Movie Review: Captain Phillips

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Movie Review: Captain Phillips

Captain Phillips
Directed by: Paul Greengrass   
Written by: Billy Ray based on the book by Richard Phillips & Stephan Talty.
Starring: Tom Hanks (Captain Richard Phillips), Barkhad Abdi (Muse), Barkhad Abdirahman (Bilal), Faysal Ahmed (Najee), Mahat M. Ali (Elmi), Michael Chernus (Shane Murphy), Catherine Keener (Andrea Phillips), David Warshofsky (Mike Perry), Corey Johnson (Ken Quinn), Chris Mulkey (John Cronan), Yul Vazquez (Captain Frank Castellano), Max Martini (SEAL Commander), Omar Berdouni (Nemo), Mohamed Ali (Asad), Issak Farah Samatar (Hufan). 

The scenes that open and close Paul Greengrass’ Captain Phillips are what elevate the film above the level of a typical thriller. For the vast majority of its running time, Captain Phillips is the type of intelligent, intense, well-crafted thriller that we have come to expect from Greengrass since his breakthrough film Bloody Sunday (2002) – through his 9/11 film United 93 (2006), the second and third Bourne movies, and his Iraq war film Green Zone. Greengrass is one of the few directors who is able to use handheld camera work and rapid fire editing, and still keep everything clear for an audience. Where someone like Michael Bay often tries to do the same thing, the result is often action sequences that are incoherent – but I have never felt that way in a Greengrass movie. He uses the same approach in Captain Phillips – and it’s even more effective here than in his previous films. But as good as the majority of the runtime of the movie is, it really remains the opening and closing of the film that deepens the work as a whole – and makes it into more than just a well done, intense thriller.

The story of Captain Phillips is well known by now. He was the Captain of an American cargo ship – the Alabama Maersk – in 2009, when off the coast of Somalia, his boat is attacked by two skiffs containing four, armed Somali pirates. They are able to outflank the pirates on their first attempt, but the next day when they try again, they are unable to do so. The four men board the ship, and because no one on the ship is armed, they quickly take over. The majority of the crew hides below deck, while Phillips and his officers are stuck in the control room with the pirates. They don’t just want the $30,000 they have on board – they think that taking over an American ship should net them millions. After an intense few hours, the pirates agree to leave the ship in the rickety, enclosed lifeboat – but take Phillips with them. The Marines are called in – one way or another, Phillips and his captors are not going to reach Somalia.

Because Greengrass cast Tom Hanks as Phillips, we know almost immediately that he is a good guy – but Greengrass establishes this anyway in the opening scene, where his wife (Catherine Keener) drives him to the airport. As they drive, they talk about the worries they have for their children – whether they’ll work hard enough in school, whether they’ll find a good job, etc. Everything seems to move so fast, and is so competitive, that they worry their kids won’t have the same advantages they had. Greengrass then does an interesting – and bold thing – as he cuts immediately from Phillips and his wife, to Muse (Barkhad Abdi), the leader of the pirates who will take over his ship, in Somalia. Just like Greengrass immediately establishes sympathy and humanity with Phillips in his brief opening scene, he does the same thing for Muse and the other pirates in Somalia. What choice do these men have, other than to do what they do? They are ruled by brutal warlords who demand they go out and make money. If they don’t, they’re doomed anyway. Right off the bat, Greengrass has established the complex moral world his movie takes place in by establishing the humanity of all the players. This will not just be an easy thriller about good guys and bad guys, but something far more complex.

The film is impeccably made by Greengrass. Normally, I don’t like the shaky handheld camera work, and rapid fire editing that Greengrass specializes in. However, I do think that Greengrass uses it better than any other director working right now – and here, it aids him immensely in his storytelling. As the majority of the action takes place in the small lifeboat, which rocks over the waves in the ocean, and the shaky camera work places us right alongside the characters – it immerses us in the situation, and helps to generate tension throughout.

The film is also aided immensely by the performances – particularly those by Hanks and Abdi. Abdi is a newcomer, who is asked to hold his own next to Hanks – and he is more than up to the task. His Muse is intelligent and thoughtful – more so than his accomplices, two of whom seem like little more than scared kids, and the third who is more brutal and violent. To him, this is a business transaction – nothing more – and while he is not above using violence, he doesn’t see much point in it if it can be helped. It is a dynamic debut performance. Hanks is one of the most likable, and relatable actors in movie history, and his Captain Phillips makes the most of the association we have with the actor before walking into the theater. His Phillips is heroic, but in a more subdued way than most heroes in a thriller would be. He does what he can to protect his crew once they have been boarded, and he even does what he can to help the pirates themselves on the boat. He doesn’t want anyone to die, but he knows full well that if the pirates don’t give up, they will be doomed – and they may well take him with him. It is a fine performance throughout the movie – but becomes a great one in the film’s closing scenes. Those scenes, details of which I won’t reveal here, are the type of scenes that normally do not happen in a thriller of this sort. Normally, once the action climax of the film has passed, the movie ends – this one extends it beyond that point, and gives us a view of the shock and trauma we normally never see. It is in these moments where the full weight of the movie hits us the hardest – and elevates the entire movie.

Captain Phillips is an uncommonly complex moral movie. Yes, Captain Phillips is undeniably a good guy, and the pirates are the “bad guys”, but things are not that simple. Audiences are conditioned to root for Americans in the movies, and against the invaders – and some will undoubtedly still do the same thing when they watch Captain Phillips. And yet, this is not a film where everything is quite so simple. I am reminded of the moment in Greengrass’ United 93, when he cuts back and forth between the passengers on the plane praying to God, and the two hijackers praying to Allah, drawing the similarity between the two of them – no matter if you’re the “good guy” or the “bad guy” you are praying to God when the end comes. Captain Phillips takes this link between the two even farther, making for a much more complex than a typical thriller. If you want a thriller – than Captain Phillips more than fits the bill – this is one of the most intense movies of the year. But it is also more than that. Most thrillers, you forget by the time you hit the parking lot. You won’t be able to shake Captain Phillips quite that easily.

Movie Review: Prisoners

Monday, September 23, 2013

Movie Review: Prisoners

Prisoners
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve   
Written by: Aaron Guzikowski.
Starring: Hugh Jackman (Keller Dover), Jake Gyllenhaal (Detective Loki), Viola Davis (Nancy Birch), Maria Bello (Grace Dover), Terrence Howard (Franklin Birch), Melissa Leo (Holly Jones), Paul Dano (Alex Jones), Dylan Minnette (Ralph Dover), Zoe Soul (Eliza Birch), Erin Gerasimovich (Anna Dover), Kyla Drew Simmons (Joy Birch), Wayne Duvall (Captain Richard O'Malley), Len Cariou (Father Patrick Dunn), David Dastmalchian (Bob Taylor).

Prisoners is an example of a mainstream Hollywood thriller at its finest. The film is dark, both visually and thematically, cold, dreary, violent and disturbing. It is also expertly directed by Canadian Denis Villeneuve, making his Hollywood debut, who keeps the pace up and making the two and half hour running time fly by. And it’s expertly acted by the entire cast – in particular Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal – both arguably delivering their best performances to date. And as a parent, it vividly brings to life my worst nightmare. The screenplay may take a few too many twists and turns – particularly in the last 45 minutes or so – but that doesn’t stop Prisoners from being one of the best mainstream films I’ve seen so far this year.

