A Reel Review: MELANCHOLIA

It has been argued for decades that there are only two types of people who make movies: There are Directors (Singer, Cameron, Bay) and there are Filmmakers (Scorsese, Aronofsky, Malick). With the arrival of the stunning achievement that is MELANCHOLIA, Lars Von Trier may have created a new category all for his own; a film Composer. His MELANCHOLIA is like a beautifully composed piece of music, with soaring ups and downs on the way through an emotional journey.

Disguised as a movie about the end of the world, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) are celebrating their wedding at the swanky home of her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and brother-in-law John (Kiefer Sutherland). The wedding is a disaster, with family tensions and drama and Justine’s failure to be happy wrecking everything. Meanwhile, a wayward planet named Melancholia is on a path which may, or may not bring it to collision with Earth.

MELANCHOLIA is a film about the end of the world, but that is just the cover. It is really a film about depression and how the characters react to the pending disaster, which again may or may not happen. It is clear that both Justine and Claire suffer from depression, but in different ways; Justine is internally depressed and welcomes the possible disaster as a reprieve from this thing called life. Claire is externally depressed; fearing the absolute worst from that pesky planet. Adding more drama to the mix is John, who is impatient with Justine’s behavior, and as a scientist is excited and fascinated with Earth’s new neighbor. Von Trier does excellent work in throwing the characters into the mix and letting them react to the situation. There are character traits in Justine, Claire and John that everyone can relate to.

Von Trier composes a beautiful film here, with outstanding photography and tightly woven storylines; there is nothing redundant or unnecessary, as every long take and montage is important to the overall theme. The shaky-cam is used a lot, not to make confusing action but to create an unsettling feeling, and it works. Von Trier is not afraid to let the film unfold slowly with trudging pacing; and knows exactly when to wake the audience up using a few shocking visuals. One interesting choice Von Trier made is with the score; while it is magnificent and fitting, there seems to be only one short piece written for the entire film, and it is used about a million times. It’s a guarantee that the theme will be stuck in the audience’s head for days…

Kirsten Dunst won a Best Actress award at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival for her performance in this film, and it is well deserved. She sinks into herself so well there is never a doubt that her character is a deeply depressed person. Her maturity is evident here, and it is a role that will make many forget about the goofy films she’s made in her past. Her performance seems to rub off on everyone (except for Sutherland, who seems to be phoning it in), most especially Charlotte Gainsbourg who must counter her. Smaller roles by Stellan Skarsgard and the great John Hurt are also a joy to watch.

For a film that is dealing with the end of the world, MELANCHOLIA never shows the effect the possible disaster has in a world-wide scale; in fact, it never leaves the confines of Claire and John’s home. The possible Armageddon is not the focus as much as which of the two sisters has a firmer grip on reality. That approach brings the focus to the characters and the human side of tragedy, and brings MELANCHOLIA to the status of masterpiece.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Review: J. EDGAR

Clint Eastwood’s J. EDGAR is not only an attempt to tell the life story of the famed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, but to also offer a large slice of American history. With those two goals, J. EDGAR is a triumph; America of the past is vibrantly brought to life, and Mr. Hoover right along with it. Unfortunately for Clint and his film, J.EDGAR forgets to do one important thing: it forgets to give the audience a reason to care about any of it.

J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) tells his life story to agents assigned to pen his memoirs. Leaping backwards and forwards in time, J. Edgar’s rise to power in the newly founded FBI is documented, along with his personal life, which includes his long-time secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), overbearing mother (Judi Dench) and life-partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). The film covers over 40 years of history as he battles through threats to the U.S. Government, his own agency, political scandals, and the historic kidnapping of the child of Charles Lindbergh (Josh Lucas).

Having the main character of a biopic dictate his own tale is an interesting, and mostly successful method. The story is being told through Hoover’s own eyes, and he exaggerates facts at will to build his own and the FBI’s legend. The fact that he is embellishing here and there is not known until the end, and can make the audience scratch their heads wondering exactly what it is they just witnessed in all the flashbacks.

