Netflix This: Hell and Back Again

     It's unbelievably easy to forget that men and women of every nationality, color and sexual orientation are coming home from war--even to this day--with deep metaphorical scars that harm the emotional thought process of the brain or real scars that dig deep into flesh, muscle and bone. Luckily, for people sitting in the comfort of their own home who want to know what exactly is happening with the wars or returning soldiers, for every few hundred brave troops there is a brave journalist or filmmaker capturing the humor, patriotism and atrocity that transpires in any war. Just take a look at Dexter Filkins' incredible nonfiction book, The Forever War, or watch some of the wonderful and inspiring (and sometimes sickening) documentaries that have graced our television and theater screens in the past few years: namely No End in Sight and the outstanding Restrepo. Add Hell and Back Again to the list.
     Marine Sgt. Nathan Harris is nearing the end of a 6-month tour in Afghanistan. He's in the way of a sniper bullet that gets fired by the enemy, and it shoots him on the side of his ass. He eloquently states that the bullet blew "half his ass off." Hell and Back Again is one of those documentaries that focuses more on the aftermath of getting brutally wounded in war than the war itself. This isn't a film about a group of hunkered down soldiers trying to survive in a trench in a mountain range in Afghanistan; it's about one man trying to survive physical therapy and a trip to Wal-Mart after leaving the only career that he's ever been good at. The career of killing people.
      To be nice, any chance Nathan gets he shows off his scar to the concerned folk around his neighborhood. The bullet, as one can imagine, had no trouble searing through Nathan's skin, fat, muscle and the bone of his hip socket. From there, it bounced around a little bit, fragmenting a portion of his leg in the process. He spends a lot of time in a motorized wheelchair or on the couch, trying to stretch his injury through therapy until tears slowly fall down his cheeks. Other time is spent with film that was shot during Nathan's deployment. You can tell that Nathan believes in the United States' mission, whether he's crawling across a dangerous field, trying to spot rogue Taliban fighters, or speaking with Afghan elders through a translator.
     The mission, while deployed, is clear. The mission, when he's wounded and at home, is much harder to decipher. His wife Ashley is the type of woman who every soldier hopes to have his corner, a girl who would lovingly fill your pain medication subscriptions and change your diaper at the same time with no fear in her face and only love in her heart. Addiction to painkillers always looms in the viewers mind: how can someone sustain an injury like this and not be reliant on drugs (especially drugs that cause euphoria in high doses). Nathan has to fight much different battles than when he was deployed. He just wants to go back and fight.
     As Hell and Back Again continues, Nathan's situation becomes clearer. He always seemingly has an obsession with guns--cleaning them, loading them, pointing them at things. He always seems ready to aim and take another shot, whether it's towards a burglar in the night or a Taliban fighter in his dreams. Unfortunately, in his new life, there is nobody to shoot dead. There is only his wife, left to deal with his broken state, waiting for the day in which Nathan will overcome his lost love: war.

(Available on Netflix Instant Watch)

Never Netflix This: Meek's Cutoff

     I was actually super excited for Meek's Cutoff. For one, I love modern westerns. Any film that deals with the trials and tribulations of the Old West or prairie life always catches my eye (and attention). I rank Unforgiven, Open Range, Appaloosa, The Proposition and 3:10 to Yuma among some of my favorites of the past 15 years. Meek's Cutoff, which is available to view through Netflix Instant Watch--though I wouldn't waste your time, unless your idea of a good time is watching paint (very) slowly dry--is a recent and low-budget look at a portion of the Oregon Trail journey starring indie-it-girl Michelle Williams.
     Meek's Cutoff is an incredibly realistic look at what this small group of travelers went through as they wandered across an unknown land with unknown danger. Too realistic. The film, with a very small amount of dialogue (not that it's a detriment), shows a band of settlers who are not quite sure if their leader, Stephen Meek, has any clue where he is going. What was supposed to be a two week journey soon turns into five, sort of like going to the DMV to get your licence renewed.
     The group moves across the terrain like old people fucking: slow. Wagons become stuck in the mud, wheels fall off, and threat of Indian attacks always looms largely in the groups' mind. But nothing exciting ever really happens, unless your idea of exciting involves watching people slowly die of dehydration because of dwindling water supply. The men make all of the important decisions, and the women slowly knit their way towards death as their husbands try to decide where to go to find water. Soon they capture a lone Indian. Instead of killing him with knitting needles, the group (the men) decide to keep him alive so he can lead them to the neighborhood swimming hole. Typical questions arise: Is Mr. Indian leading them into a trap? Does Meek have any clue where he is taking the band of survivors? Will this movie ever end so I can play Halo?
     Some people like to say (when a film is shitty), "Wow, look at the cinematography! It's so gosh-darn gorgeous!" And some of the scenery and film angles are quite beautiful. But--unfortunately--that can't help Meek's Cutoff from being an exercise in boredom. There's no payoff: it's just the real experience of some settlers who take the wrong path. Like most anyone's daily life, it's generally not worth getting excited about. Yeah, these unfortunate folks had a rough go of it, but while watching Meek's Cutoff, I felt like I was getting cutoff--at the bar.
   

Marvel's The Avengers, an Expected Summer Spectacle

     News broke today that The Avengers, Marvel's newest film that features all of the superhero fan favorites (at least in the Marvel universe) of the past few years, became the highest-grossing opening weekend film of all time--the first film in the history of theater-going to break the seemingly unattainable barrier of $200 million dollars during its first three days. Like The Hulk breaking his foes into little bits, it smashed box office expectations. It's no huge surprise: the marketing for it has flashed across every type of screen for over a year, reaching a fever pitch throughout the past few weeks. But in film, money doesn't necessarily mean quality. (Does anyone remember Paul Blart: Mall Cop?) Luckily, The Avengers will meet your expectations: it's an occasionally great, always-entertaining summer blockbuster that won't change anyone's mind about superhero films (one way or the other), and it will satiate any geek's hunger until Prometheus lands in June and The Dark Knight Rises flies into cinemas in July.
     By now, most anyone can name the main members of The Avengers. Their stories are separate until an end-the-world plot brings them together at breakneck speed. Tony Stark's Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is still a "billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" who dishes out humorous and sarcastic quips faster than he blazes across the sky. Captain America (Chris Evans) is still dealing with visions and the nostalgia of his past life--he's only at peace when he's serving his country with the utmost honor. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) had returned to his distant planet, but Earth is under his protection so he returns with Shakespearean fervor when the metaphorical shit hits the fan. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) has been laying low, seemingly a pro at anger management, never letting the green "other guy" enter into Smash Mode. The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is still performing expert martial arts maneuvers in her tight leather suit--don't ask me how the crotch doesn't rip out on that thing. Newcomer Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) rounds out the pack with some impressive archery skills that would make Katniss Everdeen moan with orgasmic ecstasy.
     These are superheroes with super powers, all with different skill sets that prove useful at convenient times. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), the leader of SHIELD, an organization that seemingly stops Earth from being destroyed, brings these large personalities together for one reason: Thor's adopted brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has come to our home planet to steal this thingamajig called the Tesseract, a never-ending source of energy that he wants to use to open a portal to other dimensions or universes (or does it matter?). It's safe to say that what enters through this portal won't be what a military soldier would call a "friendly". Ultimately, they look like monster reptiles that ride easy-to-shoot-down-and-destroy flying spacecrafts. So the Avengers come together to--what else--avenge Loki and his maniacal smile.

