Advertisements

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Barkhad Abdi

Good Time (2017)

Oh. And it is.

After a botched robbery lands his brother in the slammer, Connie Nikas (Robert Pattinson) has to scrounge up whatever money he can find to ensure that his mentally-handicapped brother, Nick (Ben Safdie), gets out and is safe with him. But it’s going to take a lot of wheeling, a lot of dealing, and oh yeah, a whole lot of money to do that. One thing leads to another and all of a sudden, Connie’s night goes from bad to worse and it’s all up to him to constantly think of what’s the next best move to keep him alive, well, and out of the clink with his brother.

Short synopsis, I know, but that’s the point. See, Good Time is one of those movies that’s basically about the one night in hell, that never ends, continues to escalate, gets worse, and builds up to insane proportions of drugs, guns, money, murder, and cops. Lots and lots of cops.

But it’s so damn thrilling and surprising, it hardly even matters that it ends on a conventional note.

Just two brothers walking down a sidewalk. Nothing shady at all..

Good Time is the latest from Ben and Joshua Safdie who have made a name with these small, lean, mean, and gritty indies that verge on pretentious, but still feel realistic enough that it’s okay. In fact, the movies are so dirty and grueling, it’s hard to look away from them; they feel so improvised and cheaply-made, you sort of have to sit and watch and see what they come up with next, even if it can get a little irritating. They’ve never been the biggest fans of plot and in Good Time, that actually helps.

In a way, it allows for the movie to move at an efficient pace, so that when the next crazy moment happens, it’s shocking and surprising, and just adds to the chase. Most crime movies in this same vein and nature tend to get stuck in constant cliches of being on-the-run, not being able to trust anyone, and the constant double-crosses, but not Good Time. While those formulaic-moments do eventually come around, they still fit in a movie that zigs and zags around being conventional and above all else, stays thrilling.

Which is to say that Good Time is a “fun” movie, but not in the way you’d expect.

It’s fast, fun, electrifying and, at certain points, downright crazy, but it does take its time to make sure that you’re along for the ride, too. It would have been perfectly easy for the Safdie’s to just make everything up as they went along, throwing ridiculous obstacle, over another, with reckless abandon, and never making it seem like our protagonist will reach his goal, or even survive the night, but they keep it close and contained. It helps us pulsate along with the thrill-ride, but also grow closer to this character who, despite not being the smartest or nicest guy around, is still damn compelling to watch.

R-Pats with blonde hair just doesn’t do it for the ladies. Take note.

And yes, people, that has to do with Robert Pattinson and is his great performance here. Sure, he’s been good before and clearly tried to do whatever he could to get away from the Twilight spotlight, but often times, those roles felt a little on-the-nose and, unfortunately, weakly-written. In Good Time, Pattinson totally changes how we look at him, with shaggy hair, tons of facial-hair, and the look that makes you think he hasn’t showered in a few weeks and it’s a breath-taking performance. He’s constantly on his feet, thinking of what the next best move is, and while it’s not entirely smart, you still sort of believe and understand it, making this sometimes intense character, seem grounded in a state of reality.

He isn’t, but who would want to be?

Anyway, Pattinson is great here, but really, it’s Buddy Duress who steals the show. It’s hard to say too much about his role, or how he enters the movie, but just know that when Duress enters the movie, the tempo changes. Hell, everything changes. It’s all of a sudden a lot more funny, silly, dark, and damn violent, which makes it feel like this movie’s going somewhere we truly haven’t seen before, even if it has been done before.

Good Time is the kind of movie that doesn’t feel like its re-inventing the wheel by any means, but by never letting up on the tension and always seeming one step ahead of us, it’s one of the more exhilarating pieces of film I’ve seen this year. It gives me hope for not just Pattinson, for the Safdie’s, or for indie-cinema, as a whole. But film, in general.

Let’s hope that film doesn’t let me down.

Consensus: Fast, fun, zippy, crazy, and anchored by an amazing lead performance from Pattinson, shedding his hunky looks, Good Time is just that, if not more.

9 / 10

Running from all the Twi-hards.

