Amélie

Released:  November 2^nd, 2001

Rated:  R

Distributor:  Miramax

Starring:  Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Yolande Moreau

Directed by:  Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Written by:  Guillaume Laurant, Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Personal Bias Alert:  not a big fan of bright colors, likes movies with lots of substance

5 of 10

            Whimsy will never work for everyone.  There will always be the curmudgeons, the ones sitting in the back of the theater with their arms crossed and a dull, mildly irritated look affixed to their face.  Whimsy is a bold stylistic choice, and those are naturally divisive.  As one of those scowling curmudgeons, let me tell you that we don’t hate happiness or loathe you your fancy; we simply aren’t entertained by it.  ‘Do something else,’ we’re praying.  ‘Do something to make me care.’  But alas, whimsy is such a powerful force that it plasters everything, dulling even the biting and intelligent edges of a piece.

            No one will argue that Amélie isn’t filled with whimsy.  It wears its bright colors and clean Parisian streets with pride, giving its equally unrealistic heroine a world as pristinely fantastic to explore as anything found within a wardrobe.  Not that it doesn’t have its sexual edges, but when even the porn stores are neat and organized, you know you’ve traveled far from the real world.  There is an undeniable amount of joy to take from these settings.  They’re genuinely beautiful, rendered and captured with a loving care that’s impossible to miss.  It’s comforting to think of the world like this, as a place where nothing can go too wrong, but that same comfort saps the energy from every potential conflict.

            There is, in fact, several potential conflicts rolling around in this film.  Amélie has taken it upon herself to make others happier, and in searching out people’s needs, she often cuts to the heart of their problems.  These interactions require her to open up, something the painfully shy Amélie is hesitant to do, but in this sugar-coated world, when you help others, others help you.  It’s a nice thought, that you reap what you sow, but it’s numbing how long Amélie spends on these little tasks.  Frankly, in this world, you know everything’s going to work out, so watching the characters drag their feet does little more than drag out the runtime of the film.  There’s so much fluff, which I’m sure is delightful if you enjoy wallowing in a feel-good piece, but if you’re craving more substance, this film won’t even give you something solid enough to bang your head against.

            The performers are game, particularly the lead, Audrey Tautou.  She prances about, doing much of her job with well-controlled body language and facial expressions.  There’s a fanciful scene, one that actually worked for me, where a thought bubble of some imagined happy event plays out next to a close-up of her face.  The little smiles that flit across her face are darling, drawing you in while saying much about her character.  Much of the movie rests squarely on her shoulders, and she carries the load with the lightest of touches.

            There is one remarkably poor turn, something that can’t be written off as just not to my taste.  It’s a subplot where Amélie is trying to correct the behavior of a nasty man from the corner grocery store.  Only instead of doing anything that would actually help him, she simply torments him, breaking into his apartment and doing nastier things to him than he does to anyone else.  It’s an odd series of events because it’s so out of place.  Nothing good comes from his torture, no moment of happiness or redemption except the brief satisfaction the audience gets by seeing his comeuppance.  The vindictiveness is out of place not only for the character, for the film as a whole.

            Mostly, though, there’s few solid faults to find in Amélie.  It’s remarkably well made, and the story is sweet, if a bit overlong.  If you buy into the style, if that sort of thing sparks your fancy and makes you feel all warm and bubbly inside, then you’re sure to love this film.  If you don’t care for what this film is cooking, then you’ll likely to find this a boring romp like I did.

            Other Notes: 

Ø  This is very Wes Andersony in its use of color, framing, and character introduction.

Ø  That artichoke line is very clever:  “At least you’ll never be a vegetable – even artichokes have hearts."

Ø  I didn’t connect much to this movie, but the weird thing is, I’m a lot like Amélie.

The Duff

Released:  February 20^th, 2015

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Lionsgate

Starring:  Mae Whitman, Robbie Amell, Bella Thorne, Allison Janney, Ken Jeong

Directed by:  Ari Sandel

Written by:  Josh A. Cagan

Personal Bias Alert:  not a big Mae Whitman fan, this was a book?

3.8 of 10

            A little advice:  don’t begin your movie by referencing an infinitely better one.  That’s exactly what The Duff does, using a famous line from The Breakfast Club to set up that old high school cliques are gone and have been replaced by new, equally hurtful labels.  This may be true (I’m not a high schooler, so what do I know), but the problem with bringing up a movie like The Breakfast Club, one that uses a simplistic premise to explore deep-rooted problems, is that it primes the audience for a smart, skewering look at high school dynamics.  So if your movie isn’t that, which The Duff certainly isn’t, then you’re only priming your audience for a letdown.

