Martha Marcy May Marlene

John Hawkes and Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene

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

This is such a well-crafted psychological drama but it isn't the kind where you should expect a payoff. This is a movie about an unfortunate character who will be looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life. Martha Marcy May Marlene pulls you into the troubled mind of a girl who has escaped a cult. The form of the film, through editing and cinematography, seamlessly takes you on the main characters mental passage between the present and her time at the commune. This shows us a young woman who is in a seemingly safe place and has no feeling of liberation from the eerie fanatics who brainwashed her.

Elizabeth Olsen creates a character so convincingly confused and troubled, her face will be stuck in your mind for a long time after seeing this. John Hawkes as the cult leader has a sedated Charles Manson demeanor. Sara Paulson, as the main character's sister, continues to prove she is an extraordinary overlooked actress.

This is the first feature by writer/director Sean Durkin. I'll look forward to seeing more from him.

Here's Roger Ebert's review.

Bridesmaids

Kristen Wiig hammered on an airplane in Bridesmaids

**1/2 out of ****


Bridesmaids is a very funny viewing experience. That doesn't stop it's 125-minute running-time from making it feel indulgent. This is a movie I enjoyed as I watched it but in retrospect, it seemed kind of taxing for what it was. It's no surprise that this movie is produced by Judd Apatow, who I feel has had a great influence on modern comedy films but if there is a major shortcoming to that influence, it is the length of some of these features.

Maybe I'm the only jerk in the theater who can't laugh for more than two hours, but I'm a big believer in keeping comedies short. I think there could be a much better version of Bridesmaids with more editorial choices. I'm not calling these choices easy. Some of the funniest moments in this film have no connection to the story at all. I also think some of the bridesmaids, that is the title characters, didn't get enough screen time.


The film I saw was a pathos comedy about a woman who's life goes from being a mess to a personal crisis when her friend, one of the best things in her life she hasn't lost, is getting married. What's unconventional here is that she isn't threatened by the groom (Why would she be? He's played by Tim Heidecker -Great job!). She's threatened by the woman who was picked over her to be the Maid of Honor who shows her up in every way that wealth and unbelievable connections can. Then the movie jerks back and forth with no focus between the protagonist's troubled personal life and the funny bridesmaids.

Kristen Wiig's comic abilities shine as the lead in this movie, Rose Byrne surprised me as the annoyingly perfect and phony maid of honor character. Melissa McCarthy steals the show and generated the biggest laughs as the assertive and strange sister of the groom.

Some have incorrectly labeled this movie, 'The Hangover for chicks'. I like that this is a low-brow movie starring women. Frankly, I think there should be more movies of the type. But this movie isn't focused on the nasty misadventures of a group of Bridesmaids who let things get out of control. It's more like director Paul Feig (Freaks and Geeks), Apatow, and the editors did that. This is a movie that is sure to be enjoyed by men just as much as women. I just don't think it measures up to much more well-formed comedies.

Here's a nice interview with Maya Rudolf (The Bride in this film) and director Paul Feig on All Things Considered.

The Adjustment Bureau

Terence Stamp warns Matt Damon that humanity will pay a price if he follows his heart's desire in the disappointing, The Adjustment Bureau

**1/2 out of ****

What a lame ending! The Adjustment Bureau is otherwise a beautiful return to classic metaphysical science fiction or fantasy. It's based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and has the kind of paranoid fantasy world I would require from anything based on his work. It's almost like a light-hearted Dark City (a much better film). The plot is thought-provoking and seems to promise a profound outcome. Instead we're given an insulting childish cop-out that aims to emotionally satisfy as though the intellect of the audience had never been engaged.  

This is one of those 'almost great' movies that seems to work so well until you realize that an element of it's very foundation isn't in place. The atmosphere of the movie is beautifully mysterious. When you have John Toll doing cinematography and Thomas Newman scoring the music, you've already got something very rich. 

