Carrie (2013)

**1/2 out ****

Kimberly Pierce’s (Boys Don’t Cry) new movie based on Stephen King’s Carrie doesn’t do much of anything that wasn’t accomplished by Brian De Palma in 1976. I’m not saying that I’m a fan of the old movie or De Palma’s work in general. For those who love these things, I can tell you that the new movie poses little threat to replacing the original.

The story of a shy bullied high school girl living under terrifying abuse from her superstitious Christian fundamentalist mother is told with a typically modern cinematic approach. Like the original movie, it achieves a disturbing tone but it’s not quite as funny. Carrie’s development of telekinesis leads to a lot of digital special effects that would look pretty convincing if the camera didn’t try so hard to show them off. Because the effects of her powers lack subtlety, there isn’t much about them that come off as scary.

Pierce makes an honorable attempt to capture the forces working against Carrie in a realistic way. The sheltering insanity of Carrie’s mother isn’t too far off from some real stories I’ve heard. The theme of bullying is nothing new, but it has been a heavy topic in recent years.    

The movie’s most relevant modern touch is in the beginning when Carrie has her first period in the shower after gym class and is not only taunted for screaming in ignorant confusion, but videoed on a smart phone and later displayed for all to see on YouTube. This current-day form cruelty was too obvious for the screenwriter, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, to pass-up. It is sad that even in a modern setting, there’s no one to tell poor Carrie, “It gets better.”

The film is rather well cast with Julianne Moore as Carrie’s crazy mom, who is the real show-stealer and may have outdone Piper Laurie’s Oscar nominated performance from the original. Chloë Grace Moretz plays a good version of Carrie but unlike Sissy Spacek, she has trouble looking plain. Spacek’s hidden potential for unconventional beauty in the 1976 version made a sharper contrast between her everyday school appearance and how she surprises people when arriving at the prom. Moretz, who has a talent for being sinister and awkward, is undeniably pretty in any of the movie’s scenes.

Judy Greer is wonderful as Ms. Desjardin, the gym teacher who tries to help Carrie. Her punishment of the girls in her class who humiliated Carrie, results in Sue (Gabriella Wilde) trying to atone for the wrongdoing by pressuring her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom. However the girl with the smartphone, Chris (Portia Doubleday), plots an abominable revenge.

Before I ever read Stephen King’s The Shining, I could watch the Stanley Kubrick film or the ABC TV miniseries and see two dramatically different movies that had different takes on the same material. The problem with this new version of Carrie is a typical one. It will be compared to the old one more than it will be compared to the original novel on which both films were based. This isn’t an alternate adaptation of a book. It’s a remake of a movie based on a book.

This is by no means a terrible movie and I think it will be appreciated by anyone who appropriately wants to see a horror movie in October. It simply loses points with me for being unoriginal. Pierce, a respectable director, makes little attempt for this version of Carrie, to be her own.

Captain Phillips

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

Captain Phillips is a very well made movie and a pretty good example of how a movie’s worth is not based on its entertainment value. Halfway through, I couldn’t wait for it to be over. Its portrayal of the 2009 Somali pirate raid of a U.S. Container ship feels very honest and respectful to the people involved in the crisis. What the film does to simulate the traumatic situation starts to feel monotonous after a while, but wouldn’t that be the point?

At the beginning, we are introduced to Richard Phillips as he chats with his wife (Catherine Keener) on the way to the airport where he will be catching a flight to the east African coast where a cargo ship awaits its captain. Phillips is played by Tom Hanks in what will surely be remembered as one of the highlight performances of his career. I’m not joking. We’ve seen quite a variety from him. Some of his performances, people have called overrated. You’d have to be pretty spiteful to say such a thing about him in this role.

After the title character’s intro, we meet Muse, a Somali living in an impoverished costal village being visited by bullying warlords who demand that he put together a crew and get to work at sea. Barkhad Abdi, in this role, and the other Somalis are faces we are not used to seeing in the movies. These actors are all first-timers, gathered from a highly concentrated refugee population living in Minnesota. Their unscripted banter and malnourished figures, wielding AK-47s, provide an undeniably strong antagonism that is just as human as it is threatening. The point is made: They have nothing to lose.

The movie has a relentless atmosphere of tension generated by quick-cutting and shaky camera-work -two trademarks of its director, Paul Greengrass. His work, whether seen through the action thriller setpieces of the two Bourne sequels, or the speculative re-enactment of the doomed 9/11 flight in United 93, has been intent on displaying action in the form of documentary-style filmmaking. Camerawork deliberately lacks sophistication, and therefore, any sense of anticipation. While I believe this method to be effective, it has been done to death by other filmmakers in the decade since Greengrass brought it to the mainstream. I don’t necessarily think that it creates the ultimate “you are there” feeling that some people claim it to have. It’s more of a “camera crew was there” feeling. After seeing Gravity in theaters last week, I was amazed at how the long controlled takes with wide-angle vision provided a very strong participatory kind of vision.

