Tag: Review

ALBERT NOBBS – The Review

Gender disguise has been used most predominately in movies for generating laughs. As a matter of fact, the American Film Institute, in their list of the greatest movie comedies ( via their TV special ” 100 Years, 100 Laughs ” ) , had TOOTSIE as number two and SOME LIKE IT HOT as number one. Most feature men dressing up as ladies to get a job in the former and escape gangsters in the latter. Occasionally dressing in drag has been used in dramatic films as in YENTL in which a woman assumed a male persona in order to gain an education. This theme is explored in the new film ALBERT NOBBS in which the title character attempts to circumvent nineteenth century society’s rules and create a better life for his/herself. Actress Glenn Close played the title character in an off-Broadway stage production thirty years ago. Since then she’s established herself as one of the great screen stars, but bringing this story to the screen has eluded her till now. Does this tale still resonate three decades later?

The slight, quiet, soft-featured Mr. Nobbs has worked as a waiter/valet at a luxury hotel ( for many guests, it is a boarding house ) for the owner/ operator Mrs.Baker for many years. Each night Nobbs retires to his sparse, meager servant’s room in the hotel and counts his tip money. He jots down the totals in a small diary, hides his savings under a floor board, and dreams of a better life. His plans are almost sidetracked by the arrival of a house painter, Hubert. Paige ( Janet McTeer ) . MINOR SPOILER ALERT ( well if you know the actors involved, it’s not too much of a twist ). Mrs. Baker insists that Mr. Paige share a room (and bed ) with Mr. Nobbs despite Albert’s protests. His fears come to pass as Paige learns Nobbs’s secret: he is a she ( a flea had made its way under Albert’s tightly strapped corset. Nobbs is more skittish than usual around Paige over the next few days until Paige reveals that he shares the same secret. Not only that, but she’s married and has a home in the back of his wife’s seamstress shop. Nobbs is fascinated and soon visits the couple. Can they give any advice on how Albert can follow his dream of owning a tobacco shop and sharing the living quarters with a wife ( perhaps the hotel’s lovely, young blonde housekeeper Helen Dawes ( Mia Wasikowska ). VERY MINOR SPOILERS DONE!

For such an unusal premise, the film is very low-key. It’s almost a PBS or BBC-America Victorian drama ramped up with a star cast and spiced up with gender disguise. Perhaps the main problem is Hobbs. We learn little of what drove him to this subterfuge besides a vague story about being poor, orphaned, and abused as a child. For most of the time he blends into the hallways of the hotel. A great deal is made of her perusal of the young Helen, but he has no real passion for her. When she demonstrates a ” lovers’ kiss” on Nobbs, he almost has an attack. Helen ‘s just one step of the big plan for Nobbs, who seems to be more passionate about operating the tobacco shop than romance. The shallow young woman only really cares for the hotel’s bad-boy Joe ( Aaron Johnson ), who’s the robust young eye candy for the hotel’s ladies. Wasikowska is not given a chance her to flex her acting chops here as she did in JANE EYRE and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, while Johnson is riffing on the anti-social aspects of his young John Lennon from NOWHERE BOY. Close makes for a believable, wispy, older gentleman ( although the scenes of Albert going over his plans aloud don’t translate well from stage to screen ) and has a great rapport with McTeer’s Mr. Paige. Hubert is burly, rough, and quite a flirt with the maids and hotel owner ( who reciprocate ). It’s a role requiring charm and tenderness which McTeer nails down confidently. What perhaps resonates most from the film is not the gender politics ( or the affairs and secrets of the staff ), but the treatment of the working or servant class by the upper-crusts of high society. The bullying and the verbal (and often physical ) abuse is quite startling. ALBERT NOBBS is a well made journey through this long ago era, but unfortunately like it’s title character, the film is too formal and reserved. The film is strapped down tighter than Albert’s corset.

Overall Rating: Three and a Half Out of Five Stars

MAN ON A LEDGE – The Review

I suppose we should include MAN ON A LEDGE on a short list of film titles that succinctly state the plot of a movie, as in SNAKES ON A PLANE. Ah, but like that Jackson thriller, there’s a big, back story to support that title. Snakes don’t just hop aboard flights. And fellsa don’t just go out the window of a high-rise without a reason. These films would also be modern-day “B” films ( the second, lower-budgeted half of double feature bills in Hollywood’s Golden Age ). But to be more precise I would second Entertainment Weekly’s term ” January B movie “. Not quite up to the A-list Summer or Christmas-time blockbusters or prestige films. Now many of the cast have been in the recent spectacles and box office hits, so this also harkens back to the multi-star epics ( best known by the disaster flicks of the 70’s ). I mean look at those little head shots at the bottom of the poster! I don’t mean to knock this by using the “B” movie terms. Many of those filler films turned out to be little gems and propelled their actors and film makers. Will we be looking back with affection at MAN ON A LEDGE in a few years?

