Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

Brilliant, challenging thriller for a mature crowd

Posted : 14 years ago on 7 April 2011 11:18 (A review of Collateral)

Max: "I can't drive you around while you're killing folks. It ain't my job!"
Vincent: "Tonight it is."


Collateral was released in the summer of 2004, emerging amidst an onslaught of big-budget, special effects-laden blockbusters. Yet, Collateral does not adhere to the standard summer season template - rather than a brain-dead action fiesta for the mainstream crowd, it's a challenging thriller for mature audiences, puppeteered by the boundlessly talented Michael Mann (Heat, Ali). As was the case with Heat, Collateral exhibits a sense of stark realism rarely witnessed in ordinary Hollywood productions. The film is escapist entertainment at its core, but Mann perpetually insists upon plausible scenarios and a gritty tone to ensure the film never drifts too far into the realm of fantasy. Most commendably, Collateral is a summer picture that eschews big explosions and gunfights for suspense, intrigue, plot twists, and an understated cinematic style.


Working the streets of downtown Los Angeles at night with his taxi, Max (Jamie Foxx) is a soft-spoken man with big ambitions tragically stuck in his dead-end job. After meeting beautiful U.S. Justice Department prosecutor Annie (Jada Pinkett-Smith) during his shift one night, a mysterious fare enters Max's cab in the form of Vincent (Tom Cruise). Vincent explains he has five appointments to attend and a plane to catch in the morning, and offers Max $600 cash if he agrees to be Vincent's personal chauffeur for the night. Seeing this as an opportunity to jump-start his dreams, Max hesitantly agrees. Shortly afterwards, it is revealed that Vincent is, in fact, a contract killer travelling around the city to put several targets on ice. Max is unwittingly pulled into Vincent's world of systematic murdering for this single night, leaving the frightened cabbie with no means of escape.


The narrative is not particularly groundbreaking, and it's predictable to a certain degree, but Stuart Beattie's clever script and Mann's sharp-eyed direction compensate for this. Collateral is not a surface-level flick - there are intelligent layers and nuances to both the story and the characters, which take multiple viewings to pick up. For example, it's initially unclear why Vincent wants Max as his chauffer, but character interaction reveals he is just looking for someone to frame - in one scene, Detective Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) tells his colleagues a story about a cabbie who supposedly killed three people before committing suicide, implying that this is Vincent's plan for Max. On top of this, exploring real ideas and themes is also on Mann and Beattie's agenda. For instance, Vincent ruminates on his personal philosophies about the world and on the insignificance of a single human being. Similarly, Max aspires to start his own limousine company and insists his taxi job is temporary despite being a driver for twelve years, and this relates to the way people realise that their lifelong dreams are slipping out of their grasp through cruel passages of time and inertia. Indeed, Collateral is far more than an excuse for exploitative violence in the name of entertainment.


Of all his directorial characteristics, Mann is perhaps best known for his attention to detail - he makes environments into characters and stages down-to-earth gunfights that are not glamorised but instead based on realistic scenarios, tactics and training. This remains unchanged for Collateral. Predominantly lensing the picture with digital cameras, Mann and his two cinematographers (one cinematographer quit after three weeks, and a second one took over) permeate the film with an immersive authenticity and neglect the typical Hollywood sheen. Indeed, Mann centres his attention on developing atmosphere, building suspense and manipulating tension. Through using digital photography and as much natural lighting as possible, Mann achieves the verisimilitude he clearly strives for, transforming what could've been a cartoonish blockbuster into a masterfully realistic and gripping action movie. Additionally, the soundtrack mixes pop, rock, jazz, and classical tunes to match the mood of each scene. Michael Mann is the furthest thing from an ordinary action director - he is an expert craftsman, and the result is spellbinding.


Another of Mann's strengths here is pace; he clearly understands the need for humanity and character building without boring viewers to death. It is possible to care about Max's predicament after watching some innately human moments between him and Annie, with these scenes efficiently developing Max as a nuanced three-dimensional human being. The extended scene inside Max's cab that depicts Max and Annie's initial meeting is so expertly conceived, natural and charming that it could easily stand as a short film on its own. Beattie's script is another asset in this sense since it gives the characters some sharp, honest dialogue. Likewise, the interactions between Vincent and Max are never anything less than enthralling, and there are appreciable moments of levity throughout to lighten the mood. Also commendable is the fact that this is a Hollywood production where no characters seem safe, no matter how renowned the actors are. The ending may seem pat and clichéd, but it is pitch-perfect; it's ultimately ironic, it underscores themes introduced throughout (such as Vincent mentioning Darwin's theory of evolution and the need to adapt and improvise), and it brings closure to the character arcs.


Though the script is magnificent and the filmmaking is top-notch, Collateral ultimately works due to the pair of performances courtesy of Foxx and Cruise, both of whom disappear into their roles. Embracing the opportunity to flex his antagonistic muscles, Cruise pulls off the complex requirements of the part to fantastic effect - his performance as Vincent is riveting, career-best work for the actor. Likewise, the usually comically-oriented Foxx delivers a superb, warm, understated performance that earned the star a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Both performances also reflect Mann's insistence towards realism - Cruise underwent extensive firearms training and, in turn, demonstrates outstanding pistol-handling skills throughout, while Foxx comes across as a run-of-the-mill everyman. In the supporting role of Annie, Jada Pinkett-Smith is absolute dynamite - she has never been more charming than she is here. Mark Ruffalo, Peter Berg, and Bruce McGill are also highly engaging in the more minor roles of the investigators hot on Vincent's trail.


Whereas most summer movies are action pictures with slight traces of drama and character development, Collateral is an intense, character-oriented drama-thriller with traces of action. And it is directly because of the drama and character development that the movie works so well. Collateral is intelligent, mature and involving, and it is also the best motion picture of 2004, bar none.

10/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

There's still no reason to care about this series

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 25 March 2011 11:42 (A review of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse)

"This wasn't a choice between you and Jacob. It was a choice between who I am and who I should be."


In Eclipse, an antagonistic vampire with a grudge against another vampire amasses an army of psychotic vampires to attack the good guys. Meanwhile, a bunch of werewolves team up with the good vampires to fight the evil ones, leading to a total all-out monster-on-monster war. So, why does Eclipse suck? Well, because it's a Twilight movie - the vampires are whiny, angsty, emo-ish brats, the werewolves are bland, buff pretty boys, the romantic leads share no chemistry, and by law it is forbidden for anything interesting to happen. After all, if the stories contained anything interesting, it would stand in the way of what the Twilight franchise is truly about: convincing young girls that true happiness can only be attained through co-dependent submission to emotionally domineering douchebags in the context of traditional marriage. If one eliminates all of the hokey mythology surrounding the vampires and werewolves of author Stephenie Meyer's world, all that's left is an ongoing, angst-ridden hormonal explosion.



