Tag: Review

PROJECT X (2012) – The Review

PROJECT X is not an off-shoot of the TV talent competition or a remake of the Matthew Broderick chimp thriller, but the latest in what seems to be an endless entry in the found footage / hand-held video genre, a film subset ( or conceit ) that is quickly wearing out its welcome at the multiplex. I suppose it really exploded with the box office smash over ten years ago with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and continues today with the horror series PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Just weeks ago the format was used in the super-powered fantasy CHRONICLE. Now the shakey-cam is utilized for this new ” party ” comedy ( not the first found comedy – THE VIRGINITY HIT was a 2010 dud ). Will X fire up lots of big screen yucks or go down like warm stale beer?

The plot ( to be it loosely ) centers around the 24 hours of the eighteenth birthday of Thomas  played by Thomas Mann ( who starred in IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, one of this film’s few movie veterans ). His parents are headed out of town to celebrate their anniversary ( hmmm, really? ) and have left son Thomas with many strict rules for use of the home (oo-kay). The birthday boy’s best pal Costa ( Oliver Cooper ), along with JB ( Jonathon Daniel Brown ) decide to help throw the party to end all parties all while being video documented by the mostly silent ( and more than a bit creepy ) Dax ( Dax Flame ). We follow them at school as they invite their classmates ( who don’t really know Thomas ), purchase some herb in a shady part of town, and pick up party supplies. Soon the sun sets and the guests arrive. And arrive. And ( … well you get the picture ). Thanks to Dax ( and other video devices and TV news feeds ) we’re in the middle of this raging, out-of-control, endless night.

But is this party worth attending? Well it would help to have some interesting characters involved. Thomas, Costa, and JB are a riff on youthful comic trios used in films since THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN all through the vastly superior SUPERBAD. The hero Thomas is the really, nice guy who gets swept up into bad boy behavior ( ala’ RISKY BUSINESS ). JB is the bespectacled uber-nerd, who might just get lucky despite his cluelessness. And then there’s the ringleader, the crass motor-mouth Costa. When he’s not waxing nostalgic on the glories of Queens, he’s going out of his way to be crude and crass to everyone he meets. And he’s playing to the camera constantly ( he favors himself a future viral video superstar ). At least we can hope this little weasel gets his comeuppance. I did find their security team ( two over-eager junior high age guys in bright yellow windbreakers ) a bit amusing. The producers try to shoe-horn a romance subplot into the fracas. Thomas lusts after super hot brunette bad-girl Alexis while not appreciating best pal, blonde gird-girl Kirby ( almost literally the girl-next-door ). Or maybe he will go past the buddy stage. It’s the classic ” Archie-Betty-Veronica ” triangle once again! But without the complexity of those comic book icons. I don’t know when I’ll felt so ancient watching in a movie theatre. The twenty-something target audience was erupting in roars during the wild party scenes while I was using my interior calculator to add up the quickly mounting property damage. PROJECT X is an ode to excess, irresponsibility,and destruction. When the camera not zooming in on the revelers mugging into the camera as they dance and imbibe, we’re treated to random acts of cruelty ( blowing pot smoke in the lil’ pup’s face then tying it to helium balloons-calling PETA! ). I guess we’re suppose to laugh at the old squares in the neighborhood trying to get some sleep. Most of the guys here are selfish pigs while the girls ( except for Kirby ) are there to shake their stuff and drop their tops. One of the main marketing points for the film is the involvement of Todd Phillips as one of the producers. Well, this film made his Hangover flicks look subtle and subdued. It’s tough to laugh when the film makers glorify antics that get ‘ spring-breakers ” killed every year. In that aspect, the movie veers from sloppy to contemptable.There’s little consequences to anything here! Although the film clocks in at 90 minutes, it more than wears out its welcome. PROJECT X goes from party mode to gruelling endurance test. Shut out the lights and call it a night! And stay off my lawn, you darn movie!

 

Overall Rating: 1/2 out of 5 stars

WANDERLUST – The Review

Sometimes film makers can unknowingly tap into a certain public movement or trend when making a piece of entertainment. This can be even more surprizing considering the long gestation period of movies ( usually scripts can collect dust on a desk or shelf before the cameras roll ). The trend I’m referring to with this flick is the recent occupy movement that took root in many cities across the country this past Fall and Summer ( the expanded trailer for this coming Summer’s THE DARK KNIGHT RISES seem to be picking up on those protests, too ). Well, before Batman leaps into the economic battlefield, here comes the new comedy from David Wain ( WET, HOT AMERICAN SUMMER and ROLE MODELS ) called WANDERLUST. In this, a young married couple decide to stop their quest for the ” almighty dollar ” and return to a simpler time of communes ( when hippies walked the Earth! ). Of course they’re not the only movie big city duo to get back to basics ( THE EGG AND I  and LOST IN AMERICA are great examples ), but this film taps into that 60’s spirit that was floating through those make-shift tents and towns that sprung up in city parks late last year. And this film shows the lighter, flip-side to last year’s commune flick, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. So it’s riding a recent a wave of sentiment, but does it deliver the big laughs with the relevancy?

