Monday, October 29, 2007

Gone Baby Gone: Review

Few people, if any, expected much from writer/director Ben Affleck in his directorial debut but with Gone Baby Gone, Affleck seemed to pull a rabbit out of his hat, charming critics during its initial screening and building a steady buzz prior to its release. Perhaps thats why the film's middling success is a disappointment, since how can someone truly be disappointed by a film directed by Affleck that has moments that are dazzling. Starring the director's younger (and more talented) brother, Casey, Gone Baby Gone suffers from a story that feels uneven, fractured and finally, unbelievable. However, this is no fault of the Afflecks, who give it their all and come out on the other side in much better standing than they could have imagined.

Gone Baby Gone concerns a private investigator Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and his partner Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) who is hired by a family of a missing young girl to help with the police investigation. Kenzie is a guy from the block, who knows the ins and outs of the dialect and way of life, allowing him access into a world that the cops aren't priveleged to. He is attached to two detectives, Remy Bressant and Nick Poole (Ed Harris and John Ashton), who, at first, reluctantly accept his help, until it becomes clear that Kanzie has something to bring to the investigation, which quickly turns sour. Turns out that the missing girl's mother Helene McCready (Amy Ryan) isn't the best mom, dabbling in booze and drugs and may have even been involved with some shady dealings with a local drug dealer. As the narrative progresses, twist upon twist upon twist is heaped on, which ultimately leads to the film's downfall.

Ultimately, a film with too many surprising narrative turns is going to test a viewer's patience, perhaps even negating the effect of the final, gut punch twist and unfortunately, such is the problem that befalls Gone Baby Gone. While I can't comment on Dennis Lehane's source novel since I have not read it, the screenplay could have probably simplified the film a little and had more of an effectively paced and told story. There a few jarring shifts in time and story that Affleck and his fellow writer Aaron Stockard attempt to camoflauge with voiceover narration but it comes up short and the audience is left trying to piece together the story. There are a few sidetracks, most notably a shootout in a house, that while wonderfully directed, is an unnecessary narrative device. What is determined and told in that sequence could easily have been discovered in a few lines of dialogue. Instead, it feels like Affleck wanted to get some kicks in, including an unnecessary tangent that damages the flow of the film. What the script lacks in narrative prowess, it almost makes up for with its spot on dialogue, which perfectly captures the dialect of the Boston metro area. The conversations between characters zip back and forth with intelligent and realistic speak that greatly enhances the realism of the film.

In fact, as a film that captures the look and feel of a particular city, there are few works in recent memory that even rival Gone Baby Gone, in terms of authenticity. While it may be nothing more than a near miss as a thriller or morality play, it is a slam dunk as a film about the lives of people in a particular city. Unfortunately, setting does not guarantee a good film. It is obvious that Affleck knows the city that he grew up in and is able to recoginze its quirks and failings. His direction brings the city and characters to life, allowing them to feel life like and formed. Choosing to shoot the film in a sort of stark realism, Affleck's gaze is unflinching and admirable. If this is just the beginning for Affleck, one can only hope that he is able to follow in the footsteps of other actors-turned-director and take a floundering career, reviving it on the other side of the camera.


The acting here ranges from adequate to great, with the other Affleck more than holding up his end of the bargain. It strikes me that, after seeing Casey in featured roles in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and now this, he is a star on the rise. His performances are gracefully understated, possessing a gift for dramatic acting that Ben has only flashed before (see: Hollywoodland). While he may have gained some minor attention in the Ocean Eleven franchise, these two films seem like the films that announce his presence as someone to take serious note of. Ed Harris and Amy Ryan both stand out as well. Harris' performance is unsurprising, given his ability and track record while Ryan, on the other hand, sneaks up on the viewer alittle more. Some may recognize her from the smattering of television she has done but her work here is spot on and noteworthy.

Gone Baby Gone is not a great film, I'm not even sure if its a good film but it certainly a film of promise for the Affleck family. With it, Ben has given notice that he may be more talented than the general public gives him credit for, delivering a film that misses in spots due to its narrative but never feels like a complete failure, largely due to his direction. It is steady and assured, looking more like the work of a veteran than a debut feature. On the other side of the camera, Casey Affleck is really emerging from his big brother's shadow and making a name for himself. He now has two wonderful performances in 2007 and don't be surprised if you hear his name come more and more come year's end. Gone Baby Gone may appeal to some but for me, something was lost on the way to the screen. Regardless, it signals the arrival of a potentially talented director and that, is never, ever, truly a bad thing.


**

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Westerns regarding Jesse James are not a rarity. Like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday, the legend of James has been revisited often, with countless cinematic adaptations resulting from its rich legacy. It is then a cause for celebration when one comes along that is so innovative and interesting and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is just one of those occasions. Andrew Dominik's riveting adaptation is a startling display of skill and ingenuity, a film that immediately brings to mind many of the masters who have visited the great legends of the west. While not for everyone, TAOJJBTCRF is a tremendous achievement that simultaneously dispels and rewrites the myths of James.

