Contagion (2011)

Overall Score: 7.00/10

Ensembles are a tricky business. When done correctly they can become the magnum opus epic their creator so wishes to create. When done incorrectly they can feel disjointed, jarring, and unintelligible. Then there are those which fluctuate in the middle. Those ensemble works that fluctuate between greatness and sporadic, and unfortunately Contagion dips into the latter a tad too often.

Contagion takes the age old Hollywood premise and thrusts it into the modern world. What happens when a deadly, highly contagious virus enters society? Throwing a more realistic spin on the issue than your usual "I'm Mr. Evil General and I want to blow up the city" that has latched onto this plot line more times than I care to count (granted the number is probably around 3), King of Sporadic Quality, Steven Soderbergh, carefully crafts such a scenario. With fine attention to the various details involved, and some well placed reminders of social impact, Soderbergh is able to create tension in what could easily be construed as a crash course in Biology.

For my money the real heart and soul of Contagion lies on the shoulder of Matt Damon. Not only is he the character with the majority of the screen time, he's also the only character not wrapped up in the scientific and political narrative. In a sense, he's meant to represent the viewer. What would happen if you or I were to go through this scenario. The average man thrust in a world of uncertainty and chaos. And I have to admit it, if Soderbergh had made the entire film on just him I think this movie would have been inching closer to that coveted 9 rather than wrestling around in the 7 range.

The problem for me is, it didn't have to be that way. Kate Winslet is geared up for the emotional scientist point of view but she's out of sight and out of mind too often, and is cut off just as she's starting to gain traction. Marion Coitillard is next on the emotional bandwagon, but just as she enters an emotional setup scenario. The plot is left hanging, only to reemerge briefly in the end with none of the dots in the middle to make the necessary connection. Not to mention the incredibly apparent flatness of the emotions portrayed in her plot, even though many of the characters are dealing with deep personal issues. So that really just leaves us with Lawrence Fishburne whose plot wavers back and forth between some kind of interesting politics and decent emotional investment. He's definitely the forerunner for the next real honest connection, but his plot is sporadic at best.

He also becomes a big representative of Soderbergh's primary fault in Contagion - after the fact character building. I can think of several scenarios in this film where a character the audience is well familiar with will be in the middle of an emotional/important conversation with someone that the audience has no clue about. And not until after the conversation or towards the middle of it do we find out who that person is. It's hard to gain emotional traction when you can't relate to the levity of the situation. Sure this might work in a bubble for a twist, but the scenes aren't set up that way and I don't think it is what Soderbergh had in mind.

So what does that leave us with? Well there is Gwyneth Paltrow but she is more of a catalyst than a real player. Which puts us in the hands of Jude Law. I like what Law does here. He's a villain that's not really that villainous. More so the kind of blogger I try my best to distance myself with. In other words he's a narcissistic, arrogant arse of a human being. He comes to govern a strong shift in society to not trust the government with any task that influences their life. But more so than that he represents the lengths to which people will go to benefit from that mindset.

While it would be quick and easy to label the quality of Law and Damon's plots indicative of the overall quality of the film, one would forget the sheer number of half realized ideas floating about among all the other plot lines. That the aggregate quality of all the stories comes out positive does imply that in order to get the pudding you're going to have to deal with a few plain salads. A few stories which we might forgive their brevity due to their relative importance, but all the same often stumble about before they get to where they were going.

Soderbergh has a keen eye, and can create an environment for any story to thrive, but this one struggles to outweigh its lackluster moments. The monotone delivery of too many lines by too many actors who ought to know better doesn't bring things to life. It doesn't make the scenes more realistic. So he leaves us with the films few real emotional moments to hold onto. Reminders of what might have been.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Scott Z. Burns

Limitless (2011)

OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

I'm willing to admit that movies - blockbusters in particular - really seem to enjoy playing up the awesome, no consequence lifestyle of those on the edge. That one can get away with anything just so long as their awesomeness is never disputed or directly challenged by anyone of equal caliber. In other words, sometimes movies love to champion people who are a bit morally reprehensible. Take Bonnie and Clyde for example. Murderers and bank robbers? No, you've got it all wrong! They're just free spirited lovers looking for a good time in an increasingly complex world. See, totally different when you've sheltered the viewer from the bad side in favor of playing up some deep inner passion that strikes cords with the viewer (I should say now before angry comments, I think Bonnie and Clyde is top notch entertainment).

And so enters Limitless, a movie that seems to derive an extreme perverse enjoyment from making its character as morally ambiguous as possible. The core message: Infedility and (questionably) murder are OK so long as you take a smart drug which allows you to cheat the system for your own gain, and you're smart enough to beat the side effects of that smart drug! You know, it's those kinds of lessons in life you just don't enough these days. If only we just reached out and told children early on "developing a drug addiction may be bad for your health but you'll feel awesome about it" the world would be a better place (sarcasm intended).

Then again, who am I to judge the morality - or immorality - of a man's actions? After all the people most directly hurt by his actions are generally amoral people. Nobody would bother shedding too large a tear for them after all, right? Eh, yes and no. As someone who enjoys vigilante movies - even those to the extent of Kick Ass - I would think myself so inclined to sympathize with this character, if he were a vigilante. While I don't deny that there's a certain element of self indulgance in vigilantes, they generally serve a greater purpose than themselves. Eddie Morra's main purpose is entirely, without debate, himself. A fact that his constant narration is certain to reiterate as he flies from debauchery to addiction at the speed of sound.

All of which would be for naught if it weren't for a half-hearted effort at giving his character some sympathy at about the half way mark. This is done by supplying the drug with some side effects - which basically come down to in order for him to survive he has to keep taking the drug, just not quite so much. This is brilliant on two levels. 1) It allows our character to have some consequence for his actions, albeit rather mute consequences. 2) He gets to keep on taking the drug and gaining the benefits of using it, but now he has an excuse! This keeps the plot rolling, the fast camera swirling, and sets us up for a "seriously why is Robert DeNiro in this" finale so full of narcissism, I actually had to pause and take a good thirty minutes just to absorb it all.

Was Eddie Morra the victim of society? Hardly, he gets everything he would have ever wanted in life, including - inexplicably - the girl. Sure, there's the whole near death a couple of times thing, but those were entirely the fault of his own actions. Perhaps he's more of a Daniel Plainview sinister? Maybe, but he's hardly that prolific, or indeed captivating of a character. Not necessarily making him any less of a bad guy, but all the same. Yet I can't deny that he did not ask for some of the things to happen to him, but when you factor in that the drug he used allows him unlimited thought power it's hard to say he didn't want a great deal of it. Nor was he afraid of the consequences of it. Or perhaps, like many a drug addict he simply refused to face the possibility of consequences. Who knows.

What I do know is that Bradley Cooper is mint at playing completely unlikable characters that somehow gain even the most minute amount of likability from those around him. Abbie Cornish could definitely win a Nicole Kidman look alike contest. Anna Friel should be used more often in movies. And Eastern Europeans still remain reliable bad guys for writers running up against a deadline. Especially if you make them give an monologue about how good Google is just before they torture someone. I'm willing to bet that high quality an endorsement didn't come cheap.