     Though the film has some damn impressive battles and gorgeous special effects, much of The Avengers run time is spent examining the tension-filled relationships between our beloved heroes. Their home base is a giant aircraft carrier that can sprout hovercraft wings and fly around and become invisible (don't ask). As one can imagine, personalities clash and insults are thrown and deflected like stray bullets off of Captain America's shield. These folks could learn the old lesson that there is no "I" in "Team". The film is funny and corny, but that's part of the fun: it's hard not to chuckle at Downey Jr.'s never-ending sarcasm, Thor's ancient terminology, and Captain America's unwillingness to participate in the more hurtful and personal banter. Eventually, an event happens that obviously brings The Avenger's close, and it sets up the long and great action-packed finale of the film. They finally learn the lesson that most children know: working together towards a goal is much more efficient. Luckily for the viewer, it's also fun to watch.
     The Avengers is directed by Joss Whedon, the creator of the television version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the visual presence in many nerd's nocturnal emissions. He does a great job with the balancing act of showcasing each character's personal journey, humor and power. The problem with the film is that it doesn't surprise: the basic frame of the story has been told in each of the individual Marvel films--the two Iron Man movies, Thor, and the worst of the bunch, Captain America. Introduce the hero. Introduce the villain. Ultimately, save the world. Now that Marvel has upped the ante and brought all of these characters together, will anyone care about the plight of Iron Man or Thor when their individual upcoming sequels are eventually released into theaters? That's a stupid question. Of course they will. Me: I'm looking forward to the next Avengers film, hoping to be surprised.     (B)

Never Netflix This: In Time

A little introduction: throughout the past couple of years writing on this blog, I have noticed that it's quite rare when I write reviews on bad or mediocre movies. But it does make sense. Why would I choose to waste money on a movie ticket or waste valuable Netflix-queue space watching something that I don't really care about? After all, I'm not getting paid to do this. But every now and again, films come along that fall short of expectation. From now on, I will incorporate these films into a new blog series: "Never Netflix This:", an incredibly clever play on my world-famous "Netflix This:". Just a paragraph or two, warning you of the epic failures or barely misses of some of the skidmarks on the face of cinema. Let's start with...

     In Time. I should have known, right? It stars Justin Timberlake. But Justin Timberlake was actually good in The Social Network. Not the kind of good that is serviceable or barely noticable, but the kind of good that actually impressed me. I guess director David Fincher can make anyone look talented. And it's not that J.T. is bad in In Time. He's fine: it's the film that suffers from a lackluster script (and--really--story altogether). It had plenty of potential to be a great modern sci-fi film. You know the overused saying, "Time is money"? Well, time literally is money in In Time. By the year 2161, everyone in humanity stops aging once they hit 25 years old. To live past that age, you have to earn time just as one earns money: working for it, borrowing it, or stealing it. Every human's time remaining is shown on their arm, ticking down to their death.
     Essentially, the wealthy and ultra-rich have no problem staying 25 years old forever: they've got all of the "time" in the world. The poor live in the ghettos, barely getting to their next paycheck before their time runs out. When Timberlake's character, who usually only has one day's worth of time ticking away at his wrist, meets a mysterious stranger at a bar who transfers all of his time to J.T. while he is sleeping (116 years worth of time), J.T. has to decide what to do with more-than-a-lifetime's worth of years. The premise is great, and is ripe with opportunity for awesome sci-fi chase scenes and exciting action set pieces. Unfortunately, that's not what the viewer gets. We get the script that over-explains and simplifies every detail for the viewer and shies away from innovative action intrigue. And that's surprising, considering the director and writer is Andrew Niccol who directed Gattaca, wrote the wonderful The Truman Show, and directed and wrote the entertaining Lord of War. Unfortunately, he fires a blank here: In Time is a film with a promising plot but a disappointing execution.

Netflix This: Tyrannosaur

     Tyrannosaur, at its heart, is about anger: the anger that just can't go away, no matter how hard a person tries to fix it or push it deep down in the pit of their stomach. The film starts with several hard-watch-scenes, particularly if you have trouble with animal abuse (in fact, there are at least two scenes in Tyrannosaur that involve pets being killed, whether they deserve it or not). Joseph lives alone after the death of his wife. But he doesn't really live alone, as he spends most of his time with semi-friends and strangers trying to drink away every memory that's latched inside of his brain. Drinking the anger and pain away doesn't help: it always boils to the surface, causing Joseph to lash out at humans, animals, kids, and people of color.
     Joseph is played by Peter Mullan, who is recognizable most to Trainspotting fans (he was also in the modern classic Children of Men), and what a violent and amazing performance it is. It's hard to take your eyes off of him: with his thick accent and deep, sad eyes he conveys Joseph as a broken man on the verge of shattering, a brutal force that--every now and then--turns to kindness when he's near people who make him feel human. He's the old guy at the bar with dark secrets and violent stares.
     After a few violent reactions to everyday situations, Joseph performs a particularly alarming act, and runs from the scene. He knows that he has gone too far, and in a state of desperation, he ends up cowering behind a rack of clothing in a thrift store. This thrift store is run by a woman named Hannah, and instead of shooing Joseph away, she stands on the other rise of the rack, trying to help and understand him. He doesn't say a word, but when Hannah starts praying for him, Joseph breaks down into sobs and tears. Maybe if Joseph would just accept Jesus and the state of his life, any situation would be manageable. But Hannah has secrets of her own, the least of which is her secret alcohol abuse (alcoholism is nothing compared to the state of her home life with her husband).
     Almost everyone in Joseph's life is at odds against him. He strikes up a friendship with his neighbor's son, but the boy's mother has a boyfriend that's a wannabee gangster, chain's bouncing around his neck as he holds back his vicious pitbull from attacking anything nearby. He is the opposite of Joseph: confrontational from the start and obnoxious. Striking up a friendship with Hannah--a kind and generous woman--seems like a logical choice in the correct direction, instead of fighting with bar patrons and his neighbor's boyfriend with a dumb and violent dog.
     Something sets off a spark in Joseph when Hannah shows up to her shop one morning with a black eye. Joseph is finally in a position, seemingly the first since his wife died, to actually help someone in need, instead of letting his anger seep out of every bone, muscle and pore in his body. The film hints at Joseph's relationship with his wife, but it doesn't delve into it too deeply. But it's clear that Joseph will have to make some decisions that may change the rest of his life, due to his new friendship with Hannah and the growing tension between Joseph and the pitbull-holding neighbor.
     Tyrannosaur is directed by Paddy Considine, an actor (whom you may have seen in Hot Fuzz or The Bourne Ultimatum) taking over the directing chair for the first time. He sure does a damn good job: Tyrannosaur is one of the best and most affecting films of 2011. This is the type of movie that just looks at a few damaged human beings. It's not about redemption or learning to change your entire personality. It's depressing at times and always emotional, but only because the character's positions are so dire. I wouldn't even say that's extremely fun to watch--it's dark and brutal. But it's also an honest and realistic look at anger--anger that causes satisfaction for some and pain for others.

The Evil Dead Rise in The Cabin in the Woods

     You may have seen the preview quickly flashed across your television screen. It has all of the ingredients of a typical, unoriginal, cliche horror movie: five college age kids, each playing the role that has been played a thousand times, head up to a remote cabin in the woods (on a lake, obviously) to drink and screw for a long weekend. There's the bonerific blond girl, Jules, whose screen time is spent either screaming or gyrating her tanned upper thighs to party music. Her boyfriend, Curt, wears his varsity jacket and lives off of his frat-boy charm. Holden is the smart kid, tagging along on the trip for chance to score with the virginal Dana, whose professor just ended their short fling via email. And then there's Marty, who's--you guessed it--a stoner who knows that something just isn't right.
     Do you really want to pay money to see this story played out again? We all know where this is headed (or beheaded). The answer to that question is yes...but I can't really tell you why. It's nearly impossible to tackle a review on The Cabin in the Woods without spoiling some of the best parts. I will say this: the film is surprising and breaks out into a no-holds barred blood bath of epic proportions, and even if some of the plot points are too over-the-top and some of the humor misses its mark, The Cabin in the Woods is an enjoyable 90 minutes at the theater, with enough spurting blood to satisfy any gore-hound.
     Though the group stops at a decrepit gas station and meets the toothless, tobacco-spitting local who owns it, and the cabin looks no different than most any other cabin-horror movie, once the group finds out what is exactly in the cellar, all hell breaks loose. The film sounds quite similar to Eli Roth's Cabin Fever, which I love unconditionally. But the director and writer of The Cabin in the Woods, Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon (who created the television version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and is directing next month's hugely-hyped The Avengers), have crafted an entirely new experience, an Evil Deadish film full of meta winks and nods.
     Clearly, this cabin in the woods is much different than any other portrayed in the horror genre. Nothing is really what it seems, and most everything is intentional. If you've seen the previews for The Cabin in the Woods, it's clear that there are members of the cast other than the five unfortunate souls who enter the cabin. Six Feet Under's Richard Jenkins and Billy Madison's Bradley Whitford play scientists who are trying to craft a successful experiment involving the attractive twenty-somethings. This may seem a bit too spoilerific, but the first scene in the film involves these two characters. They add much of the humor and horror-genre self-referential wit to the proceedings.

