Jeremy The Critic

Smashed

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 18 May 2013 20:11:00 +0000

Director: James Ponsoldt
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Aaron Paul, Octavia Spencer, Nick Offerman, Megan Mullally, Mary Kay Place, Kyle Gallner
Running Time: 81 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There are certain actors and actresses you're just a fan of. It would probably be easier to deny it and pretend I go into every movie with complete objectivity, but the fact is that I'm much more likely to watch and appreciate a film starring performers I like and have followed throughout their careers. I want them to make smart choices that confirm my opinions of their talent, and if they don't, it's disappointing. Three of them co-star in James Ponsoldt's Smashed, a film about alcoholism that's really about a descent into sobriety. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Aaron Paul and Nick Offerman appearing together in a single film reading from a phone book probably would have been enough for me, but here's Winstead giving an award caliber central performance as an alcoholic, Paul as her immature, unsupportive husband and Offerman proving he can inhabit a character that's about as far removed from Parks and Rec's Ron Swanson as possible. On top of that, the film itself is nearly perfect in a straightforward, no-nonsense way that may not be immediately apparent. It plays honestly, but without judgement.

Winstead plays Kate Hannah, a schoolteacher who also happens to be an alcoholic. We see in early scenes that, as the former, she's amazingly kind and patient with the kids and pretty much every parent's dream of who they'd trust with their children. Until, hungover from another night of partying, she vomits all over the classroom floor. The kids ask her if she's pregnant and, panicking, she to lies them and a supportive Principal Barnes (Megan Mullally). It's likely Kate's been an alcoholic for a while but is just now starting to come around and realize it. She's not there yet, but getting close. Hardly helping is her equally hard partying husband, Charlie (Paul) whose complete obliviousness to their situation and terminal complacency are the only qualities making him seem like he doesn't have as much of a problem as she does. Kate's only real support comes from the soft-spoken vice principal Dave Davies (Offerman), a recovering addict not only willing to cover up her lie because he has a big crush, but also willing to take her with him to AA meetings where she meets her sponsor, Jenny (Octavia Spencer). On the road to recovery, Kate discovers sobriety is slowly tearing her marriage apart, as a still drinking Charlie feels left behind and a slew of other problems start to surface.

It seems to be a commonly held belief about young people that their drinking and drug use will never escalate to alcoholism or addiction, and it carries over into movies where the middle-aged tend to be the most serious substance abusers. It's almost as if young adults are expected to be doing it, and, as a result, should be able to handle it just fine. At the beginning of this film you'd almost be forgiven into thinking so, until a moment comes that's frightening in how well Winstead sells it. Waking up on the street with no idea where she is or how she got there, it's the first time Kate seems legitimately scared and mortified of what she's capable of when drinking. During a memorable sequence scored to Richard and Linda Thompson's "I Want to See The Bright Lights Tonight," we see Kate spend the night smoking crack with a hooker, and it's after that she realizes it's the final straw. But really it's just the beginning. Short-term, her decision to embrace sobriety surprisingly causes more problems than it solves in her marriage and life, while bringing dormant ones to the surface, such as an already strained relationship with her mother (Mary Kay Place).

There were already strong hints of Winstead promise in 2011's The Thing prequel and now seeing this it'll be easier to understand why I suspected that role in Scott Pilgrim was way beneath her. This confirms it. It's almost become a long-running joke that playing an alcoholic is every actor's dream since it invariably leads to awards recognition of some sort, but there's a reason for that. It's difficult to do believably. She doesn't squander the opportunity, knowing that drunk people often behave like delusional sober people, completely ignorant to everything going on around them. And it's the mode she's in for the entire first half of the film, which is no small feat. But it's when the drinking stops that her performance really kicks into high gear, as Kate's eaten with guilt over her sobriety driving a wedge through her marriage. She also has to ward off the advances of confidant and co-worker, Dave, though using the term "advances" is probably stretching it given his struggles talking to women. Offerman leaves all traces of the manly, breakfast obsessed Ron Swanson behind in a really subdued, low-key dramatic performance that still doesn't completely abandon the dry sense of humor he's known for. It proves, unsurprisingly, that he's capable of other things.

Aaron Paul plays Charlie as a good guy, but also one stuck in a complacent holding pattern. In this way, he resembles Jesse Pinkman of Breaking Bad's early seasons (right down to the substance abuse and playing video games on the couch) to the point that he'll probably be accused of just playing a variation on his TV character. But this speaks more to our familiarity with Paul than the actual performance, which is surprising in how he cedes so much of the spotlight to his co-star. Now that Kate's sober, there may no longer be a place for him in her life and they'll have to take stock as to whether they ever had anything that went beyond drinking and partying. We also wonder if she can move past how unforgivably unsupportive he's been in her recovery. But much like Flight, the other 2012 film dealing with alcoholism, Kate won't really be clean until she admits she isn't and takes responsibility for her lies.

Watching Smashed, I couldn't help but wonder how badly it would have turned out if a major studio had released it, interfering to make it more exciting or dumbing it down so a depressing topic like alcoholism could be more cheery and accessible. Thankfully, we'll never see that version and I'm given the opportunity to see three of my favorites given free reign to just tear into this meaningful material with everything they've got. It also marks the first time I've seen a movie character pulled over for driving drunk...on a bicycle. First-time director Ponsoldt makes it happen but it's easy believe the hard part was over once this cast was set in place. It wasn't until the end that I realized Paul and Offerman don't share a single scene together. And that feels strangely like the right call. For the story's purposes, there's no need, so they don't. But the film ultimately belongs to Winstead, revealing dimensions to her abilities even her biggest fans couldn't have anticipated. And that she does it opposite two of TV's best, only makes the accomplishment seem that much greater.

Lincoln

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:28:00 +0000

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, Dane DeHaan, Joseph Cross, Gloria Reuben
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

A talky slog through a very specific point in American history, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln probably would have been better served with the title, The Passing of the 13th Amendment or maybe even Team of Rivals, the Doris Kearns Goodwin biography on which it's partially based. Then again, advertising and marketing still wouldn't fix most of the problems associated with a film that makes the 16th President a supporting player in what feels like the world's longest episode of The West Wing. Where it earns points is in impeccable period accuracy and an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that's every bit as impressive as you'd expect and then some. History buffs will eat this up, even if we're left with the nagging feeling that, barring a few notable exceptions, Spielberg doesn't give us anything that couldn't be gleaned from doing some reading.

As much as many reject standard, by-the-numbers biopics on political figures, I couldn't help but think that approach would have actually been welcome here, as the choice to only depict Lincoln's last four months in office (and of his life) seem to be almost too narrow a focus. And yet, that was easily the most interesting period so Spielberg's caught between a rock and a hard place. He responds with his most un-Spielbergian effort yet, completely abandoning the sentimentality usually associated with his work in favor of a straight, emotionless recitation of history. In that sense, the film is a welcome departure, as he makes the wise decision to get out of his own way. Other than an attempted portrayal of Lincoln as a saintly, Gandhi-like figure (that's mostly transcended by Lewis' riveting turn) there's little that would indicate it's even a Spielberg picture. You'd figure that would be a good thing. Instead, it creates an unusual dichotomy that results in a mild letdown. Albeit a really well-made one.

The film primarily focuses on President Lincoln's attempts in 1865 to obtain passage for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in the House of Representatives. To do this he not only needs the necessary minimum of 20 votes from the Democrats but also, without exception, the full support of the Republicans. It's not as easy as it seems and much of the verbal sparring scripted by Tony Kushner centers around the president's political maneuvering, which is often controversial. Of course, we know he eventually comes out with the win, only to weeks later lose his life to an assassin's bullet, but Spielberg shows the resistance he faced pulling that monumental victory off. Most of those battles involve an unlikely ally in Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets to to deliver some of the film's sharpest insults, proving that politics was just as dirty then as it is now. But for all who are in favor of the amendment's passage, there are just as many who aren't. Namely outspoken Democratic Congressman Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), and even the emotional First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), whom the President has to constantly placate due to her wild mood swings and fears of their returning son Robert Todd's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) desire to join the Union Army.

It's a strange complaint to level against a Spielberg film that it isn't emotionally manipulative enough, but oddly, that's the case here. It's a political procedural devoid of manufactured drama, and even as someone who usually appreciates that approach in other genres, it's dry and talky to the point that I sometimes found myself losing patience and just zoning out. A key factor as to why (aside from the material's sheer denseness) is that it just isn't visually interesting. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has collaborated with Spielberg many times in the past with enormously successful results, but three quarters of the film is shot in dark, dingy corridors and musty rooms. At times it's almost too dark to even see what's happening, which maybe doesn't matter since, most of the time, not a lot is. For example, there's exactly one shot of the White House, which is unusual, because if any historical period presented a golden opportunity for sweeping visual grandeur on screen it was this one. Instead, the whole thing feels kind of claustrophobic with most the film confined to offices and courtrooms.

Luckily, we still have Daniel-Day Lewis, who inhabits every scene, telling stories and providing valuable insight into Lincoln's politics and morals. It almost seems as if every revelation that comes forth about the man is contained entirely in his performance. Everything else, we pretty much knew already. He's the reason to see this. The voice, the look, the tone of speaking. There are so many points where you're taken aback by the way he delivers a line and forced to ask yourself, "Lincoln said THAT? Really?" At some points it's actually funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth because we've grown so accustomed to history dictating to us the mythic terms under which he's supposed to be viewed. But Day-Lewis humanizes him, which might end up being the film's greatest success. One of the most memorable moments comes at the start when he's interacting with a pair of Union soldiers reciting to him the Gettysburg Address. It's a transformative performance in search of a better movie that focuses entirely on Lincoln rather than the nuts and bolts of the political process.

Make no mistake that this is all about the 13th Amendment, with non of the other sub-plots even getting off the ground. Unforgivably, a mustachioed Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wasted as Robert Todd Lincoln, while little is explored regarding the President's marriage aside from a shrieking Sally Field making it perfectly clear that the Mary Todd was a real basketcase and the polar opposite of her calm, serene husband. Of the many supporting players, it's really Jones who chews into his role as stubborn Thaddeus Stevens with grumpy gusto, stealing nearly every scene he's in. Top to bottom, it's a loaded cast, with David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Lukas Haas, Dane DeHaan, Jared Harris, Adam Driver, Walter Goggins and Bruce McGill all contributing in some form or another in wide variety of small and larger parts. More fun than the actual film might be trying to spot and recognize them all. Especially James Spader, who's strangely hilarious as an determined Republican party member lobbying for the amendment's passage.

It's easy to fault Spielberg for continuing a half-hour longer than what would have been the perfect end point or criticize him for a one-sided whitewashing of history, virtually ignoring (with the exception of Gloria Reuben's character) the African-American side of this issue. Both of those are true, but what really bothered me was how he treated, or didn't treat, the assassination. If Spielberg didn't want to show it (supposedly because he thought it would be tasteless, which is a cop-out, but his call), that's fine. But you can't choose not to show it and still fully acknowledge it. If he was going to show it, then he should have. If not, then he shouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Not with something like that. Instead he does this silly bait-and-switch that ends up drawing more attention to the assassination than if he'd actually reenacted it in all its horror. You could actually argue he fulfills his fear of it being tasteless just by pulling this unnecessary stunt.

Spielberg's one of only a few filmmakers today who can reasonably be considered a "brand." The accusation that at this point he's just cashing paychecks and trying to collect Oscars isn't entirely disproven with this effort, but the film is surprisingly restrained and refined, representing at least one of his purest, most honest outings in a while. Unfortunately those very same qualities also make it kind of a chore to sit through. Perhaps it's a little too restrained and in need of some of that magic Ben Affleck was able to create with Argo. While some criticized that for "Hollywoodizing" a historical event, there's no denying his approach worked, giving the material a much-needed emotional spin that captivated audiences. In contrast, Lincoln feels more like a homework assignment. One in which students would actually be more excited to read the book.

Les Misérables

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 07 May 2013 22:25:00 +0000

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As someone who's usually not a fan of musicals and was completely unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables on stage or screen, here presents that rare opportunity for me to go into a movie cold. Knowing so little about it, preconceived notions tend to disappear, or at least fade as far into the background as possible. But it still turned out to be a more fulfilling and entertaining experience than my few expectations had prepared me for. It's also a bizarre one, as certain creative and technical decisions are made by Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper that will likely raise the eyebrows of even those who care little about these sorts of things. Arguments could go on all day as to whether they enhance or detract from the material, but at the end it may not even matter. Since all fans will remember is whether it remains true to the source, Hooper's preaching to the choir here. Everyone else will likely be more divided, but it's pretty cut and dry what works and what doesn't, as one section of the story clearly surpasses the other. At the top of the list of successes is the inspired casting, followed closely by a sensational opening hour that sets in motion a chain events that spans nearly twenty years and claims more than a few victims. As the running time wears on and the characters start dropping like flies, it's almost too easy to revert to the joke that this should have been titled Les MISERABLE. Few will debate the film starts losing steam after the opening sixty minutes, but there's still a lot to recommend in a story so expansive that there's genuine doubt all the characters could die of old age before the final credits roll.

Opening in 1815, Les Misérables really tells two tales that eventually converge as one giant, sweeping one. The first involves convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who's released on parole by prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), but manages to escape and start a new life for himself, eight years later becoming a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer in France. When one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired and forced to sell her hair and turn to prostitution to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) Valjean steps in to become the girl's guardian. Now, years later and set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Valjean is still being trailed by police inspector Javert while an adult Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) becomes the object of Marius Pontmercy's (Eddie Redmayne) affections, much to the dismay of his good friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), who harbors a secret crush on him. As Javert draws closer to apprehending Valjean, the political turmoil escalates, putting all their lives in danger as a country's future hangs in the balance.

The first hour of this film is so strong on every level possible that it was almost inevitable that the remainder of it wouldn't be able to keep pace. And Anne Hathaway's Oscar winning supporting performance as the dying Fantine is the major reason why. She has only maybe a little more than 10 minutes of screen time, but makes the most of each grueling moment, effectively selling her character's rapid descent into hopelessness. Losing her hair and over twenty pounds, her gut-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is without question the defining scene of the movie and it's a magic that isn't quite recaptured once Hathaway makes her exit. Was the role predestined, if not calculated, to win her the Oscar? Maybe, but who cares when she's this good.

It's also the best work Jackman's done in a while as a man on the run, shamed by his secret past as a criminal and racked by his own guilt. The decade plus cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between him and Javert is the film's greatest narrative asset, even when being overshadowed by other goings on in the third act. Russell Crowe himself would probably readily admit his singing isn't exactly the most polished in the cast, at times coming across as a strange hybrid of William Shatner's spoken word albums from the '60's and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Crowe's not a singer, but because he's such a formidable actor he's able to pull off absolute lunacy with confidence and conviction. Whether it was for the right reasons or not, I looked forward to every appearance he made. As the swindling, manipulative Thénardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter feel as if they've just stepped off Tim Burton's set, embodying comedic goth creepiness as the innkeepers mistreating young Cosette and extorting her mother. Cohen is fantastic in the role, making "Master of the House," in which he sings about cheating the inn's patrons, the most raucous and purely enjoyable number in the film. If nothing else, the characters deserve credit for their surprising staying power, as few would guess these seemingly one-dimensional villains figure into the action as much and as long as they do.

Unfortunately, everything comes to a grinding halt once we get to the love triangle, which never seems to take off despite spirited efforts from all involved. Because the time jump is so sudden and jarring, it's difficult to immediately adjust to Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks as older versions of the child characters we got to know earlier. But they do well nonetheless. Seyfried, besides being a dead ringer to child counterpart Isabelle Allen in looks, is definitely the best singer in the cast, while Barks, who actually played Éponine on stage, sings and acts her heart out in a role that might not be quite as large as you expected. That her part almost went to Taylor Swift would be shocking if not for the fact that the content of this romantic sub-plot isn't entirely dissimilar to that of her hit songs. As for Redmayne, this marks the second time after My Week with Marilyn that he appears to be a spectator in his own movie as the young lovesick revolutionary. In some ways, Aaron Tveit, who plays his friend and charismatic leader of the movement, Enjolras, makes more of an impression. What saves this section is the music and the fact Hooper gets his act together in time for a strong, emotional finale focusing on the characters we want to see, even if most of them are dead by that point.

This isn't one of those movie musicals that directs itself or is in any way shot like a stage play directly transposed to the screen. Hooper's style is umistakenly "in your face" with weird dutch angles and extreme close-ups that could feel like an invasion of personal space for certain viewers. This is especially true of the Hathaway sequence, where the camera doesn't leave her face the entire time. At times it is too much and it's easy to see why many may not be on board with the approach or feel it's just a filmmaker showing off at the expense of the material. But for me, any bells and whistles were necessary since this was just never going to in my wheelhouse no matter what. The best that could be hoped for was to be sufficiently entertained and Les Mis did deliver that in spades It's never boring or uninteresting. Strangely, it sometimes suffers from the opposite problem, moving a mile a minute with hardly a moment to breathe and take it all in. But as far as problems go, that's a pretty good one to have.

This is 40

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:02:00 +0000

Director: Judd Apatow
Starring: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, John Lithgow, Megan Fox, Albert Brooks, Maude Apatow, Iris Apatow, Melissa McCarthy, Jason Segel, Lena Dunham, Chris O' Dowd, Robert Smigel
Running Time: 133 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

First, the good news. Judd Apatow's This is 40 isn't afflicted with the same mean-spirited tone that plagued it's sort of prequel, Knocked Up. And despite featuring two of that movie's more annoying supporting players in more prominent roles, they actually resemble real human beings with legitimate problems this time around. It's also consistently funny with a healthy batting average of jokes hitting their mark. If there's a problem, it's in the allegation that few outside of Judd Apatow and his immediate family will be interested in watching these characters struggle with problems most non-Hollywood residents would probably kill to have. But that's not necessarily his fault. He's clearly writing from personal experience, as is his right, and at no point does he imply this well-off family's problems mirror everyone's. And while it's definitely a bit bloated at over 2 hours, at least it doesn't FEEL too long this time. And it is a gutsy move to make an essentially plotless dramedy consisting of a married couple and their kids fighting, whining, complaining about seemingly trivial issues. And have it work. And be funny. But he does it.

