The Perfect Host

OPENING: 07/01/2011

STUDIO: Magnet Releasing

RUN TIME:93 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A bank robber lies about his identity, a gentleman invites him into his house for dinner. This will not end well.

Opening Statement
What you expect from a film really paints what you will feel about the film afterward. Whether you are partial to or despise the director or one of the actors, if you’ve heard good or bad reviews from friends, or if you’ve been sucked in or led astray by marketing will already start you with a bias before even one frame has flickered by. I try not to let anything sway me, and to that end, marketing is something that I’m trying to steer away from. Trailers lately have seemed especially poor at marketing. They tend to promise you one thing when the film is going to deliver something else. So you walk in expecting a cool glass of champagne but it’s not until you sit down and drink that you realize you were served a tangy cup of lemonade. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth, to finish the allegory. I start off with this explanation to lay all my cards on the table. I want you to know that my distaste for this film may have originally stemmed from expecting something different then what I received. Hopefully, in this way, I can tell you exactly what you’re in for and save you from the same fate.

Facts of the Case
Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce) is the consummate host. He carefully prepares for a dinner party, the table impeccably set and the duck perfectly timed for 8:30 p.m. John Taylor (Clayne Crawford) is a career criminal. He’s just robbed a bank and needs to get off the streets. He finds himself on Warwick’s doorstep posing as a friend of a friend, new to Los Angeles, who’s been mugged and lost his luggage. As the wine flows and the evening progresses, we become deeply intertwined in the lives of these two men and discover just how deceiving appearances can be. Cowriter/director Nick Tomnay takes us on a suspense-filled ride where nothing is as it seems. The Perfect Host is a slippery psychological thriller that exposes true human nature and reveals just how far we’re willing to go to satisfy our needs.

The Evidence
So read the synopsis I was sent. This is what I went off of and this is what threw me off because what I got was only a “slippery psychological thriller” for the first twenty minutes. After that it went from thriller to David Hyde Pierce chewing and spitting out scenery in pure blissful insanity. Which would have been fine, but it was not thrilling; it was spectacle, it was affected, it was camp. It was DHP dancing on a tabletop to Rose Royce’s “Car Wash.” Enjoyable, yes, but not thrilling. In order for proceedings to be thrilling I have to care about one or both of the people involved. If I don’t care, then people could be found out, maimed and killed, and I would be bored out of my mind because I have no one to root for. That said, neither these actors nor the inelegant script they were working with garnered any empathy. Mr. Crawford, looking like a young Ray Liotta, was too boorish and brute a character to care about and any sympathy Pierce garnered went away quickly after the first reveal happens. I’m assuming that most of you already know at least one of the so-called twists of the film just by reading the synopsis, but in case you don’t, the film gets it out of the way within the first act so you won’t have to wait too long.

What really upsets me is that they took what could have easily been an excellent thriller–on par with Hitchcock’s Rope–and decided to take the easy way out instead. They had quickly and easily set up a situation fraught with tension and then just frittered it all away. You will get a litany of more twists at the end of the film, I guess for good measure, but for me by then, it was too little, too late. It was also completely unnecessary. The film could have ended a few times before it did and in far better ways, but it felt like the writers wanted to leave nothing to the imagination and instead decided to spell it all out to the point of tedium.

Closing Statement
Go into this film then, not expecting to get a thriller but instead expecting to marvel at David Hyde Pierce as he lets his freak flag fly. He really pulls out all the stops. Clayne Crawford also puts in a decent performance and does the best he can with what he’s given. Don’t expect a whole lot of gore either, (some may see the poster and think that it bends toward the horror angle–it doesn’t). What you get here is a couple of good actors with a script that needed a few more rewrites.

The Verdict

5/10

Super 8

OPENING: 06/10/2011

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 112 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
From J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg.

Opening Statement
After adding a solid installment to the popular Mission: Impossible franchise and successfully re-booting the Star Trek franchise, writer/director/producer/generally beloved media figure J.J. Abrams finally gets to tackle an original story with Super 8. Steven Spielberg is the film’s executive producer, and it quickly becomes clear that Super 8 is a love letter to the kind of films Spielberg was producing and directing during the early 1980s (E.T. and The Goonies immediately come to mind, though there are a host of other influences). While Abrams doesn’t quite match the best of the films it imitates, it nonetheless proves an engaging, touching cinematic homage.

Facts of the Case
The year is 1979, and the place is a small town in Ohio. Our central figure is Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), a small-town middle school student whose mother passed away just a few months ago. Joe’s father Jackson (Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights) has become emotionally distant and buried himself in work since the accident, so Joe spends most of his time hanging out with his best friend Charles (Riley Griffiths). Charles is working on creating a low-budget zombie movie for a short film festival, and Joe is in charge of the make-up and special effects. The cast and crew is almost entirely comprised of boys, though Charles somehow talked the popular Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning, Somewhere) into playing the film’s love interest.

On one night of filming, two important things happen. The first is that Joe begins to make a connection with Alice and starts to develop feelings for her. The second is that a massive train wreck occurs nearby during the middle of filming. It quickly becomes apparent that this was no ordinary accident; the military swoops into town and refuses to give anyone even the most basic bits of information. Unusual things start happening: power outages occur all over town, dogs disappear and then people start to go missing. Joe, Charles, Alice and the gang are understandably eager to figure out what’s going on. What they don’t realize that they already have a remarkable piece of evidenced captured on film.

The Evidence
I think that’s enough information on the film’s plot. Many reviews have revealed even more than that, but the true nature of the train wreck is best left a surprise, I think. What makes Super 8 an unexpected pleasure is not the sci-fi wildness Abrams has up his sleeve, but the simple fact that this is the rare summer blockbuster which actually emphasizes character and story over action set pieces and special effects. While it doesn’t offer the same sort of gleeful adrenaline rush Abrams’ Star Trek offered, it does muster up some of that distinctly Spielbergian warmth and emotional intensity which doesn’t appear frequently enough these days.

