Aaron Sorkin's "Steve Jobs" Is Elevated by Michael Fassbender...That's at Least Two Too Many Names for a Review Title.

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs is very much an Aaron Sorkin movie. It's not just because Sorkin wrote the script; it's because every second of it seems so calculated. Sorkin's scripts are famous for their rapid fire dialogue, and that's great, but sometimes they call attention to themselves because no one has actual conversations like the ones you see in Sorkin material. That's fine, but it can get distracting, especially when a film is pretty much a nonstop conversation.

Steve Jobs is structured around three launch events in Jobs's career. The film plays out in real time as he deals with a number of relationships: with his daughter (and her mother), Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg), and Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet). The film effortlessly moves from one chaotic confrontation to another, all while painting a complex picture of Jobs's character. It's all very effective and perfectly cast. Fassbender is sure to be nominated for Best Actor (he might even win), and Winslet could sneak in there as well.

So why does it seem like this review is leading up to one big "But..."? Before I get to that, let me make it clear that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and it could possibly be in my top ten at the moment. That written, Sorkin's material just feels too structured. This feels too pretentious to type, but the film calls attention to how perfectly made it is. I was too aware of how much sense it made for flashbacks to be intercut mid-conversation, and how perfectly timed out each conversation was. I suppose it was the real-time factor of it. It came across more like a play than a film. Not that that is a bad thing. And the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is not what you expect when you watch a biography, and that's a good thing, because biographies have become incredibly boring at this point. This film, which focuses on Jobs's tumultuous interactions with those closest to him, shows so much more about who he really was through conversation than any other film could do through a factually accurate timeline.

Beyond the Sorkin-ness of the film, Fassbender elevates the entire film. He doesn't look or sound like Jobs, and that's fine. A performance should not be an impression. He's playing the role as a character, not as a person. That is important because is presenting Jobs's character, not necessarily his actual life. That might seem very troubling, but it is not in this case because Jobs does not need another proper biography after the Kutcher film (which actually isn't that bad), not to mention the documentaries. Fassbender made the role his own rather than try to impersonate Jobs, and the film is that much better for it.

Steve Jobs could easily be called a perfect film, which is not necessarily a good thing. Perfection calls attention to itself at times and takes you out of the experience. That happens at times with Steve Jobs, but it is forgivable because everything about it is so good: the dialogue, the editing, the acting, the pacing. You might be aware you're watching an Aaron Sorkin film the whole time, but that's not a bad thing.

Steve Jobs receives a:

The 2013 Indiana Film Journalists Awards

The critics' group I belong to has released our annual year-end awards.  I've included the release in its entirety below, but I wanted to weigh in on some of the selections up here first.

12 Years a Slave won Best Picture, and I am completely okay with that selection.  I thought 12 Years was one of the most effective films of the year (I gave it a Vader), and it was #2 on my ballot.  My #1 was Mud, a film I consider a new American classic.  I was glad to see Mud made it on the top ten list.  My #3 was Dallas Buyers Club, a film that did not make the top ten, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed.  I have yet to write a review for that film (I'll get to it soon), but trust me, it'll be a glowing one. 

As far as the rest of the top ten, I don't have any issues.  There are some on there that I didn't like as much as the rest of the group, but there is not a single film on that list that I think is a "bad" movie.  And I was very happy to see that I'm not the only one who enjoyed Prisoners.  That's a film that I feel is getting less and less attention as the year ends, though it deserves more and more.

Chiwetel Ejiofor won Best Actor, and that's another choice I can easily support.  Once again, Ejiofor was my #2 selection, with Matthew McConaughey as my #1 choice (he was runner-up).  So many good performances this year, and I think we got the top two right.

As for Best Actress, we went with Adele Exarchopoulos from Blue Is the Warmest Color.  This, along with our Supporting Actor award, will turn the most heads.  I have to be honest, I abstained from this and the Best Foreign Film category because I did not get around to seeing Blue, but I am proud of our group for making a unique selection.  And I look forward to watching the film so I can latch onto the group and take credit for making the selection as well.

The Best Supporting Actor award is another one I am proud of (and I had a slight hand in this one!).  Barkhad Abdi, the first-time actor who portrayed a Somali pirate in Captain Phillips, won top honors for a performance that could have easily been one note, but ended up being the most compelling actor in the film.  (No offense to Tom Hanks, who was also very good in the film.)  Abdi was actually my third choice (I did say a "slight" hand in the decision), with Michael Fassbender at #1 and Jared Leto at #2.  I doubt that Fassbender gets much recognition in this crowded category this year, but his performance really put 12 Years a Slave over the top for me.  As for Leto, I think we'll be seeing his name more than Abdi's as more awards roll out.  I'm fine with that, as his performance was great.  

