"Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine" Movie Review

My review of the documentary "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine"

"Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine"

Posted on Mar. 25, 2015 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of CNN Films

“Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine” (2015)

Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney brought his latest film, “Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine,” to the SXSW Film Festival for it’s World Premiere. Playing to a packed house at the lovely Paramount Theatre in Austin, TX, the film explores the legend of Apple founder and leader, Steve Jobs.

The film opens with the reaction on the streets to the death of Jobs at the age of 56. Gibney reflects on the fact that people around the world reacted to his death like a close, personal friend had died. It was an outpouring of grief and affection that is usually reserved for a film or pop star. People descended on Apple stores around the world, leaving tributes, candles, and flowers as they openly wept. Gibney doesn’t understand why the loss of a computer innovator is such a blow to so many people. He’s attached to his iPhone just as the next person is, but why did this man and his products make such a connection to some many people? He asks, “What accounted for the grief of millions of people who didn’t know him?” Gibney’s mission with this film is to figure out why Jobs was seen not only as a hero and an innovator, but as someone who was a messiah to the information age. The film looks at the man who asked not only his design team but also the people that used his products to “Think Different.”

The film briefly touches on Jobs childhood / teen years and his early days working for the arcade game maker Atari. The film doesn’t go into too much depth until Jobs starts up Apple in the garage of a small home with a handful of like-minded programmers. Jobs idea was to create a computer that was personable and could adapt to your needs and interests. He wanted to build the exact opposite of the computers that IBM was putting out for the business world, a computer for the rest of us.

Through archival interviews and videos of Jobs, Gibney lets Steve do most of the talking in the film, making him almost a personal tour guide to the story of his life. Jobs had the uncanny ability to spot talent and the ability to inspire people that worked for him to achieve the impossible. Gibney interviews former employees from both the early days of Apple and the latter years, when the company that Jobs started had become a powerhouse in not only the computer world but in the business world as well. Gibney shows Jobs as a driven man who expected his employees to create perfect products but demanded that the job take over their lives, so much so that their personal lives suffered to a great extent. Apple did not allow access to current employees, so we only see important executives, such as CEO Tim Cook or top designer Jony Ive, in footage from press conferences and Apple events. The film does extensively interview Jobs first wife and several of the early employees of Apple, giving some insight on what drove Jobs in the startup days.

This film will probably be a shock to the many fans of Jobs and Apple. Jobs was a man who was driven to succeed and didn’t mind screwing other people to achieve his goals. Gibney tells the story of Jobs being hired by Atari to create a board for one of the games, with the goal to make the board use fewer computer chips and be more streamlined. Jobs goes to his old friend, Steve Wozniak to design the board (something that Woz was much better at than Steve). When Woz creates a board that amazes the engineers of Atari, they give Jobs a bonus of $5,000. He tells Wozniak that Atari gave them $1,400 and gives Woz his cut of $700. Only later did Wozniak find out that Steve kept most of the bonus to himself. Gibney gives us many examples of how Jobs could be cold and calculating, a man who seemed to be obsessed with accumulating money. When Jobs came back to Apple (after being let go for a while), he all but eliminated Apple’s endowment programs and most of its charity work, adding more money to the bottom line. The film sheds light on some accounting scandals the Jobs was involved with, painting in a very negative light. The film also takes a critical look at the factories in China that Apple uses to build their products. These factories are full of low-paying jobs that require long hours and put so much pressure on the workers that they are committing suicide at an alarming rate.

With his film, “Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine,” Alex Gibney shows us that Jobs was a man who helped connect the whole world through his products, but he couldn’t connect to people in his own personal world. It is truly ironic that Jobs created products like the iPhone, something that was meant to connect us to other people, but instead seems to isolate us as we stare at our iPhones at the bus stop or at the dinner table. The film is a fascinating, unflinching look at an extremely complicated and ego driven man. I just wonder that after seeing this film, will the fans of Apple and Jobs hold him in such high, almost god-like esteem and will they look at his products with the same reverence? Or will they just go back to staring at their iPhone screens?    My Rating: Full Price 

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine” will be released in the fall by Magnolia Pictures.

"Cobain: Montage of Heck" Movie Review

My review of the documentary "Cobain: Montage of Heck"

"Cobain: Montage of Heck"

Posted on Mar. 24, 2015 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of HBO Films

“Cobain: Montage of Heck” (2015)

One of the most anticipated and in demand screenings at SXSW was the documentary “Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck.” It’s an intimate look at the man, done with the full cooperation of the Cobain family. The film contains never before seen behind-the-scenes footage and audio that hasn’t been heard before. Of course, it helps when the executive producer of the film is Francis Bean Cobain, Courtney Love, and Kurt Cobain’s daughter.

