The Plot of "Black Mass" Has Been Told Before ("The Departed"), but This Time, Johnny Depp Is in It, and He Isn't Playing Jack Sparrow, but He Does Resemble a Vampire...

Black Mass

Gangster movies have tended to glorify (intentionally or not) their subjects since the creation of the genre, but it is rare when there is a film that actively tries to make you hate the gangster. In the rare film in which the gangster is truly the antagonist, it is the law enforcement agent(s) that then get glorified (Brian De Palma’s The Untouchables comes to mind). Black Mass goes the extra mile making both the gangster and the main FBI agent terrible people.

Black Mass is based on the true story of Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger (Johnny Depp) and an FBI agent, John Connelly (Joel Edgerton), who formed an unholy alliance with him. The true story is extremely complicated, mainly because nearly everyone involved is still alive, and nearly all of the gangsters have testified against each other. It is hard to tell who is being honest in reality, which adds an extra layer of confusion to the film. But Black Mass is a movie, not a historical document. While there will be detractors who bemoan it as pure “fantasy” (as former Bulger confidante Kevin Weeks labeled it), it’s hard to deny that director Scott Cooper has crafted a dark, atmospheric gangster film that features Depp’s most interesting performance in years.

Depp is the true draw with this film because it marks a return of sorts for the actor. After a serious of bombs intermingled with increasingly boring Jack Sparrow joints, Depp returns looking just as crazy but definitely changing things up a bit with a truly effective performance. Depp, who looks nothing like Bulger in reality (though at this point, it’s hard to tell what Depp’s natural look is), features white blond hair receding into a slicked back helmet, piercing blue contact lenses, and a dead front tooth. The appearance is so jarring that it’s distracting at worst, menacing at best. At times, Depp would not have looked out of place in a vampire film. Oddly enough, it works for the film.

Black Mass is just as much Joel Edgerton’s film as it is Depp’s. In fact, the focus is arguably more on Edgerton’s Connelly character than on Bulger. This actually makes the film more interesting as Connelly is the more complex character. Bulger is not very complicated; it is painfully clear that he is a terrible person, and he is okay with that. Connelly, on the other hand, is pretty awful, morally speaking, but appears to be a bit delusional about it. You get the sense that he truly believes he is doing a good deed by protecting Bulger. Depp is the draw that gets you to the movie, but Edgerton anchors the film.

The supporting cast is nothing short of amazing, featuring the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Rory Cochrane, Jesse Plemons, Dakota Johnson, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Scott, Corey Stoll, Julianne Nicholson, W. Earl Brown. They each have their moments, making this one of the most impressive casts of the year.

Director Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out of the Furnace) takes a close up approach that gives the film a more intimate, grimy feel that fits with the time setting. That setting is what also makes Black Mass unique. Bulger comes across as the least glamorous gangster of all time, which adds to the character. He seems to simply enjoy the things he does. The money is inconsequential. In fact, Connelly seems to be enjoying the money more than Bulger.

Gangsters, crooked cops, murder, etc. is familiar territory, though, even if much of the approach is unique. It doesn’t help that Bulger’s story was the inspiration for Martin Scorsese’s The Departed, making the plot something many viewers have literally seen before. Some might be exhausted by this particular story even if it has not technically been told yet. If that is the case, Black Mass might not be unique enough to garner your interest. But if you are always up for a gangster movie (like me), and you yearn for another great performance from Johnny Depp (like me again) then you will find plenty to keep you interested in Black Mass. Just don’t expect to end up rooting for the bad guys, because this time, they’re actually bad.