With her senior year at high school drawing to an end, Bella Swan (Stewart) is standing on the precipice of all that is to become in the next phase of her life. While still longing to become a vampire in order to be with boyfriend Edward Cullen (Pattinson) for eternity, Bella is nonetheless torn by the dissenting opinions of others. Not to mention, werewolf Jacob Black (Lautner) still clings to the hope that Bella will dump Edward for him. You see, Bella may think she knows what she wants, but the boyfolk assure her that she doesn't really. The lads know exactly what's best for her, and will decide her future for her! Meanwhile, revenge-seeking vampire Victoria (Howard) begins creating an army of powerful newborn vampires. With Bella in imminent danger, the Cullen family and Jacob's (shirtless) wolf-pack put aside their feuds in order to protect Bella (despite her manipulative, whorish tendencies).


There is enough compelling dramatic material in the Twilight concept for only one or maybe two feature-length movies, but no more. Yet, by the time the credits roll on the second Breaking Dawn film in 2012, Bella Swan's existential crisis will have exceeded the 10-hour cinematic mark. I mean what the fuck? Not even Indiana Jones or Toy Story could be sustained for that long, and Twilight is definitely no Indiana Jones or Toy Story. Three films into the Twilight series, and the appeal of this agonising saga remains baffling. The stories are uninteresting, the characters are flat and dull, the mythology is dreary, and the romantic themes are centuries outdated. And this just applies to the books - the films are even worse due to the fact that, while it took only Meyer to write a bad book, Eclipse is the product of hundreds of hours of hard labour on the part of actors, writers, directors, producers, editors, etc. However, at the very least, there are a few self-referential jokes that provoke chortles, including a scene in which Edward asks if Jacob owns a shirt. 99% of the laughs remain unintentional, though.



Weird as it may sound, the Twilight films are progressively getting worse. The more money spent on them, the shittier they are. 2008's Twilight was bad, but at least had some charm. 2009's New Moon, on the other hand, was a turgid disaster which sputtered out with a tragic non-climax. The decline in quality continues here with Eclipse; a tedious slog that's only fit for the most devoted Twilight fanatics. Dreary, stupid, tragically drawn-out and loaded with tedious dialogue, Eclipse utterly squanders the potentially badass premise of a vampire army fighting werewolves and other vampires. Instead of a film with fertile conflict and legitimate swoon, Eclipse books the bullet train to Dullsville. Once again, the adapted screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg is faithful to the source material to a fault. If Rosenberg were a good writer, she would have reworked the endless scenes of shallow idiots talking into scenes of semi-developed idiots with something worthwhile to say.


Aside from the warring battle, Eclipse is mostly concerned with rehashing the events of New Moon - i.e. the love triangle between Bella, Jacob and Edward. At the end of New Moon, Bella chose Edward, so the story should be over. But Twilight is a woman's fantasy, and Meyer felt that a lot more could be milked from the dreamy notion of a girl being fought over by two young studs. The problem is that Twilight is an undernourished romantic fantasy with little realistic behaviour that spotlights a bunch of completely shallow characters. For crying out loud, Jacob continually tries to forcefully convince Bella that she loves him. Later, Jacob learns that Bella is marrying Edward and refuses to help in the forthcoming battle, meaning he only initially agreed to take part in said battle in a sleazy attempt to impress Bella and win her over. After his tantrum, Bella the evil whore tells Jacob to kiss her. Are you fucking serious?! Edward, meanwhile, is the type of overprotective, jealous boyfriend that girls hate (consider that he sabotaged Bella's truck to prevent her from seeing Jacob). Yet girls still love this douchebag? Thus, the Twilight series is all about a girl's choice between an overprotective, unreasonable, angsty brat, and a clingy, forceful asshole who can't take no for an answer. Bella would be better off marrying her father, for fuck's sake. By the hour mark of Eclipse, one's eyelids become infinitely more interesting.



Honestly, it's still beyond this reviewer's mental parameters as to why Jacob and Edward make a huge fuss over such a dead-eyed, dithering bore of a girl. The film provides no compelling reason as to why these lads put so much on the line for a female who can barely wait to get out of her boyfriend's line of sight so she can cuddle with another guy! Bella may be attractive, but, let's face it, that's all she has going for her. Shouldn't love be based on something deeper? I mean, given the chance I'd probably sleep with Bella a few times, but I prefer not to have relationships with flat wooden tables.


David Slade was the director who took the helm of Eclipse. Slade previously directed the amazing Hard Candy and the visually stylish 30 Days of Night. A genuinely skilled horror director, it made sense for him to tackle a Twilight film. Slade, however, failed to do anything worthwhile with Meyer's insufferable abstinence lecture. What should have been an enthralling, heroic film of affection and protection has instead been reduced to a dialogue-heavy slog which retraces several plot points of its predecessors whilst making barely any headway of its own. Slade had his trusty stylish urges and the most action-intensive Twilight script at his disposal, but the creative effort is indistinguishable - the director was clearly in studio employee mode here; making no effort to shake the actors from their melodramatic comas or to prevent the action from being nothing but a crunching blur of suspect special effects. There are a few entertaining moments here and there, but not enough to salvage this malarkey. The vampires turn to marble or something when they're killed and the film is rated PG-13, denying Slade the chance to orchestrate some gory mayhem.



Do the Twilight producers actually advertise for bad actors? Inexplicably, the returning cast members are actually getting worse with each new movie. Kristen Stewart's interpretation of Bella continues to be mopey and completely uninteresting - it seems as if she took a sleeping pill before filming and was perpetually fighting to stay awake. Robert Pattinson, meanwhile, submitted an all-time worst performance here as Edward. Reprising his role of Jacob is Taylor Lautner, who's embarrassing for the most part. Lautner was somewhat decent in New Moon, but he's full-on awful here. The young star merely acted the shit out of every scene, filling every line reading with pulsating, hammy, unearned intensity that's more amusing than effective. Naturally, Lautner preferred to spend most of his time sans shirt to proudly show off his physique.


