The Adjustment Bureau

OPENING: 03/04/2011

STUDIO: Universal Pictures

RUN TIME: 105 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
They stole his future. Now he’s taking it back.

Opening Statement
Steven Spielberg should have directed The Adjustment Bureau. Everything from the nifty Philip K. Dick storyline, to the clever cat-and-mouse via Alfred Hitchcock-romantic-intrigue chase, begs for the legendary director’s involvement. But, alas, Spielberg didn’t direct The Adjustment Bureau –George Nolfi did. Which means, despite fine performances, and some imagination, the film fails to live up to its Inception-size potential.

Facts of the Case
Matt Damon stars as David Norris, an energetic politician with a bright future whose destiny, unbeknownst to him, lies within the hands of a powerful, supernatural agency known as The Adjustment Bureau. A chance encounter with a carefree woman named Elise (Emily Blunt) dislodges Norris from his current path, and forces the Bureau’s hand. With his destiny no longer in his control, can Norris learn the truth of his existence? And will that truth allow him to be with the woman he loves, or is he destined to follow the life the Bureau has set out for him?

The Evidence
I love films that deal with determinism vs. fate. It’s the prime reason “Macbeth” remains my favorite Shakespeare play, why religion in general fascinates me, and why I wasn’t as harsh towards Alex Proyas’ Knowing as other film critics. Do we make our own choices, or are our lives planned in advance? Does anybody truly have free will? Is it enough to say I can choose which tie I will wear, if the remainder of my day’s activities is predetermined?

That’s the basic idea behind George Nolfi’s The Adjustment Bureau, a film that deals with the concept of free agency, but takes it a step further and evaluates whether or not we, as a species, truly deserve it. “We gave you free agency,” one of the Bureau characters tells Norris, “and you brought about the dark ages.”

The rationale behind every religion–and the notion of God, a god, or gods–is that people find comfort knowing that someone somewhere has things under control. Events such as 9/11 are justified as part of God’s ultimate plan. Families devastated by the loss of loved ones talk of “God needing their loved ones up in Heaven” as though blatantly justifying death, however unnecessary it might initially seem.

I recall last year’s Rabbit Hole in which Nicole Kidman, playing a grieving mother whose son recently died in an accident, responded to such “religious” allegations by asking, “Why couldn’t God choose another angel?”

M. Night Shymalan likewise dealt with similar themes in the terrific thriller Signs. At one point Mel Gibson’s character engages in a deep conversation with his brother, played by Joaquin Phoenix. The topic on hand dealt with whether there was somebody looking out for us, or if we were all alone in the universe. That film settled on determinism at its conclusion, which some found silly. I found it fascinating.

Of course the logic doesn’t hold up either way. If a god truly manipulates the world behind the veil, what then is the point of living? Things will happen whether we want them to or not; there’s no point in resisting. Our paths are set. On the other hand, if no one controls our fate, or our destiny, then religion and all of its prophecies and vast predictions are kaput–the world exists as it does today because we made it that way. Doesn’t that reduce God’s power by a large degree? Doesn’t that scare people?

The Adjustment Bureau raises such questions, and proposes the need for a spiritual guide, a helping hand, so to speak. The Bureau manipulates the world in order to keep things moving at a tolerable rate. Sure bad things still happen, but the world continues to live on. In other words, humans cannot adequately control their own fate, they need someone to do it for them. And so, the Bureau gives us control over mundane tasks–clothes, money, etc.–but manipulates all else.

Into this foray fall Norris and Elise, two individuals who connect so perfectly it’s foolish to think they should ever be apart. Yet, the Bureau does all in its power to keep the couple from staying together because of the potential long-term effects. Undaunted, Norris pursues his love, and the element of chance is introduced.

Apparently, friendly-Bureau agent Anthony Mackie (channeling his inner Bagger Vance) tells us, the Bureau cannot control chance. Things happen for a reason; things that nobody, not even the “Chairman” (the agency’s equivalent to God) himself (or herself) can control.

So where does that leave Norris and Elise? Or, more specifically, where does that leave the rest of us?

These are deep, philosophical, thought-provoking questions. Unfortunately, first time director Nolfi (who co-wrote The Bourne Ultimatum and Ocean’s 12, among others) has neither the technical skills, nor the creative imagination to execute such concepts satisfactorily. Nolfi scraps the philosophical in favor of telling a silly, near-comic love story. The Adjustment Bureau feels more like Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise/Sunset films with a touch of The Matrix.