The movie opens with our hero Nick Cassidy ( Sam Worthington ) checking into a fancy Big Apple hotel. After some room service he opens up the window and steps out. But he’s not threatening a swan dive onto the concrete because of depression over a failed romance or personal problems ( the subject of many an hour dramatic police TV show-and a few sitcoms ). Now, I don’t want to give away anything that’s not in the trailers or commercials, but here’s a SPOILER ALERT just to be safe. Nick’s on the run and hopes to clear his name with his high-rise stunt. He also wants to be a distraction from the break-in happening in a nearby building. He’s asks for a specific police negotiator, Lynda Mercer ( Elizabeth Banks ), who he believes maybe sympathetic. As the clock ticks on, the jumper plot and the big heist converge as all of NYC seems to stand still and watch the proceedings ( lot of folks taking long lunches there ). Can the good guys triumph? SPOILER END!

Director Asger Leth makes great use of the New York City locations, especially the blocks around the hotel. All the stuff on the ledge looks real-almost as Vertigo inducing as the big skyscraper stunts in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE : GHOST PROTOCOL. Can’t detect any green screen here. Worthington has a great nervous desperation as he tries to juggle ten different things in his mind while trying not to lose his footing. He’s got a plan, but he has to improvise quickly. Banks goes from cynicism to a reluctant believer in Nick’s plight. She’s always a strong screen presence although in her first scene she doesn’t really look like a hangover sufferer ( she looks like she’s ready for a cover photo shoot ). Jamie Bell is terrific as the novice break-in man while Genesis Rodriguez is his burglary partner/ girlfriend/ eye-candy. The many shots of her in skin-tight jumpsuits and eventually just under garments seem gratuitous in the least ( she is quite a stunner, though ). C’mon film makers, you don’t need to spice things up so obviously. Anthony Mackie has little to do as Nick’s old buddy while Ed Harris does what he can as your typical evil business guy. If he had a mustache, he’d be twirling it as he lights his massive cigar ( it’s like a less subtle Chris Cooper in THE MUPPETS ). Kyra Sedgwick mingles with crowd ( they’re the old commenting Greek chorus ), watching the high-rise action as an ethnic local TV news reporter ( Suzie Morales? ) and Ed Burns has little to do other than grimace and grumble as the first cop called to the hotel room. Everything moves at a fairly brisk clip, as several plot holes are raced over. I was, unfortunately, tipped off a few times by the casting of familiar faces in small roles. I tried to be forgiving until the last few minutes as the film veering into cartoon-like lunacy. I had to stifle ” Aw, Puh-lease!” under my breath the last big action sequence. The script could’ve used a few more passes, but the cast is strong and the stunts are engaging. If you need to get out of Winter’s chill, then there are certainly worst ways to spend two hours in a warm multiplex. It’s a shame that it’s nothing that will really stick with you.

Overall Rating : Three Out of Five Stars

HAYWIRE – The Review

Everybody loves a good action film, right? But, what happens when a filmmaker more known for art house films takes a stab at a more mainstream Hollywood genre? Steven Soderbergh is, if nothing else, a highly curious, even enigmatic filmmaker. The same creative vision that came up with films such as SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE (1989) and SCHIZOPOLIS (1996) also created the OCEANS ELEVEN through THIRTEEN films. In between were some great films that fall somewhere between art house and mainstream, like THE LIMEY (1999), CHE: Parts 1 & 2 (2008) and the recently disturbing CONTAGION (2011).

