Dave On Film

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

2013-05-17T06:00:59Z

The Star Trek TV show was an important step in the evolution of science fiction, a post-Cold War series that offered a hopeful future, a future where race, creed, religion and gender were irrelevant and that even aliens from other planets were accepted as equals. The TV show spawned additional series, along with ten feature films, but things had become rather grim and the campy humor and brash personalities of the Star Trek universe had become tired cliches held together with duct tape and old tropes.

That's why in 2009 when wunderkund director J.J.Abrams released the "reboot" film Star Trek, it was so well received. We all still want to believe in a future that's better then the present, we all hope that the human race is going to create harmony, even if there are weird alien races in the mix. The film did very well financially, with domestic grosses topping $250 million.

Star Trek Into Darkness takes place a few years after Star Trek ends, opening with a cartoonish sequence where Spock (Zachary Quinto) risks his life to prevent a nascent civilization being destroyed by a volcano. When he ends up stranded in the fiery caldera it's up to Kirk (Chris Pine) to violate the ever-important Prime Directive by revealing the ship to the locals in order to rescue Spock. But Spock has also violated the Prime Directive himself by interfering with the natural progress of the local tribe. Not good.

Back on Earth, Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) later gives them the bad news: Kirk is suspended from Starfleet and Spock is reassigned to a minor space mission as consequence for violating the rule that Starfleet holds highest in its code of conduct.

]]> All is not well in The Federation, however, and investigation of a terrorist attack in 23rd Century London reveals former Starfleet officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) as the culprit, causing Starfleet to convene an emergency meeting with the top brass, a meeting where warmonger Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) vehemently insists that "this is about revenge. Find him. Now!"

The action just speeds up from this point as we learn Harrison is considerably more than he seems, that there's a plot to attack the Federation from within, and that not everyone in Starfleet headquarters is working for the same side. Action then moves to the far side of the Neutral Zone to Kronos, the Klingon home planet, where Harrison waits for Kirk to arrive.

Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) question Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) from "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Star Trek Into Darkness is a rollercoaster ride, a non-stop parade of special effects that are often breathtaking. And yet, so many of the action sequences are derivative of other sci-fi action films. From nods to 2001: A Space Odyssey to The Fifth Element, from The Matrix Reloaded to Minority Report, from Blade Runner to, yes, Star Wars, few of the scenes felt original.

There are also lots of references, overt and subtle, to the original Star Trek TV series, including a guest tribble that was great fun to see. In a lot of ways, Star Trek Into Darkness is a film made for the Trekkie, the hardcore Star Trek fan who knows everything about the Trek universe, and if you've seen Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, you'll recognize lots ripped from that film, interesting and poignant dramatic elements. We just needed the Genesis Planet to complete the set. :-)

What I most liked about the original Star Trek series was the dialog, the camaraderie and occasional tension between Captain Kirk, Science Officer Spock, Medical Officer "Bones" McCoy and Chief Engineer Scotty. The film retains much of this energy with many amusing scenes and some terrific dialog between Kirk, Spock, Bones (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin). The relationship between communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Spock continues, and the sporadic tension between the two of them spawns some of the best dialog in the movie.

It's a film for Star Trek fans. But does it work for everyone else? When I saw the film screened, it was easy to tell who the fans were in the darkened auditorium because they kept cheering and laughing at the inside jokes and obscure references. For the rest of us, Star Trek Into Darkness has a lot of plot hiccups. Enough that more than once I said "Huh? How did that happen? How did we get here? Where'd (s)he come from?" To avoid spoilers I won't detail the issues but it marred a really fun film and makes me wonder if the "director's cut" might not add 20min of additional footage that explains everything better.

I'm a long time Star Trek fan, and still remember watching the TV show with my Dad, who famously would ask "Explain to me why they're entrusting this multi-billion dollar starship to this immature, headstrong Captain Kirk?" I could never answer, and yes, that question comes up again in this film. How rich is the Federation that they can go through huge starships in film after film?

Star Trek Into Darkness is definitely a film for science fiction fans. It's fun, it's entertaining and it's non-stop action interwoven with humorous dialog. Heck, I think it's more fun than Iron Man 3. But is it a flawless example of the best of sci-fi cinema? No, not so much. Still, go see it. You'll enjoy.

Review: The Great Gatsby

2013-05-10T06:00:34Z

In a sea of bland lookalike films, the brash, electric new production of F. Scott Fitzgerald's landmark book The Great Gatsby is an art deco dream of the 1920s, fueled by too much gin and too many sequins. It is an astonishing film, as much a reminder of the magic of cinema as it is an ultimately tragic love story.

The film follows young writer Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) during the passion and heat-fueled summer of 1922. He's rented a small cottage adjacent to the glorious mansion of the mysterious but popular Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby plays host to extravagant parties every weekend, hundreds of people reveling in orgies of music, alcohol and sex. It's the place to be, except the enigmatic Gatsby never seems to attend his own parties.

Directly across the bay from Gatsby's mansion is the estate of Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) with its green dock light, a light that sears into Gatsby's heart every night. Daisy is Nick's cousin and he soon becomes swept up their social whirl, including an ongoing flirtation with languid tennis pro Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki). It's the 20s and morals are loose, jazz is king and relationships aren't what they were at the turn of the century.

Eventually Carraway learns that Gatsby has been in love with Daisy since they first met five years earlier, when he was in the Army. She's married to Tom, but does she still love Gatsby, and could she leave Tom to rekindle her passion with the man she swore she'd wait for, until Tom came along and bought her love with impossibly expensive glitter?

]]> There's an underlying pathos throughout the movie that perfectly fits the era too, a breathless urgency to have one more drink, share intimacy with one more person before it's too late. As a poor outsider, Nick represents all of us looking in voyeuristically at the excesses of the very rich, whether they're treating rare motorcars flippantly or speaking ill of black servants even as the evening meal is served.

Between the homes of the wealthy residents of East and West Egg and the city of New York is a poor area, a visual harbinger of the tumult to come with The Great Depression, the city of ashes. Ceaselessly dirty and grey, the only color is the watchful eyes of optometrist T. J. Eckleburg's long-abandoned billboard. As every high school Gatsby reader knows, these are metaphorically the eyes of God, a rather Orwellian judge who sees all but utters no judgment.

What can be said of a city that is so corrupt underneath the glitz and glamor that every denizen doesn't already secretly know? This corruption is the source of the breathless urgency both in the story and in the production itself, a pell-mell flume ride to the inevitable climax.

Gatsby (Leo DiCaprio) professes his undying love to Daisy (Carey Mulligan) in "The Great Gatsby"

I'm an unabashed fan of Leonardo DiCaprio and have enjoyed watching him grow into one of the best actors in Hollywood today, and his performance as the enigmatic Gatsby is pitch perfect, the self-made millionaire who is all too aware of how hollow his life really is. The performance that surprised me was that of Tobey Maguire. Best known for the Spider-Man trilogy, his Nick Carraway is nuanced, touching and sympathetic. He wants to be impressed, he wants to fit in, but he knows that there's something fake about everything related to Gatsby, a corruption that reflects the entire glitzy world of the upper class.

