Kramer vs. Kramer (8/10): A compelling family drama with remarkable performances.

“Mommy stayed here longer than she wanted because she loves you so much. And the reason why Mommy couldn't stay anymore... was because she couldn't stand me. She didn't leave because of you. She left because of me.”

Robert Benton’s third feature film, Kramer vs. Kramer, still stands out as his best. This 1979 family drama which explores interpersonal relationships and the effect divorce has on the family, remains very relevant in today’s society. It is one of those rare classics that has managed to age very well due to its universal theme. In order for an authentic drama like this to work you need a strong script and believable actors. Kramer vs. Kramer has both, Robert Benson did an amazing job with the screenplay adaptation of Avery Corman’s novel and the dialogue in the film feels authentic while avoiding any false notes. And of course you couldn’t have had anyone better than Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep to play the divorced couple. Hoffman was already at the height of his career, while Streep was just getting started proving she’s always been an out of this world actress. Both actors won their first Academy Awards for this film, and it wouldn’t be their last. But in a film like this no matter how good the adult characters are, you need to have a child who can win over the sympathy of the audience and engage them emotionally. Benton made a huge gamble when he hired inexperienced Justin Henry for the role, but it payed off marvelously. At only 8 years old Henry was nominated for his supporting role. The scenes he shares with Hoffman are endearing and the relationship between the two is the center of the film. It was the subtle moments that the two shared together that stuck with me the most, like the scene where the kid challenges his father’s authority by eating the ice cream. These were improvised scenes, but they added to the authenticity of the film. That relationship between both of them is key, as we witness the transition and evolution of Hoffman’s character.

The film opens with a shot of Joanna Kramer (Meryl Streep) packing her clothes in a suitcase while she waits for her husband, Ted (Dustin Hoffman) to return home from work so that she can break the news to him that she is leaving him. Apparently she has been unhappy for quite some time now and she wants to discover who she is. Despite being heartbroken about having to abandon her young son, Billy (Justin Henry), she is convinced she has to go. Ted, who hasn’t the slightest clue about housekeeping, must now learn to manage his work while taking care of his son. During the early scenes we see what an inexperienced father he is, he can’t prepare breakfast for Billy without burning everything. But as the movie progresses we begin to see the transformation that Ted goes through and what a caring father he becomes. His career does begin to suffer and he begins struggling to keep his job, but he has learned to put his son’s life before his own. With the help of his friendly neighbor, Margaret (Jane Alexander), he becomes an expert at parenting, but that is around the time that Joanna returns back to the city and tells Ted she wants to take her son with him. A court battle for their son’s custody ensues as neither parent refuses to live without their son. 

The film builds a great father and son dynamic during most of its runtime and that is what makes the courtroom drama so compelling near the end because the stakes have been settled. I don’t think this film would’ve won the Oscar for Best Picture if it weren’t for those intense scenes during the trial. The testimony each parent gives is compelling and the performances in those scenes were superb, but I actually enjoyed the quieter and more subtle moments in this film. The scenes were Hoffman is sharing some time at the park with his son or simply reading a story to him. Those were the moments that made this film ring true and authentic. I think that the film could’ve ended on a stronger note if it decided to have ended some five minutes before it actually did because it ties things up too neatly at the end. The final kitchen scene would’ve been the perfect moment to end it, but I won’t complain too much because the film is compelling and the performances had me engaged from the very opening scene. Kramer vs. Kramer still resonates with audiences today and it is a great example of how to make a compelling family drama about the effect that divorce has on the family. I enjoyed every minute of it. 

Into the Woods (5/10): It should've ended a lot sooner than it actually did.

“Stay a child while you can be a child.”

Based on the stage musical written and composed by James Lapine and Stephen Sondheim, Into the Woods has been adapted to the big screen by Rob Marshall without losing its stagy feel to it. Marshall has had success with musicals in the past (Annie, Chicago), but he also had his misses (Nine), so this wasn’t something new for him. Into the Woods seemed to have an interesting premise considering it mashes up several familiar children stories (Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Rapunzel, and Little Red Riding Hood) and gives it a twist. I went into this film knowing nothing at all about the popular stage play so I won’t be comparing it to the original material. What I can say however is that the film is rather predictable during the first hour and it all of a sudden takes a darker twist during the last forty minutes. That twist should have been the most interesting part of the film, but  I actually ended up enjoying the first half of the film much more despite the predictable story. When the film felt like it was wrapping up at about 80 minutes (which would’ve been a perfect running time for me) it decided to go on and that is where I felt the story drag and found myself checking my watch every five minutes. The twist didn’t work at all and didn’t have the effect I expected it to. I understood what the story was trying to do by sort of focusing on what actually happens after the happily ever after but it never goes anywhere with that premise in this adaptation. They either shouldn’t have included that final act or they should’ve made it much darker, but since this is a Disney production aimed towards children they couldn’t actually do so. I would’ve enjoyed Into the Woods more if it ended when it seemed to do so, but those final forty minutes were unbearable. 

