Wednesday, February 27, 2013

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 2



We're Baaaaaack

by Hunter Isham

        Hello all, and welcome back to the Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review Podcast. On this, our second installment, we devote the entire 110 minute runtime (feature length!) to the 85th Academy Awards. We discuss the top awards, first time host Seth MacFarlane, and the overall telecast. Unfortunately, we're still battling some technical difficulties, but such are the wonders of recording a podcast with subpar microphones and Skype. An early bright spot we hope you enjoy is the introduction of our new theme music, a short piece of Leonard Rosenman's score from 1986's Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The show is available on iTunes, as well as below:




        If you have any suggestions of films we should review, questions for the staff, or just want to drop us a line, you can contact us at our new site email: dmireviewstaff@gmail.com.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

The Untouchables

by Tyler Darke

      The Untouchables was a beautifully done crime-drama film that highlighted the quest of Eliot Ness (played by Kevin Costner) bringing Al Capone to justice during Prohibition. The film was a success on so many levels from casting, to costume design, to sound design.

      With the cast of this movie (Costner, Connery, De Niro, Garcia), how could you go wrong? Obviously you can't. Costner gave another brilliant performance, proving, once again, his incredible acting talent. Sean Connery also gives a commendable performance as Jim Malone, for which he won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. We get to see the complexities of the character that he plays. Some scenes highlight his tough nature, while others highlight his more sensitive, supporting nature that he shows Ness after being recruited as a member of the Untouchables. Robert De Niro is at his best as the ruthless gang leader, Al Capone. It can be difficult to portray an character with such a tough exterior without overacting or coming across as cheesy, but De Niro does it effortlessly. When you look into his eyes, you see Al Capone, not Robert De Niro, or anyone else.

      The action scenes in The Untouchables were done in a very tasteful way that satisfies any action fan while still moving the plot along in a meaningful way. Perhaps the creators of A Good Day to Die Hard could learn a thing or two about successful action scenes if they watched this movie.

      While watching the film, I found that there were many parallel themes to the 2013 movie Gangster Squad. A group of law enforcement officers was assembled to take down one very dangerous man who was terrorizing a city. While I enjoyed Gangster Squad, The Untouchables is on another level.

      It is a classic in every sense of the word, and is definitely worthy of viewing. If you have Netflix, you can watch it on instant, so definitely check it out. 9.5/10

Scoop: "Word is they're going to repeal Prohibition. What'll you do 
        then?"
Ness: "I think I'll have a drink."

The Untouchables


By Harry McPhaul

The Untouchables was a highly entertaining film.  From the violence to the drama each scene held some sort of importance.  I liked how the action was not over the top.  It was all required to recreate how dangerous or desperate the City of Chicago had become with Al Capone ruling over everyone. There were not any scenes that felt fake or excessive. 
After viewing this film I thought that it had some similar qualities to the Oscar nominated film Zero Dark Thirty.  In that, I already knew how it was going to end but the journey to get there was still captivating.  Also each protagonist ends up reaching their final goal to bring down the one man who they spent countless hours tracking.
 The acting in The Untouchables was outstanding.  This was the first Sean Connery film I can vividly remember. His performance made his Oscar win well deserved.  He almost stole the movie from Kevin Costner (Elliot Ness).  During the beginning of the film when the group was forming he was shown to be more knowledgeable and experienced then Ness.  This created a little confusion as to who was the leader. The hierarchy in the group was later easily understood after Ness got settled in Chicago and started to figure out how to bring down Capone.
Each one of the actors in the group (Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Andy Garcia, and Charles Martin Smith) and Robert DeNiro who played Al Capone all produced a magnificent film.  It made me rethink the way I thought of Costner’s acting abilities.  I would highly recommend this film.  I would give it a 9/10. Must see.

The Untouchables
















"Never stop fighting till the fight is done."
- Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner)

