THE IMPOSSIBLE

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Juan Antonio Bayona
Year: 2012
Cast: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland
Genre: Drama/History/Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        When disaster strikes and many innocent beings are killed/harmed, it’s important that the lucky ones not be oblivious of the event, and that they are reminded of how lucky they really are. So while The Impossible (originally titled "Lo Impossible") isn’t a terribly good film, it’s important that we embrace it for that alone.

        We have here Naomi Watts (who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role in 2012) starring as the mother, whose family is rocked by the 2004 tsunami while visiting Thailand on a vacation. What follows is heavy handed graphic realism (which is totally appropriate here) that will increase the weight of your heart—for a while. The movie does a nice job keeping your attention (how could it not?), and draws you in with its splendidly crafted characters. The cast is incredible, and the acting is even better; this is what mainly propels The Impossible, along with its stunning effects.

        And although it’s a true story, it lacks a good screenplay. The Impossible does what every critic hopes is the impossible. It excites you for the whole ride, and finally, arrives to its incredibly disappointing, and entirely coincidental conclusion that shifts the tone of the entire movie. It’s like working all day in laborious conditions, only to get fired before you go home. Most people hate it, but those lousy workers—or in this case, viewers—don’t mind it. That’s why The Impossible isn't a great film.

        The movie achieved an important status, disregarding its flaws. It tells a rare story in good taste, and chronicles an important worldwide devastation. Its determination and enthusiasm strikes you right in the face, and makes you instantly fall in love with it. After all, no one likes a lazy worker.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The opening sequence is gut wrenching. It's truly something to behold. After that, the movie possesses a feeling of obviousness and predictability. Listen, I know it's a true story and the filmmakers have the duty to tell it as accurately as possible, but you can clearly see that everyone in the film is going through the motions (the acting is fine, they're just being loyal to the script) until the inevitable happy conclusion arrives. Granted, this is certainly not a bad film, I just think it was a true story that probably didn't need to be filmed based on what ultimately happens in the end. Too safe and too careful if you ask me.

GANGS OF NEW YORK

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 2002
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz
Genre: Crime/Drama/History
MPAA Rating: R

        Gangs of New York is a darn masterpiece. I can't say that it's one of Scorsese's best though, I mean after all, we're talking about one of the finest directors of all time (and my personal favorite). Although history hasn’t really appealed to me much before, this movie truly made rivalry among gangs during pre-civil war seem very fascinating. When a film has the power to harness your attention, keep it for almost three hours, and appeal to you an idea that hadn’t previously sparked your interest before, then it sure did its job.

        Leonardo DiCaprio (Scorsese’s obvious protégé) stars here as an angry boy, whose father (played by Liam Neeson) was killed, along with the defeat of his “gang”, by notorious “Bill The Butcher”, who leads the “Native Gang”. Daniel Day Lewis stars as Bill, and is as formidable as characters get. He’s Cape Fear’s Robert De Niro. But even worse, he’s more violent. So when DiCaprio comes back to New York, where his father was killed, he vows to take revenge on “Bill The Butcher”. Along the way, he meets a pickpocket, independent woman played by Cameron Diaz, who sleeps around to get what she wants, and gains connections by doing so. Then we are reintroduced to some of his father’s old gang, as he tries to play it safe as Bill’s apprentice for awhile, and then begins to rebel. It’s brilliance is immeasurable because it adds so many different factors to DiCaprio’s struggle. The only problem with it, is that it almost seems as if it’s a game of cat and mouse for some time. But in reality, I not only see Gangs of New York as a movie that tells a story of a man’s vengeance on his father’s killer, but I see it as a movie that chronicles a man’s frustration with a man of infinite power; and I also see it as a movie that unfolds the lack of excitement in a man’s life that has it all. That’s why Gangs of New York is so good; it has so many aspects of the story to look at. And as a moviegoer, it’s a shame if you oversee those, because it all adds to the film’s epic denouement. So if you watch it, you should pay attention. And you know what, you better watch it twice, because with each viewing, you’ll get that much more.