The film’s best scenes are those which simply allow the young protagonists to interact with each other, as there’s a wonderful sense of group chemistry that’s far more thrilling than any special effect the film has to offer. Seeing this tale unfold through the eyes of these kids brings refreshing perspective to a plot that sometimes seems like an ungainly patchwork quilt of other sci-fi films. When Abrams checks in on the adults (not too frequently, I’m glad to report), we suddenly realize what a dull movie this could have been if it had been centered on a grim, no-nonsense local hero like the character Kyle Chandler plays. An adult looks at the train wreck and thinks, “This is a horrible tragedy.” The kids look at the train wreck and think the same thing, but the next day they conclude that the wrecked train would make a spectacular background for that zombie movie they’re working on. You get the idea.

There are moments between Joe and Alice which approach greatness, as Abrams offers an achingly tender portrait of adolescent longing. Consider the scene in which Joe sees Alice in zombie make-up, and Alice playfully shuffles towards him in a zombie-like fashion. Sure, she’s pretending she wants to eat him, but Joe is simply thrilled by the notion that Alice is offering such a blatant display of interest in him. Some of the young cast members have no significant previous experience, but there’s never an inauthentic moment or forced line reading during the scenes with the youngsters (most of them run circles around grown-up pros like Chandler and Noah Emmerich, but that’s partially because Abrams puts so much work into the characterization of the kids and so little into the adults).

The film starts to disappoint in its second half, as Abrams’ story starts to slip into more conventional territory (it’s handled well enough and is still engaging, but the sense of freshness that dominates the first half starts to fade considerably). It would be a solid slam-bang second half to many films, but it disappoints in this case due to the remarkable nature of the film’s first half. There are plenty of splendid moments throughout the entire film, but less of them once the characters really start running, jumping, chasing and shooting. At least things end on a strong note, as Abrams builds to a finale that ranks as his most explicit homage to Mr. Spielberg (interestingly enough, another film released earlier this year paid homage to Spielberg in a very similar but vastly less effective manner). The genius of Abrams’ conclusion is that it takes familiar imagery and turns it upside down; this has happened before but the context has changed dramatically. It’s also during these closing moments that Abrams indulges in his riskiest moments of emotional manipulation. Fortunately, they pay off due to the work Abrams has put into the build-up to them.

Closing Statement
While Super 8 isn’t quite the masterpiece it flirts with being on occasion, it’s an exceptional film which proves far more emotionally involving than the usual popcorn movie fare. Don’t miss it.

The Verdict
8/10

Source Code

OPENING: 04/01/2011

STUDIO: Summit Entertainment

RUN TIME: 93 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Make every second count.

Opening Statement
Director Duncan Jones made a strong initial impression on audiences in 2009 with his intelligent, moving science fiction film Moon. Now he’s returned with Source Code, another sci-fi flick which proves that Jones is the real deal.

Facts of the Case
Our story centers on Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal, Moonlight Mile), who finds himself in a puzzling situation. He is on a train, sitting next to a woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) who seems to know him. The only puzzling thing is that she keeps calling him “Sean.” Stevens catches a glimpse of his reflection and is alarmed to discover that he looks like someone else. As Stevens is attempting to put the pieces together, a bomb goes off and the train explodes.

Stevens suddenly finds himself placed inside of a small capsule, where he is informed by a superior officer (Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air) via video screen that his job is to figure out who bombed the train and why. Using advanced “source code” technology (which permits a person to engage in a very limited variation on time travel, for lack of a simpler explanation), Stevens must travel back to the train and inhabit Sean’s body again and again until he solves the mystery of who bombed the train. He is only able to work within the same eight-minute window before the train explodes each time. Additionally, he’s working on a deadline: another, larger explosion is being planned and cannot be thwarted until Stevens is able to determine the identity of the bomber. Fortunately, Stevens is able to retain memories of each trip he takes, allowing him to put new pieces together with each journey into the past.

The Evidence
There were multiple moments in Source Code which caused me to breathe a sigh of relief. Not because the hero had just avoided some nasty accident, but because the screenplay had so deftly evaded some obvious pitfalls. There are numerous opportunities for the film to run off the rails in a bid for cheap thrills or emotional manipulation, but it stays true to its premise (slippery as the nature of that premise may be) and refuses to compromise itself at any point. What a nice surprise it is to find a movie which carefully considers the consequences of everything it does and refuses to insult our intelligence.

Of course, I don’t suppose it’ll be as much of a surprise to those who have seen the aforementioned Moon. While the science-fiction elements of Source Code are a bit more convoluted than those of that film, if you can accept the movie’s basic principles you’ll discover a film which provides terrific entertainment as a thriller and leaves you with some nifty notions to chew on as you leave the theatre.

The film begins as a lean thriller built on a gimmicky yet entertaining sci-fi premise, as Captain Stevens returns again and again to the doomed train attempting to find clues. But before long, his perspective begins to change and the scope of the film begins to widen. When he begins his investigation, Stevens regards the individuals on the train as some sort of computer program; simulated versions of real-life figures from the recent past. But as he spends more time around them, he can’t help but begin to feel they are real human beings. There is no scientific revelation which fuels this notion; just an emotional current generated by the fact that the passengers on the train appear to be real, living humans in every single way.

After a while, Stevens not only becomes obsessed with solving the mystery but with “saving” the passengers on the train, a notion that military scientist Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright, Casino Royale) finds entirely pointless. It would seem that Rutledge is correct from a scientific point-of-view–there is nothing that can be done to alter the past since what Stevens is engaging in is not actually time travel but rather a complex interactive experience based on recent events. Reality is one thing; what feels like reality is another.

