Film: The Hunter

Director: Daniel Nettheim
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2011)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: B

Somehow Netflix recommended this to me as an action movie, so I turned it on while I was at the gym, looking for something to get the adrenaline going. 

This is not an action movie. 

That said, it turned out to be a pretty engaging drama following a hunter on the trail of a Tasmanian tiger as he gets wrapped up in the drama and life of the family he is boarding with.

Defoe is excellent, as usual, as is the supporting cast. Morgana Davies in particular is adorably precocious as Sass. I hope she has a bright future, because she held her own with Dafoe. The bohemian lifestyle of the boarding house family contrasts nicely with Dafoe's careful and meticulous hunter. Though some of the subplots aren't developed as well as they could be (the loggers versus environmentalists storyline is pretty rote), the characterization makes up for it.

And the film is really beautifully shot. I'm assuming this really was shot in Tasmania, and it provides a beautiful background against which the drama can play out. It's violent and dangerous country, but it's also beautiful. There are so many shots of Dafoe walking through the forest, looking out over breathtaking vistas, and the filmmakers have the good sense to allow the scenery to speak for itself, allowing for a fairly quiet film as well.

In all, a solid find--solid enough that instead of waiting for my next workout to finish the film, I came home and finished it the same day. Not bad. 

Alternate Film Title: "Extinct Animals Make Me Sad"

Film: The Killing

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Genre: Crime Thriller
Source: USA (1956)
Rating: Unrated (probably PG/PG-13)
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: A-

Two minutes in to this movie I didn't think I would like it. The overbearing, Dragnet-like narrator was a real turn-off, and it struck me initially as relying a bit much on the 50s style archetypes of the characters--Marie Windsor, for example, lays it on a bit thick as Sherry. I didn't see the purpose of the clunky, disjointed timeline, and I thought the whole movie was shaping up to be a bit of a mess.

Boy, was I wrong.

Sharp, smart, and bursting with irony, the careful build up to the heist itself allows us as an audience to know exactly how all the pieces are falling into place, and those last twenty minutes or so are dynamite, tense and satisfying and tough in a way that sets the framework for crime movies to come, from The Sting to Reservoir Dogs to Inside Man. Even at this early outing, Kubrick doesn't waste any film. It's easy to see why this film would be homaged by future filmmakers, from Tarantino to Nolan. I always thought the masks in The Dark Knight opening robbery were just a play on the Joker character, but now I see it's almost the same mask as Kubrick uses. I never knew!

There's a bleakness to the film that I didn't expect as well. The film's last line, "Eh, what's the difference?" delivered so softly and in the midst of such a caustic swirl of action, in some ways reframes the entire movie as a nihilistic allegory. It comes as a slap in the face, given all Sterling Hayden's character has so carefully planned and organized throughout the film, and it's a jolt to the system. That irony had been played before of course--that horseshoe!--but never as powerfully as in those last few minutes.

Kubrick movies always strike me as a little cold, and The Killing is no different, but in the end that coldness and that procedural framework really brought the film together in fascinating ways. I'm still dissatisfied with the voice-over narration, but this is still a movie that rocked me.

Alternate Film Title: "Red Lightning, We Hardly Knew You" 

Film: Something Wild

Director: Jonathan Demme
Genre: Comedy?
Source: USA (1986)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: On Demand
Grade: B+

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the selection process for Criterion films. When I think "great 80s films" there are so many classic movies that come to mind: Ferris Bueller (or really any John Hughes film), Eddie Murphy movies like Trading Places or Beverly Hills Cop, the Ghostbuster and Back to the Future franchises . . . all classics with a long history of popular success. Until recently, I hadn't even heard of 1986's Something Wild (though that poster art does put it firmly in the 80s), but that's why the Criterion series is so fun. Watching it now with an eye towards the future, I can see how this film sort of predicts coming film trends--and particularly the style of Quentin Tarantino. This film, by Jonathan Demme, seems to be a test run at what will go on to be Tarantino's signature style--catchy and unique soundtrack, fetishizing of pop culture (love the "Virginia is for Lovers" t-shirt), and an occasionally veering tonally from comedy to romance to brutal violence and back again. It's a fun journey, anchored by a really likable Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith, and it's one I was surprised to find my wife really enjoyed, even as it got pretty dark at points.

That darkness comes courtesy of Ray Liotta, who looks like a kid but still drips with danger every second he's on screen. According to IMDB, this is really only Liotta's second movie role (though he'd had some tv work before) and it's easy to see why just a few years later he would be anchoring Scorsese's Goodfellas as the equally volatile Henry Hill. By the time Liotta shows up, the movie has already taken a lot of silly, though still somewhat predictably 80s, twists. Liotta, however, brings a dangerous energy that is both sexy and frightening. He is casually cruel, and as that cruelty transforms into violence the film becomes more unpredictable. Daniels and Griffith are fun and cute, but it's Liotta who really transforms this movie into something different. 

I don't know how popular this film was in cinephile circles before Criterion claimed it, but it's this kind of pick that keeps me coming back to their movies more and more. Definitely one to watch again.

