Jamie Daily

Django Unchained (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Django Unchained (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 5 awards, of which it won 2.
Nominated for Best Picture (Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin, Pilar Savone), Best Sound Editing (Wylie Stateman), and Best Cinematography (Robert Richardson).
Won Best Supporting Actor (Christoph Waltz) and Best Original Screenplay (Quentin Tarantino).
Watched February 12, 2014.

 

Back in the day (and by that I mean the distant four years ago of my university days), I was a huge Quentin Tarantino fan.  I was studying film, screenplays, editing, and acting.  Tarantino is an original, extremist, mainstream director who combines old-school techniques (especially typography) with new age music to create an irony that is amusing and jarring.  Tarantino loves reminding his audience that they are watching a movie.  While most directors and editors want everything seamless and invisible, specifically in editing, Tarantino does the exact opposite.  Even in his period films, he uses current societal trends to create humor because the audience recognizes that it is misplaced.  

 

Django Unchained, while it is no Kill Bill, is no different.  The setting is a couple years before slaves become free, and Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave who was recently sold at auction.  He crosses paths with Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German bounty hunter, who purchases him and promises him his freedom if he helps him find three very valuable wanted men.  Django's main mission is to find his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), and after obtaining his freedom he continues to work with Schultz in order to find her.  She was sold to one of the biggest plantations in the south, Candieland, where the crazed owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is protected by family and slaves alike.  

 

The film is no less brutal than Tarantino's recent Inglorious Basterds and he pulls no punches.  In fact, the blood and gore is to such a ridiculous point that it is morbidly humorous.  Candieland is horrible and Candie himself is both puppet and puppeteer.  His right hand man is Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) who hates the fact that Django rides a horse as much as any white man would.  Eventually guns are pulled and shots fired and the death toll becomes so impressive you would think it a battlefield.  

 

The story is extreme and the circumstances follow suit.  Broomhilda is probably the weakest character, and yet her terrified silence is the most realistic of the entire film.  Each character is distinctly different and loud in its traits.  Django has a steel and a smoldering anger that only Broomhilda can solve.  Schultz is a chatty German who hates the KKK and doesn't mind shooting a felon in front of his kid son.  Each performance is a knockout, but it is certainly no surprise that Christoph waltzed (get it?) away with the Oscar.  

 

This is one of the few films that DiCaprio has starred in where he is not the main character.  His character is distinctly darker and more sinister than he usually plays.  He participates in an underground fighting ring involving slaves fighting to the death.  In order to get in his good graces, Django and Schultz put on an elaborate charade to convince Candie they want to buy one of his fighters, when in fact they only want to purchase Broomhilda.  

 

Django Unchained is no picnic.  While it is staged during the years of slavery, it was not created to make a statement about the practice.  It is as much a character study as it is a comedy and a gruesome action film.  Each plantation in the film is distinctly different from other films about slavery.  On one planation, dozens of women stand about the house and their curious questions are bemusedly answered by their owner, while one poor girl is being whipped for dropping eggs.  At Candieland you are placed naked in a steel "hot box" if you try to run away.  Tarantino's style gives the plantations a sheen that most films avoid.  Slavery is certainly not presented as something positive, but its storyline is different in Django Unchained.

 

I could probably write a fourteen page essay on any Tarantino film, so I will summarize the rest of my opinions.  All of its nominations are deserved.  I am a little shocked that he won Best Original Screenplay, but not upset.  The cinematography is a feast for the eyes, the costumes are either humorous or indistinct.  The side plots and characters lend to the story well and although the run-time is a bit much (and the gruesome firefight is probably where the story gets unnecessarily lost and meandering), all in all it is a great film.

 

Please be aware that this film is 100% rated R and make your decisions accordingly, but what kind of Tarantino fan would I be if I did not recommend this nominated film?  I suggest that you see it not because it is a historical film about slavery (because it is not), but because its characters, editing, story, and humor are all something unique out of Hollywood. 

 

 

How to Survive a Plague (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

How to Survive a Plague (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Documentary Feature (David France, Howard Gertler).
Watched February 18, 2014.

 

Regardless of its content and message, How to Survive a Plague is exactly the type of documentary that I like.  It is full to bursting with original stock footage, which tells most of the story.  The interview footage is used very well and although the balance tends to be more B-roll heavy, it communicates the story extremely well.  If it weren't for such a hard subject, this could be a documentary that I would watch several times over.

 

The AIDS and HIV epidemic broke out in the 1980s and millions of people died while the FDA worked sluggishly (and through protocol) to produce affordable medication for the dying.  Two groups formed--ACT UP and TAG (Treatment Action Group).  ACT UP had demonstrations and protests.  Some of its original members eventually broke off to for TAG, which was probably the most effective group at getting the best medication passed through testing and trials to the general populace.  Both groups grew from humble, angry beginnings and eventually gained respect from the scientific community.  They grew angry with politicians who told them to "change their behavior" and protested the Catholic church for denouncing the use of condoms.

 

While the 109 minute film can get a little repetitive, it effectively works over ten years of ACT UP meetings, protests, conferences and stats into the storyline to portray the humanity of the issue.  While the persons interviewed or featured in the original footage state their opinions strongly, about politics and otherwise, the film itself holds back and seems to want to emphasize the numbers--the death toll--and the humans behind each one.  Despite differences, lifestyles, and choices, these people are trying to save their lives.  Sometimes they act in desperation but their groups drag them back to reality so that their efforts will be effective instead of just expressive.

 

All in all, despite the heavy subject matter, it is an excellent documentary.  The people are raw and real.  Their stories are unfiltered.  The directorial touch is very light.  They certainly created a story from the many hours of footage and through editing they were able to connect with the people in front of the lens.  They even leave in "bloopers" from original footage to show how incredibly real this situation was.  Everything they are trying to communicate is not necessarily what others failed at, but what ACT UP and TAG succeeded at.  

 

Despite how much I can rave about this film, I will mention again that it becomes repetitive.  Group meetings, conferences, and protests are broken up by interviews and the occasional news program.  There are political rallies and Presidential debates.  It is almost as if the crew became too attached to certain sub-plots and felt that the film would be harmed if it was left out--but it would not.  We get the picture that the FDA is taking too long to approve the right meds, but somehow that gets lost a little bit while the plot meanders into multiple protests and political spotlights.  The resolution is rushed and sudden while the journey to it is long and drawn out.  The story needs a more firm direction to be a true knock out.

 

That is my one and only complain with this truly nomination worthy film.  I would probably watch it again, and would also recommend that the documentary lovers see it. 

 

 

Flight (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Flight (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 2 awards.
Nominated for Best Actor (Denzel Washington) and Best Original Screenplay (John Gatins).
Watched February 10, 2014.

 

Flight is a deceptive movie dressed up as a less-than-average B film with a decent cast.  Its advertising was less than stellar and it was released a little before awards season in the fall.  I had zero interest in seeing it until everyone I knew started giving it rave reviews and the Academy nominated it for more than Best Actor.  After finally seeing it for myself, I understand all of the hype and am in love with this film.

 

Whip (Denzel Washington) is a commercial airline pilot with a lot of hours under his belt.  He knows the flight crew intimately for the most part and is a legend in his own right.  We first meet him in a dank hotel room surrounded by alcohol and a naked woman while he fights about money on the phone with his ex-wife.  He then does a couple lines of coke to wake himself up before reporting to work.  Needless to say, his private life is not something the general populace wants from their pilot.

 

(Some spoilers)

The beginning of the film is entirely about the flight, its terrifying ride from start to finish, and Whip's incredible cool-headed genius in the air.  His co-pilot is relatively new and obviously nervous.  The flight attendants are all experienced.  They begin their journey passing through some extreme turbulence, but Whip calmly brings them through it and then promptly goes to sleep.  It is only when the co-pilot wakes him  because it's about time to make their decent that he is back on the job, and in a big way.  The plane jumps into a dive that neither pilot can pull it out of.  Engines catch fire, passengers scream, and all the while Whip gives orders and keeps the crew calm enough to do their jobs.  He inverts the plane to stop the dive and eventually lands it in a field just past a church.  Only six people die.

(End spoilers)

 

The rest of the film is both about the investigation into the cause of the crash and about Whip's full and complete addiction.  It has taken his marriage, it might take his job, and it might even take his life.  Despite his heroism in the air and the fact that no one could have landed that plane and saved anyone's lives, the heartbreak that consumes his personal life is about to break free.  His has been lying for a long time, but he might not be able to lie any more, and that scares him more than the plane crash.

 

The acting is phenomenal.  Washington is obviously a knock out who is so subtle in his delivery that it is flawless.  There are a few interesting characters and side-plots within the screenplay that make it full and vibrant, but really this is a story about Whip and his wake-up call.  This is about a man who is forced to take responsibility when his addiction has never allowed it before.  

 

The flight sequence was certainly my favorite part, but the true grit of the story is what makes this movie great.  You could not have the beginning without the end, and vice versa.  This story as a whole is so stellar that it is impressive it did not walk away with the Oscar.  A lot of nominations are sad and dirty, and this film is no different, but in the end there is redemption and throughout it there is also joy and discovery.  Whip needed this crash more than anyone.

 

From a director who doesn't usually direct action, there are no flaws during the flight.  It is an edge of your seat moment from beginning to end.  Impressively, the drama of the rest of the film is almost as nail biting.  If you want to see this film, please be aware that it is rated R and choose accordingly, but I enjoyed it so much that I can't not recommend that you see it!

 

Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Animated Short (David Silverman).
Watched February 13, 2014.

 

Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" is a very cute animated short that is right up my alley.  I have been a fan of The Simpsons since I was a kid (much to the chagrin of my mother) but have not watched it in a few years.  Watching this short was very nostalgic and wonderful.

 

The short is without dialogue.  Marge brings Maggie to a very Simpsons-like daycare where she goes through airport style security and has a brain scan that labels her as average.  She joins the "nothing special" kids in a dank corner, with the kid who eats paste, and the baby who loves squishing butterflies with a wooden mallet.  Maggie discovers a caterpillar friend and soon realizes that it will shortly turn into a butterfly.  She must save her little friend from the evil baby!

 

The animation is a step up from your average Simpsons.  It was released in theaters in 3D, but even in 2D it captures shadows and colors that are not normally a part of the Simpsons world.  The story is cute and well executed.  It is a very short short, but it takes no time at all to feel a connection with Maggie and a dislike of the evil mallet carrying baby.  

 

This short is so cute and, well, short that I find no hesitation in recommending you see it.  It is readily available online and if you like The Simpsons, I see no reason why this animation should evade your attention.

 

No (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

No (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (Pablo Larraín).
Watched February 6, 2014.

 

No is an interesting contribution to this year's foreign language films.  In the beginning I was not a fan.  It is a Chilean film about the 1988 referendum and the ad executives who produce the campaigns to defeat Augusto Pinochet.  It is shot, produced, and directed as if it was all actually done in 1988, complete with 4:3 aspect ratio and obsessive lens flares that over expose the frame constantly.  Perhaps the thing that took the most getting used to was the jump cuts.

 

Jumps cuts are cuts used in editing.  There is no transition between clips, but one clip right up against the next, often different locations and potentially different characters in each scene.  Usually, in film editing, even if they use jump cuts they will insert clips to imply time has passed or that we have moved to a different place.  In the beginning of No, the campaign is trying to talk René Saavedra (Gael García Bernal) into directing the TV spots, while his boss is trying to talk him out of it.  With little to no back story or understanding of the Chilean political climate, we are thrown into these scenes edited back to back to back, often only a few seconds long.  

 

If the rest of the film was like the beginning, I might not have made it through.  As an editor and lover of story, I could not be grabbed by the dialogue that I could not understand and the conversation that I could not keep up with simply because of the editing.  Things turned around pretty quickly, however, and while they still employed the same type of editing throughout the film, it slowed down and eventually employed some traditional timeline tactics and only occasionally used their chaotic use of jump cuts to better effect.  

 

The No campaign is granted fifteen minutes of airtime a day, while the Yes campaign receives the rest of the time.  René spends much of his time convincing those around him that they need a jingle and a focus on happiness instead of the fear and hatred that they all feel in their hearts.  General Pinochet has allowed the election mostly because of international pressure, and after his long time in office, he has instilled a lot of fear in his people of disappearances, exiles, and deaths.  The No campaign is innovative, current, and employs a lot of commercial tactics from the west, including the Coca Cola versus Pepsi commercials that were airing at the time.  They use a lot of humor and symbols associated with happiness.  The Yes campaign eventually begins to adopt the same tactics.

 

While there is a lot of fear and some vandalism, René and his associates stay relatively safe from political backlash.  We follow the majority of the process, right up until the election.  René is stoic and unemotional the majority of the time.  He rides a skateboard which implies both that he is young but also that he is clinging to youth and innocence.  Despite his differing views from his employer, his boss protects him and advises him against becoming tangled in the wrong side of politics.  Once it is all said and done, they are both still on the same side--that of supporting each others' artistry.

 

There is a lot to love about No and one of those things is that they took the risk of not shooting everything in HD.  It is old and gritty and dark.  Some characters are quiet observers while others are passionate orators.  There is family drama and love.  If you are okay with reading subtitles and can make it through the first half hour, this is actually a pretty good film.  It is straightforward and almost one-note, but perhaps that is the film's strength.  It does not try to throw in any plot twists, but carries you along with René to discover what it means to be a political activist in Chile in 1988.

 

The Gatekeepers (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

The Gatekeepers (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
2/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Documentary Feature Film (Dror Moreh, Philippa Kowarsky, Estelle Fialon).
Watched February 1, 2014.

 

It is hard for me to describe The Gatekeepers to you because it is a very straightforward documentary.  It is an interview driven narrative that features all of the surviving heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency.  The men mostly discuss the events that occurred while they were involved, either on the ground or in leadership, and the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.  

 

There are certain aspects of the film that are extremely creative.  They used 3D effects on images taken at events (specifically when some terrorists were gunned down on a bus) and make them appear almost life-like. 

 

The interviewees are honest and fairly transparent about their answers and what they believed at the time.  They knew that what they were doing was almost without morals but at the time they knew no other way to protect lives.  By the end and in their current lives they might have different opinions, but it is all in retrospect.  They understand that they are treating symptoms and not the problem.

 

This year of Oscars has focused a lot on Palestine and Israel.  It is interesting to see all of the different angels throughout the documentaries and dramas.  Unfortunately, The Gatekeepers was not my favorite.  It was certainly no nail-biter, although enlightening and informative.  As I mentioned above, there is little content aside from interview footage, although the B-roll that is used I quite enjoyed.

 

If what I have describes sounds like it might be up your alley, I would encourage you to see the film.  However, it is very slow and dry, so if you want something you would not likely see in a classroom, you might want to stay away from this one.

 

ParaNorman (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

ParaNorman (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award. 
Nominated for Best Animated Feature Film (Sam Fell, Christ Butler).
Watched January 31, 2014.

 

I was pleasantly surprised by ParaNorman.  I have not been impressed with 2013's animated features so far, and something featuring zombies is rarely something I seek out on my own.  Suffice it to say, I was not stoked about watching ParaNorman, but luckily it pulled out the comedic stops and pumped in enough story that I wasn't hating my life while watching it.

 

Here we see yet another claymation, stop motion animation, not unlike the recently reviewed Frankenweenie.  Norman (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) is an oddball, by even his family's standards.  His best friend is his Grandma (Elaine Stritch) and he talks to her about everything.  The only hitch is that his Grandma is dead.  Norman sees and converses with a lot of dead people, but everyone who is living thinks he is absolutely bonkers.  One day, the only man in the town crazier than Norman warns him that an evil is about to be set loose on the town, and only Norman can stop it.

 

Norman grew up in a small town not unlike Salem.  Its history is rich with dead witches and every year they celebrate the demise of one named Agatha (Jodelle Ferland) who supposedly put a curse on her judgers and the town.  This centuries-old curse is more than something that sells t-shirts to the community, but this year things go down differently.  Several zombies rise from the grave and Norman, his sister Courtney (Anna Kendrick), and a few odd sidekicks have to save they day.  

 

While Norman is your normal misunderstood lead character, and Kodi voices him well, the real show stopper was his only friend Neil (Tucker Albrizzi), the classic fat kid whose lines and physical comedy make every scene he is in.  His muscled brother Mitch (Casey Affleck) is a classic jock without brains, which is perhaps how he gets roped into the adventure so easily.  The film also dwells on Norman's poor relationship with his father (Jeff Garlin) who, as his wife points out, is scared for Norman, not of Norman.  

 

The end of the film goes a little off the deep end but the animation is so wild and cool that I didn't mind at all.  The colors and the fluidity of every motion were truly breathtaking.  This is actually one animated feature from 2013 that I wouldn't mind viewing more than once.  It was funny, appropriately scary, albeit incredibly predictable.  If you don't like being able to figure out the plot (which in that case maybe you shouldn't watch kid movies) you won't like this film.

 

I highly recommend ParaNorman to you.  It might be a little scary for the kids but in this day and age, who knows what they can stomach!

  

 

Head over Heels (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Head over Heels (2012) 
85th Academy Awards 2013
1/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Animated Short (Timothy Reckart, Fodhla Cronin O'Reilly).
Watched January 28, 2014.

 

Head Over Heels  is a claymation, stop motion animated short that has a really cute concept.  It is about an older couple who has obviously been together for a long time--so long that they have forgotten what it means to be in love.  The symbolism for this is a little unique and extremely obvious--Walter lives on the floor and Madge lives on the ceiling.  They may share the same fridge, but that is about it.  One day, their house literally falls out of the sky and they are forced to reassess the way they have been viewing their relationship.  

 

While the concept is cute (and solid), the execution is not.  It seems more like an exercise in animation than a success at story telling.  What could have been told in less than five minutes instead is told in eleven and we spend a long time watching the couple fight over a picture, vacuum the floor, fiddle with antennas, and take a walk outside.  It is hard to make their faces communicate their emotions, and after watching ParaNorman (another nominated film that I will be reviewing next week), the animation seems extremely lacking.  

 

I really enjoyed the concept of this film, and it was certainly cute, but it is sad when an eleven minute short is too boring.  Unless you are studying stop motion animation and/or claymation, I would not recommend this film to you.

   

 

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 8 awards, of which it won 1.
Nominated for Best Picture (Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen, Jonathan Gordon), Best Director (David O. Russell), Best Actor (Bradley Cooper), Best Supporting Actor (Robert De Niro), Best Supporting Actress (Jacki Weaver), Best Adapted Screenplay (David O. Russell), and Best Film Editing (Jay Cassidy, Crispin Struthers).
Won Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence).
Watched January 24, 2014.

 

Silver Linings Playbook is your average rom-com story, but with creative and unique characters that take the film up a notch.  It is no wonder that it received so much recognition from the Academy, and if it weren't for some stiff competition, Cooper might have been accepting an award right alongside Lawrence.

 

Pat (Bradley Cooper) has spent the last eight months in a mental hospital.  He found his wife in the shower with another man and almost beat him to death.  He found out in the hospital that he is bi-polar and has been struggling with it his whole life.  Against his doctor's wishes, Pat's mom Dolores (Jackie Weaver) gets him out on court approval and he moves back in with his parents with one goal in mind--get healthy and get Nikki.  His wife Nikki (Brea Bree) has placed a restraining order on him, but Pat will do anything to get her to see that he is better and that he is good enough for her.

 

While having dinner at his friend's house, he re-encounters Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a recent widow who is just as messed up as he is.  After only an hour or so she makes him walk her home and then offers him sex, but Pat insists that he's married.  They begin an unlikely friendship in which their problems sometimes complement each other and other times result in public embarrassments and encounters with the cops.  

 

Tiffany's sister is Veronica (Julia Stiles) who is friends with Nikki.  Pat wants Tiffany to get a letter to Nikki explaining how much he has improved, but Tiffany decides that she will only do it for something in return, which is how Pat gets roped into doing a dance competition with Tiffany.  Pat's dad, Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) hates Tiffany because he thinks she's messing up the Eagle's juju.

 

Pat's relationship with his family is complicated, and it is obvious that his dad probably struggles with the same emotional problems that he does.  His mom fights for both of them, hoping that love will cure them both although she always seems anxious about her men.  Pat senior makes a living from betting on the Eagles games and Pat Jr. is his good luck charm.

 

While the end of the story is pretty typical and the rest of the time Pat is pretty good at playing the hero, the rest of the film does a really good job of showing an honest and raw view of Pat, his family, and what they are going through.  Tiffany seems like she's had an extra helping of crazy but Pat slowly brings her down to earth.  Both Cooper and Lawrence fully inhabit their roles and bring a reality to them that is exquisite, especially from Cooper whose previous appearances in films such as The Hangover didn't show the abilities that he possesses.  

 

Despite the fact that Lawrence is pretty hot right now and I am a fan of hers, I think she deserved the Oscar that she won.  She became Tiffany, leaving behind the teen Katniss from The Hunger Games and embracing more of the Ree from Winter's Bone (that earned her a nomination in 2011), she went all out.  Cooper also did the role justice.  My favorite scene was when he could not find his wedding video and a terrific family fight ensued in which the cops were called and a teenage neighbor showed up with a video camera.  I could feel Cooper's frustration and his loss of control while his family tried to help instead of escalate the situation.  

 

The film is kept pretty muted as far as colors go and the comedy is all appropriate and well timed.  David O. Russell obviously did an amazing job directing this film and while I didn't find the editing particularly unique, it got the job done (aka it was invisible, as it should be).  The visuals and behind the scenes are all top notch, but the thing that makes the film for me is the characters and the actors who inhabit them.

 

If you can handle a good amount of swear words and a little bit of crazy, I would definitely recommend Silver Linings Playbook to you.  While it might be a romantic comedy, your guy will enjoy it as much as your girl (Cooper and De Niro don't hurt, and the football talk is good as well).  If you don't have this film on your Netflix list yet I don't know what's wrong with you.

 

Kon-Tiki (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Kon-Tiki (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg).
Watched January 25, 2014.

 

I have an affinity for films and shows that involve being stranded on an island, or finding ones self in a desperate situation in the middle of the sea after something like a ship sinking.  I don't know why--perhaps it is to see someone survive without modern comforts and vicariously experience the adventure and danger therein, or perhaps it is because I was introduced to Robinson Crusoe at a very young age.  All things considered, a film about six men traveling months at a time on a simple raft should be right up my alley, and while the story itself was up to scratch, the film was not.

 

Kon-Tiki is based on a true story, from book, documentary, and personal accounts of Thor Heyerdahl (Pål Sverre Hagen), a scientist of the 1940s who wanted to prove that Polynesia was populated not my Asians as the world believed, but by Africans.  No respectable publisher or scientist would give him the time of day and told him the only way for anyone to take his theory seriously would be for him to make the trip across the sea from Peru himself.  National Geographic would have none of it, and although he had no money, Thor got together a crew and congregated in Peru where he convinced the government it would be worthwhile to finance their mission.

 

They built a balsawood raft precisely as it would have been built, using no modern technology to construct it, and set out on a 4,300 mile crossing.  The crew is briefly introduced to us: Thor is the ever optimistic and never doubting scientist, Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) is an engineer turned refrigerator salesman who is controlled by fear, Knut Haugland (Tobias Santelmann) is a war hero obsessed with his parrot, Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård) is the photographer, Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson) is the only one who has been to sea before, and Torstein Raaby (Jakob Oftebro) the young adventurous one who works the radio.  We never learn more about the characters than this, really, and that is one of the big faults in Kon-Tiki.

 

What could have been a three hour adventure in which we get to know each character as I am sure they got to know each other in their 101 day sail across the sea, we only get a hour and a half, most of which documents their adventures with sharks, whales, and glowing sea creatures.  Most of the film they are trying to find the southern current that will take them toward Polynesia, and there is one dramatic moment in which they must go over or around a reef.  All things considered, the film was shot beautifully, the introduction was well done and exactly as it should be, but the raft ride itself was a bit lacking.  We saw a lot of Watzinger's fear and Thor's struggle to captain him.  Their raft was absorbing water, and while this would probably be a big concern in reality, as would their inability to catch the current, only Watzinger seems to take these things seriously (although perhaps too seriously).

 

I enjoyed the film, but it did not give me enough.  The run time wasn't enough for the characters, so instead they chose three of the seven to focus on--one being the sea--and left it as good.  Although there is one terrific scene involving a nail biting encounter with sharks, the rest of their adventures that should have been exciting were somewhat dull.  In the sequences they chose to dwell on, their timing was exquisite.  The colors and contrasts were beautiful, both in Norway in the beginning, but especially in their raft trip, alone on the big blue sea.

 

As the film is only an hour and a half, and it depicts a bit of history that is brave and encouraging, I would recommend this film.  It certainly isn't my favorite, but the good scenes were magnificent, while its short comings kept it from being well rounded.  If you have ever read the book or seen the documentary, this is probably one movie you should add to your Netflix list.