"Epic"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

If you want a recipe for a great children’s movie, just take a race of miniscule people who live in the forest, add a zany scientist with contraptions galore, combine it with a lonely teenage girl in need of a little adventure, and top it off with a three-legged dog and two talking mollusks. Sounds like fun, right? The problem is, sometimes even the best recipes don’t come out right.

There are two storylines here. First there is Mary Katherine or “MK” (Amanda Seyfried), whose mom apparently just died, and who shows up at her estranged dad’s house out in the middle of nowhere in hopes of reconnecting. Unfortunately, her dad hardly notices. He is too caught up trying to find a civilization of tiny people who he thinks live in the forest. He has cameras and microphones everywhere, a special headset built for observing little things, and a whole bunch of other weird-looking stuff. It’s all very crazy.

Except that—and here is the second storyline—those tiny people actually exist. There really is a miniature civilization living in the front yard. There are good guys (the Leafmen) and bad guys (Boggans) who ride around on birds, queens and generals who fight for control of the ecosystem, flowers that talk, and plenty more. There are even two annoying snails that just don’t know when to shut up.

These two storylines are pretty much unrelated until MK runs into the forest and somehow gets shrunk down to itty-bitty size. Suddenly she is right into the middle of the struggle between the Leafmen and the Boggans. It turns out a major war is going on, and the fate of the forest hangs in the balance.

MK does not exactly feel comfortable playing a role in this mess, but she has no choice. She hesitatingly joins up with two of the more important Leafmen: Ronin (Colin Farell) and his adopted teenage son, Nod (Josh Hutcherson). Together they try to thwart the Boggans and save the forest.

Meanwhile, MK’s dad has no idea that his daughter has been miniaturized. Now, if he would just keep doing what he was doing when he alienated his daughter, he would maybe be able to find her and help her out. Alas, he stops looking, because he feels bad about ignoring MK. How ironic. So MK has to either go it alone, or else find a way to grab her dad’s attention.

This is an odd part of the story. We have a deadbeat dad who is too obsessed with work to pay any attention to his daughter. And we have one very frustrated daughter. Given that this is a children’s movie, where the moral of the story matters a lot, one would expect the dad to reform. One would expect him to realize that his family is more important than his work and that he needs to cool it with the Leafman stuff. But he doesn’t change one bit. It is MK who has to change in order to make the relationship work. She has to accommodate her inattentive father. She has to devote herself to what interests him. Which seems kind of messed up.

This speaks to some broader issues with “Epic”. It seems to be set up all right. The setting seems fun, the characters seem interesting, and the plot seems promising. But it just fails to come together. There is something missing.

A good children’s movie has a compelling moral. It highlights what is beautiful and nice and innocent and refreshing about youth. It has lovely characters. But a really great children’s movie fits together in a certain special way. It emerges from its various plot devices, action sequences, twists, turns, smiles, tears, and jokes; it emerges as its own thing that somehow just gets it right.

“Epic” falls a little short. And that makes all the difference.

"Mud"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

-->

Along the banks of a muddy river in Arkansas lay a few clusters of small, run-down houseboats. They are nothing to look at. They are old and decaying. Their rotting wooden bones are rough, unpainted, and unadorned. Everything is dirty. The folks these shacks shelter are just trying to get on, living by the fish they can catch, and not too bothered by it either.

At first it feels like “Mud” might be full of awfulness. It starts with two 14-year-old boys—Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland)—setting off on an old fishing boat in the dirty waters of a river in rural Arkansas. There is an eerie sense of foreboding—we have no idea what they are up to, or why they are up to it; but it feels like something might go terribly wrong.

But then the tension settles. The movie starts to breathe easier—it begins to feel more like a good ol’ Huck Finn-style river adventure. The boys had just heard about an old fishing boat that somehow got stuck up in a tree on some island in the river. So they are only investigating. No harm in sight.

However, the mood re-intensifies when Ellis and Neckbone come across a guy named ‘Mud’ (Matthew McConaughey). No one knows what Mud is up to. He seems to be living on the island by himself, and he seems to be up to something sort of fishy. Yet, Mud seems nice enough and maybe just in need of a little help.

Neckbone is skeptical, but Ellis’ instinct is to help the stranger. Indeed, Ellis’ instinct in general is to help people out, to believe the best about them, and to expect that they will tell the truth and keep their word. This is really Ellis’ defining characteristic. He trusts people.

