COLD BLOODED: a review of "Jack Reacher"

"JACK REACHER"

Based upon the novel One Shot by Lee Child

Written For The Screen and Directed by Christopher McQuarrie

*** (three stars)

Just because a film is recommended as being a good home video rental does not necessarily mean that it is a bad film.

As I have expressed to you in the past dear readers, I have not even one connection to the film industry, therefore when I go to the movies, there are no private screenings and I utilize my hard earned wages to purchase a ticket just like you. When it comes to my decision making in regards to what I will choose to see, please allow me to give you a little window into my process. 

There are the films that I will see regardless as it could be a treasured filmmaker's latest project or just some title that I have been anxiously awaiting. Then, there are the ones that I already know that I would not spend one cent or one second of my time over. In between to opposing ends, there are all of the films of which I am on the fence. Some I may be unsure about and I may wait to see what the tenor of reviews will be to see if they can sway me one way or the other. (For the record, since beginning Savage Cinema, I purposefully do not read reviews in full before I write so as to not influence my own thoughts or writings but I am able to capture a flavor of what critics are feeling.) Others may be films that I just had not thought of but something inexplicable pushes me towards trying it out. Then, there may be some films that I am curious about but they just get lost in the shuffle. In the case of "Jack Reacher," Director Christopher McQuarrie's adaptation of author Lee Child's highly popular and prolific thriller series starring Tom Cruise in the titular role, was such a film as all of the holiday film releases just happened to eclipse this particular film. As hard as I try, I sometimes just cannot see them all when I wish to and this film did go unseen months ago despite my curiosity. 

Now that I have seen "Jack Reacher," I must say that I was actually glad that I did not see this film in a movie theater. Let me first assure you that it was not because I though that it was a bad film. In fact, and while it's not great, it certainly is not bad at all and I quite enjoyed it. I am just glad that I didn't see this film in a theater because, in some ways, "Jack Reacher" never struck me as being all that...cinematic. Incidentally, as I watched, I found that the film seemed to be better suited and at times, absolutely perfect for the television screen due to the film's modesty, and overall downplayed nature that actually goes against the cacophonous films that are typically being released currently.  In fact, as I ruminate over the film while I write, "Jack Reacher" kind of feels like a throwback, the very kind of thriller being made in the very kind of way that thrillers are just not being made anymore.

Set in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  "Jack Reacher" opens in a most chilling fashion as we witness a sniper (played by Jai Courtney) pull his car into a garage across from a park, pay for parking, load his rifle and then, randomly murder five innocent people before driving away in his van. The police, led by Detective Emerson (David Oyelowo), soon locate the shell casings which leads them to the van and the identity of James Barr (Joseph Sikora), a former U.S. Army sniper, whom the police apprehend but are unaware that they have arrested the wrong man. While Barr is being interrogated by Emerson and District Attorney Alex Rodin (Richard Jenkins), Barr responds by only writing "Get Jack Reacher" upon a notepad.

After seeing a television news report about the shooting and the incarceration of James Barr, we meet Jack Reacher (played by Cruise), a highly decorated yet volatile former U.S. Army Military Police Corps officer who has voluntarily slipped completely off the grid and lives his life as a drifter. Reacher quickly arrives in Pittsburgh and forges a tentative partnership with Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike), the District Attorney's daughter as well as the defense attorney who has been saddled with the seemingly impossible task of saving Barr from the death penalty. As Jack Reacher and Helen Rodin gradually uncover the mystery behind the sniper murders and the killer's real identity, their lives invariably fall into mortal danger and can the twosome solve the mystery in time?

The good news is that McQuarrie has ensured that "Jack Reacher" is a taut, tight, cleanly simple and economical action thriller that is executed with no frills or superfluous material from needless CGI effects, over reliance upon fancy editing or visual tricks, blessedly no usages of the dreaded shaky cam, and even a surprisingly minimal amount of music. There is nothing about "Jack Reacher" that could be considered over-bearing and in these times during which movie after movie is bludgeoning us with sight and sound, there is something about McQuarrie's approach that is thankfully welcome. His creative restraint is most notable during perhaps three or four extended action sequences, including one car chase and the extremely effective opening sniper shooting sequence, which is disturbing without ever descending into any stretches of gratuitous gore and violence. McQuarrie has essentially figured out how to visually render all of the action, stunts, fights and mayhem to their most essential elements. He has even rejected the usage of any extraneous dialogue during those actions sequences as well, making all of them function as near Hitchcock-ian pieces of work due to their crispness and efficiency. 

As Jack Reacher, Tom Cruise surprised me once again as I was terribly unsure as to how he was going to differentiate this character from his work as Ethan Hunt in his "Mission: Impossible" series, most especially, his feverish and ferocious performance in Director Brad Bird's stellar installment "Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol" (2011). Additionally, for fans of the book series, much has been written about the physical differences between the hulking figure of Reacher in the novels and the comparatively diminutive Cruise. On both counts, Cruise has succeeded once again. In regards to his own past performances, like Ethan Hunt in his most recent adventure, Tom Cruise cuts a menacing figure with absolutely no traces of his "boy scout" persona from his past work. As far as what makes the two characters different, where Ethan Hunt is a daredevil with a wild physicality, Jack Reacher, like McQuarrie's directorial approach to the film itself, is intensely patient and only strikes when necessary. And when Reacher strikes, may the universe have mercy on you! 

With regards to Cruise's size in relation to the character...well, I have not read the book series, so I just didn't have that considerable difference to contend with as I watched the film. That said, what Tom Cruise may lack in height, he more than makes up for it with a commanding and darkly charismatic presence that instantly lets the audience know that he means business, will not suffer fools lightly and that he should never be crossed. Additionally, and like the character, Tom Cruise also elicits a punishing sense of justice that possesses no regards for the law, just the unforgiving, unemotional and cold blooded sweep of what is morally right and wrong...kind of like television's "The Equalizer."  

I had previously mentioned that "Jack Reacher" felt to be like a bit of a throwback to an earlier era--maybe the 1970's as it carries a hard boiled, pulpy, film noir quality. But as I also previously stated, and for all of its assets, "Jack Reacher" is not terribly cinematic. It is a film that often feels like the pilot episode of a TV series where Jack Reacher, the solitary ex-military drifter who never carries a gun but unleashes swift justice against any tormentors, travels from town to town and gets into adventures like "Kung Fu," or "The Incredible Hulk" or even better yet, those old detective programs like "McCloud," "The Rockford Files," "Mannix," or any show that boasted the pedigree of being "A Quinn Martin Production." 

Because of that quality, "Jack Reacher" feels tailor made for the small screen instead of the big screen, a characteristic that does make me question its validity as a feature film. Beyond that, for everything about it that works (Cruise's performance, the curt, snappy dialogue, the surprising presence of celebrated documentarian Werner Herzog in a highly enjoyable acting performance), there are other elements that do not (the film's hefty 2 hour and 10 minute running time, Rosamind Pike's fairly wooden performance) and the movie overall feels rather inconsequential. All of that being said, I did enjoy myself... 

...and for a rental, that is not a bad thing at all.

