Originally Reviewed – 1/2/2012

Two years ago, on a random evening in January, I popped into the AMC on 34th Street and saw the original Sherlock Holmes. Being a chilly night with a nothing to do, I figured why not. Robert Downey Jr is an enjoyable actor, Guy Ritchie has a fun visual style and I had ten bucks left on an AMC gift card. The result was an entertaining but convoluted effort, full of energetic fight sequences and high octane sleuthing. Sure, it had next to nothing to do with the novel series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but it was a fun go-round, highlighted by a charming performance by Downey and some explosive Victorian era set pieces. Upon seeing the trailer for the sequel, the same old action would have satisfied me and to my delight, I got quite a bit more. The second iteration in the detective series tightens up everything in the first film, providing a movie that delivers even more on the promise of the original.

Game of Shadows takes place one year after the events of the first film. Watson is about to be married and Holmes is investigating the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria, with all the clues pointing at the great Professor Moriarty. Deducing that the killing is just one piece of Moriaty’s master scheme, Holmes pulls the reluctant Watson away from his honeymoon and throws him in the quest to stop the evil doctor’s nefarious scheme. The plot is just as silly as the first movie but has a more streamlined script, giving the film more room to revel in the swashbuckling we’ve come to expect from the franchise. If you hated the action from the first movie, you’ll despise the second but being that I found it to be over the top fun, I had an absolute blast.

Before you balk at my enjoyment of the action, know one thing: I don’t give a turkey about Sherlock Holmes. I’ve never read the stories nor have I never seen any of the many screen adaptations, so my knowledge of the character is limited to his cunning and his trademark pipe. Many critics have been blasting the new series for having little to do with these classic stories and to them I say, “So what”. One of the biggest improvements this film makes over the first is the introduction of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Harris’ Moriarty is cunning and devious, a perfect foil to Holmes’ charming genius. The film benefits greatly from this strong antagonist, making the sequel more about a match of brainpans than the video game style fisticuffs of the first movie.

Game of Shadows also benefits from a larger focus on the relationship between Holmes and Watson, again played by Jude Law. The chemistry between the two sleuths was the highlight of the first film and this movie amplifies the back and forth between the duo. While the dialogue does have some cringe moments, the two actors are genuinely having a good time and, in this situation, it works just fine. Watson’s preference of settling down with his new wife in favor of adventuring with Holmes also adds some much needed tension between the twosome. This allows the relationship to feel more real and less like a buddy cop movie. The supporting actors all do a respectable job, including a fitfully funny turn by Stephen Fry as Holmes’ elder brother, Noomi Rapace as a hard fighting gypsy and Kelly Reilly as Watson’s newlywed wife. The cast is appropriately colorful and just fine in support of the dynamic duo. As for the rest of the movie, if you got a kick out of the first film’s kinetic filmmaking style, you get more of the same this time around. Be forewarned, however, that this version does slightly overdo the slow motion effects but I didn’t find it overly distracting.

The world of Sherlock Holmes is a long revered franchise that spans centuries of classic stories and films. While Guy Ritchie’s interpretation may rub long time fans the wrong way with its hyper fist fighting and loud gun battles, the crux of the character is intact. Holmes is an investigative genius, has a dear friend in Watson and together they solve near impossible mysteries. The second film in the series focuses more on the investigation and the Holmes / Watson relationship while maintaining the modern pace of the first movie. Director Guy Ritchie refines everything that made the original so divisive yet so entertaining, creating a nicely balanced action spectacle. Sure, the plot has some head scratching moments, and the premise is almost too over the top for its own good, but the focus of this film is fun and fun is what it delivers. A marked improvement over the original, Games of Shadows is a fine choice for those looking for a vapid yet entertaining time at the movies this winter.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 12/30/2011

At the core of the medium, the movie business is pure magic. From the pan of a far off vista to the intimate close up, films have the ability to pull you into a story like few other art forms can. Or at least they used to. These days, market research has replaced imagination, especially in the realm of family films. Movies made for mom, pop and the little ones tend to be noisy affairs, full of 3D spectacle, cartoonish slapstick and annoying rehashes of decade old pop tunes. Luckily for all of us, Hugo, the latest film from director Marin Scorsese, is none of those things. A cinematic mash note to the world of early filmmaking wrapped in the simple tale of a boy, a girl and their clockwork robot, Hugo is not only the best film you will see this year, it’s the best film Scorsese’s made since Goodfellas. In short, it’s an instant classic.