Photos Courtesy of: A24

Advertisements

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Blad

It’s many, many years into the future and for some reason, the old Replicants of yesteryear aren’t being used anymore. Now though, there’s some new and improved ones out there that are working for the LAPD, hunting down the old ones, to ensure that no more problems can come of them. One such blade runner is Officer K (Ryan Gosling) who isn’t quite happy about his existence. Mostly, he spends his time hunting and eliminating old Replicants, then, coming home to Joi (Ana de Armas), a hologram that he has as a companion, despite the two actually never being able to touch one another. On one mission, K unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos, which eventually leads him to Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years and may hold all of the answers that K’s looking for. But he may also offer the same hope and ambition that K himself wants, but doesn’t quite know it just yet. 

With the way this world’s looking, that may be Vegas in the near-future. Almost too near.

Was the original Blade Runner all that great of a movie to garner as much of a following as it has? For me, I’m still not sure. It’s a bold, ambitious and creatively original movie, even for 1982, but it also feels like it deals with a lot of ideas and doesn’t have the opportunity to flesh them out completely and/or fully. Some of that probably had to do with Ridley Scott trying his best to combat with a budget, or some of it may have to do with the fact that the studios just didn’t know what to do with this truly dark and complex material. That said, here we are, many, many years later, and now we have a sequel. Did we really need one?

Actually, it turns out, yes.

What’s perhaps most interesting about Blade Runner 2049 and what, ultimately, turns out to work in its favor, is that it didn’t call for Scott to come back and sit directly behind the camera again. Nope, this time, it’s Denis Villeneuve who is much more of an auteur and has proved himself more than worthy of a big-budgeted, blockbuster in the past and gets the chance to really let loose here. But what’s most interesting about Villeneuve’s direction is that he doesn’t seem to be in any kind of a rush; with most of these kinds of sequels, especially the ones financed by a huge studio, there’s a want for there to be constant action, constant story, and constant stuff just happening.

In Blade Runner 2049, things are a lot slower and more languid than ever before and it does work for the movie. Villeneuve is clearly having a ball working with this huge-budget, with all of the toys and crafts at his disposal, and it allows us to join in on the fun, too. Even at 164 minutes (including credits), the movie doesn’t feel like it’s all that long-winding because there’s so much beauty on-display, from the cinematography, to the clothes, to the dystopian-details, and to the whole universe etched out, it’s hard not to find something to be compelled, or entertained by. After all, it’s a huge blockbuster and it’s meant to make us entertained, even if it doesn’t always have explosions at every single second.

That said, could it afford to lose at least 20 minutes? Yeah, probably.

But really, it actually goes by pretty smoothly. The story itself is a tad conventional and feels like it could have been way more deep than it actually is, but still, Villeneuve is using this as a way to show the major-studios that they can entrust him in a franchise, no matter how much money is being invested. He knows how to keep the story interesting, even if we’re never truly sure just what’s going on, and when it comes to the action, the movie is quick and exhilarating with it all. There’s a lot of floating, driving, and wandering around this barren-wasteland, but it all feels deserved and welcomed in a universe that’s not all that forgiving – Villeneuve doesn’t let us forget that and it’s hard not to want to stay in this universe for as long as we get the opportunity to.

And with this ensemble, can we be blamed? Ryan Gosling fits perfectly into this role as K, because although he has to play all stern, serious and a little dull, there are these small and shining moments of heart and humanity that show through and have us hope for a little something more. Gosling is such a charismatic actor, that even when he’s supposed to be a bore, he can’t help but light-up the screen. Same goes for Harrison Ford who, after many years of not playing Deckard, fits back into the role like a glove that never came off, while also showing a great deal of age and wisdom, giving us fond memories of the character he once was, and all of the tragedy and horror that he must have seen in the years since we left him.

That said, my praise for this movie ends here and especially with these two.

“Dad? Just kidding. You’re way too cranky.”

For one, it’s really hard to dig in deep into this movie without saying more than I would like to, but also, most of my issues with this movie comes from the possible spoilers I could offer. To put it as simple as I humanly can: The movie suffers from problems of, I don’t know, leaving way too much open in the air.

Wait. Did I say too much?

