Snowden

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Scott Eastwood, Logan Marshall-Green, Timothy Olyphant, Ben Schnetzer, LaKeith Lee Stanfield,
Rhys Ifans, Nicolas Cage
Running Time: 134 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

At what cost? That question runs through Oliver Stone's Snowden, and the controversial figure around which his film revolves, government whistleblower Edward Snowden, who in 2013 infamously leaked to the media classified information on mass surveillance being conducted by the National Security Agency. Such a hot-button topic would seem ideal for Stone, the maverick director and Vietnam vet who's made a career of tackling socially and politically charged material with an "in your face" style in films like JFK, Natural Born Killers and Nixon. But that Oliver Stone is gone. Already showing signs of it with his relatively fair, if even somewhat sympathetic, treatment of President George W. Bush in 2008's underrated W., Stone's interest in pushing buttons has diminished considerably in recent years. On one hand, it's a shame since it's never been more necessary, but on another, it's easy to argue he's earned the right and can't be expected to keep repeating himself. A straightforward but exceptionally well made biopic, Snowden represents more of this new, slicker, mainstream Stone uninterested in courting "controversy."

What this does contain is ideas and a sense of urgency surrounding an issue that shouldn't really be all that controversial on paper. It's pretty simple and boils down to whether you feel the moral price of our security is worth the cost of giving up a certain amount of our constitutional freedom. But where you stand on that issue may determine not only to your personal feelings on Snowden and his actions, but perhaps even which side of the political fence you fall. In that sense, it's touchy, and the film does a compelling job dramatizing both sides of that ethical dilemma, even in scenes you wouldn't expect. It also contains a romantic subplot that doesn't feel like one, less a throwaway than a natural and pertinent extension of the main plot, featuring characters whose futures we care about despite our familiarity with the outcome.

As tame as Stone's become, anyone expecting complete impartiality won't get it, with the screenplay clearly showing an allegiance to Snowden, played by a scarily well cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt as kind of a tragic antihero to be revered and celebrated for his sacrifices. Make of Stone's stance what you will, but anyone that shocked or even offended the government has these capabilities probably have their heads buried in the sand. Snowden wasn't telling us anything we really shouldn't have assumed already. The real question was whether he had the right to do it and the potentially dangerous precedent that's set when someone does.

Based on two non-fiction books covering the events, the film picks up in 2013, with Ed Snowden (Gordon-Levitt) hauled up in a Hong Kong hotel room secretly meeting with documentarian and Citizenfour director Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) and journalists Glen Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewen MacAskell (Tom Wilkinson). Preparing to spill his guts to them while simultaneously releasing of the NSA's top secret surveillance data to the media, flashbacks paint a complicated picture of Snowden, an antisocial conservative who finds himself working for the cyberwarfare arm of the CIA after being discharged from the Army.

Snowden picks up the intricacies quickly, becoming a star student of  Deputy Director Corbin O'Brian (Rhys Ifans) before moving on to the NSA and making some disturbing discoveries about how the government is acquiring data and potentially violating citizens' rights. As his disillusionment grows, the only constant is free-spirited girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley), an Obama-supporting liberal who tolerates his opposing political beliefs up to the point where even he starts to doubt them, the stress of his job eventually threatening his health and that of their relationship. Armed with incriminating evidence that can shake the U.S. government to its core, Snowden makes a fateful decision, insuring that his life will never be the same again.

A lot of information is dispensed about Snowden's background and what there is to glean of his personality, which can best be described as "robotic." It's an adjective he's even assigned to himself, as he often comes across as someone suffering from some kind of anti-social disorder, demonstrating behaviors that don't seem all that dissimilar from Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. While lacking that character's worst narcissistic tendencies, Snowden's intelligence is undeniably his worst enemy at times, as well as his most dangerous weapon. Holding political beliefs in direct opposition to what he eventually does, his time in the CIA and NSA trenches establish him as an important cog in the government's machine, his cyber skills essential in their burgeoning electronic surveillance program. But as his climbs the ranks, the more he sees, and the more his anxiety and guilt grow.

This isn't an easy role to play as far as real-life public figures go, or even otherwise, as in the place of a distinctive personality, Snowden is imbued with a rote, mechanical sense of duty that's eventually shaken. Lowering an already deep voice a few octaves lower, JGL has the flat affect and emotionless verbal delivery down pat and looks enough like his subject, but where he really excels in capturing Snowden's inner struggle. The government's actions contradict everything he signed on for but risking the comfort and security his occupation provides Lindsay and himself in the name of "doing what's right" may not be worth the price.

It's a credit to Stone and Kieran Fitzgerld's screenplay that Edward's relationship with Lindsay isn't treated as an afterthought with the latter having thoughts, complaints and opinions worth listening to and fighting about, as an impressive Woodley confidently sidesteps the trap that too often marginalizes girlfriend characters in male-driven biopics. Strong in a role she seems ideal for, audiences will undoubtedly draw parallels between the actress and the idealistic hippie she portrays. The presentation of Snowden as a selfish, thoughtless boyfriend consumed by his job could be viewed as the director's conscious effort to pacify potential critics of the character's fairly reverent treatment throughout. Or it could just simply be true.       

The action doesn't necessarily move at a breakneck pace and we aren't marveling at the editing as we would with Stone's classic 80's and 90's offerings. And while crisply photographed by Academy Award-winning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, you'd be hard-pressed to find supporters championing it for a spot in the top tier of the director's best looking films. It speaks volumes that even Nicolas Cage's virtual cameo (as a U.S. Intelligence official) isn't crazy at all, perfectly serving its function like most of the other moving parts in the story. And that's completely fine. Stone trusts the extraordinary subject do most of the work, recounting events presumably as they happened with little space for editorializing.

