Memento (2000)

Released:  March 16, 2001

Rated:  R

Studio:  Newmarket Films

Staring:  Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano

Directed by:  Christopher Nolan 

Written by:  Christopher Nolan

Personal Bias Alert:  loves “The Prestige,” not a fan of flashy storytelling that bogs down a movie

6.7 of 10

            Reverse chronology is a technique not unheard of, but not commonly used in film.  Going into “Memento,” I was told that the film was structured using this technique.  However, I quickly found that that wasn’t entirely true.  A large portion of it is told backwards, but there are also several scenes that clearly play out in a linear fashion.  Now, considering that this wasn’t my first foray in reverse chronology, I wasn’t too thrown by this.  I had previously seen “Irreversible,” a film that goes all in and tells its story entirely in reverse chronology (it goes all in in many other ways, too, so I must give a big warning to those curious about the film).  Perhaps it was this familiarity, or just my familiarity with writer/director Christopher Nolan’s later work, that made “Memento” lack the punch it seems to have for other people.

            That being said, I was very confused by the nuts and bolts of the story.  I doubt anyone figures it out on their first viewing, and considering I’ve only just watched the film for the first time, I’m not 100% sure what happened, either.  I know that our main character, Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), is trying to track down the man who assaulted and killed his wife.  The complication is that Leonard has anterograde amnesia, which prevents him from converting short-term memory into long-term memory.  Essentially, he can’t remember anything after the attack on his wife.  There are two people currently helping him with his investigation, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).

            The nuts and bolts are intentionally hazy, and many facts that you thought you knew are brought into question by the end.  Nolan makes well thought-out films, so I’m sure you could watch this movie a few times and piece it all together, but I’m not sure it would really add anything.  “Memento” ends with some very clear statements on its themes, and those are the real points of the film.  It’s much like my argument that the question left hanging at the end of Nolan’s “Inception” doesn’t matter, that the significant thing is that Cobb gave up his obsession and chose to live his life.  Here, Leonard makes a clear choice as well.

            Unfortunately, where Nolan makes a cinematically elegant statement at the end of “Inception” and, in what is in my opinion his best work, “The Prestige,” here he ends with a bit of a clunk.  The exposition-heavy end scene isn’t masked by metaphor or strong visual storytelling.  Instead, we get some straightforward dialogue and some terribly on the nose narration.  This muted the sense of thrill that the ending should have evoked, and to me is the clearest sign that, at this point in his career, Nolan was still learning the finer points of his trade.

            Nolan’s decision to use the aforementioned chronology doesn’t make for a sleek film either.  It does get across how confusing life is for Leonard, but it also makes it distractingly difficult to follow what’s happening.  Lots of time has to be devoted to making the story semi-clear, like the repetition of the beginning and end of scenes and the exposition-heavy, often stilted dialogue.  The two main side characters, Teddy and Natalie, suffer the most.  It’s hard to care much about them; at the beginning you are struggling to get a grasp on them, and by the end you are wondering if (or how much) they are lying to Leonard.  It doesn’t help that Pantoliano gives a one-note performance and that Natalie is terribly underwritten.

            The end effect is a narratively interesting, but otherwise stiff film.  Twisty narratives are strong enough to carry a film up to a point, but there needs to be more to make it feel like it really mattered.  Luckily, Nolan figured that out, and he went on to make some truly excellent films.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Pearce and Moss were both good in their roles, but they were there to serve the story, not play real characters.

Ø  Who spotted the cast crossovers with “Battlestar Galactica” and “Sons of Anarchy”?

Ø  If Natalie recognizes that Leonard is driving her boyfriend’s car, why doesn’t she look in it for the missing money?  Or is she just completely lying to Leonard about Dodd going after her for the money?

Ø  So many questions, and yet, I don’t really care if I know.

