Review: Barney's Version (2010, Dir. Richard J. Lewis)

Bachelorette # 3: Rosamund Pike and Paul Giamatti tie the knot in Barney's Version.

Barney's Version--Paul Giamatti delivers a much-deserved Golden Globe-nominated performance in this light, comedic drama following the life of a cranky but loveable television producer that encompasses three marriages, two continents, and one foul-mouthed Dustin Hoffman. Giamatti plays Barney with enough crass to make him edgy and enough charm to make him bearable, creating hilariously irascible eyes and ears for the audience who glimpses at a tonally uneven but nonetheless insightful story that sometimes loses itself between being both harsh and maudlin. Rachel LeFevre and Minnie Driver infuse their supporting wife characters with credible and wry wit that gives the film its snapping bite, while Scott Speedman does what he can with a one-note, washed-up albeit pivotal role. Hoffman is terrific and makes his performance memorable with natural goof and warped wisdom, but Rosamund Pike comes out with the strongest turn. She’s bewitchingly gorgeous and enchantingly emotional—her evocation of heartbreak and happiness drives the story, making her stop both Giamatti and the audience in their tracks (and even steal a few scenes from him, too). Their romance is the core of Lewis’ film, as it pins down all the marriage’s warmth, chill, and everything else in between. It’s easy to tell the filmmaker is passionate about the iconic source material, and he does struggle at times to enhance development of significant sections and characters (Barney’s kids are somewhat overlooked, and Hoffman’s role is sadly underwritten) in favor of creating a tight adaptation. Barney’s Version, thus, suffers from some shifts in tone (ranging from jarring darkness to light humor while even uncomfortably mixing the two), but for the most part is a very enjoyable, funny, and even uplifting romance that features two carefully constructed and emotive performances from Giamatti and Pike.

Grade: B

Review: The King's Speech (2010, Dir. Tom Hooper)

Behind every great man: Colin Firth as King George the VI in The King's Speech.

The King's Speech--Classical without feeling dated, Tom Hooper's The King's Speech is an incredible piece of work that mixes traditional storytelling with innovative cinema. It's comfortingly familiar and refined while also surprisingly funny and touching. Colin Firth leads a brilliant ensemble as King George VI, who replaces his incompetent, womanizing brother (Guy Pearce, infinitely smug and stubborn) at the throne and is hampered by a frustrating stutter. Having to overcome his impediment to deliver countless war speeches, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) hires Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush, a quirkly delight), a vocal therapist whose unorthodox but endearing ways empowers the King with confidence, skill, and heart. 

Firth gives his best, most layered and nuanced performance to date (showing even more range than he did in the compelling A Single Man) as King George VI, masking humanity and vulnerability with a whirlwind of emotions. Rush is equally brilliant as Logue, with touches of authentic sincerity and stubbornness that drive their heartwarming friendship and even the film's deft comedic elements. Speaking of humor, Carter is also terrific--she supplies the film with the funniest lines and scenes, while gracefully acting as the backbone of George with wit and determination. All three performances are full of depth and impact as they bring these historical figures to life with the most fascinating and endearing human qualities. Hooper's film on fragility and redemption is shot beautifully--the cinematography is breathtaking, and quite dynamic. In particular, his framing devices are especially unique as they vitalize the genre with unexpected energy. The last sequence is one of the best scenes of all year, with gorgeous shots and tremendous music. Hooper's film is delightful, uplifting, and touchingly empowering that showcases three of the best performances of the year. Rush and Carter are impeccable, but as for Firth, all hail the king. 


Grade: A

Review: Love and Other Drugs (2010, Dir. Edward Zwick)

Risk of overdose: Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway in Love and Other Drugs.

Love and Other Drugs--I always admire a director who delves into newish territory, but perhaps Edward Zwick should stick to the historical action-dramas (Glory, The Last Samurai) for which he's best known. His latest film, Love and Other Drugs, is too much at war with itself for the audience to appreciate what it actually offers (thematic and social insights, solid performances) as it struggles to find the tone it wants to maintain. The film tells the story of a mid-'90s young drug rep (played charismatically by Jake Gyllenhaal) whose playboy antics screech to a halt when he meets free-spirited Maggie (how do you know she's a free spirit? Duh, she smokes weed and paints...), and a label-free romance ensues as both characters predictably come to terms with what they really want. 