At the film's core is a story that has been told over and over again in just about every medium imaginable. For those who have missed it up to this point, Jesse James (Brad Pitt) was arguably the most notorious and infamous outlaw in the American West, a man known for his high wire robberies and ruthless nature. Jesse and his brother Frank (Sam Shepard) terrorized the railroads and banks during the last half of the 19th century with reckless glee. The film opens with what Frank thinks will be their last robbery and as their new gang waits in the woods for the targeted train to arrive. What immediately becomes clear is the odd obsession that Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) has with Jesse, eagerly trying to please the outlaw. He is initially ignored but after the robbery (the most breathtaking scene of the film), he is able to get into the good graces of James and with that, the film is off and running (well more like walking).
As the film continues and members of the gang begin to crack under the increasing pressure from the law's search to locate them, James begins to methodically track the men down, in order to get an impression of their mindset. In doing so, it becomes clear that James is suffering from the same pressures as the rest of the men and like them, his grip on sanity (already dangerously slim) is beginning to slip. He concocts a plan for another robbery and enlists the Fords, Robert and Charley (Sam Rockwell) to help. As the group moves along the frontier, tensions increase and by the time the title action takes place, the tension is almost unbearable. It slowly builds and builds, however, when the act occurs, it doesn't release. Dominik magnificently keeps it at a high level, right until the final frame.

The tensions exist largely due to the wonderful characterizations and performances. Unlike many of the studio-era westerns about James, Dominik's film centers on the drama between the characters, largely eschewing the set piece gun fights that characterized the westerns of yore. In fact, TAOJJBTCRF is really a western by setting only, rather choosing to be an in-depth character study and drama. With this choice, Dominik is able to distance himself from the previous incarnations of the legend far enough that the film is able to succeed. Throughout TAOJJBTCRF , the film works to subvert the well known versions of the legend by depicting James as a father and family man, albeit one with an interesting profession. In doing so, the film seems less concerned with Jesse James, the outlaw, than Jesse James, the man.

However, in the way that Dominik (and his cinematographer Roger Deakins) chooses to shoot the film, in a realistic style that is interspersed with breathtaking surrealistic moments, he ends up not destroying the legend of James but merely re-working it back into a new myth. In that sense, TAOJJBTCRF is unlike the great revisionist westerns of the 1970's, with their elimination of the stereotypical western heroes in place of a realistic look at what the West really was. Instead, the film takes the myth, destroys it and quickly rebuilds it back up in the final post-assassination 30 minutes, which may be the best stretch of the film, thanks to Affleck's tremendous performance. Between this and Gone Baby Gone, it strikes me that there is a legitimate star on the rise, an actor with enough chops, intelligence and charisma to become a true legend. Affleck's work here is nuanced and subtle, making Ford's emotions evident not through painful overacting but through the great texture he brings to it. It is a great understated performance that deserves viewing and consideration as one of the year's best.

The rest of the star-studded cast is more than up to the task, with Pitt and Rockwell bother delivering great work. Both take a hold of their characters and imbue them with more than enough vitality to warrant the film's length. With Dominik's choice to make a long, methodical brooder, it was pretty much a requirement that the performances are able to sustain the length and they definitely do. Like Affleck, Pitt is more than capable of taking James and crafting him into a character that is difficult to get a hold on. James is equally charismatic and dislikable, a man who is an enigma to the audience, his family and in many ways, himself. It is unclear as to how James feels about his own character, as Pitt portrays a man who is greatly conflicted by his actions. There are moments when he shows no remorse, others when he breaks down into tears following an act of violence. This muddy ground lends itself to Dominik's ability to re-craft the myth in his own way. The audience, despite their look into the life of James, is left much like the people of the day, without a firm grasp of who James was. It is a brilliant stroke by Dominik that adds an air of mystique to the film.

TAOJJBTCRF is not for everyone, I'll admit that. It is a intentional slow, 2 hour and 40 minute epic that focuses more on character and mood than action and narrative. As a result, I would not be surprised for some to call it boring and overlong. But to say that is to miss the point. By using the length that is does, the film feels epic and mythical, a story that is so great it can't be told in any other way. It is filled with larger than life legends that demand a larger than life film. It is amazing that it can feel so epic, yet be so focused on character. Almost every scene takes place between two characters and the film is mostly dialogue. Yet it just feels huge and important. Its masterful exploration of the themes of celebrity and the classic western dichotomy of good/bad or hero/outlaw are done with subtle, graceful movements. It’s a small film in large trappings and it works wonderfully. It is filled with great performances and a great story; it features great cinematography and great direction; it is, quite simply, a great film, surely one of the year's most interesting, different, difficult works and also surely, one of its best.

