Showing posts with label John Hawkes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Hawkes. Show all posts

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Everest (2015)

Beware of a movie that begins by telling you how difficult it is to climb Everest and how many people have died trying to do it. You actually want me to watch this movie, right? Throughout they continue to hammer home how dangerous it is and how things can go south quickly. Are you sure you want me to sit through this whole thing? Guess how the movie plays out?

Everest is rough to watch at times. You're seeing a group of people struggling with this feat, and then it continues to get worse and worse. It's no surprise that it's not going to end well for a lot of them. If you like seeing lots of people die or frozen solid, then this is for you. Joy and triumph are not words I'd use to describe Everest. I get the whole man against nature element, but I can't help but wonder why anyone bothers with such an extreme. Why not just do those Spartan Races, and I don't even like those things.

Ultimately. the biggest problem with the movie is that it's hard to feel sympathy for the characters. They never give much more motivation than, 'because it's there'. Nobody's making them do this. It's not like anyone's got a gun to their heads, and they are offered multiple times to turn around when it looks like it's going to be too risky. At the end, I was as cold as as Everest.

Just like how Black Mass shows you pictures of the real people involved, Everest does that too. Normally that helps me connect to the characters, but even seeing them I still couldn't. I also found it a little funny that the makers of the film weren't as concerned for nailing the look. Aside from being much better looking, most of the actors looked nothing like their counterparts. It's kind of irrelevant though, since most of the actors are unrecognizable through much of the film. If it's not their facial hair, then it's the layers and layers of clothing and facial covering obscuring their identity. I was usually confused as to who was who most of the time, unless they had a really distinctive voice. They could have cast a bunch of unknowns and gotten the same effect. Having said that, the performances are good even though it seems like a waste of a lot of big names. I thought Black Mass underutilized a great cast, but in Everest they are completely wasted. Jason Clarke and Josh Brolin stand out for the most part, but I think in her limited screen time I think the only performance I connected with was Keira Knightley's.

Great, great cinematography. Everest is a gorgeous film, even when it's at it's most perilous. I know there was some CG used, but it was used to good effect. I saw it on IMAX 3D. While IMAX was a good format for the film, the 3D did absolutely nothing for it. If you're gonna experience this on the big screen, opt for a larger format, but see if you can avoid 3D.

Everest is a great looking, well-made movie, but it's ultimately a downer. This is one of those movies you'll put in that category of a good movie that you'll never want to see again. I can't recommend anything above a matinee.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Lincoln (2012) - Movie Review

I'm just waiting for the day when someone asks why Daniel Day-Lewis is on the five dollar bill.

Has there been any President that's been the focus of more films than Abraham Lincoln?  Is there any President more iconic?  Even if you're not a history buff, everyone knows the broad strokes of what he did.  So, how do you make a movie about him that's still interesting?  Well, you start by getting the best actor on the planet to play the lead role.  Then, you focus the story not on the fighting in the Civil War, but more on the man and his drive add the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Based on the book 'Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln' by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln gives us a look at the lengths he went to to ensure the Thirteenth Amendment passed in the House of Representatives.  He faced considerable opposition, and even if every member of his party voted yes, they'd still fall short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass it.  People were going to need some convincing, and Lincoln brings in a group of "negotiators" (James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes) to sweeten the deal for those who's votes can be bought.  It's interesting to see that even back then you had these shady, back door political dealings.  The timing was also a factor, as the passing of the amendment would end the war, but if the South surrendered first the amendment would even be less likely to pass.  There was lots of talk about something called the Emancipation Proclamation which I'm not familiar with, because I don't listen to hip hop.  Yes, I'm kidding and quoting South Park.

Since the movie doesn't focus on any Civil War battles, Lincoln features lots of long conversations and meaningful looks at one another.  You might ask, why I would give Lincoln a pass for doing then when I slam movies like Twilight for doing the same thing?  It's mainly due to the strength of the performances, and the fact that what these guys are discussing is one of the most important things in American history.  It takes those strong performances to really feel the weight of it though.  You never lose sight of how important this was, and how much stress it brought them. There's a scene early in the film where Lincoln and Mary Todd are arguing, and he pauses for a few seconds before speaking. You can feel the weight of the world on his shoulders during this moment.

It's interesting when you compare this to Steven Spielberg's last Oscar-bait movie, War Horse, which was also a period piece.  While both films looked great and have the same attention to detail, the difference this time around is that besides the amazing performances, the score isn't as sweeping, and you're watching situations and characters that you actually care about.  It does have the same sentimentality, but I felt it was earned here.  War Horse got a best picture nomination despite nobody getting nominated for their acting in the film  That wont be the same case with Lincoln.

Daniel Day-Lewis gives an amazing performance, but that kind of goes without saying.  How many ways can you continue to describe how great an actor is?  In all seriousness, Lewis is so immersed in the role that you forget after a while what you're watching an actor, and you feel like you're actually watching the man.  If the real Lincoln was anything like what Lewis portrayed on screen, you can see why so many people were willing to risk their lives for him.  He's an Oscar lock at this point.  It's interesting to note that Liam Neeson was originally attached to the role, but dropped out because he said he had grown too old for the role.  I found that odd considering that Lincoln was 56 when he died, and Neeson is only 60.  It would have been interesting if he had stayed in the role, since the guy they played Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Benjamin Walker) bears a strong resemblance to Neeson.

Not to be outdone was Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens.  He was even more passionate about abolition than Lincoln was, and he steals every scene he's in.  As much as I expect DDL to get nominated for an Oscar, I also expect TLJ to get nominated for Best Supporting Actor.  It's probably the most underrated performance of the year, and he already was fantastic in Hope Springs.

