Movie Review: Allied

Allied

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis.

Written by: Steven Knight.

Starring: Brad Pitt (Max Vatan), Marion Cotillard (Marianne Beausejour), Jared Harris (Frank Heslop), Daniel Betts (George Kavanagh), Simon McBurney (S.O.E. Official), Marion Bailey (Mrs. Sinclair), Lizzy Caplan (Bridget Vatan), Anton Lesser (Emmanuel Lombard), Matthew Goode (Guy Sangster), Josh Dylan (Capt Adam Hunter), August Diehl (Hobar), Charlotte Hope (Louise), Sally Messham (Margaret), Thierry Frémont (Paul Delamare).

 

Robert Zemeckis’ Allied is a wonderful homage to the type of WWII films Hollywood produced during WWII. It is old fashioned entertainment that mixes action with romance with intrigue, and offers enough twists and turns to keep you guessing right up until the end. It stars two ridiculously good looking movie stars, doing the movie star thing to perfection. It is essentially a popcorn movie for adults who are tired of superheroes, and complain that they don’t make’em like they used to. In the case of Allied, they do.

 

In the film, Brad Pitt stars as Max Vatan – a Canadian officer in the RAF, who parachutes into the desert in the opening scene, before making his way to Casablanca. It’s there where he meets Marianne Beausejour – a French spy, who has gained the trust of the Germans running Casablanca. Max is posing as her husband, and they have 10 days to plan and carry out some sort of mission. Because the two are ridiculously attractive, they end having sex with each other – in the backseat of a car, in a sandstorm no less – and then, of course, falling in love, despite them both protesting that it would be stupid of them to do so. Their mission complete, the story flashes forward a year, where the pair live in wedded bliss, with their infant daughter, in England. He’s still an intelligence officer – but he’s riding a desk now. She’s traded her life of intrigue, for domestic life. They he’s called into the office of V-Section, who informs Max that they think Marianne is really a German spy. Not only that, but they need him to help them prove it – by leaving false information for her to find. If it turns up in the communications they are intercepting, they’ll know she’s guilty – and Max will be expected to execute her himself. In the meantime, he’s to do nothing, and act normal.

 

Allied doesn’t try to hide its influences – it fully embraces them. Casablanca is the obvious one of course, but there’s a lot else that people will recognize if they watch a lot of old movies – a little Hitchcock, a little Fritz Lang, etc. There’s more violence here than in those films of course, more sex, and more swearing – but for the most part, Allied is the type of film they could have made back in the day. The screenplay by Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things, Eastern Promises, Locke) keeps you guessing from the beginning to the end. The direction by Robert Zemeckis is wonderful – brisk and exciting. He’s spent more time this century trying to advance filmmaking from a technological standpoint through animation (The Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol) or special effects (The Walk) – but this film, like Flight from a few years ago, is more proof than when he wants to, he can deliver good, old school, mainstream entertainment.

 

The reason the film works is the performances by the two stars. The movie is perfect example of why Pitt is one of the biggest stars in the world – because he’s excellent in roles like this that requires him to be suave, charming and sexy in the first half, then mounting anger in the second, capped off with tears. It’s a full blown movie star role, and right now, few if any can do that better than Pitt. Cotillard is even better as she’s got a more complex role of course – we in the audience are required to fall for her in the first half, and then go back and forth on her motives in the second. She has to sell both possibilities – that she’s guilty, and hiding, or that she is completely oblivious – and do so without giving the game away. She does it wonderfully.

 

I’m not going to argue that Allied is a particularly deep piece of entertainment – nor that it’s original in any real way. It isn’t – it a straight up, old school homage to spy thrillers of the 1940s, but done with such style and flair that you hardly care. There is room for the more paranoid, down to earth spy stories of say John Le Carre – and the grand romanticism of Allied in the world. Once in the while, you want the latter.

Movie Review: The Walk

The Walk
Directed by: Robert Zemeckis.
Written by: Robert Zemeckis & Christopher Browne based on the book by Philippe Petit.
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Philippe Petit), Charlotte Le Bon (Annie), James Badge Dale (Jean-Pierre / J.P.), Ben Kingsley (Papa Rudy), Clément Sibony (Jean-Louis), César Domboy (Jeff / Jean-François), Ben Schwartz (Albert), Steve Valentine (Barry Greenhouse), Mark Camacho (Guy Tozolli), Benedict Samuel (David).