What the film does get right is the depiction of the pharmaceutical industry--it's the most appealing aspect of the film, as both its cut-throat and superficial sides come to light and create an interesting atmosphere. Unfortunately, that's as developed as Zwick's movie gets. The characters are superficially drawn and immensely cliched, for Gyllenhaal and Hathaway do what they can with their roles. The former displays comedic charm, but beyond that shows very little depth; the latter, however, gives a solid performance and shows that she's capable and deserving of much better. Hank Azaria and Oliver Platt are serviceable in their highly limited supporting roles, while Josh Gad as Gyllenhaal's crude brother is just plain annoying and adds nothing to the film. In fact, he encapsulates an entire problem of the film--Zwick doesn't know whether he wants to tell his story in the form of a raunchy sex romp (a la Apatow...I never thought I'd say that...) or a dignified, adult romance (something along the lines of a James L. Brooks film, or even the recent Up in The Air). This tonal tug-of-war just hampers the film in all departments, making it come off as intermittently enjoyable at most instead of the mature and provocative romantic-comedy it had the potential to be. Love and Other Drugs is frustrating in the sense that while the audience laughs and is moved enough (just barely, in fact), they won't rid the fact that they had wished they'd seen the film it could and should have been. 

Grade: C

Review: Made in Dagenham (2010, Dir. Nigel Cole)

We're not gonna take it: Sally Hawkins heads the movement in Made in Dagenham

Made in Dagenham--The female-driven, sticking-it-to-the-man power grab has basically made itself into a genre now, with Nigel Cole's newest film being no exception. Detailing the female workers' struggle to achieve equal pay in the male-dominated corporate culture of Ford automobiles, the film walks an impressively tight line between light-hearted sparkle and tasteful docudrama. This is in part due to Cole's direction, for he's depicted cinematic femininity before (2003's Calendar Girls) and knows how to make a film feel both accomplished and polished. He's assembled a strong cast led by Sally Hawkins, playing factory worker Rita O'Grady who becomes the spokeswoman for her co-workers' plight for recognition and fairness. 

Hawkins is beyond superb--she energizes this true story (albeit familiar formula), making it bounce with her perfect comedic timing or warm with her heartful and empathizing performance. She embodies the spunky strength and determination while basing her character in reality--she never hits a false note, for Hawkins is a pro and knows exactly where to take this character. She breathes compassion and complexity into Rita, just like other supporting players do with their roles. Bob Hoskins, Geraldine James, and especially Rosamund Pike and Miranda Richardson all give solid turns; Pike and Hawkins share one of the best scenes of any film this year while Richardson more than makes the most of her character in about five brief scenes. Her presence is stammering and her wit is intimidating--Richardson personifies both power and the humanity it shelters. The film never wanders into unnecessary distractions as its tone is maintained and focus is clear, but it does hit a few cliche bumps along the way. With films like Norma Rae, Iron Jawed Angels, and North Country coming to mind, it's no surprise that Made in Dagenham hits a few familiar notes (elements ranging from male adversity to montage sequences seem somewhat recycled) and its rather simple storytelling is too slight and nearly borders on bland. But Dagenham isn't a film that shoves itself down audiences throats, and that's something to be admired. It's enjoyable, effective, and emotional, and a showcase for the wonderful Hawkins. 

Grade: B+

Review: The Next Three Days (2010, Dir. Paul Haggis)

It's game time: Russell Crowe in The Next Three Days

The Next Three Days--It's been three years since Paul Haggis' last heavy-handed, socio-political film (In the Valley of Elah, persuasive without being manipulative), and instead of cinematically crafting a subverting message he delivers a classic crime thriller that's rather broad for him, but fine for us. Russell Crowe stars as a father whose wife is arrested for murder, and deals with a marital relationship that dwindles in hope and trust thanks to the separating bars. He decides he can't live in this fractured state, and plans to break her out of the prison--that is, until the plan starts to go awry. 


Haggis' film is, on paper, a very slight one. It has a simple premise, few characters, and the most connectable dots. What he does, however, is stretch it to 132 minutes--surprisingly it doesn't hamper the film's impact all that badly. Characters are fleshed out both by the dense script and powerful performances; Crowe is never bad but here he's actually terrific, with an even more solid turn from Elizabeth Banks, whose potential keeps growing and growing. There is substantial supporting work from Olivia Wilde and Brian Dennehy, as well as the effective musical score (and song choice--Haggis especially does this well). But the harm comes from the bad pacing--it painfully drags in the middle as it tries to build tension, but only accumulates boredom. This is especially detrimental because the film is already grounded in such implausibility (the plot is exciting but hysterical) that when we're taken out of the it because of its length, we question the movie's value more and more. That said, The Next Three Days is still a much-forgiveable film as it deftly balances family/relationship drama with the heist genre. It's pulsating, yet emotional. 


