Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom Review

“Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom”—a sprawling, old-fashioned biopic—falls into the common biopic trap: it tries to tell too much. It dramatizes the life of famous South African Nelson Mandela, viewed by some as a terrorist and others as a hero, and his long, oh so long, grueling journey to freedom and eventually presidency after being imprisoned for 27 years.

An amazing story for sure, but one that can’t be told in a single two and a half hour movie (yes, I know what I said). Directed by Justin Chadwick from a screenplay by William Nicholson (based on Mandela’s own autobiography) “Mandela” is brimming with South African pride, pertaining both to the nation’s politics and culture, and anyone can see the picture is made with only the best of intentions, but good intentions can only go so far.

The movie begins in 1942 and finds a young, ambitious Mandela (Idris Elba) as a small time Johannesburg lawyer doing what he can to bring justice to mistreated Afrikaners. After continual disappointments and clashes with ignorant white South Africans he decides to join equality protests that are just starting to emerge. From here, Chadwick moves at a brisk pace through each period of Mandela’s life; from the first protests (and admittedly many many more follow), to the time when Mandela meets his future wife Winnie (Naomi Harris), a social worker ready for a change as well, to his twenty seven year imprisonment and subsequent release and inauguration as the first democratically elected president.

Though, what begins as brisk eventually turns into slogging as Chadwick and Co. desperately try to shove everything they possibly can into one movie. As I said before it is an amazing story and every so often there are good moments, especially during Mandela’s imprisonment period and the juxtaposition of Winnie and her own struggles on the outside. However, Chadwick doesn’t let these moments sink in long enough because he has to rush to the next scene or time period. The movie, on a whole, feels like a flimsy made for TV version of the Mandela story.

At this point in time Nelson Mandela has become such a major historical figure that it would have been far better if Chadwick and Nicholson had taken the same approach Steven Spielberg did with his Abraham Lincoln biopic (“Lincoln”) last year; instead of attempting to tell Mandela’s whole story, they should have devoted their attention and energy on one period of his life. There’s plenty of material there, in fact there are at least two or three great or near great Mandela movies trapped in this lackluster one.

The movie never manages to find a central focus. There are abrupt shifts in tone; from Mandela having a chummy conversation with his political mates, to an intense stand off between cops and protesters and then to an extremely sappy moment between Mandela and Winnie. One minute you’re angry, the next you’re happy. Chadwick shows us the same scenes over and over and over again; how many scenes of passionate protests and speeches featuring people pumping their firsts in the air can one endure in a movie before they become repetitive and empty?

Elba proves yet again to be a talented actor capable of carrying a movie. He’s no doubt the best part of the film but even he isn’t given that much to do. For the most part Mandela remains perched on a high pedestal, when he should have been brought down to our level Like Abraham Lincoln was in “Lincoln.” We feel distant from him. It’s even worse with Winnie; again Harris (two extremely talented British actors are used in the movie) does what she can with the material but she simply isn’t given a chance to grow and instead is shown doing the same actions again and again (taking part and shaking her fist during those many speeches and protests for example).

Besides narrowing the scope and focus I’m not sure how “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” could have been done. I get it, the movie wants to show Mandela’s extraordinary journey (hence the subtitle) but two and a half hours just isn’t enough time to deliver an effective and substantial portrait of someone’s life. Perhaps the filmmakers could have gone the TV mini series route, that way they could have focused and spent the appropriate amount of time on each period in his life. Whatever they could have done, Mandela was a great historical and political figure who deserves much better than this movie.

C-

Her Review

Considering the fact that he just starred in “The Master” last year, I had a hard time believing that Joaquin Phoenix could be romantic comedy/drama material. In that movie, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, he plays Freddie Quell, World War Two veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. He stumbles and staggers through that movie like an intoxicated, wild beast. He has erratic behaviors and violent mood swings. He spends most of the movie hunched over, his arms usually locked on his sides, in a stiff arch. He’s a lost and lonely soul.

 Aside from the lonely soul part, Phoenix’s portrayal of Theodore in “Her—“ Spike Jonze’s outstanding new romantic dramady and sci fi of sorts—is the exact opposite of Freddy Quell. He’s sweet, sensitive and gentle. Where Freddie would suddenly act out violently Theodore wouldn’t hurt a fly.  While Phoenix’s performance in “The Master” is more physical (think of the slouching and the stiffness) and extroverted, his portrayal of Theodore is very much internalized and draws the viewer into his world and emotions that way.

“Her” is set in Los Angeles in the near future; at one time Theodore was happily married to a girl named Catherine (Rooney Mara, in a brief but effective performance) but now he’s in the process of getting a divorce and is feeling down. His heart has practically been torn in half. For the most part Phoenix wonderfully shows this pain and agony through looks and soft deliveries of his lines. Theodore works as a professional letter writer, the kind that loved ones write to one another. He sits at his desk and dictates a passionate love letter into a microphone and it gets automatically transcribed in handwritten format. In this future even hand written love letters, something extremely personal, has become impersonal and industrialized.