     Creatures start to rise from nearby graves to attack the confused group. As the fighting and terrorizing continues to get more and more scary and crazy, The Cabin in the Woods takes a left turn into absolute insanity. The final third of the film is a balls-to-the-walls freak fest that is as admirable as it is laughable--laughable in a good way though, as revelation after revelation forms on the faces of the remaining characters. Like The Evil Dead, it opens up the gates of Hell and plants its feet firmly inside of them (also like The Evil Dead, it's destined to become a cult classic of sorts).
     The Cabin in the Woods is like a puzzle that is generally enjoyable but occasionally frustrating. It's reminiscent of many movies: the aforementioned Cabin Fever and The Evil Dead, Cube, and even the recent Hunger Games adaptation. But it fully makes the story its own. What's key is going into the film knowing as little information about it as possible. You might be thinking: Why tell me this now, after reading all of this review? But the information I have told doesn't come close to delving into any of the surprises of the movie. Ultimately, The Cabin in the Woods isn't even about scaring or surprising, as much as it seems to be. It's about taking a trusted story and flipping it on its head, winking to the audience the entire way.     (B)

3 New Shows Coming to HBO This Spring and Summer

     With the great news landing this week that HBO has renewed the awesome Game of Thrones for a third season (which will tell the story--more or less--of the first half of the third book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series), I thought it would be pertinent to take a glance at three of HBO's new shows: Girls and Veep, which premiere this month, and The Newsroom, which will premiere in June. Consistently beating out every other pay network and destroying any network television station in terms of quality, the fact is that if you are willing to pay for cable or satellite and don't pay the extra 12ish bucks a month for HBO, you are missing out--not just on the best dramas on T.V., but great sports shows, the best political show, and HBO GO, which has nearly all of the station's shows archived into one (extremely easy-to-use) instant watch online database.


Girls

     With Girls, one might think that HBO is trying to revisit the success that they had with Sex and the City. "Living the dream, one mistake at a time," could be used for any number of situations that horse-faced Carrie and her crew of hags experienced throughout the numerous seasons of Sex (that all chicks love). Fortunately, it sounds like Girls aims higher and differently: the series is created by and stars Lena Dunham, the maker of well-received indie film Tiny Furniture in 2010. "There was this whole in-between space that hadn't really been addressed," Dunham states about Girls and its two major predecessors, Sex and the City and Gossip Girl. It's this middle space that I'm hoping--along with many others--begins to mine comedy gold. A girl and her friends move to New York City: the plot is familiar, but allows for plenty of ingenuity and (hopefully) genuine laughs. Girls is also produced by Judd Apatow. (Premieres April 15th)








Veep

     In the Loop was one my favorite films of 2009. It's acidic humor, dry wit, and overall wackiness helped create one of the best political humor films that I have ever seen. Why mention the great In the Loop? Well, HBO's new show Veep is created by Armando Lannucci, who also made the BBC sitcom The Thick of It (also based on aspects of government), which inspired the fly-on-the-wall style of In The Loop. If you've seen any of the trailers for Veep, it looks sharp and funny. Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays Vice President of the United States Selina Meyer. Other than that simple fact, the plot in unknown. You can be sure of plenty of laughs and ongoing inside jokes, though. Only one person of value from Seinfeld has created anything worthwhile since that great show ended: and that person is Seinfeld creator Larry David. Where did he go when he wanted to create great comedy with less restrictions and boundaries? HBO. Here's hoping Elaine follows his lead with the extremely promising Veep. (Premieres April 22)










The Newsroom

     The last show--and the most anticipated (by me, at least)--is The Newsroom. This looks like it could easily become a classic HBO drama, one that will be praised for years. The first bullet point on the list of reasons to why it will be great: it was created and written by Aaron Sorkin. Lately, his sharp words and realistic dialogue have catapulted some films from great to brilliant--The Social Network and Moneyball are the two most recent examples. If you've caught the new trailer for The Newsroom before the past couple of Game of Thrones episodes, the know the words come fast, powerful and witty. Jeff Daniels plays a news anchor who--along with his staff--tries to create a successful cable news channel. Corporate troubles, commercial woes, and personal and familial drama--these are the hurdles that the ensemble cast must jump above or hide from. Out of HBO's three new shows, this is only one that's an hour long drama, what the pay channel is best at. If everything comes together, and the show is a hit, the station will have Game of Thrones, The Newsroom, and Boardwalk Empire, three great dramas (hopefully, for The Newsroom) in three out of the four seasons. Anticipation is high. (Premieres June 24)

Netflix This: Point Blank

     We all know the story: a wife or child is kidnapped for uncertain reasons. The man--a husband, father or brother--left behind has a specific set of skills, skills that the bad guys (usually stereotypical middle-eastern-looking men) will come to know all too well. But in Point Blank, the French film from last year where excitement trumps sanity and plausibility at every plot twist, the man trying to find his loved one, his almost-eight-months-pregnant-and-supposed-to-be-bedridden wife, isn't an ex-CIA agent who can destroy you with his hand-to-hand combat skills or 9mm marksmanship. No, he's just a low-end nurse whose luckiness seems to get him out of every unlucky situation.
     I stated that the excitement of Point Blank trumps its plausibility. This is a film that moves at breakneck speed soon after the opening credits. At only 84 minutes long, it has to. Samuel is a nurse working the night shift at a hospital. His wife, Nadia, is pregnant and on bed rest, though she doesn't want to be. When a mysterious patient is admitted to Sam's floor, and a man shows up (dressed as a doctor) and cuts the patient's breathing tube and then runs for unknown reasons, Sam saves the man's life and goes home after his shift. Unfortunately, Sam has been followed home. The next morning, as he yawns and walks out of the bedroom, he gets hit over the head and knocked unconscious. He wakes to find his pregnant wife has been kidnapped. He gets only one instruction by cellphone. Get the mysterious patient out of the hospital alive, by whatever means possible.
     This movie is like Crank if Crank wasn't the cinematic equivalent of a smelly sack of dog shit. Samuel runs into trouble at every single turn, and the stakes are escalated to involve robbers, safe-breakers, dangerous criminals, a very good detective, a very bad detective, and--finally--much of the entire police department and rioting city. It's insane. It's violent. And a whole hell of a lot doesn't make a particularly lot of logical sense, but you won't care less if you're in the mood for a short, kick-ass story about a man just trying to save the ones that he loves.
     Every situation evolves into the next with tension and insanity. How the hell is he going to get out of this one, you'll be asking under your breath. Unpredictability is key in a film like this, and it plays the viewer just as successfully as the cat-and-mouse chase scenes are played out on screen. One of my often-checked film sites has stated that an American remake is in the works, and I surely don't doubt it. Knowing American remakes, it will be a worse version of the story with less excitement. There will also be no subtitles, so people won't have to (God Forbid!) read. Do yourself a favor: watch this version, the only version available now, to get an 84-minute shot of adrenaline.

