The Ghost Writer

OPENING: 02/19/2010

STUDIO: Summit Entertainment

RUN TIME: 128 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Reading between the lines can prove deadly.

Opening Statement
Straight from prison comes director Roman Polanski’s first thriller in more than a decade. Dramatically tense, atmospherically bleak, and knee deep in political intrigue; it’s obvious this much beleaguered filmmaker has not lost his ability to turn the screws on an audience.

Facts of the Case
Following a much needed changing of the guard at Downing Street, the pressure is on former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan, Tomorrow Never Dies) to publish his highly charged memoirs. The only problem is the manuscript is 600 pages of boring and its author has turned up dead. Under deadline to deliver the book, Rheinhart Publishing calls in a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor, Angels & Demons) to work his magic on the project… in less than four weeks. To further complicate matters, former British Foreign Secretary Richard Rycart (Robert Pugh, Master and Commander) unleashes a litany of allegations implicating Lang in authorizing unethical and immoral treatment of terrorist suspects under the direction of the CIA. Forced out of the UK and into seclusion on Martha’s Vineyard, Lang and his team embed this “Ghost” (as he calls himself) in their stronghold, to finish the book, spin the war crimes allegations, and hope the storm blows over. Wishful thinking. The deeper our Ghost gets into his interviews and rewrites, the darker the subject matter becomes; unraveling a tangled web of adultery, conspiracy, and murder.

The Evidence
Not being a Polanski scholar, I approached The Ghost Writer as I would any political thriller, with keen interest and an open mind. What I found was a Hitchockian game of cat and mouse. Much like North by Northwest and The Man Who Knew Too Much, our Ghost (who is never given a first or last name) is a unwitting pawn drawn into a situation not of his making or choosing. Whereas with Cary Grant it was a case of mistaken identity and with Jimmy Stewart a case of bearing witness to something he shouldn’t have, McGregor’s character takes a paycheck to lie down in the bear trap hoping to do his job and walk away before it snaps him in two. After all, in the publishing world, the ghost writer is a non-entity, neither heralded nor crucified for his/her work. Unfortunately, curiosity gets the better of him and a dangerous onset of investigative journalism pieces together a puzzle only his predecessor was aware of… and it cost that man his life.

There will be many an allusion to Tony Blair and his ties to the Bush Administration, but this is not a message picture. The Ghost Writer is art drawing inspiration from life and a period of time where the lines between duty and ethics blur with far too much frequency. Pierce Brosnan plays Lang as a waning world figure unable to escape his own unwanted legacy. Here was a man without a political bone is his body, a lothario actor who fell hard for a beautiful political activist and ultimately became one of the most powerful men on the planet. Olivia Williams (Dollhouse) plays Lang’s wife Ruth as she might portray Hillary Clinton, a highly intelligent and capable woman who stood behind her husband offering counsel and advice, even as his sexual appetite was satiated elsewhere. Together, Brosnan and Williams provide the film’s emotional core around which everyone else orbits.

Kim Cattrall escapes her Sex and the City persona to deliver an efficient Chief of Staff with several skeletons of her own. Timothy Hutton (Leverage) and Jim Belushi (According to Jim) appear in what amounts to cameo roles, with little or no impact on the story. However, even with limited screen time, both Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton) and 93 year old Eli Wallach (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) take command of the screen offering our ghost critical pieces to his investigation.

Ultimately, it’s the collaboration between Polanski and author Robert Harris that makes the film work. Thrillers are never sure things on film. Far too many collapse under the weight of their own complexity or fall flat on their face by spoon feeding an audience perceived as too stupid to make the connections themselves. With The Ghost Writer, Harris researched real life elements and locations to craft an effective page turner, which Polanski brings to life with a flair all his own. Set in the bleakness of a harsh New England winter (played effectively by the country of Germany), he isolates his protagonists in a cold and sterile home far from what many would call civilization, set upon by war protesters and a vulturous media looking to play judge, jury, and executioner for a high profile political figure exiled on foreign soil. Throw in a healthy dose of tension-breaking humor and a Bernard Hermann-esque score from composer Alexandre Desplat and you have the makings of a great potboiler. Unfortunately, the pacing drags at times during the second and third acts and a climax heading for what we expect to be a fever pitch ends up being more of a slow burn. Neither flaw ruins the experience, though comparisons to Marty Scorsese’s Shutter Island (sharing a surprising number of similarities) will show Polanksi falling short of the “exceptionally satisfying” mark.

Closing Statement
Audiences exhausted by the epileptic seizure-inducing world of Bourne-like political thrillers will find this throwback a welcome change of pace. Despite all of his off-camera problems, Polanksi the filmmaker can still charm and alarm audiences. Let’s hope The Ghost Writer isn’t his swan song.

The Verdict
8/10

The Last Station

OPENING: 12/23/2009

STUDIO: Sony

RUN TIME: 112 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Intoxicating. Infuriating. Impossible. Love.

Opening Statement
Based off a novel by Jay Parini, The Last Station focuses on the great author Leo Tolstoy’s final days, and the constant battle to balance the love he holds for both his family and his “Tolstoyan Movement.” This historical drama is the complete package, blending solid performances with splendid writing and top notch production values.

