The Odyssey

It’s not the oldest story—as of this writing the Epic of Gilgamesh still holds that title—but Christopher Nolan’s retelling of the famous Greek epic poem seems to argue that Homer’s work may be the most significant. What is this ancient story about? Not a man, not a war, not a family, not a journey; according to this telling, the story is about everything. Nolan and company present a tale that is civilizational in scope, one that argues that Homer’s masterpiece is a song about all of those things and more, all the way to the very collapse of the world those people were living in. This may be a radical reinterpretation of the text—students reading the book in literature classes, at least back in my day, rarely heard such a theory—and it requires a substantial amount of revision to the tale and the presentation of some of these characters, but it is an idea that makes this movie a provocative and, in some instances, a profoundly emotional experience. Anne Hathaway stands as perhaps the most traditional depiction of a character here, showing a Penelope who is both clever and courageous but also deeply vulnerable. Tom Holland is similarly traditional as Telemachus, though perhaps a touch wiser and more agentic than you usually see in stagings. Other characters show a range of redevelopment, from a brutish but wise Meneleus (Jon Bernthal) to a vaguely sympathetic Circe to an Athena (Zendaya) who comes across like a girl who wandered into the movie from the local hangout. (Come on, dude—Athena was, among other things, a war goddess, not some wispy, weak twentysomething.) And then there is Matt Damon’s titular protagonist: a king and a general and a hero, but also a man broken by his recognition of the consequences of what he has done. It is an affecting performance, and it ultimately confronts the viewer with an emotional depth that matches the pain endured by Penelope. Put the personal struggles together with the global characteristics of the story—war and violence and greed and hatred, courage and cowardice, loyalty and treachery, tyranny and tragedy and love and death—and you can see the outlines of a world descending and being remade in real time (with clear parallels to an all-too-familiar scenario playing out in the world around the viewer). All of that speaks of the tremendous ambition that went into the creation of this film; the judgment here is that that ambition achieved most of its goals most of the way, with just touches of false steps just here and there. Like its story, the movie is long and takes you to many places, but it ultimately arrives at the desired destination: the victory that is great art and great storytelling, combined with cinematic techniques of the highest order. I sing, O Muse, of a work that should not be missed; don’t take ten years to watch this one.

Air

I can’t really tell: does being old enough to remember the period of this particular period piece make it a better viewing experience or not? Sure, you get a kick out of the music and the artifacts, as well as knowing the details of how it all turned out—but in some ways that’s the problem, too. Try as the principal actors might to inject some suspense here, there’s no way you don’t know the ending to the story (which is really a beginning, after all), and that fact drains out a large amount of the drama. Still, the movie deserves credit for its precise recreation of the past, and Matt Damon performs yeoman's work in making the stakes for his character Sonny seem pretty close to life and death, for the company at least if not any of the people involved. Most intriguing may be scriptwriter Alex Convery’s decision to make one character present but mostly not a presence in the tale; that makes the story more about those other folks than the one person in the tale everybody already knows all about. The one big misstep comes at the crucial moment, when the pitch is made by recounting everything that hasn’t happened yet but will, as if the future itself is intruding upon the depicted past; it makes for a scene that is just not believable, and contrary to the rest of this story's telling. Still, the overall impression is of a well-played game. I wouldn’t say that this film soars to unprecedented heights, a la a certain basketball legend, but I think it does score enough points to come away with a win.

Oppenheimer

Normally, the movie industry wants to shy away from bombs. But this story ain’t normal. Perhaps that explains the way director Christopher Nolan presents this tale—in a most unconventional way, particularly for a biopic. The storytelling here is eccentric, impressionistic, and idiosyncratic, with an almost staccato rhythm and pacing in the way it weaves its the tale. And 'weaving' is the correct term, as this story is nearly a co-biography of the title physicist and businessman and government official Lewis Strauss, with the parallel paths that the two men follow in the later years of their public careers displayed in intertwining narratives. Cillian Murphy is fine in the title role—he carries a heavy load here, being in almost every frame of the film—though Robert Downey Jr. almost steals the show (and will be a strong contender for a supporting actor award come next spring) as the antagonistic Strauss. The movie does have some flaws: some character introductions and scenes feel obligatory, the sorts of cinematic elements one often sees in a biopic; even with this work's nonstandard DNA, it can’t avoid some of the genre's cliches. Also, Nolan’s penchant for representational visual interjections—which lends a lot of that aforementioned staccato pacing—grows annoying after a while. Really, the whole style of the film is the greatest challenge the average viewer will face in watching this one. If you’re open to a non-conventional approach and allow the story to do its work, you will find this film to be rewarding, intriguing, in stretches even engrossing. But I also suspect that many viewers will be put off by the way Nolan’s direction asks a lot of the audience. That may be why, of the summer's two most anticipated releases, this one appears to have been left somewhat in the dust. Perhaps this should have been an Oscar-season release after all, and should not tried to swim against the summer blockbuster tide. Such a decision might have aligned expectations better for this film. Nevertheless, this movie is ultimately a success on its own terms, and one more interesting entry in the catalog of one of today’s most successful and intriguing directors. No bomb here; this project produced its intended product, be it a blockbuster or not.