While there are a number of interwoven themes in Hugo, the central story is a relatively simple one. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is a young street urchin who spends his days living in the walls of a Parisian train station, tending to the building’s many clocks. Being the son of a renowned clock maker (Jude Law), Hugo has a natural knack for fixing things. One of those objects is an “automaton”, an intricate mechanical man, left to him by his father. However, after an abrupt meeting with the owner of a toy stand (Ben Kingsley) and his literary daughter Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), Hugo finds himself in a race to fix the broken automaton and discover what secrets, if any, the machine may hold.

The forefront of any Scorsese film is the look and feel and Hugo is one of his most intricate and beautifully shot movies. From the mechanical world Hugo lives in to the bustling train station, Scorsese gives the film a brilliant sheen that embraces the fairytale nature of the story. With the help of cinematographer Robert Richardson, Scorsese’s camera dances and swoops throughout the film, creating an energetic yet patient tone. Hugo also utilizes 3D technology in a way that actually enhances the storytelling instead of detracting, a first for the style. In a way, the film is a mixture of old and new, combining cutting edge technology and decades old film making techniques in way that can only be described as magical.

But what would all this technical wizardry be without compelling actors living in it. Hugo is perfectly cast with the highest marks going to Ben Kingsley as the shopkeeper with a secret and Chloe Moretz as his plucky niece, both of which deserve at least some consideration for Oscar nominations come January. Scorsese also fills the film with colorful side stories in a way that’s more Amelie than Casino. From the station inspector constantly on the lookout for thieving orphans (played wonderfully by Sasha Baron Cohen) to the flower girl he falls for to the lady with the little dog, the world of Hugo feels alive and vibrant. These characters aren’t simple window dressing as they all help amplify the central theme of the film. Add to the mix a coy wink to the movies that helped pioneer the art form along with a number of jaw dropping set pieces and you get an experience that works on every level.

It’s a cliché, but it’s true. Hugo is a film literally everybody will enjoy. Kids will love the adventure, adults will laugh at Isabella’s expanded vocabulary and film geeks will swoon from the turn of the century film references. Using a deceptively simple mélange of styles and cinema, Martin Scorsese does his best remind us that film is still magic, despite what our internal cynics tend to think. Upon leaving my first viewing of this movie, a group of To Cool For The Room hipster types were doing just that. Lamenting the “kiddie nature” of the movie and complaining that IMDB let them down again, I imagine these were the people Scorsese was trying to touch most of all with his film. Hugo is a message to all of us that sometimes the best stories are the ones told simply, with good characters, good writing and great heart. Hugo is all of those things and for this critic, the absolute best movie of the year.

Score – 100%

What’s the first thing you think when you hear the word, “biopic”? Oscar bait. And why not? Out of the last ten sets of Best Actor nominations, eight of them have included an actor playing a historical figure. Five of those eight nominees won the award. The ladies have fared even better, with a whopping thirteen actresses nominated in that span of time, another five taking home the gold. So, when I saw that one of my favorite modern actresses was going to play the amazing Marylin Monroe in a November release, my interest was piqued. Would Michelle Williams deserve another Oscar nomination for Best Actress, her second in as many years? The answer is an easy yes in a film that’s lacks a bit in energy and drive but more than makes up for it in pure acting gold.

The story is a basic one: a young English aristocrat named Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) travels to London to pursue the lower class craft of filmmaking. The year is 1956 and Colin’s first job is one of a “third director’s assistant” on the film The Prince and the Showgirl, starring Laurence Oliver and the most famous woman in the world, Marylin Monroe. Colin is instantly smitten by the American starlet, not only by her stunning beauty but by her vulnerability. Monroe is a stranger in the stuffed shirt world of British film acting and immediately finds herself the focus of distrust and ridicule, dragging her deeper into her own depression. Connecting with the actress on a number of different levels, Colin starts to befriend Marilyn, setting forth a number of improbable events that changes the life of the young filmmaker forever.

In films of this type, you go for the portrayal of the historic character and everything else is just gravy. In this respect, My Week With Marilyn succeeds in every respect. Michelle Williams not only masters the beats and rhythms that made Monroe the queen of American pop culture, she digs deep to find the star’s insecurities as well. William’s Monroe is conflicted and confused by the strange world she finds herself in and when she meets the kindly young Colin, finds herself a merry distraction from the pressures of being her. Redmayne also does a great job as the eager young filmmaker, perfectly balancing British politeness and genuine care in a performance that is wonderfully restrained. The two have a pleasant yet spark-free relationship, which causes the film to stall a bit halfway through. The supporting cast is also wonderful, including a great cameo by Dougray Scott as Monroe’s third husband, Arthur Miller and some fine work by Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier, the films main antagonist. The scene stealer of the film, however, has to be the lovely Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike. Dench exudes sweet charm as Marilyn’s supportive co-star and is a treat every time she makes an appearance. Dench is a lovely woman and her zest for life jumps off screen in what I hope is an Oscar nominated role for Best Supporting Actress.