Toward its third act, it fully evolves into this gripping thriller, culminating in a jarring transition that melds real life and movies in a way you've never quite seen before in a biopic, making you appreciate the lead performance that much more. Controversy isn't everything when it can be just as effective taking a logically straightforward approach to telling an exceptional story. With Snowden it rings especially true, as the scariest part of it all is just how flawed and relatable the protagonist is, offering up the very real possibility that anyone placed into similar circumstances are capable of making the choices he did.
                   

Selma

Director: Ava DuVernay
Starring: David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth, Common, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Carmen Ejogo, Lorraine Toussaint, Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding Jr., Giovanni Ribisi, Keith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Wendell Pierce, Jeremy Strong
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

One of the biggest obstacles in bringing any part of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life to the screen is that there's simply no guidepost other than history itself. Despite or maybe because of his monumental importance and cultural significance, we can't point to any contemporary film that's attempted to give us a thorough treatment of the man or what he stood for and few actors have tackled the role on a grand scale, which is probably for the best since it's a no-win situation. With Selma, director Ava DuVernay attempts what probably shouldn't be done, but takes the wisest route possible by zeroing in on a specific point in King's life to tell a larger story. One that's shamefully ingrained into the fabric of this country whether we like it or not.

There's an even bigger challenge in not turning the story into a history lesson or homework assignment that checks the boxes on certain key events with which we're already familiar. DuVernay manages to walk this line very well, taking a magnifying glass to the ins and outs of the civil rights movement while weaving it into a compelling narrative that should hold viewers' interest for the entire running length.  But the strongest reason to see it is David Oyelowo's controversially un-nominated performance as King. The big surprise is watching him bring to life this man in such a way that it feels as if we're being exposed to his life and ideologies for the first time, experiencing the weight of his impact with fresh eyes. That's the real draw here. If there's anything the film will be remembered for years down the line, aside from the silly, fabricated "controversy" surrounding its accuracy, it's his restrained, thoughtful interpretation of King.

It's 1964 and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Oyelowo) has just accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, even as discrimination and racism continue to rip the country apart. The previous year four young girls were killed in a white supremacist bombing of an African-American church in Bimingham, Alabama, escalating racial tensions to an all-time high as blacks are continually denied the right to vote. When Southern Christian Leadership Conference President King meets with President Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) in an attempt to obtain federal legislation that would allow black citizens such as Annie Lee Cooper (a powerfully subdued Oprah Winfrey) to register without restriction, he discovers the passage of such a bill is at the bottom of Johnson's political priority list.

Upon arriving in Selma with SCLC activists, King's met with even more resistance by Alabama Governor George Wallace (Tim Roth), with local law enforcement and state troopers responding to their nonviolent protests by injuring and in some cases killing protesters.This prompts King's idea for the Selma to Montgomery march, his seemingly last ditch effort to defy segregation and get through to the lawmakers. Drawing thousands of both blacks and whites from around the country, it's a dangerous but necessary move, putting these activists lives at risks, as well as King and his family's safety.

This is a difficult watch for a number of reasons that are completely unrelated to an allegedly controversial depiction of President Johnson. You'd figure that in a film covering a jaw-droppingly repulsive period in the nation's history, we'd be left more shaken by the recreation of those horrific events than preserving LBJ's legacy. It's especially comical when no one was ever previously concerned with doing that, or were even aware he had much of one to preserve. While he does come off terribly in the film, rejecting King's proposals at every turn until it politically benefits him to change course, there's little evidence suggesting those events didn't occur.

Whereas George Wallace is mostly painted a card-carrying racist, LBJ avoids that indignity, with Wilkinson playing him as an out-of-touch schemer who's eventually dragged kicking and screaming into signing the bill only after lives have been lost and he's politically humiliated. It's definitely not his finest hour, but we're kidding ourselves into thinking a President raked over the coals for his handling of Vietnam and even accused of conspiring in Kennedy's assassination was at all beloved prior to this film's release. He has his supporters and his reputation has unquestionably undergone a positive reevaluation of late, but DuVernay shouldn't be criticized for failing to portray him as a saint.

If maybe not King's nemesis, LBJ's clearly positioned as a major obstacle in blacks obtaining voting rights, and a stubborn one at that. Very much behind the curve while King is ahead of it, the movie's at its strongest when tensions reach a fever pitch and violence erupts. His non-violent sit-ins don't initially work and there seems to be much doubt as to whether they eventually will. The violent alternative is presented as Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch), who shares a brief but memorable scene opposite King's wife, Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) that seems to exist solely for the purpose of King venting about it later (hint: he doesn't like him). The more interesting stories involve the individual protesters such as Winfrey's Annie Lee Cooper and Amelia Boynton (Lorraine Toussaint), SCLC members James Bevel (Common) and Hosea Williams (Wendell Pierce), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee founder Diane Nash (Tessa Thompson) and young marcher Jimmie Lee Jackson (Keith Stanfield), and white priest James Reeb (Jeremy Strong), whose eventual murders take this battle to a whole new level.

The picture of King in our minds is often that of a big, booming powerful force of nature so it would seem unlikely that the talented, but mostly unknown David Oyelowo would have the physical presence or charisma to pull that off. But just as we already decided how Daniel Day-Lewis should play Lincoln and what voice he should use before he actually did it, Oyelowo changes the conversation, challenging our preconceived notions of Dr. King. It's a really quiet performance but explosive when it needs to be, which makes all the sense in the world when considering his methods. There is a physical resemblance and he nails the speaking rhythms, but more importantly, he captures the determination, never blinking or wavering once in his plan despite the resistance that comes from even his most loyal supporters. The only time he lets his guard down and we see the fear and sadness is when there's a death or his family's threatened. Most of these displays of emotion occur in the scenes opposite his wife, as we see the toll it's taken on his marriage. Rumors of King's affairs are addressed before being quickly dropped, but they're never presented as anything more than that. If anything, the film even finds a way to at least partially blame Johnson for King's marital problems.

