New Review: Water for Elephants

Clowning Around

I’ll be completely honest here and say that when I first heard about this film, I wasn’t at all enthused about it. That isn’t to say that I was severely against it in anyway, it’s just that the initial premise didn’t appeal to me that much and didn’t think much of it. Then, when I saw a trailer, I still didn’t think much of it, but something about the look of it enticed me. It did so much that I went to look up the cinematographer and was very surprised (and at the same time, not) to learn that it was Rodrigo Prieto. Considering how much of a film geek I am, as well as a huge Prieto fan, my anticipation turned 180 degrees, so much so that I even read the book and was ready for the film. The results are less than stellar, but there are some aspects that are quite attractive.

The meat of the story takes place in Depression-era America, where Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) is a veterinary student at Cornell about to take his finals. When a fatal accident robs him of his parents, his father’s business and home, he packs up as much as he can and heads out. He crosses paths with a traveling circus train where his skills with animals eventually get him a job there. The show is run by August (Christoph Waltz) who flips back and forth between charming sophisticate to temperamental tyrant in too few strokes. His wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) is the show’s beautiful headliner, complete with horse and elephant acts, and with whom a forbidden romance between her and Jacob start to predictably form.

The book that the film is based on is good, not great, and much of the film takes on a similar role. Francis Lawrence has made a handful of films, but so far they’ve all been technically good but haven’t yet had the emotional strength to exist beyond the screen. This films isn’t very different, as Lawrence lets all of the crafts breath with excellence, such as Jack Fisk’s sets and the aforementioned Prieto’s lensing, but it never feels to have much power beyond the screen. It strikes some chords at times, but that may be more of the power of the actors and the script, written by Richard LaGravenese, takes all the best parts of the novel and uses them to full effect. LaGravenese is responsible for some good and bad romantic adaptations, but he gets the formula right in this one, at least as best as it could be from the source material.

I know there’s a lot of hate for Pattinson, and I try not to give into it too much. I admit that he is a limited one, but when required to attain certain emotional beats, I think he carries his own. It’s nothing Oscar worthy, but it’s enough to have no serious distraction. Witherspoon makes this character a bit more in control than she was in the book, but I still find her to be rather passive, and despite all the charm that Witherspoon has, she can’t really get over that shortcoming. Waltz is without a doubt the most fascinating person on screen and steals scenes whenever he appears. I hope that notorious villains don’t become his whole career, even though won and Oscar for doing it so well, but he’s very fun to watch in a role he accomplishes very well. Hal Holbrook also shows up in bookending scenes as an older Jacob and Holbrook shows a tenderness that helps to begin and end this story.

This is a well made film, for sure, but unless you trip over glossy romantic stories set against a sweeping past time period, then I can’t say that you’ll love the film. It’s put together by a group of talented professionals, making it look good, and the cast does a nice job in handling their own roles and creating believable chemistry with each other. However, it never really succeeds beyond anything from the aesthetic, and while I have respect for the players involved, I can’t say that it’s something that will be remembered for years to come. Even still, it’s a fine film, and I have another opportunity to campaign for Rodrigo Prieto to receive a return invitation to the Kodak Theater.

B-

New Review: The Conspirator

Trial by Fury

When it comes to certain actors who turn directors, it’s often easy to find where their strengths lie regarding their skills in front of or behind the camera. For instance, while Clint Eastwood was introduced to audiences as an actor, his hand is much more versatile as a director behind the scenes. On the other hand, while Kevin Costner is always able to apply his likable, everyguy charm in the roles he plays, his films are generally a mess in storytelling and compelling drama. In the case of Robert Redford, I tend to feel rather split. I’ve seen Redford give incredible performances, but I’ve also seen him phone it in. I’ve also seen him directing material with passion and incredible detail, and I’ve also seen him trip over the overbearing messages of the material and create a vacuum of dreary dullness. The Conspirator happens to have a mix of the two styles that Redford indulges in, but in the end, I rather enjoyed it as a pulpy court-room drama with a heavy handed social commentary.

The film begins immediately with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and everyone knows the story of the lone gunman John Wilkes Booth that was later killed in the burning barn. What some may not know is the conspiracy that included up to eight other people, including a woman, Mary Surratt (Robin Wright). James McAvoy is the Union attorney who battles his own conscience when the government assigns him to defend her in the railroaded military tribunal.