Despite the filmmaking talent behind Twilight Eclipse (Twishite Ecrapse?), the movie is a dull mess. Instead of finding an artful tone, director Slade merely filled the movie with a plethora of random pop tunes to provide atmosphere while working through a tedious story routine of swoon and quarrel. Plus, is anyone else disturbed by the messages that Twilight preaches to its target audience? It just tells young girls that virginity is important, and that you should marry as early as possible. Fucking hell, it is a blueprint for creating an entire generation of shy, demurring, deferential domestic abuse victims waiting to happen. Fans of Twilight will doubtlessly enjoy Eclipse, but this third go-round will not make Twihard converts of the rest of us. Three movies and more than six hours in, and there's still no reason to care about this godforsaken franchise.

1.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Hilarious, charming slice of entertainment

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 21 March 2011 11:45 (A review of Wild Target)

"So it's quite an extraordinary story... The man I hired to do the job kills one of my men, grotesquely maims another, and is now protecting the girl!"


It is absolutely beyond this reviewer's mental parameters as to why Wild Target endured such a ruthless critical reception during its fleeting theatrical run in 2010. Perhaps it depends on mood and expectations, but Wild Target is a wonderfully droll, effortlessly charming and spry action-comedy from the British school of black humour. Rarely less than tear-provokingly hilarious, this movie is a grand, quick-witted slice of entertainment which harkens back to the screwball heist comedies of yore; a time when making viewers laugh was more important than constructing an intricate narrative. Sure, the plot is not at all original and the film is somewhat predictable, but if you need a dose of quality British-flavoured comedy (i.e. offhand, self-deprecating, and coming in equal doses of light and black), you cannot afford to miss this one.



Rose (Blunt) is a con artist and a thief who exercises her significant sexual allure to cheat, lie and steal her way through the average day. For her latest scam, Rose looks to make a killing by selling a forged Rembrandt self-portrait to gangster Ferguson (Everett). Unfortunately, she doesn't get far before the scam is exposed and Rose finds herself face-to-face with legendary assassin Victor Maynard (Nighy). Victor fails to carry out the contract due to unexpected difficulties, however, and soon afterwards he accidentally protects Rose from a second set of hired guns. Leaving town with Rose and impressionable bystander Tony (Grint), Victor takes refuge in his stuffy home. As Rose teaches the uptight assassin to loosen up a tad, another hitman (Freeman) is hired to finish the job.


Directed by Jonathan Lynn (best known for the BBC series Yes, Minister), Wild Target is based on the 1993 French farce Cible émouvante but is so thoroughly and quintessentially English in both spirit and humour that its French origins are hard to detect. The central conceit of a trained killer being domesticated is nothing new, but Lynn and his writers (Lucinda Coxon and Pierre Salvadori) managed to construct a slant on the material that is fresh-feeling. There's a rapid-fire string of clever verbal and visual gags which provide a great deal of laughs, while the script is fertile ground for witty dialogue. One would expect things to become far less interesting once the three fugitives arrive at Victor's stately mansion, but the psychological humour is just getting started and there's almost always something funny happening. The pace is kept welcomely brisk throughout, with only a few moments that sag. Not many movies are capable of delivering quality laugh-out-loud hilarity, but Wild Target succeeds on this front. The humour may not be to everyone's taste, but Wild Target is guaranteed to make you laugh if you adore British comedy.



The trio of stars constituting the main characters - Nighy, Blunt and Grint - lighten up the screen of whatever film they're gallivanting through, and this is unchanged for Wild Target - they all have a lively synergy, and play off one another to deeply hilarious effect. Nobody does constipated English reserve better than Nighy, and in Wild Target he's as uptight as they come; parlaying his scarecrow-like physique into some of the stiffest slapstick imaginable. Alongside him, Emily Blunt is essentially the British Zooey Deschanel - flirty, indie-cute, irresistibly gorgeous, and well-dressed - and as Rose she was given welcome respite from her regular roles in Victorian-era costume dramas. Likewise, it is refreshing to see Rupert Grint - who has spent a full decade as Harry Potter's best friend - outside of the halls of Hogwarts for a change. Grint has real acting chops that he was able to express here. Together, Nighy, Grint and Blunt form a love triangle of acutely comic angles. Playing another hitman, Martin Freeman is in fine comedic form here; his hilariously exaggerated white teeth and spot-on comic timing are huge assets. To round out the cast, Rupert Everett and Eileen Atkins - as Ferguson and Victor's mother, respectively - clearly had an absolute ball playing their characters.


Perhaps Wild Target is a bit too unoriginal and a tad too neutered (consider the PG-13 rating), but it easily earns a recommendation. It did not deserve such a thorough trashing by the critics. Sure, it's no masterpiece, but it's a nice, fun, sprightly British diversion with good actors, a notably lively soundtrack, and plenty of quality gags. With Hollywood churning out masses of heavily clichéd, unfunny studio-produced comedies every single year, something like Wild Target should be intimately embraced.

7.7/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Enthralling sci-fi flick with humanity and warmth

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 20 March 2011 10:30 (A review of The Adjustment Bureau)

"All I have are the choices I make, and I choose her, come what may."


The Adjustment Bureau is something rare: an enthralling, literate science fiction flick imbued with existential density, thematic texture, humanity and emotional warmth. In a sense, it is the motion picture that Christopher Nolan's over-celebrated, emotionally barren Inception should have been. Admittedly, there is a mainstream-friendly vibe pervading the final third of this picture, and a few clichés are inescapable, yet the movie succeeds due to the fact that the audience can easily become invested in the characters' fates. And, most importantly for a sci-fi thriller, The Adjustment Bureau poses thought-provoking questions and conveys provocative concepts. For a Hollywood product to tick such boxes in an age of brainless action extravaganzas, it's a miracle.



Electoral candidate David Norris (Damon) is on the verge of becoming the youngest congressman to be elected senator of New York. However, due to unforseen bad press on the eve of the election, he is robbed of would-be victory. Prior to his concession speech, David has a chance meeting with spirited dancer Elise (Blunt) and romantic sparks fly, but Elise scurries away before providing any contact details. Yet, it is David's experience with Elise that paves the way for the widely respected speech he delivers thereafter. Three fortuitous years later, David and Elise coincidentally cross paths again on a bus, and David attempts to woo her permanently. Unfortunately, the coupling apparently interferes with the "master plan" for both of their lives. Consequently, the Adjustment Bureau soon enters the picture. A group of formerly-dressed men who take orders from an enigmatic "Chairman", the Adjustment Bureau make sure everything goes to plan, and for unknown reasons they are determined to prevent David and Elise from falling in love.


