Passengers (2016)

Director: Morten Tyldum
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne
Running Time: 116 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

**Major Spoiler Warning: This review gives away key plot details, including the ending**

What you may not have heard about Passengers is how good a premise it has, exploring some morally deep and heady stuff for a mainstream sci-fi picture starring the two biggest movie stars working right now. For a while, it really has something, with a script that does what the best in this genre demands, painting its characters into a corner and pushing their buttons in such a way that all the filmmakers had to do was step back and let the actors and story organically take us where we needed to go. Halfway to three quarters through, it seems that's exactly where we're headed, until it's abruptly abandoned in favor of sending audiences home happy. Or more accurately, insulting our intelligence.

While still leagues better than it's gotten credit for, what everyone will probably agree on is that the wrong decision was made for silly commercial reasons in the final act. This happens a lot. That the film still works really well despite its conclusion is a testament to all involved since I refuse to believe the ending resulted from anything but wrongheaded studio interference. You may as well post those studio notes right up there on the screen since it's unlikely anyone will be considering much else in the final minutes. Labeled and marketed as a "sci-fi romance" Passengers handles both the former and latter part of that equation exceptionally well with two incredibly likable, skilled actors, but it's the ethical predicament presented at the get-go that will spark arguments and conversation. Had they stuck with that all the way through there's no telling what we could have gotten.

As it stands, this is still a consistently engaging endeavor, featuring performances, production design, music and writing more than a few notches above the standard. Then it just throws its hands in the air and surrenders, doing a disservice to both these actors and the audience. Even worse, the most obvious and effective ending is just sitting there on a platter ready for the taking. Hopefully, there were re-shoots and those scenes are laying around somewhere other than the recesses of our imaginations. Until that sees the light of day, I'll continue to deny the existence of the one we got, even if what precedes it provides unexpected thrills.

The starship Avalon is on a 120 year journey to a new colony called Homestead II, with 5,000 passengers and 258 crew members all comfortably resting in their hibernation pods, set to be awakened a month prior to arrival. But when mechanical engineer Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) awakens 90 years early due to a pod malfunction, he discovers that aside from an android bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen), he's the only passenger awake on the ship, and faces years of isolation until his eventual death.

Depressed, suicidal and having exhausted the few potential options available to him, Jim discovers the pod of Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) and through her video profile immediately falls for the funny, beautiful journalist. He then makes the controversial decision to awaken her for companionship, thereby dooming her to the same fate as he, dying on this ship years before the rest of the passengers and crew arrive at Homestead II.  Once Aurora is revived, the two grow close, as Jim continues to conceal the truth that her "accidental" awakening had nothing to do with a pod malfunction, Unfortunately, the ship is faces other, bigger problems that could threaten the entire journey.

Right out the gate, the scenario is immediately compelling yet still somewhat of a slow burn as we watch Pratt's character come to the realization that something went very wrong and he'll be spending the rest of his days in solitude.  Him trying to figure out the technicalities associated with that and his slow surrender to that fact that there's no way out are reminiscent of the dilemma faced by Matt Damon's protagonist in The Martian. But while certain problem-solving scenes are similar, there's a key difference that actually works in this film's favor: It isn't intercut with a bunch of muckety mucks goofing it up at NASA. He can't contact home at all so while Mark Watney's life may have been in immediate danger in ways Jim's isn't here, this at least treats its premise of isolation and loneliness dead seriously. So when Jim opens that pod to awaken his sleeping crush it really means something, throwing gasoline on the fire of an ethical dilemma that's already kind of jaw-dropping in its implications.

Those familiar with Chris Pratt's TV career know how good he is and how much more personality and dimension he's capable of showing when not pigeonholed by the action hero mold he's been shoved into thus far on the big screen. In the opening hour and slightly beyond we get a big glimpse of that talent again because he's handed worthwhile material, even if I'll contend it was a mistake to have his character initially come out of the pod looking like he just stepped out of Gold's Gym.
There seems to this push-pull going on with Pratt lately, and through this entire film, where Hollywood is desperate to turn him into the next huge action star under their terms when his skill set doesn't necessarily line up with that, at least in the boneheaded way they want it to. He's better than that.

