DVD Review: Margaret

Thursday, July 12, 2012

DVD Review: Margaret

Margaret Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan.
Written by: Kenneth Lonergan.
Starring: Anna Paquin (Lisa Cohen), J. Smith-Cameron (Joan), Mark Ruffalo (Maretti), Jeannie Berlin (Emily), Jean Reno (Ramon), Sarah Steele (Becky), John Gallagher Jr. (Darren), Cyrus Hernstadt (Curtis), Allison Janney (Monica Patterson), Kieran Culkin (Paul), Matt Damon (Mr. Aaron), Stephen Adly Guirgis (Mitchell), Betsy Aidem (Abigail), Adam Rose (Anthony), Nicholas Theodore Grodin (Matthew), Rosemarie DeWitt (Mrs. Maretti), Matthew Broderick (John), Hina Abdullah (Angie), Olivia Thirlby (Monica), Kenneth Lonergan (Karl), Michael Ealy (Dave the Lawyer).

Kenneth Lonergan’s long delayed, barely released Margaret became a critical cause celebre late last year when critics rallied beyond the troubled production to try to get the studio behind it, Fox Searchlight, it give it a chance in the awards season and at the box office. Despite all the headlines the so-called “Team Margaret” generated, it really had no discernible impact. Now, for those of us who don’t live in one of the few markets that Margaret was released in, we can finally see the film on DVD to see what all the fuss was about. But unlike many overhyped movies, Margaret was worth the wait. This really is one of the best films of 2011 – and will hopefully finally get the audience it deserves.

Margaret opens with a horrific, and graphic, bus accident that leaves a woman (Allison Janney) bleeding to death on the streets. Lisa Cohen (Anna Paquin), holds the dying woman in her arms, and gets blood on her hands – both literally and figuratively. She feels that she is responsible for what happened, but she was running alongside the bus, trying to get the drivers (Mark Ruffalo) attention, causing him to run a red light and hitting the innocent woman in the intersection. Yet when she`s interviewed on the scene, and then later, she lies – telling the investigators that the light was green when the bus entered the intersection. It is this decision that will haunt her for the rest of the film.

Margaret tries to do a lot of things during its running time – which has led some to argue the movie is disjointed or flawed, and probably explains why the studio had doubts about the film in the first place. To me though, Margaret is a great movie because it is not narrowly focused on any one subject, but rather is a complex examination of Lisa, and the world around her. But it is the fact that Margaret tries – and to me succeeds – in doing so much that makes it one of the best films of the year.

On one level, the movie is a moral puzzle, as Lisa tries to figure out what the right thing to do is – should she tell the truth, and let the consequences be what they are, or should she just let it go, and let the bus driver return to his normal life? When she finally decides, after much consultation, to tell the truth, she first visits the bus driver in person – the only scene in the movie where Mark Ruffalo gets to speak. The movie wisely leaves it to the audience to try and figure out how he feels about it. Does he really believe, as he states, that it was simply and accident and he’s blameless? Or is he simply trying to protect himself and his family? The scene, which comes almost exactly half way through the movie, becomes a turning point for the film. Right around that time, Lisa meets Emily (the brilliant Jeannie Berlin), who was the best friend (perhaps more?) of the dead woman, who encourages Lisa to tell the truth, and who Lisa begins to trust more than anyone. This underlines another part of the movie, which is the story of the strained relationship between teenage girls and their mothers. Lisa’s mother Joan (J. Cameron Smith) is trying her best to help Lisa – but finds herself rebuffed at every turn. True, Joan is busy with a new play she’s starring in, and a new boyfriend (Jean Reno), but Lisa barely gives her a chance. In Emily, Lisa sees an alternate mother – one who seems to care and understand her more. Yet, the best scene in the movie may just be when Emily finally calls Lisa on her “self-mythologizing” – and rips into her something fierce. This serves to confuse Lisa even more.

The moral puzzle of the bus accident and the mother-daughter relationships – both real and surrogate – are the two main story threads, but there are others. A number of fascinating classroom conversations about the post 9/11 world that get heated, another classroom conversation about Shakespeare is just as fascinating. A too close teacher-student relationship between Lisa and Mr. Aaron, a painfully realistic and awkward portrait of losing one’s virginity. Lisa trying desperately to connect with her distant – both emotionally and geographically – father (played by Lonergan himself). Margaret develops all of these story threads to certain degrees, and they all make the movie a more complex – more complete portrait of this teenage girl trying to figure things out.

It must be said that Anna Paquin delivers an amazing performance as Lisa – she deserved to at least be nominated for an Oscar last year for it. This is a difficult performance because it forces her to hit so many different notes, and she handles it all remarkably. Like many teenage girls, her actions often seem to wildly impulsive – but they make sense in the moment, which for teenagers, is really all you can ask. She is supported by an amazing cast – particularly Jeannie Berlin, whose pain is real, and J. Cameron Smith, as a mother trying so hard to juggle so many balls, and failing at times. But even the smallest roles are filled with great performances, in what is one of the best ensembles in recent memory.

