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.

***/****

The Contender

"We Are No Better Than He is"

I have seen three of director Rod Lurie's films. The first was this film, probably three or four years ago. I enjoyed it a great deal at the time, though found it *slightly* hard to follow. Only slightly. The other two films are both inferior, though also both films that I wouldn't give a negative review (just not an overly positive one). Those are Nothing But the Truth, and the remake of Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs. Since seeing The Contender for the first time, I've seen it countless more times - it is a delightfully rewatchable film, with some amazing writing and dialogue, a twisty, ingenuous plot, and above all, a fantastic cast that gives some brilliant performances.

Among those key figures of the cast are the highly entertaining Christian Slater as Rep. Webster, the reserved and subtle Joan Allen as Senator Hanson, the chameleon Gary Oldman as Rep. Shelly Runyon, and one of the best living actors, Jeff Bridges as President Jackson Evans. All of these actors give phenomenal performances, spewing the screenplay's heavy dialogue in the most believable, realistic fashion possible. Perhaps the most confusing part (for me on first watch - I should note, it was entirely followable, but a few times I had to think about what was going on; this is not a criticism, only a note) are all the names that are thrown around. Another film that had such a problem was the Coens' Miller's Crossing, but the chief issue with that film was that names are tossed around for people we haven't meant or perhaps never see. Here, that is not the issue.

Gary Oldman as Shelly Runyon plays a highly conservative Republican in charge of the House Judiciary Committee, who will decide whether to advise and consent to Sen. Hanson's ascension to the vice presidency, which has been left vacant for a few weeks (the exact details of what happened to the former Vice President are unclear, and unimportant). President Evans (Bridges) has chosen Hanson as his choice; his "swan song." Much ado is made about the fact that Evans is only nominating Hanson as his choice to "put a woman in office." At times, it actually seems like that may be the case, but there is more beneath the surface than we realize at first, one of the great joys of the screenplay by Lurie.

Conflict arises because Runyon leads the attack on Hanson, personally preferring Governor Hathaway (William Peterson), but also in an attempt to make a mockery of the Evans' administration. Hanson had previously been a member of the Republican party, but then moved to the Democratic party - this is part of Runyon's rage. But his hostility toward her is layers deep - he hates her stance on abortion, religion, and many other issues. There are a few references to Runyon and President Evans at Hartford - Evans suggest perhaps he shouldn't have been so rough on Runyon there.

Gary Oldman as Representative Runyon gives an outstanding performance; he's snaky, aggressive, and manipulative. Christian Slater gives an excellent performance as a Democrat, chosen by Republican Runyon to board the committee, because Slater doesn't support Hanson. Since the committee should be fifty-fifty Democrat/Republican, it benefits Runyon to bring aboard a Democrat who is not in favor of Hanson. But Slater's character, like most of the characters, proves to be more than he suggests on the surface. In fact, along with Allen's Senator Hanson, he may be one of the few characters in the film who holds true to the morals and "follow[s] [their] heart."

Jeff Bridges turns in yet another amazing performance as the President of the United States. The writing of his character is also stupendous. He has grace, likability, and a veritable presence on the screen and whatever room he's in. One of his most fascinating attributes is his constant ordering of food and his offering of food to whomever he may be entertaining at the time. Sometimes it's in the middle of conversation; at one particular point, it's in the middle of a crucial scene, and it reaches a line of comedy. "That's a shark steak sandwich. Fucking shark steak," he tells Slater, just before condemning the man for "defying his President."

"Fucking shark steak."

This film is hardly partisan. Runyon as the central Republican character is despicable, and there are two (fabulous) scenes involving his wife that let us know a great deal about Runyon's character, and one of those scenes brings Hanson to a magnificent, clenching decision that shows more of her true colors. Most of the other major characters are Democrats, from President Evans, to Laine Hanson, et al. I'd also like to note that Sam Elliott as White House Chief of Staff Kermit Newman turns in a fantastic performance. He's direct, harshly truthful, but still supportive.

After seeing the film for the first time, I looked up it's rating and consensus on RottenTomatoes. It holds a 76%, with the consensus "Critics say this political thriller is solidly made, with top-notch performances, screenplay, and direction for about two third of the film. Unfortunately, the ending almost tank the whole movie." Ignoring the two grammatical errors in those mere two sentences (hey, I've made plenty of typos, but come on, it's TWO sentences), I have always wondered (especially after MANY repeated viewings) what part of the ending "almost tank[s] the whole movie."

This is a political thriller with an ensemble of brilliant performances. It's accessible and entertaining. The characters are unique and dimensional; all of whom have their morals, values, and lines of absolute. The true greatness of the film is when those lines of absolute don't match up.