*****

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Darjeeling Limited and Hotel Chevalier: Review


Few filmmakers have as devoted a cult following as Wes Anderson, best known for films such as Rushmore, The Royal Tennebaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and in a sense, I may be included in that group. I adored each of the aforementioned films and I suppose it is with a sense of disappointment that Anderson's latest effort, The Darjeeling Limited feels like something of a step back, or rather a step to the side when one keeps hoping for a giant leap forward. The Darjeeling Limited looks and feels like a Wes Anderson movie and that is precisely why it isn't as successful as his previous works (Yes, even the divisive The Life Aquatic which is criminally underrated). It seems that Anderson, who is an undeniably talented filmmaker, is either unable or unwilling (here's hoping it is the latter) at this point to make that step. As a result, The Darjeeling Limited, while still an entertaining excursion, feels incomplete and rehashed.

That’s not to say the film is not worth your time or money; I would say it still is, for a disappointing Wes Anderson film is still as good as most everyday releases. The Darjeeling Limited possesses a homemade feel to it, a lovingly crafted story about a journey three brothers, Francis, Peter and Jack (Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman respectively) take across India. This plan, hatched by Francis as a way to reunited the brothers, who have not seen each other since their father's funeral over a year ago, is for a spiritual journey; a way for the brothers to come back together and be a family again. However, when the brothers board their train (which shares the name of the film) for their trip, the group is met with hostility and hesitation. None of brothers want to fully open up to each other, strategically telling each other their true plans for the trip. Of course, since the negative feelings run throughout the group, everyone else's secrets are quickly known to everyone else and the trip degrades into a brawl, a shot of pepper spray to the face and the train (humorously) getting lost. Before they know it, the brothers have been thrown off the train, forced to experience a true journey, not one safely undertook with modern transportation.

The cast here is stellar with each of the leads nailing their roles with equal parts comedic gusto and reserved melancholy. Brody is particularly good here, reminding the audience what a unique talent he is, able to easily morph to fit whichever role he takes. Despite being often times forgotten, he continues to contribute some of the best cinematic acting of the times and deserves any praise he receives. Wilson is is fine form here as well, giving a strong performance that one would expect from the Anderson veteran. Wilson has been intricately involved in every film Anderson has made and the two work together particularly well, with each of Wilson's best performances coming in Anderson's work. The rest of the cast is stellar as well, with highlights from Angelica Huston as the guys' mother and Bill Murray, in a short cameo, of a businessman trying to catch a train. Anderson fans will recognize most of the faces here, as Anderson continues to use a stable of actors that work well with his style.

However, it is that style that could use a kick in the pants. With Rushmore, Anderson built on his debut Bottle Rocket, by adding a hefty dose of melancholy into the proceedings. He expanded his emotional pallet in The Royal Tennebaums, deliciously skewering family dynamics. Finally, The Life Aquatic has enough frenzied chaos to pull itself along. None of his films are perfect (Rushmore comes closest) but each possess a certain quality that allow the audiences to overlook the films flaws and enjoy themselves. However, with The Darjeeling Limited, Anderson returns to themes he has previously covered without much to add. Never does Darjeeling reach the heights of Tennebaums examinations of family, nor the inspired creativity of Life Aquatic. It strikes me closest to Rushmore, only with less heart and more existential ponderings. While its geography is a bold step away from anything he has done before and it certainly adds to Darjeeling, it is not enough to pull it away from the rest of his work.

I really don't mean to say that this is a bad film, far from it. For Anderson devotees, they will enjoy it (I did) but may find themselves wanting a little more. Anderson is obviously a unique and interesting talent, an individual who makes films that stand out from the pack with their narratives and style. This may be a misstep for Anderson, but its a small one at best, one that feels like he is treading water when he could be moving forward. There is no reason to think that it is anything else than that and judging by his track record, I eagerly await Anderson's next film as a full out return to form. For those who felt like Darjeeling was incomplete, The Darjeeling Limited is thankfully accompanied in tone and narrative (but not in theatres) by Hotel Chevalier, a short that acts as the prologue to Darjeeling. Chevalier, starring Schwartzman and Natalie Portman is Anderson at his best, a master stylist with an exquisite eye for color and composition. The dialogue is sharp and quick and the short's plot of the tail end of a relationship is a must for viewers who want the full Darjeeling Limited experience. Chevalier is available as a free download on the iTunes Music Store (and probably, at this point, on YouTube as well). Check it out.

*** (The Darjeeling Limited)
**** (Hotel Chevalier)

EDIT: Apparently, for its wider release, the two films will be shown together so for all you lucky bastards who have not seen it yet, you'll get the full experience for the $10.25 you're paying.

In The Valley of Elah: Review


With
Crash, Paul Haggis crafted an overblown, heavy-handed diatribe about the issue of race in America. The film felt painfully simple, dumbing down its complex and difficult subject in order to appeal to the everyday moviegoer. To some, it worked brilliantly, to others (including myself), its inability to present the topic in a three-dimensional and in depth way was frustrating and insulting. By meeting the viewer completely, requiring almost nothing out of his audiences, Haggis created a film for people who felt like race was a dead subject. Thankfully for the rest of us, Haggis rebounds nicely with his latest film In the Valley of Elah, which demonstrates a great deal more restraint, possessing (for the most part) a quiet anger that bubbles to the surface gracefully as opposed to Crash's blatant emotional manipulations.