(Available on Netflix Instant)

Netflix This: Martha Marcy May Marlene

     Martha Marcy May Marlene is a little overlooked gem from last year, a film that is thought-provoking, weird and exciting. Martha is a girl who is lost in life. We're really not quite sure why. So she joins this family in upstate New York that is trying to live off of the grid and be self-sustainable. They give her a new name: Marcy May (Marlene is the name the girls use when answering the telephone). This is one of those Drink the Kool-Aid families, a family where the oldest male, Patrick (played awesomely creepy by John Hawkes--of Winter's Bone and Eastbound and Down fame--with his scrawny body looking like a menacing skeleton), essentially rapes all of the new girls that decide to join. "The first time is so special," Martha's cult sister states in her brainwashed state.
     The film's about psychological damage and the denial, love, and betrayal that someone can feel when they are being manipulated into fitting in. Patrick, through a look of the eyes or encouraging words, can make any girl feel like she is fulfilling a specific role, even if that role is bearing unwanted children or committing a crime, sometimes a minor crime and sometimes a brutal one. All of these girls (and some of the boys) are vulnerable to his tactics--gentle when need be and harsh when the situation calls for it.
     After an unseen (until late in the run time of the film) event, Martha decides that she wants to leave the cult,  so she escapes and calls her sister, Lucy, who is recently married to a rich man, Ted, with a beautiful house on a lake and many expensive material possessions. Lucy takes Martha in, and from then on Martha Marcy May Marlene is told in corresponding scenes of present day at the lake house and recent-past scenes at the cult farm. Usually the scenes bleed into each other, with a memory from one time period reminding Martha of a specific--sometimes horrific--event. Lucy cares for Martha, but it's clear that their relationship has never been very sisterly, and eventually she comes to realize the depths of Martha's psychosis. The possibility of Patrick or another cult member coming to the lake to forcefully take her back looms large in the second half of the film until it reaches a fever pitch of tension and anticipation.
     Though John Hawkes is practically perfect as cult leader Patrick, the real performance that powerfully anchors the film is Elizabeth Olsen's as Martha. Olsen, the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley, clearly got the talent and correct eating habits of the three actresses. Martha Marcy May Marlene is Elizabeth's first film role, and what a wonderful performance it is. Between her natural vulnerability and honest portrayal of a girl who has been manipulated, she is an actress who is destined to perform some great film roles. She runs the gamut of emotion with depth and skill: anger, love, happiness, flippancy, selfishness and fear. It's safe to say that no one will mistake her for Mary-Kate or Ashley in the next New York Minute sequel.
     The film is one that asks plenty of questions and answers only some of them. The viewers are left thinking, even once the credits start rolling up the screen. How can someone get so involved in a place like this? How can one decipher the thin line between actual love and manipulation? And is it possible, physically or (especially) mentally, to leave a known, sometimes vicious world behind to try and start a better life? These are some of the questions that don't get answered. But Martha Marcy May Marlene does answer one question: can this story and this cast create one of the best independent films of 2011? That answer is a definite "Yes".

Fast and Fierce, The Hunger Games Adaptation Hits its Mark

     A future where the country is separated into twelve districts after an apocalyptic event. Every year, a boy and a girl are selected from each district to train and then fight in a random arena, slicing and dicing each other to the horror and cheers of thousands of people. The killing is beamed to every television, a kind of sick new version of reality T.V. It's a broadcast that destroys optimism and hope, a broadcast that controls. It's to the death, and there can be only one winner. A huge number of humans know this story, as Suzanne Collins' best-selling series shows, relaxing at the top of the charts week after week, month after month. You see a child or adult often carrying a copy, and their familiar covers litter coffee tables and nightstands throughout the world. A successful text to film transfer is a trickier proposition--look how lame the Twilight movies are. Fortunately for Katniss fans, director Gary Ross knows how to play the film-making game, adapting the first (of a trilogy) Hunger Games film into a frantic, anxiety-giving thrill of a movie.
     The Hunger Games is more science fiction than supernatural. No vampires fly down to suck the blood out of a young female's neck. It's a story than can be identified with as something that isn't too far-fetched. North America has basically been destroyed by an unknown war. Out of the ashes and bloodied bodies, the country of Panem arises. Panem is made up of twelve districts all controlled by a rich and perverted Capital. Each district has its own specification, focusing on resources to keep the district barely alive and the Capital fat and thriving. As a reminder for each district's insubordination, every year The Hunger Games takes place, where 24 kids get chosen through a lottery to fight to the death.
     Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of this trilogy, is the first-person perspective focus of the books and the main focus of the film. She's played by Jennifer Lawrence, who was great in Winter's Bone and fully solidifies the fact that she can carry a film franchise like a backpack. When Primrose, the sister of Katniss, gets chosen in the lottery, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Katniss is a character whom everyone can relate to, not just teenage girls with younger sisters and Young Adult novel readers. She's thrown into a situation where she must fight to survive, through talk and the Thwak of one of her arrows ripping into flesh and bone. Much of The Hunger Games book series is Katniss's interior thoughts, and Lawrence's impressive vulnerability and her uncanny ability to say a lot without saying a word proves that no other young actress could have been this good.
     About half the movie is the kid-filled battle. The books are violent enough, but Collins knows just enough to let your imagination fill in the wounds and more horrific killings. The movie is similar, using very quick-cut editing and impressive sound work to let you barely see and hear the violent fights. This movie was never going to be rated R, so it focuses more on the aftermath of each death than the death itself, gazing upon the faces of the predators and the prey. During the start of the games, after a tension-filled one-minute countdown, almost a dozen kids die after they fight to get the supplies piled in the middle of the arena. Its dizzying, and it's the one detriment to the fighting in the film. It's tough to see who's fighting who, and the half-second scenes flash by like a strobe light's rays.

     Katniss is from District 12. The boy from District 12 is named Peeta, and throughout the lead up to the games and the games themselves, the two teenagers realize that sticking together might be the best option. The film version of Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson, is easily to like and all-too-willing to please and protect his beautiful district mate. It's the closest thing to a love story that this film has, but nothing is what is seems. In the books, Katniss has a hunting buddy back home, a dude named Gale who just seems destined to be with Katniss forever. But the film throws him to the wayside, barely showing him, and that's certainly fine by me. Katniss thinking about her relationship back home with Gale and her growing thoughts about Peeta make up the only parts of The Hunger Games books that could be considered Twilight-esque. The film version essentially ignores it, and it's surely all the better for it.
     Stories like this have been done before; it's nothing original. In the 1987 The Running Man adaptation, a wrongly-convicted man must try to survive a public execution gauntlet staged as a television game show. In particular, the story of The Hunger Games resembles the year 2000 Japanese film, Battle Royale (a film which one would most definitely want to check out if one was a fan of the Collins novels), in which a group of ninth-graders are forced to kill one another in a very similar fashion. But The Hunger Games succeeds in being something a little more, a story of never-ending hopelessness and violence transforming into something resembling a growing hope and discomfort about life's controlling conditions. Like most film adaptations, you get a lot more with reading the book. But with Gary Ross's furious directing and Jennifer Lawrence's powerhouse performance, the film version of The Hunger Games is a perfectly good companion.     (B+)

Most of Mars Attacks in John Carter

     Last summer, I (wrongly) was highly anticipating Cowboys and Aliens, which starred James Bond and Indiana Jones as foes who join hands to take out a common enemy: creepy and vicious extra terrestrials. I mention this disappointing film because it caused me to learn a lesson when it comes to big budget extravaganzas that meld together two separate genres. You can't count on entertainment no matter how much cash is being thrown at a movie. Skepticism flowed from my mind when watching the first trailers for Disney's reportedly $250 million dollar adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' 1940's series of novels based on the planet Barsoom (which we, citizens of Earth, refer to as Mars). They surely lacked impressiveness: full of generic action and corny dialogue, it seemed like Prince of Persia 2. Fortunately, the film is filled with a bevy of awesome actors who are at least entertaining to watch, even if the pacing leaves much to be desired and some incomprehensible plot points occur now and again.
     John Carter is similar to Cowboys and Aliens in some regard. It has the same type of not-taking-itself-too-seriously humor, powerful other-worldly weapons going against ancient staples (swords), and a mild love story that isn't too exciting for most of the run time. But--once the story leaves the stale American soil--John Carter does have a sense of wonder, and it is totally gorgeous to gaze upon (it will look incredible on Blu Ray, as did Wall-E, director Andrew Stanton's last film before making his live-action debut). The set-up in America before the Mars stuff is slow and merely passable. John Carter is a civil war veteran who is something of a loose cannon. He gets taken prisoner by a Colonel--Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston, relishing a small and humorous role--who want's him back in the fight. After getting wounded, Carter takes the Colonel to a cave that seemingly has mysterious properties. A man in a robe appears out of thin air, and after a struggle Carter gets accidentally sent to Barsoom through a mystical amulet.
      Somehow, Mars (Barsoom) has an atmosphere which allows breathing and gravity is different but still present (John can jump incredible distances, and everyone in the film is unbelievably amazed, like jumping really far is more impressive than gigantic flying ships and creatures with four arms). The scene in which he discovers his new jumping ability is fun and funny, with John jumping and falling across the new barren landscape. John soon gets discovered by a race of Jar Jar Binks-with-tusks looking thingies, and he finds out that Barsoom is ravaged by the war of two human cities, and the race of aliens (called Tharks) is basically caught in the middle.