by Hunter Isham

        One of the clearest memories of my first encounter with Brian De Palma's 1987 crime drama The Untouchables is not actually from the film itself, but rather from the back of the movie's DVD case. Big letters next to a picture of Kevin Costner proclaimed this to be, "The hottest mob movie since The Godfather," a quote attributed to Newsweek. The message was crystal clear: This is a good movie. As it turns out, I misinterpreted the quote. The Untouchables is not just a good movie, it's a great one.
        Based on the true story of treasury agent Elliot Ness, the film chronicles his work to uphold prohibition in 1920s Chicago, specifically targeting Al Capone. The film's titular group, though in reality consisting of eleven agents, is the four man team assembled by Ness to fight the criminals flooding the streets of Chicago with liquor. Al Capone's Achilles heel, income tax evasion, is well known to many, and to have this story play out with that at the center might undercut the film's suspense and importance. The boat sinks at the end of Titanic. Gasp! What De Palma and screenwriter David Mamet do is tell the story of a war between the U.S. government and ruthless mobsters fighting at ground zero. This is not the story of how they got Capone for tax evasion, but rather the story of how a small group of individuals pushed the enemy forces back, holding them at bay as they gathered the necessary evidence to send the so-called "Mayor of Chicago" up the river.
        The team assembled to accomplish this gargantuan task is aging policeman Jim Malone (Sean Connery), federal accountant Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), and rookie officer George Stone (Andy Garcia), all led by Kevin Costner's fearless, idealistic Ness. Malone, a streetwise cop cautious of both gangsters and crooked policemen, quickly becomes the strategic leader as he teaches the serious yet ingenuous Ness how Chicago mobs operate, even leading their first successful raid, in the most unlikely of places. Connery imbues Malone with a weary and wise demeanor of a cop skeptical of Ness' abilities, but dedicated to the cause for which his young leader so valiantly fights, earning every ounce of that Oscar he was awarded for the role. The only bad thing about Connery's performance is his Irish accent, which like all characters played by Sean Connery, sounds downright Scottish. To quibble about this would be to complain that Tommy Lee Jones too often sounds as though he grew up in Texas, because some actors' talent and screen presence affords them the right to use their natural speaking voice in many of their roles. The Irish accent is there, but never distracting. The last, but hardly the least (in presence and physical weight), member of the principal cast is the effortlessly intimidating Robert De Niro as public enemy Alphonse Capone. De Niro is perfectly suited to this role, as not only did he match his frame to that of the somewhat round Capone, but he also leaves the quiet portrayal of a young Vito Corleone (in The Godfather Part II) behind for a flamboyant, psychotic turn as a man who will beat one of his own to death with a baseball bat as a warning to the deadman's peers. De Niro gives Capone the necessary weight (no pun intended), so when he barks to his men that he wants Ness and his family dead, we believe him and fear for their lives.
        As fantastic as the cast is, they would have nothing to work with were it not for the fiery, profane script by Glengarry Glen Ross scribe David Mamet. The infamous "Always Be Closing" speech by Mamet is in the film monologue hall of fame, and with The Untouchables he gives himself a run for his money. Everything from Malone's lessons on police work ("When your shift is over, you go home alive.") and gangland violence in Chicago ("He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.") to Ness' quixotic proclamations of justice, this film is filled with great dialogue. Matching the level of mastery on the page, director Brian De Palma fills the frame with iconic images. A bustling 1920s city street, crossed by Ness and his men with shotguns in hand. The untouchables moving swiftly on horseback toward a convoy of illegal, imported liquor on the Canadian border. A shoot out on the marble steps of Chicago's Union Station with innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. These sequences, wonderfully staged by De Palma, are burned into my mind as quintessential moments in film, also due in no small part to composer Ennio Morricone's (The Good, the Bad and The Ugly) sensational, soaring score.
        The Untouchables is perhaps one of few films that can promote unflinching goodness in the face of corruption without even a hint of irony. Costner's Elliot Ness is a square, but one worth rooting for as he and his team take on alcohol and the gangsters who sell it, never once stopping till the fight is done. Other films have provided us with moralistic heroes who fight evil, not all of them in blue tights and a cape, but The Untouchables reminds us that sometimes doing good means bending the rules by which we live, making it a movie that few others can indeed touch. Ness and his team aren't corruptible, or even scarcely bad, but their cause is true, and the vigor and heart with which they pursue it is the driving force of the film. Stories told in ethical shades of black and white are not hard to find, but those told well are few and far between. Sit back, have a drink, and let The Untouchables take you for a ride you won't soon forget. Newsweek called it, "The hottest mob movie since The Godfather," but that film is a shakespearean meditation on the crime families of New York, and the seductive qualities of power. This is prohibition, Capone, and the badge-carrying, gun-toting agents out to get him. Welcome to Chicago. 9.5/10

