New Reviews: Hereafter & Conviction

Heaven Can Wait

No matter what, I will never abandon Clint Eastwood. I will argue with anyone, to this day, that the man is one of the most talented filmmakers working today. His style is subtle, but able to conform to any style that can bring out the most important bits in a film. Lately, however, he’s been coming up a little short in the directorial department. I place the blame squarely on Gran Torino, a film that sucked all the creativity out of Eastwood in favor of stale, blatant depictions of very poor storytelling. Even still, I try to support him as much as possible. I think he’s getting slightly better in his work, but this film, while offering some different strokes from him and pays off in small victories, can’t quite reach the level expected of such a master filmmaker.

There are three simultaneous stories going on in this film, all concerning the themes of the afterlife. One is about a French woman (Cécile de France) who is coping with a near death experience from surviving the 2004 tsunami. The other is about a set of twins living in London. When an accident occurs, the surviving film (Frankie McLaren) copes with the loss of his brother. The other story features top-biller Matt Damon as a psychic trying to move beyond his profession. Bryce Dallas Howard shows up briefly in his timeline as a woman who enters his life and finds out more than she initially wanted.

Eastwood seems to be doing something a little different here, as most of his films tend to, while beautifully executed, find a certain note and communicate it with some noted specificity. Here, it seems like Eastwood is trying to leave the door a little more open, and I still find it something that can work well with his style. However, I would still say he doesn’t get a great hold onto the material and lets large sections drag into dull territory. This is also due to the fact that Peter Morgan’s script, working very much out of his element, lacks so much dramatic and emotional weight that the material feels too lofty to truly take hold. Morgan can pick and choose certain moments that are well conceived, but most of the time it comes up short, leaving Eastwood and his actors to fend for themselves.

I think Damon is a great actor, and much like the performance he gave in Invictus, here he’s not going all out but doing serviceable work. I would say he makes a greater impression than his previous work with Eastwood, but it’s still a little more subdued than I’d like him to be. France gives a lot to her performance, but suffers because her storyline mutes a lot of the emotion. The strongest of the is the one concerning the twins, and the two boys give a very convincing performance as one character, carrying nearly all of the film’s genuine emotional weight.

There’s a few elements that I admire in the film, like Eastwood’s mostly stately direction and a few of the performances. There’s even some things I love, like the story concerning the twins. But, in the end, it never quite comes together and the film never finds the emotional pull it needs, particularly with a story that needs that element in order to survive. I will still give a defense to Eastwood, unless he really chooses to abandon all reason and go off the reservation (the pain of Gran Torino will never die). I give him points for trying something different, but not enough to call this a success.

C+

Barring Time

Unfortunately, Hilary Swank only makes two kinds of movies. They are either good, solid films or they are downright terrible. The gap between movies like Boys Don’t Cry, Million Dollar Baby and Insomnia and those like The Core, P.S. I Love You and Amerlia couldn’t be wider. There’s never a film that you’ll think is just okay. You’ll either like it or loathe it. I’m happy to report that, this time around, I didn’t come off hating this film with a passion like so many of her others. In fact, by virtue of the rules, I rather liked it on the whole.

Inspired by real life events, Swank plays Betty Ann Waters, a lower-middle class Boston woman who is shocked when her brother Kenny (Sam Rockwell) is tried and convicted for a murder that he claims he did not commit. She fervently believes him, and sets on a nearly twenty year journey to set him free, which includes her going to law school and becoming a lawyer for the sole purpose of representing her brother. Minnie Driver is along for the ride as Waters’s best friend in her law class, and there’s some supporting work from the likes of Melissa Leo as a possibly corrupt cop and Juliette Lewis as one of Kenny’s flamboyant ex-girlfriends.

For the record, I don’t hate Swank. I even believe that most of the projects she’s in that hinder on the terrible side of the equation are not at her own fault. It’s the material, but she sometimes has difficulty of elevating it to something respectable. This film had the capability of being that type of film, with it’s predictably uplifting storytelling. But, she manages to keep the right amount genuine emotion to keep it all on a believable level. It takes a truly great actor to not get lost in that ridiculously harsh Boston accent, but Swank manages to come out the other side intact. I’d also give a lot of credit to Rockwell, an even better actor, who gives a convincing portrait of Kenny as a complicated man with a lot going on behind the eyes. I wouldn’t count this as one of his best performances, but it’s one that continues to prove how good of an actor he continues to be. Driver, Leo and Lewis all offer some fun in their roles, even though Lewis might be having a little too much fun in the trailer trash role.