Black Mass receives a:

Casting, Religion, and the Inevitable Director's Cut: A Tentative Review of "Exodus: Gods and Kings"

Exodus: Gods and Kings

There are three issues that need to be addressed immediately for Exodus: Gods and Kings. First, the "controversy" over the cast. Many have cried foul about white actors and actresses like Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, John Turturro, and Ben Kingsley (by the way, I had no clue Weaver, Paul, and Turturro were in this until they showed up onscreen) playing Middle Eastern characters. Director Ridley Scott has been generally criticized for responding to the casting saying that (and I'm paraphrasing) a film this expensive could not be made with lesser known middle eastern actors. Now I'm all for realism in movies, and yes, the casting is distracting at times (most notably Australian Joel Edgerton as an Egyptian pharaoh), but some things can't, or shouldn't, be helped. This strikes me as another pointless thing to be outraged about, and it gives moviegoers and critics alike an easy reason to bash the film. When you think about it, however, it's hypocritical to condemn a movie for unrealistic casting because the film world is based on unreality. Where do we stop? How about the fact that all the characters speak English, a language that didn't exist back then? Or what about the use of computer effects? The plagues of the Bible were not computer generated! You see my point. It's not as if someone suffered because of the casting of this movie, and if it really bothers you that much, just don't watch it. As for me, the casting definitely seemed odd at first, but by the end I had accepted each actor in their role.

The second issue that must be addressed is religion. As with Noah, the filmmakers have not created a word-for-word faithful adaptation from the Bible. This is an interpretation of the story. The screenwriters (Steven Zaillian, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, and Jeffrey Caine) adapted the story so that it features God and is certainly religious but can also be seen from the secular viewpoint (for instance, only Moses actually sees God, to others it appears that Moses is talking to himself). This is actually something that I like because it leaves the story open to a bit of interpretation. It tends to anger the very religious and the very anti-religious, though. By presenting both sides, the more devout viewers will cry foul that it isn't religious enough or that it is too religious. Viewers who are simply wanting to watch a movie, however, should be fine.

"Son, listen closely, I only have three lines of dialogue."

The third issue is the inevitable director's cut of this film. When I reflected back on the cast of this film, it seemed strange that such high-profile actors like Weaver and Kingsley were in the film when they played such a minimal role (seriously, Weaver is barely in this movie). I then remembered Kingdom of Heaven, Scott's other religious-themed epic. That film (which I actually liked in the theater) was butchered from 190 to 144 minutes for the theaters losing the majority of the character development of that film. (You can read my complete thoughts about it here.) Exodus is 150 minutes long, and a number of characters are one-note or one-scene. I am almost certain that a director's cut closer to, if not over, 180 minutes will be released in a few months. If that is the case, I plan on reviewing this film again. For now, let's consider this my tentative review of Exodus. But seriously, Hollywood, just let Scott release what he wants at this point; what's another 30 minutes?

As for the movie itself, Exodus tells a compelling story, and it looks great. While the source material is only the inspiration for the story, most people will still be aware of all the main points of the narrative. This is Moses's story: raised as an Egyptian priest, he was destined to lead his people, the Hebrews, out of bondage. As I stated earlier, this isn't a word-for-word adaptation, but you know the story. The most important addition to the story is the relationship between the pharaoh, Ramses (Edgerton), and Moses. They are like brothers, which adds a bit more conflict to Moses's fight for freedom. It felt a little too reminiscent of the rivalry between Maximus and Commodus in another Scott epic, Gladiator. But I suppose a little extra drama doesn't hurt.

"I'm in this movie too, bitch!"

Exodus goes through the Biblical epic checklist. There are battles, spectacles, plagues, etc. As far as all that goes, there's no new ground broken here. The film in general has the look we've come to expect from Scott, which is to say it looks great. It's hard to praise the film on a purely visual level, though. It's good, but there's nothing particularly special here. I definitely felt the PG-13 rating in the battles, though. A Ridley Scott battle needs to have plenty of blood; the gore of his battles makes his films beautiful. When you take that away, his battle sequences are honestly kind of boring because he has to do all these quick cuts that shy away from bloodshed. It's all too tame. Once again, here's hoping for that director's cut.

It would appear that I'm a bit lukewarm when it comes to this film, but I honestly did enjoy it. Nothing blew me away, but Christian Bale's performance won me over. Many have complained about how the film slows down in the middle, but that is when the film becomes Moses's story. Bale is a great actor to watch struggle with things like family and faith. Others may find it boring, but that middle section is where his character gets to come to life, which is more than you can say for pretty much every other character in the film. (Something that could be fixed in a director's cut, perhaps?) 