Outside of that, the film is at its strongest going though important events in the FBI’s, and America’s history; History buffs would love this. But Eastwood always seems to be filming things at a distance; there is always the feeling that he could have, and should have gone a just a bit deeper. Hoover is there before us, and for the most part we can feel his motivations, but never given a reason to care.

DiCaprio is very good in the role. He manages to vanish underneath the ridiculous amount of old-age makeup and really sell the character; his old-man acting is more convincing than the makeup. Less successful is Armie Hammer, who in playing J. Edgar’s lover does little more than smile and look pretty, and he fails to act well enough through the awful mask-looking makeup he has to wear. The lovely Naomi Watts is underused, but at least she still looks good in her old-age getup.

Eastwood stocks the film with some well-cast celebrity look-alikes from history; everyone from Nixon to Shirley Temple. J. EDGAR is saturated in American lore, with endless monologues from its main character. But for as much as the film talks, it feels like not much is said. J. EDGAR is all glory, no guts.

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it

Reel Morons & Opinions

MORON: Director Brett Ratner, attending a screening to promote his new film TOWER HEIST, was asked in a Q & A session if he was the type of director who held rehearsals. His response: “rehearsing is for fags”. The backlash was nearly instantaneous, and pressured Ratner to resign his position as Producer of the 2011 Oscars telecast. Hot on his heels, comedian/actor Eddie Murphy announced that he would not appear as Host to the same telecast.

OPINION: Ratner’s directing credits have ranged from mediocre (X3, RED DRAGON, TOWER HEIST) to absolute shit (RUSH HOUR 1-3). His hiring as Producer of an Oscars telecast was a bit of a head scratcher, but nonetheless it would have given him a chance to grow up and place his name on the top-shelf; but then he had to go and open his mouth. His slur either exposed him as a homophobic bigot, or reminded us all that he doesn’t think much before speaking.

And then we have Eddie Murphy. The once, great R-rated comedian has turned in a slew of F-rated films as of late; ranging from mediocre (TOWER HEIST, HAUNTED MANSION), to absolute shit (PLUTO NASH, NORBIT). His hiring as Host of an Oscar telecast would not only have made a huge stride in resurrecting his career, but would also have injected some much-needed excitement back into the big show. He chose instead to fall on his sword for Ratner, an action that could possibly line up a sequel to PLUTO NASH in (goddamn) 3D.

Ratner’s comment would have skated by without a thought thirty years ago, and does sound like something Murphy would have said during his RAW era. However that way of thinking does not fly in these modern times. Ratner, who made the remark, and Murphy, who seems to be defending it by quitting the show… have just torpedoed their careers. Morons indeed.

What say you?

Reel Facts & Opinions

FACT: Sony Pictures and video game-maker Ubisoft have inked a deal to bring the wildly successful Assassin’s Creed to the big screen. The major news here is that Ubisoft demanded, and won an unheard amount of control over the project; everything from budget, cast, script, and release date.

OPINION: This can set a dangerous precedent. If the film flops, Ubisoft will not only have ruined their own property, but they would have sabotaged themselves in any future negotiations. On the flip side, if the film is actually good, then studios are going to have to contend with a long line of geeky gamers wanting total control in future films.

Ubisoft is clearly being very protective of their beloved franchise, and do not want some studio hack to butcher their love into another B-level turd in the long line of B-level turds that video game films tend to become; SUPER MARIO BROS., RESIDENT EVIL, PRINCE OF PERSIA, BLOODRAYNE…to name a few. Ubisoft may know a lot about making great games, but do they know anything about making movies?

The answer may lay in history, history that opens up the bigger question: Who should have control over the property; The Creator, or the Filmmaker?

