The Fifth Estate

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm

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

In 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

Escape Plan

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:00 pm

At 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.

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”

Captain Phillips

Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sustained intense sequences of menace, some violence with bloody images, and for substance use
Profanity:	Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drugs
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense, graphic, and disturbing violence including threats, torture, and guns
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	October 11, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	January 21, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUNKU

Memorable movie villains tend to fall into two categories: volatile and violent or sociopathic and megalomaniac. Both kinds are caricatures, sketched in exaggerated terms to justify our feeling of triumph when the hero prevails. But in “Captain Phillips,” the true story of a US merchant ship taken over by Somali pirates, the villain is far more real and far more terrifying. Somali native Barkhad Abdi stars as Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, the leader of a group of four teenagers sent to hijack ships for ransom money by elders in their village. Muse is the scariest of villains, someone with no other options and nothing to lose. Abdi’s performance in his first acting role is stunning, terrifying, and heartbreaking.

An awkward opening scene shows Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks) is at home in Vermont, preparing for his trip and driving to the airport with his wife (Catherine Keener), with some clunky, exposition-heavy dialog intended to foreshadow upcoming unrest. Once he gets to the boat, called the Maersk Alabama, director Paul Greengrass locks into the taut, intimate style he showed in “United 93” and two Bourne movies. The ship has a crew of 20. They have been warned about the possibility of pirates and have had some training in how to respond. Phillips orders a surprise drill to make them practice their defensive tactics. But this is not a military ship. They are carrying 17 metric tons of cargo. Their primary tactics are diversion and their primary weapons are their firehoses.

At first, the firehoses work. But then the Somalis get close enough to the ship to attach their ladder and climb aboard. “I’m the captain now,” says Muse. His lack of affect is chilling.

Director Paul Greengrass has an intimate, documentary style that keeps even those who remember the details of the real story on edge. The pirates search the ship, looking for the crew like a nightmare game of sardines. Phillips leads them around, genial and cooperative on the surface, but always thinking about how to impede them without making them angry. When their boat is destroyed, they take one of the lifeboats, more like a capsule than a ship, and they take Phillips as hostage. For four grueling days, Phillips has to try to keep calm and do what he can to help the US Navy, which is assembling its response. Hanks goes deeper than he ever has before, ultimately reaching a place of wrenching vulnerability.

After a shaky start, Greengrass and his talented cast make this into more than a story of courage and resilience. While he clearly has a point of view and never pretends that the pirates are justified, he allows us to understand their desperate circumstances.

Parents should know that this is the true story of a pirate attack on a US ship, featuring intense and disturbing scenes of threats, torture, and violence with some graphic images and dramatic emotional breakdown.

Family discussion: What was Captain Phillips’ most difficult decision? What was the most difficult decision for the US military in responding to the pirates? Do you disagree with any of their actions?

If you like this, try: “United 93,” another true story from the same director and Captain Phillips’ book, A Captain’s Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea

Romeo & Juliet

Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is the most-filmed play of all time, with dozens of versions and variations from the sublime (the Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann versions, “West Side Story” and “Shakespeare in Love”) to the outlandish (the cute Gnomeo and Juliet, the robot short “Runaway Robots! Romie-O and Julie-8”) and the downright ridiculous (Norma Scherer and Leslie Howard were in twice the age of the characters they were playing). The story of the “star-cross’d lovers” has immediate appeal — impetuous teenagers, disapproving parents, missed messages, and swordfights. All it needs to succeed is leads with a lot of chemistry and the ability to adapt to the rhythms of iambic pentameter and the glorious language of the greatest writer in the history of English. This movie fails on all three. The leads have no chemistry with each other or with the glorious poetry of the dialog. And “Downton Abbey’s” Julian Fellowes has mangled the adaptation, changing some of the lines and scenes. It is not a terrible movie, but it is not an especially good one and with so many better alternatives it is an unnecessary one.

It begins with a useless added scene in which the Prince (Stellan Skarsgård) holds a tournament to settle once and for all the dispute between the feuding Montagues and Capulets. It doesn’t work. Soon a fight breaks out between the servants of the two houses that are “alike in dignity” (the play’s first scene) and the Prince is furious. If they cannot keep the peace, there will be trouble. Romeo (Douglas Booth), a Montague, is in love with a Capulet cousin named Rosaline. When he finds out that the Capulets are having a masked party and Rosaline will be there, he and his friends attend the party so Romeo can see her.

But Romeo sees the Capulet daughter, Juliet (“True Grit’s” Hailee Steinfeld), and they are instantly struck by love. In the play, their perfect unity is demonstrated by their first conversation, witty flirtation in the form of an exquisite sonnet. It is one of the best-loved pieces of writing in history. Yet this version mangles it by ramping up the intensity of the attraction right from the beginning so there is no sense of build-up. More important, the utter lack of chemistry between the very pretty but bland Booth and the game but not up to the task Steinfeld makes us long for Bella and Edward or even Bella and Jacob.

There are some strong performances, unfortunately just making the two main characters look worse by comparison. Lesley Manville (“Topsy Turvy”) give the nurse a warmth that is often lost in the usual caricatured portrayals. Natascha McElhone is a sympathetic Lady Capulet and Paul Giamatti is superb as Friar Laurence. The standout, though, is Christian Cooke as Mercurtio, whose energy is much missed once he is out of the picture.

Most appallingly, Fellowes has decided to make the text more “accessible” with some trims and edits to the language. The slight gains in “accessibility” are overwhelmed by the loss of the music in the words and the poetry of the rhythm. I bite my thumb at him.

Parents should know that this movie includes Shakespearean sword-fighting with many characters injured and killed, sexual references and non-explicit situations, and suicides.

Family discussion: Did the novice make the right decision? Why couldn’t Romeo and Juliet tell their parents the truth?

If you like this, try: the other versions by Baz Luhrmann and Franco Zeffirelli and adaptations like “West Side Story” and “Warm Bodies,” a zombie romance where the characters are named R and Julie)