The Last Duel

One is tempted to suggest that this movie gets hoisted on its own petard. It presents one story told from three different perspectives, with the heavy hint that only one version is the "truth." But...by presenting the notion of unreliable perspectives, the filmmakers suggest--perhaps unintentionally--that ALL the versions of the tale contain untruths. An intelligent analysis must recognize that the woman’s story isn’t automatically true just because she’s a woman. Only by way of a an uncritical acceptance can those watching take at face value the notion that only one of these accounts is factually accurate and honest. That conundrum diminishes the impact of the work as a whole, despite its fine performances and meticulous presentation of the period. (Director Ridley Scott is an old hand at putting spare-no-expense visuals on the screen.) This is hardly a bad film, for sure, but one can’t help but think that, perhaps, this could have been a more forceful work without indulging in the narrative puzzle-making.

No Sudden Move

I have a sketchy history with Steven Soderbergh movies. I also have a sketchy history with crime caper movies, the kind that are convinced of how clever they are and think that you should be convinced of it, too. So what do you think happened when I watched this flick? Well, it wasn't all that bad, but you're not too far off. The bulk of the enjoyment here comes from watching veteran, professional actors like Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro playing off and against each other; they're fine, especially in the early segments of the film. But the plot eventually gets away from itself, becomes too convoluted, and then attempts a ham-handed effort at injecting a bit of socioeconomic commentary and muckracking into the tale, without that element really being part of the story from the start. It also doesn't help, either, that Soderbergh--despite or perhaps because of his reputation as an innovative filmmaker--seems unaware throughout the running time that his camera--possibly smartphone--created distortions of the image throughout the picture; a lot of the frames look like they were (unnecessarily) shot with a fish-eye lens. So despite some decent aspects of this movie, it mostly comes across as a muddle.

Ford v Ferrari

Kind of like a mid-sized sedan manufactured back in the '90s: decent, lots of reliable parts, but never quite able to shift into high gear. The story is inherently interesting, told through vivid characters--not to mention numerous sports movie cliches--with a good cast and impeccable scene and art direction, but the problems never really go away. Damon is fine as Carroll Shelby, but Bale's work as Ken Miles ranges from pitch perfect (in his tone and presence) to distracting (his accent is largely unintelligible). Plus, the film's climax is not really a win (which would have been predictable) or a loss (which would have been provocative) but basically a tie--which hardly heightens the drama. Like most American cars these days, this model is good, but could have been better.

Downsizing

A little bit of hucksterism goes a long way. Such seems to be the premise of this flick. It's a notion well worth pointing out, and that might be enough to build a movie upon--especially early on, when flaws in the characters' thinking and the sales pitch abound, and the viewer is just sort of grinning at how much smarter he is than the protagonists. But writer-director Alexander Payne has more on his mind. Soon the film turns mostly about the thought experiment--that is, getting the viewer to ask what would I do? And what would you do if you make that choice? On that level, I think this movie succeeds; as the story drills down into something more personal, it shifts tone and focus yet remains affecting. Most noteworthy is an amazing performance by Hong Chau as Matt Damon's eventual guiding light. She has to cover a wide range in her role while staying within a limited vocabulary, both verbal, physical and in characterization. This will not be a film that's everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's rewarding for viewers who are open to a thoughtful experience.

Jason Bourne

At this point, one must approach the continuing popularity of these Bourne movies with a certain amount of perplexity. The plain truth is, except perhaps for the first one, they're just not very good. It's easy to look at the main player in the spy genre -- James Bond flicks -- and laugh at them for a certain amount of campiness, but at the very least those movies have made, and continue to make, a minimal effort to spin out some character development for their main actors. In contrast, Matt Damon's genre vehicle has never really bothered with carving out a real identity for anyone involved in the proceedings. Lack of identity is, to be sure, the point with Bourne, but that doesn't mean everyone else in the cast has to be a mannequin; a sense of who these people are -- and why we should care about any of it, beyond bromides about national security and such -- would make for a more effective story, and thus movies more worth watching. You don't get that here. You do get some pretty decent action sequences, but that does not really a good movie make. If you're truly a fan of the series -- somehow -- I guess you'll want to see this, but really everyone else should have long since moved on from here.

The Martian

This movie has its weaknesses; a large dose of predictability mixed with plenty of moviemaking and story clichés come immediately to mind. But its strengths are very strong, including an excellent cast in top form and an inherently interesting premise. And the film's greatest strength of all may be its most important trait: its high level of intelligence, particularly in its depiction of science not just as an airy concept, but as a practical way to solve problems. If enough people watch this movie, and absorb its scientific frame of mind, it might nudge this world towards being a place that's a little bit better than the ignorant, superstitious madhouse where we currently live.