Theoretically, no one but The Creator knows the property better. The Creator has spent time with the characters, the world they live in, and the things that they face. No one knows the source material better than the Creator. However, it is The Filmmaker who knows what works on screen, and what doesn’t. What works in a video game (or a comic book, novel, etc.) will likely not work in a movie, which is a completely different medium.

When Creators and Filmmakers put their heads together in a healthy way, great things can happen. Director David Fincher made sure author Aaron Sorkin was on set for every day of shooting in the making of THE SOCIAL NETWORK, and the results won Oscars. Author J.K. Rowling worked closely with Warner Bros.’ directors and producers in the HARRY POTTER adaptations, and the results were (mostly) spectacular. Reaching back a bit further, the late great Irvin Kershner directed a masterpiece in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but be assured that series creator George Lucas kept a watchful eye on things during production.

Again, when the two sides come together and stir up each other’s creative juices, great things can happen. When one side or the other wants more or all, shit can happen. Ubisoft way want to remember that, before they go ahead and slay their own baby.

What say you?

A Reel Review: THE SKIN I LIVE IN

THE SKIN I LIVE IN will be a film that people will automatically compare to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS; with its creepy atmosphere, detached skin, captive women and a brilliant but deranged doctor. The comparisons would be fair, but SKIN is a film that still manages to stand on its own; on its own as one of the most disturbing films ever made.

Doctor Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) is a brilliant surgeon who has lost his wife in a fiery car crash, and his two daughters to suicide. Using the loss of his family as motivation, the good doctor throws his life into helping burn victims reconstruct their faces with brilliant muscle and skin reformation. Robert perfects his technique on Vera (played by the stunningly beautiful Elena Anaya), a woman that he is keeping captive in his mansion. Robert’s humanitarian efforts are a cover, as he has reconstructed his dead wife out of the person that Vera used to be.

SKIN begins as Robert’s story, as he uses his pain and tragic loss to fuel his medical efforts. The story unfolds using a non-linear method, as the past and present constantly flip back and forth. As the movie moves forward, the story (literally) changes. The focus shifts from Robert’s motivations to who Vera used to be, and who she is now. Vera and Robert’s stories run parallel, with Vera’s carrying a heavy and relevant weight throughout. Who she is/was unfolds slowly, and when the realization sinks in…..whoa daddy….

Director Pedro Almodovar makes some brilliant and interesting stylistic choices here. Not only is the non-linear method perfect, but the tension and creepiness is constant thanks to some well-timed music and clever camerawork. His eye fills the frame with hints and nudges towards the doctor’s motivations and secrets, and the film overall has the look of a 1960’s Bond; it is chock full of beautiful women, hot cars, and gorgeous vistas. Almodovar also manages to make the viewer squirm over simple things like the snapping-on of surgical gloves.

SKIN is sub-titled, so it’s difficult to judge the acting as far as line-delivery. But besides that it is clear that Banderas is perfect. He is evil but in pain, and he lets the viewer know that all the time. The stunningly beautiful Elena Anaya (has this blogger mentioned she is stunningly beautiful?) is also convincing; so convincing that we almost don’t notice when she’s nude for half the film. Almost.

The identity of Vera is not revealed by way of a boom-bang twist with loud noises and over-orchestration, and is instead slowly revealed in bites. In fact, a clever viewer may be able to figure it out around the three-quarter mark, or earlier. But let’s be clear that’s not a flaw in the film, for the filmmakers obviously intended who Vera is/was to be subtlety let out. That way, the viewer will have to look at the character in a new light for the last quarter, and be disturbed enough to want a cleansing shower right away. It’s that type of fucked-up-ness that makes THE SKIN I LIVE IN an unsettling, but great movie.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Review: MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE

Elizabeth Olsen (younger sister of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen) puts her name on the grown-up actress map with a powerful performance in MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE (or 4M for this lazy typist); a disturbing psychological thriller with more tension than a drum head.