At the heart of Elah is Tommy Lee Jones' wonderful performance as Hank Deerfield, who goes on a search for his son Mike, who has returned from the war in Iraq but has gone missing from base following his return. Hank is greeted by an early morning call informing him of his son's absence and quickly after a check of his voice and emails, he heads to his son's base in an attempt to find him. After an initial investigation, which turns up nothing, Hank is notified that a body has been found in a field near the base and positively identified as his son. What follows is a series of investigations, by Hank, by the local police (spearheaded by Charlize Theron's Det. Emily Sanders) and the base police, led by Lt. Kirklander (Jason Patric). As the investigation gets deeper and deeper, it becomes clear that the horrors of the current war have followed its veterans home and by the film's heartbreaking finale, it is clear (maybe too clear) that sometimes even the combantants of war should be counted amongst the victims.


Jones' leads the strong cast with a mesmerizing performance that holds the film's emotional weight with grace and a quiet determination. Wonderfully understated by still emotionally powerful, Jones is a seasoned veteran and shows it throughout the film. Jones' intensity is always apparent, yet his performance never turns into any sort of a caricature, allowing Haggis' sometimes one dimensional character to feel realistic and lived in. Crash lacked a performance like Jones' work here and as a result, Haggis' flaws as a director became more noticeable when his dialogue and characterizations suffered in the hands of lesser actors such as Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier. While Haggis crafts efficient and memorable screenplays, his direction is often times too heavy handed and over the top, allowing his actors to spiral into a ridiculous simplicity; Haggis' writing soars under the steady hands of more assured directors such as Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Flags of our Fathers) and suffers in the hands of lesser (Tony Goldwyn with The Last Kiss and himself with Crash). However, thanks for Jones, Haggis has found an actor with the chops, experience and imagination to breathe live into his characters, which makes up for his shortcomings as a director.

Haggis is one of the few superstar screenwriters in film today and its easy to see why. His work over the past five or so years, has been both memorable and successful (maybe not always together) as noted by the films mentioned above. He is adapt as utilizing the strongest of emotional situations and efficiently, heavy handed or not, wringing the maximum feeling out of them. In the Valley of Elah is no different and from start to finish, resonates deeply with the viewer like the best of Haggis' work does. At the base level, it is a story about the horrors of war and how it affects it participants, reminding me of films such as Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter (although not quite on that level) or Hal Ashby's Coming Home. The viewer doesn't spend much time in Iraq, only in small flashbacks and video clips, but rather back on the soil of the United States, trying to make some sense of the actions that the country is taking part in. Wisely, Haggis avoids the answers, merely content with posing the questions. As a result, the film hits the viewer a little harder, both intellectually and emotionally and it really isn't until the ham fisted final shot that the film feels at all forced. Haggis is obviously an immensely talented filmmaker who knows how to manipulate his audiences. My only complaint is actually more a feeling of frustration that he doesn't allow his audiences to make up their own minds, instead of hearing his preaching.


That being said, Haggis makes some strides here as a director, as the film is never as intellectually and emotionally simplistic as Crash. As an avowed hater of that film, color me pleasantly surprised that In The Valley of Elah turned out as it did, an emotionally gut wrenching look at the emotions that a father must go through as he uncovers the secrets of his son's past. Jones shines here, as does Susan Sarandon as his wife, helping Haggis' writing achieve its natural grandeur, uninhibited by his simple direction. In the Valley of Elah is a defiantly angry film yet despite what some conservatives have suggested, is never anti-troop, merely anti-war.

It works well as a murder-mystery, perhaps better than it does as a political essay, but for fans that wish to watch it strictly as that will probably have difficulty. There is more here and it is not difficult to find, especially with the film's finale. If you haven't picked up Haggis' message by that point, it immediately becomes clear with a single image that will probably draw as much criticism as it will praise. For me, its over the top and manipulative but none the less powerful. In a time where our country continues to be dragged into a destructive situation that we unnecessarily began, sometimes it take such an obvious statement to make people stand up and notice both what we're involved in and what we've become. In the Valley of Elah is a memorable, at times searing investigation into our times and what it means to be a veteran of a conflict opposed by over half the country. See it with an open mind and you may find (regardless of your feelings about Crash) surprised and moved. I, for one, am glad that I did.

****

Wild Hogs: Review

Wild Hogs has been the commercial surprise of the year thus far. Despite being a film featuring a number of stars that appeal to middle America, few could have guessed its steady climb up and above the 100 million dollar mark. For a film that is as homoerotic as it is homophobic, this is surprising, not for the homophobic aspects but certainly the homoeroticism. In fact, I can't tell which was more offensive: the phobia that permeates the film or the fact that the country so flocked to see such a film. Filled with awful performances, a worse script and juvenile direction, Wild Hogs is a complete failure and an utter waste of the talent involved.