For many of his generation, Kurt Cobain was an icon, someone who changed the musical landscape with almost one guitar cord. Young people were inspired to look and play music from the small bars of Seattle. On one hand, this documentary shows how Cobain pushed his music and his band to new heights, but this was a tortured soul that often didn’t want to be the center of attention.

Writer / director Brett Morgan has created a fascinating look the life of Cobain, trying to get inside his head. The film uses his illustrated journals, never before heard audio recordings that Cobain did starting at an early age, and interviews with immediate family members, including a very frank Courtney Love to tell his story. Morgan lets Cobain narrate a good deal of the film, using the lost audio recordings or interviews that he did, creating a moving narrative that gives us insight into his thoughts and feelings at the time. A number of the audio scenes in the film are accompanied by single cell animation, giving the picture to the voice.

Photo courtesy of HBO Docs

Morgan does a good job of managing archival footage with interviews with family, friends, Nirvana band mate, bassist Krist Novoselic and Courtney. We get insight into Kurt’s difficult childhood, one marked by a longing for a traditional family. It’s something Kurt was always searching for, sometimes even manufacturing for himself. He never attained that feeling he was part of a family until he and Courtney had Francis and by then; his heroin addiction got in the way of that ideal setting.

Interviews with his mother, father and his first girlfriend show a kid who had a musical ability from early on but was someone who was constantly out of place, never quite fitting in at home or at school. There didn’t seem to be a family member that could control or communicate with Kurt for any length of time, which contributed to his feeling isolated and misunderstood. Kurt also began experiencing stomach pain very early on in his life, and it seemed at times, to consume him, to the point that he turned to heroin to escape the pain.

Morgan brings to the center of the interviews, the two people that were closest with Kurt and had the most insight into what made him tick, Novoselic and Love. Novelistic is handed in his guilt of not being able to see the signs that Kurt was going to commit suicide. Love is brutally honest about her relationship with Kurt and their drug use. Morgan does a great job of not giving Love’s entire interview at one time, kind of dispensing it in the film when it’s needed to move the story or illustrate a point. Love is painfully honest about her time with Kurt, even admitting to taking heroin during the early stages of pregnancy with Francis. I don’t know if Francis is incredibly lucky not to suffer the effects, or if it’s attributable to Love saying she could quit the drug at any time.

Probably the most important and at times, heartbreaking scenes in the film are the home movies that Kurt and Courtney shot, both before and after Francis was born. There are a number of very tender scenes between Francis as a baby and her parents, as they doted on the obvious love of their lives.

Certainly, fans of Nirvana will be thrilled with all the footage and the amount of music from the band contained in this documentary. However, because the film concentrates solely on the life of Cobain and what made him tick, the founding of the band is never touched upon in much detail. While appearing in a number of archival footage scenes, band member Dave Growl, isn’t interviewed by the filmmakers, a critical missing voice in the film. There is enough concert footage (some of them behind the scenes); including the famous MTV “Unplugged” concert, that fans will be happy with all the music that plays throughout the film.

“Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck” while it doesn’t give us all the answers, it does give us insight into a tortured but talent man who all too briefly led us to a musical revolution. It’s a brilliant film that is times moving and thoughtful, giving us a clue on how a troubled but highly intelligent Kurt Cobain saw the world.     My Rating: I Would Pay to See it Again

My movie rating system from Best to Worst: 1). I Would Pay to See it Again 2). Full Price 3). Bargain Matinee 4). Cable 5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck” will be playing at the Atlanta Film Festival on Sunday, March 29th at 9:30 pm at the Plaza Theatre.  For more information  click here

"Ex Machina" Movie Review

My review of "Ex Machina" starring  Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac.

"Ex Machina"

Posted on March 18, 2015 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of A24

“Ex Machina” (2015)

The highlight of SXSW Film Festival and my favorite movie of the year so far, “Ex Machina” is a masterpiece of simplistic Sci-Fi at its best. A film that combines elements of “Blade Runner” and “2001” with a bit of “Sleuth” thrown in for good measure.