Except for occasionally running into a college friend Amy, (Amy Adams) Theodore spends most of the time alone. He’s a damn good letter writer, and seems to empty his soul into each and every one of them, but they’re all for someone else. Thankfully Jonze (who also wrote the screenplay) doesn’t spend too much time showing Theodore wallowing in sadness and loneliness and before long we’re introduced to Theodor’s love interest Samantha. However here’s the twist, Samantha is a disembodied operating system designed to be his companion and meet his every need. Theodore doesn’t quite know what to do at first, I mean, how does one form a genuine relationship with a computer? Though, Samantha has been designed with intuition, which allows her to learn fairly quickly.

Samantha is played by Scarlett Johansson in voice only and much like Douglas Rain who played the intelligent computer in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” she infuses so much life and personality into Samantha. We don’t need to see her on the screen; her voice allows us to craft our own image of her in our minds.

Not long after Theodore purchases Samantha (that sounds so peculiar doesn’t it?) they begin to form bond that begins to resemble actual love. Since Samantha is a computer and Theodore is a flesh and blood human he teaches her a lot about human relationships and love, he even opens up to her about his marriage with Catherine and how it ended. He begins to trust her. But she also manages to teach him a few things too, like how to rediscover the excitement and mystery in life and lift him out of his funk. Weirdly enough the two end up making a great pair, each one seeing the world from a different view and both having lessons to teach one another.

I realize that some of this sounds corny and conventional and the movie does contain the same ups and downs one would usually find in a romantic comedy, but the movie is incredibly well made; Jonze stages each scene and interaction with the upmost authenticity, his screenplay is full of acute and witty dialogue, and the score by Arcade Fire subtly accompanies the rest of the movie.

The concept is very quirky and strange, though considering it’s directed by Spike Jonze, (who directed “Adaption” and “Being John Malkovitch”) that shouldn’t come as a surprise, this is the kind of material he excels in. It also may be difficult for some to take the film entirely seriously, especially at first but as the movie goes on, as Samantha and Theodore get closer and as Samantha becomes more advanced, that initial oddness of the concept begins to fade away and you find yourself invested in these characters as if they were a regular romantic dramady couple. In addition, Jonze knows to inject plenty of humor into the film, as opposed to making it completely drama, which makes it much more pleasurable and easy to watch.

With this concept, “Her” can also be looked at partly as a commentary on the advantages and disadvantages of online relationships and more generally, how relationships have evolved and adapted with the recent breakthroughs in technology. Is it possible to have a meaningful relationship with someone who’s not physically there, but in a metal box? With all of the advancements in technology, people have a multitude of ways to communicate (Facebook, Skype, etc.) and while these methods do yield advantages does it feel the same as having physical contact with someone? Can it ever replace that contact? These are just some of the questions and themes Jonze explores. The picture is full of observations and insights about life and love just waiting to be discovered and appreciated.

“Her” is one of the most refreshing romantic comedy/dramas I’ve seen in recent years and I have a feeling most people will love it. It’s funny, touching, has a hint of sci fi, and a gimmick that sets it apart from the others. However, the movie wouldn’t be nearly as great without Johansson and especially Phoenix. We see a soulful, delicate side of him we’ve never seen in any of his other movies. Phoenix went through a bit of a rough patch (starring in the terrible documentary “I’m Still Here,” in which he played a version of himself trying to become a hip hop singer) but now it’s safe to say that he’s back.

 A

Inside Llewyn Davis Review

The best, most refreshing thing about “Inside Llewyn Davis”—the latest film from Joel and Ethan Coen about folk singers in 1960’s New York—is how contained and narrowed the central narrative is. The Coen’s aren’t out to tell a grand epic about folk music in the 1960’s, but instead they offer us a brief (the movie takes place over the course of a single week) glimpse into the life of one struggling, up and coming folk singer. It almost feels like the middle of a much bigger film. The picture begins and ends with the same scene, — the protagonist Llewyn Davis getting beaten up outside the Gaslight club in New York after performing—the brother filmmakers keep the story tight and bring it full circle.

The movie follows Davis—a slim, scrappy and rather testy lad with a thick beard and long curly hair—as he goes from one friend’s couch to another, lugging a small bag with his clothing, his guitar in one hand and sometimes an orange tabby (a random, but nice little detail) in the other. He had a partner at one time but now he’s solo and is trying to make it big. The problem is he’s not getting anywhere. He can’t catch a break. He doesn’t even have a winter coat to protect him from the unforgiving cold.

