The Imitation Game

The Imitation Game has a rich history in the man of Alan Turing. Turing being a brilliant computer scientist essential in the creation of a decoder computer that helped to break the Nazi code during World War II. He was also a homosexual at a time where it was illegal in England which lead to his tragic downfall shortly after the war. An atypical life lead to an atypical film, not in actual execution but through its process of attempting to tell the story of Turing as a mainstream crowd pleaser. The film attempts to tell both stories however these stories are so different it is hard to wholly capture both. The film does not succeed in naturally streamlining this due to mostly its ending which is too much of challenge to cohere to the overarching approach. Now I will say that overarching approach is effective in granting an old fashioned biopic to Turing. It doesn't ignore his homosexual life however it downplays it towards focusing instead on his introverted eccentricity. This does work, largely due to Benedict Cumberbatch's dedicated performance, and the story of the code breaking is potent enough to carry much of the film. It however even in this aspect loses its grip somewhat with its choice to introduce as espionage subplot that adds essentially enough style of film into the overarching one. When it is the streamlined biopic it works, when it falls into the tragic story of Turing it suffers since it doesn't devote enough time to it. The scenes of the past do work but again these naturally fit into the biopic structure. The tragedy is undercut because of the rush to include which sadly feels forced within the rest of the film especially when the film leaves on uplifting note despite the fact our central lead commits suicide.
3.5/5

The Godfather Part III

The Godfather Part III went in really with quite the colossal task. It needed to somehow live up to its predecessors, which already had garnered its reputation as an undisputed masterpiece. That was not alone. There was even a bit of hazards, common to sequels, where for example the key cast member of Robert Duvall had to be written out, and it would seem so many of the character arcs were at an end in the first film. Where was there to go? Well only down this time, as with film trilogies third time is very often not the charm. I should say the Godfather Part III isn't a horrible film, it's just not a very good which is a problem when you come after two films deemed masterpieces by almost all. There are parts of it that are pretty horrible though. A few of the action moments, particularly a helicopter attack don't belong anywhere near a Godfather film and seem far more fitting to a generic crime thriller. Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter is as a bad as the reputation suggests. Her wooden turn not only burdens every scene she is in, she ruins what is suppose to be a moment of sheer emotional devastation through her all time horrid line delivery of only a single line. Her "dad" is truly a marvel of bad acting. Her father really needed to find an actor for role as his daughter lacked the talent in that area. Also the film has one of the all time worst makeup jobs for a mainstream big budget film in whatever they slapped on Pacino for the last scene of the film ensuring the last shot of The Godfather as a whole was a laughable one. Those are the parts of the film that are horrible, the middle parts are more of just not anything special. The film retreads material from the first two films while rarely really expanding or continuing on it in interesting ways. We get just new Michael with touches of Sonny to come in, we just get a new evil don to take down, we get a new potential intrigue with a relationship with the church that doesn't really go anywhere, and we get a final sequence of death that try yet fail to come close to either of the finales of the first two films. Having said that there is just a touch of the old Godfather greatness to be found amidst a great deal of mediocrity. This mostly is in the exploration of Michael's regrets of his past mistakes. These scenes do capitalize on what came before in natural way and the scene where he confesses to the cardinal over the murder of Fredo is genuinely moving. These scenes though are few and far between. This is not an awful film however it is worthy for the distinction of one of the biggest disappointments of all time.
2.5/5

