-
Currently playing around the country is a small-budget indie film called ‘The Avengers’. With a measly budget of only $220 million, I’m hoping this review will work its magic and create the word of mouth necessary to get audiences in the theatres to see this modestly scaled picture. Ah, I kid! Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and The Hulk all in one film! It’s a comic book lover’s wet dream!
‘The Avengers’, directed by Joss Whedon, is one of the best comic book blockbusters ever made, and is my favorite film of 2012 so far. It has a very good sense of humor about itself, and acknowledges the goofiness and giddiness of having all these superheroes together in the same room without disrespecting the fans of this source material. Robert Downey Jr. is terrific again as the brilliant, self-centered Tony Stark (a.k.a Iron Man), and he delivers most of the film’s memorable comedic lines. But, my personal favorite hero here is Steve Rogers (or Captain America) played by Chris Evans. He has the underdog attributes, and there is a sweetness and innocence in his character that makes him stand out, at least to yours truly. Mark Ruffalo’s self-deprecating spin on the Bruce Banner character is far more effective than the Eric Bana and Edward Norton versions. The other players - Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, and Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, are all effective, and no one gets lost in the shuffle – there’s enough screen time for each of them.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s brother, has severe sibling rivalry issues. Like every major villain in a superhero film, Loki wants to take over the world, and he plans on doing this by using a cube-shaped futuristic energy device to unleash his powerful army on Earth. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) assembles this group of superheroes to try to stop Loki, but they spend almost as much time battling each other as they do focusing on their enemy. I saw ‘The Avengers’ in 2-D and refused to pay the surcharge for a potentially inferior viewing experience, so I can’t comment on the effectiveness of the added dimension. But, I can state that ‘The Avengers’ is everything a summer blockbuster should be. The special effects are first-rate, the action sequences are amazing, the characters underneath these ridiculous costumers are very well-developed, the writing is spectacular, there are more laughs delivered by this film than any full-scale comedy I’ve seen all year, and everyone in this exceptionally talented cast is operating at the top of their game. This is the first summer release of 2012, and has already set the bar very high. A rare example of a film that fulfills its hype, ‘The Avengers’ earns my highest recommendation.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
As I went through my Twitter feed this afternoon, I couldn’t help but notice a high volume of angry tweets directed to film critic A.O. Scott of The New York Times for panning ‘The Avengers’. Samuel L Jackson, who plays Nick Fury in ‘The Avengers’ tweeted: “#Avengers fans, NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!” Many other tweets included profanities and relentless name-calling at Mr.Scott. I must confess I didn’t read The New York Times review of ‘The Avengers’ (Spoiler about my methods: I refuse to read any reviews about a film until after I’ve seen the movie and written my own review). But, I am going to say the comments about A.O. Scott from comic fans and movie lovers are unfair. ‘The Avengers’ wasn’t even released at this point - these moviegoing tweeps are defending a movie they haven’t even seen, and are attacking this critic by dismissing his review as “wrong”.
Now, according to Rotten Tomatoes, ‘The Avengers’ is sitting at 92%, which would put A.O. Scott in the 8% minority. It’s not easy to write an unpopular review - the review where the writer is swimming upstream against the overwhelming tide of critical opinion. It isn’t much fun to write a minority opinion, especially when everyone thinks the film is a masterpiece, except you. The most recent example I can think of is when I panned ‘Rango’ last year. This animated film, adored by most, received an 89% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and ended up taking home the Oscar for ‘Best Animated Film’ of 2011. Many friends and film followers were convinced I missed the boat on this one, and that was fine. As long as they were able to explain to me what they saw in the film that I had supposedly “missed”. The responses that irritated me were the ones that stated “’Rango’ is sitting at 89% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you’re wrong.” Why am I wrong? Because I’m in the minority? Has individual expression been replaced by an aggregated critical approval score?
