Quick Reviews: “The Gift” “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” “Straight Outta Compton”

The past few months have been very busy for me. What with a summer stats class, driving tests, and filming a short film called “We Need to Talk About Colonel Sanders”, I’ve been run ragged. But I’m never too busy to go to the movies, and do I have some treats for you!

The Gift

I didn’t know what to make of The Gift. I love Joel Edgerton, and seeing him direct for the first time was an interesting proposition. However, I didn’t really care for any of the trailers, and I’m usually not a fan of “pretty rich people get terrorized by another pretty but troubled guy” movies. Well, I’m shocked to say that The Gift is surprisingly quite good, giving new life to a thriller subgenre that has lately been found wanting.

Premise: Simon and his wife Robyn are visited by Gordo, a “weirdo” from Simon’s school days. However, the connection turns toxic when Gordo starts making their lives a living Hell, culminating in a shocking revelation that could destroy Simon’s life.

Pros: Joel Edgerton makes a fantastic triple threat as writer-director-antagonist; the character of Gordo is very effective; Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall make a great couple; very effective plot twists; last act takes a dark turn that pays off, big time.

Cons: First half drags too much and is overly familiar; a few twists come far too out of left field (but NOT the big ones); weak supporting characters.

The Verdict: It may not quite be the second coming of Hitchcock some are proclaiming it, but The Gift is an interesting, tense, and well written thriller, not to mention a solid directorial debut for Edgerton.

Score: 7/10

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Again, I wasn’t quite sure about The Man from U.N.C.L.E. The trailers were fine, nothing special, and I was worried that it would end up being a poor man’s Bond. However, with a great young cast and a talented director in Guy Ritchie, I was still looking forward to it. Now that I’ve seen it, although it’s my least favorite of the year’s spy movies, I had a blast with The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and think it deserved much better at the box office.

Premise: It’s the Cold War, and nuclear paranoia is at an all-time high. When a mysterious criminal syndicate starts selling nukes to unsavory people, two agents (one CIA, the other KGB) must team up to stop them before brinkmanship gets out of hand.

Pros: Style, baby! If Guy Ritchie does something best, it’s style, and this movie oozes 60s flair; Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are terrific together and have some of the best banter this side of Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes; good, crazy action; Alicia Vikander, can I hang out with you some time? You are a fantastic actress and are absolutely beautiful.

Cons: About fifteen minutes too long; like Rogue Nation, weak villains; not enough Hugh Grant, who does a great job with very little.

The Verdict: Once again, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. a delight. Cavill and Hammer are great actors with tons of charisma, Alicia Vikander continues her hot streak (see Ex Machina if you haven’t yet), and that style is oh so cool. Please go out and see this movie, because it needs all the help it can get.

P.S. Alicia, if this review finds you, please consider my offer.

Score: 7.5/10

Straight Outta Compton

Ever since that first red-band trailer, Straight Outta Compton has been very high on my radar. I’ve read up on their story and listened to much of their library, and N.W.A. really did change the cultural landscape. They were a great rap group with a ton of classics and have a fascinating story. So how did this biopic turn out? Well…it turned out great, but with some major weaknesses.

Premise: Put simply, the meteoric rise and fall of the group that revolutionized rap and gave a whole generation its voice. A quintet of young black men from Compton form a rap group that completely changes the game, attracting rabid fans and equally venomous detractors, but circumstances and their own conflicting personalities threaten to tear them apart.

Pros: The first two acts are better than I could’ve imagined; the story of N.W.A. is brilliantly and lovingly told, and F. Gary Gray knows how to tell it; the acting is fabulous, particularly from Corey Hawkins (Dr. Dre) and Jason Mitchell (Eazy-E); despite my apprehension; O’Shea Jackson Jr. did just fine playing his father; great music! I squeed a bit when certain songs played.

Cons: A poor third act where everything happens too fast, especially in contrast to the very well paced first two; perhaps having Ice Cub and Dre as producers wasn’t a good idea, because the movie is heavily sugar-coated and the group comes out looking a little too good to be true. Dre’s actions in particular get some judicious whitewashing.

The Verdict: I was hoping for a good biopic and wasn’t disappointed. While Straight Outta Compton doesn’t reach the heights I was hoping for, I enjoyed it very much and think it’ll be a big success in the long run. Also, be on the lookout for Hawkins and Mitchell. These guys have some serious talent.

Score: 8/10

“Mr. Turner” Review

Premise: Mr. Turner charts the later life of Romanticist painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall) and how he dealt with criticism, family life, and his own demons.