All that said, the film is not without a few bumps in the road. While well shot and featuring some good direction, there is no tension to speak of. Like I mentioned earlier, the relationship between Colin and Marilyn is sweet one and while there is some obvious attraction between the twosome, the film never develops any genuine spark, despite a few scenes that obviously tries to do so. The result is a movie that sags in the middle and tends to drag, despite the great acting on display. Also, there is a strange side romance between Colin and the wardrobe girl, played by Emma Watson. While designed to show the consequence of having a fling with a superstar, the relationship is never cemented nor is the Watson character developed, making it strangely awkward every time the two are on screen. Despite these flaws, good acting by a great cast wins out, making a My Week With Marilyn for fans of both Michelle Williams and the starlet she perfectly portrays. Sure, playing historical figures can seem like a quick ticket to Oscar night but in the end, you have to play those people well. Williams more than does so in what is sure to be a nominated role, and one of the best female performances I’ve seen thus far this year.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 12/8/2011

Writing reviews can be really difficult, especially when your opinion of a film flies in the face of your critical peers. The Tree of Life, the latest film from director Terrance Malik, won the Palme d’Or, has a respectable 84% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is almost assured a Best Picture nomination come February. So why didn’t I think it was all that? Why did I glance over to my brother thirty minutes in and mouth, “I can’t do another two hours of this”? Sure, I have my reasons but the real question is if you, the patient reader, should give this film a watch. The answer is a complex one, but let me try an experiment that should help you decide to spend 139 minutes of your life seeing this film.

Please read the following passage:

The morning glinted through the lowered slats of Bill’s Venetian blinds that bright Monday morning, horizontal lines right out of a 40’s film noir. It was a Monday, like the thousand before and the million to come, the beginning of a week drenched in opportunities lost and gained. Sitting on the edge of his queen size bed, Bill stares blankly at the ticking minutes of the dresser clock. Half dressed and already late, he struggles to pull a black sock over his left foot. Nothing. His mind knows he has to but his body refuses, a perpetual conflict of interest between duty and want. Two more minutes tick by and still he sits, bathed in the mid dawn daylight, unable to move. Inert. Motionless. The sounds of the morning rush leak through the window crack, the clock continues its steady march and the light grows brighter. Again Bill tries to pull the sock over his still sleeping foot and fails. Hands won’t move, muscles won’t tighten. The clock cries out a final digital squeal as the last tap of the snooze bar expires. Jerking to life, Bill tries one more time to secure the sock. Grip, pull and success! His socks are on, the day is in motion and, whether he likes it or not, Bill is officially dressed.

If you read the above passage and thought, “Wow, what an interesting depiction of getting dressed to go someplace he doesn’t want to go”, congratulations. You will love The Tree Of Life.

However, if you got halfway through it and said, “What a load of crap. He’s putting his socks on. Get to the point!”, congratulations. You will despise The Tree Of Life.

Of course, you could have said, “Sure it’s pretty and all, but he’s just putting a sock on. I see there’s some sort of subtext there but I could have done without the overdramatic writing”. If you did, congratulations. You, like me, will find the Tree of Life artistic yet pretentious, a frustrating mix of complex ideas rolled around in so much arthouse fluff, the message gets hopelessly lost.

The crux of the story lies in the recollections of Jack, a lost soul in the modern world who thinks back on his 1950’s childhood. Being a Midwestern boy was tough for young Jack. With a stoic yet stern father (Brad Pitt) and a mother teetering in her beliefs (Jessica Chastain), Jack found himself torn between duty and rebellion. Much of the film is told through the sepia toned reenactments of Jack’s childhood where we watch his growth from boy to confused adolescent and it’s in this middle part where we actually get some of the best stuff in the movie. Young Jack is played very well by first timer Hunter McCracken and you really get a sense of his internal struggle, a big theme in the film. Everybody is struggling with issues of faith, life and direction, creating a mood that’s unfocused yet tense enough to pull you through. Chastian is quite good as the mother but Pitt is his usual average self, playing the gruff disciplinarian as decently as one could expect. Sorry kids, but aside from Fight Club and maybe A River Runs Through It, Brad Pitt is not a good actor. His charm lies in his personality and when that gets muted, much like it does here, the whole experiences come off very blah. As for Sean Penn, who plays the older Jack, he says about five words and has about ten minutes of screen time. Enough said.