Isn’t this what film criticism is about though? It isn’t a science - there isn’t a “right” or “wrong” review. It’s not just about analysis – ultimately, it’s personal. It’s about how *I* responded to what was presented in front of me, and what the experience was like to me. It is about having a focal point for an argument, one that is independent of viewer and critical consensus. And I have some admiration for A.O. Scott for sticking with his guns, and writing a review which I believe expresses how he truly felt (even though I haven’t read the review myself). With the noise and argumentation of social media, I’m sure I will continue to receive a few harsh comments for some reviews. Writing about criticism requires the reporter to be accepting of it. So, I say let the lively and passionate discussions about film continue. And for the record, I am not changing my vote on ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’, or ‘The Dilemma’ – the responses I received for my endorsement of these two films from last year were….interesting.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
I’m often asked what my guilty pleasures are. And I respond by saying I don’t have any, since I don’t think I should feel guilty for enjoying a film, no matter how poorly it was received within the critical community. I feel no guilt for having enjoyed ‘Lockout’, the new sci-fi action film directed by James Mather, and Stephen St.Leger. Though I suppose for most people, this would qualify as a guilty pleasure. The plot – It’s the year 2079 and the world’s most violent criminals are now incarcerated in an outer space prison. Snow (Guy Pearce) plays a wrongly convicted government agent. His one chance at freedom is to rescue the President’s kidnapped daughter, Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace) – her idiotic journey to a maximum security prison in space has resulted in her being held hostage by its prisoners. I’m glad I didn’t have to do a video review of ‘Lockout’ – I wouldn’t have been able to describe the plot with a straight face. The laugh ratio is high enough to warrant “Best Comedy of the Year” status. I laughed out loud throughout much of this cheesy throwback to the action films of the 80s and 90s. The action sequences are colorful, but cartoonish and scaled back to receive a PG-13 rating. Guy Pearce and Maggie Grace elevate the material even with its ridiculous plot, and the fact that there are as many clichés as bullets being fired in the picture. When a film is so bad it’s good, well, then it’s good, right? ‘Lockout’ has no delusions of grandeur. It aims to be a big dumb fun, and it succeeds. I doubt I’ll give ‘Lockout’ a moment’s thought once this review is posted, but for its 95 minute runtime, it makes for pretty good escapism.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
’21 Jump Street’ is the latest action bromance comedy starring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. It is a loose sequel to the television series, also of the same name, which ran from 1987 – 1991. Truth be told, I made no connection to the TV series when I saw the trailer for the film. Nor did I know the show even existed until the moviegoing colleague I saw this movie with pointed it out to me. Is this sequel faithful to the Fox cable show? Does it defile the original? I don’t know. I don’t care. All I care about is whether or not the film version of ’21 Jump Street’ succeeds in its own comedic terms. And it does.
Schmidt (Hill) is a pudgy high schooler who wears braces, and stammers when he talks to girls. Jenko (Tatum), on the other hand, is the handsome jock that will most likely end up the school’s prom king at the end of the year. Years later, they find themselves at the same police academy. Jenko excels in his physical examinations, but struggles with passing his written exams. Schmidt is the opposite. They end up becoming friends and work together to overcome each other’s limitations. They are assigned the safe task of park patrol and manage to foul up a major drug bust. As a result, they are exiled to 21 Jump Street, a program in which cops, chosen for their youthful appearances, go undercover as high school students to stop criminal activity involving teenagers. Their mission, as directed to them by the highly profane Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) is to prevent the spread of a new synthetic drug by finding the supplier.
’21 Jump Street’ is pretty funny and on a par with ‘The Other Guys’, the 2009 buddy cop comedy starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Farrell. This movie belongs to Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. In previous years, I’ve found Channing Tatum to be stiff and dull on screen. I did, however, have a change of opinion when I saw Ron Howard’s highly underrated ‘The Dilemma’ from last year. Tatum was the show-stealer and demonstrated a gift for comic acting. And skinny Jonah Hill is as funny as fat Jonah Hill. The hunkiness of Tatum paired with the dorkiness of Hill feels completely organic, and the two create a believable friendship. The supporting cast is also (mostly) good. Ron Riggle plays a creepy Phys. Ed teacher. Brie Larson plays the girl with a big smile who might give Jonah Hill’s character the romantic possibility he was never able to have when he was in high school. Ellie Kemper plays a Chemistry teacher who takes a sexual interest in her student, the character played by Channing Tatum. It’s interesting seeing a middle-aged Ice Cube as a hilariously angry and profane cop. Let’s not forget the track Ice Cube collaborated with NWA on in the 1990s called “F$!% The Police”.
Credit to Michael Bacall for creating a very funny script that celebrates 80s movies clichés and manages to be a strange but effective combination of teen comedy and buddy/police comedy. In fact, ’21 Jump Street’ is probably the most perceptive film about “highschoolism” than any other teen comedy I can think of in recent memory, and it’s these scenes that work best. You see, high school in 2012 isn’t the same as it was in 2005. Teenagers are now environmentally friendly, they’ve realized that bullying isn’t cool, and this forces the two main characters to experience micro-generational deracination. And the film’s villain, who is a high school student, is one that is articulate, and ivy-league bound. Oh, how the times have changed.
What prevents ’21 Jump Street’ from achieving greatness? The film’s villain, played by Dave Franco (James Franco’s younger brother) is a little weak. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller don’t inject as much as much energy and excitement into the action sequences as they do the comedic material. Some of the humor is that of the lowest common denominator variety – ahem, penis jokes, and homophobia, ahem. The final sequence felt a bit too much like ‘True Romance’, but it could have been designed to pay tribute to that movie. Clocking at 109 minutes, ’21 Jump Street’ does feel about 15-20 minutes too long for the kind of movie it is.