Directed by Walt Becker, the brains behind Van Wilder, the film is laughably bad from start to finish. In fact, with the exception of the horrific Mark Wahlberg vehicle Shooter, may be the worst film of the year. Becker displays almost no talent, his direction amateurish and dull. However, I can't entirely fault Becker here as any comedy must begin with a good script, and to be completely frank, I'm not quite sure a "script" every existed here. Brad Copeland's (who wrote for Arrested Development!) "script" is so dull, I don't know where to begin. Imagine every cliché moment from every road movie of all time, throw in the worst slapstick gags imaginable, add in another biker gang and presto. Blockbuster! Copeland and Becker tell the story of four middle aged men who are tired of their lives and decide to go on a cross country motorcycle trip as a way to find themselves. Their self anointed gang is the "Wild Hogs", as lame a biker name as I've ever heard. During their trip, they experience a closeted police officer, a good skinny dip and a town besieged by the "Del Fuegos", a fearsome road gang led by Ray Liotta.


Now I can understand the appeal of John Travolta, who has made his fair share of great films and usually possesses the type of affable charm that makes for an easy performance to like. Here, however, Travolta is terrible. His overacting, from facial expressions to everyday body movements are so over the top, one can't help but sit there and wonder what went wrong here. Travolta's performance here makes the worst of Pacino's work look understated and reserved. And they aren't even good facial expressions but rather the type one would imagine inhabiting the performances of a middle school video project. Martin Lawrence and Tim Allen are themselves and are about as I expected. If you like or hate either coming in, nothing in Wild Hogs will change your mind. Which brings us to William H. Macy, as reliable an actor as Hollywood has to offer. All I can say is why Billy why? Macy is the type of character actor who could pretty much score a role in any big dumb movie he wanted with his eyes closed. A naturally talented actor, he is so out of place in this film, it is painful. If I were Mr. Macy, I would fire my agent. If I were Mr. Macy's agent, I'd fire myself.

Normally, a good road movie (Vanishing Point, Easy Rider, Thelma and Louise) relies on panoramic shots of the beautiful surroundings this country has to offer as a way to situate the film, both thematically and narratively. The road and undeveloped expanses generally represent a cleansing force, a way for the protagonists to rediscover the beauty of life and realize what they have going for them. If nothing else, it provides some major eye candy for the audience who is having to sit through shots of a car/bike going down a long road (generally) to nowhere. Once again, Wild Hogs must have missed the memo as Becker decides it would be much better to use shots of the clan doing cool ducks and lean forwards on their bikes to pass the time. The results are a massive squandering of what could have been a semi-redeeming factor. Unfortunately for the viewer, we're treated to shots of John Travolta and Martin Lawrence giving each other fist pounds and laughing. Sweet.


The most perplexing part of the whole ordeal is the rabid clash of ideological values that occurs throughout the film. One would think that the filmmakers involved would be at least half way aware of what the film is implying yet it doesn't appear to be that way. Now, a cross country trip with four guys, in close quarters is, at the very least, a homosocial situation. Skinny-dipping with three guys is somewhat of a homoerotic situation. Making jokes about gays while skinny-dipping is homophobic. Anyone with half a clue can see the ideological clash here: male bonding is something of an idiosyncratic process. A good comedy would point out these facts and joke about them.
Wild Hogs never quite reaches that level. It just makes more gay jokes. Needless to say, its a frustrating and insulting experience.

To add salt to the wound, none other than Peter Fonda shows up at the end, which made me hate the film even more. Not because I don't like Fonda, in fact, quite the opposite. For a guy who was a legitimate counter-culture icon, responsible for the greatest of the counter-culture films, Fonda shouldn't be within 100 miles of this film. Unfortunately, he shows up at the end as some kind of Dalai Lama of bikers, remind Liotta's character what the road means. Needless to say, I was disappointed that Wild Hogs managed to ruin that as well. In all seriousness, I can't recommend this film to anyone. If I was a biker, I would annoyed that this is the best Hollywood has to offer me. Anyone would be better off renting (or buying) Easy Rider and re-watching that to get a true idea as to what the road really means.

*

Away From Her: Review


Away from Her is a quiet film, filled with love and life but also a great deal of sadness; in fact, I can't remember the last film with such a melancholy feel to it all. The film announces the arrival of Sarah Polley who, in her directorial debut, has crafted a subtle and moving work that will stay with the viewer long after the final credits have rolled. Despite a methodical pace and straightforward storyline, the film is particularly involving and never dull. Featuring a number of wonderful performances, Away from Her is one of 2007's great small surprises.

Gordon Pinsent and Julie Christie play Grant and Fiona, an aging married couple, who must confront the realities of the horrific effects of Alzheimer's. Fiona, played by the ever stunning Julie Christie, begins the film at the onset of the condition and throughout the film steadily degrades, with Polley's uninterrupted gaze providing the audience with a clear view into how the conditions affects not only the victim but their family as well. Pinsent is spectacular as Fiona's husband Grant, an ex-college professor, who reluctantly places Fiona into an assisted living community under her instructions. Grant is conflicted, as any loving husband would be, but realizes that it is Fiona's wish. One stipulation is that Fiona must live at the community without visitors for a 30 day period, so she can better adapt to the environment. Once again, Grant reluctantly agrees and much to his horror, when he returns to visit Fiona 30 days later, he is unrecognizable to her, just another in long line of faces that move around the grounds each day.


