Williams
Writer

“The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” Stephen Chbosky’s 1999 hit young-adult novel and second foray into film directing, has been met with mixed critical reviews, but general popular approval. Though touted as both a “Catcher in the Rye” and “Breakfast Club” of our generation, neither version of Chbosky’s work honestly measures up to these paragons of coming-of-age malaise.

Our titular wallflower is Charlie (Logan Lerman), who communicates in the novel through letters to an unknown recipient. In the film, most of this narrative style is changed to voiceover monologues, which work pretty well. Charlie’s had a rough couple of years, between the suicide of his best friend and the death of his favorite aunt. We meet him on his terrifying first day of high school, made all the more frightening by Charlie’s complete lack of social skills. Given his troubled past, can we really fault him for this? The only friend he makes on day one is his English teacher (Paul Rudd), who, in true English teacher style, immediately recognizes a receptive pupil in Charlie, and begins giving him extra curricular reading assignments and friendly advice.

Eventually, Charlie makes friends with the flamboyantly gay Patrick (Ezra Miller), and through him, his alt-rock loving stepsister, Sam (Emma Watson, in her first major post-Hogwarts role), who quickly becomes Charlie’s crush. These free-spirited seniors also notice Charlie’s potential, and take him under their wing, inducting him into their friend group, which Sam lovingly calls “the island of misfit toys,” a line which might have been better had Watson quite gotten a grasp of the American accent she’s aiming for throughout the film.

Aspiring writer Charlie spends his time making mix tapes, hanging out in diners and reveling in his newfound friendships. But this new world of friends and parties comes with its own set of issues: that permanent stumbling block of any self-respecting (or not) adolescent-identity. As Charlie discovers who he is, and how this new self fits into his past and his future, he tries to help his friends in their own quests for self understanding before they leave for college in the fall.

The movie is not bad, especially for one directed by the original novelist–a situation generally avoided by Hollywood for a reason. Emma Watson makes a decidedly un-Hermione-like showing, which was definitely her intention, and Ezra Miller is funny in a sarcastically over the top, stereotypical kind of way, a complete turnaround from his last role in “We Need to Talk About Kevin.” On the other hand, Rudd is seriously underused, and Lerman looks a little too much like someone who should be sitting at the popular table to be a wallflower. His character lacks that fantastically original voice which makes Holden Caulfield so iconic, and the film pales in comparison to the fleeting intersection of social status and personality that “The Breakfast Club” studies. In trying so hard to emulate these teen greats, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” falls into some been-there, done-that coming-of-age tropes, but the heart is still there, and that keeps the film from flopping entirely.

Carolyn Williams
Staff Writer

To call Christopher Nolan (“Inception”) “master” of the summer blockbuster would be putting it lightly. His latest film “The Dark Knight Rises,” the epic conclusion of Nolan’s Batman franchise, is by no means an exception.

“The Dark Knight Rises” picks up eight years after “The Dark Knight” ended, and Gotham’s days of organized crime are becoming a distant memory. The Harvey Dent Law, named after Gotham’s dear departed white knight, has put away hundreds of mobsters, cleaned up Gotham’s streets and turned the city’s police force into a collection of complacent mall cops. The stalwart Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is about to be fired because he can’t adjust to peacetime police work, and is still covering up the lie which has vilified Batman, Gotham’s currently unsung hero.

Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) has been living as a virtual recluse since the death of Rachel in the last film, retired from acting as Batman, and kept company by his caretaker-cum-butler, Alfred (Michael Caine). Wayne is pulled back into the land of the living when a cat burglar (Anne Hathaway)–she’s never actually called “Catwoman,” but the implication is blatant–enters his home disguised as a maid and makes off with his mother’s pearls. Once again abusing the privacy of Gotham, Wayne tracks her down and the two form a flirty alliance. Their relationship is based on her desperation to escape her mounting criminal record and his desire for information on a growing threat to the city, a mysterious figure named Bane (Tom Hardy), which only a denizen of Gotham’s seedy underbelly could provide.