Fortunately, Mud keeps Ellis’ trust, at least at first. In fact, they start to develop a pretty fascinating friendship. Ellis brings Mud food and helps him with some other stuff. In return, Mud offers sage advice about life and love while also providing the boy with an adventure of sorts. The trade may not always be fair, but both parties get on all right.

For a while, that is. As Ellis and Neckbone run around town doing Mud’s bidding, they realize that Mud’s situation is a bit more complicated than they had anticipated. It turns out not everyone thinks Mud is the best. Not everyone is keen to help him out.

What the boys have to decide is whether to stick with Mud, who is their buddy by now, or to turn their backs on him for their own ends. They have to decide whether loyalty to this stranger who they only just met, and who may end up being a bad and dangerous dude, is loyalty worth preserving. Maybe part of growing up is figuring out who one ought to discard.

These issues are subtler than that, however; which is part of what that makes “Mud” a really good movie. Ellis’ trusting nature might be naïve and immature—something to grow out of. But it isn’t obvious. Sure, his faith in Mud, his parents, and various other people gets Ellis into trouble. It breaks his heart, too. But that doesn’t mean his faith is misplaced or unwise. Maybe Ellis just shows us that it is best to help a stranger in need, even if it does cost a lot.

“Mud” is also really good from a technical standpoint. I enjoyed—and I still enjoy, as I think about it more—its pace, its mood, its feel. All the dirt is warm and kind. It bespeaks a simplicity that supports, and in fact uplifts, the film’s thematic material.

The acting is great as well. Even Matthew McConaughey—yes, Matthew McConaughey—does a wonderful job. (It makes me think maybe he is a talented actor who just picks really bad roles most of the time.)

I wasn’t sure what I was getting into when I sat down to see “Mud”. I am still not sure what I got into. But I know it was worth every minute.

"Admission"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Portia Nathan (Tina Fey) trades in disappointment. She is a Princeton admissions counselor, and basically what she does is condense a person’s whole life into a single, small folder full of stats, figures, proficiencies, marketable traits, etc.—you know, the stuff that really matters. Then Portia decides who is worthy. Worthy, that is, of gaining entrance into Princeton, which of course is the highly prestigious kind of place where all the successful and interesting and productive people go to learn how to be very successful, very interesting, and very productive.

Portia trades in disappointment because, well, not every who wants to go to Princeton gets to go to Princeton. Not by a long shot.

And that includes Jeremiah (Nat Wolff). Jeremiah is an exceptionally bright kid who gets bad grades because he is unconventional (He calls himself an ‘autodidact’, which just means he is self taught. People in the movie keep mentioning that Jeremiah calls himself an autodidact as if the fact that he understands the word is proof of his brilliance. It’s annoying.). Unfortunately, unconventional students do not usually get into Princeton.

Nevertheless, Jeremiah and his teacher, John Pressman (Paul Rudd), keep at it. They email Portia, call her, visit her office, and even invite her to their unique little school where they chop wood, learn about robotics, and occasionally partake in a little cow midwifery. Portia is a busy woman, though. She likes Jeremiah all right, but she also knows he is a long shot.

However, it turns out that John has another motive for introducing Portia and Jeremiah. John believes that Jeremiah is Portia’s son (the son Portia had back when she herself was unconventional). Portia does not know what to do. At first she resists; she is angry and depressed. Then she tries to bargain her way out of contact with Jeremiah. Finally, though, Portia decides to accept the situation and embrace Jeremiah. It all looks a lot like the stages of grief, but hey, at least Portia ends up on the right team.

Portia feels like she owes it to Jeremiah to get him into Princeton. That is the least she can do, I guess, and I suppose the hope is that a little Ivy-league love will fix everything. The problem is that, despite his intelligence, Jeremiah’s file does not look great. Also, it turns out that Portia is not in a position to unilaterally decide whether Jeremiah gets in. And anyway, Portia has other things to worry about—her long-term boyfriend just broke up with her, for instance. Plus, she doesn’t know how she feels about John; maybe she likes him. Oh, and Portia’s mom is mean.

A lot happens in “Admission”. One thing this movie has going for it is two enormously likable lead actors. Tina Fey is quirky and down to earth. She comes off as smart and sophisticated, but not pretentious—the kind of person who really enjoys hotdogs and lousy TV shows. Rudd’s appeal is similar. He can be goofy at times, but he also knows how to be serious. Just like Fey, he seems smart, but again, grounded in reality.