Rather surprisingy for a period drama, you can choose to watch The Great Gatsby in 2D or 3D. I saw the 3D version and while I went in skeptical -- as I am of all 3D productions -- the more immersive nature of 3D fits perfectly with the extravagance of the time and the often frenetic pace of the film.

In a production reminiscent of director Baz Luhrmann's earlier Moulin Rouge, the look and energy of The Great Gatsby is breathtaking. Parties never stop and are always excessive, whether it's a blue-collar romp Tom and Nick have with Tom's mistress Myrtle (Isla Fisher) in her love nest or the extravagance of Gatsby's own parties.

The Great Gatsby is one of the most gorgeous films I've seen in a long time, capturing the hope, the optimism and the glitter of the art deco era. Coupled with the engaging narrative and uniformly excellent performances, it's a love story that transcends the clichés of the genre to stand as one of the best films released this year.

Review: Iron Man 3

2013-05-06T12:21:14Z

After the narrative train wreck that was Iron Man 2, I was curious where the story would take us with inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) in the Marvel universe. Last time he was on screen was the terrific The Avengers, where his sarcasm and narcissism was balanced by having other characters share the screen, but in Iron Man 3, it's all about Tony.

Or is it?

Turns out that when James "Rhodie" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) donned the Iron Man suit on behalf of the US military in Iron Man 2, it was a harbinger of a big, albeit inevitable story twist, where the Iron Man suit and Tony Stark become independent characters. Indeed, in this third outing there are dozens of suits and all sorts of characters get to be inside them, even the President (William Sadler).

Rhodie gets his own "War Machine" suit painted a patriotic red, white and blue, Tony's faithful partner Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) ends up wearing a "mark 46" prototype whose pieces can fly and wrap itself around a persons body in mid-jump, and of course the bad guys have suits of their own.

Which leaves a critical question: What's more interesting, the suit or Tony Stark?

Iron Man 3 is definitely better than the second film in the series, but with so many suits flying around -- and a finale that features twenty or more autonomous, "Jarvis" (voice of Paul Bettany) computer controlled suits -- the message is clearly that Stark himself is obsolete and that it's the Iron Man suits that are important. Which leaves us with nowhere to go narratively. I surmise that the filmmakers are aware of this problem because the closing credits includes the teaser "Tony Stark will be back", presumably in the Avengers sequel. But will Tony Stark be inside that metal suit?

]]> The story itself is smartly written, about creepy Osama-like terrorist mastermind The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who claims credit for a series of explosions throughout the United States. But there are oddities about the explosions themselves, a lack of shells and casings, and a level of sophistication in the crimes that includes the ability to splice into the live video feed of all television channels simultaneously. As it turns out, The Mandarin is a faux terrorist orchestrated by a far more cynical criminal, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who Tony first meets in a flashback from 1999. Killian, a fellow scientist, seeks backing from Stark Industries. Tony, however, ignores Killian because he only has eyes for lovely botanist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), who offers up pillow talk about her work identifying the genetic sequences that will let plants -- and perhaps people -- regenerate limbs and repair other physical harm.

Stark rejects the idea as being too dangerous, too easily weaponized. "You could create super soldiers with that sort of thing", which is confusing for a guy who creates iron man suits, but it's a comic book movie, so we need easily recognized good guys and bad guys, right?

Pressed by a reporter for a comment on the latest bombing from The Mandarin, a bombing that seriously injures his friend and bodyguard Happy Hogan (film director Jon Favreau), Stark issues a challenge to the terrorist, stating his home address and inviting the terrorist to come and get him. Which, of course, happens, with a half-dozen military helicopters that fly in and destroy his beautiful Malibu home and research facility.

Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin from Iron Man 3

Tony vanishes into the California surf, dragged down by a faulty prototype suit and his house collapsing, but Pepper vanishes too, ultimately kidnapped by The Mandarin. The suit flies an unconscious Tony to rural Tennessee, a key location in the investigation of the terrorist explosions, and he meets up with young Harley (Ty Simpkins), a fatherless, gadget-loving boy straight out of The Goonies. He helps Stark get his mojo back and fix the suit, all while having Stark be ceaselessly rude and unpleasant. An odd dynamic, really.

There's lots more going on in the story and when Killian unleashes his army of mutant Extremis Soldiers who have been genetically altered to regenerate limbs as needed and produce tremendous heat on demand (think Johnny Storm from Fantastic Four, but with icky translucent skin) it's both a suitable corps of bad guys for the Iron Men to fight and a messy cross-over from X-Men. Indeed, I wasn't the only person who commented after the film ended that it was hard to tell which Marvel universe had produced the storyline.

Nonetheless, Iron Man 3 is also a non-stop action film with the typical series sarcasm, humor and tech fetish gear. While it was lacking narratively and Stark is still no easier to like as a hero figure, the film was also a demonstration of the crisp, jaw-dropping visuals that tens of millions of dollars in special effects can buy nowadays. And it's done very well, opening to an estimated $170mil domestically, making it one of the most lucrative film openings in cinematic history.

If you enjoy a combination of techno-explosions, over-the-top fights and snarky dialog, coupled with a storyline that moves along at a reasonable pace for the most part, you'll likely enjoy Iron Man 3. Me? I just wonder what happens to the series now that we've been shown that the suits are more capable and more interesting than their inventor.

Review: Pain & Gain

2013-04-26T06:00:19Z

There are two fundamental problems with the action "comedy" Pain and Gain: First, Michael Bay is the wrong director for this sort of material, and second, whoever cast the likable Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson in the film made a terrible mistake. I like Wahlberg and Johnson, and that's the problem: In the film the criminal masterminds they portray are such losers that it's just wrong to have these two popular actors in these roles.

Pain and Gain is based on real life events: Sun Gym was a cut-rate bodybuilder's gym just north of Miami, marketed and mostly run by a self-aggrandizing personal trainer with a shady past. Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) trains all the rich and beautiful Miami denizens and has a buddy Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) who shares Lugo's dissatisfaction with the crummy deal they've got. "You ain't gunna be rich being a personal trainer" they repeat like a mantra.

Enter rich Jewish entrepreneur Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub) who taunts Lugo about his wealth, his cars, his houses and his women. Being poor is a state of mind, Kershaw keeps telling Lugo. When Lugo goes to a motivational seminar run by Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong) and affirms in front of a crowd that he's a DOER not a DON'T'ER, he hatches a scheme to kidnap Kershaw and force him to sign over money and property.

Add fresh-out-of-prison Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) as the new muscle-bound trainer at the gym and we have our three stooges. When Doyle, Lugo and Doorbal kidnap Kershaw, they figure it'll be a breeze, maybe a day or two tops before Kershaw buckles and gives them everything they want. Except he doesn't and the kidnapping drags out for weeks. There's more to their criminal hijinks, and after Kershaw gets free and tells all to the cops, just to find they don't believe him, the forces of justice end up personified as semi-retired private investigator Ed DuBois (Ed Harris).

]]> The first 45min or so of the movie were entertaining, focused primarily on Lugo and his schemes to get rich and better himself. As the film tag line says, "My American dream is bigger than yours." Even the first botched attempt at kidnapping Kershaw is amusing, with ninja costumes and Keystone Cops mayhem.