That there's hardly a conventional story to speak of is the film's biggest asset because it allows us to just sit back and observe what essentially amounts to a large-scale dramatic character study doubling as a comedy. Apatow's tried to enter James L. Brooks territory before, but has never fully committed to it quite like this. Rather than re-cap the plot, it's a better idea to just run down the problems of married couple Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) who are both turning 40, despite her angrily insisting she's really turning "38." He owns a failing record label that only signs aging rock acts while her clothing boutique isn't exactly raking in the cash either, as she suspecting an employee (Megan Fox) of stealing. Their daughters, 13 year-old Sadie (Maude Apatow) and 8 year-old Charlotte (Iris Apatow) are constantly at each others throats while Pete's frustration grows at having to financially support his father, Larry (Albert Brooks)and his new family. Debbie's relationship, or lack of one, with her estranged dad Oliver (John Lithgow) is even worse, as the two seem barely capable of communicating at all.

The big elephant in the room is that Pete and Debbie are living far beyond their means and it's now putting a huge strain on their marriage. But considering they seem to fight about everything, there are many points where you can't help but wonder how they even got married to begin with. She thinks he's an immature man-child while he can't figure why she's being such a nag. At least the script doesn't offer up any easy solutions and implies right up until the final scene that this is definitely going to take a lot of work. How two characters who were so annoying in just the few scenes they had in the still otherwise problematic Knocked Up could be so much more tolerable and realistic in their own feature film can be attributable to the fact that Apatow's actually forced to flesh them out this time.

As a scattered snapshot of these people's lives, it's very funny, especially when it comes to the nature of their arguments which span from Pete escaping for a half hour on the toilet with his iPad to Debbie insisting on seeking alternative treatments for their daughter's ear infection. But nothing tops the sub-plot involving Pete's struggling record label, in which the film actually makes somewhat of a profound and timely statement on the commercialization of music sure to be recognizable to anyone notoriously picky about their own tastes. As Pete's top act, Graham Parker deserves a lot of credit for being a good sport by playing himself as a washed-up rock relic who peaked years ago.

As far as Apatow casting his own wife and kids in starring roles, there's little to complain about. Leslie Mann's already proven herself talented enough to deserve her slot as co-lead and the girls are a good fit in their roles. That their casting would even be considered a controversy is perplexing when you consider the film is semi-autobiographical to begin with an directors often hire their own friends and family, usually with far worse results. But the big takeaway here just might be Maude Apatow, who displays comic timing that indicates career potential that could extend beyond this movie. She's also given the film's most bizarre sub-plot (which is really saying something) involving her obsession with Lost. As someone tired of hearing all the incessant whining about how disappointed they were by the finale for the past three years, I was just thrilled Apatow took the high road and chose not to go there, instead treating that event with the excitement it did and still does deserve. While Rudd's his usual likable self, it almost goes without saying that Apatow's self-professed comic idol Albert Brooks (in his first post-Drive role) and John Lithgow give the film's two best performances as the deadbeat dads. The latter is unusually cold and restrained, making every awkward scene he shares with Mann feel especially effective.

The sub-plot involving Megan Fox's character potentially stealing is far less successful, yet even more so when dealing with Debbie's envy over Desi's beauty and sex appeal. At the risk of veering into Rex Reed territory, all the work Fox had done to her suddenly unrecognizable face is distracting enough to invalidate the notion of any woman being believably jealous of her character. There's no dancing around the fact she's always been hired for her looks in a certain type of role, but now without that trump card to fall back on, her limitations as an actress are fully exposed. Luckily, Charlene Yi makes up for it with an enjoyably goofy performance as her co-worker. Melissa McCarthy's brief but impactful scenes as a crazed parent fit right in her wheelhouse while Jason Segel's personal trainer and Tim Bagley's gynecologist are really the only two crossover characters from Knocked Up, but are far funnier and better utilized this time around. Lena Dunham and Chris O'Dowd have tiny roles as Pete's friends and co-workers at the label, but make the most of what they're given. As impressive a cast as it is, it somehow avoids feeling overstuffed, with everyone serving as colorful wallpaper in Pete and Debbie's lives.

Whether intended or not, the film does a good job turning the microscope on a certain segment of the population that, regardless of income, is larger than we'd all like to admit: People who think their problems are the worst in the world. And when things get difficult, that could be everyone, considering how quickly we lose perspective. Though that may not have have been the intention, I was still was pleasantly surprised at the ease at which this went down and how few problems there were with it. Lacking an agenda and his usual awkward attempts at blending gross-out humor with unsettling emotional pathos, this could qualify as Apatow's most mature work yet, even if it's still probably far from his best. His biggest problem thus far has been that every project coming down the pike baring his name as producer, writer or director has felt too similar or the tone has been off. There's no such problem here, even if I still say it's criminal for any comedy to come close to approaching the two and a half hour mark. But at least it isn't time wasted. This is 40 is realistically messy, excelling most when making clever observations about the tiny details that make relationships both challenging and humorous.

Life of Pi

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:19:00 +0000

Director: Ang Lee
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tabu, Adil Hussein, Rafe Spall, Gerard Depardieu
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: PG

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Ang Lee's Life of Pi starts as one kind of story, only to end as an entirely different and more complex one. But it's everything that happens in between that'll generate the most discussion. Of 2012's end of the year releases, it's undoubtedly the one that leaves you with the most talk, think and maybe even argue about after the final credits roll. Both in terms of the technology and the story being told with it, which is of surprising substance. While I'm still generally very lukewarm on the use (and sometimes abuse) of CGI in movies today, there's no denying it's harnessed here in a way that works in tandem with the material to create an experience that can't easily be dismissed or forgotten. Yann Martel's 2001 bestselling novel has frequently showed up on those lists of popular books that have long been considered "unfilmable." And after watching it I can completely see why. This is really tricky material and it's a credit to Ang Lee that he's somehow able to make it sing on screen, juggling visual and thematic elements that would have sunk many other filmmakers.

When a novelist (Rafe Spall) is urged to interview a middle-aged Indian immigrant named Pi Patel (Irrfan Khan) he's told that the story he's about to tell is literally so amazing it will make him believe in God. Through flashbacks we see Pi's childhood growing up in Pondicherry, where his family owned a zoo. He was born Piscine Molitor, a name for which he was relentlessly teased at school ("Pissing") before eventually changing it to Pi, after the mathematical symbol. Raised Hindu, he shocks his mother (Tabu) and father (Adil Hussein) by announcing he's also converting Christianity and Islam, choosing to now follow all three religions because he "just wants to love God." When Pi turns 16 his father decides they're moving to Winnipeg, Manitoba and selling the zoo animals when they get there. This is a blow to Pi who has not only fallen in love with a local girl but has taken an interest in the animals, specifically a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. But while Pi and his family are aboard the Japanese freighter, a storm hits, and he's suddenly lost at sea with the dangerous animal as his only companion. And that's when the story really begins.

Without the benefit of seeing the film in 3D, the opening act is a little jarring to watch when Lee cuts back and forth between the present day framing device and the flashbacks to Pi's childhood. You can tell these scenes are playing with depth in a way that can't be fully appreciated watching at home in a two-dimensional format on a standard TV. There's also a generous amount of voiceover narration setting the story up, so without the 3D format acting as distraction, the prologue can sometimes feel as if we're listening to an audio book on film. These may seem like big complaints but they're actually quite minor when you consider all this takes up only about an eighth of the running time and the script expertly sets the stage for Pi's ordeal at sea. Much of what initially occurs may seem to be a head-scratcher in terms of how it relates to what's coming, and to some could even come off as quasi-spiritual mumbo jumbo. But the film's greatest trick is how it disproves that initial skepticism with a straight-up survival story in the vain of Cast Away or Into The Wild, before again returning us to where we started with a final emotional punch to the gut.

From the trailers and rumblings about the novel, I was under the impression that, no matter how fanciful it seems, Pi would form a close friendship with the dangerous Richard Parker as he battles to survive. Instead, their relationship is depicted more as one of reluctant co-existence and mutual respect in which Pi must carefully consider every move he makes as not to be put in a position where he could be eaten by the tiger. With limited means of obtaining food, that's a concern David Magee's script wisely considers every step of the way no matter how tight the two become. There's always a distance there and Pi's journey is as much about overcoming his own fears as it is surviving. Of course, we really don't realize the full extent of that idea until the film's final lap. But in the meantime we're treated to some truly mind-blowing visuals and one of the best CGI animal creations to be put on screen in Richard Parker, who at no point looks and moves like anything other than a real, living, breathing tiger. If it's true that movie technology had to catch up so the book's events could be done justice, then clearly it has.

Claudio Miranda's cinematography won the Academy Award and it's undeniably beautiful. Does it look like anything resembling reality? Kind of, but not really. Should it even matter in this situation? That, I'm even less sure about. And of course there's no way of us knowing how much of the film's look was enhanced by computers in post-production. Should we care when the final result is this good? It's an interesting debate, but not one that makes or breaks this film. It's the story that does that and how well Lee uses this technology to tell it. Needless to say, it makes it. What isn't up for debate is newcomer Suraj Sharma's performance, a young man who hasn't acted in his life and now must do it against a green screen and a CGI tiger. He has to do everything and does so without you being able to notice any of it. The framing device is the weaker part of the picture but the great character actor Irrfan Khan quietly leaves it all up on the screen in his few crucial as his adult counterpart.

It's impossible to discuss the film without talking about the "big twist," which is probably a misleading way to describe it. In an effort to talk about it without actually doing so, I'll just say that the development that occurs toward the end of the picture is a game-changer in every sense, causing you to re-think and re-feel everything that came before. It's hard to think of instance where one's reaction to a film depends entirely on who you are and what you bring or don't bring to it. When Pi tells the writer that his story "will make you believe in God" you can't help but think he's also talking to us. I'm not sure it does all that or is likely to convert anyone, but it comes closer than it has any right to in philosophically arguing for the existence and purpose of religion while still somehow not being overtly religious in any way. And that the movie doesn't pick a side or necessarily separate any one God or religion from another will probably upset some. What it instead seems to be arguing for is a belief in anything that helps give you the courage to get through. By the film's closing moments we're left with the possibility that something may not have happened when we were led to believe did. But it isn't manipulative. We can still believe it or we can choose not to. Life of Pi bravely splits the audience into two camps, letting us make of the events what we will. It's rare in a big budget film so dependent on modern technology to challenge us like that, encouraging us to carry on the discussion well after Pi's journey concludes.

Skyfall

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Director: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw
Running Time: 143 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

As far as 007 opening sequences go, they don't more thrilling than the one in Skyfall. So far, we've had 23 Bond installments. Let that sink in for a minute. It's a lot. But what's more remarkable is that we've still yet to see one that succeeds as something more than just a franchise entry and can stand on its own as an accomplishment in any genre. Too often the series is hamstrung by tradition as the producers are afraid to step out of the box and take genuine risks that might upset the core audience, but result in a superior finished product. Does anyone remember anything that happened in Quantum of Solace? Skyfall is the closest we've come to perfection and its opening minutes reflect that. It's less shocking in hindsight when you consider Bond can't just die but this entry completes a transformation that's been hinted at for half a century, but really started building since Daniel Craig put on the tux in Casino Royale. He's now a full-fledged, reality-based superhero. In other words, the character's basically evolved into Batman.

Much of the picture's first half plays as a classic Bond tribute, at least until director Sam Mendes pulls the rug out to deliver what might be the craziest entry since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. As a non-fan of the franchise, it was a much needed diversion, since the more often a Bond film veers from tradition, or at least puts an exciting spin on it, the better the result. Helping a great deal is that it's visually more impressive than any previous outing and features a villain that's genuinely terrifying and dangerous. But let's just call this what it really is: Bond as The Dark Night. Mendes has acknowledged the similarities, but what's surprising is just how much of Christopher Nolan's influence seems to be all over the picture, even lifting a specific plot point. There's no denying the strategy worked. It's the strongest entry in years, and the first in a while that doesn't feel behind the times.

After being left for dead in an enthralling pre-credit train sequence, James Bond (Craig) is back after a short seclusion, though certainly not better than ever. Wounded, weak, and even lacking his usual confident swagger, M (Judi Dench) controversially decides to put him back on active duty despite not being even close to ready. His job is to retrieve the hard drive that slipped through his fingers earlier and contains the names of undercover agents placed in terrorist organizations. Standing in his way is cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a creepy sociopath whose actual motives remain cloudy from the get-go, yet become painfully clearer as his twisted plan unfolds with brilliant precision. Despite help from M., MI6 agent Eve (Naomie Harris), nerdy, gadget-savvy Q (Ben Whishaw), M's Intelligence superior Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), and possibly even Silva's mysterious mistress Séverine (Bérénice Marlohe), this marks one of the few times Bond seems legitimately outmatched by an adversary.

Since Craig took over the role, much fuss has been made about the franchise's detour into more serious territory, all but abandoning the series' cheekier aspects that have been so prevalent over the years.This badder, meaner Bond reached its self-serious peak with Quantum of Solace, which was so derivative and slickly packaged it became indistinguishable from your latest Bourne installment. It was also a real bore that featured a dour Craig performance, making me wonder whether a return to some cheesiness was in order. But if you watch most of those old Bond movies (particularly the Roger Moore entries), they are very much a product of their time, and not in a good way. Sam Mendes could be on paper the most accomplished director to tackle 007 and proves it here by getting serious right. There are some minor pacing problems in the early going, but the plot isn't a slog and supporting characters are actually fleshed out.

Mendes makes it feel like a contemporary action vehicle, but also a Bond movie willing to take risks while still maintaining loyalty to the Ian Fleming source. Perhaps borrowing from Nolan's recent portrayal of Commissioner Gordon, this is the first time Dench's M has been given anything more to do than stand behind a desk and act as a figurehead. She's not only showcased as an important piece of the puzzle here, but even promoted to a Bond sidekick of sorts. She also does some unlikable things and makes questionable decisions that causes Bond (and us) to rightfully doubt her judgment and consider whether she's exceeded her expiration date. But the bigger question might be whether 007 has exceeded his with Craig given the rare opportunity to play a weakened, vulnerable Bond, or at least the most vulnerable he's been since the concluding events of Casino Royale.

If these movies tend to only be as as good as their villain than Javier Bardem's bone-chilling work as Silva goes a long way. Strangely effeminate and almost flamboyantly wacked out, Silva's like no other Bond baddie we've recently seen, and comes complete with a backstory that's intricately fleshed out and surprisingly personal. There's a lot of juice behind his motives and Bardem takes full advantage, relishing the chance to play Silva as a bizarre cross between Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero's Jokers and Anton Sigurh from No Country For Old Men. He'd walk away with the film, if not for the fact that, as lensed by the still Oscar-less Roger Deakins, it's the most visually pleasing Bond entry of all-time, with hardly a shot undeserving of being framed and hung in a gallery. This is especially true of a captivating Shangai assassination sequence and the film's finale, in which Silva physically lends even more credence to that theory that some men just want to see the world burn. Even if you detested everything else about the film, just the cinematography alone would still be reason enough to recommend this to anyone without hesitation.

If there's a weak plot link, it's Marlohe's Bond girl, who serves little purpose other than to hop in the sack (or in this case, shower) with him, which given the all business nature of this installment seems particularly ill-fitting. If she's there to merely fill a quota, Naomie Harris proves to be the exact opposite as MI6 agent Eve and, without giving too much away, proves in her few impactful scenes to be worthy of sticking around. If she's more than a field agent, than Bond is finally shown in this installment to be something more than just number, complete with a personal history that's inventively woven into the screenplay. A bearded Albert Finney is Kinkade, the caretaker of Bond's childhood home and though he plays the role well, it's impossible not to imagine that it was tailor made for the retired ex-007 Sean Connery. But no conversation about Skyfall is complete without mentioning Adele's Oscar-winning title song, a classic throwback that earns her a spot in the Bond theme hall of fame alongside Shirley Bassey, Carly Simon, Paul McCartney and Duran Duran.

The general consensus is that each time a new Bond entry is released, it's treated as a reboot, disregarding much of what came before in order to re-energize the franchise so it continues to stick around for the long haul. But this is the first entry in a while that really does feel like a full reboot, despite its heavy influence from another series of recent films. It's also features stronger plotting and a more distinctive visual style than Casino Royale, which garnered much of its praise because of a massive change in tone, the debut of a new actor in the role of 007 and one of the franchise's more compelling love interests. While it proved exceptional at re-introducing Bond to contemporary audiences, it's still really hard not to prefer Skyfall, which simply does more with what it has, inching closer to that seemingly impossible holy grail of a perfect James Bond movie. It definitely puts Craig back in the driver's seat but sometimes you have to wonder how much of this franchise's success depends on that. It always seems to be everything else that's changing around him.

Roger Ebert: A Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:40:00 +0000

"So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."- Roger Ebert

When news broke Thursday that Roger Ebert had passed away it felt like a day we've all been dreading for some time had arrived and yet no amount of preparation could have possibly softened the blow. It's taken a while for it to sink in. Truthfully, it still hasn't and may never. It often feels strange writing about the deaths of public figures or celebrities as if we know them. Because we don't. But this time it sure feels like we did. Especially toward the end. And in all the appreciations written, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that he saved his best act for last, transcending his roots as a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times and beloved TV personality to become a national treasure, as well as personal inspiration to even those who may not have followed his work. For those who did, it truly feels like a guidepost is now missing. A teacher is gone. But when I think about what Ebert meant to movie lovers like myself who grew up on his show and reviews, what jumps out first is his adaptability, as he managed to conquer the media arenas of print, television, and the internet at various points during his illustrious career. And that's just scratching the surface.