            What I can’t figure out is if The Duff realizes that it isn’t smart.  It’s a basic story:  girl finds out what others think of her, girl dislikes the label, girl enlists the help of hot neighbor boy to teach her how to be cool…  If you can’t figure out the rest, then you haven’t seen many high school movies.  Now, a basic plot doesn’t sink a movie, but you have to do something intelligent with the script to make up for it.  The Duff, it seems, doesn’t realize that.  Everything is reductive, from its vapid version of high school to its banal final lesson.  Nearly every aspect of this film can be traced back to other, better movies, making you wonder if writer Josh A. Cagan was even trying for something original.

            There’s a barometer I use for high school movies, one that almost always weeds out the good from the bad, that The Duff fails spectacularly.  I refer to it as the ‘Schoolmate Agency’ test.  Basically, do the students lingering around in the background have their own things to do or are they constantly reacting to whatever the main characters are up to?  Good movies like Mean Girls, Juno, or The Perks of Being a Wallflower understand that these characters have their own group of friends and wouldn’t spend much time tormenting or caring about the main character’s problems.  Bad movies like The Duff have shots of the entire student body stopping their life to ridicule or applaud whatever has happened to the main character.  The former gives the film an air of familiarity, because that’s how high school actually is.  The latter makes it seem like we’re in fairytale land, which occasionally is used for great humor (see Romy and Michelle’s High School Reunion) but is most often ignored by the filmmakers.  At best, this sheen is merely annoying.  At worst, it’s a fatal blow, one that’s especially deadly to a movie that’s pretending to be smart.

            All those failures being said, there are a few meager moments of respite in this film, and most of it comes from the two leads.  Mae Whitman as the titular Duff Bianca and Robbie Amell as Wes, her attractive but dumb neighbor, kinda nail their parts.  They’re likable, funny, and have great chemistry.  If you’ve been paying attention to the rest of my review, then you’ll be able to guess that they aren’t given much depth, but they commit to what they have and make you want to smile along with them.  And that’s coming from someone who hasn’t particularly cared for Mae Whitman in the past.

            The bottom line is that this is a dumb movie.  The characters are dumb, their conflicts are dumb, and the resolution is dumb.  Yes, some of the jokes of funny, but everything else is a dull failure.  If you want jokes, go watch a stand-up routine.  You’ll get more laughs for your buck.

            Other Notes:

Ø  This movie constantly contradicts itself.  Bianca claims that Wes is too ashamed to talk to her in school despite the fact that he constantly instigates conversations with her at school.  It claims that old school cliques á la The Breakfast Club now longer exists, then points out the cliques in a montage of Duff identifications.  The list goes agonizingly on.

Ø  Apparently, the book this is based on has a totally different plot.  I’m wondering if it is better or worse than the movie.

Ø  That was the tamest Urban Dictionary entry I’ve ever seen.

Oscar Predictions 2015

Here’s my breakdown on who I think will take home the major awards on Sunday and who I wish would walk away with the statue.  My breakdown and individual thoughts on the nominees can be found in my Oscar Nominations 2015 post.

Last year I got 20 of the 24 categories correct, missing Original Screenplay, Foreign Language, Animated Short, and Live Action Short.

Picture

Nominees:  American Sniper, Birdman, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Selma, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash

Winner:  Birdman

Doesn’t deserve the nom:  The Theory of Everything

I wish would win:  Nightcrawler

I haven’t seen:  The Grand Budapest Hotel

Thoughts:  It’s a two horse race again this year between Birdman and Boyhood.  Boyhood has lost momentum, and the guilds (which includes people who actually vote for the Oscars) have mostly gone Birdman.  Besides, a film about the movie business and the battle between art and commerce plays well to movie people.

Director

Nominees:  Alejandro G. Iñárritu for Birdman, Richard Linklater for Boyhood, Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher, Wes Anderson for The Grand Budapest Hotel, Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game

Winner:  Alejandro G. Iñárritu

I wish would win:  Xavier Dolan for Mommy

Thoughts:  This is another tight race between Iñárritu for Birdman and Linklater for Boyhood.  However, DGA went Iñárritu, and they’ve agreed with the Oscars 60 of 67 times.

