The Equalizer

Released:  September 26^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Columbia Pictures

Starring:  Denzel Washington, Marton Csokas, Chloë Grace Moretz, David Harbour, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo

Directed by:  Antoine Fuqua

Written by:  Richard Wenk

Personal Bias Alert:  Never seen any the television show or any of Fuqua’s movies

7.8 of 10

            So how many of you managed to see The Equalizer without realizing it’s based on an ‘80s television series, because I somehow did.  Not that I would expect myself to remember the show; It technically lasted into my infant years, but for all intents and purposes it was on before my time.  Granted, I didn’t pay much attention to this film’s promotion either, but I saw the trailer several times and don’t recall it ever mentioning the series (I do recall it advertising the use of a brand new Eminem song, though).  So why leave it by the wayside?  Was it bad?  Did it fail to retain an audience?  Normally, these questions would nag at me, but the film’s so rooted in genre that it felt familiar even without references to the series.

            The Equalizer draws on many genres, but it primarily mixes the slow burn of a spy thriller with the moral certainty of a revenge pic.  Robert (Denzel Washington) is our former spy (or old man, to steal the film’s The Old Man and the Sea metaphor), a guy who’s unable to turn a blind eye to the abuse of a young woman.  Utilizing some of his formidable skills, his quest to save her eventually leads him into a much larger battle than he intended, and to start a habit of sticking up for anyone who’s being taken advantage of. 

            The film exists in a black and white world, where stereotypical bad guys (Russian mobster, corrupt cops, etc.) are hunted down by Robert to ‘equalize’ the score.  In such a basic world, it may seem odd to point out how necessary the film’s prolonged setup is, but giving Robert time to establish normal relationships and his own moral barometer goes a long way to making the later action sequences work.  In fact, these early scenes brim with so much life, particularly the ones between Robert and the young woman played by Chloë Grace Moretz, that you forget you’re watching a bunch of setup.  I’d be happy to pay for a feature length character study of those two.

            Unfortunately, Moretz doesn’t get enough screen time to fully establish her character, but she knocks the few scenes she does have out of the park.  That lack of depth applies to all the characters not played by Washington, but the assembled cast of recognizable character actors play their parts well enough that I didn’t really mind.  The most attention is given to Robert’s alter, the formidable Russian mobster played with sneering glee by Marton Csokas.  I’m not generally a fan of such one-note bad guys, but the barely contained menace that Csokas brings to the role won me over.

            Helping to sell this black and white world is the stylish cinematography, which threatened to be a bit on the nose with its prominent use of shadow, but ultimately sold the whole theme.  I mean, there’s few portraits of evil in American cinema more classic than a man leaning confidently forward, one half of his face murky in the darkness, calmly spouting threats in a Russian accent.  Sorry Russia, I have nothing against you, but the Cold War had long reaching effects on Hollywood.

            There are times when the style goes too far, particularly when Director Antoine Fuqua breaks out the slow motion, and the film becomes too actiony for its own good.  This occurs mostly during the ending, which has a couple of ridiculous sequences that took me out of the film, but also features a great set piece that’s milked for all its worth.  That set piece is a reminder that The Equalizer works best when it sticks to the basics, letting its stellar cast and slow burning tension carry the audience through.

Other Notes: 

Ø  I always wait to wipe off the murder weapon I “borrowed” from my employer until I’m in public and seconds away from returning it.

Ø  Don’t go to this film for Bill Pullman or Melissa Leo.  It’s not worth it.

Ø  Cue a dramatic walk home from the grocery store.

50/50

Released:  September 30^th, 2011

Rated:  R

Studio:  Summit Entertainment

Starring:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anjelica Huston

Directed by:  Jonathan Levine

Written by:  Will Reiser

Personal Bias Alert:  dislikes manchild jokes, likes Joseph Gordon-Levitt

4.5 of 10

            What’s funny about cancer?  “First of all, it starts with that hard C sound, that K.  That is a comedy principle,” said Sarah Silverman in her Stand Up to Cancer video.  She goes on to tell a few more jokes while weaving in a serious message, mirroring in three minutes what it takes 50/50 100 minutes to do.  Now, I know that Silverman’s video and 50/50 are entirely different mediums of work, which partially explains the time difference, but it also highlights how much more a film is expected to do.  50/50 tries to do more, but too much of it feels false to get across any larger meaning.

