Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014, PG-13)

marvel-movies.wikia.com

I was a latecomer to the Avengers universe – I enjoyed the first Iron-Man at some point, and Joss Whedon’s involvement brought me to the first Avengers, which was the film that sent me on a crash course through the series.  I caught up quickly, and I’ve since seen all the post-Avengers offerings on their opening weekends.

 

Well, I literally just returned from the new Captain America, and I’m terribly pleased.  It might be my favorite post-Avengers movie of the bunch, I had an absolute blast.  Quick thumbnail – Capt. Steve Rogers has mostly adjusted to life in the 21^st century after the growing pains of The Avengers, working hard as a loyal S.H.I.E.L.D. man.  However, factions within S.H.I.E.L.D. are conspiring against him, and Cap finds himself on the run.  As his investigation throws up specters from his past, Cap is face with a venerable foe, a mythic assassin known as the Winter Soldier.

 

It’s hard not to love Cap, and Chris Evans is great as always.  Though his character has gone on quite the journey and he’s been more than a little disillusioned, it’s good to see that his core values are still intact.  Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow makes a stellar screen partner for him – she makes him think a bit more critically, and he gives her something to trust in.  Those two have terrific friend chemistry, and I could watch them be fugitive investigators all day.  Anthony Mackie fits seamlessly into Cap’s world as Falcon (and the wings?  Awesome,) and I like seeing more of Cobie Smulders’s Maria Hill.

 

With the Winter Soldier, Marvel might have finally found an adversary to rival Loki.  He’s used largely as a weapon in this movie, but Sebastian Stan, who I’ve loved since Kings, is highly effective in his bigger character moments, and I predict great things for the next Captain America movie.  Given the nature of the character, he’s more than just a generic bad guy with eeeeevil ambitions – the whole thing is full of story potential.  Oh, and those scenes of the Winter Soldier as a weapon are amazing; such a BAMF, and it’s fantastic to see Cap go up against someone who can match punches with him.

 

The story plays like an old espionage thriller with superhero-action set pieces.  The character interactions are fabulous, and there’s a nice balance of humor throughout (I especially like the comments poking fun at Cap’s behind-the-times-ness re: pop culture and technology.)  There are some topnotch fight scenes, especially between Cap & co. and the Winter Soldier.  However, I’m not all that impressed with the camera work in the action sequences; it often feels too frenetic, which muddies the scenes and makes it hard to tell what’s going on.

 

As is the norm for these movies, we get two post-credit scenes, so stick around!

 

Warnings

 

Tons of action violence and a few sexual references.

 

*          *          *

 

In other news, Game of Thrones is coming back tonight, and it's gonna be awesome - I can't wait!

Midnight in Paris (2011, PG-13)

thevoguevibes.com

*Disclaimer: As I said in this review, I was never a huge Woody Allen fan, and that was before I heard about Dylan Farrow’s allegations against him. I’ve only ever seen a few of his movies, and this was the only one I ever loved. This isn’t the first time I’ve said this, but it bears repeating – I hate it when predators taint beautiful and creative things. I used to love this movie, but Woody Allen wrecked it.*

I saw this one back when it first came out, at the Heights in Minneapolis – terrific old theater.  Before I saw it, I didn’t have much of an opinion about Woody Allen one way or another.  While I’ve not gone out of my way, I’ve seen several since then, and this remains my favorite to date.  Is that sentimental?  Probably, but Allen wasn’t playing fair; this film is completely up my alley.

 

Affable, neurotic Gil (Owen Wilson standing in for Woody) is a self-described Hollywood hack in love with the Paris of the 1920s.  Back then, the City of Light was the haunt of artists and authors and American expats living life all the way up.  He’s come to Paris on vacation with his fiancée and her family, and none of his travel companions can see what he sees.  He’s dismissed as an overly nostalgic fool with no taste, a stick-in-the-mud stuck in the past.

 

Soon, however, other people’s opinions mean very little to Gil.  By accident, he stumbles across a certain street where, every night at midnight, he’s transported to the old Paris of his dreams.  Suddenly, he’s dancing to live Cole Porter and slinging back drinks with Ernest Hemingway.  Night after night, he returns, and he quickly finds himself head-over-heels for a beguiling young model.

 

It’s not a perfect film by any stretch.  There’s a bit too much wish fulfillment in the ‘20s segments (of course, the likes of Gertrude Stein and the Fitzgeralds are immediately enamored of this yutz,) and all the present-day, non-Gil Americans are basically insufferable, every foreign country’s worst tourism nightmare.  I have to say, though – I really don’t care.  The concept is fantastic, the historic characters and cameos are a delight, and the ‘20s atmosphere is perfect.  I have a weakness for that period – the jazz, the writing, and my goodness, the dresses! – and this film is just delectable.