Deliver Us from Evil

Released:  July 2nd, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Screen Gems

Staring:  Eric Bana, Édgar Ramírez, Olivia Munn, Sean Harris, Joel McHale

Directed by:  Scott Derrickson 
Written by:  Scott Derrickson, Paul Harris Boardman

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Joel McHale, gore does nothing for me

3 of 10

            We all like a scary story.  Even fraidy-cats like me enjoy getting sucked in, feeling my hair stand up, and getting the adrenaline rush.  Fear is a basic part of life, ingrained into us over the millennia.  Most of us now live in environments where we’re sheltered from the daily fears we used to experience.  Instead, fear has become a form of entertainment, something we commonly seek out at movies and amusement parks.  That’s why horror films are released so often, and their large numbers makes it easy for them to seem like carbon copies of each other.  Unfortunately, “Deliver Us from Evil” falls precisely into that trap.

            This film is allegedly based on the true story of Ralph Sarchie (Eric Bana), a New York City cop who becomes entangled in a case that is demonically based.  It’s a mix of cop and horror movies, but it never differentiates itself from either genre nor does the mixture of the two feel unique.  There’s a whole subgenre of horror films in which the main characters spend the movie investigating/documenting a paranormal experience (think “The Conjuring,” “Paranormal Activity,” or “The Innkeepers”).  The cop element of this film allows it to fit easily into this subgenre.  Ralph may be more methodical and experienced than many of the investigators in the other films, but the beats this movie hits remains the same.

            The genre mix could have been used to bring out unusual twists, but instead the filmmakers settle for mixing in an inordinate amount of clichés from both trope-ridden genres.  Seriously, let’s check these off:  Wise-cracking partner?  Check.  Family kept at a distance?  Check.  Faulty lighting?  Check.  Jump scare that was just a cat?  Check.  Main characters battling personal demons?  Check.  There are many others, but listing them all off would interrupt the flow of this review.   Suffice it to say, nearly everything in this film is rooted in cliché, and seeing so many easily identifiable storytelling elements really hampers my ability to buy this as a true story.

            Bana does well in the lead, turning in his usual above-average performance, and the other characters are well-cast, too.  The wise-cracking partner is played by Joel McHale, who most people will know from his comedic television roles.  It’s nice to see him play someone a bit tougher, but it’s still a comfortably familiar role for him.  This is almost a serious version of his role in the paintball episodes of “Community.”  Édgar Ramírez and Olivia Munn are competent as a priest and Mrs. Sarchie respectively, and the daughter, played by Lulu Wilson, holds her own.  Overall, it’s a good cast.  Too bad they were given horrendously hackneyed dialogue to spout.

            Now the point of a horror movie is to be scary, and there’s a few different approaches to this that are commonly taken.  “Deliver Us from Evil” goes for the R-rated gore (both human and animal) and jump-scare method, which has never worked for me.  If you like that kind of thing, then this movie will be just okay for you.  Again, and I know I sound like a broken record, writer/director Scott Derrickson shows you nothing you haven’t already seen before, including a climactic exorcism that I was actually bored by.  We’ve all seen exorcisms so many times on film that it simply isn’t enough to be a climax anymore.  You’ve got to add something else to make it more interesting, but this film never builds to anything.  They try to add in subplots involving Sarchie’s family and the undesirable things that he and the priest have done, but the subplots keep getting dropped, robbing them of any momentum.  The end result was my complete apathy towards anything that happened to these characters, and hence, little fear.

            There’s one final test for all horror films.  It occurs when I’m lying in bed, trying to go to sleep.  Even bad ones often contain an image or a concept that keeps me up at night.  After this one, I slept like a baby.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Why does Joel McHale disappear in the middle of this film?

Ø  Every scene in this film is dark, even if it’s broad daylight outside.  I get mood, but this was ridiculous.

Ø  They try to incorporate themes, like the seven deadly sins and classic rock music, but it never seems natural.

Ø  The big bad thing that Sarchie did wasn’t even that terrible.  They really chickened out on that one.

Ø  Kudos to the actor who played the possessed guy.  You kept your eyes wide open as the fake blood spilled down your face.  I’m sure that wasn’t easy.