I do not deny that Limitless is an entertaining piece of film, and there in lies my own personal turmoil. Do I begrudge and belittle the film for basically trying to make the audience sympathize with someone this beyond the edge of moral fortitude? I haven't in the past and generally assume a level of 'buyer beware' mentality towards such dark endeavors. However, unlike other films of this nature I feel Limitless struggles in a far worse area. Simply put - it's structure. The whole narrative of the film feels off. It plays its sympathy card too soon, and the latter half just feels like an elongated monologue on why you should never bother to learn lessons in life.

This bothers me, and while watching the film left me going "wait, what about all the stuff you just spent 45 minutes building up to!?" Eh, they tossed it out in a throw away line and are now working on another plot entirely and building up to entirely different ending. This is a jump the film reiterates near the final dozen or so minutes, though it makes the transition with more gumption. Then again, if I were to say this film was married to the moral ambiguity of its lead, its mistress waiting in the wings would most undoubtedly be unexplained plot jumps.

Source Code (2011)

Overall Score: 7.75/10

You wake up and you're a different man. The woman in front of you is a stranger who's known this you for time untold. The people around you are completely different from the world you know. You panic, you sweat, you flea. And when you reach a breaking point, boom. All of the sudden you're yourself again. But something's still not right. You're trapped in a box. On the camera is another woman you don't know, but this one knows the real you. The situation is the same, but different. Two woman, two you's, two completely different lives. Welcome to the Source Code.

Despite what it would have you believe, Source Code is not a thriller. Sure there's the running, the chasing, and the battle with time. But that's all a cover. Source Code is really all about one very specific thing. Life, and how far we're willing to go to salvage it when pushed beyond the confines of death.

As many have pointed out, Source Code is basically Deja Vu, Groundhog's Day, and Twelve Monkeys tossed into a blender; and yet it manages comes out clean on the other side. Its persistent optimism, high sci-fi undertones, and challenging questions on identity and fulfillment give it an air of freshness that even the most hardened of film goers will intake happily.

By those standards, Source Code thrives. With minute changes on each go-around it avoids the redundant atmosphere Vantage Point buried itself under. As well, Source Code also utilizes the 'actual' world, outside the restrictive the focal program, to give audiences another layer of tension and characters to interrogate and seek refuge in.

For a second outing, Duncan Jones plays it safe and smart, despite the ominous presence of Dunkin' Donuts (who I could have sworn were behind it all). The plot keeps things rolling, inviting new details to entice the viewer, but always acknowledging the characters and the science fiction first. As mysteries go, Source Code's is a rather tame one. No big twists, limited ideology, and even less big shock moments. It is those characters that we grow to know and appreciate that provides us the drive to see them prosper. Where many writers would put their idea at the forefront of any mystery, Ben Ripley intelligently makes it more about the surrounding events and people. The Source Code world is always secondary, and justly so.

Yet, there is one character that is disturbingly absent from the entire affair - Sean. The body to which Jake Gyllenhaal's Colter Stevens now owns while inside the Source Code. Very early on we are brushed aside on any emotional connection as Goodwin (Farmiga) promptly tells us "for this mission he is irrelevant." However, as Source Code travels down the slippery path between reality and imaginary, he becomes an element of collateral damage. By the end, many of us would be hard pressed to know he existed at all. Especially given the film's strong stance of ignorance with respect to him.

A minor detail in some eyes, but I can't help but feel that we have been deprived some crucial detail of character development. All we know of him is a name and profession. Beyond that he is a zombie. An empty vessel, and the lack of any care or attention towards him leads me to call into question the saleability of the film's ending. While it wouldn't be the greatest of endings in any other circumstance, I do feel it could have considerably benefited from some exposition on the man.

But Source Code does an excellent job of blinding that. By playing up our central character's emotional transformation, we care more for him than we would ever bother to care about the elusive Sean. We come to love Colter Stevens for his heart, his care, and the manner by which he comes to view the world. He, in essence, becomes our vessel. Yet, he is one to which we share the world, and for that we feel a deeper emotional kindred.

Thus becomes the tale of Source Code. For those seeking only thrills, Source Code is not the path you should take. For those who want the thrills mixed in with something a bit more, Source Code is without a doubt a destination you'll enjoy the journey to. Besides, who can turn down two hours of solid Michelle Monaghan and Jeffrey Wright lighting up the screen?

Film Credits:
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Written By: Ben Ripley

Animal Kingdom (2010)

OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Over the past few months I've felt a bit like a broken record, redundantly blathering on about how great all these cold, moody thrillers I've been watching are. How their elusiveness injects a frightful charm into the characters, that makes them simultaneously enticing and horrifying. Is it a testament towards an ever growing apathetic nature in myself that I find myself so drawn to them? Or could it be that simply put these characters feature predominately in some of the best works 2010 has to offer? Well, I'd like to say that it is the latter, but who really knows?

Animal Kingdom plays with fire. Many of the film's most colorful and amusing characters fail to make it past the thirty minute mark. The rest range of the dull to the manipulative and on to the downright maniacal. When these characters take to the screen you never know what you're going to get. Will they just there with no emotion, watching a sickly violent act take place? Or do they take matters into their own hand? As Animal Kingdom unfolds it becomes obvious that these actions are far less predictable than you might imagine.

Finding the right balance between gritty violence and bravura storytelling, Animal Kingdom is an audacious tale of gang violence in Australia. With crooked cops, and those just trying to make a living, going to head to head with a family of criminals, writer-director David Michod provides a fresh spin on an old tale.

With all the cunning of Vito Corleone, family matriarch Janine (Jacki Weaver) manipulates her perception of family into what she wants it to be. Her affection, well exceeding obsession, with her children lead her to make decisions that can make or break the world she has constructed for herself. Weaver handles the role like an uncut diamond, complete with unkempt beauty and jagged edges. The look she gives her characters that says 'oh, I don't mind' could easily be replaced with the thought 'I will cut you right here and now' depending on what's going on. She has a reassuringly mother vibe with the potential to be as venomous as a snake... if you get in her way.

Complete with a stare that would give children nightmare for years, eldest child Andrew (Ben Mendelsohn) is the only member of the main crime group not entirely reliant on their mother. His look is unassuming, but sadistic. And his actions speak to that very nature. "Pope" shows an utter lack of acknowledgment for the existence of others, beyond their immediate affect on him. If there was an award for unappreciated, you would be hard pressed to find a better candidate this year than Mendelsohn. From head to toe, he embodies the very sociopathic nature of his character to the point of being hard to define where the character ends and he begins.

However, all of Animal Kingdom is told through the lens of Josh (James Frencheville), nephew to the main family, and grandson to Janine. Josh is a rather unemotional character throughout much of the film. He's difficult to latch onto, and harder to understand given his penchants for silence and following. Yet, as the film progresses, he develops a more outwardly emotional attitude, and Frencheville nails every moment of it. By the time the ending comes, Josh has more than evolved into a fine character, he's become a recognizable force in the film.

At its core, Animal Kingdom is not about family. It's certainly not about how far we go for them. Animal Kingdom is simply about survival. The means to which one will go in an effort to adapt themselves to the world around them. Can you become evil to defeat evil? Will good present a path to your salvation? Why in the world is Guy Pearce playing such a bland character? Is that Luke Ford? Where's Brendan Fraser? Sorry, I regress.