****/****

Why Stop Now

Cocaine, Mozart, and Tracy Morgan

I've never been a huge fan of Tracy Morgan. I've never thought him to be that good of an actor, and he was my least favorite part of 30 Rock. I never saw the Kevin Smith-directed Cop Out, and I've really never seen him in a film role. Here, he plays the part of "Sparkles," a drug dealer. Jesse Eisenberg (an absolute favorite of mine) plays the lead role of Eli, and Melissa Leo, another great actor, as his mother, Penny.

The basic concept is this: Eli is a piano prodigy, and he has a very important audition today. Penny is his mother, an addict (to cocaine, I believe, the film never makes it specific). Eli himself may be an alcoholic to some degree; he drank heavily the night before his audition, and according to Penny, drinks every few nights of the week. But Eli is trying to get himself together for his audition, drop his sister off at school, and mostly importantly, deliver his mother (Penny) to rehab.

Only problem? Penny doesn't test positive for drugs in her urine test. She's stayed clean for the few days leading up to rehab, and has no drugs in her system. The attendant at the rehab suggests she goes out and gets high, comes back with "dirty urine," and then she can be admitted. And here begins the main plot of the film.

This is a film that tries to walk the line between comedy and drama, but seems to take the drama much less seriously, and the comedy to a degree that we can't quite believe. Tracy Morgan, as Penny's dealer, gives a tolerable performance, but nothing different from what we've seen from him before. The film treats drug addiction so meagerly that it almost seems comical. Drug addiction, whatever it may be - Sparkles sells heroin and cocaine (Penny is a cocaine addict I think....) - is much more serious than this film seems to think it is. Penny hasn't used in days, and at one point, after the happenings of the day, she proclaims that "[she] doesn't feel like using." This is simply a glossed over version of addiction - true addiction isn't nearly so easy to quit, you can't stop, you'll do anything to get your fix, and hurt people you care about.

I believe the intent here is good. I believe the filmmakers wanted to show the harrowing aspects of drug addiction, along with providing a comedic backdrop with which to tell the story. Unfortunately, they got many aspects confused. It's comedy in the wrong moments, and drama when we don't want it. The funniest parts, involving Sparkles (Tracy Morgan) and his friend, vanish when those characters do, and after that I wondered why they were involved in this plot to begin with. They enter and exit with little impact.

Jesse Eisenberg is a great actor. He proved that in one of the best films of all time, The Social Network. Here, he exhibits the same ability to deliver fast-paced dialogue, but it isn't the same at all. Melissa Leo is a fine actress, but she has a tendency to go over-the-top (Red State). I hope to see more films from this bunch, but hope they don't gloss over the dark realities of drug addiction like this film. It's a serious issue, and if you (welcomely) want to bring comedy into the mix, you better know how to tread that line.

**/**** 

Lawless

The Immortal Bondurants

John Hillcoat is a very good director, though I've only seen two of his films. The first was his Australian western The Proposition, starring Guy Pearce, which was a great entry into the recent western genre canon. He then made the bleak, harrowing adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's identically titled novel The Road, which was an amazing film. Now he brings us a period piece set mostly in 1931, during Prohibition, based on a book "The Wettest County In the World," which chronicles the true story of the Bondurant family; specifically, three brother bootleggers operating out of Franklin County, Virginia. The brothers are Jack (Shia LeBeouf), Forrest (Tom Hardy), and Howard (Jason Clarke) who, with the help of a young boy named Cricket, operate a bar and make moonshine on the side.

Trouble starts when Special Deputy Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce) comes in from Chicago to lean (heavily) on the bootleggers. He informs Forrest he wants a cut of all the money the Bondurants make (and makes similar threats to the other bootleggers of Franklin County). Forrest informs him to leave, and if he returns, Forrest will kill him. Other key characters include Maggie (Jessica Chastain), a dancer from Chicago who is hired by Forrest to be a waitress at the bar, Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman), a Chicago gangster, and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska), daughter of the local preacher and love interest of Jack.

The Bondurants. Three brothers, all with very different personalities, but still believably brothers. Jack, the youngest, wants desperately to get in on the bootlegging business, but he doesn't have the grit that Forrest and Howard do. When he's severely beaten by Rakes, Forrest informs him that he needs to learn to stand up for himself. Forrest (in a wonderful performance from Tom Hardy) is a big guy who's generally calm and considerate in his actions, unlike Howard who's a hothead drunk that'll go off on anybody in a split second. Forrest is a big guy, and if it comes to it, he'll beat you nearly to death with his iron knuckles. The Bondurants are considered immortal via local legend. It does eventually seem as if they live up to that reputation, especially with everything Forrest survives.