Lead Actor

Nominees:  Steve Carell for Foxcatcher, Bradley Cooper for American Sniper, Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game, Michael Keaton for Birdman, Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything

Winner:  Eddie Redmayne

I wish would win:  Jake Gyllenhaal for Nightcrawler or Chadwick Boseman for Get on Up

Thoughts:  Somehow Birdman’s rise in Picture and Director has coincided with Keaton’s slip in Lead Actor.  Or it could be that we were all underestimating the very good performance by Redmayne.

Lead Actress

Nominees:  Marion Cotillard for Two Days, One Night; Felicity Jones for The Theory of Everything; Julianne Moore for Still Alice; Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl; Reese Witherspoon for Wild

Winner:  Julianne Moore

Doesn’t deserve the nom:  Rosamund Pike (it’s a poorly written role) and Felicity Jones (she has nothing to do)

I wish would win:  Anne Dorval for Mommy

Thoughts:  It’s a lifetime achievement award for Julianne Moore, but she is good in Still Alice.

Supporting Actor

Nominees:  Robert Duvall for The Judge, Ethan Hawke for Boyhood, Edward Norton for Birdman, Mark Ruffalo for Foxcatcher, J.K. Simmons for Whiplash

Winner:  J.K. Simmons

I wish would win:  Edward Norton

I haven’t seen:  Robert Duvall

Thoughts:  Why Simmons is such a lock is a bit of a mystery to me.  I liked Whiplash but not nearly as much as everyone else seems to, and Simmons was a weak point to me.  He was all nastiness and no substance.  The role is written that way, but it’s not like we haven’t seen Simmons yell before.

Supporting Actress

Nominees:  Patricia Arquette for Boyhood, Laura Dern for Wild, Keira Knightley for The Imitation Game, Emma Stone for Birdman, Meryl Streep for Into the Woods

Winner:  Patricia Arquette

Doesn’t deserve the nom:  Laura Dern, Keira Knightley, Emma Stone, Meryl Streep (all didn’t have much to do)

I wish would win:  Suzanne Clément for Mommy

Thoughts:  Arquette’s taking the weakest category, even though she should be in Lead Actress.  I don’t care for Arquette in general, so her performance didn’t work for me.  Saying that, it’s hard to find enough deserving nominees to round out this category.  I’d like to see Agata Kulesza in there for Ida and Jessica Chastain for A Most Violent Year, but beyond that you’re reaching.

Adapted Screenplay

Nominees:  American Sniper, The Imitation Game, Inherent Vice, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash

Winner:  The Imitation Game

Doesn’t deserve the nom:  Inherent Vice (poor balance between exposition and entertainment), The Theory of Everything (Mawkish and without substance)

I wish would win:  Edge of Tomorrow

Thoughts:  This is the toughest one to pick.  I think it comes down to Imitation Game or American Sniper, but I could see scenarios where anything but Inherent Vice wins.  WGA went Imitation Game.  When in doubt, go with the guilds.

Original Screenplay

Nominees:  Birdman, Boyhood, Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler

Winner:  The Grand Budapest Hotel

I wish would win:  Nymphomaniac Vol. 1 (how many people could write that?)

I haven’t seen:  The Grand Budapest Hotel

Thoughts:  This seems like the place to reward the well-liked Grand Budapest Hotel.  It would be awesome if Nightcrawler could pull off an out-of-nowhere upset, though.

Once Upon a Time in the West

Released:  May 28^th, 1969

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Paramount Pictures

Starring:  Claudia Cardinale, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards, Charles Bronson

Directed by:  Sergio Leone

Written by:  Sergio Leone, Sergio Donati

Personal Bias Alert:  the only Sergio Leone film I’ve seen, not a big fan of westerns

7.2 of 10

            Once Upon a Time in the West is a film made quite literally out of space and time.  Writer/director Sergio Leone was fascinated with telling American stories, most notably the spaghetti westerns that Once Upon a Time is a part of, despite being born, raised, and dying in Italy.  Time-wise, the film was made long after the death of the west, but the more notable anomaly is the film’s very modern feel.  Its twisting story could easily fit in with the ‘00s trend of distinct but interlocking narratives, and certainly its large scope (and subsequently long run time) is more palatable in modern Hollywood than it was in the ‘60s.  And yet there was the film, released in the US in ’69 to an underwhelming box office and critical response, only to have its reputation grow as cinema caught up to its particular style.