What makes Animal Kingdom a movie I so greatly admire and enjoy, is that it blends so flawlessly two categories of film that often fail to co-exist. It's managed to combine the, drawling tended, moody genre with the tension of an old school slasher. Throw the two in the classic cops vs. gangs motif and you get a winner worthy of repeat viewings, and adoring praise.

Film Credits:
Written and Directed By: David Michod

The American (2010)

OVERALL SCORE: 7.75/10

Every year a handful of rather curious films make their way into the public foray of wide release. These films are often distinguishable from your grade A, prime Hollywood blockbuster by the even more aberrant phrases which accompany reviews of them. Most notably phrases like "deliberately slow," which of course comes in strict confrontation with the films that are "accidentally slow..." most likely due to some sort of crass infection (or having seen one too many Twilight films). Thus, ladies and gentlemen, I present for your viewing pleasure, or agony depending on personal preference, The American.

The tale of an assassin for hire going into hiding, on the run from a mysterious foe, is an old one we all know too well. These days they're often marked by the dire need for our hero, or often anti-hero, to wipe out entire villages worth of foes in an effort to either prove their innocence, or no longer be cost effective to hunt (takes lots of money to train a good spy, shame to train them all only to be killed by the one you paid good money to train and now want dead). In that respect, The American quite handily sidesteps the modern mold.

Built more on atmosphere than modern thrills, The American is moody, taut, and without judgment. Our hero is solicitous by nature and the path he has chosen. His apparent distaste toward his past derives from the consequences of his actions, not necessarily the moral ambiguity of them. He sees little wrong in killing, as he feels justified whenever he does so (though this could easily be a case of self-delusion - given his attitude).

Clooney is spot on as the dispassionate lead, Jack. Jack is a man built on repetition, and director Anton Corbijn aptly captures that. It is for that fact alone that many may find Jack to be a drawling and uninteresting character. He visits only the same girl at the same brothel, partakes in routine exercises, and handles time consuming, seemingly monotonous, fastidious tasks (such as the creation of a new gun from scratch). Corbijn's direction realizes all those activities, along with Jack's interaction with the folk of the small town in which he resides, and budding relationship with the prostitute.

Make no mistake, unlike many films which would pounce this motif in a moment, The American steers far away from the generic "small town rallies behind stranger whose become 'one of them,'" in favor of the more subtle one on one relationships that affect Jack's life. His interactions with the local religious leader, Father Benedetto (Paolo Bonacelli), new client Mathilde (Thekla Reuten), and prostitute Clara (Violante Placido) adversely affect his life. In that they merely open up the wounds (metaphorically and literally) that he keeps hidden deep inside. At the same time he presents upon them the very things they wish to shy away from in themselves.

The supporting cast displays deft timing and understanding of what they represent to the story (granted quite of a few of the female cast spend a good deal of the film topless - exception to Thekla Reuten). Their travels in and out of the tale are timely, and based on the need of Jack at that particular moment. Benedetto offers him guidance, Mathilde presents something to do, and Clara caps it off by delivering affection and companionship.

As a director, Anton Corbijn shows a decidedly strong knack for capturing the simple beauty of Italy without over glorifying it. It is far too often the case of European-located (American starred) dramas/thrillers/comedies that they feature more as advertisements for how much better everything is over there (especially if you're rich) than they are ever the aforementioned categories. The American manages to do some of that without being preachy, and still analyzing the seedy underbelly of the world in which it resides. There's a complex series of characteristics that define Corbijn's Italy, from violence, sex, and monotony to simplicity, wine, romance, and sweeping landscapes.

The slowness of The American can be defended through the factor that it seeks to capture them all without forcing the issue. I felt the movie's run time of an hour and forty five minutes perfectly fit the mood Corbijn created. The music of Herbert Gronemeyer, with his first score since the 1980's, perfectly matched it and helped carry along its more winding moments.

Despite what some people wish, I don't think The American needed any more violence/action than what it presents. The violence isn't what's important and it's spaced evenly enough throughout the film, with intermittent moments of tension to keep the ball rolling. I was rather taken by the characterizations, and wish, if anything, Corbijn had dedicated more moments to their exposition than the minutes he would spend focusing on Jack cleaning a barrel (or filling a can with bullets).

Because of those differing moments, I struggle to claim The American as an excellent film reaching into the realm of this year's upper echelon. I found it perfectly acceptable, engaging, and intense for my needs (in all honesty, coming off a Yasujiro Ozu bend helps make lots of things feel speedy), but the movie felt aloof enough to leave me a bit disconnected. I want to be engaged and enthralled in the world, but much like its main character I felt as if a long outstretched arm prevented it. The devil is in the details, and The American avoids the details of its plot in favor of imagery. To many this may be a sign of greatness, but at times I found it frustrating.

All in all, The American summarizes to a stagnant thriller with enough juice in the engine to keep moving, and more than enough characters to maintain my level of interest. Those who prefer action with witty-satirical heroes will likely find little to enjoy in Corbijn's tale. But if you're willing to give it a go and accept it for what it is, there's plenty of emotion and depth to behold.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Anton Corbijn
Written By: Rowan Joffe
Based on the Novel By: Martin Booth

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

OVERALL SCORE: 9.50/10

Regret can be debilitating even among the strongest men. It's worse when all the regrets of your life spawn from a single series of interconnected events twenty-five years ago. Retired legal counselor and federal agent, Benjamin Esposito (Ricardo Darin) finds himself at a crossroads in his life. With little to do, and less in mind, he decides to write a novel about the events that surrounded the rape and murder of Lilana Coloto (Carla Quevedo).

What transpires is a tale of passion, unrequited love, and justice in a world of political upheaval. In love with his young boss, the now Judge Irene Hastings (Soledad Villamil), Benjamin is a man fascinated by passion. Too reserved to ever express his feelings, he idealizes Ricardo Morales (Pablo Rago), Lilana's widower who spends every day at the train station hoping to one day find her killer.

In essence, that's what separates Secret in Their Eyes from so many of our modern-day generic crime thrillers. It's not a film with a series of twists and turns, desperately trying to get you to guess and second-guess who the killer could possibly be. The killer is revealed very early on into the tale. Instead, the movie is about what happens afterward. How those events so affect these characters that it breaks them down to their very raw emotional beings. What happens when these characters are finally forced to address the very things they've been repressing for years.

Once those shells have been stripped away, we finally get to see these characters for who they truly are. Often sad and lonely people trying to get through life with as little regret as possible. Sure, they work well-paying jobs, maybe they have a marriage or a loved one, but none of these things complete them. The things they truly want in life have either been taken away or not come along when they were in a position to grab them. As such, much of Secret in Their Eyes is about missed opportunities. Lives currently filled with reflection over action.

That's one of the many aspects I absolutely love about this film. Many will tell you it's a thriller, tense and ominous, and it is, but Secret in Their Eyes is so much more. Writer-Director Juan Jose Campanella majestically wraps a tale of complex, emotional characters around a captivating thriller with enough twists and turns to constantly keep you wanting more. As much a mood film as it is an emotion, Secret in Their Eyes constantly draws the viewer in with a perfect balance of intensity and reality.

