INSIDE A HOUSE THAT IS HAUNTED: a review of "The Woman In Black"

“THE WOMAN IN BLACK”

Based upon the novel by Susan Hill

Screenplay Written by Jane Goldman

Directed by James Watkins

** (two stars)

Dear readers, I would like for you to gaze at the above photo for a few moments. As you gaze, I would like for you to then, mentally add in some quietly ominous music and a few booming sound effects designed to make you shiver and jolt upright. And voila! You have essentially seen this entire movie!

Now, I certainly did not mean to sound so harsh. That opening was merely a bit of fun from me to you but I can understand that based upon that above paragraph and description, you would think that Director James Watkins’ “The Woman In Black” would easily end up on my 2012 Worst Of The Year List. Well…truth be told, the film really isn’t that bad. In fact, it’s not a bad film at all. It’s just one that really did not leave much of an impression upon me in any way, and that was despite the obvious skill, artistry and most of all, restraint that was on display throughout. “The Woman In Black” is an old-fashioned horror film, the kind that is meant to elicit chills up and down the spine and not created to bludgeon the audience with unspeakable depravity and over the top violence. While that is admirable, and at times quite enjoyable, it was also a film that unfortunately did not stick to the cinematic ribs by any means.

Set during the Edwardian period, Daniel Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer and widower consumed in the deep throes of grief after his wife died while giving birth to his son Joseph, now aged 4. With his mournful distractions now placing his career on the line, Arthur is dispatched to a small remote town set just outside of London to obtain and compile all of the paperwork from a recently deceased eccentric in order to sell her large manor known as Eel Marsh House. Yet, tragically strange occurrences have enveloped the town and all of the residents are mum to any of its dreadful secrets and more than a little wary of this new visitor except for the kindly Sam Daily (a strong Ciaran Hinds) who quickly befriends Arthur.

While Arthur spend copious amounts of solitude at the Eel Marsh House, he soon discovers that the mansion is haunted by the tormented spirit of a woman still desperate to reclaim what was once lost…and to forever wreak her vengeance upon the town

As an old-fashioned gothic thriller, “The Woman in Black” is a handsome production. It is an elegant film that is well guided and orchestrated under Watkins’ rock steady directorial hand. The film does accomplish an impressive job of evoking a tense, grim atmosphere and it provides more than its share of “Don’t open that door!,” “Don’t go up the stairs!,” and “Don’t go into that room!” moments. Much praise should be delivered to Cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones, as well as the members of Watkins’ set design and most notably, the sound effects team, for successfully enveloping the audience in a cloud of encroaching doom.

I found it to be a very classy move that “The Woman In Black” operates and relies mostly upon a slow burn rather than falling back on gratuitous gore, of which there is none in this film. Watkins remains ever tactful and tasteful, especially when confronting the issue of having the lives of various children in jeopardy, typically a cheap and mean spirited cinematic trick. Although, the film possesses these fine qualities, they do, however, work against the film’s overall impact.

Dear readers, you all know so very well about me that my relationship with horror films in general is an extremely tentative one at best and that I tend to give that genre an enormously wide berth as I just do not enjoy the sensation of being frightened. All of that being said, and I am certain that you will be mighty surprised by the following statement, but for me, “The Woman In Black” is just not that scary! While I have to say that I did jump up from my seated position several times throughout the film, I do think that it had much, much less to do with actually being trapped in a state of fear and dread and much more to do with the effectiveness of that aforementioned sound design team. While I loved how Watkins utilized the sounds of silence throughout the film, it seemed to exist just to have loud sounds jolt and shock you and when attempting to create horror, technical effects just aren’t enough for me.

Beyond any technical issues, and while the film overall does contain a certain level of suspense and functions well as a decent ghost story, I just had this nagging feeling that “The Woman In Black” was all much ado about nothing. This feeling really became enhanced for me by a hokum ending that for me, deflated the proceedings when I would gather, the suspense and terror needed to rise to a fever pitch. In this way, “The Woman In Black” reminded me very much of my reaction to Director Alejandro Amenabar’s “The Others” (2001), another atmospheric, gothic, disturbingly psychological, visually arresting yet decidedly underwhelming thriller. Watkins definitely has storytelling skill and visual panache but somehow, someway, the film never delved underneath my skin or burrowed deep into my psyche to make me really feel unhinged or at least troubled. Everything in the film seemed to sit very attractively on the screen yet it all felt to be superficial as I just did not have much of an emotional response.

From an acting standpoint, all of the performances are right on point and work in complete conjunction with the darkly spectral surroundings. I really liked seeing character actor Ciaran Hinds as he always elicits strong performances and his scenes with Daniel Radcliffe showed that the two men make for a strong acting team. But of course, there is the work of Mr. Radcliffe to speak of, which also contains some pluses and minuses.

In his first, post “Harry Potter” film role Daniel Radcliffe performs a worthy job, although most of his role has him exist in an often wordless and mostly reactionary position. On the positive side, Radcliffe is showing a newfound sense of maturity on-screen. He is able to easily convince that he is of a certain time period and his ability to seem authentic is good. Additionally, as Radcliffe is often alone during lengthy stretches of “The Woman In Black,” it is commendable that he has shown the growth to be able to hold the screen and our full attention regardless of the supernatural suspense occurring around him. His growing skill as an actor is always a pleasure to watch and makes me anxious to see what else he just may be able to pull off.