Facts of the Case
Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus) has been blessed with a fortunate life. He is one of the greatest authors, not just in his home country of Russia, but all over the world. He has an extremely loving wife, Sofya (Helen Mirren, Inkheart), and the income he receives annually from sales of his much-admired novels isn’t too shabby. With a fantastically-lived life coming to an end, what can Tolstoy possibly have to grumble about? Well, he is a dense “Tolstoyan,” an individual who believes materialistic things are corruptive and evil. With his days ticking away, these beliefs put his wife and his daughter’s inheritance in serious jeopardy. Tolstoy is on the verge of signing a will that will dish out his property, work, and money to the people of Russia; in order to avoid corrupting his family with thoughts of greed and voracity. This threat looming large, Sofya does everything in her power to change her husband’s mind before that final day arrives.

The Evidence
The Last Station has a ton of assets going for it, the greatest of which is an abundance of epic performances. James McAvoy (Wanted) portrays Valentin Bulgakov, a devoted Tolstoyan and newly appointed Tolstoy secretary, whose values are blurred when falling in love with another Tolstoyan believer named Masha (Kerry Condon, Rome). McAvoy displays great passion and sensitivity when his character must decide whether to support his idol or his wife, whom he gets to know throughout the course of the film. As always, Paul Giamatti (Cold Souls) puts on a solid act, this time as Vladimir Chertkov, Tolstoy’s best friend and biggest advocate for the distribution of Tolstoy’s assets. Giamatti is a great antagonist, using subtlety and refinement to embody a chillingly evil character.

Without question, The Last Station’s greatest performances belong to its leads. Even at 80 years of age, Christopher Plummer can light up the silver screen as well as anyone in Hollywood. The fluffy bearded thespian rotates from a loving husband to a passionate self-righteous Tolstoyan as if it’s second nature. As for Helen Mirren… well, if this depiction of Sofya Tolstoy doesn’t earn her a second Oscar, I’m not sure what will. The Dame completely steals the show, as if this tragic, intricate character was her alter-ego.

Kudos are also in order for director/producer Michael Hoffman (Soapdish). It’s not easy to turn a biography into an entertaining motion picture, but by golly did he ever! While I haven’t yet read the book, the way the film focuses primarily on Sofya is an especially interesting way to view the final year of Tolstoy’s life. The Last Station’s mixture of comedy, romance, drama, and grief is perfect, making this an intelligently-written, heartfelt story that viewers won’t want to stop watching. Shot on location in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt, the beautiful locales and use of vintage costuming gives the film a very authentic feel.

Closing Statement
Completely natural, rarely dull, void of any visual effects or CGI, and loaded with marvelous performances; this is a solid piece of filmmaking that earnestly deserved to be one of the ten Best Picture nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards. While it may have been the last film on the minds of Academy voters, the next time you’re in need of a movie make The Last Station your first, last, and only option!

The Verdict
9/10

Shutter Island

OPENING: 02/19/2010

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 138 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Someone is missing.

Opening Statement
The trailers have been teasing us since last Fall. Paramount delayed the release for what seems like a punishing six months. Well, it’s finally here! Shutter Island marks the fourth collaboration between director Martin Scorsese and star Leonardo DiCaprio, a teaming which has proven successful time and time again. The main question is, does their new film measure up with Gangs Of New York, The Aviator, and The Departed? Eh, not quite…

Facts Of The Case
In 1954, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo, Zodiac) are called in to investigate the disappearance of a sanitarium patient on an island off the coast of Boston. Suffering from seasickness and frequent migraines, he tries his best to locate the missing female, who was convicted of drowning her children sometime after WW2. Soon enough, Teddy begins to suspect a darker force hovering over Shutter Island, particularly when his deceased wife (Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain) starts giving him warnings in his dreams.

The Evidence
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Shutter Island is a disappointment, considering the top pedigrees behind and in front of the camera. Obviously molded from the Hitchcock school of filmmaking, the film takes its cue from a novel by Dennis Lehane and then overloads it with twists and turns. Sounds like a good catch, but the film commits the most cardinal of all sins, telegraphing its ending way too early. Granted, I had no idea how Scorsese was going to flip the pancake, but I guessed right in how it was going to land. Despite exquisite production values and effective performances, they simply can’t rescue Shutter Island from being same old, same old. You’ve seen movies like this before, many of them done better.

While I haven’t read the Lehane novel, I understand considerable changes were made. Originally intended to be fronted by the director/star dream team of David Fincher & Brad Pitt, subtle echoes of Fincher’s previous films are present; one clue as to why the director may have passed on it. Regardless, the script is so chaotic and jumbled even Scorsese fails to achieve fluidity. The flashbacks are all over the place, and this aspect alone will make some viewers confused and others impatient. Then there’s the problem with length — or rather overlength — as Shutter Island runs almost 2.5 hours, neglecting tightness and precision, while embracing redundancy. It’s all the more aggravating when you consider editor Thelma Schoonmaker is one of the industry’s best, winning a total of three Oscars.

Predictability and pacing aside, there are other inherent problems. The first 30 minutes are wobbly and unconvincing, the bombastic score is over-the-top, and the procedural feels utterly routine, crucially lacking in credibility. In fact, the film opens up more like The Hardy Boys And The Secret Of Shutter Island than the hardcore, adult thriller Scorsese promises.