Following one-time rival, colleague, co-host, and close friend Gene Siskel's death in 1999, many in the media questioned the purpose of continuing a televised review show format. But not Ebert. He still forged ahead with At The Movies in its many incarnations, making sure the revolving door of hosts continued even through his health struggles.While no pairing could ever match the onscreen magic he shared with Gene, it's easy to believe he knew that but at the same time still recognized the greater importance of having a show on television where films could be intelligently analyzed and discussed rather than reduced to a mere sound bite. As a born newspaperman, it also would have been easy for him to reject blogging and Twitter while jumping on the bandwagon of so many blaming the internet for the supposed death of film criticism. But he knew the real deal. He knew it would mean everyone would be given an opportunity to write and have a voice and that film criticism could only grow stronger as a result. For him, "blogger" was never a dirty word. Roger Ebert's Journal, would house some of his best, most insightful writing on not only movies, but--to borrow his memoir's title-- Life Itself. More impressive still was how often he championed the work of others. For the past few years, hardly a day passed where he wasn't re-tweeting a piece he'd found, with more than a few being writers I followed and read. Nothing got by him. Besides it being the ultimate demonstration of generosity, it showed his curiosity about everything and everyone.The very real possibility existed that if you had a movie blog, or any blog for that matter, he could have easily been reading it. If that's not enough to get anyone to keep writing, I don't know what is.

Whether or not you agreed with his opinion on a movie was almost beside the point, but it sure did feel good when you did. When he liked or hated a movie you did or you noticed strengths or weaknesses he pointed out, you couldn't help but feel a little smarter. There may have been critics as skilled at scientifically dissecting a film piece by piece, but none of them could ever express it as well as Ebert, on television or on the page. What always struck me most about his print reviews were how breezy and effortlessly they read while still engaging you in them. He recreated the feeling of having a friend over for dinner to talk about the latest movie you both saw. Picking up Roger Ebert's Video Companion/Movie Yearbook every December literally became an annual ritual for me, to the point that it wouldn't feel like Christmas without it. And of course all the other books like The Great Movies, Your Movie Sucks and Questions For The Movie Answer Man. Of the lessons he imparted, two famous ones always stick out. For any aspiring movie critics he simply said to ask yourself: "Did I like the movie? Why or why not?" It may seem simplistic yet to this day, whenever I feel blocked, asking it gets me out. Every time. His observation that it isn't "WHAT a movie's about, but HOW it's about it" flipped a switch in me that wouldn't allow me to just watch movies anymore, but actually appreciate them.

Picking a favorite Ebert review is close to impossible but I'll never forget exactly where I was and what I was doing when he and Gene reviewed a small film called Fargo on their show in early 1996, before anyone had heard of it. Seeing the two of them, who bickered famously on some of the biggest releases, so enthusiastically supporting a movie together that could have slipped through the cracks without their passionate support, was quite possibly the duo's finest moment. When they disagreed they were equally strong in different ways, but united in agreement they were unstoppable. And when they were finished I knew one thing: I had to see Fargo and share in the experience they talked about. Ebert's excitement for a new movie not only made you excited too, but often altered its fortunes. Dark City is still remembered today largely because of his support and ability to catch details so many other critics missed. His print reviews put smaller, independent films on the map while his own Ebertfest highlighting overlooked gems acknowledged that sometimes we miss greatness the first time around. It wasn't uncommon, sometimes years down the line, to read his reassessment of a film he previously bashed or graciously admit to initially missing certain details. He understood that our relationship with film, as with life, is a complicated one, constantly changing and always offering up new surprises along the way.

In his final post came the announcement that he planned to take a "Leave of Presence" because the cancer had returned, but accompanying it was the suggestion he wasn't even close to being done. He planned to scale back and review only the films he wanted to, instead shifting his focus on the continued expansion of his brand. Of course, his idea of a part-time schedule would still undoubtedly feel like a a full workload to just about anyone else. He sought help financing a new movie review show and, as difficult as it is to say, I still hope his wife Chaz moves ahead with it because what better way to honor his legacy and career than having his name again attached to a quality movie review program. It turns out his final review was of Terrence Malick's To the Wonder, which is fitting. An appropriate swan song as we'll continue to wonder with each new release what his opinion would have been or how his top ten would have looked at the end of each upcoming year. But as upsetting as all of this is, it's hard not to feel incredibly grateful for just how much he's left us. And as he neared the end, he still kept going and give us even more. The term "Leave of Presence" couldn't possibly be appropriate. As always, he knew how to find just the right words.

Dennis Has a Podcast: Remembering Roger Ebert (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:52:00 +0000

Over the weekend I joined my good friend Dennis as a guest on Dennis Has a Podcast to share my thoughts on the recent passing of Roger Ebert. A written piece from me is forthcoming but this was about a fifteen minute discussion covering his legacy and influence.

Click here to listen.

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:45:00 +0000

"We are put on this planet only once, and to limit ourselves to the familiar is a crime against our minds." -Roger Ebert

Rest in Peace, Roger.

Bachelorette

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:51:00 +0000

Director: Leslye Headland
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher, Lizzy Caplan, James Marsden, Kyle Bornheimer, Rebel Wilson, Adam Scott, Ann Dowd
Running Time: 87 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

That the dark comedy Bachelorette is a an uneven mess is both its greatest attribute and biggest flaw. If it wasn't this sloppy I'm not sure it would have been as compelling, but it definitely would have been a better film. So, call it a trade-off. Trailers and commercials sold it as another Bridesmaids but that this couldn't possibly have less in common with it is actually good news. And it doesn't wear its heart on its sleeve and most definitely doesn't aim to please. The characters are mean, cruel, selfish, and at times, disgusting, but at least they feel real as writer/director Leslye Headland sacrifices little to give audiences a brutally honest, unflinching portrayal of women behaving very badly. The problem is it's only occasionally funny, which is an issue for a comedy featuring somewhat detestable characters. I say "somewhat" because there is a double standard at play. If this were about men they'd just call it The Hangover but when women characters do stuff like this onscreen they're usually labeled "bitches." Unfortunately, the shoe occasionally fits here. Of the three leads, one's a promiscuous drug addict continuously reliving high school. The other is a vacuous airhead with no clue how to relate to other people. Only the third and thankfully most important character seems like a multi-dimensional human being whose occasional cruelty gives way to surprising amount of competence and empathy. After an awful start the movie finds its groove in the second half with one actress doing all the work to drag everything over the finish line. But by then the damage is already done.

In a clever, fast-paced opening, bad girl Regan (Kirsten Dunst) is informed over lunch by former high school classmate Becky (Rebel Wilson) that she's getting married. Regan quickly alerts Gina (Lizzy Caplan) and Katie (Isla Fisher) that they'll all be attending the wedding of the girl they called "Pigface" in high school. The relationship between all the girls and Becky is never entirely clear (friends? enemies? frenemies?) but the plot hits the ground running immediately without looking back. They're all reunited for the bachelorette party where a number of disasters ensue throughout the night involving drugs, alcohol, sex, jealousy, strip clubs and a ruined wedding dress. The presence of Gina's ex-boyfriend Clyde (Adam Scott) complicates matters, as does Joe (Kyle Bornheimer), a former classmate with a longtime crush on Katie, and the best man Trevor (James Marsden), who his sights set on Regan. It'll be up to her, the maid of honor, to hold it all together so Becky can make it to the alter in the midst of old grudges and past relationships bubbling to the surface.

A lot is juggled in the span of just under an hour and a half. As expected, some works and some doesn't, but it's never laugh-out-loud funny. It's more of a dark comedy revolving around insecurity, regret and failure amongst women in their early thirties set against the backdrop of one disastrously thrilling evening. Whereas the overlong Bridesmaids had the problem of shoehorning serious and overly sentimental elements into what's supposed to be a gross-out comedy, this contains plotlines that sometimes feel deadly serious and tries to milk them for laughs. Amazingly, this approach is occasionally more successful than you'd think thanks to a biting script and capable performers. At least until the third act, it rarely shies away from painting these characters as selfish and insensitive at best. Save for the bride-to-be they have very few redeeming qualities, which is actually kind of courageous to do for a female-driven comedy that probably would have been more successful as a drama.

All the storylines and half-developed sub-plots yield mixed results, without us ever really being invested in them. The sub-plot involving Dunst and Marsden's characters doesn't really go anywhere, Fisher's irritating, constantly drunk Katie character torpedoes a mini-romance involving the nerdy Joe, and a heavy backstory with Caplan and Scott can't quite find the right tone to take hold like it should. But it does all feel realistic to a fault. I'll give it that. And we're again given the rare opportunity to see Adam Scott play kind of a jerk. He's surprisingly good at it, even if Caplan and Scott would probably top anyone's list of actors they'd least like to see tackle unlikable characters. But even in their unlikability, the former Party Down co-stars still come off fairly likable, which is no small feat considering the material they're handed. Rebel Wilson is unusually restrained as the optimistic moral center and it's a nice relief to discover that, aside from the whole "Pigface" thing, her character's never turned into a joke and is sincere. But the movie completely belongs to Kirsten Dunst, who's simply amazing. She totally takes over in the final act, juggling so many tones at once and just tearing through the material to the point that she almost redeems the film. Somehow bringing order to the chaos, she digs to provide some answers and explanations for Regan's terrible behavior that couldn't have been in the script. The many fans of Dunst and Caplan will probably be thrilled with what each does here, while Fisher, saddled with a thankless boozer part, can't help but seem like the third wheel.

I'd still probably sooner watch Bachelorette again than the overpraised, but more cleanly executed Bridesmaids since this at least took risks and tried something different. Plus, it's only 87 minutes. If only every comedy were between 80 and 110 minutes. Especially in this case. Even just a few minutes more with these characters would have been too much. It's an easy, breezy watch that, despite a myriad of issues, hardly qualifies as a slog or complete waste of time. And any comedy featuring Adam Scott badly singing The Proclaimers' "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" could never be considered a total disaster. That Will Ferrell produced this isn't surprising, as it does kind of feel like a Funny or Die sketch that's longer, meaner and just not quite as funny. But it is interesting and thankfully seems made without any concern as to whether audiences will enjoy it, take away any message or like the characters. You have to respect that. If a comedy's going to fail, we should be so lucky that it fails with as much ambition as this one.

Hit and Run

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:23:00 +0000

Directors: David Palmer and Dax Shepard
Starring: Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, Kristin Chenoweth, Tom Arnold, Bradley Cooper, Ryan Hansen, Michael Rosenbaum, Beau Bridges, Joy Bryant, David Koechner
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Whenever seeing anything involving the Federal Witness Protection Program I always think back to that episode of The Simpsons when Homer wore and hat and shirt that read: "WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM." The main character in the action crime comedy Hit and Run would probably wear something like that, not out of stupidity, but just out of exhaustion from hiding for so long. He's played by Dax Shepard, who also wrote and co-directed with David Palmer what turns out to be something rare nowadays. A smart, funny, edgy and exciting mainstream comedy that marches to the beat of its own drum. That he's the brains behind this might be surprising to some, but not to anyone who's seen NBC's Parenthood where he consistently crushes it as a key player each week. Now with this, it seems his talents extend behind the camera as well, but it's still hard not to be at least a little surprised the movie works this well and that he's actually leading man material on the big screen. Besides utilizing a terrific cast well, he's also written for his real-life girlfriend Kristen Bell her strongest post-Veronica Mars role yet and one that brings all her strengths as a performer to center stage again. Which makes sense. You'd figure if anyone could figure out how to do it, it's him. I know I'm supposed to dislike the guy, but he's sure making it really difficult.

Robbery accomplice "Charlie Bronson" (Shepard), has been spending the past four years in Milton, California under protection and monitored by clumsy, incompetent and trigger happy U.S. Marshal Randy (Tom Arnold). He lives with his fairly new girlfriend, Annie (Bell), a professor at the local college who holds a doctorate in "Non-Violent Conflict Resolution" from Stanford and has just been informed by her kooky boss Debbie (Kristin Chenoweth) of an opportunity to head up her own department in Los Angeles.Only there's a problem: Charlie can't legally leave and her hilariously sleazy, overprotective ex-boyfriend Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) will do it whatever it takes to stop them, even enlisting the help of his gay police officer brother Terry (Jess Rowland) and recruiting the dangerous Alexander Dimitri (Bradley Cooper), one of the defendants Charlie testified against who's hell bent on evening the score. With Charlie driving his suped up, restored Cadillac, he and Annie are suddenly on the run from not only Dimitri, but Charlie's sordid past, the exact nature of which Annie remains in the dark about. Now besides Annie getting to her interview on time, both have to worry about even making it to L.A. alive.

Don't be fooled by the generic title. As far as action comedies go, this is better than most, with a clever script packed with jokes and smart dialogue that rarely miss the mark. Much of why everything works can be attributed to the fact that while the characters are colorful and their actions often unrealistically preposterous, it's kind of strangely grounded in a reality we can relate to. Shepard crafts a screenplay that captures the way people talk to one another, with the style of humor almost Seinfeld or Arrested Development-like in how ridiculously relatable it is and that's evident in almost every conversation between Charlie and Annie. They actually seem like a real couple who talk how real couples talk and joke and argue about things real couples do. Of course the joke there is that Bell and Shepard actually are one but that has absolutely nothing to do with the writing. And we've definitely seen more than a few off screen partners fizzle on screen due to a lack of chemistry so the pairing was far from a guaranteed success, even on paper. But they make the snappy dialogue come alive, sharing a natural back and forth that feels distinctively authentic and unforced. An argument about the ethics of using the word "fag" is surprisingly interesting and funny in their capable hands as is a scene in which Charlie explains to her how he decided on the manly "Charles Bronson" name.

From its opening minutes it's obvious this diverges from your usual comedies, taking its time getting where it needs to go, to the point that the real action doesn't really start to kick in until the third act. But by then we're so invested in these crazy characters we're practically on the edge of our seats waiting to see it resolve. The car chase sequences (and there are three notable ones) set to a solid soundtrack are a welcome respite from the CG enhanced chases we're used to and a throwback to when actual cars were driven by real people in movies. They're well choreographed and exciting, but more importantly, it's easy to follow what's happening and they exist for reasons that aid the story. But if I had to choose, the relationship arc works better as the film's surprisingly at its best when in full rom-com road trip mode. Shepard and Bell are just that good together. Annie's pacifist approach to solving conflicts makes for some really funny scenes opposite the quick-tempered, impatient Charlie and it feels like an even exchange. The two actors are really co-leads in this, which isn't a claim you can often make in mainstream comedies.

Physically, Shepard may not exactly fit the standard definition of your typical movie star, but here he transcends his supporting roots to carrying an entire full-length feature with offbeat charm and likability. Playing straight man to all the comic chaos unfolding around him he shows off a considerable amount of versatility, successfully fluctuating between the more broadly comic material of the film's first half and the off-the-wall intensity and violence of the second. He's a perfect match with Bell, whose performance in this couldn't have possibly come at a better time, reminding us what she's capable of with engaging material. It's something she hasn't been given in the past six years as this script gives her the opportunity to show off the quick, witty one-liners and smart delivery that originally caused TV audiences to originally fall so hard for her. It's fair to say after some dicey choices in projects, her future prospects have suddenly improved in a big way just within the past month with the announcement of the Veronica Mars movie so it'll be intriguing to see her try to capitalize on it. This role proves everyone right that she's got what it takes to succeed on the big screen, but who could have guessed that Shepard of all people would, quite literally, be the driving force who brings it out?

The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, especially a dreadlocked, pre-Silver Linings Bradley Cooper as Dimitri, who has a scene involving the purchase of dog food that's funnier than it has any right being. Tom Arnold turns in his most inspired comedic work since, well, True Lies, as clumsy U.S. Marshal Randy. The character isn't necessarily important, but he's likable and unannoying, with Arnold nailing every scene he's in. It appears Shepard pretty much just cast all his friends in this (right down to Parenthood's Joy Bryant as Dimitri's girlfriend and Veronica Mars' Ryan Hansen as a bank robber) but he made the right choices since they all do as good a job as possible in roles they're obviously well suited for.

In a perfect movie world more audiences would have heard about this and it would have done better, yet it's easy to understand why it didn't. It would be difficult for marketing to convey what a neat genre hybrid it is, and the plot and cast, outside of possibly Cooper (and even that was doubtful at the time), wouldn't exactly inspire confidence at first glance. It's one of those "under the radar" surprises that needed word of mouth to get people to check it out, but if they do now, they'll be shocked just how funny it is. There was hardly a moment where I wasn't smiling or laughing. Judging from what's in theaters it isn't easy writing and co-directing a creatively successful action comedy, not to mention a frequently funny one in which you're the lead. That Shepard can do this better than most his first time out is the biggest surprise. While he's actually believable as a motorhead action star, his true strength might lie in writing and directing romantic comedies he can headline with Bell. It's a partnership already off to a strong start.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:57:00 +0000

Director: Stephen Chbosky
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Johnnny Simmons, Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, Melanie Lynskey, Paul Rudd, Joan Cusack, Tom Savini
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

While watching The Perks of Being a Wallflower it soon became clear to me why it undeservedly tanked at the box office despite surprisingly strong critical notices across the board. That gap between what's expected going in and what the film ultimately delivers is huge. Trying to market this exclusively as a teen movie is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit, but not because it isn't a movie for teens. It's just not only for them. There's a universal quality about it that extends further than the age of its characters to reach adults who remember what it was like to be that age at that time, or really, any time. The events take place in a frighteningly accurate and detailed 1991 as the film plays as if it were actually made in that year, then stuffed in a time capsule labeled "2012." Thematically and visually darker than you'd anticipate, it carefully handles some really challenging material like depression, suicide, gay bashing, sexual abuse and domestic violence with uncommon intelligence and restraint, more closely resembling suburban dramas like The Ice Storm or American Beauty than your typical "teen" movie.