Sunday, February 17, 2013

A Good Day to Die Hard

by Harry McPhaul

A Good Day to Die Hard was a ridiculous action movie.  It was completely unrealistic.  I understand that most action movies are mainly about making the good guy look like a bad ass and making everything explode but I mean this movie went way over the top.  In similar films the character will face some type of consequence for their actions.  In this film John McClane and his son Jack are constantly jumping out of buildings, getting hit by cars and they just get up and walk away.  There was scene I thought showed this clearly; SPOILER ALERT.  John and Jack were trying to avoid a helicopter that was running into the building they were in.  So they both jump down about three stories into a pool while the helicopter is exploding.  After the explosion is done, the two meet up and walk away, no harm done.
That was one aspect of the film I did not enjoy.  Another would be the poor acting.  It was not that the lines were too cheesy it was the way they were delivered.  Especially the ending scene when Jack is finally forgiving John for not being around when he was younger.  I could not help from laughing during this scene because it awful.  It was completely forced and was finally putting in an end to a terrible movie.
I went into this movie not expecting it to be a best picture nominee but to be at least more like the last one Live Free or Die Hard which was actually pretty good.  I came out of it just saying, why? If you want see a lot of cars being destroyed and explosions then you still should not pay to see this movie.  The only time you should see this film is if it is played on an airplane.  I would give this film a 4.5/10, a Must Not See.   

A Good Day to Die Hard

by Tyler Darke

      Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of the Die Hard film series. I think Bruce Willis is fantastic, and all four of the previous Die Hard movies were quality films. I wish I could say the same for A Good Day to Die Hard.

      This movie was a disgrace to the series. It was a failure on so many levels from the acting, to the special effects, to the plot. I have never left a movie theater as disappointed as I was last night after seeing this installment of the Die Hard series.

      It's difficult to pick a place to start criticizing this film, because there are so many places to choose from. I'll start with the acting since that was one of the worst aspects of the movie. I have a lot of respect for Bruce Willis as an actor. I will say that his acting was far better than any of the supporting cast members, but it was not up to his standard. It was obvious that he wasn't feeling the role the way he typically does. Perhaps this was partly caused by the terrible supporting cast he was surrounded by. What were they thinking? Who are these people?? Look them up! Jai Courtney, Sebastian Kotch, and Yuliya Snigir? I am all for bringing unknown actors into the spotlight if they are talented, but these actors deserve to STAY unknown. Compare these supporting actors to the ones from the previous movie, Live Free or Die Hard...Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, and Cliff Curtis....no comparison. This film was bound to fail based solely on the supporting cast.

      As if the cast wasn't enough of a detriment to the film, there had to be a ridiculous script to accompany it. The dialogue was extremely awkward and had no flow. It didn't make Bruce Willis look like a badass, it made him look like a grumpy old man. I know he is getting old, but if he's going to continue to make Die Hard movies, they have to keep up his image as the hardcore, badass John McClane. Nobody watches these movies to see a grumpy old man running around with a gun.

      Another major downfall of this movie was the plot. I won't even waste your time explaining it to you. I will just say that the action scenes were ridiculous rather than exciting. The characters seemed more concerned with damaging everything in sight than attacking their respective opponents. If this plot were to actually take place, there would probably be about 100 innocent people dead just from the ridiculous car chase in the beginning of the movie.

      All of this said, I must say that I am hoping for a Die Hard 6 to come out. It would be a shame for such a great film series to end on such an embarrassing movie. This series needs redemption, so I hope it will be moderately successful to encourage a 6th film in the series.

      Knowing that the film has already grossed over $112 million, I would recommend that you do not waste your time or money seeing it. Cross your fingers and hope for Die Hard 6: Redemption! 3/10