I will not spoil what develops as the film progresses, but suffice it to say that the movie has a lot of tricks up its sleeve, none of which seem unreasonable or frustrating. With each new development comes a series of new ideas (scientific and ethical) to consider, and it’s terrific to observe the lovely, economical manner in which the film outlines and explores these notions. The film is no less complex than Christopher Nolan’s Inception, but the running time is considerably shorter because the film finds ways of getting things across without resorting to countless speeches about why things are happening the way they are happening.

In this case, it’s unlikely that many are going to complain that Source Code is confusing, simply because the film works just fine on a basic thriller level and only requires you to consider the larger ideas to the extent that you’re interested in them. That’s not a knock on Nolan’s excellent sci-fi outing, which offers a structure which is fascinating in its own right. However, Nolan’s film requires its characters to consider its ideas and explore them for the audience (thus emphasizing its complex nature), while Source Code frequently allows the audience to do that for themselves. While a couple of items seem a little wobbly under close inspection, for the most part attentive viewers will find themselves rewarded and stimulated by this film’s deceptively intricate design.

Gyllenhaal makes a sturdy lead, and proves more persuasive as the hero of a cerebral thriller like this than as the rough-and-tumble protagonist of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Michelle Monaghan is warm and appealing as the woman Stevens begins to develop feelings for as the film progresses. She seems like the world’s kindest, most forgiving person until you recall that she cannot remember all of Stevens’ ungainly actions over the course of the film. Vera Farmiga essays another conflicted character to compelling, subtle effect as Stevens’ superior officer, and Jeffrey Wright is predictably terrific as a scientist who seems to veer between giddy and agitated from scene to scene.

Closing Statement
Go see this movie. Not only is Source Code an excellent film well worth your nine bucks; it’s the sort of film we’re seeing less and less of these days–an intelligent, mature thriller based on an original screenplay which offers an emphasis on ideas rather than explosions (though you get plenty of those, too). I can’t wait to see what Mr. Jones delivers next.

The Verdict
9/10

The Lincoln Lawyer

OPENING: 03/18/2011

STUDIO: Lionsgate

RUN TIME: 118 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Not Guilty

Opening Statement
The Lincoln Lawyer is a mixed bag; a somewhat disappointing legal thriller that fails in its attempts to offer something fresh to the genre (legal thriller?). No matter. Because Lawyer has an ace up its sleeve: Matthew McConaughey. The actor struts his stuff, returning from the abyss of romantic comedy wiser, and more confident than ever before–he alone makes The Lincoln Lawyer worth watching.

Facts of the Case
Mick Haller (McConaughey) is a defense attorney operating out of his Lincoln Town Car. A workaholic by trade, Haller takes prides in his ability to continually defy the law. When a bizarre murder case involving a young, rich tycoon (Ryan Phillippe) presents itself, however, his misconceived convictions of right and wrong are pushed to the limit. With everything on the line, Haller must race to find the truth, and attempt to clear his conscious at the same time.

The Evidence
Welcome back Matt! After a series of forgettable rom coms, the ever likable Matthew McConaughey returns to the type of picture that originally put him on the map (remember A Time to Kill circa 1996?). The actor carries himself well, gracing the screen with the charisma of a grade-A superstar, even if he doesn’t quite belong to that esteemed group. To his credit McConaughey upgrades The Lincoln Lawyer from forgettable cheese to something actually worth watching.

Don’t misread that statement. Lawyer is, in essence, junk food. You eat it, enjoy it, but then live on to experience the gassy consequences. That’s because director Brad Furman and his writer John Romano (adapting from Michael Connelly’s novel) cannot decide if they’re telling an intimate human story about a man and his conscious ala … And Justice for All (1979), or a typical John Grisham courtroom thriller replete with all of your standard plot points. You know, the ones found in “Legal Thrillers for Dummies?”

And so the plot meanders from point A to point B; the build up offers plenty of suspense, sure, but the ending drags on and on, intent on wrapping up every loose thread, dotting every last “i” no matter how bizarre the details. On paper (and perhaps in the novel) I’m sure it all sounds great, but on film the results are clunky and lackluster. Side characters–namely Marisa Tomei’s pointless ex-wife, William H. Macy’s bizarre, hippie-ish PI, and Josh Lucas’ pathetic, down-on-his luck lawyer–remain underdeveloped; plot twists (“I found his ticket!”) are ill-conceived. I suspect the DVD/Blu-ray release will feature a plentitude of deleted scenes and even, perhaps, an alternate ending that actually makes sense, but was “too shocking for audiences!” (Maybe on the DVD the villain will exclaim the line I kept waiting to hear: “And I could’ve gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids, er, lawyers.”)

What works, however is McConaughey. The sturdy star looks every bit the youthful renegade first seen chewing up scenery in films like Amistad (1997) and Contact (1997). The man knows cool and cocky in the same way Tom Cruise knows cocky and arrogant. The Lincoln Lawyer doesn’t return McConaughey to prime time, but it does give him something akin to a Ben Affleck-ish reemergence. He never really left, but he’s never looked so distinguished.

I liked the Lincoln Town Car, even if it offers little to the plot. Like Batman parading around in his Batmobile, Haller patrols the streets looking for trash to exchange for money. Haller’s Lincoln doesn’t fire missiles, or engage in thrilling chases (ala The Green Hornet). Mostly it serves as a means to move the film outside the enclosed office spaces that typically hamper these types of flicks. Plus it makes Haller look cool.

The Lincoln Lawyer is a good movie that could have been a great one had it known where to focus its story. Haller undergoes a change of sorts, perhaps more abruptly than was needed, but never moves beyond his original state. He’s an episodic character, one meant to appear in sequels and spinoffs–we can’t have him mope for too long, can we?

Closing Statement
The Lincoln Lawyer entertains, mostly due to McConaughey’s sturdy performance, but the plot offers nothing in terms of substantial entertainment, or smarts. My advice: wait for the DVD, which should offer more than one alternate ending.

The Verdict
7/10

Drive Angry 3D

OPENING: 02/25/2011

STUDIO: Summit

RUN TIME: 104 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
All hell breaks loose.

