The Phoenician Scheme

Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: Benecio del Toro, Mia Threapleton, Michael Cera, Riz Ahmed, Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, Mathieu Amalric, Richard Ayoade, Jeffrey Wright, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Rupert Friend, Hope Davis, Bill Murray, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe, F. Murray Abraham, Stephen Park
Running Time: 101 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)       

For anyone wondering how a Wes Anderson directed international espionage picture would play out, an answer comes with The Phoenician Scheme, which looks and feels a lot like previous Anderson efforts. But that's only bad news if you happen to detest his dry humor, twee tone, penchant for recycling the same actors in different roles, or even that unmistakable Futura font. And while it all converges into a distinctive style sometimes known as the "Anderson aesthetic," it has just as many fans as detractors, many of whom eagerly await each new release. 

When cinephiles rank Anderson's' divisive output there's largely agreement on what they've seen, often causing them to love and hate chosen titles for exactly the same reasons.  But after the visual and narrative spectacle of Asteroid City hinted at more complex themes bubbling just under the surface of its meta structure, this satire reprsents the latest signpost for his brand of mannered quirkiness. And though it can't help but feel like a slight step back in comparison, there's no denying it still showcases what he does best. 

It's 1950 and eccentric arms dealer/industrialist Anatole "Zsa-Zsa" Korda (Benicio del Toro) is busy trying to evade multiple assassination attempts until a horrific plane crash nearly does him in. Fearing time may be running out, he attempts to reconnect with his only daughter, Liesel (Mia Threapleton), a Catholic nun repulsed by her father's behavior and suspicious he murdered her mom. Still, he persuades her to leave the Church to help run his business on a trial basis, also hiring Norwegian entomologist and family tutor Bjørn (Michael Cera) as administrative assistant.

Risking his wealth on a scheme to overhaul Phoenicia's infrastructure with slave labor, Korda plots to thwart the government's plans to bankrupt him by duping investors into covering the budget shortfall. Joined by Liesel and Bjørn, he starts with Californians Leland (Tom Hanks) and Reagan (Bryan Cranston) before moving on to French nightclub owner Marseille Bob (Mathieu Amalric), Newark investor Marty (Jeffrey Wright), and even his own cousin, Hilda (Scarlett Johansson), an heiress to the family fortune. Infuriating them with his lies, Korda refuses to enlist the help of estranged half-brother Nubar (Benedict Cumberbatch) due to their troubled history. But as Liesel spends more time with her dad, she reluctantly holds out hope that he's capable of change.

Somehow both convoluted and mind numbingly simple, the plot's almost beside the point, serving as an excuse for its characters to engage in the absurd, but highly entertaining hijinx put in motion by Korda's embarrassing scheme. Much of why involves the road trip element, which gives Anderson's troupe of regulars a chance to shine in wildly different roles. But none of that would be possible without del Toro's brilliantly bonkers performance as Korda, a clear amalgamation of narcissistic industrialists like William Randolph Hearst and Aristotle Onassis. 

Anderson employs a treasure trove of cultural, historical and cinematic references to fill out this story centering around his main character's eccentric peculiarities, such as adopting as many kids as possible and organizing his business files into separate shoeboxes. Del Toro has to walk a thin line line here, playing a selfish swindler, deadbeat dad and charmingly likable rogue all wrapped into one, showing just enough humanity for us to understand why Leisel bothers sticking around.

Amid a flood of famous faces, it's a revelatory Threapleton who makes the strongest impression as Liesel, whose faith is tested when confronted with the prospect of not only forgiving her emotionally inaccessible dad, but somehow forging an actual relationship with him. And it's when her character experiences Korda's moral failings up close that Threapleton's sarcastic wit and bemused facial expressions supply the film its heart. And opposite both in his largest Anderson role to date, an ideally cast Cera plays the awkward, bumbling Bjørn to perfection, just as we'd expect.  

While Hanks and Cranston's appearances do feel more like celebrity cameos than fleshed out parts, they're still sort of a hoot as brothers, with Wright and Johansson managing to give the looniest, most worthwhile turns of the investors. Others like Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Hope Davis and F. Murray Abraham only pop in and out. It's really the uncomfortable camaraderie between Korda and his two travel companions that carry this, leading right into the eventual sibling showdown with Cumberbatch's scary, bushy eyebrowed Nubar. The result is a surprisingly sentimental finale that prioritizes substance over style. 

Anchored by a charismatically flawed character in the vein of odd, ornery Anderson protagonists like Royal Tenenbaum and Steve Zisssou, it's hard not to wish this was at least slightly better, or even a little less messy. But with a trio of tremendous lead performances, a clever structure and stretches of hilarity, there's a lot to appreciate. Those rooting for Anderson to completely step outside the box may have to wait a little longer, but in giving us more of the same he continues to prove that few do it better.                        

Here

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, Michelle Dockery, Gwilym Lee, Ophelia Lovibond, David Fynn, Daniel Betts, Joel Oulette, Dannie McCallum, Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird
Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

It's safe to say that among universally beloved filmmakers, Robert Zemeckis' recent career trajectory might sting the most, with 2012's Flight frequently cited as the last real success. Because of this, he joins a long list of great directors who discovered their fiercest competition is themselves, or more accurately, their most remembered work. And while holding nothing against Forrest Gump or the idea of its stars reuniting, we all know Back to the Future will always be the first title everyone associates with Zemeckis. So it's ironic that even when again engulfing himself in cinematic technology, his latest, Here, marks a return to those roots by revolving around a similar theme. 

Based on Richard McGuire's 2014 graphic novel of the same name, the non-linear film takes place in a single location, simultaneously tracking its various inhabitants over different eras. And if it's disheartening to see something this experimentally ambitious get unfairly clobbered by critics and audiences, there's at least an explanation. It's that Zemeckis' current track record and a trailer filled with jarring, out-of-context shots of a de-aged Tom Hanks and Robin Wright caused many to declare it dead on arrival before viewing a single scene.

In a perfect world, Zemeckis could have utilized practical effects and makeup to film this directly following Gump, only substituting McGuire's original 1989 comic as its source. But after watching it, the best news is that the result wouldn't necessarily be better, with this standing as the first of his modern films where the effects mostly inform its story, quelling fears of another Polar Express or Beowulf. Employing a fixed camera angle, we're granted unlimited entry into the victories and disappointments of life, spanning from when dinosaurs roamed the Earth to present day. Characters are born, they die and the cycle repeats, but what happens in between is where Zemeckis and co-writer Eric Roth create flashes of magic. 

Taking place entirely within the confines of a New England home that was formerly a part of Benjamin Franklin's son's estate, John Harter (Gwilym Lee) and his wife Pauline (Michelle Dockery) move in shortly after its construction at the turn of the 20th century. They'll have a daughter, but his obsession with piloting planes causes a strain on their marriage that may prove insurmountable. Future inhabitants of the house include eccentric La-Z-Boy recliner inventer Leo Beekman (David Fynn) and his pin-up model wife Stella (Ophelia Lovibond) and married couple Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly), who purchase the property following World War II. 

The Youngs raise their three children in the suburban home until 18-year-old son Richard's (Hanks) girlfriend Margaret (Wright) becomes pregnant with daughter Vanessa. As both generations attempt to co-exist under the same roof, Richard makes personal sacrifices to support his family while Margaret grows antsier for them to move out and start a life of their own. Various triumphs and tragedies occur, along with smaller moments that grow in importance for both as they drift apart and age, forever linked by their shared experiences and memories.

While none of the events take place in what we'd strictly consider chronological order, Zemeckis alternates between periods and characters for the first 45 minutes or so before spending the bulk of his time on Richard and Margaret. He also employs these boxes or comic book-like panels on screen to signal shifts between time periods within this living room and dissolve into another scene. It's initially jarring, but after a while you just settle in, grasping its larger purpose as the separate segments play out. 

For all the de-aging complaints, this attempt is more cleanly executed than in 2019's The Irishman, the latest Indiana Jones and even some of Disney's latest Star Wars offerings. And that's coming from someone who's no fan of the approach and thinks we're still years away from being able to rely on it to such an extreme. But having actors of this high a caliber tackling an ingenious conceit softens that blow considerably, relegating the only lackluster digitization to opening CGI shots of nature, dinosaurs and deer. 

Luckily, we get into the house quickly, and despite the fixed camera angle throughout, it never feels as if we're merely watching a filmed stage play. Characters come in and out of the frame while Zemeckis crafts some clever transitions that bridge the gap between eras, like an inspired cut from colonial times to a current day Mayflower moving truck. And while Ashley Lamont's production design for the living space has to span decades, it's filled with rich, precise period detail that joins Alan Silvestri elegiac score in supplementing a script that hops back and forth between years, often within minutes. 

There comes a point almost midway through where any justifiable skepticism disappears, resulting in not only the film's strongest stretch, but the kind of storytelling we hoped Zemeckis still had in him. And all of that begins and ends with the Youngs, as we see Hanks' Richard abandon his early painting passion for a more monetarily stable sales job to support his family. This while Margaret also puts her law aspirations on hold, desperately wanting for them to move out despite all his financial excuses not to.