Soderbergh’s newest undertaking is called HAYWIRE, an action-thriller written by Lem Dobbs, who also wrote THE LIMEY and DARK CITY. The film follows a young female former marine named Mallory, played by Gina Carano. While working in Barcelona for a private firm, a rescue mission goes terribly wrong and Mallory finds herself on the run from both her employers and the law as she attempts to uncover the truth of what happened and clears her name. Her immediate boss and ultimate threat is Kenneth, played by Ewan McGregor, who has an oddly youthful and off-putting charm about him in this film. The opening scene of HAYWIRE somewhat sets the mood for the film, as Mallory is sitting quietly in a café when her former teammate Aaron, played by Channing Tatum, shows up and they confront each other, revealing that HAYWIRE isn’t going to pull any punches, but it’s going to address the audience on it’s own terms.

HAYWIRE is not unlike so many other films of the genre, most notably the BOURNE trilogy, whereas a highly trained agent goes rogue after being framed and must fight his way back to freedom. The difference between that franchise and this film, however, is in its state of mind. The Bourne films were rugged, frantic and jarring, whereas HAYWIRE has a sort of poetic rhythm, a sort of jazzy cool cat ease to the way the film flows. The score, composed by David Holmes, is highly influenced by and contributes greatly to the spontaneously freeform feel of the film, which slows and mellows during the dramatic dialogue-driven scenes and then ramps itself up for the action sequences.

One of the best parts of HAYWIRE are the fights, not merely for the fights themselves, but for the intensely kinetic, superbly choreographed ballet of combat dynamics that these scenes present to an audience not normally accustomed to realistic technique. Whereas similar films have Jason Bourne fighting in a blurred, nearly incomprehensible frenzy, HAYWIRE puts the fight on display, front and center. The success of this is due in great part to Gina Carano, a professional fighter turned actress with a Muay Thai record of 12-1-1 and a mixed martial arts record of 7-1-0. Yeah, this is one attractive and highly dangerous person in real life, so imagine how she stands out on-screen.

HAYWIRE also benefits, perhaps controversially, from the cinematography, which is provided by Peter Andrews. For those of you less familiar with the filmmaker’s history and tendencies, Peter Andrews is actually Steven Soderbergh, who often serves as his own director of photography, a relatively uncommon thing amongst Hollywood films. Soderbergh has a subtle experimental eye for shooting his scenes, often going with alternative choices in angle and composition that sometimes challenge the viewer’s sense of what should be expected.

HAYWIRE actually surprised me with its unconventional flair, complete with a quality performance from Gina Carano and an original twist on the genre, something we last had with Joe Wright’s HANNA (2011). In addition to all of this, Steven Soderbergh uses his status to fill out the supporting cast with Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton and Michael Fassbender, with whom Gina Carana shares an intimately brutal scene.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

SHAME ( 2011 ) – The Review

Golden Globes viewers hopefully caught George Clooney’s very witty acceptance speech for Best Actor in a Dramatic Motion Picture in THE DESCENDANTS. He singled out a couple of the other nominees and teased Michael Fassbender for baring all in SHAME. Movie goers might go to this NC-17 rated film in anticipation of a titillating bedroom romp featuring two of cinema’s most exciting young stars. But the explicit scenes lose their erotic lure fairly quickly. Sex in this story is used much as drinking was used in the Billy Wilder classic THE LOST WEEKEND. What starts as a fun and glamorous activity turns quickly into degradation and abuse. Both film’s heroes are out of control, flawed men who must hit rock bottom before they change their behavior and save their lives.

Brandon Sullivan ( Fassbender ) seems to be single thirty-something who has it all. He’s got a lush ( probably very expensive ) apartment in the heart of the Big Apple. But something’s not quite right. His answering machine ( mmm, people still have those! ) is filled with messages from frustrated dates and conquests ( as the film progresses one caller’s pleas take on many tones: angry, inquisitive, sarcastic, etc.). He does live internet sex chats and orders up call girls as you get pizza delivered. In the morning, after pleasuring himself in the shower, he downs energy drinks and drifts into his office. There his sleazy, married boss David ( James Badge Dale ) enlists Brandon as his “wing man” has they troll for women during ” happy hour “. Brandon’s lifestyle is disrupted by the arrival of his kid sister, Sissy ( Carey Mulligan ). She’s coming off another failed relationship and needs a place in NYC to crash while her singing gig at a club lasts. Her behavior is a wake-up call to him ( Sissy pleads with former beaus on the phone, just as the desperate women on his machine ), and Brandon must decide how he will live the rest of his life.