            Much ado was made during the film’s release about the story being based on writer Will Reiser’s own cancer incident (he recovered before writing the script).  The story loosely follows Reiser and friend/co-star Seth Rogen’s experience, focusing on how the unexpected cancer diagnosis of 20-something Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) effects his friends, family, and himself.  Perhaps this gave me some false expectations.  I was hoping for a funny, insightful film that felt close to reality, and what I got was a formulaic, manchild comedy with an affecting ending.  Needless to say, I was disappointed.

            My biggest problem with the film, which would have bothered me even without my incorrect expectations, was just how unrealistic the whole thing was.  And I don’t mean the cancer scare.  I know that 20-somethings get cancer.  It’s the insufferable tropes surrounding Adam’s predicament that annoyed the hell out of me.  Between the inattentive girlfriend, the doctor with horrible bedside manners, the overbearing mother, the manchild best friend, and the terrible therapist, I couldn’t find any genuine characters for Adam to interact with.  Every scene felt unnatural, and, well, written.  There are few things that annoy me more in a movie than being able to see the strings, and this film leaves them pretty bare.

            Moreover, this film just felt nasty to me.  It judges all its characters, hard, for the vast majority of its runtime.  The fact that they’re all so one-note, and that their notes are so negative, left me little room to care about them at all.  I mean, why should I care about a mother who overreacts to everything whenever she comes onscreen?  She’s not my mother, and Adam is perfectly fine with ignoring her, so I am too.  At least the best friend played by Rogan makes some effort, but he fails so miserably that I just wanted him to leave Adam alone.  Honestly, I didn’t even buy that those two would be friends, cancer or not.

            Then you have the technical aspects of the film, which too often stick out and add to the unreality of the whole thing.  I made two separate notes about how much I hated the music in this film, once after the cancer reveal and once in the scene where Adam’s high.  Although, the music wasn’t the only thing wrong with the overdone ‘Adam’s high’ scene.  Between the hackneyed cinematography, the ridiculous slow-motion chuckles, and that music, I thought I had stepped into a happy version of Reefer Madness.

            The only spark in the first 75 minutes of this film are the scenes between Adam and Katherine, the young therapist played by Anna Kendrick.  Gordon-Levitt and Kendrick are the only ones with enough screen time and talent to overcome their thin characters, and there’s moments when their interactions feel genuine.  Add in that these two are the only characters allowed to show a shred of decency before the ending, and it’s no wonder I didn’t care about the rest of the movie.

            And let’s talk about that ending.  There’s such a sharp tone change in the last 25 minutes that it felt like a different movie.  The raunchy comedy is abandoned in favor of the big, emotional ending, which is a bit easy and familiar given the setup, but Gordon-Levitt sells it so well that it’s hard not to be moved.  I actually enjoyed this part of the film, probably because the characters around Adam were suddenly allowed to act like actual human beings.  They were still flawed, but their efforts inexplicably start to amount to something.  It’s not at all consistent with the rest of the film, but I was so happy that it was finally working that I threw up my hands and went with it.  I just wish the rest of the film had actually set this ending up.

Other Notes:

Ø  What world does this film exist in?  No doctor would be that oblivious while revealing a cancer diagnosis, and no one would do what Rogan’s character does with that picture.

Ø  The crude humor felt out of place.

Ø  I liked Kendrick and Gordon-Levitt’s relationship, but I’m not sure about the ethics of it.  I mean, he was her patient.

Ø  Sarah Silverman’s Stand Up to Cancer video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGtaV85AzWE

The Maze Runner

Released:  September 19^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Starring:  Dylan O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Will Poulter, Ki-hong Lee

Directed by:  Wes Ball

Written by:  Noah Oppenheim, Grant Pierce Myers, T.S. Nowlin

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t read the book, likes a little crazy

7 of 10

            We’ve made it everyone.  The post-blockbuster dumping ground has passed, with smaller films like The Drop, The Skeleton Twins, and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby:  Them slowly rolling out nationwide and the first serious attempt at a quality wide release in over a month hitting theaters with The Maze Runner.  I was anxious to get back to writing about movies I enjoyed watching, and this YA novel adaptation didn’t disappoint.