If you've ever seen Wings of Desire or City of Angels, you have a similar group of mystical men in suits who are part of what is called The Adjustment Bureau. They interfere with the passage of peoples lives in order to help humanity down the path of a preferable destiny. The main character has become aware of the Bureau and would rather cheat the destiny selected for him. For mysterious reasons they want him to stay away from the woman he loves.

Members of the Bureau are amusingly played with casual working-man attitudes by Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, and Terence Stamp (awesome). There is a kind of whimsey to how they covertly slip in and out of secret passages and short cuts in the city. There are a list of limitations these controllers have if they are to be cheated.

The most important achievement in this film, is that it succeeds where most romantic fantasies fail in making the love chemistry work. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are wonderful in all the scenes they share. It's a shame these characters weren't given a film that was worthy of it's great Body Snatchers-like poster:

Watch Ignatiy and Christy discuss the film.

A Dangerous Method

Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung and Keira Knightley as his disturbed patient, Sabina Spielrein in David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method

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

This is a very interesting story of three characters who represent the beginning of institutional psychotherapy. Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. The third person is someone I had not heard of until I saw this film. Actually I don't know very much about the history of psychotherapy, so I can say that I found this film constantly informative. 

A Dangerous Method is a film fueled by conversation. The interactions between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud are competently performed by Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortenson and there is an excitement to watching their theories develop. What is more interesting is that a product of their new direction for finding remedy for mental illness is Jung's patient, Sabina Spielrein and how the story suggests that she may have walked away with a more refined concept of psychoanalysis.

Speilrein is played with great devotion by Keira Knightley. In the early stages of the film her character is mad and creates an uncomfortable presence as she contorts herself physically with great tension while attempting to sit still in a chair and discuss thoughts she'd rather hide.

Some of the movies most profound scenes of dialogue involve Jung and another patient, the anarchistic Otto Gross, played by Vincent Cassel, who seems to be addressing the inner struggle of the films characters: Their refusal to find personal liberation with their findings. His beliefs give Jung temptation to follow his natural impulses and indulge his sexual urges for Speilrein.

I don't think that the central drama of the film is as strong as the ideas and the characters behind it. I am still amazed at how David Cronenberg can make such seemingly plain movies in terms of his cinematic approach and keep my intense interest. He's a director who doesn't storyboard. He figures out what kind of shots he wants on the day of the shoot. He has always been interested in the internal side of things whether it's a movie like this or a man transforming into a fly. It's no surprise to me that he wanted to make a movie about these people. Working screenwriter with Christopher Hampton (Dangerous Liaisons) was an interesting collaboration since Cronenberg films tend to be light on dialogue and this film is very dialogue driven.

I intend to see this film multiple times because it seems to offer a lot worth exploring.


Here is an interview with Christopher Hampton about the history behind the film.

  
and here is Cronenberg at the Venice Film Festival.

Shame

Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan play brother and sister in an emotionally draining scene all performed in one static shot from Steve McQueen's Shame

 *** out of ****

Director Steve McQueen's film, Shame, is an exercise in greatness when considering how much acting, directing, editing, and music score have the power to convey substance. This is a movie about an emotionally distant sex-addict and his unpredictable emotional sister who has come back into his life, much to his dismay. The writing deliberately withholds their back-story which is almost all you can wonder about while viewing the film. I can imagine that this is a film that could give me more insight to it's frustrating characters through multiple viewings. This might become a great movie in my eyes if I saw it again, but I don't feel the desire. 

Michael Fassbender gives what I can imagine is a very brave performance. He's naked, frustrated, and buries his soul deep down. The cinematography and editing are naturalistic and non-linear revolving around long passages of his conquests for empty sex. The rest of the film concentrates on the way he hides from everyone in his life. The atmosphere is very cold. Carey Mulligan, as the sister, is quite good but I don't know if this the role she was born to play. She tends to shine playing 'innocent and curious'. But I'm not sure if she is ideal as the damaged type I saw in this movie or last year's Drive. It must be said that she delivers a beautiful singing performance of "New York, New York" during a lounge scene in the middle of the film.

This movie is very well directed. There is little gratification to be expected when viewing it. My stance at the moment is that it may be very rewarding for some people to explore but I found it a bit too alienating to want to go back for another look. 