A Good Day to Die Hard


Old Heroes Die Hard

By Hunter Isham

        John McTiernan's 1988 action masterpiece Die Hard gives us an everyman hero contrary to the hulking Schwarzeneggers and Stallones that constituted the action A-list at the time. Bruce Willis, cast after those popular stars passed, is an unassuming presence as the always-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time New York policeman John McClane, and the success of his performance and of the film as a whole created an enduring franchise. No subsequent film matches the original's excellence, but 1990's Die Hard 2, 1995's Die Hard with a Vengeance, and 2007's Live Free or Die Hard are all worthy additions to the series. This generally unwavering quality stops with A Good Day to Die Hard. It's not a terrible film, but it's not a good Die Hard film, and it's not what the franchise, or its leading man, deserves.
        This fifth entry in the series finds McClane, still played with some exasperated wit by Willis, on his way to Moscow to sort out his estranged son's imprisonment. Jack, who we haven't seen since he was a little boy waiting for his parents to come home from a Christmas party gone wrong, is on trial alongside government whistleblower Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch). To cut to the chase (literally), the two escape, and John follows them (and some Russian bad guys out to get Komarov) in a massive, occassionaly inventive, but not terribly well shot car chase. MILD SPOILERS Once John catches up to his son and Komarov, it's revealed that Jack is actually an agent working to extract Komarov for the CIA. The reasons for this are easy to follow but never provide much weight as a reason to keep the story moving. SPOILERS END To explain any more of the weak plot would be a waste of time for both you and me, and it would spoil some twists that aren't particularly surprising but help to pad the 97-minute run time. At the end of the day, this film is really just about McClane and son fighting Russian "scumbags," as John calls them, and to a much lesser extent, about mending their relationship.
        A lacking story aside, why does this film fail to live up to what we have come to expect of John McClane and his previous adventures? Let's start with the cast, which has no weak link, but which lacks the screen presence of the preceding films' ensembles. The last four films combined give us performances by Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton, Fred Thompson, Reginald VelJohnson, John Amos, Dennis Franz, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (who cameos here as McClane's daughter), and last but not least, Alan Rickman as the first film's villain, Hans Gruber. This list serves only as a reminder of the great actors who have filled out the casts of each film around an always dependable Willis, and while they may not have been well known at the time (Rickman made his film debut in Die Hard), they are worth remembering in those roles. The same cannot be said for anyone in this film, except perhaps for Australian actor Jai Courtney as Jack McClane, because with a better script he seems as though he would be capable of something more than what he delivers here. We believe Jack as John's son, if only because their repartee is all about life as a McClane, but the moments of real heart simply do not deliver. At the end of the first two films, when John is reunited with his wife after two of the longest nights of his life, we feel something, especially in the first film. He has gone to hell and back, fighting for her, but in A Good Day, we see more of a father-son bonding experience, which could have worked, but the moments where they open up to each other fall flat.
        The Die Hard films have always been able to deliver on a character level, and that is what sets them apart from more rote action films, but they also have fantastic moments of thrilling chases, shootouts, and massive explosions. Big dumb action has the potential to be fun, and some of this fifth film's action is very enjoyable, but the Die Hard series is also fairly grounded when it comes to unbelievable stunts. John McClane is always battered, bruised, and possibly limping by the time one of his adventures has come to a close, but in the first major action sequence of the film, the aforementioned car chase, we see John get into two major accidents in which his vehicles roll several times, and then emerge with hardly any difficulty or visible damage. Not a single scratch. In fact, it's not until he takes a long trip down some scaffolding with his son that he bleeds even a little, at which point he's already endured not just the car chase but also a few harsh punches. The original film has a sequence where John, not wearing any shoes, must walk across a room blanketed with broken glass, and then pull the shards out one by one before returning to the fight. Many argue that he became too much of a super hero in his last outing, but this film outdoes Live Free or Die Hard's outrageous action simply by waiting too long to apply fake blood to Willis' face. The action as a whole in this film isn't anything special. Stunts ranging from that extended car chase to a truck hanging out of a helicopter at Chernobyl (no joke) are fun to look at, and some of it is well staged, but director John Moore takes a shaky-cam, in the action approach that does not suit Die Hard well. It's a modern and overused technique that has its moments with the right material, such as the Bourne franchise, but which does not have a place in the more traditional action of Die Hard.
        Perhaps the most disappointing shift away from the series is John McClane's motivation in this film. In the first film he just wants to reconcile with his wife, but must fight terrorists holding her hostage. The second film works similarly, with the third and fourth films demonstrating McClane's ability to fight the bad guys because he's the only one who can. A Good Day to Die Hard has McClane jump into a major car chase simply because he's trying to follow his son, not because he knows he's chasing dangerous terrorists seeking to steal from or kill innocent civilians. In the process, he causes a great deal of damage to those civilians' cars, putting many of their lives in danger. To put it in Die Hard terms, John McClane doesn't take bullshit from anyone when he's working to stop injustice, but here he's just on a rampage because his son is acting like a criminal, and more criminals are out to get his son. McClane is a cop, so one would expect him to get some lawful cooperation from local police before jumping into a hazardous situation among thousands of people, but apparently Die Hard is just about the carnage now.
        All of this may make A Good Day to Die Hard sound like an absolutely dreadful experience, which it certainly is not. However, this is not the Die Hard the audience deserves, and hopefully not the one it wants either. The premise is solid, but a weak script by Skip Woods, whose work on 2010's The A-Team would make him seem like a good fit while his script for X-Men Origins: Wolverine demonstrates he is not, and direction from John Moore (helmer of Max Payne and other bad movies) that is at best uninspiring and at worst confusing make this film simply mediocre. Bruce Willis saves the day as much as possible by being his charming self, but his one liners don't always land (look once more to the script), making the movie's hour and a half runtime merciful. This film is enjoyable from the standpoint of it being an adequate action yarn with a likable lead, and although the periodic character moments are part of what makes Die Hard what it is, the lack of those moments in this film relieve us of having to sit through poorly written scenes, allowing us instead to simply enjoy the big, dumb explosions. This is not what we want from Die Hard, but at this time of the year, when terrible but reasonably profitable films are dumped by the studios in the long trek to summer, it's a nice enough distraction. Go in with low expectations, and you will not be disappointed. 5.5/10