Often, Pratt's a quirkier and more fun presence than what he's given and if not more selective in his choices he could end up in a similar situation to Tom Cruise, currently on acting auto-pilot in action roles into his 50's. And while it's easy to argue that there are far worse places to be than in Cruise's shoes, this battle with Pratt hasn't really bled it's way onto the screen until now, with this, his best big screen performance so far. While it's almost entirely undermined in the film's final third, the humor, empathy and subtly he brings to this part is matched only by his co-star.

Lawrence and Pratt are simply great together. That's at least partially why the ending is so disappointing. Nothing has to be written to manufacturer or further drive home the connection between Aurora and Jim. They just have it and from the second he opens her pod the two actors have an immediate chemistry that's completely believable, stacking the deck even more until the big reveal comes. And when she does find out the truth and that hammer comes down, does it ever come down, with Lawrence giving a tour de force, driving home to gravity of this lie, which should carry huge repercussions. We witness a few of those, until the movie travels another, less interesting route.

I have no problem with the script veering in a more action-oriented direction, but when it starts leaning more on sub-par, video game looking visual effects than Guy Hendrix Dyas' amazing, Oscar-nominated production design, the film suffers. And the unsatisfying resolution pushes aside the central moral dilemma, until it pops up again at the end in an unwelcome manner meant to give us the warm and fuzzies.

It's almost become a long-running joke in romantic comedies and dramas that in the next to last act the girl finds out a lie the guy has been telling and pushes him away, only to run back into his arms at the end for no good reason other than to put smiles on faces. But this isn't one of those kinds of lies. It's huge and intriguing, with far-reaching ethical concerns about how men and women treat each other, all of which stand as a big compliment to screenwriter Jon Spaihts. Up until then this script is so smart that there's little indication it will lazily fall back on that well-worn cliche. But it does. Both characters can survive. She can even eventually forgive what he does. The ship can arrive safely at its destination years later.  If all this happened under reasonable terms without our strings being pulled or the central premise being undermined, it would be fine. 

While I'm slightly overselling the ending's problems to make a larger point, kudos should go to the talented, if previously nondescript director Morten Tyldum for executing a thankless finale as efficiently as possible. But there is an alternate idea that's floated around for the finish that would have easily taken this to the level it belongs. At the risk of instead reviewing a movie we didn't get, having Jim die to save the ship and passengers on board in the final act seems only logical, with the real kicker being that Aurora is left alone in the same isolated predicament he was. In a Twilight Zone-like twist, she can contemplate awakening a male passenger for companionship, continuing the cycle as the screen cuts to black. That would work brilliantly, standing as a cruel coda on the loneliness and selfishness of human beings put in extreme circumstances. Something like that is certainly more in line with the film's existential tone.

At least Passengers, even at its worst, gives us something meaningful to chew on, which is more than I expected given the brutal reviews and poor box office. That this was a decision or two away from greatness is what makes it so infuriating. Ultimately rescuing it is the pairing of Lawrence and Pratt, its ideas and how this world is so thoroughly realized on a desolate spaceship through the impeccable production design. It has a unique vision, and while some may be bothered by how it casually borrows elements from films like Kubrick's The Shining in the bar scenes, it never hurts to lift from the best, and there's little debate Sheen makes that character all his own.

Unlike last year's 10 Cloverfield Lane, at least it's final minutes don't hinge on a big reveal, the result of which makes or breaks the entire picture. In fact, none of what happens is much of a secret at all, given the studio's questionable call to have the film's advertising essentially spoil the ethical dilemma at its center. Whether it showed a lack of faith in the product or represented a desperate attempt to get potential moviegoers into seats, it may have been an unintentionally shrewd move. That scenario is what it has most going for it, inspiring enough thought and conversation to overcome a poorly realized ending that comes close to undoing the good that came before. That it still can't is reason enough reason to respect Passengers' intentions, while still wondering what could have been.

Midnight in Paris

Director:Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, Adrian Brody, Carla Bruni, Michael Sheen, Alison Pil, Corey Stoll, Tom Hiddleston
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 94 min.