The Godfather Part II

The Godfather Part II went in really with quite the colossal task. It needed to somehow live up to its predecessor, which already had garnered its reputation as an undisputed masterpiece. That was not alone. There was even a bit of hazards, common to sequels, where for example the key cast member of Richard S. Castellano had to be essentially recast, it would seem so many of the character arcs were at an end in the first film. Where was there to go? Well only up in my reckoning though also back. Again just throwing in another facet that could have backfired but did not was the use of the dual storylines the future with Michael and the past with young Vito. Prequels perhaps have a worse track record than sequels, however Godfather Part II proved itself past all challenges or expectations to be the greatest prequel of all time, one of the greatest sequels of all time, and one film that I actually find surpasses the original. Foremost everything that was great about the first film was great again in terms of the acting, cinematography, score, production design, the film is not lacking any single part. Now in the story though Michael's arc might have seemed at the end in the first film, however fact that Coppola successfully continues this is astonishing as he shows what it would mean to become and to continue to try to live as this man as well as a Don in ever changing times. In terms of the story we get a different view this time as Michael deals now outside of the Italian families realms dealing with a different type of evil in Hyman Roth, and a different type set of weapons to be used against him. This while through the examination of his growing isolation as this man as he continues to try to secure his family while becoming more alone in doing so. This is best realized through the most potent aspect of the film with John Cazale as Michael's brother Fredo. Fredo was basically an afterthought in the first film, and it is a testament to the brilliance of Coppola to utilize the minor role for something truly substantial as well as see the talent that Cazale had been able to show even with such limited screen time in the first film. Coppola is able to expand on what come before in every respect using the complexities to naturally continue the story. This is all buttressed by the prequel of the story of Young Vito where Coppola excels in expanding on those underlying themes of the American dream within the story, now finding the immigrant experience in such vibrant detail. He gives a whole another world, another side before the first film that is as interesting and perhaps even more captivating in its depiction of the rise of the young Vito. Again though as much as Coppola succeeds in the grand set pieces, every major character moment, the film is as defined by every minor detail that helps to craft this masterpiece of cinema that is a standard both for any sequel as well as any prequel.
5/5

The Godfather

The Godfather is one of the populist choices for the greatest film of all time, well populist with any taste that is, and well that's a fair enough assessment. The Godfather has been always a film I've been slightly hesitant to heap that praise, not because it doesn't really deserve it, but rather because there simply are other great films. The Godfather though in unequivocally a great film anyways, even if I don't quite adhere to the overriding sentiment that above and beyond as these films go. The Godfather still stands in itself, forgetting any other factors, as an amazing achievement. The Godfather realizes the richness of its source material and bests it through Francis Ford Coppola's brilliant adaptation in just about every possible sense. Rather than playing into the tropes of the traditional crime film it reinvented them through a revision to examine it through a far more intimate portrait of this crime family that is more important to the film than the crimes they commit. Coppola has the appreciation for this family dynamic that goes beyond even the immediate family even within the sort warmth in the uncle figures of the Caporegimes. Coppola furthers this in crafting such a vivid sense of the Italian heritage and traditions both in the family, even in the food, but also in the criminal world in which they exist. The sheer vibrancy of the world is remarkable and the popularity of the film could perhaps be partially attached with this as there is even a certain comfort in this despite the violent nature of the story. That vibrancy is beyond atmosphere though coming within every character making actually future archetypes in a way, though with fully realized three dimensional characters. There being the wise don father Vito, the hotheaded Sonny, the very coolheaded Tom, the foolish Fredo, and Michael, the lead who begins as the unassuming reluctant hero to become technically a cold cutthroat villain though with the mindset that everything he's doing he's doing for his family. Where the film takes the characters is as a compelling through that complexity offering the crime world with their own double crosses and motivations, with fascinating figures even if for but a scene in some circumstances. The film seems to be essentially a blue print for a "great film" as it does everything. Brilliant structure, acting, production design, score, costumes, characters, you name it pretty much has it in this respect. This is never an exercise in this either as much as Coppola is efficiency in this his work was daring, whether it is his flawless execution of the non-violent, mostly, wedding sequence, or the very violent baptism scene Coppola strove for a truly cinematic and dynamic storytelling methods. Even as much as it isn't one of my personal favorites as a great film, it is a great film, and anyone who tells you otherwise will only be quoting Family Guy.
5/5

