VITO (Jeffrey Schwarz, HBO Documentary Films, 2012)

I particularly love when a documentary is made about an era in which I think I know the history and the people. And then I watch the documentary which is about a key figure from that era AND it is someone I never heard of before. It reminds me that we all never stop learning and to me that's a good thing. It makes me remember we are all smaller parts of a larger apparatus. Such was the case with the documentary VITO (Jeffrey Schwarz, HBO Documentary Films, 2012), a film that was not only touching and poignant but insightful as well. If a film can take you on a journey, especially one of discovery then it is doing its job. And VITO takes its audience on just such a journey. We gain insight into the life of a gay activist which is not overly stunning but we see his journey during the most revolutionary time in the history of gay activism. To be a part of such a movement, particularly on the ground floor as things are just getting started would have to be exhilarating. One thing that never ceases to amaze me are the struggles a gay person goes through and this film not only shows Vito's personal struggles but those that the entire gay community endured. Being gay in a world that doesn't accept you, one in which many would prefer you dead. Fighting for and earning basic human rights that others already enjoy. Then after much blood and many tears, after finally gaining a foothold in your world, being struck with the deadliest disease a community has known. AIDS was an unknown epidemic but was also a scourge to the gay community. To fight so hard and so valiantly for your cause and then be struck with an unknown killer, one which took many of your leaders. How brutal can a struggle be for people? Another eye opening moment for me was the struggle the earliest gay activists had amongst themselves, the factions that arose within the gay community. As a non gay male I don't often think of the gay community on those terms but after watching VITO I realize that I must. The final striking thing about VITO is just how full a man's life can be. Here was a man who died in his early 40's, yet his life was more full and will be remembered by more than most people could ever dream. Family and friends, causes and achievements, a life full of accomplishment. And to think, I had never heard of the film THE CELLULOID CLOSET. Well at least now I have another film to watch!

ALBERT NOBBS (Rodrigo Garcia, Lionsgate, 2011)

The titular character in the film ALBERT NOBBS (Rodrigo Garcia, Lionsgate, 2011) is a waiter at a hotel in 19th century Ireland. His job is to preform any functions his specific guests may require. He does so stoically, reserved and unassuming. This character takes time getting started and much as the character goes, so to does the film. By the end of the film you sympathize with Nobbs, you want him to have his shop and his wife, you agonize with him as he sees his plans faltering. But something else's happening with Nobbs. He is emerging; strengthening before our eyes. The film is exactly like this because by films end you have become wrapped within the lives of the characters created within this world. This caring comes about through some good performances by its entire cast. The casting for the entire film is remarkable, each performer contributing to the larger film. It is the two women, Hubert Paine (Janet McAteer) and Albert Nobbs (Glenn Close) which take this cast from simply good to really great. McAteer and Close provide nuanced performances. They both show fragility while needing to exude strength to their outside world. It is this world which fascinates me most. Garcia crafts an excellent insight into 19th century life. His portrait is an intimate one. Every aspect of this world is done remarkably well and technical aspects of production shine. The makeup applied to make Close look more like a man was really good. The costumes were good suggesting a great job wardrobe. Those two aspects fall under production design and the world created for the film was authentic and felt real. And the writing and acting captured the essence of how men and women conducted themselves and did a stellar job of showing how influential social class used to be. The film is not for everyone but I rather liked it. It's quirky but real. It gives us real characters from a different era and time yet those characters are as timeless as today.

IN TIME (Andrew Niccol, 20th Cty. Fox, 2011)

