Alex Cross review

                The airport-pulp of crime novelist James Patterson has kept a steady readership for many years, with a short-lived and somewhat forgotten theatrical life as well.  In the fallout of serial killer thrillers left in the wake of “Silence of the Lambs”, “Kiss the Girls” was released in 1997 as Patterson’s first film adaptation.  In 2001 “Along Came a Spider” followed suit, both starring Morgan Freeman as the detective/psychologist, Dr. Alex Cross.  Now, more than a decade later, “Alex Cross”, based on the twelfth in Patterson’s book series, has been released in an attempt to reboot this hibernating literary property. 

                In this adaptation, Tyler Perry—yes, that Tyler Perry—is now filling Freeman’s shoes in the titular role.  Playing opposite of him is Mathew Fox--AKA doctor Jack Shephard from television’s “LOST”—as a mastermind serial killer. If neither of these casting choices sound even the least bit convincing, than you might find this movie as perplexing and misguided as I did.

                What takes place over the course of “Alex Cross” is your basic procedural thriller set-up. A sadistic killer, who known as Picasso by the police force because of the coded charcoal drawings he leaves at each crime scene *sigh*, is passing through Detroit’s upper class and knocking them off in strange and torturous ways. Cross and his partners in detecting follow the killer’s breadcrumb trail to his next target, and in almost capturing him they inadvertently get put on his hit-list. Soon the hunters become the hunted and they must capture the psychotic mercenary before he kills them or their loved ones, as well as find out who it was hired who hired someone to murder Detroit’s elite in the first-place. 

                This film was directed by Rob Cohen, the man who has brought us other cinematic fast-food meals like “XXX”, “Stealth” and “The Fast and Furious”.  What he brings to the table here is a pedestrian thriller, stunted by shoddy action directing, hilariously wooden dialogue, and two bizarre central performances.  The movie sprints and drags throughout its running time, fluctuating from love scenes, to torture scenes, to talky scenes where practically every word out of every characters mouth is expository.  When we finally do arrive to an action scene, Cohen’s camera is pushed so far into the fists and elbows of the fight, that the PG-13 violence is unclear and leaves much to be desired. 

                The stunt casting of Fox and Perry is unfortunately a huge distraction.  Tyler Perry wants so badly to be forgotten as Medea and Mathew Fox wants so badly to be taken seriously as a cinematic actor, that both of their performances reek of desperation. Fox especially comes off a bit too overpowering, as he devours each scene with butter and sower cream in an achingly showy portrayal.  Not helping is the cheesy TV-Movie script they have to work with.  To their defense, they both do well enough—surprisingly Perry has his moments—that you can tell that they could possibly be used effectively under the discernment of a better, more tasteful director. 

                With all of its glaring problems aside, “Alex Cross” is bad but it’s not unwatchable. Mostly, it’s just boring. This is type of paint-by-numbers genre work that you see in your average episode of “Law and Oder: SVU”, “Criminal Minds” or any iteration of “CSI”.  It takes no chances and it has no surprises but it fulfills the bare minimum of what it’s asked.  I can’t imagine anyone being impressed by this film, but Rob Cohen is the type of hack who gets paid to make easily digestible junk that will adequately pass the time. Let’s just say, low expectations can only help this movie.

Grade: C-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2012

Argo review

                 Not too many years ago, the name of actor/director/writer Ben Affleck was used as a punch-line around America’s collective water-cooler. Not too long before that, he was unavoidable, occupying the leading man position in practically every major film for over 2 years. Just before that, he and Matt Damon, his blonde fellow Bostonian, won an Oscar for best original screenplay, both of them being the youngest winners for that particular award. Now, after three fantastic films—reminiscent of the work made in Clint Eastwood’s directorial heyday—he has become one of the most promising working directors in Hollywood, not far from winning another Oscar for his behind-the-camera work.