            The film opens with the first thing our protagonist, Thomas, remembers:  being hoisted up into a glade and greeted by a group of teenage boys.  He knows nothing of his past, and the world he’s been lifted into is strange, indeed.  The group has the glade to live in, and surrounding them is a giant maze filled with deadly creatures called grievers.  None of the boys know anything about their past, why they’re there, or how to get out.  They’ve assembled their own rules and seem to be living relatively comfortably, until Thomas gets curious and upsets the balance of their world.

            This opening is quickly established, and while it wastes a bit of time needlessly dragging out its world building, it gets to the good stuff fast enough to be forgiven.  The middle section blossoms into a great potboiler, with its self-contained world and the puzzle surrounding it providing a captivating mystery.  Director Wes Ball, working on his first feature film, proves talented at constructing action sequences, milking the small spaces of the maze for all their worth. 

            Ball’s talent is perhaps most evident in how well each individual scene works.  Each one moves the plot forward, is filmed with the right amount of style, and is performed well by all the actors.  In the moment, the film builds tension and makes you care about the characters, but when you pull back and think about it as a whole things don’t quite add up.  I have the feeling that this movie was made by a lot of very talented filmmakers, but they were saddled with adapting a YA novel whose story wasn’t constructed with as much care as they’re bringing to the film.

            That being said, I’m not entirely down on the story it’s telling.  Author James Dashner’s 1^st and 2^nd acts are contained and interesting.  It’s not until the 3^rd act, when the world starts to open up, that it flirts with going off the rails.  A few too many things get thrown into the mix, and I was reminded of how I feel about Donnie Darko, that the writer was aimlessly throwing things at the wall, and it just so happened to come together in an interesting, semi-coherent way.  In fact, this film went so weird that it sort of made me like it more.  I warned you in my personal bias section:  I like a little crazy.

            The Maze Runner boasts a unique setting, but its story plays out in the familiar, hero’s journey-esque plotline we’ve come to know and occasionally love.  When done with a certain level of skill, these series can blossom into some of the best-selling franchises of our time (see Harry Potter and The Hunger Games), and while I don’t see this reaching those lofty levels, this opener does enough things right to establish itself as a series with some legs.

Other Notes:

Ø  All the characters are very familiar types, and the girl has nothing to do.

Ø  You’re going to see certain things coming, but so much happens at the end that I doubt you’ll have it all figured out.

Ø  When the grievers were revealed to be half-machine, half-animal, I immediately thought of the cylon raiders in Battlestar Galactica.

Ø  I want to read the book now.  That’s always a good sign.

Philadelphia

Released:  December 22^nd, 1993

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  TriStar Pictures

Starring:  Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington

Directed by:  Jonathan Demme

Written by:  Ron Nyswaner

Personal Bias Alert:  who doesn’t love Hanks and Denzel?

6 of 10

            Philadelphia is very much a period piece, a work intended to shed light on a prominent issue of its time.  Works such as this, no matter what the medium, can do the world a lot of good.  However, these stories exist due to their context, and as time moves on and cultural attitudes change, the issues they’re railing against often get resolved in one way or another, and the work’s commentary suddenly has nothing to comment on.  The path of history is littered with influential works of art that no longer matter, and I’m afraid that Philadelphia may be destined to join their discarded ranks.

To give this film its best chance, lets discuss some context.  The CDC first used the term AIDS in 1982, one year after the US became the first government to recognize the illness.  In 1983, the CDC ruled out transmission by casual contact, food, water, air, or environmental surfaces, which did little to stem the growing concern.  Actor Rock Hudson became the first celebrity to die of AIDS-related illness in 1985, the same year Ryan White was refused entry to middle school due to having AIDS.  By 1987, AIDS was a global concern, becoming the first disease ever debated on the floor of the UN.  Also that year, the US added HIV to its immigration exclusion list, making it impossible for any HIV+ person to enter the country.  It took eight years for the total number of AIDS cases in the US to reach 100,000 in 1989, and a mere six years for that number to quintuple to 500,000 in 1995.  Smack in the middle of that explosion, AIDS becomes the number one cause of death for US men between the ages of 25 and 44, and Philadelphia became the first major Hollywood film to focus on AIDS.