This has a lot of ground to cover well and if you told me a novelist and first-time director made it I'd be shocked because it just looks and feels so cinematic. If you told me the director also wrote the book it's based on then you'd have to scrape me off the floor. But that's just what Stephen Chbosky does in successfully adapting his own 1999 cult teen novel to the screen, proving it's possible for a writer to maintain enough creative distance from his own work to effectively shepherd its translation to the screen. Already in college when the book came out, I was a little too old to be in the intended reading audience and therefore slightly too young to be the exact age these characters were in '91. But it's close enough. I definitely recall that bright lime green cover in bookstores all over and thinking how juvenile it looked. Talk about literally judging a book by its cover. Not only is there nothing juvenile about this story, it's sophisticated and mature, never once pandering or talking down to its audience. With its protagonist fresh out of the psychiatric hospital due to past trauma and desperately aching to fit in, it might make for an interesting double feature with Silver Linings Playbook. That there are even similarities in tone at all should give you an idea just how good it is. In a year full of surprises, this is yet another big one.

Shy, introverted Pittsburgh teen Charlie (Logan Lerman) is about to start his freshman year of high school and experience all the adolescent pain and joys that accompany it. Still emotionally reeling from the suicide of a friend, and struggling with his own depression, he does get support from his parents (Kate Walsh and Dylan McDermott) and older sister Candace (Nina Dobrev), but spends most of his time writing letters to an imaginary recipient. As a fact Charlie describes as sad, his only friend the first day of school is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd), who's at least is someone to talk to and exposes him to literary classics like The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. Social refuge comes when he's befriended by seniors Sam (Emma Watson) and her step-brother Patrick (Ezra Miller), who welcome him to their inner circle with open arms and slowly get him to come out of his shell, exposing to a fun side of life he's never experienced. She's kind of a bad girl trying to go good while he's openly gay and carrying on a secret relationship with popular football player Brad (Johnny Simmons). As Charlie's popularity and confidence grows with a new set of friends, so do his feelings for Sam, which in addition to causing some problems amongst them, threatens to reignite the painful memories of a childhood trauma that could send him back into his isolated world.

All the different ways this could have gone wrong are avoided at every turn. This could have easily turned out as an after-school special when you consider the thematic content, but Chbosky clearly had other, grander plans. Not everyone's high school experience was the same but the one thing that seems universally accepted is that each person thought that theirs was the absolute worst. Possibly ten times worse than Charlie's in their own mind. This replicates that feeling and it would be hard for anyone to not at least find one character or situation they relate to in it. Ultimately though, it's a period piece. It's hard to specifically pinpoint exactly what makes the setting feel so much like an embodiment of the early '90's because the details are so numerous that hardly a scene passes where I wasn't subtly taken aback by the accuracy of a particular clothing, music or even vehicle choice. It wraps you in the warm, familiar embrace of nostalgia in a different way than, say, Adventureland, by carefully placing everything in the background rather than foreground. It's 1991 just because it feels like it is without Chbosky ever forcing those details down our throats. The events probably could taken place during any era but that it happened during this one feels especially important beyond the simple reason that its setting was adapted from the novel. With texting and anti-bullying campaigns running rampant there's absolutely no way this story could have taken today and carried the same impact. This is probably it's likely to connect with audiences older than the studio expected. There was very little help for troubled students and stigmas attached to much of it back then, which raises the stakes of Charlie's story and, to an even greater extent, Patrick's.

As played by Percy Jackson's Logan Lerman, a protagonist who could have very easily come across as a whiny cliche of teen angst is so likable it's practically impossible to root against him More often using body language than actual dialogue, Lerman makes Charlie seem incredibly closed off yet strangely open and observant at the same time. He's a total introvert who's not yet discovered how that can work in his favor, but getting there. At first it seems he's just like any shy teen until it becomes obvious his problems run a lot deeper. It wouldn't be fair to call Sam an unrequited crush or necessarily just a friend. The relationship's kind of complicated, but the gist of it is that she's nonetheless such an important person in his life that it almost doesn't matter how it's defined. Having not seen any Harry Potter, this role really stands as my first extended exposure to Emma Watson, and while she sometimes slips in and out of her American accent, it's easy to see why everyone's so high on her. For the most part, she takes a well-traveled character type and makes it seem fresh and original with her poise and charm. The part of Sam also allows her to take something that's in short supply these days for younger actresses. A serious, yet somewhat lighthearted, age-appropriate role that's that's far removed from something like Twilight or The Hunger Games. It also seems Chbosky knew the already strong connection Watson had amongst young audiences who grew up watching her and didn't dare waste the opportunity to exploit that relationship to full effect.

It's Ezra Miller who, walks away with the film as Patrick, delivering a supporting performance that's both outlandishly goofy, funny and heartbreaking. What's amazing is how he so skillfully navigates the problems and pressures of this kid who so often uses a joking mask to hide the absolute hell he's going through as an openly gay teen in the early 90's. A scary scene late in the film exposes just how hard it must have been and how little protection and help there was. Those who were clamoring for a supporting nomination for Miller are justified as its easily the most memorable performance amongst a wide array of strong ones. The adults hardly have anything to do but it was nice for a change to see Charlie's parents depicted as supportive and receptive, if just slightly out of the loop for understandable reasons. It was even nicer to see the relationship between Charlie and her even more supportive sister (who has problems of her own) freed from the manufactured sibling conflict we get in these types of movies. Their few scenes together are kind of touching and if the relationship had been explored further, Nina Dobrev briefly gives the impression she would have been more than up for the task. With the exception of Arrested Development, Mae Whitman's screen presence can be irritating, but as Charlie's first sort-of-girlfriend, she's actually asked to play a character who's irritating, so therefore successfully is. If Paul Rudd spent the entire rest of his career reprising his role as English teacher Mr. Anderson I wouldn't complain since this, not the string of too similar feeling hit-or miss gross-out comedies, represents the kind of meaningful supporting work he should be taking more often. It's unlikely you'll watch without being reminded of your favorite teachers or how likable Rudd is in the right role. Freed from the shackles of having to carry a movie as lead and improve unfunny material, he's as subtly good here as he's been in a long time.

The movie takes a twist in the third act that's not entirely unexpected, but it nonetheless comes off as a gutsy turn into some darker territory for those unfamiliar with the source material. What's surprising is how capably Chbosky handles it since there's a lot going on at once, including a major reveal that could have easily seemed over-the-top or sensationalistic if not presented just right. The film is full of such choices. It doesn't even visually resemble a teen movie, shot by cinematographer Andrew Dunn in a much gloomier color palette than the cheery sitcom look so frequently prevalent in the genre. As expected, the soundtrack is basically a character unto itself with Chbosky making some inspired choices from what was definitely a fruitful period for music. Yes, we could have probably done without the Smiths making what seems like their hundredth soundtrack appearance on a depressed teen's mix tape, but it's tough to argue it doesn't fit in this case or that its placement isn't unusually restrained. The same goes for the interactive Rocky Horror Picture Show screening which, despite being far from restrained, is at least incorporated well into the story.

David Bowie's "Heroes," and the characters' discovery of it, also has a major role in the proceedings. While you could resonably claim these music savvy teens not knowing such a famous song (to the point they can't even name its title or artist), is a writing error on Chbosky's part, it's actually the exact opposite. While it's certainly now a classic rock staple, it wasn't in 1991 and it's not like you could have just "Googled" to find out what it was. As someone who didn't discover classic rock or knew which artists sang anything until college, them not knowing that song isn't far-fetched in the slightest. It's yet another tiny detail that makes perfect sense in a script smart enough to convey that teens sometimes think they know everything, when in fact they have a ridiculously long ways to go. The song's been used countless times in movies but it legitimately feels like we're hearing it for the first time because the characters are, allowing us to join in their excitement.

It's hard enough standing on the sidelines and watching someone else adapt your book or screenplay, making brutal cuts by excising entire scenes and storylines to make it "flow" better or feel more cinematic. Just ask Stephen King, who always seems have complaints whenever one of his novels are adapted for the screen, often blaming filmmakers for deviating from the source material or not being true enough to HIS vision. Maybe he should sit down with Chbosky, who so completely grasps that a book's a book and a movie's a movie. A novel's only job in this process is to provide the starting point or inspiration for the film and by objectively standing back, he was able to determine what would and wouldn't translate effectively to the screen. It's a major accomplishment when you consider he had to take an axe to his own writing while still retaining its essence.

Books and movies are two completely different animals but they join in an inspired way with this adaptation, thanks to its author, screenwriter and director. Never nosediving into easy sentimentality, this is a film that understands growing up and knows that things can get better and also much worse. It's also to imagine the movie without its signature voiceover narration, which here proves the power of that storytelling device if used well. The one used in the final sequence feels just perfect, capturing a time and a place where you just want to grab a fleeting moment and hold onto it as long as possible. But it'll pass. When the film ended, I couldn't stop thinking about what will happen to these characters when it does.

Dennis Has a Podcast: Defunct TV Shows That Should Be Kickstarted Into Movies (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:16:00 +0000

I once again joined my good friend Dennis as a guest on his terrific Dennis Has a Podcast to discuss what the recently successful kickstarter campaign for a Veronica Mars movie could mean for other defunct TV favorites and which shows we'd love to see revived as feature films. No hints here. You'll just have to listen. And most aren't your usual choices. We also delved into the state of late night TV and discuss why it's been so hard finding the right host for the Oscars. Our chat was a blast and probably the most fun I've had on the show so far. Enjoy!

Click here to listen.

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

My Most Anticipated Films of 2013

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:29:00 +0000

Anticipation can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since it's great to be excited about a movie you're interested in, yet a curse when said movie is then burdened to meet those lofty expectations. Making judgments or assumptions on a film you haven't seen based on very limited information is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the risks of holding on to those judgements when you eventually view it. But it sure is fun, so I may as well make official what critics and movie buffs do before seeing something anyway. I've got it down to a science now. In determining whether something will appeal to me I look at three factors, which are very much in order of priority:

1. Director
2. Plot Synopsis
3. Cast

If you've got all three lined up then you're really set. But even then it's still somewhat of a crapshoot. In other instances, it's plainly obvious based on those criteria that I will more than likely love something (The Master and Looper come to mind for 2012), but the film still has to go the distance.The most fun can come when those rules get thrown out the window and mitigating factors come into play, causing a film I never would have expected to be a player become one of favorites of the year. Drive and Silver Linings Playbook are prime back-to-back examples. From the former I expected nothing until the rapturous reviews poured in and the latter had a trailer that didn't exactly misrepresent the movie, but certainly undersold it. The fallout from those two films can still be felt on this year's list. It's all about track records and batting averages. Consider it the sabermetric approach to determining a film's future worth. In some cases we have the benefit of trailers, posters and stills. In others, I'm going on very little. If you don't see a movie on here you know what that means. And yes, I'm all superheroed out if you're wondering where those are. But everything was considered, from smaller independent projects that might only get a limited release to major studio movies. What surprised me most was just how dark the top contenders ended up being. My future favorite film of 2013 may or may not be listed below.

Runners-Up (In No Particular Order)

Don Jon (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, TBD)
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza, Brie Larson
Synopsis: The journey of a contemporary, porn-addicted Don Juan-type as he attempts to become less selfish.
Why? To be totally honest, I was a bit disappointed when I heard that JGL's directorial debut (formerly titled Don Jon's Addiction) would be a rom-com instead of a really dark, gritty independent drama. On the surface the plot doesn't really interest me and I'm not thrilled with the casting of Johansson. But outside of the interest in whether JGL can be as strong behind the camera as he is in front of it, the big draw for me here is seeing him again share the screen with his former Angels in the Outfield co-star, Tony Danza. What a reunion that should be. Just seeing the underrated Danza again in what I'm hearing is a pretty substantial supporting part (as his dad!) should be a real thrill. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a movie just about JGL asking Danza to be in his movie.

Oldboy (Spike Lee, October 11)
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Samuel L. Jackson, Sharlto Copley
Synopsis: An everyday man has only five days and limited resources to discover why he was imprisoned in a nondescript room for 15 years without any explanation.
Why? Spike Lee has directed exactly one movie I loved (25th Hour) and the talented Olsen has lately been giving a lot of great performances in projects that have just missed the mark for me. Here's hoping the teaming of the two will produce more positive results. While I admire the original Chan Wook-Park film I have no issues with them re-imagining it and am curious to see what Lee does. It sure beats rumors of that other version being shopped around a couple of years ago with Steven Spielberg and Will Smith attached.

Serena (Susanne Bier, Sept. 27)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones
Synopsis: In Depression-era North Carolina, the future of George Pemberton's timber empire becomes complicated when it is learned that his wife, Serena, cannot bear children.
Why? All I know is that if Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are re-teaming I don't care who directed it or the nature of the plot. They've proven to be so good together this gets a free pass merely because of their presence. And that they're also co-starring in another much more anticipated film later in the year so this is just icing on the cake.

This Is The End (Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen, June 14)
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, Michael Cera, Mindy Kaling
Synopsis: While attending a party at James Franco's house, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel and many other celebrities are faced with the apocalypse.
Why? This seems like an answer to my frequent complaint that every other comedy released these days is exactly the same and uses the usual interchangeable actors. Now THIS could be different. Are we sure it's not based on a true story because I kind of believe these people (and that's not even mentioning Emma Watson, Paul Rudd, Aziz Ansari, Danny McBride, Martin Starr, Craig Robinson and Rihanna all playing themselves) would be at James Franco's house with the world ending. And what's Franco like playing himself considering he seems to put so much of himself into everything he does anyway, movie-related or otherwise. It's rare you get to see so many celebrities given the opportunity to spoof themselves like this. Let's hope it's not squandered and Rogen delivers. I can see it being either a huge bomb or the comedy of the year. Or maybe both.

The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, May 10)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Tobey Maguire
Synopsis: Nick Carraway, a Midwesterner now living on Long Island, finds himself fascinated by the mysterious past and lavish lifestyle of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby. He is drawn into Gatsby's circle, becoming a witness to obsession and tragedy.
Why? There's no middle ground with Baz Luhrmann. It'll either be incredible or a massive train wreck and if it's latter you can bet it'll at least be memorable. Even though this was pushed back from last year it's worth paying attention to any adaptation of Gatsby with that cast. It'll probably be a mess (and in 3D for crying out loud) but it's a must-see if just for the curiosity factor.

Ain't Them Bodies Saints (David Lowery, Aug. 16)
Starring: Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Ben Foster, Keith Carradine
Synopsis: The tale of an outlaw who escapes from prison and sets out across the Texas hills to reunite with his wife and the daughter he has never met.
Why? Supposedly this a methodically paced Badlands-style 70's throwback. Good enough for me. Having Mara, Affleck, Foster and Caradine(!) in it can't hurt either. The director's a real question mark since it's his first feature but that hardly seems to matter as we've learned in the past. Early reviews have been excellent so I'm kind of expecting big things. Awesome title by the way.

The Monuments Men (George Clooney, Dec. 20)
Starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Daniel Craig, Cate Blanchett, Billy Murray, Jean Dujardin
Synopsis: In a race against time, a crew of art historians and museum curators unite to recover renown works of art stolen by Nazis before Hitler destroys them.
Why? It's Clooney. Everything he touches as either a director, producer or actor seems to turn to gold these days. He just attach himself to junk. This plot itself doesn't grab me at all but the cast does and we know he'll deliver the goods. A possible Oscar contender.

Labor Day (Jason Reitman, TBD)
Starring: Josh Brolin, Kate Winslet, Tobey Maguire, James Van Der Beek
Synopsis: Depressed single mom Adele and her son Henry offer a wounded, fearsome man a ride. As police search town for the escaped convict, the mother and son gradually learn his true story as their options become increasingly limited.
Why? Here's another one that gets a recommendation on director alone. And that cast isn't too bad either (Van Der Beek!?) The rest of it is kind of a question mark but since Reitman showed off another dimension of what he can do in 2011's brilliant Young Adult I'm willing to follow him wherever he decides to go.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, Nov. 15)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Jonah Hill, Jean Dujardin, Kyle Chandler
Synopsis: A New York stockbroker refuses to cooperate in a large securities fraud case involving corruption on Wall Street, corporate banking world and mob infiltration.
Why? DiCaprio and Scorsese team up for the 700th time and while I would normally roll my eyes at that, this actually seems somewhat intriguing and features a solid supporting cast. It's a safe bet on here, but there's a good reason for that.

Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, Oct. 4)
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Synopsis: Astronauts attempt to return to earth after debris crashes into their space shuttle, leaving them drifting alone in space.
Why? Early word suggests this will be pretty good despite it being in production for seemingly forever and its release date being pushed back from late last year. There's still that Clooney factor and the chance to see Bullock (who supposedly carries most of this) in a rare sci-fi turn that hopefully signals a renewed post-Oscar commitment to doing serious work with talented directors. Well, probably not. But it doesn't hurt to get our hopes up.

Top Ten

10. Nebraska (Alexander Payne, TBD)
Starring: Bruce Dern,Will Forte, Bob Odenkirk, Stacy Keach
Synopsis: An aging, booze-addled father makes the trip from Montana to Nebraska with his estranged son in order to claim a million dollar Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes prize.
Why? You can use a permanent magic marker to write down Bruce Dern's name as one of the five Best Actor nominees next year for this black and white road trip movie. Anything directed by Alexander Payne coming off The Descendants automatically gets a spot on this list and the inspired casting of Forte in a dramatic role is worth looking out for.

9. Anchorman: The Legend Continues (Adam McKay, Dec. 20)
Starring: Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Kristen Wiig, Christina Appelgate, Harrison Ford
Synopsis: The continuing on-set adventures of San Diego's top rated newsman.
Why? If an impending sequel to one of last decade's most popular comedies with the entire cast returning wasn't enough, now they've just recently added Harrison Ford to the mix. Ford was already surprisingly successful playing a aging, bitter news anchor in the underrated Morning Glory so it should be fun to see Mr. Grumpy face off with Ron Burgundy.