Let me explain a bit further. The one problem with Blade Runner 2049 is that it does feel the need to give us a bunch of characters, subplots, ideas, themes, and possible conflicts, yet, when all is said and done, not really explore them any further. A part of me feels like this is the movie trying to tell us to stick around and wait for me Blade Runner movies, but another part of me feels like this was something that could have been easily avoided, had the writing and direction been leaner, meaner and most of all, tighter.

Don’t get me wrong, all that’s brought to the table, in terms of the main-plot, is pretty great. Everyone in the ensemble, including a lovely and delightful Ana de Armas, put in great work and even the conflicts brought to our attention, have all sorts of promise. But then, they just sit there. The movie ends and we’re left wondering, “Uh, wait. What? That’s it.”

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe I’ve said too much. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll just shut up now.

Okay, no. I definitely will. Just see it so I don’t have to type anymore.

Consensus: Big, bloated, bold, beautiful, and ridiculously compelling, Blade Runner 2049 is the rare many-years-later sequel that does a solid job expanding on its universe and ideas, but doesn’t quite know how to wrap things up in a tiny little bow that it possibly deserved.

8 / 10

Holograms in the real world really do have a long way to go.

Photos Courtesy of: aceshowbiz

Eye in the Sky (2016)

Drones aren’t just little playthings.

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) wakes up early, day in and day out, to carry on secret drone missions that are already controversial as is, but still continue in today’s day and age of the war against terrorism. And on this one fateful morning, the Colonel leads a secret mission to capture a terrorist group living in a safe house in Nairobi, Kenya. However, once more and more information comes to her, she soon finds out that the terrorists are planning for a suicide bombing, leading her to now instead actually kill the terrorists. Meanwhile, drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) targets the safe house, however, he spots a nine-year-old girl playing in and around the premises. Watts’ conscience kicks in and all of a sudden, he doesn’t want to blow away the terrorists until he knows that he is ethically, and legally covered on every ground. Certain people in power, like Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman), believe that he is good-to-go, however, others like political representative Brian Woodale (Jeremy Northam), are against it and want to be absolutely in the clear and sure that this situation could get any worse, way before they actually detonate any bomb, of any sort.

Hey, remember this guy?

Doesn’t look like a Captain to me.

On one hand, Eye in the Sky is this slick, contained, but small real-time thriller that likes to keep its audience in the dark about not knowing what to expect next and hanging on each and every character’s word. On the other hand, Eye in the Sky is also a smart, thoughtful think-piece about, well, drones, and all of the questions that surround them? Should we be using them? And if so, to what extent? What’s the certain legal parameters one should have to go through in order to make sure that they are totally, absolutely correct on who it is that they’re dropping a bomb on? And even if there are legal parameters surrounding it, does that make it “right”?

What Eye in the Sky does, for the most part, is deal with the issue of drone warfare stronger, and more effectively than any other movie has so far. Last year’s Good Kill wanted to be about the same thing and its negative effects on its soldiers, but was also more concerned with its central character and his reaction to drones. Here, Eye in the Sky is more about the actual debate, in and of itself, where people are arguing different, sometimes opposing sides, while at the same time, still trying to make sure that they’re trying to stop a terrorist from doing anything bad. Certain characters here could have probably been labeled as “white-blooded liberal”, or “trigger-happy republican”, and the point would have gotten across, as to who stood on what side of the debate and for what reasons.

Writer/director Gavin Hood could have clearly made any of this material boring and overly-preachy, but instead, he keeps it exciting, tense, and above all else, hard-hitting.

Eye in the Sky, for better or worse, feels like the right movie to address this debate that, quite frankly, is still going on. Society still hasn’t quite latched onto the fact that they’re puny, almost indecipherable robots floating around in our skies, watching our every move, ensuring that nobody’s up to anything naughty and if we are, then how and when can we be stopped. Surely this sort of warfare is intended more for terrorists, but once again, the movie lays on another question: What constitutes a “terrorist”? Obviously, those setting-up and putting together a bomb aimed and ready to get rid of thousands of innocents can be labeled as such, but what about those closely related to that same person? Does that make them guilty by association? Or could they have no idea about this person’s ideals and still get the nuke because, well, they were around and it might as well happen?