One would be hard pressed to pin-point a single genre for the wide-spread narrative. The movie flirts with a wide variety of topics, with each character embodying a different form. Through their eyes we encounter politics, justice, love, loss, and addiction. We see how failing to gain closure on some of the biggest events of life can leave gaping holes that must be closed. And through it all Campanella finds hope in even the most solemn of life's moments.

Unrelenting, Campanella navigates the tale with a keen understanding for direction. His timing is as impeccable as his characters are fallible. Sentimentality is the name of the game, and everyone plays. Every scene is an expository moment, making even the most meandering scenes captivating.

At times the film may waver under the weight of its melodrama, but the characters and Campanella carry it through. There's no need for action to keep your attention, only tension and well designed characters. Simple enough to make you love them, complex enough to request you get to know them. All in all, The Secret in Their Eyes is one of the best films I've seen in years, and a surefire classic.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Juan Jose Campanella
Written By: Juan Jose Campanella & Eduardo Sacheri
Novel By: Eduardo Sacheri 

127 Hours (2010)

OVERALL RATING: 9.00/10

A truly engrossing and visceral cinematic experience can be marred by any number of things. It can be marred by a couple, whom having already opted to sit in the front row, leaving fifteen minutes in, when their alcohol runs out. It can be marred by a lady off in the back of the theater incessantly offering unnecessary narration. Or it can be marred by the most untimely of intrusions - a fellow audience member's stomach rumbling, during the film's most critical and emotional sequence, at about a three on the Richter scale. Did all three of these things happen this past Saturday as I traveled out to see 127 Hours? Yes. Did they remove me entirely from the experience? Deprive me of the chance to truly appreciate Danny Boyle's directing or James Franco's acting? No. I am pleased to say, that when push came to shove, Boyle and Franco trumped them all.

Danny Boyle's 2010 cinematic look at one man's effort to overcome adversity is one of the most gripping visual experiences of the year. With countering fixed shots on Aron Rolston with the binding rock, and sweeping shots of the beautiful Colorado landscape, Boyle forces upon the viewer concurrent feelings of claustrophobia and isolation. Never assuming, always intruding, the feelings come to a boiling point as the viewer must wrestle the thin line between reality and hallucination. A world were fantasy is your only freedom, and in reality exists your only escape.

Navigating these frames of mind is James Franco as our protagonist, Aron Ralston. Forced with ever changing, often conflicting emotions, Franco is perfect as the audience's mediator into the mindset of Ralston. A man of high energy, quick thinking, and offbeat charm, suddenly forced into a situation where none of those values matter. Franco's darting eyes, constant upbeat tone, and even keel, offers the viewer an element of depth without needing to spell out every moment. As Ralston's mind begins to fade in and out of reality, Franco is there to maintain the illusion of being level-headed, keeping what could be seen as hokey firmly grounded in the realm of visual character study.

Sometimes even the simplest memories can save you

Danny Boyle brilliantly paces 127 Hours at 94 minutes. The film never drags, seemingly always on the move even though its main character is static. In part this is a testament to Boyle's brilliance in the use of music and sporadic high-pace cutting. Another contributing factor lay at the brilliant hands of A.R. Rahman for creating such fluid and beautiful music. Though the real hero of this is the know-how of Boyle and co-writer Simon Beaufoy for siphoning out any scene that delivers nothing for the viewer, leaving only a series of equally intense and insightful moments for the to become wrapped up in.

The best example of this lies in the infamous 'cutting' scene. While most other directors would make a huge deal about it with blaring music, a series of slow motion cuts, and an elongated build up - Boyle plays it straight. A few shots are there for reaction and surrounding, but it's the raw intensity of the moment Boyle seeks to capture. Audiences squirm and faint not because of the heightened violence of it, but because in that moment we feel what Ralston feels, what Franco delivers, and what Boyle captures. The entire film is the build up, when it comes time for the scene Boyle and company dive head first.

During the beginning, Boyle's multi-panel shots, and hard cuts, forced me out of scenes just as I was becoming enveloped in them. I felt as if the movie was making me to fight my way to be apart of it. As the film progresses Boyle becomes more aware of the intimacy in a shot as constricting as a head, the top of a boulder, and a wall. This, in turn, allows the audience to tap into the inner compassion they possess for witnessing the struggle of another human being. Much in the same way United 93 grabbed emotional cords despite pre-knowledge of the inevitable ending, 127 Hours consumes the audience into its world, blocking out our desire to concentrate on what we know, and instead live only in what we see - the defining marker of any great film.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Written By: Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
Based on the Autobiography By: Aron Ralston

So, what did you think of 127 Hours? Do you think it has viable Oscar chances? Or are you afraid of the inevitable arm scene to give it a go?

The Haunting (1963)

THE HAUNTING

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT WISE

WRITTEN BY: NELSON GIDDING

NOVEL BY: SHIRLEY JACKSON

OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Desperate to escape her family issues, Nell (Julie Harris) agrees to join Dr. Markaway's (Richard Johnson) paranormal research project at Hill House. There Nell is joined by Luke (Russ Tamblyn), the house's likely heir with high hopes of selling it, and Theo (Claire Bloom), a clairvoyant with proven ESP abilities.

"It was an evil house from the beginning - a house that was born bad."

The Haunting kicks off a LiE's reviews covering some of the very best in classic horror leading all the way up to Halloween.

Robert Wise's psychological, paranormal, thriller, The Haunting, is an absolute experience to be held. Wise centers on the unseen, wonderfully using the natural dark ambiance black and white photography presents to create a constant sense of fear and tension.

As is not the case with many directors, Wise never feels the temptation to resort of violence, or gore, to sell his fear. Instead Wise centers on noise. Loud, haunting, constant, with no discernible cause... except the unknown. These scenes create a real sense of claustrophobia, combined with fear. Wise delves into what your brain is willing to accept, and what your senses detect. The psychological affect close encounters with the paranormal can have on an individual, and how mental status plays a part in that.

Nell, having just experienced her mother's death, and a childhood poltergeist experience, is the most susceptible, and the house's main target. Harris capture's Nell's psychological and paranormal woes with great attention to the wearing affect it has on the character, while still paying attention to Nell's many personal troubles. As much as Nell fears the house, she also has an odd love for it. Wise and Gidding to a perfect job of letting us in to Nell's inner thoughts, wants, and fears. Harris handles the double standard constantly gnawing at Nell, always looking for attention and acceptance, so perfectly I cannot begin to sing praise high enough.

Claire Bloom stands out among the strong supporting cast for not only playing a lesbian character in the 1960's (implied only), but a strong minded, very aware, one at that. Theo is sexy, smart, and presents a strong front. Though when the paranormal awaken, and the fear begins, Theo, much like Markaway and Luke, must put that strong front to the test.

Johnson and Tamblyn handle their characters with expert fashion. Johnson presents Markaway with just enough sentiment to make him seem equally smart and compassionate. Tumblyn, who is in many respects the comic relief, carries the whimsical nature of Luke perfectly. Luke's sarcastic musings on the paranormal give a sense of relaxation to The Haunting's constant tension. When Luke is ultimately forced to confront the possibility of the paranormal, Tumblyn is there to hit the scene out of the park, bringing the film out of the realm of purely psychological to in your face.