It seems as if we've entered a period where movies based on historical events are judged on their truthfulness and accuracy before anything else. This is a losing proposition since it's not only impossible to nail down every fact and conversation exactly how it happened, but it robs the filmmaker of creative license . And if it's about a touchy subject or contending for Oscar consideration, the nitpicking only intensifies. Taking all that into account, DuVernay does a great job under thankless circumstances, making logical decisions as to when  she starts and stops the story. If she came in any sooner in King's life it could have been too much and if she stretched it out to include the assassination, it would just present an extra load of baggage to deal with. Just ask Spielberg, who couldn't even decide whether he was including Lincoln's assassination or not. At least DuVernay clearly commits to ending this at a concise point. 

Selma is beautifully shot and superbly acted, but as awful as this statement seems, I have little desire to see it again. That's not a complete surprise given the difficult content, but it brings up an interesting question. How miserable is too miserable? While that reaction could easily be written off as the typical "white guilt" response, maybe there's some truth to it. Who of any race, gender or nationality wouldn't feel terrible watching this? And what ending, no matter how uplifting or inspirational, could possibly erase the image of blacks being beaten as gassed in the streets or that King is assassinated only a few short years later. Maybe there is an inherent liability in recreating historical events so closely in that it robs us the ability to "escape" through movies. Here, we're watching history skillfully reenacted on screen, as if it will ever provide some kind of restitution or explanation for what happened. And yes, it's true that films of this type are always released like clockwork around Oscar time. It's easy to respect what Selma does, but more difficult admitting it's something we want to see.
                                  

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Saoirse Ronan, Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Jude Law, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Léa Seydoux, Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, Owen Wilson, Bob Balaban
Running Time: 99 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)
  
One thing Wes Anderson's never been accused of is his films having an overabundance of plot and action. Even his best work is thought of as primarily aesthetic achievements, his stories serving merely as backdrops for highly stylized costume and production design and visual flourishes. In some ways, the highest grossing and most favorably reviewed film of his career, The Grand Budapest Hotel, doesn't represent a deviation from that classic Anderson template. And yet it also somehow does. This is the closest he's come to directing a screwball action comedy and it contains more story and characters than most would know what to do with. For the first hour I thought I was watching a masterpiece, but by the second he kind of lost me, before recovering and delivering something that's still special. There's a nostalgiac sadness hiding under the humor  that stays with you, as the many colorful characters populating the hotel mourn an era that's rapidly slipping away, or in the case of some, slipped away a while ago. But at the same time, the whole thing still manages to be a lot of fun.

Featuring a story within a story within a story, the film opens in the present day with a teenage girl reading the memoir of an unnamed "Author" (Tom Wilkinson), who narrates the book from his office in 1985, recalling his stay at Europe's Grand Budapest Hotel in 1968. It was then, with the hotel clearly in decline, that the young Author (played by Jude Law) encountered its elderly, reclusive owner, Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). Over dinner, he tells him the incredible story of how he took ownership of the hotel. We flash back to 1932 when young Zero (Tony Revolori) worked as a lobby boy under the Grand Budapest's eccentric concierge, Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), running errands and tending to the guests.

It's when one of Gustave's many older, wealthy mistresses, Madame D (Tilda Swinton) dies under strange circumstances and she leaves him a valuable painting, he finds himself at the center of a murder investigation and the target of her son Dmitri's (Adrien Brody) hired assassin, J.G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe). With the help of Zero and hotel baker Agatha (Saorise Ronan), he must evade capture and clear his name, even as war breaks out in their Republic of Zubrowka, signaling a cultural shift that will heavily impact all their futures.

I want to live in this hotel. That was my first thought upon seeing the majestic structure, which is rendered not by some fake looking CGI in wide, exterior shots but an actual handmade miniature model. Remember those? But it's what happens inside that ends being more impressive, with some jawdropping production design that makes you anxious to discover what secret or character is hiding behind every corridor, room and crevice of the building. The atmosphere may draw you in, but it's the story that keeps you there, as there's this pervading sense of melancholy that distinguishes it from Anderson's other work, despite still being very recognizable as such. The story's not only bigger than usual for him, but broader in scope and crossing over multiple timelines.

While Anderson's a filmmaker almost compulsively obsessed with the past, he's at least now found the ideal outlet by creating a story where all his characters are equally obsessed. Nearly every recognizable name in this fully stacked cast is given at least a moment or two to shine, but the the movie really hangs its hat on the friendship that develops between Ralph Fiennes' witty, somewhat delusional Gustave and his impressionable young lobby boy, Zero, played by newcomer Revolori. Not necessarily known for his comedic skills, Fiennes gives what may be his most memorable performance since his very different one in Schindler's List, while Revolori makes the perfect straight man to his zaniness. Of the rest, Goldblum and Ronan each make valuable contributions, while Jude Law and F. Murray Abraham breath real life and history into roles that could have come off as expository or mere bookenders. The rest of the cast have what amount to cameos, checking the usual boxes of Anderson's favorite actors. If pressed, the section during which Gustave and Zero find themselves on the run from authorities is the weakest, before the story regains its footing in the last third.        

This is actually one of Anderson's messier films, but that's of little consequence considering how ambitious the undertaking is and the ease by which it would rank amongst his most visually daring. He really swung for the fences this time and there's explanation as to why it all works other than the fact that he's become a brand unto himself, with no other filmmaker viewing the world quite like he does. As usual, his whimsical style perfectly suits oddball material, but it isn't calling as much attention to itself as it is reflecting the story's darker themes. And this is all about telling stories, to the point you could easily categorize it as a great epic novel put to film, right down to the impeccably realized hotel of the film's title, which seems as much alive (or in some cases as dead) as those inhabiting it. The more you start considering how much he accomplished here, the larger it looms.

Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol

Director: Brad Bird
Starring: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist, Anil Kapoor, Lea Seydoux, Josh Holloway, Tom Wilkinson
Running Time: 135 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The fourth film in the Mission: Impossible series and highest grossing movie of Tom Cruise's career, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol, is by far the strongest installment in the franchise. And by a wide margin. Had I seen it in a packed theater on opening weekend with an enthusiastic audience and in all its IMAX glory, it's likely I would have been even more taken with it. Watching an action spectacle like this in the comfort of your home for a lesser, but more relaxing and cheaper experience. It's also a reminder that at the end of the day it's still a Mission: Impossible movie. But boy is it a good one. It's relentless, with non-stop action crisply presented by director Brad Bird in a manner that makes sense and engages you in the fate of all the characters, many of whom are actually interesting this time.

Holding everything together is the underrated Cruise, who pulls out all the stops and should be commended for doing things few actors any age who aren't trained stuntmen would even consider attempting. The media can call him crazy, but they'd a much tougher time arguing he doesn't care about his work or that he's ever phoning it in. After the dreadful Knight and Day, everyone was ready to write him off for about the tenth time in his career. But he keeps coming back. Why? Because he's really good at what he does. Now he's resurrecting a franchise that went on autopilot a while ago with a fourth film where nothing's on autopilot. It's definitely on Cruise control, and the results are surprisingly satisfying this time.

Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt, successfully freed from a Moscow prison by agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) in an extremely inventive opening prison break sequence. Their assignment is to infiltrate the Kremlin and locate files linking a mysterious Swede code-named "Cobalt" (Michael Nyqvist) to the intended detonation of a nuclear bomb. But when the Kremlin is attacked and Ethan and his team are suspected, the President activates "Ghost Protocol," which officially disavows the IMF. Unofficially, the mission to stop and find Cobalt continues with the help of seemingly inexperienced intelligence expert William Brandt (Jeremy Renner). The team now must obtain the nuclear activation codes in order to stop an attack on the U.S., assuming the authorities don't get to Ethan first.

Like all M:I movies the plot is rather complicated, but beside the point. For the first time though that seems like a good thing since there are so many impressive action sequences and set pieces there's hardly time to catch your breath and remember there is a plot, mainly because director Brad Bird invisibly advances it with each thrilling scene. Obviously, the big sequence everyone's been talking and the selling point for the entire film is Cruise's scaling of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, which due to the camera work, is almost as vertigo-inducing for the audience as it likely was for the actor. It's rare a film stunt is so daring and visually impressive that an entire movie is sold on it, but in this case it's more than justified. It really does look as amazing as you've heard, and that's coming from someone who only saw it on the small screen. What been overlooked are the circumstances that get Hunt up there and the story surrounding it, which doesn't all feel like merely an excuse to include a showy scene. There's a clever reason for it, as could be argued for all the action sequences, which never let up and serve specific functions for the story. A sand storm chase, a hotel room brawl between Patton's character and a deadly French assassin (Lea Seydoux), and a climactic showdown over the launch device in an automated parking garage. Unlike most other mainstream action films, none of this is hard to follow and whatever CGI is used adds rather than distracts from what's happening. Watching, you'd never be able to tell that The Incredibles and Ratatouille director Brad Bird hadn't ever released a live action film prior to this. It turns out he's really great at it . 

They really found the perfect team to support Cruise this time, as I have problems even remembering who Hunt's IMF team members were in the previous two films aside from Ving Rhames (who briefly cameos here). There's no such issue this time around as this group has real chemistry together. Simon Pegg provides the comic relief while Paula Patton is given the most purposeful female role yet in an M:I film, knocking it out of the park as a tough-as-nails agent who isn't relegated to being just arm candy for her co-star. Jeremy Renner has the least challenging role of the four as the intelligence expert who may not be exactly who he seems, but he's excellent in it. A sub-plot with a twist involving he and Cruise's character has a surprising payoff that deepens the backstory considerably without feeling thrown in. Any Lost fans hoping to see a meaty big screen supporting part for Josh Holloway will be disappointed since the role's far smaller than you'd expect, though a (weak) argument could be made that it's important. At least he's on screen a bit longer than Tom Wilkinson, who makes more of a mark with his limited time as the panicked IMF Secretary. Slumdog Millionaire's Anil Kapoor delivers an entertainingly sleazy turn as a rich Indian playboy not too far removed from his sleazy game show host in that film, but played for laughs.

Supposedly, upcoming Bourne Legacy star Jeremy Renner is being primed to take over the M:I franchise from Cruise whenever he decides it's time to hang it up but based on the evidence here, no one should be in a hurry to do that. Even pushing fifty there's no reason Cruise can't continue doing this for a little while longer and as strong as Renner was in a supporting role, his character isn't really established enough to be the main draw yet. Cruise's charisma and willingness to go all out is a huge reason why this installment ended up as such a success, even if the public seems unwilling to give him credit for it. Or at least ADMIT that they're giving him credit for it, since box office numbers don't lie.  While I agree he should probably be channeling his energy toward more character-driven, age-appropriate material at this point, if he continues along the action route we can only hope the movies remain as smart and entertaining as this one. This isn't a game-changer or worth frequently revisiting, but the over 2 hour running time felt more like 10 minutes, which is exactly what every mainstream action movie should aim for. If a filmmaker found a way to somehow harness the elements of this, Haywire and X-Men: First Class into one feature they'd have the perfect James Bond movie. Ghost Protocol actually seems like it needed to be seen in theaters to be fully appreciated. And anyone who did probably got their money's worth, which in this day and age, isn't faint praise.

The Kennedys

Director: Jon Cassar
Starring: Greg Kinnear, Barry Pepper, Katie Holmes, Tom Wilkinson, Diana Hardcastle, Kristin Booth, Chris Diamantopoulos, Charlotte Sullivan, Serge Houde, Enrico Colantoni, Don Allison, Gabriel Hogan
Original Airdate: 2011

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The biggest news coming out of the controversial 8-part Kennedys miniseries that was scrapped by The History Channel, only to eventually find a home on the obscure ReelzChannel network (and now streaming on Netflix), is that it's every bit as controversial as you've heard and you'll completely understand why the Kennedy family wanted it squashed. Producer Joel Surnow's treatment of them recalls the creative liberties taken with Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, in which the slandered subject (or in this case subjects) are dragged through the mud and pummeled, actual facts amplified to the max in order to bolster the narrative and make a larger thematic point. But in exposing and exaggerating their flaws Surnow does something remarkable by beating on them so badly that I actually walked away with greater respect for what they were able to accomplish as public servants in the face of all their personal demons, and found myself wanting to learn more. Enthralling and addictive, it's nearly impossible to watch only one episode without getting hooked and wondering how much is true.

