The Flick Pick Monster

Love Exposure

2012-02-04T21:32:00.008-05:00

A complex, trashy, tonally scattershot, extraordinarily intelligent satire, "Love Exposure" is exactly what its title indicates: a 237 minute examination of the thorniest, deepest passions you can imagine. Unlike many filmmakers who'd try to pull something like this off, Sion Sono has a very good idea of what he's doing. He's chosen his setting and characters carefully and orchestrated the chaos with a deft touch. He's constructed a story that expands to spacious (though not as large as I'd originally expected) parameters and then contracts back to what would be incorrectly termed "simple." Nothing here is. Nagging questions get raised and, brilliantly enough, stay as loose ends. No one gets an easy way out. But no one is made an easy target either.

Yu (Takahiro Nishijima) is the son of two devout Christian parents. His mother, soon to pass away, instills in him the notion to find "his Maria," to which he sticks adamantly. His father, Tetsu (Atsuro Watabe, the most emotionally captivating actor here) driven by the grief, becomes a priest, which satisfies him for a while. That's until Kaori (Makiko Watanabe) comes into his life. And, as Yu notes, things change. She's madly in love with him and is tempting him away from the priesthood. She ends up leaving, which dampens the father's mood and turns him nihilistic and didactic. This sends Yu on a path to become the King/Prince of Perverts and an exceptional dirty photographer. And on, and on, with more characters coming into the frame and an intense love, make that two intense loves, make that three (four?) intense loves, and a cult, and...

The film grows ever the more layered, while doing its best never to abandon its center. I was very amused at times (such eccentrics as Tag Yuji are hilarious), but most often horrified and disturbed by the film's themes of reprogramming and rejection, sexually and religiously. The ending may seem like a relent, and perhaps it is slightly, but while giving an arguably unearned satisfaction, it also left me a lingering dread about a character's sense of free will. Submission is the fate for all, the film seems to be noting, and for all of its inconsistencies, minor missteps, and overplayed musical selections, this deeply affecting, unsettlingly absolute philosophy gives the film an unforgettable hurt. A-

The Innkeepers

2012-01-25T21:29:00.005-05:00

I haven't seen a lot of horror films in my time, but I've grown familiar with the hallmarks of the genre like any general fan of cinema has. So let's just say after viewing "The Innkeepers" I found myself scratching my head over Ti West's ascendence in the indie world. I haven't had the chance to catch "The House of the Devil," to be sure, but West's new film is astonishingly bad and almost completely devoid of pleasure. I felt deprived a humor and horror fix. I may sue.

West starts with a very stale premise and does essentially nothing to enliven it. He then provides us with a grating, quasi-Manic Pixie Dream Girl, hotel staffer heroine named Claire, high-strung and annoying as played by Sara Paxton. Revolving around her are a series of badly scripted parts, only one of which works even slightly: Luke (Pat Healy), Claire's tart fellow inn employee, who gets all of the film's halfway decent lines. It sucks that even Luke's character has to devolve into cliche at a certain point. But that's just the nature of the film. West is said to draw heavily from modern horror classics in a sort of nostalgic way. I'd say it's gotten to the point where his own voice is smothered by devotion to conventions. And these conventions aren't even good ones.

So a inn is being closed after a last weekend, and Claire and Luke are taking a few more guests (including a famous actress-cum-psychic, played by Kelly McGillis) while also investigating the hotel for paranormal activity. Sounds like this could be kinda fun, eh? I certainly thought so. But the film is only occasionally mildly funny, and only occasionally mildly creepy. None of the plot hijinks work, and thus I was left drumming my fingers, waiting for what I assumed to be a backloaded scare barrage to bear its teeth. If you think the last 15-30 minutes of "The Innkeepers" are even remotely terrifying, I'd say horror is not the genre for you. Every scare (except for a final, very cheesy one) is tipped off either by the poor positioning of the camera or a character's prolonged reaction. Anyone looking for hardcore frights should steer entirely clear. "The Innkeepers" is to its genre what "The Trip" was to its own: it makes you wonder what "scary" or "funny" really means anymore. D

2011-2012 Oscars: Causes To Take Up

2012-01-24T17:20:00.003-05:00

I'm nowhere near as involved this year in the Oscar prognostication business as I have been in previous years. My impulse to catch every nominee (my policy before) has dwindled exceptionally. I only saw the films that I really cared about seeing, some overlapping, some not. So, at this place in time, I'm really most interested in singling out the performances and works that deserve attention (that didn't get nominated) and deserve to win. I can't speak at length or in any sort of depth about the more critically maligned works ("Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, "The Help") as well as a couple I just haven't gotten around to seeing due to where I live ("Hugo," "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"). I actually haven't seen any of the Best Actress nominees, now that Tilda Swinton has been bumped.

Nominated Causes:

THE TREE OF LIFE - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography

Oh baby. Best film of the year nominated for best film of the year? That's what I call a good surprise. I'm glad that Fox Searchlight did what they could to bring this into the game (as for "Margaret," such wonders were not pulled off). If this film fails to win an award out of these three, I'll be very, very disappointed - Cinematography at least is a must. I doubt it'll take the gold, but who knows. I'm not sure if the film editing Oscar prediction still works (i.e. that a film must be nominated in that category to win big), but I'm hoping that it doesn't. This is a truly terrific film that deserves only the best.

George Clooney, The Descendants - Best Actor

My favorite male performance of the year, along with one that was unfortunately snubbed (I'll get to that later on), was given by this man, who almost made "The Descendants" into a worthy film. No other performer drew me in quite as much. He got off to a rocky start, but from a certain point onwards, I was hanging on his every emotion. I have yet to see Demian Bichir in "A Better Life," but I feel fairly confident in championing Clooney over the rest of the field (though I do like Jean Dujardin very much as well).

Christopher Plummer, Beginners - Best Supporting Actor

An Oscar-y performance, to be sure, but a devastating, human one that also fits in room for sweetness. People may criticize the McGregor/Laurent section (unjustly, in my view) but most are warm to Plummer's extraordinary work. If he wins, it'll be a great moment for someone so deserving.

Berenice Bejo, The Artist - Best Supporting Actress

As lukewarm as I am on the spectacularly overhyped film she's in, I must say that Bejo gives quite the charismatic supporting performance. She provides, along with Dujardin, the spark to keep the film from being insufferable. Quite a task, pulled off nicely; it's not her fault that the movie doesn't reach heights.

Asghar Farhadi, A Separation - Best Screenplay

So the campaign for Farhadi to get some writing honors did work. I've been underplaying this movie since I saw it at the New York Film Festival, with extremely high expectations that weren't exactly met (as it is a brilliantly-acted yet flawed piece). However, the punching quality of the dialogue provided much of what I liked about "A Separation" as a whole. I wasn't nearly as moved by "Midnight in Paris" or "The Artist," and I expect the same for "Margin Call" and "Bridesmaids."

FOOTNOTE - Best Foreign Film

Don't think we have to worry about "A Separation" losing to fellow SPC slate-mate "Footnote," but I'd be oh so happy if that were the case. Apparently the supposed lack of stakes got to some people, who've deemed it "forgettable" and "insignificant," but I found the film's ideological pull too strong to dismiss.

PINA - Best Documentary

The best use of 3-d I've seen yet. Not sure if "Pina" is a great "documentary" per se, but it's an excellent film experience, and I'd be glad to see it recognized in any category.

Snubbed Causes:

Michael Fassbender, Shame - Best Actor

Oscar chickened out at the last second on possibly the strongest performance of the year. I've felt less confident about it watching out-of-context trailer clips, but, boy, when I saw it at Telluride, I was blown aback. Far superior to Gary Oldman's work in "Tinker Tailor," and better also than Brad Pitt's in "Moneyball." I wonder if a Steve McQueen film will ever receive an Oscar nomination. I wonder if an NC-17 film will ever receive another Oscar nomination. A nod for Carey Mulligan or Nicole Beharie would have been nice as well.

Shailene Woodley, The Descendants - Best Supporting Actress

I care a little bit less about this than other snubs; however, Woodley is better than everyone in her category except perhaps Bejo. A second power supply for "The Descendants."

THE TURIN HORSE - Best Foreign Film

Better than every nominee in its category. Better than almost every best picture nominee. Of course, it couldn't get nominated, though. It's too rough.

Kill List

2012-01-20T19:17:00.004-05:00

I'd say I understood about 50-65% of the dialogue in Ben Wheatley's "Kill List," which perhaps seems like a disqualifying factor. But it's not my fault that a) the actors have thick British accents and that b) the sound recording is utterly atrocious. Maybe people who catch everything that's said will enjoy this movie more. However, some of the biggest pieces of this extremely disturbing work can be easily understood: a brutal beating by hammer, much hand slashing, a simply horrific final scene. I haven't seen a movie this genuinely debased in a while. Then again, I don't watch a whole bunch of horror films.

Wheatley has the materials for an unforgettable movie here. He unfortunately can't pull them together very well at all. The film is almost entirely backloaded. The first 45 minutes of the film meander under the pretense of character development. Then, after a certain point, things begin to ratchet up. That's all great, but at that point the filmmaking gets even lazier conceptually (plus a lot more incoherent) and only manages to work viscerally. Only the last 10-15 minutes, as seriously messed up as they are, shock something into the film. The only problem is, they also don't really hold up dramatically (i.e. it's near impossible to tell what the hell's happening at times; it feels too purposely obscured).

We follow retired, aggressive contact killer named Jay (Neil Maskell) who continuously lashes out at his wife with less and less regard for his young son. Their financial resources have been drying up ever since his last hit and his memories of his profession as well as his time spent in Iraq are beginning to really harass him. A dinner party with his work partner and best friend Gal (Michael Smiley) and his girlfriend Fiona (Emma Fryer) seems inserted to show the wildly fluctuating moods: everyone gets drunk, but not before Jay flips out and throws the table over.

Work must be found, and soon enough, Jay and Gal get employment from an unnamed Client (Struan Rodger). They're sent off to a kill a few folks, the reasoning behind their being targets getting hazier and hazier as the film goes on. Jay starts getting angrier and angrier and less able to control himself when he's bearing down on his victims.

I can't say much more than that without giving the whole thing away. The ending came as a mix of "Ok..." and "Ho-ly shit," the two pole reactions that viewers seem to be clinging to. If the movie had been better assembled, it could be some sort of lurid fascination. Instead, as a mixed bag, it's somewhat of a letdown, not giving enough to justify what it puts on display. I'm curious to read more of the ideas people have about it, though. C-

The Forgiveness of Blood

2012-01-19T17:48:00.004-05:00

A downscaled look at a violent Albanian family conflict told through the eyes of the oldest boy and girl, Joshua Marston's "The Forgiveness of Blood" is less concerned with the specifics of the instigating situation than with the aftermath. We don't even know if those involved in the brutality are guilty, but we sure know what it's like to be an oldest son who can't go outside to school. This approach provides for an interesting but often unexciting film that at times hits its stride but at others only hints at development.

A road, owned for years by one part of a large family prominent in a small town, gets blocked. A father gets very, very upset and brings his brother along with him to take of matters with this flagrant-seeming cousin. When this new owner winds up dead, the uncle gets thrown in jail and the father has to go on the lam. To avoid more blood spilling, Nik, his sister Rudina, and their two younger siblings are forced to stay indoors until a settlement is reached between the two sides.

Nik, used to chasing girls and riding around on motorcycles, is now forced into a father figure role and also into intense boredom (which he at times tries to escape). Rudina, due to unwritten rules about not being able to harm females, is elected to take on the job of selling bread to help the family out. Both are stifled by these limitations, and a lot of the movie is in observing how fortunes can turn so fast. One minute you're asking your father if you can go shopping with your friends, the next you're trying to sell your horse to make ends meet.

The ending comes as a mildly devastating shock but hits a note maybe a bit too flat. The whole enterprise isn't overwhelmingly strong, but the soft-focus-heavy cinematography (becoming a staple of Marston's films) and screenplay (a solid choice for the award at Berlin, though "A Separation" may have been better) help keep things together. B-

Moneyball

2012-01-17T19:46:00.003-05:00

Bennett Miller's "Moneyball" is very much about baseball. Admittedly it's less about the actual games than what goes on behind the scenes. Still, I'm surprised that people thought that the film was hardly a sports movie. As a huge baseball fan, it was a treat to get an approximation of off-the-field politics involving many players that I know pretty well. That doesn't make it a great film or anything (it ain't, ultimately), but it must be said that there were pleasures.

Following general manager Billy Beane's (Brad Pitt) radical, sabermetric-influenced re-imagining of his Oakland A's ballclub following a disappointing 2001 season, "Moneyball" examines what makes a championship team. The scouts believe that using practical knowledge of the game trumps all other strategies. Others, such as Peter Brandt (Jonah Hill), think that paying close attention to statistics can yield an incredibly fruitful organization. Both sides definitely have their ups and downs.

Juxtaposed against the present is Beane's past, where he, as a top prospect, took a major league contract over a full-ride to Stanford. When he lost his confidence in the big leagues, he was left with little and went on to become a scout. It is mentioned a couple of times that Beane's intense adoption of sabermetics possibly is an alley for him to stick it to the scouts who lured him into what would become a dead-end occupation.

Elements typical of baseball movies abound, with some solid, at times delightfully obscure baseball action included. The ending, as well as the played-out game of the long winning streak, are pretty anticlimactic and feel somewhat limited. There are definitely spots of euphoria, however.

Pitt turns in a duly championed performance, not quite as excellent as some have attested but quite good all the same. Hill is not too shabby either, retaining some facets of his usual persona while stepping into slightly new waters. And it's great to see the singularly chipper Spike Jonze in a bit part as Beane's ex-wife's (Robin Wright) new husband, who mispronounces Jason Giambi's name. Speaking of the family-oriented business, the scenes with Pitt's daughter are touching but perhaps a little overdone. They sometimes, though, reach the same sort of romanticism (a term much invoked by Pitt) as the baseball, which I see in retrospect as pretty intentional. Though it is at times drab and derivative, I'm glad "Moneyball" is able to tap into this grace at all. B-

Carnage

2012-01-13T23:19:00.004-05:00

On paper I think "Carnage," taken from Yasmina Reza's "God of Carnage," sounds pretty interesting: a real-time, devolving argument between two couples who fight each other verbally rather than physically and who begin to see how really screwed up their marriages are. However, Roman Polanski follows up his excellent "The Ghost Writer" with one of the thinnest and least necessary motion pictures of the year. Superficial, monotonous, and strung together, "Carnage" is a tired, flat film almost entirely limited to an apartment that's supposed to be in New York (though with Polanski's house arrest, it wasn't shot there). As a result of that, it's pretty thematically limited as well, and the only kicks one can expect to get out of this come via the occasionally funny script.

Zachary whacks Ethan in the face with a stick in a park, and the parents want to sort things out. Ethan's, Penelope and Michael (Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly), invite Zachary's, Nancy and Alan (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz), over to settle matters and what seems to be a simple chat to set up positive interaction between the boys turns into much more as the guests stay to eat apparently horrific cobbler, drink coffee, spew bile, drink, and, to the annoyance of everybody, answer countless phone calls.

Sure, some of the satire works at times, and the performances are decent, but it's not really worth it. Whit Stillman does this sort of thing better. "Carnage" is certainly not worth spending a bunch of money on, especially if you're someone who doesn't see a ton of movies. C

A Dangerous Method

2012-01-06T23:28:00.004-05:00

Though initially as captivating as Keira Knightley's performance, "A Dangerous Method" fails to sustain interest for 99 minutes. Just at about the point Carl Jung and Sabina Spielrein begin their intense affair, the film experiences a sheer drop-off in interest due to a more relaxed, less clinically focused pace and a feeling of fulfillment: now that what was inevitably going to happen happened, what now? The failure of director David Cronenberg and screenwriter Christopher Hampton to answer that question compromises what's actually a very solid 45 or so minutes and turns the remainder of the film into somewhat of a rote, hyper-cerebral chore.

That the movie works at all is thanks to Michael Fassbender, for the most part remarkably subdued here, and Knightley, for the most part remarkably and uncharacteristically out-of-control here. I've never seen Fassbender give a bad performance, but I've had my doubts about Knightley and whether she can really make a film watchable. Here, she veers sharply out of her normal range and tries something intense, with Russian accent and all. I'm not sure if she hits every mark, but as flailing, stuttering, and deeply passionate Sabina, Jung's most valued patient, she certainly leaves a big impression.

The film opens with her kicking and screaming, having to be restrained on the way to the hospital where Jung works, which sets the tone for the film's charged opening half. Jung wants to use his eventual friend and then bitter rival Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen)'s new idea for therapy, psychoanalysis or "the talking cure," and chooses Sabina as his first subject. It works very well, as it unearths unsettling truths about her damaged psyche (like how she likes to be beaten). Jung is pulled in by her indisputable magnetism, away from his rich and frankly pretty boring wife Emma (Sarah Gadon), especially when a psychiatrist he takes on as a patient (Vincent Cassel) emphasizes his distaste with monogamy.

Adapted from a book and then a play, "A Dangerous Method" is extremely dialogue-heavy, which works just fine at the beginning but ends up getting to be a little bit too much towards the ending. The film is also awkwardly edited and sequenced; very few scenes feel as if they follow each other naturally. I also felt as though it got increasingly less characteristic of Cronenberg as it went on. Some say it's not like him at all, but for me the beginning seems like a pretty snug fit in his oeuvre (even though I've only seen "A History of Violence"). Later on, however, as the score gets more and more generic and the plotting more and more disjointed, "A Dangerous Method" hardly feels distinct at all. C+

Mission : Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2012-01-03T22:24:00.006-05:00

Though there is tension in Brad Bird's "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol," the stakes for the most part feel glazed over. The heroes and the villains feel so far removed from what they're to affect (missiles blowing shit up) that the film is only engaging on the level of their immediate actions. I suppose that's sort of obvious, but the remove at times is large enough to be disconcerting: for one, a character is thrown out of a window and the film soon forgets her significance in the plot, even though she's said by Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) to be an "asset," and for another, the Kremlin's getting totally trashed is pretty underplayed.

I've only seen Brian De Palma's original "Mission: Impossible," which I largely enjoyed a while back, so I can't impart except via a small bit of outside knowledge about any cross-series references. This one is mildly satisfying, if not entirely morally coherent, mainly due to the magnetism of the four main actors, playing the last remaining agents of the IMF. It's fun to watch Cruise (even after all the freakouts he's had offscreen), and Paula Patton is solid in the only main female role of the film. But it's especially enjoyable to see Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg in somewhat irregular roles. Renner was very impressive in the excellent "Hurt Locker" a couple years back, so I'm already attuned to his talent; to see him kick ass in a different sort of action picture is a pleasure. And previously to now I just couldn't stand Pegg, beloved for his Edgar Wright and Nick Frost collaborations. I'm glad that he's finally found a good vehicle for his jokiness; he makes much of the film in my opinion.

Maybe I was overexposed to the material going in, but I feel less impressed than most at many of the talked-about scenes. The sustained Dubai section is masterfully executed looking at it as a whole, but in certain bits (especially with Cruise scaling the wall) it doesn't live up to expectations. (I did appreciate the last car chase a lot, though.) There's less to the whole film than there appears to be, disappointingly enough, with a bland bad guy who turns out to be played by none other than Mr. Swedish Mikael Blomquist, Michael Nyqvist. And, with the smiley, airbrushed coda, the surreal tidiness of the film and the mission is jolted to the next level (read: not a good place). "M:i-4" is an appealing venture (I smiled), and a sometimes aesthetically pleasing one (Robert Elswit has some good moments shot-wise), but not ultimately a worthwhile one. The actors click, valuably; little else does. C+

Mysteries of Lisbon

2011-12-31T22:24:00.008-05:00

I suppose I feel right now what the detractors of Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life" felt when they stumbled out of that overwhelming picture. Raul Ruiz's "Mysteries of Lisbon" is a beautiful, painstakingly considered, 272-minute period piece that sags under the weight of its overused devices. The main one that I take issue with dominates the film: the story-within-a-story. The whole film is being narrated/acted-out-with-small-figures by grown-up Pedro (Jose Afonso Pimentel), but within this narration many characters take the time to tell their life stories, usually to the ubiquitous priest Father Dinis (Adriano Luz). The first time this happens, it's actually a story-within-a-story-within-a-story: Dinis is telling Pedro as a boy (Joao Arrais, the most engaging actor in the film by far) about his father arriving at the Dinis' orphanage and him telling about what happened to him. This is executed to dizzying effect (as much of the first 30-60 minutes are). But this narrative ploy is used again and again, and once you've seen it the tenth or eleventh time, you're struggling to concentrate on the technical facets to keep you from going insane.

The other problematic motif in the plot is the interconnectedness of everyone in the movie. We come to find that everyone is someone else's mother, son, father, lover, or belching pirate-esque guard. The appeal is understandable. This is common in books, and one of the big things people say separates this movie from others is how it actually feels a novel, like the one it was adapted from (by Camilo Castelo Branco). And the first time a character was revealed to be someone else from the past, it drew an "oh shit" from me. But, as with the layered storytelling, it got irking and corny to "Crash"-like levels at a certain point.

These two huge annoyances prevented me from appreciating this film as much as others have. Reminiscent (extremely so, in my view) of Lucchino Visconti's "The Leopard," it's a masterfully crafted work: brilliantly shot by Andre Szankowski with impeccable framing, invigorating camera movement, and excellent lighting, pretty well-scored by Jorge Arrigada (even if some elements of the music are used a little too much), and extraordinarily art directed by Isabel Branco. That's not mentioning the way Ruiz has with engrossing you that only abandons him at the end. And the story of a kid with no background who finds out about his history seems like it could lend itself to a dazzlingly immense production. But even if it spirals off in directions, the film comes to feel both too distant and then too limited. At times it seemed like it was struggling to keep moving. Some may make this argument against Malick's exceptional movie as well. Oh well. They won't be reached. I wasn't here. I can admire the skill, but the obvious, intentional emotional punch didn't hit me. B-

Tuesday, After Christmas

2011-12-29T23:09:00.008-05:00

A schlubby, married banker is having a blissful affair with his child's dentist. He's weighed down by this deception, and feels increasingly distanced from his wife and daughter, who are oblivious. He's getting anxious; he knows he won't be able to keep this hidden forever, and he has started to become as insistent and controlling with his mistress as his wife (whom he at one point, indirectly perhaps, refers to as "Mom") is with him. The clandestine relationship has been going on for five months, and he still has no idea how to handle it. He seems to expect to continue onwards with the same arrangement into the distant future. But he knows subconsciously it's inevitable that he'll have to tell.

Even though there's not a whole lot to it in terms of narrative, "Tuesday, After Christmas" is a very hard movie to make. If we don't feel close to these characters, their personal business is going to be quite dull indeed. This seems obvious, but in a film with this sort of subject matter, immersion becomes ever the more important in separating it from other films about the same topic. That Radu Muntean has made as much out of this as he has is extremely impressive. He and his fellow screenwriters Alexandru Baciu and Razvan Radulescu know their characters (surprisingly, given that they're all men, especially the wife) and the relationships between them well and move from scene to finely tuned scene with incredible ease. He and his cinematographer Tudor Lucaciu have chosen to film with a muted palette and with not-too-showy long takes to give the feel of sustained semi-realism and despair (also: the cigarette smoke looks gorgeous). And he and his actors, Mimi Branescu, Maria Popiastu, and Mirela Oprisor, have worked to convey an almost all-encompassing feeling of naturalism; this may be the single most important element of the film, and the whole works only as much as the actors allow it to (which is to say, pretty darn well).

There are a number of smart choices made with regards to the plot details. Setting it at Christmastime creates a parallel between the illusion of Santa to the daughter and the illusion of the affair. In some ways, revealing the fabrication would be just as heartbreaking in each case. Another particular that Muntean plays close attention to is the occupations of the leads. This is most important in the case of the women. Having the mistress be a family doctor sets up an interesting, awkward, and beautifully executed scene in which the parents come to take their daughter to get her braces put on. This moment gets added resonance later on, but is even at the time a telling and overtly choreographed episode. Coming back to the idea of jobs, having the wife work in the courts (presumably as a lawyer) gives her a sheen of precision and a range of knowledge of how to take people down. This, balanced with her often informal demeanor, makes her (at least to me) a recognizable type and a full character. A stronger character than the mistress, I must say, though not overwhelmingly so.