            The story is loosely wrapped around the expansion of the railroad into the American west, specifically a fictional town called Flagstone.  As it is often romanticized, the railroad is bringing culture and stability to the area, but not before one last death rattle from the rough and lawless men that it continues to chase west.  You see, as society’s wealth moves closer, there’s opportunities for a quick buck, attracting several people willing to jockey for the payday.  Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti) is the railroad tycoon trying to buy his way through the town.  Frank (Henry Fonda) is his hired muscle who’s eyeing the inevitable demise of his ill employer.  Local gang leader Cheyenne (Jason Robards) is looped into the fight and defends his turf and name with gusto.  What they’re all fight for is a crucial piece of land that is owned by the tough widower Jill (Claudia Cardinale).

            These are all rather straightforward battles, but lurking in the center of the mess is a quiet sharpshooter played by Charles Bronson.  While his motives are murky, he constantly inserts himself into the events at Flagstone, seemingly not caring who comes out on top.  His ambiguity and the constantly shifting alliances of all the players makes the film seem like a continuously expanding web, slowly trapping them all in a situation they seem unlikely to escape.  It’s a slow build, one that lets some of the early moments drag, but eventually you find yourself gritting your teeth in anticipation of the next twist.

            Epic is an apt way to describe Once Upon a Time in America, not only because of its expansive story, but also for the skill and breadth on display.  There’s wide shots here that would make modern filmmakers envious, with period extras and wagons filling the dirt road of the town and the barren desert expanding out into the farthest reaches of the frame.  It’s all rather beautiful in the way of rugged westerns, although this mastery shouldn’t surprise anyone considering Leone already had his Dollars Trilogy under his belt.

            Leone’s trademark shots, from the aforementioned wide shots to the tight holds on a character’s eyes, lends to the feeling of grandeur, but can also slow the film down.  Much of this is done to sit on a moment and let the tension build, but in an already long film this technique often slow things down too much.  A film needs to have a damn good reason to be this languid, and Once Upon a Time in the West lacks an emotional or intellectual payoff to justify the time spent.

            Still, you’re bound to find things you’ll like in Once Upon a Time in the West.  Leone certainly knows his way around a camera, and all the actors are effective as characters who play things close to the vest.  It’s too bad the story isn’t crisper, and that it’s many replicators have left it feeling so familiar.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I couldn’t place where I recognized Charles Bronson from.  Then I realized he was in a great episode of The Twilight Zone called Two. 

Ø  “How can you trust a man who wears a belt and suspenders?  The man can’t even trust his own pants.”

Ø  Jill is a rather progressive character for the time.

Fifty Shades of Grey

Released:  February 13^th, 2015

Rated:  R

Distributor:  Focus Features

Starring:  Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan

Directed by:  Sam Taylor-Johnson

Written by:  Kelly Marcel

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t read the book, expected it to be bad

1.5 of 10

            The worst thing your entertainment can be is boring.  Movies, television, books, magazines, and games all exist to fill our free time with relatively cheap and consistent ways to distract ourselves.  Really, keeping your attention is the lowest bar these things have to hit, so when a movie fails to do even that, it’s pretty much an abject failure.  Fifty Shades of Grey, meet abject failure.

             What makes the whole Fifty Shades debacle even more frustrating is that they weren’t trying for anything difficult.  The entire selling point is sex, particularly the BDSM-infused sexual awakening of a college student named Anastasia Steele.  This might be a good time to note that the film is based on Twilight fan-fiction, but the salacious premise and ridiculous character names makes it seem more like an adaptation of a porno.  The other main character?  Christian Grey, because he’s the experienced dominant, so of course he has to have an ironically wholesome sounding name.

            What minor defense I can muster for this film is that it is well made.  The $40 million budget certainly wasn’t wasted, as the set design, costumes, lighting, hell, even the cinematography is well done.  None of it was particularly impressive, but it’s all very solid.  Still, even a master at these things needs a story to make a satisfying movie.  Don’t believe anyone who tells you that ‘so-and-so is so great I would watch his/her film if it was a two hour shot of a boot.’  If anyone says that to you, have them sit down and watch Fifty Shades of Grey.  They will change their mind.