Martha (Olsen) is seduced into living and working on a farm run by a Davidian-like cult. The cult is led by Patrick (John Hawkes), who has sex with all the women so they can father his many sons. The women exist only to serve the men, and they even take their given names away from them. Martha (or Marcy May, as she is renamed by the cult), runs away and begins a new life with her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy). Martha is unwilling (or unable) to reveal where she has been for the last two years, and becomes increasingly paranoid that the cult is watching her.

4M is smartly intercut in-between Martha’s new life and her old one. Not so much flashbacks as they are interesting parallels to her two lives (similar to GODFATHER II), they unravel some great drama as her present situation is closely tied to events that happened to her at the cult. Things get very interesting when her reality lines become blurred, and she cannot figure out if her life at the farm was just a dream or if it really happened. Things also get interesting when she realizes that her new life of freedom has just as many limitations as the one she had in captivity.

Director Sean Durkin builds an incredible atmosphere of tension with some long, quiet takes in which the camera never moves. Scenes are played out in long, single takes with occasional SLOOOOOOW zooms and fades that keeps the viewer pinned on the edge of their seat.

Olsen really sells the film. She is convincing throughout, displaying pain, fear and joy with simple facial expressions. She lets the emotion build and then powerfully erupt. She even handles a disturbing rape scene well.

As great as the film is, the ending is a bit of a stinker; wrapping in a stupid abrupt manner that offers no closure or absolution and is nearly infuriating. It is clear that the filmmakers painted themselves into a corner; having put their character into such a desperate situation, they had no idea how to get her out of it…so they just ended the movie. It’s frustrating after such an emotional journey we spend with her, but at least they didn’t let the film become just another run-of-the-mill flick where there is always a girl being chased around by a guy with a knife. Still, the finale is a head-shaker, and almost enough to derail everything. Almost.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

A Reel Review: ANONYMOUS

The premise of Roland Emmerich’s ANONYMOUS is that William Shakespeare did not write a single word of all that he is credited for. It is not a brand new theory; scholars and researchers have been going around in circles over the possibility for decades. Smartly, ANONYMOUS does not seek to offer clear and definitive answers to the debate, and instead elects to expand on just one of many conspiracy theories surrounding The Bard.

It is the late 1500’s, and Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave) is nearing the end of her life without a named successor. Her former illegitimate lover Edward (Rhys Ifans), who is a gifted writer of plays and poems, decides to use his talents to influence the Queen to name a successor of his choosing. Edward seeks out Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), a struggling writer and theatre owner to produce his plays without ever mentioning his name. While Johnson struggles with the ethics of the situation, a young half-illiterate actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) steps forward and takes the credit. Edward continues to write anonymously through endless political and royal turmoil, while Shakespeare benefits from the fame.

ANONYMOUS is less about Shakespeare and more about the thick and convoluted political maneuvering and scheming. In fact, Shakespeare is barely in the film. Emmerich focuses on the overall story loaded with illegitimate love affairs and backstabbing. That story is often confusing and convoluted, and makes for a frustrating watch. Emmerich throws a lot into the mix, including tons of flashbacks which serve to thicken the story and show the characters’ motivations. With so many storylines and so many different actors playing the same part, it is difficult, if not impossible to latch onto a single character, and root for them.

Emmerich has always had a great eye for visuals, and here he outdoes himself. The landscapes and sceneries are breathtaking, as is his cinematography. A lot of interesting choices are made, including a clever beginning and end; the film’s story is begun and ended in a stage production.

Acting is excellent throughout. Special credit needs to go to Vanessa Redgrave, who plays Queen Elizabeth in her elder years, and Joely Richardson, who plays Liz in her twenties. Both actresses keep the character consistent, and even produce echoes of Cate Blanchett’s iconic performance of the character.

