WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (Lynne Ramsay, BBC Films, 2011)

One of those films that quietly slipped under the radar, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (Lynne Ramsay, BBC Films, 2011) is a chilling portrait of a psychopathic killer and the pain and devastation he causes his mother. It is marked by a stark realism in its narrative, some incredibly good casting and performances and a tremendous job of directing by Ramsay. The narrative is chilling in content particularly with the rash of shootings in schools and theaters over the last several years. And while we tend to focus on the victims and their families (rightly so) we seem to never think about the family of the assailant. This film gives us Eva Katchadourian (Tilda Swinton) as she deals with the after effects of her son Kevin's killing spree. Shunned and treated poorly by those who know of her sons crime, she also deals with her own feelings of guilt over her raising of him. Never attached to him and never feeling love for him, Swinton gives us a haunted and cold performance. Haunted by her memories of her son growing up and cold enough so that we can see her son in her. Kevin (Ezra Miller) is remarkable as well. Scary and evil, the young actor is brilliant casting for the part. His eyes speak volumes and his looks are enough to convince the world he is a killer before any of his sadistic actions come to light. By the time his father (Thomas C Reilly) buys him a composite bow we are sufficiently scared of what he can do. The best aspect of the film is the direction of Ramsay. Her style is simple and effective and she allows the film to do its work through its visual elements. She doesn't get bogged down in stylistic choices that are popular in today's reality driven cinema. She allows the camera to be still and to linger, soaking in her actors and letting them work. Her shots are simple and quiet. She effectively uses sound both on screen and off. And she brilliantly uses motifs throughout the film particularly through her production design. Red is her dominant color, foreshadowing the blood of the massacre and the guilt of Eva. Wine and prescription pills are present in many scenes, lending possible reasons to Eva's despair and Kevin's psychotic behavior. I really liked everything Ramsay did throughout the entire film. Personally I really like how the film takes a look at parenthood that isn't often talked about due to its insensitivity. Eva is a mother not really happy to be one. She doesn't truly love her son and she feels burdened by him. She has had to relinquish her life for him and this displeases her. These are not thoughts often shown or discussed. And it's refreshing that such subject matter gets tackled. It gives the film power. Great film!

A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011)

I try to make sure I watch films of all types whether they be foreign language, documentary, short films or features released here in the United States. This is especially true if the film garners awards and such is the case with A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011). Quite simply this is an amazing film. The narrative is compelling and emotional, the acting is superb if not brilliant, the overall direction is good and the film provides such a unique glimpse into Iranian life. Rarely a film is so good that you want to immediately watch it again. 2011 Best Picture winner THE ARTIST (Michael Hazanivicius, Weinstein Company, 2011) is such a picture and so is A SEPARATION. The film is filmmaking at its finest. The narrative to this film is simple yet compelling. We are treated to a fascinating look into everyday Iranian life. Their customs and standards, how people live and conduct themselves, their laws and their way of life. It is a world vastly different than ours. We see one family struggling with divorce and caring for elderly family members, two situations Westerners can relate to. On the other side is a family struggling within the confines of their situation. A husband jailed by creditors, out of work and a wife working for another family behind his back. Non relatable problems if you will. Compounding the issues for Razieh (Sareh Bayat) is her strict devotion to her religion. Immediately we see conflict in her world as she needs to clean the Alzheimer's stricken father she is caring for. Morally a huge dilemma for Razieh. This look into Iranian social and moral issues is unique to us as this is an Iran we never hear about, never see or quite honestly care to think about. It is our brazen egocentric attitudes and morality which make this film more powerful. Also helping to make the film more compelling are some very fine performances. Leila Hatami is a revelation. I watched the film with my roommate and it was halfway through the film when I was informed this great actress was wearing no makeup. I was stunned. Can you imagine a Hollywood actress doing something like that? And her performance as the strong and willfully independent Simin was fantastic. Not only was she fiercely strong but loving and caring at the same time. And cast opposite of her was Peyman Mooadi, playing Nader. His performance was strong as well, showing emotional depth and connectivity to his screen family. I loved these two but everyone in the film was strong, connected to their roles. The direction was good throughout the film but I would like to discuss one simple shot, the very last of the film. Termeh (Sarina Farhadi) is being asked by the courts to choose between Nader and Simin (which parent she will live with). The parents are asked to leave the room so Termeh can make her choice known. Nader and Simin exit into the hallway of the courtroom and Farhadi crafts an absolutely brilliant shot. He separates the two, placing Nader in the foreground. This is right as he is the male in a male dominated culture. In the background, fronted by barred windows is Simin. The woman in the relationship is pushed to the background, placed behind bars. With one simple shot Farhadi describes the entire culture of Iran, it's pecking order, the rights of the people. It is a fascinating shot. And this is the end to the film. Brilliantly we are left wondering who Termeh has chosen. I really can't stop thinking of how great a film this is. Just a strong story, great acting and superb technical work. Please watch it if you can.

