This is 40

This is 40...Minutes too Long

I have loved all of Judd Apatow's directorial efforts. The first I saw was his first, 40 Year Old Virgin, which I didn't see in theatres, but thought was very funny. Then, in theatres, I saw Knocked Up and subsequently, Funny People. I've followed all of his films in chronological order, and have seen all of them except 40 Year Old Virgin in theatres. And I've found all of them delightfully funny and highly enjoyable. My favorite? Funny People, as I found it to be his most mature film to date, loved the Adam Sandler performance, and loved the more dramedy element as opposed to his previous straight-comedy.

Now comes the "sort of sequel" to Knocked Up; This is 40. Essentially, it regards the characters of Debbie (Leslie Mann, who was miraculous in Funny People) and Peter (Paul Rudd), who were supporting characters in Knocked Up. There are a few cross-over appearances from both films, namely Jason Segel, but they play smaller, supporting roles. This is more of its own film, diving into the dynamic of Pete and Debbie, both of whom had an established rocky relationship in Knocked Up.

I am a huge fan of both Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, both have turned in some excellent comedic performances. As far as This is 40 goes, they're quite good here too. I can't really pin-point any real problems with their performances; my issues lay with the material they're given.

Judd Apatow is a clearly talented director and writer. He showed that particularly in Knocked Up and Funny People (which I believe to be highly underrated). With This is 40, he attempts to shoot for the same formula that made Funny People a success (for me), which is a synthesis of drama and comedy. Particularly, here he wants to delve into the problems of marriage (especially once a couple has been married for over a decade, and starts to get bored of each other), having kids, and even the problems with their own parents. It's a movie about parenthood and relationships; wisely, a young teenage romance is inserted to provide a juxtaposition (and some very funny scenes) to the marriage of Pete and Debbie. There's also the inevitable arguments and disagreements that arise when your daughter starts liking a boy for the first time.

In many ways, This is 40, is a success; it is often quite funny, has many great performances - I can't really find a problem with any of them. What I do find a problem with is their purpose. What is the purpose of the (very attractive) young woman (Megan Fox) accused of stealing money from the store? It results in some funny scenes, and some eye candy for men, but what does it mean, thematically? I ask because, like The Master, this is a very thematic film (though in a highly different way). It doesn't have any kind of overriding narrative or plot; it is simply about a time in this couple's life. Compare it to Knocked Up: that was a film about a time - that was a story about two people with a crucial catalyst to the plot: he knocked her up. This is 40 doesn't center around any such element other than Pete's birthday party, which isn't a huge driving force.

At many times, I was asking myself: why am I watching this scene? What is its purpose? If this were cut out of the film, would I miss a single thing? By the end of the film, many times, the answer would have been "no, wouldn't have missed one plot point."

To me, this feels like a mash-up of scenes derived from someone's real-life marriage and parenthood, without any overarching story or understanding to provide the audience with some semblance of meaning or purpose to be watching. I personally wouldn't want to sit and watch a movie solely comprised of clips from the life of a married couple with two children taken over the course of a week. That's what This is 40 felt like to me, except more dramatized and funnier. It's just not dramatized or funny enough and lacks the proper design.

2.5/4

Best Films of 2012

Year In Review: Best of 2012

2012 was not a great year for films, but there were some great films released this year. The list below are my top 10 favorite films from this year with brief descriptions. They are listed in order of approximate preference. Ask me again tomorrow, and their placements may well change. Also should be noted, there are many films I still greatly anticipate but have not seen, like Zero Dark Thirty, Killing Them Softly and Life of Pi, which upon seeing, could alter this list slightly.

1. The Master - Upon first seeing Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film in September, I knew it would be the film for all other films to contend with, for me. And over three months later, I still have not seen a better film; this is the perfect synthesis of acting, directing, cinematography, editing, score, and just about everything that makes a great film great. Every shot is the shot of a true artist; carefully composed, balanced, and executed. The acting is phenomenal. And it is probably the most original film of the year. Some found it murky, incomprehensible, or boring. I found it enchanting.

2. Amour (Love) - The latest masterpiece from director Michael Haneke deservedly took home the Palme d'Or, the highest honor of the Cannes Film Festival. This French-language drama is beautifully directed and powerfully acted, with an Oscar worthy performance from Emmanuelle Riva. Along with Sarah Polley's Away From Her, this is one of the finest depictions of love, loss, and old age in a long while.

3. Beasts of the Southern Wild - This Sundance darling startled me with its beauty, imagination, and depth. Seen entirely through the eyes of a child, Quevenzhane Wallis in an Oscar caliber performance, it is a fantasy-drama set in an impoverished community known as "the bathtub," which exists disconnected from New Orleans, on the other side of the levee. Wallis, and her father (Dwight Henry), were both first-time actors, and they give performances as convincing as anybody else this year.

4. Django Unchained - Perhaps the the most outright entertaining film of the year, Tarantino's newest film is a bloody, uproarious, action-filled piece of cinema. At nearly three hours in length, it never feels it. Throw in some Award-worthy performances from Christoph Waltz and especially Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson, and you have a bloody good time at the theatre. Is it flawless? No. But it is a perfect example of why I love movies.

5. Flight - Containing the most terrifying plane crash sequence I've ever seen in a film, Flight ushers a welcomed return to live action cinema for Robert Zemeckis. What follows after the crash is a careful, dark, and at time very funny story about alcoholic pilot Whip Whitaker. In Whitaker, Denzel Washington is given one of his best roles ever, and hopefully will earn an Oscar nomination for his work.

6. Killer Joe - A story about one messed up, trailer-trash family that decides their mother isn't of much use, and so they bring in Killer Joe (Matthew McConaughey, who's had a splendid year) to kill her. The screenplay, cinematography, direction, and performances are flawless. This film deservedly earned an NC-17 rating; I can't imagine anybody under 18 needing to see this film. But it is a great one, and shouldn't be missed, if you can stomach it.

7. Jack Reacher - Probably the most critically derided film on this list: I don't give a shit. This is the analog James Bond. Writer/Director Christopher McQuarrie (of Usual Suspects fame) adapts the film from one of Lee Childs' novels, and in so doing, reminds us what action films should be about: not explosions, car chases, and shoot-outs every other scene, but rather an establishment of character and a careful build of suspense so that when we get to those car chases, shoot-outs, whatever they may be, they carry an intensity unlike any other. Another film of pure entertainment.