There are times when director Tony Goldwyn and writer Pamela Gray come together and create a film that seems sincere in its messages about overcoming the odds and never losing faith. However, Goldwyn often times overindulges on a somewhat saggy midsection in the pace, and Gray deviates far too many times from the actual throughline of the story, particularly felt during flashbacks to see Betty Ann and Kenny as youth. Even though the young Betty Ann is played by the super-talented Bailee Madison, it still comes across as an unnecessary distraction. The film also misses the mark in the follow-up events, leaving out a rather important piece of information as to what happened to one of the main characters. I won’t reveal it, but it certainly puts a more interesting spin on the story that the film chose to leave out.

In all honesty, I was ready to hate this film. Instead, I found it to be well acted, well executed and having a rather uplifting message and theme without doing too much to separate itself beyond some slow parts and usual genre clichés. It’s everything that The Blind Side attempted and failed to be. I’m not touting this as one of the best films of the year, but it’s certainly an enjoyable one and a nice little surprise at that. Hilary Swank has a win for this one, but we still have to take her one project at a time.

B

New Reviews: The Social Network & Let Me In

Friendly Request

When the collection of artists were gathering around one another for the making of this film, I couldn't help but wonder, when the film was in its infancy, whether or not this could be a totally successful film. I didn't doubt any of the talent of these people, but I admit that I was slightly cautious in the beginning if this could be pulled off. Then, when the trailer hit, I was so wowed by its hypnotic tone and somber visuals that my anticipation for it pretty much skyrocketed. Having actual seen the film, I'm happy to report that all the parties involved have done a wondrous job, cultivating in a near masterpiece.

Based on the Ben Mezrich book The Accidental Billionaires, the film opens up on Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) who, after a tortuous breakup conversation with his girlfriend, collaborates with his roommates on a project that rates women based on looks. Because of his veracity and intelligence, Zuckerberg gets invited to work on a local project for Harvard networking. That becomes the basis of the modern "Facebook" which he works on with his more financially stable best friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield). But as the film shows in multiple deposition hearings, the friendships and betrayals start to show their true colors.

When David Fincher is directing a movie, you can pretty much guarantee that it's going to have some nice merits. What he brings here is his trademark sense of tight control that allows for a great visual feast to be seen. It may not be quite as illustrious as his previous film, but Fincher is still working with material that revolves around intimacy, and he handles the material so seamlessly that it feels effortless. Even in the one instance, present in every Fincher film and surely recognizable in this one, that disavows the natural rhythm of the storytelling in favor of eccentric visual flare feels to have slightly more meaning than his previous indulgences. It's evidence of a filmmaker who is older, not too much wiser, but learning not to seep into mediocrity in his old age (I'm looking at you to follow, Clint Eastwood).

While I did like Fincher's last film a good deal, a big hiccup was that the marriage of director and writer wasn't in complete bliss. Fincher's sense of nihilism doesn't mesh well with Eric Roth's sentimentality. This time around, it would seem that an Aaron Sorkin script, which predicates itself on dialogue that is so quick and fee-flowing that it seems improvised, wouldn't work well with Fincher's controlling and meticulous direction. But in a way, Sorkin's writing has always been dependent on the precision of its delivery, and his script here is very well done. He paints a story that touches on all the raw emotions that surface when friends turn on one another, as well as providing some interesting tension during the deposition scenes. It's another gem in the Sorkin crown, already glowing pretty brightly.

What surprised me the most of this film is that it really isn't a centerpiece on Zuckerberg; he's the core that holds the film together, but he is nowhere near the most important piece to the puzzle. Not to take anything away from Eisenberg, who has been delivering great work since The Squid and the Whale and once again gives an outstanding performance that captures all the right tones that Zuckerberg should maintain. It might not all be true, but Eisenberg embodies a quiet persona that lets onto a complex mind that brims underneath. Garfield is another actor that I've been impressed with for a few years, and word on the street is it was this performance that nabbed him the role of Spider-Man. I can definitely see that, and he is, in my opinion, the best performer in the film, bringing in all the humor and hurt emotions that feel so genuine. I hope Eisenberg and Garfield nab Oscar nominations, and at this point, I'd put Garfield down as a winner in my own personal book.

