Review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Marvel's Cinematic Universe is some kind of Juggernaut (with apologies to the X-Men character, which Disney/Marvel doesn't have the rights to). Whether you allow yourself to be swept along for the ride or turn up your nose at the sheer gigantic-ism of it all, you have to admire what the studio is churning out, at least from a business standpoint. Cinematically speaking, however, they've struck a stronger chord with Captain America: The Winter Soldier than with either Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World. It captures the spirit and escapism of a superhero outing while at the same time taking a big leap forward with the Avengers arc. Casual movie-goers and die-hards alike can enjoy it for 2 hours without feeling the absence of the other members of the quartet.

Winter Soldier provides all the satisfying action, confrontations, and heroism of a tale of its sort, but by emphasizing political/spy machinations in its plot, it actually takes a cue from James Bond movies as well. The movie begins with a mission, led by Cap (Chris Evans) and Natasha (Scarlett Johansson), to rescue hostages from a pirated tanker. They succeed, but once Cap learns that the true purpose of the mission involves protecting confidential SHIELD information rather than saving lives, a schism develops between him and Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Fury is later targeted for assassination by SHIELD's own forces, who suspect him of being a traitor. It isn't long before Cap is on the run and Secretary Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford) assumes control of SHIELD in order to further a top secret project. While Cap scrambles to figure out how deep the corruption of his former employer goes, Pierce sends out a Super Solider of his own, codenamed Winter Solider (Sebastian Stan) to eliminate the threat.

The Avengers featured very little of Steve Rogers' adjustment to the modern age after waking from 70 years of cryogenic slumber. But the filmmakers give that element its due here as Cap looks back upon his glory years, ponders how no one else on Earth can possibly relate to his life, and has a heartfelt conversation with a now-elderly Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell in effective old-age makeup). There is indeed something refreshingly old-school about Captain America; he's virtuous and team-oriented but can still kick ass with the best of them. Chris Evans once again shines portraying a hero who provides a compelling antithesis to Robert Downey Jr's sly, sarcastic Tony Stark. And Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson (aka The Falcon) makes for a superior sidekick.

In some sense, Winter Soldier functions as a slightly smaller-scale Avengers. The action sequences range from fluid, martial-arts inspired combat to full-on gadgetry warfare. Sure, real suspense is limited since we know the Captain will be around for future adventures, but in the context of this movie, it's hard not to be impressed with their scope and energy. As far as I can tell, the movie makes only two in-the-moment missteps. One involves Cap's shield; it's one hell of a weapon that protects his upper body from gunfire, but why don't the bad guys ever aim for his legs? Another involves the main villain's master plan. It's an intriguing one, to be sure, but the film only pays lip-service to the morality involved rather than diving in full-throttle like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and Zach Snyder's Watchmen did.

The Winter Solider lurches forward with the SHIELD arc as opposed to spinning its wheels. Time will tell how this film's single greatest development will affect not only future Avengers movies, but also Marvel's TV show "Agents of SHIELD." And yes, the usual credit cookies are present, one of which teases next summer's superhero smackdown, but that's the cherry on top of the cake. Marvel has learned from past criticisms here; Winter Soldier tells a self-contained story that scores well in the action, plot, and character interaction departments without feeling like just another appetizer for Avengers 2. 

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of Noah

Perhaps because of its religious territory, Darren Aronofsky's Noah sure is an upsetting movie for the purist. Much like an adaptation of a comic book or beloved novel, the director's vision is faithful in broad strokes, but he picks and chooses elements of his own devising to allow his cinematic vision to take on a life of its own. This is what directors and screenwriters should do when handed this kind of material, and while not every addition to the story of Noah in "Genesis" works as intended, the whole is nonetheless a fascinating "updating" of a timeless tale. There is much in Noah for the average viewer to admire and even enjoy, those two chief things being Aronofsky's spectacular visuals and a multi-dimensional portrayal of the lead character.