The film opens in small town Pennsylvania on Thanksgiving. Two families – the Dovers and the Birchs – are gathering to celebrate. It doesn’t take long for the movie to establish Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) as a man’s man – the film opens with him taking his son on a hunting trip, and advising him to be prepared for anything (hence, the supplies they have stockpiled in their basement). Both families are having a nice day, until they discover that their young daughters are missing. But where did they go? Earlier, there was a strange RV parked on the street – with someone inside. The police are called, the RV is reported at a truck stop, and Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) goes in to make an arrest. The driver, Alex Jones (Paul Dano) takes off – but ends up crashing into a tree. But he doesn’t have the girls – says he doesn’t know where they are (and has the mentality of a 10 year old), and there’s no physical evidence – so eventually they have to let him go. Keller remains convinced that he knows something – and he’s determined to find out what that is. Meanwhile, Loki follows other leads – but time is running short. The days tick by, and there is no sign of the girls.

This is the basic setup for Prisoners, a movie that gets darker as it goes along, and makes the audience constantly question what they think – not only about its central mystery, but also about the characters in the movie. Jackman’s Dover starts off extremely sympathetic – what parent could not relate to his feeling of futilely and slow rising fury about his missing daughter? And what parent wouldn’t do “anything possible” to bring his daughter home? But Dover takes this “anything possible” to the extreme – and while you may find yourself still feeling for him, he makes it harder and harder as the film progresses – and he goes further and further, crossing lines most of us wouldn’t. Then there’s Loki – who is perhaps the first character Gyllenhaal has ever played that isn’t inherently likable. He is driven to find the girls, and isn’t above bending the rules to do so, but it also must be said that he’s kind of an asshole. He works without a partner – yells at his boss, doesn’t seem to be able to muster much of a bedside manner with the families of the victims. In short, he doesn’t play well with others.

These two characters, and the performances by Jackman and Gyllenhaal, elevate the movie. This is clearly a thriller for the War on Terror age – making the audience question the lengths that people will go to in order to “do the right thing”. Do the ends justify the means? As Dover, Jackman has never been better – he is driven, angry, violent, scary – and still somehow all too human. Gyllenhaal does some nervous ticks with Loki, but doesn’t overdo them. Like Keller, he is driven – but unlike him he is able to keep his emotions in check. These two actors make up the heart of the movie – and they are more than ably supported by those around them. Paul Dano is convincing as a man who is undeniably creepy – but also weak, slow and sympathetic. Melissa Leo is quite good as his enabling Aunt. Viola Davis and Terrence Howard are both very good as the other little girl’s parents – proving why you should cast good actors in small roles like these, because they make their underwritten roles feel real. Maria Bello, as Jackman’s wife, isn’t given much to do other than cry – but she does that well.

Some have compared Prisoners to David Fincher’s Zodiac (2007) – for its darkness, its violence and its portrait of obsession. I wouldn’t go that far – Zodiac is a masterpiece – one of the best American films of the last 10 years, and a film that goes a whole lot darker than Prisoners, and goes well beyond its central mystery as it timeline stretches out over a few decades. Prisoners doesn’t do that. But I would compare Prisoners to another Fincher film – Seven (1995). Seven was a mainstream thriller, about two people who respond to a disturbing central mystery in different ways – and a film that shakes audience to the core its depiction of violence and cruelty – but still wrapped up in a mainstream package. That is what Prisoners does. Yes, the movie contains too many plot twists in its third act – toying with the audience a little too much, and yet, these scenes are still effective and disturbing. Seven was Fincher’s second film – following the disappointing Alien 3 – and allowed Fincher to go on to even better things. Villeneuve has already made several films – the disturbing school shooting film Polytechnique and the Oscar nominated Incendies among them – but this is his first foray into Hollywood. It’s a great effort – and hopefully bodes well for Villeneuve’s ability to more make smart, mainstream fare in Hollywood after this. Lord knows, we need it.  

Movie Review: Simon Killer

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Movie Review: Simon Killer

Simon Killer
Directed by: Antonio Campos.
Written by: Antonio Campos & Brady Corbet & Mati Diop.
Starring: Brady Corbet (Simon), Mati Diop (Victoria / Noura), Constance Rousseau (Marianne), Lila Salet (Sophie), Michaël Abiteboul (Jean), Solo (René).

Simon Killer may well end up being the most disturbing movie of the year. As a film that traps us in its main characters mind as he goes from asshole into something far worse, Simon Killer works better than most audiences members will probably like. It’s not a pleasant experience to be inside of Simon’s head throughout the course of this movie – and that’s a tribute both to director Antonio Campos who directs everything to great claustrophobic effect, and the lead performance by Brady Corbet, who has never been better than he is here. The movie is at its best when it’s doing little to nothing – simply observing Simon in long, unbroken shots that trap him, and us. It’s at its worse when Campos and Corbett, along with co-star Mati Diop (the three also share writing credit) try to force its characters into something resembling a plot. This is a movie – and a character – who don’t take well to a narrative. In total, Simon Killer feels like an early work of a filmmaker who is going to become great – not quite a great film in its own right, but something worth seeing to see the director’s development. It’s up to Campos if that proves to be true or not.

The movie opens with Simon giving us his backstory – you would be forgiven in thinking that he’s talking to his shrink, because that is what it seems like at first, but in reality, he’s talking to someone he barely knows – the son of his mother’s friend – who has agreed to let Simon stay at his Paris apartment for a week while he’s away. Simon has recently graduated from University – and for the first of many times, he tells someone that he studied Neuro-Science – specifically the relationship between the brain and the eye (I could probably delve into why that’s important to the movie – but let’s not get sidetracked). His girlfriend of five years has just broken up with him – and things didn’t end well. She’s scared of him, and doesn’t want anything to do with him anymore. Throughout the movie, he’ll send some increasingly desperate e-mails to her – and when she finally responds, it coldly. Simon just wants to get away for a while and clear his head – he’ll be in Paris for a week, and then move onto to somewhere else. He never gets there.

That opening scene sets up the fact that Simon may not really be the “good” guy he claims to be – something that will become increasingly apparent as the early scenes move along – where even something as small as bumping into someone on the street escalates to something much more than it should be. While these scenes are not violent, the feeling of impending violence increases as the movie goes along, and the film traps us with Simon, who is never out of the frame. Things start to get worse when he meets Victoria (Mati Diop), a prostitute at a club. There first session is brief – but their relationship will grow throughout the movie – going from a typical prostitute/john affair, into something more akin to a “real relationship” – or at least as much of one as Simon is capable of having. Their frequent sex scenes are what made the MPAA slap this with a NC-17 rating (although it was released “unrated) – and it’s easy to see why. These are among the least erotic sex scenes you will ever see in a movie – and become increasingly disturbing as they move along. The sex scenes are really a power struggle between these two characters.