The performances and the music are the highlight of this film. Despite not having many catchy songs they are all well performed and sometimes they even overlapped with each other during some scenes. The composition was actually pretty complicated, but it was effective. The cast in this film is amazing. Having Meryl Streep in the titular role as a witch was the best decision that the executives made for Into the Woods. She delivers, but it is Emily Blunt who steals the movie. She is great in this film. Other strong performances from Anna Kendrick, James Corden, Tracey Ullman, and Chris Pine elevate the material. They all have great singing voices and there are some memorable moments as well (Anna Kendrick singing a very difficult song as she is running away from the Prince and Pine singing “Agony” and delivering a rare funny moment). I didn’t really enjoy the performance from the kids played by Daniel Huttlestone and Lilla Crawford. Crawford never convinces as Red Riding Hood and she does have an important role in this film. Johnny Depp doesn’t get much screen time, but he doesn’t stand out either as the Wolf. The performances and the set design are the best thing about Into the Woods, but the story really hurt it and I wasn’t a fan.

The Homesman (5/10): The female take on the Western Genre

“You are a poor specimen of a man, Vester Belknap!”

I want to begin with a few positive critiques of Tommy Lee Jones’s latest film, which happens to be his fourth behind the director’s chair (he also stars in all these films as well). The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was his only film released in theaters prior to this one since his other two films were made for TV. In The Homesman he returns to the Western genre, although it is very different. Instead of focusing on the macho cowboys we’ve seen perfectly represented by Clint Eastwood and John Ford, in this film we get the female’s point of view. The lead character is a singe woman who has battled the harsh conditions of the western wastelands on her own. This isn’t one of those macho western films, it is slow and tedious, focusing on the tension the women had to face in this period. In that sense, The Homesman is a fresh and original film. It also captures the harsh conditions of the wasteland extremely well. The cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto  is gorgeous and perhaps the main reason why I kept engaged with the film despite the tedious script. There are also plenty of surprises along the way and interesting twists that I didn’t see coming. The film definitely breaks several genre conventions and delivers something fresh, but it was just too bleak and grim for my liking. I had a difficult time staying awake and found myself dozing off in several occasions, but there are some great scenes along the way that brought me back in to the story. This is more of a western drama, but there are a couple action scenes that worked extremely well. Ultimately, there is a lot of interesting things that Tommy Lee Jones is doing here, but I just felt the tonal shifts and the melancholic setting were a bit too depressing for me. 

The screenplay for The Homesman was adapted by Tommy Lee Jones, Kieran Fitzgerald, and Wesley A. Oliver from Glendon Swarthout’s 1988 novel. The story isn’t actually as interesting as the scenery and performances in this film. There are several tonal shifts and at times the film felt unbalanced. There were some funny scenes that worked well along with the action scenes, but other narrative elements didn’t resonate with me. This isn’t one of those films you will enjoy, but fans of the Western genre might appreciate this unique film. The Homesman is also elevated by the strong performances from Hillary Swank and Tommy Lee Jones. The two have an interesting chemistry and they deliver solid roles. Their characters are as sombre and grim as the scenery, but they still manage to feel authentic and believable. They take us to this period and remind us it wasn’t all about cowboys and indians. The emotional element is also present and they are perfectly captured by Jones’s low life drifter and Swank’s hard working independent and honest character. The supporting cast is also exceptional, including Meryl Streep, Hailee Steinfeld, John Lithgow, and James Spader, but none of their characters were given much screen time. Overall I had a difficult time staying awake because the narrative is tedious, but there are some positive elements about The Homesman.

My Review: The Giver (2/10)

“Our community was built on rules. Differences weren’t allowed.”