Luckily for filmgoers, the film isn’t so much about the acting as it about the spectacle, and this is where most of the derision lies. Make no mistake, Terrance Malik is an artist of the highest order. The main storyline is bookended with a complex series of esoteric flares, swaths and images, all designed to evoke an emotional response. These scenes are admittedly stunning to look at and, much like a living painting, conjures up powerful feelings and emotions. Too bad it simply doesn’t work. Many people have compared this film to 2001: A Space Odyssey and they’re not half wrong, especially considering the man who did the visual effects for that landmark film, Douglas Trumbull, came out of retirement to contribute to Tree of Life. While the look of the two movies may be similar, there is one glaring difference, a difference that makes 2001 a classic and Tree Of Life a missed opportunity.

In 2001, things happen.

In Kubrick’s film, the spacecraft dance whimsically to the Blue Danube. Why? Because they are orbiting a planet. The pod crawls out of the space dock to fix the radio dish. Yeah, it takes a mind numbingly long time to get there, but lo and behold! Something is occurring! The spaceship slowly lowers itself into the dock of the station. “For God’s sake, get there already”, I scream but at least, at the very minimum, the thing is landing. Eventually, the cursed spacecraft will hit the ground and we’ll move on. Malik’s error is that in midst of the light bending, mind warping madness, nothing is happening. No story is being told, no plot is being driven forward, no ideas are being exchanged. Instead, Malik expects us to conjure our own feelings from the ether and while that can work to a point, eventually you need to start telling us a story. Malik gets so wrapped up in his esoteric themes of worlds being born and destroyed, he forgets we’re not in his head and forgets to simply tell a tale. Yes, we start to get something going thirty minutes in but by then it’s too late. We’re already dazed and confused, high on a trip of light bursts and dinosaurs, we’re out of the movie, either stuck in our own heads or bored out of them. Shame to, as if he had just told the story, the film would have had the exact same impact.

Now, I’m sure I’m going to get my share of detractors on this review. Comments like, “You just didn’t get it” or “You’re too brainwashed by the Hollywood system” will come down the pike and that’s expected. Let me say again, Terrance Malik has a lot to say about the world and he does his best to do so in The Tree of Life. Faith, belief, and indecision are all powerful topics and they are all nicely touched upon in the main arc of the film. However, much like the crazy guy on the six train who babbles about how Jesus is a cat, Malik doesn’t know exactly how to synthesize his thoughts and instead takes us on an arduous journey through the surreal with diminishing returns. To answer my question from the beginning of the review, the one where I ask if you should see this or not, the answer is yes. If you are on this site, commenting on reviews, you are a film fan and every film fan should see this movie. There is some stunning cinematography, there are a couple of very good performances and the underlying story is a simple yet evocative one. Just be prepared to grit your teeth a bit at a director who reached for a question that exceeded his grasp, leaving a film that is just as annoying as it beautiful.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed – 12/5/2011

Whenever you bring up John Landis’ third film in mixed conversation, you’ll often get a dreamy gaze and a wry smile. Anybody who’s seen this 1978 comedy classic is immediately brought back to simpler times. Days of class schedules, wild parties and sleeping to noon usually comes to mind and even if you didn’t have that type of college experience, this film not only makes you wish you did, makes that debauchery seem more of a rite of passage than a waste of daddy’s money. In short, I’ve never met somebody who didn’t enjoy Animal House. One of the films that define the term “cult classic”, Animal House is a runaway train through the absurd, a juvenile take on college life through the eyes of the offenders. One of the originators of the “gross out comedy” genre, Landis’ tale of the drunken exploits of the Delta Chi fraternity is high on energy but low on story and character development, creating a fun yet slightly hollow look into early sixties college life.

Then again, this is Animal House were talking about. Rather than create a hard hitting look into early sixties college life, writers Harold Ramis, Douglas Kenney and Chris Miller instead penned a tale of heightened antics, punctuated with sight gags, slapstick and shameless nudity. Larry Kroger (Thomas Hulce) and Kent Dorfman (Stephen Furst) are freshmen at Faber College and after getting recruited by the self proclaimed “worst frat on campus”, find themselves in the midst of mayhem. The competing frats find them repulsive and the school board wants them expelled, all for their propensity for toga parties, pranks and excessive drinking habits. The film does a fine job creating a sense of community amongst the wild boys, allowing the audience to root for them, bad taste and shameful behavior be damned. Landis also does a nice job drawing up distinct dividing lines between the “good guys” and everybody else, all of which who want the party to end. There isn’t much grey in the storytelling, but in the case of Animal House that’s a good thing, allowing for some exceedingly humorous situations and storylines.