The obvious joke after watching IN TIME (Andrew Niccol, 20th Cty. Fox, 2011) would be to demand of Justin Timberlake to receive your two hours back. It's too easy though and surely everyone associated with the film worked extremely hard to get it completed. Still, finding positive things to discuss is much harder than it appears with this movie. First and foremost, to be able to write, produce and direct a feature film is not only amazing but one hell of a shitty job. So I have to give Andrew Niccol credit for not only undertaking this task but for making a film that made money. The narrative to the film is actually a rather cool concept. Ultimately we already live in a world where time is our true currency, so Niccol's film is a great extrapolation of that. The film is highly stylized yet at the same time maintains a gritty realism to its overall look. The film is beautiful in every aspect, from cinematography to casting. BUT, the narrative for this film was awful. Here is a great indicator regarding a films narrative. Watch a film and never once question the narrative. No questions, good narrative, generally. Unfortunately for IN TIME I was asking questions about fifteen minutes into the film and never stopped. There were plot holes, continuity mistakes regarding the narrative, dropped story lines, randomly picked up story lines; this film had it all. At a certain point I turned to my roommate who I was watching the film with and told her "we are watching until the end, I want to see how bad this gets". And in that regard the film didn't disappoint. As Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) ran to Will Salas (Timberlake) to get more time, to keep on living; as this unfolded exactly like it previously had between Will and Rachel (Olivia Wilde) I found myself rooting for random things to happen. Like maybe the space-time continuum would explode, or Will would trip, or anything but what did happen (surprise, she made it to him). These are things that shouldn't be happening when you are watching a film. Hey JT, can I get those two hours bud?

Rampart (Owen Moverman, Millennium Entertainment, 2011)

I often tell the story describing how one of my favorite television shows EVER had me completely hooked in its very first episode. THE SHIELD (Shawn Ryan) was a fantastic show, gritty and realistic, and it debuted right after the Rampart Scandal had rocked the LAPD. At the very end of the first episode, after taking great time to establish Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis) and his team as well as the simmering corruption suspicions about Mackey by Captain Aceveda (Benito Martinez); on a drug raid Mackey shoots a team member. I knew right then and there this show was going to go to levels never before thought of for the crime/police genres and THE SHIELD never disappointed me in seven great seasons. Unfortunately not the same can be said for the film RAMPART (Oren Moverman, Millennium Entertainment, 2011). The film borrows heavily from the style THE SHIELD made its distinctive own. A protagonist cop falling apart at the seams professionally, at home and emotionally, extensive use of location shooting near the Rampart area and an abundance of handheld camera work helping to create authenticity. But unlike it's predecessor, the film carries no weight, it's narrative is lost and rudderless and other than a good performance by Woody Harrelson it is not a very memorable film. Let me start with the films narrative. Great hope abounded as James Ellroy was one of the authors of the script. I can only assume their was too much conflict in direction between Ellroy and Moverman (other co-author) as the narrative is convoluted at best, as the audience gets lost in a myriad of plots and sub-plots. Hard to follow, the narrative is also bloated and misleading and with its ending I believe to be incomplete. There simply is too many unexplained things going on and really no resolution to the film whatsoever. There is a line in the film where the retired cop Hartshom (Ned Beatty) tells Dave Brown (Harrelson) "this ain't your fathers LAPD". Really? Well guess what, RAMPART isn't your fathers L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (Curtis Hanson, Warner Bros., 1997). These shortcomings to the narrative aside I do feel that two excellent things stand out in regards to the film. The first would be the performance by Harrelson as Dave Brown. Brown is a man devolving, unraveling right in front of our eyes. He is losing his career, his family, his life and is powerless to stop the descent. Even when he comes clean to Kyle (Ice Cube) there is no salvation for this man. And Harrelson hits every nuance and note for the character. There is a barely caged emotion lying underneath the surface in this portrayal, a ferocity yearning to explode. Yet Harrelson sublimely keeps it smoldering at the edges. The other aspect of this film I particularly enjoyed was its cinematography. Now I may be in a minority with this opinion but the camera placement and lighting to this film were outstanding (I say this because my friend and viewing partner hated it). Completely unique, it de-centered the action and it's protagonist, furthering the splintering going on in the life of Dave Brown. The lighting was harsh and unflattering helping to paint a realistic mise en scene. The combination of both allowed its audience to be an inconspicuous part of the film, there amongst the muck and mire. The cinematographer to the film, Bobby Bukowski, really outdid himself with this work. I came away very impressed. Which is more than I can say for the film as a whole. Watch it because you should watch everything, because of Woody and the cinematography. Don't watch it if you expect to be blown away like Vic Mackey brushing an informant off his shoulder.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (Simon Curtis, Weinstein Co., 2011)