Linda ( Jennifer Aniston ) and George ( Paul Rudd ) are upwardly mobile young marrieds in Manhattan. Suddenly their city life crumbles ( their jobs go down the drain ) and George hatches a plan to work with his brother Rick ( Ken Marino ) down in Atlanta until they can regroup and return to the Big Apple. Desperate to pull off the highway for the night, they encounter a bed and breakfast deep off the trail, in the wilds of Georgia run by the odd, mature flower child Kathy ( Kerri Kenney ). Soon the couple find that the place is part of a sixties-style commune started by Carvin ( Alan Alda ), but really run by the group’s enigmatic guru Seth ( Justin Theroux ). After a wild, but restful night George and Linda resume their journey and arrive at the sprawling suburban home of brother Rick and his family. Quickly George clashes with his obnoxious sibling and he decides that a return to nature at Carvin’s may be just the thing for himself and Linda. Can they really change their lifestyle and fit in with the commune’s free spirits ( and wild eccentrics )? And what about the plans of an evil developer to turn the Carvin’s land into a big, ugly casino ( pave paradise, put up some slot machines )?

Once again Wain has assembled a group of terrific comic actors, many from his previous films and his superb TV work ( from ” The State” to ” Childrens Hospital ” ). Co-writer Marino scores big laughs as the insensitive idiot Rick while SNL vet Michaela Watkins is funny ( and a bit sad ) as Rick’s frustrated, numb wife Marissa. Besides Kinney the commune is filled with terrific talent like Lauren Ambrose ( ” Six Feet Under” ) as Earth-mother Almond, ” MADTV” vet Jordan Peele as her old man Rodney, and Kathryn Hahn ( OUR IDIOT BROTHER ) as annoyed feminist Karen. Malin Akerman is the ultimate sexy hippie chick Eva, while Alda is his usual sly, delightful self riffing on his left-leaning rep. Many readers of the tabloids and gossip site may flock to this flick to get a better look at the new Anniston beau, Mr. Theroux. Well Mr. T scores many big laughs as the pretentious, blowhard leader, whose tech knowledge ended a decade or so ago. He and Aniston work well in their few scenes together, but newstand mag fans don’t get a chance to see the new ” it ” couple sizzling up the screen. Most of Aniston’s romantic scenes are with her movie hubby and they crackle with energy ( as does an early scene with some TV execs ). With this film, and the recent HORRIBLE BOSSES, she solidifies her status as one of our top comic actresses. They’re all superb, but the film really belongs to the endlessly charming Mr. Rudd. Whether he’s doing slapstick farming schtick or delivering a very R-rated pep talk to himself at a mirror, Rudd effortlessly brings home the same kind of big laughs he did as OUR IDIOT BROTHER. He’s a great, goofy leading ( every ) man for our times. The movie itself goes on a bit too long and its ending can be seen all the way up Highway 75, but it’s a pleasure to see this talented group tweak the noses of the 1% and the 99% ( I’ll raise my hands and rub my fingers together, since clapping is too aggressive, man ).

Overall rating: Four Out of Five Stars

ACT OF VALOR – The Review


There are times I feel the need to walk on eggshells when discussing a film. ACT OF VALOR is one of those instances where I have two conflicting but equally valid opinions on the film’s perceived purpose and success thereof. For a film that has been relatively well marketed for what seems like a fairly good stretch of time, I imagine most who have seen the trailers and TV spots are well aware that the film is an action story based upon real tactics and missions, most likely a hybrid of several pieced together, as not to reveal any specifically sensitive information. Considering this, how does the film grade?

ACT OF VALOR is co-directed by Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh. The film is cast with real, active-duty Navy SEALs, which on its own merit, is a really cool concept, a concept that equally fails and succeeds, depending on which aspect of the film we are discussing. What do I mean? Let me put it this way… Anytime you cast a film with untrained, non-professional actors — or amateurs, in short – you run the risk of poor performance destroying a film, despite the quality of its many parts in whole. That is not the case with ACT OF VALOR, well… not entirely. The greater portion of the blame during certain scenes goes to a low level of dramatic writing and bad dialogue, but there is some blame to be put on throwing inexperienced actors into these types of roles. Hence, one key hurdle for the modern rise of indie film that often must be overcome.