Director Steve McQueen ( no relation to the Hollywood icon ) elicits strong performances from both main actors. Mulligan’s Sissy is a battered, bruised soul. Her breathy, hesitant rendition of the old staple ” New York, New York ” expresses her longing for someone who’ll stick by her. But the film is really Brandon’s story and Fassbender exposes much more than just flesh. Brandon is a spiralling out-of-control sex addict, who slowly wakes up to see how his actions destroy himself and those all around him. He hopes that a relationship with a co-worker will put him back on the right path, but his fractured psyche will not be so easily healed. By the time we see him on an erotic bender, sex has little enjoyment, it’s almost mechanical. McQueen gives us a quiet, low-key, dimly lit Manhattan that offers all manner of temporary cures for the lonely, broken hearts. There’s no easy solutions or quick-fixes ( for that matter, we never really find out the reasons for Brandon and Sissy’s dysfunctions ) in this sad, powerful tale but like Ray Milland in THE LOST WEEKEND, Fassbender’s Brandon can hope to find the strength to battle his inner demons one day at a time. The film drags a bit in its final third, but thanks to the work of Mulligan and Fassbender, it’s worth spending an evening with this damaged duo.

Overall Rating: Four Out of Five Stars

CONTRABAND (2012) – The Review

It’s been over twenty years since Al Pacino as Michael Corleone uttered, “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in! “in THE GODFATHER PART III, but this bit of plot motivation is still a major device in most action/crime thrillers for the lead character. In the new film CONTRABAND, the guy who thinks he’s out of the life is Chris Faraday played by an actor who had a few run-ins with the law during his teen years, Mark Wahlberg. Chris had a reputation as an expert smuggler many years ago (he brags about being able to bring in a pricey sports car), but now he’s legit with a home security business, a beautiful wife, Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and two adorable young sons down in New Orleans. Uh-oh, it seems that Kate’s nere’do well kid brother Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) has decided to enter the smuggling game.

Unfortunately, he’s not as good as his brother-in-law. He’s part of the crew on a ship that’s boarded by custom authorities (they even lower down drug-sniffing dogs from a helicopter) and Andy tosses his backpack filled with cocaine over the railing into the sea. The violent, lowlife drug dealer Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) who hired him is not so understanding once Andy and his partner are on dry land. He rams their car with his truck. Andy survives the attack and tells Chris what happened. Chris tries to cut a deal with Briggs, who insists that he be reimbursed for his lost revenue (700 grand!) otherwise the debt falls to Chris and his family.

Chris has no choice, but to go for one last big score. He contacts another runner who’s gone legit, his old pal Sebastian (Ben Foster) who suggests making a drug run to Panama. But like the Corleones, Chris wants nothing to do with that “dirty business” and hatches a plan to bring in several loads of counterfeit cash. Thanks to Sebastian’s connections Chris becomes a crew member on a cargo ship headed south (several pals are already planted on board to help along with Andy). Once they reach Panama, Andy and a couple of guys will dash over in a van, collect the funny money, and be back in an hour when the ship’s ready to leave the dock. In and out! No problems, right?! If you think that’s the case then you don’t know your movie crime capers! And of course, that mad dog Briggs and his thugs are bearing down on Sebastian and the Faraday family back in the states. Talk about getting pulled back in (and pulled in several directions)!

The world of smuggling makes an interesting new venue for the crime thriller. It’s a nice change from the bank vault or museum break-in. Unfortunately the film makes too many side trips and cuts back and forth from the Big Easy to the big ship, so the forward momentum can’t gain any speed. It’s fun to see Chris stay one step ahead of the ship’s captain (JK Simmons in full surly, grumpy J. Jonah Jamieson-mode), but quickly we’re back watching Briggs hovering near a kids soccer game. In Panama Chris and his pal are recruited by a wild-eyed crime kingpin (an under-used Diego Luna) in an armored car hit (how long before the ship leaves?). The actors do their best with this disjointed thriller.