Still, what we’re left with is 90% of a pretty good movie which is much more than we’re usually offered at the multiplex. This is a very good example of how formulae, in the right hands, can actually work. The screenwriters and directors are aware of their own ridiculousness – they’re turning what is universally considered a cheesy television series into a movie, but they’re having fun with it. Thanks to a great pairing of the two leads, and a very funny script that pays homage to the action comedies of yesteryear, ’21 Jump Street’ is clear about its intentions, and constantly winks at the audience whilst delivering big, verifiable laughs.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
The controversial, but government-approved ‘Act of Valor’ is the latest film to tackle the subject on the war of terror. This time, however, we witness real-life SEALS playing fictitious SEALS. It’s as if the filmmakers are telling the audience that a war film with a Hollywood cast automatically strips the picture of its authenticity. I don’t think so – ‘The Thin Red Line’, ‘Platoon’, and ‘Apocalypse Now’ are just a few of the many great films in the war genre. ‘Act of Valor’ should have had “WE WANT YOU” as its tagline because the picture feels like a 2-hour recruitment video. The metric that will be used to determine the film’s success won’t be the tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes, or the total dollar figure it rakes up at the box office. The key data point here will be the number of SEALS recruits. Did the number of British Secret Agent applicants increase significantly when ‘Casino Royale’ was in theatres?
A team of six Navy SEALS are sent to the Philippines to rescue a CIA agent who has been kidnapped. Prior to her kidnapping, she was investigating a connection between a terrorist, Shabal, and an international smuggler, Christo. In the process of the rescue mission, the SEALS discover that Shabal is plotting an attack against the United States with a new, horrific weapon. The SEALS are then tasked with the mission of locating Shabal, as well the 16 suicide bombers he is sneaking into the Mexican-US border. The suicide bombers are equipped with vests filled with gel explosives. Shabal’s plan is to have them detonate their vests at strategic points throughout the United States, causing media panic, and further plunging the American economy.
The real life Navy SEALS who are essentially playing themselves are unquestionably brave, honourable men. However, there is only about two sentences of back story for these characters. Of the two main characters, one is a family man who likes to surf, and the other has a pregnant wife at home. As believable as the SEALS are, they do often struggle with reciting lines of dialogue. I don’t know if I can blame them for this – they aren’t trained actors. But, what about the SEALS as characters? They collaborate perfectly, free of discord. They stick to the plan but are able to adapt when necessary. They don’t even seem to curse unless they’re under attack. Nor do they question the value of the cause. And this is why ‘Act of Valor’ feels like propaganda. The film doesn’t examine the complexities of war – there are no corrupt officials, nor are there any psychologically damaged soldiers.
What ‘Act of Valor’ does have is action, and lots of it. These cast members were involved in sensitive, high-stakes, real-life missions, and I think this gives the action sequences, which essentially consists of a series of rescue missions, an aura of authenticity. This goes for the level of detail involved in their planning, their methods of avoiding detection, and their frequent use of military jargon. That being said, I don’t know what the heck a “hot extract” is and I suppose most civilians will be as lost as I was during the moments of military speak. The characters in this film have access to a wide range of modern weaponry and while what’s present is credible, it also robs the film of some of its tension. The SEALS have the upper hand in terms of firepower and logistical support. It’s the equivalent of cheering for the house during a poker tournament.
‘Act of Valor’ is one of those movies that is easier to appreciate than enjoy. As we watch this film, we’re reminded of the men and women sacrificing their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. It’s an admirable attempt at providing an accurate depiction of who the SEALS are, and how they work. As a film, it has some pretty impressive mission sequences, but it also has underdeveloped characters, stilted dialogue, a cloying score, and simplistic view of the war. The most unsettling aspect to yours truly is how every frame of ‘the movie felt like it was trying to convince the audience to join the military. As you can probably tell, I can’t recommend ‘Act of Valor, so my recommendation is to skip it and rent the criminally underrated ‘Green Zone’ or the Academy Award-winning ‘The Hurt Locker’ instead.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
Of the thousands of films I’ve seen in my lifetime, ‘Wanderlust’ has set some sort of record with me. I had mixed feelings walking out of the theatre, and initially posted a tweet-sized review which stated “’Wanderlust’ is 51% original comedy, and 49% stale comedy. On balance, I’m giving the film a marginal recommendation.” After exchanging a few tweets with a fellow follower (who also had mixed feelings about the picture), I decided I was being far too generous. My follow-up tweet to my review involved flipping the ratio to 51% stale / 49% original, thus revoking my initial recommendation. This has never happened before.
The film opens with George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) bickering about whether or not they should buy a micro-loft in Manhattan. They go through their list of pros and cons, whilst their real estate agent sits and watches impatiently, waiting for them to make a decision. But, George’s boss gets arrested by the FBI, and Linda has her documentary about penguins with testicular cancer turned down by HBO. This leaves them both unemployed, and they hit the road for Atlanta to stay with George’s brother, Rick (Ken Marino), a highly successful business owner. Along the way, they stay at a bed and breakfast hotel that turns out to be a hippie commune. After spending a night there, they head to Rick’s only to realize they can’t stand it and thus return to the commune. Trying to adapt to this unusual 60s era hippie lifestyle where free love reigns, George and Linda find their marriage challenged. There’s also an evil land developer who wants to turn the commune into a casino.