8. Ruby Sparks - Paul Dano has had a great year, with not only this film, but also the very good Being Flynn, and For Ellen, which I have yet to see. This film is an impeccably written comedy about a writer in Los Angeles who literally writes a character into existence. This character being Ruby (Zoe Kazan, also the screenwriter of the film), who plays the character and her wide array of emotions with fascinating range. A highly enjoyable romantic comedy.

9. Compliance - This unsettling film based on nearly 70 real life incidents would be entirely unbelievable... if it didn't actually happen. It's a masterful exercise in how seemingly simple and benign actions can gradually escalate into monstrous happenings. With a fantastic supporting turn from Ann Dowd, this is one of the most fascinating, unsettling, well-directed films of the year, especially impressive because of its limited locations.

10. 21 Jump Street - Hands down the funniest film of the year, this is an excellent comedy with great performances from Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, and a magnificent screenplay that delights in turning genre cliches on their head. It may be formulaic and somewhat predictable, but it's a goddamn fun ride. It improves upon rewatch, when little nuances of performances reveal themselves, and cute bits of foreshadowing emerge. It also probably contains the best cameo of any film of the year.

Honorable Mentions, in alphabetical order: Argo, Cabin in the Woods, End of Watch, The Impossible, Lincoln, Looper, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Sessions, Seven Psychopaths, The Silver Linings Playbook.

Best Director:

Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
David Ayers, End of Watch

William Friedkin, Killer Joe

Michael Haneke, Amour

Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

Robert Zemeckis, Flight

Best Screenplay:

Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild

Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
Stephen Chbosky, Perks of Being a Wallflower

Michael Haneke, Amour
Tony Kushner, Lincoln
Martin McDonagh, Seven Psychopaths

Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

Craig Zobel, Compliance

Lincoln

"Shall We Stop This Bleeding?"

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln takes on a terrific challenge: creating a realistic portrayal of one of the most highly regarded, universally known men in the history of the world. Considering other films about Presidents, such as Frost/Nixon or W., we have comparably little information on Abraham Lincoln. We don't have recorded audio/visual footage of him. No filmed interviews. Nothing that depicts his speech, physicality, or likewise. We have written accounts of him, etc. but things of such ilk are never entirely objective. We do have some facts, of course; he was born in Kentucky, lived in Illinois and Indiana, had little formal education, etc, etc.

The film itself wisely concerns not the entire scope of Lincoln's presidency, but focuses on the last few months of his life and his attempts to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Knowing that the Civil War will soon come to a close, Lincoln wants to pass this Amendment before it does, fearing that once the war has ended, abolishment of slavery will never come to be.

Of course, we all know that Lincoln is indeed successful in passing this Amendment, and the film understands this. It chooses to concentrate on Lincoln the man, and how he passed the Amendment, which is where the screenplay by Tony Kushner and the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis truly shine.  Day-Lewis (better known as the best living actor) portrays Lincoln as a calm, confident, shrewd, ingenious human being and a realistic politician. He himself admits that he had little formal education, but he read whatever he could, and was clearly very intelligent - "once it's in there, it stayed," referring to the books he'd read. He would often tell stories, not as diversion, but as parables for the issues currently at hand. He would tell the story of Ethan Allen and a portrait of George Washington in a watercloset. Or of Euclid's axioms, in which he points out that two-thousand years ago it was "self-evident" that if two things are equal to one, they are also equal to each other. He was a man of great understanding for human nature.

Are his methods of passing the Amendment entirely honest in the way that most people would have expected them to be? Not at all. He did what he had to do to ensure a better fate for the thousands in bondage, and the millions unborn who would suffer the same fate.

Day-Lewis, as usual, is astonishing in his performance; not once did I feel like I wasn't watching Abraham Lincoln. He is tall, towering above others in stature, yet so humble his personality stands eye-to-eye with theirs. He is calm, slow-moving, considerate; always appearing weary and tired, but also as though he never stops thinking. Theodore Roosevelt popularized the "Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick" ideology, but I've never seen that embodiment better before than I have in Lincoln.

The supporting cast is likewise excellent, with a plethora of established names, from Sally Field, to Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jackie Earle Haley, Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Walton Goggins, John Hawkes, James Spader, among others. Particular stand-outs are Sally Field, as Mary Todd Lincoln, and Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Both will likely go on to receive Academy Award nominations, deservedly so.

This is the best film Spielberg has made since Saving Private Ryan. It is an earnest, realistic, tactful observation of a highly regarded man who changed history. It depicts the politics of 1865 as not so terribly different from 2012; Lincoln did what he had to do to get the job done, earning him a place as one of the most revered men in history. More so, this is a highly topical film; a film for our time. This is one of the most well-acted and technically superb films of this year. This is a brilliant study of a humble giant.

****/****

Silver Linings Playbook

It'll Be Alright

As someone diagnosed with a mild bipolar disorder and clinical depression, I can relate to some of this film's material. I don't have violent outbursts, or get angry because I didn't like the way a Hemingway book ended, nor say nearly as many of the inappropriate things these characters do, but I can relate to the general feelings of helplessness and anxiety. I smiled at an exchange between the two main characters about medications like seroquel, xanax, klonopin, and trazadone.

The first film by writer/director David O. Russell I saw was the predecessor to this film, The Fighter, which I greatly enjoyed, particularly due to its fantastic ensemble cast. Since then, I've seen several of his other features, and one common element between them all is a rich, unique, dynamic set of characters portrayed with fascinating intensity by talented actors, all of which culminates in a powerful ensemble of performances.

Silver Linings Playbook concerns two main characters: Pat (Bradley Cooper) and Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Pat was recently released from a mental institution to which he was remitted when he nearly beat his wife's lover to death upon catching them together in the shower. He spent eight months in a mental institution, lost his job at the school (where his wife - Nikki - worked), and has now been released to live with his parents, albeit with numerous conditions from the court, such as therapy and a restraining order not to go near Nikki.

When Pat is invited to his friend's house, he is introduced to Tiffany, whose husband recently died. The dinner exchange between the two and their hosts is far from conventional, ending with Pat walking Tiffany home. She immediately suggests that he can fuck her if he wants, if they keep the lights off. He declines.

