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

True Grit

OPENING: 12/22/2010

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 110 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Punishment comes one way or another.

Opening Statement
Henry Hathaway’s 1969 adaptation of Charles Portis’ True Grit was an exceptional western, offering actor John Wayne one of his most iconic roles (for which Wayne would win his one and only Academy Award). Despite that film’s many virtues, Joel and Ethan Coen have now turned in the rare remake that proves superior to its predecessor in almost every way.

Facts of the Case
14-year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is seeking revenge for the death of her father. The man responsible is the villainous Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin, No Country for Old Men), and Mattie is determined to have him captured, sentenced and hanged (or simply shot on sight, if things work out that way). With some difficulty, she manages to hire U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges, Iron Man) for the job. Cogburn is a crass, aging, overweight drunk, but Mattie is impressed with his fearsome reputation and ability to get the job done. With the aid of a Texas Ranger named LaBouef (Matt Damon, The Bourne Identity), Rooster and Mattie hit the trail and attempt to bring Chaney to justice.

The Evidence
The Coens opened their bleak comedy A Serious Man with an intriguing quote: “Receive with simplicity all that happens to you.” It’s a perfectly appropriate yet enigmatic line that lingers over the film like an uncertain storm cloud. There’s a similarly well-chosen line which opens their adaptation of True Grit (this time taken from the book of Proverbs): “The wicked flee when none pursueth.” The second half of that verse reads, “but the righteous are as bold as a lion.” However, that section has been removed from the film. There’s precious little room for righteousness in the version of the west they have to offer.

In some ways, the film is a continuation of the cynicism the Coens have indulged in their recent cinematic efforts, as they offer the American west as a place in which villains are abundant and so-called heroes are only interested in financially profitable brands of justice. Mattie Ross believes herself to be righteous and certainly is bold as a lion, but even she is tainted by an unwavering desire for revenge. If you’ve seen the original film, you will recall a particularly striking scene involving some rattlesnakes. It always played as nothing more than an extra bit of harrowing adventure in that movie, but the Coens draw out the scene’s symbolic resonance: this journey has been toxic for our young protagonist’s soul.

Fascinating stuff, but True Grit is by no means a bleak journey of spiritual torment, nor is it entirely a cynical one. In fact, this is quite possibly the most blatantly entertaining movie the Coens have crafted since their previous collaboration with Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski). Their gift for deadpan comedy is on full display for much of the film, beginning with an early scene in which a hanging concludes with a grimly funny punch line. It’s one of those sublime scenes that manages to work so well on one level that it takes you a moment to realize how well it works on another. A scene midway through the film in which Mattie and Rooster encounter a bizarre dentist (Ed Corbin, Blue Sky) in the woods features is such a sublimely odd piece of unexpected comedy that I laughed until I had tears in my eyes.

A good deal of the laughs come from the splendidly florid dialogue of Charles Portis (too little of which was taken advantage of in the original film). The highly stylized nature of the language may be a source of irritation for some viewers, but I suspect most will find it a pleasure to absorb. The Coens have adapted and fine-tuned lines from his book to maximum effect–it’s absolutely fascinating to simply listen to these people carry on a conversation.

Great as the John Wayne performance was in the original film, he was still playing a variation on “John Wayne.” Bridges quickly disappears inside the role of Rooster Cogburn, offering a gruffer, less flattering portrayal of the character that works better for the film’s purposes. You get the sense that this Rooster is just about shiftless enough to actually abandon Mattie. It’s hardly a conventional heroic role: in addition to stumbling around drunkenly and showing off an ungainly pot belly, Rooster is also depicted as a tiresome windbag. During his travels with Mattie, he rambles endlessly about whatever happens to be on his mind at the time, despite the fact that much of what he is saying is of very little interest to anyone other than himself. This guy can’t even manage the minor virtue of being the strong, silent type. By humbling Rooster Cogburn even more dramatically than the original film, the Coens transform his moments of nobility into something almost mythical.

Hailee Steinfeld is much less instantly adorable than Kim Darby in the role of Mattie Ross, but her performance is more impressive. Steinfeld’s confident rat-a-tat delivery makes her the ideal straight man in a film that frequently adopts the rhythms of a screwball comedy. Speaking of which, Matt Damon makes a surprisingly magnificent clown in his portrayal of LaBouef (amusingly pronounced “La-Beef”), bringing a giggle-inducing pomposity to a role that was flat-out boring in the hands of singer Glen Campbell. Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper (Saving Private Ryan) mostly depict their villainous figures as near-cartoonish monsters, but the film grants them curious moments of humanity that further blur the lines between this tale’s heroes and villains.