*On a side note, Willis hopes to make a Die Hard 6 in the future, and I sincerely hope A Good Day to Die Hard makes enough money to make that possible. As much as this film does not really deserve to stand alongside the other four, giving the character a proper sendoff would be a nice way to end this beloved franchise. And perhaps 20th Century Fox would consider hiring some better talent behind the scenes the next time around.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Lincoln




"I could write shorter sermons, but when I get started I'm too lazy to stop."
- Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis)

by Hunter Isham

        I must begin this review of Steven Spielberg's Lincoln by revealing my bias toward the film. Spielberg is my favorite director, I have a great fondness for Abraham Lincoln, and I am a fan of politics and history on film. To say I am a pushover for a film that takes these three things and combines them into one phenomenal motion picture would be a massive understatement, not to mention the attractive qualities of an intelligent and witty script by Tony Kushner, a quiet and moving score by John Williams, and a fantastic ensemble cast led by the incomparable Daniel Day-Lewis. Lincoln is the kind of film that, given the twelve years it took to develop and eventually produce, comes with enormous hype, with filmgoers hoping it would land among Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan as one of Spielberg's best dramatic efforts. To say it delivers on the promise of excellence would, like my predestined love for the film, be an understatement.
        As with all great films, the story is key, and Tony Kushner's script wisely sidesteps the usual biopic route of capturing an entire life, instead opting to focus on the sixteenth president's final months in office, and his effort to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (banning slavery) in a lame duck House of Representatives. This microscopic focus on a single piece of legislation allows us to see Lincoln as a flesh and blood man, rather than witness a scene by scene account of his accomplishments from Illinois lawyer to Great Emancipator. Such a film would no doubt have been interesting, but it would have given us a history lesson, instead of the window into Lincoln's humanity that this story provides. Kushner's script gives us a Lincoln who deeply cares for the Union he works to preserve, inwardly melancholy, outwardly hopeful and humorous. We see him as the intelligent, sometimes scheming politician who knows how to work the American political system for the greater good, and as a husband and father living with the grief of a dead son that nearly consumes his wife.
        A miraculous performance is given by Daniel Day-Lewis to bring these qualities to life. I say "miraculous" because it is one of few performances that can be categorized as anything but. He is Lincoln. Upon first viewing the film, I knew I had witnessed something great, but it did not occur to me until after that I didn't think of him as an actor. Abraham Lincoln was actually up on that screen with Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and the rest of the marvelous cast. Day-Lewis deserves every bit of the praise he has earned for his portrayal of this mythical figure in our history, because he brings to life not only Lincoln's walk or his now famous high-pitched voice, but also his soul.
        To lavish Day-Lewis with such acclamation is not to disparage his many co-stars, because while he disappears into his role, the other performers inhabit theirs. Tommy Lee Jones is quite obviously Tommy Lee Jones when he plays staunch abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, a fiery curmudgeon if there ever was one. Jones is known for such roles, but what sets this one apart is the wit and emphatic energy with which he defends his views and pursues his goals. Jones is truly in his element, stealing just about every scene in which he appears. Sally Field is similarly exceptional while recognizable as herself in the role of Mary Todd Lincoln. Her greatest achievement with the role is taking an individual who, much like her husband, has been turned into a two-dimensional caricature by history, and restoring her to a level of humanity not often afforded the seemingly crazy but genuinely smart and troubled Mary Todd. Nearly every role in the film is played by a recognizable character actor, and not a single one disappoints. James Spader is a standout as a smarmy lobbyist, one of three Lincoln hires to help secure votes in the House of Representatives. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a star most certainly on the rise, appears to be underused as Lincoln's eldest son Robert who desperately wants to join the war effort, but in the larger context of the story, having a talent such as he in the relatively small role only strengthens this subplot.
        And so we come to the individual without whom this film would never have been made. Steven Spielberg is a director well known for his grand visuals and emotions. His War Horse, a good but definitely flawed picture, is a masterclass in how to inject a film with too much of these elements, aiming for sweeping epic, but delivering instead a film that is often too saccharine for its own good. And so many, myself included, approached Lincoln with trepidation as to how big Spielberg would go on a film about a man who is second only to Jesus as the most written about figure in history. To our relief, he embarked upon this cinematic journey with a quiet reverence. Neither his camera placement nor his staging is ever so ostentatious as to distract from or overshadow the performances. Spielberg's grandiosity is appropriate for E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Saving Private Ryan, to name just a few of his classics, but Lincoln is small in stature while towering in purpose. To match that thematic and narrative height with directorial flair would be a disservice to the material. Spielberg has put the story far before his own ambition in this film, and when he does allow some of his sentimentality to creep in, it is only when we as the audience have fully embraced the people and the world on screen before us.
        Lincoln ends somewhat controversially with the title character's assassination. It is not, most thankfully, a grisly depiction of that event, instead showing us the expected scene in an unexpected way. Many believe that this scene is unnecessary and irrelevant to the film's narrative, and while I cannot argue with that sentiment, I can only say that after spending nearly two and half hours with Abraham Lincoln, I wished he could stay forever. "It's time for me to go," Lincoln says before departing for the theater on that fateful Friday in April, "but I would rather stay." We all know what happens beyond that point, but for this reviewer, seeing Lincoln's body sprawled out on a bed in Peterson House as the time of his passing is noted does not seem gratuitous, serving instead as a moment of closure.
        The title of this review, a quote from the film, seemed appropriate, because even without a single word on the digital page, I knew I would go on and on and on about Lincoln. It is my favorite film of the year 2012, and I believe it stands as an extraordinary achievement in filmmaking. Movies are meant to transport us, and Steven Spielberg's Lincoln not only puts us in the middle of history, it moves us with the heart and soul of those who made history. To borrow Lincoln's sentiment, I would much like to stay in that world, but I suppose I must go. All great things come to an end, perhaps sooner than we wish they would. 10/10

