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.

10 (Blake Edwards, Warner Bros., 1979)

Growing up as a kid one of my parents steadfast rules was that we were not allowed to watch R rated films. Which of course had the effect of making them even more desirable to see. Such is the case with the great romantic comedy 10 (Blake Edwards, Warner Bros., 1979). The R rating aside, just having the amazing Bo Derek in the film in a bikini made the film a must see. That iconic imagery from the film aside, I am not sure how old I was before I finally saw the film so when it came on the other night I couldn't resist checking it out after so many years. My love and appreciation of film has grown and my love and appreciation of beautiful blondes has never wavered so I was interested to see my reaction watching the film present day, thirty plus years since its release. And thirty years later the film still holds up remarkably well. The great thing about 10 is what the film reflects, all of which holds through contemporary society. The film covers a wide array of themes, societal conventions and fetishistic behavior. It has some good acting, great music, the obscenely gorgeous aforementioned Bo, and the stellar writing and directing of Blake Edwards. The film is well done. The film deals with several themes and with Edwards deft touch it does so in an almost sublime way. Edwards tackles feminism, the easy openness of people's attitudes towards sexuality during the seventies and even how we deal with aging. Edwards crafts a great juxtaposition between Sam (Julie Andrews) as the mature loving career woman and Jenny (Bo Derek), the young antagonist our hero George (Dudley Moore) aspires to. Both are excellent representations of a burgeoning feminism of the period. Sam as the woman capable of being on her own and Jenny the free and open woman capable of a sexuality often limited to women in previous years. And in Jenny we see the most glaring example of the promiscuity of the seventies. When George finally gets his fantasy and is ready to bed his dream woman, he is crushed by her ease and ambivalence towards sex as an act and her attitudes towards fidelity and marriage. One can see a shift in generational outlooks towards sexuality occurring right on screen. Finally, we see how a generation reacts as we see George coming to terms with his own mortality. All the cliches are nailed by Edwards in his representations of George. The flashy and ostentatious car, partying in orgiastic style with his neighbor, becoming smitten with a woman half his age. And the casting and portrayal of Dudley Moore as George seals the deal when it comes to exactly what Edwards is going for. Moore gives a great performance, allowing us to be sympathetic to his childish overtures, no small feat. George is a philanderer, a womanizer, a child, yet we love him. We want him to be happy. Edwards also provides us with a glimpse into societal conventions and a look at how those conventions had been effectively turned on their heads by 1979. The institution of marriage (still being rocked today), ever changing gender roles and expectations and the role of sex and sexuality in our lives are all thrown under the Edwards microscope and used to great humor. As described previously, when George finally beds Jenny not only is his fantasy destroyed but it is done amidst the humor of the two constantly starting and restarting Bolero. Edwards hits on the open sexuality of the period all while poking great fun at it. He does the same to marriage and gender throughout the film. Finally, amazingly, he even includes a gay couple going through the same exact thing that George is pursuing with Jenny. What genius, looking back, as Edwards presciently sees that gay relationships are exactly the same as straight ones. I'd also like to talk about the role voyeurism plays in the film. Throughout the film there are two parties who continually watch each other in hopes of catching the other at some form of sexual congress. This is a brilliant reflection of our society then and NOW especially, as we have become deeply voyeuristic as a society. This also brings up the role Bo Derek plays in the film. Man or woman, she demands our attention. This speaks to the role a woman's body plays in our subconscious viewing of film. Think of it like this. How often are we as audiences allowed to gaze upon a woman's form, especially in a stylized manner such as slow motion. Now think of how often that happens with a male. Yep, huge disparity. My hyper critical viewing aside, the film is wonderful and full of so many great things, the physical comedy of Dudley Moore is so pleasing and entertaining. He plays the besotted fool so damn well. We are treated to the beautiful voice of Julie Andrews as well as getting to see her as an adult, a sexually active one at that. Even the character actor Robert Webber gives a great performance, highly emotional and poignant. In the end it is the sublime ability of Blake Edwards which rings this film together. His choices in casting, especially with Dudley and Bo, all hit. His writing is superb and his partnership with the great Henry Mancini just works. Musically the choice of Ravel's Bolero is a stroke of genius even making me want to download it after hearing it in the film. This film is great and works on so many levels. It may be a little dated for all tastes but I highly recommend it to anyone.