The actual walk in The Walk – that makes up the last third of the movie or so – is stunning – one of the best sequences of its kind you will ever see, and demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible, with the best possible 3-D. Normally, I don’t 3-D, but the work here is clearly the best in a mainstream movie since Gravity – and easily ranks among the best  3-D the medium has produced since they’ve gone 3-D crazy in recent years. It is simply dizzying and awe-inspiring – and if that sounds like hyperbole, well, it kind of is – but not too much. That alone makes the movie worth seeing.

That sequence is so good in fact that you want to overlook much of the rest of the movie, that is filled with sloppy storytelling, and moments that are trying way too hard to make things seem more important than they are. The film has a goofy spirit that I quite liked – anchored by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who goes wonderfully over-the-top in every way, especially the accent, in his performance as Frenchman Philippe Petit, who in 1974 strung a high wire up between the Twin Towers of the WTC and walked back and forth on it. If you really want to see Petit’s story, than you should watch the Oscar winning documentary by James Marsh – Man on Wire from 2008 – which does a much better job telling his story, and connecting what he did in 1974, with what the Towers would eventually come to represent. For the most part, The Walk treats everything like a heist movie – with Petit assembling his crack (and not so crack) team in the hopes of pulling off his “coup”. He knows he has limited time – the towers are just about complete, and when they are it will become impossible to do what he needs to do.

The film was directed by Robert Zemeckis, who has always been on the cutting edge of technology, but often the films he makes lag behind their technical achievement. I’m not a Forrest Gump hater like some, but there’s little doubt that then the groundbreaking special effects are more impressive than the movie as whole. Zemeckis also spent far too long working in motion capture animation – films like The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol – which were groundbreaking in their own way, if not precisely great. Long ago now are the days when Zemeckis combined both the groundbreaking visuals with a truly great story, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Personally, I quite liked his last film – Flight, with its excellent performance by Denzel Washington, but that seemed more like Zemeckis edging back into live action filmmaking after his decade immersed in animation.

I’m not sure The Walk is truly groundbreaking – but it is an amazing use of 3-D technology that actually deepens the visuals, and gives them a feel that just cannot be replicated without it. The whole time Petit is on that wire, between the Twin Towers the film is amazing. The rest of it is fairly average – and sometimes worse. Zemeckis takes his time getting to that wire – and to be honest, I got rather impatient at times. I also could have done without Gordon-Levitt’s narration – particularly over the walk itself – but really through the whole movie. It’s a distraction, and not really needed.

So I’m torn on The Walk. On one hand, I really want everyone to see it, on the biggest screen imaginable, because the film gives you an experience not quite like anything else. On the other hand, everything that leads up to that Walk is mediocre at best. If you could walk into the theater with about 45 minutes to go, that would probably be ideal. But even if you watch the whole thing, you’ll have a decent time at the beginning – and be blown away at the end. Not a bad deal really.

Classics Revisited: Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Directed by: Robert Zemeckis.
Written by: Jeffrey Price & Peter S. Seaman based on the novel by Gary K. Wolf.
Starring: Bob Hoskins (Eddie Valiant), Christopher Lloyd (Judge Doom), Joanna Cassidy (Dolores), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit / Benny The Cab / Greasy / Psycho), Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme), Alan Tilvern (R.K. Maroon), Richard LeParmentier (Lt. Santino), Lou Hirsch (Baby Herman), Mae Questel (Betty Boop), Mel Blanc (Daffy Duck / Tweety Bird / Bugs Bunny / Sylvester / Porky Pig), Tony Anselmo (Donald Duck), Wayne Allwine (Mickey Mouse), Kathleen Turner (Jessica Rabbit).