The tight zooms and quick cutting of Captain Phillips are not relatable to real-life perception. It’s Greengrass’ excellent work with his cast-members and the real locations in which he films them, that provide the realism of this film.

What makes Hanks work very well in this film is the result of his interaction with non-actors, throwing scripted dialogue out the window. As his character, he looks genuinely unprepared for every confrontation. What makes the atmosphere of the film believable is due to a production at sea on a real carrier ship. Visual effects shots are seldom. The only production element I could have done without was the excessive use of music, which played obnoxiously over many scenes that were already too loud and intense to require any extra enhancement.

This movie is likely to be an Oscar contender but it is challenged with the controversy in its portrayal of Phillips. Some crewmembers, currently involved in a lawsuit against the shipping company, have called into question Phillips’ choice to keep the ship close to the coast in spite of numerous piracy warnings. Regardless of whether or not the real Richard Phillips is the hero that this film depicts, it would not change my opinion of what makes Captain Phillips a good movie. I have nothing but praise for how this film ends. After a team of Navy SEALs pull off a high-tech rescue that must have been unthinkable to the Somalis, the movie makes a jump from life-threatening tension to the irony of horror that can come with survival.

Gravity

**** out of ****

Alfonso Cuarón amazed me once with his film, Children of Men, where he had the ambition to shoot long parts of the movie without cutting and did so with flawless blocking to keep the ongoing imagery alive and intense. Uninterrupted takes have the power give a viewer the feeling that they are really witnessing something -and that feeling becomes stronger the longer the take lasts. This isn’t the necessary goal of every filmmaker, but it’s strange how rarely this cinematic approach is utilized. When you think about it, the tendency for current action movies to contain indulgent cutting doesn’t make sense. Modern production and post-production tools enable filmmakers to make a shot continue for an amazing amount of time. The opportunity is there and directors like Cuarón are willing to put forth the effort to make a movie like Gravity, which is one of the most amazing cinematic experiences I have witnessed.

Gravity has a simple formula placed in the most extraordinary circumstances. As astronauts (Sandra Bullock and George Clooney) repair the Hubble telescope, an unexpected debris storm comes through, destroying their shuttle and crew, leaving the two marooned in the earth’s orbit (All the events I just mentioned take place in one shot). To make matters worse, they have lost contact with mission control (appropriately voiced by Ed Harris). What follows is a typical story of spiritual rebirth through survival. I don’t mean to downplay the importance of this movie’s emotional core. I’m just saying that it’s something we’ve seen in other movies. Cuarón’s powerful production is praiseworthy because he makes everything that happens in the movie feel more bold and important than it would have in a more conventional approach.

Another triumph of this film is in its casting, which went for top star power to guarantee a return on an expensive investment for a high-concept production. However, Clooney took a similar chance on Steven Soderbergh’s underrated science-fiction flop Solaris. In this film, he has been given equal billing with Bullock, but the movie is really carried by her. I’ve always liked Sandra Bullock, but rarely do I like her movies. This is maybe the best and most challenging role of her career. A good portion of the movie is computer animated with her face and voice being the only real elements we experience. The sound of her breathing often tells us more about her endurance in this horrifying predicament than her words do. When she boards a damaged and abandoned space station while shedding her space suit and creating a transition from her computer animated self to her real self, the bridge is seamless (I gave up guessing how they did the effects in this movie halfway through). We see the vulnerable human assuming the fetal position in zero gravity just to rest before figuring out what to do next.

There is a little expositional dialogue exchange between Clooney and Bullock when he is attempting to keep her spirits up by asking her where she’s from. This was the only part that felt silly because they’re astronauts and have shared close quarters for a long time. I would think they know every last boring detail of each other’s lives. Still, what does it matter? The feeling of floating through space above the earth with these people in gorgeous shot after long shot is a little too overwhelming to leave me nitpicking.

2013 has been a year of movies with some of the most beautiful outer-space special effects I’ve seen. Three flawed but engaging films, were Oblivion, Elysium and Star Trek Into Darkness –all of which had seamlessly executed scenes of things floating in space. This movie tops them all in terms of visuals and is a great movie in the process.

This is also one of the few big-screen experiences I’ve had, where the 3D presentation felt essential. If you wait months from now to see the movie on your iPad, you will have missed out on something monumental. Go see it on a big screen and get there early. Frankly, no one should be admitted after the movie starts. That’s how intense it is.