                This time around, Affleck decides to broaden his scope from gritty crime thrillers like “The Town” and his first feature “Gone Baby Gone”, to a true tale of political espionage and diplomatic upheaval in our recent governmental history.  “Argo” deals with the events of a group of six American ambassadors who were held captive in Iran after revolutionaries found out that our government was protecting one of their worst dictators who was undergoing cancer treatment in the United States. While nobody in the CIA can seem to find a way to discreetly penetrate their territory and bring home the American’s citizens, Tony Mendez, played by Ben Affleck, hatches a plan to disguise the captives as a Canadian film crew making a B-science-fiction, “Star Wars” knock off called “Argo”. In order to make the plan convincing, they have to set up believable pre-production hype in Hollywood. In doing so, they bring on board award-winning makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and producer/shyster extraordinaire Lester Siegel ( Alan Arkin).

              “Argo” is a subtly versatile film that plays a difficult balancing act with tone.  Much of the film treats this historical news event with reverent realism, painstakingly presenting the period production-design accurately, integrating grainy news footage from the actual time. The other half of the movie is a sardonic examination of the Hollywood system and the lying and swindling that goes into the pre-production stages of filmmaking. The movie often intercuts between these two situations, and surprisingly the shift from somber to satirical never seems to grind or squeal on the movies tires.  This alone shows the significant growth and advancement of craft Affleck has made as a director.  However, while his performance as the lead isn’t distractingly bad, he doesn’t command too much attention either, especially when he is constantly overshadowed by his wonderful cast of underappreciated character actors like Bryan Cranston, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, and Victor Garber.  Scenes involving these real actors, playing non-actors, who have to try their hardest to be convincing good-actors—or  else they could be killed at any moment—creates  for nail-biting moments of classic movie suspense.

                If I were to find any fault in “Argo” it is only that it rarely pushes past the point of being an entertaining and confidently made film. Though I was completely satisfied with what I was given, its highest peaks hint at a deeper level with greater stakes and a harder biting indictment of the film industry. Also, after a lot build up leading up to it, the climax seems to resolve itself a little too quickly.  However, by the movie’s end, the emotional payoff is effective and the final scenes left some in my audience in respectful silence and others in exuberant applause.  

             With my reservations aside, this movie will certainly be an awards contender this year. The political intrigue, the procedural thrill, and the clever humor in “Argo” combine to keep the audience invested in the multifaceted and stranger-than-fiction nature of its plot. 

Grade:B+

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2012

Frankenweenie review

             As a sometimes-fan of Tim Burton, I (like many) have spent the better part of 10 years being continually underwhelmed by his generic output. Between the years of 1985-1997 he was an exciting and talented director with a flair for the strange and visual. Films like “Beetlejuice”, “Batman”, “Edward Scissorhands” and “Ed Wood” showed a continual growth and a specific skill for mixing dramatic B-movie camp with a genuine heartfelt love for the outsiders who occupied his stories. Unfortunately, and not long after, he seemed to peek, and has since been running in circles, lazily adapting preexisting properties like “Charley and Chocolate Factory” and “Alice in Wonderland”.

                Tim Burton has always worked better when his films are more personal. When he has a character to cypher his gothy/geeky obsession’s through, as he did with “Edward Scissorhands” and “Ed Wood”, his movies ring with honesty and he exerts a sense of exuberance for the source material. When he has no connection or interest in the script, and is only brought on as a glorified art-director, it shows, resulting in work that usually feels bloated, uninspired and boring. 

                Nothing confirms this dynamic shift in his abilities more than the in the two movies he released this year. In May, Burton helmed “Dark Shadows”, a comedic adaptation of an old British vampire soap opera.  The story was awkwardly handled, the tone was perplexing, and the end result was forgettable. This fall he has now brought us another offering; the Disney produced “Frankenweenie”, a stop-motion animated, adaptation of his live-action short film.

                Like the 1984 short, “Frankenweenie” tells the story of a suburban boy named Victor, who loses his dog Sparky when he his hit by car. With the help of middle school science and the power of a lightning storm, he digs up his puppy and brings him back to life in his attic-turned-laboratory.  Where the story diverts from the 34 minute original, is through the peripheral characters of Victor’s school friends. When the other kids in the neighborhood catch wind of his discovery they decide to bring their dead animals back to life as well, resulting in a morbid but oftentimes darkly funny monster movie.