Short Term 12 (2013)

Released:  August 23rd, 2013

Rated:  R

Studio:  Cinedigm

Staring:  Brie Larson, John Gallagher, Jr., Kaitlyn Dever, Rami Malek, Keith Stanfield, Kevin Hernandez, Melora Walters, Stephanie Beatriz, Lydia Du Veaux, Alex Calloway, Frantz Turner, Diana-Maria Riva

Directed by:  Destin Daniel Cretton

Written by:  Destin Daniel Cretton 

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Brie Larson, likes realistic cinema

8 of 10

            I was unsure going into this film if I would buy Brie Larson playing a reserved character.  I was first introduced to her through her role on the television show “United States of Tara,” where she played a very forward young woman that rarely kept quiet.  She was great in the role, but I’ve got to admit that when I think of her, I remember her in full Viking woman attire sitting seductively (and comically) on a cake.  That’s not an image that syncs with the mousey character she seemed to play in this film’s trailer.

            I didn’t have to wait long for my fears to be assuaged, though.  “Short Term 12” starts with a story told by Mason (John Gallagher, Jr.) to his fellow line staff at a group home for teenagers.  It’s a wonderfully told story that sucks you right into the world, and I quickly forgot my reservations.  By the time Mason finished, I was chuckling along with the group and ready for the explosion of energy that interrupts the scene.  The pacing for the rest of the film follows suit, mixing realistic moments that seem to drag on regardless of whether they are good or bad with abrupt outbursts of emotion and pain that can no longer be contained.  It’s an ebb and flow that I recognize from real life, which really helped make the little world that the story exists in seem more expansive.

            It’s a little world because the budget of the film was so small (less than 1 million), and it’s a testament to the writing that they were able to do so much with such a paltry amount of money.  The script attracted the supremely talented leads, Larson and Gallagher, without whom this story easily could have fallen flat.  They form the central couple and the teenager’s main allies in the film, and almost nothing in the story occurs outside their purview.  Larson is the lead and the more troubled of the two, making her performance the flashier and the more often singled out aspect of the film.  Rightfully so, as she shows the many ways that her past has shaped and is still shaping her future.  It’d be a shame to ignore Gallagher, though.  His performance is just as essential, showing how a more well-adjusted person handles the stresses they encounter while bringing a levity that makes the whole thing go down smooth.

            There is a problem, at times, with the emotional outbursts being too dramatic.  I have no doubt that the problems the characters face are true to their setting, but the entire movie takes place over such a short period of time that the buildup seems like a bit too much.  I won’t list them all out, but suffice it to say that by the time the climax comes, you can’t blame Larson’s character for losing it.  Anyone would be broken.

            There’s an odd balance the movie tries to strike, surrounding its essentially decent characters with the often horrific realities of what people are capable of.  It leads to some riveting moments of hard-earned honesty, but there are times when writer/director Destin Daniel Cretton fails to maneuver the tricky story between all the rocks.  As often as it riveted me, there was always offsetting moments of melodrama, and I could never shake the sensation of seeing the strings being pulled.  Watching the movie was like being told a great story, but one you’ve heard so many times that you know the beats by heart.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Some of the performances weren’t on par with Larson and Gallagher, but none were so bad that they derailed the film.

Ø  The mood is a strange mixture of comfort and pain, sorrow and joy, sentimentality and reality.  I loved it.

Ø  Floyd gets me all sweaty, too.

Transformers: Age of Extinction

Released:  June 27^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Paramount

Staring:  Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor

Directed by:  Michael Bay

Written by:  Ehren Kruger 

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t seen anything in the Transformers line

3.7 of 10

            Hearkening back to my “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier” review, I went into “Age of Extinction” with almost no knowledge of anything Transformers.  I’ve seen none of the movies or the television show.  I don’t even recall playing with the toys.  Now, that doesn’t mean I went into this movie with an entirely open mind.  I know the less-than-stellar reputation that its director, Michael Bay, has, and I’m aware of the critical punching bag the movie series has become.  It seems to have taken on the sins of all the dumb, CGI laden explosion fests that have littered our summer movie screens, with each installment being offered up for the weary, sardonic critics to rip apart with frustrated ferocity.  And yet, people go to see them.  Each film has earned more than the last, with “Age of Extinction’s” predecessor earning over 1 billion dollars.  I couldn’t see how a film series with that kind of earning power could be a complete mess, so I tried to give this film a fair shot.  I set my mind to blockbuster mode, bought some nachos (I’m not a popcorn fan), and plopped myself down for a Friday evening romp.