Wise's direction relies heavily on your fear of what's to come more so than what is happening. Wise builds tension through foreshadowing and misdirection. At times the movie veers towards exaggeration, and cheese, but Wise is always there to keep things in proper form.

The Haunting earns its label as a classic horror film several times over. It's wonderful tact with its approach to psychological thrills keeps the movie constantly tense. A few cheep jumps for those who want it, but always a sense of foreboding. The kind of foreboding the gets the sweat in your hands going as you grip that much tighter to the armrests on your chair. Wonderfully designed and executed. If ever there was a film that could be labeled a perfect introduction to paranormal cinema, The Haunting would be it.

Winter's Bone (2010)

WINTER'S BONE

DIRECTED BY: DEBRA GRANIK

WRITTEN BY: DEBRA GRANIK & ANNE ROSSELLINI

NOVEL BY: DANIEL WOODRELL

OVERALL SCORE: 8.00/10

The sole responsible member of her house, Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence), must find her father prior to his court date or the house, in which she currently raises her two younger siblings, will be claimed by the father's bail bondsman. 

---------------------------------

Reminiscent of 2008's Frozen River, Winter's Bone is an unflinching, slow, character driven look at a town built upon poverty, drugs, and societal retreat. Moody, without ever being pretentious, Winter's Bone is a beautifully crafted cinema experience which calls to mind the work of Jane Campion and John Boorman.

Indie director Debra Granik finds a beautiful balance between visual awe and harsh reality. The second time feature film director excels in challenging both the characters and the viewer. Maintaining a simple narrative, but wrapping it in a perfectly believable ambiguity that forces upon the viewer love and frustration in equal doses. By the end, Winter's Bone proves you don't have to spell every thing out for people to connect the dots, and sometimes it's a far more appreciable experience if you don't.

Handling the screen, Jennifer Lawrence breaks through in leaps and bounds, especially if you consider her main claim to fame prior to this was The Bill Engvall Show. Lawrence presents the character with a stubborn sense of necessity, and overbearing, that makes her relatable without being excessively emotional. Ree Dolly is exactly what the world has made her, and exactly what she needs to be to survive it.

Much of the same could be said for Dolly's uncle Teardrop, played by the always excellent John Hawkes. Teardrop is not a character that's easy to relate to, he's far more distant, borderline cruel, but well layered and there when needed. Winter's Bone gives Hawkes the perfect platform to display the wonderful talent he's always had outside the more generic characters he's often given. If anything, I'm debating if I should start my John Hawkes for Oscar nomination campaign now, or give it a few weeks.

Still, even with the beautiful visuals, characters, and talent, Winter's Bone suffers some minor hiccups. The most obvious one being a scene involving Ree Dolly and an Army recruiter. While I admit the scene offers some perspective on the transformation Dolly must make, the dialogue that carries the scene feels incredibly forced and redundant. The material covered in this scene has already become apparent to the viewer, and unless we believe Dolly must hear it to believe it, it simply slows down the pace of the film.

Luckily enough for the viewer, Winter's Bone is not the kind of film where slowing down is a big change. Winter's Bone is intentionally slow to begin with, building off its own core story into tales of character and lifestyle.  A beautiful, dark, tale that never shies away from what is necessary to tell the story. Granik's tale of family and survival exists not for popcorn theatrics, rather one for the more composed viewer. One who wishes to think, feel, and connect as opposed to be wrapped up in explosions.

Admirable, enjoyable, and beautifully crafted, Winter's Bone is the kind of film acutely aware viewers can get behind. Winter's Bone manages the craft of being subtle, without being incomprehensible. Granik puts you right into the middle of Dolly's story, her world, giving the viewer a brief insight into the life of impoverished America.

The Town (2010)

THE TOWN

DIRECTED BY: BEN AFFLECK
WRITTEN BY: PETER CRAIG, BEN AFFLECK, & AARON STOCKARD
NOVEL BY: CHUCK HOGAN ("PRINCE OF THIEVES")
OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

Seasoned bank robbers, headed by Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck), run into trouble as MacRay begins to develop feelings for Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall), a bank manager they took hostage in their latest heist. Fearing what she may know MacRay must balance his hot-headed childhood friend James (Jeremy Renner) and a ever tightening grip of FBI investigators, headed by Agent Frawly (Jon Hamm).

"I'll see you again, on this side or the other."

Perhaps the most striking quality of The Town is its overwhelming ability to sell you on all of its various elements during the film's runtime. Make no mistake about it, Affleck's direction is top form, and it quite honestly has to be. I'm not saying the writing here is bad. In fact the dialogue is well formed, and like his debut, Gone Baby Gone, Affleck manages to blend morally ambiguous characters and plot points quite nicely. It's just that, when it comes to characters, the ones on display here aren't nearly as deep as they'd like to appear.

MacRay, whose warring moral conscious lay at the heart of the film, is handled with great heart by Affleck, but all too often the film self-justifies his actions, contradicting them here and there. Hall is a delight as Claire, but there's not enough back story, and time spent, for her relationship with MacRay to have developed to all it needed to be.

The real shining performances lay in the more supporting roles. Renner is the show stealer as James, bringing all the intensity and raw emotion lacking during some of the films finer moments. While Blake Lively steps up her game ten fold as Krista, the often ignored drug addict ex-girlfriend of MacRay's. Still leaving Postlewaithe being predictably awesome, and Hamm handling his role well enough, despite it being monotone.

What really saves, or perhaps better stated - creates, The Town is the direction. The carefully designed, and executed action/heist sequences. The smooth editing (minus the roadside diner conversation) intertwines the history and present of our crew of criminals brilliantly. Still maintaining an element of ambiguity that, while it tries to humanize these criminals, it seldom tries to justify them (just MacRay).

It wants you to care about them for who they are, both good and bad. It wants you to understand that with growing up in a certain community, comes the ideals of that community. That no matter how flawed they may be, they exist in the heart of these people, because that's what they know. It's the life they know, and it's the way they are. The Town does a wonderful job of capturing that societal truth, and while it may not always add up well, it presents it with great precision.

The Town makes up for its narrative woes with beautifully orchestrated shots, and direction. Utilizing both action and character moments to move the plot forward, all the while keeping enough to itself that it doesn't totally give way. It may not be quite as great as it could have been, but from start to finish it's worth every moment of your time.


Note: I've read a lot of commenters pointing out they don't wish to see it fearing the trailer gave away the entire movie. I can tell you it really doesn't give away anything unless you have the film's context. About 3/4 the commercial takes place in scenes from the first half of the film, most from the opening heist sequence.

The Red Riding Trilogy

In the Year of Our Lord - 1974:

Directed by: Julian Jarrold
Trilogy Written by: David Peace (novel) & Tony Grisoni

Grounded by a solid performance from Andrew Garfield, and a great supporting cast of Sean Bean, Eddie Marsan, and Rebecca Hall, 1974 is a beautifully shot introductory element to the trilogy. Setting the series in tone, and in narrative, it creates the starting point from which the other two films must follow.