Wahlberg commands the screen as a good man forced to do bad things (but no drug running!) who tries to survive using his skills and street smarts. You can almost hear the gears in his head grinding as he has to come up with a new escape idea. Beckinsale’s always a lovely screen presence, but she spends way too much time here being bounced around like a rag doll by the different lowlifes. Speaking of lowlifes,  Ribisi seems to be doing a riff on the growly, grizzled  creep he just played in RUM DIARY. I hope in his next role he gets to clear his throat and clean up a bit. Foster’s Sebastian may be the most complex of the bunch. He’s given up booze and crime, but seems to miss the old thrills. Ben Foster really show us this guy’s inner conflict. It’s another interesting performance by an actor who’s compiling an impressive resume. It’s just a shame they aren’t all involving ain a better thought thriller. The film’s final action climax (there’s at least two or three) is right from THE PERILS OF PAULINE. As a cinema crime caper CONTRABAND doesn’t quite deliver (or smuggle) all the goods

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

JOYFUL NOISE – The Review

You can bet that the major studios have been looking at the movie career of multimedia mogul Tyler Perry very closely. Particularly those big box office numbers. For the last few years Perry has become a major Hollywood power player with his low budget, big grossing  films. Most of these have been adaptations of his stage productions that tour the country playing for a couple of performances to very enthusiastic, mostly black audiences. Many are little morality dramas spiced up with comedy (often with Perry himself in drag as that force of nature Madea-very broad comedy) and religious lessons (with an occasional hymn or song). Now the big studios hope to tap into that market with a mix of Perry, and a dash of TV’s “American Idol” and “Glee” with a pinch or two of FOOTLOOSE. The end result is a cinematic stew called JOYFUL NOISE, which might tickle the taste buds of many moviegoers. Or not.

When the cameras dolly (wait for it!) down the streets of sleepy Pacashau, Georgia we see the results of the economic down turn with many of the main street stores boarded up and plastered with ” Going Out of Business ” signs. But things are hoppin’ at the Pacashau Divinity Church with the singin’ and testifyin’ rainbow-hued choir (no racial tensions in this peach-flavored Brigadoon) led by Bernard Sparrow (Kris Kristofferson). But before the hymn is finished (hey, before the last of the opening credits) Sparrow has taken wing. The solemn, sometimes stuffy pastor (Courtney B. Vance) passes over widow G.G. Sparrow ( Dolly Parton ) for the position of choir director and appoints Vi Rose (Queen Latifah), the first of several conflicts between the two earth mothers (kind of like Stallone and Snipes facing off in DEMOLITION MAN). Vi Rose is a hardworkin’ mom and nurse (Dad has re-upped at a military base far,far away) trying to raise two kids: her rebellious sixteen year old daughter Olivia (Keke Palmer), who’s the choir’s big voiced MVP, and her kid brother Walter (Dexter Darden), whose Asperger’s syndrome compels him to rattle off music history one-hit-wonder trivia. As if things weren’t complicated enough, G.G.’s teenage grandson Randy (Jeremy Jordan) arrives in town after his mom kicked him out of his NYC home. He’s gonna’ shake things up and make em’ kick off their Sunday shoes (Oops. Well, it does seem that he stumbled on to this set right from the FOOTLOOSE remake auditions). Randy takes an immediate interest in the choir especially Olivia (Conflict #2!) . And before you can say “Conflict #3,”  Randy (and G.G.) are pushing Vi Rose to move away from the “traditional” spirituals and get down with gospel versions of pop tunes. I mean that’s the only way they’re gonna’ make it past those pesky regionals (aren’t those “Glee” kids always worked up about them?) and head on to the national finals (cue another TV bit from “American Idol” – “Welcome to Hollywood!”). I mean the poor, out-of-work folks back in Pacashau are a countin’ on them!

The many diverse elements in this film seem to bump, and often crash, into each other making for a sloppy, disjointed wreck of a film. At times it did seem like the first season of a new musical “dramedy” TV show called “The Church Choir” all mashed up into two long hours.  Like episodic TV, besides the main leads we get the wacky choir second-stringers (one repeats everything, another believes her lovin’ is fatal- a literal killer “booty”, there’s a break-dancin’ good ole’ boy, and an Asian who talks like Jethro Bodine- it’s pure comedy gold!) The stars do their best, but are hampered by the cliche’ ridden script. It seems as though Latifah’s Vi Rose is delivering sermons to other characters rather than conversing with them. She’s constantly ‘ speech-ifying’. Dolly’s still playing the sweet, feisty, down-home, trashy-dressin’ gal, but is saddled with lots of tired corn-pone idioms and adages. I couldn’t help, but be distracted and saddened by her appearance, which is referenced a few times in the dialogue (Dolly’s G.G. says, “God didn’t make plastic surgeons to starve!”). It’s a shame that actors (male and female) don’t allow themselves to age gracefully (and have a mobile face instead of a plastic kabuki-like mask). This film is the second to explore Asperger’s in the past few weeks (after EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE), but here it seems to be more of a plot device to bring the two young love birds together. Most of the time Walter wears shades (resembling Jamie Foxx in RAY) and is able to interact socially when the script needs him to do so. His confrontation with Vi Rose questioning God is, at the least,  awkward (He cries, “I don’t wanna’ be like this!” Really?). The scenes at the national finals are laughingly absurd. Sure the stage crew could completely improvise and fellow the performers! No sweat! The popularity of gospel music is deserving of a great fiction feature film since there’s been a number of great documentaries (like 1982’s SAY AMEN, SOMEBODY). Let’s hope Hollywood will produce one soon. In the meantime file this under films you can give to Grammy for her new DVD player.