Opening Statement
While chatting with the WGA lady about my incorrectly cancelled insurance she says, “Drive Angry? Oh yeah! When does that open?” Sigh – Drive Angry 3D co-writer Todd Farmer, tweeting five days after his film’s release.

Facts of the Case
Milton (Nicolas Cage, Raising Arizona) is an ex-con out for revenge against the fanatical cult that killed his daughter and kidnapped his baby granddaughter. He has three days to locate the satanic gangsters before their leader, Jonah King (Billy Burke, Twilight), sacrifices her to the Devil himself. Along for the adventure is Piper (Amber Heard, And Soon The Darkness), a recently unemployed waitress whose Dodge Charger will get the gun toting grandpa where he needs to go. What nobody else knows is that Milton isn’t any ordinary ex-con– he’s escaped from Hell itself. Not only do Milton and Piper have to deal with the cops and cult on their tail, but a minion of Hell known only as The Accountant (William Fichtner, The Dark Knight).

The Evidence
I’ll admit it. I went to see Drive Angry 3D on a fluke, hoping, at best, the film would deliver cheesy thrills and wacky Nicolas Cage moments aplenty. I had to do a lot of soul searching before committing to even seeing the film in theaters as the whole 3D trend is growing tiresome and the trailers campaign made the film look like a cheese ball amalgamation of other long forgotten B-flicks. Begrudgingly, I decided to blindly embrace the flick assuming, at the very worst, the film’s potential for so-bad-it’s-greatness made it a fine enough curiosity piece.

Brothers and sisters of geek cinema, I was wrong. So very wrong. In a world of film nerds alienated by Hollywood’s fascist approach to 3D, Drive Angry 3D single handedly redeems the entire movement. Not only that, it is easily one of the most badass, unpretentious rides you’re likely to go on in 2011. The biggest crime is that by the time you’re reading this, Drive Angry will likely to have come and gone from your local Cineplex, spoiling your chances at seeing it in its intended form.

Regardless, the movie is fantastic in its own right. Not since Black Dynamite; has an exploitation throwback managed to succeed on so many levels. Screenwriter Todd Farmer and Drive Angry director/co-writer Patrick Lussier are well versed in genre cinema, combining Christian mythology with Southern fried action in a unique mash-up of Walking Tall, Race The Devil and The Terminator.

The beauty of Drive Angry is the sheer authenticity it captures in this mash up. Aside from a few flourishes of contemporary slang, the script feels ripped straight out of Roger Corman’s mid-70s screenplay shelf, only better. The heroes of Drive Angry are vulgar, violent, and insatiably horny. The villains are vile pieces of excrement intended to make you hiss and cheer (but only when they explode into three dimensional pieces of roadkill).

This attitude toward the material creates some memorable action set pieces, including a mid-intercourse shootout (with sustained Jack Daniels drinking throughout) and a disco-infused police road block pile-up. Despite a somewhat generic “Tell him I’m coming for revenge” flavored opening, the film ups its action ante with jaw dropping gusto, keeping audience giggling with glee one scene after the next. Lussier directs these scenes unflinchingly, imbuing old school clarity, and– thank God– never copping to “shaky cam” or similar modern action film gimmicks. Being a 3D film, Lussier often succumbs to bad CGI touch-ups for his climactic money shots, a decision easily forgiven as the effects are so obviously hokey that it’s hard not to feel the director winking at your from his seat in the editing bay. Whether this point comes across in home video remains to be seen, but on the big screen the message is crystal clear and the joke is always funny.

Keep in mind the film isn’t all one-liners, hot sex, exploding cars and zinging bullets. The glue that binds the chaos is the film’s cast. Nicolas Cage grounds the film in genuine pathos, downplaying Milton’s titular anger with a slow burn that recalls the anti-hero mannerisms of Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. Cage, a tried and true cinephile himself, hits the B-movie anti-hero tropes brilliantly, allowing the film itself to go over-the-top but never his performance as Milton. This is easily one of the best action roles of his career, a little quirky (his ongoing request for coffee is pure Nic Cage) but very badass.

Amber Heard’s Piper is an absolute firecracker. The daisy-duke clad dish is also a rough-and-tumble shitkicker that’s as fast to fight as she is to bed. While a definite sex pot, her relationship to Milton is mysteriously platonic throughout the film, leading the character’s evolution to a surprisingly heartfelt (if predictable) dénouement. Most refreshingly, Piper is a genuinely complex character, a rarity in horror and action films in general. She isn’t a Megan Fox type but more a Linda Hamilton. As it stands, Piper is the best action film sidekick/sex bomb to come along in a very long while.

While I can’t praise Cage and Heard enough, the film truly belongs to William Fichtner. The Accountant is a role that will be talked about in cult circles for years to come– funny, menacing, and completely unpredictable. He is the film’s wild card, a wise and morally astute Demi-God whose motivations constantly keep you guessing, despite an unwaveringly simple objective. From his opening narration to his final confrontation with Milton, Fichtner plays the character with an enthusiasm and relish that makes everything The Account says resonate on a number of levels, while feeling infinitely quotable.

Gushing aside, the flick has a few problems. Though he doesn’t turn in a bad performance, Billy Burke’s Jonah King is upstaged by Fichtner, Heard, and Cage in every scene. Yes, he oozes menace and evil, but Burke isn’t quite magnetic enough to believably pull off the role of a cult leader. This bit of miscasting makes him feel like merely a decent villain, certainly the second banana to Fichtner. Genre vets Tom Atkins (Night of the Creeps) and David Morse (16 Blocks) are wasted in thankless parts. Their presence is welcome and they give the characters a bit of weight and humor, but they both feel a bit stunt-casted. Finally, the film’s hyperactively violent and sexual tone could easily be construed as misogynistic. If you aren’t into exploitation films and don’t feel like overdosing on sex and bloodletting, Drive Angry isn’t for you.