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was so popular and critically acclaimed back in 1988 that I’ve often wondered why it didn’t spawn more imitators. True the movie was nowhere near the first film to combine animated characters and live action – they had been doing that for decades – but the film pretty much perfected it. More than any other film of its kind the animated characters really do seem to be a part of the live action environment they are inhabiting. Perhaps the reason there were not more like this is because the process was so painstaking – as animators had to take the shots that director Robert Zemeckis actually shot and draw the characters on them one at a time. Zemeckis didn’t make it easy, as he insisted on his camera to be constantly in motion, so not only do the characters have to move from frame to frame, but the perspective they are being shot in needed to change as well. Perhaps it was because when they did try to imitate the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the result was a failure like Cool World. Perhaps it was the dawning of computer animation – which started just 7 years later with Pixar’s Toy Story, which made animation so much easier that the idea of doing something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit just seemed too time consuming and complicated. Whatever the reason, Who Framed Roger Rabbit stands as one of the most innovative films of its time – and one that remains almost a singular achievement.

The film is 1940s style film noir set in a Los Angeles where toons and people co-exist. The film opens with what appears to be one of the shorts of the era – a troublesome baby getting into all sorts of trouble on his quest to find a cookie, and his rabbit babysitter taking the brunt of the punishment for the Baby’s action. Then we hear someone yell “Cut!”. The Rabbit, Roger, has screwed up again – it’s supposed to be stars circling his head after the fridge drops on him, not little birds. The “baby” whips out a cigar, and starts cursing his co-star and the director. He can’t work like this! The action than goes from the purely cartoon world of that short, into the strange mixture of live action and animation that make up the rest of the movie.

Bob Hoskins stars as Eddie Valiant – a P.I. who once loved the toons, and now cannot stand them because his brother was murdered by one. He’s become an alcoholic, in desperate need of money, so when head of Maroon studios – R.K. Maroon (Alan Tilvern) comes to him with a simple assignment – follow Roger Rabbit’s wife Jessica to get some pictures to prove she’s cheating on him – he reluctantly agrees. And Eddie gets the job done – after seeing Jessica Rabbit’s routine at a nightclub, he snaps some photos of her literally playing “Pattycakes” with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye) – head of the company who makes all those wonderful gadgets. The next day, Acme turns up dead, and Roger is the only logical suspect. He’s pursued by the insane Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) who wants to dispose of him once and for all. But Roger tracks down Eddie and says he was framed – and Eddie reluctantly agrees to help.

The film is simply a joy to behold from beginning to end. It’s fun to spot all the cameos that are littered throughout the movie – and is probably the only chance we’ll ever get to see Daffy and Donald Duck in the same scene together (the movie was released by Disney, but producer Steven Spielberg got Warner Bros. to grant them permission to use their iconic characters in the film as well – but only if Daffy got the same screen time as Donald, and Bugs got the same screen time as Mickey Mouse – resulting in both pairs occupying the exact same scenes at the same time – including the dueling pianos routine by the two ducks, which is a highlight). It’s fun to see all these iconic characters pop up – Betty Boop, now down on her luck since the toons changed to color is perhaps my favorite – but Zemeckis doesn’t simply add them in for the sake of having them there (at least not completely). He does it to build the world they inhabit quickly, by using established characters. The main animated characters are of course Roger – that bundle of manic energy – and his bombshell of wife, Jessica – perfectly voiced by an uncredited Kathleen Turner. Surprisingly the human characters fit in perfectly as well. Bob Hoskins wouldn’t have been the first person to come to mind for me to do an animated comedy – but he’s perfect as Eddie Valiant – a grizzled, cynical detective who is hiding a good guy underneath. He doesn’t try to compete with the toons in terms of energy – but does succeed in grounding the movie is some sort of reality. Christopher Lloyd has great fun going over the top as Judge Doom.

 
Watching the film again, I realized that had the film been made today, it would probably be much different. This isn’t exactly a dark movie – but it does include smoking, drinking, sex jokes, murder and a few scary bits (that poor shoe) that would likely have to be sanded off for modern audiences, who are more sensitive about that sort of thing. By doing so, Roger Rabbit would have lost much of its charm. The film stands as a movie lover’s dream – referencing film noir in a family friendly way, and making one nostalgic for the childhood characters they loved. This is probably the best film Zemeckis has ever made – Back to the Future perhaps comes close, but the technical achievement of this film is unparalleled in his career. This is what he does best – make elaborate comic fantasies. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the best.

Movie Review: Flight

Flight

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis.

