Review: Stoker

If you have never heard of Chan-wook Park, then you should do a Google search and take a look at his filmography.  The South Korean director is a master of suspense in the way everyone mistakenly thought that M. Night Shyamalan would become on the heels of the Sixth Sense, only Park has a strong sense of visual flair and a disciplined directorial approach that makes even the most mundane act explode with life onscreen.  He’s that good.  The film Stoker represents his first foray into “mainstream” Hollywood (though one would hardly dub “Stoker” mainstream) and the result is a suspenseful highly stylized narrative that feels slice of life but proves to be something else altogether.

The narrative tells the story of India (played by Mia Wasikowska), a young woman who is mourning the passing of her father.  When her uncle Charlie – a man she has never heard of before, comes to live with her and her mother (Nicole Kidman), it unlocks a bevy of conflicting feelings for India against the backdrop of violence and sexual innuendo that ultimately leads to the revelation of a dark family secret.

As you watch the plot of the movie unfold, you realize that visually you are watching a master at work.  The attention to detail, the subtlety, the sound, the framing of the shot, it becomes apparent that all these elements are coming together to tell the story; that each piece is contributing to the tension as much as the dialogue and grandiose action undertaken by the actors.  At times it feels the attention to visual detail and to the minutiae are bringing the plot to a plodding place, but as the scenes unfold you realize Park is slow playing his hand – suffocating you in the way the reality of the film suffocates the protagonists.  If I were critiquing this film based on directorial efforts alone, it would be an unmitigated A.

Unfortunately, the film falls apart for me in the third act.  Without spoiling the plot, it’s hard not to feel that the climax and subsequent reveal fall short of this masterful taut narrative that Park has brought to a boil.  The blame for this has to fall on writer Wentworth Miller as his script proves to be more a house of cards than a sound taut thriller, tumbling under its own weight.  At the precise moment that the film should explode with large reveals and some sort of cathartic release, it goes out with the whimper that is predictability.  Sadly, that makes Park’s directorial clinic seem largely for naught.

Mia Wasikowska (as India) turns in a solid lead performance.  It’s a character that falls right into her comfort zone; one who is offbeat and troubled.  It’s not easy to sell a story that is set in this sort of timeless world with no signature to define its context in the past or present, but Wasikowska does admirably to that end.  As for Nicole Kidman, she continues this run of playing women whose moral compass points south and though I don’t always appreciate her performances I always give her credit for really going for it.  While I don’t think this performance was particularly game changing, I do think that she was credible as the detached matriarch of the house.

As for Matthew Goode, I have always found his work hit or miss.  For a while I felt Goode was on the verge of breaking out as a star, but that one great role and/or performance always seemed to elude him.  Having watched his uneven turn in this film, it seems that he will forever be just another British actor who is capable playing the type of character played in Match Point, and shaky when forced outside that comfort zone.  Never is that more apparent than in this film where on the one hand he must be the charismatic gentleman, and on the other hand he must portray a highly troubled individual.

The net result here is a movie that has great directing and mostly solid acting, but fails to deliver a worthy a payoff.  That doesn’t completely dismiss it as a worthy way to spend ninety-minutes of your life, but it keeps the movie from achieving the heights that it could have.  If you are one who can appreciate the merits of filmmaking even while walking away from the movie feeling unrequited then this would be a decent way to pass the time; but for you if it’s all about the ending,, then you may find Stoker far less appetizing.  For those who are more the former than the latter, I suggest viewing this one on a night when you’re in a particularly odd mood as there’s very little that is warm and fuzzy about this one. 

Standout Performance:  Mia Wasikowska.  I don’t think it was by any means a signature performance, but she is best in show.

Read More

Review: Lawless

Prohibition era stories have been done quite a bit by Hollywood.  Gangsters in suits with semi-automatics in hand, bullets and blood lining the streets of New York and Chicago, and square-jawed lawmen chasing down thugs from speak-easies to back alleys.  There has almost been a romantic quality that has underlined these movies, which most often are marked with severe brutality.  Filmmakers and moviegoers alike have held an affinity for these stories and have watched with different rooting interests as the system and its laws crash down on the men peddling their bootleg moonshine.  

Lawless is the latest entry into this sub genre although it takes the conventions of this kind of narrative and flips it on its head.  Like Jessica Chastain’s Maggie Beauford, the story escapes the mean streets of the inner city for the rural rolling hills of Virginia to a town run by the immortal Bondurant brothers.  When the state sends crooked lawmen to town to take control of the bootlegging, a back woods brouhaha begins to brew.

What makes this unique from its brethren is the matter of role reversal.  The system and its laws – mechanisms of the big city and its judicial system – have been handed to the Bondurant brothers by way of their legendary hold over this small town in Virginia.  Thus, the lawbreakers are cast as the lawmakers in this rural community and their reputations give them the authority to wield such power.  So when Guy Pearce’s Rakes comes to town with his special detective’s badge and threatens to disrupt the status quo, it is up to the Bondurants to enforce nature rules. 