At the beginning of 2010, Jennifer Lawrence was an unknown name. I saw her in May of that year, at a very early screening of a wonderful little film called Winter's Bone, for which she went on to receive numerous accolades, including an Academy Award nomination. With Silver Linings Playbook, she proves herself to not be a one-hit wonder, and immediately becomes a prime contender for an Oscar statue. Her depiction of Tiffany is offensive, charming, fragile, explosive, and like Pat, she exhibits a great degree of (often unwanted) candor.

Bradley Cooper has never been a disappointing actor, but he's never given a stand-out performance. Here, he plays the part of Pat to perfection; he walks around looking like the weight of the world is on his shoulders, but doesn't acknowledge it. He wants to believe in a "silver lining," that things can be positive and work out if we want them to. Yet still, he's prone to violent outbursts; saying things that he will immediately defend, but minutes later realizes they were wrong to say. This behavior is highly accurate to those with severe bipolar disorder, a credit to Russell's screenplay. He's absolutely infatuated with the idea of winning back Nikki, much to the chagrin of everyone around him, including Tiffany, who has motives of her own.

The supporting cast is wonderful, particularly Jacki Weaver (who gave an amazing performance in Animal Kingdom) as Pat's mother, and Robert de Niro as Pat's father (Pat, Sr.), who gives his best performance in over a decade. Pat and Pat, Sr. aren't all that different; Pat. Sr. is banned from the Eagles stadium for getting in a fight a long while back. He spends his days making bets and planning for the opening of his own restaurant. He's hardly seen anywhere other than his living room or bedroom.

Silver Linings Playbook could have been underwhelming, schmaltzy melodrama in the hands of a lesser director, and particularly without the participation of such fine actors. The acting is so tuned and perfect that we forget we're watching something that's written. If I had one issue, it would be that the end is too neat and tidy for me. At one point, Pat reads a letter that says the books on Nikki's syllabus are good, even if dark, precisely because life is at times dark and doesn't end the way we want it to. Perhaps the film should have followed suit.

Nevertheless, The Silver Linings Playbook is an impeccably acted dramedy with some fine writing and direction on behalf of David O. Russell. It ushers in Lawrence as more than a one-time success, Cooper as an actor capable of emotion and drama, and gives de Niro his best performance in a good long while. 

3.5/4

(side note: a funny little touch - when Pat and Tiffany are arguing on the sidewalk in front of a movie theatre, the movie's title, seen in only one shot, is 'Midnight Meat Train,' a 2008 film Cooper starred in)

Django Unchained

"The D is Silent"

About a year and a half ago I read the screenplay for Tarantino's newest film, Django Unchained. About two months ago, I reviewed it here, where I gave it four stars. That was on the basis of its writing qualities, nothing more. A script can be amazing on paper and terrible on the screen. Or vice versa - there are many masterful films that don't read very well on paper. So today, Christmas, Tarantino's latest film since his eight-time Oscar nominated Inglourious Basterds opened in theatres. How does it compare to the quality of the script?

Let me start off by saying I love Tarantino, despite every single film he's made (including this one) since Kill Bill has been the "revenge" story. Nobody has ever really called him a one-hit wonder, but I've heard him described as a filmmaker who tells similar stories in slightly different ways and gets away with it. Whatever *you* want to think, *I* think he makes films that are just flat out entertaining as hell (aside from Death Proof). And with Django Unchained, he's continued his streak of daring, fun, stylized entertainment. And with this film, he's elevated his game in many ways; it's one of his most visually stylistic films. It may be his most brutally violent film (Kill Bill Vol. 1 had its abundance of blood, but that was more cartoonish and over-the-top than the bloodshed here). And, perhaps best of all, it is hands down the funniest film he's ever made.

I dare you categorize this film into a genre. Go ahead, try. Because I can easily make defenses for this film exhibiting considerable traits of the western, the revenge film, the love story, the action film, and the comedy. Tarantino has always mixed comedy into his films, in one way or another; but never has it been so outstandingly upfront, accessible, and conspicuous. This isn't to say that the film lacks its share of subtle laughs like Inglourious Basterds or Pulp Fiction, but there's much more universally perceptible comedy in this one.

The comedy is fascinating, because of all Tarantino films, this one deals with the darkest subject matter. Sure, Inglourious Basterds dealt with Nazis, but it never directly addressed the Holocaust, Holocaust victims, or anything of that ilk. Django Unchained specifically explores the horrors of slavery in 1850s America; the horrible conditions, the back-breaking potentially deadly labor, the despicable ministration, the list goes on. His spaghetti-western style flashbacks, always dealing with slaver-to-slave treatment, are gritty, horrifying, and stylistically shot. Most importantly, the comedy elevates what would normally be cringe-inducing horrific material into a more upbeat, crowd-pleasing piece of entertainment.

Tarantino peppers the film with a wide variety of well-known actors, some in larger roles, other in very small roles. Of course, Jamie Foxx (in his best performance since Ray) and Christoph Waltz are the main characters, but we see the likes of Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Walton Goggins, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Johnson, M.C. Gainey, and in one of the film's best "wink" moments - Franco Nero, who has a brief conversation with Django that is hilarious, if you know who Nero is. I think I was the only one in the audience who laughed at that curt exchange between the two. All of them are fabulous - the particular stand-outs are the two leads, as well as DiCaprio (destined for an Oscar nomination), and Sam Jackson (who as well should receive, but likely will not, a nomination as well). Jackson provides some of the film's best laughs in the second half.

The soundtrack is at times, totally out of place for a western, but somehow it works perfectly. Inevitably, the original Django theme song is used, several times. Like all Tarantino films, the music is eclectic, audacious, and makes the entertainment all the more... entertaining.

Technically, the film is perfect; the cinematography outstanding; the editing brilliant; the costume and set design pitch perfect.

From the original script, some dialogue was cut, necessarily so. The ending was changed some, and my concerns about the third act were not a concern on the big screen at all. Once the film transitions into its third act, we experience nothing but sheer action thrills from that moment to the explosive climax. This is the film that Tarantino has been leading toward his entire career - most of his films have drawn influences (either heavily or subtlety) from spaghetti westerns, but here he brings us a film that has "spaghetti western" branded all over it. It is exemplary of all the Tarantino trademarks and then one-ups up them in such a variety of ways I dare not even list them all.