The film's shining quality is how it blends plot, action, and character breakdown seamlessly. Capturing deep emotional struggles beneath, as each character tries to present their own uncaring to what's going on around them.

While it will provide some answers to the questions it presents, 1974 leaves you hooked, and begging for more. My one real complaint would lie in the middle in which the plot begins to drag before heading into a powerhouse of a finale. A finale which, quite honestly, saves the film several times over.

In the Year of Our Lord - 1980:
Directed By: James Marsh

In the context of the entire trilogy 1980 suffers from 3 problems. The first being that it is in many respects a stand alone story which provides some context which is later developed in the final installment. Secondly it lacks the beautiful imagery, and style, of the first and final installment. Lastly, there's just not enough depth there to make it gripping.

There's no hiding my enjoyment for watching Paddy Considine act, and here he brings some of his best acting to the forefront. As well you have lesser known British actors such as Sean Harris, Tony Pitts, Maxine Peake, and Warren Clarke stepping up to meet that level, giving 1980 one of the best all around performances of the trilogy.

1980 also benefits from having a rather quick paced plot with plenty going on. Lots of dealing with uncovering corruption, murder, and providing a bit of rounding out to some of the character's we've seen, but not known until now.

In the Year of Our Lord -1983:
Directed By: Anand Tucker

Perhaps the most visually surreal entry, 1983 does a brilliant job of tying together the loose ends left by 1974 and 1980. Linking the three films together in a story of redemption, and uncovering. Headlined by two strong performances by David Morrissey who spends the first two installments as a back ground character, and Mark Addy as a solicitor trying to prove the innocence of those accused of the lead in crimes.

Perhaps the most striking thing about 1983 is how those characters who merely served as background for the first two installments really come to light here. How much impact they really had on the plot development of the previous two films, and the crimes surrounding them. If nothing, I greatly enjoy how it all tied together, even if it isn't a perfect knot.

The only real issue I had with the plot lied in the heavy use of flashbacks. They were in many cases necessary, but not well blended, and towards the end it became hard to keep track of what time frame I was looking at. Luckily the placement of certain characters makes it a bit easier on the viewer.

--------------------------

As a whole you won't find many television movies as provocative, or indeed captivating, as this Red Riding trilogy. The acting is splendid throughout, and, while it never achieves an element of perfection, it certainly makes for a gripping weekend event.

The Killer Inside Me (2010)

THE KILLER INSIDE ME

DIRECTED BY: MICHAEL WINTERBOTTOM
WRITTEN BY: JOHN CURRAN
NOVEL BY: JIM THOMPSON
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

Seemingly unassuming Deputy Sheriff Lou Ford (Casey Affleck) is liked by all those in the small town he grew up in. Always kind and helpful, he's a pinnacle in bettering the town. Of course there's just that one little secret: deep down, he's a killer.

------------------------------------------

It's interesting reviewing, and indeed having seen, this just after Harry Brown. While very dissimilar, they both deal with a very difficult question. Once you start down that dark road of murder, just how far will you have to go before you're ever done with it?

Part Burn After Reading, part Psycho, The Killer Inside Me is an interesting look at the mind of a sociopath, and sadist, and the strange road that takes him on. Brilliantly shot, TKIM walks no straight line, and answers no straight questions. Always deviating, directing, and forcing, it's at times slow, often often, and always in your face.

It's the kind of film that can be heralded by some as brilliant, but quickly distanced by others, by its own faults, or the sheer harshness of its content. It's safe to say the movie doesn't pull any punches. Headlined by a great Casey Affleck performance, TKIM is far more art, than entertainment, and with that we can debate its merits. Even if Affleck's character is a picture of emotional flatness.

For Winterbottom and Thompson feel no need to answer much in the way of questions. Context is hinted at, and the viewer is shown the general direction, but they don't lay any plot points out. Nor do they bother sticking to consistency. Then again when our narrator, and the man from whose scope we see the entire film, is an unreliable source (i.e. crazy) it's hard to say that's not intentional.

Though it is easy to say I didn't exactly love it (nor could I imagine this being a film anyone really "loves," so much as respects). If anything, The Killer Inside Me is a showpiece to many fine talents, with an especially noteworthy supporting turn by Tom Bower. If you're asking yourself What about Alba? Well, I can say she's play her role fine. Though there's a handful of moments where her void emotional range sticks out like a soar thumb (especially one crucial moment in the film).

Still, Winterbottom gets mileage for visuals when acting and plot run low. Not to mention a solid, and quick, pacing that'll keep you from turning it off.

Littered with sex, violence, degradation, and amorality, The Killer Inside Me is a visually captivating film weighed down by its own ambiguity and emotionless.

Harry Brown (2010)

HARRY BROWN

DIRECTED BY: DANIEL BARBER
WRITTEN BY: GARY YOUNG
OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

After the death of his last remaining friend, widower, and veteran, Harry Brown (Michael Caine) takes it upon himself to track down the killers, one of the many local gangs, and gain vengeance. Meanwhile new Detective Frampton (Emily Mortimer) struggles to balance the violent territory she's been assigned to, and her moral nature.

Frampton: "It's not Northern Ireland Harry."
Harry: "No, it's not. Those people were fighting for something; for a cause. To them out there, this is just entertainment."

We all know the old quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." So, what happens when good men finally do something? What happens when to do something means to become one of those evil men? While Harry Brown never goes as far as it dares, that's the very sort of question it presents. Harry might be our lead, and exacter of revenge, but he's hardly the film's moral heart.

Harry is a killer, in the most barbaric sense. Showing no mercy, or sorrow, Brown enacts a carefully planned out vengeance. Yet at the same time, Harry isn't a superhero. Much like Walt Kowalski of Gran Torino (a film which can be said to parallel this one on some level), he can only do what his body, aging and frailing, will allow. Though of course when you have a gun, and some distance, what your body will allow, plays less of a role, than how well you can aim.

Throughout the film Harry and Frampton battle wits, morality, and their own foes (including themselves). Michael Caine, whom I've always loved, delivers a strong performance, while Mortimer continues to show she has the talent for more pristine roles. The two match talent, and in that element the film prospers. Helping to give the supporting cast of characters, of whom are more filled out than one might expect, a stage to show their strengths.

On the whole, Harry Brown, both character and film, are quite well intentioned, and worthy of your time, and thought. Still, there's a handful of little things that irked me along the way. The movie is cautious, calculating, and slow in setup. A great strength for setup when the gets get going, but tedious while being sat threw. As well I felt at times if the lead characters were being forced into one dimensional shells, even though the film had taken the good time to keep them well fleshed out.

These things hardly make it a bad film, just keep it shy of that greatness it could have easily achieved.

While many films would shy away from their grittier elements, in favor of more mainstream appeal, Harry Brown embraces its dark side, to powerful results. Built upon the steady foundation of Michael Caine's performance, Harry Brown glows, as much as it dims. All to present a well told story, in a new age fashion. Giving heart, and taking it, as need be.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

THE GHOST WRITER

DIRECTED BY: ROMAN POLANSKI
WRITTEN BY: ROBERT HARRIS & ROMAN POLANSKI
NOVEL BY: ROBERT HARRIS
OVERALL SCORE: 6.50/10

Ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) is assigned the task of penning the memoirs of ex-Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), but is quickly thrown into the dark world of politics when Lang is charged with releasing terrorists to the CIA for torture.

