Oldies Spin: Requiem for a Dream

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

A good decade had gone by since this film was first released. In that time, a reputation has built up for its director, its performances and the film itself. For the longest time, I avoided this film, partially because of those reputations but also just because I didn't have the means to see it. I've heard a few detractors, but the vast majority says this is a modern masterpiece. While I can find some flaws here and there with the film, on the whole, I have to agree with them.

If you're like me, and this film has escaped your grasp as well, then you might be a little sketchy on the plot. The basic outline is that this takes a microscopic look on the toll that addicts leave on their lives and those around them. The story circles around an elderly widow (Ellen Burstyn) addicted to amphetamine pills for weight loss, her heroin junkie son (Jared Leto) trying to make a better life with his girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly), and his fellow junkie friend (Marlon Wayanes), the pusher. It should be no surprise that all of these stories do not end with a happy setting.

Darren Aronofksy does an incredible job at looking into the lives of those who are addicted. His methods are often jarring, but so are these people. When you're first presented to the film, it has a way of turning you off from the misanthropic mayhem. However, you quickly understand that this dark world that is still quite fascinating to discover. You get pulled into these frantic and disconnected minds, and no matter how bleak the material gets, Aronofsky always manages to find an editing rhythm, a beat in the pace, or the exploitation of beautiful cinematography to keep us in the film.

Like many depressingly bleak films, its usually up to the performances to bolster the film to some relatable level. I've generally viewed Leto as an actor who was capable of delivering strong dramatic work that was often surprising to people because he was so good looking. Sometimes he mines that territory for the wrong film (i.e. Chapter 27), but here he's put to good use. He genuinely reaches some raw emotion that never feels forced, and he honestly feels like the most real, distinctly defined character. Wayans's performance is another one that shows he got most of the dramatic talents of his family, though I will say it's not one of great depth. There's nice subtext dealing with the relationship with his mother that does provide enough to bring his character up from a one-not performance. Connelly does her usual somber best in a role that is emotionally draining and effective on the levels it needs to be.

The standout many noticed was Burstyn, who wound up with an Oscar nomination. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that such a restrained and well respected actress of Burstyn's caliber is playing against type as a drug addict. What is fascinating about her is the transformation she develops as she slowly devolves into the shattered life her character creates. Burstyn contributes an incredible amount of emotion that gives the film a real edge. She does go into some meandering character traits as offered by the script, but it is to her credit that she keeps the character as grounded as she can. She's the most memorable piece in the film, and the credit is all hers.

This isn't an entirely pleasant film to watch. If it was, then we'd probably have a problem on our hands. As it stands now, even with a story that tends to meander and a premise so bleak its hard to stay with it, this film is still worthy of all the praise it received a decade ago. Aronofsky's directorial efforts are put to exquisite use, and the acting from the whole ensemble are really the guiding lights to making the film a nearly whole success. If the reputations of the film have kept you away, I'd say you should take the risk. I'm sure you won't regret it.

A-

New Reviews: Inception & The Kids Are All Right

Maze-en-scene

Well, it has finally arrived. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have been eagerly awaiting this film for well over a year. However, so have legions of other dedicated film lovers and Nolan-fanboys. It's one of the few films to come out recently that has pretty much been sold on the promise of a high profiled director and cast, as well as a plot that for the most part was held pretty close to the chest. Now it has finally unleashed itself upon the world. Is it a completely flawless masterpiece? Not necessarily. Is it one of the best films of the year from one of the best filmmakers in the business? Absolutely.

I'll attempt to be as sketchy as I can on the details, just in case there's anyone else who, like me, has tried to avoid major plot points of the film. What I will say, as evident in most trailers, is that Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Cobb, the man with the ability to enter into people's dreams and extract information. One of the most difficult things to accomplish is "Inception", the planting of a foreign idea into the mind of another person. This requires layers of dreamworlds to accomplish, and his team has to battle many subconscious enemies in order to do so.