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Good news for the present. Someday it'll be the past and then people can finally appreciate it. That's essentially the message of Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, the most financially successful film of his career, and yet another touching on what's emerged as 2011's recurring cinematic theme: Nostalgia. Whether it was the return of the 70's and 80's in Super 8, The Muppets and Drive, a call back to the silent movie era in films like Hugo and The Artist or a warning against the potential danger of living in the past in Young Adult, 2011 truly was the year we wished we could be in any time but 2011. So now it's Woody's turn and it's kind of unfortunate this carries the baggage of being his biggest moneymaker because now everyone will go in expecting something monumental. It isn't, nor does it signal this huge "comeback" you've been hearing about. In fact, Allen will never need a comeback since he's so inconsistent it would be impossible to tell if it happened. With an unmistakable emphasis on quantity over quality over the years, his output is so hit-or-miss it's almost maddening. More frustrating than that though is an inability to point to anything he specifically does wrong, despite the end result often being unremarkable. This is no exception, but at least it's enjoyable, boasts an interesting premise and features one of the better neurotic Allen protagonists. It's a nice, pleasant diversion. But that's about it.

The story centers on Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), a successful Hollywood screenwriter and wannabe novelist vacationing in Paris with his overbearing fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her wealthy, ultra-conservative parents (Mimi Kennedy and Kurt Fuller). While there, they run into Inez's former flame Paul (Michael Sheen), a pseduo-intellectual blowhard who arrogantly (and inaccurately) lectures them on Parisian art and history. Of course, Inez is smitten with him, which only enhances Gil's inferiority complex. After a night of drinking, Gil wanders the streets and is picked up at midnight by an antique car and driven to a party where he's magically transported to the 1920's. Given an opportunity to interact with major art and literary figures from his favorite era such as F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Cole Porter (Yves Heck) and Pablo Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo), things get complicated when he falls for Picasso's mistress Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Now he must sort out his present relationship difficulties with Inez and reconcile them with these magical midnight experiences in the past.

Owen Wilson is tremendous in this and maybe the most likable he's been yet in a leading role. He always exudes a goofy charm but here for a change it isn't masked by the sarcasm or smugness of the character he's playing. He's one of those actors we want to like as a comedy lead but because the low brow material he's often chosen it just hasn't come together for him yet. Here it does as he kind of gets to play the same slightly off-kilter, dorky regular guy he has been but in a more sophisticated story and setting. Much of the film's success hinges on how likable, naive and easy to relate to Gil is and Wilson delivers on all fronts, making this one of Allen's more surprisingly inspired casting choices. Beyond seeing Wilson in this type of a role, there isn't a whole lot that necessarily seems fresh, but most of it works anyway, especially the scenes set in the past. The big standout is Corey Stoll, whose movie stealing performance as Ernest Hemingway, however brief, accomplishes the feat of somehow capturing how we'd imagine the author would talk (i.e. exactly how he writes), making it feel authentic rather than a parody. And as Adriana, Marion Cotillard is mesmerizing to the point we'd question why Gil would even want to return to his current life. While the present storyline represents the same old tired Allen material of clearly mismatched lovers fighting all the time, but it's saved by a hilariously bitchy, against type turn by Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen turning on the sleaze as the ex. Though we're kind of nailed over the head with it, the film's simple message of living for the present is a good one and Allen and Wilson have no problems selling it in the final act.
 
If this seems like an unenthusiastic recommendation that's because it is. The film will probably play best with diehard Woody Allen fans, literary and history buffs and elderly Oscar voters whose fingers are probably ready to fall off right now from checking it off in every possible category it can be nominated for. But it's definitely NOT a giant leap forward creatively for Allen in any way and exactly the same thing he's been doing for the past twenty years but in more international, worldly locations instead of New York. It's kind of disappointing no one's noticed, or if they have, don't seem to care. Maybe that's because he does it well and his movies (even at their worst) tend to be really entertaining in the most harmlessly enjoyable, inoffensive way. So it's a little frustrating when each new Woody Allen picture is treated as this "big event" when nothing he's done since the late 70's or early 80's has lingered in the mind longer than 24 hours after the credits have rolled. This, despite all the praise it's gotten, doesn't either. But it works for what it is. A couple of times in recent years Allen's deviated slightly from his usual template, but not enough to say he's taken any kind of a risk, which could also help explain how he's avoided a steep decline. Midnight in Paris is mildly delightful, but anyone still hoping for that Woody Allen "comeback" might just have to keep waiting.