Lincoln

By Harry McPhaul


Lincoln was an excellently well done film.  From the cast to set every single detail; everything was covered.  As I said in my podcast, this is one of the top three films of the year.  Also, I believe Daniel Day-Lewis gave the best performance of any actor in the past year.  I am sure we all read about how he transcends himself into each role he takes and I could clearly see the product.  I was able to learn more about the personal qualities of Lincoln rather than just his political success. 
The way the film shows the two different relationships that Lincoln has with his sons was one of my favorite plot points.  One scene I found particularly moving was when the youngest son was sleeping near the fireplace and Lincoln walks in, gets on his hands and knees, and then proceeds to rollover toward his sleeping son.  His son almost immediately grabs onto Lincolns back (still kind of sleeping).  Lincoln then gets up with his son on his back and walks him to his bed.  This touching scene showed that no matter what was going on; he was still a father before a president.  The significance behind this scene could not have been portrayed effectively without a remarkable supporting actor.
I went into the film not knowing that so many well-known actors had roles.  At first I pictured them as the roles that normally play but I began to believe their characters.  Although I do not think that Tommy Lee Jones should win Best Supporting Actor, I would not be dissatisfied if he did win.  Jones did play his usual grumpy old man character but I am not sure if it was the wig or the role that made this one of his best performances.   I liked Sally Field in this film but not quite as much as Jones.  All the actors had great chemistry which produced this magnificent film.  I would give this film a 9/10. Must see.

Lincoln

by Tyler Darke

      Lincoln, as our third review, represents the final of the major contenders for the Academy Award for Best Picture from 2012. In a phenomenal year of film, this would be my second choice to win Best Picture, which is saying a lot already.

      I heard about Lincoln long before it was released in theaters. The main thing that caught my attention was seeing the first preview for the movie, where its brilliance was already evident from the absolutely incredible job in costume design that was done with Daniel Day-Lewis. If you took a picture of Day-Lewis as Lincoln (with a little help of black and white effect) few people would be able to tell the difference. I had to see this movie!