As you may have noticed from my description above, ‘Wanderlust’ doesn’t have much of a plot. A film like this relies almost entirely on its cast to pull it off. Some of the actors are given the chance to shine. We meet the occupants of the commune, many with a handful of eccentricities. There is a nudist who is working on what he thinks will become a bestselling novel. He also stomps grapes, but thankfully covers his midsection with a thin cloth to avoid shedding pubes into them. We are also so introduced to a pregnant woman, well into her trimester, who then pops out her baby with an effortless squat. And there’s another lady who illustrates the commune’s philosophies of free love – fighting off your sexual urges with multiple partners supposedly invites disease and death, and who is a fan of either? The members of the commune do not clap their hands – they demonstrate appreciation by rubbing their fingers together. And there are no doors since privacy is not in their vocabulary.
I have to admit, I enjoyed meeting a few of the above-mentioned characters in the film and was laughing at parts of ‘Wanderlust’. Both Paul, and Justin Theroux are very good in their respective roles and they are almost good enough to make the film work. Justin Theroux’s character has been a member of the commune for so long, he mocks people and their obsessive reliance on modern technologies such as VCRs, fax machines, and floppy disks. I also have to give the movie points for being an R-rated comedy featuring lots of bad language, nudity, and drug use. Too many films these days play it safe by toning down the crude material in order to receive a PG-13 rating. The releasing studios believe such a rating will draw in a larger audience, thus yielding higher box office numbers.
‘Wanderlust’ as a cinematic experience is much like hanging with these drug-fuelled characters – the film lacks structure and cohesion. It is a series of set pieces, and while I’ve mentioned some of the comedic bits that work, there are also a number of jokes that get hammered into the ground well before the point of delivering laughs. Aniston’s character consumes a hallucinogenic substance and takes the lyrics of R.Kelly’s ‘I Believe I Can Fly’ literally. The presentation of her documentary about penguins with testicular cancer is also flat and unfunny. But the most cringe worthy scene that I found physically painful to watch involves Paul Rudd’s character talking to himself in a bathroom mirror. He rehearses what he is about to say to a woman who has offered herself to him, and lines such as “I’m going to get up in yo vag” are said repeatedly to the point of discomfort. This extended scene goes on for at least three minutes, and then when Rudd meets the lady for what could be the big moment, we hear it all over again, and the joke which was unfunny to begin with has now been milked for all it’s worth.
‘Wanderlust’ isn’t bad enough to make you wish all those involved in this project would depart from society and live on their own commune. It is a mixed bag, but unfortunately I don’t think this is a bag worth sorting through. I acknowledge that the cast does elevate what is otherwise paper thin material, but I’m fairly confident that most of us would rather see them in a better picture. This is director David Wain’s second near miss in a row – his last project being ‘Role Models’, also starring Paul Rudd. I think the two of them will get it right the third time around.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
BEST PICTURE:
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight In Paris
Moneyball
The Tree Of Life
War Horse
My Prediction: The Artist
If I Picked The Winner: The Descendants
BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris
Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
Terrence Malick – The Tree Of Life
Alexander Payne – The Descendants
Martin Scorsese – Hugo
My Prediction: Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist
If I Picked The Winner: Alexander Payne – The Descendants
BEST ACTOR
Demian Bichir – A Better Life
George Clooney – The Descendants
Jean Dujardin – The Artist
Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt – Moneyball
My Prediction: Jean Dujardin – The Artist
If I Picked The Winner: George Clooney – The Descendants
BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close – Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis – The Help
Rooney Mara – The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams – My Week With Marilyn
My Prediction: Viola Davis – The Help
If I Picked The Winner: Rooney Mara – The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh – My Week With Marilyn
Jonah Hill – Moneyball
Nick Nolte – Warrior
Christopher Plummer – Beginners
Max Von Sydow – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
My Prediction: Christopher Plummer – Beginners
If I Picked The Winner: Christopher Plummer – Beginners
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo – The Artist
Jessica Chastain – The Help
Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer – The Help
My Prediction: Octavia Spencer – The Help
If I Picked The Winner: Melissa McCarthy – Bridesmaids
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Bullhead (Belgium)
Footnote (Israel)
In Darkness (Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
A Separation (Iran)
My Prediction: A Separation (Iran)
If I Picked The Winner: A Separation (Iran)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris
JC Chandor – Margin Call
Asghar Farhadi – A Separation
Michel Hazanvicius – The Artist
Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumulo – Bridesmaids
My Prediction: Woody Allen – Midnight In Paris
If I Picked The Winner: Asghar Farhadi – A Separation
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
John Logan – Hugo
Bridget O’Connor, Peter Straughan – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Steven Zillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Charvin – Moneyball
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon – The Ides Of March
My Prediction: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants
If I Picked The Winner: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – The Descendants
BEST DOCUMENTARY
Hell and Back Again
If A Tree Falls
Paradise Lost 3
Pina
Undefeated
My Prediction: Paradise Lost 3
If I Picked The Winner: Pina
BEST ANIMATED FILM
A Cat In Paris
Chico & Rita
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss In Boots
Rango
My Prediction: Rango
ART DIRECTION
The Artist
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Midnight In Paris
War Horse
My Prediction: Hugo
CINEMATOGRAPHY
The ArtistThe Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree Of Life
War Horse
My Prediction: Hugo
COSTUME DESIGN
Anonymous
The Artist
Hugo
Jane EyreW.E.