The film paints some very broad strokes in its portrait of an overzealous government unjustly treating individuals accused of heinous crimes and not giving them a fair trial. It’s pretty obvious of the modern day connections of the war on terror that is being communicated. However, even under the veil of propaganda, the core of the film is a tightly wound courtroom drama, and as such, I found it riveting. Redford manages to capture the tension quite well in those scenes, and I’d even argue that his attention to historical detail is impressive in a lot of areas. Redford does falter in some places when he let’s the political grandstanding get too large, the story to drag on about fifteen minutes too long and the action to get repetitive and dull, but on the whole I think he succeeds at keeping the interest in the material.

McAvoy has been doing solid work for a long time now, and here he carries the lead quite well. He sells the determination of the character well enough and does a nice job of embodying that attorney that is so recognizable in these films. Wright is also good in her role that sometimes plays for theatrics but always feels grounded considering the circumstances. There’s also some nice performances from some bit players like Tom Wilkinson as the Southern senator leading the defense, Danny Huston as the over zealous government prosecutor and Kevin Kline as the cold hearted Secretary of War. However, some of the younger cast members like Justin Long, Evan Rachel Wood and Alexis Bledel feel a bit too modern in the backdrop of the era, and do end up distracting in the end.

The film does have some some flaws in the storytelling and the performances, but taken as an entertaining court room drama, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The major players give some good performances, and Redford’s direction of the material shows a dedication to the craft of the time period as well as an engaging and thought-provoking side of the legal battles. I don’t know if this film sells me on me preferring Redford as director or actor, but it’s certainly one that makes me not mind him taking a few more steps behind the camera.

B

New Review: Hanna

Child’s Play

A relatively new concept, that I credit to new Ebert Presents co-host Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, has recently entered my life. That is the idea that some filmmakers can be artists and some can be craftsman. The difference is that the former is one that sees the a story as a whole piece and executes the scenes to work in that whole. The latter is someone who sees the film as individual pieces to be concentrated on in their isolated states, and then find themselves rather disconnected when it comes to laying them in a linear plane. When it comes to this director, and this particular film, those charges can be laid at some parts of it, but as a whole the film does a nice job at being entertaining and partially insightful.

The extremely talented Saoirse Ronan plays the title character, a hard-edged girl living in the Antarctic with her equally tough father (Eric Bana). Her father trains her constantly in geography, language and combat and survival skills in anticipation for meeting the notorious Marissa Weigler (Cate Blanchett, sporting an American accent of unknown origin). It becomes clear that Hanna is part of some government mystery to which Marissa is a part of, and as Hanna treks around the world, the mystery becomes clearer.

Joe Wright has only made a handful of films, and I’ve never really been a huge fan of any of them. Atonement had a decent first half that was brought down immensely by a dour and dreary back end, and The Soloist was so self-indulgently melodramatic and dull that I thought is was one of the worst films of 2009. Hanna still can’t be defined as a good film on the whole because the static tone that bookends the film doesn’t feel genuine. The cold nature of the beginning and the ham fisted action sequences are well shot and executed, but they also feel mechanical, and it’s difficult to put any emotional force behind them. The scenes are well done, but they exist in a vacuum with no shelf-life. However, when the world opens around Hanna, and the tale becomes more of an allegory about growing up and experiencing the world around you, then it becomes interesting, and the emotions feel real and organic to the story. The script also indulges on the pros and cons of this story, but there’s some nice meat in the middle that elevates it form where it was and where it ends.

I almost can’t express how good of an actress Ronan is. Even in subpar work like The Lovely Bones, she still manages to come out unscathed. The character of Hanna does try to operate on many subtle levels, and Ronan rises to the occasion every time. Even when the story is ditching emotional credibility, Ronan is still there as an anchor to the film, and she sells it nicely. Blanchett is trying for the hammy villain role, and for the most part she does it well, though she plays better as a shadowy background figure. I like Bana as an actor, but he’s more of a plot point that a developed character here. There’s also some nice supporting (almost cameo) turns by Tom Hollander as a Mr. Wint/Mr. Kidd style assassin and Olivia Williams and Jason Flemyng as the free-thinking parents of a stranded family that Hanna bonds with. The family scenes are among the film’s most well acted and tender, and also stray away from the thriller chase movie and more into the realm of finding a family and maturity, something I think the film does a better job at commenting.