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) works as a coder for the world’s pre-eminent search engine, Bluebook. Much to his surprise, he wins a contest of a lifetime, a chance to spend a week with the creator of Bluebook, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), on his isolated estate.  Right away, Caleb realizes that this will be no ordinary week, as the helicopter pilot sets him down in the middle of nowhere Alaska and tells him to follow the river upstream. After finding the house, Caleb meets Nathan and is given two options; he can sign the mother of all confidentiality agreements that restrict just about every aspect of his life, or not sign the agreement and just party with Nathan for the week. If Caleb does not sign the agreement, he will never find out what secret project that Nathan has been working on. Very quickly, Caleb decides to sign, as it’s just too much of an opportunity to pass up.
assignment

It turns out that Nathan has been working on developing Artificial Intelligence that the world has never seen.  He has brought Caleb to evaluate the A.I.. His assignment, to determine if it is truly an independent thinker, a robot capable of individual thoughts and feelings. Caleb meets the A.I. , a beautiful robot named Ava (Alicia Vikander).  Almost from the start Caleb is smitten with Ava, and they hit it off from their first conversation. As Caleb interacts more with both Nathan and Ava, it is very evident that there is something more to this experiment than Nathan is willing to reveal. The big question is what is Nathan planning for this A.I. and will he succeed?

Writer/director Alex Garland has created a world of search engines and Artificial Intelligence that could be five years into the future, or it could be present day. The film tackles a number of subjects including; just how much information do our search engines gather on us, can computers develop independent thoughts and if they do ever get truly independent thought will it pose a danger to man.

Garland has created a movie that is a chess game between its two main human characters. It’s a game that both players think they can win.  Nathan is arrogant and sure that he is the smartest one in the room, no matter if it is a robot or a human. He sees robots and fellow humans, as just servants to him, their only purpose is to do his bidding. Caleb isn’t as confident as Nathan but he believes in doing the right thing, and that good intentions will ultimately win out. As Caleb falls in love Ava, he begins to see her as an individual, not a robot.

The look of this film is a cool, modern look that is rarely open to space and becomes more claustrophobic as the film goes on. Director of Photography Rob Hardy, plays with these spaces, showing instead of two people talking on screen, one person is often shown  just in reflections of the objects in the rooms. It’s as if that reflection isn’t a real person talking, and in the case of Ava, it isn’t.  Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury scored the film and it perfectly matches the scenes, bringing the tension into almost every scene.

The three principals actors are all up to carrying out the task of slowly revealing the fascinating and twisted plot. Alicia Vikander gives a brilliant performance as the A.I. Ava, All the more remarkable because most of her torso is robotic and see through, meaning that only her face is really available to show emotions and meaning. Vikander is perfect in the role, reminiscent of Sean Young.  You can see why Caleb falls hard for Ava, as she reveals more and more of her personality to Caleb, slowly but surely putting him under her spell. Oscar Isaac, playing the ego mad inventor, gives one of the best performances of his career. He is mesmerizing up on the screen.  Isaac gives the sort of performance that you almost like Nathan in spite of his boorish behavior. Of the three, Domhnall Gleeson, has the hardest role. Initially, it looks as if his character is overmatched with the blustery Nathan. Appearing at first quite shy and unsure of himself, Gleeson’s Caleb, becomes stronger and more driven as the two men try to outwit each other. Gleeson shows remarkable range and at times let’s Caleb wear his heart on his sleeve.

“Ex Machina” is one of the best films of the year and will be the standard bearer of great Sci-Fi films for years to come.  My Rating:  I Would Pay to See it Again

My movie rating system from Best to Worst: 1). I Would Pay to See it Again 2). Full Price 3). Bargain Matinee 4). Cable 5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Ex Machina” Website

"Red Army" Movie Review

My review of the documentary "Red Army"

"Red Army"

Posted on March 13, 2015  on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics 

“Red Army” (2014)

The Soviet Union Red Army Ice Hockey team was the greatest in the world. The players were the best of the best that the Soviets had, a product of their system where young men at an early age were picked to begin a grueling way of life, playing hockey 11 months out of the year, sometimes training two or three times a day. The men who made the team had grown up together, often playing with the same group of guys for years and years. The team was part of the Army and lived in barracks for most of the year.

The Red Army team destroyed opponents, beating other teams by double digit scores. That’s why it was so unbelievable that the “Miracle on Ice” happened. A US team made up mostly of college kids beating the best team of all time at the 1980 Winter Olympics truly was a miracle.