                 While returning back to his deepest roots, Burton has finally made something where you can feel his excitement again. Every frame is chockablock with visual expression and every scene has a funny gag, enthusiastic performance or an impressive set-design.  The voice talent also reaches far back in his catalogue, as he brings back actors like Martin Landau as the Vincent Price’esq science teacher, Catherine O’Hara as a dutiful but oblivious mother, and Wynona Rider as a lonely teenage neighbor. They bring life to the starkly designed stop-motion puppets and even as the casting choices are deliberate, wisely their celebrity never overshadows their characters—in the same way Johnny Depp might have done so in many of the more-recent Burton flicks.

                With this story the filmmaker now has something he can relate to again. He brings us another wide-eyed, sympathetic story of the outcast, as well as a loving homage to the black and white creature features of the 50’s and 60’s. At times these two obsessions seem to butt heads, as the story shifts from an emotional and intimate story about a boy and his zombie dog, into the manic monster hysteria that dominates third act.  With that said, nothing is ever boring and nothing ever feels static or inauthentic, and unlike the overproduced, CGI-laden films that precede it, the innocent joy in this film is tangible. For that I want to personally congratulate Tim Burton for another weirdo job well done. Welcome back.

Grade: B+

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2012

Looper review

              “Looper”, a new science fiction mystery, written and directed by the young and talented Rian Johnson, is further proof that crowd-pleasers don’t have to be stupid.  By crafting a winding tale that is just as clever as it is entertaining, he manages to give us this fall what we barely had all summer; a fun and pulpy movie that keeps you thinking about it after you have left, and that makes you come back for seconds. Though its influences are evident and some of its risks don’t pay off quite as well as Johnson had hoped, “Looper” revitalizes the time-travel scenario in the same way “Inception” made people—specifically, those were beat down by two bad “Matrix” sequels—reinvested in dream-tech.

               The story begins in a dystopian near-future where a young, drug-addled hit-man named Joe (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) tells us about his job, where he kills people sent back in time by the further-future mob. No running or chasing required, the bodies are already bound and prepared for execution as soon as they arrive, just mere feet away from the Joe and other ‘Loopers’. The only catch is after they retire they will be sent back to be killed themselves, to ensure the illegal secrets of their time-travel.  Enter future-Joe, played by Bruce Willis, who manages to outwit his younger self and escape.  What ensues is a fight for the future and a fight for personal freedom, as the story splits between the hunter, the hunted and the agency that employs them both.  

              As I have stated, the narrative DNA of “Looper” will be apparent to anyone familiar with this genre. The snappy voice over from the films sympathetic outlaw and the tables-turned philosophy of the plot will recall the style of writer Phillip K. Dick and many of the movies inspired by his cyber-punk noirs, such as “Blade Runner” and “Minority Report”. However, unlike the dreary and uninspired remake of “Total Recall” we had earlier this year, Johnson’s subverts the expectations of this mode with a shockingly intimate middle act, where we are ripped away from the city milieu and placed in a seemingly different story about a single mother, played by Emily Blunt, protecting her child on a farm.  With the addition of this plot element, the structure evokes James Cameron’s “Terminator” films, in the best way possible. 

               Like all good sci-fi, this movie challenges the audience and asks them to meet it half way. Johnson gives us the necessary information to keep up but allows the viewers to bring their imagination to fill in the gaps.  Though time-travel is the exploitable plot device, it ultimately is not the concern of its themes or the character’s overall journey. Because of this, we are never bogged down by the mechanics of the plot and become more invested in the engaging performances by the talented cast. Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt are all fantastic in their parts, but even the smaller roles, played by notable actors like Paul Dano, as a cowardly runaway Looper, or Jeff Daniels, as a reasonable but unshakable mob-boss, keeps even the most inconsequential scenes exciting. 