The true journey of the film is Moses's acceptance of "his people." There is a great moment near the end of the film that addresses this (and the film should have ended there, by the way, instead of going on like Return of the King for another ten minutes), but it didn't really feel earned...not completely, anyway. Moses begins as an Egyptian and seems not to care for the Hebrews, and then he's told he is one, and he just kind of accepts it. Sure, there was the divine intervention, but I wanted to see him suffer with his people or identify with them a bit more. Instead, it seems like he just shows up and is the leader. This problem could have been used to create more conflict. More Hebrews should have questioned Moses. Moses should have stressed more about how he feels for both the Hebrews and the Egyptians who were suffering. To be fair, there are hints to this conflict, but it is never fleshed out. I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I am willing to bet there are specific scenes that were cut that would have added exactly what I'm missing. For instance, Moses is introduced to his long-lost brother who welcomes him very cynically. And that's it. Nothing is explained. There is no more interaction between them. That is really the biggest problem with Exodus. Plenty of very interesting conflicts are hinted at but never come to fruition…director’s cut!

Perhaps I am giving Ridley Scott too much credit for what isn't here. Honestly, though, I truly enjoyed this film despite all the issues or missed opportunities throughout. I believe there is an amazing film to be edited out of this. Still, as is, Exodus is much better than anyone is giving it credit for. Hopefully I am right about a director's cut, then everyone can see what Exodus can and should be. Until then, my tentative opinion is that it's good for now, but let's see what an extra half hour can do.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So Ewen Bremner (Spud from Trainspotting) is in this as well, playing a character called, according to IMDb, "Expert." He basically has a scientific explanation for every plague that strikes Egypt. His casting shows that his part is meant to be comedic relief. Surprisingly, I was okay with this. Even his execution is played for laughs. Maybe it was because it was nice to see some comedy in such a serious film, but I honestly enjoyed it, even though it's kind of ridiculous and not in keeping with the rest of the film at all.

Also, I actually liked Edgerton's over-the-top performance. Once you get past the Australian accent the Egyptian pharaoh has, you can see Edgerton really getting into this role. I can only assume that he thought this would be nominated for awards and this was his shot at some supporting actor awards. He's not going to get any nominations (and probably shouldn't), but he certainly makes his scenes more interesting than they may have been with another, more low-key actor.

One last thing I hope for in a director's cut: a more dickish Moses. In the film he is very dismissive of the Hebrews in an early scene, and he's offended at the thought of actually being one, but his change would be even more powerful if he is a bit more awful to them. I wish he had a revelation about the Hebrews from his own actions. Instead, he takes up with them because he gets kicked out of Egypt, and God just flat out tells him to join them. He argues with God plenty later in the film, so why is he so accepting at first. Just give me one moment where Moses seems to realize they are his people.

Exodus: Gods and Kings receives a:

An English Teacher Reviews "The Great Gatsby"

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, written by Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, and Jason Clarke - Rated PG-13

Preface: This review is mainly for people who have also read the novel.  I didn’t focus much on how the film will be perceived by non-readers simply because I cannot imagine what their experience might be like.  That said, I get the impression that if you liked Baz Luhrmann’s other films, like Romeo + Juliet or Moulin Rouge, then you will like The Great Gatsby.

 

I represent a dark side of America, too, friendo.

 

 

The Great Gatsby has been the bane of high school students for years.  The story, set in the 1920s, is filled with symbolism and disillusionment, two things most teenagers aren’t very concerned with.  As an English teacher, I looked forward to the challenge the book presented as a teaching device, but I was disappointed that there was not an interesting adaptation to show my students after reading.  For better or worse, English teachers all over now have the adaptation they need to show students to get a response. 

 

I am not a “movie teacher.”  By that, I mean that movie days in my class are few and far between.  I may be the “movie guy” to my friends and colleagues, but when it comes to literature, there is no replacement for honestly reading the material.  Faithful adaptations are anathema to my classes.  The only reason to show a class a movie is to aid in their understanding of the source material and, more importantly, get them to think about it in new, interesting ways.  I always require students to write an essay after watching an adaptation.  What can you write about a faithful adaptation?  “I liked watching more than reading”?  “The lighting was good”?  A plain film serves no purpose.  I prefer the crazier adaptations because they keep students interested and opinionated.  When I first read that writer/director Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet) was making The Great Gatsby, I knew this version would be worth watching.

I was able to take my junior class to see The Great Gatsby on opening day (special thanks to Tell City Cinemas for setting up the individual screening for my class).  We had recently finished reading the novel, and I was hoping this adaptation would be interesting enough to get a response from them.  That definitely proved to be the case.  This version of Gatsby is not only interesting, but, more importantly, it’s entertaining.

 

The same qualities I find interesting and entertaining may leave some people baffled, however.  The most obvious element up for debate is the use of music in the film.  The soundtrack is largely made up of current rap and pop artists, yet the film is still firmly set in the 1920s.  I think the music matches up perfectly with the tone of the film.  The music was an odd fit at first, but by the end it seemed natural to me.  Others may disagree with me.  Some people will simply not be able to get past the fact that music from the 2010s is playing while 1920s characters dance.  It can be jarring, but if you’re willing to go with it, I think it is one of the film’s strongest points.

 

Equally important is the casting of the film.  The role of Gatsby is important in that it requires an actor who can express elegance, charisma, and boundless hope.  That pretty much describes Leonardo DiCaprio to a T, so obviously he was perfectly cast in this.  It isn’t exactly a stretch of a role for the eternally young actor, but that doesn’t make it any less impressive.  On the more surprising side, Tobey Maguire made for a very effective Nick Carraway.  Maguire’s constant stare of boyish wonder usually annoys me, but it’s the perfect visage for the character of Carraway.  It is especially effective once Nick becomes sickened by those around him and that boyish stare turns into a dead glare.  Carey Mulligan makes it easy to feel sympathy for Daisy.  Joel Edgerton brings perfect physicality to the role of Tom.  Jason Clarke is effective as Wilson in a few short scenes.  And Isla Fisher is decent as Myrtle, but that character felt a little shortchanged in this adaptation.

 

Shortchanged characters aside, Gatsby is a surprisingly faithful adaptation.  Of course there are a few changes here and there, such as the absence of Gatsby’s father and the inclusion of a framing device for the story, but the overall theme of the novel is intact, which is the most important aspect to me.  The theme regarding the death of the American dream is still relevant today (and always will be) which is why the novel is still taught to students across the country.  The film does a good job conveying that theme and an even better job at explaining the symbolism of the novel.  Anyone who’s read the novel probably remembers the green light and the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg, and if you don’t remember them, the film will make sure that you do by the end of the 140+ minute running time.  I’m glad both elements received so much attention in the film, though I think some of it was a bit too blatant (Wilson pointing at the eyes and screaming that they are the “eyes of God” comes to mind). 

 

The music, acting, and novel elements are all excellent fodder for a student to write a response, but there’s still the matter of style.  Luhrmann has established himself as an interesting director many times over, but Romeo + Juliet is the best comparison to be made here.  That film featured frenetic elements and borderline cartoonish qualities.  Gatsby takes place in a more realistic world than that film, but it is still frantic.  The driving scenes are insane, the editing is rapid-fire, and the party scenes are pure chaos. 

 


The partying is the main selling point for Gatsby, both as a film and a novel.  I certainly focused on it heavily while teaching it.  The point is not to glorify it, though.  The parties or drinking episodes in the novel are not treated as good times meant to be emulated by others.  Instead, we see the parties through Nick’s eyes, and he has come to the conclusion that these events are not happy moments, but are actually the shallow proceedings of a morally bankrupt group.  It’s easy to get that point when you’re reading about the parties; it’s a bit more difficult to pick up on that message when the parties are visually presented with lavish dance numbers and whatnot, all presented in 3D, no less.  (For the record, I have not seen the film in 3D, but I can hardly imagine that it changes the experience much one way or the other.)  Still, the film does not glorify the lifestyle of the characters.  Others may disagree because the parties take the center stage, but as I watched those scenes, I didn’t think, “Oh, how cool.”  My thoughts drifted more towards, “When will these parties end?”   



The Great Gatsby is essentially about the end of the party.  The novel and the film convey that message to the reader/viewer.  Is it possible that viewers will miss that point?  Of course, but they’ll stay awake through the proceedings.  The biggest hurdle any teacher faces while teaching Gatsby is the boredom complaint.  While I find the themes of the novel fascinating, I definitely encountered a student or two that “just didn’t get it” or “couldn’t get into it.”  As the kids filed out of the movie theater, even the ones who didn’t exactly love the movie told me they were surprised by how interested it kept them.  If that’s not a sign of a successful adaptation of a novel force fed to a teenager, I don’t know what is.





Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)




"I'm so tired of partying.  So very tired."

Yes, that is Slurms McKenzie from Futurama to the right.  I couldn't resist including it.

The framing device bothered me a little bit because it turned Carraway into an alcoholic.  Maybe I'm just too trusting of Carraway as a narrator, but I never got the impression that he was drinking himself into an institution throughout the novel.  In fact, I always pictured him as the sober guy at the party, casting judgment on everyone.  I think the novel backs me up on this since the one scene in which he admits being drunk (at Myrtle's apartment) is a haze of random events (staged wonderfully in the movie, by the way), while the rest of the parties are reported on in quite a sober manner.  Having him constantly drink throws doubt on the entire proceeding.  I know there's a question of his bias as a narrator anyway, but the alcohol makes him seem much more like an unreliable narrator. 

That said, I still accept the framing device since it gives a reason for the words to appear onscreen.  The teacher/dork in me enjoyed seeing some of Fitzgerald's greatest lines recreated that way.

I was okay with Gatsby's dad not showing up at the end.  It seems almost better that he's absent so he seems that much more alone in death. 

I was not okay with the absence of Daisy and Tom's daughter.  I know she finally shows up in the end, but I think it would have been very effective had she appeared in the other scenes she was supposed to be in, especially the one with Gatsby.  In the novel, Gatsby reacts strangely to the child, appearing to not have believed she existed until that moment.  It is effective because it is part of the crumbling dream he has.  Here is physical proof that Daisy and Tom have something together.  It is obviously not part of his grand fantasy.  I can live without the scene, but I think the film would have been better with it, and it would only have taken up thirty seconds or so of the running time.

Gatsby doesn't freak out and almost punch Tom in the novel, but I enjoyed that change.  In the novel, Gatsby suffers a quiet defeat.  That's fine, and it shows how dreams can, and often do, die silent deaths.  But that scene in the hotel room was building with such tension that a quiet ending would have been a let down.  Everyone is sweating and uncomfortable, there's a topic brought up that would normally be kept quiet, there's an ice pick... That scene needed some yelling to finish it up.  And who better to yell out in fury than DiCaprio?

I was definitely not okay with Gatsby being a scrapbooker.  In the novel, he mentions that he has some "clippings" of Daisy, but it doesn't say he busts out a full scrapbook that has been carefully put together.  I know Gatsby had some time to kill in that five years leading up to the reunion, but I simply can't imagine him sitting home with his Elmer's rubber cement, pasting newspaper articles onto construction paper.  Sure, maybe he had a servant do it, but I don't buy that.  And it's equally ridiculous to imagine him handing newspaper clippings to a maid, demanding that a scrapbook be made.  Am I blowing this out of proportion?  Absolutely.  But sometimes small details like that really bother me.



"Zero Dark Thirty" Is About Much More Than Torture

 

Zero Dark Thirty - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, written by Mark Boal, starring Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, and Mark Strong - Rated R

 

 

 

 

The killing of Osama bin Laden, or UBL, as he’s referred to in this film, captivated me much as it captivated most of the western world.  It was one of those strange moments in history when we found ourselves cheerful and exuberant because of a death. Okay, not just “a” death, but “the” death of the world’s most infamous terrorist. After the good feelings subsided, the questions began. How did they find him? Who shot him? Where’s the body? Are their pictures? Those types of questions can hold interesting answers, sure, but there are much more important questions, such as: Does this change anything? Was all the work and money spent really worth it? Had people died in vain during the long search? Zero Dark Thirty, the latest from director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), attempts to answer, and at least asks, most if not all of both types of questions.

Zero Dark Thirty handles the why and the how of the manhunt expertly. We’re given multiple examples of the terrorism that explain the need for UBL’s capture, most notably the sounds of 9/11 played over a black screen. Then we are presented with how information was procured not just for UBL’s capture, but also in the attempt to thwart any terrorism. This, of course, is where the film ventures into controversial territory because torture (depending on your definition of the word) was used in the early years of the war on terror. The debate is whether the film condones torture as an effective means of gaining intelligence. Some are using the film as evidence that, yes, torture brought us the information to get UBL. Is that true? Sort of. Certainly advances are made by the investigators in the film thanks to torture, but in no way is this film some ringing endorsement of the practice. If anything, the film makes it clear that torture messes people up on both sides of the situation. It also shows that information can be gained through nonviolent means, as well. Anyway, this film will only start an argument about torture; it won’t finish it.

Because of the torture elements, Zero Dark Thirty can be a difficult film to watch, but that’s the point. The main character, CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain), appears to serve as a representative of the audience when we first see her. She is in the interrogation chamber, and she seems sickened by what she sees. Thankfully, Maya is not simply a personification of how the audience should feel because, once left alone with the detainee, she does not cry or turn into a sympathetic, helpful woman. Instead, she coldly lets the detainee know that they want information, and they are going to get it.

 

If Zero Dark Thirty is anything more than a procedural about the UBL manhunt, then it is a character portrait of Maya.  Perhaps Maya does not necessarily represent the audience so much as she is the personification of the war on terror.  Are terrible means justified by the ends?  Just how long can people keep fighting this war?  Maya has to go through all of that along with being faced with actual terrorism.  It is because of this focus, and Chastain’s amazing performance, that Zero Dark Thirty becomes much more than a docudrama.  Chastain is equal parts victim and perpetrator.  I don’t mean that legally speaking, but emotionally.  It’s a very hard balance to strike without seeming completely inconsistent, but Chastain is able to convey, believably, a character than can cry one moment and face down her boss or a detainee the next.

 

The rest of the cast is impressive, as well, if not for performances then for the sheer variety of it.  The standout, aside from Chastain, has to be Jason Clarke, as a slightly eccentric interrogator.  He brings some serious intensity to the role and a surprising amount of much needed comedic relief.  I’m not sure why he’s being left out of the previews so much because he carries a bit of the film’s weight.  The rest of the cast is great, but those two performances really stood out to me.

 

Watching the previews, one would assume that this film is largely about the raid on UBL’s compound.  This is misleading, just as the focus on Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt in the previews is misleading (they are minor characters in the overall film).  Zero Dark Thirty is a modern spy film in that the majority of it is about the inner politics of the CIA and how information is gathered, lost, painstakingly analyzed, ignored, etc.  It is interesting that James Bond is experiencing a resurgence the same year that this film is released because Maya represents a realistic Bond character in that she is not allowed to do all the things Bond can do even though her ultimate goal is similar to Bond’s in that she wants to stop the bad guy.  There is nothing glamorous about the work Maya does.  To be honest, most of it is boring.  The tediousness of the work explains the lengthy running time of the film (over two and a half hours).  This was not a simple task, and it was also bogged down in politics.  There’s no need to try and spice that up and lie about how things work in the modern spy world.  It may seem strange to praise a film for focusing on tedium, but I feel that it helps the audience identify with Maya’s struggle throughout. 

 

Perhaps tedious is not the best word because I truly found all of the film to be interesting.  It’s just that at some point, since we all know the ending, you start to think, “Okay, come on, we get it, move on.”  This is what Maya is thinking the entire time, as well, though, which is why it works. 

 

There are certain spy elements that may seem a bit boring as Maya goes through files and videos, but Zero Dark Thirty also features some extremely skillfully filmed action elements.  Director Kathryn Bigelow (who was inexplicably snubbed by the Academy) has done an amazing job of recreating events and filming them in a clear way that is easy to follow.  And while Zero Dark Thirty may not contain as many insanely tense moments as The Hurt Locker, it still surpasses that film in ambition and technique.  Bigelow is certainly experiencing the apex of her career right now.  Credit is due to screenwriter Mark Boal, too, as he has turned in an exhaustively researched script that never feels fake or too extensive. 