My Prediction: Jane Eyre
FILM EDITING
The Artist
The Descendants
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball
My Prediction: The Artist
MAKEUP
Albert Nobbs
Harry Potter and the Deathly hallows Part 2
The Iron Lady
My Prediction: The Iron Lady
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)
John Williams - The Adventures of Tintin
Ludovic Bource - The Artist
Howard Shore - Hugo
Alberto Iglesias - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
John Williams - War Horse
My Prediction: Ludovic Bource - The Artist
MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)
“Man or Muppet” by Bret McKenzie – The Muppets
“Real In Rio” by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown – Rio
My Prediction: “Man or Muppet”
SOUND EDITING:
Drive
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
War Horse
My Prediction: Hugo
SOUND MIXING:
The Girl With The Dragon Tattloo
Hugo
Moneyball
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse
My Prediction: Hugo
VISUAL EFFECTS:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
Hugo
Real SteelRise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
My Prediction: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
BEST DOCUMENTARY, SHORT SUBJECTS
The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights
Incident in New Baghdad
God Is the Bigger Elvis
Saving Face
The Tsunami and the Cherry
My Prediction: The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights
BEST SHORT FILM, ANIMATED
Dimanche
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
La Luna
A Morning Stroll
Wild Life
My Prediction: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
BEST SHORT FILM, LIVE ACTION
Pentecost
Raju
The Shore
Time Freak
Tuba Atlantic
My Prediction: The Shore
TOTAL SCORE: x/ 24
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
January sucks for movies. There, I said it. Traditionally speaking, multiplexes are playing one of two kinds of films around this time of year. There are the high-quality award contenders. And there are stale leftovers held back from the previous year. Yes, there are a few good January releases - ‘The Book of Eli’, ‘Taken’, and ‘Coach Carter’, but these are rare anomalies. We can now add ‘Contraband’ to this prestigious list.
It seems like every criminal in movie history who decides to put an end to their wicked ways can’t. At least until they pull that one last job. After that, they’re able to reap the benefits of a crime-free life. Such is the case with ‘Contraband’. Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg) is an ex-smuggler now installing security alarms and living a quiet life with his wife Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and two young sons. His brother-in-law Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) sets the plot in motion by botching a drug deal for ruthless crime boss Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi). To settle Andy’s debt, Chris is pulled into one last job. At the council of his friend Sebastian (Ben Foster), and jailed father, Bud (William Lucking), Chris assembles a crew to sail to Panama and return to Louisiana with $10 million in counterfeit money.
There’s a lot going on in ‘Contraband’ – more than I’m giving credit for with my plot description above (Note: I probably described about half the picture – it’s hard to go into any further detail without getting into spoilers). I think we, as viewers, have a good idea of what’s happening, even when some of the details around the heist get complicated. The fine points of counterfeiting (using starch-free paper), the maze-like streets of Panama, the counterfeiter’s hideout, a ship going out of control due a loss in hydraulic fluid, shots of the container parts and giant cranes – all of these showcase director Balastar Kormakur’s impressive eye for detail. He makes the ship container a terrific place to shoot a significant portion of this picture. The casting is also very good - the actors, most of them appearing as if they need a shave and shower, have such a commanding presence on screen. I’m glad that Mark Wahlberg doesn’t even attempt a New Orleans accent. Giovanni Ribisi is great fun as the hyperkinetic drug dealer with a chillingly pitched voice. Equally fun is another loony villain, played by Diego Luna. But the show stealer here is Ben Foster. He’s an excellent actor who has appeared in ‘The Messenger’, ‘Rampart’, ‘3:10 To Yuma’, etc. Mr. Foster crafts a three-dimensional character who is difficult to read, but intriguingly so. Kormakur is great at creating this criminal world, and has made the occupants of this world equally fascinating. In other words, I believe he’s given the actors the flexibility to build out their characters, and Ben Foster has taken full advantage of this.
‘Contraband’ is a superbly crafted caper with a very good sense of pace – the only thing that seems to slow down in the film is the ship containing a cargo of counterfeit bills. There’s never a dull moment. That isn’t to say the picture is wall-to-wall action. There is a fair amount of exposition around the details of the heist. The film takes its time to establish its characters and their relationships with each other and such scenes give the material weight. The most memorable scenes are those held within the ship, and in Panama City when a job within a job goes terribly wrong.