     The story also delves into supernatural and eternal beings, a princess who has to marry a ruthless and conscious-free warrior, and Tharks on a pilgrimage to appease the Goddess. But let's not get into that stuff here. Some of the action is great, even if we're wondering to ourselves, How much can John Carter rely on his new-found jumping ability? The film is filled with actors that have appeared in lots of good productions over the years, specifically in two great HBO shows. Caesar and Marc Antony of Rome make appearances. McNulty from HBO's The Wire portrays the ruthless man who is to marry the princess. Unfortunately, he is being controlled by an eternal being looking to destroy the planet, who can only been seen to those who he shows himself too. This being is played by Mark Strong, who was so great in last year's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Guard, two films that made my year end top ten list. Everyone here is entertaining and serviceable, but no one especially stands out, not even Taylor Kitsch in the lead role of John Carter.
     The pacing is where the film's problems lie. We get good action, then incomprehensible dialogue. An exciting chase scene, then romantic banter between two characters who have barely met. As soon as the excitement of each visually-striking action scene winds down, most of the fun leaves John Carter. It's like you poked a hot air balloon with a sharp object and the gorgeous views and adrenaline slowly come back to Earth (or Mars, in this case). John Carter was a big risk for Disney, a risk that surely didn't pay off for American audiences. With a $250 million dollar budget, it needed to make back a lot of that money on the first couple of weekends to be considered a success. And it didn't. But John Carter is a success at one thing: being a movie that is fun enough and slightly above-average.     (C+)
 

Game Change or: Point and Laugh at Sarah Palin!

     There's no question that Game Change, the new HBO film based on the book of the same name about the 2008 Presidential campaign, is pretty gosh darn flippin' unsympathetic to Sarah Palin. Even before seeing the film or reading the book, who couldn't be? This woman knew what she was getting into before the long and personal attacks on her started, but she accepted the offer and made a fool of herself on a myriad of cringe-inducing occasions (most notably the Katie Couric interview, which is covered in the film). However, if half of the conversations, speeches and actions that Palin performed in Game Change are legitimate truths--and I'm assuming that at least most of them are, since the book is extremely thorough with hundreds of interviews and eyewitnesses on both sides of the political spectrum--then she isn't just unsympathetic, she's straight up unlikable: bitchy, commanding and demanding.
     Game Change the movie is quite a bit different than Game Change the book: the written work focused on a vast cast of political characters involved in the 2008 election period, including Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Rudy Giuliani. The movie basically focuses on Sarah Palin and the head of McCain's advisors, Steve Schmidt, and to a lesser extent McCain himself. It might as well have been called, Game Change: Sarah's Story. And for a movie that's only two hours long, that's alright. (Also, Palin is clearly the most captivating of the select group of political warriors, either due to her conviction or stupidity [I'm voting the latter].)
     McCain's campaign--near the beginning of its run--needed a spark. Obama was a young, exciting world figure already at that time, and McCain was old and boring. So, after not much thought or investigation, the team decided to pick Sarah Palin. This move, like much of the film, is told through the eyes of Steve Schmidt, portrayed by Woody Harrelson. Schmidt was pretty instrumental in the selection of the Alaska governor, and it's great entertainment to watch Harrelson's slow realization of how deep he's dug McCain's campaign into a hole. The selection seemed great at first: Sarah was confident and very charismatic. But the selection process was very quick and not very thorough due to the time constraints. Schmidt didn't even ask her any foreign policy questions, to test her knowledge. Pretty soon everyone witnessed how deep the depths of her stupidity really went: she bossed the staff around like a diva, she backed out on agreements she made from the very beginning, and her knowledge of important information for a potential world leader to know--like geography, the Iraq war, and United States history--was atrocious. This woman was a heartbeat or bout of cancer (McCain already had cancer twice) away from being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America.

     The performances are what really elevate Game Change above typical cable movie fare. Harrelson's great and entertaining--that's been covered. Ed Harris portrays McCain as a very likable character, a man whose honor exceeds many, and a man whose vulgarity and excitement is charming. For a war hero who is at the top of his ticket, he plays second fiddle in Game Change just as he did on his actual campaign. He doesn't even leave Palin hard feelings at the end, when it's clear that she may have cost him his presidency. The film's always great when Julianne Moore is on screen, portraying Sarah Palin. This is an embodiment of a character, much different than Tina Fey's impersonation on Saturday Night Live. Though she does look uncannily like Palin, Moore proves what a great actress she is with every action, annunciation, strut and hand gesture. This is woman who believes that everything good has happened to her because it's part of God's plan. She's always confident and firm in her beliefs. Yet it's the more intimate moments of Moore's portrayal that showoff her excellent performance, when Sarah gets overwhelmed with the media's bullying or when she receives a phone call from her son in Iraq.
     If the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick, then the only difference between Sarah Palin and a great actress is a Presidential campaign. She fools everyone constantly, pretending to know answers to questions when she doesn't. She captivates the eyes of thousands upon thousands of Americans. She even memorizes her lines for a debate instead of actually knowing the answers. Watching these behind-the-scenes moments add just enough, so it seems like something more than just re-watching the 2008 presidential race. We see snippets of many of the same interviews and rallies that we have seen before, but in Game Change, they still seem fresh. One thing is sure: Sarah Palin would have been a dangerous President.  
 (B)


P.S. Here's hoping Romney makes the same mistake, if not for the sake of the country, then for the sake of comedy.
   

Netflix This: Like Crazy

     I recently re-watched 500 Days of Summer because a friend wanted to see it. I won't name names here. Upon that viewing, I realized how much I hated it. It's full of cliche, sappy, trying-way-too-hard-to-be-hip dialogue and humor, and its characters name drop so-called good bands at a hilarious rate. It wasn't the cast's fault: the script was just too darned cute for its own good. When Like Crazy came in the mail, I was more than a little concerned that it would fall into the same trap. Luckily, I was more than pleasantly surprised: the film's one of the better movies to come out of 2011, a sad and honest tale about a young couple who just can't stick together for a plethora of reasons.
      Like Crazy won the 2011 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Prize for Drama, arguably the highest honor of any film festival in a given year. That may not mean much to some, but when films such as Winter's Bone, Frozen River, Primer, The Believer, and Blood Simple have won in previous years, it's surely something to take note of.
     The story is simple and has been told in various ways throughout dozens of years and hundreds of films. It's a story about love and the difficulties of being in love. Jacob and Anna are both college students in Los Angeles. Anna is a British exchange student, and she instantly has a liking to the quiet and talented Jacob, who--at a young age of 22--is already starting his career as a furniture maker. They quickly make a connection and start to grow as a couple. Anna convinces herself that it would be a wonderful idea to stay the summer after the school year with Jacob, staying in bed all day and falling more and more in love as every minute passes. Unfortunately, staying the entire summer has consequences: Anna overstays her Student Visa, and when she tries to come back to L.A. from London after a short family obligation, she is detained and sent back on a plane to her homeland. This begins a frustrating and tension-filled ride that contains a long-distance relationship, each character getting involved in their work and other lovers, Visa problems, and the question of whether or not two people can still be in love after months apart and life's everyday problems getting in the way at every turn.
     As I said, love stories like this have been told before. But Like Crazy is original and honest enough to rise high above typical romantic fare. The director, Drake Doremus (whom I hadn't heard of before this film), has stated that the script is fully improvised, and it shows. Each word feels natural and unforced, as do the gestures, nervousness of a strained relationship, and the unfortunate circumstances that Jacob and Anna each place themselves in. It goes beyond most romantic garbage that gets assembly-lined into the theaters nowadays, surprising the viewer with its in-depth intimacy.
     Does Like Crazy have the occasional corny line of dialogue or sappy facial expression? Of course: all relationships do, as do all films about relationships. It doesn't hurt the enjoyment. It also doesn't hurt that the film stars an actor and an actress who are destined to become stars. Anton Yelchin plays Jacob, and he is always likable: whether the film is Alpha Dog, Star Trek, or The Beaver, he is always natural, funny and easy to watch. Felicity Jones plays Anna, and she will break your heart more than a few times in Like Crazy. A complete natural and completely beautiful, every scene that she is in glues your eyes to the screen.
    Be warned: the film isn't a great one to watch with a new significant other. Some have called it a movie to watch with someone you're about to break up with. But that's a harsh statement: though Like Crazy is about a couple who have to hurdle seemingly impossibly-high obstacles (and often failing), it also shows that love can cause you to jump really fucking high on occasion.