It may not be as ground-breaking as Pulp Fiction by any means; I doubt any Tarantino film ever will be. That film was arguably the most influential film of the 90s, I doubt he'll ever accomplish such a feat for any subsequent decade again. But, this is his maturest, funniest (by leagues), violent, flat-out entertaining film since the revolution known as Pulp Fiction. It is the perfect synthesis of style, substance, laughs, suspense, action, acting, and entertainment I have seen all year.

One of the year's best!

****/****

Jack Reacher

Less Action, More Suspense

Here today, I woke up abnormally early around 5:30am after going to sleep at 2am, and got most of my day's work done by mid-afternoon. I was to meet up with some friends at 6pm, so I wanted to fill the time with some entertainment. What better entertainment do I enjoy than a trip to the movie theatre? (answer, if you don't know: none). There are numerous films I still really want to see yet this year (Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Killing Me Softly, Life of Pi, to name a few), but unfortunately none of these films had time slots appropriate to their running time for me to be done before 6 o'clock. Except one new film, a film that had piqued my interest for three reasons: 1) a fairly interesting trailer, 2) my admiration of Tom Cruise as an actor, and 3) the debate and controversy around Cruise's casting in this film. This film being Jack Reacher. So I went to see it.

Firstly, I know nothing about the character of Jack Reacher aside from what I've read in some articles about why Cruise was a horrible choice. I've never read the books; in fact, I'd never heard of them before now. Secondly, I am a huge fan of Tom Cruise (as an actor). He's turned in performances ranging from egocentric (Rain Man), to cocky (The Hustler), to self-pitying (Born on the Fourth of July), to love struck (Jerry Maguire), to chauvinistic (Magnolia), to utterly hilarious (Tropic Thunder). Just to name a few. There's a lot of criticism against him, which I honestly suspect has more to do with his bizarre religious beliefs than his actual acting ability. A bad actor doesn't receive three Oscar and seven Golden Globe nominations (with three wins in the latter category). Anyway, I understand some of the complaints, especially from fans of the novels - where Reacher is described as being 6'5" tall, around 250 pounds, with the ability to break a man's neck with one hand. More like The Dark Knight Rise's Bane than Tom Cruise. But that's just part of his physical appearance. The film accurately depicts the remainder, of which I read after viewing the film, from his various scars, to his demeanor and personality. This is all what I glean from the wikipedia about the character of Reacher from the Lee Child novels. Child who himself supported the casting of Cruise, saying that "with another actor you might get 100% of the height but only 90% of Reacher. With Tom, you'll get 100% of Reacher with 90% of the height."

Okay, enough of that - I haven't read the books, I don't really care how tall Tom Cruise is, as much as I don't care how nutty his religious views may be. Acting is an art, and he's a fine artist. In a (somewhat) similar vein, Roman Polanski is still a fantastic filmmaker, despite his heinous crime. What's important is the film. And so onward to that...

Jack Reacher was just released yesterday (edit: the review date indicates Sun Dec 23, though I saw the film and wrote the review on Saturday), and other than some of the complaints I had read of Cruise's casting due to major physical differences, and the trailers, I knew nothing of it, and had no idea what the critical response has been (though I did look up it's RottenTomatoes rating after seeing it - currently it holds a 62%). It just seemed like some fun entertainment starring a very entertaining actor, so I went to see it. So what did I think? To summarize it very briefly, I was awestruck by its intelligence, style, entertainment, and the talent on display in all regards (acting, writing, directing, cinematography, etc.).

A little on the story. It opens with a sniper picking off five seemingly random individuals in Pittsburgh. Shortly after, a former army sniper named James Barr is arrested by the police. His finger prints are on a quarter inserted into a meter at the location where the sniper fired. Pretty much all the evidence is there to make this an open and shut case. Barr, under interrogation, utters not as a word, but simply writes on a piece of paper: "Find Jack Reacher." Shortly after, Barr is beaten by fellow inmates nearly to death, and falls into a coma. His attorney, Helen (Rosamund Pike, who also played a lawyer in Fracture), never got a chance to speak to him. She also happens to be the daughter of District Attorney Alex (Richard Jenkins). Certainly no conflict of interest there. Another key character is lead detective of the Pittsburgh P.D. Emerson (David Oyelowo), who like the D.A. believes this to be open and shut. As they're all discussing Jack Reacher, who he is, and how to find him - which they determine is impossible - there's a knock on the door, and in steps Reacher.

Jack Reacher is a former Army Military Police Officer, once a Major, demoted to Captain, then promoted back to Major. Tons of accolades, including the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, and a Purple Heart. Two years ago, though, he disappeared, and has been a drifter - no home, no address. He collects his pension at Western Unions in cash. He travels with one pair of clothes that he washes in the hotel sink. And he has a history with James Barr - years ago, in Afghanistan, Barr had been trained as a sharpshooter, but never once shot anybody. So one day, after being notifying he was leaving, he shot some people in an alley. For reasons unimportant in this review, he was never punished for that crime. Reacher believes him to be one of those people who joins the Army because they like to kill people - and he made Barr a promise that if he ever did anything similar again, he'd find him. He saw the news coverage of Barr, so he showed up, believing Barr to be guilty based on his past history.

Helen urges Reacher to look at the case evidence, but Reacher has no real interest in that. Barr will likely receive the death penalty, and Reacher is convinced of his guilt, so he's happy. But, of course, Reacher does decide to look into the case, and this is where the plot truly kicks off. From there, it unfolds, never much as I imagined it would, at a solid, visceral, almost neo-noir pace and style.

Writer/Director Christopher McQuarrie, most well-known for his Oscar-winning film The Usual Suspects, employs a simplistic, yet highly ingenious story-telling technique: dramatic irony. Unlike (most of) the characters in the film, the audience knows from the very beginning whether James Barr shot those five people. In so doing, McQuarrie wisely side-steps involving the audience in that particular mystery, enabling him to enhance the suspense and pose questions that are more fascinating, engaging, and thrilling. A lesser screenplay would have been riddled with car chases, shoot-outs, and tons of hand-to-hand combat (*cough* Taken 2). Jack Reacher superbly strips down the action and withholds it from us, building suspense, until it explodes with a visceral tension. When the film's lone car chase and shoot-out occur, I tried not to blink, not wanting to miss a moment. Reacher is slow-moving and shrewd; when the action ramps up, so did my heartbeat.