Closing Statement
True Grit is a more straightforward, broadly accessible film than usual for the Coens, but nonetheless another triumph of filmmaking. They’ve taken a story that served as the inspiration for a very good film and turned it into a great one.

The Verdict
10/10

Hereafter

OPENING: 10/22/2010

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 129 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Hereafter is a quietly moving film.
Opening Statement
For director Clint Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan, Hereafter represents a surprising change of pace. Eastwood has traditionally steered clear of fantasy, while Morgan’s filmography is dominated by talky, witty political dramas like The Queen and Frost/Nixon. Though it feels a bit different from anything either man has done before (particularly Morgan), Hereafter is a quietly moving film.

Facts of the Case
The film tells the story of three different individuals living in different parts of the world. The first is Marie (Cecile De France, Around the World in 80 Days), an esteemed French reporter who is nearly killed on her vacation when a tidal wave strikes. The near-death experience affects Marie in a strange way, as she’s certain she witnessed a glimpse of the afterlife during the brief time in which she was unconscious.

The second person is George (Matt Damon, The Bourne Identity), a man who just so happens to have psychic powers. He used these powers to make a living, but he retired after the burden of dealing with the pain of others became too much for him to handle. These days, he works at a factory in San Francisco and takes cooking lessons at night. In his cooking class, he meets a girl named Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard, Lady in the Water) who seems to have eyes for him. George likes her, but wonders whether a normal relationship is even possible given his psychic abilities.

Finally, we meet Marcus, a 12-year-old British boy attempting to cope with the death of his twin brother Jason. After his mother is forced into rehab, Marcus is placed in a foster home and forced to start a new life. Determined to make contact with his brother from beyond the grave, Marcus runs away and visits a series of psychics, hoping one of them will be able to help him make contact (Frankie & George McLaren take turns playing each of the brothers).

The Evidence
I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I want to recommend Hereafter and tell you that it’s a rewarding experience, but I’ve just witnessed a good deal of evidence to the contrary. About 30 minutes into the film, the two elderly women sitting next to me got up and left. “This is one of the most boring movies I’ve ever seen,” one of them complained. Okay, so they didn’t like it. Every film has its detractors, I guess. Two more people fell asleep during the movie, snoring loudly at times. Finally, when the film ended, the majority of the audience let forth a general burst of displeasure. “Well, I wasted my seven dollars,” one man said. “You got that right,” another person laughed. “That was so stupid,” another pitched in. “ I can’t believe Clint Eastwood made that crap.” And yet there I sat, watching the end credits and reflecting on how much the film had moved me.

Hereafter is being promoted as some sort of supernatural thriller starring Matt Damon, when in fact it’s a subdued drama with an ensemble cast that includes Matt Damon. What matters is that it’s a good film; a drama that tackles the realm of the supernatural in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. The only thing it requires you to accept is that George is a real psychic with a real gift for helping people make connections with lost loved ones. Everything else will be informed by what you bring to the table beforehand.

Obviously, the world is full of many different religions and belief systems, with a wide variety of views on what (if anything) awaits us beyond the grave. Regardless of other religious specificities, the idea that there is still some form of life after we pass on is universal. It’s been said that if there were no afterlife, humanity would need to invent one. Likewise, if there is no afterlife, humanity has invented one. It dulls the ache of losing a loved one to think that they’re still out there somewhere, in a peaceful place free of pain. Hereafter is not out to declare that there is an afterlife that we can all look forward to (what visions of it we do see are purposefully non-descript), but rather to explore humanity’s fundamental need for its existence through the lives of three people.

All three of the film’s central characters have a particular interest in what happens after we die. George seems to witness the afterlife through other people, Marie seems to have been there and Marcus desperately wants to know if it even exists. All of their stories are affecting in different ways, as Eastwood and Morgan explore heartache from a series of compelling angles. George’s story in particular plays like a superhero tale too melancholy for comic books, as his psychic abilities (only activated when he touches someone else) have historically destroyed his attempts at personal relationships.

Closing Statement
The film offers three intersecting stories, but they collide in a manner that’s refreshingly natural and low-key (as opposed to the Rube Goldberg-esque mechanics of something like Crash or Babel). Morgan’s writing is full of buried feelings and unspoken sentiments, while Eastwood’s direction has rarely been so graceful (recall his work in The Bridges of Madison County and you’ll have an idea of the lovely tone he attains in this film). I suppose its subdued, poetic nature will disappoint those looking for something sensationalistic (I don’t know what the people at my screening thought they were getting, but they definitely didn’t get it), but I urge you to set aside any false expectations and simply accept the film for what it is. Hereafter is worth the effort.