When Lugo decides to torture Kershaw to force him to sign the papers, the film stops being a humorous satire about crime and dumb criminals and takes on a darker, far more serious tone, a tone that is something outside of Michael Bay's experience. Bay's oevre centers on explosions and bikinis in films like Transformers, The Island, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Rock and Bad Boys. When Kershaw starts being tortured I started to imagine how a director like Quentin Tarantino would have handled the story, a director far more experienced with dark, violent films.

Lugo is a sadistic sociopath and not a very bright one at that. He's not a funny character by the time the film's halfway through and by the end he's a pathetic, violent man who has killed and encouraged the cold blooded murder of other people without blinking an eye. Which makes it all the more odd that Mark Wahlberg was cast for this role. Wahlberg should have known better: this will do nothing for his career.

Lugo (Wahlberg) interrogates Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub) while Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) looks on.

What goes for Wahlberg being miscast reflects 10x for Dwayne Johnson, who has spent much of his career picking safe, likable lunkhead roles in films like Get Smart, The Scorpion King and G.I.Joe: Retaliation. I like Johnson and look forward to his movies -- as I do with Wahlberg -- but the character he plays in Pain and Gain was a cinematic cliché, the tough guy who found Jesus in prison and comes out a peaceful man wanting to build a better life. As he participates in torture and murder, he's wearing "I'm on Team Jesus" t-shirts and earnestly quoting the Bible. It comes across as so one dimensional, so predictable that, again, I'm surprised Johnson accepted the role.

A director like Tarantino could have made Pain and Gain as a gritty indie-style film with unknown actors who brought a sense of menace to the screen, characters who we don't like -- because, really, what's to like about muscle-bound thugs who torture and kill people? -- but instead find unsettling in a film that has us rooting for the victims, not trying to figure out who the "good guys" are. Think De Niro in Cape Fear. That's the kind of scary the film needed.

Half-way through the film, I was still enjoying Pain and Gain. There's a light tone to it that's very reminiscent of Bad Boys, another tough guys film, but where the heroes are cops, not thugs. As the film turned darker and Lugo, Doyle and Doorbal reveal themselves as sadists on what turns out to be a killing spree, the film just became depressing. There's no redemption at the end, no heroes journey (heck, there are no heroes), and when the film ends with photos of the real Lugo, Doorbal and Doyle from mug shots and police photos, it's an appropriately depressing conclusion to a confused unfunny mess of a film.

Pain and Gain isn't a comedy, and it's not much of a police action film. It's hard to say what genre Pain and Gain fits into, but my suggestion to you is: skip it. And most assuredly, it's not appropriate for teens.

Review: Oblivion

2013-04-19T21:06:41Z

I knew going into the theater that Oblivion starred Tom Cruise. It's hard to miss. And there's something about Cruise movies, something about the fact that he's in every single scene and that whether he's supposed to be part of a team (as in the Mission: Impossible series) or otherwise, it's always narcissistically All About Tom. So there's that.

Then there are problems with the storyline itself. I won't spoil it but the trailers to the film suggest a scenario that might not be exactly what's going on as the film unfolds. The security drones are bad-ass hardware, definitely reminiscent of Robocop's ED-409, they're fast moving, intimidating as hell, and feature very cool on-board scanning and target identification systems. But if aliens can create these security drones, why can't they create robo-drone repair drones too?

With those in mind, however, Oblivion offers up a fascinating near-future but post-apocalyptic Earth where The Statue of Liberty's torch-bearing hand emerges from dirt (reminiscent of the great iconic scene from the original Planet of the Apes), then later Jack and Julia (Olga Kurylenko) zoom through what remains of the Brooklyn Bridge: only the top of the spans rising above the barren brown dirt. Another important setting is the observation area of the Empire State Building, except now it's at ground level (see photo later in this review).

There's no question, the visuals are incredibly well done and for that reason alone, I have to highly recommend Oblivion. I saw it on an IMAX screen and it's breathtaking, just incredibly cool and kinetic, everything you want from a modern sf/x-heavy sci-fi adventure film.

And there's more about the movie I liked too...

]]> Just as notable was the sound. Recorded at Skywalker Sound, the sound is f'ing amazing. I mean, really, really well done. The kinesthetic experience of Oblivion in ultra-high-def 4K IMAX and DTS sound is truly astonishing.

Which is just as well because it compensates for a choppy, illogical storyline that has Jack (Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) manning a beautiful, ethereal drone repair facility literally above the clouds on an almost completely destroyed Earth. It's many years after aliens have arrived on their massive Borg-like spaceship and destroyed our Moon which, as you would expect, has thrown the weather and tides into such disarray that the planet's pretty shredded. Smart aliens, that's much easier than killing us pesky humans.

There's a massive orbiting station called The Tet that coordinates Jack and Victoria's work repairing defense droids through inexplicably spotty video communication with Sally (Melissa Leo), a mother-like character with a sweet southern drawl. The drones are needed to protect hydrogen processing units that are converting what's left of our oceans into energy that's then beamed to the remaining human outpost on Saturn's moon Titan. Jack's needed to protect the drones from a small band of remaining aliens, Scav's, who might not be whom they seem.

Jack (Tom Cruise) explores what remains of the Empire State Building in "Oblivion"

Meanwhile, there's a rebel group of humans who are hiding on Earth and fighting the alien invasion force, led by the wise older military man Beech (Morgan Freeman), coupled with cliché skeptical second in command Sykes (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau).

The film really gets started when Jack tracks and then lands and investigates a downed NASA space capsule and finds within it the cryogenically suspended Julia (Kurylenko). He's been dreaming about her, about the two of them on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, for as long as he can remember. But how can that be?

As with all good sci-fi thrillers, things aren't what they seem and with ideas and visuals borrowed from such films as Moon, The Island, The Omega Man, Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, not to mention his previous film TRON: Legacy, Director Joseph Kosinski has given the film a great look and engaging pace.

Of special note to prop fans is Jack's two-person vessel the BubbleShip, which has a fascinating insect-like quality to it. It's a roller-coaster fan's dream vehicle, as is demonstrated the first time Jack flips it upside down and plummets through the clouds to Earth far below Skytower. It's just jaw-droppingly cool.

Much of the action in the first portion of the film takes place in the abandoned and destroyed New York Public Library. We're never explicitly told that it's the NYPL, however, it's something attentive viewers have to piece together. Candidly, I like that in a movie, I like films where viewers have to piece things together, where there aren't flashbacks to explain a story twist, but instead we're required to figure out what's going on.

Everyone in the film does a good job in their role, even Tom Cruise, who is enjoyable as the slowly awakening Jack Harper (yes, I know, I started by complaining about his narcissicm in cinema). My main criticism is with Morgan Freeman, who has been playing the same gravel-voiced über-serious rebel leader character for the last twenty years. It's become so cliché that he's frankly miscast and I would have preferred the tough, skeptical Coster-Waldau as the rebel leader. Sorry, Morgan.

I'm planning on going to see Oblivion again while it's still in the theater, then buying it on Blu-Ray for my sci-fi collection. Go see it. Watch it in HD, or IMAX, and enjoy the visceral experience of a really well assembled big screen fx-heavy science fiction epic. Yeah the story's a bit sketch and it's definitely a Tom Cruise Movie, but trust me, it's one heck of an amazing cinematic experience nonetheless.