Robert Duvall plays a small, but crucial role

Cruise is in fine form here. Unlike many Cruise action films, such as the Mission Impossible franchise, he is (almost) never seen running. This is, as I understand it, true to Reacher character of the novels. Cruise portrays Reacher as a stoic, highly intelligent, witty, calculating, and reserved person. He speaks much less than other characters in the film, but when he does speak, you damn well better listen. And much of what he says is hilarious; cutting people down to size and exposing their naïveté with clever quips. Even more fascinating, I never forgot that I was watching Tom Cruise - at least not in the way that some actors completely disappear, like Russell Crowe in The Insider, or Daniel Day-Lewis in, well, anything. This isn't a slight against Cruise, however - it is praise. Cruise's facial emotions are subtle, yet utterly effective. He rarely speaks, but we always know when his mind is ticking, putting the pieces together.

Beyond McQuarrie's surprisingly exceptional screenplay, his direction is brilliant. Another director may have been inclined to focus mostly on the action potential of the story and characters. McQuarrie realizes the been-there-done-that pitfalls of such approach, and bravely chooses to build suspense to a breaking point and then unleash the action. In this way, it reminded me of last year's masterpiece Drive, though it has not the perfection or highly original style of that film.

"Do you think I'm a hero?"

Jack Reacher is the most surprising film I've seen this year. My only expectation was a mindless action film that might be serviceable. I was pleasantly wrong. This is far from mindless. Far from merely serviceable. It is an energetic piece of entertainment that judiciously understands why so many action films are some of the most hollow, boring films to see the inside of a theatre.

I rate films based on a number of qualities: their craftsmanship (directing, writing, cinematography, editing, etc.); their acting; their resonance with me. But most of all, I award ratings based on the effect of the film on me. Did it move me in the way it was intended? For a horror film, was I disturbed, horrified, or frightened? For a comedy, did I laugh? For a drama, it may be a variety of emotions, from drawing tears to resonating with me personally. For a thriller, was I thrilled? On this basis, I cannot deny Jack Reacher a four-star rating.

****/****

Taken 2

Lesson: Don't Go to Europe

If you want to try to take any lesson away from the Taken films, I guess it would be: don't vacation to Europe, France or otherwise. Fortunately enough, I don't take films like these seriously in such a "message" - though I highly doubt that's the intended message, given that the co-writer and producer of both films is Luc Besson, a French filmmaker. I don't think his intention is to give his country and continent a bad name. I don't think.

Taken was a surprisingly fun and entertaining thrill ride, launching Liam Neeson to action-star status and raking in a $225 million+ box office on a modest budget of $25 million (modest for the amount of chaos, destruction, and bullet count of the film). But that film succeeded in entertaining thrills because it never tried to be more than it was, never thought it was smarter than it could possibly be, and never stopped moving. The last part of that sentence is true for its sequel, I guess, but the rest couldn't be further from accurate.

It is simply amazing that such a viscerally energetic film could be so utterly boring. There are many reasons for this; the primary is that it suffers the same formula of The Hangover II. That is to say, it replays many of the exact plot points of its predecessor. Taken followed a simple, yet at least somewhat original, plot design: a father with some badass skills at tracking people down and killing them has to chase bad guys around Europe to find his kidnapped daughter. It's simple, the film realized its simplicity, and it never stopped moving. I can still rewatch that movie to this day and be entertained by it. In its abysmal sequel, Brian Mills (Neeson) is now back with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and has a much stronger relationship with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). You know, because he saved her life and all.

This time around, Bryan invites Lenore and Kim to come to Istanbul, Turkey for a little vacation. You'd think the Mills, particularly Kim, would never want to go to Europe ever again. But, the screenplay requires it, and thus they do. They probably couldn't vacation to France as I'm sure that country never wants to see Brian again.

From the trailers, it's clear Taken 2 turns the tables slightly by having Brian and Lenore kidnapped, rather than Kim. At least for a brief period of time (what kind of Neeson action film would this be if he were in captivity the entire time?). In the first film, Brian told his daughter: "They're going to take you." Inevitably, in Taken 2, he tells his daughter "your mother and I are going to be taken." Wow, how radically original of a tale this film tells.

What follows is a series of shootings, car chases, running, and hand-to-hand combat. Not unlike the original. But unlike the original, it lacks flair and any sort of unique ideas. The chases have been done before, and better. The character motivations are either nonexistent, flimsy, or once again (especially in Neeson's case), been done before. If there was a film that should be titled "Been There Done That," Taken 2 and The Hangover II would be at the top of the list.

I won't proclaim the acting of Taken to be extraordinary. It was Neeson's show - he was in almost every scene, the only character with a real goal, but he kept it visceral and moving. With the sequel, Maggie Grace as his daughter, and Famke Janssen as his ex-wife (now girlfriend/wife again?) get more screen-time, but just as little to actually do. Their performances, like their characters, are as one-note as can be. Grace is either exuberant because she's not getting chased or shot at, or she's ruffled and crying because she is. Janssen (a fine actress, see: Turn the River) is similarly one-note. It's not their fault, the screenplay simply has no sympathy for character growth or motivation.

I won't say the directing is worse than the original. It is no better, though. With a bullet-ridden, thin screenplay, there isn't much director Olivier Megaton (pretty cool name) could do to make it much better. It's a testament to the importance of the screenwriter: give a director 110 blank pages and see what he can do with it.

Actually, in the case of Taken 2, 110 blank pages of a screenplay may have resulted in a better film.

*/****

The Amazing Spider-Man

Only Slightly More Amazing

Will it become common practice to start rebooting series a mere ten years after the release of the original? Now that Nolan's batman trilogy has concluded, when might we expect the next version of Batman Begins? I didn't run to the theatre for The Amazing Spider-Man; in fact, I waited a good long while after its release to watch it. It seemed unnecessary to me. Perhaps it is, but I was in the mood for some action entertainment after the slew of dramatic films I've seen recently.

I liked Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man. It still remains my favorite of his three; I liked the second one and found the third to be a mind-bleeding, torturous experience. Raimi is a skilled director, who has brought us some ground-breaking films like The Evil Dead, and some masterpieces like A Simple Plan, and over-the-top, fun entertainment like Drag Me to Hell. After the release of Nolan's version of a superhero film, Raimi's Spider-Mans seem rather cartoonish in retrospect. They aren't bad films (at least the first two aren't), but they feel like inferior entertainment. Still yet, I enjoy them, and do recognize the progress they represented at the time of their release.