The film centers around Viacheslav “Slava” Fetisov, probably one of the finest hockey players ever. Slava played for the team in the glory days of the 70s and 80s. He is extensively interviewed in the film, very often taking an almost adversary role to the filmmaker Gabe Polsky, who at times has to prod and poke Slava to get him to open up. There is a hilarious scene at the beginning of the film, where Slava refuses to start the interview because he is texting on his phone. This scene goes on for several minutes as Polsky tries to get Slava to start talking, and Slava just starts cussing him out, shooting him the bird at one point.

The film has some remarkable behind-the-scenes footage, especially of the teams incredible training methods; many were developed specifically for the hockey team. The film touches on the politics of the time, the cold war and the KGB going on their trips abroad to make sure the players didn’t defect. The film does a remarkable job of getting the players to open up and talk about their days on the team. It’s a joy to watch as the players remember the good and the bad times. Slava lays it out on the table as he became a pawn of the system and while other players who were less talented got to start playing in the West (making real money for the first time), Slava was being punished for standing up to the higher ups, not wanting to hand over a major cut of his salary to the government. Slava was and is a man of integrity who is willing to make a stand when he believes in something dearly.

The film is fascinating to watch; My favorite part of the movie is where the players sit down to watch the “Miracle on Ice” game, viewing it in complete silence. It’s a game that most of the players blame their coach for loss. The coach was a man whom most of the men hated, and that loss fueled their hate even more. The players practically spit out the man’s name when they talk about him.

While only 77 minutes in length, the storyline is rich and jam-packed with great stories. The editing is crisp and fast-paced. It’s an incredibly interesting film, even if you aren’t a hockey fan. The film puts the personalities of the player’s front and center, celebrating their accomplishments and discusses their losses. To see these men on ice in the archival footage is a thing of beauty, making pass after pass on the ice as they break down the opposing defense, scoring so quickly it is almost faster than the eye can follow. “Red Army” is a film that is about a team, we will never see the likes of again from a time that has been preserved in this brilliant film.     My Rating: I Would Pay to See it Again

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Red Army” is playing exclusively at the UA Tara Cinemas 4

"Mr. Turner" Movie Review

My review "Mr. Turner" starring Timothy Spall, Paul Jesson, Dorothy Atkinson.

"Mr. Turner"

Posted on Mar. 6, 2015  on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics 

Mr. Turner (2014)

Mr. Turner is British painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall), considered one of the preeminent painters in the 18th century. Turner grew up a son of a barber and uses the workmanlike attitude with his painting. It’s his job, and he excels at it. He is driven, always has his drawing pad with him and is constantly looking for his next subject. He is a gruff man who has a high opinion of his talent and his work. He is a big man who is more likely to grunt to a question than give a reply. Turner at times can be nice, but it’s usually with rich patrons and or fellow painters. He is especially harsh with women, whether it’s his long-time housekeeper Hannah (Dorothy Atkinson) or his ex-wife and their grown daughters, of which he doesn’t want anything to do with.

Turner’s one true friend is his father (Paul Jesson), who he treats with respect and love. The father is equally proud of his son and helps his son prepare paints and canvases. Hannah, used to the routine of the house, also helps in the preparation of his painting, knowing his moods and his movements down to a t. It’s painting that drives Turner, and he won’t let anyone get in the way of his work.

It’s a beautiful film, and Cinematographer Dick Pope is worthy of his Academy Award nomination. He uses light the way that Turner captured it in his paintings, with lots of warm yellows and reds. The first scene of the film is breathtaking as Turner is painting the windmills of Holland at sunset. Turner liked to paint at sunrise and sunset and many of the scenes of him painting use that light to its utmost bathing Turner on the screen with the same warm glow of his paintings.

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

Mike Leigh wrote and directed this film that takes place over the last 25 years of Turner’s life. The film plays out in little vignettes, as we see slices of Turner’s life. It makes for a rather disjointed film, as you try to figure just how much time has elapsed since the last scene; Leigh uses his typical cast of character actors to fill out the cast. This allows Spall to dominate the scenes, making his performance even more remarkable. Its amazing performance by Spall, and it’s sad that he didn’t get the Oscar nod. Dorothy Atkinson is great as the put-upon housekeeper willing to do just about anything to keep her employer happy. Marion Bailey is lovely and a joy to watch as a widow who takes Mr. Turner is first as a border and later as a lover late in his life.