 

Not to mention packed to the gills with good performances.  On the modern-day side of things, Rachel McAdams does well as Gil’s awful fiancée, and Michael Sheen does one of the best boorish know-it-alls I’ve ever seen.  Marion Cotillard plays Adriana, Gil’s would-be 1920s love interest, with a winning effervescence (no surprise there.)  Kathy Bates makes a strong Gertrude Stein, and Adrien Brody is a scream in his brief turn as Salvador Dali.  This film was my introduction to Tom Hiddleston (great in his small but memorable role as F. Scott Fitzgerald) and Corey Stoll (his Ernest Hemingway is pitch-perfect – the highlight of the movie,) for which I’m exceedingly grateful.

 

So much love for this movie.  It has its flaws, sure, but it’s creative, sexy, and fun.  Definitely one to watch again and again.

 

Warnings

 

Some sexual content, and tons of drinking and smoking.

Hannibal (2013-Present)

Eater.com

Back when Raúl Esparza guest-starred on Pushing Daisies, I didn’t know what I was getting into.  His two-episode stint drew me into that charming gem of a show, which in turn led me to the brilliant but ratings-challenged Bryan Fuller.  He was the first showrunner I ever followed, and I’ve loved all of his short-lived masterpieces to bits.  His latest outing, which airs Friday nights on NBC (9 p.m. Central,) isn’t quite like anything I’ve seen on TV before.

 

Pretty obviously, Hannibal is based on the Thomas Harris serial-killer books.  Not so much an adaptation as a reimagined prequel, the show follows gifted, unstable Will Graham in his work with the FBI.  Will has a neurological disorder that allows him to feel total empathy with anyone, and given a crime scene, Will can extrapolate the killer’s mindset and motivations.  It’s not nearly as hokey as it sounds, and I should clarify that his insights help guide the investigation rather than serve as admissible evidence themselves.  However, stepping so fully into the shoes of killers does a number on Will’s psyche, and his boss sets him up with a therapist to make sure he’s looking into the abyss without the abyss looking back.  Mental health services can be enormously beneficial, of course, but when your therapist is Hannibal Lector?  Not so much.

 

The show naturally lives or dies on the strength is its Hannibal, and Mads Mikkelsen gives an utterly fantastic performance.  Dr. Lector is erudite and cultured, hiding audaciously in plain sight with all the subtlety of a peacock who likes cannibal innuendo.  He’s an excellent feigner of emotion and empathy, but Mikkelsen can go so cold at the drop of a hat.  While he gives the impression of being a thoroughly cerebral creature, he can also be tremendously physical, striking silently with cobra speed and alarming strength.  He plays everyone around him like a regular Iago, for reasons of self-preservation, curiosity, revenge, or simply because he can.

 

Hugh Dancy’s Will is excellent as well.  On the surface, he seems a much weaker man, sensitive and skittish.  But Will is capable of great fortitude, and he’s been especially resourceful in the face of staggering odds in season two.  The cast also features Laurence Fishburne and Caroline Dhavernas (Jaye from Wonderfalls,) and tons of Fuller alumni make guest appearances (my favorites include Ellen Muth from Dead Like Me and Eddie Izzard from Mockingbird Lane.)

 

Additionally, the series is stuffed with twisted beauty.  The DC area is apparently chockfull of serial killers who are fond of complex murder tableaus.  From the killer who turns his victims into mushroom gardens to the murderer who constructs a human totem pole, the crime scenes in Hannibal are wildly inventive, absolutely disgusting, and unsettlingly gorgeous.  The visuals are stunning throughout; plus, even though you know the food is made of people, it looks delicious.

 

I highly recommend Hannibal to anyone with offbeat sensibilities and a strong stomach.  If you can, go back to the beginning before digging into the current season.  The show is pretty serialized and rewards attentive viewership.

 

Warnings

 

Tons of violence (though much of it is either crime scenes or mental reconstructions,) some swearing, and extremely dark subject matter.  Only watch if you think you can handle it.

Gravity (2013, PG-13)

Warner Bros. Pictures

Oh, yes – expect Oscar movies as well.  I went on a crash course after the nominations came out and, for the first time since they upped the numbers, saw all nine best picture nominees and polished off the remainder of films nominated for the acting categories.  Not all of them will pop up here, but my favorites may make appearances.

 

My long-standing appreciation for Alfonso Cuarón began with A Little Princess, a gorgeous film that captivated me when I was a tyke.  I was at this time completely unaware that he’d directed it, but years later, when I saw and loved Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban so much more than the Chris Columbus outings that had preceded it, I investigated.  It was then that I discovered the man who’d been responsible for one of my favorite childhood films; I dug deeper, exploring his work from the steamy Y tu mamá también to the thoughtful Children of Men.