Written by: John Gatins.

Starring: Denzel Washington (Whip Whitaker), Kelly Reilly (Nicole), Bruce Greenwood (Charlie Anderson), John Goodman (Harling Mays), Don Cheadle (Hugh Lang), Melissa Leo (Ellen Block), Nadine Velazquez (Katerina Marquez), Tamara Tunie (Margaret Thomason), Brian Geraghty (Ken Evans), Garcelle Beauvais (Deana), Justin Martin (Will).

Denzel Washington delivers one of his very best performances in Flight. Like the recent indie film Smashed, Flight is about an alcoholic who finally hits bottom. But Smashed was a stripped down film – about nothing else other than the main characters struggle with sobriety – whereas Flight is about a lot more than that. It has a complicated plot that requires Washington to hit some very difficult notes. His character is at turn’s drunk, arrogant, in denial, depressed, jovial and over all, is pretty much a selfish jerk for most of the running time of Flight. And yet, Washington never loses our sympathy. His character is placed in a situation in which there are no good options open to him, and who eventually has to make a decision that no matter what he chooses, will not really benefit anyone. More often than not, I prefer the stripped to the down indie over the Hollywood version of the same story – not this time though. Flight is one of the best films of the year – and the rare film that finds new territory to explore in the world of alcoholics. Washington’s performance elevates the entire movie – and the entire supporting cast around him.

Flight opens with a scene that is familiar to all drunks – waking up in the morning, still a little bit drunk from the night before, unsure of what happened, and needing a “pick-me-up” to start the day. Washington’s Whip Whitaker gets this pick-me-up in the form of stale beer and cocaine before heading to work. This would be bad enough no matter what his job was – but since he’s an airline pilot, who has a flight at 9 that morning, it’s even worse. But Whip is a high functioning alcoholic – he knows what he’s doing, and the flight is a short one – Orlando to Atlanta – so even though the weather is bad, he can do this one in his sleep – which after a rough take off, due to weather, is exactly what he does. But late in the flight, things start going horribly wrong. They lose control of the plane and start a nose dive.

What follows is perhaps the most intense plane crash I have ever seen on film. This is where director Robert Zemeckis – making his first live action film after more than a decade making motion capture animation films – really shines. The crash is terrifying, and told in minute by minute detail, as we see everything that happens. This is probably as close as you’re likely to get in terms of experiencing what a plane crash is really like while watching a movie. Miraculously, almost everyone on the plane survives – only 6 deaths out of 102 people on board. When they put other pilots through a simulation to determine if anything could have been done differently by the pilots, not one of them was able to save a single person. But none of that actually matters in the case of Whitaker. They take his blood while he’s unconscious in the hospital – and it shows the alcohol and cocaine in his system. If he’s lucky, he’ll get off with just a few years in jail for flying while intoxicated – if he’s unlucky, he’ll go to jail for life on six counts of manslaughter.

The crash itself is easily the most memorable sequence in Flight – and the most brilliantly directed by Zemeckis. But it’s also only a small part of what makes Flight such a good movie. Most of the movie is about Whip dealing with his alcoholism – mostly by not dealing with it and drinking himself into a stupor day after day, all while trying to avoid the press, and having meetings with his union rep (Bruce Greenwood), who wants to see Whip cleared of any wrongdoing, because it would make the union look bad otherwise, and his lawyer (Don Cheadle), who wants to get him off, because, well, that’s what he is paid for. For a while, Whip gets involved with Nicole (Kelly Reilly), a recovering drug addict he met while in the hospital. For a while, she needs him the same way he needs her – but as she starts putting the pieces of her shattered life together, she realizes that Whip maybe beyond redemption – and if she stays, she may be as well. Washington is brilliant in the movie, and it’s to Reilly’s credit that she matches him in their scenes together. The two characters act as a mirror for each other – to Nicole, Whip is what she doesn’t want to be anymore. With Whip it’s more complicated than that – he knows Nicole has a problem, but he cannot bring himself to admit that he has one. Eventually Nicole will be just another person he has pushed away – like his ex-wife and son, who he lost because of his drinking before the movie even starts. The only person who truly seems to like Whip is Harling Mays (John Goodman) – and that’s because he’s his drug dealer. In just a few short scenes, Goodman leaves a lasting impression on this movie. If Reilly is the angel on Whip’s shoulder trying to convince him to be good, than Goodman is the devil on the other, trying to draw him back to the dark side.