In a much more clichéd and sentimental musician movie Davis could easily be labeled as the underdog hero, though within this film it’s a little more difficult. He’s an underdog, yes, but he’s also, to put it frankly, a major asshole. He’s rude, selfish and doesn’t seem to appreciate the help he receives from others, such as Jean, (Carey Mulligan) another singer whom Davis slept with at one time, or his sister Joy (Jeanine Serralles). He certainly can’t be called a hero and deserves all the bad luck he gets. Even though he interacts with a multitude of other characters he never establishes a meaningful relationship with any of them and wanders through the picture in a bubble of loneliness. He’s only interested in himself. His only redeeming quality is that he has immense vocal talent and when we see him perform, all of those unsympathetic qualities just seem to melt away. Temporarily of course; afterwards, he reverts back to his bitter ungrateful self.

The Coens drop us right into the middle of Davis’ story as it’s going on. Most of the major action appears to have either already happened or will occur after the movie has ended. The story exists entirely on its own and the audience is treated as a visitor, briefly passing through to witness a regular week in Davis’ rough life. We see the world entirely from his point of view, we meet the supporting characters as he encounters them and we know as much about them as he does.

The story progresses in a natural, relaxed way. For example, we learn early on about Llewyn’s old singing partner Mike (not seen) but we don’t find out what happened to him until it’s casually brought up in conversation later on. In another scene when Davis hitches a ride with a crippled, crotchety Jazz musician Roland Turner (a fantastic John Goodman) and his young driver Johnny Five (Garrett Hedlund), we don’t learn where they’re going until Davis casually asks someone at a rest stop how much longer they have until they reach Chicago. The Coen’s screenplay is extremely well crafted and it doesn’t feel the need to explain everything right off the bat nor tie up every loose end.

In addition, from a filmmaking perspective, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is close to perfect. It contains plenty of funny and clever dialogue; like Tarantino or Sorkin, The Coens have an immense gift for dialogue. The eloquent and gray hued cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel emphasizes the cold loneliness that dominates the film. And the music within the movie (covers of existing folk songs sung by the actors) provides a warm, comforting blanket to cover an otherwise frigid and bleak movie.

The acting is great across the board. After playing various supporting characters in movies as diverse as “Drive” and “Robin Hood,” Isaac finally gets the opportunity to show he’s leading man material. He gives a completely authentic, performance, without ever going over the top. Without him, the movie wouldn’t have been nearly as great. The supporting players like Mulligan, Goodman and Justin Timberlake (as another folk singer and boyfriend of Joy) all make great impressions in their small roles.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” won’t be for everyone; the main character isn’t exactly likable and due to the Coen’s decision to only show us a slice of this struggling folk singer’s life, some audience members may get annoyed that it doesn’t have a formal beginning and resolution. At the same time however, the Coens provide us with a hugely entertaining slice and bring it to a satisfying closing, even though Davis’ story continues on after the screen goes to black.

 A

All Is Lost Review

You wouldn’t think that Robert Redford would be able to play a survivalist this late in his life. At 77 the Hollywood sex symbol is, well, getting up there and I thought for sure his “Butch Cassidy” and “Jeremiah Johnson” days were behind him. And yet, in JC Chandor’s “All Is Lost”—in which Redford plays a nameless man who gets stranded on a sailboat in the middle of the ocean—he proves that he’s still got what it takes to survive, and to fight.

After we hear a voice over monologue and see what appears to be a wrecked boat, “Our Man” (as Redford’s character is listed in the credits) is awakened by the sound of a stray shipping container crashing into the side of the boat. He doesn’t panic and springs immediately into action. You can tell he’s a seasoned sailor, his resourcefulness is pretty much instinct. Though, Redford still gives him an everyman quality; nothing he does in “All Is Lost” feels exaggerated or unrealistic. He’s not like Bruce Willis in latest installment of “Die Hard,” who blindly jumps out a window and just happens to land on a nearby ledge. In other words, he isn’t a superhero.

For the movie’s entire hour and forty-seven minute running time it’s just Redford vs. the elements, and I mean we see no one else but him. Chandor makes “All Is Lost” without any story fat to complicate things. We don’t see where Our Man comes from and how he got to be on the boat, there aren’t any flashbacks, the action doesn’t shift to another character, or group of characters and best of all there aren’t any other one dimensional meat heads on the boat with Redford to be killed. Considering that most survivalist movies do contain these things, this barebones method proves to be surprisingly effective and refreshing.

I should also mention that, since it is a one-man survival tale, Redford has about eight lines of dialogue total and most of them are in that opening monologue. This means that the performance is mainly physical, which even for a young actor is difficult to pull off. This is where Redford’s old age actually comes in handy. As intelligent and resourceful as the character is, you can also see that he’s a little frail. Sometimes he stumbles around the boat or struggles to do certain tasks, like pump water out of the boat. It gives his performance more dimensions; he’s not some strapping muscular lad who has perfect agility. Redford also does a lot of great facial acting: his expressions of frustration, of fatigue and most importantly determination look one hundred percent authentic. No matter how many times he gets knocked down (and sometimes he is literally knocked down or thrown off the boat by a wave) he never gives up.