Is ‘Contraband’ great art? Absolutely not. But in a season of lowered expectations, it is a pleasant surprise. And as an example of its genre, I think it’s very good. Thanks to a great cast, a very talented director, and a strong script. ‘Contraband’ receives an unusually enthusiastic recommendation for a January release from me.
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
Dear readers, Happy New Year! It turns out the first major release of 2012 might just end up being my pick for the worst movie of the year. ‘The Devil Inside’, directed by William Brent Bell, opens with a disclaimer stating that “the Vatican did not endorse this film nor aid in its completion.” I can’t think anyone who would endorse this film. ‘The Devil Inside’ follows what now seems to be the overused “found documentary” footage format. It’s 1989 and Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) murdered two priests and a nun when an exorcism was performed on her. Fast forward to twenty years later, and we see Maria’s daughter, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade). She’s working on a documentary about exorcisms and decides to travel to Rome to see if her locked-away mother is mentally ill, or demonically possessed. She manages to get two priests, Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmuth) to help her out. They operate outside the Church, trying to help people that the Church won’t. And, of course, Isabella and Michael capture all this with multiple video cameras.
Where do I begin with what went wrong here? ‘The Devil Inside’ doesn’t even feel like it was directed. The camera is unnecessarily shaky during its entire runtime. I understand the “Bourne-effect”, but is this technique necessary for scenes where characters are sitting down to have a conversation? Was the camera held by someone suffering from Delirium Tremens? Also, if you’re an exorcist and your test subject has the strength of superwoman, would you impose minimal restraints on her for comfort’s sake? Similarly, would you place a (potential) test subject in the backseat of a moving car? And if so, would you actually perform an exorcism in the backseat?
Back in 1973, there was a great movie on exorcism called ‘The Exorcist’. You may have heard of it. Many films since have replicated the formulae of this picture to scare viewers out of their wits (ok, more importantly, capitalize on its success at the box office). Many have failed, and this is no exception. There isn’t an ounce of originality to be found within ‘The Devil Inside’. Let’s take a look at the Exorcism subgenre film handbook. The demon knows the darkest secrets of those in the room – check! Painfully contorted bodies during the exorcism – check! Foul language spewing out of innocent mouths – check!
After an incredibly dull 85 minutes, the film picks up in its last two minutes, before providing us with the worst ending in the histories du cinema. Ben and Michael are in a moving car with an unconscious Isabella in the backseat (oh shush about spoilers, I don’t want you to see this movie). She regains consciousness and appears possessed via transference. This leads to a struggle between the three in the vehicle and the film ends with the car speeding into oncoming traffic, headlong into another car. The camera cuts to black, and we hear the impact of the vehicular entanglement. We’re then told to visit a website (www.therossifiles.com), and read that “The Rossi case not yet been solved.” The End. There is no resolution, no closure to the story. Never before has a film felt more like a cop-out.
And now I tell a tale out of school. Press screenings, at least the ones I’ve attended, work as follows: Most of us watch the movie with a critical eye since we’ll have to write about it afterwards. Some take notes. The audience leaves in silence at the end of the film. There is very little dialogue about the experience between individuals - we don’t want to steal our colleagues’ ideas. Not the case with this screening. ‘The Devil Inside’ is a perfect example of a uniter. The audience collectively booed out lout at the close of the picture. People congregated in the lobby and openly shared their thoughts on the film. Everyone was in full agreement. I can’t recall a single positive remark. The “at least it was in focus” defence doesn’t even hold here.
But, of course, I have to say something favourable about ‘The Devil Inside’. The marketing behind this film was brilliant. Kudos to the individuals who assembled this trailer – they managed to find about sixty seconds of effective material consisting of creepy blind nuns, demonic screams, and sliced lips. In doing so, they were able to lure horror fans in for what they were expecting to be a real slice of heavenly hell. Prior to the screening, I skimmed over a few related tweets – mostly about users’ high level of anticipation and excitement for the film. My favourite one came from my friend, Mel Ward (@busychyld), who was seated next to next to me in the theatre. “I have a feeling that I’m about to see one of the scariest movies ever!” she said. Sorry, Mel. Not this time. ‘The Devil Inside’ is the sort of the film that would play in an infinite loop in Cinematic Hell. Exorcise your right to skip it!