At the 90-minute mark, I was convinced screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis (Alexander) had resorted to an umpteenth version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, complete with Communist witch hunt subtext; the only differences being an Alcatraz-like setting and anti-smoking messages. Shutter Island ultimately turns on its ear by masterminding a shocking explanation for what will ultimately happen to the protagonist. It’s never boring, mind you, but flirts with preposterousness way too much.

Now, I know what you’re all thinking. The film is done by one of greatest directors of all time, so there has to be some craftsmanship on display right? True, I don’t blame Scorsese for all the film’s faults; he put forth his best effort to make the picture a solid genre entry, and his familiar crew certainly did a superb job in bringing Shutter Island to life. For one thing, Dante Ferretti’s designs of the island’s creepy digs are magnificent, generating a genuine sense of claustrophobic terror. Complimenting the sets is Robert Richardson’s atmospheric cinematography, which establishs an eerie, foreboding mood from the get-go. The ’50s-style costumes by Sally Powell are well-chosen, in terms of maintaining the period realism. And Scorsese still knows how to keep his audience riveted. This is maybe the first film I’ve seen where the strike of a match actually made me jump.

Another benefit is the strong cast, who deliver the goods with committed skill. As an actor, Leonardo DiCaprio has grown on me in the past decade, contributing another memorable performance under Scorsese’s wing. While using the same Boston accent from The Departed, he fleshes out Teddy extremely well, making us root for him despite the inevitable conclusion. Ruffalo is a fine presence alongside DiCaprio, as is the great Ben Kingsley as the doctor with more than a few secrets up his sleeve. Veteran Max von Sydow is terrific, as always, even with only a handful of scenes at his disposal. Finally, all three key actresses (Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, and Patricia Clarkson) bring much to the table in their respective roles.

The biggest impression is arguably made by Jackie Earle Haley, the one-time child star who’s made a huge comeback in recent years. Prior to 2006, all he was really known for was playing the bad boy in the original The Bad News Bears. Coming out of nowhere as a pedophile on parole in Todd Field’s Little Children, Haley caught the attention of Hollywood, receiving a surprise Oscar nomination in the process. He followed that up with virtually unanimous praise as the masked marauder Rorshach in Watchmen, the long overdue adaptation of the popular graphic novel. Haley is onscreen for only one sequence in Shutter Island but, once again projects enough power to turn your blood cold. In fact, he’s so good, I’m now looking forward to his stint as Freddy Krueger in the upcoming A Nightmare On Elm Street remake.

Closing Statement
Considering the anticipation surrounding Shutter Island, I would recommend waiting for the DVD release several months down the road. The film is entertaining, and its director and cast contribute much to overcome the film’s many shortcomings, but it’s simply not enough when you take into account the director and his resume. In the end, an air of déjà vu and sloppy storytelling keep it from being a knockout.

The Verdict
6/10

The Wolfman

OPENING: 02/12/2010

STUDIO: Universal

RUN TIME: 102 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Fear what is within

Opening Statement
The Wolfman is an enjoyable romp devoted to the spirit of old school monster movies. Having endured a very public and problematic production, the film hits theatres on a tide of mild pessimism. After all, this is a movie we were supposed to be getting in 2008, not 2010. That said, the picture works out to be a fun flick; hardly a buffet of subtle acting or narrative complexity but with tonnes of gore, some solid action, and suspense. Director Joe Johnston has guided the project into safe and pleasing waters; it won’t turn up on anybody’s end of year top 10, but as an unseasonably early blockbuster it’s a pleasant treat.

Facts of the Case
After the death of his brother in mysterious circumstances Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro, The Usual Suspects) returns home for the first time in years. His estranged father (Anthony Hopkins, Fracture) welcomes him as does his brother’s grieving fiancée Gwen (Emily Blunt, The Devil Wears Prada), but the spooked locals offer slightly less hospitality. In a bid to find out who or what is responsible for his brothers murder, Lawrence runs afoul of a mysterious wolf-like beast; wounded but spared due to fortunate circumstances. However, it quickly transpires that the bites inflicted have caused Lawrence to be imbued with the same curse as his assailant; turning him into a predatory and insatiable hound of hell during a full moon. As if battling with his newfound demons wasn’t enough, a detective (Hugo Weaving, The Matrix) arrives on the scene and he has Lawrence pegged as a prime suspect for the ungodly amount of blood spilt in the preceding months.

The Evidence
Part of what makes The Wolfman so digestible is its hardcore R rating. The film is doused in gore and unsettling menace; maybe not as visually aggressive as your average Saw sequel but still happy to slap on the coat of blood and guts in an admirably thick fashion. Horror aficionados are sure to respect this artistic touch, and in a sense it allows The Wolfman to be taken more seriously as a proper horror gambit. The picture musters several enjoyably tense moments, but has a tendency to resort to jump scares a little too frequently. A few of these boo moments did admittedly catch me out, but, especially in the first half, Johnston places an excessive amount of emphasis on this method of fear mongering. Teenagers may love these but more hardened and well adjusted horror nuts will undoubtedly tire of them quickly. The aesthetic lends itself wonderfully to the haunting story; Johnston deploying the foggy Moors and washed out scenery to create a truly memorable atmosphere. This well crafted setting gives the effective frights an extra level of credibility, certainly the quieter moments set on the desolate Moors are amongst the most sublime in the film’s arsenal.