CAN YOU SEE THE REAL ME?: a review of "The Great Gatsby"

"THE GREAT GATSBY"

Based upon the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Screenplay Written by Baz Luhrmann and Craig Pearce

Directed by Baz Luhrmann

**** (four stars)

As I have stated over again ever since the inception of Savage Cinema in regards to film adaptations of literature, books are books and movies are movies  When I say that, I am just expressing that when it comes to film adaptations, it is up to the filmmaker in question to determine exactly how to simultaneously represent and honor the source material through the language of the movies and through their own creative voice. This is indeed a profoundly difficult feat as I have also said that when you read a book, you have already made the movie inside of your own heads and hearts, therefore anything that doesn't quite match up will always feel inferior at best and completely false at worst. 

Typically, if I do read the source material on which a film is based, more often than not, and if I have not already read the book, I will read the novel after the film. I am very able to keep the two experiences wholly separate quite easily that way. But when I have read the novel beforehand, my relationships with the film versions can fluctuate, regardless of the film's overall quality. For instance, and believe it or not, I absolutely hate, hate, hate Director Robert Mulligan's 1962 cinematic adaptation of author Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird. My distaste actually does not stem from my love for the novel. My distaste exists entirely through the Mulligan's presentation, which altered the story's perspective from the child Scout to the adult Atticus Finch, which for me completely changed the overall point and vision of the source material into something the story is not really about in the first place. While this film has been long celebrated as being one of the GREAT films, and a point I am not trying to debate anyone about, that stylistic change was indeed a filmmaker's artistic choice in rendering the written material visually and for generations, that vision has held steadfast, while for me, it has not.

I understand the conflict and difficulties at hand of literary film adaptations and because of that, I am not and will not be surprised to see how film critics and viewers may cry foul at Director Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, a book that is not only a generational standard in High School English classes, but is also a novel that is considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest piece of literature ever realized. Like so many of you, I have read and adored the novel and Fitzgerald is indeed one of my favorite writers. That being said, I have not read The Great Gatsby in, perhaps, nearly 25 years, so my memories of it and feelings towards it are scant at best. Because of that, I believe my lack of literary recall placed me at a cinematic advantage when heading into a screen of Baz Luhrmann's film this afternoon as I could just walk in without any pre-conceived notions of what I was going to see and what I thought I should be seeing and feeling. I could walk into the film prepared to witness Baz Luhrmann's interpretation almost unfiltered and for me and my sensibilities, I was deeply enraptured by the experience as Lurhmann not only honored the source material greatly, he defiantly executed his vision, his way and through his cinematic voice with high style and voluminous emotion. This has been one of the most impressive films I have seen so far this year and I think that if you really give this film an honest chance, I think that you will be as equally impressed, dazzled and as moved as I was.

As with the classic source material, Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" is set during the roaring early 1920s, just outside of New York on the fictional locale of West Egg. We are introduced to Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire),Yale graduate, World War 1 veteran and aspiring bond broker who takes up residence in a small cottage on West Egg and a job in New York as a bond salesman. Nick quickly re-establishes a friendship with his cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), who lives in the exuberantly wealthy East Egg with her husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), a businessmen who is secretly philandering with Myrtle Wilson (Isla Fisher), a woman who lives in the dilapidated industrial area between East Egg and New York City. 

After being befriended by the glamorous yet romantically cynical golfer Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debecki) and strongly encouraged by Daisy, Nick and Jordan begin dating and Nick soon discovers that he is living just next door to the monstrously wealthy and mysteriously enigmatic Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), another war veteran who habitually stages the grandest and most elaborate parties exclusively for the hoi poloi. Nick soon receives an invitation into one of Jay Gatsby's parties, eventually meets him and begins to build a friendship where he learns that Gatsby and Daisy shared a brief affair just before the war and were separated due to Gatsby's military duties. Now, five years later, Gatsby continues to carry an inextinguishable torch for Daisy and has created these wild events with the hopes that one day, she will return to him.

And now, as Jay Gatsby attempts to reclaim his past, Nick Carraway finds himself at the center of a collective of facades, unspoken desires and motives, painful secrets and revelations which build to a tragic climax which may unravel the identities and perceptions of everyone close to him, and perhaps even himself.   

As I stated at the outset of this review, books are books and movies are movies and while there is no question whatsoever as to the greatness of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, I am here to say that I felt that Baz Luhrmann's film adaptation was truly terrific, and easily one of the brightest lights of cinema that I have seen in this otherwise dismal cinematic year so far. There has already been copious amounts of criticism launched against Baz Luhrmann for his extravagant directorial style overall and especially in regards to this material and to that, I denounce all of it as I find it as ridiculous as it is completely disheartening. As with detractors of filmmakers like Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino, Baz Luhrmann is being criticized for utilizing his personal, signature filmmaking style and I just have to question exactly what is so wrong about Luhrmann having a personal stamp over the films that he chooses to make. Are people actually suggesting that he had directed "The Great Gatsby" as if he were someone other than himself, perhaps like Woody Allen or Noah Baumbach?! I do not mean to digress but I just do not understand how we have arrived at this point in cinematic film history where filmmakers are actually being encouraged by some to become impersonal and even anonymous. Why was Tim Burton not raked over the coals for being absolutely nowhere in sight with his abysmal "Alice In Wonderland" (2010)? Or how about Sam Raimi, who was also rendered nearly invisible with his bloated, impersonal "Oz The Great And Powerful"? Or worst of all, what about Joseph Kosinki, who with the horrendous "Oblivion," has essentially decided to emulate every science fiction filmmaker before him without placing even one idea of his own into the mix?  

What I am getting at is the following: When Baz Luhrmann chooses to make a new film, then I want to see Baz Luhrmann make his film! And with "The Great Gatsby," Luhrmann's vision is front and center, just as it should be. While the allure of the novel has been powerful enough to have inspired past filmmakers to try and adapt it, what I did not realize before heading into this film is that Baz Luhrmann is now the sixth filmmaker to tackle F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel and for my money, he handled the entire proceedings with high confidence, stupendous style, "don't-look-back" velocity, an enormous heart and completely without apology. As with his past films, which have included "Strictly Ballroom" (1992), "Romeo + Juliet" (1996) and of course, the outstanding "Moulin Rouge!" (2001), you will either go with the experience or you won't. And also as with his past films, I went with it completely. 

Also, and despite some of the criticism you may have already seen, "The Great Gatsby" is not nearly as hyper-kinetic and helter skelter as "Moulin Rouge!". Yes, your senses will be assaulted but I firmly believe that Luhrmann is truly one of the few filmmakers working today who can elicit this grandiose style of filmmaking with a full adherence to the story he is trying to tell and assure the audience that none of his razzle dazzle will exist at the expense of the story, the characters and the soul of the piece. With "The Great Gatsby," I feel that Luhrmann is completely within his element as he makes daring cinematic choices that all felt to be emotionally true even they seem to be at their most synthetic. 

The controversial usage of hip hop music in combination with jazz music to represent the style and decadence of New York during the "Jazz Age" for instance worked perfectly and never felt to be out of place. The costume and set designs and the eye popping visual effects rendered the kaleidoscopic carnival of the story heroically, giving us one of the rare movies this year where the special effects are indeed special and nothing to yawn at. Luhrmann works his film's color scheme like that of a painter, utilizing tools of the movies and the the silver screen as his paints, brushes and canvas. The yellow of Jay Gatsby's car, for instance sparkles like the sun. The green harbor light, which Gatsby longingly stares at across the waters, an act which houses his eternal devotion and hope for Daisy's romantic return, perfectly captured his heartache. Throughout the entirety of "The Great Gatsby," you can see every penny upon the screen and every moment feels thought out and helmed with the fullest of intent and purpose. 

