The Walk (2015)

*** out of ****

Five or six years ago I watched a documentary called “Man on Wire” about Philippe Petit, the daredevil who in 1974 tightrope walked between roofs of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I was transfixed by that film, especially the intrigue around the illegal stunt and how it was set up and executed. “The Walk” is an terrific dramatization of the man, Petit (played wonderfully by Joseph Gordon Levit) and his stunt.

Levit really shines as Petit, even faking a Parisian accent beautifully throughout the film. Like many daredevils, Petit was never in it for money but for the rush and the adulation. When the towers are being built he sees an artist's rendering of them in a magazine, and he becomes almost obsessed with the idea of a tightrope walk between them.

We see Petit as a youth learning his craft (not only as a wire walker but as an overall daredevil performer), particularly from an aging circus star, Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley). Along the way he falls in love with Annie (Charlotte LeBon), who is attracted to his fearlessness and becomes his most ardent supporter. He also develops of a following of “accomplices” who help him set up his stunts.

And while all that is interesting, the film really takes off when they go to New York for “The Walk”. It very accurately follows the clandestine planning, spying and sneaking around the crews did to plan and then get onto the roofs of the towers on the fateful night. Dodging security, trying to string a heavy gauge wire across the 140 foot span and secure it, using two teams under tight deadlines, it plays out like a spy thriller and is every bit as absorbing. But then comes “the walk”.

It's no spoiler or secret that Petit makes it out on the wire. And this is where the film stops being interesting and starts being breathtaking. The recreation of the tower roofs coupled with the CGI of the walk itself is absolutely wondrous. The cinematography will blow your mind. I have absolutely no vertigo, but even I was a bit flip-floppy in the stomach from some of the views and angles you see of the 400 meter drop between the towers. Levit plays it all beautifully, with equal doses of Petit's joy and terror of what he was doing.

This is definitely a movie that gathers momentum. The early portions are enjoyable, but just enough to keep you wanting to see what happens. The middle portion is really fun, as they clandestinely try to get their stunt set up, but the final part of the film is just plain wonderful. Really a great achievement in movie making. Who cares that it isn't real – it surely looks real, and that's close enough for movie magic.

Bridge of Spies (2015)

** ½ out of ****

I love Tom Hanks as an actor, and I love Steven Spielberg as a director. They've both done incredible, significant work and are rightly icons of the movie industry. But when they work together, they seem to want to wrap themselves in the American flag and yell “Remember the Alamo”. They've done some really nice work together (most specifically “Catch Me If You Can” 2002) but for the most part their collaborations are built around saying “look how great we are in America”.

“Bridge of Spies” is slightly less rah-rah than “Saving Private Ryan” or “Band of Brothers”, but mainly because the lead character is much MORE rah-rah. He's like John Mclean in “Die Hard” - one man, fighting against everyone, up against ridiculous odds, who pulls out the win for the good ol' U S of A thanks to his balls of steel and never-say-die attitude. Yawn.

Hanks is James Donovan, an insurance lawyer tapped to defend a KGB spy, Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) in his espionage trial in 1957. The film ignores Donovan's prior experience with the CIA, which I guess makes him more of an unlikely character when in reality it made him a logical choice. After accepting the case he is basically alone – his firm isn't supporting him, the judge and entire system of jurisprudence are against him and his client, and it would seem that all of American hates him for defending the spy. But Donovan wrapps himself in the red- white and blue and stands alone in his support of the justice system's tenant that everyone deserves the best possible defense.

This is where I felt the film was weakest – Donovan is reviled by America, his house shot up with his kids inside (which in reality never happened), abandoned even by the law partner that assigned him the case, even his own family is against him. The screenwriters probably felt it made him more heroic to be so starkly alone, but I felt it just made it a bit silly. And I hate to say that about either Hanks or Spielberg, but it's the truth.

More interesting is the Francis Gary Powers aspect of the film. Powers was the U2 spy-plane pilot shot down over Russia in 1960. I can forgive the fact that the timelines are all screwed up (the movie makes it appear it all happened at the same time when it was actually years apart). Donovan is tapped by the CIA to go to East Berlin to negotiate the exchange of Abel for Powers. Donovan's ability to read people also allowed him to negotiate a second release of an American student, Frederick Pryor (Will Rogers). The film makes Pryor a completely innocent victim in all this, despite the assertion by the East Germans that he was taking reconnaissance photos. This second part of the movie is much more interesting than the first half, and far more fun to watch.