What are these key scenes? I’ll step back for a moment and discuss what does work, which is roughly 75% of the film. This majority of the film takes place in the military mindset of a mission, prep leading into a mission, or official correspondence and interaction on a military level. On this level, the primary cast works wonderfully, not because of some ingrained acting ability, but because that’s what these SEALs do, this is their job, their lives even. It’s not acting for them, so in that sense it comes off entirely authentic. Combine this with the successfully executed use of dynamic cinematography to capture the intense and often chaotic moments of a mission, and this saves an otherwise doomed concept that could have failed miserably if it had been cast entirely with non-military trained actors. Bravo for the bold move.

However, the remaining 25% of the film deals with civilian life, family and the drama that occurs when not in uniform or on a mission. This is where ACT OF VALOR breaks down. The dialogue is bad, the delivery is forced and in many cases, overly melodramatic. In these scenes, the film takes on a decidedly disappointing made-for-TV daytime drama personality. Fortunately, this is limited enough so that it does not ruin the experience, but add to this an underlying narration from one of the SEALs that delivers a bit of poetic, but unnecessary back story and it becomes just slightly harder to swallow, that is of course until the big guns begin to fire.

Yes, ACT OF VALOR has big guns. There’s more to the film than this, specifically the welcome and positive tribute the film serves as to honor the special ops soldiers, both living and deceased. On the other hand, when it comes to making a financially successful, entertaining movie, it never hurts to have big guns and explosions, which occur on a frequent but not overblown scale. One scene in particular that had me giggling maniacally like a demented 13-year old boy was an action-packed, tension-filled scene depicting the extraction of the team from the jungle that involves… well, big guns and explosions. Yeah, mini-gun’s rule!

The villains, namely two bad guys in collaboration on one nasty scheme against the Unites States, are played rather well by actors Alex Veadoz and Dimiter Marinov. That’s right, they did not cast “actual” terrorists and bad guys in these roles, but in this case, we’re better off. These two men offer a great deal of dramatic punch where the SEALs are unable to deliver on a level we’re used to seeing in big, Hollywood films. There is also an unexpected but welcome and fitting cameo by Emilio Rivera, which will surely delight any fans of the FX series SONS OF ANARCHY.

In the end, the action and intense combat choreography, intense realism in tactics and the somewhat unconventional camera work keeps ACT OF VALOR afloat despite the relatively miniscule acting faux pa while in the civilian moments. On a note regarding the camera work, gamers will find some of the action reminiscent of so many first-person combat games, but the directors were smart and integrated this sparingly when useful, rather than focusing heavily on this for combat scenes. If you enjoy these types of movies, ACT OF VALOR is worth a look, so long as you are willing to bite your tongue and look past the non-military scenes, but more importantly, appreciate the active duty military men and women who are the focus of this film, presented in part as a tribute.

Soldier Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Civilian Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

THIS MEANS WAR – The Review

So, Valentine’s Day was a few days ago. Doesn’t mean it’s too late for another romantic comedy. Now this one hedges its bets by trying to appeal to adrenaline lovin’ guys. No simple hearts and flowers stuff like THE VOW are going on here. Action director McG injects some Bond and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE style thrills into the genre with THIS MEANS WAR. But can he rescue the wounded rom-com after recently being roughed up by the likes of SJP, Heigl, and Kutcher?

WAR starts up right at the end of a dangerous Hong Kong adventure. CIA agents and best pals Franklin AKA FDR ( Chris Pine ) and Tuck ( Tom Hardy ) are there to break up some dirty deal instigated by Heinrich ( Til Schweiger ). After much mayhem the guys return to LA HQ where they’re called on the carpet by their boss Collins ( Angela Bassett ) and assigned desk duty. We then meet adorable product tester Lauren ( Reese Witherspoon ), who’s great at her job but unlucky in love. She keeps running into her ex and his new gal all the time! After much prodding by her best pal, harried married mom Trish ( Chelsea Handler ) Lauren goes on an internet dating site. Back with the spies, Tuck’s got the blues. He’s still not quite over his divorce and misses his little boy. One night he decides to go online. And what do you know? He finds Lauren’s profile! FDR ( no internet dating for this “player” ) volunteers to shadow their meeting. Oddly enough ( not really ) FDR bumps into Lauren after her drink with Tuck and they exchange sparks. Soon Lauren is dating both guys and they discover their mutual new flame. They agree to behave as gentlemen ( like that’ll work ). I mean with all those cool spy gizmos at their disposal? C’mon! In addition to all the one-upmanship, that nasty old Heinrich is heading to the states to get revenge on the two buds. Can FDR and Tuck stay BFFs and keep Lauren from finding out about their agreement and their line of work before that angry German catches up to them?