The premise is derived from Philip K. Dick's 1954 short story The Adjustment Team. Like a majority of the cinematic adaptations of Dick's short stories, The Adjustment Bureau's writer-director George Nolfi was not entirely faithful to the original text, but he did retain the basic framework. Fortunately, before the sci-fi material takes hold, the film goes to great pains to put itself and its protagonist in the real world. There is a tremendous amount of character development during the film's first act, allowing us to get to know David as a flesh-and-blood human. Furthermore, perhaps the most remarkable thing about The Adjustment Bureau is that we can believe this romance from the start. When David and Elise have a leisurely conversation during their first meeting, there's a palpable romantic spark between them. It's easy to understand why the two are interested in each other, since, as humans, most of us can relate to the exhilarating feeling we experience when we meet and are dazzled by someone. Plus, the two characters simply click.



The Adjustment Bureau is a tight, resourceful thriller that's unhurried but does not waste a single second of screen-time. Once the foundation of David's everyday existence is shattered, the film shifts forward at breakneck fluidity with taut exposition and some exhilarating set-pieces. Yet, Nolfi did not forget how crucial the story's human side is. After all, at its heart, The Adjustment Bureau is a poignant, powerful romance between two people who seem right for each other but face a unique kind of force keeping them apart. As a matter of fact, it's genuinely surprisingly that The Adjustment Bureau is more of a romance than a sci-fi thriller. This is not to say that the Twilight Zone aspects are ignored or reduced to background colour, but the film is more concerned with provoking an emotional response than a logical one. The story is about love conquering all, and about people who risk everything for a chance at romantic joy and happiness.


Furthermore, it's impressive to note that the picture dabbles in numerous genres yet manages to be completely airtight in its tone. After kicking off as a politics-laced romantic comedy (WTF?!), The Adjustment Bureau eventually veers towards mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, action, and cat-and-mouse thriller. Also, without using any usual scare tactics that one might typically see in a B-grade horror flick, Nolfi was able to build a disquieting, eerie mood. This is Nolfi's directorial debut (his former day-job was as screenwriter extraordinaire, having co-written The Bourne Ultimatum and other films), and it's a promising one. Commendably, Nolfi managed to handle the exposition with consummate skill; teasing viewers with tiny pieces of godly reveal, and keeping the Bureau's origins playfully ambiguous. Credit is also due to veteran cinematographer John Toll who contributed to the stylish visual flair, and to Thomas Newman for his excellent score. The film's finale is utterly breathtaking, with a unique, pulse-pounding foot chase through the streets of New York. However, the tidy way the film wraps up does admittedly feel too mainstream-friendly. It's a satisfying ending, but perhaps a bit out-of-place in a film that's otherwise so unpredictable.



Matt Damon is pitch-perfect as David Norris. Damon comes across as intrinsically human without ever having to try, and he's an easy protagonist to care about and relate to. Alongside him, Emily Blunt is an excellent match for Damon, and their blistering chemistry fortunately keeps the focus on the characters rather than the mechanics of the narrative. Meanwhile, as members of the Adjustment Bureau, John Slattery and Anthony Mackie are both strong performers, and look as if they walked right out of a black-and-white 1940s movie and into this one. Rounding out the main players is Terence Stamp, who afforded a perfect amount of iciness and regality to his role.


Considering the usual standard for big-budget Hollywood motion pictures in this day and age, it is indeed refreshing to witness a film like The Adjustment Bureau; an assured, smart, creative sci-fi thriller which does not forget about humanity and warmth.

8.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Boxing picture with heart and soul

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 13 March 2011 12:41 (A review of The Fighter)

"I'm just grateful to be here and have the shot for the title."


From Rocky to Raging Bull to Million Dollar Baby, boxing films have existed as Oscar staples for decades. Suffice it to say, it's challenging - if not impossible - to find anything new or fresh to mine in the frequently-exploited genre. Hence, 2010's The Fighter does not flourish as an original offering of filmmaking since it's both an underdog story of boxing glory as well as a tale of brutes in a harsh working class corner of Boston. The Fighter retrieves inspiration from deep within its heart, though, as it dissects the true-life story of Irish boxer Micky Ward and his brother Dicky. Much like its real-world inspiration, this is an agitated picture which possesses overwhelming spirit to overcome its dreary familiarity. Plus, freed from any real narrative suspense, a viewer is given the chance to focus on what's fresh and new: the matter-of-fact filming style, the lived-in atmosphere, and a handful of absolutely exceptional performances courtesy of an unbelievably talented cast.



In 1978, professional boxer Dicky Eklund (Bale) was labelled "The Pride of Lowell" in his small Massachusetts town after knocking down the then-unstoppable boxer Sugar Ray Leonard in a much-publicised match. Fast forward to the early '90s, and Dicky now spends his time training his brother Micky (Wahlberg) and doing drugs. However, the combination of Dicky's ineffective training (as a consequence of his crack habit) and the incompetent management of his mother (Leo) results in Micky getting pummelled in the ring. Facing a dire future, Micky is spurred on by his strong-willed girlfriend Charlene (Adams) to make a change and break away from the control of his dysfunctional family in order to begin taking steps towards respectability on the boxing circuit. While Micky's decision sends him to victorious heights, it also threatens to shun Dicky and crush his intense world of brotherly adoration.


The Fighter immaculately fuses the pleasures of a big entertainment with the provocative food-for-thought elements of a movie with loftier goals in mind than being a simple diversion. Like most films of this ilk, this is far more than a boxing picture - it's more of a character drama, and more of an examination of the struggles of life than a look at the challenges inside the ring. The family drama elements are compelling, pungent and brutal, as it's heartbreaking to witness Micky being torn between his desire to pursue a championship and his loyalty to his mother and brother. The script (credited to Scott Silver, Eric Johnson and Paul Tamasy) does an effective job of conveying Micky's emotional and professional trajectory, while helmer David O. Russell and cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema eschewed technical razzle-dazzle in favour of a raw, gritty filming approach to emphasise character and emotion. The in-the-ring action, too, is hard-hitting and well-crafted. The Fighter is also enhanced by an excellent soundtrack of propulsive songs and pounding rhythms, with staple training montages in which you could be forgiven for wondering whether Gonna Fly Now is about to play.



Due to the common theme of boxing, comparisons to Sylvester Stallone's Rocky are inevitable, but perhaps a more apt comparison for The Fighter would be Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler. It's no coincidence that Aronofsky was originally attached to direct but eventually stayed on as producer. See, both The Fighter and The Wrestler are grim, reality-driven pictures which do not shy away from portraying the difficulties of life. Neither The Wrestler nor The Fighter feel like fairytales, and the way things pan out for each film's protagonist is secondary to the lessons learned along the way. Furthermore, the titles of both The Wrestler and The Fighter imply the impersonal; describing a man's title rather than describing a fully-defined individual. Similarly, if both words are taken as verbs rather than nouns, they also imply the struggles of the protagonists who wrestle with or fight off the challenges of life. The ambiguousness of The Fighter's title even extends to the fact that it's unclear whether it refers to Dicky or Micky since both men fit the description.