Tom Hardy plays Forrest Bondurant – the leader of the pack and the muscle of the group.  While Shia LaBeouf's Jack Bondurant is the narrator of the film and is framed as the lead, Hardy’s character is the most pivotal to the film.  And as usual, he delivers.  Hardy is quickly establishing himself as a tremendous actor who makes good choices and his stunning record remains intact with this film.  He once again brings a strong physical presence to the role while hinting at a deeper sentiment and drives his brute force.

And as for the rest of his cast members, it is a bit of a mixed bag.  Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant does a nice job playing the bridge between the three brothers.  On the one hand he brings a physical edge to the role while on the other he exudes the foolhardy demeanor one would expect from a middling sibling underling.  Joining him in the plus column is Guy Pearce, whose Charlie Rakes is an exemplary villain, dispensing acts of crooked punishment without an ounce of remorse.  Pearce does a good job of fashioning a creepy persona that is both vile and threatening.  Rounding out the superlatives are Dane DeHaan as Cricket Pate and Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix.  The two do a fine job of portraying good-natured sympathetic characters that find themselves swimming in a pool with sharks.  In a movie with varying shades of gray, their performances establish the light end of the scale between good and bad.

As for Jessica Chastain and Gary Oldman, two of the major talents featured in this film, I was left some what unimpressed.  Chastain is a very good actress who has done very good work (as recognized by numerous awards nominations), but I found her performance to be vanilla and run of the mill.  As the most prominent woman in a male dominated cast, there was an opportunity for her to deliver a standout performance and to steal the show.  Unfortunately, nothing about her stood out and consequently she is relegated to “also-ran” status in this film.  As for Oldman, his presence is window dressing in the same manner as I described Liam Neeson’s in Battleship. As he does nothing whatsoever to legitimately advance the plot, I would guess that any number of actors could have easily filled his shoes and probably have done so with a bit more verve.

And last and most certainly least is Shia LaBeouf.  The man simply is not a third of the actor he thinks he is and the harder he tries to distance himself from the Transformers movies that made him so wealthy, the more his limitations as an actor get exposed.  He’s a one trick pony in the same way Taylor Kitsch is, but was just more fortunate to be attached to a Hasbro property that actually translates to a movie.  LaBeouf has one gear and that is of a petulant beta male with a dour disposition.  Even when cast in this role, his ability to channel this onscreen is questionable at best.  In a movie that features decent story telling and some good acting, he is the lone black mark.

LaBeouf however does not completely derail this movie.  There is enough here at work to keep you entertained.  I won't call this a must see movie, bu I would have no problem recommending it for the holiday weekend.  The character acting is just strong enough to engage viewers and get them to emotionally invest and the action sequences are robust enough to pick up the pace of the film when required.  It won’t get your adrenaline pumping the way Premium Rush did last weekend, but it will provide you an interesting story.

Standout Performance: Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of most solid performers in Hollywood by combining legitimate character acting with a strong physical presence.  

Read More

Review: The Kids Are All Right

I hadn’t seen “The Kids are All Right” during its theatrical release, but while I was working at NBCUniversal, there was a lot of buzz internally for it. So given the water cooler talk, the quality of the cast, and its Golden Globe and Oscar nods, I assumed this was a strong film that I’d eventually get around to watching. Sadly, I found it extremely mediocre, though one can tell that writer/director Lisa Cholodenko desperately wants it to be something more. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is mind-boggling that this film garnered four Oscar nominations.

If ever there was a script where the writers mixed a bunch of hot button/edgy topics into a pot and then threw it up against the wall to see what would stick; this is that film. Same sex married couples? Check. Urban hipster community gardens? Check. Fresh fare organic kitchen restaurant owned by sperm-donating college dropout? Check. And while Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg try their best to craft a script that screams “The L Word” meets “Life as a House,” ultimately what makes it onto screen is a story that lacks genuine heart.

In the film, when a sperm donor suddenly becomes present in the lives of a same sex married couple only to wreak havoc on their version of suburban bliss, we, the viewers, are allowed to peak behind the curtain and find that upon closer view, families of all shapes, sizes, and orientation can be rife with warts. Sadly the film lacks the heart to carry us through the overwrought melodrama. As important a message as it may be - that same sex couples and their respective families are no different than those of heterosexual couples, the film fails to compel and entertain. A key component to challenging convention is to break down the notions of what is considered conventional. This film instead screams of compliance and tries to pigeonhole its characters accordingly.

The script and direction give the appearance that three accomplished actors in Moore, Benning, and Ruffalo as well as the up-and-coming Wasikowska are sleep walking through the film because their respective characters are paper-thin. Giving someone a drinking problem, or making them rebel against their lesbian parents does not provide them with substantive depth.

I really would not recommend this film unless there are no other options. There are other cinematic efforts out there that address these subject matters with much more authenticity. The only way I can reconcile the fact that this film garnered so many accolades is what I like to refer to as the “Philadelphia” (starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington) effect – recognized for its perceived edge-factor more so than its cinematic merit.

Notable Performances: Joaquin Garrido as Luis adds a bit of levity to the mundane.

Read More