Closing Statement
Disconcertingly, audiences seem to agree Drive Angry isn’t for them. The film clocked in at 9th place in its opening weekend, cementing a spot as one of the biggest bombs of Cage’s long and varied career. This is unfortunate given the sheer imagination and sense of fun that Drive Angry consistently carries. In a time when studio committee comic book adaptations and tepid CGI family films rule the roost; Lussier, Farmer, and co. appeal to story, spectacle, and originality with affection for their genre and product. Much like Grindhouse and any number of non-remake horror/action films, it seems Drive Angry just doesn’t have a wide enough audience. That’s okay; the quality of the film will cement a cult following that will likely reap strong profits on DVD and Blu-ray for years to come. Even without the 3D novelty, Drive Angry is a film whose vulgar, violent voice will not go unheard.

The Verdict
8/10

I Saw the Devil

OPENING: 03/04/2010

STUDIO: Showbox

RUN TIME:141 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The lines between good and evil fall away in this diabolically twisted game of cat and mouse.

Opening Statement
I am developing a huge love of Korean cinema. Of course, when I say Korea, I mean South Korea (I doubt anything of value is coming out of North Korea). With me, it all started with the devastating film, Oldboy, which at the time, I counted as a one off and never really looked further into anything else coming out of that country. Then this year, I saw Mother and was again struck by the incredible story-telling skills that Korean directors were showing. So I’ve begun, and as of the writing of this review, am working on going through as many more Korean films as I can see (thanks Netflix Watch Instant!). I Saw the Devil was a film I was fixing to see at the AFI Festival but I was never able to — don’t even get me started on that. Fortunately, I was granted entrance to an advanced screening. I’d just finished watching A Tale of Two Sisters and The Good, The Bad, The Weird, both films, like I Saw the Devil, were directed by Kim Jee-Woon. So, I was rearing to catch another glimpse at the awesome directorial prowess that brought me those other two films. However, what I got was something more pedestrian, more unfocused and much more juvenile then what I’d seen before..

Facts of the Case
I Saw the Devil is a tale of murder and revenge. Oldboy’s Choi Min-sik plays Kyung-chul, a psychopath who kills for fun. He has committed horrifying and cruel acts of violence on a great many women and has successfully eluded capture from the police. His latest victum, Ju-yeon (Oh San-ha in her debut role), is the daughter of a retired police chief and pregnant fiancée of elite special agent Dae-hoon (The Bad of The Good, The Bad and the Weird, Lee Byung-hyun). Obsessed with revenge, Dae-hoon decides to track down the monster, even if doing so means becoming a monster himself.

The Evidence
The key to any revenge film is to have a very clear, white hat vs. black hat, hero and villain and then to put the audience firmly in the shoes of the hero. Then if you decide to skew our hero off track, and show him making too many morally questionable decisions, that’s OK because the audience will follow him and feel empathy with him. Start with our hero up high so that we can look back and see from what heights he’s fallen. In this way you can turn up the heat so gradually that we don’t feel the pending doom before it’s too late, and in this way you can show us how the lines between hero and villain are not as clearly drawn as we’d like to think they are. I Saw the Devil gives us a clear villain, he is evil personified; however the hero is neither all too relatable nor all too good. He should be a bastion for truth and justice, if only to offset the complete depravity we get from Kyung-chul. Instead, he’s a fairly normal person with an astounding set of kung-fu skills and who honestly is halfway to the dark side before this film even begins.

My other problem with the arc of our hero is this nagging question. If someone gets hurt, tortured or killed by the antagonist during any film, of course we are going to throw heaps of hate upon the antagonist — and rightly so. It is his or her fault that grief was caused. If, however, the hero captures the villain and has the opportunity to end the villain’s rule of terror but instead lets the villain go and directly after being let go the villain causes someone pain, torture or death does not that blood falls squarely upon the shoulders of our hero and causes us to throw hate upon the person we are supposed to be rooting for?

Lastly, in Oldboy, again the first place where I, and I assume many other Westerners associate Choi Min-sik from, his character is kidnapped and after a time, he is given a wad of cash, bugged and let loose. In I Saw the Devil, Choi Min-sik’s character is captured, given a wad of cash, bugged and let loose. The similarities between both revenge flicks doesn’t end there and feel more “rip-off” then homage. Honestly, I would let most of it go except for one shot which pushed it all over the line for me. It’s the one shot that Oldboy is famous for where Choi Min-Sik’s character is holding a hammer above his head ready to rain down vengeful hell on someone. The exact same pose is captured in I Saw the Devil. It’s like having Bruce Willis say “Yippie Ki Yay” in the middle of Cop Out or having Robert De Niro quote his famous “You talking to me?” speech in The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. You just don’t do it.

Closing Statement
There is a scene near the middle of the film where Kyung-chul is hitchhiking and gets picked up by two guys in a taxi. As the taxi drives down the road a knife fight breaks out between the three men in the car. This fight is captured by a camera which whirls around and through the speeding car, brilliantly and violently choreographed. It is a moment of genius that brought me back to those other films of Kim Jee-Woon which I loved so much more than this. Those films didn’t have to go for the gag reflex of someone eating raw meat and then push it past that atrocity for no good reason. Those films didn’t need to make everyone a stereotype — every male a killer, every female a helpless, hopeless victim. Those were films where the violence meant something to the story and didn’t just feel like something the director was reveling in

The Verdict

6/10

Unknown

OPENING: 02/18/2011

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 113 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Take back your life.

Opening Statement
The Liam Neeson action/thriller Taken proved a surprising box office smash, so it’s only natural that Neeson should attempt to duplicate that success. The similarly-marketed Unknown often looks and feels like Taken (both feature Neeson on a frantic personal mission in Europe), but proves to be a less compelling and much less satisfying motion picture.