Amazingly immersive performances courtesy of both Christian Bale and Melissa Leo signify The Fighter's biggest assets, as reflected in the fact that both stars received Academy Awards. During Bale's adult carer, the actor has shown a tendency to take himself way too seriously, leading to the development of a hardened, humourless and drab screen persona (see The Dark Knight and Terminator Salvation). For his role of Dicky, Bale finally let loose and delivered a perfectly-nuanced, phenomenal performance - this is the enormously talented Bale that we remember seeing in American Psycho. Bale spent countless hours with the real-life Dicky to study his mannerisms, and he lost weight to the point of being nearly unrecognisable. Bale won his first Oscar for this role, and it's much-deserved.



Meanwhile, Amy Adams was cast against type. Usually known for sweet and innocent roles, Adams adopted the persona of a confrontational bitch to play Charlene. Adams disperses innumerable profanities and does not shy away from physical violence. Yet, Charlene also has a softer and sexier side. Happily, Adams managed to nail every facet of the character. Alongside her, Mark Wahlberg's performance as Micky is the least "showy". His line readings are simple and direct, yet he's also staggeringly effective, not to mention he represents the anchor that both holds the production in place and allows performers around him to take flight. Wahlberg did not receive an Oscar nomination, but this is among his best work in years. The only place where The Fighter stumbles is in the depiction of Micky and Charlene's relationship, which is underdeveloped. The pair abruptly and bafflingly transition from awkward first date to committed relationship. It may work from a narrative standpoint but not emotionally, which is bewildering in a picture otherwise imbued with so much heart and soul. This is especially disappointing since Micky and Charlene's relationship is the catalyst which helps Micky break free and become his own person.


For several years, Mark Wahlberg worked arduously to try and get this project off the ground, and continued with a strict training and diet regime over said years to ensure he would be in proper shape for whenever the film was green-lit. Fortunately, his hard work and determination has paid off with a film that lives up to his hopes for it. The Fighter is simply an outstanding motion picture. The movie works not only due to its unflinching realism and sturdy writing, but also due to exemplary performances across the board.

8.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Return to form for the Farrelly brothers

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 12 March 2011 09:08 (A review of Hall Pass)

"Most married men believe that, if not for you, they could actually be with these other women."


Once upon a time in 1998, Bobby and Peter Farrelly pushed the envelope of raunchy comedy with their breakout hit There's Something About Mary. A few years on, the brothers created the equally hilarious Me, Myself & Irene. Unfortunately, since then, the brothers have been stuck in a serious rut - throughout the noughties they directed several subpar comedies which disappointed their fans and showed that the duo has gotten softer. 2011's Hall Pass therefore represented an attempt by the Farrelly brothers to reclaim the crown they lost over a decade ago. Thankfully, Hall Pass is hilarious; denoting a return to form for the brothers. It's not exactly on par with the pair's best movies, but this flick is gut-bustingly funny and the story is more thoughtful than expected. See, the brothers gleaned a few tricks from Judd Apatow's playbook, meaning that there's an element of sweetness buried underneath the nudity, bodily fluid jokes, and faecal matter.



Real estate agent Rick (Wilson) and his best friend Fred (Sudeikis) are two middle-aged schlubs who are married, respectively, to Maggie (Fischer) and Grace (Applegate). Despite being married, neither Rick nor Fred can help but ogle every good-looking woman they stumble across. Tired of their husbands' perpetually wandering eyes and sensing that the spark of their relationships may have faded, Maggie and Grace opt to take the advice of a neighbourhood friend and grant Rick and Fred a "hall pass" - that is, one week free from marriage in which the guys can do whatever they want (without consequences) in order to get the sexual urges out of their systems. Initially taken aback by the news, they soon become gung-ho at the notion of living it up like college guys. Confronted with their wildest dreams come true, Rick and Fred embark on a weeklong series of misadventures desperate to find willing women.


Naturally, Rick and Fred - and, for that matter, Maggie and Grace - will inevitably realise just how precious their partners are to them, and realise the week has given them a newfound appreciation for their home life. Of course, too, the characters are going to have second thoughts about going through with affairs. And of course, there will be the obligatory climactic make-ups. This stuff is as predictable as the tide. Yet, even though these arcs are in the service of formula and although you can predict them a mile away, at least there is some actual sweetness amidst the vulgarity. Interestingly, the Farrelly brothers have stated that they believe Hall Pass to be a chick flick. While this may sound like a strange possibility for a movie full of gross-out humour, it's almost true since the wives of the movie also undergo eye-opening epiphanies. It's a strange audience to target, though, since middle-aged women are likely to turn off the movie within the first half an hour, and it's doubtful they'll sit through an entire scene of full-frontal penis nudity. As a side note, where the hell did Rick and Maggie's kids go? They literally disappear after the midway point, and are never seen again.



Hall Pass definitely earns its R-rating. It's not as if the movie merely contains a couple of f-bombs and a few nudity shots - rather, it's packed with a constant barrage of low-brow but hilarious gags and quite a lot of graphic nudity. Yet, not all of the comedy here is of the raunchy or gross-out variety (the Law & Order scene transition noise is recurringly used to side-splitting effect), though it's hard to imagine Hall Pass appealing to anybody who does not appreciate silly humour. Admittedly, the biggest laughs are a bit too few and far between, but at least the movie never grows excruciating between the best set-pieces. A major drawback of Hall Pass, though, is that the utter futility and joylessness of the hall pass becomes the focus of the film, which is ill-advised. The Farrelly brothers perhaps played things a bit too safe, and should have instead mined the premise for all its blackest potential. After all, the plot is morally reprehensible enough as it is, so it seems pointless to soften the proceedings.


Owen Wilson is predictably fine and amiable as Rick, though he adopted his stereotypical straight-man shtick and none of the material truly tests his thespian talents. Alongside him, Jason Sudeikis ably slipped into the role of Fred with the demented everyman persona which defined most of his Saturday Night Live oeuvre. The standout performance, though (to the extent that there can be a standout in a production of this sort), was delivered by the perpetually-reliable Richard Jenkins. Jenkins does not appear until the film's final third, but, when he does arrive, he dominates every scene he's in. Never less than hilarious, Jenkins proved here that he's as good with comedy as he is with drama. Another of the feature's highest points is Nicky Whelan (from the terrible 9th season of Scrubs), who's stunningly beautiful and charismatic as the sweet-natured Leigh. Also worth mentioning is Brit comedian Stephen Merchant, whose brand of comedy lightens up several sequences. Stick around momentarily during the end credits, as there's an additional scene involving Merchant that's side-splitting.