Review: The Place Beyond the Pines

2013-04-12T06:00:21Z

The "sins of the father becoming the sins of the son" is the heart of The Place Beyond the Pines, and the story begins with ne'er do well circus stunt rider Luke (Ryan Gosling) learning that he has a baby boy. The mother, Romina (Eva Mendes) has kept it from him and lives with another man, Kofi (Mahershala Ali), who is everything Luke is not: stable, level-headed, and fiercely protective of his step-child Jason

Luke is nonetheless profoundly moved to learn about his child and quits his job to stay in rural Schenectady, NY and become a father. In his desperation to provide for his baby, Luke falls in with garage owner Robin (Ben Mendelsohn) and soon finds himself robbing banks to raise money.

This first portion of the film is rather a modern retelling of Jean ValJean's turning to a life of crime out of desperation to feed his child. The Inspector Javert of The Place Beyond the Pines is Stanford-grad and politician's son Avery (Bradley Cooper). Like Luke, Avery also has a baby boy and difficulties with his home life, and like Luke, Avery has a difficult relationship with his own father.

In a Hitchcockesque transition, the film has a dramatic crescendo, a scene where the sins of both Avery and Luke are exposed, with fatal consequences. Avery is then blackmailed by bad cop Deluca (Ray Liotta) and driven by his own ego, decides to fight the rampant corruption in the police force. The results are ultimately good for Avery, but not for his boy AJ, who grows up with a father who is never present.

]]> Move forward fifteen years and Luke's son Jason (Dane DeHaan) meets Avery's now troubled son AJ (Emory Cohen) at the local high school, though neither realizes the karmic importance of the other in their lives. Yet.

You can guess what transpires from this point, but while there weren't any great surprises in the narrative, The Place Beyond the Pines nonetheless has a certain satisfying inevitability in the final act, a certain sense of closure and completion.

Luke (Ryan Gosling) shares his dreams with Romina (Eva Mendes) in "The Place Beyond the Pines"

Problem is, there are many scenes where characters act inexplicably, including Romina's continued interest in Luke and her willingness to string him along, intimating that given the chance, she'd leave Kofi and run away with Luke, bringing both baby Jason and her mother Malena (Olga Merediz) along too. Then there's another scene where Luke and Kofi fight and Malena's reaction is to meekly go downstairs, not call the police. Huh?

The lack of any real dramatic tension comes from the fact that all the characters in the film behave predictably and, while not quite one-dimensional, certainly are not complex, fully realized individuals. Corrupt policeman Deluca, for example, is a role that Liotta has played so many times, I wouldn't be surprised to find that he actually is a corrupt police officer in real life, and he's also been far more threating - and effective - as a bad cop in films like Cop Land or Goodfellas.

Luke was also a role that we've seen Ryan Gosling play before on film, most recently as the similar quiet, brooding, honor-bound criminal in Drive. In fact, Gosling didn't demonstrate any emotional range in the brutal Gangster Squad either. Cooper similarly walks through his role, far less engaging as Avery than he was in Limitless or the recent Silver Linings Playbook.

Like a horror film where nubile teens escape into the woods, there's a certain inevitability about The Place Beyond the Pines, and when coupled with the safe performances of the cast and the benign upstate New York setting, the best I can say about this film is that it's exploring a fascinating and profound concept in a safe and somewhat satisfying manner.

Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

2013-03-28T06:00:20Z

Some films require a specific demographic for full enjoyment, and in the action genre, it seems there are a lot aimed at teen boys. A prime example: Gone in Sixty Seconds. It's not that it's a horrible movie, it's just that the storyline is incoherent, the characters are all one-dimensional, the ending is obvious from sixty seconds past the opening titles and the performances are all uninteresting. And the male/female relationships? It couldn't be more cliche.

And yet, there's a certain sophomoric fascination in a film about cool guys stealing gorgeous cars and trying to score with the sexy gals. Really, it's a perfect film for a teen boy, even if his date's going to be distracted, wondering whether this means she can now convince him to see the latest Rom-Com with her next weekend.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is in the same category, and if I could just shut down the mature, adult part of my brain, the boy inside would totally dig the tough guys, monosyllabic dialog, shiny toys, loud guns and non-stop action, while ignoring the completely muddled and confusing plot, terrible story arc, random scenes added based on exit surveys of screening audiences, and misunderstanding of world politics. But hey, it's the Joe's and they represent all that's great about America, right? Booyah!

The film opens with the G.I. Joe team -- led by Duke (Channing Tatum) -- sneaking through the DMZ fence separating North and South Korea to extract a prisoner from the North Koreans. All of whom apparently really need new glasses because even when the GI's are directly under a spotlight, the Koreans can't see them crouched on the edge of the fence. And the prisoner? Why he's there, who he is, what happens to him afterwards, that's all on the cutting room floor apparently, because the scene had no relevance to the film at all. And that sets the tone for the entire movie.

As has been widely publicized, actor Channing Tatum's popularity took the production team by surprise so they delayed release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation to add more footage with Duke. Unfortunately, it's all obviously a last-second addition that adds nothing to the film at all, even for the most die-hard of Tatum fans. Soon enough it's Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson likable as always) who is in charge of the Joe's and the squad's on the run, wanted for crimes against the United States, while bad guys have taken over the country and, soon, the world.

]]> The G.I. Joe universe has a pantheon of good guys and bad guys, a world that's so complex that the opening titles introduces them all to us trading-card style. The good guys are Jinx (Elodie Yung), Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), Mouse (Joseph Mazzello), Flint (D.J. Cotrona), Snake Eyes (Ray Park), Roadblock and Duke. The bad guys are Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey), Zartan (Arnold Vosloo), Havoc (Matt Gerald), Firefly (Ray Stevenson) and Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee). Got it?

Jaye, Flint and Roadblock are left for dead after being double crossed by the President (Jonathan Pryce), who seems more set on initiating nuclear armageddon than anything else. But why? That's part of the mystery that propels the film forward, as the Joe's have to hide out in da 'hood while they come up with their plan to stop the impending chaos and restore their team to America's good graces.

Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) in G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Who better to add to the team than the original G.I. Joe himself, General Joe Colton (Bruce Willis). In a sequence that's simultaneously funny and ludicrous, General Joe agrees to help them out, then shows the arsenal he has stashed in his house, a collection of weapons and destruction that could arm a third-world nation. All neatly hidden under the stove, behind the cereal boxes, in the pantry, and even in the garage. I mean, none of the neighbors would notice, so it's all logical and believable.

As someone who enjoys smart action films, I was constantly disappointed with G.I. Joe: Retaliation. Even comic book movies can have depth and substance to them -- witness The Dark Knight Rises -- but the script is just a mess. In a later sequence, for example, the President launches all our ICBM's at our neighbors, then they retaliate by launching their missiles at the United States. How the sequence plays out is daft, but there was the potential for a great bit of misdirection on the part of Cobra Command, one that would have clearly accomplished the desired goal of the bad guys. But it didn't occur, alas.