Kenneth Lonergan made his directorial debut in 2000 with the great You Can Count on Me, which was a much simpler, more straight forward film than Margaret. He is a playwright, turned script doctor, turned filmmaker. With Margaret, he establishes that You Can Count on Me was no fluke – he is the real deal – one of the most interesting filmmakers with only two films on his resume working right now. It took a long time for Margaret to hit theaters – but it was worth the wait. Let’s hope that all the crap that surrounded this masterpiece does not derail his filmmaking career. Few filmmakers would attempt a film as complex as Margaret – even fewer would pull it off so brilliantly.

Note: This review was of the the theatrical version - which was the only one available to me when it was released on Tuesday. There is a Blu-Ray edition that includes both this version, and the "extended version", which is over three hours long, or about a half hour longer than the theatrical version. It is my understanding however that this version is available "exclusively" through Amazon for the time being. When it becomes more widely available, I will be definitely be checking it out.

DVD Review: Get the Gringo

DVD Review: Get the Gringo

Get the Gringo 
Directed by: Adrian Grunberg.
Written by: Mel Gibson and Adrian Grunberg and Stacy Perskie.
Starring: Mel Gibson (Driver), Peter Stormare (Frank), Dean Norris (Bill), Bob Gunton (Mr. Kaufmann), Scott Cohen (Frank's Lawyer), Kevin Hernandez (Kid), Patrick Bauchau (Surgeon), Dolores Heredia (Kid's Mom), Gerardo Taracena (Ramiro), Jesús Ochoa (Caracas), Daniel Giménez Cacho (Javi).

Mel Gibson was one of the biggest movie stars in the world not all that long ago. But through his own actions off screen, his career has gone into a tailspin that may just be impossible to recover from. Yet, I don’t much care about movie stars personal lives – no matter how screwed up they are, no matter how vile their personal views are. I prefer to judge what I see on the screen. Gibson co-wrote and co-produced in his new film, Get the Gringo, directed by Adrian Grunberg, making his debut film, although he has been a protégé of Gibson’s. I have feeling he may well have been more active in directing this movie as well – it bears a striking resemblance, especially in its depiction of violence, as Gibson’s films behind the camera.

Get the Gringo stars Gibson as a nameless American, who when the movie opens is racing away from the cops towards the Mexican border, with a few million dollars in cash, and a dying partner in the backseat. Rather than being taken in by the Americans, he decides to rev his car up and jump the fence into Mexico. His plan doesn’t look like it’s going to work – the Mexican cops don’t want to deal with him, so they’re just going to let the Americans have them – until that it, they see the cash in the back, and decide they will take him in after all. They take his money, and throw Gibson in prison – but this is like no other prison you’ve ever seen before. It’s more like a slum with wall around it – you can’t get out, but if you are arrested, you can pay to have your family live with you in the burnt out shacks. Gibson befriends a kid (Kevin Hernandez), who is protected by the prison’s unofficial leader – mob boss Javi (Daniel Gimenez), because the kid has something he needs.

Get the Gringo is the type of role that Gibson does very well. He clearly isn’t a good guy in the film – but, except for the kid and his mom, he is more of a good guy than the rest of the people in this movie. The cops, on both sides, are corrupt and vile. The American consulate who visits Gibson in jail is even worse. The guy that Gibson stole from is even worse than that. And the Mexican villains, especially Javi, are the worst yet. In this world, a violent man like Gibson’s character is the only person not to completely revile. In that way, it reminded me of another recent Gibson film – the underrated Edge of Darkness. The problem here is that Get the Gringo is as well written or directed as Edge of Darkness. It desperately wants to be a modern day Sam Peckinpah film – a violent, morally complex cross border thriller that uses strong, graphic violence to make a point. The problem is I don’t think Get the Gringo really has a point. It really has nothing on its mind other than all that violence.

I did like the way Get the Gringo begins – the opening scene is exciting, and sets up the rest of the movie perfectly. And as Gibson figures out how the prison works, the film is entertaining, and seems to be building to something bigger than what ultimately delivers. After an effective setup however, Get the Gringo devolves into nothing but violence and predictable plot twists. When the movie ended I was left with an overwhelming sense of disappointment. Was this really all this movie, with such a fascinating setup, wanted to accomplish?

Get the Gringo isn’t a horrible movie – even when it devolves into violence, it well staged and entertaining – even if it does utilize slow motion too much. But the Gibson’s performance, which is quite good, deserves better than the screenplay he helped write. There is a reason why this film ended up going direct to video in North America – and it’s not all because Gibson’s star is tarnished beyond repair. Part of it is also because Get the Gringo just isn’t a very satisfying movie.