It’s not an easy feat to make Meryl Streep look bad in a film, but The Giver manages to do so with this simplistic and dull film. Based on the best selling novel written by Lois Lowry, this adaptation is yet another film geared towards a young audience centering on a dystopian society. The plot centers on a community where everything is apparently perfect because since no one actually feels anything there is no pain. Everyone has a specific role in society and must do as they are told. The similarities with Divergent came up more than once while I was watching this and unfortunately The Giver makes Divergent seem like a masterpiece. I have never read the novel, but I doubt it is close to being anything like this film because it is very bland and predictable. For a film that is attacking sameness it really doesn’t do anything to try to stand out from other films in the YA department. The social critique seemed like it was written by a young teenager who was spelling out everything for the audience, and there really isn’t anything deep or thought-provoking about it either. These themes have been explored in the past in much better films. Perhaps I’m just tired of the teen dystopia genre, but this easily wins my vote for one of the worst films of the year. The only good thing I can say about this film directed by Phillip Noyce is that the cinematography is gorgeous so at least the movie looks good, but there really isn’t much going on story wise. There really isn’t much more I want to say about this film because I felt it was a complete waste of time, but I’m surprised it has worked for so many people. 

Despite how much I like Merly Streep and Jeff Bridges I didn’t really enjoy their performances here. Alexander Skarsgard and Katie Holmes may not be considered amongst the best actors out there, but I usually enjoy their performances. It wasn’t the case in this film either and I don’t think they added anything to the film. Some actors can elevate the material at times, but there wasn’t anyone who could’ve done it here. Brenton Thwaites plays the lead character in this film and he doesn’t do a bad job. Odeya Rush and Cameron Monaghan’s characters aren’t really developed, but I guess it is sort of the point considering they live in a society where there is no feeling and everyone is expected to act in the same way. I never really got engaged with the film or the themes it was trying to explore.

My Review: August: Osage County (5/10)

"I thought we were having a funeral dinner not a cockfight."

Based on Tracy Letts' Pulitzer winning play of the same name, August: Osage County is a dark comedy about a dysfunctional family that are reunited for their father's funeral and several secrets are revealed along the way. This is director John Wells' follow up to his 2010 film The Company Men, with Letts adapting the screenplay of his own play. Add a very talented cast to the mix and you have all the right elements for a successful film, but somehow it failed to engage me. The characters in this film are so unlikable and they treat each other so terribly that I just found this film hard to enjoy. This is one family I would like to stay as far away as possible, and therefor I never felt comfortable watching this. This is an extremely verbally violent film which proves the point that words can hit harder than stones. August Osage County does have several positive things going for it beginning with some terrific performances from Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts. It also has a very witty and sharp screenplay as several secrets revealed along the way come as a surprise. It is a powerful film, but one that I never felt comfortable watching due to the fact I despised the way these characters treated each other. It was a depressing film, much like Lett's previous adapted play, Killer Joe. Despite having some fun moments I still felt like I'd be better off keeping away from this depressing story.

The film opens with Beverly (Sam Shepard) interviewing a young Native American woman named Johnna (Misty Upham) for a position as a live-in maid. He tells her about his wife Violet (Meryl Streep) who has been diagnosed with cancer and her addiction to pills. He and his wife have made an agreement, he doesn't say anything to him about her addiction and she doesn't bother him for being an alcoholic. It's just the way they deal with each other and their problems. Violet interrupts the interview and seems disturbed because she doesn't think she needs anyone taking care after her. Several days later it appears that Beverly has gone missing. The first to arrive at Violet's home providing support are her daughter Ivy (Julianne Nicholson), her sister Mattie Fae (Margo Martindale) and Fae's husband Charlie (Chris Cooper). Violet spends most of her time drinking pills and criticizing her family, especially Ivy for still being single. Violet's oldest daughter, Barbara (Julia Roberts) arrives with her husband Bill (Ewan McGregor) and their fourteen year old daughter Jean (Abigail Breslin) just around the moment that they discover Beverly's boat is missing. Later that afternoon, the local sheriff arrives and announces they have found Beverly's body, saying that he committed suicide and drowned himself. Several days later the funeral is held and the rest of Violet's family arrives, including her other daughter, Karen (Juliette Lewis) with her fiancé Steve (Dermot Mulroney) . The stage is set as they gather together for diner after the service and chaos ensues as secrets are revealed and horrible things are said to each other.

Meryl Streep may have just played her meanest role to date. She is a paranoid and dysfunctional woman who clearly has affected her children in the way she raised them. Julia Roberts also holds her own against Streep as they share some very powerful scenes together. The dialogue is witty and funny at times, while revealing some surprises along the way, but it's just the way these people treat each other that makes you want to stay away from them. The performance from the entire cast was above par, and the film succeeds in portraying them as these despicable and hateful people. Benedict Cumberbatch and Chris Cooper being both perhaps the most sympathetic characters in the film, although they do have their flaws as well. Despite all the strong performances I do believe Roberts and Streep steal each scene they are in. They deserve all the recognition they've been receiving, but I just had a hard time watching this movie and getting through the entire thing. This is one of those stories that seem to have worked better as a play than in the big screen.