After witnessing what Christopher Nolan did to turn the comic book genre on its head with The Dark Knight, I became completely convinced that there was very little that Nolan could do wrong. Here, I'm continually impressed at how engrossing Nolan can create a dense universe as this. Still, there's only the illusion of complexity; if you pay attention to the film, you'll follow what happens. Still, that doesn't mean you aren't fascinated by what is taking place. He has had experience in working with layered storytelling in the past, and for the most part, Nolan has always been able to come out on top. While I think the last act of the film gets a little action-heavy for me, I'm still glued to the screen, excited with anticipation. Nolan's direction is controlled, calculated and the sign of a master at engaging with the audience on such a visceral level.

All around, the acting is well put together and nice to watch. It's a good cast that doesn't try to one-up each other, and instead work in synergy to help elevate the material. DiCaprio is great as the film's centerpiece, placing a perfectly placed, emotional footing for the audience to go along with, and I was certainly more impressed with him here than in Scorsese's film from earlier this year. That same emotional resonance is felt from Marion Cotillard as Cobb's lost love. Other players like Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Cillian Murphy add more layers of depth and intrigue to the film and they are great assets as well. If I were to pick one standout, it would by Tom Hardy, who plays the Inception expert invited to the team. Hardy has intellect, intelligence and a sly wit that deviously plays at the audience's expectations. Sounds like the perfect alter-ego for its director.

If I have one minor quibble with the film, it is an operational flaw within the screenplay. I certainly do admire Nolan's writing, and I think he manages to convey this dense story quite well. I would just say that sometimes, Nolan is so invested in keeping things moving forward that some pieces of information have to be filled in. When they are, it's generally in long splotches of expository dialogue. Whenever a conversation like this pops up, it grinds the film to a halt and feels like a screenplay that's not working on the intellectual level it was just at. I do enjoy the wonderful story that Nolan has created, but it gets bogged down enough times by bloated speeches to have a slight affect.

I wouldn't say I had absolutely zero problems with the film, and even though it might be incredibly fanboyish of me to say this, I think The Dark Knight is a better film and still stands as my favorite Nolan masterpiece, and I'll stand by that sentiment until the day I die. This film isn't flawless, but even a diamond with slight imperfections is still pretty to look at. I thoroughly enjoyed much of this film, from Nolan's directorial craft and stimulating storytelling, to an impressive cast, to the art direction elements, to Hans Zimmer's fantastic score, even if on the bombastic side that is checked when he works with James Newton Howard. All of that means it's still one of the best films of the year that in no way disappointed me. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, "In Nolan, I trust."

A-

Love Child

The marketplace for quality entertainment might be shallow in some places, but it is not a hollowed out, dry well that is totally vacant. There are plenty of well made, smaller films to balance out the avalanche of subpar studio pictures that generally fare mediocre results (Inception obviously excluded). Sometimes, though, even these smaller films have difficulty getting traction, and many films to have been bought at relatively high prices at Sundance have a habit of not reaching a huge audience in the general marketplace. Here's to that pattern breaking for an intelligent and emotionally genuine film.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore are front and center as Nic and Jules, respectively, the loving lesbian couple living out their lives in sunny California. They have two children by the same sperm donor, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). As Joni starts to go off to college, curiosity grows in the children to seek out the man who gave the seeds to start the family. The donor is Paul (Mark Ruffalo), a kind of hipster doofus that invites himself into this unconventional family, causing turmoil and revelations to appear.

What I love so much about this film is that every character behaves and acts in a completely genuine way. This family is flawed, but it isn't because of its unconventional quirkiness. This family comes with the same baggage that every family comes with, and no matter what your background, you're going to see something to identify with. Nic and Jules are flawed people, but they aren't monsters either, and they deal with a middle-aged marital crisis in a way many would. Paul is a sweet guy, but he also isn't totally oblivious to the affect he's having on this family, both the positive and negative. The children, however, are unfortunately shortchanged as standard angst with little depth and its a bit of a cop out, but director and co-writer Lisa Cholodenko does an incredible job at presenting a fresh world that is filled with human emotion we can all relate to. It's a credible job executed to near perfection.

The entire ensemble does incredibly well to keep this film afloat. Bening and Moore give one of the best performances in their careers, and their pain and joy is felt throughout all of it. The chemistry between them is real, and their ability to strike such deep emotional chords on their own is astounding. Between them, Bening probably gets to showcase more in a role I have a sneaking suspicion will lead to an Oscar nomination, and it would be justly deserved. Ruffalo works in a similar key he played in his breakout role in You Can Count on Me, and considering that is one of his best performances, this one follows suit. He works on many levels that help to establish credibility with this character. Hutcherson and Wasikowska are working as best as they can in their limited roles, but I will say that Wasikowska has a much more commanding role than in Alice in Wonderland. Both of their character archs are little felt, but both are very endearing in their roles.

Few movies have the opportunity to fill you with a complete sense of satisfaction, but this one manages to do so. These endearing character, helped by the more than capable ensemble, exist in a real universe, making the connections formed with them feel deeply placed and genuine. A few shortchanged characters, and a camera operator who too often lets the boom mike in frame, aren't enough to pull down the film immensely. I loved spending time with these characters, and I almost wish I could spend even more time.

A-

New Reviews: Despicable Me & Cyrus

The Good Thief

Today, unless your film comes underneath the banner labeled Pixar, it's hard to find a place in the overcrowded marketplace for an animated film. It's already tough enough for a DreamWorks picture to make a dent. What many have also come to expect from many animated films without the Pixar name is that if it can barely get by with a satisfying story and humorous characters, then that's enough for it to be a standout among the many others that fail. This particular film doesn't succeed all the way, but in terms of being suitable family fare that kids and parents can have some fun with, it's a winner.

Steve Carell voices Gru, a super-thief bent on creating a name for himself as the world's greatest villain. His main competition is a younger, smarter thief named Vector (Jason Segel) who has just stolen one of the Giza pyramids. To restore his credibility, Gru concocts a plan to steal the moon using a shrink ray. His plan includes the use of an older scientist inventing (Russell Brand) contraptions in his basement, those little yellow creatures that have populated the ad campaigns, and three little girls he's adopted to influence his plan, the oldest voiced by iCarly's Miranda Cosgrove.

A good test for most animated films is to see if the kids will enjoy it and the adults can tolerate it. The humor here isn't as sophisticated as in Pixar films, though it fortunately doesn't indulge in too many pop culture references (though there is a "Bank of Evil" joke that is probably the film's best). Kids will more than likely eat up all the slapstick, particularly in the first half of the movie, but the adults might be a bit restless with the subpar storytelling. Still, there's enough manic elements here to keep everyone involved, and by the time the sentimental side rears its head, you're already on board with most of what the film has to offer. Also, this is a 3D feature that actually uses 3D to great effect, especially in the gimmicky end credits. For as many examples there are as 3D being used as a depth tool, it's nice to every once in a while see a gimmicky 3D film.

The voice acting all around is pretty well done, particularly since it's one of the few where the actors are actually trying to put a performance in their voice rather than just reading lines in an empty room. Carell's Slavic English adds a lot of fun to a character that isn't much on the page. Segel, Brand, and others including Julie Andrews playing against type as Gru's disinterested mother, contribute to the overall feel the film gives off, and they're nicely used. The girls are probably the weakest part: the characters are only flaunted for their cuteness and the voices are rather flat.

It's not a great animated film, and there's no way in hell that it's going to unseat Toy Story 3 at critical acclaim, and probably at the Oscar podium as well. However, I am here to say that if you're looking for passable family fare, you could do worse. In fact, you might end up smiling at quite a bit of it. Granted, this has no where near the emotion and intelligence as a Pixar film, but for light, breezy family film that employs some great use of 3D, I'd say that it's worth a look.

B

Family Feud

Sometimes, despite a potential promise a film can offer, it just doesn't live up to it. I won't say that I was particularly expecting this film to be magnificent, and since I heard the directors were pioneers in the "mumblecore" movement, I was certainly expecting to be hesitant to enjoy it. However, I saw the impressive cast that was being advertised, and a potentially humorous premise, I thought that maybe I could end up liking it. That would not be the case. Not only would I end up not liking it, but I thoroughly had a major distaste for nearly everything offered in the film.

John C. Reilly is a forty-something loner named John still reeling from the divorce from his wife, played by Catherine Keener, seven years ago. When she's about to get remarried, John decides to try to enter into another relationship. That relationship is with Molly (Marisa Tomei), a single gal herself. The one hiccup is that she's got a twenty-two-year-old son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), who shares an unhealthy, close relationship with her and attempts to disrupt what John and Molly have going on.

If I'm going to start with the things that I hated the most about this film, it's the way that it's directed. To be fair, I haven't seen any of the other films in the brothers Duplass' category, but if what they have to offer is manic overdirection with nauseating camera zooms, then I'm thoroughly turned off by what they have to offer. Not only is the direction awful and lacking in a consistent pace, but the way the script handles these characters is frustrating. I hated all of them. I hated the dysfunctional nature of John, I hated Molly's gullibility to be manipulated by her son, I hated Cyrus's manipulation over his mother and his creepy demeanor, I even hated Catherine Keener for not showing up more and saving this movie. Every character is a horrendous mess with no reason to justify it, and what is left is a ninety-minute escapade not worth watching.

As I said, I like all these actors, and occasionally they offer glimpses into a world in which they elevate the material. There's one scene in which Cyrus is performing a musical number in front of John, and the intensity that Hill shows automatically forces a laugh. Early in the film, Tomei appears to give some light charm in her role to make it seem like the horrible shooting process will be no match for her. But then she succumbs into a horribly drawn out character and she's wasted. Everyone in this cast is wasted, though in the case of Keener, she's used to it by now. As for Reilly, it's just an incredibly mediocre performance: I didn't hate it, but I can't sing praises for it either.

Much of this movie was torture to sit through, and a relatively short running time still doesn't diffuse the agony. The direction is poorly staged, the writing is uninteresting, the characters are a pain to endure, and the acting, no matter what little humorous territory they mine, is undercut by all the other negative elements in the film. I suppose I shouldn't give movies huge promises, because they'll end up just disappointing. Oh wait, Inception is coming out this weekend. Well, at least the bar's been set low by the time Friday rolls around.

C-

New Reviews: Predators & La Mission

The Killing Fields

In the vast universe of movie monsters, the Predator has generally been one quite well received. However, I'm not such a fan as the next person. The original film is actually a showcase for standard action rather than intriguing alien exploration, and its sequels and spinoffs have been a series of diminishing returns. This film is an attempt to try to wipe the slate clean, as it were, starting out in the relatively same position. The results, however, are relatively the same.

You still have a group of tough guys in a savage jungle, but some of the circumstances have changed. For one, the group members, all trained killers, don't have any connection to one another. The second is that they were all parachuted onto a distant planet meant only to be a game preserve for different species brought in by those predator creatures. Adrien Brody has the "Schwarzenegger" role, if you like, as the ringleader of the group that eventually tries to fight back.

I'll admit the first half of the movie is pretty great. Director Nimród Antal, who has generally been relegated to B-grade American releases like Vacancy and Armored, has a good sense of world building, and the planet has a real, genuine and menacing feel to it. The story also has some smart tricks to play, and develops the relationships between the characters in a way that makes it comfortable to get to know them. There's a nice sense of humor the film plays out with its characters and there are some nice nods to the original film that don't necessarily feel self-indulgent.

Then, at the mid-point, everything goes wrong. You can pinpoint it right when Laurence Fishburne shows up as a lone survivor hiding out in an abandoned spaceship. It's here where the film's scope starts to narrow, borrowing a lot from Alien's closed quarters look, and the momentum stands still. The pace moves along at a crawl as the film abandons the creative multi-character study it was working on in favor of standard, action beats. Those beats wouldn't be so much of a problem if it was creative enough to feel justified. Instead they're no different than the rest, and the set-up of mono-a-mono matches leading up to a big fight is clichéd and uninteresting. There's also a bland subplot involving a feud between two races of Predators, but it's a throwaway piece that isn't motivating at all.

This cast is more able than what you would normally see. Everyone one of them gives some depth to their characters, and you can actually get a sense of who they are, meaning they come across more than just alien target practice. The standouts among the group are Alice Braga, taking the token Latin female role designated for the series, as the assassin with the most humanity, and Walton Goggins has the most humorous fun as a convict with the best one-liners. Some of the cast isn't quite so successful, as Fishburne isn't the best person to chew the scenery and Topher Grace, intentionally placed as the out-of-place character, is a little too much out-of-place, and by the time his character's true colors are revealed, it feels contrived and forced.

There's plenty to admire in this film, for sure. The first half is a well-crafted, smart film that creates a believable world amongst believable characters. Then, it throws all that away in the end to indulge in a predictable, unmoving action film that slows the pace down to nearly a dead stop. That's sort of what happened to the original, meaning I can't quite recommend the film. But who knows, maybe the film can follow the other's footsteps and we'll see some future governors. I'd vote for Danny Trejo.

B-

Border Issues

I don't know exactly when I heard about this film, it could have been on At the Movies or some other movie devoted website, but it's always been on my radar for some time. However, it must be said that it's been flying rather low, and as the summer tried to bombard me with several less-than-stellar releases, it almost got lost in the shuffle. Luckily, in the week before my mind goes blank with nothing but Inception on the mind, this one managed to peak in from the smog. It's far from perfect, but it's also got some admirable qualities that one might not find at every cineplex.

Benjamin Bratt stars (while his brother Peter writes and directs) as Che Rivera, a bus driver with a strong connection to his community, a local Hispanic group in San Francisco called "La Mission." He's one of those rough and tough guys who's also got that rarely seen softer side. That side is particularly seen as the affection he has for his son Jess (Jeremy Ray Valdez). That affection is tested when he discovers his son is gay, and so begins his slow test to check his machismo attitude in an attempt to accept his son for who he is.

If you had told me that I would be amazed by a Benjamin Bratt performance, I would have laughed at that idea. However, it is Bratt's dedicated intensity that ultimately saves this movie from drowning in overwrought melodrama. Bratt comfortably slips into the role and gives credible life into this character. He also is able to show layers in complexity in this character, particularly amazing since the character isn't much on the page. The rest of the cast pulls their weight, particularly Erika Alexander as Che's neighbor that gives into a complex relationship with him. Alexander has always been an actress that knows exactly what a scene needs, and she doesn't under-or-overplay the scene. She's another asset to the film.

This isn't Peter Bratt's first feature film, but it does have an amateurish filmmaking quality to it. The story is often a showcase of obvious metaphors and simplistic storytelling. The script also doesn't deal with its characters very well. The greatest example is Jess, who is given so many contrived and contradicting motivations that his character is never truly defined. Still, Peter Bratt can still offer a route within the story that can offer a surprise or two, and the greatest thing he offers is a nice insight into the culture, and its "characters", even though the story may take a backseat. It's a similar method to that of No One Knows About Persian Cats, only with a less engaging story that comes dangerously close to overstaying its welcome.

The story's not very strong, some characters are weakly defined and the film has a hard time wrapping up at the end and starts to drag. However, thanks to an able-bodied cast, headlined by a terrific performance from Benjamin Bratt, there are qualities of the film that end up becoming enough to save the film. I'm sure that for many, this film is flying even lower on others' radars; it probably isn't even showing up. But if you take the chance, you might very well find something that you probably didn't expect to see in the first place. And that's a good thing a film can offer.

B

Oldies Spin: Dahmer

Dahmer (2002)

If you liked Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker last year, then you have this movie to thank. Kathryn Bigelow has stated many times that it was watching his performance in this film that convinced her that he was the right person to play Staff Sergeant William James. As we know, Renner wound up with an Oscar nomination, and while I yield that he did an admirable job in that film that I liked quite a bit, I didn't see fit to give him a nomination for my own year end "awards." Having seen him in this obscure film, I'm more than confident that was the right decision. In fact, after watching him in this role, I'm convinced that what he did in the Best Picture winner was nothing special at all.

In case you haven't figured it out, Renner stars as the notorious Jeffrey Dahmer, the horrific serial killer who terrorized the Midwest by murdering over a dozen young men in addition to indulging in rape, torture, dismemberment and cannibalism. The story alternates between flashbacks which show Dahmer's rise in psychopathic tendencies to the night where he encountered his final would-be victim that managed to escape and report him to the police, leading to the end of his terrorizing killing spree.

It's difficult to successfully pull off a character that on paper is this repulsive. You can't be too horrific otherwise the audience won't connect with you, while at the same time cannot be too sympathetic less the wrong tone be set by a person doing despicable acts. Renner pulls it off flawlessly. His Dahmer is a monster, but one whose psychosis is incredibly fascinating. Renner manages to balance the task of making Dahmer interesting but not sympathetic. He doesn't overract the part either; there's a quiet burn and somber intensity to what he brings to the part, and he manages to reach deep levels of complexity felt for this character. It's one of the hardest jobs an actor can do, and Renner does an fantastic job at keeping afloat.

The film has a very intimate nature as written and shot by David Jacobson. It almost feels like a play, which is best. There's no grand ambition, or overtly graphic gore either, and because everything feels quite small, it's a positive way to draw us into this story we might normally shun away from. However, the alternation between the flashbacks and the final night create a jarring pace for the film, and anytime a scene builds up momentum, it immediately dissipates when the timeline shifts. This is also another film that treats its main character better than its supporting players. Bruce Davidson shows up as Dahmer's father, but he's flat and feels useless as a mild explanation into Dahmer's psychological background. Artel Great is that would-be victim, but he's treated with a lack of depth and conflicting character motivations. The last act of his character is a fabricated event, and it not only feels like a betrayal, but a moment where Great's acting isn't up to par with Renner.

It's hard to just give this film a blanket recommendation; not everyone is interested in the exploits of a sadistic, psychopathic, homosexual, cannibalistic serial killer. Hard to imagine, I know. But I also can't give it a blanket recommendation because of some serious story issues and supporting characters that get taken to the extreme sideline. But I have to give it up to Jeremy Renner for making a film that seems impossible to like actually come out admirable. I now believe that he deserved the Oscar nomination for this instead of The Hurt Locker, and he would have been more deserving to win for this. I hope others attempt to seek this out. I'm certainly glad Kathryn Bigelow did.

B

New Reviews: The Last Airbender & Winter's Bone

Hot Air

Few filmmakers have the immediate potential to drum up so much hatred and disgust like M. Night Shyamalan. Recently, a downward spiral in his career has led many to believe that he's a one-trick pony, whose only good movie was The Sixth Sense over a decade ago. I seem to be one of the few that actually liked Signs, but I admit that I have been no fan at all of his recent work. It almost looked like this would be an opportunity to clear his name, but the general consensus seems against it; according to Rotten Tomatoes, it's one of the worst-reviewed movies of the year. While I don't think the film is atrociously bad like many others have been saying, it is no less yet another fail for this once hailed filmmaker.

Based on the popular Nickelodeon anime series, this is set in a more mythical land, a far departure from Shyamalan's Philadelphia inspired settings. In this world, there exists groups of powerful people called Benders, who have the power to control the elements fire, earth, water and air. Aang (Noah Ringer) is an avatar, a reincarnated being who is capable of controlling all. But that kind of power is seen as a threat against the Fire Nation, bent on world domination. The banished son of the Fire lords is Dev Patel, of Slumdog Millionaire fame, and he wants to capture Aang to restore his own honor. In order to train, Aang is accompanied by his companions Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and water-bender Katara (Nicola Peltz) to a watery city where the climatic final battle is held.

I've always believed, and still do to this day, that Shyamalan's greatest asset is his layout for visual storytelling. There are moments in the film where he delivers well in playing with the frame. One particular scene in which there's a prisoner rebellion in a camp between the fire and earth-benders. The scene is well conceived and quite engaging. There's much of that feeling felt throughout most of the action sequences. When it is necessary to let the frame play out the storytelling, Shyamalan is able to work his magic. Even an underappreciated film like Signs was best in its most quieter moments.

However, as accomplished a visual storyteller Shyamalan is, this film, as many others of his, is buried beneath a poor script riddled with sloppy storytelling. The main fault is that it all feels rushed from the very beginning, and the whole thing is too concerned with getting to the next plot point (or film for that matter, this is one in a series) rather than stay on the moment to revel in the story and characters. There's a comparison to be made with Lord of the Rings, what with its ambitious scope and multiple chapters. But Jackson realized that each film was but a window into an entire story, leaving each movie a stand alone piece to develop his own universe organically. Shyamalan's script is obsessed with getting to the next step, never leaving us with an emotional bond with these characters, and it's all an empty hollowness by the end.

Most of the cast is pretty uninspired. As Aang, Ringer is only engaging when he's in action mode. He delivers some well conceived stunts, but he's very lacking in emotional depth for this character. Sokka and Katara feel like side-characters in their own movie, never given the opportunity to develop leaving the actors flat. While Peltz doesn't actively harm the film, Rathbone is just downright horrible in his delivery, and it's painful to watch him. Patel just gives standard angst, and isn't really felt enough as a villain. Honestly, the most successful people are the hidden background players, barely visible. Shaun Toub plays Patel's uncle, and he feels quite sincere and full of complexity. There's also some nice, hammy work from the usually funny Aasif Mandvi, from "The Daily Show", but he's lost in a messy sea of weakly motivated villains.

One other issue that has come up is the idea of "race bending." Many believed that the original animated series had lead characters of Asian decent, and the casting of the film showed what many believed to be a white-washing affect in play. Shyamalan has defended the film as very racially diverse, and that much is true. The different nations are represented to be different ethnicities. The problem is that most of the non-white roles are designated to groups of people who are either the aggressors or the oppressed. It is the distinctly white people who are the leads and heroes of the film, making this a curious case that Shyamalan should have paid a tad more attention to. This would have been an issue even without the source material.

Perhaps some people will find this entertaining, but for me, wanting so desperately for Shyamalan to prove that he's a gifted filmmaker, this actually has some mixed results. Don't get me wrong, the film is a mess of poor storytelling, cardboard acting, conflicting messages, an odd pace and even a surprisingly murky look, despite being shot by Lord of the Rings cinematographer Andrew Lesnie (and that was without the needless 3D). Still, there's potential the film shows, and he uses some of it to the advantage of visual storytelling, helped greatly by James Newton Howard's score. It's far from perfect, but I'll take this over The Lady in the Water and The Happening anyday. Perhaps part two will be better, but only if Shyamalan takes the time to stop and smell the roses.

C

Bone Chilling

Some films don't need much to aspire to greatness (The Last Airbender could learn a thing or two). Realistically, if you have well-rounded and fascinating characters and a compelling story, then you've got most of the ingredients to have a film that is enjoyable and, often times, an incredible journey to partake in. A lot of these films tend to be on the smaller scale like this one, and like many others, it's another one that takes on a journey to mine some fascinating territory.

The protagonist is Ree Dolly, played by relative newcommer Jennifer Lawrence. Ree is pretty much the sole caregiver to her younger brother and sister in the isolated Missouri backlands, as her mother is nearly catatonic and her father has had a run-in with the law dealing with meth labs. Her father's actions get into some serious trouble: he's put his house and farm up for his bond, but skips town before his trial. With their property in turmoil, Ree goes out searching for her lost father.

Any reason to see this film lies in Lawrence's performance. It's really astounding how she is able to carry so many emotions, all in an incredibly subtle way. She feels incredibly real and genuine, and I buy her intensity and enthusiasm to be the film's greatest asset. It's fascinating to watch her in this film, hopefully garnering that much deserved Oscar buzz. The supporting players, while perhaps not as showy as Lawrence, offer a great deal in characterizing the setting. Her uncle, Teardrop, is played by John Hawkes, and he is able to be quite chilling in the beginning and then handle his character arc quite well as the film goes on. There are numerous supporting players that give life to this depressingly bleak place.

Director Debra Granik has a great sense of place. She employs some beautifully bleak cinematography to immediately drop us a little-explored world. She lets the tension play out in a genuine way the feels incredibly real, and the same goes to how the relationships between the characters are crafted throughout the film. It's all quite engaging in the first half. I have to admit that the whole thing starts to drag on by the midpoint, and it really starts to feel like the simplistic plot is starting to get in the way of an interesting character study. Fortunately there are some moments salvaged in the end by some nice execution, as well as that fantastic first half.

There's some pacing problems here and there, and not every frame is engaging, but I honestly have to say that a great deal of this film is quite engaging. Anchored by an incredible performance from Jennifer Lawrence, and a well crafted scenery from its director, the film pulls you into this journey that finds itself very fascinating. It's nice to see a film that realizes what it needs in order to be successful. You don't need to blow your budget on the special effects; if you can do it on the pure talent, then that's money well spent.

B+