THE BLACK SHEEP RETURNS: a review of "Our Idiot Brother"

“OUR IDIOT BROTHER”
Story by Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall and Jesse Peretz
Screenplay Written by Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall
Directed by Jesse Peretz
*1/2 (one and a half stars)

Paul Rudd deserves better than this. Much better. And for that matter so do Rashida Jones, Zooey Deschanel, Steve Coogan, Emily Mortimer and Elizabeth Banks for all of them are saddled with carrying a movie that is nowhere equal to any of their talents.

Dear readers, I have to say up front that “Our Idiot Brother” is a terrible film simply because it is one of those films that simply cannot be bothered to dig itself in and try. Yes, the aforementioned cast is an excellent one, the actual story provides a great framework for these actors, and yes, it does have its moments, including one choice and extremely well placed expletive that made me howl with laughter. But, when the proceedings were all said and done, I felt nothing and simply regarded almost the entire escapade as an empty exercise.

Rudd stars as Ned Rochlin, an affable, perpetually stoned organic farmer who, at the film’s start, is arrested and jailed for eight months after mistakenly selling marijuana to a police officer. Upon his release from prison, Ned is exiled from the farm by his passive aggressive pseudo hippie ex-girlfriend Janet (Kathryn Hahn). Now penniless, homeless and without the company of his treasured dog Willie Nelson, Ned travels back to his Mother Ilene’s (Shirley Knight) house for a family dinner with his three seemingly more successful and well-adjusted sisters and their respective partners.

There’s Ned’s oldest sister Liz (Emily Mortimer) who is married to Dylan (Steve Coogan), a brusquely impatient and romantically duplicitous documentary filmmaker. Liz and Dylan are extremely strict parents to the young and unhappy River (a fine and natural Matthew Mindler), whom they are both anxiously hoping to enroll into an exclusive private school.

Next, we are introduced to Natalie (Zooey Deschanel), Ned’s more free spirited, bisexual sister who is currently in a relationship with Cindy (Rashida Jones), an attorney. Yet Natalie’s fear of commitment lands her into an affair with the hipster artist Christian (Hugh Dancy).

Finally, we meet Ned’s third sister Miranda (Elizabeth Banks), a brittle, high-strung writer for Vanity Fair magazine who is struggling to have her first story published, an exclusive interview/expose with the philanthropist socialite Lady Arabella (Janet Montgomery). Unlike her sisters, Miranda is without a romantic partner but her neighbor Jeremy (Adam Scott) would love to take upon that role. Unfortunately, Miranda repeatedly shuns his affections while also repeatedly using him for any assistance with upkeep to her apartment.

As Ned plots and plans to earn the $500 needed for him to return to work and live at the farm, he is shuffled from one sister’s home to another, and his guileless, open hearted, uncompromisingly honest worldview inadvertently dismantles his sister’s cushy lives in more ways than one. Yet throughout all of the misunderstandings, hilarity ensues, valuable lessons are learned as the sisters discover that Ned really isn’t such an idiot after all.

If you detected a certain sarcasm within that last statement regarding the storyline of “Our Idiot Brother” you would be absolutely correct. And believe me, I don’t think that I have revealed any spoilers as I believe that any of you who have ever seen a movie before will know exactly where this film is headed from the set up. While there is nothing on the surface of this film that is dramatically wrong in regards to the actual storyline and despite the great cast and all of the talent on display, “Our Idiot Brother” is painfully and almost unbearably yet another entry into the dysfunctional family genre. But this film, like Writer/Director Noah Baumbach’s equally painfully unbearable “Margot At The Wedding” (2007), has absolutely nothing, I mean nothing insightful or new to say about the subject. Which is a shame, as well as a shocking surprise, because Peretz and his team of two screenwriters could not seem to come up with even one idea or observance about family life and sibling relationships that delved anywhere beneath the obvious. It felt as if Peretz thought the likeability and talents of the terrific cast, especially those of Paul Rudd, would be enough to collectively carry and save the film. But it wasn’t. The cast of “Our Idiot Brother” are all active, engaged performers who are willing, more than able and very ready to work, so why not really give them all something to sink their collective talents into instead of just squandering them all?

In addition to Peretz’s direction being completely flat, and too wry and dry for its own good, I just did not believe in many of the film’s characters at all which was a huge problem. I hated all three of the sisters as they are so insufferable, so narcissistic, so selfish, self-absorbed and egotistical that they were almost irredeemable. These three sisters were not represented in a satirical or surreal sense like Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson conveys with Adam Sandler’s army of seven sisters in the wonderful “Punch- Drunk Love” (2002). No, Peretz is attempting to present a grouping of real people in a real world with real problems but without any real depth whatsoever. And as good as Paul Rudd is in this film, the screenplay lets his character down over and again as his level of sweetly candid honesty is unrealistic to the point of being a near cartoon. Yes, he is stoned for a time and does live with his head in the clouds of a more utopian sensibility but his lack of common sense felt to be so phony, so contrived and simply existed in this fashion to keep the wheels of the plots creaking along.

Worst of all, and as previously stated, “Our Idiot Brother” is a wholly predictable enterprise with absolutely no surprises or at least, valuable insights into the inner workings of this family. Of course, this film does not need to be a Bergman-esque or Chekovian drama and I firmly believe that the story of a family’s black sheep returning to the fold to unravel and hopefully mend the lives of his three sisters could be mined deeply for comedic gold. So it just boggles my mind that Peretz even give the material an honest attempt as the entire proceedings feels like a sketch of a screenplay instead of a fully thought out experience.

Think of Director Lisa Cholodenko’s excellent “The Kids Are All Right” from just last year or even the complete works of Writer/Director Nicole Holofcener, which includes “Walking and Talking” (1996), “Lovely & Amazing” (2001), “Friends With Money” (2006) and last year’s terrific “Please Give.” Both Cholodenko and Holofcener somehow, and in Holofcener’s case, always discover probing, fresh and uncomfortably perceptive viewpoints with the familiar subject matter of families and the roles in which we play within the families we create as well as the ones we are born into. Both filmmakers also utilize a light tough but they always weave ways to burrow under your skin, peeling back one layer of difficult truth after another.

“Out Idiot Brother,” on the other hand, is completely and utterly superficial as the film is nothing more than sitcom situations, band-aid solutions and nowhere near as funny, honest or perceptive as it desperately needs to be…or thinks it is because these characters never really function as real people. Peretz just firmly sticks to the easiest, simplest and most obvious set up and conclusions: Ned’s three sisters are the true idiots who all have something to learn from Ned’s relative innocence and good hearted nature. And Peretz makes this point over and over and over again. Yawn.

