Video review: "Yesterday"

“Yesterday” is a feel-good romantic dramedy that telegraphs all its punches, but even though you know everything that’s going to happen, it’s still emotionally satisfying.

The set-up is that a struggling Indian-British musician gets bonked on the head in a traffic accident. When he wakes up, he’s astonished to learn that nobody in the world but him knows the music of the Beatles.

It’s as if the greatest (in some people’s opinion) rock band of all time had never existed, except Jack (Himiseh Patel) still has all those iconic songs at his fingertips. So he sets out to become the greatest overnight sensation in the history of popular music, passing off the tunes of George, Ringo, John and Paul as his very own.

Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Richard Curtis don’t bother with the metaphysical causes of this event. This isn’t science fiction, it’s a comedic pluck at the heartstrings.

Lily James plays Ellie, Jack’s erstwhile manager/best friend/secret admirer. She’s been driving him around to penny-ante gigs and bucking up his spirits for years. Of course, we all know this is going to build toward a big reveal of suppressed emotions.

How very British.

The story wearily treads through some of the staples of the romantic comedy genre -- misunderstandings based on overheard conversations, or building toward a big conversation that gets interrupted by a phone call or knock at the door.

Kate McKinnon, Joel Fry and Ed Sheeran round out the supporting cast, playing a mercenary music producer, feel-good buddy/roadie and himself, respectively.

“Yesterday” is a whipped sundae of a film -- not very substantial or nutritious, but engineered to deliver easy, sweet pleasures. That it does, along with a lot of great music.

Video extras are quite good. There’s an alternate opening and ending, a dozen deleted scenes and a gag reel.

Boyle and Curtis team up for a feature-length commentary track, and also have their own documentary featurette. There are similar shorts about McKinnon, Sheeran, a performance by Patel at Abbey Road Studios, and more.

Movie: 4 Yaps

Extras: 4 yaps

Review: "Yesterday"

“Yesterday” is a little bit daffy, a little bit sappy and lotta bit heartwarming.

This does not seem like something out of the oeuvre of Danny Boyle, the British director known for “Trainspotting,” “127 Hours,” “28 Days Later” and other dire portraits of humanity at its brink. But then he also made “Slumdog Millionaire,” a fairy tale-ish story about an Indian kid changing his life by winning a game show, and it’s to that more tenderhearted, hopeful skew that this film belongs.

But then, he is paired with screenwriter Richard Curtis, an expert heartstring-puller: “Love Actually,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral” as well as the criminally unseen “About Time.”

Himesh Patel plays Jack Malik, a 27-year-old Indian-Brit who’s been trying to make it as a singer -- and failing spectacularly. His gigs consist of street warbling for tips, dive bars and kids’ birthday parties. Pretty much his only fan is Ellie (Lily James), his childhood friend and erstwhile manager.

She drives him around, bucks him up and -- because this is a romantic comedy -- is ravishingly in love with him, despite Jack being completely blinkered about it.

He’s ready to pitch it in when a strange thing happens -- a worldwide electrical blackout, possibly caused by solar flares, during which he is clocked by a bus. When he wakes up in the hospital, he is astonished to discover that nobody else has ever heard of The Beatles. When he strums out “Yesterday” for his friends, they are entranced and wonder at how such a mediocre musician wrote a masterpiece.

Jack quickly realizes his opportunity: he can pass off the entire Beatles songbook as his own work, instantly catapulting to fame and fortune. Of course, there are bumps along the way, like indifferent parents (Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal), difficulty recalling some of the lyrics and the lack of recording equipment.

A nice local fellow named Gavin (Alexander Arnold) provides the latter, and Jack also gets a boost from Ed Sheeran, playing himself, who invites Jack to be his opening act and is quickly eclipsed by him. It’s an odd, anxious turn for a real-life star, who at one point challenges Jack to a speed songwriting contest, only to be bested by John, Paul, Ringo and George.

Patel is a winning presence and a pretty decent singer, too. I also liked James a lot, squishing up her face and doing a charming/frumpy thing that would’ve been played by Winona Ryder 25 years ago.

My patience wore thin at some of the obvious romcom baggage, like Ellie waiting a decade and a half to tell Jack that she cares for him, and then making unreasonable demands at the moment he begins to return her favor. Or the constant interruption of pivotal conversations by ringing phones or intruding people.

There’s a silent mode, Jack!

Kate McKinnon turns up fairly late as Debra, a mercenary producer from L.A. who is quite open about the fact that she views Jack as a “product” who will make her money. She sets him up with a bunch of phony marketing types and frets about his image. “Is this the best that you can look?” she asks.