Alternate Film Title: "A Series of Awesome Cars"

Film: The Wolverine

Director: James Mangold
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: B+

Hey, after the abomination that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine (a title which tells you they somehow thought that piece of garbage would be the beginning of a series of stand-alone X-Men movies), James Mangold's The Wolverine looks like a work of art. It's not, but it's a pretty good superhero movie in a world now full of pretty ok superhero movies. It wasn't as fun as Pacific Rim, but in my book it beat out both Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 for summer action fun.

Wolverine is a hero with a unique advantage over other superheros, at least from a storytelling perspective: given his healing ability he has a much longer history, and though none of the films in which he features have done much of a job really exploring his origin in a satisfying way (see the above mentioned Origins-titled film, which was so bad I will bring it up again only to say how bad it was), that long lifespan does mean he has plenty of emotional back story and baggage that filmmakers can mine. Here the roots of the modern-day story go back to WWII, when Logan is (inexplicably, which I like) a prisoner of the Japanese being held outside Nagasaki. You can guess where this is going, and indeed he is present (and able to save the life of a Japanese soldier) when the atomic bomb goes off. Fast forward seventy years, and Logan is now alone, haunted by the events of the third X-men movie (another dismal X-men movie outing), and living in the Yukon. A series of events brings him back to Japan, and his own immortal nature is brought into question.

Mangold doesn't really go deep into the pain of immortality, but he does bring up the question of the cost of living forever: what does it mean when everyone around you dies and you keep going? Jackman is still solid as this character, playing him as both rougher (more swearing here than I remember in other X-films) and more violent than in the past, but with shades of despair. It's a good choice, and it allows Wolverine to have more character depth than in the past.

Not everything in the movie works, though. The film has some really great side characters--particularly Rila Fukushima as Yukio--but it also has some dumb ones, including a mutant villain named Viper whose addition in the story seems only based on the idea that audiences want more mutants. She doesn't really work that well, and her motivations are never clear. Similarly, the "big bad" in the movie is predictable and a little bit silly.

Still, there were a lot of great fight scenes in the movie that feature some fun choreography and interesting locations--whatever physics were defied in the train sequence, for example, the battle still managed to be very entertaining. It was good popcorn fun, and if it's not as good as X-Men First Class or X-Men 2, it still does a pretty good job allowing this world to have a little more development, and this character to have a little more depth. It ain't Shakespeare, but it's worth a few dollars.

Alternate Film Title: "That Hospital Bed Looks Really Uncomfortable"

Film: Sullivan's Travels

Director: Preston Sturges
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (1941)
Rating: NR
Location/Format: TCM
Grade: A

My wife has been wanting me to watch this movies for years after she studied it in a comedy class at college. For whatever reason we never got around to it, but when we saw it was airing on TCM we recorded it. I'm so sad that I waited so long! What a delightful movie!

Sturges' film--a response, it seems, to the "serious film" that has a political message--ranges all over the place, from goofy slapstick to machine-gun-fast dialogue to silly romance to Charlie Chaplin homage to, yes, serious film with a political message, but it has so much fun doing so that you can't help but enjoy the ride. As Joel McCrea's filmmaker Sullivan goes on a quest to learn about what it's like to be poor by dressing like a hobo and riding the rails (though never far from his butler, staff, and a whole lot of money), Sturges ironically comments on artistic "authenticity" and Hollywood disconnect. Actually, Hollywood is lampooned in a number of different ways, from the out-of-touch people to the financial focus to the young girls who arrive hoping to make it big. Sullivan's intentions are good, but they are also condescending, and he'll never truly get the experience he's hoping for (until a few twists provide the opportunity). But Sturges has bigger fish to fry than the do-gooder liberal, because he wants to remind audiences that "serious pictures" aren't the only type of film--or even the most important. By adding so many plot twists and turns on top of the social commentary he gets the best of both worlds: commentary and comedy, seriousness and silliness. Neat trick.

The best part of the film, though, had to be Veronica Lake. This is the first time I've seen her in a film, but I absolutely love her here. Her rapport with McCrea, her timing, her honesty really seemed ahead of their time to me. And she's so cute! Only 4'11", putting her next to the towering McCrea provides great visual comedy--and make her repeatedly calling Sullivan "Big Boy" make sense! And (fascinatingly) she was pregnant while making this film, but no one knew except the costume director and the director's wife! How great is that! And yet she's so spunky and fun you would never know.

New crushes aside, I really just loved the film. From the moment the action moves to the church, the film may deliver its messages a little more heavy handedly, but it does it so effectively that it's impossible not to join in with the delight. 

Just a great find. I hope Criterion releases their blu-ray of it soon, because it's a film I will add to my collection and use in my film course from here on out.

Alternate Film Title: "Seriously, Though: Veronica Lake!"

Film: Stoker

Director: Chan-wook Park
Genre: Thriller
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: B-

Stoker is an interesting thing. Aiming at an updated take on Hitchcock (anytime creepy Uncle Charlie shows up you know we're in Shadow of a Doubt territory), Park creates a beautiful, moody, and atmospheric picture that dances around Hitchcock's favorite themes: voyeurism, sex, violence, murder . . . it's all here. So why didn't I like it more? Why did it leave me a little cold and disengaged rather than drawing me in?