      The cast of this movie could not have been better-selected. Every actor played his/her roll flawlessly. With so many recognizable faces, it would be easy for the movie to come across less like a believable group of characters and more like a red carpet event. However, the carefully selected cast in Lincoln had the exact opposite effect. Particularly commendable was the dynamic of the Lincoln family.

      I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of focus the movie gave to Abraham Lincoln's family life. Many people are familiar with various aspects of his career as a politician, but what you do not learn much about in history class is his life as a father and a husband. The film did a great job of giving the viewer an inside look at the life of Lincoln in his intimate moments with his family. The beautiful relationship between Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field (as Mary Todd Lincoln) brought their arguments and serious discussions to life. The scenes with his children also allowed us to see what a caring father he was. Even as president, he still made as much time as possible for his younger son and did everything he could to protect his older son who wanted to join the military.

      Beyond the Lincoln family, much of the film is focused around the other politicians involved in debate over the 13th Amendment. While all of these actors (playing politicians) gave impressive performances, Tommy Lee Jones' was outstanding. In my opinion, it was the best of his career. Playing Thaddeus Stevens was not an incredibly new type of role for Jones, but he played it at his best. Stevens was a tough, witty politician and Jones portrays those characteristics vividly.

      Overall, the film was an absolutely remarkable look at the life of Abraham Lincoln as an outstanding politician, a fantastic husband, and a loving father. His relentless pursuit of the passage of the 13th Amendment was shown in great detail by the perfect group of actors. If you have not done so already, you have to see Lincoln as soon as possible. I can't wait to buy it on DVD. 9.5/10

Friday, February 8, 2013

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 1


Invasion of the Pod People
by Hunter Isham

UPDATE: Our podcast is now available on the iTunes Store.

        Big things are happening here at the DMI Review! We would like to debut the very first edition of our new podcast, cleverly titled the DMI Review Podcast. On this inaugural episode we discuss the film's we've reviewed thus far (plus Lincoln, for which we'll have some reviews up tomorrow), as well as our picks for the 85th Academy Awards. We hope this will become a new tradition here at our young review blog, bringing you a new audio podcast about every two weeks.
        There's a brief disclaimer at the beginning of the podcast explaining that, given our unfamiliarity with this whole process, we have some technical issues yet to overcome (mainly better microphones), but we hope you'll enjoy our conversation all the same. We discuss Silver Linings Playbook, Argo, Zero Dark ThirtyLincoln, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Skyfall, and The Dark Knight Rises, so if you want to avoid any spoilers for those films (particularly the first three), proceed with caution. With that, we present the first episode of The Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review Podcast.


Sunday, February 3, 2013

Argo

by Tyler Darke

      Argo is one of those special movies that after watching, you can think of almost nothing to say but, "Wow." as you walk out of the theater. This captivating true story was brought to life vividly by Ben Affleck. 
      
      It is one thing to make a movie that explains a historical event to an audience. It is an entirely different thing to provide an audience the opportunity to essentially live through a historical event. It is a rare occurrence that few movies accomplish. Argo is officially one of those movies.

      The balance of drama, suspense, and comedy was perfect. The movie opens on a very dramatic scene, when the United States Embassy is taken over by the Iranians. In this and all of the dramatic scenes, you could clearly feel the emotions of each character in every situation. Fear was evident among all of the characters as they tried to pull off a near impossible mission. These dramatic scenes were carried by the nail-biting suspense of the scenes following Tony Mendez' (Affleck) arrival in Iran. Even though I knew the story, I was on the edge of my seat until the very end. The seriousness of many of these scenes was delightfully lightened by the comedic relief provided mostly by John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin).

      The acting in Argo played a huge roll in creating a realistic experience for the viewer. Many of the characters looked identical to the people they portrayed. More importantly, they acted identically to the people they portrayed. Fear, love, joy, pain...all brought to life by the cast.

      Ben Affleck was robbed of two Academy Award nominations that he so rightfully deserved; Best Actor, and Best Director. Fortunately, the film as a whole was recognized with a Best Picture nomination.

      Argo is a one of a kind film, that quickly became one of my favorites, which is why I am hoping it will win Best Picture this year.

      If you would like to read about the real story, check it out on Wikipedia.

