Sinister

Ethan Hawk gazes at a snuff film he's discovered in Sinister

*** out of ****

“Turn the light on… Just turn the light on…”

That’s what my girlfriend kept whispering at the screen as we watched Ethan Hawke explore his dark house while armed with a baseball bat in the new supernatural shocker, Sinister. How could anyone help but think this? Why did the set designer allow so many light-switches to be within reach of the film’s hero? Why don’t characters in horror movies do the rational thing and turn the light on? We all know the answer: It wouldn’t make the scene as scary.

Doesn’t it also drive you crazy in thrillers, when the desperate protagonist comes across an opportunity for vital information to their obsession, and they somehow fail to ask important questions? In this movie, the protagonist starts to learn that both of his children are getting visions and knowledge from the beyond (as he is) and he doesn’t seem interested in asking them more about what they know and how.

Sinister has many needless conventions to be expected in horror movies. They are the kind that can make you start to lose sympathy with the character in peril. But this movie is still scary… very scary. It is directed by Scott Derrickson, who made the eerie yet underwhelming, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the crappy remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The screenplay is co-written by Ain’t It Cool News alum C. Robert Cargill (aka Massawyrm) who may be preserving the conventions I find annoying because he loves them. Regardless, the story to this film is successful at building its tension all the way to a beautifully designed climax. 

Check out Harry Knowles interviewing Massawyrm regarding this movie.

It is about a true-crime writer who moves his family into a house without sharing with them his knowledge that a gruesome unsolved murder of a family took place there. It is his intent to write a book about the massacre with hope that he can find new evidence that could point the way to the killer and the missing child of the family who was not found among the dead. When exploring the attic, he discovers a box full of Super 8 home snuff movies of other family massacres dating back to the sixties and spanning all over the country. While horrified by this discovery he knows that it will guarantee him a bestseller and he begins to research their grainy footage. Analogue distortion is the number one tool for scaring our digital generation at the movies.

While regularly working late into the night, his findings become more and more terrifying. Then he starts to hear noises in the house leading to shocker moments that truly work. His sleepless nights and heavy drinking, in response to the unease of his new home, start to make his life fall apart.

Ethan Hawke plays the writer with a self-obsessed smug demeanor filled with pride for making discoveries where police investigations have failed. This gives him a bad reputation with law enforcement wherever he chooses to live. At the beginning he is given an unwelcome greeting by the local sheriff played by none other than Fred Dalton Thompson. Great casting! Seeing Hawke’s grungy liberal indifference to authority and Thompson’s stubborn old conservatism sharing the screen is perfect.

I think this movie makes the assumption that no one in their right mind would move into a place where such things happened. Am I sick to say that I might? I really don’t believe in the supernatural and I think it is a sin to leave a nice house vacant. Leaving it empty is just allowing a community to dwell on its tragedy. Give sad places love and new life. That’s my attitude. But I digress. We’re talking about the movies where in such places, evil may loom!

I love the movies for being able to make things I don’t believe in seem real. Once I’m watching, I get wrapped up in how things exist in the environment that has been created. Every strange element introduced plays a role and amounts to something in this movie’s logic. The filmmakers wisely have the majority of the movie take place at the house and don’t follow their characters going into town or anything of the sort for a long time. It really helps the movie maintain its scary atmosphere.

Sinister is a terrifically terrifying movie filled with predictable elements but surprising ones too. Overall, I was really creeped-out when it was over. I am catching up to this one a little late, but it is still October and not too late for anyone who loves horror movies to see this chiller in a dark movie theater.

Arbitrage

Brit Marling and Richard Gere in Arbitrage

*** out of ****

It took me about twenty minutes of watching this movie to get around to caring. It's a very slow setup that does everything to tell you that the main character, Robert Miller (Richard Gere) is a rich man hiding his desperation to sell a company in this tough economic climate. He has people for whom he must keep up appearances and is a very financially intelligent man who has dirty secrets to keep.