However, they are not the only good performers here. Timberlake shows up as notorious Napster founder Sean Parker, and he pours on a sly and devious character that makes an interesting foil to the more sheepish Zuckerberg. Timberlake doesn't chew the scenery as much as I would have wanted him to (when you have a character that can get away with it, you should take it), but he's memorable enough to leave an impression on the film as well as leave a promise for an already well established acting career. I also really liked Armie Hammer, who plays the twins that claim to have provided the idea of Facebook that Zuckerberg stole, hence the deposition. It's difficult for any actor to act with themselves, but he pulls it off flawlessly. There's so much he brings to the table that his convictions made me eager to see a film based entirely on his characters. He is the unsung hero of the film that works best when looked as an ensemble piece.

At first, I thought I wasn't incredibly wowed by the film, but after thinking about it more and more, I really did end up loving it. Even the one moment I thought was odd actually makes sense in the larger context. I don't think it's my favorite Fincher film (there's always a place for Fight Club) but he and his collaborators have crafted, without a doubt, one of the best films of the year. Smartly written, wonderfully performed and touching on universal themes known for generations, this is a movie that reminds you of what great filmmaking can aspire to be.

A

Feeling Drained

For some reason or another, the necessity of Americans to have their own English language interpretations of foreign stories is never in short supply. Although, for some unknown and blessed reason, Alfonso Cuarón’s Y Tu Mamá También hasn’t received such treatment. Still, not only has the appetite for American remakes continue to stay strong, the amount of time between the original film and the remake has begun to shrink. Earlier this year we had Death at a Funeral, whose original film was only two and a half years old. Now even the half year is shaved off, as the film this one is based on was released in 2008. As a stand alone piece, it manages some nice tricks here and there while obviously coming up short in its unescapable comparison.

Let the Right One In was an atmospheric vampire film set in Sweden that focused on the relationship between a boy named Oscar and a little girl named Eli with a taste for blood. The new film transport the action to 1983 New Mexico, with now Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) dodging sadistic bullies at every turn. There are also new neighbors who have just moved in next door to Owen’s apartment: an older gentleman (Richard Jenkins) and a younger girl named Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) with the same thirst.

If you are familiar with the original film, then you’ll recognize just how similar the plot is to the first one. In fact, writer-director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) seems to have set out to strike the same type of story and tone as the original did. This makes is particularly difficult to judge it as a stand alone piece because so many elements of this film harken back to its Swedish predecessor. While Reeves never quite manages to capture the more ambiguous and ominous tone from the original, which here has pretty much been jettisoned in favor of blunt storytelling, what he does maintain well is a film that works best as a dark love story. For as much horror there is in the film, there’s just enough of the more tender moments as well. Reeves even shortened a subplot that concerned a newly made vampire, and even though he retreads on what most of the original had, there’s a distinct flavor he tries to make his own.

I remember thinking that while Kodi Smit-McPhee was capable in The Road, there was something about a lack of connection with Mortensen that kept me at a distance. Much of the film is Smit-McPhee by himself, and he’s actually quite impressive, carrying a bit more mystery and intrigue than the original Oscar had. I do feel that Moretz is a bit of a letdown, if only because her familiarity with the current pop culture makes the mysterious quality of her character seem less fulfilled. Much like the original film, most of the talented adult actors like Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins, are left on the sideline, while the bully character this time doesn’t have the same contradictory appeal as the original film had.

If you haven’t seen the original film, then you might like this presentation of a more intimate horror film with some shining performances and tender moments. If you have seen the original, then you’re mind will always harken back to what that film did so well and how hard this one is trying to copy it. Even though Let the Right One In wasn’t perfect, it did handle its material a little better, keeping the horror to an absolute minimum. Let Me In embellishes a little bit more in the horror, but also does its best to sharpen the focus on the relationships. That iconic pool scene doesn’t have the same grab as executed the first time, but it attempts to make it its own. Reeves achieves that to an extent, and hopefully it will give people an incentive to see the original film.

B-

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