The performances range from adequate to very good. Del Toro is usually a terrific screen presence, but in The Wolfman I found him to be one of the less inspiring actors; he fills his characters shoes competently but maybe with less flair than audiences might be hoping. As a love interest, Emily Blunt deserves better; she looks beautiful but an actress of her calibre should surely be in pursuit of meatier and more meaningful roles. There is an undercurrent of emotional resonance in Blunt’s character, but not enough to make her properly engaging. On the other hand, Hopkins is terrifically creepy and overblown as Lawrence’s father; whilst the snooping Hugo Weaving nails the rip roaring and adventurous tone the film demands.

The action is fabulously entertaining and technically robust; and whilst the story could hardly be described as ambitious, it is simplistically satisfying. The plot takes a rewarding detour into asylum territory about halfway in, which culminates in a fabulous London set scene of terror; a sequence also inclusive of some great prosthetics and CGI. The transformations look decent but it’s fair to say the physical make-up effects are better than digitals on these occasions. Johnston also does a good job of keeping things going at a rollicking pace and does manage to fire an ample character arc for Del Toro to work with. The use of flashbacks is never something to outright congratulate, but Johnston actually makes the hackneyed filmmaking method seem acceptable and certainly uses them to benefit the production overall.

Closing Statement
The Wolfman is ultimately a commendable burst of schlocky monster movie goodness. It’s hardly a venture to lavish vast amounts of praise on, but certainly a film deserving of a decent box office run. The filmmakers haven’t taken the project too seriously, but they demonstrate the right amount of love and understanding to have it operate as a well made love letter to the creature features of old. The story leaves the possibility of a sequel open and whilst I wouldn’t be super enthused about the idea, it’s only fair to recognise that much inferior Hollywood productions have been granted further instalments. On its own terms and within its own limited ambitions, The Wolfman really is a decent motion picture.

7/10

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

OPENING: 02/12/2010

STUDIO: Fox

RUN TIME: 119 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Some heroes are made and some are born of the Gods.

Opening Statement
The film version of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, based on the popular children’s fantasy series, more or less accomplishes what it set out to. It’s your usual PG rated fantasy flick. Nothing horrible enough to call it unwatchable, but at the same time there’s also nothing in it to call it timeless

Facts of the Case
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman, Gamer) doesn’t exactly have it all that great in life. Aside from having a loving mother (Catherine Keener, Where The Wild Things Are), he doesn’t have a lot of friends in school, he suffers from dyslexia, he’s never met his real father, and his obnoxious stepfather (Joe Pantoliano, Risky Business) is as detestable and unloving as they come. Oh, and on top of all that, he just found he’s actually a demigod being accused of stealing Zeus’ master lightning bolt, the greatest weapon in the entire universe. Now, with the Greek Olympians on the brink of a war that could bear major consequences to the planet Earth, Percy needs to somehow prove his innocence to the Gods; all the while trying to rescue his captured mother, who is being held hostage by the wicked god Hades.

The Evidence
With the Percy Jackson book series being predominantly aimed towards people of younger ages, this is also the age bracket who will find Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief most enjoyable. Lerman and Brandon Jackson (who plays Grover Underwood, a satyr who is both Percy’s protector and best friend) both deliver your typical "PG-rated comedy" performance, delivering one liners intended more for children to snicker at, rather than grownups. The only true adult like scene in the movie takes place at a place called the "Lotus Casino" where Percy and his friends get down to Lady Gaga and hang out with older women while under the control of evil influences. Even the battle scenes in this movie don’t bring out enough violence to please an older crowd. It’s very apparent the whole way through that this film was based on books aimed at kids, and the target audience for the movie remained exactly the same.

That’s in no way saying that older folk cannot "grow down" for a couple of hours and enjoy this film. Director Chris Columbus made sure that Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief had some very cool special effects working for it, especially scenes that included mythical monsters and CGI water (through the use of Percy’s special demigod powers). The film may not be as visually impressive as Columbus’ Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, but that’s to be expected (the Harry Potter brand is a league all to itself). Other notable effects include the Greek God home Mount Olympus, as well as Hades’ Underworld. The older audiences will also get a kick out of seeing veteran Pierce Brosnan (Mamma Mia!) gallop around as a shaggy-haired centaur, as well as Uma Thurman (The Producers) play Medusa, complete with CGI snakes protruding from her scalp.

However, if you are like me, and have read the Percy Jackson series from start to finish, well, prepare to be let down. BIG TIME! The movie adaptation of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief despite having relatively the same plot, omits major characters and events, adds occurrences that don’t take place in the book, and makes characters look outstandingly different then the way they appear in the literature. For the diehard Percy Jackson booklovers out there, the minor, and especially the major, tweaks Columbus puts forth in his film are absolutely gut-wrenching and aggravating to no end. Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief can certainly please families looking to see a friendly movie on the weekend. For fans expecting to see the New York Times bestseller portrayed on the silver screen, this adaptation doesn’t even come close to resembling the real thing.

Will Percy Jackson be the franchise that will earn the distinguished title of "The Next Harry Potter"? The answer to that question is no. Absolutely not. I believe the imagination of Potter creator J.K. Rowling is one of a kind, and I personally doubt the world will ever see a series/movie franchise as magical and memorable as the one she has happily provided us with. Despite it’s unique blend of Greek mythology, fantasy elements, and present day lingo, Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief just doesn’t have the magnificence that the Potter brand has thankfully shown the world. It’s average, maybe slightly above average, at best. Believe me, there are way better fantasy films out there that are more worthy of a viewing than the likes of Percy Jackson.