Tron: Legacy

 

Director: Joseph Kosinski
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner, Michael Sheen, James Frain
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: PG

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Now this makes sense. Here's a film released in 3D, and a sequel no less, where an argument can actually be made that it warrants that presentation based on its STORY. TRON: Legacy doesn't feel like a cash grab so commend Disney for taking the financial risk of sequeling a massive flop released nearly thirty years ago to grant diehard fans their wish. They can even be forgiven for pulling the original from DVD shelves because they were secretly worried the uninitiated would see it, realize how bad it was, then stay away from this. Silly thinking when you consider the most interested would be those who saw and loved the original, but not so silly when that cult is probably still too small to make a dent at the box office. Not that the 1982 film is bad, just that it's a draggy mess, and the excitement of watching it always far eclipsed the final product on screen, which now seems more painfully dated than ever. Yet millions (including myself) justifiably love it anyway, having to stand by as it's pummeled by critics, waiting patiently for the sequel we didn't think could ever come, but knew with all the advances in computer generated technology, would make perfect sense.

Now that the follow-up to TRON is here and everything we imagined it could be and more, it's kind of mind-boggling (not to mention hilariously ironic) that naysayers are still looking for things to complain about. Most of the unfair complaints leveled against TRON: Legacy have been at its screenplay which makes me wonder what they thought of the original's script, mostly an incoherent mess from middle to end. This story is an improvement in every way, much sharper focused with a clear-end point destination for its characters whose fates we're completely invested in. First time director Joseph Kosinski takes the forward looking ideas from 1982 to the level we always wanted while still managing to remain remarkably faithful to the original in surprising ways. Worth every year of the wait, he's made a sequel superior in every way to its predecessor and a film that comes as close as possible to matching the actual experience of watching it. 

It's almost surreal seeing Flynn's Arcade again, only this time in a decrepit state, abandoned and unoccupied since its iconic appearance in the last film. Its owner, software engineer and ENCOM CEO Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has been trapped inside his own creation, The Grid, for the past 20 years. A mysterious pager message originating from the arcade grabs the attention of his 27 year-old son Sam (Garrett Hedlund), who's been in the dark about his father's whereabouts since his disappearance in 1989. As primary shareholder he's effectively pretended to take little interest in what's now become of the company. At the urging of his dad's best friend and colleague, Alan Bradley (a returning Bruce Boxleitner) he investigates the page and is sucked into the machine himself, coming face-to-face with Clu, a dangerous digital copy of his father who's seized control of The Grid, forcing the real Kevin Flynn into hiding. With his help and that of digital apprentice Quorra (Oilvia Wilde), Sam must find a way to defeat Clu and make sure they make it through the portal back to the real world before it closes for good.

Let's just get it out of the way now: The digital rendering of Jeff Bridges in the opening scene isn't anywhere near where it needs to be. It's been pointed out already by everyone but for me it's the only aspect of a technically superb production that sticks out as a big flaw. The CGI Clu that appears later is fine since he's supposed to be a digital creation within a video game, but for a flashback with young Sam in 1989 it sticks out like a sore thumb because he's sharing the screen with a real actor. With dead eyes and minimal texture and expression, Bridges looks like a cross between Benjamin Button, a character from The Polar Express or something out of a Playstation 2 game. Given how advanced movie technology has become it's almost kind of a relief to discover that we still have one problem that needs fixing. I don't know what could have been done instead since a young Bridges had to be shown somehow in these flashbacks but they're clearly not at the point where this approach can be pulled off yet.

The father/son dynamic absolutely had to hit its mark for the narrative to succeed since its the only human interest entry point for those unfamiliar with the original film. Aside from the technical issues with that particular scene, the film perfectly reinforces this aspect throughout, and it'll resonate even more for those who remembers the original, putting them roughly in the same age bracket as the protagonist. They'll also better appreciate the cool touches like the TRON and The Black Hole posters in Sam's room and little details Kosinski retained in the light cycle and disc battles in The Grid, helping make this as much a tribute to the childhood memories of those who grew up with the first film as this past year's atrocious Karate Kid remake was an attempt to butcher them. 