            The failure of this film can be tracked back to an incident early in the writing process when Kelly Marcel turned in the first draft of what she assumed would be an NC-17 film.  Universal Studios then shot the film’s fatal blow, giving feedback that Fifty Shades must get an R-rating.  An R-rated, mainstream film is entirely the wrong medium for this material.  With the MPAA’s restrictive guidelines on sex, filmmakers are already wary about how they show traditional sex and are pretty much banned from showing anything that strays from the norm if they want to stay in R territory.  With the backing of Universal, one of the six studios that are members of and fund the MPAA, they were able to slide in more than I was expecting, but even then it’s only the tamest of BDSM acts.  Even worse, the sex scenes are barely able to start.  They’re cut so short that the scenes never feel all that sexy and barely register in the grand, 2+ hours that this film takes from your life. 

            The rest of the ‘plot,’ which everyone knows was just filler in the books, is some of the dullest, most déjà vu inducing sequences I’ve ever seen slapped together.  The romance between Anastasia and Christian (feel free to chuckle again at their names) starts and continues without reason or ounce of chemistry.  Their conversations are, without variation, about how Christian wants to go further and Anastasia isn’t ready.  The amount of time spent on this same conversation, in which they’re barely able to reference the actual acts they’re talking about, is pretty much the embodiment of the Charlie Kaufman line “Constantly talking isn’t necessarily communicating.”  In fact, I take that back.  The constant talking in this film is definitely not communicating.

            There’s many more things I could say about this film, like how troubling it’s judgmental stance on BDSM and untraditional sex acts are, how revolting it’s dialogue is, and how it utterly lacks a climax (pun completely intended), but I’m going to let it lie.  I’ve already given this film far more of my time than it deserves.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Director Sam Taylor-Johnson either had never seen The Fall or was intentionally referencing it in the opening shots of Jamie Dornan running.

Ø  For anyone who’s sad that the tampon incident from the book wasn’t filmed, here’s a link to a poem you might like.  Warning, it’s graphic.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRWkIZ9p3o

Ø  My favorite lines are the ones that were intentionally bad:

“It’s just behind this door."

“What is?”

“My playroom.”

“Like your Xbox and stuff?”

Muriel's Wedding

Released:  March 10^th, 1995

Rated:  R

Distributor:  Miramax

Starring:  Toni Collette, Rachel Griffiths, Bill Hunter, Jeanie Drynan

Directed by:  P.J. Hogan

Written by:  P.J. Hogan

Personal Bias Alert:  big Toni Collette fan, likes offbeat comedies

6 of 10

            ABBA’s songs are undoubtedly catchy, with standout hooks and a sound that is at once heavily rooted in ‘70s disco yet ultimately timeless.  It’s easy to see why these songs are known even to people my own age, who were born years after the band broke up.  And yet, it took two oddball Australian comedies to bring the Swedish pop group back into style. 

In one of those films, Muriel’s Wedding, the band is used as the obsession of an offbeat, uninspired young woman.  Their peppy highs bring the only joy in Muriel’s (Toni Collette) life, which she wiles away alone in her home or with a caddy group of girls that she isn’t really friends with.  It’s this early section of the film more than anything else that’s likely to turn people away.  It’s intentionally quirky in the laborious, mannered way that The Royal Tenenbaums and other Wes Anderson products always are.  At least with Anderson you know that things will take a turn for the melancholy, or at least give you something to care about under that uncanny sheen.  Writer/director P.J. Hogan has no such reputation to lean on, so when Muriel’s ambitions prove to be chiefly vapid things like marriage and a vague idea of success, it’s easy to grow worried about sitting through the next hour plus of the film.

But just when things really start to grate, Muriel steals some of her father’s cash and heads to an extravagant vacation spot.  There, instead of meeting up with her annoying-as-hell friends, she falls in with the wild and wonderful Rhonda (Rachel Griffiths).  It’s here that the film starts to take off, in no small part thanks to the one-two punch of Griffiths and Collette.  It’s little surprise that these two were the breakout stars as they handled the film’s tonal vacillations with the most grace.  They remembered more than anyone else that they must first turn in complete characters, then play around for the laughs.  Their willingness to go for it all, including a couple knockout renditions of ABBA’s Waterloo and Fernando, makes their friendship click quickly.

      Once this relationship takes off, the movie finds its groove, retaining some of the silly weirdness of the beginning while adding some weight and a surprising amount of character development.  As the stakes are raised, the audience finds out just who Muriel is, which turns out to be much nastier than her timid start would have you believe.  Her and Rhonda both have some deep-seeded fears, and as their worst nightmares creep up on both of them, their true personalities come out, even if they are peeking out from the behind the film’s glossy exterior.