Grade: B

Actress Profile: Jill Clayburgh & An Unmarried Woman (1978, Dir. Paul Mazursky)

Jill Clayburgh (1944-2010) in An Unmarried Woman

Jill Clayburgh had a low-key, though very impressive career with an array of roles in which she gave fascinating and breathtaking performances. Though she performed on stage in numerous plays throughout the years, audiences remember her best from her Academy-Award nominated turns in 1978's An Unmarried Woman and Starting Over, as well as Luna, Shy People, Running With Scissors, and recently, the Television series Dirty Sexy Money. Along with other actresses in the 1970's, she was the face of New Age feminism (independent and strong-willed women) with role choices, but altogether Clayburgh was an actress to be reckoned with--her films were socially groundbreaking mostly because of her memorably brilliant performances. 

Arguably her best known work, An Unmarried Woman was written and directed by veteran filmmaker Paul Mazursky. It tells the story of Erica, an affluent wife and mother from the Upper East Side who's suddenly dumped by her husband for a much younger woman. Confused and disoriented, Erica is taken on a roller-coaster of emotions as she experiences her new single life and tests unlimited possibilities that bring her joy, pain, and most importantly, indispensable insight. 

Mazursky's direction is solid and script very revelatory--while humorous and (at times) light, he depicts divorce as both something grave in terms of shaping the people coming out of it and mysteriously exciting. These two opposite ends of this relational spectrum often blur together in his film, as Erica both laughs and cries over her plight and wish to just lead a normal, manageable life no matter what the case. Though Mazursky's story wouldn't be best realized as a compassionate though authentic piece of cinema without Clayburgh's excellent, layered performance. Displaying humility, grace, fear, surprise, anxiety, and sexuality (among a range of other whirlwind feelings) within a second of a facial expression, Clayburgh is gleefully toxic. Her performance is so relatable and contagious that you can't help but align yourself with her whether she's being rational or not; in one of the best roles written for a female in the 1970's (and, looking back, perhaps in the past three to four decades), Clayburgh absolutely nails it. She personifies the brink of the sexual liberation period of the time, breathing into it humanity and heart. A terrific film that harbors a terrific performance--without it, Mazursky's film would be biting but not as tender and resonating. 

Grade: A

Clayburgh is an actress to remember and cherish through all her notable and moving roles. 

Review: All Good Things (2010, Dir. Andrew Jarecki)

A job that makes a killing: Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst in All Good Things.

All Good Things--It's not strange at all that director Andrew Jarecki finds interest in dramatizing the mystery surrounding the case of a wealthy New York real-estate tycoon's involvement with murder. He, in fact,  documented the uncovering of a troubled family in 2003's Capturing the Friedmans. All Good Things tells the story of a troubled young man (Ryan Gosling) who is torn between his loyalty to his family's legacy (represented by his tyrannical father, played by Frank Langella) and desire to entirely deviate from that environment with his young wife, played by Kirsten Dunst. What ensues is his corrupt involvement in his family's business, and eventually the disappearance of his wife and murder of his best friend. 

For a film focusing on a story filled with tension and deception, All Good Things feels somewhat lifeless. The characters are rather shallow--Jarecki never really gives us any sense of subjectivity or emotion other than surfaced expressions, while the dialogue does little in terms of revelation or humanizing. This is not to say any of the performances are bad, though. Gosling and Langella serviceably do what they can with their characters, while Dunst gives an unusually strong performance as someone who should be depicted as much more complex than the film allows. The film's narrative pace is crisp and it's shot beautifully--the cinematography and editing hints at an eerie tone that's never fully realized because the film is restraining too much. In fact, it feels much slighter than it should be. If it gave its characters and plot more breathing room and perhaps extended certain sequences, the film would be much bolder and endlessly haunting. The story is intriguing enough, but the film isn't. Despite great performances and technical credits, All Good Things holds back when it should be striving for something more. 

Grade: C+

Reviews: Due Date (2010, Dir. Todd Philips), Howl (2010, Dir. Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman), & Morning Glory (2010, Dir. Roger Michell)

Staring contest, you and me: Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Galifianakis 

Due Date--Todd Philips follow-up to The Hangover proves that a film doesn't need to be fully developed to produce full laughs. Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Galifianakis star as a mismatched couple who share a car and drive cross-country so one of them can reach his wife's delivery on time while the other has dreams of being an actor. Along the way, they find themselves in crazy situations while they meet crazy people, in the form of Juliette Lewis, Danny McBride, and Jamie Foxx, among others. Vastly predictable it may be, Due Date still manages to be quite funny. Effective gags range from Galifianakis' dog to Downey's hilarious excessive anger and frustration, while some of the dialogue is hysterical. The problem is that none of these characters jump out as original, round, or human--they are *all* one-dimensional, and the film garners very few surprises in terms of its story. Thank god this script has a terrific comedic director and cast because, without them, Due Date wouldn't go far. But in terms of this crew, the film adequately manages its predictability to incite a reasonable amount of hilarity. If you're not expecting something highly smart and witty, you'll fare well with this funny (though rehashed) road-comedy. 