The most striking thing about MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (Simon Curtis, Weinstein Company, 2011) is that it is a film about actors with some incredible acting. Every actor involved with this production performed at high level. Michelle Williams, in the titular role, oozes Marilyn. She hits every nuance of one of the most troubled and iconic figures of film history. In just as difficult a role, Kenneth Branagh plays Sir Laurence Olivier spectacularly, showing the actors vanity, insecurity and presence. These two talented performers tackle playing icons, giants of the film industry and give just amazing performances. It is the lights shined upon these two icons which is most revealing. The film easily could have devolved into a romanticized look at these two stars yet it showed these two with all their flaws for the world to see. Marilyn, maybe the most recognized figure of the 20th century, struggled with insecurity and addiction to pills. Unable to cope with her fame or to acknowledge her place in the world, Williams hits every one of these parts of Marilyn. The most telling moment was as Marilyn (Williams) and Colin (Eddie Redmayne) are walking through Windsor Castle. As she approaches her fans, Marilyn smoothly transitions between innocent girl to Marilyn, seamlessly. This I feel was the essence of Marilyn. She could give the public every ounce of herself and Williams captures that perfectly. The film also speaks to the role of private lives versus public personas. Particularly during this period, the studios did an enormously successful job of managing what the public knew and believed about it's stars. And when Olivier (Branagh) reveals his true feelings to Colin regarding Marilyn, we see exactly this disparity. Olivier knows his fame is fleeting and along with that fame his youth and looks. The mirror that Marilyn provides to him serves to further depend his insecurity. And man, what an incredible amount of insecurity exists for these two icons, as surely exists for all performers. Finally, the self reflexivity of the film sets it apart for me. The several pictures within pictures, the narrative following the plot of a film being made and the manner in which the film strips down the elegance and glamour of filmmaking really make this film for me. Filmmaking is often a maddening and frustrating exercise in futility. Too many variable exist to allow it to run smoothly and this film showcases that nicely. MY WEEK WITH MARILYN is a very nice film, easy to watch and follow, and easy to lose yourself in its magical world.

CARNAGE (Roman Polanski, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011)

When I heard one of my favorite directors Roman Polanski had a new film coming out last year I was excited. When I heard about the all star cast he had assembled for the film I was even more eager than I had been. Imagine my disappointment when the film was in and out of the theatres so fast that one could easily question if the film existed. Such was the fate of CARNAGE (Roman Polanski, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011) that it barely registered a blip on the radar. And after viewing the film the only truly remarkable thing that stands out to me is the inevitable comparisons to ROPE (Alfred Hitchcock, Warner Bros., 1948). CARNAGE is deeply reminiscent to ROPE due to its many similarities. Both films are adapted from plays, both have limited casts with some really good performances and both rely on a theatre atmosphere setting meaning they both take place in one setting. There are deeper similarities, good and bad, all of which hinder CARNAGE in any comparison to the Hitchcock film. Like ROPE, CARNAGE often times gets extremely stagnant in regards to pacing. The single setting for the film starts to wear on the viewer as we simply tire of the location. While this same type of single setting often works in theatre it doesn't in a film. I felt bored and limited by what the setting offered and this also hampered the films pace. Further deepening this effect was the contrived situations in which the characters were placed in order to keep each other in the single setting. Watching the film there is an immediate tension and dislike between the Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) and Longstreets (Thomas C Reilly and Jodie Foster). How many times can the Cowans make to leave the apartment? I will comment more on this later but with this tension and animosity towards each other, the longer the couples stay in the same room together is going to leave the viewers questioning the plausibility of the action. The single worst thing a film of this nature can do is raise questions such as these. That would be the single worst thing other than leaving no indelible imprint. The film does not linger in your psyche nor is it memorable in any way. It's been one week since I viewed it and other than a few instances I can't recall much from the film. Maybe time and multiple viewings will change this but in today's world you really only ever get one shot. Hitchcock is known universally as the master of suspense and this is what CARNAGE lacks above all else. The narrative never rises or falls, it flatlines. There is no suspense other than to question where the film is headed but even that answer leaves the viewer feeling blasé. By the end of the film we are left with four nominally ugly people left to live out the rest of their lives. The film does have a great cast and each performer gives a class effort. Interestingly to me; Foster, Winslet and Waltz have all won Oscars yet it is Reilly that stands above in this role. Maybe because he is playing the blue collar "Everyman" role that we can all most readily identify with but here is an actor that doesn't often get the publicity as a supremely talented performer. This is a mistake because he is really good and I can only imagine that honors will be forthcoming in the future for him. Finally, the film does leave me with one question and actually it may resolve the issue I had with the contrived ways in which the film kept its cast in place. Underneath our polished exteriors, our fabulous jobs and lives, the facades we put in place when dealing with people; do we simply not care? Do we just struggle through the meaningless and inane conversations, listen to vapid people, deal with ridiculous jobs, families and settings in a vain attempt to put some meaning to our lives. When there might not be any at all? If so that raises a very sad specter and paints a picture of a very vacuous people in a self centered time.