If this miniseries is "trash" then call me a garbage picker because everything about the production, from the costumes to the period details to the performances, to the music and cinematography is top notch. It juggles multiple flashbacks with clarity and purpose, knowing exactly the right events to focus on, what to leave out, and when. It even has a wicked sense of humor, hilariously lampooning some major figures of the time. And as over-the-top as he goes, Surnow still wisely realized there was one section where it's imperative to show class and restraint and does. And in satisfying fans of salacious melodrama, history buffs, and biopic addicts like myself, it also won't disappoint anyone coming to this for the shock value of seeing Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes in these iconic roles. Even the opening title sequence (scored to Emmy-winning composer Sean Callery's instantly classic theme) is a glorious throwback to '80's television that thankfully seems to never end, promising an American epic of unmatched suspense, intrigue and drama. And that promise ends up being fulfilled ten-fold in an under-appreciated masterwork of modern television better than just about anything you'll see released into theaters this year.

The first few episodes set up flashbacks depicting family patriarch Joseph P. Kennnedy, Sr. (Tom Wilkinson) as the driving force behind their tragedies and successes. After a series of ill-conceived political decisions destroy his relationship with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and squander his own potential Presidential run, he's forced to resign from his position as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1940. He lays all his hopes and dreams for a future Presidency on his favorite son, Joe Jr. (Gabriel Hogan) who, unlike his brother Jack (Greg Kinnear), is "going places." But when Joe Jr. tragically dies in the Air Force, Jack finds himself unwillingly passed the family torch and pushed to run Senate with younger brother Bobby (Barry Pepper) serving as campaign adviser. It's around this time he meets and marries Jacqueline Bouvier (Holmes), who's immediately made privy of his philandering ways.

Jack's presented early on as a screw-up incapable of filling his late brother's shoes and never measuring up in his father's eyes, which is understandable considering any hope for a balanced portrayal of Joe Kennedy either as a father, husband or sane human being are extinguished early with a portrayal that plays as a cross between Hitler and Darth Vader. He fudges medical records to get Jack into the military, bribes Jackie to stay with Jack, makes out with his secretary in front of wife Rose (Diana Hardcastle) cuts a deal with mob boss Sam Giancana (Serge Houd), threatens Frank Sinatra (Chris Diamantopoulos) and those are just the good things. The topper is when he comes up with the brilliant idea of getting his daughter Rosemary "cured" of her mental disability with this great new procedure he heard about called a lobotomy. Wilkinson's presence is so consuming in the first few episodes you'd think it was pilot for "The Tom Wilkinson Show" but that's okay since few are better at conveying blustery bravado and his performance only gets deeper with the nuanced re-evaluation of Joseph Kennedy that comes later when in his declining health he realizes that payback can truly be a bitch.

We're often guilty of holding our public figures, whether they're celebrities, elected government officials, or both, to the highest of standards. Whether we want to admit it or not we're still surprised  when gossip comes to the surface supporting the harsh reality that they're real people with flaws. What this miniseries excels showing is how a regular guy with little to no experience and zero interest holding the nation's highest office can if he has the connections and all the right cards fall into place. But that still doesn't mean he wants to or he'll necessarily do a good job. The implication seems to be that it takes a certain fabric of person to do it and regardless of their experience level they'll have to "learn" the ins and outs of exactly how to be the President of the United States as they go along.  The portrayal of JFK is ultimately an empathetic and honest one, showing us that he had to learn who he should and shouldn't trust or listen to, as well as learn to trust himself enough to commit to decisions that could be wrong. The Bay of Pigs fiasco prepared him for The Cuban Missile Crisis and when it was all said and done he ended up doing a commendable job under the most thankless of circumstances. Given the lasting legacy he left, it's almost impossible to believe he didn't even serve a full term, but just so happened to be in office for three of the most tumultuous years in the country's history.

Greg Kinnear gives the most complete and accurate performance of an in-office President I've ever seen, easily topping Martin Sheen and Bruce Greenwood's previous onscreen interpretations of JFK. Besides frighteningly resembling him and getting the physical mannerisms down pat (watching him walk through the West Wing or even just sitting at his desk with a cigar you'd swear you're looking at the man himself) Kinnear conveys the pain of an insecure man fighting to control his inner demons and live with the guilt of what he's doing to Jackie. He makes you believe the womanizing isn't just a cheap thrill, but an ailment as serious as the physically crippling Addison's Disease he kept secret from the public throughout his Presidency. But it's Barry Pepper who gives the series' best performance as Bobby, acting as his brother's eyes, ears and conscience as Attorney General, while guiding every move he makes. As the unsung hero of the Kennedy's saga, he's the only character who doesn't seem completely oppressed and influenced by their father, even occasionally displaying the fortitude to stand up to him. Whether he's waging war on organized crime, picking a fight with J. Edgar Hoover (a bizarrely cast Enrico Colantoni) or helping Jack deal with racial segregation and rioting at the University of Mississippi, Pepper plays Bobby so idealistically that he comes off as the uncorruptable patron saint of the Kennedy clan, acting only out of loyalty to family and country. The solid relationship he has with wife Ethel (Kristin Booth) is particularly effective in displaying the marriage Jack and Jackie seem to have lacked.