Once again, Eye in the Sky brings up all of these questions, gives us some answers, but mostly, leaves you could. This is intended, however, as Hood seems like he’s clearly interested in drone-warfare, for better, as well as for worse. From what it seems, Hood knows that, in some cases, drones may be effective, but in most cases, they bring doubt on those getting locked and loaded to drop the bomb. While someone lower on the food-chain may hear that they’re “getting rid of a heavily-armed and dangerous terrorist”, that person still doesn’t know a single thing about the specifics or what they’re being told is actually true. With Aaron Paul’s pilot character, we see the frustration in how he doesn’t want to drop the bomb on these suspected terrorists just yet, but knows that he has to if he wants to keep his job and not piss the wrong people off in power.

Is Eye in the Sky anti-Army? I’m not sure.

They'll definitely think more the next time they play Call of Duty.

They’ll definitely think more the next time they play Call of Duty.

Either way, Hood seems to be firing on and firing on all cylinders here, and well, it damn well works. Despite all of my yammering on about what the movie talks about and goes to great lengths to argue, Eye in the Sky truly is a tense experience. The mission itself goes from one avenue, to another, with one twist coming after another, but it never seems manipulative or necessary – if anything, it just adds more levels of intensity to a mission that could have been simple and easy-to-solve, but now, has become as complex as they get. But it’s done well in that it keeps you watching, even if you know there’s only one way this movie can seemingly end: With people dying.

And speaking of the people here, everyone’s pretty solid. Helen Mirren holds the fort down as Colonel Katherine Powell, the head gal in charge who is ready for this mission from the very start of her day and won’t stop at anything until its completed; Aaron Paul gets to look dour and scared, which he’s fine at; Barkhad Abdi plays an agent on the ground and, while he’s not doing a whole heck of a lot, it still made me happy to see him doing something (with new teeth, mind you); and the late, great Alan Rickman shows up as Lieutenant General Frank Benson, someone who is back in the office, watching as the action unfolds. While it’s a fine performance from a great actor, what really sets it over the bar, by the end, is a small, but meaningful little speech from Rickman and how it’s either get rid of the terrorists with the time they have, rather than step back and wait for the damage to be done. There’s a certain sadness and heartbreak in his eyes and it’s hard not to think about, long after seeing Eye in the Sky.

Not just for Rickman, but in general. But yeah, also for Rickman.

RIP, man.

Consensus: Incredibly tense without playing its hand too much, Eye in the Sky is the near-perfect thriller that deals with the heavy issues and questions, but also likes to keep its audience on-their-toes as well.

8.5 / 10

"Hello? Yes. Drop that bloody bomb!"

“Hello? Yes. Drop that bloody bomb!”

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

Trainwreck (2015)

There’s more to life than booze. Like pot.

When she was younger, Amy (Amy Schumer) was always told by her dad (Colin Quinn) that monogamy is nearly impossible. Many years later, she’s seem to taken that note of advice to heart, where mostly every other night, she spends it drinking, smoking, partying, and going home with some guy that she doesn’t even remember the next morning. Her sister (Brie Larson) has turned out for the best with her husband (Mike Birbiglia) and step-son, but Amy just can’t seem to bring herself to want and/or be happy with those sorts of things – she’s already too happy enjoying her independence. That all begins to change, however, when Amy’s assigned a story for her magazine on a sports doctor, Dr. Aaron Conners (Bill Hader). Though it’s not necessarily smart for a journalist to get involved with her subject, Amy just can’t help herself one night and sooner than later, realizes that she’s in something that she’s always fought so hard against: A relationship. But because Amy is so commitment-phobic, she’s finding it hard to not let her personal issues get in the way of something beautiful she and Aaron could have, even if he too struggles with it from time to time.