With The Amazing Spider-man, director Marc Webb has brought us something a little different from the Raimi films (in particular the original), though the first half of the film certainly revisits several of the same plot points as Raimi's film, just in slightly different ways. Webb's film, however, does make several improvements that allow it to succeed both as entertainment and a viable reboot. His version feels grittier, less cartoonish than Raimi's. The villain this time around is certainly more formidable, and somehow also seems less cartoonish, even though it shouldn't. Perhaps it's my feeling toward the green goblin, whom I never much liked as a villain.

Of course one of the most noticeable differences is the replacement of Tobey Maguire with Andrew Garfield, who immediately burst onto my radar with his spectacular performance in 2010's The Social Network. I like Tobey Maguire, but never enjoyed him as much in the Spider-man films as I did in other work like The Cider House Rules and Wonderboys. Garfield works much better for me; much of this may have to do with the synthesis of Maguire's acting and Raimi's directing. Webb wisely dropped the voice over narration that was present in all three of Raimi's films, often to cringe inducing levels. None of that is here. The writing in general is more top-notch in Webb's screenplay - Peter Parker never talks to himself like he did in the Raimi films, which was nothing more than lazy exposition for the audience.

Another huge change is the absence of Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst in the originals), though she has a replacement in Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the daughter of a police captain. It's no secret from the trailers that Gwen discovers the identity of Spider-man long before the end of the film, whereas in Raimi's trilogy, Mary Jane didn't learn such information until the very end of the second film.

All in all, the acting on behalf of both Stone and Garfield is more subtle and nuanced; the screenplay smarter; the filmmaking grittier. Was it an unnecessary film? Maybe. Cash grab? Perhaps. But that doesn't change it's enjoyability and entertainment factor. Sure, we've seen some of it before, but in many ways, despite perhaps an unfair advantage, it improves upon Raimi's film. I'm not sorry I didn't see it in theatres, but also not sorry I spent two hours watching it. I'll see the sequel, though once again, I won't run to the theatre.

***/****

The Sessions

Love, Sex, Life, And Death

Ben Lewin's The Sessions is a remarkable little film. It is based on an essay by Mark O'Brien, the main character of the film, played by the exceptionally talented John Hawkes. The film itself focuses on a brief period of time in Mark's life in his later years; a time when he longs for female companionship. Oh boy, what a tumultuous and difficult life Mark must have led. He was stricken with polio at the age of 6, which left him essentially paralyzed (though as he notes, he technically isn't paralyzed, his muscles just don't work much at all). He sleeps and lives most of his hours inside an iron lung, though he can spend a few hours outside it if he has his breathing tube.

The brilliance of the film is its refusal to inundate the audience with sympathy for Mark's condition. Mark himself doesn't feel bad about it. Not once does he complain. Not once does he ever say he wishes he were "normal." Deep down, I suspect part of him does, but he never lets it show. He lives life as if the glass is half full - perhaps I should say "entirely full." He's kind and generous. He's affectionate. He's incredibly funny; anything he does say about his condition is a sardonic humor. He's religious - I hesitate to say devout - but he does go to church, and talks regularly and openly with his priest (William H. Macy). He believes in God, but in "a God with a wicked sense of humor for creating [him] in His image." Mark himself has that same wicked sense of humor. He can make anybody laugh. It's impossible not to like this guy.

Early in the film, he tells one of his aides (whom has known only briefly) that he loves her and then proposes marriage. Does he really love her? Does he actually know what love is, or is it mere infatuation? That's part of his journey; learning the difference. Eventually someone suggests to him the idea of a sex therapist - someone who works with the disabled. This way, he can lose his virginity. Enter: Cheryl (Helen Hunt). When Cheryl and Mark first meet, Cheryl explicitly explains the difference between her job and prostitution - "Prostitutes want your return business, I don't." She says there is a maximum limit of six sessions, could be less, but no more. Her personal life stays out of it.

John Hawkes has always been a talented actor. I remember him first in Congo, though not well. He was outstanding in the brilliant Me and You and Everyone We Know. The last three years, however, he's burst onto the indie film scene with some amazing performances, usually bony and ragged, such as his Oscar-nominated performance in Winter's Bone, or his role as a sociopathic cult leader in Martha Marcy May Marlene. Here, he steps into an entirely new role; one of the most physically confining roles in recent memory. He has little to work with (physically) considering he can't move a majority of his body. Hawkes has always been miraculous at the subtleties of acting; he never overplays, never goes over-the-top. He keeps his performances grounded, and here he brings a sweetness and humor to the screen that we haven't seen from him before now. Rightfully, he has earned SAG, Golden Globe, and Independent Spirit Award nominations. He is justifiably destined for an Oscar nomination.

Helen Hunt turns in her best performance since 1997's As Good As It Gets, where she won the Oscar for Best Actress. Her role walks a tight rope between professionalism and emotional attachment, and Hunt is able to do it without a single misstep. Once again, rightfully, she has also earned the same three award nominations in the Best Supporting Actress category.

If there were one complaint to launch against the film, it would be a failure to live up to its true emotional potential. I wasn't nearly as engaged in some of the film's later dramatic developments as I could have been. I loved Mark, but I could have felt for him more. Nevertheless, this is a minor glitch in an otherwise outstanding piece of cinema.

This is a wonderful film. A film with a unique, dynamic, funny protagonist who doesn't view life with disdain. He wishes for more, certainly, but never blames himself or anyone else for what he may not have. Hawkes' embodiment of Mark is a brilliant piece of understated and subtle acting. This is a film of great acting power. A film with a message; no matter what obstacles life throws at you, pick yourself up and look to the finer things. You may die happy that way.

3.5/4

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

"We Accept the Love We Think We Deserve"

Perks of Being a Wallflower is a lovely little coming of age dramedy by writer-director Stephen Chbosky, based on the novel of the same name. It regards three central characters: Charlie (Logan Lerman), Patrick (Ezra Miller), and Sam (Emma Watson). Charlie is a freshman, recovering from the recent suicide of his best friend as well as dealing with various mental issues. Patrick is a senior, rarely taking anything seriously, and looking at life through a glass of optimism. Sam is his step-sister, also a senior, and eventually the love interest of Charlie.