8. Her (Spike Jonze, TBD)
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Olivia Wilde, Rooney Mara
Synopsis: A lonely writer develops an unlikely relationship with his newly-purchased operating system that's designed to meet his every need.
Why? Something that sounds this weird can only be directed by Spike Jonze. And that it stars Joaquin Phoenix should only serve to make it that much weirder. Adams, Wilde, or Mara in this would be intriguing enough but that it's all of them makes me wonder what Jonze has up his sleeve. On paper, it feels like it could be reminiscent of Adaptation, which would obviously the best possible scenario. Whatever it is, it's a must-see.

7. Only God Forgives (Nicolas Winding Refn, TBD)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas, Tom Burke
Synopsis: A Bangkok police lieutenant and a gangster settle their differences in a Thai-boxing match.
Why? Gosling re-teams with the director of Drive. Need I say more? With both already proving they can take what appears to be on paper a pulpy genre exercise into uncharted territory it would be foolish to bet against them again. Supposedly, this is even more violent and shocking. A scary thought.

6. The Place Beyond The Pines (Derek Cianfrance, March 29)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta
Synopsis: A motorcycle stunt rider turns to robbing banks as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child, a decision that puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop navigating a department ruled by a corrupt detective.
Why? Well, it's another reunion for Gosling , this time with Blue Valentine director Cianfrance and the trailer actually looks pretty terrific. From what I've been hearing there's a lot more to this film than has been advertised and Gosling again playing a stunt driver is a can't miss proposition, especially if he's facing off against good cop Bradley Cooper, whose film appearances now carry a renewed sense of anticipation since we've recently discovered the range of his abilities as an actor.

5. Parkland (Peter Landesman, TBD)
Starring: Jacki Weaver, Zac Efron, Paul Giamatti, Jackie Earle Haley, Mark Duplass, Billy Bob Thornton, Tom Welling
Synopsis: A recounting of the chaotic events that occurred at Dallas' Parkland Hospital on the day U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Why? I'm in for anything involving the Kennedy assassination and this Tom Hanks-produced project featuring a loaded cast looks to be no exception. Since the anticipated film adaptation of Stephen King's 11/22/63 went into turnaround and won't be going in front of the cameras anytime soon I can get my fix from this. Focusing on characters in and around the Parkland hospital where Kennedy died is a novel idea just as long as it doesn't turn into another overstuffed Bobby.

4. Blue Caprice (Alexandre Moors, TBD)
Starring: Isaiah Washington, Tequan Richmond, Joey Lauren Adams, Tim Blake Nelson
Synopsis: A narrative feature film inspired by the events known as the Beltway sniper attacks.
Why? Finally. The Beltway sniper movie. Part of me wondered if this would ever get a release but I'm glad it will, even if it's just limited or VOD. I'll take it. This is supposedly a really small-scale production which is appropriate considering the frighteningly claustrophobic nature of the crimes. There's a lot of interesting facets to this story that haven't been widely reported but from what I heard this will be more of a mood piece. Which is fine too. The released stills of Washington as John Allen Muhammad are downright chilling, as is the teaser trailer.

3. Untitled David O. Russell/Abscam Project (Dec.13)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Christian Bale, Louis C.K.
Synopsis: An FBI sting operation in the 1970s called Abscam leads to the conviction of United States Congressmen.
Why? Not much is known about this yet (it doesn't even have a title) but it's hard to describe any movie directed by Russell and featuring those actors (especially Cooper and Lawrence) as a question mark The description almost makes it sound like Argo, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Russell's clearly in the zone right now having almost gotten a taste of gold this year with Silver Linings Playbook so this could be the one that pushes him over the top with either a Best Picture or Best Director win. Either way, this currently filming project is as close to a sure bet for creative greatness as possible. And you know it'll be ready by December. Russell works fast.

2. Foxcatcher (Bennett Miller, TBD)
Starring: Channing Tatum, Steve Carell, Mark Ruffalo, Sienna Miller
Synopsis: The story of John du Pont, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and killed Olympic wrestler David Schultz (No, not THAT David Schultz) .
Why? Let's put it this way: Steve Carell is playing John du Pont. Carell tops the list of comedic actors I've always wanted to see tackle a super dark role and it doesn't get much darker than the psychotic billionaire murderer who killed Schultz. Fascinating story. Ingenious casting. And it's from the director of Moneyball. Just look at that picture of Ruffalo as Schultz. It really doesn't get any more intriguing than this. I'm anticipating a potential nomination for Carell and it's definitely possible we're looking at the movie of the year here.

1. Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel and Ethan Coen, TBD)
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund, Justin Timberlake, John Goodman, F. Murray Abraham
Synopsis: A singer-songwriter navigates New York's folk music scene during the 1960s
Why? When the film (loosely based on sixties folk singer Dave Von Ronk's posthumously published memoir, The Mayor of MacDougal Street) had its release delayed last year and I read the somewhat flimsy synopsis, I pushed it to the back of my mind. Then that trailer hit. While I'm always interested in seeing what the Coens do, it's tough remembering a film of theirs I greatly anticipated ahead of its release. It always seems to be a case of respect rather than admiration with them and just a mild curiosity factor for whatever project is next. This feels like the first time they've made something that really feels in my wheelhouse. I love the time period and its music, and just from the glimpse we're given in the trailer, it's clear the effort was made to authentically capture it in all its glory, which is no small feat. Plus, you've got Justin Timberlake and Carey Mulligan as folk singers (doing their own singing) which from the brief glimpse in the trailer feels like strangely magical casting. We already know the Coens have it in them to release the best film of the year but this is the first time they seem armed with the ammunition to do so. It's their most promising project in years, and that's coming from someone who's liked pretty much everything they've done. If nothing else, we're at least guaranteed a memorable soundtrack. I haven't even seen it yet but just those two minutes make me not only want to see this movie, but literally live inside it.

Liberal Arts

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:51:00 +0000

Director: Josh Radnor
Starring: Josh Radnor, Elizabeth Olsen, Richard Jenkins, Allison Janey, John Magaro, Elizabeth Reaser, Zac Efron
Running Time: 97 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Any fears that writer/director/star Josh Radnor's Liberal Arts would hit uncomfortably close to home for me wiped away during the first half-hour when 35 year-old New York college admissions counselor Jesse Fisher (Radnor) laughs and rolls around in the grass upon returning to his alma mater in Ohio. It's a relief when the movie does eventually hit on the truth that returning to your college at any point after graduating can be awkward, uncomfortable experience that isn't the slightest bit welcoming despite how much you may have enjoyed your time there. Once college is over, it's done. The best case scenario is you take what you've learned and the experiences you've had and carry them with you for the rest of your days to positively inform your actions and decisions as an adult. That's not exactly what's happened for Jesse (Radnor) who jumps at the opportunity to return for the retirement ceremony of his second favorite professor, Peter Holberg (Richard Jenkins).

Obsessed with literature and the arts, Jesse's mind had never really left so returning is almost a formality at this point. But it won't be the same. Not by a long shot. It's to Radnor's credit that his script acknowledges that but then somewhere along the line it loses me and it starts to become a movie written by someone trying to send a message rather than stay true to the characters.We knew the message we were going to get going in and it's unquestionably the right one, but I just didn't care for the way Radnor delivered it. What starts as a highly relatable personal journey of self-discovery ends up giving too many easy answers for the more challenging questions the film intelligently asks.

At times I felt almost bludgeoned over the head with its black and white philosophizing which is a real a shame considering the more honest feelings it subtly invoked. It kind of becomes a mess in the third act, but at least it's a fascinating one that has something to say and proves that Radnor definitely has a promising filmmaking future ahead of him when (if?) How I Met Your Mother ends. His forseeable acting future could be taken up playing characters within in the same general realm of his lovelorn, super sensitive Ted Mosby but that's okay. I really like that character and consider Radnor a likable, underrated actor capable of delivering performances that may end up being even better than the really good one he gives here. Because of the rather obvious similarities between Ted and Jesse you wouldn't necessarily be wrong in calling this Ted Mosby: The Movie, and from where I sit there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either. Nor is the fact that Elisabeth Olsen's Zibby ends up being the latest addition into the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" canon. If you look up the very definition of the term there's likely to be a picture of Zibby right there next to it as it would be difficult to find a character that better exemplifies that infamous (and sometimes unfairly derided) movie trope. But let's be honest. Did anyone really expect Radnor to make a film without a MPDG? I'd almost be disappointed if he didn't. What I don't like are those characters being discarded by the screenplay once they've served their purpose, rendering them practically pointless aside from their role as a life message deliverer.

Certain character types exist because they work when effectively executed and the real reason the MPDG gets more flack than other more insulting stereotypes has to do with the fact that it hits a rather embarrassing nerve for guys, depicting them as insecure and needing to have their lives saved by a woman. Or rather a girl. A free-spirited one who doesn't care a single iota about any issues or flaws they may have. Like any screenwriting creation it's shaded in a certain amount of truth. And also like any, there are good and bad depictions that primarily depend on the integrity of the surrounding narrative. As far as these things go, Olsen's Libby, the 19-year-old daughter of one of Prof. Holberg's colleagues, makes for a textbook MPDG who's smart, pretty and seemingly mature beyond her years. And that's not to mention the fact she writes letters. On actual paper. A real keeper. The only drawback is that she reads Twilight, which horrifies Jesse (and me). While I don't recall that the books are never implicitly mentioned by name it's clear what they're talking about and it soon becomes this hilarious symbol of their age difference and an opportunity for Radnor to go into full Mosby mode, giving a snobby, pretentious speech about how its popularity represents America's declining tastes. It's a fun scene.

Compelling, the film burns through much of its story in the first 25 minutes only to pleasantly reveal that it's just getting started. The meat of their relationship takes place by mail, making it even harder for Jesse to stay away this time. They do seem made for each other which is why it gets so frustrating when Radnor the writer attempts to undercut that in favor of delivering his well-intentioned, but poorly realized message. While there's undeniably a lot wrong with a 35 year-old guy getting involved with a 19-year-old girl and creeping around the dorm and attending parties, Radnor underestimates how good he and Olsen are together at selling something that comes off as the complete opposite. So attempts later to turn this into an American Beauty or Lolita-like situation fall flat because certain plot developments feel overwritten. And it sure doesn't help the cause of his goal that the two of them look around the same age despite Radnor being considerably older. At points the movie is so relentless in its morality it seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too by depicting this magical, once-in-a-lifetime connection before telling audiences, "Oh wait, shame on YOU. It's wrong." Without spoiling too much, I'll say that Jesse does (or rather doesn't) do something I just couldn't buy. Well, I could buy it, but it felt manufactured to teach a lesson and stands in stark contrast to his actions leading up it. Then sub-plots are piled on top of it and an entire separate story is tagged on involving a bookstore clerk (played by Elizabeth Reaser) that's actually kind of insulting in its obviousness.

The movie's best scenes are on campus with Jesse and Zibby talking and just hanging out. It feels real and Olsen proves she's capable of going to the opposite end of the spectrum as the brainwashed cult follower she darkly portrayed in Martha Marcy May Marlene. As a director Radnor perfectly captures the very specific feeling of a small liberal arts school at that point in someone's life without missing a beat, as well as the wild array of supporting characters you'd encounter there. The great Richard Jenkins serves as the film's sturdy anchor with his heartfelt performance as the retiring Holberg, who's not quite sure he's ready to leave or what to do with himself once he does. His attempts to hang on as long as possible mirror Jesse's and their bond feels like a honest one. Far less successful is a sub-plot involving his old romantics professor, the cold, detached Judith Fairfield (Allison Janey) who seems to exist as a bitch on wheels plot device to provide final act shock value rather than an actual human. Surprisingly, Zac Efron is really effective in a small role as a campus stoner trying to get Jesse to embrace the spontaneity of life while John Magaro impresses as a depressed, emotionally disturbed student he takes under his wing.

Radnor supposedly based this script off a visit he made to his alma mater of Kenyon College in Ohio while promoting his directorial debut a couple of years ago and the strange feelings it invoked. I almost feel guilty not recommending it since I'm a big fan of the actor and it definitely strikes a chord but a story like this can't for a second feel overplotted and needs some room to breathe. All the scenes with he and Olsen are gold and after the first 40 minutes or so you really think this is going somewhere deep, only to just pull back and handle everything with kid gloves.As unfair as it is, I couldn't help but compare it to the all-time greatest college-set dramedy, 2000's Wonder Boys, which tackles a similar topic, but appears to do so effortlessly by showing instead of telling. Or in this case lecturing. While it all doesn't quite come together, I'd still rather watch this again than some better movies that don't screw up as interestingly. It's at least clear coming out of this that Radnor will at some point make a great film. This just wasn't it, too often coming across as overly sensitive and eager to please as its protagonist.

Taken 2

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:42:00 +0000

Director: Olivier Megaton
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Rade Serbedzija, Leland Orser, Jon Gries, D.B. Sweeney, Luke Grimes
Running Time: 91 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

It isn't difficult to see how Taken went on to become such a critical and commercial success when it was released with little fanfare and even fewer expectations in early 2008. At the time we all knew Liam Neeson was a great actor but had little clue he'd be so believable as an action star. He was playing a quietly intense man thrust into a situation that at least seemed at the time to be out of his control. Everything about it seemed fresh. The kidnapping. The crime. The fight scenes. The grittiness. The shocking sight of the sixty-something Neeson kicking ass for an hour and a half. In an era of overblown effects, here was this no-nonsense, bare bones action thriller that knew exactly what it was supposed to do and did it. It didn't reinvent the wheel but it sure was a lot of fun, with director/co-writer Luc Besson somehow pulling this all off within the confines of a PG-13 rating. Capitalizing on its success, Neeson's played a variation on the role so many times since (even taking it to more dramatically tragic heights in The Grey) that you'd figure the novelty's worn off by now. And to an extent it has, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still work.

Taken 2 plays out almost exactly how you'd expect the sequel to Taken play out, only a bit crazier. Rumors of its inferiority to the original are greatly exaggerated. It does some things better than its predecessor and others not as well but at the end of the day it all evens out. Its two biggest attributes just might be its off-the-wall silliness and an increased focus on the supporting characters, one of whom nearly steals the movie out from under Neeson. Those who don't enjoy this follow-up or think it fails to recapture the spirit of the original should probably go back and ask themselves whether the first film was really as strong as they thought. This nearly equals it.

This action logically picks up where the last film left off as the body count ex CIA operative Bryan (Neeson) left behind in rescuing his kidnapped teen daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) from a sex traffiking ring comes back to haunt him. Now Murad (Rade Serbedzija), Albanian crime boss and father of one of Bryan's victims, is out to avenge his son's death and won't stop until he pays. That opportunity comes when the emotionally scarred Kim and her now separated mother Lenore (Famke Janssen) surprise Bryan by joining him on his vacation in Istanbul. But by the time he starts to suspect they're being followed it's too late, as he and his ex-wife are taken captive. Now it's up to Kim to use her own resourcefulness and follow her dad's very specific instructions to find and rescue them without being captured again herself.

There's a little more set-up this time around as much of the first half hour is spent establishing a new family dynamic despite little time presumably passing since the conclusion of the last film's events. The formerly hostile relationship between Bryan and Lenore is noticeably more civil with even a possible chance of reconciliation while Kim struggles to pass her twice failed driver's test and hide a new boyfriend from her overprotective dad. It's kind of a neat reversal to have Bryan placed in a rare position of vulnerability and having to rely on his daughter to rescue him and her mother. It also succeeds in giving Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen twice as much to do this time around and neither disappoints in their heavily expanded roles.

Despite being the one "taken," Bryan's still pulling the strings, sometimes quite literally, as in the film's most uproarious scene when he gives Kim ridiculously complicated instructions to finding their whereabouts that involves a shoestring, a map and her throwing live grenades all over the city. Laugh all you want but you can't tell me it isn't inventively original or that director Olivier Megaton (taking over for Besson) and Grace don't fully commit to this weirdly entertaining sequence with everything they have. Of course, this isn't to say Neeson's playing some helpless victim here, eventually dishing out just as many beatings as he did the last time around, if not more. If there's anything to complain about it's that he may as well qualify as a superhero rather than a former CIA agent. And yet Neeson still somehow sells it, again giving us front row seats to see an action master at work.

One of the more unintentionally hilarious elements of the original film was nearly 30-year-old Maggie Grace's performance as the 17 going on 12 year-old teen. Who can forget "daddy's little girl" getting a new pony for her birthday and awkwardly running to her father with arms flailing? It was a really bizarre take on the character, making me wonder whether Grace was just overcompensating for the huge age difference or the portrayal was intentionally serving some larger symbolic purpose in the story (like the loss of her virginal innocence). Her work here is a complete 180 from that as she's not only completely believable as a reluctant teenager still emotionally wrestling with her ordeal, but as a makeshift action heroine who's learned to run since the last film. And this time the movie seems in on the joke regarding her age. How else could you explain this script's obsession with her failed driving tests? I'd call it a sub-plot if only it were that and didn't lead to an excuse for an exciting car chase through the streets of Istanbul with her dad yelling instructions at her like a backseat driver. It's almost become a running gag having adult performers playing teens but this is a steep age difference Grace pulls off and I'm betting it would be a challenge for anyone not familiar with the Lost actress to guess she's not at least around the same age as the character she's playing.