The film is one of those fascinating stories that drops us into a world that few people really understand or have experienced (especially given the long-ago time period), surrounded by unique characters that are distinct and important to the escalation of the plot. The story employs the oft-used technique of empathizing with and humanizing criminals, particularly by making the authorities even badder. Rakes is an evil, soulless man, who commits some of the most brutal crimes in the film.

The acting is phenomenal, though at times Guy Pearce feels as though he's trying too hard ("going over the top"), which is interesting because he played the lead role in Hillcoat's The Proposition with a fascinating subtlety. Gary Oldman is great, though his role is set-up as large, and then he fades away, which was a shame. Tom Hardy is absolutely wonderful as Forrest Bondurant, showing yet another angle of acting agility (compare the man in this film, then The Dark Knight Rises, Warrior, and Bronson - he's great). Most surprisingly to me, Shia LeBeouf is also great as Jack Bondurant, playing the character with a naïveté and burning desire to be like his older brothers with fascinating ability.

The filmmaking is stellar, with special credit given to the cinematography, set and costume design. Everything feels like Prohibition era backwoods of bootlegger territory. The characters from Chicago are noticeably different in character and appearance than the "hicks" of Franklin County. The script is well-written, but not without its flaws. There seems to be no acknowledgement of the repercussions of revenge; that's the Bondurant answer to every problem - vengeance. But what of its consequences? The film seems to care little about that, though at times it felt like it may address the issue, but then side-steps it, instilling a feeling of frustration. The climax is overcooked. Without spoiling anything, I am unsure why so many people are involved in the climax, aside from it being necessary for more bullets to fly. The epilogue is hopelessly unnecessary, and in fact seems to validate many of the actions of the Bondurants; yet another example of side-stepping the likely consequences of violence and revenge.

All considered, this is an exceptionally well-made, stupendously acted gangster crime film that realistically drops us into an unfamiliar setting, with unique and fascinating characters. The story waffles sometimes between profundity and sheepishness to reality. It clearly strives to be a much greater film than it ultimately is, but in doing so, it still remains a good film worth seeing. And it very much makes me await Hardy's next role.

3.5/4

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Hushpuppy, Wink, and The Bathtub

Disconnected from modern civilization, the Bathtub is an impoverished, small-knit community of citizens that live on the other side of the New Orleans levee. They're in constant danger of flooding, and they know that big storm is on the horizon. Among this community lives Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis), a six-year old girl who is one of the strongest, bravest little girls - ahem, children - ever portrayed in a film. I amend to "children" because it hardly seems as though Hushpuppy recognizes a difference between men and women, or hardly sees herself as any sort of traditional girl. She lives in the Bathtub with her father, Wink (Dwight Henry), who teaches her how to be strong and survive. He never wants to leave the Bathtub, and neither does she. Wink isn't afraid to issue a slap to Hushpuppy if she needs it, though. He's a tough, but ultimately very loving father.

The film is narrated by and the story seen through the eyes of Hushpuppy, with an Oscar-worthy performance from Wallis, who creates an authenticity and believability that few, if any, other children would have been capable of. It is quite remarkable, and she earns her place among the great child performances of all time. Wallis was five when the film was cast (despite the production seeking actresses ages six to nine), seven when it was completed, but she shows an understanding of drama and humanism that few adult actors possess.

Hushpuppy is far from worldly, though. There's a great bit of naïveté to her character, as is true of all children her age. She thinks that animals sometimes speak to her in code. When she accidentally sets a fire to her house, she believes that hiding under a cardboard box will keep her safe. After all, if the flames can't see her, how can she be hurt by them? Out of sight, out of mind, is a typical child characteristic. But this is Hushpuppy's journey; learning the realities of the world, and learning that everything is part of one big whole, and we are just pieces. We don't live forever, and neither will her father.

When Hushpuppy does visit a modern facility, leagues different than the makeshift cabins and shacks of the Bathtub, she describes it as a "fish-tank without the water." Hushpuppy's mother is no longer in the picture, though Hushpuppy sometimes calls out to her, and speaks of her frequently. Wink tells her glamorous stories of her mother; stories obviously so outrageous that we don't believe them as reality, but suspect that Hushpuppy does. At the very least, she indulges in the fantasy, which is another part of her journey; understanding the cavernous difference between reality and fantasy, which comes to a heart-breaking and touching climactic scene in which both collide, and she makes one big step toward growing up.