            With the furor surrounding the AIDS crisis at an all-time high, it’s lucky that a filmmaker like Jonathan Demme was the first to bring the story of an ill lawyer fighting to be treated equally to the masses.  Several of his trademark techniques are highly effective at getting audiences to empathize with his characters, a hurdle any film with a gay, AIDS-stricken character at its center had to overcome.  One such trademark of Demme’s is his stubbornly methodical pacing, which forced his potentially prejudiced audience to stop and take a good, long look at the disease in question.  Another calling card is having his actors look directly into the camera, which made connecting to its two main characters almost effortless.

The subsequent public embrace of Philadelphia’s ill lead has much to do with Demme’s presentation, but you can’t discount the brilliantly cast Tom Hanks.  Remember, at the time Hanks was known as a charming comedy actor, so his startlingly gaunt, sickly appearance was tempered by the public’s general goodwill towards him.  Make no mistake, Hanks turned in a great performance as lawyer Andrew Beckett, but having a recognizable presence such as his was a major aide in making people comfortable with this film.

            Just as important, if not more so, is the audience’s conduit into the film, here played by Denzel Washington.  As a prejudiced man himself, Washington’s Joe Miller is Andrew’s reluctant lawyer, who’s as uncomfortable around Beckett as the audience is.  Washington is the only character who undergoes any major changes, and it’s his journey towards understanding and acceptance that Demme steers the audience towards.

            So, we have a film perfectly set up for its time.  It did what was necessary to impart a message of tolerance to an unwilling audience, which is a wholly admirable undertaking, but the shortcuts it took to get there become blatantly obvious to those of us coming at it from a different perspective.  The time the movie takes to hit you over the head with just how decent Andrew is becomes ponderous.  The prejudiced bosses he’s suing are so evil they may as well pass their time twirling their mustaches, and Miller’s path to acceptance is filled with enough heavy-handed road markers to direct an incoming jetliner.  The whole thing is just so one note that it’s difficult to get whole-heartedly behind it.  If you’re like me, you’ll find yourself nodding along to the film’s message, thinking ‘well duh that’s wrong.’

            I can’t say I was particularly entertained by this film, but it’s pleasant and might still be useful in persuading stragglers to let go of their prejudices.  I can’t imagine anyone whose compassion wouldn’t eke out after seeing Hank’s Kaposi’s sarcoma riddled body.

            Other Notes:

Ø  To write this review, I relied heavily on A Timeline of AIDS found at http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

Ø  The excellent makeup work got across the progression of Andrew’s illness very well.

Ø  I tried not to explain this movie to you like you were a four-year-old.

No Good Deed

Released:  September 12^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Screen Gems

Starring:  Idris Elba, Taraji P. Henson

Directed by:  Sam Miller

Written by:  Aimée Lagos

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Elba and Henson, gets alarmed when press screenings are cancelled

1.5 of 10

            It’s a good bet that a film that isn’t screened for critics will be bad.  If the screenings are scheduled, then abruptly cancelled?  Forget it; it’s sure to be terrible.  If the film’s been sitting in the can for a year for no good reason?  Don’t even bother going.  And yet No Good Deed, which checks off each of the above warnings, has gathered enough of an audience to come out of its opening weekend at #1, ending Guardians of the Galaxy’s month-long run.

            There is, in fact, two good reasons for the optimism surrounding this film.  Its leads, Idris Elba and Taraji P. Henson, are proven talents, each with a long list of credits to their names.  They’ve both been unable to string together enough quality work to become true superstars, but anyone who’s followed television or movies for the past 15 years will know their capabilities.  The prospect of the two of them sharing a film, bouncing their talents off of each other, is truly exciting, so I understand people taking a chance on this one.  Unfortunately, the material is so bad that even they get sucked down with it.

            Henson plays Terri, a stay-at-home mom but former District Attorney specializing in violence against women cases, who inexplicably lets a large, mysterious man into her house while she is home alone with her two young children.  Have you picked up on the character inconsistencies yet?  Terri’s supposed to be a very smart woman, intimately familiar with how bad situations go down, and yet she invites the man with a gash on his forehead, whom she found rummaging around in her flower pot, into her home.  That’s just one in a long line of incredibly stupid things these characters must do to allow this movie to exist.

            Obviously, Elba plays Colin, the flower rummager, whom we’ve already seen kill three people.  He’s also been implicated in six other murders, and has been dramatically labeled a malignant narcissist at his parole hearing.  Now, that’s not a recognized psychological disorder by the DSM, but I guess that parole board member reads Wikipedia instead of reputable sources.  Point is, the movie’s established Colin as a bad dude, and yet what follows is a long sequence in which the film tries to build tension with a will-he-won’t-he hurt her scenario (spoiler:  he does).  When the film finally gets done dragging its feet and unleashes crazy Colin on the family, we’ve already burned half of the film’s short 84 minute runtime.