MARLENE (Maximilian Schell, Futura Films, 1984)

In the age of reality television and complete accessibility to the lives of anyone, one of the things most lacking are intimate portraits of past celebrities or historical figures. We just don't have that insight and especially with regards to stars from Hollywood's golden era, that information was kept from us. It's how Rock Hudson was a huge star with America unaware of his sexuality and how Katherine Hepburn carried on an affair with a married Spencer Tracy for well over twenty years with no backlash from the public. So to see MARLENE (Maximilian Schell, Futura Films, 1984) give us such a revealing and insightful look into one of the stars of that era, and prior to the current state of reality 'everything' is amazing. The film provides us with an intimate portrait of Marlene Dietrich, one of our greatest early film stars and a lady who became iconic in her representations that remain with us. She comes across during the film as obstinate, slightly demented, out of touch and basically sad. She refused to be filmed (the film doesn't state this but I have read she had become a recluse by the time of filming) and only agreed to do the film because Schell was directing (they had worked together previously). But it is this steadfast attempt by Dietrich to refuse us access which gives us a much more intimate portrait of her. At one point Schell tricks her into watching clips of her old films (earlier she had refused). The day comes and Schell receives a message from her agent with a quote from Dante. "There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery" is the actual quote but the agent alters the words slightly. The point is we see the price of her life, the cost of what she was being paid by what she has become. It is a sad tale, a cautionary one for all those yearning for the trappings of fame. For me this intimacy and look into Dietrich as an older woman is fascinating. I watch old films and find myself constantly drawn to the figures that dominated this era. The Carole Lombard who died tragically and early, the Grace Kelly that gave it all up for love, the Dietrich who became an icon pushed to the fringes over time. I have always appreciated Dietrich not just for her beauty but for what she represented. A strong woman not afraid to do things her way, the way she wanted. No matter what was said about her or how society viewed her actions she held strong to herself and her identity and that is something to be admired and in a world bereft of such individuality something to be strived for. The world misses you Marlene Dietrich and all those like you.

SAFE HOUSE (Daniel Esponosa, Universal, 2012)

To me these are two of the worst things I can hear prior to watching a film; "it wasn't that bad" or "it was way better than I thought it would be". As soon as I hear either usually that predetermines for me that I will not bother seeing the film in question. Most times I am right but there are exceptions and SAFE HOUSE (Daniel Espinosa, Universal, 2012) is one of those films. I watched the film and was really quite surprised at how good of a thriller it was. They did a good job with the films narrative and pacing, the casting and acting was good and I even liked some of the directorial work. As I said, "this film was way better than I thought it would be". The strongest parts of the film are its narrative and ultra quick pacing in which the film plays out. The narrative timeline is really only about 48 hours. This short time span lends realism to the narrative. In the life or death spy world decisions happen in seconds and the film captures this perfectly. This shortened time span to the narrative allows the director to push the pacing to a breakneck speed, almost too fast. This speed doesn't give the audience time to breathe and is always heightening the tension. At the same time it keeps the accelerator on its protagonist masking any plausibility holes within the narrative. You literally don't have time to think about anything, much like our protagonist Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds). Reynolds turns in a rather good performance as Weston. Departing from the snarky wise cracking roles that he almost always portrays Reynolds holds his own against Denzel, not an easy thing to accomplish. Denzel plays Tobin Frost and does so with usual aplomb. Always the coolest guy in the room, entirely under control, Denzel makes being a bad guy so much fun. The two eventually form a good partnership with Frost giving Weston the final ingredients he will need to succeed in his agency career. If you read anything I ever write you will know cinematography and particularly camera placement are the two things I love most to talk about in regards to technical work on a film. In the film Espinosa brings his European touch to the film as throughout he chooses to place the camera where it shouldn't be, places you wouldn't think of normally. I love this. If you are a director do as much of this as you can. The film did very well commercially and I wonder why it isn't as highly regarded of a film. Maybe the time of year it was released is a factor as Oscar season was in full power at the films release date. Or maybe since the film follows other great examples of the genre such as the Bourne films or TAKEN (Pierre Morel, EuropaCorp, 2008) that audiences no longer rave about a similar film in the same fashion. Maybe audiences have tired of Reynolds schtick. Whatever the case may be I was wrong about SAFE HOUSE and I am only glad enough that I was willing to give it a chance because it is a pretty good film.