Rarely has a character in a film trotted the line between childhood naïveté and adulthood wisdom with such complexity, believability, and originality. This is a testament to both the writing on behalf of Lucy Alibar and co-writer/director Benh Zeitlin as well as the acting of Wallis. I have a hard time believing many other actors could have played the role of Hushpuppy to such excellence and depth as Wallis does here. The casting team was impressed with Wallis's readability skills and her embodiment of a fearless young girl. When asked "If you had caused the end of the world, what would you do?" Wallis replied, "I would try to fix it. I would go to bed on time and brush my teeth." That's about right.

Not only was this Wallis's first acting role, it was also the first time acting for Dwight Henry, who plays Wink, Hushpuppy's father. Before being cast, Henry owned a bakery across the street from the casting agency where Court 13 studios were located in New Orleans. Henry claims he never had much interest in acting, and only read for the part as a favor for a friend, but was later called back. The filmmakers had considered bringing in a professional actor for the part, but eventually were determined to have Henry for the part. Henry, who had been through Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Betsy as a child. I have no doubt his life experience is what led to such a believable, flawless performance. Not for a second was I unconvinced I was watching a real citizen of the Bathtub.

The cinematography is gorgeous. The direction outstanding. Beasts of the Southern Wild reminds me of a Ramin Bahrani film fused with Winter's Bone. The stark realism; the often handheld camera; the minutiae of details; and the low-key, powerfully emotional story. Bahrani made an excellent film that centered around a strong child living in impoverished conditions in his masterpiece Chop Shop. I couldn't help but be reminded of that film while watching Beasts. 

This is a remarkable film, a film that defies explanation at times. Its blend of a hyper-realistic lifestyle with fantasy can be viewed and analyzed in so many different ways. What I think it's trying to say is that fantasy and reality aren't always so different, even through the eyes of an adult, and there's much we can learn from stories, fables, and fantasies, but sometimes we have to stand-up and recognize the difference to grow up.

For a film seen entirely through the eyes of a child, there is a lot of maturity at work here. Wink teaches his daughter to care for herself, because he won't always be around. His stories become a mechanism of  growth for Hushpuppy. She lives a life that most people couldn't possibly bear, but she does it with insane courage and without an ounce of regret or disdain. Zeitlin is wise to filter the entire point-of-view of the film through Hushpuppy. It allows us to understand her, and watch her grow. When Wink receives bad news at one point, we hear only what Hushpuppy can hear, no more. We see only what she can see. Wallis carries this film, and hopefully her stunning performance will go on to earn her an Academy Award nomination.

This is one of the best films of the year. Striking, realistic, touching, and effective, with one of the best child performances of all time. The writing, directing, and cinematography are top-notch. If there is any justice, this film will receive nominations for Best Actress, Best Picture, and Best Adapted Screenplay. If there is any justice.

****/****

Flight

"No One Could have Landed That Plane Like I Did"

Robert Zemeckis returns to live action cinema for the first time since 2000's Cast Away, which likewise featured a terrifying plane crash, shown almost entirely from inside the plane. With Flight, Zemeckis one-ups himself in that regard; this film depicts a plane flight so harrowing and terrifying it induced a feeling of vertigo in me, particularly when the plane fails at 30,000 feet and goes into a dive, losing 4500 feet per minute. Zemeckis sets up this crash in spectacular fashion - first we experience the flight through extreme turbulence, and breathe a sigh of relief when it makes it through. But then the real problem occurs.

The plane is landed in what everyone hails an absolute miracle - of the 102 people on board, only six died. The FAA conducted flight simulators recreating the event and every pilot tested killed every passenger and crew member aboard. Captain William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is said to have "pulled some kind of move up there," doing what seemingly nobody else could have done. Only thing is, he had been drinking and doing drugs the days before the flight; in fact, every night before the flight, to excess. He even drank the morning of the flight, insufflated cocaine, and drank a little screwdriver while piloting the plane.

The NTSB begins conducting their investigation, as they always do in the case of a plane crash. They must determine: was it mechanical failure? Was it pilot error? And the blood test results don't look good for Whip, who could be facing a life-sentence. Whip, to avoid the media at his apartment, takes refuge at his deceased father's farmhouse. He also brings in Nicole (Kelly Reilly), a recovering heroin addict who nearly died from an overdose, which is shown to us in intercuts between Whip and the doomed flight, and her problems with her landlord and drug dependency. They come together in the stairwell of the hospital, which is one of the film's funnier and yet meaningful scenes. Whip takes her in when she's kicked out of her apartment.