"This place is Shangri-La in reverse."

The Ghost Writer is an effectively designed thriller that benefits from seasoned hands, careful handling, and swift direction. It struggles with an overbearing score, often used in random places, and a pace that would suggest more brilliance, than it really possesses.

No, if anything, The Ghost Writer is an exciting gem of a film, that has managed to find its way into a year where it can shine far more brightly by sheer association. Using this to its advantage is never a bad thing as it's able to get away with more than I could rightfully expect.

The real strength of Ghost Writer lays in the hands of McGregor, and a series of strong supporting performances from Olivia Williams, Brosnan, and even Kim Catrall. Not to mention all to quickly gone appearances from Eli Wallach and Tom Wilkinson. These cast members deliver performances that require a great deal of emotion (especially in the case of Williams), while having to memorize an uncountable number of throw away names.

Much like most political thrillers, The Ghost Writer deals with a politician who must now come to terms with his darker past. While we learn, in a manner much like State of Play, about the surrounding circumstances that lead to this dark past. All of which culminate in the great reveal for which the film has been building.

The only real downside to The Ghost Writer is that once the great reveal comes, it goes rather quickly. So that, while it is a strong finale, it is not a commanding one. It does not reach into the fabric of your mind and require repeat viewings. It merely ends with a "wow, didn't see that coming" and a passing "what next?" The journey is captivating, thriller, and mysterious, but you must lay the groundwork very well if you're intending to shock and awe.

And like a construction worker experiencing a bad case of nerves, Polanski completes the foundation for his tale with shakey plot points at best. Don't get me wrong, they are marvelous plot points. Only, these points are laid out in the most vague of circumstance, and fail to build the finale Polanski seeks.

It's visually thrilling, and worthy of your eye, just don't get your hopes up that you'll be witnessing the next great thriller. It's far from it, but worth the adventure if not for the performances alone.

With brilliant performances, and an admirable script, The Ghost Writer is one of the better political mystery films in some time. Though it struggles to build to something great, it creates something that entertains and captivates all the same. A few more fine touches, and it could have been brilliant. But, for what it is, it's a fine film all the same.

Inception (2010)

INCEPTION

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

Hoping to get back to his family, professional information extractor Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes one final job for company boss Saito (Ken Watanabe). The job? To plant a single thought into the mind of future business mogul Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphey) - destroy everything his father worked for.

"Do you want to take a leap of faith?"

I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern director with as much knack for building, and delivering, pure tension than Christopher Nolan. The man has a down to a true art form. And how does he do it? Well as best I can tell: 1) lots of loud thumps 2) keep piling one problem on top of another and 3) let the audience fill in any gaps.

Putting that to the test, Nolan has presented us with Inception: The most visually bending live action film since The Matrix. Astounding in its creativity, confident in its execution, and powerful in its delivery. I, for one, am not in the least bit shocked it has grabbed at the awe of those most susceptible to its charms.

Like any Nolan film, he delivers the hook early, and drags the viewer throughout the run time right until you're in his grasp. It's a tactic that takes a lot of risk: if he misses early, he'll never get you back.

And I have to say, right from the start, he just about missed. With an opening that felt rushed (and dare I say sloppy), Nolan thrusts us right into the world of corporate espionage, multi-layered dreams, and creative imagery. All the while not explaining a lot, trying to tie it all around a very thinly laid out plot. Not to mention a horrid case of the Thank You for Smoking explanation write offs (thank god the government invented X or this would be hard!).

So, kicking and screaming, I went along with it. Accepted the 2 minute random appearance of Michael Caine for a little back drop. Didn't begrudge a painfully underused Pete Postlethwaite (...maybe). And allowed Nolan to deliver me his vision, and the quicker he did it, the better we all were for it.

Once Nolan is able to enter the mind. Once the main plot kicks in. The movie really begins. Able to open his directorial vision to the maximum, Nolan captivates, awes, and wows with each passing dream. Constantly building more. Constantly delivering more. Each new layer of dream not only opens a new plot hook, but also a new door to the inner workings of our main characters. We get to know them better. Finally develop the attachments the prior half lacked. And, most importantly, develop an understanding for the world Nolan wishes to create.

A world were time is always available, if you know the tricks. A world were the mind is key to entrance and escape. And, most importantly, a world where control of the mind can mean the difference between success, and insanity. Delivering this world with swift thumps, and high octane fuel, Nolan powers the film straight through each new development. Constantly keeping the audience on their heels, forcing their eyes to not sway from the screen. It's a gripping experience.

Then, dare I say, comes the ending. An ending I can safely say is meant to inspire repeat viewings and debate (as it already has) among the truly sold of audience members. I, unfortunately, wasn't one of them. I loved the action. I loved the delivery. I was absorbed in every fabric of the world. It's just, when it came down to it, I don't care enough to debate the ending. I liked the characters, but never enough to want to analyze their deepest dreams. Examine scenes in a manner of Holmes. Sure, it makes me wonder. But there in ends my desire.

I don't doubt that Inception may well be the visual film of the year. It may well be the directorial film of the year (if for no other reason than it's latter half). And, I'm quite sure, it'll make for one hell of a journey even on repeat viewings. Still, I don't love it. I admire, and appreciate, it. Not to mention, I loved the ride. I only just vaguely cared. And before you say my expectations were too high. I went in expecting it to be mediocre at best (as my recent tweets and posts can most account for). Inception is one hell of a ride. Definitely the best ride I've been on all year. But if you ask me what I most remember. It was the action. Not the story, or the characters. And for movies I love. Those two are my key points.

A visual feast, Nolan's Inception brings all the thrills we've waited all Summer to get in one jam packed punch. Masking its narrative short comings in massive ambiguity, Inception will (and has) inspired legions of fans to analyze, dissect, and attempt to understand any deeper meaning. Though I do wonder how much of that meaning is projected onto the film, and how much is really analyzed in the film (to any real extent). Tense to the nth degree, Inception will keep you on the edge of your seat, with a little kick just before the credits role.

The Crazies (2010)

THE CRAZIES

DIRECTED BY: BRECK EISNER

WRITTEN BY: SCOTT KOSAR & RAY WRIGHT, GEORGE A. ROMERO (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

OVERALL SCORE: 6.00/10

When strange events begin occurring in their small town Sheriff Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) and his wife Dr. Dutton (Radha Mitchell) must find a way out of town fast, as the military begins their containment procedures.

Let's be honest, the whole military containing a small town with an infectious problem is an angle that's been played way beyond count. And of course that's mostly because it's an angle with an almost limitless set of cliches to build off of. Enter 2010's The Crazies. A remake of the 1973 cult classic, one of the real catalysts in the subgenre. Now being forced to fight decades of plot lines, trying to carve out a niche for itself.

And a niche it just barely finds. Somewhere between its thrills, action, and look at the town, The Crazies finds a way to keep it just entertaining, just though provoking enough, just generic enough not to really lose. Keeping the viewer thrilled, while preventing them with a few of the basic questions, and backing it with a few good characters moments.