OPEN RANGE (Kevin Costner, Touchstone, 2003)

A subtly quiet film upon its release, OPEN RANGE (Kevin Costner, Touchstone, 2003) is a good film, a really good western and a great example of a film that encompasses the myths, conventions and iconography of the genre throughout the various periods of filmmaking in Hollywood. Starting with a tried and true western formulaic narrative, the film has good casting and acting with both resulting in great chemistry. It also makes use of contemporary trends in the genre as well as taking advantage of technical advancements in filmmaking giving the film added quality and depth. If Costner's epic film DANCES WITH WOLVES (Costner, Orion Pictures, 1990) is credited with revitalizing the western genre then OPEN RANGE is a nice extension in his directing career. OPEN RANGE is reminiscent of classical Hollywood westerns particularly in regards to thematic content, narrative and casting. Thematically the film deals with traditional western themes such as good vs. evil and westward expansion and the American settler. The narrative works within the same constraints as the thematics. Casting is a big area where the film hearkens back to classical Hollywood. The film employs three stars and the chemistry between the stars, particularly between Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and Charley Waite (Costner) is excellent. Audiences can believe these two cowboys are men of their word, are men of action and will triumph in the end. A really great job of casting for this film. Moving forward to the modernist period of filmmaking the film uses extremely violent scenes and action to enforce the narrative. The film reminds me of the modernist classic THE WILD BUNCH (Sam Peckinpah, Warner Bros., 1969). Anachronistic and aging men committing violent actions, adhering to a code and life that is passing them by quickly. In OPEN RANGE this violence simmers just below the films surface until it explodes with Charley shooting the hired gun Butler (Kim Coates) point blank in the face. I cannot recall a western ever being so blatantly forward with a shooting and like THE WILD BUNCH this jarring violence elevates the film to an entirely different place. It's quite remarkable and it's a scene that I look forward to when watching the film, primarily because it is so jarring. Jarring in its own way is the postmodern use of sound for effect. The film uses loud and blasting gun shots to help drive home the action in the narrative. Not to be left out of the gruesomeness, Boss Spearman shotgun blasts a guy through a wall. The sound of the shotgun blast is extremely loud, elevated even, and the man flies a good five feet after being shot. This hyper realism, a supremely stylized moment gives the film that perfect postmodern feel. I really like this film. I am a big fan of Costner and Duvall. I love the western genre. And there is just enough elements scattered from here and there to make my film sensibility happy. Great film.

SKYFALL (Sam Mendes, MGM, 2012)

With a title like SKYFALL (Sam Mendes, MGM, 2012) any Bond aficionado would immediately think back to any number of 007 narratives; foiled operations, criminal code words for plans of world domination, an MI-6 code name or even a tongue in cheek name for any of the long list of Bond girls. Had this film been done during the Sean Connery era it would be the name for a dastardly S.P.E.C.T.R.E plot, Roger Moore would have been saving the free world from a Russian missile/space program and Pierce Brosnan would be dealing with a leaked CIA project. But this isn't our parents 007 and SKYFALL is utterly different than any previous Bond film. SKYFALL deals with a part of 007 that previously had not existed, at least not before the release of CASINO ROYALE (Martin Campbell, MGM, 2006) and the film tackles not only Bond but the entire world in which Bond exists making it wholly unlike any other Bond film previously released. The first departure from previous Bond films that SKYFALL makes is in its characters and all the magnificent flaws that make them the people they are. Starting with CASINO ROYALE, James Bond (Daniel Craig) has been thrown under the psychological microscope. In CASINO ROYALE we got to see what made him the hardened womanizer he is, cold to all that make functioning in his job necessary. But in SKYFALL we get to go back deeper and farther and learn what made James so unerringly loyal to queen and country (by queen I of course mean motherly M). It doesn't stop here though. Finally we see a portrait of another member of the Bond world. M (Judi Dench) is given harsh treatment here as she has to reflect a world of tough decisions and cruel coldness. When she gives the order to "take the shot" knowing James might be the man hit you get the very real sense Dench is truly agonizing thinking Craig might be shot. Two things, credit must be given to these two fantastic actors for making us feel this connection between the two of them. And Dench also superbly represents the professional establishment and embodies the 'mum' as well. The portrayals put forth by Craig, Dench and Javier Bardem also help to make this unlike other Bond films. While good acting has indeed been a part of past Bond films it has never been at this level. Daniel Craig has transformed what we expect of Bond just as Judi Dench has staked her claim to the modern day M. But it is what Bardem accomplished as the villainous Raoul Silva which chillingly surpasses all other Bond villains. Bond villains tend to range from the campy Blofeld to the sublime yet utterly ridiculous Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd (Diamonds Are Forever). If the villains happen to be women then they get monikers such as Pussy Galore (Goldfinger) or Xenia Onatopp (Goldeneye). Silva is disturbingly evil and his psychosis is all to familiar to us in this day and age. His madness is palpable and the introduction of homosexuality to a Bond villain makes him just perfect. As Silva undresses a tied up Craig with his mind you can sense the tension in his mind and of course the moment is capped brilliantly by Craig uttering "who says its my first time (with a guy)"? What is beyond brilliant is the cinematography brought forth by Roger Deakins. Bond films have always been flashy action packed affairs with great camera work showcasing beautiful locales and panoramic vistas. What Deakins accomplishes in this film is superlative. His cinematography is layered, textured even. The fight sequence between Bond and Patrice (Ola Rapace) which takes place high up in a darkened skyscraper is sheer genius. The lighting comes from different angles and sources yet the two fighters are deftly seen throughout the altercation. Deakins work also adds depth to the film, particularly in the sequences at Skyfall. How beautiful is the shot of the castle when we first see it? And the lighting after they have torched and blown up the castle is eerie and beautiful and fits the destruction of Bond's childhood. And of course the film will ultimately come back to 007. Since CASINO ROYALE and the introduction of Daniel Craig as Bond we have seen Bond films that delve into the psychological underpinnings of the character. We learned why he doesn't love and now with SKYFALL we get more of what motivates and drives Bond. This ongoing examination of the mental Bond is an accurate reflection of what audiences desire from their heroes now. In the last decade or so there has been a definite spike in the anti-hero and our true heroes have become more in line with these anti-heroes, more in line with us. They have faults, cracks in the veneer, destructive traits and personalities. They are real. And this is what audiences want presently, realism. One only need look as far as the last few Bond films or even Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Which, how amazing would it be to see Nolan direct a Bond film? Or maybe Matthew Vaughn? Let's make this happen. Many people are proclaiming SKYFALL to be the best Bond film ever. To me this is a comparison that cannot be made, much like you can't compare the skills of Barry Bonds to those of Babe Ruth. Different eras beget different pictures. Let's just leave it as it is by FAR the best Bond film starring Daniel Craig (let's just say I have one MAJOR issue with Casino Royale) and lets hope the trend towards a better and more realistic Bond continues.

