Some thoughts on a handful of movies I've seen recently...
Review: The Grey
Over the past few months, "The Grey" featured one of the most consistently-mocked ad campaigns this side of "Battleship". Liam Neeson punching wolves in the face? Surely the once-gentle actor's newfound machismo had gone too far. However, it's Neeson and director Joe Carnahan who get the last laugh, delivering a film considerably more meditative and searing than anyone expected. The set-up is simple: Neeson and a handful of other hardened blue-collar workers survive a plane crash and find themselves stranded in the icy Alaskan wilderness. Surviving the nasty weather without much food is challenging enough, but that problem pales in contrast to the pack of hungry wolves which begins stalking the men. "The Grey" begins as a grim, merciless survival thriller; think of it as "Alien" in the wilderness. As it proceeds it reveals additional virtues: characters who prove to have greater depths than we suspect, a level of craftsmanship which surpasses anything else Carnahan has done previously and a surprising philosophical streak which owes more to Werner Herzog than Neeson's recent string of action flicks (there's even a fleeting homage to Herzog early in the proceedings, indicating that the philosophical similarities aren't accidental). Some of the film's more poetic flights of fancy might have come across as pretentious, but Neeson's achingly grounded performance gives the film's spiritual angst an effectively simple relatability. Come for the wolf-punching, stay for the haunting examination of nature's unwavering pitilessness.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of four)
Review: Chronicle
I have to admit, I've grown quite weary of both found-footage movies and superhero origin stories, but "Chronicle" pulls off the noteworthy feat of fusing both into a fascinating motion picture. The set-up is simple: three teenagers wander off to look at something strange in the woods. Shortly after their encounter with the Strange Thing, they realize that they've begun to develop superpowers. That's all I care to say about the plot for now, because part of the fun is the thrill of discovery the film offers. The first hour or so is a surprisingly joyous experience at times, as the teens react in touchingly giddy fashion to their ever-evolving abilities. Suddenly, things which have long felt like weary clichés feel charmingly fresh again; one scene played for me like the first scene of Superman flying must have played for audiences in 1978. Things take a darker turn in the final act, and it's vastly more gripping than usual because you've finally realized that this flick isn't beholden to the rules of big-budget superhero flicks starring immortal characters. I won't spoil the creative manner in which the film employs its found footage, but suffice it to say that this is the first instance in which it's felt like an inspired artistic choice rather than a gimmick. The film's goals are modest, and yet it runs circles around so many of the films which have inspired it. What a marvelous surprise. Don't read anything else about the movie, just go see it.
Rating: ***1/2 (out of four)
Review: The Woman in Black
"The Woman in Black" is an old-fashioned horror tale which delivers precisely what it promises and not one ounce more. "Harry Potter" star Daniel Radcliffe plays an attorney who has been tasked with visiting a creaky old estate in a quiet, gloomy, late 19th Century English village. Most of the locals treat him with hostility, though he does find warm hospitality in the home of a wealthy married couple played by Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer. It seems the locals believe that the estate Radcliffe must visit is haunted, but Hinds is the town's lone skeptic. It only takes a few creepy visions for Radcliffe to become convinced that the estate is indeed under the influence of something rather ominous, and soon he finds himself attempting to learn how to deal with the seemingly supernatural threat. The performances are stellar, the atmosphere is effective, the set design is impressive, the creepy moments appear frequently enough and the ending is satisfying. And yet, somehow the movie is a disappointment, as the plot is remarkably thin and the film rarely takes a risk of any kind. It's a competent motion picture which provides all the things you might expect, yet none of the things you don't. Daniel Radcliffe is effective in the lead role, but the film never requires him to do anything more than look terribly concerned. The movie will inspire its share of goosebumps, but precious few nightmares or long-term memories.
Rating: **1/2 (out of four)
Review: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Many movies require a certain suspension of disbelief. I've just seen a movie which required me to believe in ghosts, and another which required me to believe that teenagers could develop superpowers. I accepted these ideas, and the respective movies rewarded my faith by having the characters act as real humans might in worlds containing ghosts and superpowers. However, I simply can't buy "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close", because almost everything the film offers is some form of remarkable contrivance. I might have bought the flashback sequences which tell the story of a recently-deceased, supposedly caring father (Tom Hanks) who likes to send his high-functioning autistic son (Thomas Horn) on unsupervised adventures through New York City. I might have bought the manner in which the film treats the son's condition as a cutesy plot device, and I might have bought the way it uses an old man's muteness as a cutesy plot device. I might have bought the plot's endless coincidences, or the use of whimsical pop-up books and even more whimsical number-crunching (such as the manner in which the young protagonist counts the lies he tells over the course of the film). Alas, when all of these gimmicks (and so many others) are compiled into a single film, the effect is unbearable. The moments of genuine truth and recognizable human behavior are so fleeting (mostly found in the performances of Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright and Max Von Sydow) that they only serve to illuminate the artifice offered by the rest of the film. As a story of a young boy's attempt to cling to memories of his late father, the film is merely irritatingly precious. However, as a cinematic exploration of 9/11, it's unforgivable. The film uses painful 9/11 imagery of all sorts, but never actually has anything of substance to say about that tragic day. Instead, it simply uses this iconic imagery as a cheap way to exploit the emotions of the audience ("If you weren't sad about the kid's father dying, you will be when you see him falling from the smoking World Trade Center!"). The film was directed by Stephen Daldry, and he certainly hasn't lost his touch on a technical level. It's a slick, polished film which accomplishes its goals with aplomb. It's a shame that those goals are so nauseatingly shameless. This is the worst best picture nominee I've had the misfortune of seeing, and easily the worst film of 2011.
Rating: Zero stars (out of four)
Back at ya later
No comments:
Post a Comment