Seeking a friend for ghost protocol

I recently watched two films that really made me think about what it is Hollywood gives us in the way of films. How they are packaged to us, marketed and consequently viewed by their respective audiences. First I saw a summer blockbuster from last year which I thankfully didn't spend $16 at Arclight seeing, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE IV: GHOST PROTOCOL (Brad Bird, Paramount, 2011). Then I saw this summers quite unheralded release of SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD (Lorene Scafaria, Focus, 2012). After watching both in the span of a few days I realized these films were an excellent example of how Hollywood knows exactly what they are doing, how they go about accomplishing that which they set out to do and how we as audiences allow the shit to keep piling up, gladly forking out our money for garbage films. SEEKING A FRIEND is a marvelous film. It is intelligent, fun, well written and crafted. It evokes emotion and prompts feeling; basically it does all that we want a good film to do. GHOST PROTOCOL is a contrived package of processed goods. It is the epitome of what Hollywood can do. The viewer begins the film ambivalent and walks away apathetic to what it just saw. There is one sure reason Hollywood does this, money. That doesn't bother me as much as the question of why we continue to let it happen. So I think maybe if I analyze the two films I might find an answer to our choices, so..... For me, a film begins and ends with its story. SEEKING A FRIEND provides a fantastic narrative, and it does so with all aspects. The story is often funny and at times emotional and feeling. Before the film really gets going along its narrative structure there is a party for "the end of the world". This sequence is brilliant. Scafaria (she also wrote the film) does an amazing job getting mileage out of how people would act knowing they are going to die soon. When Diane (Connie Britton) tells a depressed Dodge (Steve Carell) " ah sweetie, it's okay, you don't have to do heroin" not only do you almost piss yourself laughing but the very core of what is occurring in the world crafted by Scafaria is exposed. These are people placed in an abnormal situation but treating that situation as calmly as they would do anything in their lives. The entire film plays out like this, just as well written. It has great dialogue, real characters and most importantly IT ENDS THE WORLD. I cannot tell you how scared I was that this wasn't going to happen. Technically, the casting of Carrell and Keira Knightley was outstanding. You wouldn't think these two would have chemistry but they do and by the end of the film you find yourself rooting for them to be together. Normally I am not a huge Carrell fan but I love Knightley and they both make it work. Watch also for an excellent minute or two from Adam Brody and Patton Oswalt. I also was particularly impressed with the work of Lorene Scafaria. She doesn't go heavy handed in her directing, instead choosing to deftly let the work do what it needs to do. I am sure this has a lot to do with her writing the script, as she could probably envision exactly what she wanted. Her choices for casting were great, she got great performances from her actors, her musical choices were superb. In the end I look to see how a film reflects us, it's viewers. This film raises some remarkable questions and one can easily come away from viewing the film with a different outlook. Facing the end of the world, many of the films characters change what they are doing, but it's two main characters do not, at least not immediately. Their voyage is their change. I wonder, why do we live as we do, choosing paths we do not care for? What would we do if we were faced with our end? Why wait to cliff dive, to surf, to travel, to do heroin (joking)? This films ultimately shows us what is important to each of us is different. The trick is finding what is important to YOU, and chasing it with your heart. To me, this is what makes this such a great film. And a great film is not what I would call GHOST PROTOCOL. Does the film have a narrative or is it just one gigantic action sequence? And I understand our desires to see action such as this but at this point what Ethan Hunt does is so implausible as to be laughable. What was that mess in Dubai they filmed? Seriously, on the building, scaling from the 105th floor to the 134th or whatever. One handed. Just utterly ridiculous. The films villain was on screen for about five minutes and while I love seeing Michael Nyqvist getting an American role, maybe we can let him speak to? The film was a blatantly obvious attempt to a) wrap up Tom Cruise's run with the franchise b) set up Jeremy Renner and his new team as the face of the IMF films and c) make as much money as possible. Finally, the dialogue. I do not remember clearly but did the other Mission Impossible films use the hammy Bond one liners? I don't recall that they did so why the cheapening of the dialogue for this film? It is very maddening as viewer to see these type of things. Also maddening is to see a star, particularly a great action star like Tom Cruise not do so well in his transition to more suitable age defining roles. I have always been a huge Cruise supporter, believing he knows what works and he does it well. But at this point I don't believe he will transition into older roles gracefully, say like Tom Hanks has done. In GHOST PROTOCOL he looked haggard and tired. It almost felt like he was a boxer who in an effort to make that final comeback spent six months doing everything he could to get back into fighting shape but ultimately the body has been through too much. And like a Larry Holmes or George Foreman, the fans long for the glory days and prefer forgetting what they just saw. And forgetting what we just saw is not how you want to come out of a film. For me, the film felt like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE meets THE INCREDIBLES (Bird, Pixar, 2004). The comedic lines were hammy. The action was a bit to over the top. Much like the second installment of the franchise, in which John Woo placed his particularly indelible imprint on that film, so too Bird has done with this one. I just didn't feel like Bird's style meshed well with this particular franchise. So after having written about both, getting my thoughts on paper, have I realized anything? Have I determined why people continue to see films like GHOST PROTOCOL yet ignore SEEKING A FRIEND? My thoughts stretch to that great book by William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade. In it Goldman realizes that in Hollywood "nobody knows anything". In trying to figure out why people choose to see the films they do I believe I must do the same thing and realize that when it comes to picking good films to watch, NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.