BATTLE ROYALE (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)

People know that I love film and I get recommendations to watch movies all the time. And although there are a few people I listen to when it comes to these recommendations, for the most part I tend to ignore what people tell me. It's not that I completely discount what they say, it's just that with tastes so divergent and choices being limitless, there are very few I trust when it comes to people telling me a film is a must see. Also, when you hear things about a film prior to watching it you go into that viewing with preconceived perceptions of what the film will be like. Earlier today I wrote about FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, 2011). I went into that with all my ideas and prejudices against its genre and came away pleasantly surprised at how much I liked the film. So, a film like BATTLE ROYALE (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000) came to my attention with more baggage than a divorcee at Sharkey's in Huntington on the Fourth of July. Recommended by one who I trust, she told me how the film has been banned in the U.S., how I probably wouldn't get to see it and finally how the film is brazenly stolen to craft the narrative for the popular book and film THE HUNGER GAMES. As you can see, there was a lot going on when lo and behold one day in my Netflix there was BATTLE ROYALE! My expectations for the film were rather high. Because I had been told it was banned (more on this later) and since I knew the plot involved school age children murdering each other I wholly expected a blood bath of epic proportions. Knowing that INFERNAL AFFAIRS>THE DEPARTED I expected this film to so devastate THE HUNGER GAMES film adaptation and to further cement my belief that there is no American originality left regarding film. I wanted the film to be a revelation; I wanted a film that inspired me. This is why you never listen to others. First, the film has never officially been banned. It has never been able to acquire American distribution therefore securing itself a similar legacy. And there is no reason for it to be banned. The film is rather tame, particularly in its representations of blood and violence. Far worse is released here in America each month. The narrative to the film was rather pedestrian and the translation from Japanese to English was just awful. This translation being so bad really hampered the film, because after reflecting on it and reading some production history, the film actually deals with some great thematic content. Thematically the film deals with the transition from childhood to adulthood; how we all face it differently, how we each take separate paths, the differences which we all encounter. The film chose kids which were just finishing middle school, an age which bridges this gap most effectively. Many of the children in the film profess love for other characters and it is this confused reflection which speaks volumes about this transition. Still children, they don't know what real love is, yet they speaks the words of people who are adults. Just a magnificent representation of a difficult time for every person. The film also shines light on another aspect of this transition, a generational one. The children are chosen due to their refusal to submit to the authoritarianism of their elders. In a society like the Japanese, one that brings many together for the benefit of one, this is a big problem. And the children that survive longest are those that adhere to the old ways; ones that work together, sacrifice for others, become a part of a microcosm of society. Basically they survive because they successfully bridge that transition to adulthood better than the rest. I've read there are those that intend to make an American version. If this comes to pass then I'd hope it would be with significant import placed to what the original film set out to accomplish and actually did rather well.

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, Sony, 2011)

Romantic comedies are not a genre that I usually choose to watch. They are formulaic, predictable and usually use tired language all of which mostly makes we want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. So I ask myself if this is such a huge genre, what would make it work for me? And my quick answer would be two likable stars playing likable characters. A plot that doesn't border on unbelievably impossible, maybe dialogue that doesn't scream fifty year old man writing for his angst ridden and horribly disapproving teenagers approval. Ultimately a romantic comedy has to make you feel good about finding someone to love and that's the number one reason people watch romantic comedies right? To feel better about love. One other thing about romantic comedies before I reveal what I watched last night. They have a strange way of creeping up on me. What I mean is this. When I expect the least from a film, when I watch the trailers and tell others I'd rather hang dry wall then see that film, when I roll my eyes upon hearing others swoon over said film, somehow every now and then something jumps up and grabs me and I realize I like the film. Such is the case with FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, Sony, 2011). I wanted to hate this film. I wanted to deride the writing and it's choice of stars. I wanted to write scathing words telling everyone how smart I was and how anyone who would watch such drivel has to be utterly insane. But you know what? I really liked this film. Let's go back to what makes a romantic comedy work for me. For me it is always, always the films stars and the characters they portray. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS stars Justin Timberlake as Dylan Harper and Mila Kunis as Jamie Rellis. I like both already and they just give everything they've got in this film. Dylan and Jamie are likable and real. Even though you see them hurtling towards each other at light speed, resisting it with all they are, you want them to be together. They have good chemistry and they fit together. And both JT and Mila provide daring portrayals, each allowing the camera to gaze seductively upon their equally hot bodies. What's next on my checklist? Well, the narrative isn't utterly out of the realm of possibility (flash mob ridiculousness aside). I really like the way the film crafts the dichotomy between New York and Los Angeles. Our two greatest cities (America) are as diametrically opposed as fire and ice, yet this narrative brings them together and quite intelligently and with a deft touch. Sure they use stereotypes to some extent but what film doesn't? The films writing is also done rather well. It starts fresh and stays that way. In fact their is some rather comedic moments. When Jamie's mother Loma (Patricia Clarkson) brazenly demands of Dylan "so my daughter is just a slam piece?" I almost cried. And for that matter, anything Woody Harrelson did or said as Tommy, the gay sports editor at GQ was priceless, giving us a wizened and hardened version of Woody Boyd, albeit gay and in New York. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS is a great little film. Not overly ambitious and sincere in approach, it even proves an argument I have been making for years. I defy ANYONE to sleep with someone five times EXCLUSIVELY and not lose that FWB status. Try it, you'll end up in a relationship! This film works for me and it resolves that ultimate of dilemmas, it makes you feel good about love. It did for me, which is why it worked so well.

TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (Tomas Alfredsson, Studiocanal, 2011)

If dense, intricate and superbly detailed adaptations of spy novels are the type of films you like to see, then TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (Tomas Alfredsson, Studiocanal, 2011) is, forgive the Brit slang, your cup of tea. The narrative is full and vibrant, always evolving and gives us a glimpse into the not so distant past, one that is quickly fading in our collective memories. The performances provided by a stellar ensemble cast, headed by Gary Oldman, literally take you to the era the film is set in. Finally, the various entities of the films production are done rather well, from the directing to the writing and every aspect of the production design, making the entire film just a superb spy thriller to watch. The film begins and ends with it's compelling narrative. Adapted from a popular spy novel, the film is not for everyone. It takes time for the narrative to unfold, but when it does the film breezes by. Besides it's slow pacing the film is extremely hard to follow and multiple viewings would be beneficial. Time is fractured quite a bit in the film and this will also lead to a larger scale confusion for most. What struck me most while watching this film is the realization that those whom know and remember the cold war are slowly disappearing. The characters portrayed in the film, the people these characters are based upon, are gone. It has been almost twenty five years since the Berlin Wall came down, and honestly it seems like much longer. The films narrative is set in a different era, one not as easily understood in the age of technology. We have forgotten the paranoia of the cloak and dagger cold war since information has become such a marketable and all encompassing commodity. The life or death stakes waged by the Cold War's combatants seem trivial now in a world more on the edge of economic collapse rather than nuclear meltdown. Taking us to this world is an otherworldly performance by an amazingly strong cast. Each member of this cast is a strong actor in their own right and they are led by the incomparable Gary Oldman. Much has been made of him only receiving his first Academy nomination for the role of George Smiley and it is warranted. Oldman has been giving us incredible performances for years. He has that rare ability as an actor (much like George Clooney) to provide so much to the audience without doing seemingly anything. He is so still in the role of George Smiley as to appear inanimate at times. He can sit and observe easily though, as the remaining cast is superb. Every casting choice was excellent with each performance having depth as well as being rich with emotion. The role of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a perfect role to examine. Seemingly an innocuous character, one to be glanced over, his scene going home to tell his lover that their relationship is over is remarkable. With no words you see a mans world crumbled, and Cumberbatch brilliantly gives us this. I wonder how many viewers caught this subtle angle to the narrative. The remaining members of the cast are equally as superlative. Other aspects of production are also done quite well. Alfredsson makes great directorial choices throughout the film. One that struck me particularly was when Westerby (Stephen Graham) tells Control (John Hurt) about the shooting of Jim Prideaux. Without needing dialogue, Alfredsson frames Control within the larger frame of the film and then slowly pulls back to reveal Westerby informing him of the development. The viewer focuses on the face of Control, a man trapped by his position. A man who has no control over anything. The production design for the film is also amazing. There were no details overlooked. Set design, costumes, hair all hearkens back to the temporal setting of the 1970's. Finally, the writing. I have not read the novel, but I know many John Le Carre fans. I can imagine the adaptation is not particularly close to the book as a store this dense becomes exceedingly difficult to adapt. But the writing for the film was so good, I can only imagine it is much the same as the book. I do look forward to reading it as soon as the chance presents itself. Do not watch this film when tired or with a lot on your mind. Give it a chance to develop and unfold and you will enjoy it thoroughly.