I know that last point makes the movie sound sappy and sentimental, but because Chandor’s style is so straightforward and naturalistic it doesn’t feel that way. There are a few lingering poetic shots from underwater showing a school of fish swim around the boat but overall “All Is Lost” looks like a realistic depiction of someone stranded at sea. Alex Ebert’s score can be heard faintly, but for the most part Chandor lets the natural sounds within the movie’s environment speak for themselves. The roaring of the waves, the creaking of the boat, the splitting of the wood, the flapping of the sails in the wind and sometimes there’s just silence.

JC Chandor is a rising writer/director to look out for. He’s only made two features (this one and the superb “Margin Call” in 2011) and he’s not only proven he can make high quality pictures, but he’s also capable of working in different genres and styles. “Margin Call” was a Mamet-esque horror story about the early hours of the 2008 financial crisis. To go from that—an ensemble film and virtually all dialogue—to a virtually dialogue free, one-man survivalist story already shows impressive range.

“All Is Lost” won’t be for everyone; it’s simple, non-spectacle style won’t be exciting enough for some and other people will probably want that story fat I mentioned earlier. That’s a valid criticism, I guess, but I still don’t think any of it is necessary. There’s no explicit character development because it’s suggested in Redford’s actions and behaviors. And a lot of it is thanks to Redford; with a lesser actor “All Is Lost” wouldn’t have been nearly as great.

A

Parkland Review

Peter Landsman’s ensemble drama “Parkland,” about the John F Kennedy assassination, left me both underwhelmed and frustrated. Underwhelmed, because it’s nothing more than a basic history lesson about the event and frustrated because two of its many characters could have had their own movie, both of which would have been far more interesting than this one.

 Based on the book “Four Days in November” by Vincent Bugliosi, the movie begins in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Everyone is going about their daily routines but there’s an aura of excitement in the air as Air Force One touches down and the President (along with his wife) begins riding around town. I don’t need to tell you what happens next, but all hell breaks loose and that initial excitement turns into panic and grief. “Parkland” proceeds to recount this tragic event and the three days following it from the perspectives of multiple people.

There are the doctors at Parkland hospital (some of which are played by Zac Effron and Colin Hanks) who tried to revive the President. Then there is Abraham Zapruder (Paul Giamatti), the ordinary nobody whose home movie documented the assassination, along with the Dallas chief of Secret Service played by Billy Bob Thornton. Then there’s the FBI as they search for the assassin and realize that they just missed him. And finally, JFK’s security team and Robert Oswald (James Badge Dale), the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

On paper this sounds solid, and I’m sure Bugliosi’s book (from which Landsman adapted the screenplay) is an interesting read but Landsman’s film does a lot of restating the obvious: we know that JFK was assassinated, we know that the country was in serious mourning, we know that doctors tried to revive him, we know that Oswald was assassinated as well, etc. It doesn’t really have anything new to say about the event and by the end you’re wondering why it was even made in the first place.

 The film is fast paced and shot (by Barry Ackroyd) in cinema verite style but it still feels flat and clinical. The film doesn’t create much tension or excitement on its own. Like Paul Greengrass’ 9/11 drama “United 93,” it never transcends “the true life event” that it recounts. Worst of all, because the picture includes multiple perspectives and has a relatively short running time (ninety three minutes) it fails to explore any of the characters in any great depth and so we’re left with a well made but skin deep dramatization of those four turbulent days in November that is more fit for the History channel than for a theatrical movie. The acting is fine for the most part, no one is flat out terrible, but because none of the characters are given enough time to blossom none of the acting is outstanding either.

This leads me to why I found “Parkland” frustrating. The two most interesting characters in the entire movie were Zapruder and Robert Oswald, and as I watched their scenes I kept thinking about how both of them could have benefited from having their own movie, as they both provide a fresh perspective to the event. Just because of one little home video, Zapruder’s life was forever altered and he never could handle it. He was, after all, just another excited JFK supporter eager to catch a glimpse of the President. And as for Oswald? Well, imagine being the brother of the JFK assassin. There’s so much potential with these guys but since there so many other characters, they remain undeveloped.

“Parkland” is made with good intentions and you’d think that a multi-angled account of the JFK assassination would be compelling. But by trying to tell such a big story in such little time, Landsman ends up telling us very little that we don’t know. The movie should have been longer, perhaps even a miniseries, but I still think Landsman’s best bet would have been making a movie about just Zapruder or Robert Oswald.

C-