FLIGHT (Robert Zemeckis, Paramount, 2012)

Like its protagonist Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) the film FLIGHT (Robert Zemeckis, Paramount, 2012) is essentially a good film albeit a flawed one. Washington plays Whitaker, a drunk and an addict who happens to also be a pilot, a heroic one at that. Whitaker does his best throughout the film to make sure you loathe and despise him yet somehow we still root for him to get out of his own way. The film mirrors this behavior. There are enough detriments to the film; an overly long narrative, no truly likable characters, a snails pace to the final two-thirds of the film and just enough references to overt Christianity that your eyes get fatigued from rolling. Still the film redeems itself by its finish and one walks away thinking "that wasn't so bad". Which in my estimation is not the feeling you want to leave the theater with. The narrative to the film is actually good. It is interesting, compelling and well developed. But the strengths to the narrative also hinder it. Because the narrative is well developed it allows the film to meander along at a very slow pace making the film too long. The characters are interesting and very compelling but they also are train wrecks; not people you want to root for or expect anything redeeming to come from their actions. The narrative is also predictable with the films ending being readily seen well in advance. I also feel that with the subject matter present the film lacked resonance and power. Think back to a prior Zemeckis masterpiece, FORREST GUMP (Zemeckis, Paramount, 1994). The feelings and emotions, the power of the narrative and it's characters still resonate. FLIGHT lacks this and ultimately this hurts the film. Technically Zemeckis is as accomplished a director as can be found. The films first twenty minutes show this perfectly. The entire sequence up until the crash is set up beautifully and it is masterful film craftsmanship. Normally I would talk aspects up that I was particularly fond of but here I need to talk about a simple bit of casting. The casting of Katerina Marquez (Nadine Velazquez) was good, I thought she was great in the role. BUT, damn it she was almost too distracting. You cannot keep your eyes away from her during the entire hotel scene. She epitomizes the 'gaze aesthetic' in film. At USC when I learned about gaze aesthetic it was Brigitte Bardot in Godard's French classic Contempt (Jean-Luc Godard, Embassy Pictures, 1963). To be in such esteemed company is high praise indeed. High praise will deservedly be given to Denzel Washington and this film begins and ends with him. Whip Whitaker is a great role for Denzel. Denzel has given us a career full of strong, fierce, confident, prideful and impervious characters. With Whip Whitaker though we see a man with faults, someone broken. Denzel plays the role giving Whip vulnerability and fallibility. There is even courage to the portrayal. It is these traits that Denzel infuses in the role which makes us root for Whip, it makes us pull for the man to get out of his own way and overcome his demons. We want to hate this man but we pull for him and want him to get better. To me this is one of the truest marks of a really great actor, this ability to make us feel two divergent emotions simultaneously. This is one of Denzel's best performances ever and one can only hope more roles like this are in store for us from him. (a final aside) after seeing the film I talked to a pilot friend and although I knew the film was loosely based on a factual crash my friend assures me what Whip did in the cockpit is and was completely legitimate. That makes the film better for me somehow. Actually it makes me want to see the first sequence again.