His proud deal-closing nature is put to the test when he makes a mistake in his personal life that leads to much bigger trouble. The movie slowly becomes intriguing but most of it feels run-of-the-mill with superficial characteristics to help you know who everyone is.

The most embarrassing of this films archetypes is Tim Roth who plays a sleazy New York detective like cartoon characters are known for playing such a person. It's all there. The posture. The need to constantly be leaning on something while asking questions. Never forget the cop moustache. 

I suppose Richard Gere does enough with this character to make him believable. I don't think he's supposed to be likeable and he's not. The script by Nicholas Jareki is solid but his direction or the actors don't ever manage to make his characters feel unique -except for the casting of Brit Marling as Miller's daughter and business partner.  

What really stands out about this film is that its protagonist is a fraudulent rich businessman who is getting away with terrible things. The movie's passage is focused on him so if we're going to root for someone, it's this asshole. Why not?  

Argo

John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Ben Affleck in Argo

**** out of **** 

Argo is a great film with intensity reminiscent of true-story international thrillers like The Killing Fields. It also has the hilarity of absurd fictional films like Wag the Dog. Although in the case of this film, the “showbiz to the rescue” aspect of the story is true.

Argo is the true story of a now-declassified CIA mission, which successfully rescued six American diplomats living in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution of the late seventies when the US embassy was raided. An operative named Tony Mendez played by Ben Affleck, comes up with a strange plan to find the diplomats and disguise them as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a science fiction film called Argo which requires an exotic desert setting. Once he’s trained them on their false identities and professions, the next step is to get them on a plane home.

The light-hearted and humorous side to this film revolves around the filmmakers who assemble the fake movie production. The always-likeable John Goodman plays John Chambers, the classic make-up artist who was responsible for the work in the Planet of the Apes films  (It turns out he had done disguise work for the CIA prior to this operation) and Alan Arkin as Lester Seigle, a film producer. The banter that is the result of their wit and screen presence is priceless especially to a movie geek like myself.   

Affleck has built a very redeeming reputation as a director and has now jumped to a new level in that profession with a very daring project. He’s taken on sensitive subject matter that people still remember well and could easily be subject to criticism. He’s also doing a period film, with domestic and abroad settings, which requires a lot of selective props, locations, wardrobe, hair-dues, and special effects. Above all, this is the second of his directorial efforts that he has also starred in. It’s a lot of work and it’s really well done.

The rest of the cast is notable with Bryan Cranston as Mendez’s CIA supervisor and Victor Garber as the Canadian Ambassador who was hiding the American diplomats. The Diplomats are wonderfully played by Clea DuVall, Scoot McNairy, Tate Donovan, Kerry Bishé, Christopher Denham and Dazed and Confused scene-stealer Rory Cochran who doesn’t do much talking in this movie but still has a talent for looking like he belongs in the seventies.

Here's Ben Affleck talking about the film.

Affleck has made a scary, intense, entertaining, informative and moving film with nostalgia and cinematographic stylization, which all balances with the amazing story being told. I was captivated for the entire film even though I was often skeptical of its more intense moments being true. 

David Edelstein liked the movie but felt cheated by the embellishments.

Bob Mondello liked it more.

This is the kind of story that makes a great movie. While it is a miracle that the operation worked, it was a relatively small success in the grand scheme of things. When these six people were being rescued, fifty-two US hostages were being held and were not released for over a year. Making a film about their story would be honorable but probably not an easy one to watch. Schindler’s List, for example isn’t as much about the horror of the holocaust as it is about a group of people who survived it. Audiences like personal stories of hope against despairing horrific obstacles and Argo certainly delivers a story of that kind. 

Here's Nordling's review from Aint it Cool

Sleepwalk With Me

Mike Birbiglia in Sleepwalk With Me

***1/2 out of ****

Mike Berbiglia comes off like a soft comedian that public radio and hipsters may embrace, but he always wins me over. He's just a naturally funny person.  His material is easy to relate to. While I've only sleepwalked a couple of times in my life. His rare condition, which he talks about, is something I can connect with when I feel frustration over the lack of control of my life.

