Steve Jobs Review

iHave a vision---Michael Fassbender as technology pioneer Steve Jobs, before three major launches in Steve Jobs
                      Now that Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin have officially collaborated on a biopic of innovator Steve Jobs (who, just like comedian Bill Burr, I find overrated,) audiences can officially forget that the 2013 Ashton Kutcher-starring Jobs even happened and say that there is a real film about the man himself. I won't compare the Kutcher one to this one throughout the review but I will say that unlike the 2013 version, which felt like it was never going to end, this version flew by for me. This is probably because the 2013 film was too busy explaining things that were already known whereas this one fills in no gaps about Jobs's life. Director Boyle and screenwriter Sorkin know most people watching this film will know the basics and just want to see Michael Fassbender portray this man's struggles.

                         The way this film is set up can only be described as brilliant. The film follows Jobs before the launches of the Mac, the neXt and the iMac. However, it cleverly only shows him minutes before he must present the product. We never see him present the products. Rather, we see Jobs backstage trying (and not trying) to rectify issues he has with the people in his life as well as with himself. This technique allows the viewer to feel as if they are there with Jobs, whether he is arguing with his ex-wife (Katherine Waterson,) trading banter with his assistant (Kate Winslet,) refusing to acknowledge all of Steve Wozniak's (Seth Rogen) work, getting furious at former colleague Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg) or debating ethics with John Sculley (Jeff Daniels.) This is also due to Boyle's masterful direction, which creates a sense of space while still keeping everything tight and thrilling. Also, as with 127 Hours, Boyle takes a concept with a limited location and creates ways (and not just through flashbacks) to expand the universe the film is set in. Never does the audience feel so crammed that they want to escape. There's always a feeling of genuinely expansive space.

                          The acting is terrific here. Rogen proves to be as dynamite in drama as he is in comedy while Daniels and Winslet do a great job playing the people who Jobs actually has some respect for. Meanwhile, Stuhlbarg and Waterson both give surprisingly emotional and deep performances as the two people Jobs has hurt the most (besides his daughter, played by three different excellent actresses (Perla Haney-Jardine, Ripley Sobo and Makenzie Moss) throughout the film.) The standout, however, is Fassbender. Some people have been complaining that Fassbender doesn't look much like Jobs. I find this a ridiculous complaint (it's one thing to have an opinion but come on.) I found he actually looked a fair amount like Jobs (the make up department might also be partially to thank for that) and he's so realistic and indicative of Jobs that even if you can see Fassbender, that should be gone after about five minutes.

                           Sorkin's script could have been a dry and even dour look at the life of a man who had some serious issues. However, being THE Aaron Sorkin, he has written an extremely witty and shockingly funny film featuring dialogue that is undeniably his. The way in which these characters interact feels all so real while still being as lively as can be. There were multiply times I even laughed out loud during the film and a scene late in the film between Wozniak and Jobs is as well written as films get. Boyle and Sorkin have made a film that might be constructed almost entirely out of conversations but demands to be seen in a theater due to its fast paced and witty nature. There's no way anyone can watch this film just once and get everything that's great about it but it's easier to catch a lot of it on the big screen.

                             Steve Jobs is a timely, exciting, downright brilliant film that must be seen by everyone right away. If for nothing else, see it for the amazing acting and flawless script and stay for Boyle's phenomenal directing.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language)

Mississippi Grind Review

An addict's addiction----Ryan Reynolds and Ben Mendelsohn as buddies who go on a gambling road trip in Mississippi Grind
                             Mississipi Grind starts and ends with essentially the same piece of dialogue. It's not a particularly poignant piece of dialogue but the film manages to make the audience feel the weight of what is being said by the time the credits roll. With this film, co-writers-co-directors Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden do for gambling what Paul Thomas Anderson did for porn in Boogie Nights. They make a thoroughly enjoyable film that takes an industry people seem to take for fun and strips all the goodwill out of the industry. This film takes gambling and makes it into the least seductive, most miserable activity ever. Like I said, the film itself is great and very enjoyable but after watching it, you may never want to gamble again. Smartly, this film paints gambling as one of the worst addictions. The two main characters can't accept winning and seem insistent on throwing away any luck they have. Also, unlike last year's The Gambler, this film thoroughly explains why people would have this issue.