As I watched "The Great Gatsby," The Who's classic song "Eminence Front," periodically ran through my mind as Luhrmann crucially captured one of Fitzgerald's key theme's very effectively as essentially every character in the film is living a life through a wholly conceived and cultivated filter, a public persona of an imagined creation, something that masks their true feelings as desires for what they really want out of life. Therefore, they are all living lives of illusion. Jay Gatsby's facade takes things further. Even though he may have built his persona through something that is as seemingly pure as true love, is the woman he is in love with a person who actually exists or is Daisy just a memory or even nothing less than a long running perception of the woman he used to know before the war? 

Leonardo DiCaprio is absolutely perfect in the titular role and again shows why he is one of the finest actors of his generation as he so brilliantly displays a sense of public aloofness, elegant attractiveness and high class which increases his public status as an enigma yet hides not only his true identity but also his deepest pains, darkest fears and repressed rage. His entrance into the film is as spectacular spectacular as you would hope to see as he is surrounded by blasts of fireworks and the blaring music of George Gershwin. And as the film continues, DiCaprio beautifully peels back the layers, revealing bits and pieces of Gatsby's identity like bread crumbs and we all sit at attention just waiting for more. But it is through his private pain, his awkwardness, his increasing romantic desperation and pie in the sky optimism that brings out Gatsby's tragic nature and DiCaprio handles it all with his usual excellence.   

Carey Mulligan may initially seem as if she has little to do but to be the trapped butterfly under glass, but in Luhrmann's film, that is indeed who Daisy Buchanan happens to be and the tragedy of her fate rests completely with the fact that her sense of imprisonment is one of her own making. Daisy's desire for money and splendor has clouded and even eclipsed her true spirit and love for Jay Gatsby making her a character who has chosen to sacrifice her own sense of happiness and ultimately her sense of self-respect for the luxury and imagined security of her life with Tom. Luhrmann utilizes the love triangle of Jay, Daisy and Tom to create a love story that is not only doomed but more expansively one of being unrequited as well as one of possessiveness, obsessiveness and of pure imagination.

The theme of imagination rises over and again throughout the film, which again serves to validate Lurhmann's directorial choices and artistic vision. For all of the characters, this 1920's New York is indeed nothing more than a dream world viewed through the lens of alcohol and excess and why should it not look as such? As unknowable as the real new York is in this context and the questions of who is Jay Gatsby runs abound, I felt that the film's larger and even greatest question and almost unanswerable question is the following: Who is Nick Carraway?

The Nick Carraway character and Tobey Maguire's strong performance of him actually gives Luhrmann the opportunity to make his most daring interpretations as he has made Nick psychologically unstable and he is even described as being "morbidly alcoholic" and given to "fits of rage." This decision to imagine him as someone whose psyche is damaged, makes Nick Carraway a completely unreliable narrator as we are witnessing his memories as if they were nothing more than dreams from his past, which can be altered and re-shaped depending upon which way his mood swings. We discover early on that he had housed desires to be a writer but gave them up for the pursuit of riches. Yet this ability to create, to weave, to imagine fuels his re-telling of his time in 1922 New York and we must ask ourselves exactly how true is what he is telling us and how true is what we are seeing. How is it that he is not terribly complicit in the fates of these characters? Was he really essentially nothing more than an observer to the decadence of a society or was he the primary catalyst for the characters collective destruction and is he burying that guilt through the flashy descriptions of Gatsby's parties and New York lifestyle? What Baz Luhrmann has performed so wondrously is to create a film that is entirely about the unreliability of memories and our ability to re-contextualize those memories for no other purpose than to maintain our own sense of self preservation, an act which makes Nick Carraway probably the most enigmatic figure of all within this story. 

While I am certain that Baz Luhrmann desires to have his film appreciated and loved by as many people around the world as possible, just like any other artist, I am also certain that "The Great Gatsby" is not for everyone. And frankly, why should it? This desire for mass appeal at the expense of a personal voice and artistic vision is a painfully misguided one and I am thrilled that Luhrmann did not temper his tastes, style and artistry in the pursuit of box office dollars. When we go to see a Baz Luhrmann film, we all know what we are getting from him and if his style is not your cup of tea, then that not only should be perfectly fine, he should be celebrated for it as well as a creative voice that is as idiosyncratic and as individualistic as his is sadly of increased rarity these days.  

"The Great Gatsby" is not only a welcome addition to Baz Luhrmann's filmography, for me, it is one of the finest films of 2013. 

SAVAGE POSTSCRIPT:

Just a word of curiosity and caution. The screening that I attended at my local Sundance Cinema was one that was excessively LOUD to the point of being painful. After speaking with an usher, I was told that many patrons have complained about the film's loudness and they were having difficulties trying to regulate the sound. Now, I have no idea of whether this was how the film was mixed, if this was Luhrmann's intention or if it was just due to this theater but when you do see this film, you may want to take some ear plugs, just in case. 

Let me know how it was for you...

YOU KNOW WHO I AM: a review of "Iron Man 3"

"IRON MAN 3"

Based upon the Marvel Comics series created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, Don Heck and Jack Kirby

Screenplay Written by Drew Pearce & Shane Black

Directed by Shane Black

***1/2 (three and a half stars) 

It's great to have you back again, Mr. Stark!

The high flying success rate with the film adaptations of the adventures of the Marvel Comics superheroes continues in terrific style with the addition of "Iron Man 3," the first installment in what has been dubbed "Phase 2" of the expanding Marvel Comics film universe. Taking over the directorial reins from Jon Favreau, who helmed the first two installments in the saga of billionaire playboy, scientific genius Tony Stark and his metal clad alter-ego, is Shane Black, Writer of the original "Lethal Weapon" (1987) and Writer/Director of the slyly comedic film noir "Kiss, Kiss Bang Bang" (2005). 

Most thankfully, the change in directorial leadership has proven itself to be simultaneously seamless and creatively invigorating. Usually, as film series continue onwards, they begin to lose steam and fall into a collection of the same old tricks that were wondrous the first time around yet have grown more tiresome over time. With "Iron Man 3," while we do certainly receive everything we have come to expect from an Iron Man movie, Black has smartly raised the stakes by making this new film considerably darker, grittier, tougher, and surprisingly riskier and even politically subversive as well. Now that is not to say that the Marvel films have taken a page from the Christopher Nolan playbook and decided to make their films lean more towards adult sensibilities.   That being said, I do think that this one, while upping the provocative nature of Tony Stark, the fun and entertainment quotient has been diminished a bit. While the film is not as grandly magnificent as Joss Whedon's "The Avengers" (2012), "Iron Man 3" is a film that does get under the skin more than its predecessors and in doing so, it leaves some hard bruises.