He is a stand-up comedian, but given more of a spoken-word or monologue context, when appearing on NPR's This American Life or stage shows like one I saw last year. 

Here's a Fresh Air episode Interviewing Ira Glass and Birbiglia along with clips of Birbiglia's stand-up.

Birbiglia gained the most fame with the Sleepwalk With Me story which revolved around a critical point in his relationship with a girlfriend as his stand-up career started to progress. If you think this sounds like he is trying to follow in the footsteps of Woody Allen, you're right. The thing is, Birbiglia's transition from stand-up to cinematic auteur is just as natural as Allen's. Will Birbiglia be making a movie-a-year for the rest of his life? I doubt it. I'm just saying that this is unexpectedly good work considering how many comedians in his position have tried the same thing and failed. It also helps that Ira Glass helped produce and co-write the film. 

The movie reminded me a lot of High Fidelity for it's charm and a little of the Howard Stern vehicle, Private Parts for it's autobiographical nature. Lets hope Birbiglia's future personal life doesn't contradict the affirmations made by this film Like Stern's movie did. 

Check out Nathan Rabin's Review on AV Club.

...and an important message from Joss Whedon

Frankenweenie

The Vincent Price-esque Mr. Rzykruski, voiced by Martin Landau in Tim Burton's Frankenweenie

*** out of ****

When Tim Burton's not rebooting other popular works, I guess he's remaking his own. In 1984, he made a cute little short film called Frankenweenie which was about a kid resurrecting his dog in a way that spoofed Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein and other classic horror films. Now he’s stretched that concept into a feature-length stop-motion animated film –and, like the original, it’s in black and white! Most directors have a lot of trouble getting a studio to agree to a movie in that form today. The fact that Burton got a kids movie to be released this way is pretty amazing. Maybe Disney has no problem with such an endeavor, as long as it’s in 3D. This will be a test for families everywhere. I deeply resent the supposed intolerance for black and white by modern audiences.

From the start, the movie addresses its 3D format by showing the main character, a kid named Victor, premiering a homemade 3D movie to his parents in their living room using two projectors as they all wear anaglyph 3D glasses. The home movie stars his dog, Sparky, as a giant monster terrorizing a model city. Victor is a brainy science wiz with no friends except for Sparky. His parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frankenstein (Martin Short and Catherine O’Hara -who provide several other character’s voices) are concerned that he needs a social life. In an attempt to do something of the sort, young Victor plays baseball, where Sparky comes along. Sparky runs after a home-run ball out of the park where he is hit by a car and killed.

Victor is devastated from losing his best and only friend. In the next few days, he sees a demonstration in a science class that inspires him to attempt to reanimate Sparky the way you would imagine a kid named Frankenstein would. It works, and unlike many stories that deal with this theme, Sparky is still Sparky. Despite being stitched up with bolts coming out of his neck, he’s not some creepy zombie dog. Meanwhile other kids at school hear a rumor of what Victor has done and attempt to do the same with their dead pets and the results vary in ways that resemble other classic monster movies.

There are several other subplots, all of which are amusing but like the main plot, don’t really have much of a purpose. They function to pay homage to movies Tim Burton liked as a kid and without much heart. Even the best Tim Burton movies are preoccupied with style to a fault. I enjoyed the style in this movie but I felt annoyed near the end when it forced such phony obligatory sentimentality of the kind expected in lighter kids movies. Is it wrong to make a kids movie that is supposed to be funny and look cool without any kind of forced message?

Burton falls flat on his face in the attempt to add a personal side to this story. He's a director among many who seems to be afraid of human emotion. So whenever he tries to add it into his work, it seems unnatural. 

The entertaining side to Burton has always been his tendency to mock most people's everyday concerns and sympathize with monsters. In the case of Frankenweenie, there is more sympathy for Sparky, who is portrayed with more personality than any other character.