Even so, “Admission” does not work. This is a miracle, given how hard it is to resist a duo like Fey and Rudd. But nothing about this movie feels right. Everything is rushed along. Storylines are added here and there. Twists veer off to who knows where. One minute the world is coming to an end, and five minutes later everyone is one big happy family.

“Admission” is supposed to be a romantic comedy. But it is neither romantic nor comedic. It is more like a mildly amusing series of events wherein two people hook up a few times. Tina Fey and Paul Rudd may make sense, but Portia Nathan and John Pressman do not.

Tina Fey usually writes her own movies, but she took a break on this one. So I guess the moral is: Fey needs to get back to work.

"Jack the Giant Slayer"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

I walked out of “Jack the Giant Slayer”. It was not the worst movie I have ever seen. And I bet some people—maybe even a lot of people—will enjoy it. I simply could not take it. It was just bad enough, and bad enough in all the wrong ways, that after about 87 minutes I could not bear it any longer. I had to leave.

So here is what I know. “Jack the Giant Slayer” is mostly a love story about Jack and Isabelle. Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is a poor farm boy, and Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) is a rich princess; Isabelle just wants to be normal, but Jack has had enough of normal.

Then this happens. Isabelle tries to hang with some commoners, gets threatened, Jack defends her honor, Isabelle is impressed, Jack finds out Isabelle is a princess, but princesses are not allowed to fall in love with farm boys, they have to marry rich and evil advisors to good-hearted but oblivious kings, but Isabelle seems to really like Jack, and Jack of course really likes Isabelle, it’s really too bad, etc. Etc. (If you walk into the theater late, just watch the first bit of “Aladdin” when you get home. Same thing.)

Anyway, Jack thinks that is that. So he puts Isabelle out of his mind and moves on with his day. And an eventful day it is. Jack sells his horse to an antsy monk for some beans. Jack’s uncle is not happy about the trade. So they fight. But it turns out that the beans are magical. So hey, maybe it was a good trade after all.

Or not. One of the beans’ magical powers is to make a super huge beanstalk when one gets wet. So what happens is Jack accidentally lets one of the beans drop beneath his house, and then it rains, and you know, the whole thing goes sky high. Not so good.

Oh, and as it turns out, Princess Isabelle, who is trying to run away, finds her way to Jack’s house right before the incident. So although Jack is left back on solid ground, the love of his life (that he just met) is sent into the stratosphere. Again: not so good.

But every cloud has a silver lining; every peril is a hero’s chance to save the day. Jack—along with the king’s man, Elmont (Ewan McGregor), Isabelle’s future husband, Roderick (Stanley Tucci), and a few others—climbs the beanstalk. It is a harrowing adventure, the ills of which are relieved only by some spirited (albeit nauseating) bean- and beanstalk-related humor.

When the team of heroes reaches the top, they learn that Isabelle has been abducted by a race of ugly, violent giants who eat their own boogers. It does not look good for the rescuers. The giants are pretty tough. Plus, Roderick turns out to be a baddie. So that doesn’t help. When it comes down to it, all that stands between the good guys and utter ruin is a scrawny farm boy named ‘Jack’.

Technically I don’t know whether or not Jack saves the day. It is possible that they all die horrible deaths at the hands of the giants and Roderick becomes ruler of the world. But I’m a betting man, and I bet that is not how it turns out. I bet Jack comes up big, and I bet he gets the girl too.

Furthermore, I bet that if you had to bet, you would bet with me. Why? Because you do not actually have to see this movie in order to know that it is painfully predictable, riddled with clichés, and just so very unoriginal. This movie—or the three-quarters of it I saw—is a slapdash bundle of truisms and tropes that probably aren’t even true or right; and even if they are true or right, my goodness, who cares?

Does this make “Jack the Giant Slayer” a bad movie? Well I think so (but I also think the acting is bad and the target audience is unclear, but now I feel like I am just being mean). Others may disagree. Or hey, maybe the end of the movie is great.

"Zero Dark Thirty"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Unless you live in a cave (or perhaps in a compound in Pakistan), you know how “Zero Dark Thirty” ends. There are no major twists. There is no surprise ending. And yet, “Zero Dark Thirty” is riveting. It is exactly what the previews say it is going to be, and still, you will not want to miss even a little bit of this movie.