Noah begins with a brief recap of Adam and Eve's demise in the Garden of Eden, setting the stage for the corrupt and wicked world of where the main characters currently stand. Noah (Russell Crowe) has apocalyptic visions and seeks council from his grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins). During the course of this meeting, Noah quickly deduces that since his visions involve water, not fire, "The Creator" (the term "God" is never used in this movie) is planning to wipe the world's slate clean with epic floods. He's convinced that he and his family must build a massive ark to survive and that only animals are allowed to survive the world's transition. Other than his immediate family (which also includes an adopted daughter), humanity is not intended to receive a second chance. Of course, not only must Noah deal with friction within his own family, but that of a rival clan headed by the king of the land, Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone).

Noah's most outlandish addition to an old tale involves giant rock creatures called The Watchers, who help Noah build the ark after initially distrusting him, then aid him in a LOTR-style battle against Tubel-Cain's army. No, I'm not making this up. One can be forgiven for wondering "what the hell is this shitty special effect?" when first laying eyes on these creatures, but the movie provides a decent enough explanation for them (originally light-beings, The Creator punished them for intervening in Man's affairs by transforming them into awkwardly-built rock-beings). You either accept it in the context of what Aronofsky is trying to do or you keep laughing. The creatures' presence grew on me over time, so I went with the former approach.

Other than these, however, no one will quibble about the film's visual style, which is often breathtaking. Every vista is gorgeously photographed, the sudden growth of a giant forest around a previous barren land is eye-popping, and the various CGI animals are seamlessly integrated. The film's single most awe-inspring moment comes when Noah relates a story to his family about the creation of life, and a stunning time lapse showcases various creatures coming into being over the course of hundreds of split-second shots. If there's a reason to see Noah in a theater, where the spectacle looms large, rather than waiting for home video, it's moments like these.

Even with the epic element, the film's other chief strength lies in Russell Crowe's portrayal of the title character. This is some of the best acting from Crowe we've seen in years; Noah is a hard-nosed, cynical warrior who loves his family but believes humanity is largely disgusting and has earned its comeuppance. The movie's most stirring conflict isn't that of clashing armies, but Noah's war of philosophy with his wife (Jennifer Connelly), his sons, and his adopted daughter Eila (Emma Watson). Even though Eila is of child-bearing age, she is sterile, and Noah firmly believes The Creator intends for humanity's reign to end with his family, not start over. Only the animals are allowed to repopulate. This allows Aronofsky, a confirmed atheist, to openly question Noah's faith and the supposed message. Noah was 100% correct about a flood coming to purge the Earth, but is he truly acting as a responsible messenger, or are his feelings just delusions of an addled mind? Noah pushes more than a few buttons in support of this theme.

Noah, at 138 minutes, contains a scope not fully revealed in the trailers. The movie has plenty of territory to cover after the rains start, and this segment of the film contains the most compelling human drama as well as a few unfortunate screenwriting lapses. Without going into too much detail, I can say that when the movie takes a turn which requires events to hurtle forward several months later, there's an elephant in the room that I can't believe no one stumbles upon until the plot requires the characters to. No, not a literal elephant in the room (in spite of so many animals, which are conveniently put to sleep via a primitive sleeping gas), but you'll see what I mean.  

Biblical epics were once all the rage in Hollywood, but perhaps because of the thorny, controversial subject matter, they're largely considered "niche" pictures with a limited audience in today's ultra-PC climate. Aronofsky is on record stating Noah isn't intended to be a Bliblical film in the truest sense of the term, and I welcome that. It uses the Genesis tale as a jumping-off point for a vision that, while far from flawless, is unique and fearless enough to hold most viewers' interest. You get out of Noah what you're willing to put into it.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of 300: Rise of an Empire

Like many red-blooded males, I have a soft spot for the original 300. Its blend of blood-soaked battles, rah-rah speeches, larger-than-life characters, and lush cinematography holds up extremely well no matter how many times I watch it. But like any movie that generated a truckload of money and internet memes as far as the eye can see, the question of a sequel was not "if" but "when." Every element I've listed has made a return in 300: Rise of an Empire, some triumphantly and some with considerably less fire. And therein lies the problem. This has more the rhythms of a remake than a sequel, and while it's not a bad movie by any stretch, very little of it (with the exception of the main villain, more on her later) inspires and pumps up the viewer the way its predecessor did.