When Whip first wakes up from recovery, he has no interest in drinking or doing drugs. His dealer, Harling Mays (John Goodman, who steals every scene he's in), visits him in the hospital, bringing him vodka, which Whip rejects. But it isn't long before Whip revisits his alcoholism, which becomes the core focus of the film.

The direction by Zemeckis is fresh and entertaining, yet isn't afraid to take its time for the more subtle moments. It's a character piece with a large scope and a broad appeal. The script is splendid, dragging us deep into the life of an alcoholic, not pulling any punches, not glossing over any of the darkness that accompanies the disease. Most realistically, Whip knows (though denies to nearly everyone except himself) that he's an alcoholic. But that isn't something he wants to face. In a one honest moment, to Nicole, he admits that alcohol has destroyed most of his life.

The acting is top-notch, particularly from Denzel, who exists in almost every scene. He's likely to go on to receive many award nominations, including the Globes and Oscars. John Goodman is great here as well, and deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Most of his attention seems to be going to his role in Argo, which was solid, but he steals his scenes here.

The film is not perfect, but it is a very entertaining, character-driven dramedy about a very serious subject. It's portrayal of drug use (excluding alcohol as a drug in this instance) isn't the best, but it's also a side issue. Also, without spoilers, I wish more had been done with the fabulous character of Nicole, though granted there is a bit of catharsis to that element in the end. All in all, this is a welcomed return to live-action for Zemeckis, with a great screenplay (worthy of awards consideration) by John Gatins, and Oscar-worthy turns from Denzel and Goodman.

One of the year's best films!

****/****

Argo

"Argo Fuck Yourself"

There isn't a more appropriate title for this review than that, a joke repeated numerous times throughout the film; probably because Argo (the film within a film) is practically a joke itself. It's a ripoff of Star Wars, which bear in mind was a rather new film during the setting of Argo (1979-1980). Argo regards the Iran hostage crisis during the Carter administration, but more particularly, the efforts of the CIA, and one agent in particular, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), to rescue six Americans who escaped the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador. And the efforts on behalf of Mendez are nothing short of entertaining and enthralling, though no doubt this isn't an accurate history lesson. It's also a fascinating jab at Hollywood at times. Perhaps my favorite line of dialogue is after Mendez asks why they actually need to purchase the "Argo" screenplay. Producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) replies, "You're worried about the Ayatollah. Try the WGA."

It is an interesting thing, Ben Affleck as a director. He burst onto the screen with him phenomenal debut (as a director) with Gone Baby Gone, which surprised me and critics alike. And then came his action-crime thriller The Town, also beloved by myself and critics. And now he gives us Argo, probably the most critically embraced film he has made yet far. It made its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival, where Roger Ebert predicted it would win the Academy Award for Best Picture. It does seem destined for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay nominations, and probably at least one Supporting Actor nomination. Whether it will win I would not fathom a guess at this point, but it contains all the elements; it's a great film and a crowd pleaser.

I'm not sure if it was my expectations going in, or just my general opinion of the film, but this is, at least on first viewing, my least favorite of Affleck's directorial filmography. That is not to say it is bad or even subpar - I just think Affleck has made some incredible films. My favorite thus far still remains Gone Baby Gone, which surprised me more than Argo or The Town, and contained more levels of moral ambiguity and inner conflict than either of the others. Let's breakdown the critical consensus of the three. Gone Baby Gone: 94% on RottenTomatoes with an average of 7.7. The Town: 94% with a 7.8 average. Argo: 95% with an 8.4 average. Argo is clearly the critical darling of the three, and perhaps will move up on my list among the three with a second viewing.

I should note, this is probably Affleck's best directing to date. But best film and best directing aren't the same. I thought Requiem for a Dream was the best directed film of its year, but not the best film. Argo, for me, between Affleck's trio of directorial projects, lacks the character development, moral tension, and twists of Gone Baby Gone, and the sheer thrills and dynamic characters of The Town. It would have helped Argo if I'd been more invested in the six Americans that the film is centered around. As it stands, the most interesting characters are Mendez, Lester Siegel, Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston), and make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman). Beyond that, there isn't as much character work as Affleck's other two pictures. This all lay in the writing, and interestingly enough, Argo is the first Affleck-directed film that Affleck didn't write or co-write.

What of the acting? A good friend of mine wrote on his blog, of Argo, that "nobody directs Affleck better than Affleck." I don't disagree. He's as good here as he was in The Town, which is very good. Most of the Awards attention has gone in the direction of Goodman and Arkin. I see the praise for Arkin, not as much for Goodman. But I think some attention should be given to Bryan Cranston, not just because I'm a huge fan of his, but because he's fantastic, especially near the end as the film builds to its tense, albeit slightly predictable, climax. If Arkin receives an Oscar nomination, so should Cranston.

