Monuments Men

First Hit:  Disappointing execution of what was probably a marvelous story.

The cast was stellar. The story was probably interesting. However the result was a disjointed, lackluster, and mediocre film. When you have; George Clooney (as Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (as James Granger), Bill Murray (as Richard Campbell), Cate Blanchett (as Claire Simone), John Goodman (as Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (as Jean Claude Clermont), Hugh Bonneville (as Donald Jefferies), and Bob Balaban (as Preston Savitz) there is an anticipation, if not expectation, of seeing a great film and story.

What hurt this story was that it seemed like a bunch of vignettes strung together to meet the end result of the story. Some of these side stories had me scratching my head and wondering why they were there, one such side piece was the dental work piece featuring Murray and Balaban. Couldn’t understand why it was important to show this.

Then there were the cutaway scenes following Damon when he first came to France, while riding in a cart - what was the point of showing these without some conclusion or reasoning? These are just a couple of moments in this film that just seemed to be there for no real reason or point. There were also awkwardly shot moments, like when Bonneville makes an attempt to kill a German, the whole scene was poorly conceived and executed.

This scene seemed like an afterthought. However, there were also touching moments, like when Damon and Blanchett were having dinner, or when Bonneville gives his thanks for a chance to prove his worth after his alcoholic ways.

Clooney as an actor here was OK, but his direction and screenplay contributions seemed lightweight or maybe he didn’t take this seriously enough. Damon was good, as always, but there wasn’t enough meat in the part to have him give a great performance. Murray appeared to be trying to make something out of nothing and when the audience sees this – it is disappointing. Blanchett was one of the best in her role as a mistrusting woman who finally believes the motive of the US forces. Goodman was OK, nothing special. Dujardin was somewhat interesting as he brought some European flair to the film. Bonneville was nothing special in a minimal role. Balaban seemed to capture the screen when he was in a scene which says something about his strong skills. Clooney and Grant Heslov wrote this screenplay and it seems that they were unclear about direction as was Clooney as director.

Overall:  This film was better as an idea than its execution. I left the theater disappointed.

The Invisible Woman

First Hit:  This film had possibilities but really failed to deliver feeling.

This is a film about a famous writer (Charles Dickens) who meets a younger woman and keeps her as a secret girlfriend. So what is the interesting about this story - not a lot. Therefore it would have to be the acting of this story to make it compelling to watch. 

From that end Ralph Fiennes (Dickens), Nelly, the younger woman, (Felicity Jones) and her mother Francis Ternan (Kristin Scott Thomas) did a good job of making the story interesting. However, by the next day it was gone, the thoughts, feelings and the story.

Even though there were strong attempts to share a story about breaking free from the norms of that society, there just wasn’t enough there to make this film unique or stimulating or even thought-provoking.

Fiennes was strong enough to be a good Dickens. Jones was the most interesting character. Her intelligence and clarity of action was very good. Scott Thomas was good as well. Abi Morgan wrote an adequate screen play about a mostly conventional subject matter. Fiennes had a good hand on the tiller of this story, but it was the story itself that lacked punch.

Overall:  This was a many told story that lacked something unique.

Lone Survivor

First Hit:  Knowing the end (title gives it away) before the film starts makes it difficult to watch.

When you know the end of the film before it starts, it can hurt the experience.

Here the audience has to sit through a small group (4) Navy Seals being slowly slaughtered because they consciously let 3 Afghan goat herders go. The decision allowed the Taliban to know the soldiers whereabouts and how to systematically kill the soldiers.

The film is supposed to show the fraternal and brotherly closeness of these Seals. To make this point the beginning of the film shows some of the training exercises the commandos go through to become a Seal.

As most of the candidates quit, by ringing a bell three times and leave their helmet on the ground, the ones who make it through to the end are very close. As the Seals are picked off one by one in horrible/bloody fashion I just sat waiting for the end to come. This film tries to bring the feeling of honor, bravery, and the rightness of the US being at war in Afghanistan – but to me these things do not justify the actions of war although I appreciate the closeness of their brotherhood.