300: Rise of an Empire has a little fun with the timeline. A battle depicting Themistocles of Athens (Sullivan Stapleton) killing King Darrius of Persia takes place before the events of the first movie. This is done so that Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) can be provided with a brief and economical backstory showing his rise to "God King" status. Shifting forward to events running concurrently with 300, he sends his chief naval officer, Artemisia (Eva Green) to deal with Themistocles' band of resistance warriors while he takes on the 300 Spartans from the first film. Themistocles displays superior strategy and wins a few skirmishes, but as the attacks become more brutal and Queen Gorgo of Spara (Lena Headey) refuses to help, he soon discovers his fate may be similar to that of the Spartans.

Many of the best lines from 300 came from Gerard Butler's King Leonidas, and his absence leaves a gaping void requiring Herculean efforts to replace. They're not impossible shoes to fill, but Themistocles doesn't come close to getting the job done here. The character is provided with numerous opportunities to inspire the troops and defy the odds, but actor Sullivan Stapleton handles it perfunctorily rather than with pizzazz. He's boring. This is classic pulp material that demands a commanding screen presence and a larger-than-life approach. When 300: Rise of an Empire depicts battle, it comes close to the original's orgy of blood, dismemberment, slow-motion, and ballet-like combat, but the film is disappointingly dry when the armies aren't clashing.

If there's one area where 300: Rise of an Empire exceeds the first installment, it's in the chief villain. Eva Green is tremendous here, a true man-eater of a warrior who commands our respect in every scene. She relishes every line, no matter how ridiculous, and appears to be the only one among the cast who transcends this material. Even during a hilariously over-the-top sex scene, she's still the one in control. The screenwriters even give her a tragic backstory, but that doesn't do much good since it inevitably focuses a disproportionate amount of the film's energy on the villain, much like Joel Schumaker's two Batman films from the '90s did. During too many scenes, I kept wondering how much more invigorating this conflict would've been with a more charismatic hero. In fact, my dream version (albeit an unconventional one) of this movie would involve making Queen Gorgo the lead and having the awesome sight of two all-male armies led by women. Think about it.

With Zach Snyder focusing on grander projects, director Noam Murro fills the breach and does an adequate job. If there's such a thing as a 300 formula, he follows it to a T. But that's the problem. Big-budget, gorgeous-looking action films are becoming easier to finance, so there has to be some real passion involved for one to stand out from the pack. The R-rating is nice, but it's not enough. Give us some rush-worthy sequences and endlessly quotable lines. Do something unique with some of these characters instead of repeating the first film's structure. With the exception of Artemisia's scenes, 300: Rise of an Empire doesn't rise to the occasion. Given Hollywood's fetish for sequels and franchises, we'll probably see a third installment, but perhaps it's best to let sleeping Spartans lie.

Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

Oscar Hangover 2014

Like I said last year at this time, live-tweeting and going batshit-crazy with social media during the Oscars is exhausting in the best possible way. Had I simply watched the show without any "distractions" whatsoever, I would've been bored out of my mind.

Unlike her previous hosting gig, Ellen wasn't so bad this time around. She kept her opening monologue brief, and as spontaneous interventions go, that pizza delivery gag was inspired. The late Gene Siskel had a unique litmus test for movies, one where he asks, "Is the movie better than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?" The fact that actors eating pizza was more entertaining than most of what the telecast had to offer is a perfect, and I mean deadly accurate, example of this. As for the other gimmicks, yeah the selfie broke Twitter. Hardy-har-har. Sorry, but maybe because I'm a man, I generally don't find selfies funny or memorable, just irritating. I'd like Seth MacFarlane back, even though it will never happen because he's too offensive, or something like that.