Famke Janssen's formerly unlikable ex-wife has been softened for obvious reasons to fit the plot but despite the actress's best efforts I can't say I cared as much about her fate. Yet even this installment's most fervent detractors would have difficulty denying it's really the improved father-daughter dynamic this go around that what most sets it apart from its predecessor. And in one of the strangest aspects of an already strange film, someone involved in the production is apparently a big fan the Drive soundtrack, as two highly recognizable songs from the already cult classic make curious (if entirely pointless) cameos. That so many seem to be up in arms about it despite the filmmakers being legally well within their bounds to use them speaks volumes about the imprint that movie and its music is still leaving. Anything signifying that I'm okay with, even if it does nothing to add or take away from the proceedings here.

Yes, there will be a Taken 3. We know that much by how the seeds are so obviously planted for it at the end. And it'll be interesting to see how they move forward considering all the characters who can be taken already have. The series may have to move in a completely new direction, which is probably for the best just as long as Neeson's still involved. Sure, this film's ridiculous but so was the original. Both in a good way. The Taken series works because it fully embraces its own ridiculousness without so much as winking. And while the set-up here isn't quite as crisp it does accomplish what a successful sequel needs to in expanding the universe and getting us further familiarized with the characters. Considering there's a new name behind the camera the drop-off is quality is surprisingly minimal, with extended sections of the film certainly crazier and more fun than they have any right being. You might occasionally shake your head at its absurdity, but you won't be bored.

Compliance

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:07:00 +0000

Director: Craig Zobel
Starring: Ann Dowd, Dreama Walker, Pat Healy, Bill Camp, Philip Ettinger, James McCaffrey, Ashlie Atkinson
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

I watched Compliance with a huge knot in my stomach the entire time, wondering how much further it could go and whether I would even be able to make it through. It's that disturbing. The feelings and emotions it's likely to invoke in audiences attempting to endure the experience may be uncomfortable, but they're worthwhile nonetheless. The film depicts a real world scenario most people go to the movies to escape and after you see it there's even a good chance you'll be angry. "There's no way that could happen." "These people are idiots." "I would never do that." That's a normal reaction, but also an entirely misinformed and incorrect one. It's also an ironic response considering the characters' inability to see a truth that's literally right in front of their faces. The incident depicted in the films not only happened, it happened 70 different times in over 30 U.S. states. How do you explain that? The people are real. The events are real. And this doesn't veer much, if at all, from the exact incident it's based on, with writer/director Craig Zobel wisely choosing only to dramatize the details for maximum effect.

The story itself might be simple, but the characters' actions (or lack of such) aren't. Remember that famous Milgram obedience experiment (later adapted into a little seen 70's TV movie starring William Shatner) where subjects administer lethal electric shocks to people in another room simply because someone in a position of authority tells them to? That's this movie, except taken to the highest level possible and made that much more disturbing by the fact that these characters actually can see the harm they're inflicting and do it anyway. One woman in particular. And it's all because she just can't say "no." Her frustrating behavior escalates until the noose gets tied so tightly around everyone's necks that the suspense of how it will all resolve becomes unbearable. The only thing we do know is that it can't end well. And at its center is a deeply rich performance from a veteran character actress that easily ranks amongst the year's best, closely followed by another actress' emotionally devastating turn. It's a prime example of just how much can be accomplished on a smaller budget if all the right elements are in place.

The day has already off to a poor start for ChickWich fast-food restaurant manager Sandra (Ann Dowd). Having already been verbally dressed down by a supplier, she's running low on bacon because an employee left the fridge door open, and there's a visit from corporate looming. Mocked by her subordinates behind her back, it's clear from the opening minutes that Sandra runs a tight ship and prides herself on doing the best possible job, rarely deviating from company policy. When she gets a phone call from a man referring to himself as "Officer Daniels" (Pat Healy) about a complaint that one of her employees stole money out of a customer's purse, she summons the alleged perpetrator, Becky (Dreama Walker), into to her office. Denying any involvement in the theft, Becky sits there as Sandra is questioned and given instructions over the phone to search her belongings until the cops can arrive to handle the situation. Before long she's asked to do things that go far beyond the usual protocol for any law enforcement official, much less the manager of a fast food joint. I should probably stop there at the risk of spoiling too much but let's just say it's clear pretty early on that this guy on the phone isn't a cop and something's very off.

The situation escalates to alarming levels as Sandra dutifully fulfills all the obligations asked of her by this man and even starts involving others in Becky's detainment, like shift supervisor Marti (Ashlie Atkinson), goof-off employee Kevin (Philip Ettinger) and even her own perplexed fiancee Van (Bill Camp). Soon they've all past the point of no return, getting too close to this increasingly perilous situation to see the forest from the trees. You keep waiting for somebody to say or do something that would put an end to Becky's undeserved misery and humiliation, but the longer it goes, the more disturbing it gets, making it only that much harder to watch. We quickly realize the "somebody" to stop this definitely won't be Sandra, who's apparently never heard an outrageous command she'll refuse to obey.

The caller and his actions are presented very cleverly throughout. And they have to be since the events, despite being inspired by a true story, would seem almost too outrageous to believe unless Zobel executed this perfectly. One of the boldest decisions he makes involves whether to fully reveal the prankster's identity or keep him as a threatening, disembodied voice on the phone. If this were a horror film or a mystery/thriller you could argue for the latter but since this aims higher and fits more into the category of a psychological character study, he makes the right call in granting us full disclosure into how he operates. We see how he's constantly re-adjusting his story to fit the developing situation and changes his tone at various points to get the desired responses and needed cooperation from his victims/subjects. It's especially evident in how he berates the accused Becky while manipulating Sandra with praise she's likely not used to receiving in daily life. You can tell aiding this "officer" makes her feel wanted and important, and the more that happens, the easier she becomes to manipulate. When we do eventually meet the caller, actor Pat Healy somehow manages to exceed all terrifying expectations of what we think he could be. There's no money involved in this scam and the majority of laws are broken by his targets in the restaurant, who really just become pawns in a sick game he's playing for sociopathic thrills. It's clear this guy's a pro and he's done this before.

That Ann Dowd wasn't nominated for an Oscar for this staggering, multi-layered performance is criminal. Even as I was practically screaming at the screen in disbelief at Sandra's cooperation, Dowd subtly hints at an entire personal history that's brought her to this point. She doesn't play Sandra as dumb because she isn't. She's very good at what she does, but has probably been dumped on all her life, leaving her with the inability to say "no" to anyone or anything. Even her relationship with her fiancee, the one aspect of her life that seems to bring her any joy, feels manufactured in her own mind. I began the film liking Sandra, and despite her sinking into what seems like the depths of moral hell after that, Dowd still made me pity rather than hate her by its end. It would have been so easy to play this woman as cruel or stupid but it's the fact that she actually essays her as a good person trying (and failing miserably) to do the right thing that gives this entire story its bite. You want to say that if this woman can fall victim to a prank like this, then anyone can, but we know that's not completely true. It takes a certain personality type and this scam artist literally found the perfect mark in this woman.

An even more physically and emotionally grueling performance is given by Dreama Walker as Becky and anyone only familiar with the actress from her perky TV comedy work on Don't Trust The B---- in Apt. 23 should probably prepare themselves. Spending nearly half the movie topless, the treatment her character endures may be humiliating, offensive, and in many ways the most unwelcome nudity you could see in movies, but it sure isn't pointless. You'd figure any actress would really have to have ultimate trust in their director to do the shocking things that are asked of Walker so it's a relief that Zobel returns the favor by earning it and avoiding any sort of exploitation. Everyone that happens to Becky needs to happen for the story and while I always feel uncomfortable calling film performances "brave," Walker's work comes about as close as it gets. Had she not completely surrendered herself to the role, there would certainly be a lot less to talk about when it ended. She makes Becky seem so vulnerable it's almost as if the character's a bleeding wound that can only be stopped by someone willing to step in and do it. After a while the horrifying possibility presents itself that maybe no one will.

The third act of the film is really something to behold when you consider how much tension Zobel has already squeezed out of such a heart-pounding premise. It's easy to come out of this blaming one character but in actuality nearly everyone on screen is "compliant" in what transpires. And it's interesting what (or who) it takes to stop it, perhaps hinting that you almost have to be completely removed from a situation in order to objectively assess it. Zobel dares to go even further with an epilogue that asks the same big questions we do of the characters, concluding in a final scene that strangely reminds me of Fargo in how the most deplorable crimes can seem that much more deplorable when they're committed in by small town people you see at the grocery store, go to church with or even get served by at your local fast-food restaurant. Compliance has sparked a certain degree of outrage amongst a vocal minority who have seen it. But it isn't because they feel it couldn't happen. It's because they know it can and it did. Admitting that is tough, especially when the events could so easily involve any one of us.

Burning Questions from the 2013 Oscars

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:52:00 +0000

Boy, that opening monologue sure was long, wasn't it?

And wasn't it kind of a mess?

Didn't Seth MacFarlane initially seem very nervous?

Can you blame him?

Is there a more thankless task than hosting this show?

Will the Mr. Skin website see increased traffic now that MacFarlane has outed all those actresses' nude scenes?

Wasn't Tommy Lee Jones cracking a smile a great start?

Did your enthusiasm dampen when you realized that would be the highlight of the entire night?

Did it truly test the theory that William Shatner makes everything he's in better?

Wouldn't it have been great if HE sang all the nominated original songs?

Were Charlize, Channing Tatum, JGL and Daniel Radcliffe blackmailed into being involved in that?

But didn't they all do a pretty good job?

All other complaints aside, doesn't MacFarlane have a tremendous singing voice?

Wasn't there entirely too much singing (as usual)?

Between that and Kristin Chenoweth on the red carpet, didn't this feel more like The Tonys?

So, MacFarlane or Hathaway/Franco?

Did everyone immediately go 0 for 1 on their Oscar scorecard when Christoph Waltz was announced for Supporting Actor?

Am I the only one still amazed that Beasts of the Southern Wild's score wasn't nominated?

Is Roger Deakins ever going to win an Oscar?

And if he does, by that point, will he even care?

How tasteless was the Jaws music playing the winners off?

But wasn't it still really funny?

Wait, THAT was their "tribute" to 50 Years of Bond?

Looking at that montage, isn't it astonishing just how few truly great Bond movies there have been?

I knew Connnery would be a stretch, but couldn't they at least get a couple of the Bonds to show up?

George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were busy?

Did Shirley Bassey sing the hell out of "Goldfinger" or what?

But shouldn't it have started a medley?

How about Duran Duran?

Paul McCartney?

Chris Cornell?

Carly Simon?

Didn't the pacing of the show feel particularly painful this year?

Wasn't that obvious when we were only an hour in?

How about John Travolta's mispronunciation of "Les Miserables?"

Were you thinking, "Join the club, John?"

Did you notice how little "singing" there was during the musicals tribute?

And out of all the classic Hollywood musicals they pick Chicago and Dreamgirls?

Remember when Dreamgirls was "a lock" to win Best Picture?

And Eddie Murphy for Supporting Actor?

Should I be proud that I still haven't seen Dreamgirls?

Or that I can't remember whether or not I've even seen Chicago?

Can Hugh Jackman host this again?

How funny was Mark Wahlberg trying to convince the audience that there really was a tie?

How bad is it that, despite the tie, I STILL got the Sound Editing category wrong?

Were you wondering how insane it would be if there was a tie in a major category like Best Actress?

Am I the only one who has no recollection of Christopher Plummer winning Best Supporting Actor last year?

Why does the always classy, gracious Anne Hathaway get such a bad wrap?

Is there something wrong with wanting to win an Academy Award and being thankful for it?

Wasn't her husband great in Drive?

Didn't MacFarlane drastically improve when he started mocking the show and his own hosting of it?

Isn't it kind of cool that the Academy gave a lifetime achievement Oscar to Hal Needham, the director of Body Slam?

Any bets on whether that film was included in his highlight reel?

Can we just all agree now that the Jurassic Park theme is John Williams' greatest composition?

While Streisand was fitting, wouldn't it have been nice to have a montage of the late, great Marvin Hamlisch's screen contributions?

Am I saying that partially so I get to see The Swimmer make it onto the Oscar telecast?

Shouldn't we cut Kristen Stewart a break since there's a good chance we would have been bored presenting at this show too?

Did it occur to anyone that it could have just been nerves?

Can you believe I'm defending Kristen Stewart?

Is it wrong that I laughed at MacFarlane's joke about Rex Reed reviewing Adele's performance?

Did it top his other one about John Wilkes Booth being the only actor to really get inside Lincoln's head?

Isn't that song from Chasing Ice great?

Wasn't it a missed opportunity not having Scarlett Johansson there performing it?

Charlize Theron and Quentin Tarantino...neighbors?

Since the Affleck snub, did everyone's chances for correctly guessing Best Director go up in smoke?

Isn't Jennifer Lawrence's maniacal laugh in the diner scene awesome?

Could they have possibly picked a better clip?

After that fall, should she also get an Oscar for stuntwork?

Wasn't her reaction just further proof of how cool and self-depricating she is?

What does it say about how much of a lock Daniel-Day Lewis was that Meryl Streep didn't even need to open the envelope?

Can you believe that massive spoiler clip they showed for Flight?

Isn't it always great to see Jack Nicholson at the Oscars?

Doesn't The First Lady deserve a lot credit for agreeing to do this and doing it well?

Could you actually picture Nancy Reagan announcing Platoon as Best Picture in '87?

Wouldn't this make for a fun project of matching previous First Ladies with coinciding Best Picture winners of their terms?

Given how much the Obamas have publicly been supporting Beasts of the Southern Wild, weren't you a little concerned before Michelle opened that envelope?

How cool was it that Ben Aflleck thanked the director of Gigli, in his speech?

How many people picked up on it?

And who ever thought Affleck would get to the point where that would happen?

With that win (and beard) has he now fully completed his transformation into the new George Clooney?

Was being snubbed for Best Director the best thing that could have ever happened to him?

Will the media have their knives sharpened for MacFarlane?

Was the whole night him trying to find a balance between crude humor and song-and-dance routines?

Sometimes successfully, sometimes not?

Am I wrong in thinking there's way too much Broadway-style theatrics for a show supposedly honoring movies?

Even though it didn't come anywhere close to being the longest show in the Academy's history, didn't it kind of feel that way?

Wasn't that a strange show?

So, who's hosting the Oscars next year?

2013 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:01:00 +0000

Below are my predictions for the 85th Annual Academy Awards (oops, I meant "THE OSCARS"). If you caught my recent Oscar preview appearance on Dennis Has a Podcast you already have some idea as to which way I'm leaning in the major categories, but there's a good chance I'll still be fiddling with many of these picks right up until the last moment. If I could have one wish for the night it would be that Silver Linings Playbook pulls a Crash and shockingly beats frontrunner Argo for Best Picture, as unlikely as that seems at this point. And as far as potential disappointments, they wouldn't get much bigger than the deserving Jennifer Lawrence somehow not walking away with Best Actress. It's tough remembering when we've had a race where so many categories were still up in there and the possibility for major upsets this great. If that, a wildcard host, and the fact we have the highest grossing slate of Best Picture nominees of all-time, can't translate into an entertaining, highly rated broadcast, then the Oscars have far bigger problems than we originally thought. This is one to watch for sure.

*Predicted Winners

Best Picture
"Beasts of the Southern Wild"
"Silver Linings Playbook"
"Zero Dark Thirty"
"Lincoln"
"Les Miserables"
"Life of Pi"
"Amour"
"Django Unchained"
"Argo"

Directing
David O. Russell - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Ang Lee - "Life of Pi"
Steven Spielberg - "Lincoln"
Michael Haneke - "Amour"
Benh Zeitlin - "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Actor in a Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis - "Lincoln"
Denzel Washington - "Flight"
Hugh Jackman - "Les Miserables"
Bradley Cooper - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Joaquin Phoenix - "The Master"

Actor in a Supporting Role
Christoph Waltz - "Django Unchained"
Philip Seymour Hoffman - "The Master"
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook"
Alan Arkin - "Argo"
Tommy Lee Jones - "Lincoln"

Actress in a Leading Role
Naomi Watts - "The Impossible"
Jessica Chastain - "Zero Dark Thirty"
Jennifer Lawrence - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Emmanuelle Riva - "Amour"
Quvenzhane Wallis - "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Actress in a Supporting Role
Sally Field - "Lincoln"
Anne Hathaway - "Les Miserables"
Jacki Weaver - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Helen Hunt - "The Sessions"
Amy Adams - "The Master"

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
"Argo" - screenplay by Chris Terrio
"Beasts of the Southern Wild" - screenplay by Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin
"Life of Pi" - screenplay by David Magee
"Lincoln" - screenplay by Tony Kushner
"Silver Linings Playbook" - screenplay by David O. Russell

Writing (Original Screenplay)
"Amour" - written by Michael Haneke
"Django Unchained" - written by Quentin Tarantino
"Flight" - written by John Gatins
"Moonrise Kingdom" - written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola
"Zero Dark Thirty" - written by Mark Boal

Animated Feature Film
"Brave" - Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman
"FrankenWeenie" - Tim Burton
"Paranorman" - Sam Fell and Chris Butler
"The Pirates! Band of Misfits" - Peter Lord
"Wreck-it Ralph" - Rich Moore

Cinematography
"Anna Karenina" - Seamus McGarvey
"Django Unchained" - Robert Richardson
"Life of Pi" - Robert Richardson
"Lincoln" - Janusz Kaminski
"Skyfall" - Roger Deakins

Costume Design
"Anna Karenina" - Jacqueline Durran
"Les Miserables" - Paco Delgado
"Lincoln" - Joanna Johnston
"Mirror Mirror" - Eiko Oshioka
"Snow White and the Huntsman" - Colleen Atwood

Documentary (Feature)
"5 Broken Cameras" - Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi
"The Gatekeepers" - Dror Moreh, Philippa Kowarsky and Estelle Fialon
"How To Survive A Plague" - David France and Howard Gertler
"The Invisible War" - Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering
"Searching For Sugar Man" - Malik Bendjelloul and Simon Chinn