Overall this isn't a bad movie. But historical dramas that turn into chest-beating never work for me the way the filmmakers intend them to. “Bridge of Spies” is nominated the Best Picture, but if you ask me it doesn't deserve it – the nomination is built on the reputations of the principals and the silly nationalistic bent that for some reason so appeals to the Academy.

Worth seeing, but in the grand scheme of things, ultimately forgettable.

Room (2015)

**** out of ****

I'm not quite sure exactly what I expected when I sat down in the theatre to watch “Room”, but I know it wasn't what I got. And thank goodness for that, because what I got was the most emotionally charged, involving and wonderfully tragic story I've seen in many years.

Joy Newsome (Brie Larson) was kidnapped at the age of 17 by a dull but still cunning sexual criminal (Sean Bridgers), who keeps her in an insulated and soundproofed shed in his backyard.  For the past seven years she has been his captive and sexual slave, and 5 years ago it resulted in the birth of a boy, Jack (Jacob Tremblay). Joy and Jack live together in the shed, which they simply call “room”. There are no windows, only a skylight through which they can see nothing but the clouds and the stars.

Jacob's entire existence has been in “room”. They have a TV, but he thinks that everything on it is made up – that trees and cars and other people are just made up for TV. His entire world is about 200 square feet and he has never known anything else. When their captor comes to use Joy for sex, she puts Jacob in the wardrobe to spare him contact with the man. Other than those moments, Joy and Jack are together at all times.

There are two primary acts to “Room”, each of which take up about half the film. The first is their existence in “room” and their eventual plan to escape. I don't think I'm letting any cats out of the bag by saying they do eventually manage to get out. And as harrowing and engrossing as that part of the movie is, the second act becomes something almost sublime. When they come out into the world, and Jack sees that there is more to it than the 15 feet that he can see to each wall, the characters become people who are in awe and terror and shock. And thanks to near-perfect performances, their journey is one you go on with them.

Joy is troubled because she blames herself for everything that has gone wrong in her life. She also has a difficult time transitioning from being Jack's sole source of…. Everything.... to just being one part of his world. Jack meanwhile spends almost all of his time trying to comprehend the size of the world. What is good, what is bad, who he can trust and where he is supposed to fit into it. “Room” becomes something painfully human and heart-aching.  Every moment is a revelation. 

The producers of "Room" made it for next to nothing, which is perfect because it is one of the most character-driven films you'll ever see. There is nothing in it that required special effects or stunt-people. Much has been made of Brie Larson's performance as Joy, and I think that is justified as she is fabulous in it. But the kid who plays Jack, Jacob Tremblay .... I don't even know how to describe this performance. He is utterly astonishing. He will make you love him, he will make you laugh, and he will break your heart into a million pieces. 

To give you an idea of how much he captivates in this role, late in the film there is a scene where he is sitting in the bathroom with his grandmother after she washes his hair. He speaks only four words. And because of his delivery I was wiping away tears. I am misting up right now just thinking about it.

“Room” is, for my money, easily the best movie of 2015. It also has the two best lead performances of 2015, with all due respect to DiCaprio, Damon et al. This is one of those movie-going experiences you never forget. It is staggeringly brilliant in every way.  Highest possible recommendation

The Revenant (2015)

*** ½ out of ****

Rarely has there been a movie I was more certain going in that I was going to like. It has Leo Dicaprio (who hasn't made a bad movie in 20 years), Tom Hardy (whose performance in “The Drop” was the overlooked diamond of 2014) and Domhnall Gleason (who is rapidly becoming a favorite of mine). Plus it's a western and a revenge flick. What could be more fun?

Dicaprio is Hugh Glass, a trapper and guide leading a hunting party through hostile territory. Just as they are completing their hunt they are attacked by Indians, and over half of their party is wiped out. In their ensuing escape cross country, Glass is attacked by a grizzly bear and wounded almost beyond aid. The party leader (Gleason) leaves three men behind with him, including Glass's son, to bury him when he dies. Another of the three left behind is John Fitzgerald (Hardy), who wants to “end Glass's suffering” by killing him so they can get away from their before the hostiles return. This eventually leads him to killing Glass's son and leaving Glass to die.