      "Argofuckyourself!" 10/10 

Argo Review


Argo was an excellent movie.  Ben Affleck does such a great job in building the suspense throughout the film that by the time the end comes you are almost out of your seat.  I liked the way he used actual footage of a few of the events to give the film a more realistic feel.  There was one scene that used this method the best; when the Iranians were jumping over the walls to the United States Embassy.  The attention to detail is shown by having the person in the film wearing almost exactly the same clothing as the real life person.  This scene was taking place during the beginning of the film and it eventually led to six Americans escaping the frenzied crowd of Iranians while everyone else was taken prisoner.
It was scenes like those that helped to put me in the film.  I felt as though I was one of the Americans who was trying to get out of Iran during this turmoil.  SPOILER ALERT, if you do not want to know how it ends. The final scenes of the movie when the Americans were trying to sneak past the Airport security in Iran were the best in the whole film.  They had to pass about 4 or 5 different checkpoints and at each stop there was this feeling that they were about to be found out.  Eventually they get on the plane and as the plane is taking off, the Iranian military is speeding down the tracks to stop the plane.  It was during this scene I was able to feel the product of all the tension from earlier in the film just rush at me all at once. 
Argo felt kind of like a new age best picture winner in that it was not about a historical figure or major event in human history.  It was about one man trying to rescue six Americans out of an enemy country and the unorthodox way he did.  This film I believe is one of three that have a real shot at Best Picture.  If you would like to read my picks please do so on the Oscar Picks tab on our blog. I would give this film a 9/10 MUST SEE.  Thank you for reading.
-Harry McPhaul

Argo




Only in the movies. And real life.

By Hunter Isham

        Ben Affleck’s political thriller Argo is one interesting film. On the one hand, it’s an excellent edge-of-your-seat entertainment with a first rate cast, great period detail, and a fantastic story that is so unbelievable it could only be true, and it could only happen in Hollywood. On the other hand, it lacks some resonance, at least for this reviewer, and while that is certainly nothing to hold against a film (I for one love many movies that aim to be nothing more than a rollicking good time), it is something that comes to mind as the film is being heralded by many guilds and associations as the year’s best. The actual importance of such awards pales in comparison to the honor of having made a wonderful film, yet to understand what makes Argo so beloved by the many artists in the film industry (ignoring Oscar semantics for the sake of our collective sanity) perhaps sheds light on why it has been hailed as the best in a truly great year for cinema.
        The true story behind Argo is the first real hook for an audience. As the 1979-1981 Iranian Hostage Crisis began, six Americans slipped out of their embassy, and took refuge at the Canadian ambassador’s house. Following some comically under-thought suggestions as to how the American government might extract the six, CIA exfiltration man Tony Mendez (Affleck) proposes setting up a front as a Canadian film crew in Tehran to scout locations for an exotic science fiction film, ultimately hoping to sneak the six out on one flight under these new identities. Mendez, in need of a quick lesson in film production, uses a Hollywood contact who has helped him before, Academy Award winning makeup artist John Chambers, portrayed with a sublime level of industry savvy by the always dependable John Goodman. Chambers recruits the help of a veteran producer, played with expected wit and energy by Alan Arkin. The six American embassy workers are played with convincing heart and fear by actors who will hopefully reappear in major films in the future. The familiar faces of Bryan Cranston and Victor Garber round out the cast as Mendez’ supervisor in Langley and the Canadian ambassador, respectively. Both are great in their roles, although Cranston has far more to do as Mendez’ stateside contact than Garber does as the host of the six Americans.
        Even with a great premise and top notch cast, the film’s secret weapon is its humor, and more importantly the balance Affleck achieves between the tense and heart-racing moments in Tehran and the comedic moments back in Hollywood. Goodman and Arkin provide much of the film’s comic relief, including the latter’s coining of the phrase, “argofuckyourself.” The pomposity of the film industry and the life or death game at play in the Middle East are two elements that shouldn’t work together, but Affleck and screenwriter Chris Terrio, who deserves just as much credit as his director, perfectly entwine the thrills with the laughs. If anything, this equilibrium is what the film should be lauded for, because it never gets too serious or too light to stifle the film’s momentum and energy.
        So what makes Argo a big hit with the industry and critics for the year 2012? The film itself tries to paint a larger picture at its conclusion, emphasizing the cooperation between the United States and Canada, but what most critics and Oscar gurus seem to appreciate is the inherent yet subdued theme of the power of the movies. Films about film always capture the industry’s attention and heart (2011’s The Artist and Hugo stand as recent examples), and Argo is no different. It’s a thrilling film that will no doubt have you on the edge of your seat, and although it will hold your attention, it may not linger once it’s over. But that’s irrelevant when a good story is told exceptionally well, and that’s what Ben Affleck has done with Argo. 9/10