Look, dear readers, despite my vitriol, I am glad that I saw this film as I did want to. I'm just mad at the result. But, I’m telling you, my patience grows thinner with each and every movie that comes along and wastes my time. Honestly, if the filmmakers aren’t going to try and make the best story that they can, then why should I watch it at all?

MAH NA MAH NA: a review of "The Muppets"

“THE MUPPETS”
Screenplay Written by Jason Segal and Nicholas Stoller
Directed by James Bobin
*** ½ (three and a half stars)

It suddenly dawned upon me that I have never known a world where The Muppets have not existed.

From my earliest years watching “Sesame Street,” to my later childhood and pre-adolescent years watching “The Muppet Show,” seeing their first two motion pictures “The Muppet Movie” (1979) and “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981), plus more subversive appearances upon “Saturday Night Live” and most certainly, the major influence of a diminutive Jedi Knight in the “Star Wars” universe, the vision and artistry of Jim Henson and chief Muppeteer Frank Oz remained a constant and welcome presence in my development. I adored their irrepressible antics, their unmistakable madness, their endlessly inventive word play and slapstick and I would gather that perhaps what appealed to me most of all, although I don’t think I would have picked up upon this at tat time, was their undying sense of humanity. It’s strange, but even as an adult and knowing more about the actual behind the scenes mechanics of how these characters are brought to life, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, and especially Kermit The Frog, still feel so very real to me. They are trusted friends who will stick by you to the bitter end simply because that’s just what friends do.

As I grew older and was not actively watching anything related to The Muppets, I was always pleased to see that they remained a strong influence in pop culture for a time. It was comforting to know that Kermit and his friends were somehow still there, their gracious and hysterical influence was still in the atmosphere, especially after the untimely passing of Jim Henson in 1990. But, over time, I found something a tad unsettling.

In my life as a preschool teacher, I have often come up with silly nicknames of one sort or another to address my young students. Often times, I have even addressed them as “Muppets” because their wide eyes, grand smiles and boundless energy often reminds me of Muppet characters racing around a room, waving their appendages in hilarity. When I arrived at a year recently when I addressed the children as Muppets, they all looked at me blankly. It was obvious that my students did not have any idea of who or what Muppets could be, and believe it or not, it just saddened me. While I have known of a small smattering of families who have checked out Muppet videos from the library or local video stores in recent years, I just could not fathom a world where The Muppets had fallen so out of favor that a new generation of children would grow up not knowing their unique and irreplaceable brand of magic.

I just know that Jason Segal must have been feeling the exact same way as I, since he and writing partner Nicholas Stoller (who co-created the terrific 2009 R rated romantic comedy “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”), have seemingly willed the world of these characters back into existence with the wonderful new film “The Muppets.” This bright, bouncy, hugely enjoyable new film not only marks the grand return of Kermit and friends to the big screen, it is an experience which serves as an obvious labor of love for Jason Segal, as that very love shines through every frame of this movie from beginning to end.

As “The Muppets” opens, we are introduced to Gary (Jason Segal) and his brother Walter, a Muppet, who has increasingly begun to feel out of place in the human world of Smalltown U.S.A. After watching vintage episodes of “The Muppet Show” as youths, Walter soon becomes the biggest Muppet fan of them all, especially as he senses a kinship with this odd collective of singing, dancing, always joking and jovial characters. Walter is blessed with a major surprise from Gary, as the twosome plus Gary’s longtime girlfriend Mary (the adorable Amy Adams), plan to take a trip to Los Angeles, promising Walter that they will indeed make a stop at the legendary Muppet Studios for a tour.

Upon arriving, the trio is stunned to find the Muppet Studios in a dilapidated state and that the famed Muppet crew has all disbanded, has not performed together in years and are currently living out their days in relative obscurity. To make matters even worse, Walter overhears the fiendish plans of oil tycoon Tex Richmond (a terrific Chris Cooper), who is determined to tear down the Muppet Studios to drill for oil. Walter, with the aid of Gary and Mary, becomes determined to locate and re-group all The Muppets to hold a telethon. The goal is to raise the necessary 10 million dollars (!) to buy back their studio, forever keeping it away from Richmond’s greedy hands as well as reminding the world at large just how much better life can be with Muppets in it.

“The Muppets” is pure entertainment at its best and accomplishes the tricky feat of updating themselves while also possessing all of the qualities that made the world fall in love with them in the first place. The film, as energetically directed by James Bobin, features glorious musical numbers combined with gentle spirits, healthy doses of self-reflexive, subversive humor, non-sequiturs, wild slapstick, celebrity cameos (none of which I will reveal here) and a heart as wide as the open sky. There is true magic at work with these characters and I appreciate that Segal and Stoller created this film without any need to alter any perceptions about who these characters are and how they function within the world. And it struck me, so confounding yet so happily, over and again, at how much I was moved to see Kermit and friends all one more time. These characters are treasured old friends and I found myself honestly caring about what would happen to them in a world that seems to not care about them anymore.

That particular brand of melancholy was a very nice touch that Segal and Stoller kept intact for this film as that bittersweet spirit has existed at the heart of these characters ever since Kermit sang “It’s Not Easy Bein’ Green” so very long ago. For all of the sunshine on display, the filmmakers have not forgotten to ensure those dark clouds are present here and there, making for moments that were purely touching and heart tugging. Walter’s search for his sense of purpose and place in the world is a quality that faces all of us, thus making this new Muppet character instantly endearing. I even have to say that the love story between Gary and Mary also provides some very sweet moments as they are reaching their 10th anniversary together and Mary is increasingly troubled by Gary’s devotion to Walter at her expense. For that matter, the love story between Kermit and Miss Piggy held surprisingly mature poignancy as well. Yet, it was during a sequence where Kermit walks through his lonely mansion surrounded by images of his once glorious and beloved past and sings a sad song entitled “Pictures In My Head” that I felt the film to be so emotionally resonant that I had to remind myself and laugh to myself that this singing, talking frog is not even real. But then again, Kermit is nothing BUT real and that realness is what binds our love and affection towards him and all of his friends.