The problem lies with the Bureau themselves. Dressed in 1950s style get-ups–that include “powerful” fedoras–the agency members are given too much screen time, too much dialogue. They lack mystery and, to my knowledge, pose no threat to Norris. I understand one must forgo logic for a film of this nature to work, but where is the conundrum? The intensity? The eye popping revelations? Bureau invests so much time watching its leads banter back and forth that it forgets to resolve its own conflicts. And then the film just…ends. None of it makes sense.

Of course Damon and Blunt are terrific. Maybe Nolfi edited his film in favor of the love story because his actors carried so much weight. Damon gives a light hearted performance, one that never takes what he sees for granted. Blunt’s role gives her a chance to throw down zippy dialogue in a way only a Brit could, whilst showing off her incredible physical talents–Elise is a ballerina, and much time is spent watching her dance and perform, even though such scenes tend to bog the film down. Together the leads sizzle, bubbling with chemistry, personality and wit. Like Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp in last year’s dinky The Tourist, Damon and Blunt keep The Adjustment Bureau entertaining, and ultimately watchable–despite its obvious flaws. That’s true star power right there.

I mentioned Spielberg earlier. The famed director, who previously helmed Dick’s Minority Report to great heights, could have taken Bureau’s formula whichever way he chose. The Adjustment Bureau needed a director with vision, and depth; a director not afraid to travel through the dark waters of science fiction. Nolfi isn’t that director, but at least he gave us a cute romantic comedy.

Closing Statement
The Adjustment Bureau carries a nifty story to underwhelming heights. The performances from Damon and Blunt are great, but what should have been a slick, philosophical journey loses itself amidst an ordinary romance.

The Verdict
7/10

Knowing

OPENING: 03/20/2009

STUDIO: Summit Entertainment

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
Knowing is everything.

Opening Statement
Knowing is a film ambitious in scope and exploration, of big-screen destruction and mind-wrenching possibilities—all completely and utterly hampered by its stunted dialogue, lousy acting and pondering tone, dragging it down into the depths like a heavy weight tied to the leg of a swimmer. It is a testament to director Alex Proyas and his inherent ability to create flawed-yet-fascinating masterpieces of sci-fi horror that Knowing keeps its head afloat at all, given the oppressive odds. But it does.

Facts Of The Case
A time capsule goes into the ground fifty years ago at the groundbreaking of a brand new elementary school. In it goes a curious piece of paper, drawn feverishly by a troubled young girl named Lucinda Embry, full of numbers. No attention is paid until the capsule gets opened and the letter gets into the hands of a student at the same school, now five decades later. The boy, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) takes the letter home, and it catches the interest of his single parent father, John Koestler (Nicholas Cage), a MIT professor and astrophysicist.

At first John dismisses the page, but catches a pattern in the numbers corresponding to the date of every major human disaster on the planet over the last fifty years. If the page is accurate, it would mean tomorrow would predict the death of 81 individuals—and sure enough, a plane falls out of the sky and kills 81 people, right in John’s backyard. Not literally, of course, but down the street.

Struggling to rationalize his scientific belief and his faith, John tries to predict where the next event will occur, but has no how he can stop them from occurring. Even more alarming, his boy Caleb is being visited by ominous apocalyptic imagery and haunting black figures who whisper directly into his head. Together with the daughter of Lucinda, Diana (Rose Byrne) the parents desperately try to unlock the secret behind the numbers, and the very fate of humanity.

The Evidence
A furious mish-mash of science fiction tropes, mathematics, philosophy, religious ideology and spiritual ruminations, Knowing is ambitious; at least as far as end-of-the-world blockbuster films are concerned. Consider what our normal Hollywood expectations are for this kind of film: asteroid/plague/pestilence/monster threatens to destroy earth, heroic band of misfits step up to battle and save the day, some east coast city gets wiped off the map, Morgan Freeman gives an inspirational speech, American flag waves slow-motion in the wind, and Aerosmith plays a triumphant song as the credits roll. Knowing is like the dark horse of the genre, refusing to abide by any of these rules, carving a path directly through the wall and into unexplored territory. The results are messy, but admirably daring.

Driven by peculiar conundrum of crashing cinematic clichés and spectacular missteps, all bound together by complex notions about life, the universe, religion and faith, science and mathematics; Knowing is as interested in blowing up the planet as it is exploring the meaning of it all, of free will versus determination. This is a tricky thing, mixing science fiction and religion in this fashion, because one side inevitably gets the short stick. And if you’re “lucky” enough to have Nicholas Cage in your film, well, you’ve got another set of problems entirely. Its flaws are many, but not enough to diminish the glorious way Knowing refuses to compromise its peculiar messages about faith and fate. I’d much rather see a movie that stays true to its convictions and goes all-in, even if in doing so it dooms the film to mediocrity, than sit through something that tries to be profound and chickens out at the end. And “chickening out” is one phrase that will never, ever be used in relation to its ending. Kudos where kudos is due: this film goes for broke, and a lot of things get broke.

