The Counselor

Posted on October 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: Adult
MPAA Rating: Rated R for graphic violence, some grisly images, strong sexual content and language
Profanity: Very strong, explicit, and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drugs and drug dealers, drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Very graphic and disturbing violence with characters injured and murdered, decapitations, guns, sexual violence
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: October 25, 2013

the-counselor-posterCormac McCarthy’s spare, bleak, and very literary prose has made for some compelling cinema, most effectively in No Country for Old Men and The Road and the adaption of his play for an HBO movie, The Sunset Limited.  In his first original screenplay, he shows his flair for dialog that is half gangster, half poetry, but he is still more writer than visual story-teller.  He needs to learn to trust the audience.  If you show something, you don’t have to tell it, and you certainly don’t have to tell it more than once.  Some good ideas and some gorgeous talk get lost in an awkward, over-the-top, you’ve got to be kidding me mess.  Other writers are better at adapting his ideas for film than he is.

Michael Fassbender plays the title character, a handsome lawyer with a lot of low-life clients and a gorgeous girlfriend (Penélope Cruz) who adores him.  What he does not have is a name.  We never hear him called anything but “counselor.”  He does have — a very bad combination — a plan to get a lot of money very quickly, some friends and clients involved with some very bad people, and a wildly unrealistic notion that he can veer off of that path of what’s legal just one time and then get right back on.  If you have any confusion about what happens next, check your ancient Greek dramas with the hashtag #hubris.  Or, just listen to the loving description of a method of killing people from Reiner (Javier Bardem) that involves a wire noose that tightens inexorably around the neck.  METAPHOR ALERT.  Don’t even get me started on the diamond seller the counselor visits to buy an engagement ring, the one who explains that in the world of diamonds, what we look at are the imperfections, sells him a cautionary stone, and tells the counselor, “We will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives.”

Renier also has a girlfriend named Malkina (Cameron Diaz) who not only MORE METAPHORS COMING loves to watch her pet cheetahs chase and devour jackrabbits but has cheetah-themed tattoos and eye make-up, a gold tooth, and an amber ring the size of a cheese sandwich. She also brings new meaning to the term “auto-erotica” in a crazynutsy scene narrated by Bardem that is literally over-the-top.  Note: Diaz is very limber and has lovely long legs.  “I asked her whether she had ever done anything like that before and she said she had done everything before,” Renier says, a little dazed.  Also, the drug smuggling involves trucks carrying human waste and occasionally a dead human body.  On the side, it says, “We pump it all!”  Is it just me, or is that a METAPHOR, too?  Did I mention Renier lives in a glass house?

Ridley Scott’s direction, the cinematography by Dariusz Wolski, and outstanding performances keep the movie watchable, even when it isn’t working, until the literary pretentiousness overcomes it with a series of speeches near the end that tip the scales from poetic, and ironic to purplish and self-parodying.  In small roles, Rosie Perez, Rubén Blades, and Natalie Dormer create vivid characters who evoke the work the counselor thought he could keep himself apart from and does not realize he has already been changed by.  “If you think that, Counselor, that you can live in this world and not be a part of it, you are wrong,” Renier tells him.

McCarthy knows this is a world where the problem that brings you down is one that in normal world would be quickly explained and quickly forgiven.  These people do not believe in explanations.  “They’re a pragmatic lot.  They don’t believe in coincidences. They’ve heard of them.  They’ve just never seen one.”  There are no second chances.  And then, as Renier explains, “it’s not that you’re going down.  It’s about what you’re taking down with you.”

I enjoyed the elliptical epigrams tossed around by the characters, especially Brad Pitt’s cowboy, a loner who has a bit more perspective than the others.  “How bad a problem?” the counselor asks the cowboy.  “I’d say pretty bad.  Then multiply it by ten,” he answers.   These are people who expect they are being listened to by law enforcement, so it makes sense that they would corkscrew their communications.  And it was fun to see the actors having fun with their roles, especially Diaz, with her asymmetric hair, cut to a point that looks like it could etch metal, swanning into a church to try out this confession idea she had heard about.  With all the flamboyance, though, the movie’s best moments are the quiet ones.  Everything ends up turning on a decision that was not really a mistake.  And the most terrifying moments are not the ones with spurting blood or automatic weapons.  They are a quiet phone call and a simple, “Hola!”