Closing Statement
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief is a nice film that everyone in the family can enjoy, but when sizing it up with other 21st century fantasies, it’s just not memorable enough. This movie is like Hermes while the Potter’s and the Narnia’s of the world are your Zeus and Ares. Translation: Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief can dream as much as it wants, but when all is said and done, this fight is hardly fair.

The Verdict
6/10

Frozen

OPENING: 02/05/2010

STUDIO: Anchor Bay

RUN TIME: 94 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, IMDb

The Charge
No one knows you’re up there

Opening Statement
Frozen is a mediocre thriller which probably worked great as an idea, but only halfway met the mark onscreen.

Facts of the Case
College students Parker, Joe and Dan want to get in one last run on the slopes before heading in for the night. They bribe the chairlift attendant into letting them make another run and he reluctantly agrees. That attendant is summoned indoors by his supervisor and his replacement turns off the power, thinking everyone is off the mountain. The students are left stranded on the chairlift with the temperature dropping and a storm rolling in. At a height of more than fifty feet off the ground and with frostbite setting in, the skiers resort to extreme measures in order to survive.

The Evidence
Strategically released in the dead of winter, Frozen is the newest from director and writer Adam Green, another film where humans fight the element. Man versus nature films can be the scariest because they force us to realize how fragile we are. Green opens with close ups of mechanical parts surrounding a chairlift, clueing us in that this impersonal contraption might soon be a menace. This suspicion is correct, because before long our three individuals are stranded and hoping they will be rescued, as they know that an unrelenting Mother Nature will surely deal a deadly blow.

Shawn Ashmore and Kevin Zegers play Joe and Dan, a couple of long time friends who were once very close, until Parker (Emma Bell) became Dan’s significant other one year ago. Joe is now the jealous friend and doesn’t much care for Parker’s intrusion. This is evident as much time in the film is spent on the chairlift and consequently, it is dialogue heavy. (What else can you do when stuck on a chairlift but talk?) Bell stands out with the most emotional performance of the three. Zegers and Ashmore (best known his portrayal of Iceman from the X-Men franchise, oddly enough) are a little less convincing, although that can be attributed to the script sounding like “filler” while they are stuck on the lift. The audience can’t help but have sympathy for Parker, as she is genuinely scared and shows the most vulnerability. This is most evident when she needs to use the bathroom, but can’t do so as easily as the boys can.

Horror and thriller can be tough genres of film to make because the less believable the story is, the harder it is to emotionally bring the viewer in. I will admit that there were times where I did feel for the characters (like Emma’s need to relieve herself) and even flinched at some painful moments on the screen. At one point early in the film, one of the men decides to jump and we know that it won’t end well. I won’t go into details, but it was cringe inducing. Another major plot point produces some gory effects, but I won’t spill the beans on that either.

Frozen was moderately entertaining, but the flaws kept it from rising above the tree line. My biggest grievance was the lack of emotion in the cinematography. Never did I feel like I was in the situation with the characters. I always felt like a spectator which removed any surrounding fear. Some have compared Frozen to Jaws or Open Water. While I wasn’t a fan of Open Water, both of those films did a better job of putting the viewer right into the thick of the situation. The camera often bobbed up and down, giving us the same sensation of being on water that the characters were experiencing. With Frozen, almost every shot that I can remember was steady and well framed. A simple swaying of the camera side to side would have given us the sense of movement that the characters surely were experiencing. I have spent enough time skiing to know that inoperative chairlifts are rarely ever still, but yet we have no reflection of that in the camera work.

The height of the chair from the ground could have also been better worked to establish fear in the viewer. We can see from a few long shots that they are probably fifty feet up, but we don’t get a grasp of what it would feel like, as there was no sense of fear or vertigo instilled in the viewer. We could see that Emma was scared of the height, but that was the extent of the connection I had with the looming danger. This could have been created with some point of view shots, or possibly movement on the part of the camera. Instead, we hear dialogue about past relationships and see a beautiful mountain landscape in the background on a steady crane.

Other problems keep Frozen from being a great, or even really good film, most of them having to do with issues of logic. One gripe happens early in the film and involves the chairlift. I would assume that after the last group is let onto a chairlift, lift operators would continue to run before turning off the power to ensure that no one is on the lift. I also know that operators man the top of the lift as well, and it would seem that some sort of communication would happen at the end of a day. Secondly, I have trouble believing that a ski resort would shut off the lights to the mountain without the ski patrol combing the slopes at least once for stragglers. With the haphazard practices being implemented at this particular resort, having people stranded would happen more often than not.

Many of you are reading this and saying, “Judge Daniel, you are just being nitpicky.” Well, you are right. This is a thriller and I’m spelling out the reasons why I wasn’t scared. I wasn’t bored either, but at the same time, it didn’t have its intended effect because there were too many things I had a tough time believing.

Closing Statement
Although Frozen had a tight running time, a good performance by Emma Bell and a few moments that made me say “eewwww”, problems in logic failed to create a believable picture. Mostly, Frozen suffered the most from the lack of creative cinematography to help convey more emotion.

The Verdict
5/10

From Paris with Love

OPENING: 02/05/2010

STUDIO: Lionsgate

RUN TIME: 92 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Two agents. One city. No merci.