Another character I’m sure Burton has absolute sympathy for, is the science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski -voiced by Martin Landau and modeled to look like a mutant Vincent Price. The teacher gets all the kids exited about science projects, which result in dangerous accidents by some of the more ambitious students. He then falls under scrutiny by the parents as they blame science and his teachings for their trouble. He hilariously calls the parents all unenlightened idiots. What starts out as a suburban PTA meeting as a parallel for the frightened villagers, goes in a potentially profound direction with a great opportunity to find a good meaningful center. Alas, this strong theme and implications of modern issues in education seems more like an afterthought that screenwriter John August managed to scoot in.

The movie looks fantastic and is an aesthetic tribute to all things that I’m sure inspired Burton when he was young. A lot of credit needs to be given to Mackinnon & Saunders, the company that designed and created all of the stop-motion puppets. They worked with Burton before on Corpse Bride and Mars Attacks. They also made one of the creepiest animated shorts I’ve ever seen: The Sandman (Click this link to watch it!)
 

Frankenweenie is worth a theatrical viewing. It’s cute, great looking, is one of the few stop-motion animated movies you’ll see in a year, and has good 3D. I just can’t promise you or any child will get much out of the meaning it pretends to have. At least Burton left Johnny Depp alone for a minute. Lets just hope he doesn’t ask him to star in a remake of Edward Scissorhands. 

Here's Tasha Robinson's review from AV Club.

End of Watch

Michael Peña and Jake Gyllenhaal as two brave LAPD officer's in David Ayer's End of Watch

*** out of ****

David Ayer's film, End of Watch, is a well-paced, mostly realistic looking drama about the daily life of two ambitious young police officers who patrol L.A.'s worst neighborhoods and face deadly situations on a regular basis.

The relationship of the two men and their undying brotherly devotion to one another is illustrated with superficial one liners but balanced with convincing chemistry and good (often improvisational) acting by Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña.

The movie launches with the look of a found-footage shooting style resembling Blair Witch, Cloverfield, and Chronicle but loses that objective in the same way that District 9 did. Ayer needlessly introduces us to almost as many video-cameras as he introduces us to characters. We're being set up for the idea that everything we see is strictly from the point of view of these cameras... and early into the movie, that rule is broken. The whole movie manages to be quite compelling with handheld HD cinematography, but is inconsistent with the notion that we are seeing what the characters are recording. It doesn't figure into the nature of the movie or even the story. Ayer's choices here seem more trendy than necessary.

I really likes how this movie gave me a safe window into the lives of these characters. Ayer continues his tradition of humanizing people who have to keep up appearances in the cop and criminal world. Everything seems to be based on an intense study on the professions he portrays. There are characters in the background of this film who, I can confidently say without doing my research, are real law-enforcers and others who are probably former hard-core criminals.

Listen to an interview with Gyllenhaal about the making of the film.

A thriller plot eventually finds its way into the film while the two officers realize they are in over their heads after successfully busting critical elements of a major drug cartel. There's a price on their heads and many gangs in the city who would like to get the credit for taking them down.
   

The biggest weakness of the film, is a group of criminal gang members who are annoying in their transparently improvised exchanges throughout the feature. This left me wondering if mentally deficient gang-bangers really talk that way, and if they do, why bother concentrating on it with this movie?

End of Watch does a good job of staying objective to its subject matter. The opening monologue says it best where you hear Gyllenhaal talks about his devotion to enforce the law, even it he believes it to be flawed. 

Extra reviews: 
Ebert Loved it.  
Rabin thought it was okay.

Dredd 3D

Olivia Thirlby and Karl Urban in Dredd

 **1/2 out of ****

Dredd is an ultra-violent action-fest that I'm guessing lives up to the expectations held by most Judge Dredd comic fans. All I know about Judge Dredd, is that when the Stallone movie came out in the nineties, critics hated it and comic fans complained that the biggest sin of that movie adaptation was Dredd's mask coming off (and staying off) early in the movie. It has been explained to me that Dredd's mask never comes off in the comic -and it never does in this new film. 

