"Django Unchained"

The news of the day is the Oscar nominations will be released Thursday and "Texas Chainsaw 3D" beat "Django Unchained" to be No. 1 at the box office last weekend.
WHAT?
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I was coming down from having just seen Quentin Tarantino's film when I heard the news.
I'm over it now and just want to talk about Django!
Tarantino fans won't have trouble liking something, if not everything, about the film. The cast, acting, music, effects and length are all epic.
I knew the film would be a long one before watching, but that didn't impact my viewing experience.
Where to begin?
Jamie Foxx is Django (Tarantino reportedly wanted to cast Will Smith), a slave freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) about two years before the Civil War.
Schultz is a dentist (bounty hunter) looking for three men who only Django knows and can help him find. The two start a journey across the south to find the men and ultimately save Django's wife Broomhilda from slavery.
Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) is found at the plantation of evil and slightly flamboyant Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).
The web of characters and stories Tarantino pulled together, even though he used nearly three hours, is impressive to me.
It's consistent with his style, which is why fans will be on board, but I don't know how new audiences are going to take to the film.
I recommend it, of course, as long as people have an open mind and can see the big picture.
Everyone in the theater may be laughing at one minute and covering their eyes during the violent scenes the next.
Tarantino has a knack for all things gore ("Kill Bill: Vol. 1," "Kill Bill: Vol. 2," "Pulp Fiction," etc.) while being able to show the true emotion and evil that leads to the most hurtful violence caused by his characters.
He's also big on revenge, which Django is seeking the most and on many levels.
Basically, be prepared for so much blood splatter and bodies that it's not even realistic and an equal mix of scenes portraying true fear caused by the rivalry in the south.
One criticism I heard about the film is, like "Inglourious Basterds," it should have ended earlier and perhaps in a different way.
Tarantino tricks the viewer into thinking the film is over at least once. Maybe I am in the he-can-do-no-wrong fan club, but I didn't mind the trickery, or the ending.
It doesn't end well for some, but there is a bit of light at the conclusion to help the viewer erase some of the darker moments.
Tarantino, like Wes Anderson, is a true individual in what he creates and I appreciate that the most.
He also brings out the best in his actors, which reminds me I need to mention Samuel L. Jackson's brilliant performance.
Leonardo takes the (white) cake as Calvin Candie and Foxx certainly excels as Django. I wonder about Will Smith, or anyone else, in that lead role. As the critics said on Slate's Spoiler Specials (you can find the podcast on iTunes), Django would have been a different movie without Foxx or any of the chosen actors.
I just hope there is more from Tarantino and he continues to cast his favorites and newcomers.

"Gentlemen, you had my curiosity. But now, you have my attention."

"Pitch Perfect" and "Ted"

I went a little cable crazy these last few days. For the record, the next movie I'll see in theaters will still be "Django Unchained" or maybe "Lincoln," but what's a girl with some time off work to do in the meantime?
I chose "Pitch Perfect," based on a Kay Cannon interview on Hollywood Prospectus, and then "Ted" based on some recommendations from my peeps.
Cannon, of "30 Rock" and "New Girl" fame, wrote the a cappella college chick flick starring Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson and Brittany Snow.

Kendrick plays Beca, a beautiful and talented college freshman who can't quite fit in on campus. Enter Snow (Chloe) and Anna Camp (Aubrey) as the leaders of The Bellas, an a cappella group seeking to reboot and win nationals. I won't ruin the reason why The Bellas need another chance, but Doug Benson says it's not for people with emetophobia.
Other than those scenes, I will say "Pitch Perfect" is pretty cliche. Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan lauded the film for Anna Kendrick's performance and the music choices - but couldn't get over the fact that they are performed a cappella. I can agree with the Hollywood Prospectus hosts there and, considering the overused references to "The Breakfast Club," the film fell flat for me. Cannon did produce a witty script from Mickey Rapkin's book, also favored by Greenwald and Ryan, but it just wasn't enough.
So if you're looking for more of a sure thing appealing to men and women alike (I kind of can't believe I am saying this), try "Ted."
I wasn't skeptical of this film, starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, because who could really stop and think that much about a story focused on a talking teddy bear?
In the end I liked it and even found myself laughing out loud during a few scenes.
Wahlberg plays John, a man/boy hanging on to his childhood toy he wished one day would become his best friend. But the toy Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane), gets in the way of John having an adult life and hanging on to his girlfriend Lori (Kunis).
Part of the appeal of "Ted" is it's so silly, it's funny and the strong cast (Giovanni Ribisi and Joel McHale with in supporting roles) helps too.
I do like films that make you think and to analyze, but sometimes you need to take things at face value and remember they're about entertainment too.