These characters could fail to work off paper. This is not the case, though, because the performers have the abilities required to make them believable. Branescu (who had a role in the exceptional "Outbound") is able to show Paul the banker's isolation, unhappiness, naive defensiveness, and anxiety quite well, even if at times he looks a little unsure (probably the character). Popiastu, given the weakest role and the least number of scenes to bring things together, does what she can with it anyways with charm and agitation, though it isn't entirely convincing. The best performance here is by Oprisor, who gives us both ends of her emotional spectrum to devastating effect. These three, plus the actress who plays Popiastu's mother (I can't find her name), make the film constricting and absorbing (while the actors playing Branescu's parents provide a comic interest). Brilliantly sequenced, with flaws only due to characterization and the resulting portrayal, "Tuesday, After Christmas" definitely fits securely into the rich, remarkable Romanian New Wave. B+

Is Dragos Bucur's character Cristi a holdover from "Police, Adjective"? An in-joke or cameo of some sort? Just a bit strange to give the character the same name.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-12-28T23:13:00.007-05:00

Drab, obfuscated, and dense, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," Tomas Alfredson's equally gray and dreary follow-up to "Let the Right One In," only really grabbed my attention due to the mystery at its core and certain interesting subplots, when Alfredson stops holding us at arm's length and brings us in. The look of the film, minus the astonishing conference room set, essentially washed over me (though the commitment to ambience is admirable) and didn't get any sort of rise out of my visually attuned side, and a few of the actors are dull as dishwater, annoying (Colin Firth, looking at you), or histrionic (Benedict Cumberbatch is the only one who fits all of those). But ultimately, the film ends up overcoming its shortcomings by building many mini-universes and then having them devastatingly blend into one whole.

I wouldn't feel too bad if you find it a little hard to piece together this film while you're watching. It's a complex picture, taken from source material by big water-muddier John le Carré. A meeting gone awry in Budapest is far from what it seems originally, where it's hard to tell who's connected to whom and who's setting up whom (if at all) and what the significance of this event is. (All does come to be explained, maybe even a little too thoroughly.) The experience of watching the film involves both keeping up with what's currently happening on screen and making sure you understand that's come before. This may be irritating to some; some proponents of the movie have neglected to understand this.

The film follows the efforts of dismissed operative George Smiley (Gary Oldman, solid but 90% flavorless) and his still-in-the-system assistant Peter Guillam (Cumberbatch) to track down a double agent high up in "the Circus" (i.e. MI6). I found their antics (and Smiley's day-to-day life) relatively uninteresting, and was much more enthralled by the people they come into contact with. The most prominent one is Ricki Tarr (an engaging Tom Hardy), who, on a dead-end assignment, ended up finding some extremely valuable information via his observation target's abused wife Irina (Svetlana Khodchenkova), who becomes his love interest. Also involving is Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), mostly because it's surprising what happens with him.

Though what transpires eventually is affecting and thought-provoking, and though the film feels like it has much to it, much of it is tedious and muddled (in plot and in assembly), with one Christmas party scene used as a flashback maybe a few more times than necessary. The last song in the film threatens to drench the film in nauseating Style as well. I can understand what people appreciate about "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" but I have a hard time loving the film to the degree that some do. B-

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-12-28T16:07:00.008-05:00

Rupert Wyatt's well-directed "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," built on a terrific motion capture performance by Andy Serkis, is a fast-paced, rousing downer that relies more on gestures than dialogue. There's much high concept chatter, but the film brilliantly uses restraint with words for many of its plot points and poignant moments. Along these same lines, as it goes on, it places much more emphasis on the titular animals than on the humans surrounding them, and is all the better for it. It might have been nice for James Franco and Freida Pinto (who is given little room here as his veterinarian girlfriend) to have a couple of scenes not worrying about his father or their ape (i.e. some character development outside what's necessary for the central plot), but I guess you can't have everything.

The film deals with the race to find a cure for Alzheimer's, led by a scientist named Will Rodman (Franco), who tests drugs on apes by measuring their intelligence in the lab. He's looking hungrily for a breakthrough that could help his ailing father (John Lithgow) and satisfy his enterprising boss (David Oyelowo). When an ape breaks out of the lab, the honcho orders for all apes to be put down, though a baby one (soon known as Caesar due to the Shakespeare bent of Will's father) is hidden and nurtured by Will at his home. This ape has inherited genes from its mother, who was given some of the drug, and thus it receives all of the many benefits, including a skyrocketed IQ. As you might imagine, Will, seeing this, gives some to his father as well and it works like gangbusters. But soon Will must make a stronger drug to combat antibodies and of course things don't go well from there.

The events in the film come relatively close to those detailed in "Project Nim," and thus the film gains a bit of topical relevance and, if you know the story of Nim Chimpsky well, some satisfaction. I really started to notice this during the emotionally charged second half, which is in my mind superior to the first. The final scenes have a tense and remarkable grandiosity, the scope of which impresses more than almost anything that comes before. They're a lot more thematically interesting than visually or acting-wise, but that's more than enough, convincing me that a sequel wouldn't be such a bad thing. The whole project could end up being astonishingly ambitious. B

Best Performances of 2011

2011-12-18T11:17:00.013-05:00

I would pick favorites in each of the categories but it's just so hard to choose. Best Actor was by far the strongest field; in some of the other categories I reached a little bit for HMs, etc. Blue and bold means that the perf is from a movie not released in the calendar year that I ended up seeing somehow else. Classifications for "leading" and "supporting" here are not exactly perfect: sometimes I based them on convenience, sometimes on the conventions of the awards bodies (like Berenice Bejo; I would have included her as Best Actress), etc.

Best Actor:

George Clooney, The Descendants

Tom Cullen, Weekend

Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Michael Fassbender, Shame

Peyman Moaadi, A Separation

HM: Lior Ashkenazi, Footnote; Xavier Dolan, Heartbeats; Thomas Doret, The Kid With a Bike; Ewan McGregor, Beginners; Chris New, Weekend; Brad Pitt, The Tree of Life; Michael Shannon, Take Shelter; Andre Wilms, Le Havre

Best Actress:

Sareh Bayat, A Separation

Olivia Colman, Tyrannosaur

Ariane Lebed, Attenberg

Adepero Oduye, Pariah

Ana Ularu, Outbound

HM: Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia; Leila Hatami, A Separation; Elizabeth Olsen, Martha Marcy May Marlene; Anna Paquin, Margaret

Best Supporting Actor:

Raul Castillo, Cold Weather

John Hawkes, Martha Marcy May Marlene

Shahab Hosseini, A Separation

Christopher Plummer, Beginners

John C. Reilly, Terri

HM: Shlomo Bar-Aba, Footnote; Rory Culkin, Margaret; Michael Fassbender, Jane Eyre; Vangelis Mourikis, Attenberg; Charles Parnell, Pariah; Mark Ruffalo, Margaret

Best Supporting Actress:

Nicole Beharie, Shame

Berenice Bejo, The Artist

Melanie Laurent, Beginners

Carey Mulligan, Shame

Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

HM: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Melancholia; Sarah Paulson, Martha Marcy May Marlene; J. Smith-Cameron, Margaret

Technical achievements maybe at a later date. (Edits have been made on this post, due to performances being brought to my attention again.)

The 18 Best Films of 2011

2011-12-17T12:35:00.014-05:00

Films in blue will not receive a US release in 2011. Nonetheless, I saw them in 2011 and, as you can see, they are very much a part of the film landscape for this year. It's 18 because that's the number of As, A-s, and B+s I gave. I have not gotten around to seeing a number of films that may have made an impact on here, among them "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," "Hugo," "The Adventures of Tintin," "Carnage," "The Arbor," and "Le Quattro Volte." From my reviews of them (if and when I do end up seeing them), you should be able to tell if and where they would have fit on this list.

A special mention goes to Rainer Werner Fassbinder's "World on a Wire," which blew me away during a Janus Films rerelease this year. And a huge omission based on release is Abbas Kiarostami's "Certified Copy," which I included at #8 on my Top Ten list last year and would place at #5 on the first list and #3 on the second. I didn't want to include it in multiple years as that wouldn't exactly be fair.

Dishonorable mentions to "We Need to Talk About Kevin," "Shut Up Little Man!" and "The Man Who Fell to Earth," my three least favorite films that I saw this year (the last in a re-release). "Tyrannosaur" (minus Olivia Colman) is down there too.

18. Pariah (Dee Rees)

Rees showcases her remarkable way around a scene, allowing able actors to give their best in a movie that only really falters when you pull back to survey the entire (uneven) picture. The cinematography is extremely evocative, perhaps even too much.

17. City of Life and Death (Lu Chuan)

Some sudsy subplots dilute the greatness here, but what works emotionally is magnificent and truly devastating. If Lu Chuan can harness the transcendent power given off in fits and starts by this movie and make a fuller film, the results will be breathtaking.

16. Pina (Wim Wenders)

If only Wenders had elected to make the film completely dance-based. The 3D is wonderful, and it helps create a beguiling, enjoyable experience unlike anything I’ve ever seen (even though there are apparently other movies about Bausch’s troupe).

15. Heartbeats (Xavier Dolan)

An exuberant, opulent film that moves adeptly between relaxed and quietly upsetting modes (knowing when to step on the narrative gas pedal and when to kick back and just let the images roll by). Dolan makes it quite entertaining, both by being in it and filling it with wowing design.

14. Cold Weather (Aaron Katz)

Katz takes humorous and incisive jabs at slackers with this well-made, slow-paced, strongly-acted piece. I hope to see Cris Lankenau and especially Raul Castillo again in later films; they rank high among my acting discoveries this year.

13. The Myth of the American Sleepover (David Robert Mitchell)

Enjoyable and with strong cinematic qualities, “Sleepover” disarms with its engaging characters and the smart screenwriting decisions of developing director Mitchell. I wouldn’t call it exactly indelible, but surely meaningful and diverting.

12. A Separation (Asghar Farhadi)

The most beloved foreign film this year, “A Separation” doesn’t quite live up to the colossal hype in my view. But it’s still very good, with four extremely affecting performances that should shake anyone and certain scenes (especially the ones with the judge) that heave with relentless, powerful emotion.

11. Weekend (Andrew Haigh)

Naturalism is tricky, but Tom Cullen ends up hitting all the right notes as the real lead in “Weekend” (as the film is essentially viewed from his POV). Chris New provides the ideal support, as do Haigh directing and Urszula Pontikos shooting, and the result is a terrific character study that looks at being gay in today’s world.

10. The Kid With a Bike (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)

The last scene is what lingers most to me, but “The Kid With a Bike” is absorbing from beginning to end, built on an exceptional performance from child actor Thomas Doret. The casting is exquisite and the storytelling is conventional but wonderfully spiraling a la “Bicycle Thieves.”

9. Attenberg (Athina Rachel Tsangari)

More watchable and less uncomfortable than fellow Greek New Waver “Dogtooth,” but just as observant and unsentimental. Ariane Labed puts on a disturbingly dedicated act in the lead. Friendships and father-daughter relationships have rarely been as weird, but both speak profoundly.

8. Footnote (Joseph Cedar)

I had extremely low expectations going into this film, which was a second choice at the time of the viewing, due to some bad buzz from critics I respect. Yet I haven’t stopped thinking about it since. Cedar’s gripping, transcendent, deeply moral movie about the nature of winning features an excellent performance from Lior Ashkenazi and a screenplay that should win more than just a prize at Cannes. I found the stakes to be very high (the relationship of a father and a son is hardly inconsequential), and the ending shot as haunting as anything I’ve seen this year.

7. Beginners (Mike Mills)

Attacked for being too cutesy, I found it to be sweet and loved it in all of its radiant, blissful, and tragic turns. Mills strikes a superb balance between these different modes. Ewan McGregor, Melanie Laurent, Mary Page Keller, and especially Christopher Plummer are an ensemble to be reckoned with, but they’re not the only ones: the supporting cast is startlingly good as well. I’m sad that I haven’t had time yet to see it again.

6. Into the Abyss (Werner Herzog)

What do you want from a Herzog documentary? You might not be totally satisfied with “Into the Abyss” if you’re looking for the usual Herzog personality, though there are some of his hallmarks. He’s reined in many of his quirks here to deliver some of the most potent moments of his career. Taking apart a Texas town, he closely examines a continuing history of felony that doesn’t look to be ending anytime soon. Not only is “Into the Abyss” wrenching with its intense personal scenes, it’s also an exceptional example of pristine nonfiction craft, beautifully assembled. It’s easily his best film in some time and a strong work of emotional, empathetic, precise journalism.

5. Shame (Steve McQueen)

One of my most anticipated films of the year when I saw it at Telluride, and for me and many other critics at that festival and Venice, it did not disappoint. However, once it hit Toronto (after buzz had started to build), things changed; many of the Twitter tastemakers who are now championing “Margaret” as a cinematic messiah bared their teeth. The film was turned very fast from a superb follow-up to an overhyped piece of Oscar-bait. Now the film isn’t really taken seriously anymore (see the Film Comment and New Yorker reviews, which, due to a quirk of release, both tackily compared it to Julia Leigh’s “Sleeping Beauty”), and I doubt McQueen’s future films will be seen in the same light.

Admittedly, I’m developing apologist tendencies for McQueen, but it must be said that the man is making unique, powerful, atmospheric, artistically sound works about intensely interesting subjects. Though “Shame” appears to be more domesticated due to its urban setting, it’s as alive as “Hunger” was, even as it follows a man falling deeper and deeper into himself. And even though certain parts are vague (which, as I see it, is intended), I doubt many filmmakers working today could make a film with the candor of “Shame,” with regards to both relationships (familial and otherwise) and sex. Oh yeah, and Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan and Nicole Beharie are all astonishing. I have some quibbles about a certain scene (cited by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and Blake Williams as well) that has some weird connotations, but otherwise, this really isn’t a movie to just toss out. Just like McQueen isn’t a director to just forget about.

4. The Turin Horse (Bela Tarr)

Black and white movies to me provide many of the most memorable and often times excruciating film experiences. “The Turin Horse,” perhaps Tarr’s final film, may eventually come to be seen as the king of the relentlessly colorless. Due to brilliant means of evocation (wonderful sound design, dulling cinematography), the uncompromising director gets his point across and does so while leaving many behind. Definitely not recommended as entertainment (as it serves a similar purpose to “Jeanne Dielman,” a title wisely invoked by Mike D’Angelo that used many of the devices “Turin” does), but as a valuable film that invades viewers and throws them into the windblown environment of its characters.

3. Outbound (Bogdan George Apetri)

It’s hard to understand the lack of distributors chomping at the bit for this formal masterwork. Attention must be allotted to it. Working from an albeit formulaic idea (there were at least a couple of other movies using the same race-against-time device at New Directors/New Films, where I saw it), Apetri employs his incredible craft and tension-building skills to create the year’s strongest, most despairing thriller. I hope this isn’t the last from this amazingly talented director, though his future efforts have much to surpass.

2. Nostalgia for the Light (Patricio Guzman)

Guzman’s extraordinary, revelatory exploration of the human and solar galaxies deserves inclusion in the short list of significant documentaries (like “Waltz With Bashir”) to sit alongside “Shoah” in the canon of remembrance cinema. Among patrons of the independent, this got some attention, but, due to a number of factors (including time of release), it received nowhere near the reverence that it truly commands.

1. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)

I don’t think it’s perfect. I can understand some of the arguments against it. But I couldn’t possibly ignore “The Tree of Life”’s unprecedented achievement and the overwhelming feelings of wonder it inspired in me. The bar was set so, so high, and, even if he didn’t satisfy everyone, Malick surely delivered, in that he created a work of historic technical virtuosity and ambition. A film that could have died out as a little project called “Q” but instead came bursting to the best sort of life possible.

A more proper (w/r/t US release dates) Top ten list might look like:

1. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)

2. Nostalgia for the Light (Patricio Guzman)

[Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami)]

3. Shame (Steve McQueen)

4. Into the Abyss (Werner Herzog)

5. Beginners (Mike Mills)

6. Weekend (Andrew Haigh)

7. A Separation (Asghar Farhadi)

8. The Myth of the American Sleepover (David Robert Mitchell)

9. Cold Weather (Aaron Katz)

10. Heartbeats (Xavier Dolan)

Best performances of the year coming at later date.

The Skin I Live In

2011-12-05T20:10:00.007-05:00

The strong opening hour of "The Skin I Live In" is let down by the second half, which clears things up with unsettling, punch-packing revelations but fails to maintain the extremely precise tone that Pedro Almodóvar set the film up with. The mood of the film is informed greatly by the carefully framed cinematography, the adept art direction, and the brilliant violin-heavy score by Almodóvar regular Alberto Iglesias, which may indeed be the year's finest. The mediocre, repetitive, generally tedious middle section (a flashback that leaves the movie's setting) lets air in on things, but lacks the earlier part's striking control and doesn't fit at all into the grand scheme of the film. It might have been beneficial to the film for Almodóvar to keep tighter reins on the actions, and, furthermore, let only a couple of crazy eruptions result instead of having the film feel almost complete after the conclusion of its first part. This prevents "The Skin I Live In" from getting a truly deep grip on the viewer.

I was certainly affected by Almodóvar's work, however, which has a lot to say about bodies, particularly the command people have over them (the film examines plastic surgery and rape most prominently). He goes a little over the top with this, and the irony in more than a few instances is too much. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the director has some of the problems with sentimentality that made "Broken Embraces" feel sappy. Once he stops being so scrupulous, the film goes in all sorts of directions, only some of which are good for the picture.

I really shouldn't say too much about the plot of the film. It's best to go in absolutely cold. Also because I'm not totally sure I understood the film (even if its supposedly spelled out ultimately), which ultimately didn't make logistical ends meet for me. The biggest reveal is surely disquieting, but, while obviously intended to be pretty bizarre (and raising some strange questions), it ends up feeling very ludicrous. The acting isn't quite as solid as it should've been, and even though Robert Alamo as Zeca makes the deepest impression, he's still wildly uneven (as are Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Marisa Paredes, Blanca Suarez, and Jan Cornet for that matter). "The Skin I Live In" is a true original (albeit adapted from a novel by Thierry Jonquet) that would have done better in the long run being more pared down and less brash. But I guess that's what makes it Almódovar. B-

Le Havre

2011-12-03T11:19:00.003-05:00

I've never seen an Aki Kaurismaki movie before, but I've heard much of his style. "Le Havre" displays a unbendingly quirky filmmaker, who lets in only flashes of the world outside the titular French locale. Though definitely pretty amusing at times, "Le Havre"'s happy-go-lucky demeanor undermines a lot of possible interest and suspense, and the film feels very surface-deep. Yet Andre Wilms' superb lead performance redeems things, making the mood of innocuousness feel human and not manufactured.

Wilms plays Marcel Marx, a shoeshiner beloved in his neighborhood but with little money (he's run up insanely large tabs at all the stores in the vicinity of his house that he'll never pay). He lives a modest life with his wife Arletty (Kari Outinen), always cleaning and cooking, and his dog Laika (credited as Laika; Kaurismaki's dog perhaps?). This balance is complicated by two major events: his wife getting really sick and having to be hospitalized, and the finding and taking in of an on-the-run African immigrant named Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) who is looking to find his mother in London.

The idea works better in practice than in theory, but all the same, the freedoms that the movie seems to be on the verge of giving its characters are shut out (by Kaurismaki's intense devotion to his method, no less). The fact that I'm even talking about these things though represents an atmospheric success remarked upon by other critics: the sense of place here is quite solid. But things never come alive to quite the degree that they could, though having Little Bob meet up with his estranged wife (who is supposedly his wife in real life as well) is a nice, interesting way of opening the movie up. B

The Descendants

2011-11-20T12:54:00.004-05:00

Alexander Payne's "The Descendants" is a well-directed yet extremely clumsy film that succeeded in rattling me mostly due to George Clooney's brilliant, moving, spellbinding performance. Previously adored to absurd degrees or dismissed as not worth taking seriously, Clooney here takes on a role much like the one he brought little life to in "Up in the Air" (the narration here brings Ryan Bingham to mind) and unreservedly digs deep into it. If only the writing had been as good as his acting (and not tremendously shaky); some sort of historic cinema wonder could have resulted. Clooney gives weight and interest to a plot that needs total audience involvement to carry it through its many turns.

Adapted by Payne et al. from the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, "The Descendants" chronicles the downward spiral of native Hawaiian Matt King (Clooney) after an accident sends his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) into a coma. King knew his marriage was in trouble beforehand and thought that, following this ordeal, he could reconcile things. When he gets the notice that she isn't going to get better, he realizes he'll have to place his energy in helping his daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley, also strong) and Scottie (Amara Miller) get on with life. He also is planning to tell all of the family friends about what will happen, but a terrible revelation makes things ever the more complex.

There's a subplot about selling Hawaiian land (which the wealthy King has a lot of) to make a resort or something, but to me it was far less interesting than the main, emotional strand of the film and far more expository and cluttered than it should have been. I can see why Payne was interested in it, but he doesn't do such a good job of making it captivating for the audience. He's excellent at harnessing the devastating plot points from the novel and helping the actors getting into their characters; however, some of what he takes from the book is pretty poor (the writing especially; I haven't read the book though so all of this is assumption).

"The Descendants" goes down some fascinating roads, but the journey is less mesmerizing than Clooney as the tour guide. A movie that complimented his extraordinary strength here would have been a masterpiece. B-

Attack the Block

2011-11-19T16:40:00.006-05:00

"Attack the Block" is a minute pleasure at only 88 minutes long, a film that often confuses concise with slight. All the same, it puts the considerable talents of its director Joe Cornish on display. This man has a way with visuals, concepts, and characters, and he could make a monumental success one day. The film moves probably a bit too fast for its own good, making the situation at its center more surreal than probably intended and making the relationships of some of the characters seem hastily developed, but all-in-all this intense pacing does Cornish some favors, as he is adept with narrative economy.

The film centers on a dangerous neighborhood in London over the course of one tumultuous evening. Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is walking home when she is mugged by a group led by Moses (John Boyega, quite a presence). Just as the robbery is reaching its apex (and Sam is about to be harmed), something flies out of the sky and smashes into a car nearby. Moses goes after this UFO, which turns out to be one of many aliens to come to Earth that night. These creatures are distinct for not having any facial features besides a glowing, glowering blue mouth, and are a pretty solid monster creation on the part of Cornish.

After this initial incident, he splits the film off into two narrative tracks (that eventually come back together later), the primary one following the gang. It seems as if we'd be made to identify with these guys, but the film wisely chooses to see them as a bunch of FIFA-addicted, misled youngsters instead of as noble heroes. That being said, Cornish hardly puts together a social commentary (as some who've compared it to "District 9" seem to think it is); aside from a couple of muttered, downplayed lines by Moses about how the government unleashed drugs and guns on the blacks of London so they'd kill each other faster, nothing much is imparted. The group is contrasted against a white, uptight, and outta sight fellow pot smoker and zoologist student named Brewis (Luke Treadaway) and the building's pot dealer Ron (cult favorite Nick Frost, unusually tolerable here).

What I admired most here were the consistently amusing asides and the masterful visual style. As the film gets more and more strange, the humor serves as an anchor, balancing the tone. The imagery works to the opposite end, making things ever the more delirious. The shot of the aliens crawling up the building is terrifying, as well as the woozy, disturbingly foreshadowed one where one of the gang members is spinning around in a cloud of smoke. Such arresting style is often absent from creature features, and thus is a wonderful surprise here.