Calling TRON: Legacy a feast for the senses would be an understatement. The cinematography, art and set design, visual effects, costumes, sound and everything going right down the line from a technical and aesthetic standpoint is unmatchable. As hinted at from from the trailer, the trippy look of this film is amazing so it's unlikely 25 years from now the effects will be laughed at the way the original's (revolutionary for their time) are now. Daft Punk's dark, pounding score rivals Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' work on The Social Network as the best of the year, reminding us there are usually two types of great musical scores. The ones that jump out at you with their distinctiveness and almost seem to be operating on a level different from the film in which they appear and the others that so perfectly match the material they literally become part of it. This fits in the latter category, not just fully ingrained into the fabric of the picture but feeling as if it's derived from The Grid itself.

As for the 3D (which this was filmed in, not converted to in post-production) and its benefits, the jury's still out. I'll have a better idea when I rewatch it on DVD and determine how much is lost, but there were times during the action scenes where everything seemed a little muddled making it difficult to follow what was happening, but the same could be said for just about any other action movie regardless of format. It's possible in a couple of months I pop in the DVD and it's visually an empty shell of what it was on the big screen, but that's extremely doubtful given everything else this has going for it from a production design and technical standpoint. A DVD viewing won't lie, a film can't hide behind its effects and environmental factors (people talking, uncomfortable seats) aren't influencing your perception. That said, I'd be crazy to even suggest this shouldn't be seen in a theater for maximum effect or it didn't add to the overall viewing experience so it's a double-edged sword there.

Down the road this will likely hold up better than everyone thinks mainly because the story is far more interesting and developed than anyone's giving it credit for. It's not only a logical progression of the last film's events, but recalls the best elements of the original Star Wars trilogy, such as the father-son dynamic, pupil vs. wise mentor, the light saber battles (but with cycles and discs) and even a plot development mid-way through that seems directly inspired by The Empire Strikes Back. What's so ironic is that even working within restrictive PG confines Kosinski has the guts to go the darker, more adult places George Lucas wimped out of in the prequel trilogy when he instead opted to play with kiddie gloves much like Cameron did with Avatar, an otherwise solid enterprise undermined by his silly desire to deliver an eco-friendly public service announcement. Kosinski, an architect and former director of commercials (who's unsurprisingly a disciple of David Fincher) clearly harbors no ulterior motives other than faithfully expanding Steve Lisberger's original vision from 1982 and the honesty of those intentions bleed through every frame of the picture.

Despite what James Cameron might try to convince you, actors are in no danger of being replaced by motion capture or CGI anytime soon and two performances here will vouch for it. Garrett Hedlund's isn't one of them but he's as good as can be expected in pulling off the standard hero requirements of Sam. The nature of the story doesn't even really need him to be great but he gets the job done just fine. As if we needed a reminder of just how invaluable an actor Jeff Bridges is, we get yet another, proving as he enters the elder statesman portion of his career that he's doing some of his most interesting work. Just about the only thing that could possibly top the thrill of seeing him in a sequel to TRON would be seeing him return to it as The Dude, and he kind of gives that to us with a laid-back, Zen-like turn that recalls some of the little quirks of that character while still projecting the essence of Kevin Flynn. Exiled in an "off-grid" hideout exactly resembling in both design and sound the white hotel room in 2001: A Space Odyssey (clearly another homage), a dinner table sequence reuniting father and son might be one of the most impressive scenes of the year in terms of narrative content and visual execution. Because she's so disarmingly beautiful it's easy to be distracted and miss all the things Olivia Wilde does with her eyes, facial expressions and vocal inflections to suggest Quorra's innocent curiosity and bewilderment of the world around her, as well as Sam's arrival. Doing so much with little dialogue it's the kind of strong female portrayal that's been sorely missing of late in big budget sci-fi movies, leaving any leftover memories of Cindy Morgan's work from the first film in the dust. Based on all the evidence here, she's set to become a big star very soon. In no danger of being overlooked is Michael Sheen's eerie channeling of the Ziggy Stardust-era David Bowie as flamboyant nightclub owner Castor. His screen time is limited but he more than makes the most of it, owning those scenes with a bombastic, creepy flare.