Despite being heavy and complex on politics, ANONYMOUS still has a lot of Shakespeare elements to keep history and literary buffs happy. Seeing the famous stage productions come to life for the first time is a treat, and a lot of respect is given to the material. It is worth mentioning that many historical liberties have been taken, which makes the film feel like an alternate-universe type of yarn rather than a theoretical piece. By far, this is Emmerich’s most mature film (he must have been tempted to blow up the Sistine Chapel); he just tried too hard to make it complex.

BOTTOM LINE: Rent it

A Reel Review: THE RUM DIARY

A few years back, a good friend of this blogger remarked about how great Al Pacino used to be; right up to and including THE SCENT OF A WOMAN. After that film, the good friend maintains, Pacino shed his career-long subtle intensity and traded it in for obtruding HO HA HUWAH in every role. This blogger reluctantly agreed. As of late, Johnny Depp seems to have fallen into the same trap. His boyish charm has seemed to go away in place of the eccentricity and dazed bewilderment of Jack Sparrow. The real question is whether or not that style of acting works in any given movie; in this case, THE RUM DIARY.

In the 1960’s, Paul Kemp (Depp) a rum (ahem) guzzling boozehound, is a struggling writer/journalist who moves to Puerto Rico to restart his career at a failing local newspaper, which is run by editor Lotterman (Richard Jenkins). Kemp befriends fellow journalists and drunks Sala (Michael Rispoli) and Moburg (Giovanni Ribisi), before being recruited by shady real estate tycoon Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), who wants him to paint a rosy picture of his dealings in the press. Kemp guzzles his way through the job, while falling in love with Sanderson’s girlfriend Chenault (a sexed up Amber Heard).

THE RUM DIARY starts off promising, but manages to get complicated. It never latches down onto a single storyline, and comes off as a very confused film. It begins as a man-searching-for-his-path tale, then forgets about it and switches to a lesson in journalistic ethics. It then forgets about that and goes to a real-estate swindle/mystery plot, with a love triangle wedged in just for good measure. Who to root for and why is the real mystery.

Director Bruce Robinson crafts together a film that feels like it would have been made in the 1950’s or ’60, with its snazzy music and beautiful, sweeping landscapes. He has a good eye for cinema, but a so-so ear for humor, as a lot of the jokes and gags are over the top and forced. The latter is forgivable, but his biggest sin is fumbling away the acting talent he assembled.

Depp channels Jack Sparrow all the way; he slurs like Jack, waxes philosophical like Jack, stumbles like a drunken Jack and yells like a scared Jack. Does it work here? For the most part yes; just don’t expect anything new from the man. Amber Heard is grossly underwritten; as a love interest for the protagonist, she’s barely in the film, does little, and the way her character finds closure at the wrap is weak and lame. Giovanni Ribisi is in his absolute worst performance of a lifetime; woefully miscast as a drug addict with way-over the top acting and a horrible voice.

The final act has a nice buildup, and feels like there may be a decent payoff; and then the movie ends with one of the worst, weakest, shittiest cop-outs ever put to film. It’s lazy and thoughtless. Overall THE RUM DIARY feels like a film we are supposed to like Just Because; we are supposed to like it Just Because it has Johnny Depp, a good cast, is nice to look at and is a Hunter S. Thompson adaptation. Sorry fellas, but it takes more rum than that.

BOTTOM LINE: Fuck it

A Reel Review: TAKE SHELTER

TAKE SHELTER is a film that has been quietly cleaning house on the international film festival circuit in 2011, and rightfully so; between stunning photography, a powerful story and a knockout performance by Michael Shannon, the movie is a trip through dread and fear…all while being based upon love.

Curtis (Shannon) lives in a small town with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and their six year old daughter Hanna (Tova Stewart) who is deaf. Their money situation is tight as they make plans for ear surgery for their daughter. Curtis begins having nightmares about a cataclysmic storm; nightmares that are so powerful he believes them to be either true or an omen, and the visions and hallucinations repeat in the daytime. Keeping the nightmares and visions to himself, he channels his fears into building a storm shelter in their backyard; an endeavor that drains their bank account and threatens his job along with Hannah’s surgery.