Overall Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

 

 

 

 

 

A DANGEROUS METHOD – The Review

Psychoanalysis is arguably still as polarizing in today’s society as it was a century ago when Sigmund Freud first conceived it. The very idea of all human neurosis being derived from a primal sexual foundation has controversy written all over it, which is what makes it such a fitting topic for David Cronenberg. Cronenberg’s career has spanned from RABID (1977) to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and most vividly with VIDEODROME (1983) and NAKED LUNCH (1991) – all of these films have one thing in common; sexually charged, taboo subject matter.

A DANGEROUS METHOD tells the story of Carl Jung, a protégé of Freud’s, and his triangular relationship with him and patient Sabina Spielrein during the emergence of psychoanalysis. Jung and Sabina go through a sort of symbiotic metamorphosis. Cronenberg focuses on the shift in character that occurs in Jung, which occurs in conjunction with his treatment of Sabina. They’re relation begins as strictly doctor-patient but transgresses into a sexual enlightening experience for both parties, leading to events to affect the professional relationship of all three characters.

For Cronenberg, A DANGEROUS METHOD is impressively subdued. The film is far less visually graphic and the events are far more cerebral than visceral. Regardless, the thematic elements of sexual taboo, fear and perversion are still very much in play. The film is adapted from the book of the same name by John Kerr, which lends the film its historical relevance. This is most likely the primary reason for a more restrained approach, but the film still works remarkably well.

Michael Fassbender (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays Carl Jung, a highly educated and passionate follower of Freud’s theories, the first to apply these concepts in treating a patient. That patient in Sabina Spielrein, played with remarkable intensity by Keira Knightley (NEVER LET ME GO). Freud is played by Viggo Mortensen (THE ROAD). Each character carries a specific level of emotional intensity throughout the film, allowing the dialogue-driven story to convey peaks and valleys to further engage the audience. Vincent Cassel (BLACK SWAN) plays Otto Gross, a small character with a significant purpose as a catalyst for Jung’s metamorphosis. Cassel also provides the sole source of crucial comic relief as the morally uninhibited and sexually obsessed doctor turned patient in Jung’s reluctant care.

Mortensen, playing a somewhat older character, is the calming element of the triangle. Freud rarely steps away from his levelheaded, perhaps stubbornly confident roots. Freud is very much a supporting character, a vessel through which Jung and Sabina channel their destructive yet therapeutic behavior. Fassbender strips away the confidence of Jung’s youthful ambition, breaking his psyche down into its conflicting parts from which he rebuilds himself. He shows the most range within his single character. But its Keira Knightley who outdoes herself in A DANGEROUS METHOD, showing an entirely new depth to her range, an extreme not similar to but far beyond her performance in DOMINO.

Easily the most exhilarating and profound moment in A DANGEROUS METHOD is during Jung’s initial session with Sabina. The film begins with Sabina being carried, kicking and screaming, into the hospital where Jung will attempt to treat her. In this long, boldly static scene the camera remains stationary. Cronenberg composes the frame carefully, creating a geometrically aggressive shot with Sabina in the foreground and Jung seated just off to the side and behind her, just slightly out of focus as he proceeds to dissect Sabina’s condition through a series of questions. Knightley’s performance is at first intimidating, even off-putting as she virtually assaults the viewer with her interpretation of Sabina’s physically manifesting psychosis. However, after a very short period of time, as I began to be drawn into the intricacies of her acting I began to realize the brilliance of the scene. Cronenberg set up the shot, and then allowed Knightley to carry the scene and she does with spellbinding conviction.