Opening Statement
Following up the surprise box office success of the Liam Neeson vehicle Taken, director Pierre Morel and producer Luc Besson return with the John Travolta actioner From Paris with Love. Alas, it ranks as one of the lesser achievements of almost everyone involved.

Facts of the Case
James Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Match Point) is an intelligent and talented employee of the US Ambassador to France. However, he would love nothing more than to receive a promotion to Special Ops. One day, he finally gets his chance. If he can spend a day with top-dog CIA Agent Charlie Wax (John Travolta, Get Shorty) and earn Wax’s approval, he’ll move up in the ranks. That task proves to be a lot more challenging than Reece initially expected, as he’s forced into one violent and deadly situation after another by the psychotic-yet-masterful Wax. Will he survive the day?

The Evidence
From Paris with Love is cinematic junk food. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I enjoy a bit of cheese every now and then. However, this experience offers so little in the way of entertainment all that’s left to contemplate is the film’s sheer lack of brains. Borrowing the rampant xenophobia of Taken and melding it with the plot of Training Day (minus the realization that the corrupt, crazy, violent guy needs to be taken down), it somehow manages to avoid the positive qualities of both films.

I can only wonder what inspires Pierre Morel to make films in which vengeful Americans plow down nameless victims of every other race and ethnicity without being subjected to any form of guilt or criticism. I was able to tolerate this in Taken, as Liam Neeson’s intensely focused performance overwhelmed any concerns of political correctness (read: if you kidnap Liam Neeson’s daughter, you gonna die). In From Paris with Love, the killings don’t seem motivated by righteous rage so much as a general love of making foreigner’s heads explode. There’s definitely an icky aftertaste, as this "all foreigners are evil… no, seriously, EVERY SINGLE ONE," mentality is pushed so far the film nearly enters the realm of comedy. Nearly.

Morel’s film might have actually reached that minor goal, if it had taken a cue from Travolta’s performance. The actor treats this material precisely as it should be treated: as a ridiculous piece of rubbish that provides a perfectly good opportunity to overact without consequence. Travolta turns his ham-o-meter up to 11 and lets loose, doing an even wilder version of the hyper-acting he did in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. It’s not exactly his best work, but it’s certainly entertaining to watch (particularly when Travolta cheerfully nods at Pulp Fiction with his hearty declaration of love for the Royale with Cheese).

The rest of the film: not so entertaining. Every other element of From Paris with Love takes itself so seriously. This becomes truly agonizing at times; never moreso than a sequence near the end which attempts to create an emotional moment, but instead displays the silliest scene I’ve witnessed since that bit in Echelon Conspiracy where Shane West shuts down an evil computer by passionately reading portions of the U.S. Constitution. The action here is typical and tiresome, save for a mildly inventive moment when Rhys Meyers attempts to avoid a never-ending series of falling bodies as he follows Wax up a spiral staircase.

Closing Statement
While From Paris with Love never quite manages to become "I-want-to-gouge-my-eyes-out" unwatchable, it’s recycled at best and repugnant at worst. If you’re just curious to see Travolta at his absolutely goofiest, consider waiting until the movie turns up on cable rather than wasting your hard-earned money on a theater ticket.

The Verdict
4/10

The Book Of Eli

OPENING: 01/15/2010

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 118 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Some will kill to have it. He will kill to protect it.

Opening Statement
The Book of Eli delivers an excellent entry into the post-apocalyptic genre, with amazing action and great performances.

Facts of the Case
In a post-apocalyptic America, Eli (Denzel Washington, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is following a divine calling to deliver a sacred book to an unknown destination. During his 30 year journey, he has protected the book against thieves, murderers, and gangs, knowing it has the power to save civilization from itself.

The Evidence
In the span of a year, at least three apocalyptic films have been released to theaters. 2012 gave us the mindless summer blockbuster we sometimes need for a laugh. The Road presented a bleak, post-apocalyptic America, leaving us depressed. But The Book Of Eli offers us hope in a world of emptiness.

Set 30 years after a war termed the "Big Flash," America is a wasteland of rubble, much the crumbling America we see in The Road. That film was presented in mostly grays and blues, while The Book Of Eli was processed using a palette of sepia tones. This could be related to the season presented in each film, but probably more so with the feeling their directors were trying to convey. The father and son in The Road were trying to reach a place the father knew might not bring a better future. Eli, on the other hand, is following a path bigger than himself, providing an internal peace throughout the journey, and a tone for the picture. Although the world is rampant with crime, Eli is dead set on getting the book where it needs to be, by following direction from a higher power.

Depending on the film, I find Denzel Washington’s acting to be hit or miss. He severely overacted in Training Day, but gave a great performance in American Gangster. Quiet and subdued, Washington does an excellent job with Eli, playing the part of a peaceful, yet dangerous man with perfect reservation, only showing intense emotion when the scene calls for it.

One of the better actors of his generation, Gary Oldman plays the antagonist, Carnegie, in his usual superb fashion. He nails the role of ruthless man with sympathy for no one who will stop at nothing to find the book. Knowing it contains much power, Carnegie’s goal is to use the book as a tool for getting the masses to follow him. Oldman gives us a man who is not as confident as his followers might think, but is powerful because he’s smarter than those who follow him. When Carnegie meets our hero (a man who cannot be persuaded), he is weakened by realizing that only through force can he obtain what he needs from Eli.