But, do not get me wrong. “The Muppets” is by no means a drama and it provides huge, honest laughter throughout. With a storyline lifted from classic Mickey Rooney movies as well as the “we’re putting the band back together” element from John Landis’ “The Blues Brothers” (1980), “The Muppets” is a movie that knows all along that it is a movie and it has a great time playing with that knowledge with the audience. The filmmakers address the increased irrelevancy of The Muppets, plus a certain soullessness of current children’s entertainment head on within the plot making the telethon sequence, which is essentially a big screen version of the classic television show, that much more meaningful. I’m telling you dear readers, when Kermit began to strum his banjo once again to perform “The Rainbow Connection,” my heart filled with supreme joy. And it is that special brand of joy that would be missing in a world without Muppets, a world Jason Segal so passionately never wishes to see and a world I, just as passionately, never wish for any child to have.

Look dear readers, I know that a certain computer generated, squeaky voiced chipmunk and his brothers are soon to arrive again in the multiplexes for the holiday season and will indeed rake in a fortune at the box office. Fine. Go see them. I cannot stop you even if I wanted to. But, please, for those of you that are parents, do not complain about the lack of quality family film material especially as the theaters are also featuring Martin Scorsese’s extraordinary “Hugo,” Cameron Crowe’s beautiful “We Bought A Zoo” (opening at Christmas) and now, “The Muppets” as well.

“The Muppets” is a film filled to the brim with hilarity, artistry and love. It is pure, honest entertainment that wants nothing more than to fill your heart and place a goofy smile upon your collective faces, a feat this film accomplishes splendidly. Yet, it was at first jarring to not hear the familiar voices of Jim Henson and the retired Frank Oz at play but that disappointment faded quickly as what this current breed of Muppeteers have done is to keep the souls of Kermit and company fully alive. In short and utilizing these characters’ special brand of vernacular, “The Muppets” is Muppetational entertainment meant for absolutely everyone.

Returning to my classroom for a brief moment, just last week I began to sing the classic “Mah Na Mah Na” song and one of my young charges opened his eyes widely, formed a terrifically beaming smile and exclaimed, “That’s The Muppets!!!!!” At that point, my face lit up into a terrifically beaming smile and I replied to him, “Yes it is, my boy! Yes it is!!” It charmed me to think that possibly a new generation would finally know what so many generations have known so deeply: That a world without Muppets is not a world any of us would ever wish to see.

Welcome back and long may you run!!!!!

A REVIEW OF "LIFE ITSELF: A MEMOIR" BY ROGER EBERT-A SAVAGE CINEMA EXCLUSIVE

LIFE ITSELF: A MEMOIR
BY ROGER EBERT

Magnificent!!!! Stupendous!!! Outstanding!!! Bravo!!!

On the first day of December 2011, in the early morning hours before getting myself ready for another’s day work, I finally completed reading Life Itself, the exemplary memoir from the great Roger Ebert. The first word I said to myself after I read the final page and closed the cover was “beautiful” because in my mind, this book is a thing of beauty.

I should inform you that typically, I tend to not read biographies or autobiographies that much. When I do, they are also typically about a treasured musician, writer or filmmaker and many times, I tend to not even read them within a linear fashion. I tend to jump around a lot, going backwards and forwards, and finding the sections that go behind the scenes of any particular work that I have long admired.

I like to see myself as a voracious reader but I am admittedly a slow reader. Unlike my wife, who consistently chomps through one book after another with Herculean velocity (she often reminds me of those old Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics commercials with fingers flying across the book’s pages), that I tease her about any possibly reading comprehension she may or may not possess. I am the type of person who can easily read a book for a short period, place it down, return to it later and so on. On rare occasions, I am so riveted by what I am reading that I cannot place the book down. But there are the times during which I am so enraptured that I want the experience to last me for as long as possible. I wish to savor it for I love it so much that I do not wish for the sensation the book is bestowing upon me to end anytime soon. I think of whenever John Irving releases a new novel or when author David Michaelis released his mammoth 704-page tome of Charles M. Schulz’s life and career, entitled Schulz and Peanuts: A Biography in 2007. For those titles, I sat and read the books completely enthralled as those authors’ gifts with the written word captivated me tremendously. Roger Ebert’s Life Itself is precisely one of those kinds of books.

I am not certain if I could honestly say that Life Itself exceeded any conceivable expectations I may have had for it because I just as honestly had no idea of what to expect. Roger Ebert’s writings as a film critic have deeply inspired me, as all of you know so very well. His life and career will always be a primary source of inspiration for any word that appears upon Savage Cinema, for his work has enriched my life in ways that he will never fully know. With his memoir, we are all now given the opportunity to take a gaze into the fullness of his life, which he presents with a writing style so personable and luxurious that the experience of reading Life Itself felt at times to be as grand as any John Irving novel and as open and forthcoming as if Ebert himself were sitting in the room with you, recounting tales from his remarkable life journey. For this book, I wanted to sit within his world for as long as I could stretch out the experience. Yes, of course, I could read it again. But, I could never read it again for the first time and as we all know, there’s something so special about that first time.

Life Itself opens with a stunning prologue entitled “Memory,” a near tour de force that begins with the magical line, “I was born inside the movie of my life.” It is rare that a book’s opening words grip me so instantly as well as feeling both epic and intimate. From this point, and through the following 55 crisply written, easily digestible and exuberantly engaging chapters, Roger Ebert presents us with a cavalcade of experiences. From his idyllic childhood growing up in Urbana, Il to his beginnings as a journalist and life as a film critic to his world travels, bout with alcoholism, romances and of course his relationship with the late, great Gene Siskel, Ebert shares his loves, passions, tributes, and personal philosophies with wit, warmth and frank openness.

By the time the book nears its conclusion, Ebert arrives in the present, speaking directly about his ailments, most notably the cancer that has inflicted him and the subsequent surgeries that have left him unable to eat, drink or speak. Despite a physical state that I could never imagine for myself and feverishly wish never occurs to me or to anyone close to me, Ebert seems somewhat bemused by the current state of his existence. While he strikes me as being too pragmatic to even accept the term, he reaches a point of true inspiration as he has decided to not wallow within any tragic misfortunes and to approach this life stage as an opportunistic one. Roger Ebert, more than ever, is able to fully engage in the life of the mind, a mind which contains a lifetime of memories of which he is willing to unspool for our reading pleasure.