It’s strange for this to come out so closely on the heels of the brutal spy thriller SAFE HOUSE. In that film , the Agency’s full of ruthless backstabbers and cruel torturers. The CIA in McG’s film is a fun place with cool toys and co-workers that don’t mind helping you out with a new gal. The offices are plush and slick like Ari Gold’s offices in TV’s Entourage. Then again the LA shown here is a fantasy fun park where you can run into the ex and show him up with your new fella. McG shoots the town with a golden glow, but can’t seem to bring a lot of life to the plot until the obligatory fight scenes and car chase. He edits those so frantically that you can barely tell who’s doing what to whom ( do you really needt o cut every two seconds? ). The actors can only do so much with this predictable script. It’s tough to believe that Witherspoon’s Lauren would be such a disaster in the dating pool. The clueless character is a waste of her considerable acting talents. Lauren’s more of a prize than a person. For a rom-com she doesn’t have much chemistry with her leading men. Hardy’s Tuck is too quiet and sullen for this light fare. Pine seems to be still in Captain Kirk mode, but can still throw out a funny line or gesture. These are two fine actors, but they don’t really gel as pals. Pine’s a Roger Moore type of spy while Hardy’s in the Daniel Craig vein. Speaking of chemistry. Witherspoon has that in spades with Handler’s Trish, who seems to be living vicariously through Lauren. Handler’s deadpan delivery makes a terrific contrast to the flighty Lauren character. A movie about those two very different woman would be much more interesting than this sophomoric cloak and dagger,dating farce. Everyone ( including the locations and vehicles ) are very attractive, but very forgettable. And shame on the producers for invoking Mad Magazine’s classic Spy Vs. Spy in the advertising. Now those spy guys are really funny!

Overall Rating: Two and a Half Out of Five Stars

PINA – The Review

Seems the proliferation of 3D feature films is the source of much discussion and arguments amongst cinema devotees. Many believe it to be a blatant cash grab by the studios to squeeze a bit more dough from movie goers. Films that are shot in 2D and are upconverted to 3D help support this view. One of the biggest offenders was the remake of CLASH OF THE TITANS ( I know it gave me a headache ) and now studios are going into the vault to re-release classics with the new tech ( Disney started last year, George Lucas is sending out his two trilogies, and James Cameron’s TITANIC sails back into multiplexes in April ). But something odd happened last year, the grown-up, serious directors are using this new format. The biggest hit may be Martin Scorsese’s HUGO, but art-house darling Werner Herzog created quite a stir with his documentary CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS. Now another film maker from across the pond, Germany’s Wim Wenders, has made his own documentary PINA in 3D. Will he brings some respectability to this much maligned movie gimmick? Well it is up for an Oscar!

PINA started out as a collaboration between Wender and acclaimed choreographer Pina Buasch several years ago. When she passed away in 2009 the project was to be abandoned until Buasch’s dance company, Tantztheatre Wuppertal, convinced Wenders to continue this film as a tribute and celebration of her talents. Luckily for us he agreed. Most of the movie consists of recreations of her dance works. It begins with number based on ” The Rite of Spring ” performed on a stage covered in dirt and soil. Later on in the film we see many of the same artists on that stage prancing through puddles on a rain-soaked surface. Later on, another famous work, ” Cafe Mueller “, begins with two of Buasch’s collaborators looking over a miniature model of the set when tiny dancers suddenly appear and begin the scene. Old black and white footage of the original production ( with Pina herself on stage ) is cut into the recreation. It’s amazing how the dancers integrate chairs into the number ( not just as props, but almost as another dancer ). This is driven home in a mesmerizing later number where dancers move through ten or so precariously stacked chairs. Several times the dancers leave the stage and head outside to perform on the streets and woodlands surrounding Wuppetal, Germany. Great use is made of their monorail-like commuter system. I was surprised at how the performers used their hands during the numbers, in complicated expressive gestures. Speaking of expression, the camera gives us a oppurtunity to see the great acting each of the dancers does with their silent facial expressions. Intercut between the numbers are stories about Buasch told by her dance troupe.  The camera lingers on the silent artists while their vocals play on the soundtrack ( some are without vocals as they gaze into the camera ). Bausch’s dancers are an international, multi-ethnic all-ages group. It’s heartening to see these mature veterans showing the newbies a step or two.

PINA is an unusal documentary as there is very little biographical information ( family history, etc. ) about the title subject. It’s all about the creative work she did with these talented people. And that may speak more about her than a mere laundry list of facts. The cinematography is gorgeous ( those dance frocks really pop against the backdrops ) and the camera moves in a way that doesn’t exploit but compliment the new technology. As with HUGO I can say that the 3D definitely enhances an already involving entertainment. Let’s hope more film makers utilize this format for works that are this enlightening and wondrous.