 

Well, in Gravity, Cuarón has a heart-stopping triumph.  The expansive-yet-intimate film follows Dr. Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer on her first NASA mission.  A freak accident results in Ryan detaching from her craft, and she’s flung dizzily through space, careening upside down and sideways in zero gravity.  Her attempts to save herself and return to Earth propel the film, packed with suspense, fear, and drive.

 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film that so well captures the enormity and yet the paradoxical claustrophobia of space.  When Ryan initially detaches, she tumbles away with the dazzling universe stretching out infinitely in every direction.  At the same time, however, she’s trapped within her spacesuit, hyperventilating in her helmet and gravely aware that it’s the only thing separating her from the deep freeze, lack of oxygen, and crushing pressure of the vacuum.  The camera deftly, effortlessly, shifts perspective to expose these two at-odds qualities.  I tell you, if Emmanuel Lubezki hadn’t finally won an Oscar for his cinematography here, I might have had to hit someone.  

 

Aside from exciting, terrifying, and massive, space looks stunning in this film.  Just incredibly beautiful.  The effects work is tremendous – I don’t know how they mimicked zero-gravity movement so wonderfully and strikingly, but it’s a definite home run.  If there’s a fault to be found with the movie, it’s that the story is on the thin side, and some of the dialogue (though, truth be told, there’s not much of it) is rather on-the-nose.  Still, the premise is gripping, and the film succeeds emotionally where it doesn’t always work practically.

 

A lot of credit for that goes to Sandra Bullock’s performance as Ryan.  It’s her story through and through, and while we only get snatches of what Ryan’s life is like, we’re given a complete window into the woman herself.  Bullock portrays the heroine’s emotions so completely that one can’t help but be moved.  Her panic and terror had me on edge, her loneliness and exhaustion made me ache for her, and I cheered at her bravery and determination.  A fantastic performance to match a great character.

 

Warnings

 

Brief strong language, and intense suspense and frightening situations.

Frankenstein: Version 2 (2011)

 

Watching the same production with alternating leads is fascinating.  It’s like Miller and Cumberbatch are the variables in an equation:  the two small changes that effect the whole outcome.  While so much is the same, so much is different, either subtly or significantly.  The equal-yet-opposite version 2 features Miller as the Creature and Cumberbatch as Frankenstein.

 

Exhibit A:  Jonny Lee Miller’s Creature.  Right from the start, he’s less gangly than the long-limbed Cumberbatch, so his movements aren’t as reminiscent of a baby deer trying to stand up.  Rather, he sidles along with a timid, light-footed shuffle, perched on his toes like he’s ready to take flight at a moment’s notice.  His Creature is more forceful; when he confronts Frankenstein and when he demands answers in a confusing world, you can feel the weight behind it.  And yet, he is at the same time almost heartbreakingly vulnerable.  I hope that fans who saw him live still took the opportunity to see this recording, because his facial expressions are worth the price of admission.  I think of the scene where he is touched kindly by another person for the first time – he is shy and apprehensive, but also so starved for contact and affection.  Just masterful.

 

In general, I think that Cumberbatch’s Creature is, to me, more endearing, while Miller’s is a little more complex.  Throughout the play, Cumberbatch’s Creature has a spirit of playfulness and childlike verve that he never quite loses.  Even when he rages against his circumstances or does horrible things, there’s still the tiniest spark to suggest that he’s playing a game.  Miller’s Creature incorporates that childishness to a point, but it’s one of several states swirling within him.  He’s more contemplative, more focused.  He’s shyer, and his heartbreak is a little more piercing.  Truly, I rate the two performances as equally superb for different reasons.

 

Meanwhile, I’d definitely give a slight edge to Benedict Cumberbatch’s Frankenstein over Miller’s.  Miller’s is excellent, but Cumberbatch’s leaves me with a far greater impression.  I can see details of his Sherlock peeking through, that intellectual mania and incurable drive to know.  He is somehow colder (the appraising way he examines his fiancée, like a specimen, is palpably creepy) and warmer (when he describes the mental anguish he’s experienced since animating the Creature, I don’t doubt him for a second.)  It could be that Cumberbatch just has a different energy as an actor – he tends to create characters while the more understated Miller creates people – but his Frankenstein is a stronger presence in the show.

 

I’d say that, overall, the interactions between Frankenstein and the Creature are better here than in version 1, and they bowl me over there!  I’m not even sure why; they just connect in such an electric way.  Maybe it’s the strength of Cumberbatch’s Frankenstein.  Maybe it’s because Miller’s Creature seems a little more grown-up.  Maybe it’s simply my perceptions, having now seen both men in both roles.  Whatever the reason, it’s magic.