Sally Field was also great. She was very emotional, and was powerful when she stood her ground against their opponents. I wouldn't be surprised to see her name mentioned during Oscar time either.  The whole supporting cast reads like a "who's who" of top tier actors.  I can imagine there was a dogfight between these guys trying to get a role in the film.  I'm sure some of them agreed to any sized role just to be in it.  I wonder if casting director Avy Kaufman's phone ever stopped ringing.  There are so many great actors here that it hard to mention them all.

David Strahairn plays Secretary of State William Seward and really excels in the role.  If you're a fan of SyFy's Alphas, it's great to see him in a mainstream role.  James Spader also really stood out me after his eccentric role on The Office.  Then, you've got guys like likely Oscar nominee John Hawkes (for The Sessions), or Joseph Gordon-Levitt (playing Lincoln's son) with smaller roles. Even the under-appreciated Jared Harris shows up as the Fifty-Dollar Bill.  Oh, and Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) is here, too.  The supporting cast is stacked with stars.  It's kind of like when you look at roster for the Yankees or Lakers and wonder how they ever lose a game.

Oh, and how awesome must it be for Lee Pace to be in both Lincoln and Breaking Dawn - Part Two the same weekend?  I always thought he got a raw deal when Pushing Daises was cancelled, and I've been waiting for him to get some meatier roles. It looks like it's happening now.

Lincoln is a fantastically acted film that doesn't focus on the typical aspects of Lincoln's life or the Civil War.  For that reason alone, I enjoyed the film and was able to stay interested.  However, if you're looking for something that is a true biopic on Lincoln or focused more on the Civil War, you're likely to be disappointed. It's definitely worth seeing for the performances alone though.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Sessions (2012) - Movie Review

And you thought the 40-Year-Old Virgin had trouble getting laid...

Mark O'Brien (John Hawkes) is a writer and poet living in Berkeley, CA back in the late 1980's.  Mark was stricken with polio back when he was six, and is paralyzed from the neck down, needing use of an iron lung for most of the day.  After writing an article about sex with the disabled, Mark decides at the age of 38 that it's time to lose his virginity.  As a deeply religious man, he first seeks the blessing of a Catholic priest (William H. Macy).  He's a little put off by the request at first, but says to Mark, "I know in my heart that God will give you a free pass on this one."

Mark still has sensation and his equipment works, so it's just a matter of finding someone.  He contacts a sex surrogate, Cheryl (Helen Hunt), to help him explore his sexulalty.  I've never been able to quite wrap my head around the concept of a sex surrogate, and The Sessions didn't really do anything to help me understand it any better.    You do see a little bit of Cheryl's home life and that she's married, but her husband doesn't seem to have any issue with it either.  Cheryl takes a very clinical approach, rather than a sexual one, so she clearly has the ability to detach herself from the feelings that many have about sex.  Cheryl does say that to prevent attachment, they can only have a maximum of sex...um, I mean six sessions.  This gives you an idea of where things are going to go, but it doesn't turn out quite like you'd expect.

You might think with that kind of premise The Sessions would be very heavy-handed.  While there's some uncomfortably frank discussion of sex, and a surprising amount of nudity from Helen Hunt, the overall tone of the movie is very lighthearted.  This is primarily due to the wicked wit and charm of Mark; it's like his superpower.  He always seems to be able to say the right thing at uncomfortable moments to get everyone laughing.  You see this with nearly everyone he interacts with, from his newest caretaker (Moon Bloodgood) that initially seems very standoffish, to Father Brendan (Macy), who becomes so invested in Mark's adventures that he begins to visit him outside of the church just to get updates.  You get invested in Mark's story, too.  It's impossible not to like him.

The Sessions is an extremely funny movie.  Some of this is born out of all of the uncomfortable situations, but mainly because how funny Mark is and watching his interactions with everyone. John Hawkes is almost unrecognizable as Mark. I can't really call it a physical transformation, like Christian Bale's in The Mechanic, as he's always been a skinny, veiny bastard, but it was an impressive bit of physical acting.  He could only move his head small amounts, and had to use a pencil to do things like dial a phone and flip the pages of a book.  Hawkes has always been one of the best actors that most people haven't heard of, and this is an extremely sincere and sympathetic performance.  Your heart just breaks for the guy.  You get so much out of his performance, despite it all being from the neck up.  I know I'm going to be saying this a lot over the next few months, but it's another Oscar worthy performance from Hawkes.

William H. Macy is also great. He's primarily the straight man to Mark, but he mines a lot of humor out of his performance, and his interaction with Hawkes as their friendship builds are some of the more enjoyable parts of the film.  Helen Hunt's performance is also very brave.  With all of of the nudity the role required, you'd think maybe she would have shied away from the camera.  Hunt goes for it and very much seems like a therapist that is completely comfortable with her body. She really puts herself out there emotionally as well.

Writer/director Ben Lewin, who's also a polio survivor, based this off the real life experiences of Mark O'Brien after reading an article he wrote about seeing a sex surrogate.  He then worked closely with a few people in O'Brien's life.  I think he did a great job balancing all of the elements of the story, and treating the subject matter with respect and perspective.  It's funny without being silly, and emotional without being melodramatic.  This feels like a tribute to the man.

The Sessions wasn't what I was expecting and that's a good thing.  Despite the uncomfortable nature of the subject matter, it's a sweet and funny tale of a brave man exploring his sexuality and trying to find love.  It's an emotional film but worth the ride.  I strongly recommend checking it out.

4.5 (out of 5) Death Stars