Of course he doesn't die, and comes after Fitzgerald to avenge his son, which is the entire gist of the last 2/3 of the film. And director Innaritu doesn't overplay it in any way or try to make it a fun ride. It's an ordeal, with one tribulation after another. It's stark and unyielding, and tortuous for Glass. Which all makes for utterly spellbinding watching.

Much has been made of the film's cinematography, and rightly so. This is a visually beautiful film right from the first frame. And while the story is mesmerizing, it is the performances that make this thing work the way it does. Dicaprio's single mindedness despite his torment is incredible. There is a lengthy stretch in the film where he doesn't speak at all other than cries and grunts, yet because of Leo's performance we know what he's thinking the entire way.

Also excellent is Hardy. His John Fitzgerald is one of the greatest movie villains I've seen in ages. Somehow totally real and completely unbelievable at the same time, he is one of those guys whose narcissism rules his life. He is incapable of empathy and absolutely without any redeeming qualities at all. But he is so absolutely convincing in the role that you just hate and hate and HATE him. And Domhnall Gleason, whose performance I haven't heard anything about, is also fantastic as Captain Henry, the military leader in charge of the hunting party. He is a hard man but a good man who seeks justice for all the right reasons.

This film is visually stunning, absolutely spellbinding and thoroughly wonderful. Even the final battle had me nearly throwing myself around in the theatre seat trying to “body english” a win for the good guy. Easily the best movie I've seen from 2015. I WILL be heading back to the theatre to see it again.

The Big Short (2015)

*** out of ****

When someone suggested making a movie about the causes of the economic crash of 2007/2008, people must have thought they were nuts. In a hopelessly convoluted series of systemic abuses in the banking and financial industry, where even many of those participating didn't understand the multi-layered depth of the fraudulent practices, how could an entertaining movie be made?

The answer shown to us by “The Big Short” is to make the movie about a group of financial industry mavericks who saw it all coming and decided to try to make a profit on it. While their actions are not very heroic, trying to profit on the downfall of the big banks and the western economy, it is all framed in such a way that they almost appear to be heroes.

Let me try to describe this without making it too clinical. Unlikely, but I'll try.

Christian Bale is in great form as Michael Burry, the one-eyed manager of the Scion hedge fund, who was the first to really understand why the crash was inevitable. When he started to analyze the sub-prime lending market he saw that a huge percentage of sub-prime mortgages were built on teaser rates and that the bonds backing them were losing value. When the teaser rates ran out and the mortgages reset to standard rates, the mortgage holders would be forced to default due to the greatly increased payments and thereby lose the properties, which would then have to be sold for face value (in a rapidly declining market) to maintain the dollar value of the bond fund. Since such a high percentage of these defaults were inevitable, and since the property values would decline rapidly in a crashing market, it would cause a complete collapse of the financial institutions holding the loans. This is all explained fairly well in the film..... but this is where things START to get complex.

Burry decides the surest financial investment is to bet that the housing market will crash. The banks were propping up their bond funds by paying off the fund rating agencies to claim their equity funds were solid, though eventually we see that the banks were certain that they were not. So Burry began to take out huge insurance policies (called default swaps) that will pay if the funds fold. A trader at one of the banks (Ryan Goseling) hears of these swaps and after investigating himself also finds the collapse is inevitable. He pitches it to Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a cynical hedge fund manager, who also begins to invest everything in swaps. Another couple of investors (John Magaro and Finn Wittrock) are able to bring in a big-money investor (Brad Pitt) who leverage everything on swaps.

While all this is occurring, Baum discovers the greater fraud by the banks in their creation and issuance of synthetic CDOs (which in the film are just called “derivatives”) where the bank issues securities based on their own swaps which derive their value from the swap premiums....so they are in effect insuring their own bond funds against default, which they know is inevitable. It's enough to make you hold your head.....

This film is chock full of terrific performances. Carell and Bale in particular are excellent in the lead roles, but everyone does a great job. But what “The Big Short” does best is take a really complicated financial crisis and make it relatively understandable. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are plenty of people in the theatre that still didn't really understand the details, but would have enough broad strokes to know what was happening. And the film plays out like an international intrigue movie, and it keeps you nailed to the action. So much is happening all the time that you're afraid to look away for fear of missing something.

The relative financial success of the this movie is a real stunner, because it doesn't really have the typical things that make a hit film. But it is riveting and fascinating, educational and even a bit of fun. I sincerely doubt that Oscar will recognize this movie, it just isn't the kind of film Oscar usually loves, but it is excellent from start to finish, even despite the relative anti-climax. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

*** out of ****

When I walked out of my first viewing of “Titanic” in 1997 I thought there was something wrong with my watch. It seemed impossible that I had been in that theatre for 3 and a half hours. But I had been so completely entranced by the film that this was indeed the length of time that had sped by. “The Hateful Eight” was similar – upon getting in the car I saw I had been in there for 3 hours, though it didn't seem nearly as long.

In my rating I give it 3 stars. It would have been three and a half, the story is that absorbing and the performances and dialogue are first rate, but there were a few things about it that cost it getting that extra rating. Tarantino is well known for dancing right up to the line of acceptability in graphic violence, gore and situations, but this is the time I felt he finally went too far. One scene in particular went beyond the boundaries of simple bad taste into the realm of the worst type of exploitation. More on that later, and happily it only lasted a couple of minutes.

Because there is a TREMENDOUS amount of greatness in this film. The year is undefined but is clearly shortly after the end of the Civil War. Kurt Russell is John “the Hangman” Ruth, a bounty hunter transporting bloodthirsty outlaw Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to justice via stagecoach. They are barely in front of an oncoming blizzard, so when they come upon two stranded men on the road (Samuel L. Jackson and Walter Goggins) they agree to let them ride along to save their lives. Eventually they arrive at “Minnie's Haberdashery”, a sort of inn in the middle of nowhere, where they plan to ride out the blizzard before moving onto their final destination.

But along with the 4 stagecoach passengers and their driver, there are a few more folks holing up there. Bruce Dern is a former Confederate General, Michael Madsen as a cowboy, Tim Roth as a traveling hangman and Demián Bichir as the inn's host. John Ruth is convinced that one or more of these men are in cahoots with Daisy to aid in her escape, and the game of cat and mouse is on. Add to the fact that some of these men know (and hate) each other due to their allegiances in the War, and we have a pressure cooker about to explode.

While there are no weak performances in this film, a couple really stood out. Samuel L. Jackson is astoundingly good as Major Warren – he has more screen time than anyone else and shines like rarely before. Tim Roth gives one of his best performances as the very proper Englishman and traveling hangman. But Jennifer Jason Leigh is mind-blowing as outlaw Daisy Domergue. I have been a fan of Leigh's her entire career since “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” (1982) and have always considered her a tremendous actress, though often overlooked due to her beauty. Well in THIS film there is nothing beautiful about her – she is made up to be frightening looking and goes out of her way to make herself repulsive. Her character is utterly reprehensible, sick, foul and evil, yet Leigh never allows Daisy to be a caricature or comic-book villain. She deserves plenty of acclaim for just how great she is in this film.

Overall, though some of the plot twists were a bit predictable, the major ones were shockers. The dialogue Tarantino has written for this is (in my opinion) easily his most sophisticated and I was riveted throughout the entire film. The writing isn't as funny as "Pulp Fiction", but it is in many ways more realistic.  The film is brimming with anger and violence that is just below the surface, even when it hasn't crested yet. The tension is absolutely wonderful.

Unless you are a bit of a cringer (and there is plenty of gore and bloodiness in this to make you cringe), you'll find this a wonderful film. Except for one thing.....

SPOILER ALERT. No plot points given away, but one event described in detail:

Now we come to the one scene that I felt went too far. In it, Samuel L. Jackson described his execution of Bruce Dern's character's son. Because he hates Dern he tortures the man to death in the snow, humiliating him into a sexual act before he dies just to display the depth of his hatred. While this plot point itself didn't bother me, the way it is shown and described on-screen is horrifying. It is barely ahead of torture porn, and while there is almost nothing that I can't stomach in movies I felt this type of exploitation scene was waaaaaaaaaay over the top. Tarantino could have had all the raw emotion of the scene without the graphic-ness of the re-enactment or the extreme-ness of the dialogue Jackson uses. It's pretty damned disgusting.

Beyond that one scene, I loved the movie. I can't imagine how much more I would have loved it had Tarantino used a little more editorial intelligence in that one instance.