Even though it’s totally a Kate-McKinnon-doing-her-SNL-shtick turn, I still welcomed the comic relief. Some is also supplied by Joel Fry as Rocky, who’s the dimwitted screw-up of Jack’s social circle but also kindhearted and genuine. Rocky becomes Jack’s roadie/body man/spirit guide, keeping him (mostly) on schedule and humble.

And, of course, there’s the glory of all that Beatles music. I risk eternal damnation and a Twitter pox by opining that I think the Beatles are a really good band that somehow got exalted to GOAT status. Still, toe-tapping will unavoidably commence.

“Yesterday” takes a lot of obvious turns, though there are a few unexpected ones that demonstrate a little more storytelling ambition. Jack is increasingly haunted by thoughts that he will be exposed as a fraud, which leads to a final act that is both farfetched and emotionally pleasing.

A few discordant notes aside, it’s a lovely tune of a tale.

Video review: "Trainspotting 2"

It’s funny how the long-term cultural relevance of a film has such low correlation with its box office tally. “Trainspotting” earned only $16 million in 1996, but is arguably one of the most influential movies of the past quarter-century. Certainly, director Danny Boyle and star Ewan McGregor have become important figures.

Its sequel, “Trainspotting 2,” made more than double that -- but, I think, is destined to be largely forgotten in popular culture, in much the same way the “Wizard of Oz” sequel was.

(See? Bet you didn’t even know there was one.)

It’s a well-made film: entertaining, smart, sharp performances and plenty of nifty items out of Boyle’s bag of filmmaking tricks. In the end, though, we’re left wondering why this endeavor needed to happen.

We revisit the old gang of addict/criminals 20 years later, now middle-aged guys in various states of evolution, or not. Renton (McGregor), who ripped off his pals after a big drug score, turned to straight work in Amsterdam. Begbie (Robert Carlyle) has been serving hard time in prison ever since, dreaming of getting his hands around Renton’s throat.

Simon “Sick Boy” (Jonny Lee Miller) has taken over his family’s crumbling bar, and runs a little extortion racket on the side. Spud (Ewen Bremner), the gentle, somewhat dimwitted soul of the bunch, is very much the same -- working itinerantly in between getting high and visiting his wife and son.

After a health scare, Renton returns to look up his old friends -- well, not Begbie -- to see if there’s any way he can make amends. Spud is receptive, Sick boy less so. But they’re eventually back to their old ways, doing drugs and dreaming up cons to run. Begbie soon escapes from prison and comes seeking his own sort of reconciliation.

Renton’s old screeds about commercialism overtaking middle-class values are nicely updated for these streaming-and-Tweeting times. Maybe the real lesson of “T2” is the old saw about things staying the same the more they change.

Bonus features form a short list, but it’s pretty meaty stuff. Boyle and screenwriter John Hodge team up for a feature-length commentary track, there’s a making-of featurette with Boyle and his cast, plus deleted scenes.

Movie:

Extras:

Review: "Trainspotting 2"

“So we all get old and then we can’t hack it anymore? Is that it?”
                --Mark Renton, “Trainspotting”

“You’re a tourist in your own youth.”
                --Simon aka “Sick Boy,” “Trainspotting 2”

File “Trainspotting 2” under Sequels We Never Thought We’d See. (Not to be confused with Sequels Nobody Wanted; e.g., “xXx: Return of Xander Cage.”)

“Trainspotting” from 1996, which followed a rough group of Scottish heroin addicts/thieves, launched star Ewan McGregor and director Danny Boyle, who have both gone on to major movie careers. Serious, Oscar-winning filmmakers tend to shy away from sequels because they’re seen as a generally unworthy endeavor.

But Boyle has long expressed interest in a sequel, though it took a while to round up the old gang. And it turns out that Irvine Welsh, the author of the book upon which the first movie was based, penned a follow-up novel that revisited the characters about 10 years later.

“Trainspotting 2” takes us even further out to 20 years. Our young anti-heroes -- Mark Renton (McGregor), Simon “Sick Boy” Williamson (Jonny Lee Miller), Danny “Spud” Murphy (Ewen Bremner) and Francis Begbie (Robert Caryle) -- are now middle-aged schlumps struggling to get on with meaningful lives.

The story (screenplay by John Hodge) brings the quartet back together to address old grudges, work out their individual disappointments and dream up some new schemes. It borrows heavily from the first movie, from particular shots to musical cues, including a reversal of the famous ending scene where Renton walks toward the camera with a cynical admonishment to “Choose life,” having just ripped off his mates following a big drug score.