      That glossy sheen, the one that’s thick and off-putting in the beginning of the film, never fully leaves.  Its forced oddity keeps the audience at arm’s length when you first see it, although I’m guessing that this is a film that grows on you after multiple viewings.  In the same way that television shows with offbeat senses of humor like Arrested Development and Parks and Recreation are best viewed in chunks, the comedy style of Muriel’s Wedding is probably more palatable the more familiar you are with its beats.

      On the first viewing, the film just barely lands thanks to great performances by Griffiths and Collette.  Those willing to give it more than one go may be difficult to find, but those that do will likely find that their affection for Muriel’s Wedding will only grow.  If nothing else, it certainly doesn’t adhere to the status quo, and any film that launched the underrated Toni Collette into my life is fine by me.

      Other Notes: 

Ø  Can we discuss how much Rachel Griffiths looks like Juliette Lewis?  And how I never guessed she was Australian after seeing all 5 seasons of Six Feet Under?

Ø  Seeing Toni Collette carrying 40 extra pounds is kind of shocking.  It really changes the way she moves.

Ø  It took me until the end of the movie to make out that their hometown is called Porpoise Spit.  Such a great name.

Jupiter Ascending

Released:  February 6^th, 2015

Rated:  PG-13

Distributor:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean

Directed by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

Written by:  Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski

Personal Bias Alert:  likes big sci-fi spectacles, likes the Wachowskis

4.5 of 10

            Excess.  Excess is the Wachowski’s enemy, and they often lose to it.  Their first film, Bound, is known for excess violence, Speed Racer for excess color, V for Vendetta for excess words, and The Matrix Reloaded for excess raves.  By that trend, Jupiter Ascending fits right into their catalogue, delivering what is a decent story that’s done in by an excess of metaphors, world building, and general oddities.

            Jupiter (Mila Kunis) is a young, broke immigrant who discovers that Earth is but a small part of a big, well-populated universe when a rich dynasty she unwittingly belongs to tries to kill her to protect their inheritance.  Saving her repeatedly throughout the film is Channing Tatum’s Caine, a wolf-human hybrid who spends much of the movie skating through the air on hover shoes.  Did you notice anything familiar in that summary?  You should, because for all its window dressings, Jupiter Ascending is a tale as old as time:  people fighting over wealth.  Structurally, it’s laid out like many a classic fantasy stories where the main character discovers and accepts their newfound power.  And the woman doesn’t really get to do much beside get saved by a man that she, of course, falls in love with.

            Even with the annoyingly stereotypical gender dynamics, it’s hard to argue that this plot setup doesn’t work.  It’s so familiar from the first installments of Star Wars, Harry Potter, and pretty much every sci-fi/fantasy series that it slides down like butter, easy and delicious.  The problem is, the Wachowski’s try to cram in so much half-baked commentary and needlessly complex world building that the whole thing becomes bloated and difficult to swallow.  Sidetracks that seem to exist only to discuss capitalism, predeterminism, and to cause general boredom leaves viewers wishing the Wachowski’s would just stick in the reel of Ferris Bueller’s advice on -isms and leave it at that.  It’d save everyone a lot of time and leave a leaner, more sure-fire plot.  Plus, we’d all get to watch some of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

            What you can’t knock the Wachowskis for is delivering a bad-looking film.  The trailer, which has been kicking around for months after a delayed release, promised fantastical new worlds, completely realized by two of the best visual directors working today.  Jupiter Ascending certainly delivers, giving viewers a planet-hopping extravaganza complete with strange outfits, spaceship dogfights, and a flying reptilian/dinosaur creature.  There’s actually many strange-looking aliens, again a bit too much, but at least the Wachowski’s aren’t short-changing the visual splendor.  It is, for this reason, worth seeing in theaters without the 3-D.  3-D will only muddle the image of some crisply rendered CGI, denying you the pleasure of the Wachowski’s meticulous eye for detail.