When you play what could’ve been a throwaway evil henchman in Sweeney Todd but manage to give such a good performance that you very nearly upstage both Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman, you know you’ve got some serious talent. While he’s never been a huge figure in Hollywood, Timothy Spall has been a formidable performer for a long time. I’ve loved him in just about everything I’ve seen him in (except the Harry Potter films, but he was barely in those). Also, even though I haven’t been exposed to director Mike Leigh very much, I’ve heard very good things about his movies, and after seeing Happy-Go-Lucky I’ve got to agree with those sentiments. So, even though I wasn’t blown away by the marketing for Mr. Turner and knew nothing about its subject, the people involved (not to mention Spall’s win at Cannes) made me curious. Although it’s not on the level of the all time greatest biopics, it’s nonetheless an interesting movie.

Pros: Mr. Turner‘s success depended on whoever was playing J.M.W. Turner pulling the audience into the movie. Trust me, Timothy Spall pulls you in. I knew that he was a great actor, but here he’s elevated to another level. He presents Turner as a brilliant artist, someone who can paint any landscape and make it come to life on the canvas. But he’s also a gruff, rude man with little in the way of tact or civility. What makes him a fascinating character is how he interacts with the world around him. To some he presents himself as the artiste, while to others he just looks like a boorish slob. But Turner isn’t just some one-dimensional lamppost; he’s got all the complexity of a genius, and it’s genuinely upsetting when he’s written off as a hack by vicious critics. He remains likable in spite of all of his flaws, and I’ve got to hand it to Timothy Spall and the direction of Mike Leigh. In a less competitive year, Spall would’ve have been nominated for an Oscar, no questions asked. The other performances in Mr. Turner are very good, but we all know whose show it is.

The movie isn’t just very well acted, it’s also visually gorgeous. Pretty much every shot is breathtaking, but there are some definite highlights. Throughout the film, we get to see the amazing landscapes that inspired Turner’s paintings, and they are all a sight to behold. Cinematographer Dick Pope definitely deserves his Oscar nomination.

Cons: There’s only one real flaw in Mr. Turner, but it’s a big one; the movie is way too long. It’s exactly two and a half hours, and unfortunately it feels exactly that long. Now, some movies can earn their right to be long. Just look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But most should remain at or under the two hour mark, and Mr. Turner is a prime example of that. There were several times when the story felt dragged beyond what it needed to be, and its pacing was positively glacial in spots. This alone is enough to keep Mr. Turner from being a great movie, making it instead a pretty good movie. Cut it down by a half-hour, and it’s already a much better movie.

Verdict: It’s not the masterpiece it could’ve been and will probably have limited appeal with non-Anglophiles, but Mr. Turner succeeds largely on the strength of its brilliant lead actor. After seeing this, you’ll be wishing Timothy Spall was a bona-fide A-lister.

Score: 7/10

“The Imitation Game” Review

Biopics have got to be among the hardest films to make. Sure, they can turn out great, but more often than not they can turn into shameless promotion pieces for their subjects. You’ll also be raked over the coals by angry historians if you don’t get the most minute details exactly right. Fortunately, The Imitation Game has always shown a lot of potential. The story of Alan Turing’s breaking of the Enigma code is nothing short of fascinating, as are his personal struggles. The film has also garnered a solid cast led by the very talented Benedict Cumberbatch. When word got out that The Imitation Game could be an Oscar contender, my anticipation increased ever more. After seeing the film for myself, I can confidently say that it deserves all the praise it gets.

Premise: When World War II breaks out, Britain’s code-breakers are assembled to break Nazi intelligence codes. When new arrival Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) sees his coworkers’ lack of progress, he goes to work building a machine that could break the codes faster than any human ever could.

Pros: The Imitation Game wouldn’t have worked without a good leading performance, but Benedict Cumberbatch takes it even further and makes Alan Turing one of the most compelling characters of the year. The real-life Turing was a fascinating guy, and Cumberbatch (with the help of great direction) brings his personality and all of his subtle nuances to life. Even though he’s initially a cold and arrogant man, everything from his line delivery to his facial expressions to his body language is also very entertaining and endears you to him. It was an excellent performance that almost single-handedly made the movie work, and I’ll be shocked if Cumberbatch doesn’t get nominated for Best Actor come Oscar season.

This is clearly Cumberbatch’s show, but he’s not the only one who gets a chance to shine. Keira Knightley is great as Joan Clarke, the only woman on the team and the one who makes Turing come out of his shell. Charles Dance and Mark Strong don’t have a lot of screentime, but nonetheless give solid performances as the military higher-ups that Turing and his fellow code-breakers answer to. Even Matthew Goode, who I’ve never been particularly impressed with, gives what might be his best performance to date as cryptanalyst Hugh Alexander. All in all, everybody did nice work.