Bane, it turns out, is an expelled member of the League of Shadows, which Wayne is also a graduate of. But when Wayne left the group to fight against Ra’s al Ghul’s plans for chaos and destruction, Bane intended to complete this “noble” work by destroying Gotham once and for all. After Batman has been physically bested by the brutal villain, kidnapped and stripped of his fortune, he is forced to watch from a distance as all hell breaks loose, struggling against insurmountable odds to return to his helpless city. Bane’s army of malcontents patrol Gotham, which quickly devolves into a war zone, cut off from the rest of the world, and left to fight for its own life–or become a literal crater.

In the aftermath following the tragedy of the Colorado midnight premiere, fans continued to rally around the movie–proof of the film’s cult following.

“It would be difficult for any future Batman film to surpass Christopher Nolan’s end to the trilogy,” Ava Giuliano ’14 said.

Nolan is working with nearly all of his favorite actors on this project, and it shows. Though it is nearly impossible to compete with Heath Ledger’s unforgettable performance in the previous film, the ensemble cast could hardly be better. But with so much cool stuff happening, we are willing to overlook the little things. Sure, there are some gaping plot loopholes, such as a lack of explanation of what happened to the Joker and the fact that the talented Tom Hardy wore a mask that literally restricted his ability to act. We’ll forgive them because hey, it’s the new Nolan movie, and at the end of the day, it’s just that cool.

Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

To say that Stephen Daldry’s latest film “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” packs a monumental emotional punch would be to put it lightly. Walking that razor-sharp line between tragedy and quirky coming-of-age story, dealing with the fallout of the Sept. 11 attacks and the trauma of losing his father, 9-year-old Oskar Schell embarks on “Reconnaissance Mission No. 6.”

Precocious to the extreme, Oskar (Thomas Horn) is grappling with a return to “normal” life one year after the Sept. 11 attacks that killed his father. Left alone with his grief-stricken mother (Sandra Bullock), Oskar flashes back repeatedly to memories of his father, his hero (Tom Hanks). Raised to be a thinker, the wheels in Oskar’s head immediately begin turning when he finds a mysterious key marked “Black” in a blue vase in his father’s closet. He decides that if he can ring the doorbell of every person with the last name “Black” in New York, he will be able to solve this last mission of his father’s.

What ensues are a series of heartwarming encounters with a number of Blacks throughout the city. Along the way, Oskar picks up a partner in crime, his estranged grandfather (Max von Sydow), referred to simply as The Renter, who has been living in Oskar’s German grandmother’s apartment for the past year. Von Sydow’s performance is well worth his Oscar nomination, conveying artfully the character of a man who has been so traumatized that he has mysteriously lost his ability to speak. He converses instead via notepad or with the aids of the words “yes” and “no,” which he has tattooed to the palms of his hands.

Daldry does not allow his viewer to forget the heavy subject material for long, though. Indeed, flashbacks to Sept. 11 are interspersed throughout, and the worst is the secret Oskar’s been keeping from everyone, the six messages on the answering machine left by Oskar’s father as the towers went down. Oskar keeps it from his audience until the last possible second, and with good reason: it’s just as awful as you dreaded it would be.

To a point, Daldry’s film maintains the postmodern integrity of Jonathan Safran Foer’s 2005 novel of the same title. But something of the book does not translate to the screen. We lose a lot of Oskar’s narration, which is a shame, but more importantly, we lose some of the gravity of the situation. Though nowhere near as bad as the vomit-inducing “Remember Me,” the romance which killed off Robert Pattinson with a cheap Sept. 11 twist at the end, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” seems, at times, more intent on making us cry than telling a valid story. We remember Sept. 11 painfully, a fact which Daldry exploits at every turn, but Oskar’s story, while touching, does not do justice to Safran Foer’s original or the real-life tragedy which sets the plot in motion. With a hopeful, almost sickly-sweet Hollywood ending, the film diverges completely from the book, granting Oskar a sort of closure which is neither realistic nor appropriate.