Here's a four-star review by Ebert

and a debated review by the two critics on his show.  

The Tree of Life

In Terrence Malick's Tree of Life: A gorgeous image of 'the end of time' provided by a veteran genius of optical special effects, Douglas Trumbull.

**** out of ****

When someone asked me what I thought of Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, I told him I loved it but I wouldn't argue with someone if they called it pretentious. Malick's great ambition with this film is to blend the cosmos and eternity with personal childhood/family memories in a small town in Texas. A young director right out of film school could try the same thing and I'd probably hate it. If you boil The Tree of Life down to it's concept as a movie, it's vague and very serious. I think that is the reason this film has so many haters.

Even self-professed Malick fans told me they hated this one. I wonder if they ever notice that the strength of his films is how very elusive they are. I don't need to know what they're really about. This movie is as beautiful as standing in front of a masterpiece painting in a museum or going to the symphony. For anyone who does such things, there is a code of patience and tolerance. For some reason, in the context of cinema, that code doesn't exist for most moviegoers. High art has a lot of trouble in the multiplex. 

Check out this funny story about walkouts on this movie.

What is really strange is that movies like The Tree of Life have been made before. Fellini, Bergman, and Kubrick are three celebrated names who all produced mysterious slow-moving works of art on film. Like Malick, their films were widely distributed. I just think they were from another time when there was a bigger audience for high-concept film making.


For me, this film is just gorgeous. It is filled with shots of visual wonder, accompanied by vibrant classical selections and original score by Alexandre Desplat, edited with thoughtful fluidity, and liberated from any kind of predictable narrative structure. The acting is invisible as everyone seems native to their environment. This is the kind of movie that puts me under a spell coming from a passionate director who has a talent for finding a 'god point of view' to life and treasures seemingly mundane moments in everyday existence and sees glory.

Here is a review from Ebert Presents: At the Movies

Plus David Edelstein's radio review.


Getting back to the point I was making at the beginning, maybe this movie is pretentious. I DON'T CARE. This movie is proof to me that a lot of great movies probably are pretentious in concept but so strong in spectacle that I'm not concerned with what they're preaching.

You may see this film and agree with my belief that movies can simply exist for their aesthetic and musical beauty. You may even wonder, as I often do, if movies that are concentrated on such things are the very best of cinema. 

All I can offer to someone who intends to see The Tree of Life is my advise to not think hard about it. See it alone if you have to. Sit back with no distractions and just experience it. If you are confused by anything, don't try to figure it out while you are watching it. Just watch, listen, feel.

But then again, you may not have any response to what this movie offers. Hell, maybe beauty offends you -and if so, there's always youtube.

Hugo

Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz in Martin Scorsese's Hugo

 ***1/2 out of ****

Hugo is a brilliant love letter to cinema history. It's magical in almost every way. The acting is flawless. The homage to early cinema finds it's way into the modern craft gracefully. Even if you find 3D movies taxing to the senses, it is still obvious that this movie was tailored for the process and no time was wasted in utilizing it. 

I will definitely view this movie again and see if I can get over the one issue I have with most Martin Scorsese films. I hate saying this about one of the all time greatest of American directors, but I have always felt like Scorsese movies can feel monotonous. He finds, through astounding production ability, a mood for his movie and never deviates. He may change color scheme and environment, but the score and the editing tend to stay the same throughout the picture. To many film enthusiasts and Scorsese himself, there's nothing wrong with this. My taste for Scorsese films has always been only slightly dissatisfied by a slight dragging feeling. I got that feeling during parts of Hugo.

I almost feel terrible complaining about such a thing because Hugo is one of the best movies about movies ever! A lot of credit can go to the original author of the book, The Adventures of Hugo Cabret, Brian Selznick. This author did extensive research on the cinematic innovator Georges Méliès whom this movie is the focus of. He also does a great service to the post World War I Paris and the train station this film is set in. 

This movie is such a delightful education that I hope will interest a new generation in the creative art of film-making. There is no question that it will interest adults more.