Without Christie and Pinsent providing such strong performances, the film would have fallen flat on its face. However, the two take over the material and imbue the emotional and intelligent script, adapted by Polley from a short story by Alice Munro, with undeniable humanity. The emotional strain that they undergo is palpable and heartbreaking, not only to each other but the audience alike. Guided by Polley surprisingly steady direction, the film soars, telling its intimate human story in an un-manipulative and plain way. Stylistically, the film is plain, which fits the story and setting perfectly. Had Polley been more daring in her style, the narrative would have had to take a back seat. Thankfully, the restrained stylistic mood fits the emotions perfectly, allowing them to move to the forefront, uninterrupted by distracting visuals. This is not to say that it is visually dull, far from it with Polley moving the camera with grace and confidence. It really is a near perfect blend of look and feeling, with neither taking away from the other.

Equally as good is Olympia Dukakis, as Marian, the wife of one of Fiona's fellow patients. During their stay Fiona and Aubrey (Michael Murphy), Marian's husband, develop a relationship as neither have any recollection of what amounts to their previous lives. As a result, Marian and Grant begin a friendship out of Grant's desire to have Marian bring Aubrey back to the hospital (she brought him home due to cost concerns). Without Aubrey, Fiona is miserable, essentially reduced to a bed ridden state. Pinsent brilliantly illustrates the emotions that Grant goes through, toeing the line between anger and frustration.

To call Away from Her a surprise would be an understatement. I don't think anyone would have thought that Polley, who was previously best known for her small role in Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead, could have made such a masterful debut feature. It's apologetic honesty, bracing emotions and subtle performances all contribute to what may be the best true indie film of the year, one that will heavily impact viewers, the older and closer to the situation they are.

****

Eastern Promises: Review


David Cronenberg's films are something of an acquired taste and in most aspects, Eastern Promises fits what it means to be a Cronenberg work to a T. Excessive violence and sexuality fill out the film's narrative and his unflinching gaze forces the audience to bask in the more lewd moments. However, also like the rest of Cronenberg's work, the film is steeped with dense thematic concerns that force the film onto another plane, one in which the audience is forced to examine human nature in a profound and moving way. Eastern Promises is a film that will not soon be forgotten: a riveting crime drama with a heart and a brain, a perfect genre picture that simultaneously entertains while making us think. Built on the mesmerizing performances of its leads, Cronenberg's follow up to 2005's superb A History of Violence, is a sure fire contender for year's best.

For most mainstream moviegoers, Viggo Mortensen will forever be remembered as Strider/Aragorn, his now iconic roles in Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy. Unfortunately, many will be missing out on his truly classic performances that, unsurprisingly, have both come under the steady direction of Cronenberg. Soon after the climatic chapter of LotR was released, so was A History of Violence, a picture that largely crept up on people, surprising many who had no clue as to Cronenberg's work. Gone were the days of Scanners or The Fly, in their place was the work of a seasoned cinematic master who followed David Lynch's lead in Blue Velvet and crafted a suburban thriller that begins as a small town drama until layer upon layer are stripped away to reveal the town's violent and seedy core. At that core was the wonderful Mortensen, who led with a quiet confidence that perfectly suited his character. Amazingly, his work in Eastern Promises easily trumps the performance from History.


Here, Mortensen plays Nikolai Luzhin, a low level member of the London Vori v Zakone, the Russian Mob. He begins the film as one of his family's drivers/clean up men. Basically, he's doing the dirty jobs of Mafia life, jobs that Cronenberg depicts gleefully. What may seem like a simple performance is deceptively deep, as his Luzhin's steely, tattooed exterior contradicts his relatively good nature. He is nowhere near as vicious as the gang's boss, Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) or his increasingly unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel) and often times, his compassion clashes with their more hardened mindset. Mortensen is truly stunning, giving an emotionally (and physically, but we'll get to that later) naked performance that is quite simply one of the bravest acting jobs that I have ever seen.

Luckily, Mortensen's counterpart Naomi Watts, who plays Anna Khitrova, a midwife at Trafalgar Hospital, is completely up to the task. As the story begins, we find Anna working the ER, attempting to save a young pregnant teenage girl who has come in with bleeding from her abdomen. The girl, who we later know only as Tatiana, gives birth but dies in the process, leaving Anna with a newborn and Tatiana's diary as the only remaining clues as to this girls life. As Anna sets out to translate the diary and discover a location to bring the baby to, she finds herself being drawn deeper and deeper into the London criminal underworld, involving prostitution and the sex trade. Watts imbues Anna with a strength and determination that makes her an utterly likable character, an important part of the puzzle here. Without Anna's moral purity, the film's harsh tones could quickly have overwhelmed the narrative. However, with Anna as the center, the film takes on a humanistic slant, and despite the violence, there are glimpses of hope scattered sparingly throughout.