Positive points? The In Memoriam segment for sure, which nearly brought me to tears, and, surprisingly enough, the speeches! The documentary winners and the Best Song winners sang and rhymed their way through acceptance speeches, and that's enough to jolt any bored viewer out of an award-worthy slumber. Lupita Nyong'o's gratitude and emotion felt real and unvarnished, shades of Halle Berry's win for Monster's Ball more than a decade ago. And McConaughey's proclamation of "all right all right all right" tops even that of Kevin Hart. All in all, while the grocery-list-of-thank-yous Syndrome hasn't completely dissipated, we saw a lot less of it than in previous years, and I pray it's only a matter of time before it's out the door for good.

My complaints are the same as usual. I don't care that the show's tone is unabashedly self-congratulatory. Its been that way for decades and just goes with the territory. But why perform the songs (including Pharrell's obnoxiously childish act) at an award show that should be about movies? Why waste time with random montages (this time a look back at animated films)? Who cares about the Shorts? Why can't trained professionals read a damn teleprompter properly? Ultimately, a lot of these gripes, as fun as they are to type up and let out, won't amount to so much as a drop in the ocean if the ratings don't reflect them.

Then there's the sheer, mind-blowing predictability of this year's installment. The NBA Playoffs may have to hand over the crown as Kings of Predictability after what I saw last night. Google "Oscar betting odds" and you'll find that all of the favorites won. Seriously. Every single one of them. My total was indeed an improvement over last year (17/21, or an eyelash under 81%), but considering that many fellow prognosticators set personal bests (including the great James Berardinelli, who got a perfect score), my performance relative to the field was about the same as before. At least 12 Years a Slave, my favorite movie of the bunch, took home Best Picture. And American Hustle, my least favorite of the nominees, walked away empty-handed.

Maybe next year we'll see some surprises. And a shorter show. It's a strange conundrum that most of us who love movies are forced into. We watch the Oscar telecast because it's too big to ignore. Then we gripe about the same things every time out and they take forever to change. But maybe it doesn't need to. Maybe it's the ultimate audience-participation show, where you can watch with one eye on the screen and the other on Twitter/Facebook. When tweeting about celebrities, are we promoting them or are we really promoting ourselves and our opinions, casting our lines for Likes, Comments, Favorites, and Retweets? Hey, I do it too. Perhaps that's the appeal of award shows in general nowadays.

Oscar Predictions

Now that football is far enough in the rear-view mirror, it's time for me to turn my attention to the Super Bowl of movies, aka The Oscars. Once again, I'll be making predictions for every category except the Shorts. Yes, I know, there are theaters which show them (all 5 nominees in a category bundled as a single showtime), but most don't care about them, and frankly, cutting them out of the telecast and awarding them beforehand would do wonders for pace. I'll gladly pick them in someone else's pool, but not here. Last year, I scored 14/21, which is a decent total but nowhere near good enough to win anyone's pool. I'm feeling a little more confident in my choices this time around, but I suppose everyone else says the same thing about theirs.

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave-- Ever since this movie's big win at the Toronto International Film Festival, I've held firm in my prediction that it would go on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. When the nominations came out, I feared American Hustle might give it a run for its money, but that threat is now thankfully, mercifully gone. If an upset is brewing, it will happen at the hands of Gravity, but I'm still reasonably confident McQueen's film will prevail.

Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyer's Club)-- Chiwetel Ejiofor began as the early favorite before McConaughey started raking in the awards and taking the lead. The former just captured the BAFTA in this category, but I feel the latter will still win here because it makes for an interesting "career turnaround" story. Remember those episodes of Family Guy that made fun of him? Sure seems like an eternity ago.

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)-- From the day Woody Allen's latest movie debuted in the middle of the summer, Blanchett took the lead in this category and has only lapped the field in the months since. She's so far ahead, in fact, that any anti-momentum from the latest Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow controversy can't catch up.

Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyer's Club)-- Like Blanchett, Leto has bulldozed his way to win after win in the "minor" award shows. One of the most impressive things an actor can accomplish is to bring an underwritten character to life, which he does marvelously in Dallas Buyer's Club.

Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave)-- Jennifer Lawrence captured the Golden Globe and the backlash rightfully, deservedly began. I going to be an idiot and trust the Academy will do the right thing here; Nyong'o's role is not only more complex than Lawrence's cartoonish ditz of a character, but required far more bravery of the actress. If AMPAS follows the Globes' lead, I'll be mad. Hulk-Smash-mad. Packers-over-Bears mad.