It’s hard to make a good romantic comedy nowadays. Sure, a movie can try its hardest to spin the genre on the tops of its head so many times, in so many fancy ways, that even the most downbeat and depressed person can find something to be happy about. But sometimes, what ultimately ends up happening is that the movie turns out to be a pretentious piece of bull that’s trying so hard to please you in an ironic way, that it’s downright annoying. I’ve seen many rom-coms in my life that have been different enough to work (500 Days of Summer), I’ve seen many that try to be hip and cool, but just turn out to be gag-inducing (plenty of indies), and that will probably never change.

Cheers up, ladies. You deserve it.

Cheers up, ladies. You deserve it.

However, there’s no denying that Trainwreck‘s a good rom-com.

Even in today’s day and age.

What Amy Schumer and Judd Apatow both do perfectly together here is that they blend their own certain styles of humor that it feels like one, cohesive whole, rather than just a splattering of ideas thrown at the wall like spaghetti. Schumer actually wrote this script and while most of it may definitely seem like the normal kind of banter we expect from Apatow projects, it’s surprisingly mostly coming from Schumer’s pen, paper, and mind. Sure, there’s definitely some improv to be found among the talents on-display here, however, Trainwreck is Amy Schumer’s baby, through and through, and there’s nobody who can get in the way of that.

Which isn’t to say that Judd Apatow tries to sneak in and take it all away from her – in fact, it’s all quite the opposite. Apatow allows for there to be many moments dedicated solely to just Schumer herself, acting, being charming, and building this character, rather than relying on non-stop scenes of people just rambling on and on about whatever comes to their mind first. Though this aspect of Apatow’s movies can still illicit laughs, here, it would have mostly felt unnecessary and random.

Because at the center of Trainwreck, there’s this fully-realized and developed female character who feels as if she was written in a smart way that she’s not only relateable to anyone out there, but still human enough to not be judged as harshly as she herself may want you to. That the movie doesn’t slut-shame Amy’s character, nor make her forget about the errors of her ways, proves that Schumer set out to make a human, rather than just a character that can stand in while everyone around her cracks jokes and moves the story right on along. Like I’ve said before, it’s totally Schumer’s movie and it’s better off because of it – she never forgets what’s driving this story, nor does she ever let herself take over the screen too much.

Which is to say, that when she’s letting others deliver the funny, they more than do so.

You’d think that with a cast as varied and nuts as Trainwreck, that there’d most definitely be some weak-spots to be found among the group, but somehow, that doesn’t happen. Every performer who shows up is more than up to the task of delivering the funny, making their presence known, and then leaving to let the movie get on with itself. And the reason why I used the word “performer” is because it’s a little hard to classify a group of actors, when you’re talking about the likes of John Cena, or Lebron James, or even Amar’e Stoudemire; okay maybe Cena’s more believable as an “actor”, considering his profession, but as for the other two, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen either show-off their thespian skills before.

However, both of them, as well as plenty of others are pitch perfect with their comedy. Especially James, who comes off like the sassy best-friend type that these kinds of movies seem to have, but instead, because it’s Lebron James and the writing’s a whole lot more knowing, it never comes off like a conceit. Instead, it just comes off as Lebron James being very funny in a role that, believe it or not, was written perfectly for him. Sure, he’s playing a heightened version of himself, but at least he can actually “play” around in the first place, yuck it up, and not take himself at all too seriously.

Kobe's not this charming. Trust me.

Kobe’s not this charming. Trust me.

Good for him, because who knows? When that basketball career of his dries up, there may be a bigger, brighter future out there for him in front of the camera.

So long as he doesn’t get stuck with starring in a Kazaam remake.

Anyway, Lebron’s not the only one who gets a chance to shine and show the comedy-world what they are capable of doing, and why you can depend on them some more in the future. Tilda Swinton, Ezra Miller (lovely little We Need to Talk About Kevin reunion, if there ever was one), Vanessa Bayer, Randall Park, Dave Attell, Marisa Tomei, Jon Glaser, Method Man, Daniel Radcliffe, and 100-year-old Norman Lloyd, among others, may or may not seem like the perfect choices for your rom-com, but they somehow assert themselves well enough here that they prove why they are. As usual with Apatow’s movies, some roles tend to lean more on the excessive side (Matthew Broderick, Marv Albert and Chris Evert), whereas other go unseen (Barkhad Abdi and Jim Norton were apparently cast), but there’s no denying that Apatow’s able to draw out some of the most odd, sometimes shocking moments of comedy from these talents, whether you expected any of them to deliver on them or not.