The film strikes numerous correct tones; it is dramatized accuracy of the travails and uncertainties of being a teenager, growing up, and falling in love. When Charlie finally goes on a date for the first time, and subsequently forms a relationship (somewhat against his will), the screenplay by Chbosky is startling accurate to the feelings that arise when someone likes us far more than we like them. Charlie's a nice guy, a very nice guy. He doesn't have the heart to break up with her. In one of the film's funnier moments, he comments that he's "ashamed to admit he's tired of touching her boobs." But this is accurate; he is in love with Sam, and when affection is given that you don't reciprocate, it can be draining.  Lerman (3:10 to Yuma, Meet Bill) is excellent in his role as the quiet, shy, reserved, innocent teenage high school student with no friends (at the beginning of the film).

Soon, he is taken under the wing of Sam and Patrick. Patrick, played by Ezra Miller, is one of the film's most unique, dynamic, and fascinating characters, stealing every scene he's in. He seems to have the wisdom of someone much older, but often the behavior of a six year old. He's one of those guys who knows how to be serious when necessary, but the rest of the time, why not have fun? Miller does a fantastic job with a role, playing a character who is essentially a complete 180 from the titular sociopathic high school student he played in last year's fantastic We Need to Talk About Kevin. Here has a flamboyance and energy that few actors could convey quite the same.  Emma Watson, likewise, breaks her decade long role of Hermoine and brings a sweet tenderness to the screen, befriending Charlie and treating him very well.

Paul Rudd plays a small but crucial role as Charlie's English teacher, who gives him books to read in his spare time. When Charlie asks him why some people like other people that aren't good enough for them, Rudd, in probably the film's finest insight, replies "we accept the love we think we deserve." Why do so many girls love guys that treat them horribly? I believe what he said is accurate.

Charlie makes friends and his friends love him. Why not? He's a sincere, sweet, nice guy. And along the way, Charlie finds love, encounters the pitfalls of love, makes mistakes, has fun, and ultimately grows. This is a splendid definition of a "coming-of-age film." We all grow up eventually, and along the way we get hurt. If it weren't for the bad times, there wouldn't be any great times.

3.5/4

Trouble with the Curve

The Anti-"Moneyball"

Gus Lobel (Clint Eastwood) is an aging baseball scout who resists changing trends in his business, specifically the use of computers and mathematical statistics as one of the largest factors in choosing your new recruits. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to not think of last year's brilliant Moneyball, a film that made heroes of the two guys who used that method to great success. In that film, Gus would be one of those scouts that told Billy Beane it was all "fortune cookie wisdom." Is Trouble with the Curve aspiring to be a rebuke to Moneyball? I'm not sure, though part of me doubts it. I suspect this was written before Moneyball was ever released, though it didn't start filming until this year, so somebody would have noticed. Certainly it is some kind of statement on the current state of baseball scouting, but I can't say I know much about that business.

I'm trying to remember the first time I saw Clint Eastwood in a film. It may have been In the Line of Fire, the last film before this one that he acted in but did not direct. Or perhaps it was A Perfect World, a film that he did direct. I'm not sure, but whatever film it was, I've been a fan of his ever since, despite the fact that for the past decade every performance of his has hinged on the grumpy old curmudgeon character. Trouble with the Curve offers nothing new in that respect, though it does pair him with a younger, more upbeat sidekick in the form of Mickey (Amy Adams), his daughter. Maybe "upbeat" isn't the proper word, though. She is Gus's daughter, after all - a workaholic, career-driven woman with major issues from her childhood. She and Gus aren't close, due in no small part to Gus's seeming inability to emote.

The acting here is fine all around; Eastwood is excellent, though playing the same character he has been. Amy Adams, who gave one of the year's finest supporting turns in The Master is likewise great. Other characters played by Justin Timberlake, John Goodman (who, between this, Argo, and Flight, has had a great year), and Matthew Lilliard are well-acted and convincing.

Less convincing, however, is the screenplay by Randy Brown. The pieces are all there - the motivations, agendas, and backstories - but they just fall together too nicely. Especially in the film's third act, which conveniently pushes aside many of the tribulations of the characters in an attempt to exact some type of catharsis. Unfortunately, too many of the plot's developments, particularly in its final moments, are predictable fifteen minutes before they occur. In the hands of lesser actors this film, spinning a predictable yarn of a story, would be unbearable; it is only these actors that keep it afloat and entertaining, which it is.

Trouble with the Curve is ultimately an expertly acted piece of mediocrity. It suffers greatly from comparisons to the far superior Moneyball, not only in its story, but in style and substance. When the inevitable use of slow-motion pitching arrives, I couldn't help but be amazed at how much more effectively it was used in Moneyball. So many such minor details become entrenched with comparisons between the two films, and Trouble with the Curve suffers every time.

2.5/4

Premium Rush

Getting Paid to Ride

Premium Rush is a high-octane thrill ride centering around bicycle messengers in New York City. These guys move fast, weave in between traffic, run red-lights, and seem to only stop moving for seconds at a time. One of these messengers is Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), whose name is entirely appropriate. Of all the bikers, who take on a very dangerous job for seemingly meager pay, Wilee is the biggest daredevil of them all. So much in fact he refuses to have brakes on his bike. He's a damn good bicyclist, as are many of the others; occasionally it begins to border on the impossible that more of these guys don't get hit and sent away in a body-bag (though the film is not without its share of injured bicyclists).

One fateful day, Wilee gets a delivery - "premium rush" it's called. It has to be delivered to its location by 7pm. The delivery is an envelope, given to him by an Asian (yes, the fact she is Asian is important to the plot) student named Nima. Minutes after receiving the envelope, Wilee is stopped by Bobby Monday (Michael Shannon) who requests that Wilee hand over the envelope. But that isn't something he's permitted to do, nature of the job and so forth - "once it's in the bag, it stays in the bag." Wilee takes off on his bike and Monday pursues him in a car - an unmarked police car. Monday is an NYPD officer, whose gambling debts have gotten him into trouble. This is why he needs that envelope.

Shannon, who gave one of last year's best performances in Take Shelter, generally plays quiet, brooding, withheld characters that have much boiling beneath their surface layers. Here, he steps out of that form, and while I won't hail it as any kind of amazing performance, he brings a nice presence to the screen and delivers some of the film's better laughs. After being beaten with a phonebook by an Oriental man because of his debts, his first response is, "is that a Chinese phonebook?" He then proceeds to beat the man, and later learns he killed him. His response to that is utterly hilarious in its comic timing and dead-pan tone: "He didn't even make it to the hospital," somebody tells him, "Hmm. I'll make amends" he replies.