- Jerry Nadarajah
-
1. A Separation
Some may say I’m cheating with my #1 pick since it doesn’t open in Canada until January 20th, 2012. But, it opens in limited release stateside Dec.30th, 2011, and I got to see this movie in 2011, and since it’s MY list, I’m going to say it qualifies! ‘A Separation’ is an Iranian masterpiece about a married couple who separates and the intrigues that follow when the husband hires a caretaker to look after his father. Both the film’s title and my one-sentence plot description completely understate director Asghar Farhadi’s case, which consists of psychological, social, and moral intricacies. The separation isn’t limited to the divorce of an Iranian couple, but also father from father, parent from child, class from class, and so on. The film is specifically Iranian in the sense that it was made by an Iranian filmmaker who expresses the characters and their situations meaningfully outside the confines of censorship. And yet the themes of responsibility, gender, class, justice, honour, social and religious divisions, tyranny, and truth make ‘A Separation’ achieve universality. Every aspect of the film is perfectly handled, and the family dynamics and scenarios feel authentic, and true to life. This deeply resonant film is perfectly constructed, brilliantly performed, and beautifully photographed. It couldn’t be any more tense, dramatic, or compelling. This is a landmark achievement in World Cinema, and I predict it will remain a timeless masterpiece. It deserves a nomination for Best Foreign Film by the Motion Picture Academy. Please and thank you.
2. Certified Copy
‘Certified Copy’ is a masterpiece of writing, construction, directing, performance, cinematography, editing, everything. Set over the course of a lazy day in Tuscany, the film follows a British writer (William Shimell) and a French antiques dealer (Juliette Binoche). Initially, they appear to be strangers, but are mistaken for a married couple in a cafe. After leaving the cafe, the nature of their conversations shifts drastically. The film’s title comes from the name of a book written by the William Shimell character who argues there’s no difference between a real object and a fake one if they represent the same thing. This idea plays into the relationship of the central characters – are they strangers pretending to be a married couple? Or are they a married couple whose relationship has disintegrated and are pretending to start over as strangers? More complicated explanations about what’s taking place also exist, but I think it’s irrelevant to what director Abbas Kiarostami is trying to say. ‘Certified Copy’ is one of the least manipulative films ever made – it means whatever you want it to mean. Personally, I like the idea of being meeting a stranger and being able to fabricate a 15-year history consisting of fictitious memories. To me, the film demonstrates the power of conversation - what two people can choose to invent between each other. I’ve seen ‘Certified Copy’ three times and my interpretation of the film has changed with each viewing. Juliette Binoche won the Best Actress award at the Cannes Film Festival for her performance in this film, and it is the best female lead performance I’ve seen all year. ‘Certified Copy’ is a gorgeous, through-provoking, irresistibly romantic film about art, fraudulence, authenticity, love, and truth.
3. Incendies
‘Incendies’ is a Canadian film that was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards this year and I’m still surprised it didn’t win. The setup is as follows – upon the passing of their mother, Quebecois twins are given instructions to deliver two envelopes, as part of her will. One envelope is intended for their father whom they’ve believed to be dead, and the other to their brother who up until now they never knew existed. ‘Incendies’ is an artful combination of a mystery, political thriller, and family drama. Certain images, including that of a burning bus, will stick with you long after the credits roll. Each scene, which involves a clue or discovery into the twins’ mother’s past, has something unsettling coiling underneath it. The performances from this unknown cast, especially Lubna Azabel, are outstanding. ‘Incendies’ is very stripped down and intimate and we, as viewers, feel like we are with these characters as they unravel the mystery of their mother’s life. Rarely do we forget we’re sitting in a movie theatre (or at home watching a film), but this is a perfect example of a film complete onto itself – we disappear into the experience. ‘Incendies’ is an astonishing, admittedly disturbing piece of filmmaking, and a huge step forward in Canadian cinema.
4. The Descendants
‘The Descendants’ is a quirky, offbeat film about a man, played wonderfully by George Clooney, trying to keep his head above water. His daughters are in full rebellion stage. His cousins (and the state of Hawaii) are relying on him to make a decision about a pristine tract of land owned by his family. He’s also been alerted to the fact that his wife was having an affair at the time of an accident which has landed her into an irreversible coma. This is Alexander Payne’s best film yet (‘Sideways’, and ‘About Schmidt’) which has the ensemble of the year. Every cast member is operating at the top of the game. Even characters that appear for brief moments are memorable. Payne’s film achieves the difficult balance of juggling all these complex emotions and presenting them in a believable manner. The film takes place in Hawaii, and we discover that it’s not all surf boards and waves. These occupants of this state go through the same problems and have the same dysfunctional families we do. The Descendants’ is perfect in depicting the imperfections of its characters.
5. Poetry
‘Poetry’ is a heartbreaking film from South Korea, directed by Chang-dong Lee, which won Best Screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival. It’s about a 66 year old pensioner who enrols in a poetry class while dealing with Alzheimers and is forced to face a difficult decision involving her irresponsible grandson who has been accused of rape. The film stars Jeong-hie Yun, a South Korean star in the 1960s, who came out of a 16-year retirement in entertainment to play the lead role. At no point in the film does ‘Poetry’ devolve into a tear-jerker about dementia or intergenerational bonding. This is a very restrained picture – in fact, I don’t recall there being any music. ‘Poetry’ is a small film, but one that is completely engrossing, and we’re with Jeong-hie Yun’s character every step of the way in her journey. It’s the sort of picture that most mainstream moviegoers haven’t seen, but truthfully, I cannot imagine anyone walking out of this film unsatisfied. ‘Poetry’ will stick with you long after the credits roll. And if it doesn’t split you in half, check your pulse….