             What I mean to say is you should absolutely go see “Looper”. This is easily one of the best movies of the year and one of the smartest screenplays to come from this genre since “Source Code”—another cousin-film that it could be easily compared to.  I could nitpick about how the time paradox doesn’t quite make sense, or how the middle act has some pacing issues, or how the voice-over gets a little too expository. However, the end result is a stylish, humorous and imaginative take on a well-worn science fiction archetype, that I wasn’t sure could surprise me anymore. The good news is it can.

Grade: A-

Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2012

The Master review

                    They say that it’s impolite to talk about religion in mixed company.  Despite the fact that we have accepted multiculturalism, we follow this social protocol because people hold these views very personally. However, while one group of people can only see the value and truth in their own beliefs, another group of people will find those same points of views to be misguided or in some cases completely insane.  The nature of belief is a tricky thing to even discuss because those who follow a specific faith are usually slaves to absolutes and can only see any contrasting doctrines as wrong. Director Paul Thomas Anderson tries to take on this very subject with his sixth film “The Master”, a challenging and subtly discordant drama about a destructive relationship amongst the birth of new religion.

                Coming out of his short, publicity-driven hiatus, actor Joaquin Phoenix comes back with fists literally swinging in his portrayal as Freddy Quell, a mentally stunted, emotionally bruised and erratically violent WW2 vet, who is desperately looking for answers. While drunkenly passing from one odd-job to another, looking for easy cash and easy women, he stumbles onto a ferryboat where he meets Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic scientist and philosopher, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. After agreeing to temporarily work for Dodd as a seaman, whilst traveling as a stowaway, he discovers a small community of likeminded followers of Dodd’s writings. All around him he witnesses lectures and workshops focused around esoteric ramblings of past lives, embedded emotions, and miracle healings. What began for Quell as a curiosity to learn more about this mysterious teacher becomes an intense journey into a new system of thinking and a violent battle between the wants of the flesh and search for enlightenment.  

                Though the character of Lancaster Dodd seems to be inspired by L. Ron Hubbard, and the details of his religion, known as “The Cause”, is reminiscent of Scientology, the movie is not particularly interested in recounting recent historical fact. Rather, it only uses these suggestions as a platform for an in depth character study of a complicated male relationship; a relationship between a leader and follower, a lost soul and greedy charlatan, and the genuine affections of two men who are not understood quite as well by anyone else.

                After P.T. Anderson unleashed his dark opus with 2007’s “There Will be Blood”, fans and film-buffs have been eagerly waiting for what he would release next. As with all of his movies, he took his time with this production and the execution displays the patience and detail he puts in his craft.  Like “There Will be Blood”, the cinematography is beautiful and picturesque, thoughtfully mixing precise shots of deliberate framing as well as moments of handheld intimacy. This, as well an eclectic sound design, including another scronky Johnny Greenwood (of Radiohead fame) score, as well as a selection of jazzy standards from the 40’s and 50’s, brings together an eerie, otherworldly tone that works to underline the tensions brewing just below the surface of every scene. 

                Though every detail is meticulously handled, the take away achievement of this film is obviously the powerhouse performances from Phoenix and Hoffman. Like watching a two skilled tennis players bouncing the ball back and forth, and never letting it drop, you wonder how their next scene together will live up to their last, and astonishingly it does.  Nominations will surely be granted to the both of them and they are equally deserved.  Amy Adams, as the manipulative wife of Lancaster Dodd, also enjoys her moments where she gracefully commands the screen. 

                As increasingly realized in much of Anderson’s later work, “The Master” is an evocative and ambiguous film that seems to relish in its interiorities.  The characters actions and behaviors are never explicitly explained, their goals are never clear, and by the end of the film they don’t really overcome their obstacles. While this may be frustrating for some, I found the movie’s observational approach to be radically progressive—if not a bit overlong and indulgent at times. While I tend to doubt that this film will instantly become a favorite amongst the majority of Anderson’s fan base—in the same way “Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia or “There Will be Blood” did—I do think that its rewards will be earned in repeat viewings, where you will unveil new meanings, unpack new insights, and decode new arguments every time you watch it.

Grade: A-

Originally published in The Basic Alternative/Oct-2012