            As we all know, the human cast has been revamped, with Mark Wahlberg’s Cade taking over as Optimus Prime’s best bud.  Cade and his beautiful daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz), get sucked into a battle between transformers, the CIA, some evil transformer thing named Lockdown, and a tech corporation.  It sounds insane, which it is, and after 165 minutes I didn’t really understand why they were all fighting each other.  Instead of being told with a traditional 3-act structure, the film feels like it was told by that guy who tells all his stories in the “and then this happened, and then this happened, and then THIS happened!” structure.  Sure, there’s a series of escalating encounters between the groups, but there isn’t a real narrative reason for why everything hits the fan at once, it just does.

            Wahlberg is a competent lead for the film, with his over-buff physique fitting into the excess surrounding him remarkably well.  He and the rest of the cast aren’t given anything to do, but he sells the protective father trope and the nauseatingly bad humor okay.  Peltz is given even less to do, but she never embarrasses herself, unlike her onscreen boyfriend played by Jack Reynor.  Reynor is hampered with an awful, inexplicably Irish character that he fails to make believable or enjoyable.  Other, more established actors like Kelsey Grammer, Stanley Tucci, and Titus Welliver fare about as well as Wahlberg, turning in competent performances that will bolster their box office credibility. 

            Now as I said, I went into this film searching for whatever it was that made people keep coming back to the series, and its saving grace turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be:  the special effects.  They’re dazzling, pulling off everything from car chases to robots transforming to massive, magnetic spaceships.  It all looks very realistic, and it actually seems to exist in the same world as the live-action stuff.  That’s something that’s not often pulled off, so a massive amount of credit needs to go to the special effects folks.  But don’t discount Michael Bay’s work, either.  He’s a populist filmmaker, and even if his films aren’t artistically great, he manages to hit on something that a lot of people like.  I didn’t like this film, but I’m willing to stand up and admit that I liked “Armageddon” when it came out in 1998 (with the caveat that I was a kid at the time).

            As an adult, I find Bay’s films to be shockingly honest about how dumb he expects the audience to be.  We are led by the hand through any emotional moments, and the dialogue is filled with characters stating their most basic thoughts.  The plot is so rudimentary that it almost doesn’t exist as an actual story, instead playing out as a series of “me want this item, so I go get it” events.  The spectacle aspect of it still works just as well as it did when I was a kid, and I think with some paring down, there is a harmless, Saturday night basic cable movie in here somewhere.

            Other Notes (Silly Blockbuster Version):

Ø  How did Cade’s tiny little weapon matter at all in the last battle?

Ø  How was Cade strong enough to stop Lockdown from crushing him?

Ø  Why did they take the time to show a car flipping around and the tire hitting a guy’s face midair?

Other Notes (Regular Version):

Ø  Sitting down to take notes on this movie, I remembered that there was a friend of Cade’s who died at the beginning.  Boy had I totally forgotten about him.

Ø  This film has a weird idea of freedom.  Twice a group of robots are told that they are free, then in the next breath they are told that they are under the command of the robot who set them free.  That ain’t free.

Ø  I thought Mark Wahlberg’s shirt sleeves were going to pop for sure.

Ø  The product placement is shameless.  The Budweiser scene is obvious enough, but did you notice the Goodyear logo that was also in the background of that scene?