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)-- The winner of the Director's Guild award wins the Oscar in this category 95% of the time. In this case, that's Cuaron. In a lot of ways, Gravity is the ultimate director's movie; the setup and story are so simple that the largest burden of success/failure lies with him.

Best Original Screenplay: Her-- This movie ran roughshod in this category through the minor awards, including the Writer's Guild, and virtually everyone (including yours truly) has praised Spike Jonze's film for its originality. Once again, if American Hustle scores an upset, I'll be pissed.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 12 Years a Slave-- Solomon Northrup's story is truly remarkable, and I feel the Academy thinks so too.

Best Foreign Language Film: The Great Beauty-- Unlike last year, where Amour lapped the field ten times over, this race is a little tighter. But The Great Beauty has done well enough in the awards circuit that I crown it the favorite here. Never mind that this category is a joke because of the absence of Blue is the Warmest Color.....

Best Animated Film: Frozen-- Last year, the race was neck-and-neck between Brave and Wreck-it-Ralph, with the former coming out on top. This time, it won't be close. Despicable Me 2 has monster box-office numbers and The Wind Rises has the critical acclaim, but Frozen has the magic combo of both. Put this one on ice.

Best Cinematography: Gravity-- This movie will dominate most, if not all, of the technical categories. Some have argued (and I agree with them) that since the visual style of Gravity was mostly accomplished on a computer, this doesn't truly count as cinematography. Apparently AMPAS doesn't care. Whatever. Next!

Best Film Editing: Captain Phillips-- Time for one of my two upset picks where Gravity is favored. Captain Phillips is close enough to according to various Oscar betting odds sites that I feel okay going out on a bit of limb and picking it.

Best Costume Design: The Great Gatsby-- On the one hand, it pains me to see something as mediocre as this movie walk away with even one minor Oscar when plenty of great films miss out on the awards circuit entirely. But hey, Baz Luhrman's films have a flair for the flashy. It is a pleasing movie to the eye, so perhaps this is an okay award for it to win after all.

Best Production Design: American Hustle-- AMPAS will want to give O. Russell's film something because 0-for-10 would be an embarrassment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if The Great Gatsby took this, but I'm picking a mild upset here.

Best Makeup: Dallas Buyer's Club-- I consider this pure process-of-elimination. The Lone Ranger has achieved legendary status for its beached whale of a box-office flop. And can you imagine the words "...and the Oscar goes to... Bad Grandpa!" coming out of a presenter's mouth? Me neither. Dallas Buyer's Club wins by default.

Best Score: Philomena-- Here is upset pick No. 2. Highbrow period pieces tend to do well here, so I'm taking this over the safer bet of Gravity.

Best Original Song: "Let it Go" (Frozen)-- Take the number of links to this incredibly addictive song you see in social media and compare it to the other nominees. That should tell you all you need to know about its popularity. AMPAS will want to reward the Animated Musical sub-genre for striking back with a vengeance.

Best Documentary: The Act of Killing-- Most of these nominees are actually available on Netflix streaming. I haven't seen any of them as of this writing, but this movie has generated more discussion on my favorite internet forum, reelviews.net, than the others.

Best Sound Mixing: Gravity-- Careful selection of sound was a huge part of Gravity, one of the few movies (alongside 2001 of course) that helpfully reminded us that sound waves cannot travel through a vacuum.

Best Sound Editing: Gravity-- Ditto.

Best Visual Effects: Gravity-- This category is always one of the easiest to predict. Historically, of all the movie which use special effects, the Oscar has always gone to the most critically-acclaimed of the bunch. Check out the last two winners: Life of Pi and Hugo. Superhero flicks don't stand a chance here. Score another for Gravity.