It's a testament to Pepper that Bobby's assassination in the series carries a greater emotional impact than that of his brother's, prompting the reaction of"Anyone but him" when it occurs. Giving us a far clearer picture of his impact than 2006's star-studded debacle Bobby, writer Stephen Kronish's script presents (but wisely doesn't overplay) the idea that he may have grown tired of living in his brother's shadow and cleaning up all his messes, the biggest of which was Marilyn Monroe (Charlotte Sullivan). It's fair to say Monroe, who's portrayed as an airheaded bimbo, and Sinatra (looking and acting more like a young Jack Lemmon than the suave "Chairman of the Board.") are the only two figures besides Joe Kennedy who you could reasonably claim are slandered. But I didn't have a problem with that since this isn't their story and if what we learn about them here is even half true it becomes tougher to argue theses depictions are even out of line.

Perhaps sensing she already has experience playing a similar role off screen for the past few years, someone  went ahead and came up with the brilliant idea to just make it official by casting Katie Holmes as Jackie Kennedy, giving her the unique distinction of being the only actress to have played both the First Daughter and First Lady during her career. The only concern I had going in (besides the fact she might actually be TOO beautiful and youthful looking for the role) was that this could end up being more than she's capable of handling dramatically. Despite what's been reported, it's a big part in both screen time and importance, and taxing for any actress to tackle, with the only relief coming in just how little is known about Jackie. Of all the actors attempting the challenging Massachusetts accent (besides Wilkinson who perhaps wisely doesn't try), Katie's is the shakiest early on before she slides into it and the rest of the performance follows suit, kicking into high gear when she assumes the mantle of the President's better half. What's really great about her performance is how she not only gives you a feel for how difficult it must have been to be First Lady (a position treated here with as much respect as the Presidency), but this particular First Lady during this specific time, especially in the midst of dealing with Jack's many indiscretions. Holmes leaves the lasting impression that Jackie stayed in the marriage not for him at all, but for the country, and possibly to prove something to herself.

A forgotten detail about Jackie is that she was actually quite shy and would have preferred shunning the spotlight if not the sense of obligation and duty she felt to the country and her husband. Barring the striking physical resemblance, casting Katie was a stroke of genius because she not only exudes the class, grace and elegance we associate with Jackie from the magazines and news clips, but gives her that girl-next-door quality a more seasoned actress couldn't. If there's a learning curve for the President, there's also one for his wife so watching Holmes navigate Jackie's journey from innocent inexperience to rock solid strength and confidence under intense public scrutiny becomes an awesome example of art imitating life for the actress as much as the subject. Once we get to the White House it's eerie how she seems to become Jackie and toward the end of the series when she, not Kinnear, has to take this story over the finish line, her transformation from grieving First Lady into "Jackie O." is emotional and chill inducing. It isn't the strongest performance of the four but it sure is the most interesting and the one everyone will be discussing and debating afterward. The media trying to blame her (and we all know why) for what happened with the miniseries was expected, but it's still a shame since she should have been praised for taking the challenge and more than holding her own opposite these powerhouse actors. Just a few years ago there's no way she could have played this role, but now it fits like a glove. Any way you spin it, that's a positive.

For many the "main event" of the miniseries will be that day in Dallas but director Jon Cassar (TV's 24) takes the classy route by avoiding a gruesome all out re-enactment and instead focusing our gaze on the fallout, providing valuable details we may not have known about the reactions of Bobby, Jackie, and especially the feelings of incoming President Lyndon Johnson (Don Allison, a dead ringer for LBJ) in the hours and days following the assassination. Given that we've unpleasantly seen the stomach churning Zapruder footage of Kennedy's shooting countless times through the years, a graphic dramatization seems not only unnecessary, but would mark the series with an ugly stain. Cassar, who has plenty of experience filming political assassinations on 24, could have easily just fallen back on what he knows, but not showing it in all its gory detail ends up being that best decision he makes in maintaining the series' integrity. And time that could have been wasted running assassination theories into the ground is wisely forsaken in lieu of more important matters concerning the aftermath for the Kennedys. The biggest surprise just might be that the production bares more of a resemblance to Mad Men or Lost than any episodes of 24 with its attention to period detail and seamlessly interwoven flashbacks and flashforwards that frame the story. 

It's unfortunate this didn't air on The History Channel since it would have been a perfect fit for a network that long ago abandoned a more straightforward, textbook approach to history in favor of more entertainment-based programming. This is a little of both (more of the latter) but how much is or isn't true has little baring on how riveting these 8 episodes are, each standing strong enough on their own to not even necessitate viewing them in chronological order. Though it surely would have resulted in blockbuster ratings for any major network that aired it, the best news is that it's obvious why they didn't, regardless of the political leanings or motivations of the people involved in the project. Judging from what's on screen it's difficult to make a case that the goal was to do anything but produce the highest quality miniseries possible. Regardless of how the family is treated here, we're left with the idea that Joseph Kennedy's Machiavellian scheming did result in something great for the country, if terrible for them. And after watching all the tragedies that befall this family in this shocking thrill ride of a miniseries, you'd be inclined to believe there was a Kennedy curse that extended far beyond anything he could control.

Duplicity

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 125 min.

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Considering the talent involved in the making of it, Duplicity is a shockingly dumb film. And it's the worst kind of dumb film in that it delusionally thinks it's intelligent. Worse yet, it conveys an attitude of smug self-importance. Almost as if we should be honored to watch two big stars play unlikable characters bickering endlessly about the same issue for over two hours in a needlessly convoluted plot. The movie just spins its wheels telling two converging stories (one personal the other professional) ineffectively. As if that's not bad enough, writer/director Tony Gilroy, in his highly anticipated follow-up to 2008 Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton, actually has the nerve to not deliver on anything he promises, defeating the purpose of the entire film.

Usually, when a movie doesn't work there are at least some things in it that make me feel like I at least haven't totally wasted my time. This is different. Here, there are so many pointless (and often predictable) red herrings that the film seems to be setting itself up to fail unless it can deliver on any of it. That would be tolerable if Gilroy presented this as what it should be (a slick 90-minute crime caper). Instead, he attempts to merge an old fashioned Hollywood screwball comedy, an espionage thriller and an epic romance.