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

Released:  October 22nd, 1999

Rated:  R

Studio:  Fox Searchlight

Staring:  Hilary Swank, Chloë Sevigny, Peter Sarsgaard, Brendan Sexton III, Alicia Goranson, Jeanetta Arnette, Matt McGrath

Directed by:  Kimberly Peirce

Written by:  Kimberly Peirce, Andy Bienen 

Personal Bias Alert:  thinks Hilary Swank is amazing at a very particular kind of role, not familiar with the true story

8.3 of 10

            Everyone knows someone like Brandon.  That optimistic, bubbly personality radiates off them, and simply being in close proximity perks you up.  They dream and speak of the dream as if it’s something they’ll do tomorrow.  Even if you know they’ll never end up doing it, those dreams always seem a little closer when they’re around.  I don’t know if this is something writers Kimberly Peirce and Andy Bienen gave to Brandon or if their research on the real-life man made him out to be this way.  Either way, it serves as an excellent congealer for this rough, complex, and loving story.

            Set in Falls City, Nebraska, the film follows trans man Brandon Teena (Hilary Swank) as he finds a new group of friends and falls in love with a local girl named Lana Tisdel (Chloë Sevigny).  The city itself is captured as one of those small towns with few things to do and even fewer opportunities to leave.  I have no clue if that’s how the town really was, but I do know that it was named for a small waterfall that no longer exists.  It’s not hard to imagine a town that’s lost its namesake as a pretty forlorn place.

            Brandon’s big personality provides a spark to the otherwise listless group of friends that includes Lana, Candace (Alicia Goranson), and Tom Nissen (Brendan Sexton III).  The story takes it time getting to know the group and its self-appointed leader, John (Peter Sarsgaard), a recklessly enjoyable imp.  What the film doesn’t waste its time doing is in setting up the inevitable conflict between John and Brandon.  In Lana’s introduction, she sings a boozy karaoke song, and a shot holds on Brandon and John sitting side-by-side, each blissfully enamored and entirely unaware of the other.  It’s an untenable situation that ends in a graphic, nasty way.  To be clear, the last 40 minutes of this film is a tough watch.

            The preceding time, though, is largely a love story, portraying Brandon and Lana’s budding romance.  Swank and Sevigny have great chemistry, and the flush of their romance is the most palpable aspect of the film.  What makes both of their performances great, and what won Swank her first Oscar, is that they first and foremost portrayed their characters.  They didn’t get distracted by the issues the film brings up, but instead focus on what makes their characters tick, what makes them upset, and what ultimately makes them fall in love.  Their performances are equaled by Sarsgaard, who unfolds John’s personality in an immaculately even way.  He’s tragic in and of himself, unable to handle losing the family he has built in his head.

            Despite a wonderfully told story, a few small missteps hold it back from being a masterpiece.  Some technical problems, like an awkward lighting change after a character is shown turning off a lamp, jolts you out of the film.  The music is often too prominent, and the cinematography takes some risks, occasionally stumbling on its more ambitious attempts.  The film thrives on its slowing building story, which makes these jolts all the more detrimental.

            It would have been easy to make this film about intolerance, to paint the locals as ignorant hillbillies, and send the audience home with a message about acceptance, but “Boys Don’t Cry” does something much richer.  It tells a timeless story of ill-fated lovers, and in doing so makes you see them how they see themselves, as a boy and a girl, destined to be separated. 

            Other Notes:

Ø  I criticized the music, but Nina Persson and Nathan Larson’s version of “The Bluest Eyes in Texas” is perfect.  I can’t hear that song without thinking about this film.

Ø  The line where the sparks fly:  “Someone walked me home last night.  I think it was you.”

Ø  The line that reassured me they were going to land the ending:  “There was never any Memphis, was there?”

Jersey Boys (2014)

Released:  June 20th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Michael Lomenda, Vincent Piazza, Christopher Walken

Directed by:  Clint Eastwood 

Written by:  Marshall Brickman, Rick Elice

Personal Bias Alert:  Didn’t see the musical, never heard of The Four Seasons

4.7 of 10

            Any discussion of American cinema in the last 60 years would be incomplete without mentioning Clint Eastwood.  He’s played such a prominent role and outlasted so many others that he has ingrained himself into the very idea of American cinema.  With roles like the Man with No Name and Harry Callahan, Clint’s the only man who could arguably equal John Wayne’s iconic portrait of masculinity.  Then again, he’s never shied away from prominent, strong roles for women, either.  His directorial efforts include “Sudden Impact,” “The Bridges of Madison County,” “Million Dollar Baby,” and “Changeling,” starring Sondra Locke, Meryl Streep, Hilary Swank, and Angelina Jolie respectively.  His work has touched upon nearly all genres of film, earned millions of dollars, and won nearly every award imaginable.  That he’s still making movies, and still pushing himself in new directions, is a reward to film lovers everywhere.