The movie is at its best when its focused on Simon, or Simon and Victoria (who reveals her real name – Noura) to him. To say both of these people are damaged would be an understatement, and to see them fight for control becomes difficult to watch. It’s less effective when it takes a prolonged detour into a strange blackmail scheme Simon dreams up for him and Victoria to pull on her johns. These scenes almost seem as if the filmmakers thought they needed to pad the running time, or else add some sort of plot to the movie – but it’s a poorly handled distraction more than anything else.

The movie also is a little heavy handed in its treatment of the other major female character Marianne (Constance Rousseau), a beautiful blonde Simon meets on the street. Visually and otherwise, she is the polar opposite of Diop’s Victoria – and the filmmakers try too hard to get the audience to see them as the virgin and the whore. It’s all just a little too neat for my tastes. And while Diop herself is great in the movie, I would have preferred even more of her – had the filmmakers tried to make her a character with as much weight as Simon, it could have elevated the entire movie.

Still, Simon Killer remains a challenging, disturbing and uncomfortable viewing experience to say the least. Campos got a lot of praise for his debut film – Afterschool (unseen by me), which is also said to be extremely disturbing. On the basis of Simon Killer, he’s a talent to watch – as is Corbet (who has quietly built up an impressive resume) and Diop. Simon Killer is not a great movie – but it’s a fascinating one. I want to see these three team up again.

Movie Review: Wish You Were Here

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Movie Review: Wish You Were Here

Wish You Were Here
Directed by:  Kieran Darcy-Smith.
Written by: Kieran Darcy-Smith & Felicity Price.
Starring: Felicity Price (Alice Flannery), Joel Edgerton (Dave Flannery), Teresa Palmer (Steph McKinney), Antony Starr (Jeremy King), Nicholas Cassim (Jon Canane), Otto Page (Max Flannery), Isabelle Austin-Boyd (Holly Flannery), Tina Bursill (Margie McKinney), Wayne Blair (Willis), Valerie Bader (Helen King), Pip Miller (Jim King).

Kieran Darcy-Smith is part of a group of Australian filmmakers who all work on each other films. The best known film by these filmmakers is David Michod’s excellent Animal Kingdom – a gritty crime thriller that made my top 10 list a few years back, and got Jacki Weaver a richly deserved Oscar nomination for her performance as the mother from hell. Another excellent little noir called The Square (2008) was also made by this group – directed by Nash Edgerton, and written by his brother Joel. Darcy-Smith had acting roles in both of those films – and for his debut feature, he cast Joel (again), alongside Darcy-Smith’s wife Felicity Price (who is also wrote the screenplay with) and Teresa Palmer – who starred in a short film for Nash Edgerton – who also worked as a stunt coordinator on the film (which he does mostly for big Hollywood movies – like the upcoming Wolverine movie). This incestuous group of Aussies have made some wonderful films – not just the features, but the shorts that are nasty, violent and funny at the same time. While Wish You Were Here does not reach the level of The Square or Animal Kingdom, it is a promising debut film from Darcy-Smith.

The film opens in Cambodia, where two couples have gone on holiday. Alice and Dave (Price and Edgerton) are married, with two kids and a third on the way, who are talked into going by her younger sister Steph (Palmer) with her new boyfriend Jeremy (Anthony Starr) – who needs to go there on business, although that business may not be on the up and up. The movie then flashes forward back to Australia – Alice and Dave have come home, but Steph has stayed behind because Jeremy is missing. Steph will soon return as well bringing with her revelations – not about Jeremy – that Dave wishes she didn’t. These, couple with the investigation into what happened to Jeremy, throws everyone into chaos.

In a way, Wish You Were Here is similar to an Eli Roth movie – except done more realistically with less grotesque violence and exploitation. Roth’s films – from the two Hostel films and his latest Aftershock (which he co-wrote and stars in) – are all about ugly Americans, going to a poor country, acting like idiots, and being punished for it. That describes Wish You Were Here pretty well, even if this time they are Aussies and not Americans behaving badly. Still though, these are well off people from the first world, going to a third world country and exploiting them – only to eventually come face to face with the reality of that place. Unlike Roth, Darcy-Smith takes the concept seriously though – and as a result, has made a much better film.

The star of the film is clearly Price, who along with her husband, wrote herself a great role. At the beginning of the movie, she looks to have it all – she’s very happy in her suburban life with her seemingly perfect husband and great kids. And she is the one who takes everything that happens the hardest – she feels betrayed by her husband and her sister, and throws herself into trying to help find Jeremy – if only because she doesn’t know what else to do. Edgerton is good in a tricky role – it requires him to convey a lot, without doing very much as he is often still, often moping, and always clearly hiding something. It’s another strong performance by an actor whose resume is filling them (The Great Gatsby aside). And Palmer, who was good with an American accent in Warm Bodies earlier this year, strikes the right notes as the perpetually whiny, selfish Steph – who cannot understand why no one sees her as the victim she so clearly sees herself as.

The film’s structure, of flashing back and forth between the past in Cambodia, and present is Australia, gets a little annoying at times – it’s clear that Darcy-Smith and Price have structured it this way to preserve the mysteries of the movie, which turn out to be rather bland and predictable when they are finally revealed. The film is just a touch too clever for its own good – disguising things we have guessed. I did admire how the movie didn’t try to make any of its characters sympathetic though – none of the characters are really bad, but none are all that good either – not even Alice, who selfishly sulks to the detriment of those around (and inside) her.

Wish You Were Here never reaches the heights of Animal Kingdom or The Square – two films which it will inevitably be compared to. Both of those films were smarter and more intense, and featured even better acting than is on display here – even if acting is this film’s strong suit. Still, I want to see what Darcy-Smith comes up with next. This is a promising debut film.

Movie Review: Now You See Me

Friday, September 6, 2013

Movie Review: Now You See Me

Now You See Me
Directed by: Louis Leterrier.
Written by: Ed Solomon and Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt.
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (J. Daniel Atlas), Mark Ruffalo (Dylan Rhodes), Woody Harrelson (Merritt McKinney), Isla Fisher (Henley Reeves), Dave Franco (Jack Wilder), Mélanie Laurent (Alma Dray), Morgan Freeman (Thaddeus Bradley), Michael Caine (Arthur Tressler), Michael J. Kelly (Agent Fuller), Common (Evans).

You’d be hard pressed to find a better cast in a mainstream movie this year than the one assembled for Now You See Me. You have five Oscar nominees – two of them winners – and even the actors that haven’t been anointed by the Academy are excellent in their own way. The movie is about magicians, who are really thieves and con men, and really, really wants to be the most clever movie of the year. The fact that the cast is so good helps to hide the fact that the movie isn’t half as clever as it thinks it is. The movie wants to be Ocean’s 11, but doesn’t really come all that close. It’s amusing to watch this great cast have fun for a while, but as the movie drags on, I grew bored.

The movie opens by introducing us to four different magicians – the cocky asshole J. Daniel Atlas (Jessie Eisenberg) who is a master at sleight of hand and card tricks, Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson) a “mentalist”, Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher) – an escape artist, and Jack Wilder (Dave Franco), a pickpocket (and yes, that’s apparently a magician). They are all brought together by some mysterious, hooded being – and a year later they’re performing together in Las Vegas. When they somehow seemingly manage to teleport a French man to his bank in Paris, and steal $3 million, they draw a lot of attention – including the FBI, who has Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) investigate, and Interpol, who sends Alma Dray (Melanie Laurent) to work with Rhodes. There’s also Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), who debunks magicians, an Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine), the magician’s extremely rich financial backer. Everyone is being played – especially the audience.