“Zero Dark Thirty” is about a woman named Maya (Jessica Chastain). Maya is trying to find Osama Bin Laden, and not exactly to get his autograph or anything. She is part of a CIA team dedicated solely to capturing or killing the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Maya is slight, but tough. She does not shrink from watching, or even participating in, brutal interrogations (i.e., torture) in service of her goal. Waterboarding, sleep depravation, beatings, starvation, and confinement in super tight spaces: these are the lengths Maya and her cohort go to in order to get information.

It is a bit like squeezing blood from a turnip, though. They get some information, but not a lot. Years pass without progress. More innocent people die. Al-Qaeda remains strong.

But Maya has a theory. On the basis of her research and “interviews” with various detainees, Maya believes that the best way to get to Bin Laden is to find one of the couriers that take messages to and from the al-Qaeda boss. And Maya knows who one of these couriers is. Well, really all she knows is his fake name and sort of what he looks like. Still, that’s not nothing.

Maya chases down every lead, considers every idea, and entertains every possible scenario. She is tireless. Yet, it looks like her idea is getting nowhere. Every time it seems like a lead is going to pan out—every time a tip has the potential to bear fruit—nothing comes of it.

Then there is a break. Maya finds out exactly who Bin Laden’s courier is, and through bribery, surveillance, and a whole lot of guesswork, Maya and other CIA operatives track the courier to a compound in Abbbottabad, Pakistan. Maya believes that this is where Bin Laden is hiding, but she has no proof. She tries to convince others, but many remain skeptical.

Finally, after months of deliberation, the higher-ups decide to go for it. The potential payoff is just too high. If there is any chance of bringing down Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and mastermind of 9/11, they have to try.

You know the rest, of course. They find him. They kill him. Mission accomplished.

“Zero Dark Thirty” is exactly what it had to be. It had to be at least semi-accurate. It had to be dramatic but also serious. It had to be gritty and complicated without being overly political. The story itself is compelling; it doesn’t need embellishment. So “Zero Dark Thirty” just had to do the story justice.

And it did. “Zero Dark Thirty” really tells the story well. Even though you know what is going to happen, you still really want to know what is going to happen. You want to see what comes next.

Now, “Zero Dark Thirty” is not an exceptional, groundbreaking movie. It could not possibly be an exceptional, groundbreaking movie. It is too limited by its genre and subject matter. You just cannot get overly creative with the retelling of Bin Laden’s assassination. It is not allowed.

So this movie’s ceiling is perhaps a bit lower. Nonetheless, “Zero Dark Thirty” is a well-executed, thoroughly solid film.

"Les Miserables"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

It is a classic novel, a hit musical, and every ten years or so, it is made into movie. “Les Miserables” has been made, remade, done, redone, adapted and readapted. People just keep going back to the well. This is neither surprising nor unfortunate, though. “Les Miserables” is, after all, one of the best stories ever told.

So the challenge, at least as I see it, for director Tom Hooper in remaking “Les Miserables” is, first, to not mess up one of the best stories ever told and, second, to add something—to do something that has not been done before, to bring new life to the story. The challenge is to give us a reason to want to see this particular version of “Les Miserables”.

The story is familiar. Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is imprisoned for a petty crime, and his terrible experiences in prison turn him into the criminal he was assumed to be.

But then an uncommon act of mercy furnishes Valjean with a second chance. Valjean reforms. He takes on a whole new identity and character. He repays the kindness and mercy that was once shown to him by helping others, including poor Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and her daughter Cosette (Isabelle Allen and Amanda Seyfried).

The only problem is that Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), a tireless and unyielding enforcer of the law, is after Valjean. Valjean just wants to live his life in peace, but Javert will stop at nothing to see that the strict letter of the law is obeyed and Valjean is back in prison for breaking parole.

Oh yeah, and meanwhile, a revolution breaks out in Paris, Cosette falls in love with a rebel—Marius (Eddie Redmayne)—and Valjean tries desperately to dodge Javert while holding together the various shards of his life.

There is a lot to work with here. There is a lot of water in this well. So does this version of “Les Miserables” find it? Does it shed new light on a particular character—perhaps one that as been overlooked? Or does it bring new life to the rich and powerful themes found in the book? Or at least do we, the audience, get bowled over by knockout vocal performances?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to each of these questions is mostly “No”. Some of the songs are well sung, but others are not. Some of the themes about redemption, mercy, love, and the law are detectible, but I never got the feeling that this is what the movie is about. Too much of the movie is about Hugh Jackman’s face and voice, Anne Hathaway’s face and voice, and Russell Crowe’s face. And that means that not enough of the movie is about Jean Valjean, Fantine, Javert, and the themes that these special characters evoke.