The Crazies gains the momentum it needs to grab the viewer by rushing into its main story arc immediately. A little bit of build up, and character expansion in between, but for the most part it knows it needs the thrills and fast. Throw in some creative camera work, and well composed shots using scene lighting, and you've got yourself a horror/thriller.

The downside obviously being the real lack of emotional connection. It's there, and the Crazies wants to make that connection, but it never really develops into something memorable. Ultimately just swaying back and forth, between action and character, until it can find a way onto the next plot development.

Yet it never sacrifices story for explanation, a trait I admire more and more. Sure there's the odd, this is whats happening moment, but it never comes to a hault in order to break everything down. The common cinematic use of treating viewers as if they all have a memory span of 5 seconds.

And by not doing that it keeps things rolling. Plot moving, characters building, and creative fights to bring it all together. Never reaching for more, The Crazies simply achieves a comfortable level of entertainment, and rides it home.

Sustaining a solid balance of mystery, thrills, and character, The Crazies manages to create a decent time out of one of the most overplayed narrative arcs. Admirable, especially these days with more pitfalls than one could imagine to fall through.

Green Zone (2010)

GREEN ZONE

DIRECTED BY: PAUL GREENGRASS
WRITTEN BY: BRIAN HELGELAND
BOOK BY: RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN
OVERALL SCORE: 5.75/10

Frustrated by constantly coming up empty at possible WMD sites, warrant officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon) begins investigating the source behind their intel. Though just as he begins, Miller quickly finds out there's far more going on than meets the eye.

Let's be honest, I think the American public have made it rather clear that no matter how much you amp up the action, and names, most are not interested in dealing with Iraq, or Afghanistan, anymore than necessary. It's not aided much when the film you're trying to sell them covers ground so tread on it literally sinks several feet below the surrounding territory.

So if you're going to go that route you know you're going to have to try and give them something they haven't seen before. Green Zone, for all intensive purposes, doesn't.

What it does do is tie a plot together with the thinnest of strings and hopes to hell you don't pull anymore. Constantly trying to keep you on your feet with the Greengrass super shakey cam, while presenting you with decent action scenes, some discussion on the morality of war, and a few "evil" characters to dislike.

Imagine The Hurt Locker, minus the character, plus a lot more running. Sure there's an intensity to the situation, and sure there's a sentiment of heart to the story, but it's all for not if you can't bring it together. Greengrass, Helgeland, and company don't. Trying so hard to make the film bigger than it is, while avoiding any real attack, they manage to get a passable effort by, without anything for the viewer to bite into.

It's hollow in its best moments, and it never escapes that restraint. Pushing itself to give more action, more politics, the film just waddles until the end. An end that most of us could call for more than a half hour in. I admire for what it tries to do, wants to present, and mean to the viewer. But like a bad salesman it presents you with all the sidestory, and not the product. Hoping that by glossing it over with sentiments of morality, and an "all American" lead, you'll accept the end, regardless of how it gets you there.

Despite the best of intentions, Green Zone quickly loses sight of its own goal, and spends the rest of the film trying to get back there. Stuck in the muddy waters of cliche characters, uninspired plot points, and generic sequences meant to dazzle. While at the same time trying to push a message, it simply doesn't have the depth to back up.

Double Indemnity (1944)

DOUBLE INDEMNITY

DIRECTED BY: BILLY WILDER
WRITTEN BY: BILLY WILDER & RAYMOND CHANDLER
REPOSTED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Enamored with the beautiful Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) career insurance salesman, Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) agrees to take out an accident insurance claim on her husband, and help kill him in order to collect the money.

Smooth, cool, and riddled with noir style, Wilder's 1944 dark thriller is a true form of cinematic art. Breathing classic from every scene, Wilder, in typical fashion, never shies away from the cold hearted truth. It's Wilder's commitment to his story that brings home this narrative heavy tale. Wilder doesn't force romance, sexiness, or action, instead he allows each to come out in their own time. Concentrating on the mindset of his characters, especially our narrator Neff, really helps bring about the film's subtle evil nature.

Of course when you got Stanwyck and MacMurray headlining you're never far away from acting perfection. The two develop a strong chemistry immediately with wonderful wordplay and innuendo, that really sets the scene for the rest of the film. Forced to match wits with the claims approval overseer Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), it's a collective of acting chops, and emotion. The trio face off with each scene, each vying for attention, oozing coolness, and grace, it's a writer's dream cast, one that deserves more nominations than it got.

Granted with Wilder behind the camera you know everything's going to be fluid. Never settling for anything less than what he wants, Wilder packs one heck of a punch in each scene. Using great camera angles, classic narrative devices, and a simple story of love, deceit, and con he pulls out a film event. It's surprising given its era that this movie ever made it through to see daylight. Yet it does so quite strongly with no over the top sacrifices in order for some ending different than what was necessary. As such it's a perfect combination of dark and cool that elevates each scene right until its grand finale, one well worth the thrill and wait.

Smart, stylish, and filled with thrills, Wilder's 1944 dark thriller, Double Indemnity is an amazing piece of cinema classic.

The General (1926)

THE GENERAL

DIRECTED & WRITTEN BY: CLYDE BRUCKMAN & BUSTER KEATON
BOOK BY: WILLIAM PITTENGER
REVIEWED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
OVERALL SCORE: 8.00/10

After his train is stolen, along with the love of his life, by Union spies, southern train engineer Johnnie Gray (Buster Keaton) must race into enemy lines of the North to get them before its too late.

There's a certain uncanny charm to the films of Buster Keaton. If you've never seen a film of his, the best way I could summarize it in modern terms would be to think of 90's Jackie Chan without all the Kung Fu. Keaton had a knack circus like stunts, using his scrawny figure to put himself into situations few others could imagine. And The General is just the kind of film that offers itself to that medium of comedic entertainment.

An element of lunacy, and character, wrapped into one situation after another as our typical bumbling hero just can't seem to get everything right. Put that man in charge of a huge vehicle, and let the magic happen.

Add to that two thrilling train chase sequences, and you've got yourself the basic plot of The General. What the film really serves as, is a stage for Keaton to work his magic time after time. The movie doesn't slow down to deal with different plots. Everything moves as the pace of the train, and in that Keaton and Bruckman created a fast paced thriller with plenty of laughs to go around.

The only real weakness in the film lies in that its comedic setups are at times far too obvious. Not so much a problem with the film, as much as it is a telling on how many films have taken notes from it.

Benefiting from the thrilling predicament, The General doesn't have to rely solely on its gags to get through. Keaton's natural charisma stands plenty strong enough to keep viewers at the edge of their seat. Each new plot point increases the tension, and Keaton handles it with care.

The only supporting character to get any screen time is that of Gray's beloved, Annabelle Lee (Marion Mack). A typical dimwitted, yet beautiful, female heroine, who is good for a few laughs, but really there as the romantic counter to Keaton's frantic nature.

Frantic, perhaps the best way to summarize The General. Always on the move. Keeping you zoned in at every turn. Never a wasted shot, never a waste scene. Sit back, throw up your boots, and just enjoy this Silent film classic.

A testament to the ever talented, physical specimen, that is Buster Keaton, The General will wow, thrill, and amuse film goers from beginning to end.