The downside is really not Radcliffe’s fault at all. Perhaps his casting in this particular film was somewhat of a canny Hollywood move as the supernatural elements of the story do happen to cross paths with the supernatural elements of the “Harry Potter” series, therefore creating an easy bridge for potential audiences to cross in regards to accepting Radcliffe in a new role. But, that did present some minor problems here and there. As Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps creeps through a dark, shivering, foreboding haunted house seeking answers to the truth of the titular “woman in black,” there were several points when I could not help but to think that he just might utter an ”Accio Wand!” or “Lumos!” for old time’s sakes. That close character/conceptual proximity did make for a distraction that, at times, took me out of the story. Beyond that, there really is not much within the character of Arthur Kipps that I found to be truly compelling, which unfortunately gave Radcliffe not much else to do other than creep around the dark, shivering, foreboding haunted house and again, react to whatever the special effects and sound effects team hurl at him. It’s a role that I felt to be quite underwritten as well as a little bland, which makes for a performance that is kind of empty as there is no real sufficient weight to latch onto.

Before I put this review into the hopper dear readers, I have to ask if any of you remember an old comedy routine by Eddie Murphy pertaining to the role of African Americans in the horror film genre and essentially how no films of that sort would exist with Black people on the leads. Why not? Well, Murphy reasoned, after a Black family entered and adored their new, wonderfully luxurious home and then heard the very first disembodied howl of “GET OUT!!,” any sensible Black person would simply say, “Too bad we can’t stay!” Thus, the movie would be over instantly. I shared that memory with you because I actually thought of that very routine as I watched “The Woman In Black.” Not as a way to denigrate or poke holes through the experience but to illustrate that despite its flaws, the film does have its share of suspenseful sequences that are fun to wade through.

But if you are looking for horror, and I mean true, debilitating horror, this film is just not quite up for the job.

FIRST LOVE AT SUMMER'S END: a review of "Moonrise Kingdom"

“MOONRISE KINGDOM”

Written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola

Directed by Wes Anderson

*** ½ (three and a half stars)

“You don’t know how much I love you

But I love you like the sun

I like to put my arms around you

And we could run, run, run, runaway…”

-Jefferson Starship “Runaway”

Not that long ago, I read a film critic’s detailing of Writer/Director Wes Anderson’s oeuvre, which he described as “dollhouse movies.” While I have no real idea if that description was meant with any sense of derision or not, I would not be surprised if it were.

While Wes Anderson and his work—which ranges from “Rushmore” (1998), “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001), “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou” (2004), “The Darjeeling Limited” (2007) and the animated “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” (2009)-- has been highly celebrated, over recent years, I have detected a sense of fatigue with Anderson’s specialized artistic vision. In some respects, I can understand the description of his films as “dollhouse movies” as Wes Anderson has created a collective of works that are meticulously and artfully designed to the letter, from the most seemingly insignificant objects to even the combined performances from his trusty band of actors. Never in any of his films, is one item ever out of place, Yet, for me and my sensibilities, Wes Anderson’s movies are not hermetically sealed by any means. As I have stated on this site many times, the worlds contained in the films of Wes Anderson may be strikingly artificial but they are emotionally true as they all have huge, open and thunderously beating hearts that match the inner lives and desires of his characters. Wes Anderson’s movies just may be “dollhouse movies,” but for me, these dollhouses are ones where Wes Anderson not only gleefully designed the landscape, inner workings and boundaries but he has also joyfully invited us all to join him in play.

“Moonrise Kingdom,” Anderson’s latest escapade, is a particularly lovely experience as it delves deeply into the pangs of first love at the end of a long ago summer. For fans of Wes Anderson, his new film possesses all of his trademark touches and I am certain that you will enjoy this film as much as any of his past efforts. For Anderson novices, I highly recommend that you give this film a try as you would be witness to a filmmaker working at full command of his cinematic storytelling powers and craft. And for all of you, “Moonrise Kingdom” is a vivid reminder that in today’s homogenized world of cinema, there is nobody, absolutely nobody who makes films that look, sound or feel like Wes Anderson’s movies. They are universes unto themselves.

   

Set in late summer 1965, on the island of New Penzance, just off the coast of New England, we meet orphaned and friendless Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman), a 12-year-old attending a “Khaki Scout” summer camp lead by Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton). Also on the island lives the equally troubled and friendless 12-year-old Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward), who resides with her distracted and dysfunctional attorney parents Walt and Laura (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and three younger brothers.

During the previous summer, Sam and Suzy met while backstage at a church performance of Benjamin Britten’s composition “Noye’s Fludde” and subsequently became pen pals. The twosome, now having fallen in love, have decided to run away together, an act which initiates a frantic search party of scout troupe members and parents and led by Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis).

As with all of Wes Anderson’s films, “Moonrise Kingdom” almost functions as sort of a fable or storybook enchantment mostly due to Anderson’s visual aesthetic and cinematic storytelling style. “Moonrise Kingdom” is a dream world wonderland version of the real world. His 1965 seems to be one of fantasy made up entirely of the iconography of the time period and reconfigured in ways that never feel to be entirely realistic but somehow it also never feels like some 1965 thrift store version of reality either. As off kilter as it is, everything somehow feels to be just right as each image and frame of the film could almost exist as a still photograph or a snapshot memory from someone looking back upon a seemingly idyllic summer.

Anderson is aided tremendously through the expert cinematography of Robert Yeoman as well as his incredible set design team. All of them work wonders in ensuring that everything that exists in the world of “Moonrise Kingdom,” from the sets and costumes and locations all the way to Sam’s artwork to even the book covers and content of the novels Suzy religiously reads, convincingly creates an entire world unlike anything else you can currently see in modern cinema. I especially loved the occasional usage of Britten’s “Young Person’s Guide To The Orchestra,” a piece of music Suzy’s younger brothers listen to on an archaic record player. The sonic pulling apart and merging together of the instruments that make up an orchestra seemed to also function as an equivalent of Anderson’s films as a whole, as each individual element fits with other elements like a puzzle, creating a unique and completely individualistic accomplishment. By pulling it all apart only to bring it together again, we are all invited to become part of the process which ultimately adds to the overall enjoyment of “Moonrise Kingdom.”