Overall Rating : Four Out of Five Stars

THE VOW – The Review

Several recent films ( in particular horror/ thrillers ) have thrown about the nebulous phrase ” inspired by true events ” in their advertising . Now, a movie from an unlikely genre has adapted it. THE VOW is an old-fashioned, hearts and flowers romantic weeper that is indeed based on a true incident. If you stick around for the final fade out , you’ll see these real folks in a black and white photo. Now that ” inspired ” allows for a lot of creative liberties, so the movie can’t be judged as a ” docudrama’ ( primarily the domain of Lifetime and other cable TV channels ). So, without this ” true ” gimmick how does it play as a big screen romance populated with gorgeous movie stars?

Well, let’s start with this somewhat ” gimmicky ” set-up that we’ve seen in all the trailers and commercials. Paige ( Rachel McAdams ) and Leo ( Channing Tatum ) are a sweet, young , incredible photogenic, married Chicago couple whose lives are turned upside down when a truck plows into their parked car on snowy night. Leo recovers quickly from his injuries, but Paige is not so lucky. When she finally awakes she has no memory of her marriage, Leo or the last few years really. Well, love conquers all obstacles, right? Not so fast. As Leo is slowly working with his bride, Paige’s estranged parents arrive at the hospital ( Sam Neill and Jessica Lange ). They’ve never met Leo and believe that Paige can better recover at their plush Lake Forest home ( she can help with kid sister Gwen’s upcoming nuptials ). The brain-injured young woman is the prize in a tug-of-war between the two camps. Soon Paige has gone back several chapters in her life story ( she’s even eating bacon! ). Her smarmy, former fiance’ Jeremy ( Scott Speedman ) jumps back into her life. Will Paige ever regain her memory or will Leo have to win the heart of this completely different person that his wife has become? Hmm, do you really wonder?

So, yeah this movie goes right after the old tear ducts. Relentlessly. So, it all depends on how we relate to this challenged couple. After the accident, we get to see how they meet cute ( really, really cute ) several years ago ( that hat!! Yechh! ). They’re Chicago North Side Bohemians. She’s makes twisted sculptures, he’s got a recording studio! We spend a whole lotta’ time with his hipster pals ( of course they’re all in a band ). We even get to see their ” out-there” wedding ceremony ( so edgy! ). And there’s the ” uptights” on her side of the family. If he’s had a mustache, Dad would’ve been curling it with glee in Paige’s hospital room ( ” she’ll be back with us, where she belongs! MwaaHaa! ” ). When Leo talks about his studio at the family dinner, they almost roll their eyes! It all depends on whether the actors can break through the cliches in the script. McAdams is no stranger to movie weepers ( THE NOTEBOOK may be a touch stone for the genre ) and is able to make the two Paiges fairly believable. Tatum has a more difficult time of it as he tries to make Leo a sweet, sensitive, puppy. We even get to see him strumming a guitar while alone in his studio ( poor soul ). After several heavy actions flix , it’s tough to accept him as this guy watching his gal as he stands soaking in the rain ( Oookay! ). Neill and Speedman have little to do besides tormenting Leo and be humorless tools. Lange brings some dignity to the Mother role, but I kept wondering why she would take on such a small role ( I’d read how reluctant she was to work on ” American Horror Story ” ). She deserves better. The gorgeous Chicago locations are a big plus for the film-we get to see the city during all four seasons. The film becomes mired in legal matters toward the end which helps dilute the impact of the final sequences. Young fans should be pleased see two of their favorite stars, but most other film goers will be bored with the predictable proceedings. Wonder if I could lose just a specific two hours of memory?

Overall Rating: Two Out of Five Stars

SAFE HOUSE ( 2012 ) – The Review

Exotic faraway locales, car chases, massive firepower, deceitful bosses, and intense hand-to-hand combat have been the staples of spy thrillers for many decades. The genre has been attracting more prestige stars these days because one film series has injected a lot of life ( almost a shot of adrenaline ) and box office bucks into what had become standard ” who’s got the microfilm ” flicks : the Bourne trilogy. These Matt Damon starrers turned up the volume so much that even the king of spies, James Bond took notice and overhauled the almost fifty year film  series ( CASINO ROYALE moves at a much faster pace ). The new spy thriller, SAFE HOUSE, has the non-stop action set pieces, but doubles the protagonists. Taking a break from the raucous ( and often romantic ) comedies, and after a poorly received super-hero stint, is Ryan Reynolds. And for the big prestige factor, how about two time Oscar winner Denzel Washington? As far as buddy-action chase movies go, let’s see how well these two play together.