For those who are unfamiliar, Dredd is set in the futuristic "Mega City One" where the remaining human population of a devastated earth lives. With such a condensed population to govern, the futuristic law functions with the efficiency of police who have permission to judge and execute. No trials. They are called Judges and are provided with heavy armor and high tech gear. Dredd, (Karl Urban) is the main character and functions as an objective enforcer without personality or bias of any kind.

Dredd is tasked with training an aspiring Judge and psychic named Anderson (Olivia Thirlby). She's something of an audience surrogate since she is a very emotional character who is practicing restraint in such an ugly landscape. She perceives the thoughts of others and helps as a guide when the two wind up in a lot of danger. While visiting a two-hundred story government housing super-structure, their apprehension of a criminal with connections to a drug crime boss known as Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) leads to the entire building's emergency lock-down system being activated through forgery by the criminal organization. With nowhere to go for anyone in the building, Ma-Ma makes the demand over the PA system that no one leaves until the two Judges are dead.

The movie that follows is a bullet riddling stylized gore-fest and pretty impersonal. Co-screenwriter Alex Garland (28 Days Later and Sunshine) keeps everything as interesting as it can be, but I don't see a lot of interesting potential with a character like Dredd. This is the kind of movie I could enjoy more with a group of guy friends and a lot of alcohol. Most of the action is shot well and the atmosphere makes me think of the Verhoven wannabe films of the late eighties and early nineties. Predator 2 is a good example. The chaotic violent future is there but the satire and cultural commentary isn't. 

The special effects are heavy and bold in the creation of this environment. The superstructure's magnitude is more emphasized with the hollow center than with the exterior. Residents can look all the way up to see the sky through the opening half a mile above them. This is also a movie with a terrific color pallet with the bright-colored futuristic urban ghetto environment and constant bursts of bright-red blood that I normally associate with how anime looks. It all works naturally in this film's cinematography. It is very well designed and captured in 3D as well.

This movie and it's 3D make a big deal out of the future drug, "SLO-MO" which gives it's users a euphoric perception of small amounts of time passing by very slowly. The movie's best-looking sequences show the perception of it's users. At the same time they never really explain this drug which sparked a good amount of curiosity in my mind. Is the drug lethal? How dangerous is it? How long does the high really last versus the perception of it's experience? Does the extra perception of detail to time give you an advantage in a situation that requires quick action (like in The Matrix)? We're never told. The most significant use the drug in the film, is showing how terrifying it must be to be killed by someone while using it.

I really like that this movie avoids being epically convoluted and sticks to a simplicity of a John Carpenter setup; people stuck in a place with nowhere to go. Will they see the next day? I can also appreciate the way civilians look like current day people, kids are still skateboarding and assholes are still taking pictures with their camera phones. The movie was shot in South Africa and all the exterior scenes create the feeling of a landscape of sun-baked concrete.

There is also the creative casting of talented people to be in what would normally be a meat-head kind of action flick. Urban has proved to be a very versatile actor but he doesn't really have a lot of interesting things to do besides perform complex physical movement under a heavy costume while doing a Batman voice. He's a character who doesn't evolve much but he's not supposed to. Thirlby, who I associate with independent dramas (often in New York) makes all the strengths and vulnerabilities of her character clear. My favorite in the cast is Lena Headey as Ma-Ma the strung-out evil crime boss with a big scar on her face. This is a role normally reserved for a man. Looking at a potentially beautiful face of a ruined-looking woman ordering around thugs, which makes her responsible for the movies high body count is very unsettling.

I suppose my final opinion of this film, is that it's entertaining violent trash that doesn't have much of a point and wears pretty thin near the end. But it's way better than it should be.   