Review of The Lego Movie

Foiling expectations and breaking new ground. That's what The Lego Movie is about. Sometimes, a movie doesn't deliver what the ads promise, but instead something funnier, richer, and more creative. That's an especially good thing in this case because some of the trailers make The Lego Movie look like one of the worst excuses for a potential franchise (animated or otherwise) to come along in more than a decade. Couple that with a February release date and a lack of enthusiasm for all things LEGOs by yours truly (I never played with them much as a kid and I'm certainly not nuts about them today), and it's easy to see why I furrowed my brow so heavily at the mere thought of this movie. Fortunately, co-directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (who also helmed the big-screen adaptations of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street) have struck down my fears with the force of lightning. This is top-tier entertainment for viewers of all ages.

The Lego Movie transpires in, yes, you guessed it, a world made completely of Legos. After a quick prologue where Lord Business (voice of Will Ferrell) seizes a secret weapon of sorts for his master plan, we shift scenes and meet Emmett (voice of Chris Pratt), an ordinary construction worker with a constantly cheery disposition. He desperately wants to fit in with everyone else, and that includes jamming along to a (purposefully) inane radio hit called "Everything is Awesome." One day, Emmett accidentally uncovers a mystical red block that a prophecy deems "The Piece of Resistance." When he wakes up after being knocked out, he's being tortured by Lord Business' henchman, Bad Cop (voice of Liam Neeson.... yes, Liam Neeson) and later finds himself on the run with a member of a rebel faction named Wildstyle (voice of Elizabeth Banks). The rebels' plan to thwart Lord Business' megalomaniacal plans, but there's a problem: the "chosen one" must be a Master Builder (witness how they build virtually anything with any Lego pieces lying around), and Emmett doesn't have a creative thought in his brain.

The first thing any viewer will take note of with The Lego Movie is the film's look. This isn't like something out of Disney, Pixar, or Dreamworks, where the technological "ooh and aah" factor shoots through the roof. Instead, the film literally looks like computer animated Lego characters come to life. Even waves of water and fire are represented by blocky textures. This also allows action sequences, which are just as lively as any PG-13 superhero film, to let the movie get away with just a PG since the only "violence" involves blowing Lego pieces apart. There's a very, very important reason for The Lego Movie to look this way, and that will be made abundantly clear near the end of the story.

Ultimately, as is the case with any great animated film, The Lego Movie's greatest strength lies in scripting. The skin-and-bones of this story is a familiar trope, that of an unexpected "Chosen One" fulfilling a prophecy and stomping out the bad guys, but this movie transcends it with relentless satire and a surprisingly effective message. Kids will absolutely be entertained by the high energy and creative action set-pieces, but the best lines and flourishes (and there are dozens of them) will fly over their heads and straight to the funny bone of teenagers and adults. What 9-to-5 worker wouldn't laugh, for example, at some of Lord Business' orders? ("I demand perfection! Bring in the micro-manager!") What franchise-loving movie-goer wouldn't get a kick out of the hilarious ways the filmmakers satirize Batman (voice of Will Arnett), Superman, and Green Lantern (among others)? Some shots may even remind viewers of the animated segments from..... wait for it..... Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

It's hard to believe a movie about Legos could have thematic depth, but, well, here I am writing that a Lego movie brings just that. Emmett represents that guy I'm sure a lot of us know (or might even be), that person who wants so desperately to be liked by everyone and be "normal" that he loses all sense of uniqueness. Everyone in the audience knows he's going to unlock his true potential as a Master Builder and save the world, but the ultimate twist in how he achieves that is arguably the film's masterstroke (another animated movie tried something similar a few years ago, but I won't reveal the title since that may constitute a spoiler). Calling The Lego Movie a "family film" is accurate; this movie provides some genuinely wise, teachable moments about creativity and thinking outside the box, and parents will be thrilled to have their children experience them. None of this is preachy; the movie makes its point through wit and keeps sentimentality at a low ebb.