The film is helped by the production design by Suzie Davies. A good deal of the film takes place in Turner’s home, and we can almost feel the dampness of the house in the sets. Costumes by Jacqueline Durran added to the mood, and the score by Gary Yershon is warm and lush, just like Turner’s painting.

“Mr. Turner” is a film where its performances are better than its script. At times, the film feels stuck, as the plot doesn’t always move. It’s a film that while beautiful to watch, and Timothy Spall gives an impressive performance. It just doesn’t live up to the majesty of Turner’s paintings.   My Rating: Bargain Matinee

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

The film is playing exclusively in Atlanta at UA Tara Cinemas 4

“Mr. Turner” Website

"Kidnapping Mr. Heineken"

My Review of "Kidnapping Mr. Heineken" starring Anthony Hopkins, Jim Sturgess, Sam Worthington, Ryan Kwanten.

"Kidnapping Mr. Heineken"

Posted on March 6, 2015 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of Alchemy

“Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” (2015)

A group of friends are trying to resurrect their construction company in the wake of the bad economy in Amsterdam. Cor Van Hout (Jim Sturgess) is the ringleader of the group. Most of the men have spent some time behind bars, but Cor and Willem (Sam Worthington) are the most hardened of the group, and they tend to butt heads over the direction of the group. Cor has a baby on the way which increases the pressure on him to find a way to make some money. The other three guys (Ryan Kwanten, Mark Van Eeuwen, and Thomas Cocquerel) will pretty much follow the lead of Cor and Williem, not giving up much resistance to the idea of an extra beer at the pub or thoughts on making a quick buck. Inspired by his father’s blind allegiance to the wealthiest man in town, Freddy Heineken (Anthony Hopkins), Willem comes up with an idea to kidnap the heir to the billion-dollar beer fortune. Cor takes his guys on a boat ride down the river at night to pitch the kidnapping, and while it takes a little arm twisting, they all agree that it can work.

Photo courtesy of Alchemy

The gang decides that if they are going to get away with the kidnapping, the police must suspect that the people who do the kidnapping are one of the highly organized and well financed terrorist organizations. They attempt to rob a bank to get their “seed” money, and while things don’t go completely by the book, they are successful, allowing the gang to prepare properly for the big day. They plan extensively, building some sound proof cells in an isolated warehouse. They map Mr. Heineken’s every move, knowing exactly what his daily routine is. Now the planning stages are over, and they must do the deed. The question is, will they be successful in the kidnapping and will it be their big break or their downfall?

Based on the true story, the film follows the men as they try to accomplish the feat without getting stopped or captured. When the film works, it’s because of the two main leads, Worthington and Sturgess and their chemistry together. Director Daniel Alfredson gets the two actors to play off each other extremely well, and their connection makes the film move at times. Anthony Hopkins also helps a great deal to keep the film interesting, bearing a bit of brashness and bravado to the role of Freddy Heineken. He plays him as a pompous soul that feels that the world will surely rise up and rescue him. Unfortunately, the rest of the main cast doesn’t bring a lot to the film. I would have liked to see more of the home life of the rest of the cast. Show us why they felt forced to commit this crime and how big a sacrifice would it be if they had to leave their families if things went bad.

The best scene in the film is the bank heist. There is a wonderful chase sequence through the streets of Amsterdam that is fun to watch as the bank robbers are pursued through the streets with what looks like no escape possible. The rest of the film is based on the tension over whether the ransom will be paid, but that tension never builds, making the rest of the movie seem rather flat. The audience doesn’t get what should have been an overwhelming feeling of paranoia, as pressure mounts on the group with the possible failure of their efforts. I never really felt that the gang would go through with the idea that if the ransom wasn’t played, they would kill the kidnaped Mr. Heineken. I believe this is the fault of scriptwriter, William Brookfield, whose script doesn’t make the men seem all that threatening. There is a scene early on in the film where the group try to evict a group of squatters from a building they own. The incident is played as comic relief, making the men come off as just a bunch of guys from a local pub that are doing a weekend get together.  We never get the idea that the men were capable of more than just basic violence, that the violence could escalate to killing. Apparently, they were more than that in real life as one of the men in the post-credits is described as becoming the “Godfather of crime in Amsterdam.”

Ultimately, “Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” never builds off its early successes and becomes a film filled with scenes that don’t quite build. It’s a film that makes the audience not care if the kidnapping is ever a success or not, and that’s a shame for such an interesting historical story.   My Rating: Bargain Matinee

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” is playing exclusively in Atlanta at Plaza Theatre

“Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” Website