"Iron Man 3" begins some time after the events of "The Avengers" and our hero Tony Stark (again played to perfection by Robert Downey Jr.) has become a profoundly changed man as he is now suffering from chronic insomnia, occasional panic attacks and has taken to hiding himself away in his laboratory, endlessly tinkering away on his projects and building new Iron Man suits for sleepless days at a time, therefore neglecting the love of his life, Pepper Potts (a sassy Gwyneth Paltrow). 

Yet a new threat on the horizon arises in the form of The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), an international terrorist responsible for a string of horrific bombings and who promises to unleash catastrophic destruction by Christmas Day. Additionally, Stark faces technological and scientific competition from Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), a disabled and rival scientist who was once spurned by Stark when he rejected Killian's wishes to join forces with the development of Extremis, a revolutionary and deeply experimental regenerative treatment  designed for people recovering from debilitating injuries. Even so, Tony Stark remains in his stupor.

When one Mandarin staged bombing places Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), Stark's one time bodyguard and current Head of Security for Stark Industries, into a coma, Tony Stark springs into action as he recklessly challenges The Mandarin on live television. This act unleashes an unprecedented and personally driven wave of consequences, violence and destruction against Stark, and worst of all places his beloved Pepper Potts into the greatest danger she has faced to date. Is Iron Man up to the challenge of facing his darkest inner demons to save the woman he loves?

One factor that I have always found to be a bit frustrating when it comes to comics as well as the television and film versions of those comic book characters is that there typically never seemed to be any sense of continuity from one adventure to the next. It usually felt that when one adventure was completed, it was never thought of or referenced ever again. With "Iron Man 3," Shane Black does not fall into that trap as he very wisely added some psychological depth to the proceedings by essentially making this film an exploration of fear, and in several facets and levels.

For Tony Stark, we are witnessing a man within the throes of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and for those few critics that have complained that Robert Downey Jr. is just performing his same old bag of quick witted tricks certainly were not paying attention in the least, as far as I am concerned. Downey Jr., while still able to keep our heads spinning with his quicksilver tongue and three steps ahead intellect continues to amaze me as he keeps discovering new layers to reveal in a character that could otherwise be painfully one note. How easy it would have been for Downey Jr. to just wisecrack his way to the bank and how thankful I am that he dug deeply to unearth a newfound sense of pathos and even tragedy within the character of Tony Stark. 

While in the second film, Stark harbored a cavalier death wish for a spell, in "Iron Man 3," he is in survival mode as he is struggling to make sense of everything he has experience thus far, including the life altering events of barreling through a wormhole in "The Avengers." Tony Stark has now gained the realization that actions do indeed have grave consequences and now that he has revealed a more vulnerable side in declaring his love and commitment towards Pepper Potts, he also now realizes exactly what and how much he has to lose, and in "Iron Man 3," Black goes to great lengths to strip Tony Stark of all of his emotional shields and the physical manifestations of those shields, including his mansion, his laboratory, and most notably, his constantly malfunctioning Iron Man suits.

I found it to be a great touch that for most of "Iron Man 3," Tony Stark is rendered without much of his technology, kind of like James Bond in last year's superior effort "Skyfall." By taking away the toys and technology, Tony Stark and the audience are given greater opportunity to explore the humanity of the piece as a whole and therefore, the film doesn't fall into the tired rhythms of most summer movie special effects cataclysms. I would even argue that this installment is the series at its most Shakespearian or existentially philosophical as Tony Stark essentially spends the entirety of the film questioning exactly what kind of a man he is and who he wishes to be. Is he a hero or even a man solely because of the Iron Man suit? Does the better part of himself arrive only when he places himself inside his costume and who is he if that element is divorced from himself? Robert Downey Jr. plays this crisis with such skill and subtlety that "Iron Man 3" becomes more emotionally turbulent and daring. 

On a larger scale, we do have the characters of The Mandarin and Killian to deal with and I was extremely surprised and pleased to see how Shane Black injected a sharp political commentary into the film that goes as far as to question the real consequences within our country's on-going "War On Terror." Yes, the violence and bloodshed cannot be dismissed and it isn't within "Iron Man 3," but Black is arguing that by becoming a culture of fear, terrorists may have already won the war whether they are real or not as well as providing public distractions from more dangerously subversive threats. With this element, Black also shows some daring risks with the Iron Man comic book mythology which may disturb some fans but I felt worked extremely well to both comic and seriously minded effects. 

And yet, and especially after "The Avengers," "Iron Man 3" is a little bit of a fall from the top. Maybe this just has to do with how masterfully Joss Whedon was able to spin a myriad of conceptual plates in the air and produce a motion picture that was intimate, epic, and out of this world fun. Frankly, "Iron Man 3" was not that much fun, so to speak. That gee-whiz excitement I have felt in the past gave way to something that felt to be more claustrophobic, perhaps mirroring Tony Stark's inner state. And while I didn't feel that the new darkness was out of place, I did, at times, tend to feel that something was a bit missing. I think I noticed it most during a spectacular sequence where Iron Man has the daunting task of saving 13 individuals from a mid-air plane explosion. That sequence was just a sensational feat of action, stunt work, special effects, terror, excitement and outlandish comic book derring do. Afterwards, those elements seemed to subside and I missed them. Again, this is not to say that "Iron Man 3" suffered in quality. I am just noting how I felt and if this is signaling a bit of a new direction for the Marvel films, then so be it as upping the emotional stakes can only help this series of films thrive and survive strongly.

Even with that minor criticism, ensuring that the special effects and spectacle remain secondary to strong writing, direction and performances is exactly why all of the Marvel films thus far have been so successful and "Iron Man 3" is no exception. Now, there is a bit of a hurdle to jump over for any future solo installments for Iron Man. It turns out that Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow's contracts have expired and aside from appearing in Whedon's "The Avengers 2" in 2015, there has been some question to whether either of them will return to their roles. I seriously hope that the powers that be understand exactly what Downey Jr. has done for them as well as this character. To think that he was really an extremely unlikely figure to play this role and now, he has made it his signature character! To me, and like Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Robert Downey Jr. is irreplaceable and if that means that "Iron Man 3," which does contain a sense of closure, is the last film in this particular series then perhaps that's the way it should be. None of the Marvel films have felt like a money grab so far and I hope that whatever integrity they possess they continue onwards in this vein. But, I do understand that I am getting far, far ahead of myself, dear readers. Because honestly, why would I ever want a superhero to fall and crash to Earth for any reason, especially one as pathetic as lust for box office gold? 

Take a note from the terrific artistic risks taken in "Iron Man 3" and keep aiming high!!

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR MAY 2013

As always, with the arrival of the month of May comes the official beginning to the Summer Movie Season and this month in particular looks to be front loaded with must see material!

1. Opening in the first weekend of the month is "Iron Man 3," with Director Shane Black taking over the reins from Jon Favreau who remains on board as Executive Producer and even appears in the film as Tony Stark's (again played by Robert Downey Jr.) loyal chauffeur/bodyguard. After the wonderment set last year with "The Avengers," the bar has been re-set even higher and I sincerely hope the creative powers-that-be are able to deliver the goods and then some.

2. The following week Director Baz Luhrman's anxiously awaited adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's eternal classic "The Great Gatsby" starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire hits the screens and you know I have to get myself to that one--especially as it was originally set to open this past Christmas and I feel that I have been patient enough!

3. And then, the weekend after that, Director J.J. Abrams returns with his long awaited sequel, "Star Trek Into Darkness"!