For the opening scenes of SAFE HOUSE, we get to know novice CIA agent Matt Weston ( Reynolds ). He’s stuck spinning his wheels, assigned to watch over a rarely used secret safe house ( title!) in sleepy Capetown, South Africa. The house is a place the agency uses for detaining and interrogating prisoners before whisking them out of the country. Matt wants to be reassigned to Paris to be closer to his cute French girlfriend ( she’s got no idea that he’s CIA ), but his mentor back at Langley headquarters, Barlow ( Brendan Gleeson ) can’t help. And then rogue ex-agent Tobin Frost ( Washington ) is spotted there. Soon Weston and Frost’s paths collide and both are on the run with killers matching their every move. Matt’s almost over his head as he tries to keep them both alive while making sure the brilliant, more experienced Frost doesn’t make a break for freedom. All the while Matt is in contact with the agency headquarters where Barlow clashes with Linkletter ( Vera Farmiga ) and the agency director ( Sam Shepard ). Can the two men escape the armies of assassins and make to another safe house outside Capetown?

This is one exhausting time at the multiplex. The action set pieces are disorienting and unrelenting. The choppy, quick-cut editing style coupled with the hand-held camerawork is needlessly dizzying. The same hand-held shooting becomes more distracting during the few quiet dialogue scenes and makes it difficult to focus in on the acting. As for the acting, Reynolds proves to be a good action star, but it’s still difficult to buy him as a ” whatever it takes ” killer. Not the case with Washington. His Frost is dead-eyed and stone cold. Unfortunately for Reynolds, Washington dominates every scene they share. Besides his combat skills, Frost is an expert in getting inside an agent’s head and Weston just can’t block him out. We find out a bit of background on Frost, but he remains a mystery. His most powerful scene is one in which he is subjected to ” enhanced interrogation techniques “. A sobering piece amongst all the destruction. The actors back at headquarters have little to do but snipe at each other. Gleeson is condescending, Farmiga is tough ( a cliched b**** on wheels ), and Shepard is the grizzled boss that just wants the mess cleaned up! There’s plenty of mayhem for the video game crowds ( wrecked cars, smashed metal homes, and tons of spent cartridges litter the over-saturated filmed streets ), but very little about the people stays with you. When it comes to spies, these shooters and backstabbers have nothing on Bourne, Bond, Ethan Hunt, or even George Smiley.

Overall Rating: Three Out of Five Stars

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN – The Review

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN was originally reviewed during the 2011 Stella Artois 20th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival

Imagine yourself as a parent. Now, aside from outliving your own child, imagine the worst thing that could happen. Despite all your best efforts to be a good parent, to raise your child properly, imagine your child does something horrific and unforgivable. Imagine they have done something that turns the entire community against you. Now you are as prepared as you possibly can be for watching WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, from Scottish filmmaker Lynne Ramsay, whose previous two feature films are RATCATCHER (1999) and MORVERN CALLAR (2002) and both films are extraordinary. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is the third feature film written and directed by this exciting new cinematic voice. This also happens to be her darkest film, and perhaps her best film to date.

Tilda Swinton plays Eva, a worldly free-spirited woman who suddenly finds herself settled down with her husband Franklin, played by John C. Reilly, and having a child. Eva, despite her best efforts to be the mother she’s expected to be, never wanted a child. Still, Eva tries her very best to raise her son right, but from a very early age, there’s something Eva sees in Kevin that sends chills down her spine, something only she sees, while Franklin is fully submersed in the intoxicating drug of fatherhood, blind to the warning signs.

Ramsay constructs this frighteningly all-too-familiar story with a mastery of non-linear progression. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is really Eva’s story, while her son Kevin is the film’s antagonist. This is mother versus son on a level as close to being a horror movie without being a horror movie. Eva has her flaws, both as a mother and as a human being, but Swinton gives her such authentic emotions, such conflicted motives and desires that we can’t help but fully empathize with her. It’s not just her son she must contend with, nor her community after the tragic event, but Eva’s most debilitating struggle is with herself, coping with the guilt of what has happened on her watch as a mother.

Ezra Miller plays Eva’s son Kevin as a teenager, while his various stages of youth are played by other child actors. Most notably frightening as a child is Rock Duer, who plays Kevin as a toddler. A mostly silent role, Rock will creep you out! If THE OMEN had not already been remade, I would count Rock as a shoe-in to play Damien. However, it’s Ezra Miller’s performance that stands out in defining Kevin as the troubled, enigmatic and dangerous teenager.