And with actors this funny, why get in their way. Featuring an ensemble cast of mostly unknown actors, Animal House has some standout performances. Tim Matheson is great as the frat’s Dou Juan, Donald Sutherland has a memorable turn as the pot smoking professor and Kevin Bacon, in his debut role, is totally believable as an opposing Greek. One of the most underrated performances, however, comes from John Vernon, who plays Dean Wormer. Wormer is the perfect foil to Delta Chi’s shenanigans, playing it straight yet for big laughs as he schemes to get the lads kicked off campus. The performance is a bit one noted but when that note is deadpan hilarity, it’s perfectly acceptable. And yes, the line, “No fun of ANY kind” is permanently burned into my filmgoing lexicon.

Of course, all these performances pale in comparison to the career making role of Bluto, played by the late, great John Belushi. Pulled by Landis from a regular gig at Saturday Night Live, Belushi has perfect physical comedic timing. The catalyst for the entire film, Animal House soars on the edge of his energy, propelling the movie to classic status. What the film doesn’t do well is give us more than a series of episodic scenes that are all funny in their own right but do not lend themselves to a cohesive story. The relationship between Boone and his more mature girlfriend doesn’t really work, the situations are beyond ludicrous and there is absolutely no character development to speak of. These issues aside, there’s not much else you can say about a movie that defines cringe comedy. Despite the less than perfect score, this a landmark comedic film filled with funny performances and larger than life situations. While I never personally experienced the type of college the Delta Chi boys did, I still remember that sense of boundless optimism, a feeling like the world was yours to conquer. Animal House captures that sentiment perfectly, creating a world of youthful energy and timeless friends. And yes, it’s still really damn funny.

Score – 85%

Originally Reviewed – 11/27/2011

Brutal honesty mixed with dark comedy has become the hallmark of director Alexander Payne. With films like About Schmidt and the Oscar nominated Sideways on his resume, Payne has become known for creating complex characters and putting them in strange yet often hilarious situations. With his latest film, The Descendants, Payne puts George Clooney and three young newcomers in a tropical paradise that provides a beautiful backdrop to a film that just may be the most emotionally gripping work he’s ever done. Fans fearful that this film fails to match the comic beats of his previous work have to little to worry about as Payne has become a master of balance, providing a nice dose of humor to go with the tragedy. The result is the best film he’s ever directed.

Clooney plays Matt King, real estate lawyer in his native Hawaii and absentee father of two children, Alexandra and Scottie, played by newcomers Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller. Clooney is wrapped up in a number of different issues: the sale of a premier piece of untouched Hawaiian beachfront that’s been in his family for generations, a life threatening accident that has left his wife in a coma and the sudden care of his two rebellious daughters. While this seems like more drama than a Lifetime movie special, Payne has an uncanny knowledge of human emotion, writing a screenplay that’s heavy handed but never overbearing. This is not a raucous comedy to be sure, but a well balanced one. I’ve often said comedy works best when it involves characters you care about and The Descendants does not disappoint in that respect.

On the acting front, Clooney has always been a very reliable actor and in the role of the daddy in tumult, he puts forth his best performance since 2009’s Up In The Air. Clooney creates a believable and complex character, fully channeling the pathos in the script. This is a tough role, even tougher than the one he played in Up In The Air and he hits his marks perfectly in what very well could be an Oscar nominated performance. The rest of the cast is equally wonderful, especially newcomers Woodley and Miller as Clooney’s children. Much like the kids in 2010’s The Kids Are Alright, the siblings are believable and engaging, propelling the film thorough the difficult subject matter.

The film is also benefited from a fantastic script and some fine direction from Mr. Payne. The setting of the movie provides some great juxtaposition between the toughness of the situation and the surrounding beauty. As somebody who has spent a good deal of time in Hawaii, I’m well aware of how revered tradition is to the native people and Payne elegantly captures this with the story point of the land sale. The film is full of nod and winks to the Hawaiian way of life and while many viewers may not catch these little nuggets, they were well received by a “haole” like me. The actors are also wonderfully directed, something that should be no surprise to those familiar with Payne’s previous work. The script is biting, sometimes shocking but always relatable, providing humor in the most dire of situations.