The General Joe recruitment sequence demonstrates both the silly, sophomoric nature of the film and why if you can just get into that teen mindset, it can still be a fun, mindless action adventure film. It's no surprise, therefore, when Jaye (Palicki) undresses in front of Flint (Cotrona) and all we see is her underwear-clad reflection in a television screen. Real naked women and an actual love scene could have embarrassed the teen audience, so that's as titillating as it gets. It's a movie. Stop worrying about if it makes sense and just let the testosterone flow as you cheer the on-screen shenanigans!

That's really the best way to decide whether you're going to enjoy the big-screen silliness that is G.I. Joe: Retaliation or whether it's going to push you to walk out halfway: Can you just enjoy a film for the action sequences? If so, you've got a good diversion ahead of you.

Review: Olympus Has Fallen

2013-03-22T06:00:32Z

The previews looked cool. I mean, it's an audacious concept to have terrorists storm the White House and take the President of the United States hostage. What could go wrong with a fast-paced action movie that has that as the main plot device?

The answer is everything. In fact, Olympus Has Fallen has no redeeming qualities at all. From acting to dialog, set pieces to special effects, exterior shots to the pace of edits, just about everything the film attempts has been done better in other movies. Worst, disgraced Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) is laughably indestructable, to the point where I thought perhaps he'd reveal that he was indeed the lost Avenger or an X-Man.

The plot itself is a messy mix of the thoughtful action flick In The Line of Fire, in which Clint Eastwood (a vastly better actor than Butler) plays a disgraced Secret Service agent who has to redeem himself and the cliché-ridden but highly entertaining Die Hard, where smartass über-hero John McClane (Bruce Willis) has to single-handedly thwart the nefarious terrorist Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) while demonstrating his tenacity and prediliction for obscenities.

In fact, there's so much that Olympus Has Fallen steals from Die Hard that it's more of an homage, a sort of alternative script for the tepid Die Hard 5, than a film of its own. There are even crude, sarcastic comments that Banning makes to evil North Korean terrorist Kang (Rick Yune) -- via walkie-talkie! -- that sound like they're lifted directly from the Die Hard script.

The difference is that Die Hard is a great movie. Fun, entertaining, satisfyingly black and white with its morality, and even mostly logical in how events transpire and resolve, while Olympus Has Fallen is just stupid. From the opening scene where Banning is buddies with First Son Conner (Finley Jacobsen) and head of President Asher (Aaron Eckhart)'s security detail, the film gets crushed under the weight of cinematic cliches and its own pretentiousness. When did I know that for sure? After a tragic accident on a bridge kills the First Lady (Ashley Judd, in a "starring" role that evokes Police Squad more than anything else), the President looks up at the sky and screams "NOOOOOOO!!!" which summed up how I was feeling about the movie. Ten minutes in. Yikes.

]]> Then there's Kang, the evil terrorist who is supposed to be cold, lethal, efficient, but is way too wooden and unscary on screen. With a cinematic history of great villians in action films (just about any bad guy in a James Bond film, for example) the casting of Rick Yune is a complete miss. He's not scary. He's not believable as even a minor henchman, let alone the most dangerous terrorist on the planet. Heck, even Dr. Evil in Austin Powers is more interesting as a bad guy.

And then there are the never-ending parade of implausibilities, starting with that car crash in the opening scene. The President is being transported from Camp David to a private Christmas party in an official vehicle, and the limo hasn't been hardened and redesigned to offer far greater structural integrity? The First Lady would certainly have been injured in the accident, but not killed. Why didn't even one of the secret service agents climb down to check?

Bullets everywhere, but Banning's miraculously untouched.

Then let's talk about the dangerous computer software that's the threatened catastrophy called Cerebus. With a likely inadvertant nod to the terrific film Fail Safe, Cerebus is supposed to let the President force any of our ICBMs to self-destruct in the air, just in case they were launched under false pretenses or the other side cries "Uncle". Um, what? Wouldn't that software be more dangerous than hundreds of nuclear warheads in the first place? And a North Korean terrorist who has been in hiding for years not only learns about it but identifies who would have the codes necessary to arm it. And, in perhaps an inadvertantly ironic bit of daftness, Cerebus is a failsafe without its own failsafe. All that's needed is a single line of code: "If not launched then exit program".

It's bad form to write a film review without having anything good to say about the movie, but I'm darned if I can find anything positive to say about Olympus Has Fallen. Worse, as the film proceeded and Banning violently - and needlessly - kills the terrorists, the audience was yelling, hooting and clapping. With a waving American flag in both the opening and closing scenes, the film was crassly manipulative in a way that felt very dated and out of place. The audience reaction was depressing, as the film just got worse and people kept cheering, a "despair about the future of the human race" moment.

If you like action films, heed my advice and save your $10. Just rent Die Hard, pop your own popcorn and thank me as you chuckle at a sarcastic, smart-ass action film done right. And when Olympus Has Fallen drops into the bargain bin at Target, well, maybe it's worth $1.99 to see yet another abyssmal Gerard Butler movie. But probably not.

Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

2013-03-15T06:00:37Z

Magicians are a funny lot. Awkward, often unpopular kids who found a creative channel to gain popularity and hopefully reduce the daily pummelings from the school bully. It's tough to be a kid, and if you're dorky young Burt (played as a child by Mason Cook) it's a daily nightmare, sprinting home after school to unsuccessfully avoid your tormentor.

When his Mom leaves him a Rance Holloway magic set for his birthday, it's a revelation, and the next day equally awkward young Anton (played as a child by Luke Vanek) is impressed and volunteers to join the act, the Amazing Burt Wonderstone and Anton Marvelton is born.

But success can make you dull, and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is an oft-hilarious comedy about friendship and about reinventing yourself to keep up with the times.

Burt (Steve Carell) has an ego the size of his Vegas penthouse, while Anton (the always-terrific Steve Buscemi) is fed up with being the sidekick and is well aware of how old and tired their act is. Twenty years as a Vegas headliner and they're still using cliché Steve Miller Band music to open their act. And no-one's coming to the show.

Stage magic is ripe for comedy and with the addition of twisted street magician Steve Gray (Jim Carrey), a character clearly modeled on edgy, goth Criss Angel, the proverbial stage is set for old versus new, traditional card tricks versus folded up cards appearing within skin wounds. And the magic gets worse -- and funnier -- as the film proceeds.

]]> The original act goes through assistants like a kid goes through bowls of ice cream. Fast, enthusiastically, and without much to show for it. When rigging girl Jane (Olivia Wilde) is yanked on stage as their new assistant, Burt wastes no time in propositioning her, to her disgust. And yet there's some attraction and even as the show collapses and Burt ends up on the street, Jane remains interested.

As a final stunt to resurrect their failing box office for the Burt & Anton show, the two men, whose friendship has long since soured by this point, agree to be suspended in a plexiglass box hanging high above Las Vegas (a stunt that David Blaine actually did in London back in 1999), just to have it not work out exactly how they were expecting.

Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carell) panics during one last big stunt

Jane, meanwhile, has taken a job with hated rival Steve Gray and when Burt realizes, it drops him even lower. What else could go wrong? In an attempt to find a new gig he visits all the big casinos, without any luck, and even pitches David Copperfield the act "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. And David!". No luck.