A DANGEROUS METHOD is a sexual film, without being blatantly graphic and direct with that sexuality. Cronenberg works so comfortably within this context that it never feels awkward or forbidden, but rather like the logical progression of such relatively fringe science to the time. Psychoanalysis is a science that feels much more like an art, a curious juxtaposition that really doesn’t occur in any other branch of the sciences. Cronenberg successfully presents a portrait of two maverick minds in a way that humanizes them, instead of placing them infallibly on pedestals. A DANGEROUS METHOD suggests the human animal is not greater than its primal instincts, but has the power to accept itself for what it is and in turn discover freedom from blindly imposed sexual morals.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

CARNAGE (2011) – The Review

Since cinema began Hollywood has raided the opposite coast (the Great White Way AKA Broadway) for works to be adapted into big screen blockbusters. Of course we’ve got the old standards by Shakespeare- his plays seem to get a cinema “dusting off ” every few years. The studios seems to have had the biggest box office hits with the Broadway musical (or to be more specific, the musical comedy). Beginning in the early thirties these movie adaptations did brisk business and some garnered lots of acclaim (including such Best Picture Oscar winners as MY FAIR LADY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OLIVER!, and fairly recently CHICAGO). But before the movies could talk or sing several works of the “legitimate theatre” were adapted to film. Many times the original cast is recruited to preserve their stage performances (like THE MIRACLE WORKER with original stars Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke-both picked up Oscars). Most times the studios will cast established movie stars in these adaptations (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF? is a prime example). This may be the case for director Roman Polanski’s film of Yasmina Reza’s hit play “God of Carnage” (now, shortened to CARNAGE). And quite a cast of movie stars is assembled to play the two couples: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly, and Christoph Waltz (four Oscars in that group). This play had a great Broadway run, but does it work as a film?

At the very start Polanski’s tackles one of the criticisms leveled at filmed stage works. He adds a scene outdoors that influences the adult conflicts (this helps “open-up” the play). In a long shot we observe several children (third or fourth grade) on a playground. Soon a verbal stand-down erupts into violence as one boy uses a stick to strike another boy in the face. The next scene takes place later in the home of Penelope (Foster) and Michael (Reilly), the parents of the injured lad. They’re meeting with the parents of the “stick-boy” Alan (Waltz) and Nancy (Winslet) to iron out school statements and medical bills (the boy lost two teeth!). Through the rest of the afternoon over cobbler, coffee, and scotch the friendly get-together dissolves into passive-aggressive one-upmanship, name-calling, and stress-induced nausea. Although Polanski has an end credit outdoor finale, the film suffers from stage claustrophobia. Alan and Nancy make several attempts to leave, but never let the elevator doors close. Several times I wanted to shout, “So leave already!!”. By the end we feel as trapped in this plush apartment as this foursome does. I lost track of how many times Winslet took off and the put on her gloves.

The main interest for most moviegoers will be seeing these four actors have at each other. It seems the men have a better time in it, but this may be more the fault of the play itself. Reilly is the same big, ole’ likeable bear we’ve seen  in most of his films as the bathroom fixture wholesaler Michael, who tries to follow his wife’s lead. Unfortunately there’s little sense of danger to him during some of the more heated scenes. Waltz is the standard, boorish, lawyer character who spends much of his screen time loudly talking on his cell phone (He’s taking another call! Enough!). He does get some big laughs as his no-B.S. honesty bursts through all the good-mannered correctness. I hope we’ll get to see Reilly and Waltz team up again in a future flick. Winslet has little to do besides being exasperated with her blase’ hubby and getting green around the gills. Foster may have the most thankless role as the cultured, overly sensitive Penelope who soon loses her patience and civility after trying to deal with the corporate-ladder climbing couple. After they break out the booze she becomes bug-eyed and shrill. Polanski is doing his best with the play, but the end result seems like a superstar charged PBS broadcast “night at the theaah-tre”. There’s a few laughs sprinkled sparsely throughout but not really enough to warrant being stuck in that room with these four.

Overall Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

THE DARKEST HOUR – The Review

Studying and researching movies over the years I’ve come across an expression, ” A monster movie is only as good as its monster”. Well, I’d add that the fear level you have while watching said flick really depends on how fearsome the monster is. Well the beasties in THE DARKEST HOUR rank right up there with the walking carpet of the Grade- Z classic THE CREEPING TERROR. And I do mean rank. They’re floating balls of yellow light. Yup. Hence the darkness in the title ( they’re easier to see at night ). These energy balls may be pretty, but they’re deadly. Get too close and they’ll shoot out a neon-like lasso, pull you close, and smash your atoms ( disintegrate you into a clod of powder ). They’re relentless all right, just not that visually interesting ( they’re certainly no competition for the Predator, and H.R. Gieger’s Alien ). And 3D doesn’t make them any more frightening than a really aggressive swarm of lightning bugs.