4. And even then, Writer/Director Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy reunite to bring us "Before Midnight," the third installment in their on-going series involving the lives and love story of Jesse and Celine.

5. Beyond even that, Writer/Director Noah Baumbach returns with his new film "Frances Ha." While I was more than underwhelmed with his previous two features, "Margot At The Wedding" (2007) and "Greenberg" (2010), Baumbach has long been a filmmaker whose creative voice has spoken to me loudly in his earlier features, most especially "The Squid And The Whale" (2005) what I feel to be his best film so far.

Now, all of this would certainly be more than enough for me to chew upon and I hopefully will have the ability and time to take them all in plus continue onwards with a new installment of my "Savage Cinema Revisits" series and any other potential surprises.

May life and the universe allow me to steadily push forwards and I'll see you when the house lights go down...

PASSAGE TO ADULTHOOD ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER: a review of "Mud"

"MUD"

Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols

*** (three stars)

In my previous and harshly negative review of "Oblivion," I lambasted Director Joseph Kosinski for not injecting a sense of personality within the proceedings to make his latest science fiction epic represents something that houses his original creative voice. It was,without question, the crucial element that stopped what could have been a terrific film dead in its tracks. 

This week, I arrive to you after taking in a screening of "Mud," a coming of age drama from filmmaker Jeff Nichols whose last effort was the excellent and deeply disturbing psychological drama "Take Shelter" (2011). While I do not feel that his new film climbed upwards to those same artistic heights, what a difference having and utilizing one's own creative voice can make with material that is otherwise familiar. And when you combine a strong artistic vision with equally perceptive, precise writing, direction and a host of strong acting performances, you are rewarded with a film that, unlike "Oblivion," is more than worth your time.

"Mud" is set in present day Arkansas near the Mississippi river and stars the extremely natural and gifted young actors Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland as, Ellis and Neckbone, respectively. As the film opens, these two 14 year old best friends are completely caught up within their daily adventures, when they decided to voyage by a small motorized boat to an isolated island. It is on this island where they discover another boat, inexplicably lodged high above ground in a tree. Upon further investigation inside the boat, Ellis and Neck soon realize, after discovering of a small amount of food and collection of Penthouse magazines, that the boat is currently inhabited. Feeling fearful, the two race back to their own boat with an attempt to leave and return home and they then immediately find boot prints with cross-marks in the heel in the sand completely around their mode of transportation. Finally, they meet the owner of the boot prints and occupier of the tree housed boat: Mud (a strong Matthew McConaughey), a dishelved, trimly muscular, unshaven man adorned with a white linen shirt and a pistol tucked in the back of his jeans. 

The threesome form a tentative friendship and soon a full fledged pact as Mud reveals himself to be a fugitive, on the run from the law and bounty hunters and living in self-imposed exile on this island. Ellis and Neck promise to bring Mud food and soon vow to bring him tools, supplies and machinery so he can dislodge the boat from the tree, escape the island and reunite him with his lost love, the ever elusive Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), who is living just outside of town in a seedy motel.

How all of the threads of the story connect and build is, of course, not for me to reveal to you here. But as with Nichols' "Take Shelter," "Mud" contains a slow, quiet, power that by its climax rises to full emotional resonance that almost feels as if the floor has given way due to its unexpectedness and explosiveness. 

Jeff Nichols' "Mud" is an atmospheric Southern tale that is as languid as an endless summer's day. Despite its present day time period, Nichols has given "Mud" a completely timeless quality that makes his story feel as if it could be taking place within any era. The hefty influence of Mark Twain is obviously evident as Ellis and Neckbone are essentially 21st century versions of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer with their travels up and down the Mississippi river, and each voyage instilling them with a greater understanding of the world that surrounds them. But unlike Joseph Kosinski, Jeff Nichols understands that he cannot simply ape Twain's classic storytelling style and call it his own. With "Mud," you are able to sense that Nichols possesses a rich, empathetic and singular creative voice that is entirely his own and after now viewing two of his films, I am truly impressed with his storytelling range as the coming of age plot of "Mud" and the nearly apocalyptic visions of "Take Shelter" are miles apart in regards to their respective genres. 

And here is where I was considerably softer on "Mud." I do have to say that I did feel that "Mud" was a bit of a comedown after being so enthralled by "Take Shelter," as that film was something I had truly never seen before and the plot of "Mud" is as old as the hills by comparison. Now most certainly, if you have been a fairly consistent reader of Savage Cinema, you have gathered that I hold a certain affinity for the coming of age story line and yes, it is a theme that speaks to my heart grandly. But, in "Mud," when that theme essentially boiled down to "the summer that changed my life," I guess I may have felt a certain weariness with the familiarity, especially from a filmmaker who surprised me so greatly his previous time at the cinematic bat. I couldn't help but to have expected something more on a creative level perhaps something akin to Writer/Director Benh Zeitlin's masterful "Beasts Of The Southern Wild" (2012), a film, like "Take Shelter," that also delivered in ways that I had not seen in quite the same way before. All of that being said, what Nichols does indeed achieve with "Mud," and something that may resonate even further with me on future viewings, is that he has found several ideas to take that ancient theme of growing up and make it his own and sing its own bittersweet songs.

First of all, I loved how Nichols spent so much time with the boys, Mud, and some of the other adult characters, either in travel on the Mississippi river or viewing their lives existing as closely to the natural world as possible. I enjoyed seeing a collective of individuals, and therefore a full community who have taken such pride, and have completely internalized their relationships with the land and nature. Their ability to navigate the waters with such ease was incredible to me. One sequence, which depicted Ellis travelling alone on the Mississippi deep in the night between his home to the island where Mud resides with only a flashlight, blew me away with its matter of fact directness! It is a journey in that black country night sky, that complete darkness, that would absolutely upend a city dweller like myself who desperately needs lights, signs and very noticeable landmarks to move around comfortably. It is that very innate sense of direction, and the attention Nichols gives to that element, that truly stood out for me, especially as that specific quality works in contrast to the film's more precarious emotional landscape.             

While the film is indeed entitled "Mud," this film is undeniably the story of Ellis, and Mud functions as the catalyst to bridge all of the characters together. At very first glance of the two boys, I was immediately and constantly struck by their physical similarities. Even further, I immediately thought that Neckbone, with his shorter, closely cropped hair, harder gaze, coarser language and also as he was the possessor of the film's the dirt-bike that provides the boys with much travel throughout the film, would be the leader of the two. But, that thought is quickly inverted as we realize the he is the sidekick to Ellis, who leads his way through the world with a fierce pureness of heart and romantic world view that he is steadfast to protect.

Life has become increasingly turbulent for young Ellis as his quarreling parents (played by Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulsen ) are soon to divorce, with his Mother potentially uprooting him from his beloved natural surroundings and taking him deeper into the city. He harbors an intense and soon to be unrequited crush on a local girl (Bonnie Sturdivant) as well. His tentative yet committed friendship with the exiled Mud, gives Ellis a reason to retain his firm grasp upon his idealistic views on loyalty, trust, honor and love yet throughout the course of "Mud," Ellis is introduced to his first tastes of the moral grayness of life and adulthood and what it truly takes to grow from boy to man. 