Hanks and Wright are again extraordinary together as a couple frustrated by an inability to reach their respective potentials due to a combination of fear, gender expectations and monetary realities. Unfairly labeled by detractors as a schmaltzy, life affirming fable, the film's more accurately viewed as the slow decay of the American dream with two generations battling to deal with the hands they're dealt. And hanging over it all is the familiar specter of illness and death, like in one scary scene where a friend face plants on the floor following a fatal heart attack. 

As Richard, Hanks creating a complicated portrait of an everyman whose fear of moving past childhood keeps them in this house, even remarking at one point that he actually thought his constant worrying would stop bad things from happening. And though Wright imbues Margaret with a glowing, youthful optimism, that too will gradually fade under the weight of insecurity and societal pressures, leaving her to find the joy in tinier, seemingly throwaway moments that will grow monumental in retrospect.

Paul Bettany gives the film's best performance as Al Young, a flawed, cynical war veteran with a rock hard exterior that seems impossible to crack, making it easy to see how his stubborn traits influence and even traumatize son Richard when he starts a family of his own. Very much a product of his era, Al drowns his pain with booze and smoking while keeping a firm, overprotective grip on Kelly Reilly's Rose who, like Margaret, put her own goals on the backburner.

As Rose and Al advances in age to the point that his son and daughter-in-law become their caretakers, Bettany's turn grows even more interesting, displaying a vulnerability that provides valuable insight and justification into his more prickly behavior. And of everyone, Zemeckis really hits it out of the park with this character's visual presentation, believably aging him on screen from a young man in his twenties to an ailing senior citizen.

Despite feeling epic in scope, the film clocks in at just over an hour and a half, carried by Jesse Goldsmith's seamless editing and the fact Zemeckis moves so fast, with years and decades passing in the blink of an eye to replicate the experiences of these characters. As time flies, we're transported to the near-present where the home's latest occupants Helen (Nikki Amuka-Bird) and Devon Harris (Nicholas Pinnock) confront the issue of police violence and deal with the COVID pandemic. Inevitably, side stories like that, the The Franklin vignettes and a subplot involving Indigenous Native Americans receive less attention due to the unusual structure. But while the overall narrative may lack the unity of The Tree of Life, it's still hard to complain when so many of its scenes still manage to  powerfully register.

If nothing else, Here is a brutally honest, unapologetically melodramatic look at the passage of time that uses its unique, experimental single location narrative to magnify the minutia of human experience. It's not for everyone, but even those who consider it a failure would be forced to admit Zemeckis takes a huge risk in giving audiences this much to unpack. With a format that practically invites repeated viewings and reevaluation, it'll be fascinating to gauge how it ages once the vitriol dies down, leaving us to appreciate the reality we at least have a director bold enough to try.                    

Asteroid City

Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Hanks, Jeffrey Wright, Tilda Swinton, Bryan Cranston, Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Liev Schreiber, Hope Davis, Stephen Park, Rupert Friend, Maya Hawke, Steve Carell, Matt Dillon, Hong Chau, Willem Dafoe, Margot Robbie, Tony Revolori, Jake Ryan, Grace Edwards, Aristou Meehan, Sophia Lillis, Ethan Josh Lee, Jeff Goldblum
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

The style vs. substance debate that's followed Wes Anderson throughout his career again rears its head with Asteroid City, an ambitious effort from a very distinctive filmmaker sure to split critics and audiences down the middle. He must be used to it by now, considering how each new release is accompanied by conversations about how Andersonian it really is. For rabid devotees, there's no such thing as too much, whereas just a couple of minutes is more than enough for the harshest detractors. But even as his singular aesthetic still prompts accusations of superficial repetitiveness, few contemporary directors have amassed a body of work so instantly recognizable. No matter what you think of it.  

For all the SNL skits or viral video spoofs, making a Wes Anderson picture is a market he'll always have cornered because there's an underlying sincerity to what he does that no one's been able to duplicate. Even when the execution seems like a parody of itself, there's more there. It's especially true of his best efforts like Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, where style and substance overlap in character-driven stories that go to deeper, rawer places many feel he hasn't returned to since. The jury's still out on where this one lands, but it's definitely a departure of sorts. Or at least as much of a departure as we've gotten from the divisive director in a long time. 

The film's retro futuristic desert setting is a hugely impressive visual achievement brought to surreal life by Robert Yeoman's cinematography and Adam Stockhausen's production design. But there's also a meta layer that distinguishes it, as a stacked cast pulls double duty in both a black-and-white TV documentary special of a play and the play's events, presented in vibrant color. It's also a pastiche of postwar Americana, UFO paranoia and old Hollywood moviemaking that further explores the themes of grief and ostracization constantly present in Anderson's output. In other words, there's a lot to unpack.

The film opens in black-and-white as a TV host (Bryan Cranston) introduces renowned playwright Conrad Earp's (Edward Norton) production of "Asteroid City," a play that takes place in a fictional 1955 desert town of the same name. In it, war photographer Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman) arrives with his intellectual teen son Woodrow (Jake Ryan) and three daughters at the Junior Stargazer convention where Woodrow is being honored. But Augie's inability to tell the kids of their mother's recent death complicates his already fragile relationship with curmudgeonly father-in-law Stanley (Tom Hanks). 

Also in town is Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johansson), a famous, melancholy actress whose teen daughter Dinah (Grace Edwards) is also being recognized at the convention. Among the other attendees are elementary school teacher June Douglas (Maya Hawke) and her class, a cowboy band led by a singer named Montana (Rupert Friend), the brilliant but eccentric astronomer Dr. Hickenlooper (Tilda Swinton) and five star General Grif Gibson (Jeffrey Wright). 

When a major extraterrestrial event inexplicably occurs during the awards presentation, the U.S. government frantically intervenes to contain the site and quarantine witnesses in town. We're also shown glimpses of the TV special detailing the play's evolution, as the actors struggle to make sense of their roles, most notably Schwartzman's Jones Hall, who helplessly turns to director Schubert Green (Adrien Brody) for creative guidance.

It isn't clear where the story's going for much of the first forty minutes, or even if it's headed in a direction that would set it apart from what we've already seen from Anderson. And despite his penchant for attracting huge names, the involvement of Hanks and Johansson doesn't necessarily signify we're in for something especially unique, as sometimes even the biggest stars have taken back seats to the framing and visual presentation of his pictures. And this one is mind-blowing, shot by Yeoman with a bright, oversaturated artificiality that recalls 50's Westerns like Bad Day at Black Rock. 

As usual with Anderson, the actors dryly deliver their lines with a kind of detached bemusement that almost implies they're playing imitations or mockeries of themselves. Only the real kicker this time is that they actually are. The "play within a play" conceit allow the actors to carry aspects of their performer's uncertainty toward the material into the actual roles, adding an important contextual layer. This works especially well with Schwartzman and Johansson, who delicately depict Augie and Midge's ambivalence toward each another, dancing around their feelings before eventually connecting on a deeper level. Schwartzman's nuanced turn has you wondering why he isn't cast more often as a lead while Johansson perfectly captures this moody, morose Hollywood starlet with an edge. 

Once the UFO event unfolds with the appearance of a wacky looking alien, the script's characters really start to wrestle with various forms of loneliness and uncertainty. And like many Anderson films, it celebrates the quirky outsider, as the Junior Stargazers are far more tuned in and observant than any of their parents, scientists and especially government officials. Those Moonrise Kingdom vibes are definitely present in Woodrow and Dinah's relationship, while the film still manages to incorporate an endless parade of well known faces without it coming across as a stunt.

Hanks, Hawke and Swinton make the most impact with what they're handed and even the smaller parts occupied by Hope Davis, Liev Schreiber and Willem Dafoe humorously fill out the corners of this bizarre world. If there's a true highlight, it's Margot Robbie's sensational single scene opposite Schwartzman, which ties the movie's metaverse in knots to gain invaluably greater insight into Augie and the actor who plays him. Most assumed Hanks' cranky part was originally intended for Bill Murray, but the latter was actually cast as Steve Carell's motel manager before having to pull out. Regardless, Hanks puts his own spin on Stanley and Carell's tiny role would likely be a waste of Murray anyway. 

From the moment an entertainingly deadpan Cranston appears on screen channeling Rod Serling in a Playhouse 90-style special, it's apparent we're in for a rarer breed of nostalgic escape than Anderson usually delivers. A single viewing of Asteroid City won't determine its ranking in his filmography or win over doubters, but much of what the trailer hinted at pans out with Anderson flair, again making it difficult to separate the filmmaker from his creation. But like these characters, we'll just have to accept that understanding everything isn't the goal, or really even necessary at all.

A Man Called Otto

Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Tom Hanks, Mariana Treviño, Rachel Keller, Truman Hanks, Manuel García-Rulfo, Mike Birbiglia, Cameron Britton, Mack Bayda, Juanita Jennings, Peter Lawson Jones, Kelly Lamor Wilson 
Running Time: 126 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)    

Despite the Oscars, affability and success, Tom Hanks still strangely faces a certain degree of skepticism when taking roles that clash with his nice guy reputation as the modern day Jimmy Stewart. Having consistently impressed in all kinds of dramatic parts, there's a nagging belief among critics and audiences that he can't really go anywhere too dark. Even the mere suggestion elicits groans, as if even his most ardent fans don't want him traveling too far outside that perceived comfort zone.  