Hall Pass lacks the same kick of the earlier films by the Farrelly brothers, but it nonetheless shows enough flashes of '90s-Farrelly magic to make the film worth watching. Considering the usual standard for studio comedies, it is indeed refreshing to witness a comedy which not only has the balls to go the hard-R route but also contains actual moments of inspired hilarity. Nonetheless, one cannot help but wonder what the '90s-era Farrelly brothers might have made of it.

6.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A heartfelt, clever and hilarious debut

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 9 March 2011 01:05 (A review of Despicable Me)

"We are going to pull off the true crime of the century... we are going to steal the moon!"


Although 2010 was not a particularly memorable year for movies, it was an unusually terrific year for animated features. With Toy Story 3, Tangled, How to Train Your Dragon and even Megamind generating impressive acclaim and tremendous box office, 2010's animated offerings continued to demonstrate that cartoons are not just for children. But the dark horse of 2010's summer animation derby was Despicable Me, the first of many animated feature films from Illumination Entertainment. Written by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio (2008's Horton Hears a Who!), Despicable Me is also the directorial debut for Chris Renaud and Pierre Coffin, both of whom previously worked in animation (Renaud was a storyboard artist on Robots and a couple of Ice Age sequels) before joining Illumination. Admittedly, with a comparatively meagre $69 million budget, the animation is not as polished compared to Toy Story 3 or How to Train Your Dragon (or even Shrek Forever After), and the feature lacks the dramatic relevance and poignancy of Pixar's regular output. Nevertheless, Despicable Me delivers what counts: it has heart, clever writing, and many big laughs.




Veteran supervillain Felonious Gru (Steve Carell) believes that he is the world's best supervillain, but the recent theft of Egypt's Great Pyramid of Giza by Gru's rival, Vector (Jason Segel), leaves him feeling inadequate and humiliated. Hoping to one-up Vector, Gru devises his greatest scheme to date: shrinking and stealing the moon. When he approaches the Bank of Evil to provide financial assistance to complete the scheme, bank president Mr. Perkins (Will Arnett) directs him to procure a shrink ray first. Working with elderly gadget mastermind Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) and his trusty, crafty yellow Minions, Gru manages to steal the shrink ray from a Southeast Asian research base, but Vector ambushes the crew and takes it. Looking for ways to gain access to Vector's secure fortress to reclaim the shrink ray, Gru notices that his rival buys cookies from three orphan girls: Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier), and Agnes (Elsie Fisher). In desperation, Gru adopts the three girls and hopes to use them as a Trojan Horse to distract Vector while he steals back the shrink ray. However, Gru soon bonds with the girls as he finds himself enjoying the lifestyle of a father, which diverts his attention from his moon heist and draws the ire of Dr. Nefario, who is concerned about distractions.


There is no better word to describe Despicable Me than "cute." It is almost unbearably cute: the Minions are cute, the orphans are cute, and Elsie Fisher's line deliveries are impossibly cute, saying things like, "He's so fluffy, I'm gonna die!". As with every good animated movie, Despicable Me includes simpler gags for the kids (including a Fart Gun and the orphans ruining Gru's presentation with a picture of him on the toilet) and sly jokes that only adults will understand. Indeed, the script features a darker brand of humour than the average family film - for example, after a spike-laden coffin closes on Edith, a red liquid trickles from underneath, and Gru simply says, "Well, I suppose the plan will work with two"...before he finds out that the spikes only impaled her juice box. Gru has a hilarious mean streak, seemingly cheering up a crying boy with a balloon animal before popping it, and later subtly threatening to kill his neighbour's dog for pooping on his lawn. Furthermore, the picture is refreshingly free of pop culture references, meaning that Despicable Me will not look as dated as certain other animated titles. However, while the animation is colourful and appealing, it is comparatively rudimentary, and it lacks the intricate textures of Pixar and DreamWorks productions. Thankfully, it barely matters because the movie still looks good, and the directors maintain an infectious energy and brisk pacing.



Renaud and Coffin imbue Despicable Me with Looney Tunes logic, going wild with amusingly violent slapstick since none of the characters can actually get hurt. As such, when the kids get a hold of Gru's weaponry, the results are side-splitting instead of depressing. The music is another enormously charming asset - the flick features two standout songs by Pharrell Williams ("Fun, Fun, Fun" and "Despicable Me"), who also worked on the bouncy, jubilant original score. Fortunately, the musician later contributed further music and songs to the franchise. The only real drawback of Despicable Me is that the third act feels formulaic, and the emotional arc is too on the nose. The story's trajectory and outcome are predictable, though this seems like a curmudgeonly thing to complain about since this is a family movie. At least Gru's inevitable transition from a supervillain to a father figure is funny, believable, and, yes, even heart-warming. Naturally, the picture lacks the maturity of Toy Story 3, but the film neither bores nor insults mature-age viewers, which is a big compliment for an animated family movie.


A visual blend of Uncle Fester from The Addams Family and Danny DeVito's Penguin from Batman Returns, Gru is one of the most interesting and memorable animated characters in recent memory. On that note, the character designs across the board are iconic, with Gru, the Minions, Dr. Nefario and Gru's daughters looking instantly recognisable - hell, the Minions are probably the single most over-merchandised animated characters in history. Luckily, the voice cast gives vivid and engaging life to the characters, ensuring their voices are rich with personality. Steve Carell's vocal performance is excellent, with the actor's Gru voice a self-proclaimed mix of Ricardo Montalban and Bela Lugosi. Meanwhile, the three orphaned girls are derivative but charming, with Miranda Cosgrove (School of Rock, Drake & Josh) the most notable of the actresses. Meanwhile, Vector is a great villain - his actions carry an almost childlike mentality, and his boastful nature makes you want to see him get his comeuppance. Jason Segel's plucky and spirited vocal performance is a perfect fit. Russell Brand also lends his voice to the cast, and he is practically unrecognisable as Dr. Nefario.



Despicable Me is almost the complete package with its immense visual wit and combination of humour and heart, but it does fall short of perfection due to its slavish adherence to formula, particularly during the third act. It remains a hugely entertaining animated movie and an instant classic that does not diminish with age, and its flaws only emerge when it is placed alongside the best movies from within the animation realm. With the feature generating numerous sequels, a few Minion-centric spinoffs, short films, a web series, and a major media brand in general with endless merchandise of all shapes and sizes, it is refreshing to rewatch Despicable Me, which remains the strongest instalment in the franchise so far with its clean, engaging storytelling and sharp wit.