It is subtly suggested at the beginning that Wilee went to law school, but never took the Bar exam. The idea of wearing a suit and tie "at his age" makes him cringe. "We get paid to ride," he tells his girlfriend, who is also a bike messenger. But it's hardly about the money for Wilee, which amounts to little considering the occupational hazards. The title "Premium Rush" has a multitude of meanings; the term for a delivery that must be very fast, the adrenaline of the film and story, and for Wilee, the rush of weaving in and out of traffic, strategically avoiding what are likely deadly situations. Wilee admits he's afraid of dying, but "that's the fun of it."

The story trips back and forth in time, expertly weaving the multitude of stories and various characters such that we are given only as much information as we absolutely need at that particular time. What is in the envelope? Why is it so important? This isn't answered immediately, but only when it should be. Information is withheld, and then revealed, so that more layers of depth begin to reveal themselves. Seemingly irrelevant characters return and we understand their involvement, though there is one extraneous character that the film could do without: an NYPD bicycle officer who occasionally chases Wilee. His involvement is ultimately pointless.

There is a standard formula at work here. It's clear from the trailers this is a chase story, and that it is. A chase story that rarely slows down, much like its protagonist. Boy, Wilee must be in good physical shape. But there's also much at work here that goes deeper than any shopworn chase story formula would suggest. The structure and time-tripping elevates the material; the adrenaline of the film is palpable, and keeps the film moving at a brisk pace. The acting is serviceable to the material, but don't expect anything brilliant in that arena. The direction and stunts are exceptionally done. The end feels shoddy, I will say. No spoilers, but let's just say I don't understand why Nima needed to pay a messenger to deliver this envelope. Though I did enjoy the fate of antagonist Monday; I'm not sure I've seen something like that as simple and borderline humorous.

If you're looking for profundity or some kind of grandiose statement about the human condition, this is one of the last films I'd recommend to you. But if you're looking for moderately mindless, thrilling entertainment, this is the film. And it is just that - entertainment. Sometimes I want to watch films that are "deep" and "meaningful," like The Master. Sometimes I just want to sit back and be entertained, like Premium Rush. This a much better film than I expected based on the previews. My first thought about the concept: "how the Hell will they maintain my interest for a feature-length running time?" I now know how the Hell.

3.5/4

Sinister

An Original Take on Found Footage

Let me begin this review by talking about the horror genre, one of my very favorite genres. Why? I'm not entirely sure I can adequately answer that question, but there is a greatness and admiration to be found in films that have the ability to instill feelings of tension, suspense, thrills, and scares. That's the beauty of cinema - it can move you in so many ways. In the case of comedy, you laugh. In a drama, you might cry. In a horror film, you may find your skin crawling. Perhaps it's also the elusive nature of a great (or even good) horror film that makes it all the more appealing to me. Each year is typically littered with great dramas and other genre pictures, but great horror films are few and far between. The last truly great horror film I can recall is Let Me In, which I found to be just as good as the film it is remade from: Let the Right One In. Those are films with atmosphere, compelling characters, and original stories with scares that don't hinge on ninety years of horror film cliches.

So is Sinister a great horror film?

The film opens with a creepy scene - actually, it's more like an image, as it's simply Super 8 footage of four dead bodies hanging from a tree. We then cut to a family moving into a new house, two children, and a husband and wife. The main character (center-stage of every scene of the film) is Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), a true crime novelist who hasn't had a huge success in a decade. His last two books were failures, and when the Sheriff pays him a visit on moving day, he points out that one of Ellison's books got many facts wrong, and helped a murderer go free. He concludes the not-so-friendly welcome to the town by pointing at the house and saying he finds it to be "in very poor taste." Seconds later, Ellison's wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), questions Ellison, "please tell me we didn't move two houses down from a crime scene." He tells her they did not. This isn't a lie. They moved into the house of the crime scene, where in the backyard four bodies were hanged from a tree.

Much of modern horror cinema is riddled with either a) torture porn, b) found footage style, or c) both. Sinister wisely side-steps (a), preferring slow-burn tension and suspense, combined with a dark, moody atmosphere. But with (b) it embodies a fascinating technique - the film itself isn't shot in found-footage style, but the plot hinges on a series of Super 8 films that Ellison finds in the attic; quite literally, he finds footage that sets off the hair-raising, creepy plot that ensues. There are a variety of films; some dating back to the 60s, and one as recent as 1998. They all depict gruesome murders of different families, and perhaps they may be connected.

Ellison is searching for his next hit. In one scene, he replays an interview from ten years ago, discussing the success of his New York Times best-seller novel, "Kentucky Blood." In the interview, he states that justice is all he cares about. He'd "rather cut off both [his] hands than write something for fame and fortune." At another point, he tells his wife that "bad things happen to good people, but they still need to have their story told. They deserve that much." But is his research and writing all about justice? Is it altruistic? That's for you decide, but Ellison's motivations will come to a test.

The film is not without its share of cliches and typical jump-scares, but thankfully the film doesn't rely on them. The cinematography is often dimly-lit, sometimes as dark as you can get without watching a black screen, and it creates a brooding atmosphere, wherein we suspect something "sinister" (pun intended) may happen at any moment. At times it borders on the unrealistic - you almost want to tell him to turn the damn lights on. Either Ellison loves to work in the dark or he loves to save on his electric bill.

Unlike many modern horror films, this one relies on a slow-burn story that gradually creeps up on you before the real scares begin. Why can't more filmmakers understand this approach? A first act of amazing build-up and atmosphere before bringing in the scares results in a far more effective viewing experience than a scene of gruesome bloodletting within the first five minutes.

The acting on behalf of Hawke (who is the only character truly to speak of - most of those others have minimal screen time, though several, such as Vincent D'Onofrio are crucial to the plot) is great for the material. He plays an every-man very well, and imbues the crass, hardly altruistic nature of his character to great effect. The film rests on his shoulders, and he does not disappoint.

This is the creepiest film I've seen all year, and likely the best horror film of the year (I discount The Cabin in the Woods as I found that more of a comedy than anything else). It is far without its flaws, but Hawke and director Scott Derrickson keep this notches above the average modern horror film. Don't see it expecting to be wowed by an impeccable script, or an incredibly original plot. But if you're a fan of horror, this is worthy of seeing, especially in a time when even decent horror is few and far between.

***/****