The film's technical craftsmanship is impeccable. The cinematography is great, and the film editing is phenomenal. No shortcuts were taken in these regards, though none were ever taken in Affleck's prior two films.

This is certainly a great film, destined for a great number of Awards nominations. It isn't my favorite of the year (The Master still holds that spot, with many films yet to see), nor my favorite of Affleck's three films, but it is undoubtedly good. I just wouldn't expect too much based on the reviews.

3.5/4

The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Fallen

I'm not sure where to begin with this review. I saw The Dark Knight on at a midnight screening opening night. Stood in line for an hour and a half to get good seats. That was at the beginning of my film-learning career, and it was (and still remains) one of the best theatre experiences in my entire life. It was just so much fun, and the packed audience made it so much more fun. Batman Begins was a great introduction to the Nolan-version of the superhero story, and The Dark Knight took it to another level, mainly because of the fascinating performance by Heath Ledger (which I still argue was not overrated in the slightest; Ledger owned that role). The film, however, was one of those films that just blows you away when you first see it, and diminishes with subsequent viewings. It still remains an incredibly good film, but some of the little plot holes and shoddy directorial choices begin to reveal themselves. One of the most poorly directed scenes of the film is the big truck chase scene in the middle of the Gotham streets after Harvey Dent is arrested and is being transported. There are some exceptionally poor shot decisions, and in fact a few rather confusing editing/directorial choices. But, that film is still a very good one with suspenseful and dramatic scenes that build and build and build to the exciting climax and a denouement that is the very definition of catharsis. Each scene is written with dramatic tension, and once the film gets going (pretty much from the first scene), it never stops. The true highlight still remains Ledger's performance, which is the most nuanced, brilliant work of art in the entire film; each viewing reveals new ticks and elements of his performance that you didn't notice before. Whereas the filmmaking itself... it never gets any better.

Christopher Nolan is a good writer, and a pretty good director. But, I do feel he's gotten lazier as the years go by, and as his profile increases. I still think his best film was his first film - the $7,000 black and white Following, which was staggeringly brilliant. Most important to note is his writing which has, beyond any other aspect of his work, become increasingly lazy. Look at the subtext and subtleties in Memento. Look at how discreetly information is revealed to the audience. Now look at Inception, where some of the dialogue is as on-the-nose, boring, and lazy as you can get. He's shifted from revealing information visually and subtlety to simply spelling it out for us. Let us be reminded that film is a visual medium; the earliest films told their stories entirely through pictures. Through visuals. When the talkies (movies with sound) were first introduced, many lamented that sound would destroy film. I don't think that has happened at all, but I do think that sound in film has allowed filmmakers to be very lazy. This isn't always the case, of course. Look at films like The Social Network, which basically wouldn't exist without sound. But films like these also aren't lazy in their revealing of exposition. Inception, above any of Nolan's other films, marked a turning point into the utilization of lazy narrative exposition.

Anyway, I speak of this because I want to lead into The Dark Knight Rises. Hands down, this is Nolan's most disappointing film, and my least favorite aside from Inception. I won't sit here and write that it's disappointing only because of director Nolan and co-writers Chris and John Nolan, and David Goyer. Much of its disappointment comes from the massive expectations set up by The Dark Knight. For this film to have been better than The Dark Knight, it would have to be one of the best films of the new decade. But, let's judge the film on its own level, along with a few comparisons between it and its predecessor, trying to set aside any disappointment resulting from it being a lesser film than The Dark Knight.

First, let's talk about the directing. I think the directing here is actually stronger than it was in The Dark Knight, at least when it comes to shot selection. Other decisions aren't quite as strong as Nolan's prior work in this trilogy.

The writing. This is where the film suffers the most. It suffers from the aforementioned lazy writing, but more importantly, it follows the same Nolan formula of The Dark Knight, without much of the dramatic potential and tension fused into every scene. Some scenes seem throwaway entirely, or at least could have been reduced or fused with other scenes for cinematic economy. This is one of the biggest differences between Rises and its predecessor. Some of Rises is downright boring, and it suffers from a second-act slog that The Dark Knight didn't have at all. Rises waffles back and forth with its tension, and its momentum is often met with a brick wall, and it has to start up all over again. And the third act is nothing less than unsatisfying. Without spoiling anything, what should be the climax ends not quite in a deus-ex-machina fashion, but also not the way it should. Let's just say our protagonist's journey isn't quite fulfilled. The denouement is nice, I guess, but feels like satisfying than it could have been, perhaps because it's a bit too tidy and neat, and perhaps because it follows an unsatisfying climax.