The dark alleys and gray, raining skies of London add to the film's grim tone that truly gets under the skin of the viewer. While its difficult to discern what exactly is so lingering about this film, the lasting impact is definite and unquestionable. People left my theater shaken and quiet, as if they had just seen something troubling and unforgettable. Often times the gore is a bit much, causing audience members to shield their eyes and cover their gaping mouths as if to stifle a yell. The audience's shock came to a climax in the film's main set piece, a knife fight in a steam bath. Throughout the nearly five minute sequence, Mortensen is completely exposed, losing his towel covering seconds in and the scene is quite frankly stunning. As an acting performance, it is a brave sacrifice to lend the film realism. Many actors would refuse to do this, but Mortensen gives it his all. Not only does he handle the emotional aspects of the performance with subtlety and grace, he gives his body to this important scene. While it is unlikely due to the graphic nature of his work, Mortensen deserves serious consideration for end of the year accolades.

Eastern Promises is a completely involving masterpiece, Cronenberg's second in a row. The cast is superb throughout (I've only mentioned Cassel and Mueller-Stahl in passing but their performances are amazing as well), Steven Knight's script is intelligent and suspenseful, Howard Shore's score complements the film perfectly and Cronenberg's assured direction brings every piece together. The results of it all are breathtaking, leaving Eastern Promises in a small group with The Departed and Miami Vice as the pinnacles of recent crime dramas. As I mentioned earlier, Cronenberg is an acquired taste and there will be those that will be put off by the violence and subject matter. However, for those who sit through this film will be amply rewarded with a modern examination of life in immigrant London, filled with death and suffering but never lacking life and vitality.


*****

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

The Kingdom: Review

The current Iraqi conflict has been jumped on quickly by Hollywood, who has produced a number of films, almost all being critical of the war. It is then with some fanfare that The Kingdom arrives, being the first First Blood studio film for the conflict in the Middle East and despite all its political leanings, it avoids the Iraq War completely. That conflict, so rife with controversy, is not even mentioned and as a result, the film feels like a bit of revisionist history, its odd tones borrowing from the current political climate but never actually acknowledging it. The film, directed by Peter Berg, produced by the masterful Michael Mann and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan (brother of Joe), unfortunately never takes off and instead of being the in-depth actioner it could have been, it feels more like a neo-con fantasy that never wants to ask, much less answer, the tough questions.

Right from the roaring, in your face opening sequence, it is clear that The Kingdom is not trying to be a subtle political piece but an action flick with some political thought. This opening sequence, of a terrorist attack on a compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is a gripping and violent jolt, launching the audience into the film's narrative almost immediately. After the attacks, the FBI sends a small group of investigators, led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx). Fleury, who initially is denied permission to travel to Saudi Arabia to investigate, utilizes some back door connections to slide his way into the assignment, bypassing the people who initially forbid his request. In doing so, Berg and Carnahan position Fleury in the long line of freedom fighting mavericks inhabited by Rambo and just about every character Chuck Norris has ever played. Thankfully, they also imbue Fleury with a great deal more of intellectual saavy and never let him reach the mindless depths of the aforementioned characters. Upon the groups arrival in the Kingdom, they begin their investigation into the attacks, which they quickly link to a Bin Laden like cell leader.

The rest of Fleury's group are something of a motley crew, two of which seem to be completely useless, Special Agents Adam Leavitt and Janet Mayes (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) and the third being a grizzled old veteran with a few tricks up his sleeve, SA Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper). For Leavitt, his only reason for being there seems to crack jokes and take up space. Mayes spends most of the film either crying or cowering in a corner until the last moments when she kills some baddies and then gets thrown around a room. Sykes is a bit more useful (i.e. someone an American Citizen might actually want to have in the FBI), pulling his weight throughout the film. Cooper is his usual reliable self, if not somewhat disappointing due to the general lack of depth in his character. While Bateman and Garner have almost nothing to work with, neither do much with their scraps with Bateman just feeling generally out of place. Maybe its the fact that he was so good in Fox's alt-sitcom Arrested Development but I couldn't help but shake the feeling that it was Michael Bluth getting dragged around the Saudi streets.

The best character is probably the unit's Saudi contact, a state policeman named Col. Faris Al-Ghazi, wonderfully played by Ashraf Barhom. Without this character to counterweight the unit's American jingoism, the film might be construed as a fully anti-Muslim statement. However, Barhom's humanistic and believable work stops that from being the case as he is an undeniably likeable and moral character, in fact, maybe the most so in all of the film. His character is given the most depth and Barhom really runs with it, turning in a wonderful performance and is a major highlight for the film.