Crucial elements in all of Wes Anderson’s films are the performances and “Moonrise Kingdom” is no exception. Everyone has arrived ready to work, play and bring to life these oddball, very left of center, almost cut out characters and again, like a puzzle, every single performance works in conjunction with each other. Every actor is on the same plate, working together never threatening to upstage anyone else at the expense of the entire experience. Bruce Willis, in particular, was very impressive to me as he has been an actor whom I have felt has grown tiresomely lazy in recent years. Thankfully and so enjoyably, Willis has arrived to the Wes Anderson aesthetic ready to work and completely committed. And I have to say that I also very much enjoyed the sly pokes he and Anderson just may be taking with his movie action hero status.

Most importantly, “Moonrise Kingdom” hinges upon our pre-teen love struck leads and in their debut performances, both Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward are beguiling. As Sam Shakusky, Gilman has captured a jewel of a role as this boy seemed to be another representation of Anderson’s signature character, first represented by Max Fisher from “Rushmore” and also as an older man in “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.” Sam is intrepid, headstrong, clever, endlessly creative and certainly houses a mean streak that explodes during times of extreme frustration or whenever he feels cornered and his worldview is threatened. And through it all, he is truly a dreamer, a heart-on-sleeve romantic whose head is perpetually in the clouds and is nearly always led by his emotions. If he had a sense of better judgment, it would serve him well but remember, he is 12 years old and simply does not know better quite yet. He just is not mature enough.

Kara Hayward was especially impressive as Suzy Bishop as she not only represents that highly idealized version of first love but the slightly harder reality that she is more grounded and therefore, she almost seems to be too much young woman for our hero. And like Sam, she also carries quite a nasty, violent temper. While she is the same age as Sam, she appears older as she nurses a deep penchant for the world outside of her home at the appropriately named “Summer’s End.” Suzy carries a set of binoculars at all times. She is a voracious reader. And she harbors a love for all things French as evidenced by her favorite record, Francoise Hardy’s “Le Temps De L’Amour,” as well as her blue eye shadow which makes her look like a pre-teen Brigitte Bardot, despite her knee high socks and “Sunday school shoes.”

Certainly Suzy’s smoky visage and penetrating far away stare is one that would disarm Sam or any young boy for that matter. But, as the film progresses, we can see that Sam and Suzy exist on equal footing. Where Sam initially takes the lead by encouraging Suzy to run away with him in the firs place, he also serves as an expert wilderness guide due to his scouting experience. We see Suzy taking the more emotional lead in later sections. One sequence I particularly enjoyed was one where she reads aloud to Sam and his scout mates by campfire, which evoked nothing less than author J.M. Barrie’s Never Never Land with Wendy caring for Peter Pan’s Lost Boys. The love story of Sam Shakusky and Suzy Bishop is contained within their mutual restless spirits and hungry desires to make their own world for themselves and away for any outside influences, emotions that truly capture the nature of the age and perhaps even Wes Anderson’s artistic dreams as well. It is a couple to root for and more often than not, I was wishing for them to maintain their dream world together forever, although it could never last in the ways that they wish the most.

And here is where “Moonrise Kingdom” stretches far beyond any sense of artifice and exquisitely into painful realities. There is a resounding sense of melancholy that permeates all of Wes Anderson’s films and that feeling is in full bittersweet effect in “Moonrise Kingdom.” Anderson presents us with a group of sad, disappointed people who are all forced to confront their individual states of loneliness and sorrow once Sam and Suzy recklessly take off, fully determined to make their future, whatever that future may be. Captain Sharp is wounded by an unrequited love, while Walt and Laura Bishop grow increasingly estranged and Scout Master Randy ward, against all of his efforts, attempts to hold feelings of failure at bay. With Sam and Suzy’s disappearance, all of the adult characters are given opportunities to spring back to life from whatever states of dormancy they have existed in for however long. Quite possibly, they just may be able to exhibit the same sense of brazen and bold moves that the “lost” children have made for themselves.

And then, there is the film’s final image, of which I would never think to reveal here, that “Moonrise Kingdom” really hit home for me. Above all else, the image took me back to the Middle school days and actual places of my past when I was experiencing for the first time exactly what Sam and Suzy are experiencing. I will never, ever forget that patch of grass and dirt underneath the windows of the Lower school in the courtyard separating the Lower, Middle and High schools. There were moments that became supremely formative in regards to the nature of relationships and falling in love that were pivotal, for better or worse. I would gather, that if you allow the magic of “Moonrise Kingdom” to work its spells upon you, you will also find yourselves traveling back to your days of first loves and painful hurts. The film’s final shot certainly provided a lump in the throat as it perfectly encapsulated a time and place that I would think exists inside all of us.

If I were to have even one quibble with the film, it is that there is just not nearly enough Bill Murray, for everything is made better with Bill Murray. Aside from that, “Moonrise Kingdom” is another success for Wes Anderson, a filmmaker who I firmly believe shuodl be championed a bit more than he already is as he represents true artistry, entertainment and vision when all movie goers need to be witness to such a personal touch the most.

“Moonrise Kingdom” may seem to be nothing more than a charming, touching romp through a nostalgic dream world. But, trust me, it is so much more. And besides, what a beautiful dream world it is.

JUMP THEY SAY: a review of "Man On A Ledge"

 

“MAN ON A LEDGE”

Screenplay Written by Pablo Fenjves

Directed by Asger Leth

½ * (one half of one star)

Whoooo boy!!! I’m going to try and write this review for you between laughing fits.

How I wish that I could tell you that Director Asger Leth’s “Man On A Ledge” is a propulsive, razor sharp, outlandishly exciting, furiously paced thrill ride filled from beginning to end with a collective of compelling characters and action sequences so extraordinary that you will forget to breathe as you are so enthralled. Unfortunately, what I do have to tell you is actually that “Man On A Ledge” is the true definition of a cinematic howler!!

