The true story of Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) and the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates of the US-flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in two hundred years.
After seeing "Captain Phillips", I can only call it 2013's version of "Argo", with a little bit of "Zero Dark Thirty" mixed in. Although, it is not as entertaining as "Argo" (with good reason) and not as densely technical as "Zero Dark Thirty" (perhaps a good thing).
While it may be fair to critique the film for historical accuracy, this is one time I am not going to do so. The captain has his story, the crew has theirs, and the military and pirates probably see it other ways, too. But the film is called "Captain Phillips" and is based on his book, so the film's only goal was to tell his story, whether or not it matches the facts completely.
There are two negative things that must be said about the film. The first is that the shaking camera is all wrong. While I understand that this makes sense for hectic, tense scenes, it is completely unnecessary to use at all times. Perhaps the effect was intended to make the audience feel they were really there, but it came across as more annoying and was ultimately a poor cinematography decision.
The second issue is how long some scenes run, and as much as five minutes could have been cut. This is forgivable, however, given how much the suspense pays off in the final act. While the audience may get bored if their attention span is weak, they will wake up in the fast-paced finale (which is far more fitting from a director known for the "Bourne" franchise).
With regards to the Oscar nominations, I have no opinion on its three technical categories and cannot fairly judge Billy Ray's adapted screenplay without reading the book (though I think his finished product is quite good and likely deserved the nod).
In the acting category, it is surprising to see Tom Hanks get overlooked when he was awarded by many other groups (including the Golden Globes). Between this and "Saving Mr. Banks", many people saw this as a banner year for Hanks. Hanks is a difficult person to judge with regards to acting because his face is so recognizable and therefore he is seen as Hanks rather than his character. But with the intensity -- and actually getting vomited on for the role -- this was his best work in years and it is unfortunate he was overlooked.
Barkhad Abdi has been nominated for a variety of supporting actor awards, including an Oscar. I am torn on this universal praise. While I think he certainly would earn the "debut" or "breakout" award if one existed, was he the best supporting actor in 2013? Perhaps not. Abdi will never be an A-lister and may not even pursue further acting, so it is great to see the recognition... but to win? Perhaps not.
And as for Best Picture, this just is not going to happen. Despite some strong performances and an incredible attention to detail with regards to how the ship and military operate, this is not a "best" picture, and its nomination was even questionable. Worth seeing yes, but best picture no. The Golden Globes gave the film four nominations and zero wins; I suspect the Academy will follow a similar decision-making process.
After seeing "Captain Phillips", I can only call it 2013's version of "Argo", with a little bit of "Zero Dark Thirty" mixed in. Although, it is not as entertaining as "Argo" (with good reason) and not as densely technical as "Zero Dark Thirty" (perhaps a good thing).
While it may be fair to critique the film for historical accuracy, this is one time I am not going to do so. The captain has his story, the crew has theirs, and the military and pirates probably see it other ways, too. But the film is called "Captain Phillips" and is based on his book, so the film's only goal was to tell his story, whether or not it matches the facts completely.
There are two negative things that must be said about the film. The first is that the shaking camera is all wrong. While I understand that this makes sense for hectic, tense scenes, it is completely unnecessary to use at all times. Perhaps the effect was intended to make the audience feel they were really there, but it came across as more annoying and was ultimately a poor cinematography decision.
The second issue is how long some scenes run, and as much as five minutes could have been cut. This is forgivable, however, given how much the suspense pays off in the final act. While the audience may get bored if their attention span is weak, they will wake up in the fast-paced finale (which is far more fitting from a director known for the "Bourne" franchise).
With regards to the Oscar nominations, I have no opinion on its three technical categories and cannot fairly judge Billy Ray's adapted screenplay without reading the book (though I think his finished product is quite good and likely deserved the nod).
In the acting category, it is surprising to see Tom Hanks get overlooked when he was awarded by many other groups (including the Golden Globes). Between this and "Saving Mr. Banks", many people saw this as a banner year for Hanks. Hanks is a difficult person to judge with regards to acting because his face is so recognizable and therefore he is seen as Hanks rather than his character. But with the intensity -- and actually getting vomited on for the role -- this was his best work in years and it is unfortunate he was overlooked.
Barkhad Abdi has been nominated for a variety of supporting actor awards, including an Oscar. I am torn on this universal praise. While I think he certainly would earn the "debut" or "breakout" award if one existed, was he the best supporting actor in 2013? Perhaps not. Abdi will never be an A-lister and may not even pursue further acting, so it is great to see the recognition... but to win? Perhaps not.
And as for Best Picture, this just is not going to happen. Despite some strong performances and an incredible attention to detail with regards to how the ship and military operate, this is not a "best" picture, and its nomination was even questionable. Worth seeing yes, but best picture no. The Golden Globes gave the film four nominations and zero wins; I suspect the Academy will follow a similar decision-making process.