It’s strange that for a film billed as an action thriller, the parts where there are fast action set pieces and suspenseful thriller are actually the least interesting parts. Wright does his best as the craftsman to make these scenes entertaining (he sometimes fails with overdirection, but for the most part it succeeds), but the film works better when it lingers on intimate moments of the main character settling into a world she is learning to understand. By the time you get to the predictable, cop out of an ending, you really appreciate that tone of the film. I don’t think this is the masterpiece a lot of critics are selling it as, but as an entertaining thriller that does better with its tonal shift scenes, and a decent score by the Chemical Brothers, you could certainly do worse.

B

New Review: Source Code

Quantum Creep

Whenever I talk about movies, I always tend to repeat myself on certain topics, particularly those that I have great passion for. In the case of science fiction, I’m quite pleased the where the genre can go, with my personal favorites being of the expansive “space opera” epics like 2001, Sunshine and the works of Ridley Scott. At the same time, I find some comfort in other routes that aren’t as epic. Today’s audiences have already gotten a demonstration of this foray into the genre a mere month ago with The Adjustment Bureau, a movie I liked in the end. This one is a little more blatant with its sci-fi premise but not quite the epic it could be, leading to a nice combination of elements in a pretty good film.

The film opens with a stranger, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, waking up and finding himself in an odd situation. He is sitting across from a woman he doesn’t know (Michelle Monaghan) aboard a Chicago bound train he doesn’t remember being on. Then an explosion happens and he is in an isolation chamber as Colter Stevens and part of a program called “Source Code.” This allows Stevens to enter into the mind of passenger Sean Fentress, who possibly holds the key to finding the bomber and preventing a next attack. The catch is that he can only relive the last eight minutes of the man’s life. While trying to complete his mission, Stevens also tries to break free from the constraints put upon him, and attempt to possibly change the unchangeable past.

Duncan Jones’s last film, Moon, I liked very much because it was able to replicate a grand scale of science-fiction on a very modest budget. He created suspense and tension built around an inquisitive character study. Jones isn’t really working on such somber tones here, and in a more plot-driven vehicle, it feels like part of Jones’s vision is muted. Juggling a more structured plot doesn’t feel quite as passionate, and what is left is a film that is well made but not always interesting. The middle of the film in particular gets a bit repetitive (though that might also be the work of writer Ben Ripley) and the pace can drag a bit. However, I don’t want to give the impression that Jones isn’t doing a good job. He does keep our attention in most of the appropriate places and develops characters and their connections well. This is just the kind of work he can be serviceable at instead of excelling.

The main players are few in numbers, but all of them are reliable in the end. Gyllenhaal actually delivers a surprisingly good performance, surprising only in the sense that this a good performance usually isn’t necessary in these types of films. He not only sells the character’s quest, but also the emotionality of him, particularly in the relationship with his father. By the end, you actually feel something for him and he unfolds in a genuine way. I’m glad Gyllenhaal is trying to make up for Prince of Persia.

The other supporting players do their jobs, but to be honest, it’s nothing really impressive. Monaghan holds some emotional anchors, but most of the time she’s disposable one way or the other. Vera Farmiga as the sympathetic army officer in direct contact with Stevens and Jeffrey Wright as the cold, calculated director of the Source Code program are great actors, but their roles are diminished that we can’t expect them to do anything more than remember the lines. It’s not meant to be an insult to the two of them, who are good in the film, it’s just that outside of Gyllenhaal, no one was required to do anything special outside of their own natural talents, and that ended up being the case.

The movie does have some issues in its storytelling, and I might have to give a second look to the ending to see if it’s a well executed, thought provoking moment of evaluation or convoluted piece of pretentious thought, but overall I really enjoyed the movie (though, as a resident near Chicago, I wish those commuter trains looked that good on the inside). The film is entertaining, suspenseful and even has a really good performance in the middle. I have to be honest and say that if Jones continues with this genre, I hope he goes for more ambitious targets than this one. At the same time, he proves that even if he sacrifices vision, he can still make a good movie.

B+