Dear readers, if this film were a comedy, my star rating would be decidedly much higher than it is simply because I laughed so hard throughout this absolutely boneheaded film and I was undeniably entertained. But, this film is not a comedy. “Man On A Ledge” is a film attempting to exist as an action thriller, and even more laughable is that this film actually wants to align itself with no less than Spike Lee’s “Inside Man” (2006) and mostly, Sidney Lumet’s classic “Dog Day Afternoon” (1975), as it is a crime caper set within the characters, color and culture of New York City. The fact that a movie this preposterous, this flabbergasting, this ridiculous even thinks it could be in the company of either of those movies would truly send Lee into a knee slapping, fall off of the couch, tears streaming down the face explosion and if there is a cinematic afterlife, Lumet would be doing the same. “Man On A Ledge” is truly, truly awful!

I guess I now have to describe the plot, such as it is. Sam Worthington stars as Nick Cassady, a former police officer and escaped convict, who checks himself into the Roosevelt Hotel under an assumed name, eats supper, scrawls a note, and then exits the window to stand upon the ledge, apparently ready to commit suicide. But oh no, Nick has no death wish. He is in fact plotting revenge against cold fish businessman David Englander (a slumming Ed Harris), who framed him for the theft of a $40 million dollar diamond. Nick’s plan is to distract the growing crowd on the streets of New York through media manipulation and also through the presence of disgraced negotiator Lydia Mercer (a profoundly miscast Elizabeth Banks) who seeks to talk Nick down from the ledge.

Unbeknownst to Officer Mercer, the police force, the television news crew and the crowd below, Nick’s brother Joey (Jamie Bell) and his saucy girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez) are breaking into Englander’s offices and vault with the hopes of finding the diamond, thus clearing Nick’s good name and revealing the truth about Englander.

Ok…to be fair, I would suppose that there is nothing really wrong with this plot on the surface. In fact, I would offer that conceptually, the film is not terribly far removed from F. Gary Gray’s superior thriller “The Negotiator” (1998). Yet, in reality, the film is indeed a very close cousin to Joel Schumacher’s idiotic “Phone Booth” (2003), a would-be nail biter that piled one clumsy move onto another until the entire movie crashed to the ground like the rapidly descending pieces of a Jenga game.

In my previous review of the hugely disappointing “Safe House,” I expressed how that film was nothing more than another Hollywood assembly line feature that was an uninspired jumble of “stock characters, clichéd dialogue, unimaginative action sequences and beyond obvious villains and duplicities.” I only wish that “Man On A Ledge” were just that bad. This movie is much worse, so much so that it makes “Safe House” look like a Shakespearian masterpiece.

How many ways did this film go wrong you ask? Well, allow me to count the ways. In addition to the car chases and shoot outs that virtually make no narrative sense whatsoever, and the GIANT SIZED cliché of Banks’ character seeking redemption for a past tragedy, I have to really poke holes through this movie by mentioning Sam Worthington.

While he struck me as being numbingly bland in James Cameron’s “Avatar” (2009), I did not want to close the acting book on him prematurely, especially as most of the performances in that film were subpar. Well, after viewing “Man On A Ledge,” my early suspicions considering his questionable talent were sadly proven correct. Never did he convince me of his predicament, or that he was standing upon that ledge, let alone fighting for his life, freedom and innocence. It certainly didn’t help that his extremely shaky American accent was punctured, seemingly through every other word, by his natural Australian accent.

Additionally, the so-called frisky, romantic banter between Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez (whose “performance” functions as eye candy to the point that I think that even Megan Fox would turn down this role) is extremely painful and story halting as they elicit no chemistry whatsoever. And besides, if these two clowns were racing against time to break into Ed Harris’ office and secret vaults, plus knowing all the while that Worthington is just hanging around on some high rise ledge for them to complete their task, you would think they would just focus on the business at hand. 

By the time they do get to the business at hand, Bell shockingly announces to Rodriguez, “It’s just like we practiced!” What?! Where oh where and furthermore, when did these three characters even begin to practice safe cracking, wire cutting, evading heat sensors, mastering explosive techniques, utilizing liquid nitrogen, and pretty much anything you’ve ever seen in either a “Mission: Impossible” or James Bond movie and especially since Worthington’s character has been in prison for two years???

Then there’s Ed Harris, obviously making a paycheck movie, who looks like he was not even on the set for more than a week at most, and I think that I am being generous. And Lord help me, who’s bright idea was it to cast WASPY Kyra Sedgwick as Suzie Morales, who is...brace yourselves… a LATINA newscaster!!! When I heard Sedgwick announce herself with an outrageously exaggerated pronunciation of her name as “Suzie Morrrrrraaalllllles!!,” I damn near fell onto the floor!!!

The confounding stupidity of “Man On A Ledge” mounts itself higher and higher, making for a film that unintentionally flies off the rails the longer it remains on screen. Sometimes those kinds of movies are very enjoyable. So enjoyable where they almost elevate themselves into kitschy, guilty pleasures. But, no, “Man On A Ledge” is a complete time-waster for you and I think so as no to waste any more time thinking about this movie, I’ll draw this review to a close.

“Man On A Ledge” has easily earned a spot as one of 2012’s worst movies.

CARBON COPY: a review of "Safe House"

“SAFE HOUSE”

Screenplay Written by David Guggenheim

Directed by Daniel Espinosa

* ½ (one and a half stars)

Dear readers, I am beginning to worry about Denzel Washington.

Allow me to clarify. My worries are not in the least referring to Denzel Washington’s actual level of talent and skill as I firmly believe he is one of our greatest acting treasures. My statement is also not related to his box office clout, as he is still one of the few actors who remains able, despite his advancing age in Hollywood, to open a film just based upon his sheer presence. When I say that I am worried about Denzel Washington, what I am referring to are his acting choices and the possibility that he has reached a stage where he may be beginning to coast on his unquestionable legend.