My Review: Julie and Julia (7/10)

"You are the butter to my bread, you are the breath to my life."

Julie and Julia felt like going to a fine restaurant to eat. It is not your typical fast food Hollywood movie, this is much more refined. Many people when going to the movies want to see some light film that will entertain them without having to think much about the performances, story, or dialogues (what I call fast-food). On the other hand there are some others (although fewer in number and much harder to please) that want to go to a movie that will make them think and feel like their time at the theater is productive and well spent. They go into the movie searching for good performances, great dialogues, or at least a decent story that hasnt been told before (which I compare it to the experience of going to a fine restaurant to eat). Well Julie and Julia falls into the fine restaurant category thanks to a great performance from the always reliable Meryl Streep, good supporting job by Stanley Tucci and Amy Adams. At times the movie can feel a little overcooked because you get the sensation the movie is so long and takes forever to end, but every time Streep is on screen she just shines and puts a smile on your face. Once again she plays a totally different role, she is such a versatile actress, and this time she has a very unique accent that is very sweet and funny at the same time. 

The film has two parallel stories that intertwine during the movie. They are both based on true stories. One of the stories takes place during the 1940s where Julia Childs played by the great Meryl Streep is moving to Paris with her husband (Tucci) because he works for the government and is going to work at the American consulate in Paris. From the beginning we know Julia Childs is a famous TV cook host and a writer as well, but the story focuses more on how she became so passionate about cooking and the decade it took her to write her first recipe cook book. Tucci and Streep are just wonderful together and their chemistry is great. He is always supporting her wife, especially when she is searching for her passion. They share the funniest scenes in the movie. The other story is about Julie played by Amy Adams, who lives in the post 9-11 days and works for a government agency where she helps people deal with the tragedy. She used to be a writer, but she seems to leave everything half-way. She also has a very supporting husband who wants her to find a passion as well and together they discover that she can blog about food. Julie identifies with Julia and decides to cook her more than 500 recipes in one year and blog about the experience each day. 

Even though the movie might feel like it drags at times, the film works because of Meryl Streep. She is terrific and plays a very sweet and likeable character. Her voice is very funny and there is even a SNL clip where Dan Aykroid is playing Julia Childs that is probably one of the funniest scenes of the movie so I am glad they included the clip. It helped the viewers understand the true fame that Childs reached because the film explores her early days even though she was more than 40 when she began. Her performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination and the movie should have focused more on that story, not because Adams did a bad job, but because Streep was simply superb. The movie has a feel good message as well and teaches you that it is never too late to find your true passion in life and fight for it. This is a highly recommended movie if you are in the mood for fine cooking, but if you are more into a fast-food movie than this is probably a movie you will want to skip.

My Review: Hope Springs (6/10)

¨He is everything. But I'm... I'm really lonely. And to be with someone, when you're not really with him can... it's... I think I might be less lonely... alone.¨

Hope Springs was one of those movies I wish I could´ve enjoyed a little more because it had some great performances and a decent story. The movie really felt authentic to me, but I did get bored during several points of the movie. Everyone knows how great and talented Meryl Streep is; she is one of the greatest actresses of all time in my opinion. Once again she is outstanding in her role here alongside Tommy Lee Jones who also gives an authentic performance playing her husband for 30 years. Whatever romance there might have been in the past, it is long gone now as the two live together but it might as well be like they are in two separate worlds. There are several funny moments in the film of course, but it`s also combined with a lot of drama and sadness. I can imagine some old couples relating to this story, but the film; I´m afraid, won’t attract a younger audience. Hope Springs was directed by David Frankel, who worked in the past with Streep in The Devil Wears Prada (one of my favorite performances from Streep). Frankel also directed more recently the heartfelt film Marley and Me. I would recommend any of those two movies over this one. What surprised me the most about this film was that it was written by the young Vanessa Taylor (who has written for several TV series such as Game of Thrones, Alias, and Everwood). I expected it to be written by a senior writer considering the material, but she did write a very good and believable script. Although I must say that Meryl Streep can make any script sound believable.

The plot is pretty simple: Kay (Meryl Streep) and Arnold (Tommy Lee Jones) have been married for over 30 years. They seem to have a stable relationship, but they sleep in separate rooms and have hardly any communication between each other. Arnold shows no affection for Kay anymore and he thinks everything is fine, but Kay feels alone and wants to reignite the spark of their marriage. Kay decides to sign Arnold and her for an intense one week marriage therapy session in Hope Springs with Dr. Feld (Steve Carell). When Arnold hears about it, he gets pretty upset at first but he decides to go anyway to comply with his wife, although he nags about it during the whole trip. Dr. Feld helps the couple discover where their love for each other has drifted apart and despite some reluctance at first, Arnold decides to go along with the therapy lessons. Things won`t be easy, but both must try their best to reignite the lost flame of their love before it´s too late. Thus the challenge for the couple begins.