If you are really curious about what the central theme of the film is, all you need to do is look at the title. The children are dealing with being descendants of a wealthy yet absent father, the family is wrestling with being descendants of Hawaiian royalty and Clooney is swimming upstream against the pressures of keeping a crumbling family unit together. A complex yet fully entertaining film that hits all the right buttons, The Descendents should get more than a few looks for some awards come January. While I do think this movie will be pushed out by the influx of top contenders being released this month, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Golden Globe or two in the future for this well made film. One the most satisfying films I’ve seen all year, Payne continues his tradition of being a director of patience, empathy and wonderful storytelling.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 11/17/2011

Turning a book into a film is one of the trickiest tasks a filmmaker can tackle. The pitfalls are endless: you have to deal with the book’s ardent fans, while appealing to those who’ve never read it. A book can tell you what a character is thinking where a film has to show you visually. People spend much more time with novels, 8 hours on average, than they do watching a 2 hour film, creating a deeper connection with the story. Even the issue of, “that’s not what the lead looked like in the book” will cause nightmares for directors, simply because they can’t compile a cast that will match everybody’s imaginations. So, when director Bruce Robinson set out to make a film based on Hunter S Thompson’s second novel, The Rum Diary, I was skeptical at best. The only other Thompson book to make it to the screen was 1998’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and thanks to the near maniacal mind of director Terry Gilliam, became an instant cult classic. The Rum Diary, on the other hand, is a much more subdued affair and I was curious how Robinson would take on this unique challenge. The answer? Simply ignore the novel’s plot almost entirely and use choice elements from the book as a back drop to tell the origin story of a literary revolutionary. It’s a fine idea, one that I appreciate as a huge fan of the late novelist. Too bad the film itself is a poorly made mess.

For those who don’t know, The Rum Diary stars Johnny Depp as Paul Kemp, a rum soaked New York journalist who finds himself in 1960’s Puerto Rico working for a struggling newspaper. At the paper, Kemp meets the jaded editor Lotterman (Richard Jenkins), the habitually intoxicated Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi) and Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli), a fellow drinker/journalist who Kemp ends up staying with. Money is tight at the newspaper, so when a high powered land merchant by the name of Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart) offers Kemp a job writing brochure material for a fantastic new Puerto Rican hotel, Kemp jumps at the chance. Puerto Rico, however, is not without hypocrisy and as Kemp delves deeper into the good life of the island’s nouveau riche, he discovers just how full of s**t the whole place happens to be. Fans of the book, beware: while the plot has a passing resemblance to the novel, the similarities end at the synopsis. Literally 85% of the film is the invention of Mr. Robinson who reassigns character roles, makes up strange situations from thin air and removes entire characters from the screenplay. More on that later.

Playing the Thompson-esqe lead character, Depp’s reprisal of the role he played in Fear and Loathing is much more restrained this time around. While still a good performance, he doesn’t get the opportunity to come as unhinged as Gilliam allowed, so fans expecting Fear and Loathing Part 2 will be a bit disappointed. The rest of the cast ranges from welcome surprises to flat out awful. Both Jenkins and Rispoli do fine jobs in their respective roles, giving the film a much needed dose of comic timing while Eckhart is believable yet one noted as the opportunistic land baron. The only blemish in the cast is Amber Heard as Chenault, lover of Sanderson and object of affection for Kemp. While undeniably beautiful, Heard is woefully miscast in the role, a character changed dramatically for the film and not for the better. The result is a strangely plotted love triangle that never gets off the ground or generates any heat.

As a whole, the cast has their moments but much of the work is lost in bland pacing and boring direction. Robinson is a competent director but doesn’t have the visual imagination to inject the type of energy the source material requires. Sure that material is lacking in its own plot, but the scenes Robinson conjures up to make a cohesive story only detracts from the final product. From the cockfighting angle to an uncomfortable scene featuring a witch doctor to Depp’s ridiculous meeting of Chenault, nothing connects properly to the scenes straight from the novel. As a result, the film comes off disjointed and episodic. In fact, the best scenes in the movie are those pulled straight from the book, such as Sala and Kemp’s escape from the burger shop and Chenault’s Carnival dance. The rest of the film suffers from poor pacing and head scratching plot devices, making the end product a fitfully entertaining mixed bag.

All that said, I can’t be too hard on Robinson for the final product. The work of beat writers like Thompson, Kerouac and Ginsberg are often difficult, if impossible to bring to the screen. Not reliant on narrative, beat writing tells the story through the energy of the language. These authors were literary revolutionaries, casting aside traditional form and structure for a mad, freewheeling joyride, saying whatever they want, however they wanted. The Rum Diary is no different, making Robinson’s task an exceedingly difficult one and in the end, I greatly appreciate his efforts. This is the film version of The Rum Diary Thompson himself would have liked to see, a brash strike against commercialism and a triumphant cry for journalist honesty. Problem is, the film itself has so many holes, problems and pratfalls, I have to label it a disappointment, despite my respect for the director’s intentions. Not a good film, but not a miserable one either, The Rum Diary should be seen by those not familiar with the original novel. For those who are already fans, this adaptation is just going to annoy you.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 11/10/2011

Way back when, in the year 1999, a little known set of strange coincidences occurred. On January 10th of that year, a brand new show featuring small time character actors hit the HBO network, a channel mostly known for movies and not much else. The show centered on a New Jersey mafia don and his two families, the one that committed the crimes, and the other at home who benefited from the violence. The interesting point was that this particular boss visited a shrink, revealing a vulnerability that was unheard of in modern day mafia tales. Then, just three months later, Warner Brothers released a film starring Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal about an anxiety ridden mob boss who learns to deal with his issues while keeping his crime family together. The show was the Sopranos, the film was Analyze This and while the movie doesn’t live up to the genre defining TV program, it’s still an amusing flick about wiseguys in therapy.

DeNiro plays Paul Vitti, a tough as nails mobster who, after the sudden slaying of his mentor, starts succumbing to anxiety attacks and uncontrollable weeping. Faced with a huge meeting with the most prominent men in the mafia world, Vitti turns to psychiatrist Ben Sobel for help. Naturally, Ben wants nothing to do with the famous gangster yet, after some strong instance from Vitti’s crew of flunkies, agrees to treat him. After all, Sobel is a doctor and Vitti is really a man in pain, despite his murderous tendencies. What happens next is a comedy of errors: Sobel just wants to get Vitti emotionally stable enough to deal with the meeting, Vitti considers Sobel an employee, demanding his assistance at the most inopportune times. While these moments come off contrived and manufactured, they do provide some decent laughs, especially when Vitti’s lackey interrupts the wedding of Sobel and his fiancé (Lisa Kudrow). The scenes are all setups to a running joke, but the joke is funny enough to pull the film along.

Despite these machinations, the film largely survives thanks to the odd couple chemistry between DeNiro and Crystal. Although DeNiro does his standard gangster shtick, Crystal shows the most range as the nebbish doctor, providing a very funny foil for DeNiro’s shenanigans. The pair makes the most of a script comprised of mafia clichés, creating a film that never takes itself too seriously, yet is aware its dealing with real people and real issues. The scene stealer of the film, however, has to be Joe Viterelli in the role of Jelly, Vitti’s right hand man. Jelly is hilarious in every scene he’s in, propelling the film from a middling comedy to a real rib cracker. On the other hand, Lisa Kudrow is woefully miscast in the role of Sobel’s beloved. While I do like Kudrow as a comedic actress, you can tell she was cast solely for her likeability, which makes the fact her character is so unlikable all the more jarring. The relationship between the two is downright co-dependent and detracts from the experience as a whole.

If you sit down to analyze this (pun regrettably intended), the combination of the heart stopping drama that was the Sopranos and the comedic farce that is Analyze This provides a full spectrum of the material that can be mined from the mafia psychoanalysis genre. Jarring but never shocking, the film earns itself a soft R rating with raunchy dialogue and ridiculous shooting scenes to go with the comedic center. Not a bad film but not a brilliant one either, Analyze This is a very passable diversion for those weaned into film by the Goodfellas and Casino’s of the world. Not the comedy classic of director Harold Ramis’ first film, Caddyshack, but the film is a very passable diversion for those looking for a little “howyoudoin” in their comedy.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 10/29/2011

What the difference between a prophet and a lunatic? The smelly guy who sits on the S train screaming about the end of the world sure looks crazy but what if he was really clairvoyant. As we move through our day to day routine, we hear things people are saying but through fear, arrogance or simple personal protection, we never let those scary notions sink in. But what if that wingnut is right? What if he sees something we don’t, tapped into an invisible stream meant to warn us of our end. How would we treat this screamer in the streets? How do we treat them now? This is the exact notion explored in Take Shelter, a smarty written film about one man’s premonitions and the effect it has on his friends, his community and his family.

Character actor Michael Shannon stars as Curtis, father of a financially strapped family living in working class Ohio. In the caring of his supportive wife (Jessica Chastain) and their deaf daughter (Tova Stewart), Curtis works as a construction manager, enjoying a life of hard work in a loving family. However, after having a series of visions and dreams of an impending apocalyptic storm, Curtis becomes obsessed with the protection of his family. In the role of Curtis, Shannon cements himself as an actor of depth and range. Shannon expresses a range of emotions in a startlingly stoic way, creating a character that is stern and fixed in his belief. All of Curtis’ actions are in defense of his family and it’s this love that helps the audience through the subsequent consequences. The town doesn’t take lightly to Curtis’ increasingly manic behavior and the question of how far will you go to protect your family, even when that very family has their doubts, comes into play. The result is a tense and at time exhilarating series of events that take place in a patient way, a real treat to watch.

In the role of his wife, Chastian continues her rise as one of the best actresses in Hollywood despite the character having little depth. The role of Samantha only exists to cement the family dynamic and while Chastain does a fine job with the responsibility, I would have liked a little more development from her character. In the end, this film is all Shannon and he pulls it off beautifully, all building up to a pivotal scene at a community dinner where the frustration of being seen as a psycho boils over in explosive fashion. Shannon does some remarkable work here and should be considered for a couple of awards this coming February.

All the good work by the cast would be in vain without a smartly written script and lovely direction from writer/director Jeff Nichols. Brimming with tension, the arc of Shannon’s mindset is full of suspense and intrigue. While the main portions of the film are filmed in a bland yet honest way, the real visual treats arrive when Curtis falls asleep. His dream worlds are frightening and filled with terror, bringing the audience to the edge of their seats. There are some heart stopping moments in Take Shelter and full marks need to be given to Nichols for balancing the stark realities of working class life with beautiful imagery. In the director’s chair, Nichols never betrays the a-ha ending, letting the audience decide for themselves on the mental state of Curtis. The result is a film that immediately absorbing and quietly powerful.

In the end, Take Shelter is a love story, not in a romantic sense but a personal one, a story of family trying to pull together in the hardest of moments. Curtis’ obsession pulls his loving family to the breaking point, and thanks to some excellent direction, we care every minute about the state of this small sampling of American life. Filled with lovely performances, gripping intensity and an underlying warmth that supports the mounting terror, Take Shelter is unabashed triumph. Maybe the yahoo on the S train isn’t a prophet but after watching the story of Curtis and his lovely family, I’ll at least lower the iPod a bit to hear exactly what he has to say. Not because I think he’s right but at least he cares enough to yell out loud in the first place.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 10/24/2011

Ever try to make a movie? Sure, not many of us have done it on a professional level before but we all make films of some sort. Be it a documentary about a family vacation or a record of some milestone birthday, we all incorporate movie making in our everyday lives. Some of us now even do a little iMovie editing and if you’re one of those people, you know how time consuming the process can be. American Movie, a prize winning documentary about the filmmaking aspirations of Wisconsin native Mark Borchardt, tell the story for the rest of us. Knee deep in the production of Northwestern, his latest low budget project, Mark runs out of a cash and in a last ditch attempt to fund his feature, he decides to finish his short film Coven. With the help of his scratch off addicted friend Mike Schank, Mark plunges head first into the world of independent filmmaking, creating a fascinating and hilarious doc about the drive needed to see your dreams through.

At first glance, Mark looks like a psycho. Long hair, thin build and a mouth that goes a mile a minute, Mark is pure energy. Sure he may not have the vision of a Spielberg, but he has the guts and in the documentary, that’s more than enough to keep the audience interested. Mark’s likability is infectious and within fifteen minutes, you can’t help but root for him, even when he’s borrowing money from his grandfather or pestering his mom to help with set design. The people in this Wisconsin town are rooted in reality and it’s a real treat to see Midwestern life so honest portrayed. The characters around Mark are all skeptical of Mark’s skill yet despite that worry, nobody dares to discount his heart. The filmmakers give the family space to genuinely interact and do a wonderful job of never mocking Mark or his cadre of crew members. That’s not to say the film isn’t brilliantly funny. American Movie is one of the most quotable films I’ve seen in quite some time, so if you ever want to score points with your film buff buddies, classic quips like, “sucking down peppermint schnapps and trying calling Morocco at 2 in the morning” and Mike’s feelings on the lottery will go a long way in doing so.

My one knock against the movie is that it does seem fairly padded, especially towards the end. Some critics have also derided the film for being exploitive, but I strongly disagree. Sure, at first we’re all laughing at Mike’s blank stare or Mark’s wild mannerisms but the film allows both characters to build, creating real people that are complex and interesting. With American Movie, director Chris Smith deftly captures not just the weirdness of Mark but the person inside, creating a film that’s balanced, engaging and at times, hilarious. Mark may never make his opus to 70’s horror but he’ll always have the drive, never wavering even when the world conspires against him. A film that’s just as inspiring as it is humorous, American Movie reminds us all that following our true passions is what makes life worth living, regardless of where that drive takes us.

Score – 90%