The next largest problem. Bane vs. The Joker. Not only was Ledger's performance *the* highlight of The Dark Knight, but his character was extraordinarily rich, complex, and fascinating to watch. So was Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins, but The Joker was even more so. So what did Rises need? A villain more rich and fascinating than The Joker. The performance didn't necessarily need to match Ledger's as The Joker, but the character had to be more fascinating. And simply put, Bane is not. The biggest reason is that Bane is a physical match to Batman, whereas The Joker was a mental villain. In fist to fist combat, The Joker stood no chance with Batman. He did everything he did because he was smart. He used intelligence against Gotham and Batman. Bane is a physical force, and in my opinion, that's just far less interesting. This isn't to say Bane is an idiot, he's far from it, but as Nolan even put it, he wanted a "physical force" for Batman to face.

Highlights of the film? Of all the characters, for me, Selina Kyle (played by Anne Hathaway) was the most interesting and dynamic character, and Hathaway did a kick-ass job with the part. It also features the typically great cinematography of Wally Pfister, as well as some excellent sound editing and mixing, and film editing. And of course, the special effects are as great as they were in the prior two Nolan Batman films. And there are some great set-pieces and moments, but that's all I'll say to avoid spoilers.

This is far from a bad film. It just isn't a great one. It isn't The Dark Knight or even Batman Begins, though some of its qualities are superior to those films, just not many of them.

I'll also note this film is a little better upon rewatch, when some things become a little clearer, but the major issues I had the first time around haven't changed. Consensus: good film, worth watching to see the closure of the Nolan batman trilogy, but also the weakest film of the three. Exceptional on every technical level. Some exciting and great scenes.

***/****

End of Watch

"I think We killed that guy!" "Good."

Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor. I think I first saw him in City Slickers, his first film appearance, albeit a minor role. I think I first saw him in a starring role in October Sky, a fun and heart-warming film. He's been only once nominated for an Academy Award; for his best performance to date in Brokeback Mountain. He's turned in splendid work in a great number of other starring roles, from Source Code to Zodiac to Brothers to Donnie Darko among many others. His sister is also very talented, but we won't get into that. Michael Pena, on the other hand, is an actor who has never much stuck out to me. I think I first saw him in Crash, and he's been in a number of other films, usually in supporting roles. But never have I watched him and seen him as an exceptional talent.

End of Watch gives both of these actors some of their best roles ever. For Gyllenhaal, this is his finest work since Brokeback Mountain. For Pena, this is his finest work ever, and many critics seem to agree. Both turn in Oscar worthy performances, but I see Pena more likely to be nominated if either are, simply because he's being campaigned as Supporting, and the Best Actor field is rather stacked this year with a collection of truly exceptional performances. The Supporting Actor field has yet to see any true stand-outs, aside from Philip S. Hoffman in The Master, who is probably the only lock in that field yet this year.

The director and writer, David Ayer, also has an impressive body of work. He didn't direct a film until 2006's Harsh Times, which I did not see, but wrote 2001's Training Day, for which he received a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination. That was a very good film, with two outstanding performances from Ethan Hawke and Denzel Washington. Its first half was better than its second, but overall it is still a very strong film.

Ayer has always seemed interested in writing films about police, in particular the LAPD. Training Day regarded a rookie LAPD narcotics officer assigned to a week of instruction under the guidance of a very corrupt cop, Alonzo Harris. Most films about police officers, especially those in Los Angeles or New York, seem to regard one or more corrupt cop characters. With End of Watch, Ayer gives us a film that is solely about two very decent police officers. These are two of the least corrupt cops ever put to the screen. Sure, not every single thing they do is by the books, but I would fathom a guess that no cop does everything by the book. But there's no doubt, Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Pena) are good people, good cops, and best friends.

In fact, it is their relationship that makes this film so effective. Their relationship feels incredibly natural, thanks to the two strong performances, and we really believe that they'd both lay down their lives for each other. Much of effectiveness of this film comes from the spectacular lead performances and chemistry of the actors, along with the inventive and unique direction by Ayer. Ayer's direction creates what is hands down the most realistic police-oriented film I have ever seen. If I didn't know Gyllenhaal and Pena were actors, you could show me certain scenes of this film and I'd entirely believe you if you told me it was a documentary. I've discovered Gyllenhaal and Pena underwent five-months of training, including up to three 12 hour ride-alongs per week. These actors truly absorbed everything they saw, and not for one moment was I unconvinced that these guys were cops. This isn't to say the film doesn't embellish for dramatic potential, but what good and entertaining films don't?