I’ve seen the movie and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I liked it. Almost equally as certain, I don’t think it needed to be made.

Watching it is not unlike the experience of an estranged friend showing up on your doorstep after a long absence, a meeting filled with awkward pauses and mumbled apologies. When they leave a part of you is glad to have seen them again, while the other part wonders if some things are better left unsaid, some mysteries savored for remaining just so.

Renton has been living in Amsterdam working a straight job in accounting. He returns to Edinburgh after a couple of life-changing experiences, and to look up his old chums and see if forgiveness is a possibility. He finds Spud clean (albeit temporarily) but out of work, estranged from his wife and son.

A truly gentle soul, who seems to have gotten even more bird-like with the passing of years and the thinning of his plume-like shock of hair, Spud stands a bit apart from the story and acts as our eyes and ears.

Sick Boy is still addicted, though shifted to a more upscale cocaine habit. He runs his family’s run-down old pub, and has a side business setting up his prostitute girlfriend, Veronica (Anjela Nedyalkova), with well-to-do customers so he can film the antics and then blackmail them.

His reunion with Renton is less amicable than Spud’s, at least initially. Soon they’re back in cahoots, reminiscing about old times, running new scams and seeing who can be the first to betray the other.

Even less amenable is Begbie, the truly terrifying psychopath who seems to enjoy hurting others for its own sake. He’s been languishing in prison this whole time, and has Renton’s name on his lips in an unceasing litany for revenge. We know things are going to end grimy and bloody.

“Trainspotting” was an edgy, groundbreaking film because it provided us a funny, caustic window into the lowest dregs of society, then turned that glass around into a mirror that asked if everyday lives were really that much better. “Trainspotting 2” underlines many of the same themes without adding any meaningful postscript.

Video review: "Steve Jobs"

Let's be clear: although "Steve Jobs" is based on a biography by Walter Isaacson, who received the official blessing of the Apple computer pioneer, the movie is an utter fabrication from beginning to end.

Well, maybe not totally. It is about Steve Jobs. And includes conversations with several key figures in his life, spaced out over the years. And it shows the launch of actual iconic Apple products, including the original Macintosh and iPhone.

And the film depicts Jobs as both visionary and bully -- qualities that everyone who dealt with him agreed he shared in equal, plentiful quantity.

But beyond that, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Danny Boyle have not really tried to make a factual biopic of Jobs. Rather, they are staging a sort of Shakespearean rumination on the man and the myth. Jobs encounters the most important people in his life, nearly all of whom have turned against him, almost like Scrooge with his sundry ghosts.

The movie is not just an exaltation of Jobs the technology visionary, but also an examination of how his personal failings brought him low. "Steve Jobs" is more about the idea of the man than the flesh-and-blood one who left this mortal coil in 2011.

Michael Fassbender is commanding and slithery in the title role. Perhaps deliberately, he looks and sounds absolutely nothing like the real incarnation we know from video, usually talking about how some expensive new gadget was going to forever change our lives. Fassbender's Jobs is hyper-smart, super aggressive and views every social interaction as a contest to be won.

Kate Winslet is terrific as Barbara Hoffman, his right-hand woman and fixer. Other recurring characters are Michael Stuhlbarg as Andy Hertzfeld, an early Apple developer; Jeff Daniels as John Sculley, Apple CEO and Jobs mentor-turned-nemesis; Seth Rogen as former partner Steve Wozniak; Katherine Waterston plays his resentful ex-girlfriend.

This fictional version of Steve Jobs may or not bear much relation to the real guy. But "Steve Jobs" is a gripping tour de force portrait of an overpowering personality.

Bonus features aren't terribly extensive, but they are quite meaty.

There is a lengthy making-of documentary. And not one but two feature-length commentary tracks: one by Boyle, the other by Sorkin and editor Elliot Graham.

It's too bad that actors are so rarely included in these conversations, because it makes for some wonderful insights. Maybe that'll come in "Steve Jobs 2.0."

Movie:



Extras:

Review: "Steve Jobs"

"Steve Jobs" is the second screenplay by Aaron Sorkin that peeks behind the fabricated legend of an Information Age titan and finds a small boy bearing many scars who lashes out at those around him. It's not quite on the level of the Oscar-winning "The Social Network," but even a half-step below is pretty rarified territory.