Parents should know that this film is an extremely violent crime drama with very disturbing and graphic images including decapitation. Many characters injured and brutally killed.  It includes guns, crashes, drug dealing, drinking, smoking, very explicit sexual references and situations, and very strong and crude language.

Family discussion: Who suffered the most? Why do we never learn the counselor’s name?

If you like this, try: “No Country for Old Men” and “The Lincoln Lawyer” and the books of Cormac McCarthy and James M. Cain
Related Tags:

 

Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

12 Years a Slave

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for violence/cruelty, some nudity and brief sexuality
Profanity: Constant use of racial epithets, sexual references
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking and drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness: Intense and disturbing violence including rape, murder, whipping, and abuse, disturbing and graphic images
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: October 18, 2013
Date Released to DVD: March 3, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN: B00G4Q3NDA

12-years-a-slave-2Watching “12 Years a Slave” is a shattering experience. It shatters any remaining illusions of gracious, chivalrous, Southern plantation life in the pre-Civil War era.  They were based on the late 19th century myth-making from the children of slave-owners in a toxic effort to disguise the reality that the South was fighting to preserve a system of virulent racism fueled by the economics of plantation life. It shatters cherished notions of the first principles underlying the founding of this country.  The man who wrote the revolutionary words that “all men are created equal” was a part of this atrocity. It shatters all previous depictions of slavery.  By comparison they seem cartoonish and fraudulent, from “Gone With the Wind” to “Django Unchained,” more about the time they were made than the time they depicted. And, like all great films, it shatters our previous notions of what was possible on screen, with performances so vivid and compelling they seem to break through every boundary, between us and them, between then and now, between actor and audience. In one audacious moment, Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free man sold into slavery, looks into the distance, eyes filled with ineffable suffering and loss, and then turns to face us, looking into the eyes of those who are looking at him, bringing us further into his world.

This is different because it is a rare story of pre-Civil War South told from a black person’s point of view. It is based on Northrup’s book, written after he returned to his family.  It is the story of slavery from a man who experienced it, and who knew what it was like to live as a black man who was not just free but better educated and more successful than most people of any race in his community. In that sense, it is a story told from inside the system of our country’s greatest shame.  In another sense, it is presented by outsiders, director Steve McQueen (British) and stars Ejiofor (the British son of Nigerian immigrants) and Lupita Nyong’o (born in Mexico, raised in Kenya, educated in the US).  They tell us Northrup’s story — and ours — without being tied to the way we prefer to tell ourselves what our history is and means.

Northrup is a successful musician, happily married with two adored children and respected by both white and black members of his community in New York State.  He accepts a job playing with some circus performers (Scoot McNairy and “SNL’s” Taran Killem) in Washington, D.C., where slavery is legal.  They drug him and sell him to a slave dealer (Paul Giamatti).  Without his papers, he cannot prove he is a free man.  Soon he is renamed Pratt and transported to Louisiana, where he is sold first to a comparatively benevolent man (Benedict Cumberbatch), but then, when he gets into a fight with the overseer (an oily Paul Dano), he is re-sold to a brutal man who prides himself on being an n-word-breaker (Michael Fassbender).  Northrup loses more than his family, his liberty, his name, and his freedom.  He loses his very self; he is told early on that if the white people know he can read and write, it will create more trouble for him.  Indeed, when he tries to be helpful by suggesting a better system for transporting the crop, he earns the gratitude of his master but incurs the jealousy of the white boss.  The only way to survive is to pretend to be the sub-human the owners need them to be to continue to hold onto their bigotry.

This movie makes clear the poisonous, psychotic twisted mind that can accept or even justify the idea that one person can buy and sell another.  Over and over, we see the slaveholders at the same time acknowledging and denying the humanity of the people they think they own.  A female slave sobs because her children have been sold and she will never see them again.  The woman of the plantation, briefly sympathetic, says, “Poor woman.”  But then, immediately after, “Your children will soon be forgotten.”  Slaves are included in family worship services (though not seated with the family).  But their souls are never acknowledged; they are categorized as livestock.