Ending a movie effectively is tough and rarely accomplished which makes it all the more impressive that a first-time filmmaker knew to how construct a final scene and shot that's perfect in every way.  It's possible to move forward with another sequel or choose not to, but based on this conclusion, neither choice is wrong. I can't understand how anyone can look at that final moment, how the story logically arrived there, and even attempt to claim Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis' screenplay is shaky or incoherent. This could easily be considered the most underrated effort of the year proving, just as Inception as did, that when science fiction is executed well few other genres are capable of generating as much thought and excitement. The ideas are the effects and the effects are the ideas, creating complete immersion for the viewer. It's unfortunate even those who have mildly praised the film have done so backhandedly, writing it off as nothing more than a "guilty pleasure" or excusing their endorsement by claiming to have gone in with low expectations. It has its flaws and isn't perfect, but that's kind of fitting isn't it? The sequel to a film that for many was perfect precisely because of its goofy imperfections is getting the same condescending response its prequel has been receiving for the past 25 years. TRON was always about style over substance and the feeling of excitement it created in viewers who hoped it could live up to its ideas. TRON: Legacy successfully recaptures that feeling but goes further in being the film we always wanted the original to be.

Frost/Nixon

Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Sam Rockwell, Rebecca Hall, Toby Jones, Matthew Macfadyen
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

Well, at least we can take some solace in the fact that despite some of the Academy’s undeserving selections for nominations this year, Ron Howard’s Frost/Nixon definitely isn't one of them. While it does represent the kind of safe, politically minded material voters predictably respond to every year that doesn’t make its selection any less just. I’m all for taking risks and are as disappointed at this year’s nods as anyone else, but there’s no denying that this film, easily Howard’s finest, deserves to be among the five vying for Best Picture. From start to finish it's perfect.

The film will play best for those with a deep interest in history or politics, but what surprised me most is how stimulating it would be for everyone else, even those not interested in the subject at all. The trailers, commercials and promotional material don’t do justice to just how exciting it is and I mistakenly entered this film expecting a snobby, prestige picture. Instead what I got was a fascinating look at the power of the media and a thrilling intellectual boxing match that had me on pins and needles the entire time, palms sweating as I anxiously anticipated the final outcome. Though its doesn’t exactly re-invent the wheel in terms of historical drama it tells the story it needs to in the most effective way possible and shines a light on an event and time period that hasn’t gotten much attention at all. I doubt many people even know what happened to Richard Nixon AFTER he resigned from office. I know I didn’t.

Deservedly, much buzz has surrounded Frank Langella’s Oscar nominated turn as our disgraced 37th President but it’s a performance that couldn’t have happened without co-star Michael Sheen. Nor could Sheen’s performance have connected without Langella’s, which is why it’s so odd to see just one of them making the rounds this awards season. It’s the very definition of a “team effort” and if Langella wins the Best Actor Oscar he should consider sawing it in half. And that statement isn’t meant to undermine Langella’s incredible work, but is rather a testament to the power of two actors at the top of their game bringing out their respective bests in one another.

The year is 1977 and just three years after he resigned the Presidency amidst the Watergate scandal, former President Nixon (Langella) is licking his wounds at his secluded beach house in California, thinking of ways he can rehab his shattered reputation and eventually head back East. Meanwhile the American public is fuming over news President Ford granted him a full pardon, absolving the former President of any criminal misconduct. At the suggestion of his agent, Irving “Swifty” Lazar (Toby Jones) Nixon entertains an offer to do a serious of sit-down interviews with British television host, David Frost (Sheen), who may as well be considered the Ryan Seacrest of his day (he even hosts a reality show). Frost is a self professed “performer” not a hard-hitting interviewer and his closest friend, longtime producer John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen) is bewildered by his sudden ambition to go face to face with “Tricky Dick” but supports the seemingly insane decision that could wreck his broadcasting career.

Under terms outlined by his chief of staff Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) Nixon agrees to a series of four interviews (planned to be broadcast as four separate 90-minute specials) even though nearly everyone doubts Frost will be able to come up with enough cash to insure even see the light of day. Frost hires Nixon historians and journalists Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) to do the investigative legwork even though they don’t think he has a clue what he’s getting into. And they’re right, he doesn’t. Nixon is ready to eat this TV entertainer for breakfast, fully expecting to be lobbed softball questions that would make Larry King Live seem like an interrogation. That is what happens…at first.

One of the more humorous aspects of the film is the presentation early on of Nixon as that annoying uncle you always bump into at family reunions who can’t help but drone on about his accomplishments and share boring stories and anecdotes. With Nixon the B.S. is flying all over the place as he somehow finds a way to self-rationalize and explain away his botching of Vietnam and even the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. His motives and decision-making process closely resembles George W. Bush's in Oliver Stone’s W. in that he can convince himself anything he does is right, no matter how wrong.