DVD Review: Bullhead

DVD Review: Bullhead

Bullhead
Directed by: Michael R. Roskam.
Written by: Michael R. Roskam.
Starring: Matthias Schoenaerts (Jacky Vanmarsenille), Jeroen Perceval (Diederik Maes), Jeanne Dandoy (Lucia Schepers), Barbara Sarafian (Eva Forrestier), Tibo Vandenborre (Antony De Greef), Frank Lammers (Sam Raymond), Robin Valvekens (Jonge Jacky Vanmarsenille).

The Belgian film, Bullhead, is a really good, complex character study buried underneath an overly convoluted, yet standard plot. You probably never wanted to know as much about the so called “hormone mafia” as Bullhead tells you. Yet if you can get beyond the rather uninteresting, and standard, crime story and concentrate on the central character, Jacky, and the great performance by actor Matthias Schoenaerts, you may end up being drawn into the film like I was. I have a feeling that the only reason why the movie wasn’t called Raging Bull, was because that title was already taken.

When we first meet Jacky, he seems like a typical lug of a mafia enforcer. He lives on his family beef farm, where they inject their cows with lots of hormones to make them grow bigger, faster, and hence make them more money. Surprisingly, this is a rather cutthroat business, with lots of competition, and a cop who is trying very hard to stop this illegal practice. We learn early on that this cop has been gunned down – and that a BMW is a key clue that the cops need. And that BMW is now in the hands of two bumbling idiot mechanics – who sell the tires to Jacky’s brother. We know that by the end of the movie, all of this will eventually become relevant in some way – just like we know that whatever it is that happened between Jacky and Diederik (Jeroen Perceval), that makes them shoot daggers at each other with their eyes, will become clear. And eventually it does, when the movie flashes back to Jacky’s childhood, which causes us to revaluate everything we have seen to that point – and will affect the long, slow spiral into despair and violence that takes place in the films second half.

When the movie focuses on Jacky himself, it is an effective character study. He is a mainly quiet man prone to violent outbursts that he cannot control. He holds his cards close to the vest – saying much more with the hatred in his eyes when he looks at Diederik, or later, the longing in his eyes when he looks at the beautiful Lucia (Jeanne Dandoy). We know from the earliest scenes in the movie that he is hiding something – that all those muscles are overcompensation for something that ends up quite literally to be missing. When we find out what he is hiding, his entire character snaps into focus. This is a man who is quietly imploding on the inside, as he is externally exploding. It is a great, subtle performance by Schoenaerts who does a great job with a hard role.

The film was written and directed by first timer Michael R. Roskam. It is a fine debut – hell how many people can say their first feature was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. But it also seems like a film by a first timer – as Roskam tries to cram too much into one movie. The bizarre, convoluted crime drama, which some strange comedic touches that don’t work, wasn’t necessary in this film. In the character of Jacky, he had everything he needed to make a great movie. When he matures a little, I hope Roskam figures out that sometimes less is more.

Movie Review: Savages

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Movie Review: Savages

Savages
Directed by: Oliver Stone.
Written by: Shane Salerno & Don Winslow & Oliver Stone based on Winslow’s novel.
Starring: Blake Lively (O), Taylor Kitsch (Chon), Aaron Johnson (Ben), Benicio Del Toro (Lado), John Travolta (Dennis), Salma Hayek (Elena), Demián Bichir (Alex), Antonio Jaramillo (Jaime), Diego Cataño (Esteban), Shea Whigham (Chad), Joaquín Cosio (El Azul), Emile Hirsch (Spin), Sandra Echeverría (Magda).

Since Oliver Stone’s break though year – 1986 when he made both Salvador and Platoon – he has only made one film – 1997’s U-Turn – that wasn’t overtly political. He couldn’t make a music biopic (The Doors), a historical epic (Alexander) or even a football film (Any Given Sunday), without some sort of political or social message thrown in for good measure. For the most part, I haven’t minded his politics being thrust into his films – they are, actually, one of the things that separates Stone from most filmmakers – he isn’t afraid to piss people off. Having said that though, other than 2008’s underrated W. (a film about George W. Bush that Liberals didn’t think was hard enough on the man and Conservatives decried as a hit job, which is a good sign that it was actually fair). Having said that though, Stone hasn’t made a truly great film since 1995’s Nixon, and often his more recent films seem more like diatribes than movies. Perhaps that’s why I enjoyed Savages so much. No, it isn’t a great film, and it certainly has flaws, but for the first time since U-Turn, Stone isn’t interested in making some “important” point – and decided to go ahead and make a straight ahead genre film. At that level, Savages is great fun.

Savages focuses on two best friends from high school who have taken different paths in life, but are still together. Chon (Taylor Kitsch) joined the army, and did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has become a violent man. Ben (Aaron Johnson) is a genius who majored in business and botany, and when he gets Chon to smuggle some of the best pot seeds in the world back from Afghanistan, the two go into business together. They have a loyal customer base – and make a lot of money for two guys on their own, but are still fairly small time in the grand scheme of things. They share everything – including O (Blake Lively), a rich kid who falls in love with both of them. Strangely, there is no jealously into this love triangle – they all know, understand and accept the arrangement. Their business is protected because they pay a DEA Agent, Dennis (John Travolta) to stay out of their way. But now, there is a battle among the cartels in Mexico – forcing them to come North. Elena (Salma Hayek) used to run everything, but now she is being squeezed out. So she sends her lawyer Alex (Demian Bichar) and her muscle Lado (Benicio Del Toro) to make arrangement in California with indie growers – their first stop is Chon and Ben. They cartel is like Wal-Mart – they get what they want, and will do anything to get it. Little do they know that Chon and Ben will do anything to protect what they love?

Savages is a movie without any good guys – everyone in the movie is rotten in some way or another, although few of them are unrepentantly evil either. They are all more complex than that. If Stone is making any sort of point about the War on Drugs, it is that it is pointless. There is way too much money to be made dealing drugs, and when there is that kind of money involved, someone will always fill the need. The drug dealers are business men, and they act like them, even though their business is illegal. One of the amusing things about the movie is how the Cartel negotiates with Ben and Chon – it looks like any other business meeting when a merger is discussed – including terms, length, percentages, etc. The major difference is that if you violate the terms of the deal, they don’t take you to court – they torture you, decapitate you, and make sure that everyone knows about it. That’s the best way to keep everyone in line.

The characters of Savages really aren’t anything new – they are admittedly stock characters – but for the most part the actors make them interesting. Taylor Kitsch is not quite as effective as many of the other actors – but that is basically because Chon is really a one note character. He is a violent, ex-soldier who will do anything to protect what he loves – and he stays that way from beginning to end. Aaron Johnson is better, because he has the better role. He is a peace loving man – essentially a modern day hippie, who hates violence, so he leaves it all up to Chon. But when things change, and his way won’t work, he has to change – to adapt, and he struggles with it. Blake Lively is probably the biggest disappointment in the cast, as I don’t think she has the acting chops to handle what should be a showcase role for her. She is the film’s narrator, and should be its most complex character, but while Lively isn’t bad by any means, she doesn’t make O the centerpiece of the film as she should be. The actors are on the Cartel side are more effective though. Demian Bichar, a surprise Oscar nominee for last year’s A Better Life where he played a regular Mexican father who wants more for his son, is in fine form as the slimy lawyer who works for Elena. Always dressed in expensive suits, he plays up the business end of the film – he knows violence goes on, but wants no part of it. Salma Hayek starts off a little one note as the ruthless head of the cartel, but her performance gets more complex the more we know about her – and he delivers her best performance in years in the role. Then there is Benicio Del Toro, whose Lado could have a one dimensional psychopath, but as Del Toro is always able to do, he adds a little more complexity to it. This is really the flip side to his Oscar winning role in Steven Soderbergh’s traffic, as the only honest cop in Mexico trying to take down the cartels. Here is Lado is the most brutal, violent character in the movie – but there is intelligence there. He may in fact be the smartest one in the movie. And finally, it is nice to see John Travolta embrace his dark side for the first time in a while as Dennis, the DEA agent. Everyone else in the movie has at least some loyalty to someone – and despite him having a sick wife, and two young daughters, Dennis is the most amoral character in the movie – with loyalty only to himself.

Stone has always been one of the best visual stylists in the movie – and although his type of filmmaking, perfected in movies like JFK and Natural Born Killers – may have popularized the rapid fire editing that I often find annoying, Stone has always been capable of using it effectively. Yes, he goes a little too far over the top in moments of Savages (I could have done without the large ticking clock superimposed over images in one tense sequence, or the map in another), for the most part, Savages shows Stone at his relentless best. The film is fast paced and violent, pretty much from beginning to end, but as Stone showed in Natural Born Killers, there is perhaps no one better at putting chaos on screen while still making it coherent – and he does so well here. He also co-wrote the screenplay, and most of it is great genre writing – with clipped, terse dialogue but sometimes it goes a little too far – is a little too on the nose for its good, or either straining too hard to be clever (not having read Don Winslow’s novel, I don’t know how much is lifted from his book, but there are some things that on the page, that don’t when spoken aloud – like O saying “I have orgasms. Chon has wargasms”). The climax of the movie is also a mistake – not sure if it qualifies as a copout or not, but it certainly doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense given what has come before. Instead of what they do, they should have found a better, more believable (and singular) way to handle to inevitable “Mexican standoff” that ends the film.

Savages is a fast paced, entertaining crime thriller that is appropriately, strongly violent. Back when Stone made U-Turn, he was coming off a decade long run of great or near great films, and many, myself included, thought that perhaps Stone just wanted a little break – making a genre film to try and recharge his batteries before pressing on to doing more great films again. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I hope that this time – 15 years later – Stone’s latest genre experiment serves to get him back to his dark, violent roots. In the years since Stone’s last masterpiece, Nixon (1995), there has been a gap in American filmmaking – a gap that only someone has crazy yet passionate as Stone can fill. I hope he’s got some great films left in him – but at least Savages is a great genre film for Stone. It’s now for him to do something even better.

Movie Review: Take This Waltz

Movie Review: Take This Waltz

Take This Waltz
Directed by: Sarah Polley.
Written by: Sarah Polley.
Starring: Michelle Williams (Margot), Seth Rogen (Lou), Luke Kirby (Daniel), Sarah Silverman (Geraldine), Jennifer Podemski (Karen), Diane D'Aquila (Harriet), Vanessa Coelho (Tony), Graham Abbey (James).

The smartest decision writer-director Sarah Polley made when making her second film, Take This Waltz, was casting Michelle Williams in the lead role. Williams, who is quite possibly the best American actress of her generation, is able to suggest emotion raging inside of her, simply with the look on her face. If she never said a word in this movie, it wouldn’t matter, because Polley`s camera catches every subtle variation on that face, and tells us all we need to know about her. Take This Waltz is not without flaws, but none of them involve Williams, who delivers one of the best performances of the year.

Williams plays Margot, who first locks eyes with Daniel (Luke Kirby) at one of those old time villages in Nova Scotia. They meet again on the plan ride home, where they spend their flight home flirting. They decide to split a cab when they get back to Toronto – and discover that they actually live across the street from one another. After all this time flirting, it is when they get out of the cab when Margot finally blurts out I`m married. But the connection has already been made, and the movie will be all about their slow, steady, subtle courtship. They don’t fall into bed together right away – but the sexual connection between the two of them is strong and immediate.

We then meet Margot`s husband Lou (Seth Rogen). One of the things the movie gets precisely right is the way these two speak to each other. Every marriage has a language all their own – little games the couple plays with each when no one else is around. They have an easy, jokey relationship with each other. They are comfortable with each other – too comfortable. Although they are only in their late 20s, they have already been married for five years – and we get the sense that they may be high school or college sweethearts. Margot is happy in this life – but what she is missing – perhaps what she`s always been missing – is that sexual heat that exists between her and Daniel. It just isn’t there with Lou, despite how content they are – or at least thought they were.

The movie does have some significant flaws. For one thing, too much of Polley`s dialogue is too on the nose, and at times even awkward – from Margot complaining about how she fears connections – being stuck in between things – to a late scene where Sarah Silverman, as Rogen`s sister, spells out the message of the movie far too clearly, and at times, the dialogue is awkward and clumsy. There is a great scene in a woman`s shower, where the young, naked bodies of Williams, Silverman and their friend, are contrasted against the older women who they just went to aquafit together. The message here is clear – that new things which eventually become old – all things physical are only temporary. And then Polley has one of the older women say this pretty much exactly, which is completely unnecessary, since the point has already been made so much more effectively visually. The good news is, for the most part, the cast sells the dialogue, because the actors are so skilled. No matter what Williams or Rogen are saying, you believe it, because these two actors are so natural, and such perfect fits for their roles. Luke Kirby is less effective as Daniel – he has the right look about him, and the sexual connection between him and Williams is palpable. There is also an appropriate level of creepiness about him – something you cannot quite put your finger on, but makes you question him a little. There is a fine line between infatuation and stalking. But Kirby is less effective at handling his awkward dialogue – he doesn’t sell it as well as Williams or Rogen do. The same can be said of Silverman, who is wonderful in her few short scenes, right up until her final one, when she is apparently drunk, which doesn’t quite work.

Yet so much of the movie is so good, that I was willing to overlook these flaws. Visually, Take This Waltz is a step forward from Polley`s first film Away From Her (which has a simple perfection to it, and was a legitimately great film, where Take This Waltz is merely a good one). Polley has grown more confident behind the camera, and the movie is often at its best when it simply focuses on the faces of the actors – particularly Williams, and at times Rogen, where so much is happening with nothing be said. And there is a great montage near the end of the film, set to Leonard Cohen`s song Take This Waltz, which in a few short, wordless minutes highlights everything that was missing between Margot and Lou – and everything that is missing between Margot and Daniel. And the final scene of the film has a simple, subtle perfection to it. Polley could have made a cleaner film had she cut it off about 90 minutes in. But without the last half hour, Take This Waltz would have been something like Brief Encounter for 2012, and that isn’t what Polley is up to here. What Take This Waltz is about is how every relationship is imperfect, so you have to choose what you really want in a relationship. You cannot have it all.

A (Kind of) Half Time Top 10

Sunday, July 8, 2012

A (Kind of) Half Time Top 10

Normally in late June or early July I do my so called “Half Time Top 10”, running down the best films of the first six months of the year. This year, I decided to do something a little bit different – and highlight 10 films, in alphabetical order, that audiences should have seen but didn’t. The following 10 films all made under $1 million at the box office in North America – and some substantially less. But all deserved more attention. A number of these films would have made a regular half time top 10 had I done one, and most of them are already on video or soon will be. So do yourself a favor this summer, and skip a blockbuster or two, and pick up one of these small, wonderful films.

God Bless America (Bobcat Goldthwait) – You may not have noticed but Bobcat Goldthwait, that squeaky voiced, angry, sometimes extremely annoying stand-up comedian and Police Academy co-star has turned himself into a very good indie director in the last few years – with daring films like Sleeping Dogs Lie and World’s Greatest Dad. Now comes his best film to date – this angry, extremely dark and violent comedy about a man (Joel Murray), a divorced office drone who in the span of one day gets fired and finds out he has cancer. Murray, fed up with America’s rude, shallow, celebrity obsessed culture and he decides before he kills himself, he’s going to kill a teenage girl he saw on My Super Sweet Sixteen, who is the most spoiled, bratty, horrible person he can think of. While doing so, indivertibly makes a fun out of another teenage girl – Tara Lynne Barr – and the two decide to become “platonic spree killers”. There is nothing subtle about God Bless America, which takes aim at everyone and everything that Goldthwait finds repulsive in modern American society. Goldthwait’s direction is excellent – especially the 10 minute montage that details Murray’s anger, including spot-on reality TV parodies. Some have complained that movies like God Bless America are part of the problem Goldthwait is addressing, but Goldthwait knows this – why do you think he ends the movie how he does?

The Innkeepers (Ti West) – Ti West loves horror movies, which you can tell with his first two features. The first was the 1980s throwback House of the Devil, which was way better than most of the higher profile films that try to recreate that era. For his follow-up, West looks even further back – to the old school haunted house, or in this case, hotel, movies of the 1950s and 60s. Sara Paxton stars as one two hotel employees working on the last weekend in turn of the century hotel that has long been rumored to be haunted. They want to prove the stories true. The hotel only has a few guests – all of them somewhat creepy. West movie has doses of humor, as it plays with our expectations, but when he decides to ratchet up the tension, he does so in a brilliant way. The finale is the most spine tingling one of the year so far. A must for horror fans.

Kill List (Ben Wheatley) – Ben Wheatley’s film is a hybrid – a kitchen sink drama that morphs into a crime thriller that morphs into a 1970s style British horror film. The reason why it works as well as it does is because each transformation makes utter and complete sense in the terms of the story, and because each segment is horrific and violent in its own way. Neil Maskell stars as a former soldier, now out of work, and hearing it from his wife (MyAnna Burning) for not bringing in any money. They are visited by his old army buddy (Michael Smiley), who visits with his hot not girlfriend (Emma Fryer), who there is something not quite right about. Smiley offers Maskell a job – Burning knows what the job is, and pushes him toward taking it anyway. To reveal more would be criminal. Kill List is shockingly violent, but it works wonderfully well. This is one of the very best films of the year so far. Do not miss it.

The Loved Ones (Sean Byrne) – This Aussie horror film is what torture porn aspires to be – heavy on the blood and carnage, but actually scary, well-acted and believable. It is one of the best out and out horror films you will see this year – even if it barely got a release, about two years after I saw it at TIFF. Robin McLeavy delivers an amazing performance as a warped teenage girl with a huge crush on a popular boy. When he cruelly rejects her prom invitation, her demented father decides to throw her a prom of her very own – and the popular boy is going to be there whether he likes it or not. The movie is hard to stomach because of the horrific level of violence going on, but this is a movie that actually has a story – actually has characters you care about, which of course is necessary if you’re going to root for them to survive. The film takes some odd twists and turns in its final act - ones that I'm not full fully sure work. But most of the movie is so far superior to the horror movies made in America that it is hard to complain too much. This is the film Eli Roth would make if he had talent.

Michael (Markus Scheleinzer) – Markus Scheleinzer`s Michael is one of the most disturbing, detailed portraits of a pedophile ever made. The film is deliberately cold and distant – the very controlled visual stylistics mirror the movements of Michael, the pedophile in question, placing the audience inside the head of the man who keeps a 12 year old boy captive in his basement. The film does not judge Michael itself – it leaves that up the audience, who will clearly see that Michael is a monster, but will also be forced to see things from his point of view. Most audiences will not want to see this disturbing film – they like everything to be clear cut – for the filmmaker to in essence do all of their thinking for them. Scheleinzer refuses to do that – it doesn’t let anyone, not even the audience, off the hook.

Miss Bala (Gerardo Naranjo) – Gerardo Naranjo`s Miss Bala looks at Mexico`s massive drug problem, by looking at the case of one woman – a would be beauty queen, who happens to be in a nightclub bathroom where a massacre begins. From that moment one, she is caught up in a world she doesn’t know and doesn’t understand – and has to make unthinkable decisions in the blink of an eye. The film is a mash up of genres – from crime thriller to character study to something just above the level of an over the top Mexican soap opera, and yet every twist and turn makes sense when it happens in the context of the movie. At the heart of the film is a wonderful performance by Stephanie Sigman, who seems to be in a daze for much of the film, as well as an equally good performance by Noe Hernandez, as the drug lord who uses her. This is a film that addresses a national, really an international problem, into a personal story, and a great one.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia - (Nuri Blige Ceylon) – Nuri Blige Ceylon`s Once Upon a Time in Anatolia takes the form of a police procedural or crime thriller, but like other recent masterworks – from Fincher`s Zodiac to Bong Joon-ho`s Memories of Murder to Cornielu Porumboiu`s Police Adjective to Cristi Puiu`s Aurora – it is a movie that cannot explain everything. Yes, who committed the murder in question is never in dispute, but the details as to why, and even how, cannot be fully explained. Like those other films the closer one looks at the details, the more hazy they all get – we get no closer to the truth. The film takes place over one long night, and into the next morning, where a group of cops – all men - along with a lawyer, a doctor and the confessed killer – all men again – head out into the Turkish countryside to find the body of his victim. But one road looks like another – one town, just the same as the next – and it takes him a long time to find that spot again. There is a lot of talk in the movie – not all about the crime – as one by one, the men in the movie snap into focus, and reveal what they have in common (wife troubles is a common theme). There is also a great, extended sequence half way through when they stop for dinner – and everything takes on a new light. This is one of the very best films of the year so far – and unfortunately, almost no one has seen it.

The Snowtown Murders (Justin Kurzel) – Justin Kurzel`s The Snowtown Murders is about the most infamous serial killer in Australian history – John Bunting. What separates Bunting from many other serial killers is that he didn’t work alone – and that his greatest act of evil is how he was able to manipulate those around him into committing murder. Played in a brilliant performance by Daniel Henshall, Bunting is a man who worms his way into your life – and is always the center of attention in group gatherings. And although he is the driving force behind all the evil – the murders motivated by bigotry – he almost gets the others to think it’s their idea. The movie focuses on Bunting`s youngest co-conspirator Jamie Vlassakis (Lukas Pittaway), a troubled kid, who has suffered years of abuse even before Bunting enters the picture, and how he slowly manipulates him into committing murder. The movie doesn’t concern itself with the details of the murders – only one is shown in detail, and most are just implied. What the movie does do is show the world these people live in – low income housing, constant abuse, casual bigotry and homophobia that turns into something more. The Snowtown Murders is almost unremittingly bleak, but it is also great.

The Turin Horse (Bela Tarr) – The Turin Horse is about the long, slow journey to death – the nothingness. It is a slow film – a very slow film – and many audience members will grow restless with the lack of action in the movie – the lack of dialogue, which sometimes goes on for minutes on end. The one time sometime does open their mouth, and delivers a long monologue it is promptly dismissed as bullshit. The film is about a father and daughter, alone on a farm in the middle of nowhere. They go through the same routine every day. And then one day it changes – the well the daughter gets their water from runs dry. Their horse refuses to move. The father and daughter decide to leave the farm, and we see them walk off into the horizon, over a hill – and then return. Why. The movie never says. The film is beautifully shot in black and white, and is transfixing from beginning to end. What it all means will be up to you to decide.

We Have a Pope (Nannni Morretti) – Many were surprised that a director as politically inclined as Nanni Morretti made what they saw as nothing more than a gentle satire of the Catholic Church. It is easy to see why some saw it this way – Moretti`s film, about an aging Cardinal (Michael Piccolli), who is the surprise choice of his fellow Cardinals to be the new Pope – and promptly loses it, refusing to go out on the balcony to address the faithful. The Vatican tries everything to convince him – including bringing in a shrink (Morretti himself) to try to talk him down. But things take a turn when the Cardinal disappears into the streets of Rome, connecting with the common people, and rediscovering his first love – acting. Meanwhile, the rest of the Cardinals are still technically in conclave, and the shrink, also stuck inside, decides to start a volleyball tournament among the Cardinals. Yet, while We Have a Pope is admittedly silly at points – and hilariously so – it is not simple a gentle satire. It actually goes much deeper than that, just in a subtle way. Legendary Piccolli, brilliant as usual, gives two speeches – one under his breath on the bus, and one that climaxes the film, that criticizes the church harshly. No, this isn’t an overtly political film like Morretti`s last film, The Caiman, but it is more effective – because this time, Morretti isn’t using a sledgehammer.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man
Directed by: Marc Webb.
Written by: James Vanderbilt and Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves based on the comics created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Starring: Andrew Garfield (Spider-Man / Peter Parker), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (The Lizard / Dr. Curt Connors), Denis Leary (Captain Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson).

Let’s get this out of the way off the top – no, there was no reason, other than money, to reboot the Spider-Man franchise just 10 years after Sam Raimi kicked it off, and just five years after his trilogy came to a terrible finish. And yet, despite this fairly indisputable fact, I have to say this: The Amazing Spider-Man is a much better first chapter for a superhero franchise than Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man was back in 2002. I always felt that Raimi’s first chapter was too cartoony for its own good and yet despite that tone cartoony tone that most of the movie had, he tried to make it serious at the end, and that really didn’t work. It was fun the first time through, but I have tough time watching it today.  Spider-Man 2 remains the best Spider-Man movie made to date, because Raimi nailed the tone, and had a better villain. Spider-Man 3 was an embarrassment. So yes, while I do not think that The Amazing Spider-Man was necessary, or even the best Spider-Man movie to date, it gets this series off to a promising start.

The movie starts fresh, with high school student Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, far too old for the role, but you either role with that or let it distract you the entire movie), still reeling from his parents deaths years before, and living with kindly Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). He discovers some of his father’s old research, and seeks out his old partner, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) to try and get some answers. Connors is trying to find a way to regenerate cells – specifically his own arm. He works for Oscorp (who we all know is run by Norman Osborne, who will eventually become Green Goblin), and under immense pressure to have a breakthrough – which Parker unwittingly gives him. And when Connors, desperate to produce results, uses himself as a test subject, things go horribly wrong. It is on his initial trip to see Connors that Parker stumbles into a restricted area of his lab, and of course, gets bitten by a radioactive spider, which will eventually turn him into Spider-Man. And of course, Parker also falls in love with a girl at school – not Mary Jane Watson this time, but Parker’s other great comic book love – Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), whose father is of course a cop, on the trail of the new vigilante Spider-Man.

The story, of course, bares an awful lot of resemblance to Raimi’s Spider-Man, with really just a different villain and love interest being the main differences. But while the story hits many of the same story beats as the original film, it is still a different film in many ways than the original. That is because Marc Webb and his writers’ strike a consistent tone throughout. This film is darker than the original Spider-Man, and I prefer my superheroes to be darker, more brooding. In Raimi’s Spider-Man, I thought the turn to darkness in the final reel felt awkward and forced (it was necessary to setup Spider-Man 2, but didn’t work on its own terms), whereas in this film, it is the rare lighter moments that feel out of place. It is clear that Webb and company is going for something closer to Christopher Nolan’s Batman series – from using a more minor villain in the first installment, so they can concentrate on Parker’s journey, and not worry about doing a more beloved villain enough screen time (which was another problem with Raimi’s first film – using Spider-Man’s main villain, Green Goblin, as the villain in the first film), to making Stacy the love interest (who, if they follow the comics, is doomed). Webb and company want to take Spider-Man seriously – and in this first installment they mainly succeed. Garfield is good at brooding, and makes Parker a more believably conflicted hero than Tobey Maguire was. The great Emma Stone, with her wide eyes, is perfectly cast as Stacy, who can melt your heart with a glance. And while, it’s mainly a throwaway role, Rhys Ifans is in fine form as Connors, a tragic figure, who doesn’t really want to do what he does, but cannot help himself. The action sequences are also well handled, but never take over the whole movie. This remains a movie about Peter Parker and his transformation more than a special effects extravaganza.

 
The Amazing Spider-Man is, in short, a good superhero movie – and shows the potential of where this new Spider-Man series can get to. There are certainly flaws in the movie – at nearly two and half hours, the movie drags at times, and repeats itself somewhat during its middle portion. As was inevitable, there is still a sense of been there, done that about the movie – yes, as I have pointed out throughout the review, it differs from the original Spider-Man, and improves on it, but the movie never really rises to the level of greatness. As we have seen in many superhero series before – from Richard Donner’s Superman, to Tim Burton’s Batman to Bryan Singer’s X-Men to Christopher Nolan’s Batman, and yes, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, the first movie in the series is often more setup, and less payoff. In all of those cases, it was the second movie in the series that was truly great. Here’s hoping that the pattern holds this time around – because while this isn’t a great movie, I think this team can make one.