There are terrible beatings.  There is torture and rape.  Slave children run and play, laughing, ignoring the man who is almost choking to death as punishment. There are property identification chains slaves must wear if they go off the property, like something between a hall pass and a dog tag.  There is a slave who has made her peace with what she has done to get better treatment — and with what she now does to other slaves.

Instead of the lush orchestral score usually underlying period films or the melancholy flute and drum usually heard in Civil War films, Hans Zimmer has created spare, edgy music that is bleak without being maudlin.  McQueen’s approach is sure and direct and the script by John Ridley is ably structured and thoughtful.  Nyong’o’s gives performance of exquisite grace and heart-wrenching dignity.  But the center of the story is Northrup.  Ejiofor is sure to get an Oscar nomination for a performance of unparalleled depth and eloquence.

Parents should know that this film includes very graphic and disturbing images of slavery, with rape, murder, and abuse, brutal whipping and atrocities, nudity, sexual references and situations, constant racial epithets, drinking and drunkenness.

Family discussion: What was the significance of the early scene in Mr. Parker’s store?  How does this story differ from other movie depictions of the pre-Civil War South?  Why did Northrup join in the singing of “Roll, Jordan, Roll?”

If you like this, try: book by Solomon Northrup, “Amistad,” American Experience: The Abolitionists, and Roots

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Based on a true story Drama DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Epic/Historical

The Fifth Estate

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some violence
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Some violence including murder of two people and footage of military killings
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: October 18, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN: B00BEIYRYM

the-fifth-estateIn late medieval times, when people first began to divide each other into groups defined by status and power, they began to speak of a “first estate” (the clergy), a “second estate” (the nobility, which also at the time meant the government), and a “third estate” (the common people.  Later, the “fourth estate” was added to describe journalists and what today we call news media.  Julian Assange, the Australian teenage hacker turned founder of Wikileaks is singular, unprecedented, gui generis.  He collects masses of “secret” data and publishes it without editing, digesting, analysing, or redacting any of it.  And so, this movie, with Benedict Cumberbatch as the white-haired Assange, is called “The Fifth Estate.”

This movie, from director Bill Condon (“Kinsey,” “Dreamgirls”), and based on a book by Assange’s now-estranged former partner Daniel Berg (played in the film by “Rush’s” Daniel Brühl) at times feels as though it is un-digested and un-analyzed.  As a government official forced to resign due to some of the disclosures says near the end of the film, “I don’t know which of us history’s going to judge more harshly.”  I would advise anyone interested in Wikileaks to begin with the documentary, “We Steal Secrets: The Wikileaks Story,” directed by Alex Gibney.

Assange says that he has two goals for what he calls “a whole new form of social justice.”  He says he wants transparency for institutions and privacy for individuals.  The problem, or, at least, one problem is that institutions are made up of individuals.  And so, when one of Wikileaks’ early scoops is a list of British members of the far right “National Party,” it does not bother him that the members’ contact information is disclosed.  Assange is an absolutist.  He refuses to edit or redact (remove identifying information from) any of the documents he publishes.  “Editing reflects bias,” he says.  He is also something of a monomaniac and a megalomaniac, at least in the view of his one-time colleague.  According to this film, he grew up in an odd Australian cult called “The Family,” with severe beatings, and has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.  He is very protective of his own privacy as he exposes the secrets of others.  And, as they say, just because you’re paranoid does not mean they’re not really out to get you.  Once Assange starts exposing the secrets of the wealthy and powerful, they start coming after him, and the thing about being wealthy and powerful is that they have the resources to inflict a lot of harm.  Two of his sources are murdered.

Condon does his best to minimize the scenes of people staring intently into monitors while they bang on the keyboards.  He has some nice visualizations to evoke the experiences, some fantastic, some just the rocky topography of Iceland, one of many places Assange hid.  And he takes a balanced approach.  Everyone would agree with some of what Assange has uncovered.  And everyone would object — even be horrified — by something he has done.  Both sides quote Orwell.  Big Brother is watching.  Like “The Social Network,” the movie focuses on the rise and fall of the friendship and partnership more than the impact of the product they were working on.  In this case, that is in part because we don’t know what that impact will be.  But in this case, we do know that the impact is transformational.  This is not some Facebook advertiser using an algorithm on your status posts to figure out what to sell you.  This is a 22-year-old destroying the confidentiality that allows candid conversations between diplomats, including information about the foreign nationals who are giving them information.