In Marc Forster's A Man Called Otto, Hanks tackles the type of ornery, irascible character Jack Nicholson perfected in As Good As it Gets and About Schmidt, prompting those overly familiar complaints about his miscasting. It's based on the acclaimed 2015 Swedish film A Man Called Ove, and while it's a leap to call this material dark, it does take steps forward in challenging those unfair preconceptions. While giving Hanks something more somber, it still manages to deliver the feel good, tug-at-the-heartstrings project viewers have come to expect from him. More importantly, it's done well, which wasn't a lock considering the depressing territory it navigates in between laughs.

Otto Anderson (Hanks) is a 63-year-old recent widower living outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who lost his schoolteacher wife Sonya six months earlier and has just been pushed into retirement at his steel company job. A grumpy curmudgeon constantly complaining about the most trivial of inconveniences, he's irked by anything and anyone in the neighborhood. No longer seeing a reason to live, he plans to hang himself, until being interrupted by the arrival of friendly new neighbors Marisol (Mariana Treviño), Tommy (Manuel García-Rulfo) and their two young daughters Abby (Alessandra Perez) and Luna (Christiana Montoya). 

Marisol slowly punctures holes in Otto's icy exterior, but he still has a bone to pick with neighbor Anita (Juanita Jennings) and her husband Reuben (Peter Lawson Jones), an unresponsive stroke survivor who he fell out with years ago. But more justifiable is his disdain for the hilariously named real estate company, Dye & Merica, whose agent (Mike Birbiglia) is scoping the area to build high-priced condos. As Otto begrudgingly grows closer to Marisol's family and recommits to protecting his neighborhood, he's forced to confront the reality of a future without Sonya.

The central idea of not really knowing who lives next door makes Hanks' casting hit differently now than it would even just a few years earlier. David Magee's script capitalizes on society's increased cynicism, realizing it's hardly a stretch to imagine your neighbor isn't nearly as warm as you assumed from afar. That's why having Hanks in the role is so effective, causing us to question whether Otto was always this much of a jerk or it's entirely a reaction his wife's passing. Going out of his way to avoid meaningful interaction extending beyond snide, fleeting criticisms, many tolerate his hostility to a point knowing the circumstances. 

Somewhat surprisingly, the film contains more suicide attempts than Harold and Maude, only with a protagonist actually intending to do it. Or maybe not, given how many times he fails, knowing it's not what his late spouse would want. We get that much from the flashbacks that precede them, accomplishing exactly what's necessary in informing the present day narrative. It's also highlighted by two terrific performances, the first of which comes from Hanks' own son Truman Hanks, who as young Otto perfectly channels a more awkward version of his famous dad opposite an enchanting Rachel Keller as Sonya. In just a handful of minutes, these scenes go a long way in making us understand why present-day Otto is so helplessly devastated. 

All of that certainly plays better than a distracting, extremely awkward de-aging scene that chronicles Otto's long-standing grudge against old pal Reuben. Even while the story works at conveying the former's stubbornness over silly issues, the poor special effects undo it. Luckily, it's a minor quibble, as most everything else succeeds and comes together nicely by the end, which isn't a small feat considering the quantity of plot.

Aside from neighborly feuds, clingy stray cats and unauthorized medical records access, separate side stories involving a social media journalist (Kelly Lamor Wilson) and a local transgender teen (Mack Bayda) manage to come together with reasonable payoffs. There's also some humorous character work from actors like Birbiglia as the real estate rep and Cameron Britton as an exercise obsessed neighbor. But it's Mariana Treviño who steals every scene she shares with Hanks, never crossing the line into irritatingly maudlin when connecting with this crank and slowly bringing him out of his sad shell.

That A Man Called Otto delivers what's expected from its trailers and commercials isn't necessarily a negative here, especially when adult mainstream movies about people struggling with real problems continue to search for an audience. This found one and it's easy to see why. You don't walk away feeling cheated by the experience, as Forster keeps the material from coming across too cloying or manipulative. Whether it'll be remembered or discussed beyond the end credits is a trickier question, but as somewhat of an outlier in Hanks' filmography, it doesn't disappoint.

Elvis

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson, Richard Roxburgh, Kelvin Harrison Jr., David Wenham, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Luke Bracey, Dacre Montgomery
Running Time:159 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

Baz Luhrmann's Elvis definitely doesn't linger in one spot for very long, moving at a breakneck pace with frenetic editing and over-the-top theatricality as it charges through the milestones of Presley's life and career. With a dizzying, dazzling visual style and thrilling recreations of the King's stage performances (and the public's reaction to them) it's compulsively watchable and hard to look away from. That it's garnered such polarizing reactions is kind of a shock considering just how much it gets right, following the necessary beats, but doing so in an imaginative, flashy style that fits the one-of-a-kind performer it covers. 

Allegedly problematic elements, like a potentially awkward framing device and the criticisms of Elvis' appropriation of black music and culture, are not only seamlessly woven into the narrative, but addressed head-on. Presley's love of entertaining drives the action, with Luhrmann approximating for us the experience of watching him onstage and off. So while there are many bells and whistles, they add rather than detract from Austin Butler's electrifying lead performance in the title role. Radiating the King's innate charisma and magnetism, he gets even better as it goes on, with this eye-popping spectacle only enhancing the mythic presence Butler's called upon to convey. 

It's 1997 and Elvis Presley's (Butler) former manager, the now destitute Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks) lies on his deathbed reminiscing about when first discovered the King of Rock n' Roll. Labeling himself the "snowman," Parker was a carnival huckster and opportunist, perpetually on the hunt for his own "Greatest Show on Earth" that puts him in the company of P.T. Barnum. He first meets Elvis while managing country singer Hank Snow (David Wenham), immediately recognizing the young man's crossover potential as a white artist who "sounds black." 

We flash back to Elvis' Mississippi childhood, having grown up poor with a mother, Gladys (Helen Thomson), who doted over him, and a father, Vernon (Richard Roxburgh), who did some time in jail. Finding refuge as a kid in comic books and his obsession with Memphis' African-American music scene, he later strikes a deal with Sun Records, but it's his memorable "Louisiana Hayride" TV performance that puts him on Parker's radar. 

With Parker guiding his career, Elvis becomes an overnight sensation in the face of politicians' complaints about his suggestive stage antics, further stoking racial hostilities and getting him into legal trouble. Upon returning from the Army to embark on a movie career, his new musical direction is eventually shaped by the social and cultural unrest of the '60's. Soon after marrying Priscilla Beaulieu (an excellent Olivia DeJonge), the possessive Col Parker's grip over Elvis tightens, turning him into a prisoner of his own fame. Despite a thriving comeback that pushes him far past his limits, prescription drug addiction threatens to derail it, all while Parker's true colors are revealed.

Having Col. Parker narrate his interpretation of events creates a perspective shift that greatly differentiates this from most biographical depictions of the King. But it does get off oddly, with a barely recognizable Hanks in a fat suit, buried under pounds of makeup and prosthetics speaking in a sometimes unintelligible Dutch accent most are probably unaware Parker even had. While all of this hardly seem necessary for one of our greatest actors and the image of a dying, hospital gown-wearing Parker dragging his IV pole across a hotel casino floor is quite a sight, Hanks' portrayal is far from the debacle it's been toted as. 

Once the immediate shock of that attention-grabbing dream sequence wears off, Hanks does bring kind of a devious charm to Parker, both as Elvis' father figure and eventual gate keeper. Physical appearance aside, Hanks does provide access to the man inside the suit, and at the risk of damning with faint praise, you do warm up to him as an antagonist. Plus, Luhrmann keeps the action moving at a fast enough clip that there really isn't time to complain about it, with Butler's exhilarating recreations of Elvis' iconic, show-stopping performances stealing most of the film.

Despite four credited writers, the script's far from unfocused, following a tight chronological order that never feels stifling or too paint-by-numbers because it's such a visual and auditory feast. The cinematography and production design has a predictably over-the-top sheen, but looks and feels period authentic, which is a must considering how many different eras it needs to span for a complete account.

Even those only vaguely familiar with Elvis' trajectory will notice that the story's structure revolves around maybe three or four key events. Most notable is the hysteria surrounding that first Hayride show with girls screaming, fainting and ripping off his clothes, effectively signifying that nothing will be the same for Presley again. As Elvis' hip swiveling and gyrating dance moves court controversy, Parker's attempt to clean up his client's image and go mainstream is the first sign of a developing rift between the two. It's also an early indication Elvis isn't someone who's ready to compromise his musical integrity to appeal to a larger audience, or appease an old school, brand conscious manager.       