Unlike Mann's directorial work, which features a great deal of mood and feeling while still handing out riveting action, Berg loses his narrative steam during the action sequence, regardless of how effective they are. For Mann, the acts of violence that inhabit his films are horrific enough as they are. He rarely relies on over the top blood and gore, rather using the speed and precision of the moments to give them their power. Berg chooses an alternate, inferior route to take, utilizing the aforementioned gore to drive home the horrific nature of the acts the film portrays. As a result, where Mann's work never feels like a generic action film, Berg's sometimes does albeit with some exotic trappings. Throughout the film, I couldn't help but wish that Mann had stepped into the director's chair and taken over as the film would have probably been better off. That being said, there are some memorable sequences

The Kingdom is not entirely without merit, far from it. For all its shoot first, speak second ideologies, the film displays a remarkable awareness of the more complex issues that infuse the middle east with such volatility. Take, for example, the opening credits (some of the best I've ever seen) that briefly but effectively sum up the past 70 years of history in the Middle East as it relates to the film's narrative. Unlike Syriana, which required a rather intimate working knowledge of the situation in question to fully comprehend its more complex moments, The Kingdom is easily accessible, largely thanks to the opening moments. For a country that is quickly tiring of the constant bombardment of media coverage regarding the war in Iraq, The Kingdom despite its setting, allows for some simple escapism. I would not be surprised if the film found a strong neo-con following, as its the type of American go get 'em hard body actioner that dominated the Reagan-led 80's. The violence is never really personal, most of the victims are faceless Muslims who serve no purpose other than to get in the way of our heroes bullets. Think of The Kingdom as Live Free or Die Hard, with half the edge of your seat thrills and a 50% more intelligence and you'll leave impressed and entertained. If you go in expecting anything more, expect disappointment.


***

The Wind That Shakes The Barley: Review


The Wind That Shakes The Barley
was something of a surprise winner of the 2006 Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, a film that people enjoyed but no one raved about it. With its release in the UK, it was met with great controversy over its story of Irish Revolutionaries in the early 20th Century. For Britons, Ken Loach's film was a stab in the back of the director's own country. For others, it was a brave artistic achievement that was an emotionally devastating as billed. When it saw release in the US early this year, it passed with nary a yawn, critically admired but commercially ignored. It didn't seem to spark the kind of controversy, which is understandable. What isn't is why this film wasn't more heralded by audiences in America, as The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an undeniable success that has masterful moments of emotional disturbance. If not for its somewhat disappointing ending, we could be looking at a sure fire contender for film of the year.

Loach's film tells the story of two Irish brothers, Damien (Cillian Murphy) and Teddy (Padraic Delany), who join the burgeoning Irish Republic Army to fight the infamous English Black and Tan's, a paramilitary group that was unleashed into Ireland in an attempt to subdue the Irish. The film carefully and successfully mixes in the larger picture with the more intimate portrayal of a family facing upheaval. As a result, the film feels like it is tackling a huge subject from a very personal entry point and its success must be attributed to the wonderful performances all around. Murphy is especially excellent and its with each passing performance that he strikes me more and more as one of the finest actors of his generation. He brings a humanity to the role that forms nuanced contradictions throughout the film, presenting his actions as conflicts for him as well as the audience. Never once does Murphy allow his character to become anything less than completely believable and as his grief over his actions rises, his performance grows into a ferocious command of the screen. This man is a special, special actor and if he continues to make smart artistic (nothing suggests he won't), he'll go down as one of the more talented people of this era.

When viewing The Wind That Shakes the Barley, it is apparent that Loach is a seasoned veteran behind the camera as he provides the film with bracingly realistic feel. While it isn't quite as rough as Paul Greengrass' Bloody Sunday, Loach's film possesses a similar feel with its in your face violence that is never glamorized and really even altered. It is shown as is and that is bracing and startling. Sometimes a film such as TWTSTB comes along and shakes the viewer to the soul in its depictions of humanity's cruelty to each other. Unlike a Hollywood action flick, where the violence is so over the top, it is almost comical, Loach prefers to utilize simple images that are powerful and to the point. I defy anyone to watch the film with the volume raised and not find themselves grimacing at the intensity of certain scenes, at the chaos that erupts from nothing.

The film, regardless of political slant, is a well told, effectively realized drama that blends in romance, action and political intrigue with a envious subtlety that is usually lacking from politically fueled, historical epics (Braveheart, I love you but you're guilty here). For those who are unversed in the events being depicted (such as myself), you'll find yourself quickly researching the film's claims and depictions, to see if what Loach puts on screen is actually true. Unfortunately, much of it does seem accurate. As a result, The Wind That Shakes The Barley is an important documentation of times and events that are too often neglected due to their barbaric nature.

Had it not been for the final sequence of the film, which seems like its first obvious pull at emotional manipulation, TWTSTB would be a masterpiece. However, those concluding moments seem to betray the rest of the film. Where the events that lead up to the ending seem logical and realistic, the conclusion doesn't feel as organic as the rest of the film. These points of the film are not outright failures (in some respects, they are quite good), but it was the first point where I wanted to claim cop out. Its unfortunate, as Loach had hit on all cylinders up to that point. It isn't enough to ruin the film, far from it, but it is enough to dock it a point or two. That being said, this is a film to be viewer and cherished. It is filled with wonderful acting and strong direction. The cinematography by Barry Ackroyd is splendid, giving the film a majestic look, capturing the gentle rolling greens of Ireland with a restrained grace. Its politics may be off putting to some but as a piece of cinema, it is a solid success that will appeal to audiences looking for a historical epic with a strong dose of intelligence and emotion.

****