The Verdict
9/10

The Informant!

OPENING: 09/18/2009

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 108 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Based on a tattle-tale.

Opening Statement
The talented Steven Soderbergh has spent roughly half his career creating ambitious art house films and the other half making slick, mainstream crime capers. The Informant! falls somewhere in-between, offering a movie that is by turns a giddy crime comedy and an attentive psychological character study. Its peculiar tone may be off-putting to some, but it’s a film that deserves some attention.

Facts of the Case
Mark Whitaker (Matt Damon, The Bourne Identity) is a high-ranking executive working for Lysine development company ADM. Whitaker has knowledge of the company’s involvement in a price-fixing scandal, and decides to do something about it. Before he even figures out exactly what he’s gotten into, Mark finds himself working as an undercover informant for the FBI. The only problem is, his involvement in the corporate scandal might just be a little bit thicker than he initially indicated. Can he possibly bring ADM down without bringing himself down with it? For that matter, can he even complete his undercover activities without completely blowing the FBI’s carefully-constructed case against the corporation?

The Evidence
The Informant! is one of the oddest films I’ve seen this year. Not surreal, David Lynch odd, but rather a sort of "how does one go about categorizing this thing?" odd. It’s an unusual movie that tells an unusual story about an unusual man. It could have easily gone in a much more comfortable and recognizable direction, dramatically transformed into an intense thriller akin to Michael Mann’s The Insider, the story of a whistle-blower attempting to take down a large corporation. Or Soderbergh could have turned on that Ocean’s 11 pizazz and created a comedic corporate thriller akin to this year’s entertaining Duplicity. While certain story elements have indeed been altered for dramatic purposes (as indicated in the film’s cheeky disclaimer), Soderbergh chooses to embrace the bewildering aspects and use them as the springboard for his entire film.

The Informant! is actually quite a repetitive experience. Soderbergh visually layers everything in an unattractive orange haze, cranks up a cheesy-as-they-come original score courtesy of film music veteran Marvin Hamlisch, and lets us watch as he peels back layer after layer after layer of Mark Whitaker. Oh, and then another layer. Wait, one more. Okay, maybe a couple more. Is that everything? Hold on. Whitaker is seemingly both a compulsive truth-teller and a compulsive liar, and attempting to wrap your brain around the precise motivations for his actions is a bit like trying to catch a greased pig.

This is surely some of the strongest work Matt Damon has done. Though he’s a very capable leading man, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Damon disappear into a part quite as successfully as he does in The Informant!. Never mind that he packs on the pounds and sports a goofy mustache and glasses. Damon’s real accomplishment is convincing us that we are dealing with a plainspoken, straightforward, bumbling fella. Just when we think we’ve sized him up, he’ll pull the rug out from underneath us. Then we re-analyze him and adjust our assessment just before we have the rug pulled out from underneath us yet again. Damon’s amusing stream-of-consciousness narration and seeming vulnerability keep pulling us back in and allowing us to take our guard down. It works as both a comedic performance and a credible characterization of a real human being.

Many films insert a character designed to serve as an audience surrogate. For instance, consider The Great Buck Howard, in which we watched the antics of John Malkovich through the eyes of Colin Hanks. The Informant! seems to use almost every character other than Whitaker, as a variety of businessmen, lawyers, and government agents respond with a combination of frustration, bewilderment, and amusement to Mark’s seemingly incomprehensible actions. Soderbergh litters his supporting cast with a litany of B-list comedians (Tom and Dick Smothers, Scott Adsit, Andrew Daly, Patton Oswalt, Paul F. Tompkins, and others), though seems to be using them more for their distinct faces and presences rather than their comedic virtues. The most memorable of these supporting players are Scott Bakula and Joel McHale as Whitaker’s FBI contacts. Their blend of astonishment and pity, as they watch their man work, seems just about right and their contrasting facial profiles play off each other nicely.

Closing Statement
When the dust has settled, one puzzling aspect remains: attempting to figure out just what Soderbergh was hoping to achieve with The Informant!. Is it a condemnation of corporate crime? It’s too gentle and forgiving to be terribly effective in that regard. Does the atypical musical score serve as an indication that Soderbergh intends the film to be a kitschy lark? It’s too grounded in reality for me to buy that. Is it a meditation on the effects of… well, to tell you be a spoiler… but is it? I doubt it. While the message may be a bit hazy, one thing is not: this is a film worth seeing. It’s a bit too much of a curiosity to make many end-of-the-year top ten lists, but whatever it is, it works. Give it a look.

The Verdict
8/10