"Attack the Block" ends abruptly and could have been better polished. But, in spite of the qualms I had about it, I enjoyed it quite a bit, and I would definitely champion it over other recent underground classics, even if it doesn't quite stand on its own. B-

The Ides of March

2011-11-11T22:44:00.005-05:00

I'd say it's a tad ambitious to try to go behind-the-scenes of politics without being able to write one line of realistic dialogue, but George Clooney tries anyways with play adaptation "The Ides of March." Everything here is exposition; even when characters are having sex, a television in the background is helpfully supplying a live feed of a town hall debate. A cast of extremely talented actors is forced to play with their hands tied, having to make what they're saying sound legitimate when it sounds quite obviously written. The plotting keeps things tolerable, but, all-in-all, this is hardly something Clooney (only skilled at directing himself) should be proud of.

The film follows a campaign making a hard push for the Democratic Primary, as whoever wins this supposedly has a guaranteed shot at winning the election. Mike Morris (Clooney) is the candidate, a personable governor who seems to have a pretty solid platform.Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is his right hand man, and Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), the movie's main character, is his inimitable media guy. The election hangs on getting the endorsement of an influential, delegate-heavy Ohio senator (Jeffrey Wright), and both sides are desperately wooing with cabinet positions and the like. Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who has Paul's capacity on the opposite candidate's team, is simultaneously trying to win Stephen over to the other side. And, all the while, Stephen is finding time for romance with his connected intern Molly (Evan Rachel Wood, who is poorly directed in excruciating scenes), who ends up being pivotal.

A technically sloppy yet narratively calculated and blasé configuration of confrontations and one-liners, "The Ides of March" ends up failing to fulfill the potential intimated by the opening minutes. When was the last time a movie like this was even somewhat incendiary? "Michael Clayton" broke the mold for brainy nostalgic '70s-style thrillers; Clooney unfortunately tried to strike gold twice. C

Bellflower

2011-11-06T15:11:00.007-05:00

Messy, incredibly pointless, but jarringly well made, Evan Glodell's "Bellflower" (named after the street in Los Angeles on which most of the action takes place) pays no attention to film conventions. Rules are meant to be broken, sure, but all the same, it's good for a narrative feature to have some structure. Like the lives of its characters, "Bellflower" is devoted to ridiculous, involved ventures and ultimately goes into ambiguous territory, lacking a regard for the audience and not really giving a shit.

Nothing substantial is known about roommates Woodrow (Glodell) and Aiden (Tyler Dawson) except for the fact that they have an intense obsession with "Mad Max" and are willing to go to extreme lengths to make that film into a reality. With the excuse that an apocalypse will come, they've set aside a lot of time and money (the latter of which is weird, since they don't seem to have jobs or family to inherit from) to build a flamethrower and pimp out a car they call Medusa. They also have time to try to pick up women at a dive bar. Woodrow, the more (at least initially) personable of the two, loses a cricket-eating contest to Milly (Jessie Wiseman) at said bar and a kinetic relationship begins. I say kinetic because after Milly says she wants to go somewhere trashy on their first date, the two take an impromptu cross-country road trip to Texas to eat at a dingy redneck establishment that Woodrow and Aiden visited a while back. This sojourn takes up roughly 1/5 of the film's running time, and veers sharply into precociousness. It's touching, but further emphasizes that "Bellflower" is (deliberately or not) far out of touch with reality.

Perhaps due to the fact that Milly spends so much time with Woodrow at the onset, or because Woodrow is a little too soft-spoken for his own good, but their setup eventually caves in with Milly cheating on Woodrow with her roommate. This sends the film down a road seething with aggression, where delirium abounds.

This film makes the viewer do acrobatic jumps through hoops probably more than any recent example that I can think of, at one point splintering off from an image of decision to explore a terrifying narrative detour before coming back and heading off in an entirely different direction. This can be much better appreciated as an idea than as an actual technique, especially since nothing really comes when both shoes have dropped. Glodell needs to realize this before he makes more movies like this one. However, "Bellflower"'s craft, from the ultra-saturated photography to the techno/spare-acoustic juxtapositions on the soundtrack, is astonishing and something that Glodell can lean on for his future works as keystone. If only all other components of the film could have gripped me so intensely. B-

Weekend

2011-11-03T20:44:00.003-04:00

"Weekend" by Andrew Haigh is built on strong acting and Urszula Pontikos' careful, brilliant cinematography that works well to pierce the viewer. It follows a guarded lifeguard named Russell (Tom Cullen, in a gloriously natural performance), as he begins to form a relationship with Glen (Chris New, also very good), an outspoken, high concept artist who makes works concerned with sexuality. Russell is looking for a boyfriend to alleviate his loneliness, whereas Glen has just gotten out of something very messy and believes himself unfit for such romances. But wherever they stand on what will ultimately come of things, the two see that they fit together with an unparalleled chemistry.

This territory has been mined before, and "Weekend" is hardly groundbreaking in terms of plot structure. What sets it apart is Haigh's superb execution of his excellent script. The film says a lot about what it means to be gay right now and how suffocating the secrecy even those out are privy to. One of the film's most powerful images, a long-range view of Russell's apartment building with activity only occurring in his flat, not only underscores the intimacy at the center of the story, but also emphasizes the isolation of gays as a minority group.

The movie would also fall short without its lead performers, who invigorate the material and draw the necessary emotions to give the film a startling impact. "Weekend" does has its flaws: one scene in particular, involving Glen's roommate Jill (Laura Freeman), drags mightily and should have been revised by Haigh. But the film is a tremendous character study with some of the most vital character observation this year has had to offer. B+

Martha Marcy May Marlene; Tyrannosaur; Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Philadelphia Film Festival)

2011-10-31T21:25:00.009-04:00

I saw two of these three as part of the Philly Film Festival, but "Martha Marcy" (which is now technically in its general release) played earlier in the fest so it's valid in rounding up here. I saw about 15 minutes of "House of Tolerance" (or "Pleasures," whichever you wish to call it), but I walked out so I could catch the end of Game 7 between the Cardinals and the Rangers. Much more interesting, as far as I could tell.

Sean Durkin has made one of the year's most propulsive, engaging films with "Martha Marcy May Marlene." Yet despite being so magnetic, it falls far, far short of being a great film. Durkin is a phenomenal director when it comes to look and atmosphere, but he stumbles mightily in the area of screenwriting. He fails to develop the plot to a satisfactory degree, and thus is unable to reach the heights he's more than capable of achieving.

Martha (Elizabeth Olson), who joined a cult due to her lack of a stable family (and who was renamed Marcy May), ultimately gets fed up and leaves to lay low with her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson), who's on vacation in Connecticut. But Martha's flashbacks and cult-induced tendency towards uncouth behavior quickly start to alienate Lucy and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy), and Martha's future seems uncertain.

The film's depiction of the cult is unsettling and riveting, full of many beautifully observed details (the men eating as a group, then the women) and POV quirks (rituals are seen from Martha's eyes). But it would be nice if there was just more there, since when the film comes to a close, we feel as if we only caught a glimpse of this faction. When you have John Hawkes at his absolute best, it's a pity to underuse him. (He does have one particularly extraordinary scene, where he sings and plays on guitar a tune called "Marcy's Song.") And Olson's work calls for more as well.

The film's strongest element is its overwhelming technical prowess. Jody Lee Lipes and Zachary Stuart-Pontier do incredible jobs with cinematography and editing, respectively. Though sometimes Lipes uses the wrong lenses in the wrong places, he accomplishes a stark, rattling visual style. And Stuart-Pontier's deft cross-cutting between the present and the past borders on too good at times-- editing usually isn't this seamless anymore. Yet Durkin confuses the pieces he has for a full puzzle when indeed there are some big holes that aren't filled. Thus, though it impresses in spades, "Martha Marcy May Marlene" isn't a full enough work. B-

Paddy Considine's "Tyrannosaur," is a cohesive film, but feels banal and unassured in ways that Durkin was able to avoid. A drunkard named Joseph (Peter Mullan), depressed after kicking his dog to death and being persecuted by the goons of the store owner whom he annoyed, looks for some support in the form of Hannah (Olivia Colman). In his abrasive way, he at first insults Hannah's naivete and devout Christian piety but eventually forms a strong bond with her. She needs some emotional aid as well, seeing that her husband James (Eddie Marsan) is a violent, manipulative, despicable version of his former self.

If it weren't for Colman's magnificent supporting performance, this movie wouldn't be moving in the slightest. It's still not that affecting, but Colman gives it all she can give. Considine does her and Mullan (solid as well) absolutely no favors, soundtracking the film as if it were a folly and piling on disaster after cliche disaster with the grace of a Disney auteur. If I still favored Jim Sheridan over Terence Davies (who, admittedly, did come to mind during this film's better moments), I think I would enjoy this. No dice. C

Nuri Bilge Ceylan has one of the most distinctive eyes in cinema today. Neither of the films of his that I've seen ("Distant" and "Climates") ever caught up to their images. "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia" perfectly illustrates why the man should stick to photography or video art and stop with the pretense of making feature length narrative motion pictures. None of the film's rambling philosophy or stilted, patently unfunny comedy ever rings true in the way a single still does. What would have been nice if all of these images had been his, but in fact, Ceylan lifts a whole lot from the canon of Abbas Kiarostami: the use of the zigzag landscape, dashboard cam, the apple rolling from the tree downstream just like the can does in "Close-Up."

Despite these problems, Ceylan has still made a somewhat interesting film with great shots and many memorable, well-defined characters (a prosecutor, a driver, and a police chief among them). It follows a convoy of police officials as they drive around looking for a buried body at the mercy of the captured killer. In a regular film, this section would only take up a fraction of the film. The body would be found and that would be that. But Ceylan decides to devote 120 of 150 minutes on it, and thus incites us into thinking more about this process. I don't think much comes of it at the end, but it's a solid approach. Ultimately, it's less about what happens to the suspected killer and more about what happened to the body and the family of the deceased.

I was rather annoyed with the film's main character, a righteous doctor (Muhammet Uzuner) who seems to be solving everyone's problems and having all sorts of profound psychological quieries. I think most people who can take this guy will enjoy the movie, and those who can't (like me) will be less likely to appreciate it. As for Ceylan, he's becoming a director like Nicolas Winding Refn whose films I like in theory but not all that much in practice. It always seems like he's aspiring to far less than he could. C+

Take Shelter

2011-10-25T20:16:00.003-04:00

I'm often very into performance-driven, high-concept works like Jeff Nichols' "Take Shelter." Unfortunately, this film doesn't reach the same heights as its peers due to patchy screenwriting and a dreary rhythm. But it does feature one of the best performance work of the year: a sweaty, committed piece of acting by Michael Shannon, working as the film's borderline schizophrenic lifeblood. He's not always fun to watch, but the film would be rendered ineffective if he were. Seeing him go for broke, it's hard not to be disappointed in Nichols for not coming through.

"Take Shelter" follows about a week in the life of Curtis LaForche (Shannon), a satisfied family man and construction worker, as he gets increasingly freaked out by his dreams and hallucinations of inclement weather (possible symptoms of the insanity that's continued to plague his institutionalized mother since her 30's). Trying to prevent horrific damage, he ends up threatening his relationship with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain), who's already somewhat occupied making life nice for her deaf daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart). She's not too happy about his spending money (even taking out a loan) on a decked-out tornado shelter when the family could be saving up for a summer in Myrtle Beach. But for Curtis, survival is the only thing worth thinking about.

This potentially brilliant scenario proves to be too tricky for Nichols to pull off. For one, the writing often just isn't there. The final storm scene is an example of when tension can be a bad thing; Nichols draws it out way too far and ends up making a heavy-handed fool of Jessica Chastain. Her part in particular suffers throughout the film. Nichols' debut work, "Shotgun Stories," was centered around father-son conflict and featured primarily male actors. Perhaps that's why "Take Shelter"'s treatment of Samantha doesn't fully work?

Also, Nichols doesn't examine the storm in the fullest way he possibly could have. The film does make a connection between money and the storm, but all the same, the idea of it representing the economic crisis is a bit too muted. But, on an even more fundamental level, fascination with storms (separate from worry), which propels many a storm chaser, is left somewhat in the dark as well. I must say though that the way in which Nichols implements a possible and much-remarked-upon religious angle (displayed in by far the film's best scene, when Curtis vehemently preaches to a stupefied cafeteria, as well as in the fact that Curtis is in his 30's) is ace. But all-in-all, "Take Shelter" is too locked-down for its own good. Nichols may have had to sacrifice some of the intensity, but perhaps it would have been a better film if he had opened it up a bit. B-

Michael (Philadelphia Film Festival)

2011-10-22T10:34:00.004-04:00

Both the champions and detractors have a point. Cannes competition entry "Michael" is by no means a perfect film, and director Markus Schleinzer may not have entirely dealt with some thorny morality problems. But at the same time, he aggressively evokes both space and sound to put you alongside the characters. He also decides not to show any of the explicit content, only leaving suggestions of what happened. By doing this for us, he prepares us for hints at even more upsetting possibilities.

The film centers on the pedophile titular character (Michael Fuith), who has imprisoned a (sadly nameless except in the credits) boy (David Rauchenberger) in his house behind retractable shutters, soundproofing, and barricaded doors. He feeds the kid and lets him watch television, but he also does unspeakable things to him. And he wretchedly stamps out the child's forms of escape (storing all the letters he's written to his parents in a hidden box).

Though one scene may have shown Michael having a cry, there's no indication of ethics for him. He apparently can go on with his life without moral reproach (which is emphasized via religion). So one has to wonder: what happened to him as a kid? What led to this despicable man? At the film's ending (sure to be extremely divisive), we see members of his family, but they seem completely oblivious to the horrific depths to which Michael has plunged.

Another query Schleinzer is raising is: how does the rest of the world view pedophiles? Obviously they're detested, but what about when people don't know who they're dealing with? Michael is an insurance person, and he talks on the phone a lot with many people. It reminded me of the Mr. Show sketch with the rapist who has to identify himself as one everywhere he goes. But this is the real world, and that doesn't happen.

Since Schleinzer tries to make the style as cut-and-dry as possible, the way he sequences the events is the channel through which we sense his judgment. The ending is probably most prominent in sensing what he's trying to say, as it's incongruous in a natural sequence. I would agree that the ending isn't handled in exactly the best way possible. A friend called it manipulative and that it is. But it also sheds some light on mothers and sons in general, as well as a terrifying semi-absolution. At 96 minutes, "Michael" is short and insubstantial. It definitely has its problems. But it does have some things to say, with impeccable craft to say them with, and it does a good job of taking apart every bit of Michael's life. B

Margaret

2011-10-15T09:47:00.006-04:00

The indie cause celebré of the moment, Kenneth Lonergan's eventually tiresome yet often extraordinary "Margaret" has gained a large amount of champions who profess about its nearly-lost greatness. The film went through some terrible post-production problems when it was being completed a few years ago, and almost never hit screens. And even now, the distributor Fox Searchlight is said to be not marketing the film with the gusto that is usually employed. But what can you really say? This is an 150 minute film that was originally intended to be over three hours long, the title an obscure reference to a poem that's read quietly by Matthew Broderick, and the plot one full of loose ends and scenes that don't exactly match up with each other.

But, for the first hour and a half or so, the film feels like one of the strongest works in a while. These sections may be scattershot, but they're extremely enjoyable, brilliantly composed, and dexterously made. Lonergan shows remarkable economy in his storytelling: seeing the main character, Lisa (Anna Paquin, who does histrionic well), in a couple scenes at school, and one with a suitor named Darren (John Gallagher, Jr.), we already feel like we have a good idea of this character. More depths are uncovered, to be sure, but a very solid foundation indeed is laid down here.

Then the central incident of the movie occurs: Lisa gets into a gestural back and forth with a bus driver (Mark Ruffalo), which distracts him and leads to him running a red light. He hits and kills a woman (Allison Janney), whom Lisa tries to save and whose cause she ends up taking for the remainder of the film. She aggressively pursues getting the bus driver ousted from his job, which seems noble and all except for the fact that it'd probably destroy his life. Lisa never thinks at all about this, and, though her Broadway actress mother Joan (J. Smith-Cameron) originally says something (which, as a friend pointed out, is eventually ruled out in an inconsistency), no adult does either.

The film rips through scores and scores of characters on its way, but I don't think any work as well as the ones found in Lisa's private school. Broderick plays an English teacher there, but there's also Matt Damon as a geometry teacher Lisa is a bit too close to, and a whole bunch of talented teen actors who take Lonergan's script and run with it. The movie is at its best in its most trivial scenes, the ones that have really no consequence in what's happens ultimately, but do in fact sometimes comment on the action. These are the scenes that, when cutting a film down, are the first to go (I'll bet Lonergan probably had more of them in the director's cut), but, even though this film would be better if it was tighter and shorter, I would hate to have missed them.

Perhaps the biggest problem here, in my view, is not allotting more time to Ruffalo's character. He's only given two scenes to make his character, and he does a very good job of it, but there needed to be more. The film splits its perspective between Lisa and her mother Joan (going out dates with a bore played by Jean Reno), and it would have been nice to have a share of time to Ruffalo as well. Instead, the film takes on the annoying Emily, the accident victim's closest friend, as a main character, which turns out to be an incredible mistake. As Emily, Jeannie Berlin, Elaine May's daughter and an Oscar nominee back in the '70s for "The Heartbreak Kid," turns in a terrible performance, making a lot of hand motions and yelling in what can only be described as a Upper West Side Jewish Woman stereotype. Her scenes, coming towards the end, are lazily directed, and it's disappointing that the film goes through all it goes through just to lose its focus. That may be a result of the production issues, but I still bemoan it, especially since the film's final scene, an opera shared by mother and daughter, would have had a resounding emotional impact if placed correctly but, forestalled for this long, doesn't work nearly as well. B-

Melancholia

2011-10-13T21:33:00.004-04:00

*If you want to go into this film cold, I would suggest not reading this review and waiting until after you've seen it to see what I have to say. There's a level of detail I want to go into that having to dodge spoilers prevents. I also reveal plot information about other films by Lars Von Trier. Of course, just in case you're curious and read on anyways, I've supplied a plot summary.*

Lars Von Trier continues to deal harshly with humanity in his work. "Dogville" saw the vindictive main character massacre the residents of the town that brutally mistreated her. "Antichrist" (which I have yet to see in its entirety, fwiw) was not shy in its violent sexual content. And in "The Five Obstructions," he subjected a former hero of his, Jorgen Leth, to tortuous filmmaking exercises in order to prove that the man who made "The Perfect Human" was not indeed perfect. I'm not critical of his employment of these (in some light, perhaps) nihilistic events, however. In continuing to wield a heavy hand, Von Trier sheds light on some unsavory attributes of mankind: our capacity for horrible acts and our burning need for closure and revenge, mostly. He may be obvious (he's been criticized for it), but his output is all the more powerful for it.

In "Melancholia," Von Trier settles on obliteration as the fate of his leads (and, to be sure, all the souls on Earth). And this time, though I can definitely admire his precision and control with his ideas, it's hard for me to say what he's doing. The people of the world are seriously down in the dumps, and things are not helped by a planet called Melancholia crashing right into the Earth. I get that. But the purpose of the movies that came before feels a lot less present. Von Trier seems to think he's making a parable (he's limited the setting to an expansive mansion in the middle of nowhere and its surroundings, and limited the events to a wedding and a visit not soon after), but the key element, the lesson or statement, was neglected.

Yet, as I noted before, on a surface level I liked what LVT was doing. Ultimately the film is structured around the decision to have the world end or not. I found the last image of the film incredibly cheesy. That being said, the film would have possibly felt like a surrender to convention if the director hadn't had the determination to orchestrate such a explosive moment. LVT's level of control and detail is also enthralling: he focuses intensely on the ensemble cast, though especially on Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg (who have marked sections of the film dedicated to their characters, Justine and Claire). The film also looks beautiful, courtesy of the glossy, intoxicatingly lit cinematography by Manuel Alberto Claro.

The movie follows Justine (Dunst, who won Best Actress at Cannes for her punishing work) from one of the highest heights of human elation (getting married) to one of the lowest lows (severe depression). One of the first scenes, where her wedding limo gets caught on a narrow road on the way to the reception, shows her laughing with her husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgard). But as she arrives (late) to the party (filled to the brim with characters) and carries on increasingly more slugglishly with the elaborate proceedings set up by her overplanning sister Claire (Gainsbourg, who won Best Actress at Cannes two years ago for appearing in a Von Trier work), things are clearly wrong. In the sky, this is mirrored: the stars get out of line, and Melancholia looks to be coming closer (indicated by Claire's rich and astronomy-fancying husband John, played by Kiefer Sutherland).

This is an interesting scenario, purposefully directed as stilted and made ever the more drawing by the opening barrage of possible outcomes at the end of the world (i.e. you want to see the route between Point A and Point B). But in the end, it's not a whole lot more than that, and thus I will forget it a lot sooner than I will other cinematic creations by Von Trier. The precision on display should be appreciated, but to me that doesn't mean all that much in the end. C+

A Separation; Miss Bala (New York Film Festival)

2011-10-02T12:03:00.005-04:00

Unable to catch "A Separation" by Asghar Farhadi at Telluride, I relished my second chance to see it, this time at the 49th New York Film Festival. I'm not sure if the film as a whole is quite as good as many have been professing it to be, as there are a few kinks that I wish were worked out. But I was definitely dazzled by the acting and the screenwriting. It took me a little while to get into, but once I was engrossed, it played superbly.

Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran with her child Termeh (Sarina Farhadi), but her husband Nader (Peyman Moaadi) feels that his daughter should live with him. He sees his father (Ali-Agshar Shahbazi), though pretty far gone with Alzheimer's, as still worth building his life around, and thus he continues to stay rooted. However, with his wife gone, he has to find someone else to make sure his dad doesn't have problems while he's at work. He settles on Razieh (Sareh Bayat), who has a daughter named Somayeh (Kimia Hosseini) and another kid on the way. We see her as faithful to the job (despite her religious qualms that she calls a hotline to address), but also a little careless, and when Nader comes home one day, he gets extremely upset and ends up forcefully throwing Razieh out of his house. She ends up in the hospital for having a miscarriage, and Nader is charged with murder, at the behest of Razieh's troubled husband Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), whom Nader tried to hire for his care-taking spot at one point as well.

The film examines how people, under pressure, do disagreeable things to help their loved ones. Nader is looking out for his daughter, and Razieh wants to support her husband get through his spot of trouble with creditors. It also shows the courts as black and white, stripped completely of respect for human emotion, and in incredible contrast to the fraught shouting matches at the center of the work.

It's a relentless piece of cinema. I can see what people mean when they say that it's hard to watch visually. However, that ultimately works to its advantage. The four spellbinding lead performances are among the strongest acting jobs this year, especially Bayat as Razieh. And, though I feel that the script sometimes takes easy ways out (the ending) and doesn't cover things as much as it should (Simin is left a little underdeveloped as a character), the dialogue grabs you and hits very hard. I think "The Turin Horse" should have maybe won the Golden Bear, but "A Separation" is a strong piece, overhyped but all the same worthy of attention. B+

Gerardo Naranjo's "Miss Bala" at certain points captured my attention entirely. At others it nearly put me to sleep (though it is worth nothing I saw it at 9 PM after a long day). It follows Laura (Stephanie Sigman), who sells clothing but who really wants to be Miss Baja California. Due a bizarre takeover of a nightclub, she loses her friend and also, since she's late to her rehearsal the next day, her chances in the competition. But, when she's tapped by a gang to do some risky jobs, she could get both back.

The film's much-praised bravura cinematography, which involves a lot of ostentatious long takes, feels more thought out than the story. Laura could save herself easily, but instead makes a lot of tiresomely silly decisions (albeit for friends and family) so that the film continues. The film is mostly about her being manipulated, and I was less than enthralled. But certain moments do indeed pack a punch (when Laura is caught in the middle of firefights) or sicken (the first driving sequence, when light is shed upon it). "Miss Bala" isn't all for naught, but I can't help wishing that I was a little more satisfied. C+

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame

2011-09-25T20:18:00.005-04:00

Hark Tsui's "Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame" unfortunately amounts to nothing more than just another martial arts film. It has its flourishes, its beautiful setpieces, but not enough of them to keep it afloat, what with the pointlessly convoluted plot and underdeveloped characters. Though I've never seen any of his other films, I know that Tsui's some sort of Hong Kong legend. That seemingly earns him the right to a free pass from some. What can I say though? I wasn't really that entertained, and if a film like this fails on that level, then it doesn't have a lot going for it.