Netflix This: Take Shelter

     Take Shelter is one of those films that relies on a performance of one actor, a performance that is central to the greatness of the film as a whole. Michael Shannon, who is always totally captivating (particularly in Bug, Shotgun Stories, Revolutionary Road, and--lately--HBO's Boardwalk Empire as Prohibition agent Nelson Van Alden), stars as Curtis LaForche, a construction worker whose dreams and visions of an impending doomsday storm--full of oil-slicked rain and violent chain lightning--draws him into the depths of underground storm shelters and madness. It's a performance that is nothing short of incredible, and it adds another bullet point on my list of reasons of why the 2012 Oscar nominations were the equivalent of a sack filled with foul dog feces (not that the five Best Actor nominees were not good, but I'd take Shannon's performance over any of them).
     Michael Shannon is an actor that always looks creepy and uneasy, like he is about to snap and murder everyone on screen at any moment. But his portrayal of Curtis in Take Shelter is better and more subtle than that: at the beginning of the film, he seems content, even happy, a man with nothing to gain but everything to lose. He's got a supporting wife, a cute daughter who is deaf (she's on the verge of a transplant that will help her regain some of her hearing if the family's health insurance comes through), and a loving family dog. His house sits in a field where the skies are endless and clouds look like mountains on the horizon line.
     Everything's great--until the dreams start. At first they are short and intense, a snippet of the family dog attacking him and biting his arm (his arm hurts the entire next day) or chain lightning with dark, ominous clouds littering the big sky. The dreams are ultra-realistic, and they confuse Curtis and the viewers of Take Shelter about what is real and what is imagination. Director Jeff Nichols, whose previously mentioned Shotgun Stories is also a small, intense drama starring Shannon, is already a pro at building suspense and dread. As the dreams occur more frequently and more intense, Curtis must come to grips with one of two things: either his visions are the product of the illness in his mind, or they are something far more serious, real visions signifying the devastation of everything he has in his life due to a more dangerous and unpredictable climate.
     Curtis and his erratic behavior start to worry everyone in his life, specifically his wife (Jessica Chastain, in her 7th film role this year), who is amazingly forgiving and supportive of her husband who is losing his shit. His co-worker, Dewart (portrayed by another Boardwalk alum, Shea Whigham), also bear's the brunt of the fallout of the vivid dreams. The news of his possible mental illness spreads quickly, as news in small towns seemingly always does without effort, and soon the paranoia that Curtis feels seems justified in some regard. Far into the film, Shannon's portrayal of Curtis at a community dinner--where everyone is staring and whispering like cruel schoolchildren--is especially poignant. The outburst is shocking, sad, and brilliant acting.
     I watched Take Shelter after I wrote my Top 10 list for 2011. It wouldn't have made that list, but it's not too far away. It's a slow-building, intense drama about a man who may or may not be mentally ill. The story as a whole, without giving away its ending that leaves you thinking days after watching it, can be--without much effort--taken as an allegory about global warming. Curtis's visions, like the more-and-more powerful storms and tornado patterns that are happening every year, can be accepted or denied. But acceptance or denial doesn't affect the weather, even when the glaciers are melting at an astounding rate, the streets are flooding with rain, and the oceans are turning into hot tubs.

Act of Valor: A Parable of Propaganda or Fist-Pumping Patriotism? Neither.

     You may have seen the movie trailer for Act of Valor during the Super Bowl a few weeks ago. At first, it seemed like a commercial for the Navy, one of those ads that ends with the words, "Be One, Be Strong, Be Navy" (or whatever those recruitment commercials state at the end). But then the preview continues, showing some impressive military action for just a small commercial. Then the realization truly sets in: this is a film starring active duty Navy Seals, a fictional account using the military's newest and brightest tactics and technology. It was difficult to not be a little curious, or even excited if you were or are a member of the armed forces. Due to it's peculiar nature (initial filming was even supposed to be a recruitment video for the Navy), Act of Valor is a unique film to review.
     Let's get a few things out of the way first: these are my impressions and opinions on Act of Valor as a motion picture. I don't care if you're pro-war or anti-war, if you think a movie starring active duty Navy Seals is a glorification of violence against people of other nationalities, or if you think this film is meant to brainwash your children to strap on an M4, sign up for the military, and go blow the head off of some Jihadist (I surely am no closer to signing my name up--action movies are called "escapist entertainment" for a reason). I care about how this movie works as a movie. On that account, it basically succeeds: Act of Valor is an entertaining movie with sub-par acting but awesome action set pieces. Sort of the way it would be if you made a movie starring non-actors who killed people on dangerous missions for a living.
     As I said before, the film started out as an idea to recruit people on the fence about joining the Navy. From there, the filmmakers realized that the action was exciting and thrilling enough to turn into a motion picture. Act of Valor is essentially based around two Seal missions: one is about rescuing a kidnapped CIA operative who has been taken to a fortified encampment in the jungle. During this mission, the Seals recover a phone that provides information on a terrorist plot against America. The second mission is stopping this threat in the cartel-controlled towns and maze-like underground tunnels on the Mexi-Cali border.

     These two missions and the execution of them provides the film with all of its thrill and excitement. If my grade of this film was solely based on these great action scenes, I would give it an A-. The jungle extraction starts with amazing stealth and sniper head shots. The violence is quick and brutal, which each shot landed sounding like a squished watermelon. As the team moves closer and closer and then finally into the village, the combat switches to quick close quarter shooting within the shanty buildings. The truck chase and boat combat that follows is just icing on the bloody cake. This sequence of events was my favorite in the film. But the mission on the Mexico border was great too: full of bombs, grenades, and heroic acts of bravery, this dark and gritty portion of the film was violent and filled with a sense of sadness. The only detriment to the action scenes in Act of Valor was the director's overuse of the first person camera angle. I know you want video game players to purchase tickets for your movie, but over reliance on this technique caused a few minutes of the battle to feel like Call of Duty 17: Navy Seals. If I wanted to wish I had a controller in my hand, I would have stayed at home and grabbed a controller.
     Everything other than the missions and execution of them is the worst part of the film. If my grade of this film was solely based on the acting, character development, and interaction between the Seals and their families before and after the missions, I would give it a D. The Seals in the film were portrayed by real Navy Seals. I surely didn't need any convincing of that after the first three minutes of the film's run time. There is no need to speak of any specific performances, as they are all interchangeable. Two cringe-worthy scenes come to mind: one in early in the film as two Seals sit at a bar table drinking beer, and one announces that him and his wife are having a baby. The conversation is hollow and robotic. The other scene is one of the same Seals saying goodbye to his wife as he leaves for deployment. It's as if you grabbed two random strangers and had them read the script in monotone. Unfortunately the acting isn't so bad it's funny, like in The Room--it's just bad.
     One may argue that these dudes are cold, calculated killing machines, so you can't expect them to show emotion. And that's fine: but you can still show no emotion and be good at acting. Does anyone remember Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men? When in combat, these fellas don't need to act, because combat's what they are incredibly good at. It's natural. But take them out of that, and it doesn't make for a great motion picture. Luckily, the intelligent, brutal, gadget-filled action scenes hold the movie well above the shit pile. Act of Valor doesn't bother with the important questions about what happens to these men after they get maimed or injured, after they get sent home to little fanfare, after their friends brutally die in front of their eyes. It leaves those questions for the next documentary. Act of Valor focuses on which direction the next threat is coming from and how fast the Seal team can foil the plot.     (B-)