To offer some comparison, I would like for you to look at the career of someone like Robert De Niro. His cinematic legend will always remain solid and unshakable due to his landmark performances in films like Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part II” (1974), Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” (1976), “Raging Bull” (1980), “The King Of Comedy” (1983), and “Goodfellas” (1990), for example. But as of late, it seems as if DeNiro level of quality control has flown out of the window, as he seems to have forgotten the ability to simply say “No.” Even worse is someone like Nicholas Cage, once one of our riskiest and most thrilling actors but has also in recent years has seemingly become incapable of appearing in films that are remotely watchable let alone good. In both cases of De Niro and Cage, the scent of money is very present and it just makes me sad to see these two immensely talented people take one paycheck movie after another. What is I fear for Denzel Washington is similar as the quality of at least four of his most recent films have been increasingly underwhelming artistically but have produced hefty box office dollars. I worry that Denzel Washington is becoming artistically lazy.

That feeling rose right to the surface once again as I viewed Director Daniel Espinosa’s action thriller “Safe House,” which pits criminal mastermind Washington against Ryan Reynolds’ green CIA agent. When this film was released early this year, it was yet another box office smash for Washington but as I watched, the movie itself just felt to be the same type of loud, bombastic, overblown yet profoundly under thought copycat, carbon copy experience that Hollywood releases every few weeks during the calendar year. Who knows why Washington is attaching himself to these projects that truly fall far below his skills and abilities. Yes, I can completely understand if he would like to simply have some fun and not wrestle and wrench himself for every acting role he takes. But for an actor, who, in my humble opinion, should have received FIVE Oscar awards for is performance in Spike Lee’s “Malcolm X" (1992) alone, I just think that he, and therefore, we the audience, deserve much better.

Set in Cape Town, South Africa, “Safe House’ introduces us to the legendary and infamous rogue CIA agent and now international criminal Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), who is attacked by a band of mercenaries and surrenders himself to the American consulate after acquiring a mysterious computer file. Frost is quickly taken to a CIA safe house where very the low-level agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) serves as “housekeeper.” After being unsuccessfully interrogated and water boarded by a team of CIA agents, the safe house is infiltrated by the same team of mercenaries who attacked Frost earlier. While the CIA agents are slaughtered by the mercenaries, Weston reluctantly releases the uncomfortably cool and cunning Frost and the twosome escape.

The remainder of “Safe House” becomes a chase film filled with conspiracies, double crosses, revealed identities and hidden motives, flying bullets, epic car chases and crashes, escapes, reunions. And all the while, Weston desperately tries to stay one-step ahead of the enigmatically brilliant Tobin Frost, while also holding onto his integrity and innocence in an increasingly dark and ethically murky world.

   

Where “Safe House” could have and should have been an intricately designed and executed pulse pounder fueled by terrific performances, what we actually end up with is an unfortunately  ho-hum, pedestrian, assembly line feature filled to the very top with stock characters, clichéd dialogue, unimaginative action sequences and beyond obvious villains and duplicities. It is yet another Hollywood features that offers an immense amount of sound and fury but the result is tiresome and surprisingly boring.

“Safe House” is essentially nothing more a mishmash. It is a film made from the spare parts of other, and in some cases, better films from Antoine Fuqua’s “Training Day” (2001), a number of Tony Scott’s films, a dash of Hannibal Lecter here and a walloping amount of the Jason Bourne films there. Now, this would be all fine and dandy if Espinosa had made any conceivable attempt to ensure that “Safe House” became a fresh and invigorating experience that could confidently stand upon its own cinematic feet. Sadly, it did not. 

Of course, I am not against the idea of recycling familiar material and thematic concepts. In regards to the action thriller, just look at films like Joe Wright’s “Hanna” and especially Brad Bird's superior sequel “Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol” from last year and see how inventive and creative those films were. Or how about Josh Trank’s “Chronicle,” which took very familiar elements from comic book and science fiction and merged them all into a uniquely resonant whole. Or most smashingly, look at the works of Quentin Tarantino who, above most filmmakers working today, knows how to take cinematic archetypes and genres and spin them in a way where they become uniquely “Tarantino-ian”! None of that originality and flat out sense of fun is to be found within even one scene of “Safe House.”

While it is competently made and Epinosa shows that he indeed has some skill with piecing an action thriller together, I really hated his usage of the dreaded shaky-cam and chop-socky editing techniques, which was just so irritating and did nothing to provide any sense of adrenaline to the proceedings as the action was so difficult to follow. And even worse, the acting talents of no less than Brendon Gleeson, Vera Farmiga, Ruben Blades and Robert Patrick are all wasted in tiny, underwritten roles. Like I have often said, if you are lucky enough to have actors of that caliber in your film, then give them something to do!!

Even from a pure storytelling standpoint, “Safe House” falls, time and again, into laughable territory. While Ryan Reynolds gives it all he’s got as Matt Weston’s emerging action hero, he is undone by the hackneyed screenplay by having him exist as so unconvincingly innocent, naïve and crucially untested yet, he is somehow able to spring into action and drive a getaway car with the skill of the most seasoned stuntman, while also being choked from behind! Also, once Weston has Tobin Frost in his custody, it was improbable to me, to say the least, why he would allow a man so dangerous to have steering control of any vehicles they tended to share throughout the film.

Every time Frost escapes from Weston or any other pursuers, there just conveniently happens to be a massive 99% VS. 1% protest march to hide inside of. Or how about a well-populated match at a soccer stadium for that matter? It seemed as if anyone just closed their eyes to blink, frost escaped again and we are to believe that it is because he is a criminal genius and not because his captors are just not very observant or that the screenplay just dictated what is supposed to happen and we should just accept it all at face value. The suspension of disbelief factor was not in evidence.

Now perhaps it could be argued that “Safe House” was trying to delve a tad deeper by being a two-character piece that explores the inner lives of these two men as the film illustrates how one can become compromised and lose oneself in the uncompromising industry of spies and government secret intelligence. But, that is a huge stretch to take for a movie that is missing several brain cells.