The cast certainly has a lot of fun during the course of the movie – and even if some of the “magic” we see them perform is clearly CGI, there is still fun to be had being the audience as well. The actors play off each other well, even if for the most part these actors could do these roles in their sleep – although to their credit, none of them do. They may not really be pushing themselves, but they seem to enjoy playing off each other.

The movie is one of those heist movies that explains to the audience what they are going to see, and then shows what they just explained – although not quite the way we expect it to play out. If done well, these films can work amazingly well. It’s fun to be fooled by a movie. The problem with a movie like Now You See Me is that it tries so hard to fool the audience right from the start, that you never really trust the movie. We know from the start the movie isn’t going to play fair with the audience. It’s like when you go to a magic show, and spend the whole time looking for the strings holding up the “floating” magician. When you try as hard as this now does to try and fool the audience, you can almost guarantee that you won’t. I’m not saying I saw every twist in the movie coming – just most of them.

The film was directed by Louis Leterrier, who is best known for action movies like Unleashed, The Transporter 2, The Incredible Hulk and Clash of the Titans. Although there aren’t many action scenes in Now You See Me, Leterrier shoots the movie as if there were. The result is both somewhat exhausting, yet dull.

Movie Review: Passion

Friday, August 30, 2013

Movie Review: Passion

Passion
Directed by: Brian De Palma.
Written by: Brian De Palma based on the screenplay by Natalie Carter and Alain Corneau.
Starring: Rachel McAdams (Christine), Noomi Rapace (Isabelle James), Paul Anderson (Derk), Karoline Herfurth (Dani), Rainer Bock (Inspector Bach).

Many of Brian De Palma’s thrillers – even his better ones – don’t make much logical sense. Go back and watch Sisters (1973) or Obsession (1976) or Dressed to Kill (1980) to see some examples of his finest work that gets by almost entirely on style and not on logic. If you think about the plots of these films, they pretty much fall apart. But because De Palma tells them with such style, and such passion, and because they twist and turn so unpredictably, you are caught up in the movie from moment to moment, and don’t really care if it all makes sense in the end. At least that’s true for me. I know a lot of people don’t really like De Palma – who, unlike me, think most of his films are crap, where I just happen to think that Femme Fatale (2002) aside, the last 20 years or so of his career has been disappointing, but the first 20 years were wonderful. His latest film is Passion, and judging by many the reviews coming out of Venice and TIFF (where I saw the film), most critics are writing this film off as yet another miss for De Palma. But while I will readily admit the film has flaws – and lots of them – I also have to admit I enjoyed the movie immensely. True, Passion functions mainly as a guilty pleasure – but considering how much I have disliked most of De Palma’s recent films, that is at the very least a step in the right direction.

The movie begins, a little shakily, as a workplace melodrama. Christine (Rachel McAdams) is an executive at an ad firm, looking to get a promotion to New York. One of her underlings, Isabelle (Noomi Rapace) comes up with a great idea for a new ad campaign – and when the upper brass likes it – Christine takes the credit. While this is certainly backstabbing, Christine puts on her phony smile, and explains that since she is the boss, if she wins, everyone wins. Besides, if she gets promoted to New York, Isabelle may get a promotion herself. Oh, and Isabelle cannot feel to self-righteous about herself – after all, on the trip to London where she pitched the idea to the client in the first place, she slept with Christine’s boyfriend (Paul Anderson) – and has been carrying on an affair ever since they have returned.

Where the movie goes from here, I’ll leave you to discover, since watching this plot take one unexpected twist after another, as it moves from a melodrama into a violent thriller and murder mystery is one of the chief pleasures of the movie. It is one of those movies where you’re never sure who is the good guy and who is the bad guy – because whenever you’re convinced you’ve figured it out, something comes along to pull the rug out from under you. Even the seemingly innocent people – like Christine’s put upon boyfriend and Isabelle’s sweet looking assistant (Karoline Herfurth) aren’t quite what they seem.

There are certainly problems with Passion. For one thing, the movie gets off to a rocky start. The workplace backstabbing doesn’t feel genuine – really it feels like actors going through the motions. It doesn’t help that De Palma miscast the two lead roles. In the original French film (unseen by me), by Alain Corneau, Christine was played by Kristen Scott Thomas, and Isabelle by Ludivinne Sagnier. For whatever reason, De Palma decided to forego this generation gap, and instead cast two actresses around the same age. This could have worked, by McAdams feels like she’s trying too hard to be the boss from hell – like she’s watched The Devil Wears Prada one too many times. And for her part, Rapace doesn’t seem like the innocent victim she should appear to be in the opening scenes – she’s more than capable of fending for herself against McAdams. Yes, it is a kinky thrill to see these two beautiful women involved in a game of cat and mouse, with sexual overtones, but there is something missing there. Surprisingly it is Karoline Herfurth who gives the movie’s best performance – and it is precisely because she seemingly comes from nowhere that her performance is so damn good.

And yet the miscasting of the movie certainly didn’t kill my enjoyment of it. De Palma and his style is almost always the star of his films anyway, and especially in this film’s later half – when he pulls out all the stops – he is in top form here. De Palma has always been an unabashed borrower from other directors – especially, but not limited to, Hitchcock – and he does so here as well (especially in the weird score that sounds like Bernard Herrman on crack). But the director De Palma most borrows from here is himself. He repeats many of the stylistic tricks he has used before, but somehow it doesn’t quite seem like a boring rehash, but a knowing nod and wink to his fans in the audience.

Passion is certainly not a great film. I wouldn’t really argue with anyone who hates the film, because I know where they are coming from. And yet, for me, this film functioned perfectly as a guilty pleasure. It doesn’t really add anything new to De Palma’s filmography, and it may not be an “objectively good” film (whatever the hell that means), but damn if I did not have a blast watching it.

Movie Review: A Hijacking

Monday, August 19, 2013

Movie Review: A Hijacking

A Hijacking
Directed by: Tobias Lindholm.
Written by: Tobias Lindholm.
Starring: Pilou Asbæk (Mikkel Hartmann), Søren Malling (Peter C. Ludvigsen), Dar Salim (Lars Vestergaard), Roland Møller (Jan Sørensen), Gary Skjoldmose Porter (Connor Julian), Abdihakin Asgar (Omar), Amalie Ihle Alstrup (Maria Hartmann), Amalie Vulff Andersen (Kamilla Hartmann), Linda Laursen (Anette Ludvigsen), Allan Arnby (Niels Giversen), Bettina Schjerlund (Jytte).

The Danish film A Hijacking is the antithesis of a Hollywood thriller. You would think a movie about Somali pirates taking over a European ship, and holding the crew hostage for months on end as they go through negotiations to let them go would give the filmmakers a chance for rapid pacing editing, and action sequences – where eventually the brave crew would overthrow their captors led by someone like Harrison Ford. Perhaps Paul Greengrass’ upcoming film Captain Phillips starring Tom Hanks will be that film. Hell, that film may end up better than A Hijacking for all I know. But I don’t think it is possible to make it more realistic than this film. This is a film not about heroics, but about tedium and the long, slow, steady progress of negotiations. What is amazing about the film is just how intense writer-director Tobias Lindholm makes it.

The film opens and we are quickly introduced to who will become the two main characters in the movie. Mikkel (Pilou Asbæk) is the seemingly happy cook on board the Danish cargo ship Rozen. We first meet him calling home to his wife to tell him he’ll arrive home two days later than he initially thought he would. He’s upset by this – but not nearly as upset as she is. He wants to be home to be with his wife and daughter, but after months at sea, what’s another two days?

The other character is Peter (Søren Malling), the CEO of the company that Mikkel works for. We first meet him taking over a negotiation with a Japanese firm, where he’s able to get the deal he wants for millions less than the Japanese wanted – and then he promptly dresses down an employee who wasn’t able to do the same thing without his help. Peter is rich, smart and a master negotiator – and clearly relishes his role.

Interestingly, we are with Peter and not Mikkel when the pirates take over the Rozen, and do not actually see them storm the ship or take over. Over the course of the movie, none of the pirates will become a character – we don’t even know their names – except for Omar (Abdihakin Asgar), who gets offended during the intense negotiations via satellite phone when Peter refers to him as a pirate. He’s not one of them he says – he’s just their translator and negotiator.

The heart of the movie is made up of two types of scenes – the negotiations between Peter and Omar, and scenes of life on board the ship. For the most part, during the negotiations, we stay in the sterile boardroom with Peter and his team – including a hostage specialist they bring in – which looks like any old boring office boardroom. These scenes are remarkable intense, because they have a ring of authenticity to them – from the room itself, to the way Peter conducts the negotiations, starting out like we saw him with the Japanese, and slowly becoming more angry – to the echo of the phone itself. The negotiations take a long time – the pirates want $15 million, and Peter starts with an offer of $150,000, so you know they will.

The scenes on the boat are just as realistic as conditions slowly deteriorate. The crew starts to go stir crazy, starts to get sick as they are locked in a room together where they eat, sleep and go to the bathroom. There are few moments of joy, and although the pirates don’t physically abuse the crew, as they grow more frustrated, the crew has it harder and harder. These scenes focus on Mikkel, as he struggles to hold onto his sanity.

A Hijacking never hits a false note. Everything in the film feels authentic – from Lindholm documentary style direction, to the performances – particularly by Malling and Asbæk. Hollywood style thrillers are a dime a dozen, but a film like A Hijacking, which goes for, and achieves realism, is much harder to pull off.

Movie Review: The Attack

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Movie Review: The Attack

The Attack
Directed by:  Ziad Doueiri.
Written by: Ziad Doueiri & Joelle Touma based on the novel by Yasmina Khadra.
Starring: Ali Suliman (Amin Jaafari), Evgenia Dodena (Kim), Reymond Amsalem (Siham Jaafari), Dvir Benedek (Raveed), Uri Gavriel (Captain Moshe), Ruba Salameh (Faten), Karim Saleh (Adel), Ramzi Makdessi (Priest).

The Attack is a movie that looks at the very complex issue of Israel-Palestinian violence, and finds that there really is no right side or wrong – no guys and bad guys – just violence all the way around that leaves victims in their wake. Some have already accused the film of being an “apology for suicide bombers” – but I think that is a rather simplistic view of what the movie actually does. It does not apologize or justify suicide bombers – but it does sympathize with the reasons why some feel the need to do such a thing, but it never endorses the actions that leaves innocent people dead. It is simply saying that the issue is not as simplistic as some would like it to be. To me, that makes The Attack into a fascinating movie. Others will be offended – but perhaps it will cause some people to rethink at least some of their views on the conflict.

The movie stars Ali Suliman as Amin Jaafari, a Palestinian living in Israel and making a good living as surgeon at a large hospital. He has just been given a prestigious award – the first Arab ever to win it. He is a non-practicing Muslim, and his wife is a Christian. They live a secular, secure seemingly happy life. Amin has grown complacent in his security – and that’s the way he likes it.

He has shaken out of that complacency when a suicide bomb explodes. He spends hours trying to help the victims, before heading home. His wife is out of town, so he has a drink and goes to bed. He is woken up in the middle of the night by a phone call from his friend Raveed (Dvir Benedek) – a police officer – who tells him he needs to get the hospital right away. He thinks it’s for a patient – but instead he is asked to identify the body of his wife Siham (Reymond Amsalem) – who not only was killed in the suicide bombing, but was in fact the bomber. Amin is shocked – he cannot and will not believe his wife would do such a horrible thing. He is interrogated for days on end, but he cannot tell the police anything – because he does not know anything. Eventually he is released, but now he no longer feels secure in his life. When it becomes clear, even to him, that his wife did in fact commit the bombing, he heads to his small, Palestinian home town in search of answers. Someone must have brainwashed his wife – and he’s going to find out who.

The majority of the movie takes place in this small Palestinian town – where Amin finds that his wife is seen as a hero – a martyr for the cause – which angers him even more. But his journey, which begins in anger, ends up shocking him out of his complacency. He hasn’t returned to his town in more than a decade, and it upsets him that everyone – including some members of his own family – eye him with suspicion. He thought he had a home in Israel, but after the bombing, it has become clear that they don’t really want him there anymore. And when he returns home, he finds they don’t really want him there either. They are convinced he is working with the Shin Bet – the organization that was seen recently in the excellent documentary The Gatekeepers. Try as he might, he is not able to get the answers he so desperately desires. But he also sees what the day-to-day lives of the Palestinian people is really like – the oppression and violence they live with every day. While he never gets to the point where he condones what his wife did, he does begin to understand the sense of futility and hopelessness that lead her to do it.

The movie takes a few too many twists in its third act. The film is structured like a thriller or a detective story, and it is filled with tense moments. By the time Amin finally gets at least some of the answers he is seeking – he will never get all of them, something made clear when he finally watches the videotape his wife made before she died – the film has probably twisted at least one too many times. A few of the conversations late in the film border of being preachy – but as with the rest of the movie, they are anchored by Suliman’s excellent performance. Even if the plot gets a little far-fetched at times, he keeps things real with his sensitive, subtle, often quiet yet commanding performance. He is the film’s greatest asset.

The film’s final scenes are deliberately meant to make the audience question Amin and the decision he ends up making. Is it the right decision, or the wrong one? Is he protecting a suicide bomber and their network, or does simply not want to contribute to any more deaths? But by doing nothing, is he not contributing to more deaths anyway? At the end of the film, Amin is in an impossible moral position. Some will see what he does as wrong – in strictly black and white terms, they may well agree with the dressing down one of his colleagues gives him. But as with the rest of the movie, seeing things that way would be far too simple.

The film was co-written and directed by Ziad Doueiri, and based on the bestselling novel by Yasmina Khadra. The film has been banned in Doueiri’s native country of Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world – because apparently the Arab league found its portrayal of the Israeli characters too humanizing. The film was too balanced in their view – and since it put the oppressor and the oppressed on the same level, it was actually unfair to Arabs. This is bullshit, of course. The movie presents the issues surrounding Israel and Palestine in a complex way – but mainly leaves them in the background. This is a personal story first, with large reaching political ramifications. You may disagree with The Attack – or think that it takes side too much – but it is a film that deserves to be seen and discussed. Any political film has to work as a film first, and politics second – and that is what The Attack does.