"Thunder buddies for life!"

Silver Linings Playbook

I spent a lot of time at the movie theater this weekend. I work at one now and get to see movies for free! Friday and Saturday I was tearing tickets and working with all things popcorn, sweeping it, "slinging" it during busy concession times, and then scrubbing the maker at the end of the night.

Today I ate some while watching "Silver Linings Playbook" with my sis, and did I mention it was free? 

Okay, down to business. With all the buzz about SLP it has been on the top of my list of films to see. It was hard to pick just one, but with the Golden Globes a couple of a weeks away and the Oscars not far behind, I will focus on the films with nominations.

Bradley Cooper, co-starring with Jennifer Lawrence, has nods already for acting that I am sure will carry on to the Oscars. Lawrence, as young widow Tiffany, also is nominated for a best actress Golden Globe. 

The David O. Russell ("The Fighter") project is also in the running for best picture and screenplay. 

Cooper steps up his acting as Pat Solatano, a school teacher recovering from a betrayal in his marriage and resulting fight with his wife's lover that sent him on a court-ordered trip to a mental hospital. 

His father is Pat Sr. (Robert DeNiro) and balancing-act mother is Dolores (Jacki Weaver). 

Lawrence's character is thrown in the mix pretty early in the film after Dolores works out a way for Pat to be released from the hospital and live at their home in Philadelphia again. 

It's a relatively simple plot, but with complex characters. David O. Russell throws the viewer right into the story and it's (unnecessarily, I think) fast-moving. 

Because of that and the shift in focus from the Solatano's family dynamic to sports to romance to Pat's struggles with his past, I sometimes couldn't tell what genre the film is supposed to be in. 

It's not a drama for the most part and Zach Baron on Grantland described it as a "romantic comedy."

He also says it's a sports movie, but not really a sports movie. At least it wasn't another "Moneyball."

Baron's statement below put together the missing pieces I needed and made me feel a little bit better about not quite "getting" the film's messages:

"The ways in which Pat, in his pitiable mix of out-of-control rage and deranged optimism, is a product of his struggling underdog city and the maddening football franchise that it hosts will probably be obvious to most readers of this site and lost on a solid percentage of non-sports fans who go see the movie. You have to know Philly, know the Eagles to really get it, how each of these characters is simultaneously badly scarred and up for more punishment. Silver Linings Playbook is a few different movies at once, but one of those movies is about the complicated interplay between a city's sports teams and a city's citizens, the way that over time the two start resembling one another."

I can see how the average viewer may miss some of the Philadelphia references and connections to the plot, unless they read about the film or the novel in advance, but it's good to know I wasn't the only one who saw several movies in one. 

Overall, I enjoyed the scenes where everything and everyone slowed down a bit. Tiffany and Pat had the most heart-to-hearts, and Pat Sr. comes in the mix there too. Chris Tucker, as Pat's buddy from the hospital, was a key sidekick character. DeNiro and Weaver had good chemistry on-screen and their acting was the most polished. 

Cooper will get there as long as he continues to choose his roles wisely.

I haven't seen enough of the other award contenders to say if I think "Silver Linings Playbook" is the best movie of the year, but it should be on the list. I also feel like it would be exciting for Cooper and the film to win in their categories now because they may be underdogs when the popularity contest Oscars are on in February.

Next up: "Django Unchained."

Happy New Year!!!!!

Safety Not Guaranteed

"Safety Not Guaranteed" is a shining example of why I looooooovee mooooovies. Time travel back to 2001? Why not? Fake ears? Sure. Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass as a couple? Yes please.