7.7/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Simply unnecessary

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 6 March 2011 07:02 (A review of Let Me In)

"You have to invite me in."


Most of those who came into contact with the 2008 Swedish masterpiece Let the Right One In were immediately captivated and hypnotised by its brilliance, especially in the wake of the insipid Twilight phenomenon. Let the Right One In committed an unforgivable sin, though: it was foreign and subtitle-laden, meaning the movie never existed in Hollywood's eyes. Thus, now we have Let Me In - the gratuitous redo - a quick two years after the original film. Of course, this remake has been controversial from the beginning because it's simply unnecessary, and alas the final product hardly alleviates these reservations. On its own, 2010's Let Me In is well-made and benefits from elegant visual flourishes, but it's almost a direct copy of the beloved original and therefore comes across as pointless for those already familiar with the material. Additionally, writer-director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) aimed to make a moody, sullen shocker with a touch of romance, but dull and ponderous are more appropriate descriptors.



Set in New Mexico in the winter of the early 1980s, Let Me In concerns 12-year-old Owen (Smit-McPhee). Bullied incessantly at school, Owen lives a solitary life in a bleak apartment complex, and takes solace in voyeurism and violent fantasies while perpetually yearning for a friend. Into the community soon comes a strange pre-teen named Abby (Moretz), who drags around an older man (Jenkins) whom everyone assumes is her father. Through their mutual appreciation of puzzles and after a string of snowy late-night meetings, Abby and Owen forge a tentative friendship. His correspondences with Abby are all the more exciting for Owen since his home life was destroyed by a bitter divorce. Little does Owen realise, however, that Abby is in fact a vampire. Meanwhile, after a string of murders in the local area, a detective (Koteas) begins an investigation which brings him closer and closer to Abby's doorstep.


Let Me In is not terrible per se, but it pales in comparison to its predecessor. Frankly, the film feels meaningless and gutless, with any justification for its existence being financial rather than artistic since Reeves did nothing to improve upon the original film in any worthwhile or substantive way. Dialogue is also not a strong point, as it would seem that Reeves literally put the original Swedish script through Google Translator and passed the product off as his own. Yet while the film is incredibly faithful to the original, a few changes were made which hinder this remake's effectiveness, most notably that Abby is not an alluring question mark to be explored over two hours but instead an animal from the word "go". Reeves also chose to dispose of the peripheral faces of the story, and not explore the local townspeople. This may keep all eyes on Owen and Abby, but it drains the threat of the film and renders the attack scenes as hollow violence to satiate the mainstream crowd. In the process, crucial steps of suspense are lost. Perhaps most importantly, as a standalone movie Let Me In suffers from clumsy pacing. While Let the Right One In was captivating from the very first frame, Let Me In is too cold and detached. Instead of quietly alluring, it's just dreary.



Admittedly, Let Me In benefits from slick production values and impressive visual flourishes. Gorgeous cinematography courtesy of Greig Fraser is a particular highlight, and the compositions are frequently riveting; spotlighting Reeves's commitment to constructing his remake with a striking visual identity. But even with slick production values, the special effects are surprisingly substandard. In particular, the CGI for the attack scenes is more cheesy than effective, and may provoke laughter rather than screams. Speaking of the attack scenes, the general rule of thumb is that the less seen, the more response it provokes. Reeves eschewed this rule, and amplified gore elements just for the sake of it. Thus, there's more blood, more icky sound effects, and more direct violence. This does not achieve an increased level of fright, though - it instead makes Let Me In feel more generic and less masterful than its Swedish forerunner.


On a more positive note, the central performances of Let Me In are strong. Kodi Smit-McPhee (last seen in The Road) is perfectly believable as young Owen, who's burdened by realisations and feelings that no tween should be forced to confront. Smit-McPhee also displays a wonderful mix of boldness, shyness and fear. Alongside him, Chloë Moretz (a.k.a. Hit Girl from Kick-Ass) is arguably Let Me In's largest asset - she's chilling and well-nuanced. However, Moretz is perhaps too cute and attractive to play Abby since the character was envisioned as more androgynous in the original film. In the supporting cast, Richard Jenkins is predictably great, while Elias Koteas nailed the role of the detective.



As with any remake, those who see Let Me In without a familiarity with the original Swedish film will not understand what they're missing. While Let Me In looks slick and is at times striking to study, it remains a condensed, vanilla interpretation of the source material. There's absolutely no getting around the fact that Let Me In did not need to exist. Speaking in terms of versions of this story, Let Me In is not the right one.

5.4/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A harrowing war documentary

Posted : 14 years, 1 month ago on 5 March 2011 08:09 (A review of Restrepo)

"Deadliest place on Earth: The Korengal Valley"


Shot and produced by photographer Tim Hetherington and journalist Sebastian Junger, Restrepo is one of the most powerful filmic examinations of modern warfare. While embedded in Afghanistan for 15 months throughout 2007 and '08 (on and off) for a Vanity Fair assignment, Hetherington and Junger shot approximately 150 hours of video footage which was ultimately carved into this harrowing 90-minute documentary vacation into hell. Neither Hetherington nor Junger had worked in movies prior to Restrepo, yet their efforts are as rousingly cinematic as any action movie from 2010. Crucially, the pair had no axe to grind, no thesis to advance, and no political agenda - they simply aimed to document soldiers' lives in a war zone, providing movie-goers with an immersive experience to allow them to feel what it's like to be a soldier: to take and return fire, to patrol dangerous terrain, to deal with the loss of comrades, to live under harsh conditions, and to amuse one another during the rare moments when they're not living in fear. There are no politics here - just pure experience; capturing the raw commotion of military campaigns from a soldier's perspective.



The Korengal Valley in Afghanistan is heavily populated by hidden Taliban soldiers, and is thus perceived as one of the country's deadliest hotspots. In 2007, the men of Second Platoon of Battle Company were sent into the region, thus commencing an elongated deployment with the goal in mind of establishing a foothold in the hostile area. The platoon's base of operations is an outpost called "Restrepo", which was named after a beloved medic who was tragically killed early into the operation. As the unit spend the next 15 months of their lives struggling to bring a sense of progress to the valley, Hetherington and Junger's cameras capture the camaraderie, violence and aggravation of the soldiers. We see the men transition from "it can't be that bad" swagger to an outlook of "good firefight" to "I want to go home" fatigue.