John C. Reilly is sort of an odd choice for this film. His character is the right fit for his style, goofy and lovable, but it often struggles to fit the dramatic mold setup in WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, contrasting with the intensity of Swinton’s performance, but at the same time somewhat saved by Ezra Miller’s ability to shift his character’s diabolical personality with such smoothly polished seams. Regardless, Franklin is a relatively insignificant character to the story, a tool by which to strengthen the mother-son dynamic more than a central focus.

Ramsay has crafted an incredibly dark, terrifying story of the American family, while also engaging the audience is some rather black humor. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is one of those films that makes you laugh, then immediately feel like you’ve outright sinned for laughing at what’s really a very sad, unfortunate ordeal. The film will likely shock most audiences, hopefully most audiences, but more importantly should bring Lynne Ramsay more to the forefront of American audiences as the next great female filmmaker.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

CHRONICLE – The Review

For many, the “superhero” genre is as worn out as an old sock, with so many comic book movies proving they are bigger on their budgets than their concepts. I am, of course speaking of the average movie-goer, not the clutch of comic book fans that frequent the film adaptations, for better or worse. On the other hand, there’s the rare film that takes the superhero genre and turns it upside-down, delivering a fresh new concept or unique spin on the oft over-blown orgies of CGI and miscast megastars we are accustomed to seeing.

On one hand, you have filmmakers like James Gunn who take the superhero genre into an extremist, even exploitative (these are compliments, folks) realm of parody and violence like with SUPER, and smaller comic books of higher quality adapted into quality films such as KICK-ASS. On the other hand, you have filmmakers who take the superhero genre and break it down into its essential parts, with only the core premise remaining, and build something new, something conceptual and less grandiose. One of the best examples is M. Night Shyamalan’s UNBREAKABLE, which gets at the core of what makes a superhero, and their super villains tick on a human level.

CHRONICLE is the newest example of such a film, written by Max Landis (the son of director John Landis) and is the feature film debut of director Josh Trank, who worked as an editor on BIG FAN, starring Patton Oswalt. The story follows three teenagers — Steve (Michael B. Jordan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Andrew (Dane DeHaan) — as they learn to adapt to life with newly acquired abilities as a result of a mysterious discovery during a late night barn rave.

The film presents itself as a found footage project, with the awkwardly anti-social Andrew choosing to record everything on a recently purchased camcorder. This approach works well enough for about the first half of the film, even though most of it is clearly of a higher production quality than would be expected from amateur found footage. This is fine, alleviating concerns that arose from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and CLOVERFIELD regarding countless reports of motion sickness.

The problem, and really the only criticism I have of CHRONICLE, is that the film doesn’t fully commit to the found footage concept. The theme is inconsistent, primarily in the third act. In hindsight, this is understandable, as the third act contains most of the large scale action and special effects, which would have been more difficult to capture as found footage. There are attempts to convey and remind the audience of this notion, but there are also ways that this could have been done better, maintaining the perspective throughout the film.

I am purposefully being vague, as not to ruin anything about the ending of CHRONICLE. If you read between the lines, you’ll no doubt figure it out, but to explain how this could have been done better would not do the viewer justice prior to seeing it themselves.

As the three teenagers secretly learn and develop their abilities together, the group dynamics between them evolves and changes, which is where CHRONICLE shines. The characters are well developed, especially Andrew, who is clearly modeled along the lines of the DONNIE DARKO personality type. The film is told from Andrew’s point of view, not just because he is usually the one recording the found footage, but also because this is primarily his story. This in turn also presents another twist in the film’s approach, as Andrew becomes what you might call the film’s antagonist. Again, read into that what you will, but this is as far as I go with explaining Andrew’s involvement.

The special effects in CHRONICLE are achieved successfully, presenting the events on screen in a believable but frugal fashion, never overdoing the scale or flashiness of the effects. One of the most enjoyable scenes involved Steve helping Andrew make an impression during the school talent show, a scene where Andrew’s abilities are put to an impressively ingenious and playful use. The tone of CHRONICLE is very much in the high school “class struggle” vein, with elements of BREAKFAST CLUB and CARRIE mixed in with the previously mentioned DONNIE DARKO, and of course wrapped up in what is essentially a superhero origin story without all the pretentious back story and excess explanations of why and how. Instead, CHRONICLE focuses on how this development affects the three teenagers in their daily lives, and in whom they become.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

THE WOMAN IN BLACK ( 2012 ) – The Review

Although we’re still in the middle of Winter, let’s take in an old-fashioned bone-chiller, one that may have your teeth chattering before exiting into those gusts of frigid air. This is what the new spook-show THE WOMAN IN BLACK promises to deliver. Appropriately enough, this gothic creeper is the second theatrical feature to be released here in the states from the revived British fright film factory Hammer. Now while the studio might be best remembered in their late fifties to mid seventies heyday for full-blooded monsters ( vampires, zombies, and even a gorgon among many others ) this tale of ghosts seeking revenge on the living  would’ve fit the bill ( perhaps as part of one of their many double bills! ) But will today’s cinema audiences be able to immerse themselves in a haunted, desolate estate full of creaking floors, quickly melting candles, and sinister secrets after a steady diet of graphic,bloody torture and shaky, found video, inspired by ” true events “scares?