            Now Clint’s made a musical before.  He stared in 1969’s “Paint Your Wagon,” but hasn’t ventured into the genre since.  “Jersey Boys” marks his return, directing the adaption of the hit Broadway musical of the same name.  It claims to tell the story of the pop group The Four Seasons, but it’s more focused on the group’s lead singer, Frankie Valli.  This confusion is emblematic of the film, which never quite grasps a point.

            What struck me most while I was watching it was how odd the structure was.  It lays out the story with little regard for arcs, often relying on one of the band members to turn and explain to the audience a plot point or their feelings.  The musical, I later found out, is structured into four parts, one for each member of the band.  I now realize that the film was structured this way as well, with only one band member addressing the audience at a time.  This was not obvious while I watched it, hence it failed to give any structure to the meandering plot.  Also confusing was its sense of passing time.   The film would jump forward, but the date in which it landed wouldn’t be obvious.  Then at one point, for no particular reason, we jump back two years.  The rest of the story is told completely linearly, which makes this backward jump seem awkward and out of place.

            Younger audience members such as myself will likely be unfamiliar with The Four Seasons (I had never heard of them) and will only recognize their most famous hits.  With no vested interest, the film really had to sell me on why these guys were interesting.  Did they have a really messy start?  Were they plagued by personal flaws that tragically drug them down?  Were they particularly talented musicians/performers?  The answers are no, no, and sort of, which isn’t enough to make an interesting film.  The men all grew up in Jersey, and in movie world, if you’re of Italian decent in Jersey, then you have ties to the mob.  They do seem to have had some loose associations, but it never gets them into too much trouble.  The personal flaws that are brought up are stale:  one has a gambling problem and several struggle to keep their families together during their long absences on the road.  It’s also explicitly stated several times that only two of them are really talented, and guess what?  Those are the two who survive in the industry.  It really does bring into question why these guys deserve their own musical.  To be honest, it seems to have been a money play.  Bob Gaudio, an original member and the songwriter of the group, had the musical made.  The movie gives the impression that he and Valli own the songs, and I’m guessing that part of the story’s true.

            The reason this film isn’t a total bust lies in the obvious effort of everyone involved.  It was a flawed project from the start, but you get the sense that Clint, the actors, the crew, and even the writers did their best.  Costumes, makeup, and set design are all spot-on and are often the only things that help the audience navigate the changing time periods.  The writers manage to get in some laugh-out-loud jokes; I mean, with the name The Four Seasons, how do you not make a Vivaldi joke?  Then there’s the actors, who portray their thin characters as well as they can.  But it’s Clint and cinematographer Tom Stern’s work that elevates this into watchable territory.  They’ve worked together since 2002’s “Blood Work,” and no other filmmakers working today use light and shadow like they do.  They have a penchant for lighting one side of an actor’s face, letting the shadow of their hair and nose streak across the other side.  Here, they use soft lighting along with other techniques to evoke the time period.  It looks beautiful, so even when what’s happening onscreen isn’t very interesting, it is pleasing to look at.

            As a nice bow on the end of this meandering film, it just stops, without anything being resolved or wrapped up.  This is my best impersonation of it.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Several plot elements, like the girlfriend and the daughter, aren’t given enough screen time to make an impact.

Ø  John Lloyd Young, who played Valli, was far too old to play a teenaged version of the character.  I was completely confused as to why everyone was treating a 30 year old man like a kid at the beginning of the film.

Ø  When did the daughter decide she wanted to be a singer?