Restrepo contains no pontificating, political critiquing, or narration. Context and background is not provided; rather, the filmmakers plunge viewers into the line of fire with the soldiers. There are a host of interviews provided on occasion, but that's it - the rest is on-the-scene footage of day-to-day life in the Korengal Valley, where a ride in a Hummer can come to a startling end with a dangerous firefight. The interviews with the men do not overwhelm the film, and the soldiers do not sentimentalise their experiences. Instead, the interviews add a simple grace note; a poignant reminder of "this really happened". Fortunately, the men of Second Platoon are a compelling bunch - they are refreshingly honest, not to mention smart and funny (a scene spotlights some back-and-forth between two men over walkie-talkies that has the spark and comic timing that most scripted comedies lack). We see the soldiers attempting to cope with the dangerous conditions through humour and camaraderie - they crack jokes, they bust balls, and they enjoy it when someone plays a corny techno song.



In a few moments throughout the feature, the filmmakers find themselves in the midst of a firefight against an invisible foe, and these sequences come across as terrifying and disorientating in a way that makes generic Hollywood war movies seem callow in comparison. One of the most stunning sequences of Restrepo comes after a firefight, as the cameras capture the immediate, unguarded, completely raw emotional aftermath that unfolds when the platoon lose a man. All of this material is far removed from material seen on the nightly news, where horrible events are usually scrubbed clean for mass consumption. Of course, the filmmakers baulked from capturing graphic images of casualties since they had to treat the deceased and wounded with respect, but this is forgivable.


While there's no outright political agenda, Restrepo does not ignore the mistakes which were made by the Americans. The platoon's new captain is shown attempting to reach out to the valley's tribal elders, and he makes no bones about his predecessor's misjudged operating procedure. Through showing meetings with the locals, the "collateral damage" of later scenes has repercussions and a face.



Admittedly, Restrepo is not perfect - at times the film is meandering, and at other times strangely detached when it should pack more of a punch. Also, the passage of time is not conveyed as effectively as it should have been (there are no subtitles to inform us of the month or year, so the gaps in time can be head-scratching). Despite these shortcomings, rarely has such an unfettered and harrowing look at war been offered to the mainstream public. Heck, the film would probably have still been gripping had it been a staged "found footage" film (in the vein of Paranormal Activity or Cloverfield), but the stakes are raised considerably by the fact that everything we see contains real people in real danger.

8.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dry as a Bone...

Posted : 14 years, 2 months ago on 3 March 2011 12:04 (A review of Winter's Bone)

"I'd be lost without the weight of you two on my back. I ain't going anywhere."


Reminiscent of 2009's The Road and Precious, the moviemakers behind Debra Granik's Winter's Bone were incapable of realising the distinction between profundity and plain old bleakness. Thus, Winter's Bone is yet another textbook implementation of the misplaced belief that "gritty, grim and real" automatically means that a film is a masterpiece. While Granik's picture indeed features a plethora of focused performances and a handful of gripping moments, nothing else exists to sustain interest or to prevent the narrative from descending into boredom and tedium. Plus, a number of hokey, contrived factors lethally hinder the "realism" approach. With the above in mind, I guess it's unsurprising that Winter's Bone earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, since it's long, boring, drawn-out, dull, and provides little enjoyment and thus minuscule replay value.



Set in rural Missouri, the protagonist of Winter's Bone is 17-year-old Ree (Lawrence) who has a lot on her shoulders. Ree is both the caregiver for her catatonic mother and the parental figure for her two younger siblings, and she must also keep the family's primitive cabin running as best she can. At the beginning of the story, Ree learns that her father skipped bail but put her family's farmhouse up as collateral, meaning Ree's dad must attend his scheduled court appearance the following week or the family will be left homeless. Thus, Ree sets off to hunt down her old man, meeting a host of frightening folk along the way, most of whom constitute her extended family. Suffice it to say, Ree's search for her father rustles up quite a few feathers amongst the locals.


The main problem with Winter's Bone is that the plot is powered by hopelessly contrived character behaviour. After the locals are impassive and unwilling to help Ree, they subsequently turn pointlessly brutal in the second act only to become implausibly helpful in the end. It doesn't help that the relationships between the characters are inadequately explained, generating confusion about how person B knows person A, and what (if any) bloodline they share. Also worsening matters is the dialogue, which often sounds much too screenwriter-esque. The narrative is rather weak, as well. A genuinely masterful thriller ought to have intricate details and intelligent surprises to keep you riveted throughout, but these necessities were lost on Debra Granik and co-writer Anne Rosellini. Granik succeeded in establishing a dark, at times engaging and even melancholic atmosphere, but the suspense gradually fizzles out. The mystery starts out intriguingly enough, but, on account of the implausible character behaviour and the meandering pace, interest dissipates long before the mystery is revealed.



Winter's Bone is set - and was filmed - in the Ozarks. To their credit, Granik and cinematographer Michael McDonough managed to capture the dejected beauty of the landscape in an effective way. The sense of place is visceral and occasionally gripping, and the detailed images are at times breathtaking to behold. Yet, the effect wears off quickly as the narrative continues to drag. Winter's Bone should have been enthralling and emotionally charged, but the filmmakers failed to achieve this - it's distanced and aloof when it should be involving and/or stirring. It was thus not able to captivate this reviewer to any commendable degree. The film did not need mindless Hollywood action elements, but instead more tension, intrigue, and a snappier pace. Additionally, for what's supposed to be a "gritty, grim and real" movie, Winter's Bone ends on an improbably optimistic note. Sure, a depressing ending would have been lacklustre as well, but it's even worse for the film's integrity to be sacrificed. Sorry, but give me movies like Toy Story 3 or The King's Speech over this malarkey any day of the week.


To the credit of the performers, the acting across the board is uniformly strong. For many (this reviewer included), this 2010 feature was the first opportunity to see the work of 19-year-old Jennifer Lawrence, whose career prior to Winter's Bone was relegated to small roles in TV shows and obscure movies. Winter's Bone represented her first chance to show her acting chops to a more mainstream crowd, and her performance is excellent, forceful and convincing. She is without doubt the strongest aspect of the movie, and she earned an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Also of note in the cast is the excellent John Hawkes as Teardrop (who was also nominated for an Oscar), and Garret Dillahunt who's amiable as the sheriff.



At a running time of over 100 minutes, Winter's Bone lacks adequate intrigue and suspense, not to mention it drags and leaves you feeling underwhelmed despite well-nuanced performances and a richly atmospheric setting. It's also a problem for a "grim, gritty and real" movie to come off as contrived in the scripting department. While the Oscar attention is hardly surprisingly, all of the other acclaim the film is receiving is, frankly, head-scratching.

5.4/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry