New Reviews: Catfish & Buried

Profile Settings

This has been a particularly strong year for documentaries. I'll admit that I've only seen one, but Exit Through the Gift Shop is still currently my favorite film of the year, so it's a pretty fine generalization on how well the year has been. There is also another trend this year with some documentaries, including Exit, that have been trying to blur the line between fact and fabrication. It's an interesting exploration that I find kind of fascinating. This film is certainly a memorable example, and when you shake off the smug and self-indulgent execution of the piece, you might find an interesting notion underneath.

Most of the film's advertisements have shrouded most of the reveals in secrecy. I'll try to honor as much as the possible. I will confirm that it all started as an examination by two amateur filmmakers into the spontaneous relationship between young Nev Schulman and eight-year-old Abby who sends him paintings of his professional photographs. Soon the world grows to involve her extended family on Facebook with eventually Nev starting to fall for her older sister Megan. But probing further into the case leads to conclusions attached to doubt. The final reveal shows the telling truth.

To paraphrase a quote from A.O. Scott, to not discuss any aspect of the big reveal in this film is to disregard any substantial examination of the film. Therefore, I'm going to warn you that this review will contain a SPOILER for the film. If you don't want to know what happens, then skip this review completely because I'm giving you a SPOILER ALERT right now.

What the film offers best is an interesting examination on our current culture. I'm sure this probably doesn't have the same artistic weight as David Fincher's forthcoming The Social Network, but it does give a perspective on how our modern culture views relationships. Despite never meeting this family, Nev grows an attachment to them, and the film never plays this in a condescending light, and instead makes it seem quite legitimate. Our obsession with the internet will never be rid of casual suspicion, but it's comforting that such a place can give us so much in return.

When it is revealed that most of the family and their stories is the creation of a middle-aged woman, the film could easily turn into a hatchet job. But somehow, all the parties manage to come out of this whole thing with their heads held high. This woman's necessity to create an elaborate deception is fueled by her hopelessness, made especially evident by her caretaker role for her husband's twin boys from a previous marriage that suffer from severe retardation. Her life is sad, and her confession at the end of the film gives a window into her suffering. The film doesn't validate her actions, but it gives light to a struggle she shares with many people who are incredibly isolated, and look to the communities created online to temporarily fill that void. In the end, her life has redemption but the stigma of what was created is certainly felt to have residual effects.

As I've mentioned, there are many documentaries out now that are trying not to come down on the side of fact or fiction. But as much as this one wants to walk that balance, it's hard to take it on face value. There is an undying sense that the film carries the same kind of casual suspicion that its subject does. I'm pretty convinced that not everything that happens in the film is supposed to be taken as the exact truth. But much like many of these kinds of films, it isn't supposed to. The issues presented are what's most important, and the film does a pretty good job at staying on target. The film would be a nearly pitch-perfect portrait if it were not for the self-conscious commentary the filmmakers are aware of, and their constant invasion into the story gives way to a smug attitude.

I know at least one person who is violently opposed to this film. I can understand why the bait-and-switch sell might turn some people off. However, if that doesn't bother you, then you might be on board for the ride. The trip hits plenty of speed bumps in the execution, but in the end, it presents what all the best documentaries do: present an intimate look into its subjects and present an intriguing look. I don't know how much of the film comes from events born out of fact or fabrication, but it's all pretty interesting to watch.

B+

Under Pressure

It's always interesting to see filmmakers try to be a bit daring in their projects. Creativity will always thrive on the willingness for arts to take chances in their work. However, it should be noted that just because a film is different than the rest of the films in the marketplace, that shouldn't be the only thing celebrated. If a film is lacking in compelling characters and an interesting story, then all that risk doesn't amount to much. You will probably not see many films like this one in theaters right now, and what you will get is a well executed concept that comes with its own set of mixed bags.

Ryan Reynolds has the lead as Paul Conroy, a contract driver in Iraq who wakes up alone in a coffin beneath the earth. He pieces together that he was was attacked by a renegade envoy who have put him here for the sole purpose of retrieving a ransom. Armed with a limited number of illuminating devices and a surprisingly strong cellphone, Paul tries to figure out a rescue from his claustrophobic nightmare.

It's quite impressive how a movie that never once leaves the confines of Paul's entrapment can carry so much cinematic value. Director Rodrigo Cortés does a pretty spectacular job at inventing creative ways to keep us interested in such a confined space. There's plenty of cinematic tendencies through Cortés's execution, and his eye as an engaging filmmaker makes him a person to watch. Unfortunately, it's the script by Chris Sparling that doesn't go anywhere. The story is dead on arrival, and sags at every turn while trying to manufacture tension and suspense through artificial means. It's a quick idea that gets stretched out far too thin by the screenplay.

Because Reynolds is the only person seen on screen, the ability to carry all the dramatic weight of the film, almost whether or not the film succeeds, lies directly on him. He certainly rises to the challenge, and he more than anything gives the believability to this dire situation. Still, absolute one-man-shows are rather difficult to sustain, and one does always get the wish that the story could expand a bit. It's a credit that most of the film can still remain somewhat engaging while never leaving its surroundings, but at this point, I need more than just the voice of Stephen Tobolowsky to be satisfied.

If this were a twenty minute, experimental short film, I'd call it genius. As a feature film, even though I was riveted throughout much of the film, I still think this material is stretched just enough too thin. I think Cortés proves that he's a terrific filmmaker, and Reynolds makes the case for his already established leading man status. It's an interesting experiment that doesn't quite land, but in the future, it'd make a great rental. I congratulate the idea, but the execution falls just enough short.

B-

New Reviews: Wall Street 2 & Howl

Money Talks

Current events do as much to inspire the marketplace of storytelling as those in the past. Oliver Stone used to be a man obsessed with the past, constantly diving into the subjects of the Vietnam War, the Kennedy Assassination, and former presidents decades ago, not to mention that certain Macedonian leader from a few centuries past. Recently, Stone's obsession with the past has shifted in gaze, and his aim has less reach lately. His George W. Bush film was even released with the president was still in office. Even though his new film is a sequel to a film that was released more than twenty years ago, it's themes and plot still reach into the limited past. And the results are just about the same as the first time.

The first Wall Street film ended with the notorious Gordon Gekko being sent off to prison for insider trading. Michael Douglas reprises his Oscar-winning role as Gekko is released shortly after the September 11 attacks. Seven years later, he's slowly returning to the public eye with a book about his life. He soon attaches himself to Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a young Wall Street hotshot who collaborates with Gekko to get revenge on the banking firm run by Josh Brolin that drove Moore's firm to belly up, which was run by his mentor (Frank Langella). There's also a side plot concerning Jake being engaged to Gekko's daughter (Carey Mulligan) and try to reconcile their own relationship.

The film has mostly been sold on the promise of Douglas returning to the role which gave him even more fame, not to mention his first and only acting Oscar. However, for most of the film, he's sidelined and feels more like a supporting player. In truth, that's pretty much how Gekko was handled in the original film. But in the first film, he was so much better than the mediocre rags-to-riches tale of Charlie Sheen that he could outshine the rest. This time, the appearance of Douglas feels more like fan service, and even though it's nice to see Douglas shine in a performance he can relish in, it feels unnecessary. The rest of the plot that revolves around Gekko is actually a lot more interesting.

Stone has always been a stylized director, and as the times have evolved, his tricks have gotten a bit more flashy (JFK might be an outlier of the early days), but conversely a bit muted. This film works like it's trying to reach back to what Stone has done before, and in terms of a directorial effort, it is much more memorable film than the last few films of his. I do think Stone gets lost in his own world a bit, and lets the story and actors fend for themselves at several points. The script itself is a bit overstuffed and juggles far too many story elements, which leads to some sluggish plotlines and a film that ends up being about twenty minutes too long.

As I said, Douglas is a great actor, and he shines in this role. There's also an added bit of depth to his performance with his recent health problems, which gives him just an extra bit of self-reflection to his persona. It's not quite as engaging as the first time, and even though this film probably could have worked without him, you still get a kick watching him. LaBeouf still hasn't broken out as a serious actor to me, so his role to fulfill the role that Sheen had in the original serves its purpose, but nothing more. Mulligan does her crying best, but she's a little wasted. The best players are Brolin and Langella (by coincidence both have played presidents). They command the screen whenever they appear, and are obviously the best parts of the film.

I'm not always pleased when filmmakers retread on their own material, and the world would have been perfectly fine without another Wall Street revisit. Stone and company don't reinvent the wheel with this one, but they do offer some nice entertainment. Most of the performances are good, and Stone's effort as a director has enough stylish flare to compensate for the lackluster storytelling and sluggish pace. Whether Stone's next journey takes on the events from centuries ago or what just happened twenty minutes ago, I'm sure I'll be there to witness his slow dissent into mediocrity.

B

Poetry Slam

I'll admit it: I'm not the biggest poetry fan. I'm sure it's got all the great assets necessary for compelling reading, but it generally doesn't float my boat. I tend to be an even lesser fan of the film dramatizations of poets. However, I do have an open mind, and if one comes along that I enjoy, then I'll sing whatever praises I can for it (I adored last year's Bright Star). In the beginning, I had similar reservations about this film, but soon I started to gain interest in it. Unfortunately, this film has yet to make it to a theatre in Chicago, but by the godsend that is Comcast's On Demand section, I was able to see this anticipated film. While nowhere near a masterpiece, I have to say there's quite a few elements that I did enjoy.

In case you don't know, Howl is the name of famous poet Allen Ginsberg's most famous writing, the one that inspired a landmark, controversial trial to determine whether or not the poem would be deemed as obscene. James Franco is at the center as Ginsberg, and he pops in and out of the film as either the interview subject spouting about his feelings of life and art or as the narrator of "Howl" set against vivid, animated sequences. Ginsberg is absent during the trial, as the prosecution and defense attorneys (David Strathairn and Jon Hamm, respectively) battle each other over the material.

If you're looking for a straight forward, comprehensive biopic on Ginsberg's life, then you might be disappointed. This is less a story about Ginsberg and more of a meditation on his life and work. Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Freidman have worked in the world of documentary up until this point, and their feature film debut certainly has the fluid storytelling that can often be seen in documentaries. They know that each segment brings in a certain perspective: the Ginsberg interviews give light to his mind and his background, the animated sequences express the power of the poem, and the trial is meant to show the absurdity of the oppression on speech. Of all of these, I think the court room is the weakest, as these are the moments that are flatly shot, muddled in pace, and harping on ideas that are self-explanatory and don't need further exploration.

Some could get tiresome of the animated scenes, and I think eventually they get to the point of one too many. But I think the vivid style of them does give a greater significance to the poem, and whether you have read "Howl" or not, you might find a deeper appreciation of the writing, or at least understand where that appreciation comes from within others. Everything revolving around Ginsberg the man shows him as a pretty isolated figure, but by careful direction and the ace cinematography from Edward Lachman, it never feels stuffy and is always intriguing to watch.

For most of the film, Franco is doing a one man show, and his performance as Ginsberg is a much understated one. There's no showy moments that would scream, "Here's my Oscar scene"; the closest would probably be his reading of the poem in front of a live audience. What Franco does do well is embody the mind of this character, so that even though he's calm in every scene, he feels real and believable as this character. The supporting players are pushed to the extreme sideline, with the only one snatching attention would be Jeff Daniels as a dismissive literary elite who gets into a very descriptive war of words trying to examine, what he feels to be, a lesser literary work like "Howl." He's a good actor who distracts us from the stiff Hamm and phoned-in Strathairn.

If you need only one reason to see this film, I'd say it's James Franco's performance, as he does so much with so little that it's really a special kind of magic to watch him subtlety inhabit this character. But if you know me, you generally need more than one good performance to recommend a film. Well, I can say that the insight brought to Ginsberg and "Howl" is sincerely felt, and the way the film executes his life and the meaning of the words can give you a brand new sense of discovery, even when a portion of the film in the courtroom may not be quite as captivating. This is a film that can easily be lost in the shuffle, and I suspect it will be. I know I won't forget it, and if you take the chance either in the movie theatre or at home, I hope you can give it a chance as well.

B+

New Reviews: The Town & Devil

Robbing Blind

Apparently, some people have been complaining about some other critics out there making a blasphemous comparison. Most of these critics who complain are rather old school, and do not appreciate such comparisons made to an artist that they have adored for decades. The two parties involved in this comparison: Ben Affleck and Clint Eastwood. I understand why some people would be upset, but I happen to agree with. In fact, when I reviewed Affleck's first directorial effort, I ended with that comparison. I enjoyed that first effort. This one falters heavily on some story elements which makes it not quite as recommendable.

Based on the Chuck Hogan novel Prince of Thieves, the centerpiece is on Charlestown, an area in Boston that claims to have a huge amount of bank robberies every year. There's a rag-tag groups of thieves here, that's headlined by Ben Affleck as Doug MacRay. Their most recent robbery, which opens the film, ended with them taking a hostage, a woman played by Rebecca Hall. To keep tabs on her, MacRay visits her and eventually a relationship starts to bloom. But some aren't too pleased about it, mainly being his best friend James (Jeremy Renner) and the FBI agent (John Hamm) who comes down hard on trying to pinch the gang in the act.

With his sophomore effort behind the camera, Affleck makes an even stronger case that his career as a director is one that must be seriously considered. Affleck handles the tension and quiet emotions of scenes quite well. The robberies are well staged and tight in execution, and the emotional moments are allowed the breathing room to develop in a realistic way. Unfortunately, as strong as Affleck's directorial efforts are, those efforts are undercut by a painfully pedestrian and predictable story. The curves in the plot are incredibly easy to spot and the characters exist in predictable types that limit any amusement to watch them on screen. Affleck tries his best to work with this material, but it's very sluggish and makes building up any momentum to be quite a difficult task.

I've always said that Affleck is an actor who isn't bad, just limited. It's another case here. I think he's able to carry himself quite well in the role, but there's always something to his performance that just misses the step of total believability. It might be the surface level complexity of his character that puts a wall behind the acting, but it's happened enough during Affleck's acting career for it to take notice once again. It seems like John Hamm is trying to become a movie star, and he shows potential in this role, but he feels a bit too antagonistic to really register in the film. Renner, probably the best actor in the film, is unfortunately sidelined with the worst, flattest character in the film, and Hall, while good, feels limited. The only one who feels really used well is Blake Lively as MacRay's girlfriend. The role of the limited supporting actress with questionable morals has appeared in both of his films, and both times they have been the best aspects. Here, she's entertaining and convincingly sad and most exciting to watch.

I wish I could say that Affleck's second film is better than the last, but I can't really say that. Even his first film was just an okay outing that was really pushed over the edge because of Amy Ryan's Oscar nominated performance. Lively can't work quite the same magic here, and the film's sloppy story crushes a lot of the good will that the film builds up for itself. I think the cast does a good enough job to work through the limited material, and Affleck as director carefully crafts the best scenes he can, and for much of it he succeeds. I don't think I can flat out recommend the movie, but I enjoy seeing what Affleck can bring to the table with each new film and look forward to a masterpiece I know he can one day deliver on, just like our old pal Clint Eastwood.

B-

Hell to Pay

Everyone knows that, sometimes, you have to rely on certain names in order to sell films in the marketplace. However, one name in particular has conjured up so many conflicting emotions that it might be better just to leave his name off. That name, of course, is M. Night Shyamalan. It's tricky to market a film with this name, particularly since his last film was an absolute critical bomb and certainly nowhere near a financial success. I do think it would have been a smarter decision to leave his name at least out of the advertisements. However, as it stands, this is probably the best thing with his name attached since Signs.

This is the first of a series of films that have been promised "from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan." This one's about a group of strangers that get trapped in an office elevator and soon discover some frightening things about each other. As the title suggests, they begin the guessing game as to which one of them is Satan incarnate while the police and other outside forces try to free them before they all perish.

I do think this is the best thing with Shyamalan's name attached in close to eight years, and the main reason for that is probably because he didn't direct or write the screenplay for this one; he is credited only for the story and producing. The writer and director here are Brian Nelson and John Erick Dowdle, respectively. Each have had only mild successes in the past, but with some standouts. Dowdle has handled mokumentaries like Quarantine and The Poughkeepsie Tapes, and while they aren't really great films, they are quite measured attempts in crafting a somber tone in tension and horror. He puts those skills to good use, and sets a quick tone that indulges in all the right moments that make it entertaining. Nelson's script doesn't overstay its welcome, and spins this "Twilight Zone" premise into a nice show.

Ensemble pieces in thriller/horror films usually don't give you quite as much to hold onto, but I'll admit that many players did pull me in. Chris Messina has been a reliable actor in smallish roles, and here he gets to shine a bit as the detective in charge of the situation. He infuses a lot of charm and legitimate concern that's good for the straight man in this type of situations. Among the victims, the standout is going to be the gravely voiced, tough guy mechanic played by Logan Marshall-Green. None of these performances are going to be gaining Oscar attention, but Marshall-Green is given the most to grow as an actor, and he does a serviceable job with it.

I'm going to try not to oversell this film. It's quick (the running time is eighty minutes) and dirty, and when it's over you probably won't be thinking about it for too long. However, as a small horror/thriller, it does the job quite well. It adds the right amount of tension and suspense, and I think the light ambitions it sets out to accomplish are done well. It's kinda forgettable, but at least not while you're watching it, and it provides an entertaining time at the show. Between the film with Shymalan's name and the one Affleck's name, I liked the former more. The devil must be working his magic this week.

B

New Reviews: Machete & The American

Hard Labor

As we head into the fall season of moviegoing, many label this as the time we start to get the avalanche of prestige pictures that are vying for Oscar attention. Clearly, this particular film probably isn't trying to be in that same class of films; nothing under the banner of a Robert Rodriguez production is ever going to come close to that, which is alright if only to be seen as a pulpy, carefree piece of entertainment. What I find most interesting about the film is that it's the second one to come out this year with Rodriguez's name attached, the first being Predators. Interestingly enough, both of these films suffer from the same positives and negatives.

Remember that fake trailer that was a part of the Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double feature Grindhouse? The one where Danny Trejo was a Mexican vigilante with a passion for wielding extra-sharp instruments? I do, but according to the box office receipts for that film, not too many others do. As it is, this is the feature film as promised from that fake trailer, where Trejo has the title character as a double crossed Mexican Federale who turns day laborer in the US. When he's commissioned to carry out an assassination against an anti-illegals, state senator (Robert De Niro), he's double crossed again. Now he wants to bring them all down.

Much like Predators, this film starts out quite well. I think Rodriguez, and his co-director and occasional editor Ethan Maniquis, creates a quick pace that is indulgent in all the right elements that were in the Grindhouse picture. There's plenty of over-the-top violence and glaring sexuality that puts a cheesy, ironic smile on your face. But as the film goes on, the cheesy tone starts to fade away, and the whole thing feels more labored as it progresses. The film runs out of steam and that fun energy get replaced with forced situations that exist only to get to the film's resolution. Even the big fight at the climax comes off less like an entertaining set piece and more like a poorly staged ripoff of the Anchorman fight. This is typical Rodriguez fare, but it feels like he's trying to blend the exploitation elements with the more straight edged action pieces from movies like the El Mariachi trilogy. It's a combination that doesn't always work.

Even if you don't know the name Danny Trejo, you've seen his world-weary face somewhere, and it's comforting to see such a dedicated character actor get a leading role that he is so suited for. He's obviously not going for an awards here, but his chops as a leading action hero is surely welcomed. The supporting cast pitches in somewhat, but some are more memorable than others. De Niro' crazy right-winger politician is a good showcase of what a phoned-in De Niro can add to a picture, Michelle Rodriguez as a resistance fighter puts in the right amount of edge to make her character intriguing, and Jeff Fahey as the villain who hired Machete is grandiose and flawed like all great Rodriguez villains are. However, Steven Sagal and Don Johnson and a Mexican drug lord and border patrol vigilante feel underwritten, along with Rodriguez regular Cheech Marin as a priest with a lot of guns. And Lindsay Lohan has a throw-away role as a drug addicted teen with daddy issues (what a stretch).

There is a lot of fun to be had in the film, but that mostly happens in the first half of the film. Soon the energy starts to drain and it all just becomes a labored effort for it all to end. But Rodriguez and company do their best to try to keep it somewhat afloat, and a talented cast tries to help as well. I don't think this has quite the epic and grand cinematic appeal that Grindhouse did, but it's got enough cheesy set pieces and ironic sense of humor to say it's worth a rental, probably with the same group of films that it mocks with a sense of lovingness.

B-

American Dreamy

I've commented before about how there's a certain ability in the persona that George Clooney posses that allows him to reach all different kinds of levels and manages to reach the adoring public. It doesn't really matter if he's doing minimalist, indie work or big budget blockbusters, there's something about him that always attracts attention to his projects. I find it strange that the marketing for this film almost speaks to the latter, but it actually delivers in the tone of the former. All in all, I still enjoyed the film on its own accomplishments.

Clooney once again has the lead role, here playing an assassin hiding out in an Italian town to lie low. While he's there, he still engages in some suspicious activity, now modifying a weapon for a guarded client. However, he also engages in two extraneous relationships, one with a curious priest (Paolo Bonacelli) and a local prostitute named Clara (Violante Placido), who offers him the promise of a stable life he'd love to have but his line of work would never allow him to obtain.

It doesn't need to be stated that Clooney is an extremely talented actor, and he's one that is able to convey so much by doing so little. Here, he's always presenting a character that never shows much on the surface but lets it be known that something deep and sullen hides underneath the brooding exterior. It's one of Clooney's more quiet roles, but it is one that is without no less depth and complexity to discover between the cracks. Placido is actually quite effective as the love interest that offers much to the relationship while also being easy on the eyes. Unfortunately, I think a language barrier ultimately hurts a bit of Bonacelli's performance, but there are stronger problems with his character than his acting.

Director Anton Corbijn's last film was the Ian Curtis/Joy Division biopic Control, a beautifully crafted tale that was enhanced by Corbijn's photography background. The tone in this film strikes similar chords, so much so that the plot takes a back seat. This isn't a film that concerns itself with plot; it's more about creating an atmosphere and mood around an intimate character study. In that respect, Corbijn pretty much sets in place a series of beautifully framed pictures that successfully create that mood. I'll admit that it only goes so far, particularly when the script ranges from the mediocre to the downright obvious and horrid, but I think Corbijn shows that he can be a major talent behind the camera, and I continue to look forward to what he can accomplish in the future.

This may not be the easiest film to get through, and if you're here looking for a high tension, mystery thriller, then you'll be disappointed and probably anxious throughout the whole thing. However, if you're in the mood for a deliberately paced, somber, atmospheric character study with an intense performance from a reliable leading man, then you'll be in for a treat. It's far from being one of the best of the year, but as another showcase to the range of Clooney, it gets the job done.

B