Netflix This: Blood Simple

     A person would have quite a job on their hands to find one of their friends or family members that doesn't love at least one or two Coen brother's films (assuming they watch movies at all). Whether you're laughing hysterically at "The Dude" in The Big Lebowski or pondering the Biblical allegory that is A Serious Man, the Coens' films never lack their signature style and wit. Me: I'm a Fargo and No Country for Old Men sort of guy and could do without half of their other cinematic oeuvre. (Does anyone remember The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty?) I was fortunate, then, to recently revisit their first ever film, Blood Simple, as it has many of the violent and thrilling tendencies that my two favorite Coen films have.
     Blood Simple was released the year that I popped out of the womb (10 pounds-12 ounces), 1984. It took me over twenty years to look into the back catalog of the Coens' films (the past has a way with catching up with you), and out of their fifteen major releases, Blood Simple is my third favorite. If there was one word that could describe the 1984 film, I would use Tight. I don't mean Tiiiiiiiiiiiiight like the kids on the streets with their pants hanging below their ass crack and rap music blaring would say (though it surely is that too). I also don't mean Tight like how a Catholic Priest would describe a choice piece of 10-year-old boy. I mean Tight: simple, short, effective and every scene seems placed and played out to perfection.
     The plot and performances are great: Julian owns a bar, and he has thoughts of hiring a private eye to murder his wife and lover. The wife, Abby (Frances McDormand, who is so great in Fargo), is having an affair with the bartender of the joint, Ray. The private eye, Loren, is portrayed by M. Emmet Walsh, a familiar face who has appeared in over 100 film and television projects. What follows is a film full of twists and turns of betrayal and murder that are still exciting almost 30 years after the theatrical release date. The characters act like real human beings as they make decisions and mistakes that come back to haunt most of them by the time the end credits roll.
     Blood Simple taps into some basic fears that we all would feel if we became involved in a similar situation. A character is shot and blood pools on the hardwood floor. What would you use to clean it up? I hope--for the character's sake--that blood splatter analysis isn't as perfected as it is in Showtime's Dexter. How do you dispose of a dead body? A better question: how do you live with yourself after disposing of a dead body? The motive for all of the action is almost always selfish in its nature--surviving, no matter what the cost. The film is dark but comic too. And a few of the plot twists are a bit over-the-top, but everything seems necessary to add excitement to the proceedings.
     The direction, though, is where Blood Simple really shines. Some of the camera angles and shooting techniques are still super cool and original to this day. It's an early example of the masterful work that the Coens have applied in their more thrilling films. The Coens are two brothers that love making films, and that statement is obvious from the first scene in Blood Simple to the last. It introduced the audience to their clever and darkly humorous storytelling abilities and solidified the fact that they were two filmmakers to watch for decades to come, a fact that has come to fruition since the year I was born.

Netflix This: Cube

     I recently revisited Splice, the freaky 2009 film starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley about a couple who delve too deep into human/animal gene splicing. The film was a story about how science is almost about to catch up with fiction, creating a world in which a creature with human genes and animal genes seems entirely possible. The film's directed by a man named Vincenzo Natali, and I came to the realization that I had seen another one of his films a few years ago (his first film, actually). That film is called Cube.
     Cube is a simple and effective little sci-fi thriller that is extremely memorable in it's sparseness. A man wakes up. But he's not on a warm comforter-covered pillowtop mattress--he's on the hard and drab floor of a 14 by 14 foot cube. He has no clue where he is or how he could have possibly woken up there. Eventually he discovers that he is in the middle of a gigantic maze of interlocking cubes with six other people with no food or water to speak of. In case you didn't know, you need food and water to survive for longer than a short period of time, so the group must work together, moving from cube to cube to find a way out.
     Sounds pretty simple and boring, no? Thankfully (for the viewers of the movie Cube, not the characters locked inside), as the people move from box to box, they come across clever and brutal booby traps that pose problems for the seven individuals. Maybe one cube has a swinging, sharp blade that they all have to navigate if they don't want to lose a limb. Maybe another cube has a pressure sensitive floor that turns the cube into a fire-filled boiler. Whatever the problem may be, the cast does a great job with not much to work with: there's Quentin, a police officer who becomes the leader for the group. Holloway is a doctor who becomes overwhelmed with the stress of the situation. Rennes is a criminal escape artist who can't figure out how to escape. There's also Leaven and Kazan, a math teacher and autistic man, respectively, and their talents with numbers bring the group closer to the truth of their plight.
     The characters bring many theories to the table about their situation: could it be a government experiment to see how people react in a secluded environment? Could the group have been abducted by aliens and placed in a futuristic puzzle? Or is this just some rich man's "entertainment"? Ultimately, the answer doesn't particularly matter. Cube is a film about human beings and the helpfulness or betrayal that occurs when a group of people come together for a common goal: getting the fuck out of the cube, no matter what.

Lilyhammer, Netflix's first foray into original programming, already an interesting watch for fans of The Sopranos (and Norway)

     Early on in the first episode of Lilyhammer, Steven Van Zandt, playing a New York mobster named Frank "The Fixer" Tagliano (not unlike his role as Silvio Dante in HBO's The Sopranos), does something that Silvio would never do, even if it meant spending life in a maximum security prison: give all of his information to the FBI to become--what is known in the mob world--a rat. The authorities ask him where he might like to spend the rest of his life in the Witness Protection Program. Florida or somewhere else in the States? Too easy to be found and get whacked. The Bahamas? Frank's not too keen on the "melanoma". No, Frank chooses to be sent to Lillehammer, Norway (the show's title is a play on how Frank pronounces the place), the site of the 1994 Winter Olympics. It seems nice there, he assumes.
     So begins this fish-out-of-water story that could--after the first episode, at least--be titled, The Sopranos 2: Silvio in Snow. And that's not a bad thing: much of the same dark humor, drama, violence and vulgarity is present here, even if the show isn't quite as expertly crafted as HBO's classic. Lilyhammer also looks absolutely great--shot mostly in Norway, it looks as cold and unforgiving as it probably is in real life for someone not used to the conditions. Frank sticking out like a sore thumb is most of the fun: he can understand some of the language, but dumb people will want to avoid Netflix's first show due to the many subtitles. The first episode is about the many funny interactions that occur upon his initial arrival and a myriad of misunderstandings that Frank chalks up to "cultural differences".
     You've gotta hand it to Netflix, though: jumping into the original series realm that is dominated by HBO, AMC and Showtime is a ballsy move but also a necessary one. There's a reason HBO doesn't let Netflix stream any if its wonderful classics or new hits. It feels almost like an experiment: Lilyhammer was released this past Monday, and all eight of its Season One 45(ish) minute episodes (commercial-free) are available for instant streaming subscribers at any time. It's a new and hopefully fruitful undertaking for the company, as my Instant Queue was getting pretty stale in the new-and-exciting-show department. Later this year Netflix brings us House of Lies, directed by David Fincher and starring Kevin Spacey, and in 2013 we get another new season of Arrested Development before the movie. Here's hoping Netflix continues in this new direction instead of hiking up the price to my Blu-Ray rentals every month. But for now, time to click play on Episode 2 of Lilyhammer.