Rocked by personal tragedy but newly married, Elvis is awakened to a world that's seemingly passed him by. It's here where Butler's performance kicks into overdrive and the film really finds its voice, connecting Elvis' upbringing to the tumult of the 60's embodied by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. His rebellious spirit was established early so it makes sense he'd be able to carve out a new niche for himself in the hippie era, while also re-embracing the style of music he initially loved. It's also when things really start to go downhill with the controlling Parker, who's a step or two behind the times, but still taking credit for Elvis' best ideas. 

The Elvis Christmas television special intended by Parker to appease sponsors instead escalates tensions, signaling what should have been the end of their toxic, parasitic partnership. Instead it leads to a bitter feud which exposes Parker's true intentions. It's to Luhrmann and Hanks' credit that they do make the character somewhat more complicated than expected, even as Parker blackmails Elvis into the exhaustive, seemingly endless Las Vegas International Hotel residency that leads to his downfall. We know what's coming, but the film doesn't tastelessly dwell on it, with the focus remaining on Presley's adoration for the music, which Butler captures the essence of.

Finding an ideal outlet and subject for the unrestrained craziness some have found irritating in his previous work, this may be the best version of Luhrmann's style we've ever gotten. His polarizing, sensationalized approach feels completely organic to the story, lifting what should be an ordinary biopic about an extraordinary entertainer to even greater heights. In equal parts a human tragedy and the fulfillment of an American dream, it's a testament to the film's authenticity and power that the actual footage shown at the end becomes indistinguishable from what we've just watched. Exciting enough to reaffirm the devotion of lifelong fans while still converting the uninitiated, Elvis delivers on all counts, putting other pretenders in the genre to shame.           

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

 

Director: Marielle Heller
Starring: Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper, Maryann Plunkett, Enrico Colantoni, Wendy Makkena, Tammy Blanchard, Noah Harpster, Chirstine Lahti
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: PG

★★½ (out of ★★★★)

Continuing the push-back against more "traditional" biopics, Marielle Heller's well-made but empty A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is the latest to sneakily attempt to give audiences a glimpse into the soul of its subject by not making a movie about them. You know, because regular biopics are thought to be so flat and predictable. And of course, by not actually being about him, this is supposed to give us an even deeper look into who he is and what he represents, but through someone else. In the case of Fred Rogers, it's one of the many lives he changed. While he would seem to be on paper the ideal person for this kind of approach, the bigger question is why someone would go so far out of their way to actively avoid making a movie about the life of a hero to millions of adults and children around the world?

After passing away in 2003, Roger's legacy has only grown by the day, with justiable praise being showered on Morgan Neville's brilliant, tear-inducing 2018 documentary, Won't You Be My Neighbor? The interest in learning more about this man and what he stood for is undoubtedly there. But it's likely the studio worried a biopic would be a bore if they couldn't dig up any dirt on Fred Rogers, of which there is none. Or at least not nearly enough to make him an exciting protagonist in his own film. So they solved this imaginary problem by making the movie primarily about a mopey journalist and cast the most universally beloved actor as Mr. Rogers to get audiences into the theater. And it has to be one of the safest and laziest casting choices they could have made. But that celebrity worship represents the very anithesis of what Fred Rogers stood for and accomplished with his program, which would be fine if the selection of Hanks even made sense given story they're trying to tell.

The film isn't a complete failure, containing some ingenious sequences, a clever framing device, and a recreation of Mister Roger's Neighborhood that's an awe-inspiring achievement in production design as well as nostalgia. If only all of that was at the service of a story worthy of it. This was a man who touched our lives by doing seemingly small acts that amounted to far bigger than could have been imagined. For a film "about" him, it just feels too slight, unbefitting of the giant imprint he left on the world. While it may be rash to judge this for what it isn't, the importance and magnitude of its subject calls for more, especially when that person doesn't seem to be examined at all. He just deserves so much better.

It's 1998 and Esquire investigative journalist Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys) has earned a well-deserved reputation for writing negative and cynical attack pieces for the magazine until his editor assigns him a 400-word profile on Mr. Rogers (Tom Hanks) for their series on heroes. Lloyd initially recoils at the idea, thinking it beneath him to do a story on a children's entertainer in lieu of the hard-jounalism he's built his name on. Unfortunately, his name isn't worth much anymore since word got out how difficult and miserable he is to be around.

Lloyd's also struggling in his personal life, getting into a fistfight with his drunk, estranged father, Jim (Chris Cooper) while attending his sister's wedding with wife Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson) and their newborn baby. His inability to forgive his dad for walking out on their dying mother when he was young haunts him to this day, part of that anger rooted in a fear he'll somehow repeat his father's mistakes.

Traveling to the WQED studio in Pittsburgh to interview Rogers and expose him as a fraud, he instead meets his match, a man who radiates empathy and kindness and is much more interested in Lloyd's life story than giving him the scandalous interview he came looking for. After his dodging questions and getting him to open up about his father, the frustrated reporter soon realizes Mr. Rogers' is unlike any anyone he's ever interviewed. And soon their conversations start to open him up in ways he couldn't have expected, forcing him to take a long, hard look at his childhood and the adult it shaped him into becoming.

The events in the film are inspired by journalist Tom Junod's 1998 Esquire article, "Can You Say...Hero?" and it's a great piece that you'd understand would be the go-to source in attempting to cut to the crux of what made Fred Rogers' life and career work so special without having to go the cradle-to-grave biopic route. And no one's suggesting they should have, as the concept of taking a relatively small, but important slice of a daunting subject's life can be a great jumping-off point provided the period or event justifies it. But the event covered here seems more like an afterthought for anyone other than the really insufferable Lloyd Vogel, and since the movie's plot revolves around him in every way, Rogers' is merely an intervening presence.

Rhys' performance is fine, if unengaging, but Lloyd's such a no-energy, downer with whiny stereotypical adult male problems that the scenario comes off as extremely low-stakes knowing how Rogers petitioned congress for public broadcast funding, talked to children about asssassinations and used his show to condemn racism. There were smaller victories as well, but this doesn't feel like one mainly because the lead character's so nondescript, too easily categorized as some guy with daddy issues. As Lloyd's wife, Susan Kelechi Watson is playing a smallish role that has echoes of her fiesty character on This is Us, which is actually a compliment since she gives the best performance in the film. But the plot feels like it could have been a leftover script from that series that never made it to air because it was too lightweight.

While this story doesn't feel like a microcosm of who Rogers was, nearly all the scenes that take place at the studio do, as we see him completely in his element, looking on in awe as Heller expertly depicts his rare gift being comfortable and accessible enough to be himself 24/7. There was no TV persona. Mr. Rogers was Mr. Rogers, on camera and off. Her treatment of the show itself, as well as its backstage elements, does Hanks many favors, as we're so taken by the painstaking recreation of the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood (complete with the living room set, puppets, trolley and the Neighborhood of Make-Believe) it's easy to forget he's not quite right for the part.

The movie is bookended with a dramatization of the show itself, shot in this 80's style videotaped format and incorporating Lloyd into it, most memorably in a trippy fantasy sequence. In fact, the sight of a confused Lloyd, injured face and all, wandering into the actual show provides the film's biggest and most strangely tragic laugh. There's even this amazing mini doc about the printing of magazines that's presented in the show's signature style for those classic educational segments.

Nate Heller's score is understated perfection, with an equally impressive soundtrack featuring music from the likes of Nick Drake and Cat Stevens. It succeeds in getting so many of these key details right, while giving us a rare, behind-the-scenes glimpse into the making of a public television series. An on-set visit during which Rogers makes a disabled boy feel like the most important person in the world with only a few words, and mostly by just listening, contains a certain magic that the rest of the picture could have used. If anything, it whets our appetites for a what a real Fred Rogers biopic could have been.

That aforementioned encounter is probably Hanks' finest moment, at least in terms of projecting how Rogers' always seemed to be looking outward, interested in everyone and everything. But most of the time, it's hard to get past the presence of Hanks playing him, trying to imitate Rogers without truly capturing his essence. There was hardly a minute where I thought it wasn't Tom Hanks trying to talk as slowly and softly as possible, dialing it way down. Rogers had a warmth to him, and while Hanks does as well, his entire demeanor is different enough that it never matches and you sense the actor trying to get there. And I'm not sure he ever does. A less identifiable performer should have been cast so we can discover him just as Lloyd simultaneously discovers Mr. Rogers, coming to realizations about him just as we do. That would have at least put the focus where it belongs.

Part of the problem just may be that we find it unfathomable today that anyone would doubt Rogers or consider him merely a "children's entertainer." Lloyd's take definitely hasn't aged well, so if the goal was to have an cynical, unlikable protagonist living in a time warp, this certainly accomplished that, regardless of the character's personal issues. The sad thing is that they had the most fascinating protagonist they could hope for and relegated him to a supporting player in what should be his own movie, miscasting the role on top of it. On the bright side, it doesn't overstay it's welcome and its 109 minutes feel more like 20, which could be a side effect of simply not having enough here. In a film that should be all about believing, it's disappointing that those involved didn't seem to believe enough in the impact of Mr. Rogers to tell a story truly celebrating what he left us. For now, we'll just have to rewatch the documentary for that.  