Assange explains early in this film that the program he has developed to protect the identity of the providers of leaked documents is to drown them in false and phony data.  He can say that editing reflects bias, but in the case of terabytes of information dumped in undigested and unredacted form, the data dump can be just as distorting.  Like the journalists Assange worked with on the Bradley Manning material, this film tries to put some shape and perspective on a story that is still too big and too new to frame as a definitive narrative.  But it is an absorbing story and as good an assessment as we can get for now.

Parents should know that this film has very strong language, violence including shooting and wartime scenes with some disturbing images.

Family discussion:  What is the answer to the State Department official’s question about whose side history will be on?  Who should decide what gets released?  If Wikileaks makes other organizations accountable, who makes Wikileaks accountable?  Do you agree with the two things Assange says you need to have to succeed?

If you like this, try: the documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks,” read up on the most recent leaker, Edward Snowden, and take a look at the Wikileaks page

Related Tags:

 

Based on a true story Drama Movies -- format Politics

Escape Plan

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:00 pm

THE TOMBAt 90 minutes or less and with some sense of its own silly preposterousness, the aging action stars might have made this prison break movie work. But at almost two hours, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger seem a little out of step with what makes a man-against-the-system crashes, punches, artillery, and explosions movie work.

Stallone, with so much scar tissue and Botox that his face no longer moves, plays Roy Breslin, whose job is breaking out of prisons to evaluate the vulnerabilities of their security and advise on making them escape-proof. He gets sent to prison undercover, only the warden knowing who he really is, and then he has to find a way to escape.  Over the past seven years, he has been “inserted into every maximum security facility in the system” and managed to get out of all of them.  You need three things for a prison escape, he explains (twice): understanding the layout, understanding the routines, and help, either from outside or inside.

A beautiful (of course) agent from the CIA (of course) arrives to offer Breslin and his obsessively hand-sanitizing partner Lester Clark (Vincent D’Onofrio, looking like he needs a soul-sanitizer) double their usual fee (of course).  “After ending extraordinary rendition,” she explains, “the Agency is looking for alternatives.”  A new prison has been built and they want Breslin to check it out.  It contains the worst of the worst (of course), the kind of people who are captured and kept without any access to lawyers or the justice system.  Over the objections of his colleague (a slumming Amy Ryan), he accepts the job, with three guarantees of his safety.  He gets a tracking chip implanted in his arm so his office will always know where he is.  He has the name of the warden who knows his true identity.  And he has an “escape code,” a sort of safe word that is the prison break specialist equivalent of “olly olly outs are in free.”  Of course, all three are immediately gone or useless.

The prison is a vast, futuristic place with glass cages suitable for Magneto and guards wearing riot gear and identical black masks.  Breslin is ignored by most of his fellow inmates, but one prisoner seems curious and even friendly.  His name is  Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger).  Pretty soon they are frenemies, fighting each other to get into solitary (where they are tortured with heat lamps) so Breslin can figure out where they are and learn the layout.  Faran Tahir stands out as a fellow prisoner.  And James Caviezel is the kind of psycho warden who wears beautiful suits, speaks quietly, especially when he is threatening prisoners, and listens to classical music as he impales butterflies.

There are one or two good twists but several bad ones.  Most of the time, it veers between dumb (the entire concept) to dumber: at one moment, Breslin says, “I didn’t see that coming,” and several members of the audience called out, “We did!” and the part where the doctor consults a book prominently titled “Medical Ethics” brought catcalls.  And in the big shoot-out, the escapees’ running and ducking seems to be more effective against automatic weapons than the guards’ protective gear.   There is some mild pleasure in seeing Rambo and the Terminator throw down with each other and the usual bang-bang thrills.  Schwarzenegger in particular seems to be enjoying himself, especially when he gets to give a couple of Burgess Meredith-style pep talks.  But these guys have done better and they should know better.

Parents should know that this film has constant action-style violence with some graphic images, guns, explosions, punches, knives, abuse and brutality, and strong language including bigoted epithets.

Family discussion:  How did Breslin’s three required elements form the basis of his escape plan?  Why did it matter that the prison was privately controlled?