                                The film follows Gerry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Curtis (Ryan Reynolds), two men who meet in a casino and are shocked at the skill the other seems to have. On a whim, the two decide to go on a road trip together to explore the best gambling that they can find. However, both have problems with stopping once they get going. Gerry even seems to depend on getting money from other people while the money seems to mean nothing to Curtis.

                                  What makes this film so great is the impeccable chemistry that Reynolds and Mendelsohn share. Instantly, they feel like two guys who are impressed with one another and want to spend an entire road trip together. Their banter is so good that you forget these two characters have just met and that makes the road trip fun for the audience even in the face of cripplingly sad moments.
                                 
                                      I also loved the old fashioned nature of the film. This feels like it could have come out in the 1960's or 1970's. It's as if Robert Altman came back from the dead just to make this film. The soundtrack is even filled with folk songs from decades past which adds to the invigorating energy of the film.

                                         I've always found Mendelsohn and Reynolds to be incredibly underrated actors and they prove why here. They are phenomenal and carry the light moments and the heavier moments with equal weight and skill. Boden and Fleck previously worked together on Sugar, Half Nelson and It's Kind Of A Funny Story, all films I have a strong fondness for. Add this one to that list. Although the film slows down only slighter towards the end, this is a film that knows about gambling and the problems with it but still manages to be a breezy, enjoyable road film. Even if you have no interest in gambling, it would be hard to dislike this film.
(4 and1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language)

The Walk Review

Reaching new heights---Joseph Gordon Levitt as Philippe Petit, the famous high wire walker, in The Walk
                              In my opinion, Robert Zemeckis has always been one of the most underrated directors. He's directed so many classics (Back To The Future, Forrest Gump, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Cast Away) and yet never gets the recognition that a Martin Scorcese or a Steven Spielberg does. With his new film, The Walk, he shows why he's one of the masters of directing but also why he should sometimes pass the screenplay on to someone else. Co-written by Zemeckis and Christopher Browne, this is a fascinating story told in such a cliche, syrupy, dull way that one only wishes Zebecks could have written the film with the same skill he directed it. This is a gorgeous film visually but one that is quite frankly kind of insulting on a storytelling level.

                                  The film is the true story of Philippe Petit, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, who gives it his all despite his face showing that he knows what an unskillful script he's reading. Petit was an insane man, for all intensive purposes, who was inspired when he saw that The Twin Towers were being built. Being a man who is constantly in need of the next dangerous place to wire walk, he decides that he wants to hang his wire between the tops of The Twin Towers. Naturally, he realizes this is completely illegal and recruits a crew to help him including romantic interest Annie (Charlotte Le Bon,) a character I would criticize for being completely superfluous if it weren't based on a real person.

                                    The first 90 minutes or so are fairly dull. Philippe introduces himself standing on The Statue Of Liberty, a tactic I thought was going to only be used for a jumping off point but that the film unfortunately goes back to time and time again. It's an incredibly jarring aspect that should have been stripped out of the film entirely. Philippe then meets Annie, with whom he has zero chemistry but somehow falls in love with and then Annie and Philippe scavenge for recruits to help them, all of whom are knocked down to one very broad character trait. I would use the phrase "this isn't exactly high art" to describe the story aspect but that would be an insult to high art. This is incredibly cheap stuff.

                                       However, the last half an hour are so incredible and mind blowing that the film suddenly becomes almost worth seeing. When Philippe is up on that wire, the directing makes the audience feel there with him. As someone who doesn't exactly have a fear of heights but rather has a fear of dying from heights (I'd rather be burned or buried alive before I die from falling off somewhere high up,) I was actually sweating in the last 30 minutes. This is improved even further by the IMAX 3D, which is how you should see the film if you're going to see it. That last 30 minutes shows Zemeckis at his best and reminds everyone that he's a master of the visceral along the lines of Scorcese and Spielberg.

                                         For the last 30 minutes, I'm almost inclined to say see The Walk. The final part is amazing stuff. However, the set up is way too long and boring and the narrative style way too jarring. I would say if you have a friend or family member who works at a theater (especially one that has IMAX 3D,) ask them if you can come in for the last 30 minutes of the film. That way, you'll get all of the crab without having to work at digging it out.
(2 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG for  thematic elements involving perilous situations, and for some nudity, language, brief drug references and smoking)