The Circle

Director: James Ponsoldt
Starring: Emma Watson,  Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillan, Ellar Coltrane, Patton Oswalt, Glenne Headly, Bill Paxton
Running Time:
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Within James Ponsoldt's adaptation of Dave Egger's 2013 dystopian sci-fi novel, The Circle, resides an idea, and sometimes even a reality, so timely and captivating that the film literally forgets to anything with it. Starting strongly, it builds its promising premise one step at a time, methodically mapping out a clear direction the story should take and where everyone wants to see it go. It's one of those rare cases where predictability is desired because the concept is so rich it almost feels as if most of the work is done. Unfortunately for us, as viewers, it's an eye-opening reminder of just how false that assumption is. No concept on its own is ever good enough to carry an entire picture. So just as The Circle seems to get going, it ends. Or rather, it just closes. Complete stoppage. In fact, the film feels so abruptly unresolved, even when the credits started rolling, I was still unsure it concluded. With a certifiable treasure trove of unexplored material left, it may be the cruelest example yet of a movie not being what it's about, but how.

Armed with a talented cast, a superb writer/director, and screenplay co-penned by the author himself, it fails to do something that seems almost ridiculously simple: Raise the stakes. The film's very existence promises that, as we're teased throughout that it'll dive into those deep, dark, morally compromising waters occupied by the likes of 1984 or A Brave New World, its obvious inspirations. And the timing couldn't have possibly been better for it. But instead, we're left nodding our heads in agreement at all the timely, relevant ideas the movie contains, appreciating something that more closely resembles a documentary about what a great movie about those ideas would look and feel like. Two hours of set-up with minimal payoff. Strangely, it might be one of the best recent remake candidates, as it would be tempting to see what the same cast could do with a different script that lets them fully follow through on all the ideas presented, and frustratingly left on the table, relegated to our imaginations.

When struggling customer service rep Mae Holland (Emma Watson) is contacted by her friend Annie (Karen Gillan) about a potential job opening at the enormous, Google-like, California-based tech company she works for called The Circle, it seems to be the perfect opportunity. With her father, Vinnie (Bill Paxton in his final role) suffering from multiple sclerosis as mom Bonnie (Glenn Headly) provides around-the-clock care, Mae's personal life is in a bit of turmoil, tempered somewhat by a recent reunion with ex-boyfriend, Mercer (Boyhood's Ellar Coltrane). After apparently acing what's best described as a bizarre interview, Mae gets a job in The Circle's "Customer Experience" department, where she learns the importance of maintaining a strong and very public social media presence within the company.

The mastermind behind this entire operation is CEO Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), who with right-hand man and co-founder Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), envisions a world of complete transparency with his introduction of a program called SeeChange, and wants rapidly rising employee Mae to be the face of it. But when co-worker and social networking pioneer Ty Lafitte (John Boyega) keys her in to the company's potentially nefarious motives, she must make a choice that puts her personal beliefs and the privacy rights of citizens directly at odds with an opportunity to be at the forefront of a new digital revolution.

As a reflection of the world in which we currently live and where it seems to be heading, the script hits it right on the head, successfully envisioning a fictional tech company nearly identical to and inspired by both Google and Apple. With a base of operations more closely resembling a laid-back university campus than the headquarters of a Fortune 500 company, Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now, The End of the Tour) really gets the aesthetic  of what this environment would look and feel like, as well as the excitement of being a part of it. That this is happening right now and the film's strongest aspect is that with its emphasis on social media obsession and the elimination of privacy, not a whole lot of what occurs seems even the slightest bit exaggerated. If anything, it could stand to go more over-the-top, which is exactly where we think things are going.

In capturing the wide-eyed exuberance of a reserved girl overwhelmed by her new surroundings, Emma Watson's performance as Mae, while fine, seems to be a bigger achievement in casting than anything else since she (like most everyone else) is never pushed to do the heavy lifting you'd think would accompany a story this ripe with possibility. Of course, Eamon and The Circle have less than philanthropic intentions with the rollout of this new technology, which essentially monitors every individual 24/7 with hidden cameras, and it's to the screenplay's credit that it does at least address the pros and cons of this technology, as well as its moral implications. Unfortunately, it doesn't get around to showing any of them, at least in an impactful enough manner to kick the narrative into the next gear.

When Mae becomes this social media superstar, embracing her role within the company and supporting its mission, the film, and Watson's performance, are its strongest, reflecting Truman Show-like themes that explore the dangers and thrills of living an entirely public life, accompanied by some great on screen visuals. And as she becomes Eamon's pet project, that was absolutely the time to take things to the next sinister level, as you could easily rattle off about four of five steps the writers could have taken to make this company seem like a lethal threat. What they're planning certainly warrants it, posing a big enough threat to be endangering the lives of anyone questioning the organization's purpose, especially Mae, who's ascended into the inner Circle. Why not tamper with her father's medical equipment? Or do something with or to John Boyega's mysterious character, whose dropped just as quickly as he's introduced.

When something does finally occur that could be considered "dangerous," it's essentially an accident involving a character whose relationship to the protagonist was presented in such a muddled, ambiguous way from the moment he first appeared on screen, that it hardly connects. A sub-plot involving dissension between Mae and her friend Annie over the company's agenda isn't developed at all and seems to come out of nowhere.The biggest loss stemming from the script's faults is a failure to properly utilize Tom Hanks, here given the rarest of opportunities to sink his teeth into what could have been one of the actor's most complex roles had the material supported him.

It's almost painful to watch Hanks' scenes since his magnificent channeling of a scheming, Steve Jobs-like CEO, whose greed convinces him he knows what's best for the world, is basically undercut by an uneventful screenplay. Watching him on stage in his corporate presentations, you can only imagine the result had this gone to that dark place, allowing him to really cut loose and get inside the head of a potentially fascinating on screen villain. Instead, he's forced to provide nearly all of this himself, but it's a good bet most will still be thoroughly impressed with how much he does with it. And already well established by now as a surprisingly strong dramatic supporting presence, Patton Oswalt sits it out on the sidelines, mostly forced to stand around giving stern looks. This all leads to a final act let-down, as you could envision something similar to this ending actually working had the groundwork been properly laid leading into it. What we're left with feels more like an extended teaser for a more compelling project.

While assessing the movie you didn't see rather than what's on screen is rarely a good idea, what happens when most of its running time is comprised of reminders of that better, unseen film? It seems as if every scene unintentionally teases us with what we could have been, and despite this being one of my most anticipated releases of the year, it's hard to look at it as anything other than a disappointment, regardless of expectations. That indie-leaning Ponsoldt is such a great director probably accounts for nearly half those expectations, making it easy to assume that the biggest, most mainstream effort of his career was hampered by a studio that lacked the guts to explore the potentially polarizing, but compelling themes Eggers' put forth in his novel. For The Circle to be successful, it had to go dark, and use the platform it was given to intelligently exploit some very real and timely fears. By never fully addressing the ideas at its core, we're left with a final product that feels less like a paranoid thriller than a tame corporate training video.
       

Sully

  

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Anna Gunn, Autumn Reeser, Mike O' Malley, Jamey Sheridan, Sam Huntington, Katie Couric, Mike Rapaport
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 96 min.

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

There are some noticeable hurdles in the way of cinematically adapting the real life story of Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger, who on January 15, 2009, successfully pulled off an emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River, in which all 155 passengers and crew survived. For one, the admittedly remarkable event itself lasted all of about ten minutes, and while many lives were most definitely in jeopardy, this story has as clear cut and happy an ending as it gets. There's also no antagonist to speak of, and as much as the media rightfully built Sully up as a hero, he's a low-key, introverted guy you wouldn't expect translating to the big screen as a charismatic action savior capable of carrying a movie.

You have to wonder how director Clint Eastwood does it, essentially stretching a human interest story that captivated the public for a couple of weeks into an over 90-minute feature film. Besides being oddly matched for the material, you'd think there wouldn't be enough there for him to dramatically sink his teeth into. And yet it's fun watching all the ways that he tries and just how successful he is at dodging so many of those potential roadblocks.

Sully's still somewhat slight and fairly predictable, but when it ended I was convinced we got as strong a film as we possibly could considering the subject at hand. Initially, Eastwood wisely shifts the focus away from nuts and bolts of the situation in favor of making this about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a curious choice, as is his decision to very broadly depict a "bad guys" in a story in which we were sure none existed. How accurate this all is will be up for debate as Eastwood goes pretty far in pumping up the conflict with what seems like an over-the-top investigation considering the circumstances. What we do know is how much our perception is wrapped up in the fact that a dialed down Tom Hanks is playing the title role, internally unraveling with each new development. Unsurprisingly, he holds this all together, turning the actual subject's limitations as an intriguing movie character into strengths audiences can rally behind.

The film opens not with that flight, but its aftermath, as Captain Sullenberger (Hanks) must face a barrage of mostly positive media attention about his split second decision to make an emergency water landing after a flock of birds disabled both engines, making any kind of runway approach impossible. Unfortunately, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) doesn't see it that way and are determined to follow through on their investigation into whether Sully, along with co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), made the right call under what could best be called extremely unusual circumstances. When doubt arises regarding the condition of the engines and their possibility of making it to one of the two airports, Sully starts mentally unraveling, as most would under the intense microscope of this investigation.