I have seen a lot of movies about drunks over the years – so many in fact that I had begun to feel as if there was little new one could do with the material. While Flight certainly hits the notes that many movies about drunks do, it feels fresh and original – partly because the plot is more complicated than most – the implications of Whip’s alcoholism are not limited to himself, and partly because Washington is so good in the movie. This type of role is like a high wire act for an actor – just how far can he push the audience away, and still have them rooting for his recovery. Flight belongs on a list with films like Billy Wilder’s The Lost Weekend (1945) and Mike Figgis’ Leaving Las Vegas (1995) - and that's good company to be in.

Movie Review: A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol ** ½
Directed By: Robert Zemeckis.
Written By: Robert Zemeckis based on the story by Charles Dickens.
Starring: Jim Carrey (Scrooge/Ghost of Christmas Past/Ghost of Christmas Present/Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come), Gary Oldman (Bob Cratchit/Marley/Tiny Tim), Colin Firth (Fred), Robin Wright Penn (Fan/Belle), Bob Hoskins (Mr. Fezziwig/Old Joe), Jacquie Barnbrook (Mrs. Fezziwig/Fred’s Sister-in-Law/Well-Dressed Caroler), Lesley Manville (Mrs. Cratchit), Cary Elwes (Portly Gentleman #1/Dick Wilkins/Mad Fiddler/Guest #2/Business Man #1).

Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol has been turned into a movie so many times that it is almost pointless to try and do it all again. According to Wikipedia, this is the 21st film version of the story. It has inspired many different retellings and reinterpretations. In the past year for example we had two horrendous versions - An American Carol, a right wing screed about the dawning realization of a liberal filmmaker that he is an idiot, and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, a terrible romantic comedy about a playboy played by Matthew McConaghey, realizing he has lost his way. The best version is probably the 1951 version with Alastair Sim as Scrooge, but the version I have watched the most is undoubtedly A Muppet Christmas Carol with Michael Caine. So any version of the story that is going to come out has to do something at least a little bit different.

Robert Zemeckis’ version continues the same style he used to make The Polar Express and Beowulf. He essentially animated over top of real actors performing their roles. It is a mixture of live action and animation, and yields a film that is visually masterful. I have often found that the new trend of 3-D is simply a gimmick to get more money out of people, but when Zemeckis does it, the 3-D simply adds to the texture of the film itself. It makes it even more involving. A Christmas Carol is no exception. You cannot fault the movie for taking liberties with the original text. This is perhaps the most faithful adaptation yet of the story. The film even uses much of the same dialogue just as Dickens wrote it.

Jim Carrey takes on numerous roles in the film. He plays Ebenezer Scrooge himself, along with the three ghosts who come to visit him. He makes each character unique. His Scrooge is a crotchety old man, and is thankfully free from too much of Carrey’s characteristic overacting. He plays the role straight, and does a fine job. The Ghost of Christmas Past is the most visually interesting of the three ghosts - basically just a floating head and light, but Carrey perhaps plays the role too quietly, too subtly. Each line reading seems to be extended beyond the amount of time it should take. His Ghost of Christmas Present is a huge, jolly man with a love of life that is contagious. And the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is truly frightening. I know some kids at the screening I went to were scared of the ghost so be warned. Gary Oldman is the other major actor in the movie, playing Bob Crachit, Jacob Marley and Tiny Tim himself. Again, he plays all three roles straight, not going over the top at all. In fact, he is kind of lifeless in all three roles.

And therein lies the problem with the movie as a whole. No matter how visually interesting the film is, and no matter how faithful a rendition of the classic tale this is, the movie itself is pretty dull. I have seen this story so many times, and yet every time I pop either the 1951 version or A Muppet Christmas Carol into the DVD player, I never fail to get swept up into the story, the performances, the music and everything else about the film. With this version, there just isn’t much there to sink your teeth into. I am glad I saw the film in a theater, where the 3-D effects makes the movies amazing visuals pop, but this time the story just seemed to sit there on screen.