After an embarassing stint at Big!Lots, Burt ends up working at a retirement home where he meets the long-since retired Rance Holloway (Alan Arkin, crotchety and amusing as always). Rance is underwhelmed with Burt and his patter, however, and offers Burt his money back for the magic set that got him started all those years ago.

The stunts in the movie are amusing and occasionally impressive, though the big state productions are played more for laughs than wonderment, as is exactly appropriatriate for the film. Gray (Carrey) has the best tricks, though they're really better categorized as self-mutilation, especially his very last "magic trick" with a drill. Yikes. Carrey has a way of overshadowing everyone else on screen, and with the exception of a few minutes near the end, director Don Scardino restrains him admirably. To me, Burt (Carell) is the center of the film, and it's his journey from stale has-been to a reinvented performer that's what makes this film tick.

I was very skeptical of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone going into the theater, and while I'm a fan of Steve Carell, I'm not much of a Jim Carrey fan. I was quite pleasantly surprised and found the movie quite hilarious with lots and lots of great lines, witty sight gags and occasionally thoughtful comentary on friendship, aging and the pell-mell pace of progress in our world. It's not a deep film, but if you're looking for a few hours of amusement, this is an excellent choice. You'll laugh.

And stay for the credits. They show how their greatest trick is pulled off, and it's quite hilarious, even if perhaps a bit violent.

Review: Oz: The Great and Powerful

2013-03-08T07:00:41Z

There's a special place in cinematic history for the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz with its groundbreaking use of color, terrific visual effects and prototypical hero's journey, wherein little Dorothy (Judy Garland) has to travel through a strange land to find her way back home to Aunty Em (Clara Blandick) and their farmhouse in Kansas. But truth be told, it's also quite a frightening film too, with lots of dark imagery and scary creatures, notably the flying monkeys.

Creating a prequel was a big job, and capturing the alternating tones between dark, scary and bright, colorful made Oz: The Great and Powerful a substantial undertaking. Perhaps surprisingly given the choice of Sam Raimi at the directorial helm, a director more known for his horror films than family-friendly fantasies, the film delivers a terrific story, lots of lush special effects, some of the best 3D visuals since Avatar, and, yes, a movie that bounces satisfyingly between sweet and scary.

Oscar Diggs (James Franco), known by his stage name "Oz", is at the center of the story, a carnival sideshow conjurer who has an eye for the ladies but the heart of a rogue. After using a shallow ruse on one girl too many, the circus strongman chases Oz, threatening to kill him for touching his daughter, and Oz finds refuge in a hot air balloon. Seconds later he and the balloon are pulled into a powerful tornado and when he finally awakens, it's in the magical, colorful land of Oz.

True to the original film, Oz: The Great and Powerful starts out in black and white -- after some really cool open titles -- a square image on screen that is replaced by a full screen, technicolor world. The effect is quite neat and the world Oz finds himself traveling through is stunning.

]]> As with the original, this prequel is really about the hero's journey, but this time instead of it being a young farm girl from Kansas, it's an adult con man who has to find his own strength and courage when he realizes that the good people of Oz need him, whether he's confident he can be their powerful wizard and protect them from the evil witch or not.

The role of the wicked witch is surprisingly more complex, with three witches in the story: Glinda (Michelle Williams), the good witch, Evanora (Rachel Weisz), the witch who rules over the Emerald City and might not be quite as nice as she seems, and Theodora (Mila Kunis), who starts out as the naive ingenue witch smitten with the fast-talking Oz but ends up rather a much darker, more evil witch when she believes she's been spurned. It's not hard to keep track of them and each actress is beautiful on-screen, each tempting Oz in their own way.

Oz (James Franco) talks with China Doll (voice of Joey King)

In the original movie, it's the Tin Man (Jack Haley), the Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr) and the Scarecrow (Ray Bolger) who are Dorothy's faithful companions on her journey, and in this prequel, they've been replaced by the subservient winged monkey Finley (voice of Zach Braff) and the beautifully realized China Doll (voice of Joey King). In a nice example of narrative symmetry, Joey King also plays a crippled girl in the early B&W sequence who asks Oz to conjure her up the ability to walk, just to have him decline. As China Doll, however, he has to use a different kind of magic (glue) to reassemble her legs so she can walk. In Oz, he can do just that.

I've become jaded and frankly disappointed by what passes for 3D in most of the recent crop of 3D movies, seeing it as a poorly executed effect that allows the theaters to charge a $5-$8 premium per ticket. Heck, the only good 3D aspect of Alice in Wonderland were the closing titles. Oz: The Great and Powerful comes to rescue 3D, and perhaps just in time. It's terrific in 3D, and while Raimi can't resist a few somewhat cliché 3D effects, with water splashing and spears flying towards the audience, it's still worth the extra few bucks per ticket. When Oz plummets down the waterfall after first finding himself in the Land of Oz, it's like being on a thrill ride at Disneyland. (coming soon, no doubt)

Still, there are some hiccups in the film, one of which most surprised me was that with such a visual effects heavy film, there were still some scenes that felt unfinished, some green screen shots where the background looked like it was a rough render, not the final crisp, detailed image. Am I picky? Perhaps. But with a huge production budget, it was surprising to see any gaffes at all.

Nonetheless, I really enjoyed Oz: The Great and Powerful and will go see it again while it's in the theater, then pick up a Blu-Ray copy for my children to enjoy. The story is engaging, the effects are gorgeous and the characters, especially China Doll, are sweetly realized. I will warn parents that some scenes could prove scary and intense for younger children and I'm not planning on having my 9yo see it in the theater. With that caveat, however, Oz: The Great and Powerful is a must-see, one of the best films of 2013 so far.

Review: Jack the Giant Slayer

2013-03-05T00:04:45Z

I can only imagine the early production meetings... "guys, we need a storyline that'll let us show off some really cool new visual effects, something that everyone will know but that we can bring into the modern era." "Okay, but it better not cost a mil to get the book rights this time." "Okay, okay. Hey! How about Jack and the Beanstalk?" "Wait, are we talking a cartoon?" "No, live action. Big, epic, scary, in your face, even some splatter!" "Fine. Show me a script. I'll call Singer, I think he owes us one..."

The film Jack the Giant Slayer is actually a fun, modern and, yes, visual effects-heavy take on the Jack and the Beanstalk fable. You know the story, the simple boy Jack who trades his family's horse and cart for some magic beans that grow into a beanstalk that reaches far into the sky. He climbs up, rescues the princess, slays the giant, slides down, chops the beanstalk down before the rest of the giants invade. Cue happy ending.

The problem with this visually sumptuous remake isn't the storyline with its updates to the original fable, and it's not the performances, which are uniformly competent and occasionally quite entertaining, it's that director Bryan Singer couldn't decide if they were making an aggressive, violent adult movie in the vein of Game of Thrones and The Hobbit, or whether they were making a family friendly movie that would have earned the MPAA "moments of mild action and suspense" label. Instead, he made both, and it's a bit of a mess as a result.

Case in point: the family in front of us in the theater didn't pay attention to the fact that Jack the Giant Slayer is actually rated PG-13 (for intense action violence and frightening images) and as a result the two little girls (around 8 or 10) ended up on their parents laps through much of the film. Yeah, it's that kind of family film. Not really very pre-adolescent friendly at all.