The Monuments Men

Noble ideas should always be winners. Sadly, they often are not, though the ones that aren't are not necessarily losers; sometimes they just fight life to a draw. So it is here with George Clooney's remembrance of a group of non-soldiers who suited up and went into a war not to save a country or each other, but the very culture of the Western world. The unevenness of the film probably reflects the difficulty in capturing this story in a dramatic setting; parts of the film are entertaining and involving, while others seem disjointed and not particularly well fit with the rest of the film. (If a movie had been made strictly about the recovery of the Madonna and Child statue--a major plotline here--one suspects it would have been a tighter, more watchable film.) As it is, this flick stands as a good effort, and its noble idea--that the treasures of our culture were worth saving when monsters wanted to destroy them--surely deserves at least this much attention.

Elysium

Solid sci-fi action movie. This one bears some familial resemblance to District 9 (by the same director), in that it depicts a circumstance of massive inequality, but this time we’re the underprivileged aliens; I guess the lessons of the last few years really have hit home. I’m not sure there’s anything profound here--it’s just a good action flick with a decent story that keeps moving along, keeps the viewer engaged, and comes to a satisfying conclusion. (And no set up for a sequel, something that’s rare with today’s sci-fi films. Perhaps that approach leads to better results? Hollywood take note…)

Contagion

The most devastating affliction depicted in this movie? Grief. Lots of "disaster disease" movies get so wrapped up in the medical hokum that they lose sight of the human component to a deadly outbreak. Not so here--a terrific cast plays the emotional elements perfectly, and director Soderbergh does a masterful job with the presentation, giving the viewer a deep, connected, satisfying experience. Top notch.

The Departed

The good news: Scorsese put together a hell of a cast for this film. The bad news: it was Scorsese directing them. This movie neatly exposes and sums up the Scorsese problem: a technically fine film that lacks something, or is off-putting in some crucial way. That aforementioned cast is a case in point: as in all this director's movies, everyone throws himself too forcefully into his role; you can practically see the actors look at the camera and say, "Check out how intense I make this scene." The effect is not one of intensity, but of actors trying too hard (at best) or chewing the scenery (at worst). And it's up to the director to reel that in and hit just the right note. As usual, Scorsese doesn't do that here. And the movie is consequently less than it should be.

The Bourne Supremacy

It's kind of a shame, really. The first one was pretty good, and this movie could have been so much better than it is. The story is compelling, the action audacious, no expense was spared on production or location...but the direction just plain sucks, mostly because of devotion to the "constantly move the camera around" concept that supposedly makes even static scenes into something active. No, it doesn't, it's just annoying. Hold the camera still, fool. There's still some good stuff here; you might enjoy it despite the shakyvision direction. Watch it on cable or get it from the library--just don't pay for it.

Syriana

Everybody's guilty. Including you. So seems to be the message of this work. It would be nice if there was story to go along with that sentiment. Remember, kids: a viewpoint does not a narrative make--and you know how I feel about narrative. As it stands, the food for thought goes hand in hand with the muddle of disparate plot threads. They do all weave together eventually, but from a film-making standpoint, clear expression of a central idea is lost (or at least suffers). Overall, a tough call--I know these are issues we should all be interested in, but you need to bring some keen interest and wide-ranging knowledge to play at this table. If you think you've got the intellectual grit for it, dive in. Otherwise, just go with a light comedy.

The Brothers Grimm

We've come to expect more from Terry Gilliam than this, but here the problems lie mostly with the writing. The story is stupid, sloppy, and nonsensical, and contributes the lion's share in making for a flat and tedious movie. Gilliam's not the only sad sight here; good performances by Matt Damon and especially Heath Ledger were wasted in this effort. Everyone's heart was in the right place, apparently, but that's not always enough.

Stuck On You

Those Farrelly brothers--they're quite the enigma, aren't they? They've made a couple of the funniest movies of the last decade or so (There's Something About Mary and the wildly under appreciated Kingpin), but apparently, "funny" is not really their thing. At least judging by some recent outings. Here's a case in point. It was "sold" as a comedy, and there are certainly some funny moments, good gags, humor-laden premise, etc. But then again, they seem to be more interested in making a point about people and what makes them who they are. The boys deserve credit for trying, but they didn't completely pull it off. Maybe they'll nail it with the next try.

The Bourne Identity

It's enjoyable, largely based upon the performances of the leads, Matt Damon as the titular badass and Franke Potente as the requisite cutie. The technospy trash almost ruins it, but if you keep your eye on the human element, it's worth it.

All The Pretty Horses

The MEOW has never been so uncertain. This one has some wonderful moments, and it is visually glorious, but the story is never particularly engaging or interesting to those with broader mental horizons. Take it for a spin if you really like cowboy movies.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Watching this movie is like spending a couple of hours in the High Church of Holy Hipness; it's got more smirks than you'd find on Saturday night in a frat house. There are a few amusing moments, but not enough of them. On another note: this is the second big-time movie (directed by Soderbergh, no less) in which George Clooney has played a criminal--should we be worried? Posted .