L.A. Confidential

James Ellroy said that when he sold the movie rights to L.A. Confidential he sold his soul however upon seeing the film he got his soul back. A bit of grandiose statement to be sure, however a statement worthy of this film. L.A. Confidential is potentially the greatest neo-noir, or noir for that matter, film ever made. This film written in fate almost as the one film director Curtis Hanson had to make as he was not an overly notable director before or after this film. With this film he managed to craft a masterpiece. The question though is how? Well by simply having everything that makes a great film great I suppose. There is the atmosphere so beautifully realized in the lush atmosphere created around the Hollywood scene of L.A., but also making the murky details in the underbelly just as vibrant. It's a film that simply puts you there, but that's just the beginning. As also needed for a noir there needs to be a plot which this film has in all of its rich complexity. Along with Chinatown this film is the gold standard in terms of making a complex plot. The only moments of confusion are intentionally there to leave you in the dark, as it manages to make every single detail clear that you need, while most importantly keeping this all compelling all the same. You want as a viewer to get to the next point of the twisting plot, it excites rather than dulls at every point, including one the greatest "gotcha" moments in film. It even manages to be a hilarious film despite its dark subject matter, with the "She is Lana Turner" moment being a particular highlight. Now all that would make a pretty great film anyways, but perhaps just an exercise, well the film tops it off again with such absorbing characters. The three central character of Bud White, Ed Exley and Jack Vincennes are all brilliantly played and written. You get to learn and understand each man. Not just in a cursory way but in a deeper way in how each approach their lives as cops, and as men. All three are utterly fascinating and made all the more so when these conflicting values comes into conflict, or into compromise. This takes a film far beyond a engrossing noir plot, and towards a truly emotional experience as you come to understand and invest in all three of the men.
5/5

The King's Speech

The King's Speech is perhaps an example that should be used to help one differentiate between writing and directing. The King's Speech as written is a delightful, witty, while still emotional realization of the story of George VI through his relationship with Lionel Logue who helps him find his voice and his confidence through the tumultuous time of the abdication of his brother, and World War II. The script shows one who to fashion a classical inspirational historical tale, and do it right. It finds the emotional truth in the matter while finding both the grand and personal scale within the story. I also have to give it special accommodation for having the intelligence to have the sort of the potential "liar revealed" scene dealt in an honest satisfying way. Sadly Tom Hooper's direction does everything in its power to interfere with the terrific tale that has been granted to him. Are porno sets okay? Of course, says Hooper. Bizarre angles for the sake of it? Of course Hooper says. Outdoor scenes so foggy as to be a gothic horror film? Of course, Hooper says. Overdone lingering shots of Colin Firth's face to make his performance a bit awkward at times? Of course, Hooper says. The choices are there for the sake of it never making a lick of sense for the film's story. The biggest obstacle the film has is its own director who detracts rather amplifies his film, the exact opposite of what David Fincher did in The Social Network, the film's main competition at the Oscars. Hooper's ill informed decisions make the film far less than it should have been, however they can't quite ruin the film. It's still a good film however with a better director it could have been a great one.
3.5/5

Macbeth (2015)

Macbeth as one of Shakespeare's most popular plays has been adapted many times therefore it is responsibility of the filmmaker to bring something new with their own vision when bringing to the screen. On one hand technically this film is impressive from its production design, and especially a costume which are dynamic in creating this version of the film. The real alternative take though comes from Justin Kurzel at the helm attempting to do offering Macbeth less a story of a man being consumed by ambition but rather being consumed by his own dormant madness from the wounds of war and the losses in his life. This is interesting in its approach and effective in terms of the performances granted through this take from Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as the Macbeths. There are brilliant individual sequences realized this approach such the addition of having Macbeth directly confronting the king's son after the murder, and the massacre of Macduff's family to which the Lady Macbeth participates in as this almost witch burning ceremony. As many outstanding choices the overall aesthetic decisions, and forceful hand by Kurzel do wear thin at times. In his Zach Snyder slow motion in the opening battle, or his purposeful choice to seemingly aggravate with his pacing, not every decision is effective nor do they even all meld together towards creating what seems to be the central purpose of this version. This adaptation in parts is incredible, however in others is tiresome. Kurzel only aims for the highest peaks as adaptation goes, and occasionally finds them, while at other moments falls off into a deep pit of lingering shots, mood music, and lifelessness.
3.5/5