        Another thing that makes Gangs of New York so epic is that it takes a minimalistic plot line (revenge on “Bill The Butcher”), and turns it into a grand story of deceit, betrayal, and ferocity. Of course, this couldn’t happen without Scorsese’s gentle hand; he has a gift. He’s directed over 20 feature films, and not a single one is bad. Seeing as Gangs of New York was a highly expensive film to make, he did a superb job. Several times over the course of an interview with Paul Schrader and in other places, Scorsese admits that he did the best that he could with Gangs of New York, but it just wasn’t exactly the end result that he was looking for because he was rushed to a deadline, and it didn’t play out exactly how he desired it to. Through my eyes, it’s something to marvel at. But through a brilliant director’s eyes, it may not be his true goal. In order to meet standards with Miramax, Scorsese had to cut his original film from four hours, to two and a half. And he admits that “there is no director’s cut, this is the director’s cut.” He looked back at his work, and kept cutting it piece by piece, and realized that what he needed to make it a good film lied within the scenes that he had. It takes a true director to be able to do something like this. Not every filmmaker wants to cut his work like this in order to meet “standards” or the public audience’s best interest. But it’s not that Scorsese wanted to do it, it’s that he knew that he had to, and made peace with the fact that it would make it a better film. In my eyes, that’s the type of director that any moviegoer wants guiding the actors on screen, in that time that we spend mesmerized at the films majesty, and obsessed with the ideas it has to offer. Or maybe that’s just me.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Gangs of New York is over two and a half hours long, but it doesn't feel that way. It's well paced and saddled with a great performance (Daniel Day Lewis) and a lousy one (Cameron Diaz). The story of the film, which is well told, is still a little bit on the simplistic side (especially for a Scorsese movie). However, as a tale of revenge and deceit, it certainly is an entertaining one. DiCaprio's underplayed screen presence gels well with Day Lewis's towering, nasty betrayal of Bill "the Butcher" (You can't take your eyes off of Day-Lewis, not even for a second). To put it mildly, this isn't Scorsese's best work, but even an okay movie by him is considered a masterpiece for most directors.

ZERO DARK THIRTY

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Year: 2012

Cast: Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, Chris Pratt

Genre: Drama/History/Thriller/War

MPAA Rating: R

        Zero Dark Thirty tells the story of the greatest manhunt in history: the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The movie goes into thorough detail on the specific events that took place in the process of locating who may be considered the greatest terrorist of all time.  And it's good; but I didn’t find it to be great. While I was watching it, and when I was finished, I had that “been there, done that” type feel. And that’s because although this exact story has never been told, there are only few scenes and elements that have anything unique to offer.

        Nonetheless, it’s a movie that I’m glad I saw, as it does pay tribute to the brilliant and determined soldiers and theorizers (I say theorizers because the hunt was based off of a hunch) that served and protected our country; it’s your duty to see this film. Luckily, Hollywood is blessed enough to have access to actors/actresses so incredibly talented to portray the necessary characters. It’s no wonder Jessica Chastain won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Oscar, as her strong heroine-type presence accented the film very well; she was around the more masculine characters quite often. 

        However, the film became slightly difficult to follow about halfway through the film when they were locating Bin Laden’s courier; and it went on much too long (I also believed that some of its time was spent in the wrong places). Those were Zero Dark Thirty’s greatest flaws. But then again, I would’ve preferred it to be longer than shorter... It’s too bad that it couldn’t find a happy medium, like another one of Kathryn Bigelow’s triumphant films, Point Break. 

        A factor of the movie that fascinated and impressed me was the incredibly well done camerawork, especially during the invasion scene; it was shot in partial night vision, and regular, mostly from first person perspective. Think “Call of Duty”, with realistic graphics and higher quality. And I wasn’t given a headache either... Cough, cough, Bourne Ultimatum, cough, cough.

        Overall, Zero Dark Thirty has great qualities: prominent acting, significant storytelling, and potent scenes. It’s just a shame that its excessive length dulls its impact. I recommend it; but I could name other 2012 films worthy of Best Picture consideration over this. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: With The Hurt Locker (2009) and this searing drama about the relentless pursuit of terrorist Osama Bin Laden, director Kathryn Bigelow has officially entered Steven Soderbergh/Paul Greengrass territory. This is not a bad thing because she is probably the most powerful voice in American filmmaking today anyway. When it comes to casting, you have a calculating and confident movie that hinges on Oscar nominee Jessica Chastain's ferocious performance. She barrels her way through Zero Dark Thirty with an attitude and something to prove.