Between abbreviated, but emotional late night phone calls with his wife Lorraine (Laura Linney) and panic over the impending hearing and frequent TV appearances, Sully not only starts to doubt himself, but his abilities as a pilot. And he suffers silently through all this while still maintaining a calm, stoic facade for the public, who now claim him as their hero. It's a role he's entirely uncomfortable with both as a person and as a pilot with 40 years of experience who feels on that day, like any other, he was doing his job. Now clearly at his breaking point, he wants nothing more than to just quietly go back to it.

It's to Eastwood and screenwriter Todd Komarnicki's credit that the script (adapted from Sully's autobiography, Highest Duty)  is filled with tiny details we didn't know or simply weren't privy to. That there's actually a co-pilot for one. Throughout all the media coverage of the incident, it's tough to recall his name even being mentioned, but here Skiles is played really well by Aaron Eckhart and his relationship to Sully is defined entirely through this ordeal. They're not exactly friends, but what begins as a cordial, if somewhat prickly professional rapport between co-workers, evolves into strong bond following the incident and ensuing investigation. If anything, it's Sully who must lean on his more charismatic co-pilot as the newly anointed celebrity psychologically struggles under the bright lights during interviews with Katie Couric and David Letterman.

Presenting most of the events out of chronological order is kind of a neat angle Eastwood takes in that it more easily allows him to put the focus where it needs to be while distracting audiences who think they know the whole story.  Interspersing brief flashbacks of Sully's history as a pilot, we're eventually led into the day of take-off, which is by far the most suspenseful, excitingly directed portion of the film and the section fewest will have any complaints about. We get to know some of the passengers, who within minutes must face what seemed at the time to be certain death, while Sully makes that split-second decision in the cockpit that saves their lives. But more intriguing than that is the protocol following the water landing and how the passengers were somehow safely evacuated in the midst of utter chaos. Besides miraculously landing the plane, Sully also played a key role in that, more concerned with the well-being of the passengers than his own safety or the avalanche of criticism coming his way.

The most problematic aspect is the depiction of this NTSB inquiry, and while we'll never know the true extent of its depth, it's clearly beefed up for effect in the script, which is fine. Still, it can't help but feel manufactured when you consider the fact that the media would absolutely eviscerate this NTSB board if they even came close to going after Sully like they do here. That's especially true when you consider the film's implication that his job, marriage and home were in serious jeopardy due to the potential findings. Stopping just short of depicting them as mustache-twirling villains, this committee of basically two (played by Anna Gunn and Mike O' Malley) are there to question every decision Sully made in flight while completely removing the human element from the equation.

Of course, this culminates in a hearing that plays out very "Hollywood," during which the embattled pilot must defend himself against one-sided allegations, enabling the doubters to see the incident from various perspectives before realizing what we've known all along: He did the right thing. No big revelation there. But Eastwood holds our attention anyway, thanks mostly to the performances of the actors and the gripping recreation of events that preceded it. 

The film just kind of stops as opposed to conclusively ending, but thankfully most of that hearing, as over-the-top as it is, is a clever device in circumventing a story that didn't exactly need retelling. Was Tom Hanks the right actor for the role? There are no "right" choices for the role, just different ones, and the selection of Hanks suggests a specific vision for the material that Eastwood mostly follows through on. Sully, the real person and character, is a likable "everyman" so the casting is a no-brainer in that sense, even if it isn't necessarily an inspired, outside the box choice. Hanks wisely avoids playing him as "Mr. Nice Guy," as he's internally tormented and wrestling with his conscience through much of this.

While there wasn't a lot to work with here, Eastwood still manages to milk everything he can from it. And it's at least a lot tidier and more straightforward than his Oscar-nominated American Sniper, which received significantly greater praise despite a myriad of issues. Sully doesn't have those problems, and even if it doesn't exactly linger in the mind long after the final credits have rolled, Eastwood and Hanks prove they're capable of engaging us with a story few thought could successfully be transferred to the big screen.
 

Captain Phillips

Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Catherine Keener, Barkhad Abdirahman, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, Michael Chernus, David Warshofsky, Corey Johnson, Chris Mulkey
Running Time: 134 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Imagine my surprise when I'm almost halfway through Captain Phillips and the realization dawns on me that I'm not even close to the final thirty minutes everyone's talking about and the suspense has already reached unbearable, pulse-pounding levels. And this is knowing what's going to happen. Or so we think. We actually know very little aside from the fact that in 2009 Captain Richard Phillips and his crew were hijacked in the Indian Ocean by Somalian pirates, he was taken hostage, and lived to write about it. That book is the basis for this film, vividly brought to life by Paul Greengrass (United 93). How much of what ends up on screen resembles the actual incident will tiredly be the subject for much debate, but that has little to do with the finished product, which is nearly a masterpiece.

We've been through this before with Zero Dark Thirty, when intelligent discussion devolved into political mudslinging as its detractors attempted to make the filmmakers and audiences somehow feel guilty about the U.S. capturing and killing Osama bin Laden. I'm all for empathy and understanding, but is anyone else more than a little disturbed that this film's worth is being judged on how compassionately the Somalian pirates are portrayed? The same Somalian pirates who hijacked an American cargo ship and took its captain hostage at gunpoint. Greengrass going the extra mile to try to depict them as something more than one-dimensional monsters is probably giving them better treatment than they deserve based on their actions. If anything, those involved in the making of this picture should be commended for managing to invest the story with this much humanity without sacrificing any of the true event's intensity. But the big question is: How on Earth was Tom Hanks not nominated for this?

From the opening scene, Hanks plays Boston native Richard Phillips, captain of the MV Maersk Alabama container ship, as a born leader. That leadership will be severely tested when four armed pirates led by Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi) take control of the ship off the coast of Somalia and he has to take whatever measures necessary to protect his crew and make them feel like they're in control, while still somehow maintaining a certain degree of control himself. What plays out is not only a severe culture clash, with the pirates' motivations remaining vague, even sometimes to them. To say their plan wasn't well thought out doesn't even begin to cover it, but despite the sloppy execution (or rather because of it) the ordeal seems that much more dangerous for the Americans. These Somalians may not know what they're doing, how to do it, and fail to grasp the magnitude of what they're attempting to pull off, but at least they have unpredictability and intimidation on their side. Also in their favor is that Phillips' crew is unarmed and must rely only on ship hoses as weaponry, deeming their numbers advantage useless.

Even, for a brief time, when it seems the defending crew is in control, they're really not. That's when a crucial decision from Phillips turns this into a gripping single location thriller with his life on the line, as well as the pride of pirates who demand to be taken seriously and refuse to be made fools of by America. Since Phillips is played by Hanks, a national treasure and maybe the single most likable performer we have, it isn't difficult to be on pins and needles worrying about the character's safety regardless of our knowledge of events. But Hanks (adopting a New England accent), never plays on that connection, instead offering up a harrowing depiction of a very scared man trying to do his best under dire circumstances and struggling to keep it together. At many points he has to use social engineering to guide the actions of his captors without them knowing, all while the U.S. Navy is poised and ready to intervene. As the situation escalates and Phillips' life is put in greater danger by the minute, their presence becomes more prominent. The Navy has a plan. Even backup plans. The pirates are only running on instinct.

In what's ultimately a battle of wills between the two captains who couldn't be more different in both values and background, both must still find a way to communicate so they can get out of this what they want. For Phillips, it's survival. For Muse, it's money and respect. Out of necessity, the relationship that develops between the two is an adversarial one, but also fraught with tension as each tries to manipulate the other to gain the upper hand. Phillips is successful simply because he's so much smarter, which is through no fault of Muse's own. And that's really where the culture clash in Billy Ray's Oscar nominated screenplay comes into play, as Muse and his crew are too prideful to truly grasp how much of a disadvantage they're at as the situation escalates past the point of no return. 

Barkhad Abdi has never acted a day in his life before this film, but you see why he'd be cast on sheer presence alone. While he may not look like a physical threat, there's an aura of danger surrounding him and Abdi conveys it without losing sight of the real person underneath, in his own way struggling for survival just as Phillips is. He's so believable and scary opposite his scenes with Hanks that it's almost easy to overlook his fellow pirates, played by Barkhad Abdirahman, Faysal Ahmed  and Mahat M. Ali, who contribute just as much at times. Especially Abdirahman, who plays the hotheaded Bilal as an uncontrollable monster prone to  terrifying fits of rage. He's the one that can't be manipulated, operating purely on bitterness and hatred. But even he has moments where we glimpse beneath the surface to sense the real deep seeded source of that frustration. Ironically, we know the least about Phillips, aside from a brief scene at the beginning with he and his wife Andrea (Catherine Keener) that neither adds or detracts from the proceedings. Everything we learn about this man's character is uncovered through the life and death situation he finds himself in. As for all the shaky cam, it didn't bother me one bit, as I was too engulfed in the events unfolding in front of me to even consider the technique used to deliver it. It's like you're right there.