The Best Supporting Actress category went to Jennifer Lawrence in American Hustle.  I was more interested in the the runner up, June Squibb in Nebraska.  She had some great moments that stole the show in the second half of that sad, but funny film.  And that's saying something as Bruce Dern and Will Forte did a fine job in that movie.

That's about all I have to say about the awards this year.  Once again, hats off to the IFJA for making some good, interesting choices.  I'm just glad to be a part of it, hopefully doing more harm than good to each category.  Anyway, here is the write-up and full list of the 2013 Indiana Film Journalists Association Awards.

"12 Years a Slave" wins top honors from Indiana film critics

 

The Indiana Film Journalists Association, an organization of writers dedicated to promoting quality film criticism in the Hoosier State, is proud to announce its annual film awards for 2013.

 

"12 Years a Slave" won top honors, taking the prize for Best Film and earning a total of four awards. Chiwetel Ejiofor won for Best Actor, Steve McQueen won in the Best Director category and Hans Zimmer took the prize for Best Musical Score.

 

"Her," which was the runner-up for Best Film, made a strong showing with Spike Jonze earning the award for Best Original Screenplay. It also won the Original Vision Award, which recognizes a film that is especially innovative or groundbreaking. Eight other movies were named Finalists for Best Film.

 

Adele Exarchopoulos took Best Actress honors for "Blue is the Warmest Color," which also was awarded the prize for Best Foreign Language Film. Jennifer Lawrence earned the Best Supporting Actress award for "American Hustle," while Best Supporting Actor went to Barkhad Abdi for his work in "Captain Phillips."

 

"Frozen" won Best Animated Feature, and "The Act of Killing" took Best Documentary. In their third cinematic go-round together, Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy won the Best Adapted Screenplay prize for "Before Midnight."

 

The Hoosier Award, which recognizes a significant cinematic contribution by a person or persons with roots in Indiana, or a film that depicts Hoosier State locales and stories, went to "Medora," a documentary film directed by Andrew Cohn and Davy Rothbart.

 

IFJA members issued this statement with regard to the Hoosier Award: "In chronicling the plight of a hapless high school basketball team from a tiny, economically depressed Indiana town, Cohn and Rothbart managed to tap into the way Hoosiers are transfixed by their hoops obsession, as well as explore the harsh choices Indiana teenagers often face. In many ways, the film stands as stark counterpoint to the seminal "Hoop Dreams." These players aren't vying for a spot in the NBA, but to win a single game and lay claim to their dignity, both on and off the court. It is a quintessentially Hoosier story told with craftsmanship, unique insight and uncommon grace."

 

The following is a complete list of honored films:

 

Best Film

Winner: "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: "Her"

Other Finalists (listed alphabetically):

"All Is Lost"

"Before Midnight"

"Captain Phillips"

"Frances Ha"

"Mud"

"Prisoners"

"Spring Breakers"

"The Wolf of Wall Street"

 

Best Animated Feature

Winner: "Frozen"

Runner-Up: "The Wind Rises"

 

Best Foreign Language Film

Winner: "Blue is the Warmest Color"

Runner-Up: "The Grandmaster"

 

Best Documentary

Winner: "The Act of Killing"

Runner-Up: "Stories We Tell"

 

Best Original Screenplay

Winner: Spike Jonze, "Her"

Runner-Up: Peter Morgan, "Rush"

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

Winner: Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, "Before Midnight"

Runner-Up: John Ridley, "12 Years a Slave"

 

Best Director

Winner: Steve McQueen, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Spike Jonze, "Her"

 

Best Actress

Winner: Adele Exarchopoulos, "Blue is the Warmest Color"

Runner-Up: Brie Larson, "Short Term 12"

 

Best Supporting Actress

Winner: Jennifer Lawrence, "American Hustle"

Runner-Up: June Squibb, "Nebraska"

 

Best Actor

Winner: Chiwetel Ejiofor, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Matthew McConaughey, "Dallas Buyers Club"

 

Best Supporting Actor

Winner: Barkhad Abdi, "Captain Phillips"

Runner-Up: Jeremy Renner, "American Hustle"

 

Best Musical Score

Winner: Hans Zimmer, "12 Years a Slave"

Runner-Up: Hans Zimmer, "Rush"

 

Original Vision Award

Winner: "Her"

Runner-Up: "Gravity"

 

The Hoosier Award

"Medora," Andrew Cohn and Davy Rothbart, directors

(As a special award, no runner-up is declared in this category.)