He’s also somewhat delusional, insisting it was sweat on his upper lip that cost him the 1964 Presidential debate with John F. Kennedy. But there is a kernel of truth in that television, our most powerful medium, would never benefit someone like Nixon. In talking circles around everything he outmatches his inexperienced interviewer, bullying Frost with subtle, inappropriate verbal jabs before the cameras role to psyche him out. He cares a lot about Frost… way too much about him. And it’s that small, brilliant detail in Peter Morgan’s screenplay that takes the film from being a solid Best Picture nominee to a transcendent psychological duel on par with the best suspense films.

After a while we realize that Nixon’s obsession with “beating” Frost has more to do with him actually wanting TO BE HIM. Beyond simply being jealous of his youth and success, in Frost he sees the man he could have been if he had the people skills. His fixation on every detail of his interviewer's life from his shoes to his girlfriend (Rebecca Hall) suggest what in Nixon’s personality really caused the Watergate break-in and why he covered it up. For Nixon, he and Frost are really two sides of the same coin. Both have accomplished much in their given fields but neither are taken seriously or respected by the mainstream public. He can’t get anyone to see past Watergate while Frost can’t get anyone to see past his lightweight reputation as a showman. Both are willing to wreck their careers to change those perceptions, true or untrue as they may be.

There can only be one winner and a turning point comes for Frost when he sees his opening and must summon up everything inside him to take advantage of it. His motives in going after the interview are never completely clear, but we believe it comes from a desperation to be something more than a TV host, just as Nixon had aspirations to be more than just the President. Sheen conveys Frost’s confident swagger with charm but what’s most impressive about the performance (which I can’t believe went unnominated in a year this weak) is the masked disappointment that he isn’t better. His priorities shift from merely providing entertainment to bearing the incredible burden of giving Nixon “the trial he never had.” Everyone was right that Frost didn’t know what he signed up for but when the moment comes where he finally does it's game on.

It’s in this stunning reversal where feelings are brought to the surface about what Nixon did that I didn't expect to have. Langella gives you a window into the man, to the point where you can almost see how in his warped, insecure mind what he did made sense and felt right. And you take pity on him. When I first saw the clips of him in the role I laughed because I thought he was attempting an impersonation. Now after actually watching the film I realize it isn’t the kind of performance that benefits from being shown brief clips or given sound bites of him talking like Nixon.

This is an evolutionary performance that reveals itself slowly as the layers of the story unfold. Less an impersonation and more of a full immersion and embodiment of his soul. At first glance Langella doesn’t look or sound much like Nixon but as the film wears on he engulfs the man and everything else he does (including how he looks) follows suit. By the climactic scene, which finds the combatants in a far different state then when they started, I didn’t think for a second I was watching Frank Langella walking out of that house. It was Richard Nixon. Or at least Ron Howard’s and Peter Morgan’s interpretation of who he could have been.

Even having not seen the original Frost/Nixon interviews it’s fairly obvious a lot of creative license was taken with the material. But that’s okay. The film works as kind of a wish fulfillment history where we finally get out of Nixon what we always wanted. What was embellished for dramatic effect or flat-out fabricated is irrelevant when the end result is this satisfying. It’s based on Peter Morgan’s stage play (which is a work of fiction based on historical events), not the original interview so it’s unfair to hold the film up to such detailed, fact-based scrutiny.

Howard employs docu-style filming approach cut-in with fake interviews and actual newsreel footage. This quasi-documentary method has been overused of late but it really works well here keeping things moving at a surprisingly brisk pace. I know Howard would never top anyone’s list as one of the most visually inventive or risk-taking filmmakers but he could have very easily screwed this up. It’s tough adapting a stage play, much less one centering on two talking heads but Howard builds momentum slowly until the action boils. He was also smart enough to get the two actors who originated the roles on stage even while the studio pressure was probably on to score bigger names. No one else could have played those parts. It’s a classic set-up followed by the ultimate payoff and I was on the edge of my seat hanging on every word. Frost/Nixon is the rarest of historical dramas in that it intellectually excites you in the events and people that inspired the film.