6. Drive
‘Drive’ had a lot of people talking about this violent, arthouse action picture upon its release. Ryan Gosling plays a 21st century Man With No Name employed as a Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a getaway driver. He finds himself a target when a contract is put on his head after a heist goes completely wrong. The supporting character’s back stories come to life on the screen, but not Gosling’s. He remains elusive. Gosling is able to do so much by doing so little – by holding a subtle glance a little longer than you might expect. It’s this minimalist approach that makes his character so mysterious and compelling. As a testament to his commanding performance, there’s a scene midway through the picture involving a takedown at a strip joint. Even with nude dancers in the frame, your eyes will be focused on Gosling. The film’s director, Nicolas Winding Refn, won Best Director for his work here at Cannes. ‘Drive’ oozes cool – yes, even with its 80s pop soundtrack and its title in a hot pink font. It is a hugely stylish, unique, dazzling, breathtaking neo-noir film whose appeal isn’t limited to fans of arthouse cinema.
7. Shame
‘Shame’, directed by Steve McQueen (yes, that’s his real name) is the first movie in years to receive an NC-17 rating. Michael Fassbender plays a good-looking 30-something year old living in New York who seems to have it all together. Under that exterior though, he has a sex addiction. Like addicts of all kinds, he is self-destructive and goes to dangerous lengths to satisfy his cravings. One day, his sister (Carey Mulligan) moves in, and this cramps his lifestyle of pornography, masturbation, and hookers. Fassbender gives a daring, quietly intense performance that is worthy of a Best Actor nomination. McQueen has crafted an unsexy film about sex. Fassbender’s character doesn’t experience pleasure. The camera close-ups on his face make this clear. This is a man exorcising his demons. ‘Shame’ offers no easy answers – much of McQueen’s film is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Great art is that wish aspires to do something beyond itself. That means bushing boundaries, which ‘Shame’ (pardon the pun) shamelessly does. ‘Shame’ is unsettling to watch, but those inclined will likely find this to be bold filmmaking.
8. Hugo
‘Hugo’ is a big-budget 3-D family film with Dickensian overtones from master filmmaker Martin Scorsese. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan living in a Paris train station in the 1930s. He tries to fix a broken automaton and ends up being involved in a mystery that will change that lives of those around him. This picture ends up being about the birth of cinema and ironically, this movie about the early days of filmmaking is presented in 3-D. This is by far the best use of 3-D, supplanting James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ – Scorsese effectively utilizes the medium to create an immersive viewing experience, drawing the viewer into this fully realized fantasy world. This is Scorsese’s love letter to the films of the early 1900s. With wonderful source material and featuring perfect performances, Scorsese has crafted a film that is delightful, charming, entertaining, and a reminder to most of us about why we love going to the movies.
9. Take Shelter
‘Take Shelter’ is a film about a husband and father, played by Michael Shannon, who has these reoccurring dreams and visions of an apocalypse. He has a family history of mental illness, and wants to seek treatment, but because he fears the truth of his dreams, he builds a storm shelter in his backyard to protect his family. ‘Take Shelter’ is directed by Jeff Nicholas – he has a meticulous eye for detail, and has made a film that excels as both a family drama and a psychological thriller. Each scene is permeated with a sense of dread, and the dreams of Shannon’s character feel so vivid and chillingly real. The lead role in ‘Take Shelter’ was made for Michael Shannon, an actor I’ve long admired, and this is his best performance yet. ‘Take Shelter’ is the sort of film that will keep you guessing until the very end, and even its ending is open to interpretation. It’s the rare sort of modern film that can trouble your sleep, not with CGI constructs of monsters, but with a more familiar dread about our days being numbered by climactic changes.
10. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ is David Fincher’s remake of a 2010 Swedish film, which was an adaptation of Steig Larsson’s novel. A journalist (Daniel Craig) and unorthodox researcher named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) team up to solve a murder which took place 40 years ago. Fincher’s take on this story is what a film adaptation should be: he honours the source material, but presents it in pure Fincherian style. He has a crisp sense of framing, and effectively utilizes hyper-realistic lightning. He keeps his distance, and this focus on the exterior of the characters makes looking at the interior irrelevant. Fincher directed last year’s ‘The Social Network’. Both Mark Zuckerberg and Lisbeth Salander drive people away from them (though Zuckerberg does it with his rapid fire speechifying and Salander does it by being withdrawn, and not saying more than she has to in a half-monotone voice). ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ is tense, brutal, and Lisbeth Salander is one of the most fascinating on-screen characters I’ve seen in a really long time.
Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): 50/50, The Artist, Beginners, Cafe de Flore, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Moneyball, The Tree Of Life, Trust, Warrior, War Horse
Theatrical Trailers:
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
- Jerry Nadarajah