]]> King Kong and a medieval world that definitely had me looking for surprise cameos from Dwarves and even a young Bilbo Baggins.

Still, when the writing credits involve four people, Darren Lemke and David Dobkin for the story, Darren, Christopher McQuarrie and Dan Studney for the screenplay, you know that somewhere along the way the simple idea of converting Jack and the Beanstalk into a big vfx epic bogged down, and perhaps that's where the confusion over G vs PG-13 came in. Still, McQuarrie at least has a terrific list of films he's been involved with, including the superb The Usual Suspects, The Tourist and the surprisingly tense Valkyrie, as well as the upcoming films Top Gun 2 and Mission: Impossible 5.

And speaking of the crew, production designer Gavin Bocquet has done some other films you've definitely seen, including the sweet fantasy Stardust and Star Wars I, II and III. Unsurprisingly as there's much visual overlap, he was also production designer on the lackluster but visually innovative Jack Black hit Gulliver's Travels. I imagine he spends a lot of time at the Renaissance Faire too...

Jack (Nicholas Hoult) and Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) from "Jack the Giant Slayer"

Getting the look and feel of the medieval world that Jack the Giant Slayer takes place in is important, and as with so many elements of the film, there's lots to like about the castle, the exteriors, the giants messy large-scale hovel and even the towering, vaguely malevolent beanstalk. The stars of the film are the actors, however, and I found young Nicholas Hoult as Jack quite appealing. He has a fresh naivety to him that's reminiscent of Westley (Cary Elwes) in the immensely popular The Princess Bride.

The princess who is ultimately in distress, though she is certainly headstrong enough to be a very modern female lead, is Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), and she acts in a typically bratty manner. She's been promised to the evil Roderick (Stanley Tucci, entertaining as always) by her father, the King (Ian McShane) who who has no idea his #2 has nefarious plans for the kingdom. Don't all aides to a King have nefarious plans in these kind of stories?

The most entertaining of the cast was King's Knight Sir Elmont (Ewan McGregor), who gallantly embodies honor and idealism while defending Princess Isabelle from every evil, whether it be in human form or giant. Well, when he wasn't being prepared as a giant pig-in-a-blanket for the giants, trapped and pushed into the oven until Jack frees him at the last minute.

Other than the surprising violence in the film -- including a particularly gross scene near the end when evil giant General Fallon (voiced by Bill Nighy) is killed by having a magic beanstalk grow out of his own innards - the other weak link was the visual effects of the giants themselves. Their limbs, the scale of things, the ferocious intensity of their attack on the castle were all good, but their faces looked more like bad video game animation than a multi-million dollar special effects house having labored for a year or more. A surprisingly lapse in a film that otherwise has such a lovely production feel to it.

Truth be told, I've seen far worse fantasy films in the theater. Jack the Giant Slayer is definitely entertaining and worth seeing on the big screen. Just don't bring your younger children and don't expect it to be another film with the constantly astonishing visuals of The Hobbit or 2012 Academy Award Winning Life of Pi (for visual effects).

Review: Wreck-It Ralph

2013-03-02T18:42:47Z

Disney was kind enough to send along a Blu-Ray copy of the animated feature Wreck-It Ralph and I've been enjoying the story with my children. If you missed it in the theater, the film takes place entirely within a fictional world of video games. No, not like the Tron films, but more benign, earlier, cruder video games from the dawn of the arcade era, games like Pac-Man, Tapper, Q*Bert, Burger Time and Street Fighter.

Ralph (voice of John C. Reilly) is trapped in a videogame called Wreck-It Ralph, and he's tired of all the other characters in the game world having fun, partying, and even sneaking celebrations after the arcade "in the real world" has been shut down. So he rebels, first by trying to be good within the game world, but once a wrecker, always a wrecker, to the amusement of his goody-two-shoes nemesis Fix-It Felix (voice of Jack McBrayer) and when that's unsuccessful, he walks out of the game and into Game Central Station, the greater universe within which the film takes place.

Ralph ends up in a dramatic scifi-esque rumble in the battle game Hero's Duty while verbally sparring with tough but foxy Army captain Sergeant Calhoun (voice of Jane Lynch). He wins the game and attains a medal, just to mess everything up again. Next stop: Sugar Rush where he meets the cute Vanellope von Schweetz (voice of Sarah Silverman), another outcast who has to prove herself by winning a go-cart race, with all the vehicles made out of candy parts. Lots of adventures ensue and the visuals are delightful, really lush animation worlds that have rules and logic all their own.

As you would expect, there are a ton of insider jokes aimed at old-school videogame fans. I didn't spend a ton of time in the arcade as a child, though I'm the right age to have dropped a lot of quarters into a Centipede or Ms. Pac-Man unit, so I expect I didn't get all the references. But there's still plenty to go around and I found Wreck-It Ralph far more fun and entertaining than I expected. It's great for little ones, visually exciting with very little tension, and it's the kind of children's film that us adults can find amusement with too, a la Shrek.

The DVD release includes some really cool stuff including one featurette that might be a must-watch for those of you who weren't immersed in early videogame culture: The Gamer's Guide to Wreck-It Ralph. There are also the usual deleted scenes and -- perhaps most delightful -- the Academy Award Winning animated short Paperman. It's almost worth the cost of the DVD by itself.

If you're a fan of old video games or just like smart, engaging animation, I'd suggest you check out Wreck-It Ralph in the "Ultimate Collectors Edition". It's pretty darn cool. $33.85 street for the collector's edition, $27.85 for the regular Blu-Ray and $19.95 for the standard DVD, if you don't yet have a Blu-Ray player or HDTV.

Review: Side Effects

2013-02-09T13:37:25Z

A miracle drug to help manage anxiety prescribed by a psychiatrist who might be just a bit more interested in receiving payment for helping test it out than in the welfare of their patient. What could go wrong?

In Side Effects, turns out that quite a bit goes wrong, and then unravels in layers with a complex "ah, you didn't see that coming!" sequence of twists that reminded me of the brilliant Inception.

Except it was way more daft and ultimately didn't really even make much sense by the time the closing credits roll.

Which is really too bad, because this medical thriller has a lot going for it, including a terrific performance by Rooney Mara as Emily, and the always likable Jude Law as psychiatrist Jonathan Banks, along with a smart production directed by Steven Soderbergh and set in upper Manhattan.

Emily's married to Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum, and c'mon on, what woman wouldn't want to be married to Channing?) and the film opens with Martin being released from prison, having been busted for various financial shenanigans. After years of waiting for him, Emily sinks into a depression as her fantasy of his return seems to collide with the reality of them stuck in a crummy apartment after his downfall.

While he was in jail, she'd been in therapy with the swank Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) for depression and anxiety, but when the issue flares up again with Martin's release from jail, she finds a new therapist, Dr. Jonathan Banks (Law), who has his own up-and-coming practice and is happy to work with her. Is it because she's fragile and beautiful, as his colleagues later accuse? Perhaps...

The therapeutic path he prefers, however, is medications to "help you stay calm" and when the standard meds don't seem to work, he switches her to a promising new drug in its testing phase. But it sure seems to have some unfortunate side effects, including causing Emily to sleep walk and bursts of rage that husband Martin is at a loss on how to handle.