            Forty years from now, if I had to sit down with a young film buff and explain why the hell the Wachowski’s matter, I’d probably show them Jupiter Ascending.  It’s not their best nor their worst work, but it might be the most emblematic of what they do as filmmakers.  They take classic genre storylines, spruce them up with lavish, slightly over-the-top visuals, and are never dissuaded from telling stories exactly how they want them to be.  They brush off people like me who say their movies are too overdone, they invent new camera techniques to achieve the exact shots they want, and they never pander to Hollywood’s status quo.  It’s important to remember that Jupiter Ascending is a big-budget film that’s neither a sequel nor an adaptation, an oddity that few can get funding for in today’s Hollywood.  It takes people like the Wachowski’s, with a firm belief in what they do to make these kinds of films, even if their films are a bit of a mess, Hollywood would be a lesser place without them pushing us forward.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The performances were universally solid, even Eddie Redmayne.  He delivered exactly what was asked of him.

Ø  The romance between Kunis and Tatum wasn’t given the time to work.

Ø  SPOILER ALERT:  Sean Bean doesn’t die.

The Forgiveness of Blood

Released:  February 24^th, 2012

Rated:  NR

Distributor:  Sundance Selects

Starring:  Tristan Halilaj, Sindi Lacej, Refet Abazi, Erjon Mani

Directed by:  Joshua Marston

Written by:  Joshua Marston, Andamion Murataj

Personal Bias Alert:  likes movies that make you think, not at all familiar with Albania

7.7 of 10

            The Forgiveness of Blood is at once incredibly foreign and instantly understandable.  It’s a tale of changing times, where the old and the new grind against each other until, like the earth, one must give way.  My family long since uprooted from deeply held traditions, as have many families in America, but there is still a struggle between the generations, a sharp difference in how we react to our rapidly changing culture, that makes the crux of The Forgiveness of Blood universal.

            Writer/director Joshua Marston chose two talented rookie actors, Tristan Halilaj and Sindi Lacej, to play his teenage leads.  As the eldest siblings, much of the fallout lands on them when their father murders a man and incites a blood feud.  According to Albanian tradition, the family of the slain has the right to kill any man from the murderer’s family, so when their father flees, Halilaj’s Nik is forced to hide out in the family home.  Since they also have little money, Lacej’s Rudina must quit school and take up her father’s bread route to make ends meet.

            Needless to say, neither child is happy about these developments.  Both are forced into the situation by their elders but have markedly different reactions.  Nik takes the straight-up petulant route, recklessly acting out his frustrations while Rudina works slyly to resolve the feud.  There is a way to compromise with the other family, but it takes time, money, and some choking up of pride, which the elders seem reluctant to do.  The whole song and dance of the feud is ridiculous to the younger folks, and it’s the stubborn refusal of the elders to change a clearly broken system that drives Nik, Rudina, and all younger folks insane.

Adding to the fissure between Nik, Rudina, and their family is the encroaching influence of modern technology.   Computers and cell phones have crept into their lives, giving the teenagers access to a much broader world than their parents experienced.  The difference shows in almost everything about Nik and Rudina, from their ideas to their clothing, and is a constantly lurking disconnect as, for the first time, they begin interacting with people like adults.  It’s an interesting thing to tack on considering how full the film is with commentary on growing up, traditional gender roles, and societal traditions.  And yet, the film would’ve seemed lacking without it.  Technological changes seem to be messing with everything now, and to look at how rapidly its introduction can affect a culture says more about its influence than technologically saturated Western films like Men, Women, and Children possibly can.

The Forgiveness of Blood is a dense, rich story when you consider how much it’s talking about, but the plot itself is rather light.  The trick to making a film like this is finding some reason for it to be entertaining as well as intellectually stimulating.  It’s here that Marston comes up short, failing to imbue his film with enough narrative tension and pace to prevent you from checking your watch every now and then.  It’s never boring per say, but it never grabs you nor gives you a solid reason to latch onto these characters.  It’s too one-sided in its perspective, clearly favoring Nik and Rudina over the adults, to have much uncertainty about what’s right and wrong.

Even if you aren’t glued to your screen, The Forgiveness of Blood will certainly keep you thinking long after it concludes.  It’s thick with smart observations that its inexperienced cast handles with remarkable ease.  Marston obviously had a clear vision for this film and the wherewithal to pull it off; it’s just too bad he didn’t bother to make the piece entertaining as well.

Other Notes:

Ø  It’s nicely shot with excellent framing, but it the cinematography does nothing to convey the sense of isolation that is weighing down on Nik and his family.

Ø  It’s not unrated for anything nasty.  I’d say this is a PG-13, with mature tone and themes intended for teenagers and up.

Ø  Nik had it right.  Track jacket sleeves look good pushed up.