The title in Spanish for this movie ¨¿Que voy a hacer con mi marido?¨ literally means What Am I Going to Do With My Husband? Perhaps a more appropriate and inventive title than Hope Springs. The truth of the matter is that Kay has put everything on the line in her marriage, and Arnold is the one who has held back. The challenge really is on him to rebuild the love he once had for her. Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep were great together; they really looked like a true couple. I give this film 3 stars out of five mostly because of their performance together. Steve Carell as the therapist had a different role than the one he usually plays. He did a decent job although he was outshined by the two stars of the film. Surprisingly he didn’t have a comedic moment in this film. Most funny moments come from the couple trying to rediscover their lost love for each other. This film isn’t for everyone. Younger audiences probably won`t enjoy this too much, but Streep fans will be pleased with her work. I still enjoyed the movie.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: It`s Complicated (6/10)

¨Here comes your ex-husband. Not the best time to be feeling groovy.¨

(6/10) As the title suggests this movie is complicated. It is a funny comedy that works in the most part thanks once again to Meryl Streep. The supporting cast is also good, Alec Baldwin is probably at his comedic best in the last couple of years thanks in most part to his role in 30 Rock, and then you have the always reliable Steve Martin, but who always stands out in the film is Meryl Streep. She won another award for her role in Julie and Julia this year, but she was also nominated for her performance in this movie. Every time she is on screen she is a critic favorite and she can turn an average movie into a good one just with her presence. The dialogue in this movie is not bad either, there are several clever jokes and laugh out loud moments. The director is the same person who brought us What Woman Want, The Holiday, and Something`s Got to Give; and this movie follows a similar comedic style. Nancy Meyers not only directed this film, but she wrote it as well. It`s Complicated is not a memorable movie, but it is entertaining and it does have some very funny moments. Fans of Streep will be pleased as always with her performance and she has several funny scenes like the pot smoking scene in the bathroom and the encounter via internet with her ex husband and her date in the bedroom. The movie has its moments but it isn`t anything we haven`t seen before.

Meryl Streep is Jane, a mother of three who has been divorced for almost 20 years. She has kept busy with her kids, but now they have all grown up and the youngest is about to leave for college so she will have the house all to herself. Her ex husband is Jake (played by Alec Baldwin) and he is remarried to a much younger woman called Agness (Lake Bell). Jake and Jane get along pretty well, but the audience can tell that she is still hurt by the entire situation and feels uncomfortable every time she runs in to Jake and Agness. Their son Luke (Hunter Parrish) is getting graduated from college so the entire family has to travel for the ceremony. Jane`s oldest daughter, Lauren (Caitlin Fitzgerald) is engaged to Harley (John Krasinski from The Office) and they are also reunited with the family. The youngest daughter is Gabby (Zoe Kazan) and they all decide to stay at a hotel near Luke´s College. The only person missing at the event is Agness and her restless little boy. Somehow Jane and Jake end up alone at the bar of the hotel, one thing leads to another and an affair between both of them begins. The plot gets more complex (and thus the title It´s Complicated) when Adam (Steve Martin) joins the picture. He is an architect who is in charge of Jane`s house rebuilding project.. He begins to fall for Jane and the two begin to date while she is conflicted between her affair with her ex husband. Adam at the same time is very jealous of Adam and wishes to win his ex wife back because things back home are not as good as they used to be. The plot continues to unravel from this point on leading to very funny situations combined with some drama.

Steve Martin played a much more normal character this time around and Alec Baldwin was the strange and funnier one. It is going to be fun to watch both of them host the Oscars this year. They are incredibly talented actors and of course Meryl Streep is the reason most people wanted to watch this movie. She attracts a much more mature audience so the comedy and dialogue is intelligent, but it also has enough silly scenes to attract younger audiences as well. The movie also has some family drama in it and the relationships are so complex that you are not really sure who you want Jane to stay with at the end. Love is more complicated than most romantic movies make it out to be, but this movie takes a much more realistic approach with a few exaggerations here and there. I don`t think this is a movie you will love and want to see several times, but it is a decent movie and one that will entertain you the first time around. I thought it was ok, but I won`t be watching it again anytime soon and I don`t think it is worthy of any nominations either. Streep is good as usual, but if she deserves a nomination this year it should be for her role in Julie and Julia where she was at the best of her game.