The Top 10 Films of 2011

     I consider the year 2011 to have been an off year for new, original and incredibly great cinema. Nine out of the ten top-grossing films in the world this year were sequels, and the odd film out was The Smurfs (six of the ten were sequels of sequels, and five of the ten were sequels to already-shitty films). Despite the negativity, I saw 62 (and counting) films released from January to December. The year 2012 is looking like it's going to totally blow 2011 out of the water in terms of quality, especially due to The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, Gravity, and Django Unchained. Enough bitching and complaining, you say? Okay, okay. There were some bright spots in 2011, as there are with any year. These were the greats, the one's that will last in my memories for years to come, the ones that I thought about far after the credits rolled and the theater's lights flickered back to life:




10.     The Guard

     The poster for The Guard states that it is like "Hot Fuzz plus In Bruges...Better than both." Unfortunately, that statement rings false, as it is better than neither. No worries, though: The Guard--directed by John Michael McDonagh (brother of In Bruges director Martin McDonagh)--is the funniest comedy of the year. Filled with Irish slang and vulgar expletives, The Guard tells the story of Boyle (Brendan Gleeson in the best role of his career [and he's been in some wonderful stuff]), an unorthodox cop who has to team up with an uptight FBI agent to take down an international drug smuggling group. It's hilarious, violent, and contains some of the best dialogue heard this year (a lot like In Bruges back in 2008). Every quip and sarcastic remark is stated to perfection, and when the credits roll, you'll be cheering when Gleeson's name crosses the screen.


9.     Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

     Like most things in the movies, the real-life counterpart is probably a whole lot less exciting. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the real life version of international espionage, and--although there are no invisible cars, rock-hard chicks in bikinis, or intricate fights with hand-to-hand combat--it shows us that excitement can be found anywhere where betrayal is present. The title of the film contains the code names of four of the main characters. Which one, if any of them, is a spy double-crossing their own government and giving important information to the Soviets? It doesn't particularly matter, not when you're watching an all-star cast of British actors smoke cigarettes, fly spiteful and accusing words at each other, and break into classified files looking for an answer. It's confusing and sometimes a bit slow. But it feels right. And it feels real.


8.     The Descendants 

     Anybody who knows me can ascertain that I am a huge fan of Alexander Payne's Sideways. It is one of my favorite films of all time, and my roommate Steve Cooper and I used to watch it on a (it seemed like) weekly basis. So it's safe to say that I had high expectations for The Descendants, Payne's follow up to Sideways, starring George Clooney as a father and husband whose wife--who may be carrying on an affair--ends up in a vegetative-state coma. That's not a great premise for comedy, but the film isn't made just for laughs: it provides a delicate and thorough look at real-life characters and the unpredictability the occurs on a daily basis. It's not as good as Sideways, and it doesn't need to be. It's about people. Not specifically good people or bad people. Just people, figuring out life for themselves, whatever their motivations may be. 

7.     I Saw the Devil

     American horror movies have nothing on other country's. It's not even close. Don't tell me an American-made horror film you watched the other day is really disturbing if you haven't seen some of the brilliant stuff that comes out of France, Japan, or Korea (specifically Inside, Martyrs or Audition). Add South Korea's I Saw the Devil to the list: easily the most graphically violent (it makes Hostel seem like a Pixar film) and disgusting movie of 2011, it is sure to unsettle your stomach and make you watch through your fingers during the most horrific scenes. A police inspector's wife is murdered, so he begins a secret investigation to find the serial killer. Quickly into the film's run time, he finds the killer and instead of arresting him or killing him on the spot, he let's him go over and over again, just to catch him again and again, always with violent and torture-filled results. Although I Saw the Devil is unrealistic and a bit over-the-top at times, it's graphic nature and masturbatory revenge-fantasy plot makes it one of the most entertaining watches of the year 2011. 

6.     Moneyball

   
     It's time to start taking Brad Pitt seriously as an actor. I've been doing it for years: from his early disturbing turns in Twelve Monkeys, Seven, and Fight Club to his later-career serious roles in Babel, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Tree of Life, the man's got a talent far and above many of his contemporaries. In Moneyball, he takes his best role yet. As chair-throwing, tobacco-spitting Billy Beane, the Oakland Atheletics' general manager who created a baseball team with statistics instead of talent and almost led them to a championship, Pitt fills the role with an emotional heft that is unexpected and brilliant. This isn't a sports movie in the traditional sense, which makes it all the more watchable for people who find watching baseball kind of boring (me). It's a movie about going against tradition and history. And even if you're not successful, at least you went against the flow and tried something creative, exciting, and different.


5.     The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

     


     Nope. Still haven't bought or read any of Stieg Larsson's bestselling trilogy starring punky heroine Lisbeth Salander. And after director David Fincher's adaptation of the first book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I still don't really feel the need to. How could it be better than this? Lisbeth's portrayed by Rooney Mara, in a star-making turn that recently earned her a best actress Oscar nomination (well deserved). The story is good, if not a little typical, like a long version of Law and Order: SVU Sweden. But Fincher's deft direction (and--to a lesser extent--Trent Reznor's haunting and fitting soundtrack) really sets it apart. Just like with one of last year's best, The Social Network, Fincher elevates his subject matter into something that is at times disturbing but always watchable, due to his perfected use of the camera and music. The rumor is that most of the cast has signed on for the inevitable sequel. All except for Fincher. Here's hoping that whatever project he chooses to direct next, he continues his streak of epic entertainment.
     
4.     Super 8

      It doesn't happen very often nowadays: you park your car, walk into the movie theater to purchase your ticket, take a seat in your favorite spot, and become filled with a sense of wonder and awe that takes you back to some of the finest childhood movie-watching experiences. Super 8 did that to me. Director J. J. Abrams is a master at doing this (think of some of your favorite first season moments of Lost and the great remake of Star Trek), but his talent really comes into fruition with this. A film that harks back to classics starring children such as The Goonies, Super 8 is as much about the joy of making movies and creating something meaningful than kids discovering an alien force negatively affecting their small 1970's town. It doesn't fizzle out your senses with mindless action or cheesy dialogue. It treats the children and their plight with honesty and a tenderness that is rarely seen in cinema nowadays. 

3.     Attack the Block

     Kids vs. Aliens. Seems to be a running theme here. But don't let that minor plot point fool you: as much as Super 8 is an homage to the Spielbergian films of yore, such as E.T. or Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Attack the Block turns the story into an action/horror/comedy in the same vein as Shaun of the Dead.  Starring unknowns (other than the hilarious Nick Frost) basically picked up from the London streets, Attack the Block simmers with street talk, humor, violence and a great pounding soundtrack to accompany the alien-killing action. When creatures start falling from the sky, a street gang who owns the block with their crime and attitude must band together to take out the alien "big gorilla wolf-looking motherfuckers". And let me tell you, Bruv, the excitement that follows is a lot sicker than staying at home and playing FIFA.


2.     Hugo

     
















   

   

     Leave it to Martin Scorsese to restore some faith in a typically tired gimmick. I'm talking about 3-D, of course. One of the most overused, money-grubbing techniques in film making today, 3-D almost always makes a film worse than it would be without it (let alone make it better in any way). There are exceptions of course: Avatar is exponentially better in 3-D, and Jackass 3 was at least an original way to employ it. But Hugo, a movie ultimately about the importance of cinema and film preservation, is one of the first films to make me forget I was wearing 3-D glasses. And that's a bold statement. Hugo's about a boy searching for a secret in a Paris train station, a secret his father left for him that unlocks many mysteries in his life. It's dazzling and extravagant and provides a nice lesson about the history of film. Movies may not mean much to some people, but sitting in the theater watching Hugo, I was home.


1.     Drive

     
















   

 

      He does it again. No, not Ryan Gosling, who had a great year starring in films such as this, The Ides of March and the (quite) funny Crazy, Stupid, Love. I'm talking about Nicolas Winding Refn, the director who can take any interesting subject and turn it into violent and essential art-house cinema awesomeness, as he did with two of his previous films, Valhalla Rising (on this list last year) and the incredible Bronson. Drive stars Ryan Gosling as Driver, a Hollywood stuntman by day and criminal getaway wheel man by night. Driver slowly falls in love with his cute neighbor (portrayed by Carey Mulligan) and gets involved with the wrong sort of gangster (portrayed with effective eccentricity by Albert Brooks). As Driver rides the highway to hell, a heist goes bad and--like some of the vehicles in the movie--his life spins completely out of control with flashes of brutal violence, masked gunmen and dying love. Go ahead. I know you want to. Take the wheel. Experience the rush of Drive.