            But hey, twenty minutes of Elba and Henson playing cat-and-mouse with each other could have been fun.  They’re definitely two actors I’m willing to watch sit in a room and verbally spar with each other, but this film isn’t even smart enough to let them do that.  Instead, we get a bunch of ominous music, imminent storm references, and lighting so dark it’s sometimes difficult to make out Elba and Henson’s faces.  It’s a classic case of not trusting your actors to tell the story, which in this case is silly, but without the sequence this film would be too short to be a feature.  I guess the filmmakers think that’s enough of a reason for it to exist?

            So we finally arrive at the point everyone knew was coming:  Colin showing his true colors.  Those colors are murderous, mind you, and still he inexplicably doesn’t immediately kill Terri.  Why?  No reason is ever given.  None whatsoever.  The only reason I can surmise is that there wouldn’t be a film if he did, because everything we’ve learned about his character tells me that he would have killed her many times over.  This inexplicable development does give the film a certain unpredictability, but since it’s never explained it just ends up being frustrating instead of entertaining.

            According to the established characters, this film should have been about twenty minutes long.  Colin should have showed up at the house, Terri should have refused to let him in, and Colin should have kicked the door down and killed her.  Everything else that happens, which is most of the film, makes zero sense.  No Good Deed is one of those films that simply shouldn’t exist, and yet inexplicably does.

            Can we all agree to give Elba and Henson a quality film to work on together?  I’d still like to see that.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Guess who else is dumb?  Terri’s friend.  Really, really dumb.

Ø  When I move, I always take boxes out of the moving van, stack them in the yard, and then move them into the house.

Ø  This film is really stab-happy.

TIFF 2014 Part 2

Nobody asked for it, but here’s mini-reviews of the last 10 films I saw at TIFF.  At the end is my list of must-see films and those that are well worth your time.

____________________________________________________

Two Days, One Night

            Directed by Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne and staring Marion Cotillard, I had high hopes going into Two Days, One Night.  I knew it was about a woman who must convince her coworkers to keep her job at the expense of everyone’s bonus, but what I didn’t realize was that the battle would be as much against the woman’s own depression as her coworkers.  Unfortunately for the film, I’ve been helping someone close to me battle their own depression, and this trip was supposed to be a much-needed break from all that.  So, I wasn’t into this film, and it’s entirely not the film’s fault.

            Looking at the film as objectively as I can, it is effective in getting us behind Cotillard’s Sandra.  She seeks out each coworker individually, and although the conversations threaten to become repetitive, you slowly begin to notice the subtle changes in each interaction.  Through this, you’re able to track Sandra’s precarious mental state, which is actually portrayed rather subtly.  While that’s a nice change-up from the more grandiose depictions of the illness, but it never rang true to me.  It was all just a bit too neat for my taste.

____________________________________________________

Far From Men

            I’ve only read one book by Albert Camus (The Stranger), but that was enough to clue me in that this movie, based off a Camus short story, would be a challenging piece of work.  It didn’t fail me, delivering a stubbornly complex depiction of two men caught up in the Algerian War.  Touching on issues of ethnic misunderstanding and the far-reaching effects of war, Far From Men gives rich material to its leading duo, played spot-on by Viggo Mortensen and Reda Kateb.  As is common with movies that expand upon short stories, there is some fat that could be chewed off, but as a whole the film plays out as a delicately balanced slow burn.  As important as its script or its actors is its cinematography, used here to convey the emotional lives of the two reticent men.  Algeria appears rough, unforgiving, and undeniably beautiful in this elegantly shot, thought provoking piece.