The result is a bloated, self-indulgent vanity project made so its writer can pat himself on the back for writing cool, slick dialogue and to remind us what wonderful stars (notice I said "stars," not "actors") Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are. The sad thing is that they are exceptional actors, but this isn't designed to take advantage of that. It feels like one of those Ocean's movies and if you replaced Owen with Clooney it would be. Is it December yet? This is the kind of film that usually rolls into theaters during Awards season so voters over the age of 70 can cast their votes for safe, inoffensive material starring big names. At least Michael Clayton was exciting...and didn't have a stick up its ass.

The movie opens five years ago in Rome when MI-6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) has a one-night stand with CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Roberts) in which he wakes up the next morning having been drugged and outplayed. Their paths cross again as we cut to present-day New York and both are now working as spies for two rival pharmaceutical companies. Ray is a corporate spy for Equikrom, led by its unpredictable CEO Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), while Claire is the head of security for Burkett & Randle, whose CEO Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson), is sitting on a huge secret that could change lives. Despite their opposing allegiances and a complete mistrust of one another, Ray and Claire make a pact to go into business together in the private sector, a decision primarily based on mutual physical attraction and the potential monetary benefits. What unfolds next is a series of double-crosses, fake double-crosses and twists all built around whether Ray and Claire can trust one other and which side each is actually on. Are their feelings for each other real or is it part of the con? That question grows tiresome when its repeated in scene after scene and situation after situation for 125 minutes. Anyone expecting a big payoff to this elaborate, overwritten and labor-filled set-up will be greatly disappointed.

Owen and Roberts are charismatic and likable leads who share a breezy chemistry. So the movie coasts on it, offering little more. We know from the beginning that Ray and Claire can't trust each other and there's no reason why they should considering both are spies. It's up to Gilroy to sell us on their potential romance, which is difficult because the two characters can't stand one another and continuously throw cranky fits. When they're not doing that they're busy congratulating themselves for delivering cleverly written dialogue that feels and sounds like cleverly written dialogue. Their exchanges are too snappy and movie-like, to the point that they draw more attention to the writer than the actors actually delivering the lines. And it always seems like lines are literally being "delivered." As are the all-too complicated details of the plot, which at times are impossible to follow, even though the story is as simple as can be.

It's tough to pick what Gilroy falters worse with; his tale of corporate espionage in which he can't decide whether this is a farce (Duplicity!) or a dead-serious Hitchcockian thriller or the would-be romance between two lying spies who hate each other which means they really love each other. My vote goes to the espionage portion if only because he makes the screenwriting mistake of introducing a huge SECRET (the contents of which the two companies are battling over), only to reveal it as a huge letdown. It was supposed to be humorous...I think. You can never tell with the film's uneven tone. Gilroy was trying to make about three movies at once and his "twist ending" wasn't just obvious, it was pointless and if you think back on the whole thing, at the end every character is essentially exactly where they started off. Nothing happened.

I don't know what's going on with Owen. After a promising career start he's really found himself in a rut, also starring in this year's equally awful espionage thriller, The International. Here he's playing the familiar role he seems to have mastered lately...himself. Roberts fares much better if only because she's at least cast against type (as she was opposite Owen in 2004's Closer), even if her character is too bitchy and uninteresting for us to care much at all what happens to her. To Roberts' credit though, as she pushes past forty she's much more believable now as a sexy spy than she would have been in her supposed prime. Unlike Owen, she escapes this disaster completely unscathed and reminds us that she's capable of more than she's often given credit for. Wilkinson and Giamatti unsurprisingly impress with what limited screen time they have as the movie definitely could have used more of them. Wilkinson, such an integral part of Clayton's success, is criminally underutilized, hardly appearing at all. The entire film would have been better off if it were just about those two.

Gas is expensive. Movie tickets are expensive. So is soda and popcorn. Paying actors' salaries and promoting a movie is even more expensive. Too much of everyone's money is at stake to deliver a film that accomplishes nothing other than entertaining the director and actors who made it. The leads are appealing, the scenic locales look good and I'm glad everyone seemed to have had a nice time. Now they all should get back to business. Luckily, audiences knew enough to stay away from this and it was released at a time when intelligent adult dramas are bombing left and right. The biggest trick Duplicity attempts is trying to convince us it is one.

Michael Clayton

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, Michael O' Keefe, Ken Howard
Running Time: 120 min.
Rating: R

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

Finally, the curse has been lifted. For years I've been telling everyone that George Clooney hasn't starred in a single movie I liked since 1996. And yes, I saw Syriana. It's a shame too because I actually like Clooney as an actor and he's made some smart choices recently, but I just haven't liked his films. So when people would rave about a Clooney movie or performance all I could do is just shrug and say, "Well, I enjoyed his work on E.R." Now, with the legal thriller Michael Clayton he finally has a winner. The film, which is up for 7 Academy Awards (including one for Clooney as Best Actor) and marks the directorial debut for Bourne trilogy screenwriter Tony Gilroy is a slowed-paced thriller that doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table from a story perspective but still packs an incredibly powerful punch.

You could sum up the movie in one sentence, revealing key plot details and none of them would surprise. There isn't a single twist or turn in the film that's revelatory and the plot is one we've seen before. It moves methodically toward its predestined conclusion. And yet, it succeeds by executing its premise with laser-like precision and uncommon intelligence. Gilroy knows what he has to do and does it expertly, not getting bogged down in silly sub-plots or unrealistic situations. It also features the best performance of George Clooney's career and two more supporting performances of nearly equal value. It's a cold, distant picture and one I'm surprised Oscar voters selected as one of this year's Best Picture nominee, but it's deserving nonetheless. It's a film to be respected, but not necessarily enjoyed or embraced by everyone.