PROMETHEUS (Ridley Scott, 20th Cty. Fox, 2012)

I know little of Greek mythology and most of this knowledge has long been forgotten. I knew more when I was a kid than I remember now. Anyways, after watching the recent release Prometheus (Ridley Scott, Fox, 2012) I decided I needed to brush up on my knowledge. So I did what anyone does these days and I wikied Prometheus. Astonishingly, the wiki page was just as convoluted to me as the film was in watching it. Which makes the film aptly named to say the least. Now it's not that I didn't like the film. I rather enjoyed it actually. I had looked forward to seeing it, even making a deal with a buddy of mine to watch it together, shall we say in a visually enhanced atmosphere. And it is well worth viewing as the film is shot beautifully. The world that is created by Scott is magnificent. Stark and desolate of life, the landscapes of the alien planet are beautiful. One can easily see the parallels to an Earth and it's origins. Besides this beautiful cinematography, the filmmakers do an excellent job (as always) in special effects, particularly with the humanoid predecessor to us humans. I only wish they had given these creatures more to do in the film and more explanation towards their actions. My only real problem with the film exist narratively and if you know how I judge films you know this to be a major issue for me. Like its namesake, the film is overly ambitious in scope and strives to fill itself as more important than it really is. There are too many plots going on many of which I feel are left unresolved. Particularly the character of Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron). I am still wondering what exactly her purpose was in the film other than to look really damn good. Her character definitely didn't add anything to the films larger plot. Also the character of Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall -Green) seemed to be quite an important figure and was killed so damn quickly it left me wondering why he was even in the film. There were just too many instances like this for the film to work completely for me. The film did score some major points for me in its allusions to past films. Crafting the android character of David (Michael Fassbender) as a mixture of HAL (2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick), David Bowman (same film) and T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean) was brilliant by Fassbender. I sense some award winning in his future as he continues to put out great performances. As well as Fassbender, I really like Noomi Rapace. This being her first chance in an American film after cementing herself as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish originals of the Dragon Tattoo series, Rapace is really good. She does an excellent job giving her turn as the Ripleyesque character in the film, definitely making me think of Sigourney Weaver from earlier Alien films. As I said, I liked this film quite a lot. Visually beautiful with great effects and creatures, some great casting and performances all stand out. It's definitely worth a view, particularly in a theatre.