Here is where "Mud" works at its absolute best and also the spot where the core themes of this film and "Take Shelter" actually intersect. What I am gathering after viewing two of Jeff Nichols' films is his ability and desire to explore the internal lives of Southern, small town, taciturn men who are trapped in some sense of arrested development. They are all either emotionally stunted, debilitated, crippled or even altogether dilapidated to varying degrees. In "Take Shelter," we could be seeing the effects of advancing schizophrenia on that film's central character. In "Mud," we are witnessing a collective of men entirely undone by the women in their lives and the love they held for them. Yes, we see Ellis' Father confronted with losing his wife and Mud himself is desperately trying to win back and return to his beloved yet duplicitous Juniper. But we also meet the equally isolated and lonely neighbor Tom Blankenship (a rock solid Sam Shepard) and even Neckbone's Uncle Galen (Michael Shannon), whose personal devotion to The Beach Boys' classic "Help Me Rhonda" gives the song and film a deeper and more melancholic significance. By seeing the world through Ellis' eyes and soul, we are also perhaps being given a glimpse into how the romantic lives and worldviews of his Father, Tom Blankenship, Galen and Mud all began. With that, Jeff Nichols bridges the natural and emotional terrains to weave a tale of how romantic childhood notions lead into the deeper, darker, and more unpredictable waters of harder and harsher adult realities. And that, dear readers, was particularly compelling for me. 

All of the film's performances are top notch. Matthew McConaughey is very good in the titular role but it is not a game changer for him by any stretch. Mud does indeed exist within the same wheelhouse as past McConaughaey film scoundrels but I do think that he has been given the opportunity to dig a bit further and darker than he has typically been given the chance to do. In fact, the character of Mud made me think of what could possibly have happened to McConaughey's overly slick character from Writer/Director Richard Linklater's "Dazed And Confused" (1993) if over 20 years had passed, and all of his once self-perceived good fortune had given way to such bad luck that he has long accepted his fate and has chosen to live life completely off the grid. But again, "Mud" is completely young Tye Sheridan's show and he is more than up to the challenge with a fully committed and engaged performance that I sincerely hope is recognized when awards season arrives many moths from now as he deserves the attention and any accolades he may receive from his strong work. 

While I was not blown away, I do want to take this opportunity to send virtual thanks to Jeff Nichols for showing me that all is not lost in the world of cinematic storytelling. Although we are still very early in the movie year, it has not been a good one so far and truly quite the steep fall after 2012's consistently high quality which lasted throughout the entirety of the year. But films like "Mud" do indeed give me hope that brighter movie days are still to follow and with a talent like Jeff Nichols, movies will remain in good hands. 

COPY OF A COPY OF A COPY: a review of "Oblivion"

"OBLIVION" 

Based upon the graphic novel by Joseph Kosinski

Screenplay Written by Karl Gadjusek and William Monahan

Directed by Joseph Kosinki

* (one star)

"What is hell?...The same old situation. No imagination."
-Todd Rundgren ("Imagination")

When I openly wondered, if after viewing Director Danny Boyle's strong, propulsive, ferociously inventive art-house thriller "Trance" last week, that the movie year of 2013 would now begin to have an upswing in quality, I realize now that I spoke way too soon.

Director Joseph Kosinki's science fiction epic "Oblivion" is by far one of the worst films of 2013. Yup, it has already made that dubious list and I will do whatever I am able to do within the course of this review to stop you from wasting your hard earned time and money on this piece of massively budgeted yet shamelessly derivative material. Yes, Kosinski has made a shiny, pretty thing to look at but trust me, dear readers, there is absolutely nothing here for any of you to latch onto. Well...let me amend that statement...slightly. If any of you happens to be someone who has absolutely, positively never seen a science fiction film in your lives, then sure, "Oblivion" just might have something to offer for you. But for everyone else, especially those who have seen science fiction themed films from the last 45 years or so, do not waste your time. It's just not worth it whatsoever as Kosinki has not condescended to inject even one original thought into his own movie. "Oblivion" is so impersonal and so rehashed that it feels as if it was not even directed by a human being. This film feels like it was directed by Xerox!

As "Oblivion" opens in the year 2077, we learn that 60 years in the past, an alien race, pejoratively described as "Scavs" and whose own planet had been depleted of its resources forcing them to leave, arrived to Earth with the intent upon raiding our planet's resources for themselves. They destroyed our moon, causing an ecological apocalypse which was then followed by war and ending with nuclear holocaust. Although the human race had won the war, Earth had then become uninhabitable, forcing humans to depart Earth and take refuge upon the largest moon in Saturn's solar system.   

Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is one of the last humans stationed on Earth as he is employed as a technician to monitor and repair the myriad of drones as well as extract usable resources for the humans living outside of Saturn. He lives thousands of miles above the Earth with his Communications Officer and lover Victoria (the captivating Andrea Riseborough) and their only contact with civilization is through a video link with their supervisor Sally (Melissa Leo).

Although both Jack and Victoria had their memories erased five years earlier, Jack is haunted by dreams and flashbacks to a period in pre-apocalypse New York on the Empire State Building, a time before he was even born, when he was in love with a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko). He has also kept hidden from Victoria a small, secluded woodsy cabin in which he has stocked a collection of items and artifacts (books, records, artwork, etc...)  found on his daily journeys to the Earth to gather resources as well as fight for his life against the remaining "Scavs." 

As Jack and Victoria enter the final two weeks of their work before they are ready to re-join humanity, a spaceship, brought down by the Scavs crashes onto Earth carrying a group of passengers in hibernation, including the woman from Jack's dreams. This event begins the cycle in which everything Jack had thought to had been true begins to unravel, forcing him to accept and fight for an even greater sense of humanity.

Now, with that description, I would not be surprised if any of you out there would think that "Oblivion" is already sounding like it would be an intriguing, involving haunting and even excitingly dark science fiction ride. And to that, I would agree with you. If I had read that description, I would be first in line to see this movie. But, I must remind you of something the late, great Roger Ebert intoned over and again throughout his legendary career. That a movie is not about what it is about. But how it is about what it is about. To illustrate, please allow me to rewind the Savage Cinema clock to an earlier review...

"At this time, if I could offer Joseph Kosinski any word of advice (and knowing that he would listen to little old me), I would advise him to not let his film references overtake his own artistic vision. Yes, this is his first film and again, it is an excellent form of craftsmanship, but everything in it has been recycled from something else and without a sense of any new perspective. In comparing "Tron: Legacy" to Christopher Nolan’s “Inception,” we have a film that proudly wore its influences upon its dream world sleeves but everything was filtered through Nolan’s consistent themes and concepts of duality and mind games, themes which have been a part of all of his films since “Momento” (2000). “Inception” was yet another chapter in Christopher Nolan’s ongoing oeuvre and I would love the chance to see what a filmmaker of Kosinski’s obvious talents would do with an original story."

I wrote those words in my January 2011 review of Joseph Kosinki's "Tron: Legacy" (2010) and with "Oblivion," he has taken the idea of recycling past material to new heights...or depths, as the case may be. Instead of utilizing familiar elements and filtering them through his own, unique creative vice to essentially create something new, Joseph Kosinki has essentially stolen every element from past science fiction whole cloth and then has the audacity to try and consider it as something inventive. Despite anything he may attest to in interviews and promotional material, extolling how "Oblivion" is an homage, I am here to vehemently express to you that "Oblivion" is not homage. It's cinematic plagiarism.