If you like this, try: “Under Siege,” “Lockout,” “Terminator,” and “Rambo”

Related Tags:

 

Not specified

Carrie

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm

The remake of “Carrie” is not a bad movie; it’s just a completely unnecessary one.  The 1976 original is a horror classic, directed by Brian de Palma and the first film based on a novel by Stephen King, just 26 years old when he sold the rights for $2500.  Both of its stars were nominated for Oscars, almost unheard of for a genre film, and it is number 46 on the American Film Institute’s list of the top 100 thrillers.Carrie poster

The idea of updating the story of the bullied high school girl to the era of Facebook and YouTube had some intriguing possibilities, especially directed by Kimberly Peirce, whose extraordinary “Boys Don’t Cry” had an insightful authenticity in the portrayal of young people who felt like outsiders.  But there is nothing especially timely, revealing, or surprising in this remake.  The performances are not up to the level of the original and even the special effects do not seem much better than those in the version that came out when Gerald Ford was President.

Less than a moment into the film, we are already immersed in blood.  We hear screams and we see a Bible.  Margaret White (Julianne Moore) is in bed, the sheets all bloody, moaning and praying.  She thinks she is dying and she thinks it is because she is being punished.  But the pains she feels are contractions and she is shocked to find a baby emerging from her.  At first, she wants to kill her new daughter with her sewing shears.  But she loves the newborn too much to hurt her and, as we learn, she sees the baby as another chance for her to be pure, to be kept safe from the predations of sin and the devil.

We then see Margaret’s daughter, Carrie (Chloë Grace Moretz of “Kick-Ass” and “Let Me In”), a shy, repressed, somewhat backward senior in high school and ignored or insulted by the other girls.  She gets her period for the first time in the locker room after PE and becomes hysterical.  Like her mother, she has no idea what is going on with her body and she thinks she is dying.  The other girls are horrified that she is so ignorant and make fun of her, throwing tampons and sanitary napkins at her.  Chris, the ringleader (Portia Doubleday) gets it all on her cell phone camera and uploads it to YouTube.

Margaret seems to think that if she had been able to keep Carrie “pure” she never would have gone through puberty.  She locks Carrie in a small closet under the stairs and tells her to stay in there and pray.

But puberty seems to have unlocked some special powers in Carrie, powers that seem tied to her emotions.  As she sits in the principal’s office, his water cooler bubbles and then explodes. Carrie gets books on miracles and telekinesis from the library and begins to see what she can do and how much she can control.  For the first time, she begins to sense some independence and to rebel against her mother.

Sue (Gabriella Wilde) feels guilty about her role in making fun of Carrie and asks her boyfriend, Tommy (Ansel Elgort, soon to be seen in both “Divergent” and ‘The Fault in Our Stars”) to invite Carrie to the prom.  She says no at first, but then accepts, and his kindness and courtesy make her feel appreciated for the first time.  Until….

And that’s the thing.  Everyone knows what happens at the prom.  It is one of the most famous images in cinematic history.  This replay adds nothing new.

Moretz is a thoughtful and serious young actor, but she is better at playing a precociously sophisticated and capable character like Hit Girl or even the friend of the Wimpy Kid than she is at trying to show us the innocent and vulnerable Carrie.  More at fault is the script, which fails to provide a consistent emotional truth for the character. Like the Hulk, her powers are rooted in fury.  King, even in his 20’s, knew how satisfying that would be for everyone who has been picked on (that is everyone), and Moretz is at her best when enjoying the sense of righteous revenge.  To make the movie work, though, that would need to be balanced by an underlying sense of the character that is never there.  The same goes for Margaret. In 2013, the thoughts of a religious fanatic open up some possibilities worth exploring but Peirce is more interested in re-creating the original than updating it.

Parents should know that this film has extensive and graphic peril and violence with many characters brutally killed, disturbing and bloody images, sexual references and situations involving teenagers, a graphic childbirth scene, teen drinking, and strong language.

Family discussion:  Why were the girls so mean to Carrie?  How has bullying changed since the story was first written?  How did Carrie feel about her powers and why?

If you like this, try: the original film and some of the other Stephen King adaptations like “The Shining” and “Sleepwalkers”

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book High School Horror Remake Stories about Teens Thriller
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik