Sunday, January 19, 2014

Review: "Life Itself"

In his review of the 3D re-release of Titanic, film critic Roger Ebert wrote:
"James Cameron's film is not perfect. It has some flaws, but I hate the way film critics employ that word "flaw," as if they are jewelers with loupes screwed into their eye sockets, performing a valuation."
This is a line that I not only agree with wholeheartedly, but something I have taken as advice when criticizing
a movie. In college, a good friend of mine would often ask me to define what art is, and if it can be confined to just a few mediums. The answer lies in the mind of the beholder - anything can be considered art, from brick laying to murder (my college friend suggested that last one). To expand further, an art form should not and cannot be confined to a strict standard. Sure, there are basics in storytelling and expression through film, but they can be creatively manipulated and re-imagined in all sorts of ways. Basically, movies are not to be examined as one would a diamond. A movie can be more than one thing.

Roger Ebert spent his career as a film critic observing and picking apart cinema, explaining why and how, from his point of view, what kind of thing or things a particular movie was. His body of work was elegant, evocative and accessible, enlightening many a reader. This I knew. What I didn't know was that Roger was initially assigned to be a film critic. Fate?

In Life Itself, the documentary on Ebert's life and times (which premiered at Sundance just prior to the writing of this review), we learn that the most well known film critic in America is, like the movies he loves and hates, more than just one thing. It's silly thinking such a thing; that it's a surprise to discover a famous person was about more than what we knew them for. That they are people after all. Why keep that wall up between reality and fiction? In between a few hospital stays near the end of his life, the movie unfolds almost from Roger's mind, as if during rehab and doctor visits, he is going over memories painstakingly, to try and make sense of it all. Much like in a film about a biographer visiting their elderly subject. Almost beat for beat, it follows this pattern. To not only have a biopic made ABOUT you, but to also STAR as you, I can only imagine ONE question you might ask yourself; was it a life WORTH TELLING?

We get the fullest scope of the man as possible. From being a barfly to being a grandfather, from losing the ability to speak to strengthening the ability to communicate. Two moments showcased gave, for me, the clearest picture of all.

In the first one, we are witness to an extended reel of footage. It's of Roger and Gene Siskel, recording promos for their groundbreaking television show. In it, they spew more passive aggressiveness and verbally claw into one another more than I thought was possible. Throughout their partnership, Gene would often push Roger's buttons. There indeed was truth to their on screen dual persona of opposites. On TV, they'd argue back and forth on a movie's merits, and would continue debating once the cameras stopped. To order lunch, a coin toss would have to be conducted.

In the second moment, it's another extended reel of footage of the two men recording TV promos. This time, they are joyfully playing with one another, throwing good natured barbs back and forth, and sharing many a smile. At the end, something unexpected happened - it's revealed to be part of the same antagonistic promo shoot. In what was probably considered just mundane b roll to the television crew, Roger's personality and humanity are exposed. I get the strong sense of learning and growth from his relationship with Gene, one that I and many others can relate to. Like Roger, I've treated people both unfairly and friendly, and wished to have done things better. 20/20 perspective never comes during, but after. Damn.

I just read that Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, spoke after the Sundance premiere. She said that he would often say a good movie leaves an audience member as a much truer person. I agree absolutely with that. The advice on using the word "flaw" when reviewing a movie still stands, and really can be applied to, well, life itself. Hopefully, I'll learn exactly how to apply that one day. It's true.

5/5 *s

If you enjoyed this review, as well as my others on this blog and across the internet, please visit patreon.com/criticalno and consider supporting my work.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Review: "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit"

There is much I can (and have already) said about America's post 9/11 attitude towards global politics. Despite term limits and all, Dick Cheney's empirical plan for perpetual war appears to still be in effect, and worst of all, wholeheartedly believed in and endorsed by a populace frightened over another attack. Through all of the preemptive bravado and violent rhetoric (and bombs), there was a sliver of time when fighting felt, gasp, like the right thing to do.

In Hollywood's latest prequel/continuation/reboot/re imagining, this gung ho spirit is infectiously presented and executed.


Jack Ryan - portrayed previously by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck, now Chris Pine - was one of many young men and women to witness the 9/11 attacks, and decide to enlist as soon as possible. Some time later, he is injured in combat, and sent to rehab. His feelings toward this hospital stint are painted on his body; he was told to rehab, but all he heard was he'd be unable to serve his country. Every painful walking attempt is filled with defeat and anger.

At the right moment, CIA official Kevin Costner offers him a new way to help... as a covert analyst. I don't recall the details of Ryan's job in previous adaptations, but in this contemporary setting, being "covert" says so much. He's told not to tell anyone of his position, which places him as a data decoder (or analyst) in a financial firm, but what does it matter? Couldn't he work for a contracted think tank, or in an actual agency facility? Why play this game? Are we doing it for defense, or self fulfilling purpose?

Just brush these questions and concerns away, as the movie doesn't care, and may even be an unaware victim of this psychological syndrome.

For example: Jack uncovers a terrorist plot that he is 100% sure of (and correct about) by having read a series of transaction data. Normally, this information would just be pondered over as some kind of business world conspiracy, and lead to something bigger. Instead, it's taken by Jack's boss as spot on. Is it sweet or sickening witnessing such naivety? Even our villain, Russian Kenneth Branagh, has his intellect hijacked by an unquestioning and idealistically loyal sense of nationalism.

A deeper statement about the state of the War on Terror, by showing how blindfolded all the players are, would've been a brilliant turn. But that's not what is happening. What we have is the origin story of a clean cut American, almost boy scout even, who uncovers information and foils plans with effortless efficiency and wide eyed pride, in a scenario with no double crosses, trickery or ulterior motives. Maybe Branagh (who directed this) thought he was making another Marvel film - this time, Captain America.

It's this flag saluting spirit and appealing idealism that saves this otherwise generic and awfully simple film from being another January throwaway. In fact, it might be a perfect example of the "shut your brain off and enjoy" movie. This approach also describes how best to view current global politics - if you want to live stress and care free, that is. For your family, your community and your country.

3/5 *s

If you enjoyed this review (and/or the previous ones, as well as podcasts), consider supporting my work on Patreon.com/neauxreelidea.