And then, there is the issue of Denzel Washington, who deserves to be in films that are nothing less that the best of the best. While his acting abilities remain supremely intact in “Safe House,” and he again shows us how effortlessly he can slide from dapper elegance to menacing fury on a dime, for me, there was the sinking feeling that we have seen all of this before and much better. Just take some time and really think about his films in recent years. I loathed the ridiculous “The Book Of Eli” (2010) and his collaborations with Tony Scott, which include “Déjà Vu” (2006), “The Taking Of Pelham 1,2,3” (2009) and “Unstoppable” (2010) were all lackluster and only “Man On Fire” (2004) showed both men working in peak form. Even Ridley Scott’s crime epic “American Gangster” (2007) contained nothing but Washington’s greatest hits instead of a full, rich performance of the level we know he can deliver.  

Basically, Denzel Washington has delivered one populist action piece after another and “Safe House” felt to be more of the same dull pap with Washington’s trademark Cheshire cat grin and nuclear charisma at the core. But, this time it all increasingly felt to be presented with a “Yeah, I got this!” attitude therefore making “Safe House” nothing more than a sad, paycheck movie.

How sad it would be for all of us if Denzel Washington just showed up for the money in spite of the art. I have not throw in the towel by any means but I have my doubts that he has reached at stage where making movies may not hold for him what it may have in the past. We’ll never know for certain but I do hope that he will knock it out of the park once again. But, for now, “Safe House” just is not that movie by a long shot.   

And besides…when the most intensely felt moment in the entire film was hearing Kanye West and Jay Z’s collaborative “No Church In the Wild” during the film’s closing credits, you know that you’ve been had.  

ASHES TO ASHES: a review of "Prometheus"

“PROMETHEUS”

Screenplay Written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof

Directed by Ridley Scott

**** (four stars)

“Did You make disease and the diamond blue? Did You make mankind after we made You?”

 -XTC ("Dear God")

Leave it to the masters to get the job done!!

“Prometheus,” Director Ridley Scott’s return to the science fiction universe, which he has not visited since “Blade Runner” thirty years ago, is sensational! For all of the ink spilled about whether this film is a prequel or side story set in the universe that gave birth to Scott's “Alien” (1979), I will neither confirm nor deny, as I want for you to head out as soon as you are able and experience this film for yourselves. But I cannot express enough what a hell of an experience “Prometheus” happens to be as this is science fiction performed with a brain, heart, inventiveness, imagination and a feral intensity. While I have not necessarily been eagerly awaiting Scott’s return to outer space, what I have been anxiously awaiting is his return to creating the type of excellent, visionary films that have creatively eluded him in recent years, in my opinion. That said, it is obvious the return to the stars and far away planets has rejuvenated him heroically and most surprisingly, for a film that contains such a bleak and even fatalistic view of humanity and beyond, it is amazing how rapturous the experience actually is.

For the purposes of keeping a conceptually tight lid on the proceedings, I’ll be brief. “Prometheus” is set, very appropriately, near Christmastime in the year 2093. Focusing entirely upon the 17-member crew of the eponymously named spacecraft, we follow the shared scientific journey of Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), lovers who seek the answers to our existence but through fundamentally different ideological beliefs as Shaw is driven by her faith while the skeptic Holloway is fueled strictly through science. In addition to Shaw and Holloway are Janek (the smoldering Idris Elba), the ship’s captain, Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), the embittered icy corporate suit and David (Michael Fassbender), the ship’s android with his own agenda.

Following a star map made from cave drawing from ancient civilizations, the Prometheus is led to a distant and advanced world hoping to discover our origins but instead find the deadliest threat to humankind of all.

That is actually as far as I feel that I can go with the plot description without producing spoilers. But, I will say this: “Prometheus” is thankfully yet another big budget Hollywood feature released this year that is focused upon story and storytelling, characters and performances, and combined with supremely delivered sound and vision. While the film more than fulfills any sense of scares, thrills and excitement, “Prometheus” is not designed to be a soulless, bludgeoning movie going experience. This film sets out to give you nothing less than awe, and while some of the pieces do not fit together entirely smoothly, the overall effect was blistering and boldly operatic. This particular stylistic tactic feels more than appropriate as Scott and his screenwriters have hefty philosophical issues and debates on their minds from man’s sense of uncontrollable hubris, our simultaneously joyous and terrifying desire for discovery and dead center is an emotional and intellectual war between science and faith. 

In many ways, “Prometheus” reminded me very much of science fiction films from the pre “Star Wars” past, that were devoted to ideas rather than interstellar bombast and to that end, Scott has envisioned an extremely unforgiving existence. For the characters, who are hoping to find a discovery meant to uplift and explain why we exist, Scott counters those sentiments with a cruel world of duplicitousness, destruction, death, and the potential for absolute nothingness after we pass on.

“Prometheus” illustrates a world of unrepentant meaninglessness where in one’s potentially final moments, you can find yourself literally watching your dreams projected upon a video screen while your most horrific nightmares are hunting you down in the flesh. The mass of ironies pile upwards throughout the film, yet wisely, “Prometheus” provides no absolute answers and frankly, how could it really? But, the feverish pursuit of answers is highly effective and deeply compelling and I will offer the following: I did love how “Prometheus” not only shared but merged themes he previously explored in both “Alien” and “Blade Runner” in regards to our relationship with machines and whether machines possess any sense of soul at all.

Yet, for all of the philosophical debates, Scott certainly does not skimp with giving the audience a fantastic post “Star Wars” bang for its collective buck. One sequence, which finds Shaw trapped inside a pod with a nasty invader, is flat out jaw dropping. A battle inside the ship’s loading deck area between crew members is a true pulse pounder. And the film’s mammoth climax shakes the theater valiantly. Ridley Scott executes a first rate production with gorgeous set design, crisp visual design from ace Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, top of the line special effects, and a propulsive music score from Composer Marc Streitenfeld.