 

It seems unsporting to ask me to pick a favorite version.  If pressed, I’d probably slightly favor version 1, but that’s largely due to the first-time factor (similar to the way Christopher Eccleston’s Doctor holds such a special place in my estimation.)  Both versions are absolutely stellar, not to mention engaging enough that my attention didn’t wander seeing the same play 24 hours apart.  If you haven’t seen either, cross your fingers for future showings and – please, for my sake – an eventual DVD release, because it’s really an experience not to be missed.

Frankenstein: Version 1 (2011)

 

For those of you who don’t know, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, everyone’s favorite dueling modern-day Sherlocks, appeared onstage together at the National Theatre in London prior to Jonny Lee Miller being cast in Elementary.  They shared top billing in Danny Boyle’s production of Frankenstein, swapping the roles of Frankenstein and the Creature every other night.  It was filmed (twice) for one of those “theatre in the cinema” live events, and the recordings have been re-aired in theaters a couple times since then.

 

Well, theatre dork, Holmes enthusiast, and Cumberbatch/Miller fan that I am, I road-tripped it down to the nearest theatre showing encores of Frankenstein and put up the cash to see both versions.  Today’s review will be of Cumberbatch as the Creature and Miller as Frankenstein.

 

First off, the production itself is sensational.  It’s stylish and cool, and Danny Boyle really works wonders on the stage.  Light and music is used to tremendous effect, there’s an awesome steampunkish train prop made out of giant gears, and the stage has a large disk in the middle that rotates, tilts, lowers, and elevates depending on the needs of the scene. 

 

Then there’s the play as written.  Getting away from the classic themes and images from the Frankenstein movies, the piece goes back to Mary Shelley’s original novel and draws from that.  The Creature is given back his voice, and heavy emphasis is placed on his growth and introduction to the world he’s just been born into.  More than the story of a man who creates a monster, it’s the story of a monster who doesn’t understand why he’s not allowed to be a man.

 

This leads us, naturally, to Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the Creature.  Now, I’ve seen him in a number of different roles, but his Sherlock is of course the most prominent.  The contrast is so stark – his Sherlock is a man whose every move seems intentional.  He speaks at a whirlwind pace, can’t be bothered with “normal” people beyond John, and sublimates his every emotion.  The Creature, meanwhile, brims with an unstudied, endearing clumsiness; the opening scene of the show is a long, wordless sequence of the Creature learning to move, to stand, and to walk, and it’s captivating.  His garbled words come with effort, and his emotions tremble through his unbalanced body at all times.  More than anything, his longing for friendship and acceptance is a wound that cuts through the heart of the play.  At every turn, the Creature is worlds from Sherlock.  It’s a performance I really couldn’t take my eyes off of.

 

Because the story is so focused on the Creature’s journey, Dr. Frankenstein isn’t onstage much for the first half of the play.  When he reappears, however, Jonny Lee Miller gives a strong, nuanced performance.  Frankenstein is an obsessive genius who can’t relate to people, and having achieved the most incredible scientific breakthrough known to man, is unable to share it with a soul.  Faced with his creation, he vacillates between revulsion, elation, horror, and pride.  Though it’s obviously not as flashy a role as the Creature, Miller is highly effective.  The scenes of the Creature confronting Frankenstein – the creation having an argument with his creator – are among the best in the piece.

 

Great play, fantastic production, incredible performances.  Stay tuned for tomorrow’s review of Miller’s Creature and Cumberbatch’s Frankenstein!

Brave New Blog…

Well, not new.  More redefined, but “brave redefined blog” rings terribly, so we’ll stick with what we have.  Now that Capaldi Fall is over (though it’ll pop up again when I check out new projects of his,) it’s time to expand the ole blog beyond the confines of one bug-eyed Scottish thespian’s filmography.

 

So, welcome (again!)  We’re gonna transition to a more all-purpose geeky-ramblings repository.  Expect posts about beloved TV shows, movies, plays, books, and music.  Expect odes to favorite fictional characters or relationships.  I’ll try to keep up my daily posting regimen – I started compiling non-PC reviews a few months ago, so I’ll hopefully have enough of a cushion to give myself a little wiggle time as we get started.

 

)Just a general advisory.  While I’m not specifically starting another “let’s watch everything with Actor X in it,” I’ve been on a huge Benedict Cumberbatch kick lately – jump-started by the piece I’ll be reviewing later today – so expect to see a lot of him in the near future.  Tom Hiddleston may also be a rather looming feature.  That sounds so clichéd, but what can I say?  I’m just human.)

 

In the immortal words of Abed Nadir, speaking what could be considered the geek watch-cry, “I guess I just like liking things.”  What follows are the things I like liking.