Documentary (Short Subject)
"Inocente" - Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine
"Kings Point" - Sari Gilman and Jedd Wider
"Mondays at Racine" - Cynthia Wade and Robin Honan
"Open Heart" - Kief Davidson and Cori Shepherd Stern
"Redemption" - Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill

Film Editing
"Argo" - William Goldenberg
"Life of Pi" - Tim Squyres
"Lincoln" - Michael Kahn
"Silver Linings Playbook" - Jay Cassidy and Crispin Struthers
"Zero Dark Thirty" - Dylan Tichenor and William Goldenberg

Foreign Language Film
"Amour" (Austria)
"Kon-tiki" (Norway)
"No" (Chile)
"A Royal Affair" (Denmark)
"War Witch" (Canada)

Makeup
"Hitchcock" - Howard Berger, Peter Montagna and Martin Samuel
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater and Tami Lane
"Les Miserables" - Lisa Westcott and Julie Dartnell

Music (Original Score)
"Anna Karenina" - Dario Marianelli
"Argo" - Alexandre Desplat
"Life of Pi" - Mychael Danna
"Lincoln" - John Williams
"Skyfall" - Thomas Newman

Music (Original Song)
"Before My Time" from "Chasing Ice" - music and lyric by J. Ralph
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" from "Ted" - music by Walter Murphy, lyric by Seth MacFarlane
"Pi's Lullaby" from "Life of Pi" - music by Mychael Danna, lyric by Bombay Jayashri
"Skyfall" from "Skyfall" - music and lyric by Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth
"Suddenly" - "Les Miserables" - music by Claude-Michel Schonbergm, lyric by Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil

Production Design
"Anna Karenina" - Production Design: Sarah Greenwood, Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Production Design: Dan Hennah, Set Decoration: Ra Vincent and Simon Bright
"Les Miserables" - Production Design: Eve Stewart, Set Decoration: Anna Lynch-Robinson
"Life of Pi" - Production Design: David Gropman, Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
"Lincoln" - Production Design: Rick Carter, Set Decoration: Jim Erickson

Short Film (Animated)
"Adam and Dog" - Minkyu Lee
Fresh Guacamole" - PES
"Head Over Heels" - Timothy Reckart and Fodhla Cronin O'Reilly
"Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'" - David Silverman
"Paperman" - John Kahrs

Short Film (Live Action)
"Asad" - Bryan Buckley and Mino Jarjoura
"Buzkashi Boys" - Sam French and Ariel Nasr
"Curfew" - Shawn Christensen
"Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw) - Tom van Avermaet and Ellen De Waele
"Henry" - Yan England

Sound Editing
"Argo" - Erik Aadahl and Ethan van der Ryn
"Django Unchained" - Wylie Stateman
"Life of Pi" - Eugene Gearty and Philip Stockton
"Skyfall" - Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers
"Zero Dark Thirty" - Paul N.J. Ottosson

Sound Mixing
"Argo" - John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Jose Antonio Garcia
"Les Miserables" - Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes
"Life of Pi" - Ron Bartlett, D.M. Hemphill and Drew Kunin
"Lincoln" - Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Ronald Judkins
"Skyfall" - Scott Millan, Greg P. Russell and Stuart Wilson

Visual Effects
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and R. Christopher White
"Life of Pi" - Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Donald R. Elliott
"The Avengers" - Janek Sirrs, Jeff White, Guy Williams and Dan Sudick
"Prometheus" - Richard Stammers, Trevor Wood, Charley Henley and Martin Hill
"Snow White and the Huntsman" - Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Philip Brennan, Neil Corbould and Michael Dawson

Dennis Has a Podcast: 2013 Oscars Preview (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:02:00 +0000

After almost a year absence I returned as a guest to my good friend Dennis' fantastic Dennis Has A Podcast (great logo by the way!) and discussed all things Oscar. We previewed the big show tomorrow, offered up our predictions, talked about what we hope to expect, and still found time to cover some other fun stuff too. As always, it was a blast. Plus, you get to listen to me rant about why Silver Linings Playbook deserves to win Best Picture. What's not to like?

Click here to listen

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

Ranking The Alternative Best Picture Oscar Posters (Worst to First)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:56:00 +0000

Well, this was a surprise. In what might be the coolest, hippest thing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have done in years (admittedly not saying much I know), they've teamed up with Gallery 1988 and commissioned some of today's most talented pop-culture artists to design limited addition screen prints for each of this year's nine Best Picture nominees. And it figures they're about ten times better than any of the official posters released for these films, not to mention far superior to much of what I singled out in my annual Best Posters list. While the artists achieve varying degrees of success with these prints, it's indisputable all them do a fine job capturing the spirit of these films as stylishly and simplistically as possible. If looking at these doesn't at least get you mildly interested in checking out this Sunday's nominees, it's likely nothing will. It's just a shame that none of them are for sale, unless you happened to show up at their L.A. gallery earlier in the month and grabbed one. Of course, this could change, and if it does, I know exactly which print I'm picking up. Remember, I'm ranking the posters, not the nominees (though you couldn't be blamed for being slightly suspicious when I get to a certain selection). So, here they are, along with my comments on each.

9. Lincoln by Jeff Boyes
To be totally honest, there's not much you can do with Lincoln. That said, Boyes does about as good a job as could have been expected given the circumstances. Does it look nice? Yes. Would I hang it on my wall? Probably not. In fact, this might be the only case where I slightly prefer the original theatrical one-sheet (albeit slightly). The two-faced red and blue is a nice touch though, giving the image of our 16th President a complexity many still claim the film lacks.

8. Les Miserables by Phantom City Creative
Another tough one. The possibilities aren't exactly endless when you're handed the task of designing a poster for Les Mis. Or maybe they' are since there's so much going on and so many characters it's a chore deciding what exactly to represent. Taking the path of extreme minimalism was the right choice. The blood, eyes and flag is a cool design for sure. It grows on me the more I look at it.

7. Amour by Matt Owen
I have a feeling that when I eventually see Amour my appreciation for this will probably grow considerably. Hardly knowing much about the film, I still kind of really like what Owen did here. It looks like a cross between a Wes Anderson DVD cover and a painting you'd find hanging in someone's study. There's something that's just beautifully simplistic about it. And don't underestimate the difficulty of having to design a poster for an over 2-hour foreign film centering around an elderly woman's death.

6. Argo by Anthony Petrie
If nothing else, this addresses all those pesky complaints about Argo downplaying Canada's involvement in the rescue mission. Between the three flags, the shredded paper and the really neat shadowy silhouettes of the escapees running through Iran (on a film strip no less!), it's definitely an eye catcher. While I still have a nagging feeling something bigger could have been done (perhaps working in the sci-fi angle), I'm perfectly fine with this classy, relatively simple image representing the year's likely Best Picture winner.

5. Django Unchained by Mark Englert
Yeah, I know. This doesn't exactly capture the "spirit" or bloodshed of Quentin Tarantino, but don't we have enough of those kinds of posters anyway? I'm actually glad they didn't take the grindhouse exploitation route and instead picked an artist whose very style is the antithesis of what Tarantino's work represents. That contrast makes for an unforgettable print. This could be an alternate poster for a classic western like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and while it's kind of a misrepresentation of the movie, you can't tell me it isn't an incredible piece of landscape art that would look good on any wall.

4. Life of Pi by Tom Whalen
Upon first laying eyes on this I really didn't care for it at all, but upon closer inspection it starts to become clear what Whalen was going for. And once you're on board (no pun intended) with that, then it's hard to stop staring at it. Here's another one where my appreciation for the details in the print would probably increase dramatically once I've actually seen the film. But I can say with absolute certainty it would look great hanging up with its interesting color scheme and the stain-glass style design.

3. Zero Dark Thirty by Godmachine
Boy is this unusual. It almost looks like two entirely different prints combined as one. Zero Dark Thirty was always going to be a difficult movie to visually conceptualize in poster form so a lot of credit should go to the designers who found a way out by creating something that doesn't even slightly resemble a movie poster in any way, shape or form. It looks more like a splashy desktop background or wallpaper that's cut right down the middle. We even get a cloaked Maya and Bin Laden in nightglow green on the right and a re-creation of the movie's most memorable sequence on the left. I'm still not sure how it would look on a wall, but as a representation of Kathryn Bigelow's film, it's incredible.

2. Beasts of the Southern Wild by Rich Kelly
Here's another print that while not necessarily the most accurate depiction of the actual film from an marketing perspective (kind of making the movie look like a Gothic horror tale about the dangers of alcoholism), it's just too impressive a piece of abstract art to deny. So in that way it kind of does capture the film's spirit, which in a way defies description itself. I love the cluttered representation of the "Bathtub" in the middle, the barely visible Auroch behind Wink and of course that awesome reflection in the lake of he and Hushpuppy in the water. Wouldn't mind seeing this released in a variety of different colors just of curiosity, even though the green works really well.

1. Silver Linings Playbook by Joshua Budich
I've decided when and if Silver Linings Playbook loses Best Picture, I'm blaming its awful official theatrical poster, which was one of the many missteps made in unfairly marketing the best movie of the year as rom-com fluff. Luckily, those misconceptions have since been squashed as audiences are just recently discovering how powerful it really is, with its chances of a shocking upset on Sunday at least better than decent. Mental illness, running, romance, foootball, gambling, ballroom dancing. It's woven into an unforgettable tapestry in writer/director David O. Russell's comic masterpiece. And it's all captured in Joshua Budich's magnificent print which, as far as I'm concerned, stands as the film's true OFFICIAL poster.

Aside from the absolutely astounding comic-style artwork, just look at the details! The expressions on Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver's faces. The Eagle wings. The book thrown out the window. And Budich deserves major kudos for knowing just the right line to scribble at the bottom, quoting DeNiro's chill-inducing speech at the end of the film. And who would have thought we'd ever be this happy to see Chris Tucker? I'll cop to some bias since it's my favorite film of the year designed by my favorite poster artist, but the work here really does speak for itself. If I could envision the quintessential SLP print, it would still fall short of this, as the most inventive Best Picture nominee is now deservedly rewarded with the most creative poster.

House of Cards (Season One)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:24:00 +0000

Creator: Beau Willimon
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Kate Mara, Corey Stoll, Michael Kelly, Sakina Jaffrey, Kristen Connolly, Constance Zimmer, Sebastian Arcelus, Sandrine Holt, Michael Gill, Dan Ziskie, Ben Daniels
Original Airdate: 2013

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There's a scene that comes late into the inaugural season of Netflix's House of Cards where House Majority Whip and South Carolina congressman Francis "Frank" Underwood (Kevin Spacey) convinces the buffoonish Vice President Matthews (Dan Ziskie) to do something that can best be described as completely insane. It's hard to even believe we're listening to it, much less that the sitting V.P. of the United States would actually consider it as a serious option. But we do believe it. Frank's so persuasive it almost makes perfect sense, becoming clear that every manipulative move he's made from the very beginning has been building to it. Based on the acclaimed BBC miniseries and produced by The Ides of March screenwriter Beau Willimon and executive produced by David Fincher, House of Cards can't be accused of not living up to its title. One move leads to another and then to another until it's infected every facet of government and reaches the highest level possible, causing the house of cards to come toppling down. It's about control and manipulation, anticipating actions and reactions while adjusting accordingly. It's one man's plan to rise to the top of the food chain and take control from the inside-out, even if that means running over everyone in his path.

House of Cards Opening Title Card

You'd have to go all the way back to Kevin Spacey's Oscar winning turn as Lester Burnham in American Beauty to find a role he's been able to tear into like this. And he just chews into it like a juicy steak, reminding everyone just how gifted an actor he is when handed exceptional material. And the supporting players are just as impressive, with many underappreciated actors and actresses being afforded a golden opportunity and taking full advantage. The show isn't exactly perfect, but comes pretty close. There's nothing new or groundbreaking about its story of Washington corruption and calling it The West Wing on steroids wouldn't be completely off base. Where it exceeds expectations is in delivery and execution. The direction, cinematography, performances, production design and even the soundtrack are first class, making for intelligent, gripping entertainment that could compete with anything today on basic cable. No one can claim Netflix didn't go all out here, recruiting top talent in front and behind the camera for their first major foray into scripted original programming. And it really shows.

The series starts slowly, with the first two episodes directed rather cinematically by Fincher. What's most intriguing is how those episodes look and feel exactly like you'd imagine a TV series directed by David Fincher would look and feel like with seemingly no obvious compromises made for the medium. At times it almost feels as if you were watching Zodiac or The Social Network on the small screen, but set in the capital. Fincher's chilly visual style permeates through the rest of the season, even as other talented directors like James Foley, Joel Schumacher and Allen Coulter take over the reigns for the remaining episodes with no drop in quality whatsoever. If anything, their episodes are probably stronger since so much set-up and establishing has to be done early that the show gets off to a methodical start that's sure to play even better when you revisit it. It's a slow burn that doesn't grab hold immediately or necessarily cause you to plow through the season at furious, breakneck pace. It plants seeds for what's to come, even if at first glance it appears that the characters could turn out to be unlikable cliches. That fear is squashed after only a couple of episodes as the Shakespearean drama starts to unfold and the writing and performances lift the characters beyond that.

Reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) breaks a story

After being passed over by the President Walker (Michael Gill) for Secretary of State, the charismatically scheming Frank Underwood sets in motion a complicated, but brilliant plan for revenge with his ambitious, ice queen wife Claire (Robin Wright) and loyal chief of staff Doug Stamper (Michael Kelly) by his side. There are two major pawns in his game. One is a young Washington Herald reporter Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) who's more than willing to cut a deal with Frank as an inside source to make a name for herself, and Pennsylvania congressman Pete Russo (Corey Stoll), who's tapped by Frank for Governor despite his battles with drugs and alcohol and the fact he's carrying on a secret relationship with his secretary Christina Gallagher (Kristen Connolly). Russo becomes Frank's pet project and the scenes involving him trying to clean this troubled candidate up for a run at office count among the season's strongest.

Equally compelling and driving the narrative is Frank's relationship with Claire, which more closely resembles a business venture than a loving marriage. Yet in some ways it's both as they conspire together to further each others goals, which sometimes conflict when his Machiavellian scheming gets in the way of her trying to successfully run her non-profit organization. Taking cues from the original BBC version, Frank often breaks the fourth wall to turn to the camera and make the audience co-conspirators. Sometimes it's to let us in on his diabolical plans, but mostly it's to make hilariously sarcastic asides. This could have been very pretentious (and the first few episodes I had my worries) but they get funnier and more revealing as each show passes to the point that I eventually conceded the device works really well. Much of why hinges on Spacey's enthusiastic delivery, as he truly looks like he's having the time of his life drolly selling these lines.

Frank and Claire Underwood (Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright)

Spacey makes it almost impossible to dislike Frank by playing him so charmingly and charismatically that you fall into a similar trap the characters do. He doesn't so much manipulate people as trick those he needs into manipulating themselves. And many of them aren't stupid. Wright's Claire never feels like she's just along for the ride, often coming off as cold-blooded as he, if not worse, since emotions rarely pierce through her steely exterior (her reaction to a character's mid-season deathbed confession is particularly disturbing). Even when fighting over political leverage or extra-marital affairs the actors slyly make it feel as if they're still teammates disagreeing on the exact means they'll use to win. Both have skeletons in their closets and the writers are careful to reveal just enough, but not too much, such as when Frank returns to his alma mater where a new library is erected in his name. What results is the season's most revealing episode and Spacey's finest work, as Washington politics are temporarily put on the backburner to take a breather and explore the character of this man we've grown to simultaneously appreciate, respect and despise. Then it's back to business.

The series' take on the changing face of print media and journalism is timely if nothing else, resulting in some intentionally (and unintentionally) humorous scenes involving newspaper editors refusing to change with the tweeting times while stubbornly holding steadfast to "hard news." My biggest worry early on was the familiarity of Kate Mara's blogger Zoe, but she skillfully sidesteps a potential stereotype with a clever mixture of bratty entitlement and almost child-like innocence, playing her as professionally on point but personally inept. She'll do anything to advance her career and making a deal (the nature of which I won't spoil, but you can guess) with the devil himself, Frank Underwood, is quickest way to do it. With first Rooney and now Kate (who really displays quite a range here), Fincher can't complain he hasn't gotten his money's worth out of the Mara sisters.

Corey Stoll is doomed Pennsylvania congressman Pete Russo

The season's major sub-plot involving Pete Russo's run for governor is so compelling, and Corey Stoll's performance so revelatory, that it shows up nearly everything else in the series. Despite his weaknesses for drugs, alcohol and hookers, he's strangely the most moral character. We think we're in for another arrogant jerk, but Stoll (best known for playing Ernest Hemingway in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris) digs surprisingly deep, revealing an essentially decent, honest guy who wants to do the right thing by his constituents and family but is being sabotaged at every corner, sometimes by himself, but mostly by others wanting to prop him up for their own advantage. Frank smells his vulnerability and is more than willing to exploit it in order to make him a political puppet.

In a series full of characters whose misfortunes are almost always well deserved, Stoll still succeeds in extracting a high level of sympathy for Russo in a performance that, assuming it qualifies, is more than worthy of a supporting Emmy nomination. A practically unrecognizable Kristen Connolly, who hardly left an impression on me starring in The Cabin The Woods last year, makes a far more memorable mark here as Russo's staffer and girlfriend Christina, whose loyalty and determination lift what could have a the most cliched of relationships into a genuine partnership we end up invested in. Her and Stoll work together so well it's hard imagining their characters even functioning without each another.

Anyone hoping for closure to the major story arc this season may as well go elsewhere, as a "to be continued..." title card may as well have flashed on the screen at the end of the finale. If there's any flaw in the season, it's that a major game-changing event occurs before we reach the end and after that some steam is lost heading toward the finish. Ironically, the very beginning and very end of the season just might be the weakest (if such a word could even be used) sections while everything in between is downright phenomenal.There's really two ways to approach writing a TV series. You can either go the self-contained route and tell a different story each season or you make the entire run of the series an ongoing saga. It's apparent Fincher's going The Breaking Bad route of telling one story stretched over time, which is becoming an increasingly popular approach in this golden age of serialized dramas.