Set in the 600's, the film follows Detective Dee (Andy Lau), previously imprisoned for treason and now appointed Commissioner, as he tries to figure out why exactly a bunch of people are bursting into flames. The deceased have all been involved somehow in the building of a giant Buddha statue, which is supposed to be complete in time for Empress Wu's (Carina Lau) coronation. Though he works his way through the puzzle as well as anyone would, the case is so damn complex that he needs some help along the way: in the form of the essentially albino Pei Donglai (Chao Deng) and the Empress' confidant, Shagguan Jing'er (Bingbing Li).

What action there is, and there's not a lot of it, is mediocre. Better fight scenes are not hard to come by. The only spectacular scene in the film is an extended one set in a cavern called Phantom Bazaar, where the trio of sleuths heads to find the wizened Wang Lu, also called Dr. Donkey Wang (Richard Ng/Teddy Robin). The fighting is inventive and crazy. Only here, and in the image of the inside of the giant Buddha, did I feel any real justification for having taken the time to watch this film. C

The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975

2011-09-24T20:24:00.004-04:00

Goran Olsson's extremely uneven "The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975" is a depressingly systematic and repetitive documentary that serves as a vehicle for valuable, recently found clips shot by Swedes during the eponymous time and regarding the eponymous movement. The group of people surveyed, from famous pioneers (Stokely Carmichael, Eldridge Cleaver, Angela Davis) to anonymous protesters and ex-addicts to the head of TV Guide, not to mention a sprinkling of modern voiceovers that include Talib Kwali and Questlove, is brilliantly diverse. But the strength from these interviews is diluted by the film's intense lack of focus and hammering, formulaic structure.

Olsson, along with Hanna Lejongvist, won an editing award at Sundance for finding a moderately coherent rhythm within tons of footage and marrying dozens of formats. To me, that's more just honoring the work than celebrating a real achievement. I don't think Olsson has much directorial control, as he often wanders and makes it seem as if the archives are thin. He has a motif of displaying the year in large print on the screen and noting every time a speaker changes, to keep things down. I can't say that these things made the film a more digestible experience, however, and, though one may argue that I'm being too pedantic about a potentially edifying work such as tis, I feel as though this film falls below the standards set by the top movies in the nonfiction cinema canon.

But there are strong stretches here, such as when Talib Kweli talks about the power of Stokely Carmichael, when Louis Farrakhan speaks avidly about the philosophy of the Nation of Islam, or when Angela Davis (caught in a bold, iconic close-up) expresses her frustration about the popular notion of violence. These are worth seeing. The rest is a mix of stylization and sharp preachiness, tolerable but hardly outstanding. I wish this project was in better hands. B-

Drive

2011-09-16T23:34:00.005-04:00

"Drive" is a bearable but nonetheless disappointing effort from one of the most overrated filmmakers out there: Nicolas Winding Refn, who's made downright lamentable works in the past, including "Bronson" and "Valhalla Rising." Faith in this guy is ridiculously assured. He again and again takes potentially interesting ideas and runs them into the ground, and yet he continues to get validation, now even in the form of a Best Director prize from Cannes for his latest.

Due to all the magic-sounding hype, I was expecting something that would make my jaw drop. I wanted to see something distinct. I wanted to be awed. And I thought that finally, finally, with the right actors and the right story, Refn could pull something like that off. But when the supposedly esteemed first scene rolled by looking and sounding like something straight out of Need For Speed, I knew that things weren't going to run smoothly. In fact, this letdown cast a shadow over the rest of the film for me, and so I was never able to really appreciate anything other than the solid production design and the supporting work of Carey Mulligan and Kaden Leos as a mother and son.

Ryan Gosling alternates between smiling diffidently and growling aggressive warnings as the Driver (a.k.a. the Kid), whose life basically revolves around cars. He's a mechanic, a stuntman, and a getaway man, and even when he's not working, he's driving through LA. Though he affects a bravado, complete with toothpick and scorpion jacket, we see him as a barren soul, sleep-deprived, anonymous, using the drive as an out-of-body experience. We as the audience pick this up, but Refn could've done better by playing up these elements a little more (which is not entirely achieved by showing Gosling driving in close-ups over and over again, which he does).

The Driver runs into Irene (Mulligan) in his apartment building, and, as they find themselves meeting often, the two grow drawn to each other, even though she has a kid (Leos) and a husband, known as Standard (Oscar Isaac), who is on his way out of prison. This section is more human than anything I've seen by Refn up to this point. But it is not to last, as the Driver gets himself inextricably involved in jobs and deals set up by Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) and his pizzeria-owner partner Nino (Ron Perlman).

And, at a certain point, with the brief use of a character, Blanche (Christina Hendricks), the film crosses a line. On the other side, it breaks with respectability and descends into increasingly cartoonish violence. By the time Brooks stabs a guy in the eye with a fork and then jams a knife into his throat, the initial shock of the savagery has worn off, and what we're left with is sad excess. This is ultimately what has been undermining Refn's works, and it will continue to do so unless the man can get a hold of himself. With "Drive," he's out of touch, though a bit less so than before. C

Telluride 2011, Day 4: Footnote

2011-09-06T02:17:00.007-04:00

Telluride 38 is over, and although it was somewhat exhausting, I am sad to see it go. On the final day at the festival, I tried to get into Asghar Farhadi’s much-loved and Berlin-winning “A Separation,” but, for the first time, I was shut out due to a massive turnout at a small venue. Thus, wanting to see at least one more film while I was in Colorado, I made my way over to see Joseph Cedar’s “Footnote.” I had wanted to watch it, due to a recommendation or two and its Best Screenplay prize at Cannes, but I didn’t have the highest expectations. I had read some negative coverage earlier in the year and figured that it might be below average.

Instead, powered by Cedar’s rightfully awarded script (in Hebrew), “Footnote” is sharp and haunting, a propulsive film that ruminates on the cost of a great legacy. It centers on the awarding of the Israel Prize, given for excellence in research of the Talmud, as the thorough Eliezer Scholnik (Shlomo Bar-Aba) realizes his career dream by winning it. The problem is, his much more well-known son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi) was actually supposed to have been given the honors. The announcement has already been made in the paper, though, so Uriel feels as if Eliezer would be devastated if he found out that he had lost and that Uriel (whom he resents) was the real recipient. But the judges, especially the chief (Micah Lewensohn), who has ties to Eliezer’s past, feel as if the prize would be trivialized if given to someone who wasn’t voted the winner. Thus, a shattering choice is created that will birth horrible consequences no matter the way taken.

It doesn’t help that Eliezer is an insufferable narcissist who has a reputation for covering all the bases but no major works to show it. His winning the award seems as times to make no sense even to him, but it would boost opinions of his career and thus he really wants it. Uriel consciously made sure never to nominate himself for the prize any of the many years that Eliezer has been trying to win it, but he receives a nod by one of the judges and finds himself in a decidedly unenviable position: both wanting prestige and happiness for his father. Meanwhile, his own son isn’t satisfying Uriel’s grand plans for his future and another strain comes as a result.

The film is exceptionally written, full of strong scenes, the most prominent one coming when Uriel is informed of the situation by the judges in an extremely small room. The characters always sound like real people and what they say is all the more piercing for it. Ashkenazi’s terrific performance as Uriel definitely helps the film as well, as he nails the part’s mix of conviction and uncertainty. The film’s use of close-ups also adds a layer of anxiety to the already tense mood.

I think “Footnote” is a couple steps below a masterpiece due to its suitably traditional but enervating and too forceful score (Cedar lacks the confidence in other places that he displays in his writing) and at times not living up to the clarity and thematic prowess of its centerpiece discussion. I also can see some (possible) echoes of the work of Zadie Smith in the film’s structure and the characters’ traits. But these flaws can be forgotten once you get pondering Cedar’s perceptiveness. B+

That's it for me. It was a great festival, and I hope to return next year.

Telluride 2011, Day 3: Target; Shame; We Need to Talk About Kevin

2011-09-05T00:57:00.015-04:00

Telluride '11 was still vibrant today, but the atmosphere could be felt slowly diminishing. I was hoping for the festival to continue to deliver indispensable cinema, and, in one case, it did. But my expectations for two of the three films I saw today weren't met, and I can now reflect that, while it has been quite a strong festival (as everyone has been saying), the programming hasn't been unimpeachable. (It is better than last year's NYFF, though, it must be said.)

I was surprised (but very happy) to see Alexander Zeldovich's "Target" among the official selection of Telluride this year. It seemed like a pretty gutsy move, a welcome push of the usual limits of the lineup, and, as a result, a lot of intrigue was created. I don't think that many people have liked the film that much, however, and it's easy to see why. The film takes a potentially gripping idea into pretty disturbing territory, leading to scenes that are embarrassing, disgusting, and deeply unnerving.

Since the film is about people who go to a radiated place to seek a solution to their problems (more specifically, to stop themselves from physically getting older), I was expecting something near Andrei Tarkovsky's provocative, humanist "Stalker." Zeldovich's movie plays as if Tarkovsky's work were transported into the future and remade by David Cronenberg and Richard Kelly. Instead of a more sensitive examination of this concept, Zeldovich has his characters go overboard with sexuality and violence. I know, as a fellow moviegoer informed me, this is a possible and not often used way of illustrating what could go wrong. My interest got detached somewhere along the way, as affairs take place and the plot devolves into moments of insanity. Though the film has some interesting flourishes in portraying a slightly dystopian future (immigrants are hunted as game and the freeways are full of trailers and nothing else) and a fun character who is talented at talking really fast, I often found what I was watching ridiculous. I know I've misunderstood this movie (a post-film discussion showed me how I went wrong). But to me it was tiresome and troubling in ways I couldn't quite get over. I'm not too keen on having a second viewing, though I doubt I'll ever get one, seeing as though distributors wouldn't have a fun time trying to get people to give it a go. C

Speaking of distributors, I saw representatives from various companies at the day's next film, which, judging from the packed house, seemed to be the most anticipated film of many people (it was mine). It'll be an easier sell than "Target," for sure. But there may still be some logistical issues getting it into a theater without passing on an MPAA rating. This was Steve McQueen's emotionally frank, graphically sexual "Shame." Though I don't think it quite tops his previous movie "Hunger," and though towards the beginning it's a little oblique, it's good enough to establish McQueen as one of the best directors of his generation.

This is especially because he is able to get such good work out of two actors that don't get used to their full potential in other hands. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan are unquestionably better here than they've ever been before. It's also because he always finds art in the places in which he sets his films (using his extraordinary DP Sean Bobbit). Whereas "Hunger" was all filthy prison cells and urine-stained halls, "Shame" is full of the sleek windows and mirrors of offices and apartments. Brandon (Fassbender) sees himself divided as if by panes from the rest of humanity. He copulates and masturbates often, but always connects only on a physical level, unable to have a serious relationship and doomed forever to a shady private existence.

One day, coming home, he finds his sister Sissy (Mulligan, who alternates effectively between piercing and irritating) unexpectedly bathing in his apartment, although she insists she's called many times. Though she's a captivating singer (as one scene rather uncomfortably shows us), she has nowhere to stay. He reluctantly allows her to crash, though conflict is always around the corner. She comes to discover his erotic tendencies, and it only piles on the shame that Brandon has already been feeling. Also overwhelming him is his attempt at a serious relationship with a woman from work named Marianne (Nicole Beharie), the only time that we can see that he's ever been nervous around a sexual partner. The chemistry between Fassbender and Beharie is remarkable, especially considering the fact that McQueen often chooses to not cut away from their interactions and thus forces them to carry on their bantering with feeling for minutes at a time. The brilliant screenplay by McQueen and Abi Morgan fuels these conversations as well as the confrontations between Brandon and Sissy, giving the actors excellent material, making Brandon not the only character struggling with morality (take a look at his boss), and bringing the film to a perfectly chosen close.

I wish the film, McQueen, and Fassbender (best performance of the year, possibly) the best of luck at Venice when it comes to awards. "Shame" marshals great insight and discomfort, portraying a man who is unable to satisfy himself in any way, continuing to try certain methods, though, even as he pushes farther away from society and digs himself deeper and deeper into a hole, not seeing that guilt won't solve everything. A-

I caught a tribute to Tilda Swinton today, as well, my second of the fest (after the George Clooney one yesterday). Affixed to the end of it was Lynne Ramsay's "We Need to Talk About Kevin." Honestly, I don't understand exactly why this film was made. Adapted by Ramsay and Rory Kinnear from a book by Lionel Shriver, it shows a despicable character doing and saying horrible things, and provides really no explanation for this. It left me feeling very, very sad, especially since it has tapioca pacing and since it never for more than about 30 seconds alleviates its grueling tone. It eventually becomes just a string of bad events, so exasperatingly predictable you have to wonder why Ramsay didn't take a different path.

Swinton supplies a good acting job that goes sadly underutilized as Eva, the mother of the titular character (Ezra Miller), who takes a bow and arrow to school and attacks many students. We don't find this out until towards the end, as the film is scrambled (an approach taken in a similar way by its predecessor, Gus Van Sant's "Elephant"; Ramsay uses a visceral variation that ends up as one of the film's minor high points, even if she stumbles with it later on), dipping back from Eva's depressed present to moments that ended up defining her life. Kevin's motives are supposedly examined, though it just seems that he's pissed off that he exists and takes every opportunity to get back at his mother for bringing him into the world. I say this because he cried profusely as a baby and seemed to have been already resistant to Eva's child-rearing techniques. He does take a liking to his father, Franklin (John C. Reilly), but ultimately it appears to have been only to find another way to emotionally abuse his mother. It's painful to sit through this film, even if it has a couple of merits. I think Ramsay needed to have a talk herself about whether this movie was necessary to make. D+

Telluride 2011, Day 2: The Kid With a Bike; Into the Abyss; The Artist

2011-09-04T01:07:00.007-04:00

Saturday, the first full day of the 38th edition, was packed with a number of highlights, as well as the first disappointing film of the festival (though I did actually like certain aspects of it). I started the day off with one of the most important and most anticipated features of the year, "The Kid With a Bike" by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, which tied for second place at Cannes. I'm a fan of the brothers' previous works, especially "The Son." Yet, though some had called it glorious, I was worried by the critiques (such as this one) that the duo had made a bland picture.

Having now seen it, I can say that the film is very interesting and involving, with a plot that's exquisitely put together. It starts in medius res, as we see young Cyril (Thomas Doret) calling his father's apartment for what appears to be the umpteenth time. Left in a foster home, he clings to the hope that his father will pick him back up; yet, as it becomes clear, this appears to be an unlikely possibility. Cyril, though, with his mix of naivete and street smarts, tries again and again to get his father back, breaking out of whatever confinement he finds himself currently in, going back to every place he ever visited with his dad and trying to work out where he's gone to.

Once, being pursued by counselors of the foster home, he attaches himself to a random woman, who turns out to be Samantha (Cecile de France). Though she's propelled into Cyril's life in odd circumstances, she begins to take an interest in his happiness and well-being, letting him live with her on the weekends, getting back the bike he believes was stolen from his father (who actually sold it), and helping him in his search.

Who he ultimately finds his father to be is a man who is having a hard time keeping himself afloat and who wants nothing to do with him. Jeremie Renier, who played the criminally neglectful father who sold his baby in "The Child," is perfectly cast, as you can see a sort of shared history between this character and the other one. This connection makes Cyril's revelation all the more heartbreaking, and, in turn, his search for another father figure (a position he tries putting a disturbingly friendly gang leader) ever the more compelling. Doret, debuting in the lead role, makes the film even more emotionally encompassing, with his constantly shifting and palpable feelings of anger and optimism. Though at times it admittedly does feel a little like it seems to be heading nowhere, and though it doesn't get to the heights that the Dardennes have at some points, "The Kid With a Bike" nonetheless balances watchability and reflection possibly better than anything else so far at Telluride. B+

Coming off of somewhat underwhelming documentaries and features, Werner Herzog's "Into the Abyss: A Tale of Death, a Tale of Life" is the best film he's made in some time. Examining a case that sent one of the defendants to his death and another to live out most of the rest of his life in prison (hence the title), Herzog develops a study of both the motives for crime and revenge (via capital punishment, which he vehemently opposes).

The film makes it clear early on that the two men, Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, are guilty for the killings with which they've been charged. A couple of people in the film, including the attackers themselves, seem to think they are innocent in some way or another, but the evidence is overwhelming. So instead, Herzog, after showing us (with police footage and interviews with members of the force) exactly what transpired, probes into the environment of the perpetrators and victims.

We come to see Conroe, Texas as a town that passes criminal activity from father to son and from brother to brother. Almost every man interviewed in the film has gone to jail at least once. We come to see how a crime with baffling motives (the three people were murdered over a car) has horrific, staggering effects. And we come to see how one could feel that capital punishment would provide strong catharsis as well as a hypocritical continuation of violence. The film at 106 minutes feels uncomfortably long, but it's very valuable how Herzog takes his time and allows us to see all sides. I was humbled and jarred. A-

The initial run of strong cinema ended, though, when I caught Michel Hazanavicius' appealing but annoyingly derivative "The Artist," done up in black and white and with almost no spoken dialogue. Despite two terrific performances by Cannes Best Actor Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo and some strong montages and ideas, the film wore thin far before it supposed to by having the plot go on autopilot in the final half. Dujardin plays George Valentin, a top performer in silent films, famous for performing with his dog, who can better the mood of a group of people just by flashing his exceptionally charming smile. At the peak of his fame, he bumps into Peppy Miller (Bejo), who gets a small slice of attention by giving him a kiss caught on the cover of Variety. She goes on to audition as a dancer at Kinograph Films, where George works, and would have been fired by the Kinograph's money-hungry studio head Zimmer (John Goodman) were it not for George's intervention.

But soon enough, George loses his power when Zimmer decides to make the switch from silent films to talkies, and Peppy quickly reaches the renown with which George once was blessed. He tries to save silent films by making one of his own on his own money (earning the nickname "The Artist" as a result) but no one is really interested anymore and thus his total decline seems unable to be prevented. Hazanavicius' banal depiction of George's self-destruction through booze made me check out about 3/4 of the way into the film, and thus the end, which is clearly intended to be the most "delightful" thing you ever saw (or so everyone says it is), was at least partially lost on me. With the acting ability available here, and the handful of good scenes, it's a pity that the script lets everyone down. C+

Telluride 2011, Day 1: The Turin Horse; Pina

2011-09-03T00:20:00.013-04:00

Though many (including myself) arrived a day early to the 38th Telluride Film Festival, it didn't really get started until today. The first films were projected, the middle of the town was converted into an enclosed dining area, and the jovial atmosphere of the day before was infused with a shot of festival adrenaline. Today is the only day where breathing room is alloted; Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, it'll be full speed ahead.

It appeared when I was first looking over the details of the festival that programming would begin after the celebrated Opening Night Feed, which would mean further possible scheduling conflicts when it came to planning what I would see. Luckily, this was not the case, and I was able to catch Bela Tarr's "The Turin Horse", one of the films to which I was most looking forward, before events really got under way. I'd never seen one of Tarr's films all the way through, but what I caught from "Satantango" and "Werckmeister Harmonies," plus Tarr's great reputation, plus the fact that Tarr is supposedly never going to make another film, was more than enough to convince me that this was going to be something.

Seeing any black and white picture on the big screen is a captivating experience, but especially when the film is one that takes an emotional toll on the viewer. I remember vividly viewing Michael Haneke's punishing "The White Ribbon" and feeling as though all color had been drained from the world. Yet, however exhausting and affecting that movie was, its overall impact ultimately doesn't hold a flickering lantern to Tarr's suffocatingly evocative work.

Over the course of 146 minutes, Tarr brings us palpably into the world of Ohlsdorfer (Janos Derzsi, a Tarr regular) and his daughter (Erika Bok). They own the titular horse, who, as the subject of abuse at one point, deeply affected Fredrich Nietzsche (enough to spur him to never speak again). We watch as the two struggle with sustenance during an extremely harsh gale. Life for them has no pleasures anymore; it's now just a series of chores, each one shown by Tarr many times. Even eating potatoes and drinking alcohol are things done simply to keep going.

The film, from one of the earliest shots (of which there are apparently 30), establishes a parallel between the humans and their animal counterpart, from their windblown appearances to their fruitless labors. It also pits many different philosophies against each other about the storm at the center of the story, from the literalism preached by the narrator and Ohlsdorfer, to the Christianity evident in the daughter's reading of a bible, to the atheistic, eternal-cycle belief of a third character named Bernhard (Mihaly Kormos). Tarr gives his views the most screen time, and I'm pretty sure I know from outside knowledge that this is the philosophy with which Tarr seems to sympathize most. However, Ohlsdorfer's waving off of this talk makes me think that Tarr might be trying to voice his contempt of theorizing about and trying to find a point in what's happening in his film. Still, I think the film does purvey a stark message (although many will think otherwise), and I feel like this is the movie that I wanted out of Bresson's "Au Hasard Balthazar." Also, unlike "Balthazar," the film displays a very admirable dedication to its tone, and I find that an attribute essential to its success.

Also big is Tarr's use of nuance in sound design. According to the producers, much of the short script was devoted to how the wind in the background would sound. One can see why. It plays on the soundtrack throughout the film, alongside a orchestral snippet that Tarr employs in a way that reminds me of William Basinski's "Disintegration Loops." Since these sounds are such a given, they act as a sort of canvas, giving the noises of the characters and their actions a far more striking impact than usual. We learn a lot about the characters from how they manifest themselves in these moments.

One always knows the cinematography in a Tarr film will be special. The opening shots are quite attractive (especially the first one, where Fred Kelemen's camera pulls back and makes the scene look as if it is animated), but later on Tarr has us empathize with the characters by almost totally de-romanticizing and dulling the photography. This makes the film borderline unendurable (some people left early, some checked out audibly from their seats, and everyone exited as soon as the film ended), and I almost wanted to turn away from the screen as it drew towards its close. However, there is so, so much here. "The Turin Horse" is probably going to be one of the most thoughtful and empathetic movies to be shown in the next couple of years. I felt my patience tested, but it was worth it. If you couldn't deal with "The Tree of Life," though, this one's definitely not for you. A-

I came out of "The Turin Horse" spilling my theories out to all who would listen, assuming (as one of the festival directors said might happen) that the next film I would see would be meaningless in comparison. Not so. I found Wim Wenders' "Pina" as riveting as he said he found Pina Bausch's performances. It uses 3D in lovely ways, fully absorbing you in the startling set pieces that Bausch put together (before she died). It's hard to believe that someone could come up with dances so outlandish yet so resonant and enjoyable.

The film draws from four main performances and sprinkles in asides of individual or duo dances. Some of them are viewed as if you are watching over the heads of an audience; others are set in places where only a camera could take you. The aforementioned artifice of the play-within-movie often creates a few annoying anachronisms: for example, how can actors just change into other actors? This, along with including pointless interviews with dancers talking about what it was like to being around Pina, is the film's biggest mistake. I wish Wenders had elected to just show the dancing and allowed us (through them) to draw our own conclusions about the person behind them. Alas, the film is prevented from the heights it's perfectly capable of reaching, though it's definitely worth seeing for the mind-blowing and satisfying acts on display (don't let them get spoiled for you). B+

I will be seeing more in the next couple days. Stay tuned.

R

2011-08-20T12:11:00.010-04:00

"R" is competent, absorbing in the way of prison films, often beautifully shot, and filled with some solid (if sometimes bland) characters. But it sits in the shadow of a film it often mirrors, Jacques Audiard's expansive "A Prophet," which, as time goes by, stands as one of the fullest depictions of a sentence behind bars in all of cinema. The comparison between these two films has been made before; Film Comment called "R" "the antithesis" of its predecessor. That it may be, but it doesn't hold a candle to that film's careful examination of its characters and far reach.