____________________________________________________

Mommy

            A winner of the Special Jury Prize at Cannes, Mommy is filled with daring choices, from the 1:1 screen ratio, the prominent use of familiar pop songs, and the introduction of a world exactly like our own, only with one small legal change.  That last one might not seem very daring, but when you realize how subtly it changes the world around these particular characters, the fact that the legal change is only explained in the beginning and never mentioned again is extraordinary.  In fact, it’s remarkable how much of the film revolves around things unsaid when you take into account the verbosity of two of its leads.  The mother-son pair at the center of Mommy are rough, unrefined people, although the son proves to be the more volatile of the two.  Their neighbor, for reasons only vaguely stated but emotionally understood, becomes enmeshed in their family, and the two women struggle together to correct the path of the troubled son.  The film doesn’t demonize any of the characters, no matter how many wrong turns they make, and lovingly shows the way that families can be made and broken.  This was the only film I’ve seen all year to achieve what Roger Ebert called elevation, to the tune of Oasis’s growling Wonderwall.  Unfortunately, this film just misses all-time greatness with an ending that seems unsure of when to stop.

Ø  Roger Ebert’s blog on elevation can be found at http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/i-feel-good-i-knew-that-i-would

____________________________________________________

Bang Bang Baby

            Bang Bang Baby is your average 1960s sci-fi musical, by which I mean, it’s one of the most original movies I’ve ever seen.  At first, it’s seemingly about a saccharine young woman named Stepphy in small-town Canada who dreams of becoming a singer.  Then a mysterious purple fog is released, and while the townsfolk mutate around her, Stepphy’s idol miraculously gets stuck at her home and falls in love with her.  And you caught that this is all a musical, right?  Stylized to the max, the film is intentionally unrealistic, bathing the actors in light and surrounding them with lush production designs that rival anything seen in Willy Wonka’s factory.  But don’t let the film fool you; there’s a darkness underlying everything, and if the ending means what I think it does, then this is an extraordinarily sad story.  The style was too much for my taste, but I was certainly never bored by this one.

____________________________________________________

Tales of the Grim Sleeper

            If you’re like me, then you’ve never heard of the Grim Sleeper before, but fear not, the film gives an overview of the serial killer’s crimes.  Okay, maybe fear some, but not for this film.  Made by accomplished documentarian Nick Broomfield, Tales of the Grim Sleeper explores the streets of south central LA, delving into how this killer was able to remain active for 25 years.  Broomfield and his team talk with friends and family of the accused, neighbors, community activists, and eventually land in the care of a former prostitute named Pam, whose big personality and street connections make the investigation bound along quickly.  Given the material, this a remarkably funny film (thanks Pam), and the methods it uses to lay out its findings are beyond reproach.  Unfortunately, the answers they find are nothing new, and even though their effects are despicable, it leaves the film lacking a punch.

____________________________________________________

Revenge of the Green Dragons

            Based on the true story of a 1980’s Chinese street gang, Revenge of the Green Dragons fits comfortably next to every other gangster movie you’ve ever seen.  A young kid is lured into the gang’s web, grows up in its twisted world, and comes to discover how treacherous and unromantic the life really is.  Dragons is entirely competent:  well-filmed, well-acted, etc. This makes it even more disappointing that the filmmakers didn’t reach for more.  Frankly, I’m tired of these violent, troubled men movies.  There’s a million of them, with more being made every day, so settling for the basics isn’t going to impress me.  But hey, Harry Shum Jr. from Glee does shoot people.  Didn’t see that coming.

___________________________________________________

Elephant Song

            Adapting a play can be treacherous, what with the small settings, limited number of actors, and the generally wordy screenplays.  Any small mistake can become amplified, as they have nowhere to hide.  Director Charles Binamé expertly handles these complications, turning in a tense cat-and-mouse game between a mentally ill but highly intelligent young man and the psychiatric staff trying to discover the whereabouts of a missing colleague.  The young man clearly knows something, but he’d rather wheedle away at the vulnerable staff than give up the goods.  The central trio, played by Xavier Dolan, Bruce Greenwood, and Catherine Keener, are well-cast, more than capable of handling the loaded dialogue they must quickly spit out.  Kudos also to the cinematography, which employs inventive framing to keep the visuals as interesting as the story.

___________________________________________________

The Voices

            Everyone’s favorite director/graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi worked from someone else’s material for the first time in The Voices, a dark, weirdly funny story that will appeal to those who enjoyed 2012’s Cabin in the Woods.  Ryan Reynolds stars as Jerry, a sweet but troubled man who has conversations with his cat Mr. Whiskers, his dog Bosco, and the human heads he keeps stored in the fridge.  Much credit has to go to screenwriter Michael R. Perry, who manages to make Jerry likable despite his homicidal streak.  With much of the story being filtered through Jerry’s skewed perception, Satrapi is able to play with the visuals, jumping between what Jerry sees and the reality of his situation to hilarious effect.  This is an empathetic film, but first and foremost it’s insanely funny.  My major take-away from it:  never trust Mr. Whiskers.