David Fincher directs Kevin Spacey and Kate Mara

While much fuss has been made about this being Netflix's first major foray into scripted original programming, their distribution model of unloading an entire season at once won't feel new to anyone who's been binging on their favorite shows, or maybe discovering new ones, for the past couple of years. If there's any adjusting to be done for the viewer, it's getting used to these episodes being labeled by chapter numbers rather than actual titles, which sometimes creates confusion when trying to reference a specific episode, but further recreates the feeling you're watching one long movie. This approach definitely feels more convenient than ever, but would mean nothing if the quality wasn't there. But it is. And for a change it's nice to see a show's success or failure judged on merit rather than ratings.

Flight

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:01:00 +0000

Director: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood, John Goodman, Melissa Leo, Nadine Velazquez, Brian Geraghty, James Badge Dale
Running Time: 138 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Remember that last section in Cast Away when Tom Hanks finally makes it home and is faced with the trauma of seeing how life just went on without him? His girlfriend's now married with kids. He's sleeping on the floor with a volleyball. That third act made the movie for me. It would have been so easy to stop and just call it a win when he got off the island, but director Robert Zemeckis just kept plowing through, knowing full well that the story was just starting and it would have been criminal to deprive viewers of at least a piece. Now with Flight, he's made an entire film about it. The script begins where most movies end, using its entire running time to explore an aftermath and dispense fascinating details we're unaccustomed to getting.

The happy ending comes first, or so it seems. Facing massive equipment failure and diving fast, Airline captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington) rolls SouthJet flight 227 upside down before crash landing in a field outside Atlanta, saving almost all the 102 passengers and crew on board. The only problem: He was drunk and high on cocaine after having spent the night with a flight attendant (Nadine Velasquez). That his condition didn't cause the crash (we think) is one of the screenplay's most creative touches since going that route would have been way too easy and a lot less morally complicated. In fact, the film's quite clear in presenting the notion that there's a better than great chance no other pilot, sober or not, would have known what to do in that situation, much less been able to execute it. If not for Whip, everyone would likely be dead. The bad news is that six people still are, and he and the airline have to answer for it.

At its core, Flight is really an exploration of addiction and guilt. If an event like this can't get someone to stop drinking and using drugs, what can? For Whip the downward spiral is just starting. A deadbeat dad in full denial about the severity of his problem, he miraculously walks away from the crash with minor injuries, only to turn on the news and discover he's a hero. What's strange is that he mostly is. But the NTSB's investigation is heating up and the toxicology reports are coming in. His biggest ally in the battle is an old buddy named Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood), a pilots union rep. Joining him is criminal attorney Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle), whose soften-spoken demeanor belies the fact that he's great at what he does and works tirelessly to keep Whip out of jail. They really want to help but he's having nothing of it, instead hiding out at his parents' abandoned farmhouse and drowning his sorrows in a bottle. His enters a complicated relationship with a heroin addict named Nicole (Kelly Reilly), whom he meets at the hospital and is trying to turn her life around following a near-fatal overdose.

I've probably already revealed too much, as the rest of the film is full of tiny details concerning the fallout from the crash and how those involved with it (directly or indirectly) view Whip's responsibility in it, which is anything but cut and dry. You can only imagine the amount of aviation research Oscar nominated screenwriter John Gatins had to put in to make sure all those details came out right and the work Zemeckis had to do the insure the crash at the beginning has the emotional impact it does. We've seen a lot of terrifying plane crashes on film but this is the first to literally take us inside the cockpit and give us a feel for what it must be like for the pilot and co-pilot when all possible options have been exhausted. And for the passengers certain they're all going to die and appear to be right.

Oscar nominated Denzel Washington gives one of most affecting performances in years as a tortured addict caught in a web of his own lies.Whip knows his silence is morally, if not criminally, reprehensible but he's too consumed by his own demons and false pride to admit a problem, much less accept help. What's most shocking is just how much damage it takes for him to get there, with Washington providing unflinching insight into how addiction grabs hold and doesn't let go, practically writing a person out of their own life. Matching him scene-for-scene in her first major co-starring role is relatively unknown English actress Kelly Reilly, who in addition to pulling off a really credible southern accent, is altogether heartbreaking as a junkie torn between trying to turn her own life around and salvaging whatever relationship she has with this total stranger. In a crowded year full of great female supporting turns, hers still stands out out from the pack, making it a bit of a mystery that she really hasn't been recognized for it.

The film is also filled to the brim with scene stealing cameos, the most memorable of which coming from John Goodman, who couldn't be more entertainingly insane as Whip's hippie best friend and drug dealer Harling Mays. His two appearances make a big enough impact that he even gets his own entrance music. Then there's James Badge Dale as a philosophical cancer patient who's either a twisted genius or has just watched too many episodes of Lost. He has only a single scene that can't be spoiled, but it's the film's because of his disturbing brilliance in it. Melissa Leo doesn't play the NTSB official as the villain she could have been, but instead as a fair, intelligent woman asking all the right questions to get to the truth. It's hard to dislike her. The same could be said for Cheadle's attorney, who at first appears to be a pushover but ends being tougher and more determined than anyone expects, even as he's constantly pushed away by his own client. We want to root for him because he's technically and legally right about the crash's cause but the means he uses to make his case are questionable. There are so many grey areas here, but none greyer than the situation involving Whip's co-pilot, well played by Brian Geraghty. When we finally do hear his take on what happened up there, that powerful scene definitely doesn't disappoint.

As we get closer to to the moment of truth for Whip, it's clear things can only end one of two ways. Dark or darker. Neither outcome can in any way be viewed as a win for the protagonist, though one is decidedly less bleak for the audience. The story is the very definition of hitting rock bottom and it's easily the edgiest, darkest thing Zemeckis has ever done. But most will just be happy that he's gone back to directing live-action, at least temporarily abandoning the motion capture CGI silliness he's been dabbling in with clunkers like Beowulf and A Christmas Carol. This picture demonstrates in full why that career diversion was so upsetting and he should have taken those complaints as a compliment. His real gift has always been in telling distinctly human stories and it's great to see the visual effects used more sparingly and effectively in helping to further that. A nearly two and a half hour, R-rated character study about an addict is probably the last thing anyone expected from the director of Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, but it couldn't have possibly been a more welcome departure. Leaving you with a lot to consider and never taking the easy way out, Flight ends up being anything but predictable.

Trouble with the Curve

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:02:00 +0000

Director: Robert Lorenz
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Justin Timberlake, Matthew Lillard, John Goodman, Robert Patrick, Scott Eastwood
Running Time: 111 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

When aging baseball scout Gus Lobel says a player looks good "on paper" you better believe he knows what he's talking about. No one has more paperwork since he refuses to rely on computers or even statistics to his job. But considering he's played by Clint Eastwood, you probably could have guessed that already. He's old school, as is the film's approach to sports recruiting. Trouble with the Curve could easily be his anti-Moneyball, if not for the fact that for the first time since 1993's In The Line of Fire, he's acting in a film he didn't actually direct. Taking over the reigns with mixed results is his longtime assistant director and producer Robert Lorenz, who puts his mentor front and center. And yet despite appearing in every scene, it still doesn't really feel like Eastwood's film. This is light, popcorn entertainment with the actor's performance playing as kind of a Grumpy Old Men version of his bitter, ornery Gran Torino character, minus the racial and ethnic slurs. It does some things well, and a few more wrong, but it's not exactly the disaster many have made it out to be, suffering more for its theatrical release coinciding with the actor's infamous Republican convention speech last November. Of course, that was blown way out of proportion by the media, undeserving of being remembered as anything other than a tiny blip on his storied career. He's earned that much, even if this effort still doesn't quite add up to much more than the sum of its parts. But if interviews implying that this could be his final acting appearance hold true, we can at least be grateful it's no Welcome To Mooseport.

With his contract up in three months, legendary Atlanta Braves' scout Gus refuses to see the handwriting on the wall. Now in his twilight years and with rapidly deteriorating eyesight, management may not extend his contract despite his best friend and boss Pete (John Goodman) doing everything he can to convince them otherwise. But Gus has a major, "can't miss" prospect to check out in North Carolina, and much to his displeasure, Pete convinces his workaholic lawyer daughter Mickey (Amy Adams) to join him on the trip, which evolves into an extended therapy session for both. With Mickey distracted by a potential promotion to partner at work and still harboring resentment toward her dad for abandoning her as a child and Gus in full denial about his declining health, their few moments of bonding come from their shared love of baseball. While there, they run into the charismatic Johnny Flanagan (Justin Timberlake) a former player Gus recruited who's now a scout for the Red Sox angling for a job in the broadcast booth. While scouting the kid he takes a romantic interest in Mickey but Gus has bigger problems to worry about. If he screws this up, he's done for good.

It's difficult to watch this without memories of 2011's vastly superior Moneyball lingering in the background. What's compelling about the comparison is that while both films focus heavily on major league baseball scouting, they take completely opposite approaches. Eastwood's Gus may as well be one of the old, out-of-touch veterans who were mocked by Brad Pitt's Billy Beane in so many of that picture's most effective scenes. There was no point in management actually "scouting" anyone anymore, as the key to the A's success came from the sabermetric system of running player stats through a computer. Here, computers are viewed as creating a culture of laziness in baseball management, screwing teams up by recruiting the wrong players and costing wise, grizzled veterans like Gus their office jobs. This is exemplified with Matthew Lillard's sleazy Braves scout, a character who rather heavy-handedly represents the supposedly clueless new guard. In other words, a one-dimensional moron who knows nothing about baseball and lets his computer program do the work. That's a bit of a stretch, as is the assertion that an aging well traveled blind man is preferable. The truth probably lies somewhere in between in terms of statistics and experience and a narrative exploring would have been far more interesting than the one we get. Fair or not, that manipulation kept me from completely sympathizing with Gus when we're clearly meant to. Also odd is what a slog the action is considering there's more of an emphasis on actual scouting and recruiting at games as opposed to just analyzing statistics, a task Moneyball somehow found a way to make extremely exciting.

It all has kind of a lazy Sunday afternoon TV movie feel about it, only coming alive when Justin Timberlake arrives to share the screen with Amy Adams and Eastwood. He's ideal for the part of a cocky, but good-hearted former player who's career was cut short. He just nails it, making you wonder why he wasn't the protagonist since he certainly feels like one in scenes opposite Adams, with whom he has surprisingly great chemistry. Too bad the pacing of the relationship feels off, as it seems to take about an hour of screen time for those sparks to go anywhere, and by the time they do, we've checked out. Adams basically carries the whole movie bringing a considerable amount of depth her ice princess character and the usually hackneyed storyline of a father-hating daughter carrying emotional baggage. Without spoiling too much, when we're finally given an explanation for the rift between the two, it's in a flashback scene meant to pack a dramatic wallop, but instead had me howling with laughter. It plays like a bizarre cross between Equus and Dirty Harry. But that we even got a brief moment of bad-ass, old school Eastwood is reason enough to celebrate since the rest of the way through it does kind of feel like he's on autopilot, at times almost sending up his own image as an actor and icon.

For all it does wrong, this gets one really important thing right. There's this seemingly throwaway moment toward the middle of the picture with the obnoxious (and boy he's obnoxious) player Gus and Johnny are scouting that's strangely memorable, its full repercussions figuring into the conclusion in a surprising way. The way it returns, much like everything else in the third act, is probably a bit too convenient, but the underlying message of talent hiding anywhere isn't. Of course, a few more happy (if not completely earned) resolutions are also shoehorned into an ending that clumsily juggles personal and professional trials, before tying them up nicely with a bow. Ironically, the film is strongest when dealing with the personal drama and weaker in the professional department, namely everything involving Mickey's work problems back home, resulting in annoying, undramatic scenes with Adams' face buried in her phone, texting non-stop. The attempt join everything together at the end comes off as well as it can given the circumstances, even as Lorenz faces limitations imposed on him by an overstuffed script. Despite its predictability and the fact it has nothing particularly important to say, Trouble With The Curve is still a breezy watch, as there are far worse ways to kill two hours, especially for Eastwood fans who will probably feel obligated to see it. And they should. Just as long as they don't expect anything special.

Zero Dark Thirty

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:22:00 +0000

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle, Kyle Chandler, Chris Pratt, Edgar Ramirez, Mark Duplass, Frank Grillo, Harold Perrineau, James Gandolfini
Running Time: 157 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

When we first meet Jessica Chastain's Maya in Zero Dark Thirty, she's silently and nervously watching her CIA colleague Dan (Jason Clarke) interrogate a potential Al-Qaeda suspect. It's an interrogation that soon turns to torture when he tells her to fill a bucket of water. She can barely bring herself to do it and we're thinking there's no way this is the same woman the agency nicknames "killer," much less the one who eventually brings down the most dangerous man in the world. It'll be only moment of hesitancy we see because, like everyone else, we've underestimated her. At its core this is about a woman who's beyond exceptional at her job and refuses to take "no" for answer. Wherever there's red tape she walks through it. When superiors are in her way she plows right over them. Operating with an emotionless, laser-like focus and precision, it's impossible for anyone to deter her from her main objective: Finding and killing Osama Bin Laden. In many respects she's the most patriotic and inspirational protagonist we've seen on screen in some time but Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow (again corroborating with Hurt Locker writer Mark Boal) won't let us get all warm and fuzzy about it. In fact, she hardly even gives us a moment to come up for air.

The chain of events start on September 11, 2001 but for the film's purposes the really begin in 2003 when Maya's career-long obsession with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda leads her to be reassigned to the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan where she witnesses and learns Dan's interrogation tactics and gets a potential lead on the whereabouts of Bin Laden's courier and right-hand man, Abu Ahmed. For all the complaints and controversy concerning the depiction of torture to gain valuable intel one of the more under-reported stories about the film is the sheer quantity of it, as the opening thirty minutes of the film is nearly all waterboarding. The lead isn't concrete (as few are) but it's one that stays with Maya and she obsesses over as she moves up the ranks in the CIA. Her biggest obstacles and bureaucratic and political as she faces off against the agency's Islamabad Station Chief Joseph Bradley (Kyle Chandler), who's more interested in adding notches to his belt by preventing domestic attacks than locating bin Laden. He'll learn that you don't stand in Maya's way. So will his boss (Mark Strong) and so will the CIA's director (James Gandolfini). Maya's greatest strength is in how by sheer force of will and determination she can eliminate those who won't fight for her cause and sympathetically convince those on the fence who she needs (like Edgar Ramirez's Special Division officer) to cooperate.

Maya lives, breathes and sleeps catching bin Laden and has little time for others who won't. When her co-worker (exceptionally played by Jennifer Ehle) asks why she doesn't have a boyfriend her response is exactly what you'd expect. She doesn't care, or she does, she sure as hell won't show it. This isn't an actor's showcase or typically the type of role that lets a performer show off their chops, which is what makes Chastain's work that much more miraculous. The movie may be ice but somehow she isn't, despite infusing the distant Maya with all the characteristics that should make her difficult to root for under other circumstances. Or it could be that we're just not used to having our female characters written this strongly. It's the rare case where you could change the name on the script to a man's and still be able to leave the rest of the screenplay alone. And to think anyone would claim Chastain's performance isn't paramount to the film's success or somehow takes a back seat to the terror or torture sequences. She's in every scene, carrying this whole thing on her back.

This is a cold, clinical, procedural showing its only signs of a pulse in its unforgettable final scene, which is as strong a finish as you'll see in any film this year. But much like the mission itself, it feels meticulously executed, even as plans constantly change. One lead takes Maya to another lead and then to another after that until the SEAL Team arrives at Bin Laden's compound in the final, thrilling hour. Our appreciation of the steps Boal's script takes us to get there and all suspense rests entirely on the fact that we know the ending, but not necessarily everything. Will we get to see him? Will he say anything? Will we get to know who shot him? And yet these are all trivial questions in Bigelow's world, where the cold, hard truth is a far cry from the sensationalistic dramatization everyone likely expected going in.

It's also about risk. In one key scene a character talks about how it's easy measure the risk of doing something but the risk of not acting is always trickier to figure out. It's all about weighing the options and for Maya it's her skill, confidence and even a little bit of luck that lands bin Laden on her lap. Her problem is convincing everyone there's a shot, including the members of the Team being thrown into the lion's den. The two we meet (played by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) express concerns of their own and they're pretty logical ones. The last 40 minutes of the film are unbearably suspenseful and masterfully edited, almost literally bringing us in the compound to experience details we've only partially been privy to or have just wildly speculated on. Bigelow and Boal could have easily called it a day there, but they thankfully keep going, giving us a glimpse of its aftermath.

If there's a single decision that got Bigelow and Boal into the most trouble it's the disclaimer that appears before the film starts, informing us that it's "based on first-hand accounts of actual events." If only they knew what they stepped into with that statement, however true it may be. And to be honest, I don't particularly care. This isn't a documentary and they can fudge the truth as much or as little as they want. You don't have to like it, but it's the filmmaker's right. Despite allegations, the movie doesn't automatically take a pro-torture stance by showing. And if Boal did embellish, or even if he made the whole thing up (which by all accounts he didn't), I still wouldn't have cared, just as long as the final product on screen delivers. All the "controversy" surrounding the film feels like a convenient excuse to have political arguments that should be taking place outside the theater. Still, it's tough to deny any film generating this kind of discussion is at all a bad thing, provided that anger isn't directed at those who made it. The focus should be on how Boal's script somehow condenses a decade's worth of intelligence information into a sustainable, compelling narrative and how Bigelow was able to make an even more muscular and unrelenting film than The Hurt Locker. But Zero Dark Thirty's most controversial stance comes in an ending that's anything but celebratory. It's strangely sad and uncertain, bravely daring to ask the important question: What now?