The job description of attorney Michael Clayton (Clooney) at his prestigious New York City law firm headed by Marty Bach (Sydney Pollack) would read as one word: "fixer." Whenever there's a legal mess Michael is usually the first one called upon to clean it up, like a janitor. He's described as the absolute best at what he does but that's a difficult notion to swallow watching him. He doesn't even seem to believe it himself and looks tired and spent, as if after 15 years he's done enough cleaning up for a while When the firm's top defense attorney Arthur Edens (Best Supporting Actor nominee Tom Wilkinson) has an apparent mental breakdown and strips naked during an important deposition involving a lawsuit against the firm's biggest client, Michael is called to Milwaukee to rectify the situation.

That client is U-North, an agricultural company whose products allegedly caused serious illness, resulting in a class action lawsuit that's dragged on for the past six years. U-North's chief legal council, the steely and determined Karen Crowder (Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee Tilda Swinton) is none too happy about Eden's episode and even less happy with what she believes is Michael's mishandling of it. Accompanying Arthur's breakdown is a sudden attack of conscience, which makes him determined to blow the lid off this case and in the process unintentionally endanger the lives of everyone involved in it.

If you've seen any of the trailers or commercials for this film you may be led to believe it's a non-stop thrill ride full of and shocking twists and revelations that will keep you on the edge of your seat. It's not. The pacing of the film more closely resembles those intellectual legal thrillers from the '70's or early '80's like Sidney Lumet's The Verdict and there's more exposition than excitement. I remember taking a screenwriting course a while ago and The Verdict was the study film and I'm convinced a major reason why was because its script was so simple and basic. Michael Clayton could easily be substituted for it because it attempts nothing new, instead focusing on executing a tried and true formula perfectly.

The movie is very straightforward and veers from the course only once by employing what's becoming a popular non-linear storytelling device in which the opening scenes generally reveal where the story ends up, but the film then flashes back to let us know how we got there. It's kind of humorous that Gilroy would show his hand so early and use that technique in a film that's otherwise very matter-of-fact but then again, this isn't a story entirely built on surprises.

When the film ended I was quick to check the credits and see who provided the original score. Not because I thought it was fantastic but because I could swear that this movie contained no music at all, or if it did, I definitely didn't notice. It's kind of funny imagining Gilroy (who directs this flawlessly) being so focused on the story that he just didn't have time for music because it could possibly distract from the task at hand. Much to my surprise, I found out that not only does the film have a score, but it was provided by James Newton Howard and is one of those seven Oscar nominations. It's often said that the most brilliant scores in motion pictures should blend in so seamlessly with what you're watching you don't realize it exists. If that's true then this is among the best scores I've never remembered hearing.

I've always had a little bit of a problem with legal potboilers, mostly because it's been hard to take them all that seriously, yet I do enjoy them. Big lawsuits against evil, greedy companies. Fancy cars and expensive suits. Honest, crusading lawyer struggling with addiction (here it happens to be gambling but feel free to substitute drugs or alcohol). They always seem to contain big, showy scenes also. But I will say it isn't too often you see a mentally ill defense attorney streaking naked, declaring his love for the plaintiff, then preparing his case AGAINST his own client. It should be hysterical but isn't because Wilkinson is so realistic and emotionally invested in the role. We're used to seeing him play more subdued, implosive characters so this walk on the wild side was an interesting departure that justifiably earned him a nomination. I thought the other legal thriller from this year, Fracture was hilarious, mostly because it didn't take itself seriously and delivered its ludicrous plot with tongue planted firmly in cheek. This takes itself very seriously, and while that should make the film less effective it doesn't mainly because it's so technically sound.

Whereas something like Fracture stretched credibility to the maximum this doesn't at all and I think that's why Gilroy's script, despite the absence of unpredictability, has garnered such praise. It's airtight without a hole to be found. That's a rare accomplishment for a movie in this normally ridiculous genre. It seems odd praising a script simply for not doing anything stupid but it's true in this instance. What really elevates it though are the performances, all three of which you could argue are better than the movie itself. After years of hits and misses this is finally the role Clooney was born to play and it wouldn't surprise me if years down the line this ends up being the part he's most associated with.

Usually he's an actor with very distinctive mannerisms, but here they disappear and he just inhabits this isolated character with low-key, assured intensity. His reputation as "Mr. Cool" has never served him better than here. He has an incredible scene (actually the same scene twice that bookends the film) in a field where his character feels and we feel he knows something but neither of us are completely sure. He doesn't have a word of dialogue. He doesn't need it. It may be one of my favorite scenes this year and if they were to show one clip from the film on Oscar night that should be it.

This movie has been heralded as the big breakthrough for British actress Tilda Swinton who first became known to American audiences in 2001 with her memorable turn in The Deep End but whose underrated work has always seemed to fly under the radar. What she brings to this role is special and there's no way it was something that was just merely translated from page to screen. As cold as her ambitious character seems there's this feeling of desperation Swinton invests her with. It's almost as if Karen knows her company's guilty and knows what's she's doing is wrong but has no choice in the matter. She's come this far and there's no turning back now. The only way she can deal with that is to completely cut herself off emotionally from the situation and for a woman like Karen that isn't difficult. Her and Michael are on a collision course and while the film prefers to draw its suspense out slowly and subtlely there is one notable explosive exception. The final scene will get your heart racing.

This is a film that can be watched and analyzed again and again because how it attains such great success is somewhat of a head scratcher. When it ended I was on the fence about how good I thought it was just because it's so basic, but another viewing cleared that up. We're used to praising films that give us something fresh we haven't seen before, but what about those that don't necessarily bring anything knew, yet delivers what it has with nearly flawless precision?

Michael Clayton has been labeled the underdog in this year's Best Picture race, but I could see many wanting to throw their hands up in the air when it's over and ask, "THAT WAS IT?" I can see their point but I would also say to look much closer. It may not succeed how you expect it to, but it succeeds nonetheless. Seamlessly executing a story that's been told so poorly by just about every other film puts Michael Clayton in a class of its own.