Facts of the Case
Neeson plays Dr. Martin Harris, an American traveling with his wife Elizabeth (January Jones, Mad Men) to a conference in Germany. On the way to the conference, Martin is in a terrible car accident. He is rescued by an illegal immigrant named Gina (Diane Kruger, Inglourious Basterds) and taken to a hospital, where he remains in a coma for four days. Upon waking up, Martin is suffering from partial amnesia. He knows that his name is Martin Harris, that he is married to a woman named Elizabeth and that he is in Germany on business, but beyond that the details are very hazy.

Martin is quickly able to track Elizabeth down, but she acts as if she doesn’t recognize him. Making matters more confusing is the fact that another man (Aidan Quinn, Legends of the Fall) is claiming to be Dr. Harris. Determined to figure out what’s going on, Martin enlists the services of both Gina and a private investigator (Bruno Ganz, Wings of Desire). As he gets closer and closer to unraveling the mystery, the level of danger increases. Will Martin find out what happened to his identity before it’s too late?

The Evidence
Though the trailers for Unknown didn’t exactly get me excited, I was willing to give those involved the benefit of the doubt. After all, Liam Neeson’s forceful turn in Taken permitted that film to transcend its generic plot and rampant xenophobia. I also enjoyed Orphan, the unapologetically tasteless horror flick from Unknown director Jaume Collet-Serra. Alas, Collet-Serra should have brought some of that fearless crazy to this film, which offers a considerably tamer, much less entertaining brand of silliness.

There was a man sitting behind me in the theatre; chatting to himself throughout the movie. From scene to scene, the man would say something to effect of, “and now this is going to happen, and this person is going to react this way.” This sort of behavior is generally annoying, though it’s worth noting that his guesses mirrored my own and he was right on the money every single time. Despite its twisty-turny nature and mysterious premise, Unknown is so obviously directed and written that it tips its hand at every turn. The film goes through the usual motions of a thriller, but never thrills because we’re always a couple steps ahead of it.

The film bears a passing resemblance to a great many action movies, and a more striking resemblance to Roman Polanski’s Frantic. That film offered a great deal of cinematic polish that made the whole affair engaging, plus just enough off-key absurdity to keep us on our toes. Part of what made the movie work so well is that Polanski and actor Harrison Ford skillfully kept the film’s emotional core at the surface. It’s hard to care much about anyone in Unknown, particularly since there is such a strong possibility that Martin Harris isn’t actually Martin Harris. Since we aren’t really sure of who anyone is or what their motivations are, we can’t get too invested in them. That notion is not necessarily a film-killer, but the movie needed to be smart and involving enough on other levels to compensate for the lack of any emotional pull. It isn’t, as Collet-Serra’s direction is pedestrian and the script lacks any flavor or inventive ideas.

Neeson does what he can with the material, but at times he seems more frustrated by the narrow range of his scenes than he does the plight of his character. Still, his earlier scenes in which he essays a concerned, amnesia-ridden husband play more persuasively than his later scenes as a one-liner-quipping action hero. January Jones and Aidan Quinn have little to do, while Diane Kruger’s respectable performance is often shoved into the background. The actors faring the best are old pros Bruno Ganz and Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon), who share the film’s one genuinely worthwhile scene. It’s a lovely moment which suggests a film more thoughtful and intriguing than the one we’re watching.

Closing Statement
Though not an incompetent film or even the worst Neeson has done lately (it’s more enjoyable than Joe Carnahan’s terrible The A-Team, at least), Unknown is a disappointingly dull waste of time. Do yourself a favor and rent Frantic instead.

The Verdict
5/10

Sanctum

OPENING: 02/04/2011

STUDIO: Relativity Media

RUN TIME: 109 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The only way out is down.

Opening Statement
I’ll be frank – movies like Sanctum scare the shit out of me. When I see people literally trapped in tight situations, from which there is no escape (or hope) to speak of, my heebee jeebee meter goes through the roof.

Like a wicked hybrid of Neil Marshall’s The Descent (sans Gollum) and Irwin Allen’s The Poseidon Adventure, Alister Grierson’s terror-ride into the unknown caters to the deep, dark internal fears inherent in all human beings. I’m talking about those butterflies-in-the-stomach, nail-biting fears that arise when one is forced against a wall, with water rushing in on all sides, and little time to find a way out. I’ve had nightmares that reflect the scenario presented in Grierson’s flick, which could be why I’m not fond of spelunking.

Facts of the Case
Sanctum follows a rag tag group of individuals who become trapped inside a massive cave structure due to a particularly bad cyclone that more or less blocks their exit. As the cave continues to flood, the survivors, including a world-weary explorer (Richard Roxburgh), his headstrong son (Rhys Wakefield), a zany billionaire (Ioan Gruffudd) and his wife (Alice Parkinson) – the movie star, Professor and Mary Ann … sorry – must follow a complex system of tunnels and exit the structure before it floods completely.

The Evidence
Sanctum contains all the staples of a James Cameron flick– a simple story dotted with lively characters, intricately wrapped within a technologically sound, exciting motion picture, and shot in 3D no less. That also means the action comes loaded with human melodrama, and ample doses of cheese to boot.

I’m a big fan of Cameron, and apparently one of the few that actually liked Titanic and Avatar, but even I can smell a case of style over substance. With Sanctum, apparently based off the real-life experience of co-writer Andrew Wight, the plot dumbs itself down to the most simplistic of simplicities. A storm traps a group of people into a cave, and they must find their way out of it. Or, read from another angle, one might take the film as a beautifully photographed exploration of wondrous caverns, intermixed with tense moments of red-blooded human struggle. Either way, the story resorts to standard, sometimes ridiculous fare (a contrived fight scene late in the film feels out of place), but maintains its ferocious, claustrophobic intensity right up until the bitter end. I’d compare it to holding your breath for two hours, after which you welcome the release. But in a good way.