After an opening sequence of a horrific multiple-victim demise ( in broad daylight! ) we meet young barrister Arthur Kipps ( Daniel Radcliffe ) in the early years of the twentieth century. Even before he encounters the title character Arthur is haunted-by the memories of his late wife. Left with a young son, he’s floundering at a London law firm. His supervisor will give him one last chance. Travel to a remote country village and organize the papers and estate of a wealthy, recently deceased matron or be sacked. After leaving his boy with his nursemaid ( they’ll journey to the village in a few days ), Arthur boards the train and meets fellow passenger, and village elder, Sam Daily ( Ciaran Hinds ). Noticing Arthur’s newspaper turned to a notice about a spiritualist endorsed by Arthur Conan Doyle ( nice historical touch! ) Sam voices his disgust over ” superstitious nonsense “. At the village train station Sam gives Arthur a lift in his fancy new motor car ( only one in town ) and invites him to dinner on another night. This is the only friendly gesture from any of the townspeople. Arthur’s arrival at the hotel pub is reminiscent of the chilly reception Peter Cushing’s Dr.Van Helsing recieved from the locals in THE HORROR OF DRACULA ( you almost expect to see the welcome mat roll itself up ). Arthur is told that no room has been booked, but luckily the hotelier’s wife steps in to find him a spot. The next day the local barrister who had been working with the estate (  he had not impressed the home office ) tells him that all is fine and puts him a coach returning to the train station. But Arthur is not so easily brushed off, and after a bribe, the coachman takes him to the desolate estate perched on a small island in the middle of a treacherous marsh. There the determined young man unearths the tragic secrets of the house and town, and later finds himself in the path of the ebony-attired spectre of vengeance.

Like those old creep-fests on the TV late shows ( more often seen on TCM nowadays ), THE WOMAN IN BLACK oozes gothic horror atmosphere. Several scenes outside the estate engulf our hero in a pea-soup fog. Things aren’t much more pleasant inside as he must make his way through a maze of creaking corridors, endless hallways, and rooms filled with all many of odd toys and nicknacs ( lots of stuffed monkeys! ). The dark costumes help enhance the black mood of the village and its residents. It’s no wonder the shiny, new automobile is looked down upon by the locals ( an intruding reminder of the new century perhaps? ).

The film boasts a better than average cast for a ” things that go bump in the night ” film outing. Hinds ( THE DEBT ) makes for a fine, resourceful helpmate as Arthur’s only local pal, but his friendly demeanor attempts to mask his sadness. Part of that comes from the tragic past he shares with his wife played by recent Oscar nominee for ALBERT NOBBS Janet McTeer. It’s a fairly small role, but she makes quite an impact with sparse screen time. The main draw for the film ( at least according to the posters ) is the former boy wizard himself in his premiere post-Potter feature film. This may be heralded as his first real ” adult” role, but Radcliffe, even with a constant five-o’clock-shadow ( like Indiana Jones, did he forget to pack his razor? ) and guzzling cordials, has a tough time making his single, widowed father of a five year old believable. The heroic qualities he honed in his former film series do serve him well, though, in his exploration of the musty home turned crypt. Kudos to him for enduring the film’s grossest moments as he explores the tar-like depths of the marsh. Eyew!

As I stated earlier this is an old-fashioned shiver-show. The film makers aren’t re-inventing the wheel ( or the spook-fest ) here. Besides those old British shock film chestnuts, it harkens back to classics like THE UNINVITED, THE INNOCENTS, and THE HAUNTING. When Arthur spends his first night alone in the gloomy estate, I actually thought back to the Don Knotts sleepover in THE GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN ( Attaboy, Luthor! Sorry, couldn’t resist ). The effects here are mostly old-school, no bouncy CGI banshees roaming the halls. Some of it may be a bit a bit trite or telegraphed ( pesky animals popping out of the shadows ) or just too familiar, but it’s kind of nice to experience a couple of goosebumps instead of the exhaustion caused by the barrages of gore and cruelty in many current ” screamers “.  I hope the Hammer team drags us back into the fog very soon.

Overall Rating : Three and a Half Out of Five Stars