Based on a graphic novel, The Book of Eli was directed by the Hughes Brothers (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents). I was glad to see they chose to present fight sequences in real time and not with a constant barrage of slow motion shots. Fights are quick, intense and to the point. Slow motion shots can be very effective, but when the majority of a scene is built using those shots, the effect wears off quickly. Limbs are removed so quickly by Eli’s two foot knife it will take a second viewing to catch all the lightning fast strikes (including several decapitations).

The Hughes Brothers present a character in Eli whose life has a mission. It doesn’t take long until we figure out what the book is, and see Eli as something more than human. There is a clear peace to him and others see it as well. Any time Eli comes into contact with a male, they immediately sense something different about him and are angered that he obtains something they do not. Females, on the other hand, feel safe with him, as if for the first time in their lives. One scene depicts the rescue of Solara (Mila Kunis, Family Guy) from a gang whose only intent was rape. Afterwards, walking alongside Eli, she breaks down in tears because she feels unworthy being in the presence of such goodness. This was one of the most powerful scenes in the film, and no, I didn’t tear up. I just had something in my eye. The relationship between Solara and Eli is a stark contrast to the relationship depicted in The Road. Solara, cared for by Eli, is now living in freedom, whereas the boy lives in total fear, even while under the protection of his father.

The Book Of Eli’s most questionable aspect is the ending, which I definitely did not see coming. Without giving anything away, it will make you think through everything you just saw. Honestly, I’m not sure the ending worked because it made me wonder how plausible most of the previous scenes were. In the same way, my biggest grievance with The Road was the ending, which seemed inconsistent with the rest of the picture. In that film, director John Hillcoat presents a completely hopeless and fearful world, only to have kind people appear out of nowhere in the end. However, I sensed throughout The Book of Eli that we would receive some important revelation and my mind was trying to piece together what that might be. Unfortunately, the reveal wasn’t as grand or profound as I had imagined. Still, the twist did have a wow factor, and I guess that counts for something.

Closing Statement
The Book Of Eli may bother you if need the film to be totally believable, but like The Road, the performances and storyline are more than strong enough to warrant a positive ruling, even if the conclusion is clumsy or a little hard to swallow. In the end (pun intended), both are welcome additions to the post-apocalyptic genre.

The Verdict
8/10

The Girl on the Train

OPENING: Limited Release

STUDIO: Strand Releasing

RUN TIME: 105 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A shocking story with one catch. It wasn’t true.

Opening Statement
The Girl on the Train is a dramatic French film that will keep patrons entertained for a little while. However, the manner in which writer/director André Téchiné (Wild Reeds) ties up his loose ends is so irresponsibly poor, most viewers will leave the theater with a feeling of disappointment.

Facts of the Case
Jeanne Fabre (Émilie Duquenne, Brotherhood of the Wolf) is a radiant, rollerblading redhead who has no job, but at the same doesn’t have a care in the world. She spends the majority of her days skating the streets of Paris, all the while telling her mother Louise (Catherine Deneuve, Persepolis) about imaginary job interviews she doesn’t go on. One day skating, she meets a wrestler named Franck (Nicolas Duvauchelle, Eager Bodies) who has dishonesty problems of his own to deal with. The two move in together, but Franck’s deceitfulness eventually comes to a boil, and is too much for Jeanne to shoulder. She takes out her frustration by concocting a phony tale about being the victim of an Anti-Semitic attack while riding on the metro, which captures the entire country’s attention. When Jeanne’s mother brings her former lover and lawyer Samuel Bleistein (Michel Blanc, The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish) into the picture to try and get to the bottom of exactly what happened, things spiral out of control, and Jeanne struggles to find a way to make everything in her world cheerful and untroubled again.

The Evidence
Though The Girl on the Train will ultimately let a lot of people down once the credits hit the screen, fear not. There are some pretty good reasons to see this movie. For starters, Émilie Duquenne delivers a great performance as Jeanne, from her sunny, jovial personality in the beginning of the film, to her more closed, introverted character after she lies about her attack (not to mention how stupendous she looks the entire time!) Another noteworthy performance belongs to Catherine Deneuve, who plays a widow with a freeloading daughter exceptionally well, capturing all the emotions and feelings of a woman whose life hasn’t gone according to plan.

Another reason to head out and see this movie is your chance to see the beautiful city of Paris. Though the majority of the film is shot during the daytime, the City of Light is a spectacle to behold and really makes you compare and contrast what we have here in the United States. Aside from a couple of English-sung tracks that Jeanne listens to on her headphones, The Girl on the Train is entirely in French, though the subtitles won’t throw you off at all. The only time things get a little puzzling is during a Webcam/Instant Message chat between Jeanne and Franck (why are they IM-ing one another while using Webcam’s at the same time anyway?!) It’s difficult to determine which individual is saying what, but certainly not enough to not understand the plot.

One deliberate aspect audiences will not be bowled over by is the focus of the film, which is totally lacking and completely frustrating. André Téchiné spends the first half building up the relationship between Jeanne and Franck, making us wonder, "OK, where is this going to go?" only to end it rather quickly and start up an entirely new storyline zeroing in on Jeanne causing a countrywide maelstrom over her fictitious attack. Like before, Téchiné builds this storyline up to the final minutes of the movie, failing to resolve it well at all. The final result is completely unexciting, unmoving, and guaranteed to leave a lot of viewers scratching their heads.