Within the film's first five to ten minutes, there were direct steals from "Vanilla Sky" (2001) and "I Am Legend" (2007) down to the actual camera shots and even the extreme similarity of the dialogue. As "Oblivion continued, the comparisons were glaringly obvious to an extremely detrimental and flabbergasting degree. Let's see, and without any difficulty due to the blatant nature of Kosinski's "homage," there are themes  concepts, plot points, plot twists and threads "Oblivion"...ahem...shares with the following:

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)  

"Planet Of The Apes" (1968)    

"The Omega Man" (1971)

"Soylent Green" (1973) and frankly, essentially every dystopian science-fiction film from the 1970s

"Star Wars" (1977)

"The Black Hole" (1979)

"Mad Max" series (1979/1982/1985)

"Total Recall" (1990)

"Twelve Monkeys" (1995) 

"The Matrix" series (1999/2003)

"Solaris" (original 1972/remake 2002)

"Wall-E" (2008)

Good Lord!! And I'm not exaggerating whatsoever. I was actually stunned to not hear those five iconic musical notes from Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" (1977) but maybe that will end up as a deleted scene on the future DVD/Blu-Ray release.

COME ON!! Who did Kosinki think that he was fooling?! Is Kosinki really that unoriginal, unimaginative and flat out lazy or is he just that disingenuous enough to think that he could pull a fast one over the audience, claiming that this particular vision was completely his own? Honestly, since "Oblivion" has already collected a hefty box office take in its opening weekend, I feel that Joseph Kosinki should offer all of those directors (and/or their respective estates) of those aforementioned list of past films a portion of the proceeds! 

Seriously, this specific creative quandary does really bring to mind the question of whether it is even possible to have anything that is truly original anymore or even at all. To that, I would argue that yes, originality can still exist, and strongly so, although it really does feel to be in short supply these days. There is the process of homage, of course. I understand that. What else was Roland Emmerich's "Independence Day" (1996) but a large scaled homage to science-fiction itself? Yet, that was part of the blast of that experience, the joy of finding all of the references Emmerich placed front and center as a form of recognition, celebration and stellar entertainment while also telling a rip roaring "end of the world/let's unite and retaliate" saga. 

But let's go even further. Look at George Lucas and "Star Wars" itself, which, as we all know by now, is a mish-mash containing classic mythology, a dash of Tolkein, a taste of Akira Kurosawa samurai films and John Ford westerns as well as a healthy heaping dose of classic and corny Saturday afternoon "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" serials. Yet, Lucas was able to mix them and present his story, filtered through his influences, in a way that felt to be entirely personal and on the level of something that had not been seen in quite the same way before. Or let's even look beyond science-fiction at someone like Quentin Tarantino who doesn't just wear his influences upon his sleeves but as badges of honor. Yet, the way in which he filters and utilizes his influences and inspirations is so unique that some critics have even gone as far as to describe his style as "Tarantino-ian"! 

What I am trying to say is that with Lucas, Tarantino and in the previous example of Christopher Nolan, originality arrives through purity of an individual striving to find and discover their own creative voice within all of the influences that have worked to shape them. After two films now, I honestly cannot say what Joseph's Kosinski's original creative voice actually is. As "Oblivion" has no real perspective on the influences that have shaped it, the film contains absolutely no personality of its own as it has copied everything else before it. Therefore what we have ended up with is a big budget epic that is insufferably bland. And I would have been infuriated with "Oblivion" to the point of hurling objects at the screen if I hadn't spent so much of my time trying to stay awake!!

"Oblivion," unfortunately and almost unforgivably, is an interminable, turgid, slumberous experience in addition to being unimaginative. It is a film that runs a hair over two hours and it feels like five hours have elapsed. Please understand that "Oblivion" is not a film that is building with a slow burn. It's not moody. It's not atmospheric, esoteric or even European. This film is just flat-out BORING! A snail at rest is faster paced that any one moment in this film. And of course, my tedium with the film also stems back the the basic problem of its blatantly derivative nature. As "Oblivion" contains no real characters to latch onto as every one of them, plus their emotions, motivations are entirely generic. And in turn, every twist, turn and revelation in the plot is generic as well. 

The supreme failure of "Oblivion" does not fall of the shoulders of Tom Cruise by any means. Besides, he didn't write or direct this mess! Cruise is as committed as he has ever been but that being said, his character feels as if it is nothing more than a clone made from the assembled parts and pieces of past Cruise characters and performances. Morgan Freeman (who looks as if he's wearing Morpheus' clothes if he were dumped into the Thunderdome) is completely under utilized making his presence a wasted effort.

But then, of course, there is the question of whether "Oblivion" is at least a good looking film with great special effects. Well...yes and no. For me, "Oblivion" suffers the same, and huge, problem that Sam Raimi's "Oz The Great And Powerful" suffered from. For all of the special effects that are being hurled our way from the opening frames to the film's final shot, nothing is ever impressive and all of it is more than a major yawn. This does bring into question another major quandary of our current big budget, special effects driven cinema. Have we become so used to special effects that they are not even special anymore? 

Just think. When was the last time special effects really transported you? For every film like Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World" (2010) or Ang Lee's "Life Of Pi" (2012), which made special effects feel so new and vibrantly alive again, most films are kind of like "Oblivion" these days, with visual magic all over the place but being rarely impressive, enticing or magical at all. Again, this problem all comes down to the director and as with every other element in "Oblivion," Joseph Kosinki offers no real perspective on anything he is showing us. It just hangs on the screen, looking as shiny and as expensive as a plastic call girl. It is all so meaningless and surprisingly contains no sense of awe, excitement, wonder, terror or anything resembling an emotion. I mean--in theory, and on the page, the idea of a space station that sits above the clouds, so highly that thunderstorms occur underneath you, is something that sounds like it would be an awesome sight to see and experience! And sadly, while those visuals are rendered with the top of the line special effects we have all come to expect when we see a big budget film like this one, to present them without any sense of real, inspiring imagination, the kind that looks as if the dreams from inside of our heads were somehow plucked and replaced upon celluloid  is just inexcusable  Having the money to buy "great" special effects are not enough. What makes them great is vision to augment the craftsmanship and artistry and Joseph Kosinki failed on all counts.

Dear readers, I obviously have nothing personal again Joseph Kosinki, especially as I do not know the man in real life at all. I wish him no ill will and I do sincerely hope that when he gets around to making his next film, that the experience will be exceedingly better. If I were able to speak to him, I would deeply urge him to really think about what the films of the past mean to him on an emotional level and for that, he has to dig deeply to gain a perspective and devise what his creative voice is actually going to be. Otherwise, his copycat movies won't be worth viewing at all as by then, most audiences would have discovered that there is just no wizard behind his directorial curtain. Just a cinematic charlatan trying to utilize big money and visual razzle dazzle to blind us from the truth. 

May the complete fiasco that is "Oblivion" serve as a cautionary tale for him and other cinematic storytellers for we all deserve so much better.

SAVAGE POSTSCRIPT: 

The quest for and survival of humanity in a world where it is in disastrously short supply is always a great theme to revisit within science fiction but if you would like to see a fairly recent film that handles nearly the exact same material as "Oblivion" in a demonstrably better and more intriguing, emotionally involving and entertaining fashion then please allow me to point you to Director Duncan Jones' "Moon" (2009) starring an excellent Sam Rockwell. 

My original review of that film can be found within the February 2010 section of this website and I urge you to rent this film instead of plunking down even one cent for "Oblivion."

I MUST REMEMBER NEVER TO FORGET: a review of "Trance"

"TRANCE"

Story by Joe Ahearne

Screenplay Written by Joe Ahearne and John Hodge

Directed by Danny Boyle

***1/2 (three and a half stars) 

After a most sub-par opening to the cinematic year of 2013, I am hoping that I have now seen the beginning of better things to come.

Director Danny Boyle's "Trance" is a kaleidoscopically kinetic art-house thriller that splendidly merges the crime caper drama with a psychological head spinner and is filtered through Boyle's endlessly inventive, virtuoso filmmaking that nearly always puts most modern day filmmakers to shame. Granted, "Trance" does not scale the supremely emotional heights and jaw dropping power of his previous cinematic one-two punch of the Academy Awards Best Picture recipient "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008) and the existential survivalist drama "127 Hours" (2010). But do not allow that small dip discourage you as "Trance" more than delivers the goods almost on sheer creativity alone, which makes for a film-going experience that is just flat out fun as Boyle tosses out one curve ball after another and we try to keep up with him by catching them all.

"Trance" stars James McAvoy in a vibrantly muscular performance as Simon, a fine arts dealer and gambling addict who becomes involved with a gang of art thieves led by Franck (an excellent Vincent Cassell), as they all attempt to steal a painting of Goya's Witches In the Air, a piece worth millions of dollars. During the heist, Simon suffers a severe blow to the head and after waking, he is completely unable to remember exactly where he hid the painting, much to the fury of Franck and his gang. When threats and physical torture fail to reveal the location of the painting, Franck hires the services of psychotherapist Elizabeth Lamb (Roasrio Dawson) to delve deeply into Simon's psyche through hypnotherapy, a process that will hopefully produce the desired results. Certainly, this scheme is all easier said than done, as the lines between Simon's sense of reality and memories combined with the true motives and even the true identities of himself and those around him are increasingly blurred, making the discovery of the lost, stolen painting's location the very least of his worries.  

In regards to the film's plot, "Trance" is indeed one of those films where this is just about as far as I am willing to divulge to you so as not to produce spoilers or ruin the the chance for you to piece together this cinematic puzzle. But I will tell you to be prepared for a barrage of hypnotherapy sessions, dream sequences, copious amounts of duplicitous behavior and ever shifting alliances, repressed memories, and sudden blasts of graphic violence and nudity. How they all fit together, I would not even dream of revealing to you so you will indeed have to go out and see this one for yourselves!

Even with all of the accolades that have been deservedly thrown his way over the years, it seems to be that while Danny Boyle is one of our most exhaustively inventive directors, he still is able to just kind of sneak past us and how thankful we should all be for that achievement. Danny Boyle is indeed a showman, as clearly evidenced by not only his complete filmography but also through his Herculean work with orchestrating this past summer's Opening Ceremony production for the London Olympics. Even so, we somehow are never quite able to see him coming and when he is working at his best, we are blindsided by his brilliance, making for the very type of movie-going surprises that are in such short supply these days.

Just take a moment to think about Danny Boyle's past work. This is the man who helmed the tightly wound British crime thriller "Shallow Grave" (1994), the drug fueled, hallucinogenic steamroller masterpiece "Trainspotting" (1996) and the deeply eerie and horrifically effective zombie film "28 Days Later" (2002). Even his missteps, like "A Life Less Ordinary" (1997) or "The Beach" (2000) are never less than fascinating to view, for Boyle is a filmmaker who has essentially not made the same film twice yet every one of them feels superbly unique to his aesthetics. With that, I really do not believe that it could possibly be questioned that Danny Boyle is a filmmaker who is clearly enthralled with the gifts and opportunities with which he has been given. His guilelessness and lack of jaded cynicism after all of these years makes for films that are invigorating to view. "Trance" is no exception as he is clearly having a blast and through his boundless enthusiasm, I was often quite swept away.

For me and my sensibilities, "Trance" is the most viscerally kinetic thriller I've seen since Director Joe Wright's outstanding "Hanna" (2011) and when Boyle and his film are working at it's very best, he even even touched the brass ring as "Trance" even reminded me, from time to time, of Director Jean-Jacques Beineix's groundbreaking French thriller "Diva" (1981), my favorite foreign film to this very day. From the opening shots, "Trance" blazes onto the screen with energy to burn and for the remainder, it moves like a rocket. The film is a veritable explosion of colors, sound and beautifully staged mirror imagery that is flat out mesmerizing to view. Boyle has employed a crack team to assist him and tremendous compliments must be delivered to Editor Jon Harris, Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle and most especially, Composer Rick Smith of the band Underworld, whose pulsating, throbbing electronic score gives "Trance" its rapidly palpitating heartbeat and relentless tension. "Trance" is a gorgeous film to look at as well as listen to thanks to their combined artistry. And most certainly, James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson and Vincent Cassell are all working in peak form, each of them delivering strong, convincing and nearly breathless performances that show that they are all apt to keep pace with Boyle's energy.

Yet even with all of this praise, there was something about "Trance" that did feel a little slight, I guess. Something about it just didn't make it stick to the cinematic ribs, so to speak. I guess I wished for a bit more of that emotional resonance Boyle has accomplished so heroically with his previous two films but that being said, "127 Hours" is not necessarily a film that I would eagerly sit through again as it was so grueling an experience. "Trance," however, is indeed a film that I could easily see myself viewing time and again in the future either on DVD or when it will inevitably end up playing endlessly on cable, as I do enjoy a strong suspenseful thriller that functions as a psychological jigsaw puzzle. 

But still, I return to the feeling that I had that this film just felt to be a tad lighter than air. As I watched "Trance," I couldn't help but to think of other films within the past 13 years that played with our perceptions of reality and became deeply resonant works that truly disturbed and burrowed under my skin. Christopher Nolan's "Momento" (2000) immediately sprang to mind as did Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky" (2001), David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" (2001) and definitely Darren Aronofsky's operatic nightmare "Black Swan" (2010). 

And then, there was also Michel Gondry's "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind" (2004) and Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York" (2008), two films that explored the unreliable nature of memory, identity, self-perception and consciousness itself as those film's characters were respectfully dealing with either crippling romantic heartbreak or travelling through the process of aging and dying. All of those films showcased the labyrinthine nature of the mind itself in ways that were nothing less than enthralling as well as deeply unsettling. To its credit, "Trance" does indeed inject an exploration of free will vs.destiny as one character in particular displays a certain sense of omnipotence and omnipresence but even so, it all felt to be nothing more than elaborate window dressing than anything truly insightful.

But to be completely fair, perhaps I am beginning to review what the film isn't rather than what it is. Because at its core, "Trance" is a sumptuous slice of pulpy noir expertly mounted for our viewing pleasure. No more. No less. 

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially when you are in the gleefully excited directorial hands of Danny Boyle.