Ø  It’s a respectable failure.  Keep swinging, Clint.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Released:  July 9^th, 2010

Rated:  R

Studio:  Focus Features

Starring:  Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, Yaya DaCosta

Directed by:  Lisa Cholodenko 

Written by:  Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

Personal Bias Alert:  liked High Art, excited by the praise the movie received

4.5 of 10

            Writer/director Lisa Cholodenko seems very interested in the fluidity of life.  In the two films I’ve seen of hers, this and 1998’s “High Art,” love, sexuality, profession, and addiction are explored, and the boundaries that come with each are pushed.  Where is the line between recreational user and drug addict, hobbyist and professional, cheater and strayer?  People like their boxes, but Cholodenko brings the blurriness of life into her films, often making it the most interesting aspect of the story.  “The Kids Are All Right” draws from these questions, which only serves to amplify how pat and familiar everything else in the film is.

            At its core, this is a story about a nuclear family:  two parents, two kids, all that’s missing is the dog.  The kids are in their late teens, and are the usual angsty but decent suburbanites.  The hook is that the parents are two women, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore).  The kids, curious about their sperm donor father, contact the sperm bank and set up a meeting with their donor, Paul (Mark Ruffalo).  Paul’s sudden presence shakes the family, and their functional little unit becomes threatened from several angles.

            This could have been a fun little movie.  It’s a solid setup for the low-budget dramedy it is, but it never quite comes together.  Individual scenes are good, including a standout conversation between Nic, Jules, and son Laser (Josh Hutcherson).  It’s funny and smart and honest and it made me wish so much that the rest of the movie was like that.  Unfortunately, it too often falls back on clichés and easy answers to have any true emotional resonance.

            Undoubtedly, the weakest link in the whole movie is the characters.  It feels like writers Stuart Blumberg and Cholodenko never expanded upon them from their initial pitch.  Everyone fits into their little boxes and can be easily summarized in one sentence.  Nic is an uptight career woman.  Jules is a spineless wanderer.  Joni is a pleaser who always does what she’s told.  And Laser is, well, simply undeveloped.  They do point out that he’s not very in touch with his emotions, which lets them slip in some clichéd jokes about men (and gay men).  But let’s focus in on the worst offender:  Paul.  He’s a laid-back, plaid-wearing, organic and local gardener/restaurateur.  Of course Mia Wasikowska’s Joni thinks he’s cool, because that’s all he’s trying to be.  Nic detests him, and I’ve got to say that that drew me closer to her.  I never understood why everyone was so interested in him.  He is nice, and I guess Nic’s abrasiveness makes everyone want someone like him, someone who will just tell them that everything’s fine and they’re fine and whatever.  That still doesn’t make him an interesting character.

            As I said, Cholodenko is very interested in blurred boundaries.  Here, alcoholism and love is challenged, with Nic being a borderline alcoholic and Jules cheating.  Jules is the more interesting example, with her fling being based more on the need for support than a lack of love for Nic.  The boundary between straying and outright cheating is different for everyone, with many people claiming that a physical act isn’t cheating as long as your heart remains focused on your long-term partner.  Then there’s another version of straying, which I think the line “I’m not unfaithful but I’ll stray” from the song “Back in Your Head” by Tegan and Sara describes best.  I’ve always thought that this refers to the ebb and flow of a relationship and being honest about the fact that there will be times when your interest in the other person wanes.  In these instances, you become more interested in something or someone else, but you always come back to your partner.  Jules’s cheating falls at an intersection between all these definitions, and that makes it particularly challenging to figure out just how bad her actions are.

            These complications are interesting, but they never hide the fact that the characters are thin and the plot is stale.  I don’t understand why this script got such high praise, and I can’t help but feel that this film seemed more interesting to people simply because the home was headed by two women.  Of course two women can form a family, and of course they can have the same problems as heterosexual couples.  I don’t think that’s a novel idea, even way back in 2010.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The dialogue is clunky, especially early on.  There are exchanges that, while natural, are boring to watch.

Ø  The kid’s friends are clichés, and boring ones at that

Ø  Like Paul, this movie seemed a little self-satisfied.