I can’t say much for the actors themselves, nearly all of the performances, save for Roxburgh’s gritty turn as an aged explorer, suck; so loaded are they with goofy, stereotypical dialogue that every line limps from their mouths, despite efforts to the contrary. Gruffudd in particular pumps his character full of gee-whiz gusto, and he fits the role believably, but when he speaks it sounds as though he’s auditioning for one of those cheesy JG Wentworth commercials (“It’s my money and I need it now!”). Parkinson’s performance suffers at the hands of some truly awful voice-dubbing, while Wakefield can’t seem to decide if he’s a laidback surfer dude, or a jock–though, to be fair, his performance improves the deeper the film delves on.

Audiences entering Sanctum won’t walk out complaining about the performances, though. They’re in it for the show, and to that end Cameron and Grierson deliver. In fact, once the mandatory exposition subsides, a well-paced, expertly crafted thriller emerges, one that pins you to the edge of your seat and blasts you with an adrenaline pumped fire hose of excitement. So enthralled was I that when the lights to the theaters signaled the film’s ending, chewed up nails littered my shirt. Yeah, I dug the film.

I’m not much a fan of thrillers, slasher or otherwise, but stories about people stuck in helpless situations and forced to survive always seem to strike a nerve. Slasher films contain similar elements, but spread them over an open environment, and focus on the grisly demises. The human element is lost amidst a plethora of guts and blood, and a supernatural villain whose bark typically outlasts his bite.

Sanctum pins its characters against believable circumstances, and doesn’t give them an out. You believe all they endure because there’s no alternative to the situation. They can either sit down and hope that somebody finds them, or battle the elements head on. And so, when the group arrives at a room full of churning water, their situation affords tension, not rolled eyes. There were only brief moments when I found myself instructing the personalities onscreen (why not just blow up that damned tank?), but only because the film quite soundly held me in its grasp.

I won’t call Sanctum brilliant, or even classic. It’s not as good as The Descent, Ridley Scott’s Alien, or even Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours (which benefited from being true to the events that inspired it), all of which are similar films dealing with hopelessly isolated characters pitted against an unstoppable foe, but I will say it’s better than most thrillers I’ve seen. Forget the dialogue and tepid acting and enjoy the experience. Sanctum is a helluva ride.

Closing Statement
Sanctum doesn’t score any points in the acting departments, but technically it remains a tightly structured, exciting adventure, one that pins you to your seat and never relieves its grasp.

The Verdict
8/10

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest

OPENING: 10/29/2010

STUDIO: Music Box Films

RUN TIME: 147 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The conclusion to the film adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series.

Opening Statement
Moviegoers know all too well that feeling of disappointment when a movie doesn’t live up to their expectations. Disappointment and frustration are the two most apt descriptors for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series. The films, adaptations of Stieg Larsson’s incredibly popular Millennium series are actually edited down from six, 90-minute extended television productions. In the process a good deal of subplots are excised, ranging anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes per film. However, much of the blame lies on the final two films, directed by Daniel Alfredson.

Facts of the Case
Alfredson, who took over the directorial reins from Niels Arden Oplev, following the first and best film in the series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo immediately showed signs that he would not be able to turn out a final product as engaging or polished as his predecessor. While The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo set up the world of protagonists Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist, their story, which nicely intersected midway through that film, was very easily taken as standalone film. Yes, there were plot threads left loose, but the enjoyment of that film came from the open-and-shut case and, more largely, on the chemistry between the two characters.

The second film in the series The Girl Who Played with Fire quickly swept some of those loose threads under the rug, before devolving into a meandering mess of a film, splitting up the two people who made the first so captivating, and turning our heroine from a emotionally damaged, brilliant outcast, into an avenger for wronged women, who by the end of the movie essentially exhibits superhuman powers. To make matters worse, the plot woven around the film trotted out numerous clichés and a villain who wouldn’t be far removed from a James Bond film, complete with his own henchman.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest picks up immediately following the events of the previous film, with Lisbeth rushed to a hospital with a bullet in her head. Like in the previous film, some loose threads are quickly snipped and even more absurd and poorly written sources of conflict are trotted out. The result is a tedious experience that is only necessary because the viewer had invested four-and-a-half hours of their time on a diminishing series and were left with a big cliffhanger.

The Evidence
The one consistent highlight in all three films has been Lisbeth Salander herself, played brilliantly and ferociously by Noomi Rapace. A fearless actress, Rapace is sadly pushed to the back burner here and instead Michael Nyqvist steps back up to the plate as her one true friend and romantic interest, Blomkvist. What little intrigue there was at the end of the previous film involving Lisbeth’s uncovering of the mysterious Zala as her own, disfigured (by her own hand) father, is aggravatingly disposed of in a classic hospital assassination sequence, lacking any tension, since we know Lisbeth must make it to the end of the film. Does the blame rest solely on Alfredson’s shoulders as director or Larsson’s as the writer of the source material? Having not read the original novels, I can’t blame Larsson, but the film series, or at least the final two films, scream of being victims of hasty adaptation.

The storyline of the film winds its way through government conspiracies, childhood abuse, mental illness, and computer hacking; before all problems are solved in a court of law. The entire Salander story arc is reduced to a flimsy house of cards requiring a great suspension of disbelief, and bringing frustration that the films took such a wonderfully written character from the beginning and completely wasted her in two average at best sequels. Familiar story elements, such as the DVD of Lisbeth’s rape from the first film are brought out again, and while it plays a major role in possibly clearing Lisbeth of that false murder accusations from the previous film, one can’t help question the convenience of every circumstance in the series. Even the “villains” in Lisbeth’s life gradually become more unbelievable as the series progresses; devolving from the chillingly brutal rapist Bjurman, to her disfigured secret agent father, before settling on this film’s boogeyman, Dr. Teleborian, the sadistic psychiatrist responsible for her original incarceration.