I won't go into the plot much in this review, because it isn't very important. The trailer tells you what you need to know of the plot - these two good cops accidentally draw the attention of a very dangerous cartel operating in South Central LA. That's all you need to know about the plot. The importance of this review is to describe how a plot that isn't exactly exceedingly original still results in an amazing film - namely via the superb performances, the unique hand-held, almost "found footage" design of the cinematography, and the expert attention to police procedural details that went into the making of this film. Everything from the writing to the most subtle details of the performances exudes an element of accurate craftsmanship; a labor of love, and finally a film that respects the intricacies and exactitudes of police-work, along with a respect for giving the audience what they want. This film is the perfect balance of an episode of COPS fused with dramatic writing that delivers a pleasing catharsis.

See this film because it is a unique one. See this film because it is the most realistic portrayal of cops I have ever seen in a major fictional motion picture. See this film because it contains two of the year's best performances. See this film because it is one of the year's best.

****/****

Arbitrage

What Else is there Other than Money?

Arbitrage, directed by Nicholas Jarecki and starring Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Brit Marling, and Tim Roth, is a dramatic thriller with many layers of ethical and political conflict, peppered with strong performances across the board.

I've never been a huge fan of Richard Gere - he's generally always Richard Gere, and never have I been won over by a performance of his. With Arbitrage, Gere has delivered a career best performance, one worthy of Oscar consideration. Gere plays billionaire Robert Miller, a hedge fund manager, and like many such individuals, not everything he does is legal. He cooks books, and stands by his unethical decisions by saying they resulted in everybody winning. He believes money is the most important thing in life. Indeed, when presented with a question from somebody who he has dragged into a bad situation - "You think money's going to fix this?" - his response is simply, "what else is there?" His daughter (Brit Marling) works for him, which he makes very clear in what is one of the film's best scenes, and the very scene that may well launch him to the short-list for Awards consideration.

The plot's main conflict arises when Miller, driving in a car with his mistress, has an accident in the middle of the night. She dies, and Miller flees. The car blows up shortly after. Miller is a smart man, and rather than calling for help on his cell phone, he uses a pay phone to call a "friend" (though that term will certainly come into question by many people throughout the film) for help. It isn't long before he has a police detective (Tim Roth) on his trail, and his world begins to spiral out of control. No matter how careful you are, you're never careful enough.

All of this while Miller is trying to sell his company for a lot of money, and something like this would not only land him in prison for 20 years, but destroy the company, and the lives of many other people (including his family). Miller lacks any sort of ethical soul in any kind of conventional way - he believes money can fix everything, because so far in his life, it has. This theory will come to a brutal test, especially between him, his wife (Susan Sarandon), and his daughter.

His wife knows of the affair. Does she care? It doesn't seem like it. At least until the police want to talk to her. She brushes them off at first, but can't do that forever.

The film is clever and unique in the way it presents a man who shouldn't be likable in the least, but manages to have us rooting for him... a little bit, anyway. Yes, the accident was indeed an accident. But Miller's lack of an moral conviction results in a subtlety fiendish character; much like car accidents themselves, you can't help but watch him, but you also can't help but loathe him.

This is one of Gere's most dynamic performances. Notice the way he gets extremely passionate and upset and says things he definitely means, but seconds later wished he hadn't said them. "Sorry" isn't a word he often, if ever, uses. Why should he? A couple million dollar payoff is much easier than apologizing for him. But Miller isn't a monster. He's done many good things for many people. Many people count on him. He's saved lives, like that of the "friend" he calls for help after the accident. But are his actions altruistic? I'd say it would be hard to make a case that they are. He'll help people, especially if he helps himself along the way.

The supporting performances are all great as well. Tim Roth as the snaky, determined detective is fun to watch whenever he's on screen. Brit Marling as a financial officer for her father is splendid in her naïveté and intelligence. Sarandon projects a cold, lifeless performance, but that is only a compliment. But ultimately it is Gere who steals the show and keeps the film moving at an entertaining, but still harshly realistic pace. As Roger Ebert put it: "We tend to identify with the leading character of a film, even if he is a heartless bastard. Few films illustrate this curiosity better than Nicholas Jarecki's "Arbitrage," and few actors might have been better at making it work than Richard Gere. Here is man involved in a multimillion-dollar fraud, who cheats on his wife, tries to cover up the death of his mistress and would throw his own daughter under a bus. Yet we are tense with suspense while watching him try to get away with it." I couldn't agree more.

3.5 out of 4