The Revenant

The Revenant before it even came out became known for the insanity of its production that has shades of the productions of Apocalypse Now and Fitzcarraldo. Where the filmmakers seemed to be living through their own madness in the nature and among the giant personalities as their characters are. Unfortunately there is no companion documentary for The Revenant, and perhaps it lead to certainly distaste where Alejandro González Iñárritu seemed to embrace the attention that received. After all that though there is only the film that remains, following the highly fictionalized account of Hugh Glass's unbelievable survival through the wilderness while seeking revenge. That alone is potent enough, though the anti-climax of real life I suppose leaves the desire for something a bit more potent. Iñárritu goes further than that in embracing a strong degree of spiritualism within the journey of Glass, evoking Herzog themes in a Malick manner. It's perhaps a bit stronger than that though I will say that is probably the weakest point for me. DiCaprio and visions of his dead wife being an actor's trademark is odd enough, and I think the film could have lived without it. I will say though had Iñárritu restrained himself slightly this moments of spirituality could have been very poignant, as isolated to itself Glass's dream of a reunion with his son has a definite power. Beyond that though the film is a survivalist revenge thriller and its there where it excels, whether that is in the highly entertaining yet somehow somewhat sympathetic villain in Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald, the complex and dynamic set pieces, or the incredible cinematography. The film is at its best at its simplest point in bringing to these isolated places, and within the intensity of the two central men with their own methods and understanding of what it means to survive.
4.5/5

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

At World's End brings the original trilogy of pirates film through sort of sad closing. It first begins by eliminating any goodwill from the previous film by eliminating the Kraken off screen as though the writers couldn't come up with a decent way to defeat the monster, making Davy Jones henpecked lapdog for our "standard evil British guy" from the first even if I do like Tom Hollander in general. The problems of Dead Man's Chest are only further compounded with Depp now going full caricature as Captain Jack, with ridiculously indulgent scenes of multiples of the man seemingly just to show how deep end the character had gone by that point. The pointless complexity only continues with multiple unneeded double crosses, and a random assortment of pointless character particularly Chow Yun Fat's pirate lord. Again though the lack of a sense of fun is what really diminished probably rather well illustrated through the tone deaf opening that consists of the slow hanging of child. It is poorly conceived effort that seems to almost revel in its aimless messiness. All that the original film had to offer is just about all lost here in the film whimpering conclusion to a concept that held such potential originally.
1.5/5

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Dead Man's Chest is the immediate follow up, and although the best of the sequels its problems are readily apparent. Now there is some good to be had in the expansion of the lore with the introduction of an effective villain in Billy Nighy's Davy Jones, and his giant kraken. That's about it though as the film struggles with its overly expansive yet never particularly compelling plot where it sets so many characters with so motivations, yet they are never earned in creating a real connection to any of their stories. This is secondary to spectacle, yet the spectacle is oddly underwhelming, or comedy which is never particularly funny this time around. Depp's whose Jack Sparrow seemed such an original and unique character here begins to become a tired parody version of his character from the first one. There is still a bit of substance here yet for the most part his mannerisms feel just like an act, and his performance feels like on autopilot of just a general weirdness most of the time. This in turn makes everything else that he made work in the first film fall flat here. There are some fun moments here though, a giant wheel, the kraken attack, yet they are not as successful in naturally serving the story as similar moments in the first film. Of course all of this is only exacerbated through excessive runtime and horrendous pacing. The film attempts complexity merely for the sake of it, and in doing so diminishes any sense of fun needed for any pirate romp.
2.5/5

Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl

Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl aka the film that started the most successful franchise based on an amusement park ride. Although technically speaking it is very much based on the swashbuckler films of old though here with a supernatural bent. Throughout filmmaking there have been films that were the noble beginning to an unpleasant end which is the case here. This is two fold one for the franchise itself and one for Johnny Depp as an actor. Depp had been known mostly for his off-beat performances in largely independent films but this thrust that off-beat style into the mainstream in a major way. In this case Depp a highly original take that energized the film that perhaps without him could have been another Cutthroat Island. His influence goes beyond just being an entertaining performance as he informs so much of the film with his presence, as so many scenes that could be standard are given a real flair whether it is making comic banter with the uptight British work, or give more of a life to his more straight forward co-stars. The film also benefits from some spirited action, an entertaining villain in Geoffrey Rush, and a particularly invigorating score from Hans Zimmer. The film isn't without flaws, its pacing is a bit off, though this is only a warm up for the sequels, and not all the effects hold up tot his day. It stands alone though as an enjoyable adventure film, though with perhaps those flaws to indicate things to come.
4/5