Looper

Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt both play Joe in Rian Johnson's Looper

***1/2 out of ****

Like the most entertaining time-travel movies I’ve seen, Looper doesn't make sense. Its logic is often contradicted in the service of thrilling sequences. I'd give examples, but like this movie, I don't have time to go into it. Back to the Future definitely comes to mind. In that movie and its sequels, the way time alteration works is silly, but it functions as a plot device to drive a story that has become an endearing classic. Then there are movies where the time travel has a kind of absurd order due to inalterable predestination like the excellent Spanish film Time Crimes and, when you think about it, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Also, there are movies like Déjà Vu and Frequency, which get so wrapped up in the emotion of their story, that they are an embarrassment to the genre… But I enjoy them anyway. If you can’t tell, I’m a sucker for time travel movies.  

With Looper, Rian Johnson has made an amazing film that is tonally unique in its dramatic center and draws inspiration from classic science-fiction films. There are elements of The Terminator for its plot and Blade Runner for its anti-hero protagonist. He also mixes in other genres in a way that may not work for everyone, but I sure felt entertained.

The film follows the tradition of Philip K. Dick-inspired absurd science fiction. In the year 2042, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hired gunman who stands in the middle of a field and waits for his bound and masked targets to arrive via teleportation from thirty years in the future. The mob from this future, send people back in time because human tracking in the 2070s has become too advanced. Practical? No. But watching Joe work is haunting. It becomes even more haunting to learn that these assassins all know that their final target will be their future-selves. This is called “closing the loop.” After this, they retire until thirty years have past and it is their turn to die. So when Joe’s future self (Bruce Willis) appears without a mask, young Joe hesitates with recognition while old Joe knocks him out and gets away. 

The movie makes no confusion about it. Young Joe and old Joe have no respect for each other and stay enemies for the rest of the film. Old Joe has an agenda to alter the future. Young Joe is on the run from his organization with the trouble that comes for letting something like this happen. He takes refuge on a farm in the country owned by a single mother (Emily Blunt). This is the setting for the rest of the movie where the plot takes some very unexpected turns.

Gordon-Levitt is in makeup to help him resemble Willis, which would be distracting, if he hadn’t done such a damn good job at playing Willis. He gets the voice, inflection, mannerisms, and idiosyncrasies of this now classic actor down with such natural ability. 

Bruce is just playing cool old Bruce until the character requires him to do things that are not cool and frankly upsetting. Doing a dark time travel film with Willis is unquestionably a callback to my favorite time travel movie ever, 12 Monkeys.

Emily Blunt is wonderful as the mysterious woman on the farm trying to protect her son played by Pierce Gagnon who gives one of the strongest performances of a small child I can remember in recent years.

Then there are the people from the “looper” organization with Paul Dano as Joe’s friend -a fellow looper in trouble; Jeff Daniels as a calmly sinister man from the future who manages and organizes the hits; and Johnson regular, Noah Segan as the organization’s incompetent enforcer. 

Rian Johnson is a talented writer-director who takes familiar aspects of thrillers like action, violence, suspense and humor –and refreshes them. This movie caught me off guard several times. You should know before going to see it that the violence is indeed brutal but it has an impact which most action movies lack. 

Listen to an interview with Rian Johnson on Weekend Edition.

Johnson’s 2005 indie-hit, Brick, was an unusual film noir taken far away from the genre’s typical environment. Then he did a bizarre dark comedy called The Brothers Bloom about international con artists. He’s also directed three remarkable episodes of Breaking Bad. His work has quite a range but always seems to involve crime, guys with guns, and nostalgia for old movies.

Aside from a couple cast members, he also brings back other collaborators like his brother, Nathan, who does this film’s score and cinematographer Steve Yedlin who continues to shoot on 35mm film, and in the case of this project, with a scope lens, which makes it look terrific.

Getting back to this film’s time travel logic, it doesn’t work. But if it did, this film would have to throw out one of its most terrifying scenes, which would be a crime.

Check out David Edelstien's review.