___________________________________________________

Laggies

            Another director doing a bit of a change-up is Lynn Shelton, whose films are known for being highly improvised, but here worked with a set script.  Starring Kiera Knightly as Megan, Laggies is about a young adult who never quite grew up.  Sure, she has a master’s degree, but she’s spinning a sign outside her father’s business for money and clearly lagging behind her friends maturity-wise.  She ends up hanging out with a group of teenagers led by Chloë Grace Moretz, which inadvertently jumpstarts Megan’s life.  The premise sounds like something out of the Judd Apatow machine, but that version would have starred a man and been filled with poop jokes.  Instead, Shelton and writer Andrea Seigel create a feel-good, almost fairy tale world, gifting their main character with the space she needs to grow.  Knightly, Moretz, and co-star Sam Rockwell keep you invested in the slightly silly story, and there’s enough good-natured humor peppered in to leave you smiling as you leave the theater.

___________________________________________________

The Wanted 18

            Here’s an imperfect but charmingly odd documentary.  At only 75 minutes, The Wanted 18 is a brisk little story of the First Palestinian Intifada, an unarmed civilian insurgency in Israel during the late 80’s and early 90’s.  And who are the titular wanted 18?  Cows, of course.  You see, the activists were trying to become self-sufficient, and brought in 18 cows to start producing their own milk.  This led to the cows being targeted by the Israeli military, a weird footnote in an otherwise dreary conflict.  Told using interviews, recreations, and stop-motion animation, the film starts out embracing its oddity but ends up losing its sense of humor under the weight of it’s serious backdrop.  I wish it had kept the lighter tone, because as the film becomes more and more serious, it falls back on talking heads and visually uninteresting storytelling. 

 ___________________________________________________

My must-sees from the festival:  Mommy, The Voices, Love & Mercy, The Keeping Room

Well worth your time:  Tour de Force, Cake, Far From Men, Laggies, Elephant Song, Tales of the Grim Sleeper, Life in a Fishbowl

TIFF 2014 Part 1

Nobody asked for it, but here's mini-reviews of 8 of the films I saw at TIFF.  The other 9 will follow later today.

____________________________________________________

Stories of Our Lives

            A documentary consisting of 4 thematically intertwined shorts, Stories of Our Lives delves into the issues facing the LGBTQ community in the heavily prejudiced country of Kenya.  The stories themselves vary in quality, with the first pair being noticeably lesser than the latter.  The two shorts that work are complex and challenging, yet familiar enough for audiences everywhere to connect to them.  That’s one of the brilliant things about this piece; the observation that stories of discrimination are universal and often play out in similar ways no matter the setting.  Occasionally trite dialogue and odd editing choices gives away that the film was made by first-timers, but they also show a clear sense of what makes a story connect to an audience.  It’s hard not be affected by this one.

Ø  The group that made this film is called The Nest, and it’s possible that the Kenyan government will take action against them for making the film.  Please support brave people such as The Nest that fight for a good cause.  Their website is www.becauselifeisart.org

 ____________________________________________________

Life in a Fishbowl

            From Iceland comes Life in a Fishbowl, a multi-narrative drama that sprawls out with all the messiness of real life.  The cinematography captures a dim, moist vision of Iceland where everyone has fallen victim to the country’s economic struggles in one way or another.  This economic commentary will likely go over the head of non-native viewers (myself included), but the overall dark tone should clue everyone in that the three main characters aren’t headed for any happy endings.  Those familiar with the multi-narrative approach will see the story’s twists coming, which lessens the ending’s punch, but the three superb central performances will keep you engaged throughout.  With every other aspect of the film being carried out at such a high level, it’s well worth your time to search this one out.