Adapting a line of toys into a movie is nothing new for Hollywood, but when filmmakers embark on such projects, I hope more of them use The Lego Movie as a template instead of the dumbed-down approach of Transformers, GI Joe, and Battleship. Yes, this movie leaves the door wide open for a sequel, but the means by which it does so is not only organic to this one's story, but yet another brilliant gag that will put a grin on even the most jaded viewer's face. Will this movie convert someone in my position into a Lego collector? No, but I doubt that's what Lord and Miller had in mind when they directed this. Put The Lego Movie alongside Disney's Wreck-it-Ralph as superior, subversive examples of big-name toys/games-turned feature films.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Review of Lone Survivor

Lone Survivor, based on US Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell's non-fiction book of the same name, was clearly a story yearning for big-screen treatment. All of the elements for a compelling war film and a moving tribute are there, including a treacherous mission, a bloody stand-off, and a man's triumph over incredible odds to make it home safely. Director Peter Berg obviously felt very close to the material and urged Universal Pictures to let him direct an adaptation of Luttrell's book, but the studio agreed only if Berg would direct a would-be summer blockbuster (in this case, the eventual flop known as Battleship) first. So Lone Survivor represents Berg's heaven to Battleship's hell, and while it's nowhere close to flawless, many viewers will find it harrowing and ultimately uplifting.

The film details "Operation Red Wings," a mission during the War in Afghanistan where a four-man SEAL team was tasked to capture or eliminate Taliban leader Ahman Shah. Lone Survivor beings with standard setup material where we're introduced to Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch), Matt "Axe" Anderson (Ben Foster), and Lieutenant Commander Erik Kristensen (Eric Bana). The SEALs crack jokes and put a newcomer Petty Officer through a mild hazing ritual. After that, it's on to the mission, where two problems quickly arise: (A) their radio and phone equipment works intermittently in the mountainous terrain, and (B) a trio of goat herders stumble upon their sniping positions. The mission is compromised and the SEALS have a decision to make: either let these three bystanders go and risk having the Taliban alerted to an American presence or kill them and continue onward. They opt for the former, and predictably, all hell breaks loose.

Suspense is limited in Lone Survivor, especially since the title functions as its own spoiler. But that matters little when the proceedings are as intense and well-paced as they are here. The ordeal these four SEALS face, including shootouts with Taliban soldiers, leaps and tumbles down jagged, rocky terrain, and a failed rescue attempt from a helicopter, are filmed with just the right mix of static and hand-held shots. No need to worry about the dreaded shaky-cam editing here. Berg also spares nothing when it comes to graphic bloodshed. For me, the most difficult scenes to watch in any war film don't involve the spurting of blood when men take bullets to the head or torso. Instead, it's the unflinching look at gaping wounds and dismemberment. Lone Survivor contains numerous depictions of this (including one where Luttrell graphically removes shrapnel from his leg), so it's safe to say that while this is a rewarding journey to take, it might not be a film for the squeamish.

One of the common pitfalls of a military-themed movie is that too many of the characters seem to blend together. Berg doesn't entirely escape that trap here; indeed, three out of the four main characters here don't display enough personality to rise above generic territory. The exception, of course, is Luttrell, mainly because Mark Wahlberg always displays a formidable presence in any film. Two standout scenes give the actors a chance to shine. One involves the moral quagmire the SEALS find themselves in with the goat herders. They sharply differ about how to handle it, and each man makes a compelling point. The other is an extended sequence depicting Luttrell's "stay" at a remote Afghan village. It's very strong stuff, perfectly encapsulating Lutrell's frustration with a situation where people want to help a wounded man (even if he is "the enemy") yet barely know a lick of English.

Lone Survivor is an intense, harrowing account of a military man's fight for survival when all goes wrong, and it's nearly as effective with the wartime setting as Gravity is with space and All is Lost is with the open sea. However, it's possible to argue that Berg might have overplayed the "tribute" angle just a wee bit. Two lengthy real-life montages, one at the beginning and one at the end and complete with voice-overs and a soulful guitar soundtrack, drag on a little longer than necessary. This is an inherently enthralling story; the filmmakers didn't have to hammer home the "inspiring true story" message so much. That's already implicit in every frame. Still, these manipulative little asides are missteps I can easily live with. It's all about the material in between that makes Lone Survivor a worthwhile experience at the movies and fitting justice to Marcus Luttrell's story.


Rating: *** (out of ****)