Yes, the United States military and Captain Phillips are depicted as heroes in this situation because that's exactly what they were. It's one of the few things we know as fact, and also happens to work as a compelling dramatization on film. If the roles were reversed, and Americans were the initial aggressors, the same would hold true. One of the movie's greatest strengths is that it does make you consider that scenario and put the instigators actions into context. But Greengrass has no obligation to portray them "sympathetically," regardless of their history or background, of which only a documentary should be expected to thoroughly explore. All bets were off when they boarded that ship armed and ready to commit violence.

What it also shares with Zero Dark Thirty (besides providing a dramatic recreation of incredibly recent history) is a final scene that just ripped me apart. It's the very definition of "sticking the landing," going a step further to explore the aftermath with an indescribable few minutes that features the best acting of Tom Hanks' career and highlights the potential benefits of casting a trained military professional if the role warrants it. But it's really everything leading up to that scene that makes it pack the well-earned, emotional punch it does. "Based on a true story" is often a dreaded tagline but Captain Phillips isn't merely a visual retelling of an important, almost unbelievable event. It's an experience that challenges the viewer debate and consider the thoughts, feelings and motivations of everyone involved in it.
   

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Director: Stephen Daldry
Starring: Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Thomas Horn, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Caldwell
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Sometimes you hear so much about a movie it's difficult to approach it with a clean slate. In the case of Stephen Daldry's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, it's practically impossible. Considered by many as one of the weakest Best Picture nominees in years, just the announcement of its shocking inclusion last February elicited a chorus of gasps and groans. Whether its dissenters even actually saw the film or not, you'd have to figure much of that had to do with its 9/11 subject matter. And that's exactly what this comes down to since the picture isn't nearly awful enough on its own terms to provoke such a passionate response. And it certainly isn't controversial. Did it deserve to be nominated for Best Picture? Of course not. There are some problems with it and it's emotionally manipulative to a point. But at the end of the day it's a mildly successful examination of how an eccentric, intelligent young boy with an emotional spectrum disorder deals with death. Featuring some really strong performances and a plot hole big enough to drive a truck through, that's all there is to it. A mixed bag, but 2 hours mostly well spent.

Based on the 2005 novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, it tells the story of Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), son of jeweler Thomas Schell (Tom Hanks), who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, a date Oskar frequently refers to as "the worst day." Through flashbacks we see the special bond between the two up until his father's death with Thomas often sending Oskar on wild scavenger hunts to find hidden objects throughout New York City. Following 9/11 Oskar emotionally withdraws from his mother Linda (Sandra Bullock) with any discussion of that day ending in a shouting match. After working up the courage to explore his father's untouched closet 8 months later, he discovers a small envelope marked "Black" with a mysterious key inside. Assuming his dad left it there for him to find, Oskar looks up everyone with that last name in the the phone book sets out on one last expedition to find the lock it fits. His sole companion on the trip is the The Renter (Max Von Sydow), a mute old man living with his grandmother whom he befriends. With maps in hand and routes planned out, the quest is as much Oskar's way to extend time with his deceased father and make sense of what happened as it is to find the lock. He won't stop until he solves the mystery, but in doing so he may be forced to come to the realization his father's actually gone.

This is a strange film and for all the criticisms leveled against it at least it presents a type of protagonist we've never seen before but whose patterns of behavior will be immediately recognizable to some. During Oskar's voiceover narration in the first hour he states he was tested for Asperger's but the results came back inconclusive. Maybe in an effort to drum up some ambiguity for the character or fear that officially diagnosing him would create a pity party, Academy Award winning screenwriter Eric Roth lets the viewers speculate as to whether something's wrong with him. Well, there clearly is. He's either a really high functioning autistic or suffers from Asperger's. It's more likely the latter and I kind of wish they had just come out and said that as it would have quelled many of the complaints against the film and Horn's performance, which is remarkable if you're able to separate the actor from the character. Oskar's supposed to be annoying, over-emotional and overbearing, so Horn, a child Jeopardy winner with no previous acting experience, often narrates the story as if he were rattling off  facts on that game show. It becomes uncomfortable when he gives extremely detailed descriptions of of every tiny aspect of the "worst day" but it's supposed to be and it's in line with the character. As for the 9/11 scenes themselves all I can say is that they feel terrifying rather than offensive or emotionally manipulative. Nothing seems to come off as disrespectful, even though that doesn't even address the real issue here. Despite a handful of films having already been released handling the topic, the question of whether it's "too soon" will keep coming up and while it's up to each individual viewer to decide that for themselves, those against the idea would still be against it regardless of how this was presented.

The first hour of the film literally lives up to its title as we probably spend about as much one on one time with this kid that is bearable, but luckily the flashbacks with his father work and Tom Hanks is his usual likable self. Bullock, in her first post-Blind Side role, is affecting too, with nearly all the uncomfortable 9/11 scenes falling squarely on her lap. It isn't necessarily a large part, but it's challenging and she delivers a nice, low key performance. Her character won't be winning any "Mother of the Year" awards as the film's biggest flaw is how she'd let a 11-year-old just wander the streets of New York. There's an attempt at an explanation for this later but it's a weak one that does little to erase a huge gap in logic that could have easily been fixed by having him just run away instead.

The arrival of Max Von Sydow's mute unnamed renter into the story may as well mark the start of the film as that's when the narrative starts gaining real momentum. From the minute he appears the 82-year-old's Oscar-nominated supporting turn provides the young actor with someone interesting and more experienced to bounce off of during the journey.What's more impressive than Von Sydow giving an entirely silent performance is that it's so expressive that words would have probably been a distraction. He gets his point across so clearly he doesn't even need them and any scene in the film without him seems weaker because of it. Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright give small but crucial performances as two strangers Oskar meets on his adventure and elevate their material considerably, especially Wright who figures in huge in the third act. And for a movie centering around a mystery that really isn't "about" the mystery, its payoff is surprisingly satisfying. 

Having carried the similarly controversial Holocaust drama The Reader to a detested Best Picture nomination in 2008, director Stephen Daldry has proven he isn't afraid to tackle tumultuous subject matter through a sentimental lens. He goes all out here, but respectfully and with a consistent tone, resulting once again in a mild success. So far there have actually been quite a few movies that in some form or another revolve around the 9/11 tragedy. United 93 and World Trade Center were dramatic interpretations of the actual event with the former employing a docudrama approach that gave the material a frightening sense of immediacy. 25th Hour and Reign Over Me touched on the aftermath, with the latter controversially using it as a plot device. What all these movies have in common is that no one was particularly comfortable with that day or its aftermath being depicted at all, regardless of their quality. In many ways this is the 9/11 film everyone's been dreading and hoped Hollywood wouldn't make because it involves a child coping with the tragedy. But its tough to argue that's not the most honest entry point. Neither exploitive or inspirational, it's a slightly above average, well acted drama that got too much attention for reasons unrelated to what's onscreen.

Toy Story 3

Director: Lee Unkrich
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Don Rickles, Michael Keaton, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris
Rating: G
Running Time: 103 min.

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

In the minds of many it's a travesty that Pixar doesn't have a Best Picture Oscar yet, even if I don't necessarily agree. And that's not because I believe animated films are incapable of carrying the same impact as live action (though there may be some small truth in that) but rather because I've found that as technically proficient and emotionally moving as they can often be, they just don't hold up very well on repeated viewings. Last year they earned a Best Picture nomination for Up, a forgettable action-adventure barely worthy of a mild recommendation and ironically their weakest effort to date. Despite only being recognized to make up for the snubs of Ratatouille and Wall-E, it brought to light some problems with these films I couldn't previously pinpoint. It might be a stretch to say Pixar's grown complacent, but whether it's toys, fish, cars, rats, robots or grumpy old men and boy scouts, you can't help but get the feeling that they're making the same movie over and over again. The advantage they have is that they do it so well there's little reason to complain and audiences can also plead guilty in taking their artistry for granted, expecting a home run each time out.

I still had little interest in seeing their latest horse in the race, Toy Story 3, despite it ranking as the second best reviewed film of the year (what else is new?) and the highest grossing animated film of all-time. That is until I overheard a description of the plot, which took me aback in its maturity. But I should have sensed this coming being that over the past few years these movies have been handling more mature topics and can no longer be written off as just for kids. They're thematically substantial films being made for a mass audience and now the far-reaching ambition that propelled Ratatouille and Wall-E is being applied to what was always Pixar's most juvenile property, and the one that put them on the map. In what's kind of a relief, this isn't as ambitious as those two, eclipsing its predecessors as the strongest in the series and working on an entirely different level as a meditation on the passage of time, moving on and growing up.

Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and most of the rest of the gang are back but not seeing nearly as much action this time around with their now 18-year-old owner Andy (John Morris) about to head off to college. Having been stored away in his room and not played with for years the toys have outgrown their usefulness and face a couple of options for their future, none of which are particularly promising. It's either a lonely life confined to the attic, being donated to day care, or obviously worst of all, the trash. Only Woody is selected to take the trip to school with Andy but a mix-up sends the attic bound Buzz, Woody, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head (Don Rickles and Estelle Harris), Barbie (Jodi Benson), Jesse (Joan Cusack), Bullseye, Rex (Wallace Shawn) and Hamm (John Ratzenberger) to Sunnyside Daycare, which at first looks to be a paradise where toys are spoiled and played with all day long. But it isn't long before they discover they've arrived at what's essentially a maximum security prison ruled with an iron fist by a bitter purple bear named Lotso (Ned Beatty) and his two henchmen, the giant, really creepy looking Big Baby with a lazy eye and Ken (Michael Keaton), of Ken and Barbie fame. Now Woody and company have to somehow find a way to escape and return home to Andy before he leaves for school, and potentially leaves them for good.