Movie Review: The Canyons

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Movie Review: The Canyons

The Canyons
Directed by: Paul Schrader.
Written by: Bret Easton Ellis.
Starring: Lindsay Lohan (Tara), James Deen (Christian), Nolan Funk (Ryan), Amanda Brooks (Gina), Tenille Houston (Cynthia), Gus Van Sant (Dr. Campbell).

There is a reason why Lindsay Lohan was a movie star before she became a punch line – and Paul Schrader’s The Canyons show why that is. Movie stars are often not the best actors in the world – but the ones who have that innate, un-teachable ability to draw attention to themselves, even if they’re not doing anything. This has nothing to do with looks – some gorgeous people have zero charisma on screen, and you forget about them immediately. It’s that elusive term “star quality” that no one can quite define. Lohan has that quality. She often isn’t doing very much in The Canyons – she seems to be “posing” at practically every turn in the movie. A few years of hard living have aged her – her raspy voice has only gotten more strained. And yet, Lohan is a star – or at least knows how to be one. Whenever she’s onscreen in The Canyons, I couldn’t look away.

Now, perhaps Lohan was helped by a few factors – the first being that her co-stars have almost zero personality. Porn star James Deen has the blank look of, well, a porn star. He is effective in his early scenes as his Christian isn’t required to be anything early in the film other than a spoiled, selfish sex addict – which he can play. Whenever Deen is onscreen, you get the feeling that he could go from doing just about anything to having sex in the blink of an eye – because, again, in porn, isn’t that what they do? But as the movie progresses, and the film desperately tries to add some layers to Christian – or least watch him devolve into the psychopath we initially think he maybe – Deen proves why he is in porn in the first place – he just isn’t a very good actor. The other co-star is played by Nolan Funk – and if you haven’t heard the name before, you’re not alone. He’s an unknown, and based on his blank, lifeless performance in The Canyons, he’ll probably stay that way.

The other thing that helps Lohan stand out is that the movie that surrounds her just isn’t very good. In many ways, it is a throwback to the 1980s – which isn’t surprising since much of Schrader and writer Bret Easton Ellis’ best known work, is from that decade. Everything from the visual look to the score to even the fact that Schrader and Ellis are attempting to make an “erotic thriller” at all screams 1980s. This is an extremely cynical film – perhaps even misanthropic – and it fits in nicely alongside such Ellis works as Less Than Zero or American Psycho – and is perhaps a darker version of a film like Schrader’s American Gigolo, although of all Schrader’s films, it’s probably most similar to Auto Focus (2002) about the lonely, empty life of TV’s Bob Crane – who was murdered after years of wallowing in sex addiction.

The film centers on yet another of Ellis’ patented dead inside, spoiled rich kids. Deen’s Christian doesn’t do anything, and doesn’t want to do anything – but he’s financing a low budget slasher film to get daddy off his back about not doing anything. All he wants to do is connect with strangers on the internet, and get them to come over to his mansion and engage in anonymous sex with him and his girlfriend Tara (Lohan). The movie opens with a dinner with Christian, Tara and Christian’s assistant Gina (Amanda Brooks) and her boyfriend Ryan (Funk) – an “actor” who works as a bartender because he cannot get acting jobs. But Gina has gotten him cast in the slasher movie. It isn’t long before we discover that Ryan used to date Tara – and now they’ve been conducting an affair behind their significant others backs for the last month. Tara left because she wanted security and money – and Ryan was never going to be able to offer that. Christian really shouldn’t care about Tara’s affair – after all, they engage in anonymous sex all the time, and he’s having his own affair with Cynthia (Tenille Houstan) – but Christian needs to be in control. The entire movie actually hinges on a four way sex scene involving Christian, Tara and two people we never see in another scene in the movie, where Tara turns the tables on him – and he realizes that she is actually in control. This is what makes him devolve into the violent psycho we know from the beginning of the movie he will become.

It would be easy to sneer at The Canyons – to dismiss as having a “cold deadness” to it, as one staffer at a film festival said when they rejected the film. Or to simply say it manages to be both over the top and ridiculous and dull at the same time. After all, in a movie with this much sex and violence in it, you would at least think it had the makings of a guilty pleasure, right? And there’s very little joy to be had in watching The Canyons.

Yet all of that seems to be deliberate on the parts of Schrader and Ellis. Surely, these two very talented men could have made a guilty pleasure, erotic thriller had they wanted to. They didn’t want to – the deadness to the film is not a flaw, but an artistic choice. The movie shows, at various points, a bunch of old, abandoned, dilapidated movie theaters – and in one particularly on the nose scene, has Lohan pretty much dismiss movies altogether. The point seems to be that the characters, still involved in the movie industry, are dead inside, and the industry itself is dead or dying. Schrader has pretty much said as much multiple times over the last decade or so – and Ellis’ cynicism stretches back to the 1980s.

So no, it’s not the cold, deadness of The Canyons that ultimately sinks the movie – it’s the fact that Schrader and Ellis don’t really have much of any real interest to say about the characters in their movie other than the most obvious, surface level observation. None of the characters in the movie is the least bit sympathetic – which wouldn’t be a problem if they were even remotely interesting. Good actors, or movie stars, may have been able to paper over the wafer thin characters – Lohan certainly manages the trick pretty well throughout the movie. But Deen and Funk aren’t able to muster anything of interest.

I took some heat last year for liking David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis – which is a film whose themes aren’t all that dissimilar to those raised in The Canyons – and features a similar performance of that by Lohan in this movie by Robert Pattinson. I’m still not sure if either of these people can actually act (in Lohan’s case, it’s a question of whether she can STILL act, as at one she certainly could). But they hold the screen – they are interesting screen presences, in The Canyons and Cosmopolis, they are excellent as the dead inside characters they are playing. The difference between The Canyons and Cosmopolis, is that Cronenberg’s film was fascinating and engrossing on a scene by scene basis – the conversations were deliberating distancing, but extremely well acted by the characters, and the deadness of that film seemed appropriate given the Wall Street subject matter. I may not have liked any of the characters in Cosmopolis – but they fascinated me, and had something to say, and the film’s points about money and power were appropriate. That is what The Canyons is missing – a reason to spend time with its emotionally dead characters or take what the film is saying about the film industry seriously. I respect what Schrader and Ellis were trying to accomplish with The Canyons – and admired Lohan’s performance in the movie, which is as good as could be expected – but ultimately I think they come quite far short of their aim.

Movie Review: The Silence

Friday, July 26, 2013

Movie Review: The Silence

The Silence
Directed by: Baran bo Odar.
Written by: Baran bo Odar based on the novel by Jan Costin Wagner.
Starring: Ulrich Thomsen (Peer Sommer), Wotan Wilke Möhring (Timo Friedrich), Katrin Sass (Elena Lange), Sebastian Blomberg (David Jahn), Burghart Klausner (Krischan Mittich), Karoline Eichhorn (Ruth Weghamm), Roeland Wiesnekker (Karl Weghamm), Jule Böwe (Jana Gläser), Oliver Stokowski (Matthias Grimmer), Claudia Michelsen (Julia Friedrich), Amon Robert Wendel (Malte), Kara McSorley (Laura), Anna Lena Klenke (Sinikka), Helene Luise Doppler (Pia).

In the past decade, there have been many interesting crime thrillers made that on the surface look to be typical police procedurals, but when you look a little closer than are deeper than that. David Fincher’s Zodiac, Bong Joon-ho`s Memories of Murder, Cornielu Porumboiu`s Police Adjective, Cristi Puiu`s Aurora, Nuri Blige Ceylon’s Once Upon a Time in Anatolia - even Kathryn Bigelow’s  Zero Dark Thirty fall into this category. Each of these films look into a crime or crimes, and has police officers or others obsessed with discovering the truth – but while in the end they will discover what they are looking for (or in the case of Zodiac, at least think they do), the answer isn’t quite as satisfying as they think. They are driven to uncover the truth, but while they will eventually figure out the who and the how, the why eludes them even in the end, and they are left unsatisfied. Or perhaps it something more simple – knowing what happened, doesn’t reverse time and prevent it from happening. The new German film The Silence from first time director Baran bo Odar is not in the same league as those other films – it’s plot a little too conventional, it’s characters fall a little too predictably into the genre conventions. But it a well-made, well-acted, intelligent thriller – one that isn’t as focused on shocking the audience than showing them the entire picture of two shocking crimes. And there is a difference.

The opens in 1986, with Peer (Ulrich Thomsen) and Timo (Wotan Wilke Mohring) watching a film of some sort, and then wordless getting up and walking to their car. The drive down a nearly deserted road, and then follow a young teenage girl on her bike down a dirt road next to a field. While Timo sits in the car, seemingly on the verge of tears, Peer gets out, tackles the girl and strangles her to death. We then flash forward 23 years to the day – when pretty much the exact same crime happens again – to a very similar victim in the exact same spot.

Among the characters in The Silence are of course Peer and Timo – who are both guilty of murder, but have very different personalities. We will flash back to the 1980s to see how their “friendship” started – and how it ended. Then there  Elena (Katrin Sass), the mother of the first girl, who remains haunted by the death of her daughter, and remains in the same house, all alone as her husband couldn’t take the constant grief. The parents of the new girl, who is still missing (Karoline Eichhorn and Roeland  Wiesnekker), who are just beginning on a similar journey. There is also Krischan (Burghart Klausner), the original detective on the case, who cannot get the crime out of his mind – and wouldn’t you know it, the day before the new victim turns up is the day he retires. The new detective is David Jahn (Sebastian Blomberg), still grieving the loss of his wife, and who has dreams about the crime. His partner is Matthias (Oliver Stokowski), who thinks David is an idiot – and thinks little more of Krischan.

The Silence really isn’t a whodunit. We know that Peer and Timo are responsible for the first murder, and the movie doesn’t even attempt to give us alternate suspects for the second crime. Unless the movie is going to pull the rug out from under the audience, you know fairly early that the second crime was either committed by Peer or Timo – or Peer and Timo. What the film is really about then is the aftereffects of the crime – and the pain every character has over not knowing what really happened. This goes for Elena, obviously, who cannot move on with her life, and Krischan who will not move on with his. But it also goes for Peer, who lost his only real friend over it. And in a very real way, it goes for Timo as well – who doesn’t know if he can control himself.

The movie is a little too predictable for my tastes. In many ways, it does resemble a German episode of Criminal Minds, in which we see the cops trying to figure out who did it and the criminals as they go about their lives trying to stay ahead. But hell, I like Criminal Minds, so that’s not much of a complaint from me. And the film is also impressively directed by first time filmmaker Baran bo Odar – especially his use of overhead shots, that are truly haunting. And the cast is all first rate – good enough that I was willing to overlook the fact that things are a little too predictable, and in some cases muddled (the psychology behind Peer is especially muddled – the movie seems to suggest he is not really a pedophile, just trying to befriend one in Timo, but all his films suggest otherwise).

Overall, The Silence doesn’t reinvent the wheel when it comes to thrillers – and cannot quite compare with the films I mentioned off the top of this review. Yet, it is still an intelligent, well written, well directed and extremely well-acted example of its genre – and that’s more than enough for me.

Movie Review: The East

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Movie Review: The East

The East
Directed by: Zal Batmanglij.
Written by: Zal Batmanglij & Brit Marling.
Starring: Brit Marling (Sarah), Alexander Skarsgård (Benji), Ellen Page (Izzy), Toby Kebbell (Doc), Shiloh Fernandez (Luca), Aldis Hodge (Thumbs), Danielle Macdonald (Tess), Hillary Baack (Eve), Patricia Clarkson (Sharon), Jason Ritter (Tim), Julia Ormond (Paige Williams), Billy Magnussen (Porty McCabe), Wilbur Fitzgerald (Robert McCabe), John Neisler (Rory Huston), Jamey Sheridan (Richard Cannon), Pamela Roylance (Diane Wisecarver).

Zal Batmanhlij and Brit Marling teamed up just last year to make the solid indie cult-drama Sound of My Voice – and the reteam again this year for The East. You could argue that both films are about cults, but the word doesn’t quite fit in The East – which is about an eco-terrorist group – although it certainly has some cult-like tendencies. Sound of My Voice showed its lack of budget – it was rough around the edges, and didn’t quite figure a satisfying way to end its story. The East obviously has a bigger budget – there are more recognizable actors in it, and it has a slicker look and feel to it. It also not quite as good as Sound of My Voice – and shares one of the former film’s key problems – the lack of a satisfying ending.

The movie stars Marling as Sarah – a former FBI agent who has left to work in the much more lucrative private sector. Her job entails being an undercover investigator working for a big firm on behalf of other big firms, to protect them from corporate espionage and other threats. One of the biggest threats right now is an eco-terrorist cell known as The East. It’s Sarah’s job to infiltrate the secretive group – which has done such a good job of being secretive, no one knows whether they actually exist or not. It doesn’t take Sarah all that long to track them down (because, I guess otherwise, you wouldn’t really have a movie). At first, she thinks they’re all just hippie lunatics – and strongly disagrees with their sometimes violent methods – but slowly, she comes to see their point of view. It doesn’t hurt that their leader is Benji, and is played by Alexander Skasgard.

The East is anchored on good performances by Marling – who is quietly building up an impressive resume in little seen films and Ellen Page, who plays Izzy, one of The East’s most enthusiastic believers – who at first, of course, hates Sarah. Also excellent in Patricia Clarkson as Sarah’s cut throat boss – who may be your stereotypical corporate monster, but Clarkson plays it well. I’m still not sure if Skarsgard was good or not in the movie – that may sound strange, but it’s true. He has an oddly vacant look about him in the movie – and he starts out looking like a stereotypical Charles Manson clone with the long hair and beard, but quickly changes into something more presentable. I cannot tell if he’s supposed to be some sort of soft spoken genius, or someone with mental problems. All that makes it an odd performance – but perhaps that was the effect they were shooting for.

The East is interesting without ever really becoming involving. The story proceeds down the path you think it will, and never really deviates from it. I did like the ambiguous way the movie sees the group at its core however – it clearly sympathizes with them (and the evil the corporations do in the film is all too plausible), but that doesn’t really make what they do any better. I wish that the movie had seen the corporations themselves with the same sort of ambiguity, instead of painting them as evil monsters. And I wish the filmmakers had a gutsier ending – the way they end The East makes it seems like they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

In short, I admired the intent of The East more than I admired the actual execution of the film. It is by no means a bad film – it’s good in many ways, and at least keeps Batmanglij and his ongoing collaboration with Marling one to watch. But after Sound of My Voice, I expected a step forward for te duo – and I don’t really think The East is.

Movie Review: The Call

Movie Review: The Call

The Call
Directed by: Brad Anderson.
Written by: Richard D'Ovidio.
Starring: Halle Berry (Jordan Turner), Abigail Breslin (Casey Welson), Morris Chestnut (Officer Paul Phillips), Michael Eklund (Michael Foster), David Otunga (Officer Jake Devans), Michael Imperioli (Alan Denado), Justina Machado (Rachel), José Zúñiga (Marco), Roma Maffia (Maddy), Evie Thompson (Leah Templeton).

I’ve had my eye on Brad Anderson since his 2001 film Session 9. What looked like it may be a lame Blair Witch knock-off actually turned out to be one of the scariest movies I saw last decade. Since then, he’s made one good films – The Machinist in 2004 with a remarkable performance by Christian Bale, one mediocre film – the train murder mystery Transiberian in 2008 and one bad film – Vanishing on 7^thStreet in 2010 – and a lot of TV work. He has never quite fulfilled the promise he showed on Session 9 – and never really had a film that broke through in any way with mainstream audiences. With The Call from earlier this year, he at least did the later.

The Call is actually quite a good movie little thriller for about an hour. It stars Halle Berry as a 911 operator who screwed up and got a young girl killed as a result. Six months later, she now just the trainer for new operators than one herself – she doesn’t trust herself not to screw up. But then something happens, and she’s forced onto the call with Casey (Abigail Breslin) – a teenage girl who has been kidnapped and put in the trunk of a car. But this couldn’t possibly be the same killer, right?

For the first hour of the movie, The Call works remarkably well – better than it really has any right to. It has not one but two confined spaces – the 911 operators’ room with Berry, and the trunk of the car with Breslin. Anderson does his best to generate tension in what amounts to little more than an hour of talking to each other – and does a very good job of it. The first hour of The Call may not be overly original – but it is creepily effective.

And then the movie goes and blows it all in the final 30 minutes – becoming yet another silly serial killer movie full of chases, improbable twists, and a killer who loses all mystery and basically becomes a pathetic loser right before our eyes. This sort of thing is done much better on TV each week in Criminal Minds or Hannibal or any number of other shows. The shows, at least, take their killers somewhat more seriously than The Call does.

None of that is really the fault of Anderson – he does an excellent job in the first hour making the movie far more tense than I thought it would be. And he gets two very good performances from Berry and especially Breslin. He does what he can with the final half hour, but he’s basically going through the motions much like the screenplay.

The Call isn’t a horrible movie, but it is one that likely won’t stay with you after the credits role. It’s a passable, but hardly memorable, little thriller.

Movie Review: Shadow Dancer

Friday, June 28, 2013

Movie Review: Shadow Dancer

Shadow Dancer
Directed by: James Marsh.
Written by: Tom Bradby based on his novel.
Starring: Andrea Riseborough (Collette), Clive Owen (Mac), Brid Brennan (Ma), Aidan Gillen (Gerry), Domhnall Gleeson (Connor), Gillian Anderson (Kate Fletcher), David Wilmot (Kevin Mulville), Cathal Maguire (Mark), Michael McElhatton (Liam Hughes).

Like Werner Herzog, James Marsh moves back and forth between fiction and documentary films effortlessly. He probably better known for his docs like the Oscar winning Man on Wire (which I didn’t like as much as many) and Project Nim (which I did), but his fiction films including the criminally neglected The King, which was exceptionally creepy (and not in a horror movie way) and his part of Red Riding Trilogy, are perhaps even better. His latest fiction film is Shadow Dancer – about the IRA in the early 1990s. The film has a drab and dreary visual look – it’s always raining in Ireland – which matches the somber tone of the film. But what the movie really lacks is tension. Here’s a movie about a woman from a family or IRA members, who becomes an informant for MI5 putting her life in jeopardy from both sides, and yet the movie is never really all that tense. It just kind of sits there.

The best thing about the movie is the performance by Andrea Riseborough. She plays Collette, who in the opening scene we see dropping off a bag in a London Metro station, and immediately being arrested. Her interrogator is Mac (Clive Owen) who gives her two options – spend the rest of your life in jail, lose custody of your young son, or become an informant. Although she hesitates, she eventually agrees to become an informant – which will mean ratting on her own family – since two of her brothers are in the IRA. This makes her even more guilt riddled than before – as a child, she sent her younger brother on an errand she was supposed to go on, and he got killed in the crossfire between the Brits and the IRA.

Strangely for a movie about the IRA, the movie is almost devoid of politics. The IRA and the Brits are heading towards a ceasefire – this time, perhaps permanently, and yet the movie never offers any opinion of the politics involved – either in sympathy with the IRA or against it. In fact, the movie doesn’t even really mention any of the issues at play – or why the leadership of the IRA wants to take the deal, and why those on the ground, including Collette’s brothers, are dead set against it. I suppose you could argue that any watching the movie already knows the issues – and already knows what side they’re on – but the complete lack of politics in the movie seemed like a strange choice to me.

The movie still could have worked without the politics of course – as long as the human story was compelling, which I don’t think it was here. If the movie is supposed to be a thriller, than it lacks any real tension, despite all the plots twists the movie throws at you – and the constant state of fear Collette is supposedly in - the enforcer for the IRA suspects she has turned informant – and will kill her if he finds out for sure. But aside from a few quiet conversations, this doesn’t really go anywhere. On the flip side, Mac trying to figure out the truth behind MI5’s motivations – particularly those of his boss (Gillian Anderson), and why they seem to be trying to undermine him also doesn’t make much logical sense – except, of course, because the movie cannot reveal its secrets until its convenient to the plot.  There is also the issue of the forced romance between Collette and Mac – there isn’t much there beyond long, meaningful looks, but since this goes nowhere, I wonder why it was included at all. The ending of the movie also seems completely illogical.

I liked the visual look of the film for the most part. This is a visually drab movie – everything seems to be a shade of grey – which is appropriate for the film since the characters are equally depressed as their environments, and perhaps because the movie takes place in the moral grey zone. The performances match the look, and are appropriate for the characters – especially Riseborough who manages to make Colette sympathetic, despite being a downer to spend the entire movie with. Owen does what he can with Mac, but it’s an underwritten role. Perhaps the best performance in the movie is by Brid Brennan as Collette’s mom – who is quietly excellent throughout. No one else really makes much of an impact.

What we’re left with is a thriller that lacks tension and has an illogical ending, a movie about the IRA devoid of politics, a romance that doesn’t go anywhere, and a character study of drab, boring people. I’ve probably made Shadow Dancer sound worse than it actually is – but there is no doubt that coming from Marsh, this was a disappointment.