But at the center of all the mayhem occurring with this ensemble, is Amy Schumer and Bill Hader who not only have perfect chemistry, but really give some personality to these otherwise stock characters. Schumer’s boozy, free-wheeling character seems like she’s on the brink of self-destruction, but the movie makes it clear that it’s not necessarily a problem for her, nor is it a problem for us; Schumer’s just so charming and funny about everything, that it hardly registers at all that she’s slowly dying on the inside. Same goes with Bill Hader, who’s Dr. Conners feels like he could be the butt of every joke, yet, turns out to be the smartest character of them all. And even then, he’s got some problems worth solving.

Then again, don’t we all?

Consensus: As is the case with Apatow movies, Trainwreck is a tad overlong, but is still hilarious, well-acted, and insightful enough that it’s maybe his most polished work to date and proves that there’s plenty of room to grow for not just him, but Amy Schumer as well.

8 / 10

People in love - so happy and joyful. It makes me sick!

People in love – so happy and joyful. It makes me sick!

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz

Captain Phillips (2013)

Move on over, Captain Jack. There’s a new king of the seas!

Rich Phillips (Tom Hanks) is your everyday boat captain. He’s a family man, he knows what’s right with the world, what isn’t, he’s strict, he’s determined, he doesn’t quite play-well with others, but he’s cautious to a certain point. However, the cautious-nature that makes him who he is may help him out this time when four Somalian armed-pirates jump aboard his ship and take hostages, demanding money. Phillips is more than able to oblige, but he realizes that these four are some insanely dangerous people you do not want to mess with, especially when they have AK-47s pointed directly at his face. But Phillips doesn’t allow for that to get in his way too much and finds the solution to their problems by giving them all of the money he has in his vault; all $3,000 of it. Obviously, as you could expect, the pirates know that they can’t go back with that chump-change and needed a bigger bang for their buck. So, like any normal-thinking human-being anchoring a hostage-situation, they decide to kidnap Phillips and put his life on the line so that they can get more money through ransom. They don’t realize though, it ain’t that easy when you’re working the U.S. army, baby! And Richard Phillips too, but this isn’t even his story, right?

"Jenny?"

“Jenny?”

While many out there (myself included) have been a bit skeptical of Greengrass’ career and how long his “frantic, shaky-cam” gimmick would run dry, the man always finds a way to keep us coming back for more. More for him, more for the material he chooses to adapt, and best of all, more for the disastrous, real-life situations he chooses to display and re-create, if you will. The man did it with United 93, one of the most dreadful, yet, powerful pieces of cinema about 9/11 you’ll ever see, and hell, despite the story not being as known to me as that deadly tragedy was, he does the same thing again with Captain Phillips, the true tale of a man who threw himself into a deadly situation and somehow, someway, came out by the skin of his teeth.

That’s not a spoiler, by the way. So please, please do not get all up in my grill, because in all honesty, it doesn’t matter. Knowing the outcome beforehand or not knowing won’t make a single lick of a difference because Greengrass, using any skill he has in his tool-belt without over-doing it, makes this movie so freakin’ tense, so sweaty, so gripping, and so suspenseful, that you may even, at one point, wonder just what the hell is going to happen. So many movies that are based on real-life events try so hard to make you feel that tense in the most manipulative ways possible, but not this one. Greengrass knows better and believe it or not, seems like he’s learned from his mistakes and dials-down a lot of his gimmicks.

No loud, swelling music trying to make you feel a certain way; none of the infamous “crack-cam”; no fake emotions trying to make you see Phillips story from all sorts of perspectives; and thankfully, not a single piece of forced-patriotism thrown onto us, as if Greengrass wants us to be chanting, “U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!”, by the end of it. And even if that was the case, it probably still would have worked because he finds a way to make you gain hope in anybody who’s just trying to survive this situation and save Phillips life if they can. Even Phillips himself who, despite being played by everybody’s favorite actor, doesn’t really come off as the nicest guy in the world, yet you still care for him.