For a film that requires viewers to have seen its predecessors, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest rehashes far too many prior events over the course of a two-and-a-half hour runtime–which is way too long. I truly feel bad for Michael Nyqvist, whose investigation as Blomkvist in this film is entirely boring and never feels one-quarter as intriguing or as suspenseful as the Vanger case in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He does his best to deliver a convincing performance, but is often bored looking, longing for the talented Rapace to play off of; when the two are together, they and the movies are at their best.

Closing Statement
Ultimately, The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest reduces the entire film series to a big-budget, high-art version of a female revenge movie of the 1970s. It all boils down to a woman wronged as a child, setting on a mission of making men who wrong women pay. I fear the latter two films may discourage viewers unfamiliar with Larsson’s original novels to discredit them as being equally mediocre. Had I not known of the theatrical films being truncated from extended versions, I’d likely feel the same way.

If you’ve somehow bypassed The Girl Who Played with Fire and found yourself reading this review, think long and hard about investing the time in these films. If you watch that one, you’ll have to watch the second to get the ending of the story. If you’re all set to see how it does end though, lower your expectations and don’t look for anything better than average.

The Verdict
5/10

Black Swan

OPENING: 12/03/2010

STUDIO: Fox Searchlight Pictures

RUN TIME: 108 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A film by Darren Aronofsky.

Opening Statement
With a filmography that includes Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain and The Wrestler, director Darren Aronofsky has established himself as a genuine auteur of modern cinema. His latest effort, Black Swan, is likely to be as polarizing as anything he has done, but it’s undeniably an ambitious motion picture.

Facts of the Case
Nina (Natalie Portman, Closer) is a extraordinarily gifted ballet dancer. She has worked tirelessly for years at perfecting her craft, and all of the effort pays off when Nina lands the coveted role of The Swan Queen in her ballet company’s production of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. The role is a particularly challenging one, as Nina must essentially inhabit two roles: the graceful, elegant White Swan and the seductive, passionate Black Swan. While Nina handles the former role flawlessly, she has trouble meeting the challenges of the latter. She’s too insistent on perfection to really capture the uninhibited sensuality the role requires. With the aid of a lusty director (Vincent Cassel, Eastern Promises) and a free-spirited fellow dancer (Mila Kunis, The Book of Eli), Nina begins an intense personal journey that may enable her to overcome her fragility and capture the dark intensity the role requires. Unfortunately, this transformation comes at a harrowing price.

The Evidence
Darren Aronofsky has stated that he intended Black Swan as a companion piece to his previous film, The Wrestler. While his earlier film offered a look at the surprising tenderness and warmth behind the violent, rage-filled exterior of pro wrestling, this film offers a look at the brutality, cruelty, jealousy and pain behind the graceful, elegant world of ballet. You could say that Black Swan is a reversed mirror image of The Wrestler, which is appropriate enough given that Black Swan is a film that quite frequently uses mirrors to remarkable (and sometimes unexpected) effect.

As an exploration of duality, the film dismisses subtlety in favor of wildly theatrical symbolism and feverish bombast. I can certainly understand how this might turn off those hoping for nuance and realism, but Aronofsky’s approach to the material is both valid and thrilling. The director is at his most De Palma in Black Swan, reaching a kind of exhilarating resonance by traveling down a path that includes elements of exploitation and operatic excess. It’s a blatantly cinematic film that owes a great debt to other films (most explicitly Powell & Pressburger’s The Red Shoes; that great ballet movie which also has a plot mirroring the ballet within the plot), but it transcends those influences enough to become great on its own terms.

”Perfection isn’t always about control,” Cassel’s director tells Nina. It’s a statement that Nina simultaneously understands and fears, as she yearns for the personal liberation required to play the Black Swan but is terrified of losing her magnificent precision as a result. It’s a brutal, violent inner war that Nina must fight in order to find balance between the two, and this conflict is also captured in Aronofsky’s direction: while the ballet sequences are pristinely choreographed and demonstrate exceptional attention to detail, the entire movie is shot with an alarmingly jittery handheld camera. This does wonders for the effect Aronofsky is attempting to achieve, as there are times when it feels as if the images onscreen might leap right into the audience.

Just as the role of the Swan Queen requires a skilled and versatile dancer, the role of Nina requires a skilled and versatile actress. Fortunately, Natalie Portman is up to the task. Portman has come across as somewhat stilted in her more prominent roles (Star Wars, V for Vendetta), but when a role really demands something of her she’s capable of delivering. In Black Swan, Portman turns in her best performance since Closer — maybe her best, period. She’s excellent as the timid perfectionist who’s still a little girl at heart (her room is filled with stuffed animals), but she slowly captures Nina’s darker side to startling effect. Portman does some of her own dancing as well (she reportedly trained for a year for the role), but the camera is more preoccupied with her face than her feet. In a film filled with relentless close-ups, Portman carries a considerable load using only her alternating expressions of fearful torment and unhinged exhilaration.

The supporting cast is uniformly impressive. Vincent Cassel effortlessly captures the sleaze, intelligence and arrogance required for his role. He’s hit similar notes before, but this performance is a very successful variation on a familiar tune. However, the real surprises come from the ladies. Mila Kunis sinks her teeth into her most substantial role to date as Lily, playing the devil on Nina’s shoulder with wicked glee. Winona Ryder (Beetlejuice) makes the most of a small but important part as the embittered dancer Nina is replacing, while Barbara Hershey (Hoosiers) has a very strong presence as Nina’s overbearing mother.

Closing Statement
While Black Swan will undoubtedly play like a silly, pretentious exploitation film to some, I must admit that I found the experience spellbinding. Aronofsky weaves a compelling web of jealousy, ambition and fear in his film’s first half; then delivers a full-tilt audiovisual thunderstorm in the second. As the film madly rushes towards its dizzying, increasingly inevitable conclusion, I found the same awestruck thrill in the film’s craftsmanship that the members of the audience at the ballet find in the climactic performance. Black Swan is the year’s most audacious film and one of its best.

The Verdict
10/10