From a story perspective this film might have been better served by not telegraphing the end. However, some of the dialogue was pointed and truly Seal like.

Mark Wahlberg as Marcus Luttrell was focused and fully engaged in this role. This was a typical “full on” performance by him. Taylor Kitsch as Michael Murphy was good as the leader of this group. Emile Hirsch was very good as Danny Dietz communications guy. Ben Foster was the best of the bunch in his part as Matt “Axe” Axelson. Peter Berg wrote and directed this based on Luttrell’s book. The dialogue was strong and cinematography was good but the focus on their struggle to survive the onslaught wasn’t my cup of tea.

Overall:  Not an easy film to watch, especially if killing is not your bag.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

First Hit:  The last 1/3 was interesting and it was a long wait to get there.

The anticipation of this film was high for me because one of our truly great modern age hero’s had recently died.

The first thing that hurt the film’s impact was Idris Elba (playing Nelson Mandela) whom, for me, didn’t embody a greatness or aura of leadership for which this role calls. As we wade through this historical story there were very few moments worthy of paying much attention to.

However, one such moment was meeting and marrying of Winnie (Naomie Harris). From that point on, when Harris' character was on the screen the film became more dynamic. For my money, Harris embodied power and strength on screen that out shined the main character. This was the effect and strength of her ability to act – not the written character.

When the whole film and Elba's character began to engage me; was at the end of the his prison term and the government of De Klerk began to negotiate with Mandela about his freedom and the future of South Africa’s government.

Elba was very mediocre as Mandela. There was nothing in his presence that really engaged me to the man, the character. Harris was extraordinary as Winnie. She embodied her struggle and engaged fully with the way she wanted to deal with the struggle of South Africa. William Nicholson wrote the script from Nelson Mandela’s autobiography. I would say it was the direction of Justin Chadwick and poor acting by Elba that tanked this film.

Overall:  I admire Mandela and how he changed South Africa, but this film version of his greatness, was poorly presented.

The Wolf of Wall Street

First Hit:  Although 3 hours long, it was entertaining and intense.

I happened to watch “Goodfellas” the morning before I saw Wolf. The similarities are that Martin Scorsese used a group of wild characters and shows them acting the same way when confronted with diverse situations. Drugs and illegal actions are also key elements in both films.

From a visual perspective, both films use family situations, groups, couples and single moments to build the story visually. What I didn’t like about Wolf was the illegal actions of the characters actions. Yes in "Goodfellas" they did illegal things, and they were expected to. The focus on selling unsuspecting people on making a quick buck (their own greed) because you are good at selling people, just didn’t sit well with me.

The film uses a number of voice overs which I don't normally like but it did add to the story as time got a bit mixed up. Because it is based on a true story, the pervasive use of drugs and alcohol as fuel to their lifestyle and trading was disconcerting.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort who just wanted to be rich, real rich. He discovers that drugs, womanizing, and money mix well delivering what he wanted. I’m not sure whether the film reflected the shallowness of the person and people in his firm or if the film was just shallow. Regardless, the scene of him on his boat speaking with the FBI was excellent while the scene of him discussing how to throw midgets at targets in the office, wasn’t.

DiCaprio was strong and made the script work and believable. Jonah Hill as Belfort’s sidekick was, at times over the top and not interesting, while at other times good. Matthew McConaughey in a small role as Mark Hanna was very good. Rob Reiner as Jordan’s dad Max was very good and I enjoyed his presence in the film. Margot Robbie (playing Naomi Lapaglia) as Belfort’s second wife was very good. Not only very attractive to look at, she created a sense of reality in the film. Terence Winter wrote an extensive script from Belfort’s book. Scorsese was able to reign in Belfort’s lifestyle and present it on film.

Overall:  This is a very good film, maybe in the same category as Goodfellas, but is it great and inventive  like Goodfellas was of its time? I don't think so.