And you can totally credit that to Hanks’ utter-charm that has him win over anybody he meets, in real-life or in the movies, but you can also credit that to Greengrass for giving us a guy who feels real, doesn’t feel like the happiest/most pleasant person on the face planet, and may even be a bit of a dick. Yet, you still care for him and realize that every step he makes, good or bad, may be a step he takes to his grave or to his warm, cozy bed at home. Either way, he’s going to get out of this situation one way or another, and he will stop at nothing to make sure he comes out of this alive. And if not, well then, he’ll make sure he’s the only one because it’s his ship, his decisions, and his life that he’s throwing out on the line. Nobody else’s and if that doesn’t make him a natural-born hero, then I don’t know what the hell does!

But, like I was saying about Tom Hanks, you know you love the guy in almost anything he shows up in (Larry Crowne included) because lord knows I do. Problem is, the man hasn’t really been showing much of his talent lately. Sure, he’s taken some interesting projects here and there, but nothing to the point of where I was reminded why this man is usually regarded as one of the best working today, best of all time, and why the hell he won two Oscars, back-to-back! Needless to say, I was a bit worried seeing him here as Richard Phillips as it seemed like the type of role that would have had him talking all of the time, being loud, trying to be charming, and not allowing me, not for a single second, to get past the fact that it was Tom Hanks playing a role.

Which one's blackbeard?

Which one’s blackbeard?

Instead, Hanks totally showed me up, and I’m glad he did so. Not only did he have me believe that he was this frightened, desperate man in this very tense hostage-situation, but he also had me believe that he could get out of it alive if he just used his smarts and brains a bit. Granted, he’s not the nicest guy in the world, like I said before, and we don’t get to know too much about his background other than that he loves his wife, his kids, and is scared that the times are changin’. But that small crap doesn’t matter because Hanks gives one of his best performances in the past decade or so and it gives me more and more faith in him as his career continues to chive on.

As for those “Oscar whispers” he’s getting, he totally deserves all of them and should get a nomination, no matter what. Hanks was great throughout the whole movie by the way he was able to still have us care for him without using his insane-amounts of charm, but nothing measures up to the last 5 minutes of the film, and what he does in front of the camera. You’ll be hearing a lot of people talk about these final moments for quite some time, and with good reason: They’re so emotional, so effective, and so inspiring, that you’ll be absolutely astonished how Greengrass and Hanks were able to come together and make it work so damn well, and in such a realistic, honest matter as well. Just watch these final minutes and you’ll see what I mean. One of the best, most memorable scenes of the year that I’ll most likely be remembering for years to come.

As for the rest of the cast, with the exception of a 5-minute role from Catherine Keener as Phillips loving, but barely seen wife, it’s character-actor central, with the occasional unknown thrown in for good measure. Everybody in this cast is good, but the one that really caught me off-guard was newcomer Barkhad Abdi as Muse, the leader of these Somalian pirates, and the one that takes charge early on. The one aspect behind this movie that could have really tore it down was how completely one-sided its view-point could have come off as being, and while Greengrass sure as hell doesn’t support these pirates actions, he still shows them as human-beings doing something so inhumane and so evil like threatening somebody’s life, but also giving them reasons for why it is that they are doing so. Greengrass never tries to make us feel bad for them to the point of where it’s near-Liberalism, but he does hold his hand out to them a bit more than usual, more for Abdi who you feel the worst for, because you know he’s not a bad guy, he just does bad things due to outside influence. Still, they were Somalian pirates that tried to kill a man for money. That immoral behavior should never be forgiven, no matter who commits it.

Consensus: The story is one we may all know, yet, Captain Phillips is still one of the most compelling, most tense thrillers of the whole year with plenty of food-for-thought and a Tom Hanks performance that anchors the material the whole through; keeping it humane, grounded, and placed in a sense of reality, as if we are really seeing this happen in front of our faces, the way it’s meant to be seen and understood.

9 / 10 = Full Price!!

"No no no! I forbid you from eating mah box of chocolates!"

“No no no! I forbid you from eating mah box of chocolates!”

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, Collider, Joblo, ComingSoon.net