It definitely tries to manage with its own versions of these things. The film follows Rune (Pilou Asbaek, who looks disturbingly similar to both Michael Shannon and Jude Law) as closely as the Dardennes follow any of their leads, establishing his limited territory and picking up on the few character traits that he has: he enjoys cleaning a lot, was imprisoned for stabbing someone, and has a grandmother that cares deeply for him awaiting his release. As the "new guy" at the prison, he's picked on and assigned to beat up a man known as The Albanian. He does this, and gradually starts to work his way into the system, getting protection (as well as some disrespect, from a dude called the Mason; the actor who plays him does pretty well, though I can't find his name at the moment).

Eventually, he gets into the transporting of drugs, initially working with Rashid (Dulfi Al-Jabouri), using easter eggs as means of transport and having Rashid act as the mule. Of course, this supplies definite possibilities for things to go wrong, and if you ever do end up seeing this film, you can observe what happens. I will say that the narrative embraces Rashid in an interesting way (which fits, considering the title), though I don't think co-writer/directors Tobias Lindholm and Michael Noer ultimately have the right kind of sensitivity to deal with what he comes to do.

The film ends with a resonant bang, unlike the mellow, "Mack the Knife"-soundtracked conclusion to "A Prophet." When I first saw the ending to the earlier movie, I was disappointed. But a second viewing confirms that Audiard throughout his movie had a much clearer idea of what he was trying to say. That's much more valuable than treading water for 93 minutes and then trying to make up for it in the final shots. B-

The Guard

2011-08-14T18:57:00.003-04:00

Bland and salvaged from dreariness only by the moderate strength of its two lead actors, John Michael McDonagh's "The Guard" is a lackluster answer to brother Martin's "In Bruges," much in the same way Carlos Cuaron's "Rudo y Cursi" was to any of brother Alfonso's films. A good time at the picture show? Yeah, I liked watching it, but it's nowhere near as strong in any department as its predecessor, and you have wonder eventually what the point is.

It's a good idea to star Brendan Gleeson instead of giving him a supporting role, but if you're going to do that, you have to give him better material. Watching this film, I was constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop, for something funnier or more interesting to come. Don Cheadle, playing the straight man, supplies some laughs and holds the screen, but it's really not enough. I admittedly didn't pick up some of what was said early on, due to the thickness of the characters' accents (this movie is set in Ireland and proud of it), but really there seemed to be something lacking.

The film follows abrasive Sgt. Gerry Boyle (Gleeson), who, though not really a horrible person, is not above taking (and doing) drugs from the pockets of deceased lawbreakers, as he investigates a case involving $500 million worth of cocaine. That's where FBI Agt. Wendell Everett (Cheadle) comes in, who comes to appreciate Boyle's company, despite some initial racial and nationalist issues (which, truth be told, are actually pretty humorous).

Since the POV is objective, we also get to meet the criminals (played by "Hunger"'s Liam Cunningham, "Kick-Ass"'s Mark Strong, and David Wilmot), who, though they talk about philosophers and insult colorfully, aren't the most interesting guys to watch (though one moment when Cunningham and Strong burst into laughter is pretty golden). There are also scenes with Gerry's dying mother Eileen (Fionnula Flanagan), probably the only well-defined female character in the whole film. (Of course, when you watch a film like this, you're not likely to find a lot of depth there. But the other three we get, two prostitutes and an ever weeping "Romanian" widow, are paltry stereotypes.) Around her, we get to see Gleeson show off his sweeter side, which is nice, though it doesn't really solve the film's problems (although I think McDonagh hopes it might).

I enjoyed this film perhaps a bit more than I'm letting on. But when I think back on an experience, I want it to be worth something in some way, and "The Guard" doesn't meet those standards. It's very uneven and ultimately doesn't really work. I really hope the next film by a McDonagh is Martin's. C

The Future

2011-08-12T22:19:00.004-04:00

At the center of Miranda July's appeal is a contradiction. In my opinion, she's a far stronger actress than writer or director. However, I feel it would be strange, almost not right, to see her performing in anything except for works that she herself has created. If only the two sides of the equation could fit together. "The Future" at certain points gets close to equilibrium, but doesn't succeed in the end due to a problematic lack of cohesion and a dreadful opening half. For me, "Me and You and Everyone We Know," her essentially unwatchable but bizarrely beloved first film, is the beginning of this movie blown up to feature length. Luckily, as the film progresses, July touches on issues and concepts that illuminate the film as a whole and prevent it from being as awful as its predecessor, but when she does, it's too late (ironically enough, when you consider the subject of the film).

The film is framed around the adoption of an injured cat named Paw-Paw (to whom July gives a scratchy voice) by two unhappily employed people, Sophie (July as well) and Jason (Hamish Linklater). They want to do more with their lives, but they feel they should do their part and bring this cat to live with them. That means having their freedom drastically cut (to roughly a month, when they are scheduled to pick the cat up), as the cat could live for a long time and, when it dies, could leave them stranded past the halfway mark in their own lives.

This constraint seems to be a liberation of sorts, as both quit their jobs and strive to do something: Sophie undertaking a project known as "30 Days 30 Dances," Jason trying to sell trees and save the earth as part of a small environmental operation. But ultimately, the constraint sort of disappears, as Sophie grows frustrated and bored with her web series (it doesn't really go anywhere) and goes off on a different tangent and Jason tries to hang on to their semblance of a life while maintaining the idea that everything's gone anyways.

The film includes a few elements of the surreal, such as the moon talking (pessimistically) and Jason's ability to stop time, which seems like a folly (everyone's pretending at first) until it actually takes effect. This mood of spontaneity both helps and hurts the film, as it leads the action into interesting territory but also ends up undermining the emotional impact, as it feels like there's no center holding things together.

But it must be said that the film's strong second half is devastating, quite probably because one cannot see it coming from the beginning. It shows that people settle into different roles as time passes and ultimately inhabit them for good, eventually feeling like they've always held them, even if at one point the idea of doing so would seem incredibly crazy or sad. That's something. If July 1) had made the opening feel like more than just a tedious setup and 2) had more fully realized her theses, a piercing film could have resulted. Instead, she juggles a bunch of plots (as she's done before), only getting little bits of gold out of each. C

Note: Despite the objections I find with her work, I still think July is superb at naming her films. However, though "The Future" is a great, intriguing title, when all is said and done, "Satisfaction," her working title, fits much better.

Terri

2011-08-09T18:41:00.003-04:00

Azazel Jacobs' "Terri" is at its best towards the beginning. Here, the lulling, moderate pace jells with the sharp, shrewd, and enjoyably subtle examination of the characters provided by Jacobs and fellow screenwriter Patrick Dewitt. As the film proceeds into its later portions, the brushstrokes with which the filmmakers paint their subjects become a bit more erratic, and the incisive part of the equation comes to disagree somehow with the movie's speed. The climactic scenes are sensitive and unearth character traits, but since something's slightly off they are a little less entertaining.

That being said, John C. Reilly holds down each and every scene he's in, only faltering when the script lets him down. He plays Mr. Fitzgerald, the principal (or maybe assistant principal) who takes the disillusioned Terri (Jacob Wysocki) under his wing. Reilly plays glib but sincere, spinning off of his usual persona (most drawn out as Dr. Steve Brule on "Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!") into more complex areas, places I haven't seen him go in a long time--if ever. It's the best performance of his career by far, giving Jacobs exactly what he needs, transcending the minor problems written into his role.

Terri is considered a "good-hearted kid," that is, he has an extremely strong moral center. Stuff gets in the way of that sometimes, but ultimately, he knows what's right and wrong. The problem is, he's been having a hard time keeping up with the bare minimum requirements of school, always showing up late to every class. This is not helped by the fact that he needs to take care of his unstable Uncle James (Creed Bratton, most famously known for "The Office," though he's not exceptional here), not to mention his obesity (which gets him picked on and gets in the way of his getting with his romantic interest, namely Heather, played by Olivia Croicchia). A number of things happen, though, that point to leading him from glumness. His counseling with Mr. Fitzgerald is the most prominent catalyst, even though that involves some tremors. He also gets closer to Heather once he lifts some of the burden off of her that resulted from a pariah-making PDA. But catharsis doesn't come so simply in the end, emotionally and otherwise, especially because of two other characters: Mr. Fitzgerald's dying secretary Ms. Hamish (Mary Anne McGarry, who gives more than what seemed possible in the confines of her role's original one-joke routine) and consistently problematic Chad (Bridger Zadina), who seems to be the product of some sort of emotional neglect.

I appreciated the film's comedic aspects (Wysocki and Reilly are strong in this field), as well as the awareness it has of its characters. However, I found certain bits of the story nebulous, especially towards the end. It's nice how Jacobs and Dewitt don't feel the need to spell every little thing out, but I would have been happier if the resolution had felt slightly more assured. "Terri" has definite plusses, but lacks in depth where it could have been well-shaded, and thus probably will not age terribly well. B

World on a Wire (Re-Release)

2011-08-03T22:47:00.004-04:00

Works as ideologically captivating as Rainer Werner Fassbinder's "World on a Wire" often cannot hold themselves together. This TV miniseries (212 minutes long), drawn from Daniel F. Galouye's novel "Simulacron-3," goes on a tangent in the second of its two parts that sends it into territory that lets it down. It's not enough to truly distract from the film's mind-blowing concepts and beautifully crafted art direction and sound design. However, I wish the film hadn't taken a path that falls below its standard of ingenuity.

What precedes the conclusion is often astonishing, extremely perceptive for a movie made in the '70s, and possibly sweepingly influential (though I'm not sure how much circulation this got). A corporation called IKZ has created a computer, known as Simulacron, which is loaded with a replica world, with people programmed to have realistic traits. Citizens of the outside world can get "linked in" to someone in the machine, which is like playing a 1st-person video game. Mostly, though, the technology has been manipulated to play out possible outcomes of the future, for financial gain for a steel company that the head of IKZ, Siskins (Karl Heinz Vosgerau), has ties to.

The computer has gotten a lot of attention in the media, though no one's quite sure what the deal is. That's not the only thing that's hazy at the company: IKZ's technical director Vollmer (Adrian Hoven) apparently has gone insane with some fact and committed suicide via electrocution. And the only person to have any idea about what's happened is Gunther Lause (Ivan Desny), who at a party suddenly disappears for what seems like no reason.

This happens right in front of the man who comes to be our protagonist, Fred Stiller (Klaus Löwitsch), the new technical director, who is extremely unnerved. He wants to find what happened to Vollmer, especially since he's having a relationship with Vollmer's daughter (and Lause's niece) Eva (Mascha Rabben), who also seems prone to disappearances. But the closer he gets to conclusions, the more crazy and ill he comes off to the people in his office. You can tell, though, that something's off here, and the rare case of one person being aligned with the truth and everyone else straying could be possible.

It's not hard to see where "World on a Wire" could go, and, to my dissatisfaction, it went that way. This movie, though, does not suffer as drastically from that as most would. That's because "World on a Wire" is brilliant and thought-provoking, and follows many of the possibilities generated by its premise to their ends. Fearlessness is a great quality for a film to have, but it's especially important in sci-fi, where implications stack up more than in conventional narratives. Another feature of this genre that can make or break is how the world of the film is depicted visually. On that level, "World on a Wire" is extraordinary. Every set is exquisite, and Fassbinder doesn't waste an inch, utilizing each one completely.

I strongly recommend "World on a Wire" for anyone who loves to be puzzled by science fiction. It definitely comes through in many ways. The only other Fassbinder I've seen is "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul" (which, along with this film, features Elhedi Ben Salem, and seems very different, yet shares some of the same themes, like alienation), but I'm excited to check out more of his work, like "Berlin Alexanderplatz." For now, I'm glad I saw this film and I hope it'll delight those sci-fi fans who get the chance to see it (now that it's screening in various reparatory theaters). A-

Another Earth

2011-07-31T09:09:00.004-04:00

Mike Cahill's "Another Earth" feels sort of tossed off. Maybe that was because the film got rushed for Sundance (if so, that decision paid off handsomely with a Special Jury Prize). Even if that wasn't the case, I wish Cahill had gotten more of a sense of what his movie was about. He has two winning actors in Brit Marling (his fellow screenwriter on the project) and William Mapother, and he and Marling have a potentially stimulating idea in having an exact copy of the Earth appear and be open to scientific and popular speculation. But they hardly explore what it really means to have another planet right there in the sky. I'm pretty sure tidal movements would be totally screwed up, not to mention orbits and all that jazz. We get the invasion angle, and the "what can that me tell me about me" angle (as humans are the same on that planet as well), but not really any satisfactory depth. It's woven into the plot in a way that makes sense, but at the same time it would have been cool to actually know more about it, instead of just having newsspeak thrown at us. And although I know the ending fits in with the processes of science and is somewhat sound on a thematic level, it feels rather like a cop-out, especially since a lot of great fiction has the protagonist eventually experience the mystery at the center of the plot, and as a result we do too. Not here.

As for what I experienced when I watched "Another Earth": I'm from the area where "Another Earth" is set and was shot, and perhaps I might have been more into the film if I hadn't been so distracted by the locations (Truffaut was right when he said that watching a film in a place you're familiar with is hard). Nonetheless, we plunge into the action in the suburbs of New Haven, as Rhoda Williams (Marling) drinks to celebrate her getting into MIT and then drives and, while taking her eyes off the road to take a look at the other Earth (as a radio broadcaster, DJ Flava, chimes in, one of the film's finest details), gets into a fatal crash where only she and the driver of the other car survive (a wife and a son are killed). This leads to her imprisonment (and thus her not going to college), which sends her into a state of intense depression (long walks and laying down in the snow naked are not out of the question), still hanging on her when she gets out four years later.

Working a menial job far below her possible trajectory, she goes to try to get the forgiveness of the other driver, a composer and ex-Yale-professor named John Burroughs (Mapother), but instead keeps quiet about the accident and atones in a different way, by cleaning his extremely messy house. The two are initially distanced, but they bond over Wii Boxing and discussions of the other planet. Soon, though, they do share profound things, like music played with a bow on a saw (not feasible, seemingly, but who knows?*) and an anecdote about a cosmonaut. You can see where this is going, but the tropes that the film employs sometimes do work, mostly do to the work of the leads. ALL of the actors in the film are superior to the script with which they are supplied. Better writing could have led to a great success.

There are scenes that really work, but as a whole, the film has trouble with justifying its existence. In retrospect, it just barely does, but there are sections of the film that don't go far in giving the film any point (other than the somewhat shallow notion of "can I learn from me"; I'm more interested in the film's idea of "how would I confront me"). Ultimately, "Another Earth" is not really in the right hands, and as a result lacks the muscle and cohesion it takes to tell a story like this. C+

*I learn from @SawLady on Twitter: "Playing music on a saw is totally possible." Here's the link she provided to the NYC Musical Saw Festival, an amazing-sounding event. Also, if you want to know what the fuss is about regarding the saw in this film, go here to the other link she gave.

The Myth of the American Sleepover

2011-07-27T21:08:00.005-04:00

I don't think that the story threads in the jam-packed, affecting "The Myth of the American Sleepover" are all uniformly strong. However, writer/director David Robert Mitchell has united them with strong cinematography, exceptional editing (very valuable), and impressive execution. Here is someone who knows what he's doing. The precision here is undeniable, from the intimate aspect ratio to the way that he creates interest by staggering events (time is not linear; we cut back to the same moment as experienced in different places). There will be some people that won't be as disarmed as I was by this film, but I'd bet there's a contingent of folks who will elect to skip this film without knowing the craft involved. I hope those people don't miss out.

The film takes place in the waning days of a supposedly disappointing summer. School approaches with its constrictions, and it seems the only way to really escape now is to have a sleepover. Thus, many such gatherings are held, and everyone around is going to one or the other, with a few people roaming, searching desperately for fun and (possibly) love.

Most of the characters are well shaded, leaving those that aren't sticking out (such as the new girl who stumbles into trouble probably due to her being under the influence of alcohol) like sore, stereotypical thumbs. That being said, Mitchell manages to elicit at least a couple good moments in all of the different passages. A few times, he strikes gold, like when he makes the brilliant choice of cutting between girls and boys talking about the same memory. Or when he has a difficult confession play out in a way adeptly designed enough to distract you from the (possible) blatancy of the situation. (Judging from photos on IMDb, he bears a resemblance to this character, a troubled college grad; perhaps the scene is drawn from personal experience. Much of the film could be.)

The various parties range from the interior type where people play games and watch porn to the exterior style where people swim, dance, and lounge on the shore and on rowboats. The latter is supposedly better suited for those who are older, but, as one guy at that party muses, sometimes older teens wish they could go back to the more juvenile days. This is what the title refers to, that people grow old without wanting to be where they used to be (this isn't true). Not, as some have thought, that kids don't really drink or do drugs at parties (they do, according to this film).

Mitchell is a talented scenarist who, if he works out the minor kinks in his writing, has the potential to make some incredible films. He's got the technical facets down, with an eye for lighting and a feel for music (knowing for the most part how to employ potentially cloying music). Even if it falls slightly short of greatness, "The Myth of the American Sleepover" is memorable, with engaging incidents and characters. B+

The Man Who Fell to Earth (Uncut 35th Anniversary 35mm Print)

2011-07-24T23:32:00.006-04:00

A film of startling narrative incoherence, Nicolas Roeg's "The Man Who Fell to Earth" made me even less of a fan of its director than before. I had previously seen "Walkabout," and I wasn't too impressed by it, though the fact that the disc I had seen it on was scratched may have had some effect on my patience for the film. It would be hard to deal with "The Man Who Fell to Earth" under any circumstances. It's 139 minutes long (20 minutes lengthier than the previous theatrical cut; the Criterion edition has always been this long), but it doesn't really use that time in a productive way, as it could have if it were a more focused epic. Instead, it's full of ridiculous clutter, so much so that Roeg would have to go back to the drawing board to really make any sort of success. What could have been piercing comes out bland, tedious, and amusing in perhaps a bad way when it's not utterly insane.

Many seem to love this film. To have any such affection for this film, you'd have to give yourself over to it, and, in my opinion, that's very hard to do. Sure, you could appreciate its mildly humorous flourishes, but that's very little to go on. The film has passages that are absurd beyond reason, especially the various sex scenes (the one with the gun full of blanks and the alien-on-alien action are simply risible, despite a friend's pretty solid theory for the latter), and it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening beyond a certain point.

At the same time, I'm having a hard time dismissing the film. It's probably because of the hype, or maybe because I love David Bowie's music. I guess it could be because there is some commendable essence here, elicited at times by Anthony B. Richmond's photography. Ultimately, though, no matter how I look at it, the film doesn't work. It's hard to care about the character because his backstory is portrayed in such unappealing ways and also because of the general disorder of the film.

Bowie plays Thomas Jerome Newton, the titular character who has apparently developed patents on his home planet in order to apparently get rich and be able to get back, supposedly with water. (This is all slightly unclear to me.) He's taken on a British persona, even though he doesn't even know the motto of the Royal Guard, and he's often extremely dizzy when traveling fast (he has trouble riding in elevators and traveling faster than 30 mph on the road).

He does indeed make a whole lot of money. He appoints the lawyer he met (Buck Henry) the president of the company he founds and travels out to New Mexico (which is where he crash-landed originally) to apparently scout out a location to build a facility. There, he meets Mary-Lou (Candy Clark), a hotel maid with whom he develops a relationship (despite a supposed spouse at home). She's the one who (as has much been remarked upon) gets him to drink alcohol instead of water, which is not a good thing at all. Screenwriter Paul Mayersberg (adapting Walter Tevis' novel) could have worked better with this, but instead develops it only slightly, making it feel banal and as weak as the rest of the film.

Also a fixture in the plot is Nathan Bryce (Rip Torn), who's both a sexually predacious professor and a thermal photography buff. He gets fired for horrible class reports and his antics, and comes on board at Newton's World Enterprises. Though he comes to be a little more important later on, a fixture is really all he seems to be, perhaps acting as kind of an audience entry point. I don't really know, having possibly forgotten (this film is hardly indelible outside of its ineptitude).

Roeg definitely tries to do some crazy things with the movie, made relatively early on his career. He punctuates the film with abrupt bursts of ironic music, gives random characters narration tracks, tries to document the New Mexico landscape like he did the Australian outback, and goes for broke with outlandish characterizations of extraterrestrials. These things didn't pay off for me, in the same way the atrocious makeup didn't. I was reminded of "Synecdoche, New York," a similarly big-scale and meticulously art-directed production that was assembled in a much better way than this one. Thus, Charlie Kaufman's soared while Roeg's sank.

Do I misunderstand this movie? Possibly, but it frustrated me and not in a pleasant way. It's one of those where nothing technically is really top-of-the-line but it seems like it could possibly make do anyways. It really doesn't, though. I have to say that if you admire the works of any of the participants, you're better off just skipping it, because your perception could be forever altered. I'm really not too sure what to think; it's difficult in the lack of solid redeeming qualities to be found. But, as you can see, even if it's a little imprecise, what I can put together is hardly positive. D

Tabloid

2011-07-24T10:49:00.004-04:00

"Tabloid" illuminates a story that makes very little sense unless very carefully told. Joyce McKinney, the person at the center of the events, seems like she's happy to tell the story over and over again until someone finally believes what she considers to be "the truth." Her interview, which anchors Errol Morris' film, is invaluable, as it gets us as close as we can get to the case which has been termed "The Manacled Mormon," even if her view on the matter is extremely one-sided and filtered through a fairytale-esque vision.

Without her, "Tabloid" would be a mediocre documentary, likely to end up on some specialty channel on TV. (The film is also flawed technique-wise, using fadeouts to a distracting degree.) But the film would be of similar quality if it featured only her. So Morris supplies outside opinion such as reporters from two tabloids who covered her story, an "accomplice" in her scheme, and an ex-Mormon missionary. This mix paints as full a picture of the situation as possible.

Renowned for being (apparently) extremely smart and beautiful, McKinney went to Utah when what seemed like a matchmaking opportunity opened up. She fell in love with Kirk, who she didn't know was Mormon. After hitting it off really fast and getting engaged, Kirk apparently left without any notice and sent Joyce on a wild goose chase to find him, resulting in her "rescuing" him from the Mormon religion and trying to trigger his supposed love of her via some unconventional techniques.

"Tabloid" goes on to cover how what happened was snapped up by the news and how McKinney was forced into stranger and stranger situations as a result. Since it goes full-bore into the story (as is per usual for Morris), those who are alienated by the idea should stay away. For those drawn in, though, it could prove to be an engaging documentary experience, something that many folks find to be pretty rare. I think it's definitely diverting, but in the context of the strongest recent docs it doesn't stand out all that much. B

Project Nim

2011-07-22T22:59:00.005-04:00

James Marsh's "Project Nim" has admirably incredible access to the saga of Nim Chimpsky, and raises some interesting questions, making it an easy early favorite for Best Documentary as well as a film that a lot of non-documentary-junkies will pick up and enjoy. However, in my opinion, it's far less sweeping and engrossing than Marsh's tremendous previous documentary "Man on Wire," and more a movie, despite some fumbling of style and technique, to appreciate than to love.

The subject of the film was first brought to my attention when I was milling about in a bookstore. It sounded pretty lame (what with the name they gave the chimpanzee in question) and I never looked into it more. However, when a strong filmmaker puts a focus on something, one is given incentive to take notice. "Project Nim" chronicles events that really seem to play out a lot better visually anyways.

Nim was a chimp who was wrenched from his mother when he was young. Used in an experiment by an extremely controlling professor, Nim was given to a family to be raised as a human being and to be taught sign language in the hopes that he could put sentences together. However, the professor didn't see what he was getting the chimp into, as the mother Stephanie was less interested in furthering the process of the experiment and more interested in raising the chimp as a part of her vibrant family. Her notion of parenthood seems a little perverted, though, since she both breast-fed and supplied alcohol and marijuana to her simian charge. The whole situation was bizarre, and apparently detrimental to both the family (only two of its many members allowed themselves to be interviewed) and the experiment itself. After a more specialized sign language teacher Laura came into the mix (whom the professor desires, along with Stephanie previously), the professor became inclined to move Nim and the observation to an exurban Columbia University mansion and a classroom. This is where he stayed until he became more and more strong and less and less compatible with human beings.

The film, in its later passages about which I will not go into detail, shines a light on how we think of "animal cruelty": once people anthropomorphize, they start to think differently about the "feelings" of that particular animal. If we're going to think about one case like that, it's only fair to think about all other animals the same way. It gets a little complicated, and justice can't really be ever served. Despite the fact that the experiment yielded results about how manipulative chimps can be, this examination was never really a good idea, and it ended up causing a lot more harm it seems than benefit.

"Project Nim" doesn't sustain itself well for 93 minutes, and it ends up at some point seeming like a bunch of talking heads over endless footage. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I can't say my attention was held from beginning to end. Plus, Marsh makes certain elements that fit well in "Man on Wire," such as the dramatic re-enactments, feel precious in a bad way. Nonetheless, it's a decent success, and will surely appeal to at least some audiences. B

Green

2011-07-07T17:12:00.009-04:00

"Green" by Sophia Takal has the opposite problem of one of the three main characters, Robin. While she constantly (though maybe in the interest of trying to be polite) overstays her welcome, the film that she's in ends up being way too short at 75 minutes. It offers up a lot of interesting ideas about social structure, but doesn't go about explaining them to the extent that it should. This and the fact that many elements of the film feel strained are its biggest problems. If only these issues had been fixed somehow.

The film takes place almost entirely in a small town (possibly in Pennsylvania, judging from a license plate), opening with its only scene set in New York. We come in medius res, as people heatedly discuss Philip Roth and Proust. The camera darts between various angles before settling on Genevieve (Kate Lyn Sheil), who will continue to be examined throughout the movie. This seems like a strange way to start things off, but we come to see how it establishes the dearly held intellectual status of Genevieve and her boyfriend Sebastian (Lawrence Michael Levine), her moderate distance from him, and how their life is full of consistent social interaction.

After this, the action moves to the rural home where the two are subletting for around a year as Sebastian writes an article about sustainable farming. They seem to think they're alone, and thus prepare themselves for a particular sort of intimacy. But soon, their neighbor Robin (played by writer/director Takal) comes stumbling into the picture. The way that Takal integrates her character into the plot exhausts credibility as much as her put-on Southern sounding accent does (you definitely can see from this interview that her voice is nothing like the one in the film). The difference in attitude of Genevieve and Sebastian regarding Robin from the first to second scenes struck me as kind of odd. However, it's a testament to Takal's much-remarked-upon strength as an actress that she can somehow make Robin into more than just a stereotype, even as at the same time she explores the way that both of the Manhattanites see her as one.

Robin again and again seems to be prying into their lives, offering to go on walks with them and show them around the town (though it's usually just with Genevieve) and becoming a regular at their table. Although Robin seems to get at a fun side in Genevieve's personality (eventually getting her to reveal certain personal stories), Genevieve feels her time slightly more and more disrupted. This happens especially when she starts to pick up on undertones of romance between Robin and Sebastian (which I took to be entirely imagined until the very end of the film, which I think Takal misplays). This she takes as an insult to her pronounced braininess.

Her intense disdain for Robin and her supposed mental incapacity comes out in the film's strongest scene (both thematically and technically), when, during a lunch, she asks Sebastian about returning to New York to attend an art show. Done in an unbroken take where the camera moves back and forth across the table, at times resting on Robin but seeing her as more a catalyst than a participant, this scene is the movie's most successful distillation of the tension between the three characters. It showcases Genevieve's iciness and quickness to laugh, Sebastian's abundance of humor, and Robin's knack for (perhaps strategically) saying things at the wrong times. It's in moments like this that "Green" excels.

It helps that Takal has a real eye for good dialogue (especially for Levine, who ironically supposedly is her fiancee in real life), arresting images (the transposition-heavy campfire scene is a stunner), and engaging techniques (the voiceover conversations between Genevieve and Sebastian are strong). Her main cinematographer Nandan Rao (Benjamin Nicholas and Kim Takal did additional photography, making it slightly hard to tell who shot what) creates a lot of nice compositions in the forest that often have interesting facets of focus. I'm less hot but still somewhat appreciative of the work of her composer Ernesto Caramo, who makes transitional textures that sound often like noises of aliens. The best job is done by the sound designer Weston Fonger, who makes certain features of the sound come out very palpably and thus produces an additional layer of friction between the leads.

What the director doesn't have down is how to put together the introverted and extroverted components of her story. Within each of the modes, the scenes jell quite nicely, but when Takal wants to switch from personal to public, the film feels awkwardly put together in a way that sort of screams Mumblecore (and probably actually is, due to the film's extremely small looking budget and type of content). This is a hitch that, along with the other flaws noted above, hurts the film as a whole. If Takal can avoid these weaknesses in the future (and maybe hire an editor other than herself), she could be an extremely strong filmmaker. B-

13 Assassins

2011-06-26T09:59:00.004-04:00

"13 Assassins" shouldn't be the first film of its kind that you see. Remaking a film from the early '60s, director Takashi Miike strives to mix the motifs of the samurai film with some J-horror flourishes. What results is technically sound, thematically competent, and pretty involving. However, it's not as strong as the hype may have lead you to believe, and, if you're a newcomer, there are some other movies you should watch before you elect to view this one. But there's something to be said for a filmmaker who wants to entertain audiences by both respecting and altering the genre, even though in this case Miike is being more reverent than subversive, and "13 Assassins" is, if not transcendent among the ranks of its samurai predecessors, at least better than a lot of movies in current release.

The film has a heavy-handed, melodramatic story typical to this sort of film: the half-brother of the Shogun, Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki, channeling a privileged menace) is destroying the area's long-held peace with his horrific nature. To give an example, after one samurai commits hara-kiri (read: suicide) in protest, Naritsugu tortures and kills his family. At the core of his misdeeds is his perverted notion of what it means to be a samurai and also a misunderstanding of what it's like to be anyone else other than him. He actually admits that he wants to "bring back the age of war," which would be catastrophic.

Something must be done, posits Sir Doi (Mikijiro Hira), the advisor to the Shogun (who's never shown). He sends for Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho), who's enjoying a retirement fishing. Sir Doi wants him to kill Naritsugu, because if Doi himself did it the system of honor would be disrupted. Thus, Shinzaemon (renowned for being determined) recruits a few extremely capable fighters, including his trainee (who brings a long his trainees), his gambler nephew, and towards the end, a guy who lives in the forest (who uses a rock in a sling rather than a sword). He needs all the help he can get, since Naritsugu's army (comprised of roughly 200 guys) brings strength in numbers, and they're led by Shinzaemon's rival Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura). But, as you will come to see, the assassins, though outnumbered, have some tricks up their sleeves.

"13 Assassins," (supposedly) like Miike's "Audition," is a film that practices restraint and then unleashes all of its pent-up energy. Although dreadful things happen towards the beginning, they are isolated and only slowly do they build up the film's momentum. This limitation of action makes the moments that come later on much more stimulating. However, once we get to final part, when things happen in quick succession, the combat becomes a bit duller. I've heard the climax of the film, which depicts the long battle between the assassins and the lord's clan for 45 minutes, both praised and criticized for its technique. It's pretty standard stuff, and it can be (as I noted above) a bit monotonous at times, as it shows many henchmen killed in exactly the same way. But, since we relate somewhat to the main characters, and since they have personality, it manages to be entertaining nonetheless. Speaking of the camera, there are some remarkable images captured by Nobuyasu Kita, who manages (successfully) to make the cinematography both salient and secondary to the action.

Making Naritsugu a bratty pushover may have emphasized his strength only derived from power, but it also makes the film look like it went through too much for such a simple objective (that's actually kind of overcomplicated at the start). All the same, "13 Assassins" is an absorbing diversion, one that offers a bit of variety for people looking for something interesting and exciting to see in theaters. Plus, it has the pedigree of being nominated for the Golden Lion at last year's Venice Film Festival, if that means anything to you. B

On Tour (Tournée) (BAMcinemaFest)

2011-06-25T14:55:00.011-04:00

Despite some dodgy notes hit by a cast of first-time-acting burlesque dancers and a script that at its worst gives itself over to bouts of corny humor and worn out situations, "On Tour" ends up working in the end. It is anchored by the beautifully grainy and composition/focus attentive 35mm photography by Christophe Beacaume and a solid performance on both sides of the camera by Mathieu Amalric, not to mention a clutch acting job by the most prominently featured dancer Miranda Colclasure (better known as Mimi Le Meaux). The film's angle on its main subject is hardly philosophical, but that's no matter. It finds other things to look into, and all-in-all ends up an enjoyable film, at times more blissful and at others more plodding.

Joachim Zand (Mathieu Amalric), we come to learn, is alienated from his father, brother, and wife, and not entirely favored by his kids either. He's pissed off a lot of people, and it's not hard to see why: he desires to be in control at all times, constantly and perhaps arbitrarily telling bartenders and hotel managers to turn down the music or the television. He's put together an act in America consisting of stripteasers such as Kitten on the Keys (Suzanne Ramsey), Julie Atlas Muz (Julie Ann Muz), and Dirty Martini (Linda Marraccini), to add to the aforementioned Mimi Le Meaux, for whom he has a greater amount of affection. Now he's taking them on tour (hence the title) in France. This trip is ostensibly just to conduct performances, but when he has a hard time holding down event spaces, he gets around to seeing his family, as well as an estranged dancer whom he mistreated some time back. A lot of the film's strength comes from its examination of Joachim, who's trying to manage a lot and just barely keeping things together.

The film spends a lot of time also with the dancers, lingering on their stripteases (though with skilled camera placement, perhaps for a bit too long) and showing their off-time. Of the girls, it spends the most time following Mimi. She's lonely, both a part of the crew and somewhat isolated, having disappointing trysts and perhaps loving Joachim a little bit. We see her often in close-ups, sometimes of her numerous tattoos, sometimes of her (theoretically) masked face. Though she's notably histrionic at times, this is strong work by Cloclasure, a product of the direction that won Amalric the Prix de la mise en scéne at Cannes last year.

"On Tour" I don't think has the makings of a great film. However, judging from the audience I saw it with, for more than a few people it will have the makings for a great time. Though some parts of the movie are trite, some scenes are actually pretty funny. And you'd have to be allergic to fun to not be overjoyed by the film's final shot. Concluding the last passage of the film (which has an amiable, mellow vibe), it provides a fitting end to both the section and also the motif of which it is a part. This ending (apparently not the only great closer in Amalric's career), most likely among the strongest this year will have to offer, deserves to be seen by audiences, and I hope that a distributor takes heed and purchases it, along with the solid film that came before. B

Beginners

2011-06-23T22:03:00.005-04:00

Appealing and profound simultaneously, "Beginners" finds a way to navigate through its story that makes it feel much realer and much more involving than most recent "whimsical" comedies (viz. "500 Days of Summer," "Away We Go"). It is about the pursuit of happiness, elusive at every moment in time due to far different repressing circumstances. Hal (Christopher Plummer), a museum director, went through married life a closeted gay man, and finally, after his wife died and the times changed to allow homosexuality, came out to salvage the final years of his life. He doesn't live much longer, but he gets to experience a timeless thing, which one can have even in the face of death: love. His son Oliver (Ewan McGregor), not very successful romantically, comes to find a source of joy after his father dies in Anna (Melanie Laurent), whom he meets at a party. This is after periods of isolation where no one finds his stoicism and seriousness all too enjoyable.

In both instances, death unlocks love and death bears hardship. Even though Oliver narrates history in a linear, practical way, his memories come to haunt him in random moments and in random order. The film often repeats itself and delves back into Oliver's childhood and time with his dying father to show what he's relating to his girlfriend. He often thinks of his zany mother (Mary Page Keller), with whom he had one of those more strange relationships; there are moments from his early life that he brings in perhaps to have some touchstone to operate with. He's so tied to his past that the ending, which I've seen before in other films of which this one is reminiscent, makes sense and nicely concludes the film's thesis.

"Beginners" for the most part has a subversive sensibility that strays towards Noah Baumbach's "Greenberg" and Richard Linklater's Jesse and Celine diptych (the latter at certain points perhaps a little too much). It knows how to be actually sweet and funny, utilizing the supporting cast (Kai Lennox and China Shavers as Oliver's friends; Goran Visnjic as Hal's newfound lover) well and supplying old Woody Allen/newly repurposed cliches (eccentric subtitles, old music) with not only new life but a tangibility to the plot. Mike Mills, who has written and directed this film based on his life, both allots time to both blissfully meandering and thoughtfully meditating on deep themes (some subtly introduced).

The film's key asset, though, is its lead performers. McGregor drives the film with his pensiveness and quiet humor and pleasure. It's his finest performance by a good measure. Laurent, with her glorious smile and incredible charisma, is exactly what the film needs: its embodiment of delight. But the film really shines under the control of Plummer, who knows how to play the newly emerged father: open to new things, accepting (sadly but wholeheartedly) of his fate, amazedly discovering things that are supposedly obvious. With this complex and radiant performance, Plummer alongside McGregor marks his career high.

"Beginners" may be about 10 minutes too long, wasting some time in repeating things and sometimes frustratingly moving away from the scene at hand. But it gets at and portrays emotions palpably enough to produce a state of euphoria for a viewer receptive to the film's carefully developed wavelength. B+

The Trip (Theatrical Version)

2011-06-23T09:52:00.007-04:00

I was going to do some sort of food review gimmick for my take on Michael Winterbottom's "The Trip," but I feared that I wouldn't be able to fully address the copious problems with it. The reformatting from the roughly 3-hour BBC miniseries shows in that the film is abrupt and choppy throughout, never providing any backstory for the main characters or letting any of the comic situations build to their full potential. Seeing as I didn't get a chance to view the TV version, I'm unsure whether its this cut or the whole venture that deserves blame. I'm not necessarily the right audience for this film, since I always feel like I'm forcing laughs at this sort of British humor (which seems funnier to me when read).

Ultimately, "The Trip" is just another opportunity for comedic actors Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, most famously paired in Winterbottom's "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story," to screw around. The joke, both times, is that the two are playing themselves, and that Coogan is a womanizing asshole while Brydon is a charismatic family man. This schtick wore thin even before the end of "Tristam Shandy," and here it really started to get on my nerves. However, even Brydon comes off as annoying and generally intolerable, with his incessant impressions and jokey, overly agreeable nature.

Much of the film seems to have been developed via the aid of illegal substances. I can't say I understand why Coogan, who is apparently struggling but still very affluent and getting parts (in "In the Loop" and "The Other Guys," recently), is suddenly writing food criticism for a British magazine. This is the foundation for the film, and it already involves a suspension of belief. Anyways, Coogan has to go on a trip through the UK to eat various bits of fancy food and write about them (though we never actually see what he thinks or hear what he's going to write, rendering this facet of the film pretty useless). He gets to bring along a guest, and he elects for Brydon, after his girlfriend Mischa (Margo Stilley) heads off for America instead of coming along.

Even though it's patently ridiculous, this is a set-up that could work. But it doesn't. The biggest reason is that Winterbottom ignores the fact that comedy needs to build to work. I'm not a huge fan of comedy derived from awkward situations, but I can see that this film could have cashed in many times. There are only a couple of extended bits, and they are the wrong ones to be continued on. The only really uncomfortable thing in the film ends up being the way that Winterbottom startlingly cuts away from the action and expects us to find the last thing that was said (whether it be a genuine punch-line or not) to be funny. It rarely if ever pays off, and he does it many times.

Another massive failure of the film is that it often neglects to incorporate the surroundings into the humor. Sure, there's that bizarre moment with the guy on the mountain, but this is a movie that takes place in public spaces, and it feels like for the most part everyone around is oblivious to the antics of Coogan and Brydon. Never does either one of the two interact with the waiter except to politely thank them for the food. Think of how hilarious it could have been if one of them had insulted the staff and/or restaurant patrons and trouble had ensued. The camera often lingers on the food and the terrain around, and since the film never really puts them to use, I think it's fair to assume that they function mostly as food/location porn.

Finally, if the film had been more probing than it is, success may have resulted. We see inside Coogan's head, like the psychedelic passages in "Tristam Shandy," this time with a totally unexpected celebrity cameo which hasn't been mentioned anywhere. But does this really say that much about Coogan? Maybe it does, I don't know. There are moments where the film seems to be trying to get at what it's like to be an entertainer or a critic, and the whole negotiation between the kitchen and the dining hall, but Winterbottom is far too surface-deep for that. (Now that I look more carefully at it's page on IMDb, the film apparently doesn't have a script, which does clearly explain the film's lack of a focus.)

Brydon is a far stronger performer than Coogan, despite the fact that Coogan's Sean Connery impression is better. Maybe it would be sort of kind of interesting if we got to know him a little better? All we see him doing is talking on the phone with his wife. Maybe that's all there is to his life, but still, more exposition would be nice. I'm well aware of the fact that people will think I was expecting way too much out of this venture. Well, doesn't Winterbottom need to make reputable films to keep his position as a regarded director? Or else isn't it all just meaningless hype? No matter. "The Trip" would have been served much better by a) keeping the same scenario and aiming for more of a faux-documentary style, b) relegating Coogan and Brydon to having lunch at one of their pads and filming, or c) someone realizing having this pairing together on the screen isn't worth that much trouble. D+

The Ledge

2011-06-21T22:39:00.005-04:00

"The Ledge," in its basic plot and structure, stands as both convoluted and banal, but until about the final ten minutes I was pretty sure that it had a saving grace: it dealt with religion in a way outside of the norm. However, after having seen how the whole film plays out, I'm not sure exactly what the film's stance on faith is, and I think that's a problem. Even when it seems like it's achieving some degree of clarity, "The Ledge" is really dancing around the issue. There are a couple moments in the film where this is obviously happening (where writer/director Matthew Chapman tries to supply levity about it by conflating it with vulgarity), but I thought that ultimately the film had really worked things out. Such was not the case.

The way the film unfolds imitates many other recent films and fails to achieve success. Gavin (Charlie Hunnam, a goofy romantic presence with bad haircut and voice not unlike the kid in this) seems to be one of those routine cases, a jumper on the ledge of a building who can be coaxed off with much pleading from a cop, in this case Hollis (Terrence Howard). Nope, he's not normal, as you probably guessed. He's a hotel manager or something who has gotten into an affair with Shauna (Liv Tyler), who's married to an ultra-strict Born Again Christian named Joe (an extremely corny Patrick Wilson). Gavin gets to know Shauna through her position as a maid at the hotel, and also because she lives across the hall from him. This proximity leads to much "temptation," as Joe would look at it. Not to mention much intramural tension, as Joe, when the two meet at dinner and a "philosophy discussion," comes to get pissed about Gavin's very pronounced lack of faith and apparent homosexuality. Each thinks the other is "cold-hearted," though, while Joe would suggest conversion to Evangelical Christianity and being "saved," Gavin's way of solving that turns out to be trying to help out Shauna. This comes to bear disastrous consequences.

I'm not really sure what Chapman is trying to prove here, other than that different people have different views of faith, which couldn't be more clear. He doesn't seem to understand that you can't really make a movie about a subject like this and avoid the responsibility of having to say something about it. The vacant conclusiveness of the end scene, which is part of a subplot to further the idea that really everybody has problems (except for gay secondary characters), really reveals that the film has no particular thesis; that's a big problem. To add to that, despite its somewhat out-of-the-ordinary dialogue about doctrine, "The Ledge" doesn't have original ways of presenting information, and we are subject to the usual confessional stories about what sins these people committed in the past that defined their lives. I have to admit, "The Ledge" has more value than I thought it was possible for it to have. That being said, I'm still disappointed that it came up short, as it realizes some but (importantly) not all of its opportunities. C+

Super 8

2011-06-11T15:08:00.007-04:00

There are a variety of different responses that people will have to a film like J.J. Abrams' "Super 8." Some will not read into it at all and call it your run-of-the-mill summer movie. Others will give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it puts on display a remarkable self-critique (though I would be more inclined to go with this take if the film was directed by Abbas Kiarostami or Charlie Kaufman). Truly, "Super 8" falls somewhere in between these poles, having enough quick wit to transcend the crop of blockbusters in which it sits, but not enough gall to overturn the system altogether.

When the film opens, it seems to be the rare Hollywood release to leave developments up to implication rather than spelling them out. We see a steel mill changing its "days since accident" sign to one, and come to piece together that the mother of Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) has died. His father Jackson (Kyle Chandler), a policeman, doesn't handle it well at all, and suggests Joe take measures to to alleviate the grief (i.e. re-planning his summer). Joe, though, wants to do makeup for his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths), who's attempting to make a short for a film festival/contest. He's making it along with a team of other kids, including a pyromaniac and a couple of nerds.

The film, like the work of nearly all amateur videographers (including my own from years past), is full of horrible acting and strange effects (done without digital here, it being the late 1970's). It has that wonder of the product of children, though. (This is one of the many much remarked-upon ways Abrams tips his hat to Steven Spielberg, a huge shadow over this work.) Charles obsesses over lending the film better "production value" and tries to get shots with trains and military personnel. He's much more worried about style than substance, and cobbles together the plot as he goes along, getting a girl he and many others have a crush on, Alice (Elle Fanning), to join the team as an actress. (She ends up hitting it off better with Joe, as you knew she would.) When they are shooting a scene with her by the train tracks, a train smashes into a car and sets off a long series of explosions, leaving behind cubes as detritus.

This event, the first of many similar ones to happen in the film, is the beginning of what really becomes the main plot of the film. It renders the part on moviemaking to the category of "incident" and thus really throws aside its best hope at setting itself apart from the rest. The film goes on to juggle an impressive but ultimately unmanageable number of plots, and ends up just throwing together tropes to get to the finish line. It puts an emphasis on being tidy (everything HAS to work out in the end), but at the same time, it opens up so many cans of worms it shouldn't even dream of actually making sense. And don't even get me started on how heavy-handed the film eventually becomes, which even the least cynical viewer will groan about.

But the film does have strengths that, had they been expanded on, could have been the building blocks for a stellar film. The most prominent attribute is the humor, which is brilliantly timed. Abrams, who wrote the screenplay, has a sharp eye for engaging conversational dialogue. He directs the (mostly no-name) actors also in a way that will ensure that each morsel of comedy will be realized by the audience. The film also has a way of stringing things together that it gets marginally close to pulling off, though the imperfection is definitely pronounced.

The biggest problem here, one that compromises things in the end, is that Abrams doesn't seem to have that much of an overall imagination, and even though he sprinkles moments of genius throughout (a certain set piece reminded me of Fritz Lang), the whole that results at times falls into the doldrums. Save his directorial debut "Mission Impossible III," I've seen all of Abrams' feature-length efforts. Not one of them has exceeded my expectations. Until he makes a truly wondrous movie, I'm going to conclude all further reviews of his films by speaking directly to the man, saying the same thing I have twice before. Here goes: Better luck next time, J.J. C+

Midnight in Paris

2011-06-03T23:24:00.003-04:00

Juggling wonder for the City of Lights and spite for those who can't take the time to enjoy it, Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" is too clumsy to be great but strong in enough areas to be a worthwhile entertainment. Reminiscent of one of Allen's comic short stories, the film presents a clever if cliched idea in a delectable way. However, the work as a whole leaves something to be desired. Allen seems to have lost his touch navigating satire, and only does the straight comedy and romance well.

Owen Wilson, whose surprised face hugely aids the film's impact, plays Gil, an unsatisfied writer of vacuous films. Even though he apparently was a bad English student, he is still enraptured in the classics and wants to make a literary contribution. He goes with his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her ultra-conservative family to Paris to take in the marvels. Inez thinks Gil should stay "doing what he does best" and quit with the dreamy novel stuff, perhaps because she knows the difference in paychecks between a novelist and a screenwriter. She also wants to see Paris (a city she says she would never live in) by absorbing it without contemplation, way opposed to Gil's agenda, and when she encounters her former professor Paul (Michael Sheen), purveyor of pretentious knowledge and sex appeal, she can.

Gil wants out of things being planned for him, and so he gets lost wandering one night after a wine tasting. I hadn't read much about the film going in, so what happens next came as somewhat of a surprise to me. I'll leave it the same way for you, but I will say that with it Allen supplies the material for an engrossing film, one that speaks about how the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and how people always think that their moment in history is the least interesting and the most screwed up. Admittedly, the film speechifies these points a little (subtlety is not one of Allen's strengths), and paints brushstrokes that go a little too wild at times, but certain setups and jokes (especially the one involving Surrealism and "The Exterminating Angel") are well executed.

Unfortunately, much of the film's writing is poor (characters say the same things over and over again) and the acting, save Wilson's, isn't able to salvage it. There is, however, sterling technical proficiency on display here. Several shots are startling in the way they unfold: the camera roams before the primary characters appear out of the side of the frame, and in one instance the camera does a 180* in a superbly controlled long take. In the present moment, I see the film as not working as well as it could have (given the cogency of the concept, it could have possibly been one of Allen's best films). But it does have some minor triumphs, and maybe it'll improve with age. B-

The Tree of Life

2011-05-29T11:00:00.012-04:00

Despite having a monumental idea that has all the makings for a project that never gets made, “The Tree of Life” satisfies the grand reach that it sets for itself. It may not give a universal look at the growth of the world and of humanity, but that’s because it can’t: Terrence Malick is an American, Christian filmmaker and thus can only be expected to filter his story through that sort of lens. But even if he’s unable to make the film that everyone wants, what he’s done here is simply unbelievable.

Overwhelming is a dramatic understatement when describing “The Tree of Life.” The audience watches the universe meld together, with ripples, explosions, and, to be certain, dinosaurs. All of this would be enough to blow anyone’s mind completely. But it doesn’t end there: we also see childhood, and every influence by which it is affected. If this childhood seems too idealized, then that’s because it is supposed to be: it’s the product of memories.

These memories are subjective and objective, and the whole film, both in its design and in its action, is about the meeting between these two POVs. There are often dolly shots through houses, or into trees. These seem to be depicting the presence of God, as he moves through the world, watching. I originally thought these shots didn’t have a purpose in the film, but they ultimately are very important.

The movie starts with something that seems to throw it off, which I realized in hindsight was the intention of the brilliant structure by Malick. After a biblical quote (from Job) and a motif of light that appears a few times in the film, we are shown some important passages that color our understanding of the rest of the movie. Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain), the mother in a small-town post-WWII family, narrates the differences between the forceful nature and the passive grace. This is over a flood of images, which at this point are frustratingly incomprehensible. She then finds that her second son, R.L., has died in a war (implied to be Vietnam), depicted with a chillingly executed shock cut between violent sobbing and airplane propellers. We then move to the present where Jack (Sean Penn), her oldest son, is having problems keeping interest in his wife, his job, and his world (“gone to the dogs,” he calls it in a perceptive moment). He has apparently said things he didn’t mean about his brother’s death, which happened very long ago, and is reminiscing about when he was a kid, egged on by his father and increasingly disillusioned as time went on.

After showing the making of the known world and giving cinema some of its most glorious images (drawing from some famous telescopic shots), Jack’s growing up is magnificently realized. We see how he became the man that he is, each pivotal moment. The resentments he (played here by Hunter McCracken) bears towards his domineering father (Brad Pitt) are most prominently noted. Hard on all of his kids, Mr. O’Brien wants them to step boldly ahead in the way of nature, not to roll with the punches as grace would (which he calls “naïve,” along with his wife). Other determining forces are seen: criminals move through the town (whom Mrs. O’Brien gives water, a symbol used to such great effect to make Tarkovsky proud), the drowning of a friend, engaging in transgressive activities. Overall, the film’s meticulous, detailed view of maturation has few, if any, peers in recent memory.

But that’s not the only area in which that happens. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who worked with Malick on “The New World,” gives one of the most astonishing performances in camerawork in cinema history. It’s the stuff to spawn thousands of visual essays. What he does is innovative and immersive: he imitates the emotion of the scene in the photography. For example, to convey Jack’s going-through-the-motions feelings as a grown man, he has the camera race through public spaces at waist level and uses a disjointed form of Snorricam (where the camera is attached to the actor, charting their movement). Also strong is the use of music (some of which is composed by Alexandre Desplat), which overpowers you. Obviously referential of Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” in how it pairs space actions with opera, it uses the music to try to reach the sublime (and it often does).

It’s a wonder that Malick can actually make another film (namely “The Burial”) after this one. This movie is a marvel, for not only all of what I’ve said above but also having one of the most believable views of the afterlife (if that’s what it is) that I’ve ever seen. (Also worth mentioning is his giving of voiceovers to many of his characters, both biblical and similar to Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying.") I’ll need to see it more than once, but it feels (though it’s definitely not) almost absolute. If it had never been made, only speculated, people could have united completely around it. Even if it doesn’t appeal to everyone, and even if it admittedly isn’t impeccable start-to-finish (the human section working better than the planetary one), it’s a treasure, worthy of its Palme d'Or and (one can only hope) more awards. A

Incendies

2011-05-23T16:20:00.007-04:00

The camera, starting at mid-range, slowly tracks to the face of a boy with a grimly violated expression on his face, receiving a hair cut for what seems to be a military operation. There is no sound other than the swell of "You and Whose Army?" by Radiohead (used later in the film to a far lesser effect), which is plenty. For my money, this moment, coming at the very beginning of "Incendies" (translated as "Fires," which will make sense to anyone who sees it), is the most arresting bit in the entire film. We have no context in which to process this scene until towards the conclusion, so it becomes all the more powerful when we realize its true significance: In a movie about the loss of innocence, this is the most prominent example, which ultimately frames everything else.

If this movie was just, you know, better, it would be a masterpiece. Denis Villeneuve has many of the elements he needs to make something great. His visual style is top-notch. He knows how to light and shoot a scene, and he's picked actors whose faces he can utilize to the extreme. The premise of the film is tantalizing, and the structure is well-designed. It's really the script that lets this film down. (I'm going to go ahead and make assumptions that the translation from the French and Arabic is good.)

Adapting from Wajdi Moawad's play, he has little scope of what details are interesting, what details are not, and how to write bearable dialogue. He also has an annoying tendency to spell out major plot points to the audience. The film is over two hours long; that could be solved by cutting out some scenes that repeat obvious information and dilute the film's cutting emotional strength.

The film moves between the relative present and 70's Palestine, the site of a vaguely defined conflict between Christians and "refugees" (of what I'm not sure). As we begin, the presumably 20-something twin children, Jeanne and Simon (Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin and Maxim Gaudette), are parsing out the will of their late mother Narwal (Lubna Azabal). They are given notes which they will relay to their (absent) father and brother, respectively. However, on the way to finding their missing family members, they - and we - will learn more about their recently deceased matriarch.

To say much more about the plot specifics, I would have to dodge more spoilers than I'm comfortable with. So I'll speak in more abstract terms: much of the film from this point onwards is extremely dull. It seems to sincerely believe that thin political soup we've encountered in many other films is going to be interesting. To add to that, we don't get any of the details that are actually helpful/compelling, such as: what was the relationship between the mother and her children before she died? Villeneuve always seems to be worried that he's going to ruin the grand scheme of his film by not controlling the exposition enough. He's so devoted to preservation of the core of the film that he jumps through a hell of a lot of hoops to keep it together; a few too many, it must be said. Finally, the dialogue is clumsy throughout, especially in the abysmal scene that uses math metaphors.

It's sad when you have pretty much everything you need for a success, but botch it with the execution. ("Dogtooth," a fellow also-ran of "Incendies" for Best Foreign Film, showed there are positive results when everything is pushed to, or near, its fullest potential.) In how he tries so hard to lead us down a certain path to not spoil anything, Villeneuve lets many things fall to the wayside. Though many will be horrified/pleased by the twist ending, a good number of folks will also either a) predict it far before intended or b) not appreciate it when it comes to light. The thing about Villeneuve is that he's the right director, but he needed some help with realizing this idea, help he didn't get. C+

Cannes 2011: Competition Awards

2011-05-22T14:00:00.004-04:00

For your viewing pleasure:

Palme d'Or:

The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick

Gran Prix:

The Kid With a Bike, Dardenne Brothers AND Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Nuri Bilge Ceylan

Jury Prize:

Polisse, Maiwenn

Best Actor:

Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Best Actress:

Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia

Best Director:

Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive

Best Screenplay:

Joseph Cedar, Footnote

Cannes 2011: Prévisions Finales

2011-05-21T11:22:00.005-04:00

I haven't been posting as many film reviews lately as 1) I've haven't had that much time to see recently released films and 2) following the developments of the Cannes Film Festival has been involving and right now the festival feels like the only relevant event in the film world. After Sunday, when the awards for the Main Competition are announced, things will change, and we'll get back to regularly scheduled programming, etc. But for now, this is what's been on my mind, and here are my final predictions, since pretty much all films in the running for the Palme d'Or have finished screening for critics:

Competition Jury: Robert De Niro, Olivier Assayas, Martina Gusman, Mahamat-Saleh Haroun, Jude Law, Nansun Shi, Uma Thurman, Johnnie To, Linn Ullman

Palme d’Or: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Reasoning: Reviews haven't been all strong, but at the same time there have been enough that note this as prime Palme material, which may be echoed by the jury (who seem like they could really warm up to its heavy basis on imagery). Plus, Ceylan is due.

Gran Prix: The Kid With a Bike, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
Reasoning: Probably the most previously successful contenders in the field this year, the Dardennes have NEVER gone home empty handed when they've played in Competition at Cannes. They've won 2 Palmes (for "Rosetta" and "The Child"), directed Olivier Gourmet to a Best Actor (for "The Son"), and snagged Best Screenplay last time they were here with "Lorna's Silence." Even though I don't think another Palme is possible, a Gran Prix (which they've never won before) could be a good way to celebrate their new work. This may be the jury that neglects to give them an award, but with Haroun on the jury (who's said to be influenced by them), I think they'll pull out with something.

Jury Prize: Drive, Nicolas Winding Refn
Reasoning: The populist favorite of the festival, Refn's film (as Guy Lodge has noted) will probably have garnered the support of Law and Thurman, not to mention Assayas and To. Many have said this will win the Palme, but I don't think it'll quite manage that.

Best Actor: Brad Pitt, The Tree of Life
Reasoning: "The Tree of Life" will not be denied an award. And this is an avenue that has been essentially approved by all critics. (I know they don't decide the award, but they must have some perception of what's going on).
Best Actress: Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
Reasoning: Despite the possibilities of Emily Browning and Kirsten Dunst, I think Swinton had this sealed up on the second day of the festival, when her film premiered. The praise has been overwhelming.
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Reasoning: Hazanavicius will get awarded for branching out from his previous films (James Bond spoofs) and actually making something serious. A Palme is definitely possible, but this route seems a lot more logical for the jury.

Best Screenplay: Le Havre, Aki Kaurismaki
Reasoning: Another movie that needs validation for its success. Kaurismaki has gone as far as the Gran Prix before, and could go the full distance, but the jury seems both for and against that happening. At least it'll win this.
Prominent empty-handers: "The Skin I Live In," "Melancholia," and "This Must Be the Place" (the jury could rally for this one, but the reviews intimated this was not such a good movie).

Cannes 2011 (Day 9 Predictions)

2011-05-19T16:13:00.007-04:00

Palme D'Or:

Before the festival, I thought that one film had it all locked up: "The Tree of Life," by Terrence Malick, a director who had only won a Best Director prize at the festival over 30 years ago and who seemed due for more. However, that film's chances have drastically lowered since it actually premiered, and now I'd have to say that the movie retains an outside shot based on what it has left of its initial hype as well as the fact that the jury may be more sympathetic than some critics have been (however Gabe Klinger has heard otherwise).

My money is on the not-yet-shown "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia" by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, who really seems like he's got a shot at the big time this year, having won Best Director (as well as his actors having won Best Actor) in the past.

As for previously speculated films, I agree with Jason Solomons here, who says "Melancholia" ain't going nowhere (especially since Lars Von Trier, being such an enfant terrible, has lost the privilege of going to Cannes). Pedro Almodovar's "The Skin I Live In" got lackluster enough notices to lose its buzz. The Dardennes Brothers will not win a third Palme d'Or for "The Kid With A Bike." Sorry, not gonna happen. And Lynne Ramsay's "We Need to Talk About Kevin" has much better chances in the fields of Best Actress and Director, especially since Ramsay is not a festival veteran.

The biggest upset material comes in the form of "Le Havre" by Aki Kaurismaki, which many have been touting (to Mike D'Angelo's chagrin) and which could win a place in the hearts of the jury members. However, Kaurismaki I think might win a different award. And don't forget about "The Artist."

Gran Prix:

Now that I think "Once Upon A Time in Anatolia" will cop the top prize, room is left open for Paolo Sorrentino's "This Must Be the Place" to take second place. However, this could turn on a dime: when it screens for critics, there might not be a lot of love for Sean Penn's laconic, mumbly performance (and thus the whole enterprise will go down)-- or perhaps too much (Best Actor?). If that's the case, Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" might be able to get this. That is, unless it wins...

Jury Prize:

... third place. "Drive" seems tailor-made to win the festival's riskiest award (previous editions have given this to "Persepolis," "Thirst," and "Fish Tank").

Best Actor:

Without his film being rewarded, I think Brad Pitt will be given props for what has been called perhaps his strongest acting job in "The Tree of Life." If this happens, I think Pitt's a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination (maybe even a win?). Could the leads from "Footnote" make a resurgence? Possibly, but I think Pitt has it.

Best Actress:

Actresses tend to be easy to predict, and Tilda Swinton has stood as the frontrunner since the beginning of the festival, for her work in "We Need to Talk About Kevin." If she somehow doesn't win, I suspect Emily Browning from "Sleeping Beauty" will take it, although maybe "Melancholia"'s Kirsten Dunst will get the dividends of the Von Trier situation (Roger Ebert seems to think his deal will be an impediment, but I think that it might actually arouse sympathy in that the jury will think that Dunst is being canceled out). Cecile de France might continue the Dardennes winning streak (for "The Kid With A Bike") but I dunno.

Best Director:

A three person race: Kaurismaki vs. Ramsay vs. Michel Hazanavicius, who I think got enough positive reception for "The Artist" to receive recognition from the jury. Who thought he, as a late entrant and as a former spoof filmmaker, would ever get to being speculated for this award?

Best Screenplay:

This could go to "This Must Be the Place," should a fallout happen to its Gran Prix chances, "Le Havre," since it's a comedy, or "We Need to Talk About Kevin," for being an adaptation, but I really think this category is down (for various reasons) to "Footnote," "Hanezu," and "The Source." Any of these three could win it in the end, but right now I'm thinking that "Footnote" (written by its director, Joseph Cedar) has the best shot, despite the claims it's sometimes ridiculous.

To summarize:

Palme d'Or: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

Gran Prix: This Must Be the Place

Jury Prize: Drive

Best Actor: Brad Pitt, The Tree of Life

Best Actress: Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Best Screenplay: Joseph Cedar, Footnote

And I think "Miss Bala" might get something in Un Certain Regard.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

2011-05-08T09:50:00.009-04:00

Even though I had no other choice but to see "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" in 2-D, the film's repetitive imagery makes it a bit of a hard sit. It takes place in the French cave (discovered in 1994 and named Chauvet after one of the people who found it) where 32,000 year old paintings (as well as the fossils of now-extinct animals) are still preserved due to limited human interaction and calcification. Since this is an invaluable relic of a time so long ago, only some scientists are allowed to enter every so often. This is the only documentary film about this subject, which makes it singular and on some level a must-see. However, I wonder if one will enjoy it as much as admire what it means.

The 3-D probably is a big factor in that. If you see the 2-D version, as I did, there are several awkward shots that call attention to themselves to really no avail. In all likelihood, these were originally intended to be seen in 3-D. Maybe this restriction cost the film some of the power that it's been known to have. The color of the film also seems really off in 2-D, and we're lucky when some parts of the film skew to look like they came out of a Stella Artois commercial, as other portions (mostly those outside of the caves) look weirdly overexposed.

I had a hard time connecting with this film. Thinking of time periods that far apart is overwhelming, like thinking about singularities and "nothingness." It's practically impossible, at least to me. I was able to imagine it a little, but probably the experience of the film is far more worthwhile if you can somehow really connect to those times.

Werner Herzog, the esteemed director of this film (though maybe not quite as much after some of the stuff he made last decade), apparently includes shots of his crew because there's not enough space to keep them outside of the frame, but at the same time he sets up another sort of documentation. The cave painters painted what they saw, cave-bears sometimes scratched on the paintings, and now we, outside of the caves, are reacting to these works. He's also interested in the layering of the caves and the stories behind the paintings themselves. Though sometimes this seems like over-reading (I'm always one for keeping things little underexposed), I still can really see what he's getting at. The layering translates in the world of today: one of the scientists interviewed in the film was in the circus before he became a scientist. These bits, and the ending that people have thought a bit strange (but which is actually entirely necessary), give the film a strong ideological weight.

The film feels far too long, and includes some unnecessary footage: essentially irrelevant footage of a"master perfumer" (put in the film seemingly as an indulgence of Herzog) and, as noted above, maybe a little too much footage of the same paintings (such as the admittedly amazing "four horses" piece). There's also a sexual bent that the film has in parts that feels a little "politely immature," if you catch me, and thus, as a result of this and a couple other things, it's a little corny. But overall, this film has you in a place you'll never, ever go, and even though this film isn't extremely substantial and isn't entirely successful, this is a more worthwhile venture than those "Italy from your living room" trips. B-

The Double Hour

2011-04-30T22:36:00.008-04:00

"The Double Hour" is a depressingly derivative film following a pair of two-dimensional characters (the kind who are defined by a single character trait, such as liking to swim or listening to bird calls) who seem to be darting into a serious relationship when they are interrupted at a crucial moment. It apparently has a thesis along the lines of Kryzsztof Kieslowski's frustrating but technically captivating "The Double Life of Veronique," but it doesn't ever really realize it. By leaving its parameters slightly obscured, it may leave the impression that there is a method to its montonous madness, but it doesn't even connect the dots to open up interpretations. It's a bleary film where we queasily view tropes that feel extremely familiar.

Giuseppe Capotondi's film has been much compared to "Tell No One," a mildly successful movie which many consider some sort of masterpiece. This is valid: "The Double Hour" rips off much of its predecessor's plot, imagery, and dialogue. To add to recycling that film's woozy, calm-before-the-blackout score, we even have the motif of the pop tune in English here (which is strange since neither film is in that language): whereas "Tell No One" featured U2's "With or Without You" in a bizarre interlude, here we have The Cure's "In Between Days." I'd recommend watching neither film, but if you had to choose, that one is stronger.

Anyways, we follow a hotel maid named Sonia who wants to find Mr. Right, one who'll distract her from her very depressing job (stumbling in on people committing suicide isn't out of the question). Speed-dating, she has one of those "meaningful conversations" with Guido, who apparently gives the owner a lot of business. They soon decide they're in love and go take walks in the woods and listen to bird sounds and stuff. But hold your horses: this ain't a romantic comedy or a film about their relationship (which would be not very interesting, since there's no real indication of their connection). They end up having picked the worst time to have a forest sojourn, as in a fumblingly handled scene, the estate on which they are chilling is pillaged. That's just where I'll stop, since that's where the poster and the reviews have drawn the line. I can't say I exactly understand the film's middle section, which ends up looking just like time killed (running time padding?) or its ending, which is strangely arresting in its inexplicability. I miss something? It's possible.

At the center of the film is Ksenia Rappaport, who won Best Actress at Venice two years ago. I don't know why that is, though, since she stumbles around as if in a trance, boringly stressed and polite. She's a cross between Kathy Griffin and the woman in this Waverly Films video in looks but not in performance style, which would have been insane but in some ways that would satisfy what this film needs. She stars alongside Benito Mussolini from "Vincere," Fillipo Timi, but it's really her movie and the film is simply as listless as she so often is. Save for one contrived-feeling but gripping first-person POV scene (that may be a rip off from a film I haven't seen), and tinges of interest worked up by the film's strange loose ends, "The Double Hour" fails to be as mundanely remarkable as the occurrence its title describes. C-

Circo

2011-04-29T22:06:00.005-04:00

45 minutes longer than it should be (a bad thing for a movie that is only 75 minutes long), "Circo" showcases debut documentarian Aaron Schock's immense technical proficiency but also a lazy dependency on padding. Shooting against a beautiful background of sunsets and pastels, he charts a few months in the life of a family whose entire life is spent on their circus. It has glorious aspects to it, to be sure, but it also takes its tolls. The father, Tito, feels it is his calling to continue the circus in honor of his father (all of his other siblings have moved on), but his wife, Ivonne (who he ran off with at a young age), is sick and tired of the instability of the venture and worried that her kids are just as unsatisfied. They have been taught to do pretty amazing things, yet they are essentially illiterate and will have a hard time adapting to the world outside of the big top if they choose to leave.

The film drifts between unpretentious intimacy and cliched superficiality, and is much the lesser for the latter. Schock is not an intrusive filmmaker, but he still adorns the movie with trademarks of intrusive filmmakers (such as using too many captions and holding the film to a strict arc), and the film gets somewhat lost in that contradiction. Along with this misstep, Schock also doesn't keep a long enough focus on certain elements (such as the actual circus performing), and jumps around too much, showing us things not entirely related to the plot and giving us the same information again and again.

I hope that Schock gets his content flaws down before his next outing, because if he does, he may be a strong documentarian. But even though "Circo" has some good insight, it didn't grip me and as a result I was waiting impatiently for its conclusion. C+

Source Code

2011-04-17T20:53:00.003-04:00

"Source Code" toys with profound thoughts, arrestingly subverts and traps you in its narrative structure (similarly but with higher stakes than the frequently compared "Groundhog Day"), contains moments of provocative dialogue, and builds a complex relationship between its main characters. However, it goes wrong somewhere along the way and, by the end, I felt like I was watching a film made out of a first draft of a screenplay. It needed to be revised and taken care of, not thrown together like it needed to make a deadline. There are so many different angles that this film could have taken on its plot, some of them cliche to be sure, but none quite as bizarrely murky as the one that it eventually decides on.

I'm actually okay with it not making sense, a problem that many people identified with the film. It works pretty well even though the ending doesn't entirely compute. It's just the slapdash lameness of the final line, the philosophies that the film decides to take on for the lack of time to explore more interesting ones, and the way that director Duncan Jones and his writer Ben Ripley seem to be struggling to find somewhere to pull out that make any such rationalizations useless.

The same thing happened with Jones' first film, "Moon," an extremely astonishing achievement of atmosphere and ideas that lacked the execution to work those things into a movie just as great, largely because of the confusion of its climax and ending. "Source Code" is throughout a better carried out film, and it uses many of "Moon"'s strengths (making the audience claustrophobic and thus creating an intense interest in the mechanics of the plot) to its advantage. But it has plenty of its own missteps.

Jake Gyllenhaal does work well in the lead role, applying a mix of incredulity, manners, and sarcastic menace to his character. However, he is somewhat shaky at times, as he is not an exceptional actor by any means, and his limitations don't let the movie get to where it could have gotten. He plays Cpt. Colter Stevens, who has gone straight from being the military to waking up on a train. He stumbles around, wondering what the hell is going on, since he's (apparently) been placed in medius res into an operation where he's taken someone else's body to find out who put the bomb on the train he's on, a man who has more attacks ready to go. Since he has no idea what his objective is the first time through, he cannot complete it, and only goes to alienate the woman he's traveling with, Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan). Monaghan, who plays surprised often in this film, gives the film's strongest performance, making the contact she shares with Colter (or, as she knows him, Sean) feel like something to behold. She's what makes the film move through its weaker portions.

Maybe her character is more interesting because she's given in small doses, but in any event Monaghan is only in half of the scenes, and in the other half of the film, we are on our own. That's because we have to deal with the interplay between Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga, who fails to realize a potentially compelling role due to one of the dullest acting jobs I've seen in a while. I guess it's like that by design, but that doesn't change the fact that I dreaded her scenes. She plays Goodwin, one of the people behind the mission that Colter is undertaking. She is affectless and talks and behaves as if she hasn't been outside in a long time. No wonder she says she got divorced. She's joined by Jeffrey Wright, who enunciates words strangely and who isn't successful in making his crutch look like anything more than a slapped on character trait. He's there to sound cool explaining big concepts, but he's barely less stodgy than Farmiga. It doesn't help that the interior decorator of the Source Code facility hasn't upgraded the place up to the current digital era. It doesn't seem like anyone has heard of an Apple computer or a wireless keyboard. Perhaps this is done to both add analogue flavor and to further concentrate the suffocating spaces on us, but it doesn't work too well, and it just goes to underline even more that this is much boring section of the film.

So perhaps Gyllenhaal should be credited for livening things up a little bit thereabouts, along with the help of some nice compositions by Don Burgess, strong editing by Paul Hirsch (especially in the train section), and a (sometimes more than) serviceable score by Chris Bacon. But "Source Code" is another near miss by Jones, who has now twice danced near making a masterpiece but bowed out both times because he hasn't tightened the bolts. B-

Cannes 2011 Power Rankings: Selection Day Edition

2011-04-14T23:24:00.008-04:00

Palme d'Or (Best Film):

1. The Tree of Life, Malick

2. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Ceylan

3. The Skin I Live In, Almodovar

4. Le Havre, Kaurismaki

5. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

Just outside: Pater, Cavalier; This Must Be the Place, Sorrentino

Gran Prix (2nd place):

1. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Ceylan

2. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

3. House of Tolerance, Bonello

4. Footnote, Cedar

5. Polisse, Le Besco

Jury Prize (3rd place):

1. House of Tolerance, Bonello

2. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

3. Footnote, Cedar

4. Polisse, Le Besco

5. The Skin I Live In, Almodovar

Best Actor:

1. Lior Ashkenazi/Shlomo Bar-Aba, Footnote

2. Antonio Banderas, The Skin I Live In

3. Sean Penn, This Must Be the Place

4. Ryan Gosling, Drive

5. Nanni Moretti, We Have a Pope

Just outside: John C. Reilly, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Best Actress:

1. Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

2. Noemie Lvovsky, House of Tolerance

3. Emily Browning, Sleeping Beauty

4. Elena Anaya, The Skin I Live In

5. Cecile de France, Boy With a Bike

Just outside: Cary Mulligan, Drive

Best Director

1. Maiwenn Le Besco, Polisse

2. Alain Cavalier, Pater

3. Lynne Ramsay, We Need to Talk About Kevin

4. Joseph Cedar, Footnote

5. Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive

Just outside: Takashi Miike, Hara-kiri: Death of a Samurai

Best Screenplay

1. Julia Leigh, Sleeping Beauty

2. Lynne Ramsay and Roy Kinnear, We Need to Talk About Kevin

3. Aki Kaurismaki, Le Havre

4. Radu Mihaileanu, The Source

5. Joseph Cedar, Footnote

Just outside: Pedro Almodovar, The Skin I Live In; Hossein Amini, Drive

Cannes 2011: Competition Preview

2011-04-14T15:24:00.010-04:00

I've imposed an exile from Twitter on myself while writing this feature, so that these are my and only my reactions to the news about the festival today. (I will, however, use IMDb to get plot information.) Like last year, I want to evaluate my eagerness to see each film and each film's chance at winning awards, and I will do this in this feature. I won't tackle the sidebars (the main ones being Un Certain Regard and Director's Fortnight) for a couple of reasons: not knowing about them yields surprises later on in the year, and also, the work in covering each of those films on top of the Competition would be too hard.

So as to avoid delaying too long, here goes (organized by director's last name, as I'm getting this info from the press release):

The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodovar, 120 minutes)

Almodovar is said to be pushing his comfort zone with this one, and I'm very excited. Apparently this one goes all out, and although "Broken Embraces" and "Volver" (the two films of his that I've seen; I know, I'm incredibly behind on his work) inspired uneasiness, I think this'll be in another ballpark. Antonio Banderas in the lead could really be something to behold, and my hopes are up that he'll turn in one of his better performances. All-in-all, one of my most anticipated films of the year. If I could pick a film from the Competition to watch right now, this would be towards the top. The plot summary from IMDb: "Based on Thierry Jonquet's novel "Mygale", this revenge tale tells the story of a plastic surgeon on the hunt for the men who raped his daughter."

Could it win the Palme? Certainly. With the abrasive tone and subject matter, it could be a bit of a stretch, but Almodovar is due for a Palme after coming to Cannes three times and winning Best Director and Screenplay.

House of Tolerance (Bertrand Bonello, 122 minutes)

I've never heard of this director before, which, as I've always said, creates the perfect arena to be blown away. Bonello does have some prior Cannes experience: his "Tiresia" was up for the Palme in 2003. The synopsis, from Films Distribution, is as follows: "At the dawn of the XXth century, in a brothel in Paris, a man disfigures a prostitute for life. She is marked with a scar that draws a tragic smile on her face. Around the woman who laughs, the life of other girls, their rivalry, their fears, their joy, their pain...From the external world, nothing is known. Their world is closed." I have really no clue what to say about that synopsis, but it sounds better than worse. The reviews will decide it for me.

Could it win the Palme? I'm thinking a Best Actress trophy for the portrayal of the prostitute in question is more likely to happen. If a major award is won for the film itself, it will be probably either the Grand Prix or Jury Prize, as it sounds like the type of film that would cop one of those, but I'm not too sure. It will probably not win the top prize.

Pater (Alain Cavalier, 105 minutes)

Another director I'm unfamiliar with, Cavalier has been in Competition a couple of times, winning the Jury Prize for "Therese" in 1986 (which won a bunch of Cesars as well). I cannot find any information on his new work, and thus I will have to wait until the Cannes website develops synopses (probably I should wait until then to do this feature, as it would have much more depth, but then again, I want to get something out today).

Could it win the Palme? On the basis of his previous Competition brushes, I would say that Cavalier could possibly walk out of the festival with either a Palme or a Best Director. And maybe the actor who plays the titular character (if it's a father) will get something? Who knows until we see the synopsis.

Footnote (Joseph Cedar, 105 minutes)

Cedar is best known for his Oscar-nominated film "Beaufort," which I haven't seen and which played Berlin a few years back. Never before in Competition, Cedar's new film, as described by IMDb, "the story of a great rivalry between a father and son, both eccentric professors in the Talmud department of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The son has an addictive dependency on the embrace and accolades that the establishment provides, while his father is a stubborn purist with a fear and profound revulsion for what the establishment stands for, yet beneath his contempt lies a desperate thirst for some kind of recognition. The Israel Prize, Israel's most prestigious national award, is the jewel that brings these two to a final, bitter confrontation." I think this sounds very interesting, and I'm glad to see that an Israeli film is playing on the festival circuit's biggest stage.

Could it win the Palme? A Best Actor prize, dual or singular, is most likely, but other awards (the main three prizes, Best Director) are not out of the question.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 150 minutes)

Now, here's an artist I know much about. I think his photography is (much) better than his filmmaking, but "Distant" was decent and "Climates" did look pretty nice as well. No plot summary yet, or at least not on the big sites, but nonetheless I'm glad to see a big new film from this guy.

Could it win the Palme? This is a film that I think has one of the biggest chances to get it. Ceylan won Best Director for "Three Monkeys" (unseen by me) and directed his leads to a dual Best Actor prize with "Distant." He's ready to take the next step.

Boy with a Bike (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 87 minutes)

I've seen two films by these guys ("The Son," "Lorna's Silence"), and their among my favorite filmmakers as a result. Experienced Competition veterans, the two have won the Palme TWICE and, on top of that, directed an actor to Best Actor and won Best Screenplay. These guys get something every time they bring a film in. The synopsis from IMDb: "Abandoned by his father, a young boy is left in the hands of an unqualified childcare provider." Whom, I'm assuming, is played by Cecile de France, who didn't really help the cause of "Hereafter" that much in my opinion. But who knows? I'm willing to go where the Dardennes take me, although this seems like something a little different than their usual (this production shot allays that especially).

Could it win the Palme? No. Not gonna happen. Three Palmes?! Nope. Best Actress is always a possibility, since the Dardennes seem to be on their way to being the first directors to win every single award available.

Le Havre (Aki Kaurismaki, 103 minutes)

A much noted filmmaker, I have never seen any of his films. He's won the Gran Prix (for "The Man Without a Past"), being nominated three times for the Palme. No synopsis as of yet, I don't think.

Could it win the Palme? Yes. This could be his year.

Hanezu No Tsuki (Naomi Kawase, 91 minutes)

Kawase's "The Mourning Forest" is a film I've been meaning to watch for a very long time, as it won the Gran Prix. No synopsis yet.

Could it win the Palme? Another definite possibility.

Sleeping Beauty (Julia Leigh, 104 minutes)

First films in Competition are rarities, and here is the first of two (!). Why is this here, since most filmmakers have to climb the ladder? Leigh is a "novelist" (according to Wikipedia) and (according to the Playlist) the screenplay was on the Black List. Synopsis as follows, from IMDb: "A haunting erotic fairytale about Lucy, a young University student drawn into a mysterious hidden world of beauty and desire." This movie has (minor) star power, with Emily Browning, famous for "Lemony Snicket," "The Uninvited," and (though she'd probably like to forget) "Sucker Punch." I don't know exactly what to think about this... Trailer is here, which tackily says that Jane Campion presents and then goes on to quote her in praise of the film.

Could it win the Palme? Best Actress for Browning is far more likely, as well as Best Screenplay.

Polisse (Maiwenn Le Besco, 121 minutes)

Like her sister Isild, Le Besco also first acted then directed, and here's her forth film, under the credit "Maiwenn." The synopsis from IMDb, goes as follows: "A journalist covering police assigned to a juvenile division enters an affair with one of her subjects." Okay-sounding.

Could it win the Palme? Yes. But after Mathieu Amalric won Best Director last year for his first feature helmed, Le Besco, in the same position as him with her first Competition entry, might win that award instead.

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 138 minutes)

Do I need say anything about this? Everyone's most anticipated film of the festival. If you haven't heard about it, you've been living under a rock. Go find the synopsis and watch the unbelievable trailer on your own (partially because I don't want to expose myself to the former just yet). One note: I thought this film would be much longer. My friend says he knows that it was cut down, but this still seems short for a film this ambitious.

Could it win the Palme? THIS WILL WIN. No question. I thought they would play fair and play it outside, but since not, it's got it in the bag, especially with Robert De Niro as the jury head (although he runs TriBeCa, he has a bias towards American cinema) and with Malick having never won the Palme before (though having won Best Director the only other time he bowed in competition, in 1978 for "Days of Heaven"). The rug could be pulled out from underneath, but this is the frontrunner as of yet and the Goliath to everyone else's David.

The Source (Radu Milhaileanu, 135 minutes)

Known to me from his mediocre-sounding, Golden-Globe nominated "The Concert," Milhaileanu has scored the first Competition birth of his career. And this sounds just as mediocre, from the synopsis given by IMDb: "A comedy/drama set in a village and centered on a battle of the sexes, where women threaten to withhold sexual favors if their men refuse to fetch water from a remote well." The full translation of the French title is "The Source of Women."

Could it win the Palme? Possibly. But comedies don't usually win.

Harakiri: Death of a Samurai (Takashi Miike, 126 minutes)

Totally unexpected to see Miike get in (especially with Brilliante Mendoza, Lou Ye, and Giorgos Lanthimos nowhere to be found). Reportedly the first 3D entry ever in Competition, this is crazy shit, which can only be expected on a regular basis from Miike, who himself has never played in the big dance before. Synopsis from Ropeofsilicon.com goes as follows: "Set during the 17th century, the story centers on Hanshiro (played by Ebizo Ichikawa), an honorable, poverty-stricken samurai requesting to commit hara-kiri in the courtyard of feudal lord Kageyu's estate. Trying to dismiss Hanshiro's wish to save face, Kageyu (played by Koji Yakusho) recounts the tragic story of a similar plea years ago from young ronin Motome (played by Eita). But the arrogant lord is unaware of vengeful Hanshiro's bond to Motome." Ok, I'm mildly interested.

Could it win the Palme? Probably not, but, in a move of wild card insanity, maybe.

We Have a Pope/Habemus Papam (Nanni Moretti, 102 minutes)

"A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." (IMDB). Um, what does that sound like to you? A comparison that has already been made, but needs be noted. Not too interested. Nanni Moretti stars and does his thing, apparently.

Could it win the Palme? Well, maybe this template won't win another major award, but who's counting? Most likely, though, Moretti will sit this one out, having won the Palme before.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay, 110 minutes)

I've never seen "Morvern Callar" or "Ratcatcher," but I've heard great things about them, and thus I'm looking forward to Ramsay's new film. "The mother of a teenage boy who went on a high-school killing spree tries to deal with her grief -- and feelings of responsibility for her child's actions -- by writing to her estranged husband." says IMDb. Admittedly, it sounds corny, but with John C. Reilly, Tilda Swinton, and "Afterschool"'s Ezra Miller, it could work. But...

...could it win the Palme? Most definitely. She's gone through the Cannes system, and now could be her time. Keep in mind: these are relative statements, since I think "Tree of Life" holds an overwhelming lead. And Swinton or John C. Reilly could pull something out as well.

Michael (Markus Schleinzer, 94 minutes)

The other debut, about which there is no information. Apparently Schleinzer acted as casting director on a bunch of films and appeared in "The Robber." No synopsis on the major sites.

Could it win the Palme? An out-of-nowhere upset? Unlikely, though it would be interesting.

This Must Be the Place (Paolo Sorrentino, 118 minutes)

Relatively high-profile as these things go, Sorrentino's latest feature length film (after "Il Divo," which won the Jury Prize a while back as well as a nomination for Best Makeup at the Oscars) has Sean Penn at his most garish-looking. Derived from the title of a great Talking Heads song, the synopsis here comes from IMDb. DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO GO IN COLD: "Cheyenne, a wealthy former rock star (Penn), now bored and jaded in his retirement embarks on a quest to find his father's persecutor, an ex-Nazi war criminal now hiding out in the U.S. Learning his father is close to death, he travels to New York in the hope of being reconciled with him during his final hours, only to arrive too late. Having been estranged for over 30 years, it is only now in death that he learns the true extent of his father's humiliation in Auschwitz at the hands of former SS Officer Aloise Muller - an event he is determined to avenge. So begins a life-altering journey across the heartland of America to track down and confront his father's nemesis. As his quest unfolds, Cheyenne is reawakened by the people he encounters and his journey is transformed into one of reconciliation and self discovery. As his date with destiny arrives and he tracks down Muller, Cheyenne must finally decide if it is redemption he seeks ....or revenge. Starring two time Academy Award winner Sean Penn and marking the much-anticipated English-language debut of acclaimed director Paolo Sorrentino, THIS MUST BE THE PLACE is a gripping examination of a man on the precipice of obsession." Interesting stuff.

Could it win the Palme? Yes, but Best Actor, with Penn going-for-broke, could happen.

Melancholia (Lars Von Trier, 130 minutes)

The trailer is here, and I've said that this movie looks like "Birth" meets "Another Earth" meets "Antichrist." An interesting combo, to be sure, and this looks like prime Von Trier, especially with the logo at the end. IMDb says: "Two sisters find their relationship challenged as a nearby planet threatens to collide into the Earth." But I'm only moderately anticipating, as I have some minor issues with what it seems to be.

Could it win the Palme? Unlikely. This is just a trip to the Crosiette for Von Trier, and I don't think it'll play very competitively, since Von Trier has already won for "Dancer in the Dark." Expect some gasps to be drawn, though maybe not as many as from "Antichirst."

Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 95 minutes)

I've highly disliked both of the films I've seen by this guy ("Bronson" and "Valhalla Rising"), a hipster standby who gets by on little more than hyperstylized violence. Thus, you may be surprised to hear that I'm willing to give this guy another shot with "Drive," which sounds good (again via IMDb): "A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong." Ryan Gosling and Cary Mulligan are the leads, and the film is adapted from a book by James Sallis. I'm looking forward to it, but if this is a dud, I don't know if I can offer any more of my time to Refn.

Could it win the Palme? I would say no, mostly due to the genre but also because this guy hasn't played many major competitions (save Sundance).

Here are my first predictions for the awards (to be expanded into power rankings soon):

Palme d'Or: "The Tree of Life," Terrence Malick

Gran Prix: "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia," Nuri Bilge Ceylan

Jury Prize: "House of Tolerance," Bertrand Bordello

Best Actor: Lior Ashkenazi and Shlomo Bar-Aba, "Footnote"

Best Actress: Tilda Swinton, "We Need to Talk About Kevin"

Best Director: Maiwann (Le Besco), "Polisse"

Best Screenplay: Julia Leigh, "Sleeping Beauty"

As for Un Certain Regard, I'm looking forward to "Loverboy" by Mitulescu, "Arirang" by Kim, and the year's Sundance film, "Martha Marcy May Marlene" by Durkin.

More to come, people.

City of Life and Death

2011-04-13T22:44:00.005-04:00

"City of Life and Death" finds its biggest success in its tremendous handling of large-scale scenes. With intense cross-cutting and strong use of the close-up, Lu Chuan finds a way to get across many a POV in a scene where it seems hard. In doing this, he imbues these moments with a remarkable intimacy. However, when the film observes a naturally personal episode, it can't quite get the tone right, and it ends up feeling superficial and sudsy.

Even though it takes a while for it to get a coherent rhythm down, and even though it sometimes diverges into corny subplots involving sentimentalized prostitution, "City of Life and Death" still manages to give you an extremely startling sting. I shook as I watched this film, which displays a large amount of arbitrary cruelty, which makes shreds out of lives and bodies.

We see the Japanese come into Nanking, China, and not only take the city, but proceed to execute, separate, and commit other horrible acts upon the people living there. Referred to as the Rape of Nanking for a definite reason, this is a period in WWII that I was unaware of before I heard about this film and the documentary "Nanking." I wonder what other elements of this and other wars film is yet to cover.

The film follows various characters more than others, mostly from the Chinese side. One exception is Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a member of the Japanese military who feels some remorse for the horrible things that he does, unwittingly and not. He also becomes attached to a "comfort woman"; cue the subpar dramaturgy aforementioned. We also have, among others, Miss Jiang (Yuanyuan Gao), who is dedicated to the survival of the population of Nanking; Mr. Tan (Wei Fan), a man working for and living under the protection of a visiting Nazi (John Paisley); and a revolutionary (whose name I cannot find), who does what he feels must be done.

Filmed for a good reason in b&w, and with a score that at times hits, despite some wrong notes, the exactly right ones, "City of Life and Death" stands as a strong work that will inform and disquiet. It definitely could have been better in a multitude of areas, but it operates often on a level that transcends its shortcomings. B+

My Joy (Philadelphia Cinefest)

2011-04-11T21:34:00.007-04:00

I had big expectations for Sergei Loznitsa's "My Joy," a Cannes 2010 Competition film that piqued my interest from early on and has held it for the 11 months since then. Unfortunately, when I got to seeing it, it began to lose it. This is a film where a little tightening up would go a long way, as it develops a weighty thesis for much of its running time but loses its focus too often to come through. It is also an extremely dispiriting work, and its final scene sears with its notion of irreparability. If you don't want to be emotionally rocked, do not see this film. If you're sensitive, you may come out with some sort of scar. At the same time, it both is and isn't as harsh as people have said it is. You have been warned.

If you're okay with that... This film follows Georgy (Viktor Nemets, channeling sincerity and apathy), a trucker with a flour shipment who, after getting stuck in a traffic jam, travels with a girl prostitute (played pretty well by Olga Shuvalova) back to her hometown so he can get to where he's going faster. His sojourn, intended to take a day at most, ends up costing him much more time than he imagined and also goes to highlight that he wasn't really going anywhere in the first place.

The (nameless) town where he stops is the archetypal town which no one leaves, where people stop to lay low and end up staying forever. Loznitsa is perhaps somewhat trying to move people to action with this film, in a sort of Sherman Alexie-esque sort of way, but instead of showing positive action, Loznitsa instead is observing its counterpoint, crippling lethargy.

Georgy just centers the film, which operates in the way of Richard Linklater's "Slacker," by moving around to follow the people who come into contact with him. We see a man who was forever broken by the execution of his father by returning soldiers, and the execution of officers by a major who loses everything, including his fiancee and his name, as a result (due to his hiding away in the town). These characters foreshadow the person Georgy will eventually become. Their stories are dealt with in scenes set in the time of Second World War, shot with lenses and costumes that remind one of Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" and Elia Suleiman's "The Time That Remains." This chronological scramble offers opportunities for Loznitsa opportunities for creating disorientation, and the fact that you don't know when the winter of the film's final third takes place is interesting.

The film's strongest asset in disorientation (and otherwise, perhaps), though, is Oleg Mutu's camera. It pulsates with intensity as it watches characters, and constantly favors busy compositions that are uncommon in cinema. At certain points, the screen shows many different actions occurring at once, which creates both the feeling of spontaneity and contrivance. There is also some beautiful embellishment of strange developments in the plot, such as a sex scene that is more interesting because it can't be entirely understood. (The art direction in the deteriorating house where it takes place is also sterling.)

So there's a lot going on here. It just doesn't all work. If this film was 10-15 minutes shorter (I would cut the scene in the prison and the one with the soldiers carrying the coffin), it would be much more successful. If it understood when to, as critics have said of it, lay it on thick and when to restrain itself, it would pack an better punch, betting meaning harder on an ideological level. But instead it pulls on too long and leaves you on the floor with your wind knocked out, locking the doors and leaving no one to assist you. I hope that "In the Fog of Latvia," Loznitsa's next work (set to be his second as a fiction filmmaker after many documentaries), proves more refined. B-

The Robber (Der Rauber)

2011-04-09T23:27:00.004-04:00

"The Robber" by Benjamin Heisenberg follows a man who simultaneously strives for recognition and wants to stay anonymous. He's a runner-cum-bank robber, Johann Rettenberger, and when he's released from prison on parole (after serving a sentence for armed robbery), he continues to be both of those things. He ascends in the sport out of nowhere (making his parole officer happy), and seems as if he could be poised for great things. But he is tied down by his theft, which leads him to steal cars (sometimes right under their owners' noses) and sometimes, rather sadistically, to leave people stranded in random locations for safety's sake. Yet, in retrospect, these events are pretty much inconsequential to the film and the character's arc. This goes to show how disconnected the film is; it really has little clue what it's about with a name like "The Robber."

The film is centered around Andreas Lust's performance in the lead. His sense of desperation helps the film out quite a bit, but at the same time, his insecurity in the role can be seen, especially in the scenes with the parole officer, where he verges on histrionics. This is a role where the actor has to be impeccable, and Lust, despite being strong, falls short. But he doesn't have the best support in the world, either: Heisenberg, working from a fictionalized novel by Martin Prinz (who collaborated on the screenplay), can't do much with banal plot developments, like a subplot with an obligatory love interest (Franziska Weisz) who obviously ends up causing a bit of trouble for Johann, and the film thus takes its place alongside the other films of the genre.

That's not to say it doesn't have its perks. There are some quite disarming moments. For example, one scene, set in a movie theater, does a lot by going "Shirin"-style and not showing the film playing, but only focusing on Johann and his girlfriend, and the effect is nicely curious. And, in general, the film's cinematography and lighting are stunning. There is bravura motion photography, and there are also more than a couple striking images, such as a follow shot that creates an extremely disorienting effect. Much of the film looks like it was painted. But that only partially makes up for the film's narrative fumbling, and the final shot is nowhere near as powerful as it could have been. Maybe remaking the film in America, with a younger actor (Andrew Garfield), will lead to greatness, but the parts will probably not be in order, and I think we'll have to simply regard "The Robber" and long for what could have been. C+