Emily (Rooney Mara) and Martin (Channing Tatum) from "Side Effects"

I've couched my descriptions carefully because as is to be expected in a thriller of this ilk, not everything is as it seems, and there are layers within layers and conspiracies within what seems the most innocent relationships.

There are two great reveals in the film, and while the first one was terrific and had me -- finally -- thinking "ohh, didn't see that coming!", the second reveal that shows the first to be yet another red herring just left me frustrated. Another modern Hollywood ending, where everything wraps up neat and clean, with the conspirators busted and the protagonist's life handily reassembled. The good guy wins, the bad guy loses. Hurray.

Or not.

My friends are used to me complaining about film endings. There are so, so many films that come out of the Hollywood machine that just end badly. An example? The idiotic ending sequences that mar the already bizarre Tim Burton remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I mean, the original film ended just perfectly, but the remake? Awful. Just awful.

And unfortunately while there's so much to like in Side Effects, it really needed to end after the first reveal, quickly after, leaving us frustrated and upset that the good guy didn't win and that there was much more going on during the film than we realized. A little ambiguity? That's good. Look at the delicious ending to Inception that still grabs me when I rewatch the film.

But I think the doctor should have prescribed just a bit less "tricky story twist" at the end of this particular film to create a more coherent and enjoyable movie.

Review: Anna Karenina

2012-11-27T20:12:59Z

Tolstoy's classic novel of love and infidelity, Anna Karenina has been brought to stage and screen many times, often with mediocre results. It's a complicated story, so pay attention: It's mid-1800's Russia and Anna (Keira Knightly) is married to Karenin (Jude Law), a dull but faithful St. Petersburg public servant. When her brother Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen) has an affair, Anna travels to Moscow to try and prevent her sister-in-law Dolly (Kelly Macdonald) from divorcing Oblonsky. Meanwhile, Dolly's lovely younger sister Kitty (Alicia Vikander) is being courted by two men, Konstantin Levin (Domnhall Gleeson), an awkward and earnest landowner, and Alexei Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a vain, handsome soldier. Kitty much prefers Vronsky, but once he catches a glimpse of Anna, he's smitten, and Anna also finds in her heart a passion for Vronsky that she's never felt with the boring Karenin.

The story proceeds from there, with lots of meaningful glances, many hurtful conversations between Anna and Karenin. He just doesn't understand why she's fallen in love with Vronsky, a strutting, self-impressed peacock bachelor soldier. Russian society is shocked by Anna's scandalous public behavior even as they all become increasingly sympathetic to poor, confused Karenin. To avoid losing his adored Anna entirely, he reluctantly assents to her and Vronsky having an affair if it's in secret. But, of course, it's not.

The film is set in 18th Century Russia and the production is lavish, as are the sets and costumes. This version of Anna Karenina succeeds, however, because it has a delightfully dreamlike quality: the film is set both in Russian high society, and on a stage, a sort of Shakespearean "All the World's a Stage" setting. There's no audience in the theater of Anna's life because that's the role we, the cinematic audience, serve.

This narrative device gives rise to some extraordinary transitions, including one where a train traveling across the frozen steppes dissolves into a toy train going through a model of the icy terrain, and back to the train station where lovers Anna and Vronsky meet. Later, Anna visits her son, from whom she's been exiled, and the camera pulls back and we see that, somehow, the boy's bedroom is on stage and the foreground is framed by the limelights that illuminate the activity.

The performances are generally good, though Keira Knightley again demonstrates her one-note acting ability. Jude Law delivers a notable performance as the confused husband Karenin, and Domhnall Gleeson embodies the humble Levin so well that I felt quite moved by his earnest courting of Kitty, even as he knows he's no match for the dashing, sophisticated Vronsky.

I quite enjoyed writer Tom Stoppard's reimagining of Anna Karenina as a dream-like parable of love, relationships and the challenge between following your heart versus doing what's right or what's expected of you, and director Joe Wright brings it to screen beautifully. Having said that, it's still a costume drama with a rather Masterpiece Theater feel. If that's appealing, this is well worth your time and is lavish on screen.

Reiew: Life of Pi

2012-11-21T07:00:12Z

Being stranded in the middle of an unforgiving ocean is a theme that's been explored in films as diverse as Swiss Family Robinson and Hitchcock's surprisingly tense Lifeboat. But being cast adrift for over 200 days in a lifeboat with an adult Bengal Tiger? It makes an empty lifeboat seem like a positive luxury, but that's the journey that young Piscine Militor Patel -- "Pi" for short -- embarks on after the freighter his family's on sinks in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Based on the provocative and imaginative best-selling book by Yann Martel, the fanciful tale comes to the screen beautifully, thanks to the vision of director Ang Lee and his production team. Whether it's a floating mangrove island overrun with meerkats, a magical sea of bio-luminescent jellyfish, or just the frightening snarl of Richard Parker, the tiger in Life of Pi, everything works remarkably well. The performances of the actors, and particularly of Suraj Sharma, who plays the stranded Pi, are superb. Indeed, his performance is definitely Oscar-worthy.

There is a niggling problem with the film, one that is an all-too-common complaint with big budget cinema in the last decade: 3D. Lee was passionate about using the 3D process and cites groundbreaking cinema like Avatar 3D as an inspiration. But there are too many cheap 3D effects in Life of Pi. Sticks that wave at the camera, the tiger leaping at the viewer, not just trite clichés that beg the viewer to admire the effect but effects that also break the narrative spell, bringing viewers out of the story and back to the technical mastery of the filmmakers. What's worse is that none of them are critical to the narrative, they're just a distraction.

The narrative structure of Life of Pi is complicated, a tale of his life as told by the adult Pi (Irrfan Khan) to a spiritually adrift writer (Rafe Spall) who has been told that Pi's story "will make you believe in God". We then meet Pi as a young child (played by Ayush Tandon) experiencing difficulties in school due to his curious name: "Pissy", as the other children tease. He renames himself Pi, the irrational number 3.1415, and becomes a local hero. His childhood is more characterized by his search for God, simultaneously encompassing Hindu, Christian and Muslim beliefs. His family owns a zoo and when, years later, they fall on hard times as India goes through major political upheaval, Pi's father (Adil Hussain) decides the best path is for them to emigrate to Canada, along with all their animals.

The last chapter of the book took "Life of Pi" from an interesting read to a profound exploration of the nature of reality, a provocative recast of the entire narrative, and this sense of wonder is retained in the cinematic retelling. It explores how we are destined to retell the story of our life in a manner that makes us a heroic figure rather than just a figure upon the stage of life.

Pi, adrift in the universe, from Life of Pi

It also asks what is the nature of God? How can a merciful or loving God -- or Gods, in the case of Hinduism -- leave Pi adrift in the Pacific with Richard Parker, a ferocious tiger, and nothing other than his wits to keep him alive? It's the metaphysical experience that transforms Life of Pi from a visual delight into a deep, profound film.

Life of Pi is a wonder to behold, a reminder of the power of cinema, of the wondrous journeys that a superb filmmaker, cast and production crew can take us on as we sit in a dark theater, seeking escape. It's a shoe-in for a Best Picture nomination for the Academy Awards and it's well worth seeing, even with the occasionally overwrought 3D. I'm eager to watch it again.