It's one of those films that lets you escape from life for 90 minutes and come out of it feeling a whole lot better. No worrying about how I am going to shovel my car out of 15 inches of snow tomorrow in order to drive to the office for at least a 10 hour work day.

But it would all be better if when I got there I came across a classified ad from a man seeking a partner to time travel with and my editor allowed me to go on a road trip with coworkers to get the story. 

That's the premise of "Safety Not Guaranteed," written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow. The cast also includes Jake Johnson ("The New Girl"), Karan Soni, Jeff Garlin, Kristen Bell and Mary Lynn Rajskub.

Darius (Plaza), Jeff (Johnson) and Arnau (Soni) are given the O.K. by their Seattle magazine editor to pursue the time travel story and find out who placed the ad. 

Their journey results in self discovery for everyone, including Kenneth (Duplass) who has the time travel mission. 

Kenneth doesn't take well to having Jeff as his partner, but Darius connects with him and is chosen to go along after extensive training.

There is something mysterious about Kenneth and Darius and her team can't figure out if he's crazy or actually able to build a time machine.

The question also is why does he want to go back in time? Why does Darius want to go with him?

Why would anybody want to go back in time? To do things over again and right the wrongs of your past, of course. Maybe there is someone you would never have the opportunity to see again without hopping in a time machine with a slightly off, but cute and endearing fellow. 

You won't know unless you try and unless you watch this movie. Like now!

It's smart, romantic, and unique in its story. If I have to watch a film with any science fiction in it (while I did really like "Looper") this would be my choice. 

"Safety Not Guaranteed" makes time travel as a metaphor for taking risks in life to find what makes you happy. I like, of course, that everyone wins out in the end and it's all happy happy happy. 

So the only choice you need to make is to watch this movie, and hopefully I've convinced you. 

Now, back to reality. There are at least two cars stuck in the parking lot of my apartment building right now and I've been listening to the sounds of tires spinning and shoveling all day. It's gotten so bad that my neighbors are cursing the landlord for not having the driveway plowed.

I am going to time travel to last year's winter when this didn't happen. Over and Out.

Killing Them Softly

Wait a minute, "Killing Them Softly" is based on a novel? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I wish I would have known this fact before seeing the film.
I am listening to a Grantland Hollywood Prospectus podcast about it now and have at least two bookmarks online to read about the mob caper set in time with Barack Obama's 2008 election and a financial crisis in the United States.
Writer and director Andrew Dominik uses audio and video of speeches by Obama and George W. Bush talking about the crisis throughout the film. Without reading the book I am not exactly sure what to make of the commentary, but basically the same political dilemmas happening in the United States are playing out in the world of hit men like Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini.
Pitt, as Jackie, is the enforcer sent to take out "kids" who step into business they shouldn't be in. The "kids" Frankie (Scoot McNairy of "Argo") and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) hold up a card game run by Markie (Ray Liotta) thinking he will be blamed for it.
The same thing happened years back at one of Markie's games and no one ever knew who did it. There was the theory that Markie set up a robbery of his own game thinking he would never get caught.
Honestly, I don't know if I am spot on with the plot here, but I did get that much from the beginning of the film. Without throwing in any spoilers, it is best to just leave it at that.
While Jackie is the enforcer on the killing side of things Richard Jenkins, known as Driver, seems to be a kingpin on the business end.
Jackie calls in Mickey (James Gandolfini) when he gets a job tied into the robbed card game but it turns out he has to do it all on his own. Mickey is washed up and on probation and more interested in drinking and girls than doing the work.
When it comes down to it, Jackie is working like the rest of America and wants to be paid what he deserves.  It all comes full circle in his end monologue about capitalism with Driver in a bar as yet another Barack Obama snippet airs on the television.
Again I will say I didn't quite get the purpose of the commentary - not ever thinking it was unnecessary - and  decided just to take it out of the equation when deciding whether I liked the film or not.
It didn't really matter when I considered factors such as the acting, writing and visuals.
For me, Pitt made the film anyway in his performance as Jackie. As a fan of Jenkins, his role sweetened the deal for me. Overall the cast is well-rounded with Gandolfini, Vincent Curatola (also of"The Sopranos" fame as Johnny Sacramoni), and even Max Casella from none other than "Doogie Howser."
I've also decided to follow Scoot McNairy more closely now. He's got a long resume, but clearly is in the limelight more now having three big titles out this year. I know I'll be seeing his next film, "Promised Land" by Gus Van Sant and of course starring Matt Damon.
Okay I think I've digressed enough now.
I've come to the conclusion that "Killing Them Softly" is a strong film for the acting and I think it's very unique, love it or hate it.
I think it will definitely be one way or the other for audiences who choose to see it. Just please don't bring your kids, which happened during the showing I went to. This movie is very violent and I don't know what about the word "killing" in the title is not clear enough to show that.
Which does bring me to my one definite complaint about the film. I am a bit squeamish about violence so the realistic and tortuous scenes as the victim awaited his unavoidable death were hard for me to watch. There were also scenes where the violence is depicted off screen with hints to the viewer like blood splatter or gunshots. I thought both types of scenes fit in with the film artistically, but then I was lost when effects that looked more like a video game came into play.
I would have preferred the more realistic scenes - even if I had to look away half the time - but the filmmakers should have just picked one way or the other instead of mixing up the effects styles.
I will add "Killing Them Softly" to my list to see again and try to take more away from the meaning.
Heck, maybe I'll even read that book when I finish the four others I am in the middle of.
Any weekend is a good movie weekend, but with the snowpocalypse rumors flying around again in Minneapolis, maybe you'll want to stay in.
If you have cable, I see the Ken Burns documentary "Central Park Five" is available now as well as "Beasts of a Southern Wild."
Both are on my list, but I am going to try to venture out for a ladies night and a few cocktails tonight if the world doesn't end.
Then tomorrow - MOVIES!