It's unnecessary even discussing the animation in these Pixar films anymore. It's always incredible, and this is right on par with the previous two in that regard.  Like Up before it, this was released into many theaters in 3D but I can't imagine it made much of a difference either way since the real point of interest is the story's unexpected depth. It's as much about Woody letting go of Andy as Andy letting go of Woody, plus a lot more than that. Whereas Up contained a 10 minute prologue so emotionally moving the rest of the film couldn't follow through on it, this has an opening that cleverly misleads you into expecting silliness, only to pull the rug out. The story keeps building and building until pulling the emotional trigger in the final minutes and earning it. There are action excursions to be sure but unlike Up they service the themes and plot that cleverly spoofs so many different genres of film and contains so many in-jokes you'd have to be constantly paying attention at the risk of missing anything. The rendering of Sunnyside as some kind of evil dictatorship for toys is clever, as we're a witness to many memorable scenes, such as a late night poker game and Buzz being interrogated under the hot lights. And it's worth repeating just how creepy looking that giant baby is (we're talking Child's Play kind of creepy). All the toys are embodied with distinctive characteristics and personalities by the voice actors and while Hanks and Allen are perfect as usual as our two heroes, the legendary Ned Beatty projects a certain grandfatherly warmth in the voice of Lotso that makes his villainous nature harder to comprehend, giving greater thematic weight to his actions. Helping further is the script containing a flashback sequence for this character so well thought out it could easily compete with most live action dramas in its storytelling reach.

Those who call this the best film of the year just need to wait until that feeling passes and it'll probably pass quickly, as it has with just about every other one of Pixar's past efforts. But I am curious how it'll hold up down the road and whether my admiration will dwindle as steadily. It really goes for the jugular in those final act as the story moves dangerously close to the "beyond" part of the phrase "To Infinity and Beyond" in a unanticipated way. It's been over ten years since the previous Toy Story sequel and it proves to be worth the wait, with time gap working in the favor of a story that deals entirely with the passage of time and letting go. The toys have aged and so has their owner, both arriving at the inevitable crossroads where they're forced to move on and there's no turning back. Kids who may have felt shut out or bored by the narrative sophistication of Ratatouille and Wall-E will probably have more to cheer about with Toy Story 3, while adults can appreciate acknowledgment of their daily struggle to somehow recapture the same happiness their toys once gave them.

Charlie Wilson's War

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Ned Beatty, Emily Blunt
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: R

** ½ (out of ****)

A while back I was having a conversation with someone who told me they were “getting sick” of Tom Hanks. I found this funny because in appearing in no more than a film or two a year he’s far from being overexposed. Yet, I knew what they meant. Those one or two films always seem to coincidentally come out around Oscar season and have been diminishing steadily in quality for about the past five years. So while we haven’t seen a lot of Hanks, it seems like we have because his few appearances have been mostly unwanted ones in lackluster films that depend solely on his star power to succeed. This conversation took place in the mall late last year as I was walking past the theatrical poster for Charlie Wilson’s War. The poster (shown above) was voted the worst of the year by the Internet Movie Poster Association, but I’d actually go a step further and call it just about the worst movie poster I’ve ever seen. I almost want to hang it on my wall… as a joke. Just look at it. Really, has there ever been a poster that makes you NOT want to see a movie more? And what’s Philip Seymour Hoffman supposed to be doing exactly?

Now after finally viewing the film I’ve determined that this poster captures the movie perfectly and no other could have possibly been more appropriate. There’s a lot of talk but nothing really happens. What it has going for it, however, is a spry, energetic tone and two strong performances, one of which does come from Hanks. But the movie is so sincere and earnest and the actors look to be having such a great time I almost feel guilty bashing it. It’s as if everyone involved with the picture convinced themselves they were telling the most interesting story in American history, but then forgot to put it up on screen. Don’t tell them that though. They’re having too much fun and probably wouldn’t listen anyway. This is Ocean’s 14: The Cold War Years. The only thing missing from the poster and the film is George Clooney.

It’s the early 1980’s and the United States is in the midst of The Cold War while freewheeling Democratic Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks) is busy indulging his interests in hard partying and beautiful women. While cavorting with strippers in a hot tub he happens to catch a Dan Rather report from Afghanistan detailing the struggles of the inadequately armed Afghan fighters against the Soviet invasion. Appalled by the lack of support the Afghans have gotten from our government the flamboyant but well-liked Wilson uses his Congressional pull to set up his own committee and stage a covert war. He recruits the ultra-conservative, anti-communist socialite Joanne Herring (a woefully miscast Julia Roberts) as well as a loose cannon CIA operative Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman) to help beef up support and plan a new strategy. A visit to an Afghan refugee camp populated by wounded children just further inspires Wilson and Herring.

Through Wilson’s efforts U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, which at the time was only about $5 million, increased substantially and his work has been credited with contributing to the collapse of The Soviet Union and bringing about the end of The Cold War. Unfortunately, a major side effect of this strategy is that Wilson ended up unintentionally arming the Taliban, which years later led to the events of September 11th, 2001. Oops. But the movie is especially careful not to actually place blame on Wilson since things didn’t start to go to hell there until years after the events in the film took place. It’s also mentioned many times that more had to be done than just throw money and weapons at the Afghans. It was the U.S. government’s job to follow through on Wilson’s work and they didn’t. Still, it’s fascinating that something that seemed like such a great idea at the time ended up turning into such a disaster. That’s this movie’s meal ticket and what gives the story a more meaningful undercurrent than it would have had otherwise.

This is a film that will play best with history buffs and those deeply interested in foreign policy and politics. Although I’m betting even they may find their patience tried by the film’s self-congratulatory tone. Everyone else will find even less enjoyment in it and may actually be bored despite the breezy running time and light touches. Part of the problem is that there’s no challenge or conflict in the film. Charlie Wilson is just such a charming, likeable guy you can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to help him. What Hanks manages to convey well is that despite Wilson’s superficial character flaws he’s essentially the only honest politician there is and makes no bones about the fact that he really wants to make a difference. Hanks is so sincere as an actor that he’s perfect for the role, even if the unfortunate side effect is that he turns womanizing and drug abuse into almost admirable qualities.

With her spotty Texas accent and cartoonish mannerisms Roberts doesn’t fare nearly as well as Hanks and her thankfully abbreviated appearances in the film come off more as parody than performance. But I was too busy laughing at her perfectly coiffed hair to even care. I’d say she probably spent anywhere between 36 and 47 straight hours in the hair and makeup trailer before cameras started rolling. Luckily, Hoffman steals the show with his justifiably Oscar-nominated supporting turn as rebel CIA agent Gust. There isn’t much to the character which makes his work that much more impressive. With just a few scenes, Hoffman suggests a whole history to this guy that makes each action he takes infinitely more interesting. Between this and Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead it’s been a great year for Hoffman, but it’s a shame the movies he starred in weren’t worthy of the performances he gave. The great Ned Beatty appears, all too briefly, in a worthless throwaway part while Amy Adams is underutilized as Wilson’s “personal assistant.” Emily Blunt has a tiny but extremely memorable role as the daughter of one of Wilson’s constituents. Despite her screen time being limited to about 2 minutes her sizzling scene was just about the only thing in the entire film that legitimately stayed with me.

This was directed with maybe too much energetic vigor by Mike Nichols who goes to great lengths to show us that the charismatic Charlie Wilson LOVES WOMEN. Nichols shoots so many creepy, leering ass and cleavage shots of Wilson’s secretaries (one of whom he affectionately nicknames “Jailbait”) you’d think he was directing a soft-core porn film. The script is from Emmy-Award winning West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and it's full of zippy one-liners and catchphrases. It has a real “Old Hollywood” screwball comedy feel to it and despite its many flaws manages to be goofy and endearing, even if I suspect most its laughs are unintentional. For Nichols this effort is a long way from The Graduate, but not too far off from Primary Colors.

This was one of those DVD’s where I was more interested in the special features than the film because I knew all the actors would be slapping each other’s asses and tripping over themselves describing what a wonderful experience making this was. They’d gush about all these fascinating facets to the story that are nowhere to be found in the actual movie. I was right, but in all fairness after actually seeing and hearing from the real Charlie Wilson and Joanne Herring you have more of an appreciation for Hanks and Roberts’ takes on them. I don’t know if that necessarily makes their performances any better but it does make for an engaging contrast. It’s too bad the list of people this film will appeal to is short. It would likely include the families of Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman, Nichols and Sorkin, as well as history teachers over the age of 50. Oh, and Clooney of course. Maybe for the sequel they can all get together and hit a Vegas casino.