The casting, overall, was terrific as well. Theron and Elba made the very most of their archetypal characters and injected true moments of realistic human behavior. Michael Fassbender, as the android David, who fashions himself after Peter O’Toole from David Lean’s “Lawrence Of Arabia” (1962), gives one of the film’s finest performances as his motives are understandable but not always readable. He is sinister yet sympathetic and provides the film’s best counterpoint to the woman of faith, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, as they both show unstoppable survival instincts, for surprisingly similar reasons.   

 

But the true star of the film is Noomi Rapace and kudos to Ridley Scott for giving her an avenue to show American audiences, who may have not seen her in the original Swedish “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” (2009) and it two sequels, what she’s made of. Scott beautifully rights the cinematic wrongs done to Rapace in Guy Ritchie’s underwhelming “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows” (2011), where he had someone as formidable as Rapace relegated to just playing “the girl sidekick.” For “Prometheus,” Rapace is front and center and her performance is a marvel physically and emotionally. This is how you utilize someone of Rapace’s voluminous talents in a film and she shows again that she is a force of nature. Noomi Rapace will blow you over!   

Oh, but enough from me for now. “Prometheus” is the real deal, an awesome roof raising ride into the mouth of Hell. And it was a spectacular reunion for me with the artistic vision of Ridley Scott who has truly not impressed me with a feature since his iconic “Thelma and Louise” (1991). Here, Ridley Scott is ready to shake you up again. To give you even more than you may be expecting. To forge ahead into the darkness completely unafraid and armed with a malevolent grin, testing us to see if we can handle what he’ll dish out for us.

Not only will you be able to handle “Prometheus,” you will most likely ask for seconds!!     

POWER TRIP: a review of "Chronicle"

“CHRONICLE”

Story by Max Landis and Josh Trank

Screenplay Written by Max Landis

Directed by Josh Trank

***1/2 (three and a half stars)

Since you’ve all seen “The Avengers,” now, it’s time to check out what could be its dark underbelly.

While there is no way to know with any absolute certainty and based upon just this film, I do have a strong feeling that the name Josh Trank is one we may be hearing from in the film world. A lot! Dear readers, I make this statement because I feel that it is rare to see a film directorial debut as sure-footed, conceptually strong, visually striking and as entirely impressive as this one.

“Chronicle,” the first feature from filmmaker Josh Trank is all of those aforementioned qualities and so much more as he and screenwriter Max Landis have fashioned an instantly involving tale that remarkably combines four different genres-- the science fiction thriller, an intimate family drama, a teen comedy and the superhero origin story--into a vibrantly resonant whole. “Chronicle” was released very quietly in theaters during the usually cinematically dry month of February and it became a surprise smash hit. Now, that “Chronicle” has been released on DVD, now is your chance to see what the rumblings have been about and I am here to tell you that this is a movie risk that you will definitely want to take.

As “Chronicle” opens, we are introduced to Andrew Detmer (a gripping Dane DeHaan) who has purchased for himself a video camera and has begun the task of documenting every moment of his sad life, which the audience views entirely through the camera eye. While Andrew’s Mother (Bo Peterson) is slowly dying of cancer, Andrew is a victim of abuse by his alcoholic Father (Michael Kelly), a firefighter, currently unemployed and collecting disability due to an injury. At school, life is not any better as Andrew is a constant target for bullying and aside from his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), he has no friends to speak of. 

One afternoon, Matt invites Andrew to accompany him to a rave party, with the hopes that Andrew could possibly meet people, gain friends and perhaps even a girlfriend. Andrew reluctantly agrees and true to form, he brings along with camera, which angers some party goers to the point where Andrew is ejected. While he sits tearfully despondent outdoors, Andrew is soon approached by the very popular Senior, and Student Body president candidate, Steven (an excellent Michael B. Jordan). Steven excitedly requests Andrew’s presence to join himself and Matt at a nearby location in the woods and to definitely bring his camera.  

The threesome discover a giant hole in the ground, which is emitting strange loud sounds and crackles. They descend into the hole and soon discover a bizarre, giant object that shines a sinisterly luminous blue glow. As Steven approaches and touches the object, the sounds begins to grow louder, the object begins to change color from blue to red and as the boys all experience profound nose bleeds, Andrew’s camera cuts to black.

When the camera’s eye reopens, the three boys are transformed. With no reasonable explanations as to how or why, all three have gained the power of telekinesis. At first, we witness Andrew, Matt and Steven engage in “Jackass” styled hijinks with each other as well as hidden pranks in public. And soon, they discover that they have each gained the ability to fly!

Yet hubris begins to overtake the troubled Andrew, especially as his home and inner life grows more dire. A moment of road rage becomes deadly. His desperate moves to save his Mother’s life become devastating. And his friendships grow increasingly fractured and ultimately, tragic.

Josh Trank’s “Chronicle” was a true cinematic surprise that had me involved from the very first frame to its stirring final image. It felt obvious to me that I was in the directorial hands of someone who truly and seriously thought out every image of his film carefully and artfully, ensuring that a supreme visual, and therefore, emotional experience was to be gained. I loved how he and Landis were able to merge the ordinary and everyday and make the fantastical arrive with such awe and heft that the very familiar movie images of flight, levitation and epic cataclysm felt wholly fresh again.

The film’s special effects are truly special as they felt to be so photo realistic, possibly the very best of its kind that I have seen since the extraordinary work displayed in Director Neill Blomkamp’s incredible “District 9” (2009). Trank has shown that while he may not hold the $200 million dollar budgets of many fantasy films made these days, he has schooled them all by showing how to take a comparatively meager budget and spin gold. Trank and his team have exhibited a level of creativity, skill and showmanship that should be a lesson to all budding filmmakers as well as established filmmakers who have grown jaded. Trunk’s vision is clear eyed and vibrantly executed and I appreciated how he was able to utilize small means to create something grand.