"A Late Quartet"

Despite the complexity of the characters and Beethoven's Opus 131, "A Late Quartet", is a simple film. You can watch, take in the music and understand the struggles of the quartet members all while looking at snapshots of a New York City winter.
Christopher Walken plays the eldest member and cellist in the quartet, Peter Mitchell. He helped raise Juliette Gelbart, the violist played by Catherine Keener. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Juliette's husband Robert, and plays the role of second violin. The dark horse, while he has long-time ties to the rest of the quartet, is Daniel Lerner (Mark Ivanir) on first violin.
At the start of the film the quartet is embarking on its 25th season performing together, primarily in New York City. Mitchell then receives the news he is diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, which is devastating to the rest of the quartet, especially Juliette.
The diagnosis serves to push the emotions, and in some cases impulses, everyone in the quartet has over the edge.
They're like a family, which director Yaron Zilberman says in a Los Angeles Times interview is not all that uncommon for an orchestra quartet.
Zilberman sets the film against the backdrop of the Opus 131, which is said to be one of the most challenging pieces for a quartet to play.
As Mitchell describes to a class of young orchestra hopefuls, it is seven connected movements that are to be played without pause. The players cannot rest, or tune their instruments. "Our instruments must in time go out of tune, each in its own quite different way," Mitchell says.
He talks to the class reading a poem, "Four Quartets," by T.S. Eliot.
"Was he maybe trying to point out some cohesion, some unity between randoms act of life?" Mitchell continues: "What are we supposed to do, stop or struggle to continuously adjust to each other up to the end even if we are out of tune?"
The struggles are Mitchell's illness, of course, but also lies, infidelity and ego between four people with a passion for music.
The Gelbarts' grown daughter Alexandra - also a musician - is a fifth to the quartet in a way. She is in Mitchell's class and also taught by Lerner. I think she struggles to know if she should be a musician just because her parents are and to have her own identity.
At times, though it was minimal in the scheme of the whole film, I think the strife between the characters was taken too far and at others not far enough.
The relationship between Juliette and Robert has the most strain, and love as we learn in the end, and I think that story needed to be the focus just a little bit more.
It's hardly a flaw of the film, especially with the cast assigned to play out these roles. A lot of Robert's struggle is tied to being second violin - both literally and in his relationship with Juliette - and I think Hoffman did the best standing out in his role.
Walken plays the subdued personality of Mitchell - despite his struggle perhaps being the worst of them all -  perfectly to balance the clash between Juliette, Robert, Daniel and even Alexandra.
Mitchell does break at one point, requiring Walken to escalate a bit, which he also does perfectly.
When the strife between the quartet - with Alexandra in the mix - goes too far it is mostly with her character.
But that's nothing negative about Poots' performance. If nothing else, I hope there are some acting nominations from this film when the big award season hits.
The script is deserving of recognition too with its seamless style following the continuity required in Beethoven's Opus 131. There are times when the focus is on one character more than the other, but Zilberman and co-writer Seth Grossman bring all the parts together for closure in the end.
Viewers can take away as little or as much as they want from "A Late Quartet," even just by listening to it in the background.
It reminds me of one of my favorite films, "Lost in Translation," in that regard.
As with most movies, I recommend giving "A Late Quartet" a try.
However, I do suggest watching it at home. You can crank up the volume, which was a big problem in the theater my sister and I went to, and not deal with the annoyances of the audience around you.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!

Looper

Slate.com

"How's your French? Slow."
"How's the coffee? Burnt."

There are so many good lines in "Looper" but, for some reason, I remember that one between waitress Beatrix and Joe.
First things first, I really do need to see this movie again.
I was finally able to listen to the Hollywood Prospectus podcast about the movie, which I knew there would be spoilers in, and Andy Greenwald dropped a very interesting Easter Egg that he thought he saw during an early scene.
How did I not see that? This movie better be playing at the budget theater, stat. That's not to say it wouldn't be worth paying full price, even twice in a row, but who can really afford that? Not me.
Luckily I have enough thrill from the film's magic and plot to analyze for a while.
I was expecting an action flick with a time-travel theme and for it to definitely be good. I love "Brick" by writer/director Rian Johnson and his episodes of Breaking Bad so I just knew I was in for a treat.
But it's so much more. The visual effects, the wit, the mystery, Emily Blunt, Old Joe, Young Joe, Jeff Daniels, and a kid that can be cute and creepy at the same time.
Basically, the plot you need to know is listed on sites like IMDB:

"In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self."

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt with a fake nose) is the Looper who eventually encounters his future self to close out his career and move to France. The nose is to make Joe look like Bruce Willis/Old Joe.
It works once you get used to looking at it, but still never really made a match between the two actors for me. Maybe it was the eyebrows.
Gordon-Levitt's performance, along with Emily Blunt's and Daniels' stood out in the film. Johnson made some smart casting choices. One shortcoming, while I can't think of another actor who could have played Willis' role, is I feel like I've seen his performance before in other films.
Once Joe and Old Joe have their first encounter, the film is a chase through time that challenges two versions of the same person against each other. It's an internal battle as much as it is an external battle with people who control the Loopers closing in as they try to fix everything the way they want it.
Joe, at least initially, wants his silver and the next 30 years of his life after closing the loop. Old Joe is not ready to let go yet and has some unfinished business.
What is at risk is what stands between him and his younger self and people who Joe has developed relationships with in his life outside of being a hitman. Or, he could develop relationships with them in the future.
Joe (the younger one) I think, is ultimately in control. He just has to decide what he is willing to give up in the present at the risk of ruining his future plan.
There is some confusion in the plot, as can be expected with any futuristic story that explores time travel, , but Johnson brings it full circle.
I didn't know how long "Looper" would last in the theater, not because it's a bad movie, but because people who don't absolutely love science fiction, someone in the cast or the director may not give it a chance.
Now having seen it I recommend people -- no matter what your taste in movies is -- take that chance.
Johnson has managed to take a film with so many components and genre samples and make it for a universal audience.
I am feeding off the Hollywood Prospectus podcast again here, but I do need to stress how Emily Blunt's performance really took the film to another level. It was the component to the film that, I think, makes it accessible for everyone to have a benefit in their viewing experience.
I've liked all of Blunt's roles, but this one will push her more into leading lady territory.
Johnson clearly has it together when in charge of a script and behind the camera and I also want to see more from him. He doesn't appear to have any titles on the way, but that's okay with me. "Looper" is worth a second, and maybe even third look.