Bloated and gagging on defects that would derail any other film, Knowing saunters on undeterred, refusing to allow its acting, plot holes or dialogue to derail its ultimate goal of messing with your head. I admire this kind of stubborn tenacity. What begins as a humdrum mathematical thriller rapidly descends into a Japanese-style horror flick, and then further plummets into insanity as a full-blown science fiction extravaganza. The transition between these three elements is not always smooth, but once Knowing gets its hooks into you, you’re going for a ride. Director Alex Proyas brings a commanding style of ominous shadow and direction into some truly stunning works of composition and CGI destruction. One in particular involving an unbroken shot amidst the carnage of a plane crash, is riveting. Let there be no argument about the visual style: Knowing is stunning to look at. The score, a calamitous orchestral affair tumbles and swirls, one of the most visceral and effective scores in recent memory for heightening tension and anxiety in audiences.

Where things get tricky for audiences is how Knowing juggles at least three different genres of films simultaneously (horror, action-thriller and science-fiction) and often gets jumbled up, with scenes leaping schizophrenically between apocalyptic ramblings and introspective explorations of faith. The transition from one style of filmmaking to the other creeps up inexorably, similar to director Proyas’ previous cult classic, Dark City. Just when you think you have a handle on what’s going on, creepy looking dudes in black trench coats show up and toss the rule book out the window. It can be disorienting.

As mentioned, the acting is bad. No getting around it. I struggle with the credibility of Nicholas Cage as an actor, because I’m almost positive audiences shouldn’t be breaking into laughter during his emote scenes (which they did in my screening). He may be Hollywood royalty, but he just looks befuddled on screen. Or, gods help us, constipated. The dialogue and plot show all the signs of having far too many cooks in the kitchen (no fewer than five screenplay writers are credited) leaving a perplexing jumble of sequenced events, clumsily-executed monologues and erratic character behavior. For many, these will be deal-breaking elements. Knowing pays off, but only for those who can suspend disbelief long enough to see where the film is going. Unfortunately, many will not make it this far.

One cannot escape the realization that Knowing (or something very much like it) was the movie that M. Night Shyamalan desperately wanted to make the last time around, but chickened out and made The Happening instead—a film that you will no doubt agree with us about, sucked. Like The Happening, Knowing also feels confused at times about its message and how best to articulate it to eager audiences. Imagine yourself in the position of the protagonist: if you were handed a list of every major catastrophe and knew it was inevitable, how would you go about stopping it? Would you even try? Why? Wouldn’t that just be a gigantic waste of time? For John, the struggle is personal and professional—his scientific mind rejects the notion and insists that “sh*t happens”, as he says in the film, but his faith (or lack thereof) demand his attention, suggesting that his own personal tragedies in life may have been avoided with timely intervention, had he been privy to the right information. Knowing genuinely seeks to find intellectual footing here, in exploring the dichotomy between philosophy and faith. There are profound and complex themes at work about science and religion, about destiny and free will, and while not all of them hit their mark, it is a refreshing change from the standard, mindless disaster genre.

You may notice how light this review is on salient plot points. This, gentle reader, is deliberate on our part—the less you know about Knowing going into it, the more satisfactory (or aggravating) an experience it will be for you. This is absolutely critical to appreciate its masterful descent into mathematical madness and apocalyptic horror, because if you get the end spoiled for you, you’ll think the film sounds dumb. Audiences have exactly one shot to appreciating this film, and it is going in as sight unseen as possible.

With some suspension of disbelief, Knowing offers one of the best descents into pure science fiction thrills in recent memory. It takes a while for the engine to warm up, but once it revs in the second act, the descent is a spectacular collision of high-octane special effects, stunning compositions of mayhem and disaster and top-notch thriller chases. Like a swelling crescendo of an orchestra, everything keeps intensifying: the science fiction elements keep getting more and more profound, the horror elements keep getting more unsettling, and the action elements lead to white-knuckle gripping of your seat. How satisfying you find the climax will depend entirely on your tastes, but it is an impressive ride all the same.

Closing Statement
An inherently jumbled script, laughable dialogue and wooden acting cripple Knowing at the knees, preventing the sci-fi thriller from achieving critical glory. Still, none of its flaws—not even Nicholas Cage—can diminish the sheer ambitious scope, the fantastic visual style or the large-scale catastrophic special effects, which tear up the screen in thrilling fashion. If you can forgive some stony dialogue and performances, Knowing will reward those looking for something memorable and oblique.

The Verdict
Not guilty. It may not be perfect, but I like my films to go big or go home.

7/10