____________________________________________________

Love & Mercy

            Love and Mercy tells the story of Beach Boy Brian Wilson in two parts:  one while he was writing the acclaimed album Pet Sounds and the other years later during a low point in Wilson’s struggles with drugs and mental illness.  Now, I enjoyed hearing the Beach Boy’s big hits, but what thrilled me was the way they were used in the film.  There’s no musical breaks or big, showy numbers that stop the film in its tracks.  Instead, director Bill Pohlad uses them as they would have appeared in Wilson’s life, and since Wilson was the primary writer they fit effortlessly into his narrative.  Paul Dano is great at showing Wilson’s obsession and descent while writing Pet Sounds, but John Cusack and Elizabeth Banks as the older Wilson and his love interest steal the show.  They’re the emotional core of this film, and despite some narrative missteps in their story, they manage to make you truly care.

____________________________________________________

The Theory of Everything

            Based on the book by Stephen Hawking’s longtime wife, The Theory of Everything focuses on the couple’s personal lives from their first meeting (before Hawking’s diagnosis of ALS) until close to present day.  Eddie Redmayne gives a great performance as Stephen, capturing the physicality of Hawking’s disease and imbuing him with a vivacious personality.   Unfortunately, the film fails to match his performance, skimming the surface of what appears to be an emotionally rich and complex relationship.  With such thin material, the other actors competently roll along beside Redmayne, never shining nor drowning.  The pleasing cinematography and soft lighting leads me to believe that the filmmakers wanted to make a feel-good story, but in doing so I’m afraid they left the meat out.

____________________________________________________

Tour de Force

            On the other end of the emotional spectrum, Tour de Force aggressively wants you to feel pain, to contemplate death, and to consider the possibility that it was made by a monster that feeds on human tears.  This German film is about a group of long-time friends going on a bike trip that culminates in one member’s assisted suicide.  Your personal beliefs on assisted suicide may put you off of this film, but if you go with it you’ll find a tender portrait of friendship that doesn’t settle for easy answers.  Each character is wonderfully drawn and portrayed, and not all of it is gloom and doom.  Those moments of normalcy serve to emphasize what they are about to lose, not only a friend, lover, brother, etc., but the ability to carry out their traditions unimpeded.  It’s a tear-jerker, no doubt, and although the ending is a bit too drawn out, it’s undeniably affecting.

____________________________________________________

Backcountry

            And now we come to the one stinker of the group.  Backcountry sets out to be a thriller about a couple going on a doomed backpacking trip.  That it’s doomed isn’t a spoiler, the film clues you in early using a variety of tired clichés (an old guy gives them an ominous warning, they refuse a map, etc.).  The film sticks close to formula and cliché, which can make for a forgivably fun thriller if executed well, but jerky editing and intentionally blurry camerawork muddles the action sequences, robbing them of any thrill.  It’s too bad this wasn’t shot in a more coherent way; the lead actors (Missy Peregrym and Jeff Roop) seem game, and there’s one breakdown scene between the pair that is well written and acted.  If the filmmakers had leaned on their actors more and worked out a few holes in the story this could have been fun, but as is it doesn’t build to anything particularly thrilling.

____________________________________________________

Cake

            A film that surprisingly doesn’t have a distribution deal yet, Cake is about a woman suffering from chronic pain who’s stuck somewhere between surviving and moving on.  An acerbic tone keeps the film away from pure melodrama, and the excellent cast (Jennifer Aniston, Adriana Barraza, Anna Kendrick, and Sam Worthington) walk the comedy-drama tightrope with subtle skill.  It would have been easy for this movie to go big and flashy, but it refreshingly remains rooted to the humane story it’s telling.  The ending is feel-good, which may make some dismiss it, but the journey it takes is anything but easy.  Plus, you get to see Kendrick say the c-word.  Who wouldn’t enjoy that?

____________________________________________________

The Keeping Room

            The American Civil War is a time period that has been told almost exclusively from the male perspective, and most often has centered on Northerners (winners do write history), so to see a story about southern women enduring the brutality of the war’s end is rather surprising.  What makes it satisfying, and a truly excellent film, is how sharp the storytelling is.  Writer Julia Hart uses the small story of three women, two sisters (Brit Marling and Hailee Steinfeld) and their young slave (Muna Otaru), to capture the massive effects the war had on the southern way of life, but never hits you over the head with its larger themes.  Instead, it tells its story almost as a home-invasion thriller, with a slow-burning sense of dread filling every ounce of the run time.  Bleak, tense, and at times difficult to watch, The Keeping Room isn’t fun, but you’ll be happy that you watched it.

Ø  What could possibly be a better metaphor of the war from the southern perspective than a home invasion?