The film at least has an interesting background for all the mayhem : Moscow. Things start out with two hotshot internet dudes ( Emile Hirsch and Max Minghella ) flying in to meet the investors in their great ” social network/hook-up while globetrotting ” website. But, man, their Russian connection dude has totally ripped them off. At least they meet up with two vacationing babes ( American Olivia Thirlby and Brit Rachael Taylor ) at a swinging nite spot. Then the power shuts down and the sky lights up in waves of yellow and orange. Then the yellow glowing orbs ( thousands of them! ) float to the ground and turn everybody to chalky dust. Except our heroes and their new gal pals. Oh, and that dude that stole the website!. After leaving the safety of the bar’s storage room ( ran out of food ) they try to hide during the day and scurry around the deserted streets at night in search of supplies, other survivors, and information.

And that pretty much sums it up. Lots of hiding, arguing, and running about. Very much like SKYLINE and CLOVERFIELD. It’s attractive young actors scurrying about ( and having to wear lightbulbs as necklaces to warn them of the aliens ). I’ve enjoyed the work of Hirsch, Minghella, and Thirlby, but here they’re fighting a script that renders the male characters mostly obnoxious and the women shrill. The Moscow settings are interesting as are the local actors ( could’ve used the subtitles for some of their lines in English ) and at least it was shot in 3D. The main problem ( besides the space glow balls ) is that we’ve seen so much of it done better ( the deserted city in I AM LEGEND for example ). Perhaps this is why it was released on Christmas Day ( it’s not Oscar-bait like the other flicks opening that day ). If you’re looking for a good Russian travelogue the opening scenes of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE : GHOST PROTOCOL are a much better time at the cinema. Okay you three stars, hope you movie on from this tiresome, uninspired effort and treat us to much better works.

Overall Rating : One Out of Five Stars

FAMILIAR – Short Film Review

FAMILIAR (2011) is the newest short film from Fatal Pictures, produced by Zach Green, written and directed by Richard Powell, and starring Robert Nolan as John Dodd. This trio of morbidly creative filmmakers are churning out some very intriguing work on what I will simply call a truly indie budget, with a truly indie mindset and determination.

John is an average, uncharismatic husband and father in FAMILIAR, a man who is far from enthusiastic about his relationship with his wife Charlotte, played by Astrida Auza. Charlotte is anything but on the same wavelength as John, who considers her a prison sentence, one from which he secretly wishes an escape by whatever means necessary. There’s an underlying source of John’s disdain for Charlotte, but to give that away would in some part ruin the story.

FAMILIAR is an unconventional narrative, as nearly the entire film is told through voice over, conveying John’s troubled and demented thought process as he goes through his daily visage of being an otherwise typical family man. This technique of storytelling works well enough, but I couldn’t help but find myself wanting more direct dialogue between the characters, perhaps to further detail the state of the family relationship.

Robert Nolan once again nails the eerie, skin-crawling character traits he’s becoming known for to fans of Powell’s films. The key to FAMILIAR, however, is the twist which develops unbeknownst to John Dodd, revealing itself in the end. This is the really tough part about writing a review of FAMILIAR, in that I so so so want to talk about the afore-mentioned twist, but to do so without treading carefully would defeat the effort of seeing the film for yourself. So, what I will say is that the film reminded me – in a complimentary way – of a cross between the style of David Cronenberg’s films such as eXistenZ and a certain cult film from director Jack Sholder.

FAMILIAR features some really cool, considerably shocking special effects, all of which are packed into the final moments of the 24-minute short film. This, along with Nolan’s performance and the film’s dark, creepy atmosphere – aided greatly by the cinematography of Michael Jari Davidson – creates an all-too uncomfortably familiar caricature of a dysfunctional family.

While the premise of the film may seem as familiar as the title itself, Powell takes an idea once explored and ventures off into another parallel concept that works equally well. FAMILIAR takes the audience one step closer to the inevitable feature film debut of the exciting indie filmmaking collaborative, a project I am told is potentially in the works very soon. This makes me smile, deviously.