While the concept of creating a film, which is told entirely through the characters’ “found footage” is not remotely new, Trank again found a way to make the technique feel fresh and unique. As with Director’s Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez’s” The Blair Witch Project” (1999), which essentially created something from absolutely nothing, the found footage serves the same purpose but thankfully, the dreaded shaky cam does not make much of an appearance! On the contrary, the cinematography of “Chronicle” is fluid, smooth and at times quite elegant as Andrew spends much of the film levitating and manipulating his camera artfully as if he is creating the movie of his life starring himself except that it is really happening.

More importantly, I think that Trank has conceptually tapped into a cultural critique that is not far removed from Director David Fincher’s “The Social Network” (2010). Very cleverly, Trank explores and questions how our 21^st century over-reliance on technology in regards to documenting oneself as well as publicly over-sharing has increased especially at the expense of relating to other people face-to-face and soul-to-soul. Throughout the film, Steven and the once very reluctant Matt each take turns filming their exploits and adventures. Additionally, there is another character, a Senior student named Casey (Ashley Hinsaw), who writes her own blog and is also often seen with her own camera.

Yet, the most crucial relationship is between Andrew and the camera. One character remarks to him that it is as if he is using the camera as a “barrier,” to which he replies, “Maybe I want a barrier.” In Andrew’s miserable world, it all makes sense as the camera is a protective shield for him as well as an ever present yet completely silent and entirely non-judgmental confidant. The camera never talks back, disappoints, or criticizes. It is all accepting no matter what you bring to it. Unfortunately, in the case of Andrew, despite his understandable pain and torment, this all acceptance ends up doing nothing but serves to fuel his building sense of undisciplined hubris and ultimate megalomania, which is beautifully acted via a richly layered performance by Dane DeHaan. But, a bit more on him later… 

In many ways, “Chronicle” reminded me of the very best elements of television’s “Heroes” series from Tim Kring and even moreso of M. Night Shyamalan’s finest film, the grim superhero origin tale, “Unbreakable” (2000) as they each featured ordinary, everyday people suddenly blessed or cursed with supernatural abilities. Trank and Landis performed an excellent job of making all three of the teenage characters realistic, relatable and multifaceted and all three young actors gave rich performances to boot. As Steven, Michael B. Jordan (from the first season of HBO’s “The Wire” and Director Anthony Hemingway and George Lucas’ “Red Tails”) brought warmth, humor and style to a role that could have easily been nothing more than the bland popular kid. There is a slyness and effortless ease to his line readings that feel completely natural. It is as if his lines of dialogue were his actual words he spoke on the set on the day of filming. His friendship with the troubled Andrew provides the film with a tentative bittersweetness as if we all know that this is a relationship that cannot last for very long.

As the equally sensitive Matt, Alex Russell does a fine job as he provides his own subtle transformation as a purposefully introverted and somewhat exclusionary high school Senior with a penchant for exploring existential philosophy into one who eventually embraces a more public role, especially when the safety of others becomes threatened.

But the film’s major focus rests with Andrew and Dane DeHaan (who gave a blistering performance on one season of HBO’s “In Treatment” series) elicits a performance that begins as implosive, rockets towards explosive and is fully compassionate and darkly intense throughout. What is the odyssey of Andrew Detmer other than an especially grim version of Peter Parker’s transformation into Spider Man? Yet unlike that adage of Director Sam Raimi’s three adaptations of the web slinger: “With great power comes great responsibility,” that sentiment grows increasingly meaningless, especially for a teenager in the throes of such immense pain. DeHaan makes every single moment from the quiet to the monumental work successfully as he utilizes tremendous nuance, sympathy, and unrepentant vengeance, a crucial act to accomplish. On one hand, Andrew longs to fly to Tibet to attain an inner peace he is not able to have in his daily life. Yet on the other, his thirst for power grows to a stage where he envisions himself as nothing less than “the apex predator,” a being who elicits no guilt when inflicting pain upon those he deems to be weaker than himself. Like Josh Trank, Dane DeHaan is definitely an actor to watch very closely. His talent and skill is deeply impressive and he actually reminded me greatly of no less than a younger Leonardo DiCaprio.

So, after all of this enthusiastic praise, why not give this film four stars? Well, I simply cannot for no other reason than this film did not send me “over the top.” It is completely subjective but I always know a four star film when I see one. “Chronicle” comes very close but just misses by a hair. But, dear readers, I have a strong feeling that Josh Trank will not only be a cinematic name to remember but that he will be hitting cinematic home runs very, very soon.

Until that time, I highly recommend "Chronicle," which is more than worthy and fully deserving of your precious time! 

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JUNE 2012

It's going to be a busy month.

Dear readers, now the the Summer Movie Season has been fully unleashed, the releases during month of June are so plentiful that it is already daring me to keep up.

1. First and foremost, I am still awaiting the arrival of Wes Anderson's new film "Moonrise Kingdom" which has been gathering some of his strongest critical notices.

2. Of course, and without question, "Prometheus," Director Ridley Scott's return to science fiction films since the release of his classic "Blade Runner" thirty summers ago (!), is the highest on my must see list!

3. Pixar's latest film, "Brave" is just nipping at the heels of the previously mentioned selections I am anxious to see.

4. And I am also very excited about the new dark comedy "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" starring Steve Carell and Keira Knightley.

5. "To Rome With Love," Writer/Director Woody Allen's new release may arrive this month as well, yet another film that carries a high sense of anticipation for me as I seldom miss any new film from this filmmaking master.

6. And even then...I have some trepidacious curiosity for "Snow White and the Huntsman" as well as "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." I am not fully sold on either film but my cinematic ears are perked.

That is a hefty load to carry and life permitting, I hope to have seen and reviewed as many of them as possible. At this time, I already have a new review in the hopper and it should be ready to post this week sometime. So, for the month of June, wish me luck and as always...

...I'll see you when the house lights go down.