 

About IFJA: The Indiana Film Journalists Association was established in February 2009. Members must reside in the Hoosier State and produce consistent, quality film criticism or commentary in any medium.

 

http://indianafilmjournalists.com

"12 Years a Slave" Is Miserable and Hard to Watch, but That's No Excuse To Miss This Amazing Film

Directed by Steve McQueen, written by John Ridley, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Lupita Nyong'o, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Michael Fassbender - Rated R

A suffering Vader seemed appropriate for this one.

Slavery is a topic ever present in many historical films, but it is rarely given center stage treatment.  Even last year's phenomenal and fun Django Unchained was more of a revenge fantasy than it was a movie about slavery (the fact that it can be described as "fun" should tip you off that it's not a serious take on the institution of slavery).  If Django was fantasy, then 12 Years a Slave is the miserable reality.

12 Years a Slave is the first film in a long time to deal with slavery head-on.  Slavery can be a tricky subject for a film because it can easily delve into a preaching, hackneyed affair.  Another problem with slavery on film of late is the seeming need to include the white perspective of the time period.  It seems that many filmmakers feel that guilt over slavery is so inherent in our culture that they must include some white character in the proceedings to help save the day.  For what would have happened with Django without Dr. Schultz?

12 Years a Slave rises above these problems with ease.  First off, it's based on the true story of Solomon Northup, a free family man in New York who is kidnapped and sold into slavery.  Since Northup wrote about his account, the film must follow things from his perspective.  There are still the stereotypical elements of a slave story, such as whipping and sympathetic whites, but it's different because of the perspective.  A story told from the slave's point of view is not an easy story to follow.  It's disjointed and confusing, which is the point.  Solomon Northup became a slave in utter confusion and remained uncertain of his future throughout his ordeal.  In fact, it's unfortunate that he named his account as he did because it gives the audience the knowledge he never had: that he would one day be free again.

Chiwetel Ejiofor handles the uncertainty of Northup's situation perfectly.  Ejiofor is great for all the normal reasons an actor receives praise, but in the quiet moments of the film he truly shines.  12 Years is directed by Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame), a director who embraces the awkward, quiet moments in life and allows them to play out on screen.  What this means is that the long moments of waiting or thinking that normally are implied are instead shown.  Ejiofor has to perform through his eyes and his overall expression for many long, tense moments to convey Northup's situation, and he's a natural at it.  His sympathetic eyes not only convey his dire situation, but also make him one of the most sympathetic characters in recent memory.

As easy as it is to root for and get behind Ejiofor's Northup, it's even easier to abhor Michael Fassbender's Epps.  The character of Epps, a drunken, brutal slave owner, is inherently unlikable, but Fassbender brings such realism and deep ferocity to the role that it becomes more than just your standard mean racist.  Fassbender has this look in his eyes throughout the film that you cannot trust.  You know that at any moment he could lose control, and a man in his position is doubly dangerous in such a state.  Both Fassbender and Ejiofor deserve all the awards they will most likely receive.

Another name that should come up for awards is Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey.  Patsey suffers a terrible existence on all fronts, and Nyong'o conveys the strife in a powerful way.  Her performance could easily just be loud sobbing, but, once again, the expression on her face is what makes it stick with you.  You can see misery in her eyes, and that speaks much louder than any sob.  Sarah Paulson as Patsey's torturer (and Epps's wife) does a great job, as well.  The cold hatred is written all over her face.  She is almost as detestable as Fassbender.  Almost.

Performances aside, McQueen contributes in some very important ways.  His shot selection is effective throughout.   Beautiful shots of nature are juxtaposed with the unnatural circumstances of slavery.  The conflict of beauty in nature and hideousness of humanity is constantly present.  This goes for the use of music, too.  Northup is a musician, so he is requested to play the fiddle many times during the film.  During some of these sequences the diegetic sounds coming from Northup's fiddle, which are jovial, are overpowered by the non-diegetic score (courtesy of Hans Zimmer), which has a much more foreboding sound.  The conflicting sounds express the mood of both the time and the film itself.  A good score is supposed to go unnoticed (or so the saying goes), but a brilliant one, when used properly, is not only noticeable, but intricate to the mood and theme of the film.

Despite the conflict expressed in the sound design of the film, the actual world presented was unfortunately normal for the time.  Perhaps the most powerful scene in the film (I suppose this counts as a SPOILER) consists of Northup struggling to breathe after a lynching was halted.  Northup is left trying to keep his feet on the ground while the owner is fetched.  You expect someone to cut him down soon after the lynching is stopped, but the scene goes on for an excruciatingly long time.  As we wait and watch Northup fight to breathe, life goes on.  Kids play; slaves go about their work.  This is "normal."  McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley have captured the utter absurdity of a slave-owning society.  A society in which a human life can hang literally by a thread, and hardly anyone seems to notice.  It's upsetting to imagine what can become "normal" in daily life.

Because of the disturbing ideas about humanity and the brutality of slavery, 12 Years a Slave is not an easy film to watch.  It is a film that needs to be watched, however.  Slavery is all too often glazed over in history.  It's the cause of war, and it's awful, we're told, but how often is it truly thought about?  Of course, a documentary can help you remember the evils of slavery.  Emotion is what makes 12 Years a Slave so great.  This film will not only remind you how terrible humans can be, it will also give you hope.  Solomon Northup mentions many times that he will not "fall into despair" because terrible things cannot last forever.  There is always hope.  It's impossible not to feel something as you watch a man witness and be part of such brutality, yet remain hopeful.  12 Years a Slave is a history lesson, a statement about humanity, and an emotional onslaught all rolled into one.  It is also one of the best films of the year. 

"Prometheus"

Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba - Rated R

"Big things have small beginnings." 

The main discussion concerning Prometheus is whether or not the film is a prequel to Ridley Scott’s classic, Alien.  The cast and crew have been vague about it, at most admitting that there’s some Alien DNA in the film.  I think they’ve been dodging the question not because of spoilers but because of revenue.  If Prometheus had been billed up as a straight up sequel to an old sci-fi film, then interest in it might lessen.  The big question, then, is if Prometheus can be enjoyed by someone who has never seen Alien.  The short answer is yes.  This film does stand on its own.  But only Alien fans can fully enjoy it because no matter what the filmmakers have to say about it, this is a prequel. 

Prometheus is great without any prior knowledge, though, because of the questions asked within the film.  The main question is the age-old question of humanity, “Why are we here?”  That question takes on different variations as the film continues, but it is that initial curiosity that sends the crew of the titular spaceship Prometheus to a planet light years away from Earth to investigate a message left by multiple ancient cultures.  Asking a loaded question like “Why?” can make or break a film because it has to deal with religion and science and how it can co-exist.  Not to go into spoilers, but the film dodges the issue in a satisfying way.  But anytime an issue is dodged there will be complaints.  Could Prometheus take a risk and answer the question in a definitive and dividing way?  Yes, the film could have done that and made a small group of obsessed fans (myself included, most like) extremely happy, but instead the filmmakers left it open.  That not only makes the film more accessible for the population; it also allows the viewers discuss the film.

That is what makes Prometheus truly great.  I am writing this review twelve hours after I watched the film and I am still rolling ideas around.  If all my questions had been answered then I would have very little to write about.  Instead, I am left with so many questions and theories that I can hardly focus on just one.  I find that exhilarating.  I’m usually happy if a film simply makes me feel something.  When a movie makes me think deeply about life: that’s special. 

I realize that I have not given a proper synopsis for this film yet, but I don’t intend to.  Prometheus is science-fiction and it’s about the origin of life.  If that interests you (and it should), then watch it.  If that sounds like a bit too much for you, then skip it.

But Prometheus is still a movie and should be judged as other movies are judged.   First, the visuals.  Sci-fi films are typically the most impressive visual films and this movie does not disappoint.  Director Ridley Scott insisted on using as many natural landscapes and practical sets as possible and the film benefits from it.  The locations are otherworldly and impressive because most of them are real.  The title sequence is so beautiful it seems like Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick took over directorial duties for it.  As for the sets: they were great.  The ship looks polished a bit, but it still fits into the technology of Alien in a very satisfying way. 

Of course, a sci-fi film has to feature some CG effects.  It’s all handled very well, though.  The film is in 3D, as well, and it is better because of it.  Prometheus is a visual spectacle and it should be presented in 3D.  I have decided that all science-fiction films should be in 3D because the vastness of space is best shown in the third dimension.

“Prometheus” also works thanks to the amazing cast.  Noomi Rapace is tasked with the leading role and she does a fine job.  She doesn’t make quite the tough heroine that Sigourney Weaver did in the Alien films, but she certainly holds her own, especially late in the film.  Idris Elba has some interesting scenes as the benevolent captain of the ship, and there are a few questions raised by his actions.  Charlize Theron makes for an effective and emotionless corporate minder.  Sean Harris provides some lively moments as a disgruntled geologist.  And Logan Marshall-Green does fine in a slightly boring role.

It’s Michael Fassbender, though, who steals the show as an android named David.  Who better than Fassbender to play a robot?  Not to mention a robot that watches actors like Peter O’Toole and emulates them.  Fassbender constantly propels the film and every scene he is in is instantly better than those without him. 

But the real star of the film is director Ridley Scott.  I am a huge fan of his work, most notably his sci-fi efforts, Alien and Blade Runner.  A lot has been made about Scott’s return to his best genre, so I don’t need to add much to that discussion apart from saying that I am glad Scott is back in sci-fi.  He has always been an ambitious filmmaker and sci-fi is the perfect place for lofty ideas and questions.  Scott has tried to insert themes and ideas about life in general into recent works like Robin Hood and Kingdom of Heaven to mixed results.  The vastness of space is a much better place to present ideas about humanity than historical settings are. 

It was also nice to see Scott return to the Alien universe for both his style and his attempt to shock.  Scott emulates the style of the original film with his long tracking shots throughout the ship.  It’s pretty much mimicking Kubrick, but who better to copy?  Also, Scott doesn’t turn the camera away when things get gory.  Prometheus earns its R-rating (something fans were worried about for a while) by featuring some truly gruesome moments.  Is anything as shocking or iconic as the chest burst scene from the original?  No, but it is definitely some disturbing, cringe-worthy stuff. 

Overall, Prometheus is an incredibly ambitious film made with great style by one of the best working directors out there.  The film doesn’t answer many questions for the viewer and, honestly, a truly great film never tells the audience much.  Prometheus is an excellent film to discuss and think about.  Just check out some message boards and you’ll find multiple complex debates going on about this film.  Even if you hate it, you have to respect that it presents some interesting ideas about humanity, technology, religion, abortion, faith, and…well, life.  It helps that the film is absolutely beautiful and features some great performances.  It’s my favorite film of the year thus far and will certainly be near (or at) the top of my list by year’s end.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, I have a lot more to write about on this one.  First: all the potential issues this film raises.

I loved that the question changed from the why of our origin into the why of our attempted annihilation.  And I am okay with our why simply being because the Engineers could.  It ties into our issues with technology.  Why do we create a lot of the technology we have?  Because we can and we want to make things better and better.  In the world of the film, it is brought up in a very effective scene between David and Holloway.  It is also extremely interesting when you factor in the timeframe when the Engineers decided to destroy humanity, which is roughly the time when Jesus walked the earth.  Scott has made this reference himself in an interview, going so far as to say that Jesus may have been an Engineer (i.e. alien).  But they strayed from that idea, for better or worse.  (If you want to check the interview, just Google "Ridley Scott moviefone interview.")

Religion is definitely a major factor in the film, though it isn't given the main focus.  It's more about faith and how someone can still believe after being put through trials and the answer given by Shaw is that she simply "chooses" to believe.  Not a groundbreaking answer and really kind of a boring answer, but it doesn't make it any less logical and it is still a statement about belief systems. 

The religion aspect is what I had in mind when I mentioned that Idris Elba's character, Janek, raises questions.  It is almost out of nowhere, but Shaw talks to Janek near the end of the film as he was God.  She asks how he can just sit back and watch horrible things happen without getting involved.  If you think back before that scene, we get to see Janek watching over all of the characters and even though they appear to be in imminent danger, he is very nonchalant and even uncaring a bit.  Kind of sounds like a certain deity who gets prayed to but seems to never intervene, right?  Of course, this changes a bit when Janek decides to care at the end and basically saves humanity.  So God was finally forced at act, basically.  Hey, at least this deus ex machina didn't simply magically show up...

Now, looking into how the technology of this film matches up with Alien.  An issue with a sci-fi prequel is that technology is better today so even though the film takes place before the original, the ship looks much better.  This has been explained in an interview I read a few weeks ago (so I don't remember who said it), but the basic idea is that the Prometheus is filled with scientists, which explains why they would have all the bells and whistles that the Nostromo does not, since that ship was basically an 18-wheeler in space.  Aside from that, the corridors still look similar and the ship does fit in nicely within the franchise.

Lastly, there is the issue of where this film takes place.  At first, I just assumed this took place on the same planet that the first film took place on.  That is not the case.  This is a completely different planet, but it is very similar in that it is also used as a cache for the Engineers' deadly weapons.  Presumably things went bad at all these locations which is why such a similar ship and issue occurred on an entirely different planet.  I know, I know, wouldn't it have been much easier just to make it the same?  Yes, but the story can go in more places if it isn't, so I'm cool with it.  Plus, it still explains the origin of the Space Jockey in an interesting way.  So Prometheus didn't end up being a true prequel, but it's still pretty damn close. 

"Shame"

Shame - Directed by Steve McQueen, written by McQueen and Abi Morgan, starring Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, and James Badge Dale - Rated NC-17

Seriously digging Fassbender right now.  After Basterds, Hunger, First Class, and now Shame, the guy can do no wrong.  Bring on A Dangerous Method.

Addiction movies are never exactly fun, but they can be great vehicles for an actor and Shame certainly fits that description as Michael Fassbender gives a great performance, quite possibly the best of the year. Even with that performance, Shame does not exactly transcend the addiction genre, but it is still an interesting and beautiful film.

Shame is a character piece about sex addict Brandon (Fassbender), a man who doesn’t necessarily struggle with a sex addiction so much as he struggles to make real connections with people. He’s managed to keep things slightly under control until his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) shows up and throws his life into disarray. It’s not so much that his sister is troubled (she is a bit sporadic, though); it’s more about complications being thrown into Brandon’s very solitary life.

Solitary is the key word of Shame. Brandon is utterly alone, no matter how many sexual encounters he has. You don’t see this from the narrative necessarily; you see it in Fassbender’s eyes. It’s almost cliché to call a great performance “understated,” but it’s hard to describe this quiet performance in other terms. Fassbender gives a performance of the eyes…it’s Clooney-esque (which is a good thing, in my opinion). There are plenty of scenes in which Fassbender gets to be bold, but for the most part he is most impressive while staring. Some of the most powerful scenes consist of Fassbender staring his way through New York. His scenes on the subway are non-verbal yet contain the emotional core of the film.

Fassbender is easily the highlight of the film, but it is not his film alone. Writer/director Steve McQueen (he also directed Fassbender in his breakout role in Hunger) impresses in this sophomore effort through color, lighting, music, and camerawork. The montage sequences have an art that makes them seem like their own short films. The diverse color scheme and dimly lit scenes shroud the film in beautiful darkness. McQueen also knows when to have the camera follow Fassbender (who is in nearly every frame of the film) and when to stay behind and let him go.

Shame is still quite a simple movie, however, in that it is an addiction movie and we see Brandon hit his low points and hurt people around him. So at times it gets almost melodramatic. There is also the possibility that some would argue that sex addiction isn’t a “real” addiction. Regardless of your opinion, this movie should at least make you think about it. For one thing, sex addiction doesn’t get a lot of respect since it is a relatively modern diagnosis. This isn’t because it’s made up or new or anything, but because of how society has changed. Because of the internet, access to sexually explicit material is exponentially easier than it was decades ago. Shame addresses this and that is what makes it a bit more interesting than being saddled as the “sex addiction movie.”

Brandon is constantly on his laptop on pornographic sites and there is a subplot involving his work computer. We see it being carted away in an early scene in which we hear Brandon’s boss (out of context) say, “I found you disgusting,” as Brandon looks nervously at the IT guy. On top of the technological era Brandon lives in, he is also in New York and is never far away from anonymous sex. A pivotal moment in the film finds Brandon staring up at an apartment building where he instantly notices a couple having sex, he then looks to the window of a restaurant where his date awaits. What to do?

Brandon’s choices aren’t nearly as telling as the reason behind his options. When faced with the prospect of anonymous sex or a potentially emotionally rewarding relationship, most would hopefully (or at least eventually) choose the actual relationship. Brandon tries to go with a typical relationship and those scenes show his true addiction. He may show desperation and, yes, shame during the sex scenes, but it’s the regular date scenes that are telling. Everything is so awkward and boring and there is no gratification. If this was a drug movie, Brandon would find a dealer and shoot up as soon as he left the date.

Shame may come across as an overly serious addiction movie, but if you give it a chance, you’ll see that it is actually a beautiful, depressing portrait of man who happens to be an addict. Addiction (sex or otherwise) should not be the focus here, though. All eyes should be on Michael Fassbender (insert comical reference to NC-17 rating here) because he makes a beautiful, if slightly plain, addiction film one of the year’s best.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

The NC-17 rating is not that big of a deal, but Shame certainly earns it more than Blue Valentine did last year.  Don't focus on the rating, though.  It's about a sex addict, it kind of has to be NC-17.

The subway train as a metaphor for Brandon's addiction worked for me.  The ambiguous ending of whether or not he stays on the train is interesting and makes all the subway scenes before it more interesting.  Using a train might feel heavy-handed to some, though.  Referring to one's life as a trainwreck or going off the rails is pretty common so equating addiction with a train might diminish it for some.  But I dug it.

I didn't really mention the supporting cast, but James Badge Dale makes for a convincing douchebag.  And Carey Mulligan is fine against Fassbender in some tense, strange scenes.  I would have no problem with her getting a nomination for supporting actress for this.  But this is still Fassbender's movie.

"X-Men: First Class"

X-Men: First Class - Directed by Matthew Vaughn, written by Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, and Vaughn, story by Bryan Singer and Sheldon Turner, starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Kevin Bacon - Rated PG-13

Cuban Missile Crisis, Nazi hunting, Fassbender as Magneto? Rock on!




The summer of superheroes, sequels, and prequels marches on but this prequel stands out because it works as a standalone film. X-Men: First Class still plays fan service enough to please the devotees but newcomers to the series are likely to enjoy this prequel as well. The film is a mixture of history, humor, and action that stands leaps and bounds above the previous prequel, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

While the last film in the series explained the origin of fan favorite Wolverine, this film leaves that character aside to explain the complicated friendship between Professor X/Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto/Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), all set to the background of the Cold War. The Cold War aspect works perfectly as an origin story to the X-Men universe as the original three films are basically about a cold war among mutants that eventually turns into a real war. These comic book characters have always been ripe for comparison to American history, from civil rights to Communist fear-mongering. First Class keeps that tradition alive by actively implanting the mutants in the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

The film isn’t just a about history, though. It’s primarily a film about how Magneto and Xavier met, became friends, and eventually ended up on opposite sides of a war. Fassbender and McAvoy are the glue that holds the film together. They work great together and if anything, there are not enough scenes featuring the duo. To be honest, Fassbender stands out a bit more than McAvoy, and his early Nazi-hunting scenes were interesting enough to be a movie on their own.

But First Class also has to give the background on some other characters like Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Emma Frost (January Jones), Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult), and many others. There may be a few too many characters, actually, but it’s not much of a problem for the film. The adversarial role goes to Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, a kind of precursor to Magneto in the later films, helmet and all. Bacon adds a bit of fun to the movie as the evil, Hugh Hefner-esque villain.

The inclusion of so many characters means that there is a lot of ground covered by the film and most of your questions about the original films will most likely be answered, though First Class will likely leave a few attentive viewers scratching their heads because some things mentioned in the previous four films are kind of ignored or flat out contradicted. It’s all pretty harmless stuff in the larger scheme of things but dorkier audience members might cry foul.

All comic book issues aside, First Class is successful in summer blockbuster terms as there are plenty of laughs and the action is compelling and easy to follow. Oh, and it wasn’t in 3D, which is very refreshing for a big summer movie. Some of the effects and costume choices might look a bit goofy to some, but when you factor in the 1960s setting, it all adds up and gives the film a distinctive style that sets it apart from other films in the series (something Wolverine failed to do.) It seems like director Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) was just what the series needed.

First Class isn’t without its faults, however. As stated earlier, the film would have been more interesting had the focus been squarely on Fassbender and McAvoy. For instance, there were some great moments in a training montage in the second half of the film; if there had been two or three more scenes like that that the film would have been improved. To make room, the side story between Beast and Mystique could’ve been excised, since that storyline had already been covered with Rogue and Ice Man in the third film. Also, not all of the acting is top notch, January Jones is once again a weak link (as she was in Unknown), even though her role is to basically just sit around and look pretty. These are petty problems in an otherwise awesome movie, though.

X-Men: First Class should be enjoyable for fans and newbies alike. It does what a prequel should for the fans: it makes re-watching the original film a richer experience. Also, the film features one of the most crowd-pleasing cameos I have ever witnessed and that short scene alone makes it worth watching for any fans of the series. Those not in the know will most likely enjoy this film that has all the action and humor you could ask for in a summer blockbuster, along with a compelling story of friendship and war. Don’t worry that it’s the fifth film in the series or that it’s a prequel; X-Men: First Class is its own film and it’s a pretty good one at that.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Here are some inconsistencies I noticed. Moira’s appearance: she shows up as Olivia Williams in the post-credit scene of X3 as a nurse, so how does it make sense that she's a CIA agent in her twenties in the 1960s?

Xavier seeing the helmet: if you watch the first film again, Xavier seems surprised that Magneto has a helmet that blocks his ability, yet he had to have noticed the helmet at the end of this film.

The ages of Xavier and Magneto: Xavier claims, in the first film, that they first met when X was 17. I know Xavier is a genius and all, but you can't tell me that he is supposed to be 17 in this film.

Emma Frost was in Wolverine and appeared to be younger even though that film takes place after this one.

The Wolverine cameo was definitely one of the highlights of the film and an excellent use of the sole f-bomb in the film, but it does cause problems. Both Magneto and Xavier seem unaware of Wolverine in the first film. I suppose it could be argued away because they were visiting many mutants and never really got a good look at Wolvie, but it seems like they should have a bit of memory about him.

Speaking of Wolverine, remember at the end of Origins, when that weird CG-young Patrick Stewart shows up, bald and standing? Xavier can't walk at the end of the this one and he still has his hair, so that's messed up now.

For the record, I am completely fine with First Class ignoring the timeline of Wolverine. The fact that that film is contradicted so much seems to say that Marvel has kind of discredited it. Not sure if it's even meant to be counted as part of the canon anymore. I'm okay with leaving it out. Especially since that film messed with some characters as well, like Sabretooth, who went from a cool, wise-cracking Liev Schreiber to a mute wrestler/actor Tyler Mane.

I am sure I missed some issues, but the point is this film stands on its own in many ways, including it's place in the canon.

Finally, I am serious. I want to see Michael Fassbender in Erik Lehnsherr: Nazi Hunter.

"Centurion"

Centurion - Written and directed by Neil Marshall, starring Michael Fassbender, Olga Kurylenko, and Dominic West - Rated R

Like the poster promises, there is definitely blood...but little else.

It seems like it's been awhile since a nice, bloody sword and sandals movie came out, so I decided to check out Centurion this past weekend. It opened in a few theatres in the bigger markets, but I was able to check it out via Amazon On Demand, where it is available for rent. I'm not necessarily a major fan of the genre, though I do enjoy some brutal Roman vs. Barbarian action from time to time. It also helps that the film stars Michael Fassbender, Olga Kurylenko, and Dominic West. It helps even more that the film is directed by Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Doomsday).

Centurion takes place in the second century A.D. The Roman Ninth Legion is busy with a Pict rebellion, and things aren't going so well. I want to explain further, but I feel like it might spoil it a bit if I do. So be aware, the rest of the paragraph may contain slight SPOILERS. The movie really turns into a survival film after the first act. Michael Fassbender plays Quintus, one of very few survivors left after a fairly entertaining Pict ambush. Quintus and the others spend the majority of the movie on the run, but they do stop here and there to engage in brutality.

If all you're looking for is action, then Centurion should please you. If you're looking for interesting characters and a compelling story, you may end up a bit on the disappointed side, as I was. But let's stick with the action for now. This film definitely brings the blood and the dismembered body parts. Neil Marshall is obviously a fan of spraying blood and I applaud him for that. The action itself, though, seems a bit weak at times. Battles are not staged so much as they are thrown together. You don't see any elaborate battle movements or anything, and that's fine, I suppose, but it would be nice to see two warriors actually have a fight of sorts. Instead, the battles are quick cuts of hardcore violence. No fighting skills are shown, just a slash of a sword and a fountain of blood...maybe a severed limb. I like blood and all, but it would be better if the blood served more as a payoff for a well choreographed battle and less a signifier that action was taking place.

But I didn’t watch this just for blood. I have become quite the fan of Michael Fassbender after his appearance in Inglourious Basterds and his very impressive turn in Hunger. His appearance here led me to believe that this might be a film with an interesting character in it. Unfortunately, it appears that he took the role so he could play soldier, which isn’t to say that his performance is off, it’s just that I didn’t care about his character at all. I was much more interested in Dominic West as General Virilus, though the role was woefully secondary. Olga Kurylenko did what she could as a speechless female warrior and her character’s story was actually much more interesting than the “hero’s” story.

I put “hero” in quotations because this is one of those films that doesn’t really make the case for either side to be heroic. Maybe that’s the point of the film, that everyone is justified in their call to war. But that didn’t really work for me since the Romans were speaking English and received the majority of the screen time while the Picts spoke through subtitles and had very few non-combat/torture scenes. It doesn’t help that the Roman Empire is typically portrayed (and rightfully so for the most part) as an oppressive power. Couple that aspect with the dull main character and I had almost no interest in the outcome of this film.

The other disappointing aspect of Centurion was that it was written and directed by Neil Marshall, a director I have been expecting great things from but who seems to be going backwards. I enjoyed Dog Soldiers and thought that The Descent was great. But Doomsday was uneven at best and now Centurion proves to be his weakest effort yet. I still have hope left for Marshall, but he needs to break out of his funk soon. The guy can still shoot a film with skill. If he could just slow down the action editing and maybe take on a writing partner I think he could produce some very entertaining fare.

I truly wish I could recommend Centurion, but unless you just really need a blood fix, you’re better off watching Gladiator again. I guess it’s worth a look when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray, when it will be cheaper than the On Demand version I watched. There are bits and pieces of entertainment in this film, it’s just a disappointment overall.