Michael Fassbender plays the title role of Apple co-founder Jobs, a man who was equal parts visionary and bully. As one character points out to him, he couldn't write code or create circuit boards or really do much of anything practical, but was a master at getting those who could to synthesize products in dynamic new ways.

Jobs didn't believe in letting the customer tell you what they wanted; he would invent a need they didn't know they had, then construct a product and marketing bombardment to convince people to satisfy it.

Directed by Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire"), "Steve Jobs" is already being attacked as a largely fictional version of the man and those around him. I don't doubt that. Although based on the book by Walter Isaacson, a mostly friendly portrait in which Jobs willingly participated prior to his 2011 death, Sorkin conducted extensive interviews and research on his own, and has used the text as a mere springboard.

What we're seeing is less biography than cogitation.

Start with the story structure, which is divided into a three-act play format, each centered around pivotal product launches in Jobs' career: the Mac in 1984, the NeXT cube in 1988 and the iMac in 1998. Each time Jobs is visited by key people in his life, and spars with them, like Scrooge and his ghosts. They difference is that here the man rejects the lessons his interlocutors would impart.

There's a whole lot of big speeches and emotional tirades, always in the minutes leading right up to the moment Jobs is supposed to go on stage and wow the audience. Pretty amazing coincidence, that.

Some of what is put forward is pure bullshit. For instance, Jobs' marketing chief and major domo, Barbara Hoffman (Kate Winslet), is shown putting out fires all three times, when she actually retired in 1995. And Jobs is shown as using the NeXT launch to springboard himself back into the Apple camp, when really that didn't happen until a decade later.

So keep in mind as you watch Jobs battling with co-founder and rare friend Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) or Apple CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) that we're not seeing stuff that actually happened. These are Sorkin's words, not the real people's.

This is Hollywood-style high art here, folks: 'Lying in order to impart a greater truth.'

That's reflected by Fassbender in the title role, a sterling actor who does not resemble or sound like Jobs in the faintest. But it's still a whiz-bang performance, portraying a man of limitless imagination and stunted emotions. Here was a guy who denied the paternity of his daughter, Lisa, for years, allowing her and her mother to subsist on welfare while he became worth billions.

The movie is essentially a series of dialogues between Jobs and one other person. With each he has a different motivation and mindset, and that evolves over time along with events. He starts out friendly with Sculley, even seeing him as a father figure, but that changes when dad orchestrates his ouster from Apple. (Though, as the movie claims, it was a mutual assured destruction scenario.) For "Woz," there is affection tempered with resentment, each man recognizing and desiring qualities in the other they themselves lack.

Michael Stuhlbarg plays Andy Hertzfeld, a key figure in the early days of Apple, who is bullied and berated by Jobs but somehow attains a sort of geeky grace with time. The relationship with Hoffman is probably the deepest, as she seemed to be the one person in his life who didn't need anything from Jobs and could stand up to him without endangering her own position.

The face-offs with his daughter's mother (Katherine Waterston) are more rote than the others and therefore less interesting; we know how it's going to play out, with recriminations and eventual demands for money, and wait for them to pass. His interactions with Lisa probably best mirror reality: halted, fractured, but gradually moving toward warmth.

"Steve Jobs" reminds me of a phrase used in another context but pertinent here: "Fake but accurate." It's a remarkable film that gets to the essence of a person largely by making things up.

What a magnificent fib.

Video review: "Trance"

There are plenty of dumb movies, a few smart movies, and even fewer too-smart movies. “Trance” is one of the latter.

This twisty psychological thriller from director Danny Boyle (“Slumdog Millionaire”) is full of fake-outs and never-minds. The film spends so much time fooling the audience, it forgets to really engage us or make us care about the people we’re watching.

The trio of main characters end up as chess pieces, moved around for the convenience of the plot.

James McAvoy plays Simon, an art auctioneer who gets beaten into a coma during the botched robbery of a famous, valuable painting. He wakes up with amnesia about the event, which doesn’t sit well with Franck (Vincent Cassel), the dogged head thief. He and his goons pay Simon a visit and put the squeeze on him.

Turns out Simon was in cahoots with them all along, but now he can’t remember where he stashed the painting. They turn to Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a psychiatrist and hypnotist, to help him pore through his memories for a clue.

This unlocks all sorts of strange stuff going on in the mind of Simon, who may not be the mild-mannered schlub he appears to be. Soon there’s a love triangle and a three-way competition for the loot in the offing.

Boyle’s visual style is hyperkinetic and gorgeous. But you’ll probably end up feeling more dizzy than entertained.

Bonus features are sumptuous. They include deleted scenes and a “Trance Unraveled” easter egg. Plus a making-of documentary and several featurettes on hypnotherapy, the film’s distinct visual look, a final script rewrite and other topics.

The Blu-ray also has a retrospective of Boyle’s movies and “Eugene,” a short comedic film by Spencer Susser.

Movie:

Extras:

Review: "Trance"

"Trance" starts with an art auctioneer explaining all the sophisticated steps his employer takes to foil any potential thieves looking to pilfer the ultra-rare and valuable works of art he deals in. So of course, it comes as little surprise when the film proceeds to show a daring group of criminals systematically subverting all that intricate security and making off with Goya's "Witches in the Air," worth tens of millions of dollars.

Well... at least, they come close. The thieves, led by the wily Franck (Vincent Cassel), return to their hideout and find the canvas cut out of the frame. They pay a visit to the young auctioneer, Simon (James McAvoy), and start doing nasty things to him in an attempt to retrieve the painting, figuring that he somehow made off with it for himself.

This might seem cruel -- Simon was already hospitalized after tangling with Franck during the robbery -- until we learn that Simon was in league with the gang all along. Alas, Franck popped him in the head so hard that Simon has plumb forgot where he stashed the loot. They turn to a beautiful hypnotist named Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) to extract the information from his subconscious.

This might sound like a schlocky set-up for a b-movie crime thriller, but director Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire") and screenwriters John Hodge and Joe Ahearne are more ambitious. They have constructed a multi-layered puzzle box of a movie, with the trio of main characters shifting loyalties and time in the spotlight.
It's a very clever bit of filmmaking; too clever for its own good, in the end.

Obviously I don't want to give too much away, since the bulk of the film's appeal lies in the different turnings of the plot. Suffice it to say that Elizabeth's ability to hypnotize is real, and it leads Simon and the rest down a rabbit hole where we come to question the validity of what has come before.

It's an intellectual engaging enterprise, as the audience tries to catch on to all the hidden cues and sidesteps. What's missing is any emotional connection to these characters. MacAvoy, Dawson and Cassel are a talented trio of actors, but their characters are simply chess pieces in service to the plot.

Simon is a difficult egg to figure out. He seems very passive and pleasant, but flashes a discomfiting smile and has a buried nasty streak. Franck is the opposite, all alpha dog bluster and arrogance, but hides his worry at Elizabeth's ability to alter people's memories and motivations.

She is the toughest nut to crack, readily going along with this criminal enterprise when no legitimate therapist would. Elizabeth often looks scared, but we sometimes wonder if she's secretly got everyone dangling on her string.

There are also sexual attractions, protestations of love, and other ooey-gooey stuff that feels like it belongs to another movie. Not to mention the first time I've seen intimate grooming habits used as a key plot point.

"Trance" is skillfully made, and is entertaining enough as a psychological potboiler. But in its constant efforts at misdirection, somewhere along the way the movie forgot to show us something rather than merely fool us.

Reeling Backward: "Sunshine" and "Sunshine" (1997 & 2007)

"Sunshine," made in 1999 as a multi-national production about three generations of a Jewish family, with Ralph Fiennes portraying a trio of male leads. And "Sunshine," directed in 2007 by Danny Boyle about an international crew of scientists traveling toward the dying sun to reignite it and save mankind.

They have nothing in common other than the same title and the fact that Film Yappers Christopher Lloyd and Austin Lugar each hadn't seen one of them. As happenstance would have it, we had both watched the one the other hadn't.

Our mission: Watch the other film, and see our how opinions square up.

The Intro: Sunshine 2007

Chris: I'd liked virtually all of Danny Boyle's previous films up till then, but heard nearly all bad things about "Sunshine." It seemed rather derivative to me, a combination of "2010: The Year We Make Contact" and "Alien." Coupled with the still-too-recent memory of another slow-paced space dirge, "Solaris," I was convinced to stay away. Plus, my memory is that it came and went from local theaters in a flash.

After watching it, some of my preconceptions were reinforced while others were shattered. In terms of plot and tone, it really does bear a lot of similarity to other deep-space stories: A spaceship of humans is sent on a mission (or diverted from its mission) to explore the mysterious case of a missing ship (possibly a predecessor sent on an identical journey that failed), which suddenly reappears more or less intact.

The claustrophobia of the ship quarters and hallways, the conflicts between crew members, and the eventuality of a malevolent presence invading the ship and offing the astronauts are familiar tropes, especially evoking "Alien."

The only thing really interesting about the "Sunshine" crew is their international makeup, with a strong Asian contingent, including the captain.

Still, I found it fascinating and well-paced, until the crew reaches the sun and the plot goes kerblooie.

Austin: I'm pretty much alone in this opinion, but I really like the third act. That's when the movie becomes really exciting to me. It's one thing to establish a debate like free will vs. fate/God and it's another thing to personify those sides so they can literally combat each other. Declaring a winner makes the debate far more interesting.

The Intro: Sunshine 1999

Austin: While I've been working on my podcast, "And the Nominees Are," I've seen a lot of movies where they try to fit a character's entire life into two hours. Those films are usually based off novels that accomplished the goal in several hundred pages and the transition feels cramped. This version of "Sunshine" tries to be even more ambitious. In three hours, it tries to tell the story of three generations of men. All played by Ralph Fiennes.

The story starts in Hungary at the turn of the century. Fiennes starts by playing Ignatz Sonnenschein, a rising judge in the community. He always seems to be on the outside of political arguments about the growing level of hatred towards Jews. The real heart of his story -- pun intended -- is his controversial relationship with his cousin, who he ends up marrying.

One of their sons is Adam Sons (also played by Fiennes) who is a fencing expert skilled enough to play in the Olympics for Hungary. He too faces a forward relationship and anti-semitism. Then his son is Ivan Sors (also played by Fiennes) who is the most active in politics as he is one of the rebels of the Communist party.

Each story has an hour devoted to it, but they have the contradiction of being too much and too little at the same time. Only a few scenes per segment have the strength the movie needs. A lot of the time feels like padding to get people to the proper place. In a novel, repetition can play to its strength as motifs and themes are formed. With the span of the movie, it all feels too familiar.

Chris: I really like "Sunshine," though I admit your points about the long movie unable to devote enough time to all the characters as valid. I tended not to see it as three separate stories but an evolving, revolving look at one European family and the persecution it faces over the decades. For me, it's almost like a minor-league "Godfather" Part I and II rolled into one movie.

Main Guy: Sunshine 2007

Chris: Cillian Murphy plays Capa, the physicist whose job it is to oversee the massive payload into the sun's core, reigniting it. The payload is essentially a massive bomb comprising most of the fissile material left on Earth.

Capa slides right into the shoes of other spaceborne protagonists of this (Ripley) ilk: He is reserved but speaks up with necessary, brave but not demonstrative, dedicated to the mission but willing to embrace existential crises and man-made context when considering their actions.

In this way he is forcefully contrasted with Mace (Chris Evans), the deliberate and martial crew member ready and willing to make any sacrifice to ensure the success of their mission. The two scuffle frequently, especially when Capa makes the call to divert their ship, Icarus II, toward a rescue of Icarus I.

Capa's reasoning here is sketchy. Since the quasi-sentient ship computer estimates the payload's chance of success at only 45%, Capa figures that two shots is better than one. But this ignores two critical pieces of logic:

1. Whatever force, internal or external, that derailed Icarus I seven years earlier is likely to affect their ship, too, if their vessel becomes compromised. This is exactly what unfolds, as the insane and horribly burned captain of the first ship, Pinbacker (Mark Strong), sabotages the Icarus II and kills much of the crew.
2. Why couldn't they deliver their payload, and only if it is unsuccessful seek out the Icarus I for a second try?

Austin: I've never been the biggest fan of Cillian Murphy. He always serves his purpose, but never impresses me. I did like how he didn't try to be too heroic with the character; he almost played it down. The first leap of logic was a gamble on their part. The second makes sense to me in a sci-fi way. It's easier to break a window with a big rock instead of throwing two small rocks at different times. To me, the guy who stole the show was Chris Evans. What an unexpected performance by him, especially at this time.

Main Guy: Sunshine 1999

Austin: This is an actor's dream: play three different characters linked by linage. There is so much room for nuance, but I never got that feel from Fiennes. I saw more of a difference between the men through the costume choices and the degree of their stubbornness. Fiennes can be a great actor when his range is better understood. He just felt flat the whole time during this movie.

When the characters really came through is when they were more focused on their emotional journeys instead of their political ones. I never cared about Ignatz being a judge, but his messed up marriage felt a lot stronger. Adam as a fencer was better than Adam during the war. Ivan struggling to interrogate his friend was better than him as an activist. They each only had an hour, but there still felt like there dramatic shifts of interest.

Chris: There's a certain remoteness to Fiennes in most of his performances; you always feel like there's a veil his characters are drawing up against anyone who might peer too closely at them. I thought that quality well-served him in this film, especially when playing the judge.

Guys Behind the Camera: Sunshine 2007

Chris:Visually, "Sunshine" is quite spectacular in a contemplative sort of way. The scenes in the observation deck where the crew can stare straight at the sun -- shielded to 2% of its power in order to protect their eyes -- are the signature image from the film.

Boyle displays a less than sure hand in shooting many of the "hardware" scenes endemic to the science fiction genre. The spaceships largely remain confusing masses of metal spires, and we never quite comprehend exactly what fits where. The scene where Capa separates the Icarus II from its payload and then blasts himself across the gulf between them in a golden spacesuit is meant to be the action high point of the film, but I had to stop and rewind several times just to grasp exactly what was happening.

The screenplay by Alex Garland similarly loses its way. Much of this is found in the figure of Pinbacker, who apparently went nuts with some sort of religious-inspired fever. He incinerated his crew in their observation room by cranking down the shield, and he himself looks like a well-done side of beef, his flesh largely seared away from his body.

But how did Pinbacker survive for seven years without food? Why does he seemingly have super-human strength? There are even shots were Pinbacker seems to blur, suggesting that he's somehow morphed into a being caught somewhere between the physical world and a plane of energy. What exactly drove him bonkers?

The movie never really attempts an explanation, beyond a lot of mumbo-jumbo about talking to God.

Austin: Whenever a sci-fi movie has any sort of reality struggles, I just think back to Rob Lowe in "Thank You For Smoking." Aaron Eckhart questions whether or not they can have sci-fi characters be able to smoke in an all oxygen environment and Lowe says, "One line of dialog. 'Thank God we invented the whatever device." In this case it's less sci-fi and more religious. Pinbacker stayed alive because God did not want the sun to be saved.

Guys Behind the Camera: Sunshine 1999

Austin: It's weird that I never heard about this film before talking to Chris. This is a three hour World War II epic starring some of the most respected actors of our time including Rosemary Harris, Rachel Weisz and William Hurt. Why else do the Oscars exist but to honor a film like this? Really, I think it's forgotten because of how unemotional it is.

The director is a man named István Szabó who has made a lot of films in his home country but only a few here in America. His most popular film is "Being Julia", which is mostly known for being the movie where Annette Benning lost to Hilary Swank for Best Actress ... again. A story of this scale really ought to be important cinema, but it missed the mark. In an attempt to be educational with the history, it ends up being too dry to make an impact.

The ending really shows what an odd film this is. There is this sense of romanticism and connectivity with the generations that isn't like anything else we've seen. Where was that for the first 170 minutes? I appreciated it near the end, but it still didn't work because I never cared about the characters enough. The plot was never strong enough for the characters. A stronger director could have created a proper balance, but instead there is awkwardness.

Chris: I guess I felt a stronger emotional tie to this film than you, Austin. The early romance seemed quite passionate to me, and the scene where Fiennes is tied up by the Germans and sprayed with a water house and left to freeze to death in the bitter cold still brings a lump to my throat. I often wonder what he was thinking at that moment, or if he felt his loyalty was worth the price being paid, even as those to whom he gave his allegiance proved most unworthy.

Final Word: Sunshine 2007

Chris: "Sunshine" is 75% of a really good movie. Although its pacing is ... shall we say, "deliberate" is the kind term, it's a reflective, thought-provoking film filled with wonderful images and dark moods.

Alas, it contains some plot holes you can drive the Icarus II through, and the last 30 minutes or so runs right off the rails. For almost two hours, "Sunshine" made me think, and the last act made me scratch my head.

Austin: I really dig this movie. It remains my favorite Danny Boyle film. So many films create an uneasy atmosphere in space, but this took it a step further by having a great story with it. This is just making me want to watch it again.

Final Word: Sunshine 1999

Austin: When it comes to World War II epics, this is Ralph Fiennes's fourth best. It relies too much on its backdrop to be relevant that it misses out the family at the center. When there is that much distance created, it questions what did the filmmaker really want to focus on? Either this is an muddled political movie or it's a static family drama with some moments of true possibility.

Chris: I really think "Sunshine" is a minor gem, one of those movies I always mention when people ask me for the names of great movies nobody's ever heard of. "Red Rock West" and "Fresh" are two others.

Sunshine 2007

Chris: 2.5 stars out of four
Austin: 3.5 stars

Sunshine 1999

Austin: 2 stars
Chris: 3.5 stars

Video review: "127 Hours"

I'm writing this before the Oscars telecast, but it's a pretty good bet that "127 Hours" came away from the Academy Awards empty-handed.

If so, that's a shame. Even more deplorable is the film's paltry box-office take, meaning audiences were staying away in droves. It seems in these dreary times, people just didn't want to go to "that movie about the guy who cuts his arm off."

Perhaps the most important duty of a critic is to champion films that didn't get a fair shake. To wit: You owe it to yourself to watch this extraordinary movie.

Despite its reputation as hard to watch -- the film's greatest amount of media coverage seemed to be about how many people passed out at screenings -- "127 Hours" is one of the most life-affirming cinematic experiences of my lifetime.

Yes, the scene where mountain climber Aron Ralston (a brilliant James Franco) saws through his right arm after being pinned in a slot canyon for five days is presented with unblinking, graphic honesty. But in a story about sacrifice, director/co-writer Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire") has to show what's at stake.
Ultimately, "127 Hours" is not about what Aron Ralston left behind in that lonely, parched canyon, but what he took out with him.

Extra features are fine, though a little diminished by not having Franco participate in the DVD commentary track with Boyle, co-writer Simon Beaufoy and producer Christian Colson. This film is built entirely around one actor's performance, and to not lend his voice to the commentary is a letdown.

The DVD also includes several deleted scenes.

The Blu-ray version includes these features, plus a feature about the real-life events that inspired the film, and another about the collaboration between Boyle and Franco (which makes up somewhat for his commentary absence).

The Blu-ray also has a digital copy of the film and "God of Love," a wonderful Oscar-nominated short film.

Movie: 4 stars out of four
Extras: 3 stars

DVD review: "Slumdog Millionaire"

"Slumdog Millionaire" was such a fresh and welcome assault on the Hollywood hegemony, with its international story featuring unknown actors rising to sweep the Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It's only fitting that the film buck prevailing trends to deliver a first-class DVD package at first bat.

Too often, high-profile movies are released with a sparse set of extras, only to see a "special" or "collector's" edition arrive a few months later with all the missing goodies. It's a cynical and shameful attempt to wring more money out of devoted cinephiles.

Not "Slumdog." Nearly everything a movie lover could want is available right out of the box.

There's not one but two audio commentary tracks. The one by screenwriter Simon Beaufoy and producer Christian Colson is interesting enough, with some insights on how they translated Vikas Swarup's novel "Q&A" into a magical, mesmerizing tale about Jamal, a poor Muslim boy who goes on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," while reliving his harsh yet amazing childhood.

The real pleasure is in the commentary by director Danny Boyle and star Dev Patel, who share all sorts of amusing byplay and interesting tidbits. For example, the boy who plays Jamal at age seven had to wear wax put behind his ears to make them stick out like Patel's. In the original version of the screenplay, Jamal's gangster brother Salim commits suicide. And it turns out that this was the first English performance by Anil Kapoor, the huge Bollywood star who plays the smarmy game show host with sharp verbal acuity.

To the relief of many, we learn that the icky pool of human waste that Jamal jumps into was, in fact, a mix of peanut butter and chocolate that smelled heavenly.

There is also a well-explored documentary, "Slumdog Dreams," about the making of the film, a cutdown version of the film set to A.R. Rahman's lively score, and 14 deleted scenes -- including an additional question-and-answer sequence.

Movie: A
Extras: A-minus

Will "Slumdog" protests affect Oscar votes?

They're burning Danny Boyle in effigy.

Initial reaction in India to "Slumdog Millionaire" was mixed, and has since turned sour. Way sour. Cinemas have been looted and vandalized, and a story from an international news service quoted one of the protest leaders as promising to burn director Boyle in effigy in 56 slums. (Why 56 and not, say, 62 is beyond me.)

This scrappy little movie has been the feel-good hit during the awards season, and had been seen as the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture at the Oscars on Feb 22 (although I've had my doubts about mainstream Hollywood lauding a largely international cast and crew). Will these protests affect how Academy voters choose?

My first instinct is no. The deadline for ballots is actually very soon, so the news may not have filtered out to all the Academy voters, whose average age is something like 74. But if the protests turn violent or become widespread, it could cost "Slumdog" votes.

Most of the anger over the movie seems to rest on applying the word "dog" to children in the poorer Muslim sections of India. Dogs, of course, are considered dirty creatures in much of the Arab and Muslim world.

But within the context of the movie, the term is clearly used in a derogatory way, so it's not like Boyle and the other filmmakers are celebrating the term. It would be like children of unwed parents getting riled up about the title of Quentin Tarantino's forthcoming movie, "Inglorious Bastards."