This complete lack of a focus makes The Girl on the Train feel like it could be two different stories told about two completely different people. One girl has a relationship with a guy that doesn’t wind up working out, and another feels so love-starved she cuts her face open and tells the country she was attacked because of her suspected Jewish-heritage. I’m all for multiple storylines in movies, but seriously, these two come together in such a shallow way, it makes you wonder why anyone would even bother. When all is said and done, the loose ends are too much to stomach, and all the film’s potential is cancelled out by its gigantic letdowns.

Closing Statement
The Girl on the Train isn’t the worst film you can blow your money on, but if you’re looking for a more satisfying purchase, you’re better off hanging onto your cash and splurging it elsewhere.

The Verdict
6/10

Edge of Darkness

OPENING: 01/29/2009

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 117 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Few escape justice. None escape vengeance.

Opening Statement
Mel Gibson hasn’t starred in a feature film since 2002, appearing in the war tale We Were Soldiers and M. Night Shyamalan’s alien invasion flick Signs. Since then, he’s been involved in one controversy after another, from the stir surrounding his ultra-violent The Passion of the Christ to the now infamous 2006 drunken, racist tirade. His return to acting world is accompanied by much personal baggage, which moviegoers may or may not be ready to dismiss. That being said, Mel’s new film Edge of Darkness deserves to be judged on its own merits, and in that sense it’s a respectable thriller boasting a solid lead performance.

Facts of the Case
Gibson plays Detective Thomas Craven, a member of the Boston Police Department, whose daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic, Drag Me to Hell) comes home for a visit. Sadly, that visit is cut tragically short when Emma is gunned down in front of her father’s eyes during a drive-by shooting. The grief-stricken detective quickly determines to find out who is responsible, and begins an investigation which leads him into a dark and dangerous world of unethical politics and corporate conspiracy. Craven doesn’t know who killed his daughter, but he’s going to find out and they’re going to pay.


The Evidence
The plot may sound simple, and it is, but the film takes a somewhat different approach than you might expect. The trailers have attempted to portray Edge of Darkness as this year’s Taken — a surprise 2009 mega-hit — but it’s a much different sort of beast. Yes, this is a revenge thriller about a father attempting to hurt those who messed with his daughter, but the film is hardly a non-stop action fest. Instead, it’s a moody, slow-burning drama that gives its characters room to breathe and explore their feelings between the expected moments of punching and shooting.

The film is helmed by Martin Campbell, a director with an inconsistent career, capable of making terrific action flicks when he’s on his game. Edge of Darkness benefits from his knack for exciting sequences (there are several brief but tremendously effective moments of violence), but this is largely quieter territory. The film’s best moments are thoughtful scenes in which characters sit down and carefully explore the current scenario. Most have a tendency to speak in guarded code, hinting at much without ever really saying anything explicitly. Even Craven’s angry threats tend to be shrouded in metaphor; in one of the more iconic moments, a terse Gibson informs one character that, “You need to decide whether you’re hanging on the cross or banging in the nails.”

I’m particularly fond of the exchanges shared between Craven and Jedburgh (Ray Winstone, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The latter plays one of those mysterious people with a knack for sneaking up behind you at the most unexpected moments. The details of what Jedburgh does and who he works for are somewhat non-specific, but we’re fairly certain that he and his employers are both dangerous. Jedburgh is not just a hired gun, but also a philosophical man and someone who appreciates the gravity of playing with the fate of other human beings. He may or may not be interested in killing Craven, but if he does he is not going to take that task lightly. There are two scenes in particular which add depth to the character: one in which we discover something about him that we didn’t know before, and another in which that discovery informs the most important decision he makes in the film.

Winstone’s superbly nuanced performance is perhaps the highlight of the film, acting-wise, but Gibson’s impressively weary turn isn’t far behind. Looking a little older and a lot more tired, Gibson’s acting is as good as it ever was, maybe better. His Boston accent sounded awkward in the trailers, but here it becomes fairly convincing. Grief and anger are two notes Gibson plays well, and this role offers him a potent mixture of both. Meanwhile, Danny Huston (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) continues to demonstrate his knack for playing sleazy villains, creating a character just begging to receive some nasty comeuppance.

I want to make note of Howard Shore’s score, which does a nice job of setting the grim, sad tone of the film and maintaining it throughout. This is subtly compelling stuff, with one terrific cue towards the end which underscores the violent climax as if it were a Shakespearean drama. It’s a bold choice that stands out sharply and might provoke laughter from some, but nearly inspired applause from yours truly.

Edge of Darkness is far from flawless. The plot is fairly conventional, and… well, frankly predictable. There are a handful of awkward moments which just don’t work as well as they ought to, and a scene where Mel discovers a piece of evidence that seems awfully contrived. I also have slightly mixed feelings about the somewhat touching but often hokey scenes in which Craven engages in hallucinatory conversations with his dead daughter.

Closing Statement
Problems aside, Edge of Darkness is an absorbing film with a refreshing amount of substance to go along with its more ordinary cinematic virtues. As for Mr. Gibson, as long as his work remains on this level, I’ll be happy to see him up on the big screen again.

The Verdict
7/10