I should clarify my position here. I enjoyed “Les Miserables”. Of course I did. It’s “Les Miserables”! And it is not a bad rendition of “Les Miserables” either. However, this movie does face certain difficulties because it is a remake of the Broadway musical. You see, with live theater, there is a certain connection between the characters and the audience. The characters—Valjean, Fantine, Cosette, Javert, Marius, etc.—are right there. They are there, in the flesh, singing, moving, dancing, and acting. So you somehow know the characters on the stage.

You lose that connection when the characters are projected on a screen. That, of course, does not mean that an audience cannot feel a connection with characters in a movie. It just means that filmmakers have to avail themselves of other techniques and devices in order to establish the connection. And I think that it is very difficult to make use of some of those techniques when the script was written for the stage, when the plot is structured around a series of songs and, to be honest, when the actors are singing all the time.

The result is a merely decent version of a great story. If you are like me, you will enjoy “Les Miserables”, but when you feel that itch to revisit this story, you will return to a different telling of it.

"Lincoln"

By Matt Duncan

Coastal View News

Abraham Lincoln had his moments. One can just imagine being there when Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg address, for instance, or when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Inspiring stuff. Too bad we don’t have videos or anything.

What we do have is Steven Spielberg. In “Lincoln”, Spielberg strings together as many inspiring moments as possible. “Lincoln” is a highlight reel. It’s Honest Abe’s Greatest Hits. Except, like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, Lincoln had so many greatest hits that you cannot put them all in just one collection. You could imagine “Lincoln: The Early Years”, in which Lincoln grows up, becomes a lawyer, debates Frederick Douglas, etc. Then there might be “Lincoln: Rise to the Presidency” or “Lincoln: Preserving the Union”.

Spielberg went with the greatest hits movie about Lincoln’s push to get the 13^th Amendment (which abolishes slavery) ratified. Here is the situation. The Civil War is almost over. The North is going to win. The South knows it, but is having a hard time admitting it. Lincoln really wants the war to be over, and apparently, so does everyone else. Thus, a lot of people think that the best thing for Lincoln to do is to focus on ending the war, and to save the slavery issue for when the dust settles.

Lincoln disagrees. He thinks that the 13^th Amendment has to be passed before the Civil War is over. Lincoln figures that if the South rejoins the union with slavery intact, people will forget about the amendment—because the newly recognized southern lawmakers will vehemently oppose the amendment and/or because other politicians will not want to rock the boat, so to speak. So Lincoln presses on.

The problem is that the folks from the South are less likely to join back up with the North if they know that slavery is going to be banned. It is kind of like one side refusing to put something on the negotiating table while the other side refuses to move forward without that thing on the table. It is gridlock—a political tightrope that few (very few, apparently) can walk.

“Lincoln” is scene after scene after scene of stirring speeches, dramatic poses, and memorable one-liners. It really is a greatest hits album. It is one where Lincoln gets a lot of his famous buddies together—e.g., Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), Ulysses S. Grant (Jared Harris), Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), and Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt)—but none them is as good as Lincoln himself (Daniel Day-Lewis). That is to say, “Lincoln” is chock full of important characters and famous actors delivering heroic and inspiring lines, but to be honest, everyone just wants to see Lincoln/Daniel Day-Lewis do his thing.

Daniel Day-Lewis is great, of course. It is hard to think of another living actor who is so intensely and so justly revered. His performance as Lincoln is distinctive, iconic, interesting and entertaining. It is larger-than-life, but also remarkably real. It is a truly special performance.

But is this movie special? I think not. “Lincoln” is so absolutely jam-packed with inspirational speeches and one-liners that, oddly enough, some of the drama and intrigue evaporates. It is just too much for one sitting.

Look, I like watching highlight reels and slam-dunk contests as much as the next person. I think it is really cool and impressive when LeBron James spins eight times, puts the ball behind his back, between his legs, in one ear and out the other—all in mid-air—and then dunks it like he does this every day. But there is also a reason why I would rather watch an actual contest, even if (or maybe because) there is an honest-to-goodness chance that my team might lose. It’s just more interesting.

So what I want to say is that “Lincoln” is impressive. It’s just not that interesting.