Roger Ebert’s Life Itself, is not a book about movies, although movies do figure into the life narrative of this figure through chapters devoted to his experiences with Lee Marvin, John Wayne, Werner Herzog, Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen among others. Ebert’s book, in its entirety, is as absorbing as the very best novels I have ever read. I was so in love with the experience of reading it, I purposefully prolonged it by slowing my reading pace even more. This book was not something I wanted to just consume or hurry myself through as I found the experience to be so fulfilling and rewarding.

What I truly loved about Life Itself, beyond Ebert’s candor, was how Ebert essentially utilized a similar tactic Martin Scorsese used with his excellent documentary “George Harrison: Living In the Material World.” The book, like that film, is more conversational as well as more anecdotal. While the book does indeed possess a structured narrative that starts at the beginnings of Ebert’s life and follows through to the present, Ebert allows himself the luxury to allow people, places and events of the past to merge with the people, places and events of the present. If he mentions a person without explanation of who that person may be, never fear for you will eventually be fully informed. Ultimately, this gratifying approach gives you a wonderful and extremely literate approximation of what it is and what it means to live a life. Roger Ebert’s Life Itself is a book about memories, vivid, sumptuously described memories designed for us to lose ourselves inside of as well as to reunite us with our own memories and life journey. Like everything he and Gene Siskel accomplished upon their decidedly populist television show, every word of this book is part of a conversation between author and reader and what a rich conversation Life Itself provides for all parties who wish to be included.

I have to say that when I first heard about the publication of Mr. Ebert’s memories, I was initially anxious to see what I could gather about his relationship with Gene Siskel. Perhaps I felt that I would most likely commit myself to jumping around the book’s structure and narrative, cherry picking moments and experiences as I tend to do for books of this nature. Yet, as previously stated, from the first words of the book in the prologue, I was transported and captivated all the way to the book’s conclusion. This achievement was due to the simple fact that I was supremely engaged with the author’s voice, a voice that combined the conversational and the literate so effortlessly and brilliantly.

As terrific, informative and insightful as the sections concerning Gene Siskel are, surprisingly these sections were not even my favorite parts of the book. When he described his earliest experiences with journalism as a reporter covering sports for Urbana High School and later as a writer and news editor for The Daily Illini at Champaign Urbana, I indeed felt a bit of a kinship as I remembered my first tastes of writing, editing and journalism when I wrote and edited for my high school newspaper. My heart and Anglophile spirit soared to the stratosphere during the sections where Ebert spoke so lovingly of his annual travels to London and the beloved sights of his treasured English neighborhood at 22 Jermyn Street, so much so that these sections inspired me to voyage across the pond more than ever.

Most of all, it was when Ebert becomes even more personal, allowing us to gaze through the window into his life where I found Life Itself to function at its most gripping. To paraphrase Mr. Ebert, he explains that since he is only planning to write his memoirs one time, he might as well lay everything bare and I deeply appreciated and savored his frankness. I was amazed with how much he was willing to delve into publicly and reveal about his politics, spiritual beliefs as well as the dark struggles he faced during his years as an alcoholic and the subsequent struggles with his Mother, who also fell into alcoholism later during her life. Certainly his descriptions of his battles with cancer, failed surgeries and current struggles are also all detailed with candidness and strikingly without any sense of self-pity. Additionally, it is when he explores his personal love story between himself and Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert, his wife of almost 20 years, where Life Itself contains some of the book’s most gorgeously written passages. I especially found the three final sections which close the book, (entitled “My Last Words,” “How I Believe In God,” and “Go Gently” respectively) to be the most sobering and soulful as Ebert again merges the epic and the intimate, the personal and the universal, as he ponders his mortality.

Dear readers, I cannot recommend Life Itself highly enough for absolutely every single one of you. You do not have to be a fan of movies or of Roger Ebert to find something to enjoy. I recommend this book to absolutely anyone who just loves the act of reading and losing themselves in the art of fine writing because the reading of this book was a complete joy and Roger Ebert’s writing is exquisitely fine indeed. I recommend this book because not only is this book about Ebert’s life, it is a book about all of our lives. It is a book about how we choose to live and how our memories inform, shape, and guide us through every step of our life’s journeys.

Life Itself, while firmly about Roger Ebert, is also a book about us! What a blessing it is that he has shared his wonderful life with us so thrillingly and what a blessing it is that this book provides yet another vehicle for us to explore ourselves so wondrously.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR DECEMBER 2011

November was a wonderful month for movies, as far as I'm concerned. For this site especially as it began with an unproduced work from John Hughes, concluded with an early screening of a new Cameron Crowe film and with no less than two features from Martin Scorsese smack dab in the middle.

But now...it's really time for the "big guns."

December is the month where Hollywood lets all of their cinematic horses out the gate to run free and it is my job to try and catch them all jointly for my viewing pleasure and of course, for my pleasure to write about them for you.

Typically, and especially as the responsibilities of the holidays takes over nearly every aspect of life, there is absolutely no way that I can possibly see everything that I wish to see during this month. Some titles will indeed spill over into January 2012 (for that matter, there are November titles I have not seen yet including "The Muppets," "Alexander Payne's "The Descendents" and Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar") but I will indeed see what I am able to get myself to.

1. After being blessed with two films each from the aforementioned Crowe and Scorsese, December will grace us with two new films from no less than Steven Spielberg as he releases "The Adventures Of Tintin" (his collaboration with Peter Jackson as Producer) and the equine World War 1 drama "War Horse" within mere days of each other.

2. On the more big budgeted action movie front, I am very excited to see Guy Ritchie's sequel "Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows" as well as "Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol," the fourth installment of the series and the first live action feature directed by Brad Bird who helmed Pixar's "The Incredibles" (2004) and "Ratatouille" (2007).

3. On the arthouse and dramatic front, I am still hoping to catch the following selections...
-Lars von Trier's "Melancholia"
-"Young Adult," the new film from Director Jason Reitman who reunites with his "Juno" (2007) screenwriter Diablo Cody
-Director Stephen Daldry's post 9/11 drama "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
-And finally, I am very interested in viewing the highly celebrated black and white silent movie "The Artist."

4. Ever since he released "Se7en" (1995), David Fincher has sailed to the peaks of filmmakers whose work I will always make time to screen. While the arrival of his adaptation of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is no exception it does come with extreme trepidation as I truly believe that the three terrific Swedish films have already cemented author Stieg Larsson's novels into cinematic glory. That said, I will be there to give Fincher's version a fair shot.

From here, there may be a couple of extra surprises as I have two postings currently in the hopper. And yes, Savage Cinema will indeed reach two new milestones this month as well.

It's going to be a busy month all the way around to be certain. But until then, allow me to extend to all of you a most peaceful holiday season and equally peaceful beginnings to the New Year.

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

AN EARLY REVIEW OF "WE BOUGHT A ZOO"-A SAVAGE CINEMA EXCLUSIVE

“WE BOUGHT A ZOO”
Based upon the memoir by Benjamin Mee
Screenplay Written by Aline Brosh McKenna and Cameron Crowe
Directed by Cameron Crowe
**** (four stars)

I have said it many times before and I feel blissfully compelled to recount it for you one more time, dear readers. The world becomes an even more beautiful place and shines that much brighter when Cameron Crowe releases a new film.

I have just returned home from seeing a special advance sneak preview of “We Bought A Zoo,” Crowe’s first theatrical feature in six years, and not only did it not disappoint in any way, it is precisely the type of movie that just is not made very frequently anymore in regards to family films. Having seen this film just one day after Martin Scorsese’s extraordinary “Hugo,” this is an excellent time to take your families to the movies and see works that are enormously entertaining while also existing as sophisticated, emotionally complex and supremely rewarding experiences as a whole. “We Bought A Zoo” does not officially open until December 23, 2011 so I am absolutely thrilled that I have this opportunity to give you an early review and to urge you to go see this film when it arrives. As of this moment in time, I am still basking in the warm afterglow that Cameron Crowe has so richly and expertly delivered.

Based upon the memoir by Benjamin Mee, who utilized his life savings to purchase and refurbish a London zoo with his young children after the passing of his wife from cancer, Cameron Crowe’s “We Bought A Zoo” transplants the action from England to California and stars the indispensable Matt Damon as Benjamin. Six months later, and still in mourning after the death of his wife Katherine (Stephanie Szostak), writer and self-described “adventure addict” Benjamin is struggling to keep pace with the speed of life in regards to the rearing of his two children; the adorable 7 year old Rosie (a serene and completely natural Maggie Elizabeth Jones) and the sullen, withdrawn 14 year old Dylan (an equally impressive Colin Ford), who spends nearly all of his time drawing increasingly dark illustrations inside of his sketchbook.

Once Dylan is expelled from his school for theft, Benjamin decides upon a desperate move…literally…as he transplants his family from the city to a rural area “9 miles away from the nearest Target.” Benjamin and Rosie instantly fall in love with the location but are completely surprised to discover that this spot for a hopeful new beginning for their family is indeed the sight of the dilapidated Rosemoor Wildlife Park, currently owned by the state of California and run by a skeleton crew of zookeepers led by the tenacious Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johanssen). Completely against the advice of Duncan, his loving yet skeptical accountant older brother (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin purchases the house and zoo in a leap of faith and becomes determined to restore the zoo to its once former glory, save all of the animals from destruction and heal his family and himself in the process.

“We Bought A Zoo” is a supremely warm experience that finds Cameron Crowe in command of his artistry so fully that it never feels as if it has been six years since he sat in the Director’s Chair. It is a film that hits every emotional note perfectly. Yet Crowe wisely understands that every one of those moments needs to be earned, and Crowe earns every laugh, tear and smile honestly. “We Bought A Zoo” is a complete experience designed and aimed for the masses yet does not sacrifice even one iota of Crowe’s personal aesthetics or artistic integrity. His impeccable taste in music shines throughout the film with perfect song selections that made me beam with recognition and most especially through an ethereal score composed by Jonsi of Sigur Ros. I also especially loved the sunkissed cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto which bathed the film in an enveloping warmth that was nothing less than soothing and one meant to be embraced tightly.

All of the performances (which includes a supporting appearance by Patrick Fugit from Crowe’s 2000 masterpiece “Almost Famous”) are pitch perfect, working completely in tandem with each other. Matt Damon, as usual, is the superior, rock solid center and anchor to everyone and every creature in sight. I sincerely hope that he and Crowe find ways to work together again in the future as their combination was a perfect fit.

Overall, for a film with this much mass appeal, “We Bought A Zoo” feels as much of a piece with all of Crowe’s past films. While this film is highly accessible where Crowe’s unfairly maligned “Elizabethtown” (2005) was slightly more experimental, both films are intensely personal works that share themes of love, loss, life and death. The soul of Katherine Mee exists throughout every frame of the film, supplying the entire story with gravity and purpose. I deeply appreciated how Crowe never for an instant sugar coated mourning or the grieving process as depicted in a tender bedtime scene with Rosie, several difficult scenes with Dylan and in one of the film’s very best sequences, an exquisitely painful period where Benjamin looks at photos of his deceased wife on his laptop.

In addition to the deeply effective and necessary pathos, Crowe finds ample opportunity to load his film with knowing humor, a reverential appreciation of the animal kingdom without being preachy and also a teen romance between Dylan and 12 year old zookeeper assistant Lily (the amazing Elle Fanning), that puts the insipid teen romance of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” to absolute shame.

Beyond that, “We Bought A Zoo” is that rare film about Fatherhood, a criminally misrepresented demographic in mainstream movies. I greatly appreciated that the character of Benjamin Mee was not conceived as being yet another sitcom ding-dong Dad we are so often plagued with in the movies. As with the cinematic Fathers in films like Robert Benton’s “Kramer Vs. Kramer” (1979), Ron Howard’s “Parenthood” (1989) and even Gabriele Muccino’s “The Pursuit Of Happyness” (2006), Benjamin, while beleaguered, is a fiercely devoted parent who wants nothing more than to heal his family from their tragic loss, provide them with a remarkable life and most of all, to show them that life can indeed move forward, shine brighter and yes, get even better than before. And all one needs, as he explains to Dylan, is “20 seconds of insane courage.”

Now that particular line of dialogue, currently very much on display in the film’s commercials and trailers is a pure Cameron Crowe-esque philosophical nugget, which to some may feel as if he is attempting to try and re-capture a certain “You complete me” mojo. I can understand that trepidation but I am here to tell you when that line of dialogue arrived, it felt to me as not only being a moment that was unforced nor was it prefabricated. To my ear and more importantly, to my heart, it sounded like the very thing that Crowe would say himself and in fact, I think it may even be seen as a life lesson he has lived through over and again and is willing to share with all of us

And I think that is what impressed me the very most about “We Bought A Zoo” as well as “Hugo.” It is that Crowe and Scorsese have continued to lay themselves bare for their art. To fully present themselves, their personalities and their passions within their work while also trying to make an experience that absolutely anyone, anywhere can enjoy on their own terms. Both films are supreme reminders of exactly what family films have long forgotten to be and how they can be again. “We Bought A Zoo” is a prime example of how family films need not be stupid. How they can be sentimental without being cloying or painfully saccharine. How artistry, an individualistic sense of vision can easily co-exist with broad appeal.

Within a recent interview with Crowe in The Hollywood Reporter, he mentions how he and Matt Damon both had fears about mistakenly creating “the bad version of this movie.” I could fully understand that sentiment, as there are so many ways this film could have gone wrong. But I am here to tell you. “We Bought A Zoo” is perfect PG rated family entertainment and you can feel safe that there is absolutely, positively no cutesy animal reaction shots to be found and no flatulent humor at all. Other than a couple of choice and well placed profanities, it is completely clean for the little ones.

Dear readers, I am typically not one for forced merriment or any odes to sunshine and happiness that never feels true. But that said, I firmly believe that after going through a selection of strong yet exhaustingly dark films like Jeff Nichols’ “Take Shelter,” Kevin Smith’s “Red State” and even Sean Durkin’s well intentioned “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” combined with looking at the troubled state of the world, we need movies like “Hugo” and “We Bought A Zoo” more than ever. I feel this way because each of those films offer a window into life’s potential and how we all can positively affect each other and make the world a better place.

With “We Bought A Zoo,” we have a film about real people in real situations figuring out how to behave within the best interests of each other and the animals within their care. There are no real villains in sight and the film shows that there is always wonder, hope, possibility, community, and healing. It is a film that proudly announces that the pervading question of life is “Why not?” instead of “Why?” And best of all, Cameron Crowe means every word and every moment of it. He never has to sell you something because he fully believes it. It is obvious. It is honest. And you can feel that belief in every frame of this film.

The highest compliment that I could award “We Bought A Zoo” is very simple. I just did not want this film to end. Thankfully, in a few short weeks, I can purchase a ticket to this “Zoo” all over again.

COME AND DREAM WITH ME: a review of "Hugo"

“HUGO”
Based upon the novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick
Screenplay Written by John Logan
Directed by Martin Scorsese
**** (four stars)

The title of this new review should not simply be taken as an invitation from me, your humble, friendly neighborhood film enthusiast. This is an invitation from none other than Martin Scorsese and frankly dear readers, when Mr. Scorsese offers you an invitation, it is imperative that we take him up upon his offer.

Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” is not only one of 2011’s highest cinematic achievements, it is also one of Scorsese’s highest achievements as a cinematic storyteller. It is the best film he has made since “The Departed” (2007) certainly, but I think I am going to have to go one better. For me, “Hugo” is the best film Martin Scorsese has made since his explosively brilliant and iconic gangster epic, “Goodfellas” (1990). Based upon that film and essentially the entirety of his oeuvre, Scorsese is probably one of the most unlikely filmmakers one could think of to direct a PG rated, family friendly motion picture. But by the time “Hugo” reached its completion, it was obvious that Martin Scorsese is quite possibly the ONLY filmmaker to make this film. Yes, I could easily see someone like Steven Spielberg taking the reins of this particular story but “Hugo” feels like the film Martin Scorsese was destined to create.

I will leave any plot description to an absolute minimum. I have not read the book from which this film is based and I suppose I wanted to enter into this experience as coldly as possible. Supposing that many of you are in the same position as myself, I will try my best to do the very same for you. Set during the early 1930’s, “Hugo” stars Asa Butterfield in the titular role, an orphaned and abandoned who lives within the walls of a Parisian train station. As he hides away from the public, Hugo secretly operates and maintains all of the train station’s clocks, steers clear of the imposing, leg-brace wearing Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and pilfers food from the station’s food shops as well as mechanical supplies for a secret project. One day, Hugo is caught by Georges (Ben Kingsley), the mercurial proprietor of the train station’s toyshop. In retribution, Georges takes Hugo’s treasured notebook, inside of which contains fantastic illustrations that cause him distress. In his pursuit to retrieve his notebook, Hugo is soon befriended by Georges’ goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and the twosome begin a life altering adventure that will also greatly impact the lives of the adults around them, including Georges himself.

“Hugo” is a completely enchanting, engaging, sumptuous experience that shows Scorsese working at the very top of his game, alongside his rock steady team of collaborators, which include Cinematographer Robert Richardson, Editor Thelma Schoonmaker, Composer Howard Shore and Production Designer Dante Ferretti. To utilize musical terminology, watching “Hugo” is akin to hearing one of the world’s greatest bands, all at advanced age, still vibrant, hungry and creating one of their very best works. “Hugo” is nothing short of a masterpiece.

While the film may not seem to share terribly much with Scorsese’s past work on the surface, I did happen to notice some very cleverly placed Scorsese-ian trademarks which always let you know who is operating behind the scenes. “Hugo” opens with a stunning long take during which the camera fluidly glides from the heights of Paris, through the entirety of the train station and deep into a clock, where Hugo resides. I could not help but to think of the classic long take in “Goodfellas,” during which Scorsese, utilizing the same fluidly gliding camera work, takes us through the New York streets and into the Copacabana nightclub where we are introduced to the collective members of the gangster underworld as Ray Liotta attempts to impress his date, Lorraine Bracco. But I want to truly impress upon you that “Hugo” is not an experience designed to be all flash and without substance. Scorsese creates a deeply emotionally satisfying work that enraptures.

Scorsese also superbly avoids all of the trappings and clichés of the family film genre by actually having the audacity to believe that families, and especially children, are intelligent and important enough to be given a work at its very best. Family films do not have to exist as hyperkinetic, day-glo, audio assaulting, distressingly flatulent, shamelessly low brow pieces of unemotional and impersonal product meant to be devoured and forgotten. Scorsese has created a work that is supremely sophisticated and emotionally complex. But, “Hugo” is also child friendly enough that it exists with an appropriately simple plot, boldly gorgeous colors and visuals, child heroes and heroines to truly root for and empathize with and (again) and emotional palate that contains an open honesty and tremendous affection for wish fulfillments and the stuff dreams are made of. “Hugo” aims for the stars and reaches them all.

Asa Butterfield is absolutely perfect as Hugo Cabret. He appears to be a Dickensian hero with shaggy dark hair, underfed physique and piercing blue eyes to reach directly into your heart without ever feeling forced. Chloe Grace Moretz is a wonderful young actress that I feel has been undone by her appearances is pseudo-edgy material like Director Matthew Vaughan’s odious “Kick-Ass” (2010) and I was thrilled to see her in a film with a filmmaker who will utilize her talents wisely. As with all of her previous roles, Moretz reminds me greatly of a young Jodie Foster through the no-nonsense strength of her screen presence. Yet, for “Hugo,” Scorsese is able to draw out Moretz’s more tender, dreamy qualities which are no less tenacious than any of her other roles. In a world where the likes of Bella Swan qualify as a heroine for younger girls to look up to, the character of Isabelle-smart, charming, steadfast and extremely literate (I always loved how she would drop in new vocabulary words she learned while living as a voracious reader in the train station)-is a blessing.

As the Station Inspector, Sacha Baron Cohen utilizes his immense talents in full service of a character that is not of his creation absolutely perfectly. I appreciated how he never tried to upstage anyone or anything else in the film for his own benefits. Cohen is a crucial piece in this puzzle and his ability as a team player should be commended. Ben Kingsley is the true soul of the film and without saying any more, for fear of producing spoilers, he injects into the character of Georges what I felt to be a kindred spirit to Scorsese himself, with profound gravity, pathos, vision and enormous compassion. He never, for even one moment, strikes a false note.

As you all know so very well about me, I am and remain anti-3D, as I feel it is nothing more than a money making gimmick that is not crucial to the art of cinematic storytelling. All of that being said, and even though I saw “Hugo” in 2D, I feel that “Hugo” would be the major exception to the norm. Martin Scorsese shot “Hugo” in 3D, unlike most releases that were filmed in 2D and then reconfigured for 3D. While I have not been a fan of James Cameron’s “Avatar” (2009), I am wondering if I would have to extend a large amount of gratitude for “Avatar” as the mammoth success of that film single handedly brought the 3D resurgence into action. Perhaps, the success of “Avatar” even inspired Scorsese to make this film in the first place. But for my money, I think that “Hugo” bests “Avatar” in every possible way from conception to execution. And truth be told…I just may be persuaded to see this film again…but in 3D. I am not making any promises but if one were to see a 3D movie, it was obvious to me that “Hugo” is the one to see.

As with all of his films, Scorsese knows to the deepest levels of his cinematic soul that all of the techniques and special effects in the world will not mean a thing without a story and furthermore, that all of the filmmaking tools are there to operate at the service of that story. I loved how the visual flights of fancy depicting gears, heart shaped keys, and all manner of cogs in the wheels of clocks and machinery worked as a gorgeous allegory to the emotional states of all of the film’s characters. Hugo, Isabelle, Georges, the Station Inspector and others are all, in one way or another, in a state of repair and need fixing in order to fully realize their potential in the world. And even deeper, Scorsese illustrates how that very stagnant and ultimately realized potential speaks to the machinery of the human condition. How one person’s possibilities can affect another’s and how we all congeal together in a community and as a species. We are all keys for each other with the potential to unlock wondrous gifts, releasing them into the world and into our hearts and souls.

“Hugo” is also a film that explores our relationship to art, literature, movies, love, inspiration and dreams and their transformative and transportive abilities to create spellbinding power. “Hugo” is cut from the same cloth as varied as Giuseppe Tornatore’s “Cinema Paradiso” (1988) or even J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8” as its love for the magic of the movies is near devotional. It is more than perfect that Martin Scorsese made this film. Now that he is nearly 70 years old and long acknowledged as a legend, it is beautiful to see this man not taking any creative moment for granted. “Hugo” contains the wisdom and experience of an older man working in tandem with an unquestionable and brightly lit childlike spirit of invention, inspiration and imagination and innocence. "Hugo" illustrates why we all even go to the movies and moreso, why Martin Scorsese creates them in the first place.

As I have taken a peek as the Thanksgiving holiday box office reports, I have seen that “Hugo” is not setting the box office on fire. In fact, the audience I saw it with was very scant indeed. This worries me because I would just hate for something this extraordinary to be ignored, especially as it is a film designed to be embraced and hoisted up highly over our collective shoulders. Martin Scorsese has created a fantasy epic that is indeed fun for the entire family. It is remarkably clean, pure of heart and spirit while eliciting endless creativity. I know that you want to see the big blockbuster films and believe me dear readers, I do too! But I urge you to go, as soon as you are able, and experience “Hugo” as it deserves all of the attention and affection it will hopefully receive.

“Hugo” is Martin Scorsese’s gift to all of us and all we have to do is open it.

MOODY MESMERIZING MEANDERING MUDDLED: a review of "Martha Marcy May Marlene"

“MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE”
Written and Directed by Sean Durkin
** ½ (two and a half stars)

Once the house lights in the theater began to brighten, I scratched my head in confusion and found myself doing something that I typically do not do when I exit a film: I asked two fellow patrons what they thought of this experience we had all traveled through together. The two older women were visibly affected, one perhaps a bit more shaken than the other, and they each provided me with their feelings, to which I still continued to scratch my head and mentally ask them, “Why?’

Writer/Director Sean Durkin’s “Martha Marcy May Marlene” is the type of psychological drama I tend to gravitate towards with its themes of a person’s shifting and deteriorating sense of reality. Yet, the world Durkin creates, while appropriately bleak, is overly and self-consciously languid and enigmatic to the point where it was almost engulfed by its own smothering mysteriousness. That is not to say that the film doesn’t have its merits. On the contrary, there is very much to admire about it. So much so that you may be curious as to why my rating is a bit less than enthusiastic. I have to admit that as I ruminate over the film, I am torn and am wrestling with my feelings over it. But I keep returning to this feeling: by the film’s abrupt conclusion, my first response was to wonder just what the point of the whole thing actually was, if there was one at all. A harsh impression but it was indeed how I felt. But then, something began to take hold and I will now go forward with my thought process for your reading pleasure.

“Martha Marcy May Marlene” stars Elizabeth Olsen in her film debut as Martha, who, at the film’s start, is seen escaping what turns out to be an abusive cult located somewhere in the Catskill Mountains. After a meal at a small diner, Martha finds a pay phone and places a call to her older sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson), who soon arrives and brings Martha back to the luxurious summer home she shares with her husband Ted (an excellent Hugh Dancy). But, re-assimilation is not easy for Martha as the physical and psychological damage she has endured threatens her relationship with the only family she remains to have as well as possibly upending any potential future she may wish to have in the world outside of the cult.

The film then unfolds over the alternating parallel tracks of illustrating Martha’s life within the cult and her life as she struggles to reconnect with the real world, converging slowly over the course of the proceedings. Now, I do not wish to say terribly much more as I feel the fullness of its possible success lies within the viewer not knowing that much about it, and I feel that even counts towards even trying to explain the meaning behind the film’s alliterative title. But I will say that at the film’s best, Durkin weaves a disturbing, haunting spell, which does go to great lengths to create empathy for Martha especially as her search for stability grows increasingly futile and tragically inevitable.

Much of the press surrounding this film has been focused upon the high quality of Elizabeth Olsen’s performance and to that I have to agree whole heartedly. Olsen (the younger sister of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen) is indeed the real deal but not in a show stopping, firecracker, “she leaps off of the screen” fashion. Olsen carries a brooding intensity mostly seen through her piercing stare, which Durkin wisely presents often. It is a stare that not only draws you closer and dares you to not watch her, it is a stare you will often find yourself lost inside of as you attempt to piece together the sad trajectory of her troubled life. Olsen’s full performance really struck me as it is simultaneously feral and fragile. Martha exists as a perpetually abused domesticated animal and the effect is quietly devastating.

Martha is a young woman who is always under some sort of control, whether through the cult or during her stay with her extremely parental sister Lucy and yes, we do witness and are fully aware of the levels of physical, sexual and mostly, psychological abuse she endures throughout the course of her story. Olsen finds the various levels of Martha’s mental state so seemingly effortless and convincing especially as the story’s threads begin to converge and our perceptions, along with Martha’s begin to blur.

Throughout “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” Martha is shown in various states of mental repose or falling in and out of the stages of sleep, sometimes falling asleep in one story thread only to awaken in the other thread. I found this to be one of Durkin’s most successful tactics as he presents a psychological world that is ever shifting as memories phase into dreams, dreams phase into memories, and reality itself is entirely unknown. But, the way Durkin accomplishes this feat is not nearly as virtuosic as anything seen in say Darron Aronofsky’s “Black Swan” (2010). With “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” I felt able to take in every moment at face value, as I think you would as well. But, that being said, I am slowly realizing that the film may be deceptively straightforward. Perhaps some of the sequences we are watching may be how Martha perceives her world, especially as she has become so damaged. It is through these aspects where “Martha Marcy May Marlene” works best and any accolades Elizabeth Olsen is bound to receive during awards season are justifiably deserved.

Sarah Paulsen is Elizabeth Olsen’s equal with her performance as Lucy. As difficult a task it had to have been for Olsen to portray Martha, Paulsen does not have it much easier as she has to essentially fill in many plot holes Durkin has asked the audience to essentially fill in regards to Martha’s backstory and family history. Lucy is indeed demonstrative, parental and more than a little superior towards Martha but she is loving and endlessly worried about Martha’s well being. Mostly, and in addition to balancing her marriage to Ted plus trying to conceive a child, Lucy is desperately attempting to alleviate and sense of guilt she continues to carry as she departed Martha’s life of leaving perhaps during the very developmental and psychological stage when Martha may have needed Lucy the most.

For a moment, I would like to return to Roger Ebert's memoir Life Itself by recounting a tidbit from the chapter entitled “My New Job,” during which he discusses his origins as a film critic. In that chapter, Ebert delivers a quotation from the late, great Gene Siskel in regards to the purpose within a film critic’s profession. “Siskel described his job as ‘covering the national dream beat,’ because if you pay attention to the movies they will tell you what people desire and fear.” If what Siskel stated is indeed the case, our nation has been suffering some very dark fears and dreams indeed.

Dear readers, I want to ask you what you think is happening in our society where we can have films like “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” Writer/Director Jeff Nichols’ “Take Shelter,” Writer/Director Kevin Smith’s “Red State” and Director Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia” (which I have yet to see) all arriving at this point in time. These films seem to illustrate a consciousness trapped in a state of restless anxiety due to our current political and economic landscape. We seem to be dealing with a not so buried fear that any frivolous pursuits, any wrong step will be met with rapid destruction for the wolves are always at the door, threatening any sense of security we all wish to obtain and keep. And even more frightening, sometimes that wolf at the door may live deep within the confines of our own minds, threatening to unravel.

In my mind, “Martha Marcy May Marlene” feels to be of a piece with the superlative “Take Shelter” and the brutal “Red State” as all three films share themes of elusive safety, the desperate need for family connections and increasingly fractured psyches. With “Red State” in particular, “Martha Marcy May Marlene” deals with dangerous Father figure/cult leaders. Where “Red State” depicted the fire and brimstone demise of a cult, “Martha Marcy May Marlene” goes to great lengths to depict the inner workings of a cult, its structure, how it functions and the levels to which quietly charismatic cult leader Patrick (the sinister John Hawkes) manipulates, controls and abuses his flock.

But, for me, “Martha Marcy May Marlene” falters where “Take Shelter” and “Red State” grandly succeeded mainly because of Sean Durkin’s direction, while creating a murky atmosphere, at times seemed trapped within a certain storytelling inertia, which made the film as a whole lose its momentum. It just felt to be too self-congratulatory. An exercise in stylistic ambiguity. An exercise it just fell in love with at my expense. I guess many passages of it felt to be more than a little forced and proudly unwilling to find any release to its tension. This was a quality I loved in “Take Shelter” but it worked completely because of the story that film was trying to tell. But for “Martha Marcy May Marlene,” that particular approach was not nearly as successful. There were just too many scenes for my taste that felt to be overly cryptic as if characters were purposefully not saying things solely because the imaginary audience was out there somewhere watching. I guess I was feeling a bit too aware of the conventions and not feeling that the film was something more lived in. And by the film’s end, as I previously stated, it all felt to be a slap in the face. What was the purpose? Why was I watching this story and what did this filmmaker want for me to leave with?

Obviously, after all of these words upon words, I do believe that Durkin did indeed want me to leave with some real impression of his story and film, which admittedly did take some time to take hold of me. Which is OK as not every film needs to be an immediate experience. “Martha Marcy May Marlene” is a provocative film to be true and I think that some of you who choose to experience it will find yourselves enraptured by it. If you are indeed one of those people, please do check back in with me as I would love to talk to you about it.

And you know, isn’t having a film to discuss and debate over a more than worthwhile quality in a film released during our age of sequels, re-boots and re-imaginings?