When you’ve got a true story this good, you’d better not screw it up. Well, director Morten Tyldum and writer Graham Moore have taken the life of Alan Turing and told a very interesting story. The main draw is probably going to be Turing’s work building his code-breaking machine, and that makes for great drama. But at its heart The Imitation Game is the story of a deeply complicated man and his personal life. He may be a hardass, but he also desperately wants to have friends. On another note, Turing must also conceal his SPOILER ALERT homosexuality, which was illegal in Britain until the 60s. All of this makes for a story that is both inspiring and heartbreaking.

Cons: There’s not a lot to dislike about The Imitation Game, but it does have a few minor issues. The film uses a framing device that allows it to jump back and forth between time periods, and it doesn’t always work. Certain scenes have awkward transitions to events that happened decades before or after, and sometimes the non-linearity of the story causes it to drag. I’m not going to say that going the non-linear route was the wrong choice, but the way the story was framed didn’t always work and there were times when the pacing suffered.

Verdict: Even though I had high expectations for The Imitation Game, I’m surprised at just how much I loved it. Folks, make sure not to miss this one. Even if you don’t know anything about Alan Turing (I didn’t before trailer inspired me to look into him), this is a fantastic movie with a lot of great performances and plenty of heart.

Score: 9/10 (going back to numerical scores)

“American Sniper” Review

American Sniper is one of those movies that should really intrigue me, but I’ve had mixed feelings about it for a long time. It’s a biopic about the late Chris Kyle, the legendary sniper who killed (possibly) a few hundred enemy combatants. Bringing him to life is Bradley Cooper, who just keeps getting better and better. But director Clint Eastwood has been on a cold streak for more than half a decade. He’s made a lot of great movies stretching back to the 70s, but more and more it’s looking as if he’s lost his touch. However, the trailers slowly won me over. Cooper looked great, and I was hoping that Eastwood could give us one last home run. I dared to dream, but sadly not all dreams come true.

Premise: American Sniper follows the life of Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) and struggles with his military career, family life, and psychological scars left over from duty.

Pros: As I said before, Bradley Cooper is a magnificent actor. Whether he takes on meaty award bait, summer blockbusters or comedy, he almost always knocks it out of the park. While he probably won’t win any awards for American Sniper (the next Oscars’ Best Actor category is gonna be a battleground), it’s yet another showcase for his talent. He plays Chris Kyle as a soft-spoken individual who, when put in the field, can do pretty much anything with a rifle. One of the things that makes Cooper’s performance so interesting is how he captures the duality of Kyle’s personality; he’s a consummate professional, but he also wants to be a family man. While it’s not entirely original, Cooper brings heart to material that needed much more.

If there’s one thing Clint Eastwood has proven he can do, it’s gunfights, and when the movie focuses on combat it works (for the most part). The battles are smaller in scale than the ones found in Eastwood’s previous war films, but they make up for it with their sheer tensity. What’s even better is that they show how insanely dangerous Kyle was. Whatever people thought of him back home, while he was in Iraq he was an efficient soldier and killer.

Cons: Despite the earnest efforts of Eastwood and writer Jason Dean Hall, American Sniper suffers from a poor story. The main problem is what is being focused on. Without giving any details away, the most potentially interesting parts of Kyle’s story are either underdeveloped or brushed aside all together, and the more mundane parts are pushed front and center. The sad part is the more mundane parts of Chris Kyle’s life could’ve made an interesting story. I love a good homecoming story where veterans have to readjust to civilian life. But the way it was told was very underwhelming, with Eastwood’s direction often feeling flat and lifeless.

War is never black and white, but the makers American Sniper didn’t seem to understand that. Chris Kyle is all too often portrayed as just a badass war hero, and to be fair he was. But he was also a morally complex man with lots of shortcomings who made his name by killing people. Few of these ambiguities make it into the film, and Kyle is left feeling a bit too perfect aside from some half-hearted attempts to make appear tortured later on. Soldiers should be treated with respect, but should celebrate their service to America, not their body counts (although those can be pretty astounding).

Verdict: American Sniper could and should’ve been an Oscar-worthy movie, but like all of Clint Eastwood’s post-Gran Torino output disappoints. Aside from over-simplifying Chris Kyle, it has a dull, lifeless, poorly-told story that doesn’t do justice to Kyle’s fascinating life. Bradley Cooper and the sniping scenes are great, but I can’t recommend the film as a whole.

Score: C-