So TAKE SHELTER is a little bit of FIELD OF DREAMS with the Noah’s Ark fable mixed in. The territory feels familiar, but it works because the focus here is not the question of Curtis’ sanity (although it does hang throughout the film), but on his love for his family. Throughout the movie, he risks everything he has worked for to protect his family which he loves deeply. In a film where his fantastical nightmares play such an important part, it’s that simple love for his family that the audience can instantly connect with.

Director Jeff Nichols’ directing style is perfectly suited for TAKE SHELTER. His careful eye meticulously frames each shot with stunning backgrounds, and his talent for tension, dread and horror come to life in the nightmare sequences. Nichols manages a constant forboding over the entire film which never intrudes, but the audience is always aware of its presence.

Michael Shannon’s performance is one of a lifetime. His near-silent method of conveying fear is always there and is convincing throughout. Jessica Chastain also nails it as the supporting and confused housewife; perfectly suited to play the loving mother trying to hold her family together.

On the surface, the finale feels a little drawn out and anti-climatic; right up until the mind-blowing ending which turns the entire film upside-down. It’s a turn that M. Night Shymalamadingdong might have attempted in his prime. Fortunately for TAKE SHELTER, the film does not hinge everything on that turn, and never wastes time playing guessing games with the audience. Its focus is always on love and family; and that’s never a little thing.

BOTTOM LINE: See it

The Return of River Phoenix

In 1993, actor River Phoenix died of a drug overdose in Hollywood. He was 23 years old. At the time of his passing, he had an impressive body of work with roles in STAND BY ME, THE MOSQUITO COAST, and a memorable turn as a teenaged Indiana Jones in THE LAST CRUSADE.

At the time of his passing, he was filming DARK BLOOD with director George Sluizer, and that film has remained unfinished for nearly 20 years. Until now. Sluizer has announced that he has re-edited the film and with additional voiceover work, believes it is good enough to be released. Sluizer has stated he plans to ask River’s brother Joaquin Phoenix to finish voiceover as River’s character.

Messing with an actor’s legacy can be a sensitive business. Many people tend to sentimentalize their movies and their actors, and want nothing to alter to that. Many circles on the internet are already calling for things to be left well enough alone, even going as far as crying graverobber. Many do not want to see this film, as they would rather keep their final memories of River…final.



Folk need to realize that it could be worse, and this gets into a larger issue. With the rapidly advancing CGI/Motion Capture technology, it would be a near-simple thing for filmmakers to resurrect ANY actor. There are certainly moral and ethical issues here (along with legal), but the possibilities would be absolutely endless. Imagine seeing a young River in another teenage Indy adventure, or one last look at him as Chris Chambers in the STAND BY ME universe.

And this can be taken a step further. How about seeing Christopher Reeves reprise Superman, or Marlon Brando reprising Vito Corleone?

Whether or not such approaches can work depends on how tastefully it’s done. And therein lays the rub. Motion Capture (at least for now) is often criticized for characters that look lifeless. Seeing a deceased actor in a poorly renditioned CGI blob would offend a hell of a lot of people.

So thankfully, this is not the approach that George Sluizer or anyone else is taking, and the aforementioned word, “tastefully” seems to be the key term here. Sluizer is mostly known in America (he is a Dutch filmmaker) for THE VANISHING, with Jeff Bridges and Kiefer Sutherland, which performed poorly financially and was reviewed even worse. But Sluizer does have a lot of years under his belt; he is 79 years old, which gives him the mature patience that a tender project like this would need.

If all the pieces fall into place, DARK BLOOD would be released sometime next year. This blogger would like to see that talented kid just one last time. As a lover of film, seeing a movie that was shot 20 years ago and never seen is just fascinating. Almost like finding buried treasure.

What say you? Is this blasphemy? Would you go see it? Should things be left as we remember them?