Grade: B-

Stirring the pot: James Franco as controversial beat-poet Allen Ginsberg.

Howl--It seems as if in terms of biopic, James Franco is your man. In Howl, he portrays legendary poet Allen Ginsberg who's poem of the same name incites an obscenity trial against the work's publishers. Embedded into this courtroom drama are various interviews with Franco as Ginsberg, as well as animated interpretations and collages of his popular poem. Watching the film, I was reminded of both Todd Hayne's I'm Not There and George Clooney's Goodnight and Good Luck, as Epstein and Friedman's film feels like a strange hybrid of both of those movies. It maintains this interesting duality of a conventional courtroom trial (with an array of literary professionals portrayed by Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels, and Treat Williams, among others) and this whimsical, artistic exploration into Ginsberg's mentality. Though just as the film quite didactically expresses near the end, art is something only up for interpretation--oddly, the film has a rather objective nature when dealing with Ginsberg's work. If it were left more ambiguous and mystic, Howl would actually be a much more fascinating film. Though the animation is beautiful and perhaps serves the purpose of adding coherence to Ginsberg, the film would've benefited from an essence lacking in clarity so it would invite much more interpretation, much like "Howl" itself. Nevertheless, as it stands, Howl is still a unique and experimental take on art that features an unusual structure colored by an amazing cast. 

Grade: B+

Not exactly on the same page: Rachel McAdams and Harrison Ford.

Morning Glory--Much like the above Due Date, Morning Glory is predictability elevated by terrific actors and direction. Rachel McAdams stars as a young executive producer of a morning talk show, Day Break, that is in serious need of heightened ratings. In turn, she pairs her lead female anchor (a vibrant supporting turn from Diane Keaton) with Harrison Ford's ultra-professional, traditional journalist. What ensues? An office romance, a controlling job, and funny supporting characters and quirks in between. Yes, this is formula--but this is formula done extremely well. Though it may be recycled, Morning Glory feels so fresh because of its sharp wit and immeasurable energy that comes from the delightful script as well as the outstanding cast. McAdams has yet to give a performance that doesn't impress me, as she's endlessly charming, funny, and yes, adorable. Keaton is hysterical to the point of me wanting to see more of her, while Ford's growly and grumpy newsman took a bit to get used to but ultimately is an endearing character portrayal by the actor. Patrick Wilson is formidable and Jeff Goldblum is Jeff Goldblum (like that's a bad thing...). The thing with Morning Glory is that it has all its pieces where they should and tend to always be--stock characters, romantic cliches, heart-warming montages--but it's shot too beautifully, written too cleverly, and acted too well for me to just recognize it as a standard romantic-comedy. Yes, I get the genre has its own codes and formula, but I'm sick of those that are so tired and wish they were as fun and energetic as this one. 

Grade: A-

Review: 127 Hours (2010, Dir. Danny Boyle)

Stuck in the moment you can't get out of: James Franco gives his best performance yet in 127 Hours

127 Hours--Danny Boyle just isn't one of my favorite directors. Granted, I haven't seen *all* of his films (his best, to me, being Trainspotting), but his frenetic style is something I can only take in small doses. It didn't necessarily elevate Slumdog Millionaire beyond it's repeated core, and doesn't add much to his new film, 127 Hours. What does make the film memorable and, actually, very good is the highly impressive performance from James Franco (an actor who always does well but not exactly extraordinary until now) among a few other effective elements.

Franco stars as Aaron Ralston, a young and active daredevil-with-a-death-wish who, after meeting two female hikers (Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara, making the most out of their brief but pivotal appearances), gets his arm stuck under a bolder in a cave in April 2003. The rest is history, as we all know what happens and how it occurs, but 127 Hours still ignites enough excitement in a story whose ending we already know. One of the strongest attributes of Boyle's film is his dedication to this intimate, claustrophobic space and how he cinematically conveys this sensation. His choice in editing, while overdone at times, serves to emphasize the emotional tension Ralston is going through, while A.R. Rahman's score (as well as some other tracks) sets a pulsating tone. 

The film however, especially in the last thirty minutes, seems a bit too preachy. Ralston does reach some insightful realizations regarding himself and his family, but those don't arise without some forced thematic montages (characteristic of Boyle) that neglect the strong, intimate resonance. Nevertheless, Franco gives an empowering performance full of range and poignancy--Ralston becomes an accessible, human figure; actors portraying real-life people sometimes tend to make them seem mundane and one dimensional but, thanks to Franco, this is not the case here. Though excessive in some areas, Boyle's 127 Hours is ultimately harrowing, dramatic, and emotional.

Grade: B+

Review: Fair Game (2010, Dir. Doug Liman)

I get knocked down, but I get up again: Naomi Watts and Sean Penn fight the power in Fair Game

Fair Game--Leave it to Doug Liman, director of The Bourne Identity, to cinematically portray the intensity surrounding the real life story of CIA agent Valerie Plame and her ambassador/columnist husband, Joe Wilson. It could've turned out like Green Zone, the Matt Damon-starrer from March that had zero substance and merely focused on the gung-ho action associated with the WMD crisis. But Liman's smarter than that--he successfully mixes the political thriller genre with an exploration into a crumbling marriage without a hint of maudlin flavor. The result is an effective drama touching upon political questions and actually answering some with a coherent balances of audacity and restraint. In other words, this isn't an Oliver Stone film.

Naomi Watts and Sean Penn play the targeted wife and husband, respectfully, and they do a more than admirable job. Watts' performance is multi-layered and human, impressively displaying anxiety, heart-break, warmth, and determination that acquaints the audience to Valerie's mentality. Penn doesn't surprise, because he's equally intense--he turns Wilson into the physical embodiment of rage at one moment and a sympathetic and pressured husband at another. Both performances are surprising and full of range that is needed to express the reality of their predicament. The cinematography and editing are sharp, creating this atmosphere of urgency and frustration, while the dialogue leans away from most contrivances. 

Completely enjoying Fair Game does, however, partly rely on the viewer. It depends on what his or her attitude is to the Plame scandal, for the film is based on both her and her husband's published accounts of what happened. The dramatization, while cinematically rendered to high impact, may rub some as 'too left' or narrativized subservient to certain liberal ideals. Perhaps Penn's presence exacerbates this notion, but 'Fair Game' is in no way propaganda--it tells its story with a purpose that's not overly biased or underwhelming. In other words, it mainly focuses on the injustices of the White House rather than leaning either way on the political spectrum, but strongly-opinionated spectators might still find cracks to fill with their external criticisms. If the audience chooses to accept the slightly fictionalized events (what goes on inside their home according to Plame and Wilson's works) surrounding the reported facts, they get the privilege of enjoying of the year's best dramatic thrillers. If not, it's their loss. 

Grade: A

Reviews: Red (2010, Dir. Robert Schwentke) & Tamara Drewe (2010, Dir. Stephen Frears)

Nancy Botwin, Super Spy: Mary-Louise Parker and Bruce Willis in the action-comedy Red.

Red--Sometimes a film can assemble such an amazing cast that the plot is easily overshadowed by all the star-power. Well, actually, that's usually the case, but Red is too likable to be put down. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren are all retired ex-CIA agents being hunted by present employees and race to find out the plan behind these violent hits. Mary-Louise Parker is added to the fun as Willis' quirky love interest. Their chemistry is sweet and strong, but mostly hilarious--it's refreshing to see both actors have so much fun with such crisp comedic timing, especially Parker's humor translating so well to the big screen. All the other actors are in fine form, in addition to wonderful appearances by Ernest Borginine and Richard Dreyfuss. The problem with Red is that it comes off so slight--the performances try to overshadow what's going on but the plot is poorly constructed, begging the audience to ask what the point really is other than to see all these great actors on screen. Plot holes and implausibility run rampant, but the dialogue is too funny and the action scenes are too elaborate to induce boredom. Red, at its heart, may not be a great (or really, good) movie but we can't deny its wish to have fun--the actors are chuckling along, so why don't you? Just make sure to kick everything else under the rug, including logic.

Grade: B-

Pastoral Pain: Gemma Arterton is just one of the weaknesses of Tamara Drewe.

Tamara Drewe--Sometimes a film can assemble such an amazing cast that--well, adds nothing to the mundane experience being projected. Stephen Frears is an admirable director I've always enjoyed because of his willingness to jump between different genres (Dangerous Liasons, High Fidelity, The Grifters--all terrific), and he's trying to make a similar leap here but it only collapses. Based on the comic book, Tamara Drewe tells the story of the title character who returns to her native English village to sell her family house, but gets ends up getting caught in the intermingling romantic antics of her neighbors. Moira Buffini's screenplay is, at times, insightful with witty dialogue, but doesn't save the film. The overall movie acts as a character piece (where plot takes a step to the side), but the problem is that none of the characters are interesting, deep, or developed at all. Some performances are memorable and effective (Roger Allam and Tamsin Greig, for example), but the other actors are so wooden and their characters so cliched that Tamara Drewe just becomes a repetitive bore that achieves very little throughout. The message is evident in the first five minutes, though the film drags it through bland 'drama' and caricatures of people for nearly two hours. Frears is a talented director, but let's hope this misstep guides him to tackle other stories of more substance.

Grade: C-

Carrie (1979, Dir. Brian DePalma)

Isn't she lovely: Sissy Spacek as the telekinetically irresistible Carrie.

Carrie--You think you had it rough in high school? Try walking in Carrie's shoes for a day. Brian DePalma's 1976 horrific drama focuses on a teenage girl, played by Sissy Spacek with a schizophrenic range of emotion, who endures all of the hardships of 12th grade while harboring her telekinetic powers. Her religious zealot of a mother (a haunting and brutal performance by Piper Laurie) condemns her for everything from smiling to getting her period, possibly enhancing Carrie's mood disorder. Though an elaborate prank at the school prom finally pushes the teenager's buttons, and all hell (literally) breaks loose. 

DePalma's film sure has received a lot of criticism regarding its misogynistic undertones. Female rage is vibrantly displayed, particularly in the iconic, pig-blood scene, hinting at witch craft's implication that there is inherent evil within these female practitioners. Though he indulges himself with nearly every cinematic technique in the book (or film, one should say, with canted angles, red filters, split screens, etc.), DePalma is merely creating terror out of the least possible source--a shy teenage girl. It's not misogyny, but a reinvention of the supernatural female in a different context: high school. Spacek embodies this rage, humiliation, quietness, and misery that gets more and more compelling by scene. Laurie's performance may be one-note, but it's brilliantly terrifying and resonating--the quintessential (and paradoxical) mother-from-hell. Carrie may be scary, but it has a wit and intellect to it that puts it a few notches above other teen horrors--it knows what it's trying to accomplish, and it does. It's an effective, tongue-in-cheek critique of high school society with a female 'protagonist', whose title we question throughout.

Grade: A-

Review: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010, Dir. Tod Williams)

More than 'bump' in the night: Surveillance watch is a go in Paranormal Activity 2

Paranormal Activity 2: I'm extremely critical when it comes to sequels, and when it comes to horror films. I don't know why, but I feel as if my level of enjoyment is always challenged when watching either type of movie. So, when the two come together, imagine my expectation. Luckily, this horror-sequel got it right. 

I am not a fan of Paranormal Activity--I thought the prominent techniques causing scares were merely gimmicks and the story line was weak while lacking any tension. Though the sequel reuses the surveillance angles and sudden 'movements' (there are lots of 'gotcha' moments), they mostly don't act as cheap thrills but move along the story and build *real* tension accordingly. The characters are much more drawn-out this time around, and help establish this film's position in the horror genre; in the first film, they were too archetypal to create any lasting effect. There's not a lot I can say about this film without revealing the narrative's trajectory, other than it cleverly executes and explains it. This film, more so than the first, has enough substance and technical grounds to make it 'scary' and surprisingly resonating--there are many added dimensions (narratively, conceptually, etc.) to the sequel that make it more accessible and memorable. Even if its recycling can cause the same frustration experienced in its predecessor, the thrills it eventually makes create the horrific effect the first film failed to do. More importantly (and as a result), it's a fun and frantic time. 

Grade: B

Review: Jackie Brown (1997, Dir. Quentin Tarantino)

Shut Yo' Mouth: Pam Grier as the title character in Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown

Jackie Brown: The world of '70s heist movies bombastically collides with the cinematic style of Quentin Tarantino in his third (and most underrated) feature, Jackie Brown. Starring Pam Grier as a struggling airline employee, the film follows her character as she tries to smuggle $500,000 from her gun-running boss (a powerful turn from Sammy JJ--I mean, Samuel L. Jackson) while trying to lay-low from Federal Agents (Michael Keaton being one of them) hot on her trail. On the way, she gets help from an empathetic bail bondsman in the form of Robert Forster, in an outstandingly understated performance as one of Tarantino's most beautifully-drawn characters. The film ranks just as high as Tarantino's best (which, to be honest, are most of his movies) due to the unique characterization, *brilliant* dialogue, and terrific acting. Keaton, as well as Robert DeNiro and Bridget Fonda as Jackson's fellow employees, give memorable performances--Keaton is assured but unpredictable, DeNiro calm but layered, and Fonda gorgeous and volatile. DeNiro and Fonda's interplay is funny and dynamic, but it is the chemistry between Grier and Forster that is just irresistible. Their romance is sweet and strong while brilliantly underplayed to enhance the mystery and sadness surrounding both characters. Tarantino gives both of them room to breathe, and the result is unforgettable. 

The late Sally Menke displays rapid and stark editing at her finest, while the soundtrack further cements Tarantino's reputation and skill as a director. The music isn't to simply create a mood or style, but it's part of the plot in the sense that it's embedded in the story and awakens nearly everything onscreen. From Bobby Womack to the Grass Roots, the film's rhythm (both audibly and narratively) is definitively Tarantino. It's a funny, heartwarming, and pulsating crime caper that succeeds on every cinematic level. Experience it, ASAP.

Grade: A

Review: Conviction (2010, Dir. Tony Goldwyn)

We are family: Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell star in Conviction 

Conviction--Around awards season, there are those particular films that aren't subtle about their desire to snag a few Oscars. The trailer for Conviction seemed to suggest the film was just another one of those, with the overbearing music and titles. However, Conviction turns out to be a sweet and gentle film on a much smaller-scale with its own emotional power that never comes across as preachy or excessive. Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell play siblings who share an inseparable bond that the film successfully portrays without hitting many cliches. Once Rockwell's character is arrested and convicted for murder, his sister sets out to become a lawyer just so she can get him out. 

The surprises of Conviction begin with the narrative structure. It easily jumps around from flashbacks to the present without much confusion, while rightfully serving the story. The performances are all top-notch, as well--Swank is terrific while maintaining a good sense of restraint, coming off as a real human being rather than giving an inauthentic, suppressive turn. Rockwell is dynamite, and is sure to get his first (finally) nomination as he portrays mystery, sympathy, and humor into a character we come to know and trust. The supporting cast, notably Minnie Driver, Peter Gallagher, and Melissa Leo, are somewhat underused and don't have completely fleshed-out characters, but are effective in their roles nonetheless. While Conviction does a fine job with its cast, cinematography, editing, and mostly all other components, it seems as if that's it. It does a fine job, and doesn't shoot any higher. Part of the problem is that we're kept at a distance from the characters, and they only come off as the actors playing them rather than real people. It's not the actors' faults, it's just that if Goldwyn made different thematic decisions to portray the hardships and relational issues, they'd come across as more accessible and even more believable. That aside, Conviction is still a very good film in its own right--its an enjoyable and uplifting story with emotional heft and an outstanding performance from Rockwell. 

Grade: B+

Review: Hereafter (2010, Dir. Clint Eastwood)

 

Ooooh, Heaven is a place on earth: That song isn't in the film (I know, I know), but these two are.

Hereafter--Clint Eastwood just won't give up. Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in his eighties, Eastwood is a fine filmmaker who has presented some of the most powerful films in the past decade (Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo-Jima, Gran Torino), but lately it seems his work is a little underwhelming. Changeling featured Angelina Jolie's best performance to date and an exciting narrative, but ran a bit too long for that story to be as pulsating and resonating as it should've been. Invictus featured a fine turn by Morgan Freeman, but was grounded in boredom and redundancy. His latest film, Hereafter, is another one of his films ladened with similar flaws, but still stands as a decent enough film.

The movie opens with an energetic sequence featuring  Marie, a French news reporter (in a strong performance by Cecil De France), trying to survive the 2004 Tsunami attack. She believes she got a taste of the afterlife, searching for answers from her own friends and colleagues that eventually leads her to Switzerland. Miles away, Matt Damon plays a factory worker with psychic abilities that only hinder his personal life. And in London, a young boy struggles to cope with the death of his twin brother who had recently been killed in an automobile accident. The three narratives can't seem to stand on their own without depending on one another, even though they don't collide until the last 10 minutes of the film. The problem with Eastwood's film his constant affirmation that this story is about death and grief (even the subtlest scenes have a taste of this notion)--it needs a little more room to breathe and flesh out characters where the theme isn't being pounded on them. The script contains too much contrived dialogue for it to not be noticed (evident in the awful trailer) and the acting is a mixed bag--George McLaren vastly underperforms as the young boy, as he delivers his line with either little or forced emotion, while Jay Mohr is simply miscast and lacks any depth. That said, De France, Damon, and Bryce Dallas Howard (in a strong supporting role) give rounded-out and emotional performances, while the film's cinematography is breathtaking. The special effects could use work (it looks as if Eastwood hired the Sims as his extras), but the film looks amazing and matches the somber yet hopeful tone. Hereafter still poses interesting questions regarding the afterlife, without inappropriately taking a bias stand that would become ludicrous. The direction, too, is graceful, making Hereafter a lowkey, tender film that certainly is imperfect but remains a good enough film to watch and ponder over.

Grade: B-

New York Film Festival 2010

  

Oh, oh, oh, it's magic: Mirren conjures up a storm in The Tempest

The Tempest--By far, this is one of the messiest films of the year. Julie Taymor, a gifted director when given the right material to work with, infuses her fantastical style into Shakespeare's last play that does no justice to the source material and only comes off as hyper-active exercise in overacting and bad special effects. Helen Mirren leads the cast as Prospera (the female version of the male protagonist; an interesting concept that's poorly executed), a sorceress who conjures up her own magic and lures people from her past to her island. The film is shot beautifully, as the cinematography gorgeously captures the Hawaiian landscape on screen. However, that's where the pleasures stop. The imagery looks as if it has come straight out of a Dali painting but sets no stable tone other than to cement the chaos ensuing. The performances range from mediocre to wooden (even Mirren seems to be working at only one layer of intensity), with miscasts and under-usage (is that you, David Strathairn?) abundant. The problem with the film is that it doesn't have a niche for Taymor's overflowing style--it just invades Shakespeare's story and makes it both unintentionally laughable and insufferably boring. It worked with "Titus" and "Frida", where the aesthetics were subservient to the narrative and played a much more subtle role while still creating a unique and beautiful atmosphere. But here, the main emphasis is on the acid-trip images as they parade the screen while, ironically, making the film lifeless--the characters and ideas are tossed around just to make the film look psychedelic. Let's hope Taymor tones it down next time.

Grade: D+

Mind if I sit here?: Manville as the destructive and fragile Mary.

Another Year--I guess the saying "As one door closes, another one opens" rings true, because a few nights later I saw the best film of 2010 (so far). Mike Leigh returns from a gleeful study of a chirpy woman to an emotional pastiche of characters in Another Year. The film tells the story of Tom and Gerri (ha-ha), an older British couple whose encounters with their troubled friends (Mary, played by Lesley Manville, for instance) are documented in hilarious and heartbreaking ways. It's funny--as low-key and subtle as this film is, it was immensely more vivacious than the kinetic film above. This was an absolute joy of a film--funny, sad, moving, and mature in exactly tangible and relatable ways. These are some of the deepest characters I've seen on film in quite a while. With all the credit and respect to Leigh's writing, they wouldn't be brought alive without the cast. Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen are endlessly endearing and sweet, as their tender performances anchor the film in a warmness that doesn't come across ever as maudlin or overly sentimental. Imelda Staunton has a memorable cameo and Oliver Maltman is very effective, but then there's Lesley Manville as the alcoholic and desperate Mary. In probably the best female role *and* performance of the year, Manville absolutely kills it. In a milli-second you can see the array of emotions her character feels. She's self-consciously funny, depressing, vibrant, and tense--it's a package of a performance that Manville flawlessly delivers. She flat-out deserves whichever Oscar category she campaigns for. Altogether, Another Year is such a treat of a film that only Mike Leigh could craft, and this is quite possibly his best--it's already the best film of the year, so what more could you ask for? Such an excellent film.

Grade: A

Something wild: Williams delivers just one of the strong performances in Reichardt's third film. 

Meek's Cutoff--Kelly Reichardt has made a name for herself in both the independent film world and as a director fascinated with American stories depicting nature's role in society. Her latest film, Meek's Cutoff, is her first period piece, as it's set during the rough times of the Oregon Trail as it chronicles the journey of three families out in the west. Reichardt's affinity for natural lighting and colors only helps display the rural Oregon countryside, as we witness the characters deal with daily hardships (getting the delicate wagons across rivers, coping with intense thirst, etc.) as they follow the overly confident Meek, played by Bruce Greenwood. The cast is excellent--Michelle Williams impresses in the lead role as the main voice of doubt in Meek's intentions and abilities, while Greenwood matches her with quirk and intensity as the questionable title character. Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, and Shirley Henderson are quiet but effective in their supporting roles, but the most impressive asset is the film itself. Shot in tight 1.33:1 aspect ratio (basically a box-like screen), a corrosive claustrophobic and confining feeling is sensed as the film builds quiet tension throughout. Reichardt's direction is very Malick-ian as she captures the adversity of these doubtful passengers with beautiful imagery and darker, deeper meaning that lurks within. Meek's Cutoff is an unconventional take on the American dream, for it's one that haunts and stays in your head--even with its quiet nature, Reichardt's film is infectious. 

Grade: A-