 

Overall, I am glad I held off from compiling my top ten list until I had seen this film because it will certainly be on it.  Zero Dark Thirty is an immensely effective, entertaining, and thought-provoking film that features a masterful leading performance.  It pretty much does everything that I think a movie should do, and it does it well.  Don’t look to Zero Dark Thirty to form your opinion on torture, look to it for a much larger picture of the war on terror and what it has all been about.  It won’t answer all of the questions for you, necessarily, but it will make you think, and that is much more effective.

"Warrior"

Warrior - Written and directed by Gavin O'Connor, starring Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, and Nick Nolte - Rated PG-13

Three Chigurhs in a row...I haven't reviewed much lately, but what I've seen has been pretty great.

MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) has overtaken boxing as the most popular fighting sport in recent years. It was only a matter of time before someone attempted to make the Rocky of the MMA world. Warrior attempts to fill that gap and it ends up being worthy of the Rocky comparison.

Warrior isn’t a film just about fighting. It’s really the story of two brothers, Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgerton). Tommy is a quiet but intense Iraq war vet who just seems to have a need to fight (and an undiagnosed case of PTSD). Brendan is a school teacher who moonlights as a fighter to make ends meet. The brothers are estranged, but are connected by their hatred for their recovering alcoholic father (Nick Nolte). Both fighters decide to enter a winner takes all tournament with a purse of $5 million.

The film is much deeper than just brother vs. brother for a bunch of money, though. It’s truly a character piece that follows a family through some very trying moments. In fact, there’s enough going on with each character that the entire film could focus on a single character and still be compelling. Thankfully, though, it shares the wealth and allows all three characters to have their moments.

The fact that the film doesn’t focus on one brother more than the other and doesn’t make one of them out to be a villain helps Warrior immensely. The problem with most fighting films is that there are no surprises. There’s a good guy and a bad guy, they match up, it looks like good guy might lose, but good guy finds an extra bit of courage and prevails, credits. That doesn’t happen in Warrior because there is no good guy or bad guy. Both brothers have noble reasons for wanting the prize money as well so it doesn’t make sense to root for one over the other for that. Not having a clear individual to root for makes the movie much more interesting.

It also helps that some great, dedicated actors portray the family in question. Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of the most exciting actors working today after his role in Bronson and his turn here. It’s going to be very interesting to see how he does as Bane in next year’s The Dark Knight Rises. Edgerton, an accomplished Australian actor, is impressive as Brendan. Hopefully this is the first of many good performances in American cinema. And Nick Nolte is simply perfectly cast as their troubled father.

Most people will want to check out Warrior for the fight scenes, though, and the film delivers on that front as well. The fights are always intense and suspenseful. The handheld style of the film makes a few of the scenes a little hard to follow, but overall that handheld style really places you in the fight. The two leads were willing to get bulked up for the film as well and they make for some imposing fighters, especially Hardy. The fights manage to remain realistic, as well, while being amped up just a bit for cinematic effect. Warrior also handles the required training montage with a bit of style in a split screen portion of the film.

A training montage might sound like a bit of a cliché in this day and age, but it’s actually refreshing to see an old school type fighting movie. A potential problem when dealing with a film like this, however, is repeating other fighting films. There are definitely a few in here along the lines of a doubting, reluctant wife, but since the film is spread out amongst so many characters that aspect doesn’t take center stage. And there are a few cheesy attempts at humor here and there when it comes to fans and local people watching the fights but it all works in the end because the film has earned these moments by being so great on every other level.

Warrior is simply a great film (definitely on my top five of the year thus far) that keeps you hooked from the opening scene and never lets you go. It’s good enough that you barely even notice that it is well over two hours long. The film manages to keep you interested to the point that you forget you’re watching a movie because you feel so much for the characters and you are not sure what is going to happen to them. In a weird sort of way writer-director Gavin O’Connor embraces typical fighting movie tropes but manages to keep things fresh. It’s impossible to undercut just how important the structure of this film is. Warrior is about a family, no good guys or bad guys, just a family. You want things to work out for everyone but you don’t have a clue how it’s going to work out, and that makes Warrior one of the most compelling films of the year.