Certainly there are some nice twists. A shower scene, in particular, starts out as one thing and then creepily turns in to something different (and unexpected). And the camera work really is fascinating. An early scene between the three main characters is framed and cut so strangely that never are all three in the same shot, and it's not even clear whether they're in the same room. That kind of trickery works at the themes of disconnect Park is going for, and it does use framing and blocking to convey a lot of information innovatively. The movie is consistently beautiful, in design, in color, in shots that look like paintings, even in the transitions used.

But somehow the whole thing left me unengaged. Perhaps that is part of the point, so that we as audience are drawn into India's view. But more than that I think I just got a little disconnected and bored. Though the scene above surprised me, other twists seemed much more predictable.

It's not a bad movie, and it's smart filmmaking. It just didn't really work for me.

Alternate Film Title: "Mia Wasikowska Forgets How to Smile"

Film: Mud

Director: Jeff Nichols
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Raleigh Theaters
Grade: A-

Mud might be the most "Hollywood" of Nichols' three films, but that doesn't stop one of my favorite up-and-coming directors from creating a film bursting with heart and the ever more elusive authenticity that made his first two films so excellent as well. Nichols' films all deal with men and their problems, but here he explores the idea of love from the perspective of boys. Matthew McConaughey may get top billing and the title role, but this is Tye Sheridan's film, and his Ellis feels real--someone midwestern male viewers can probably place on a spectrum between Huck Finn and themselves. As Ellis sees love disintegrating all around him--most noticeably in the marriage of his parents, Mud gives him something to hold on to--a role model of how perfect love can overcome all barriers. 

But of course, real life isn't that simple, and Ellis has to face whether love is really one of those childish things that has to be put away when entering adulthood. Because after all, this is a coming-of-age story, like Twain's Huckleberry Finn before it, filled with shysters and scalawags and all sorts of acts of cruelty. It's also a magical world, though, where boys can find boats stuck in trees and find benevolent criminals waiting nearby. It's as fantastic as it is authentic, and that's a hard trick to pull off.

That's part of what I love about Nichols. He seems intent on re-enshrining the South in film--not the Hollywood-ized South of so many films, but a more (and here I use that word again) authentic representation of the blue-collar white experience. Ellis's family lives on the river, for example, and whether that lifestyle can and should continue is one of the film's threads, and hearkens back to a similar question in Shotgun Stories. His films tend to be pretty white, but they also depict a slice of life that is often ignored in mainstream films, and I'm excited to see him finding an audience.

Mud didn't hit me with quite the same impact as Shotgun Stories or Take Shelter, and I'm having a hard time putting my finger on why--perhaps McConaughey and Witherspoon, both excellent here, distract me. But I still fell under its spell. As far as I'm concerned Nichols is batting a thousand.

Alternate Film Title: "Two Things: This Shirt and This Pistol"

Film: Pain and Gain

Director: Michael Bay
Genre: Action Comedy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Raleigh Theaters
Grade: B+

Who would have thought that the king of excess, Michael Bay, would have something interesting to say about excess in America? In Pain and Gain, Bay works out a cynical and searing depiction of the American Dream in the late 20th/early 21st century. And in the process, he may have convinced me that he knows who he is and what he's doing as a filmmaker much more than any Transformers movie ever got close to doing.

Like its bodybuilder protagonists, the film has nothing small or subtle about it. These are big idiots taking big actions in order to make their lives as big as they think they deserve to be. In order to make sure we get the point, Bay litters the movie with American flags and speeches about what it is to make it in America, but he really didn't need to. Mark Wahlberg's Danny Luco is a musclehead who believes in the value of work but, more than that, believes that he deserves everything he wants in life: money, girls, status, recognition, and a nice riding lawn mower. And he believes others don't deserve the same things, a belief he variously justifies through xenophobia, egotism, and just plain nastiness. So he decides to take away everything from one of the undeserving rich, an entertaining Tony Shaloub's Victor Kershaw. 

Of course, as in all heist movies (and this is a heist movie, though one that plays out in a different time frame than most bank-robbery movies), things go wrong, and as mistakes mount up, the films gains in freneticism, like a cocaine addict riding a high. Money disappears, people who should die live, and Wahlberg's crew decides to try for one more score, which of course is when all hell breaks loose.

The film is full of Michael Bay-isms: hot girls in little clothing, slow motion effects, people walking away from explosions. But for the first time I feel like Bay might be commenting on those things as well. The hot girl is an idiot, a pawn in the game of a smarter idiot. The slow motion effects are at times for meaningless shots like a man mowing his lawn. The explosion hasn't accomplished what it was supposed to, and not all the people walking away act nonchalant--the Rock's shoulder duck there is funny, but it also is a knowing nod to the audience at the absurdity of these characters who think they're really supposed to act like characters in a Michael Bay movie.

Oh, the Rock. The guy's got a great smile, and charisma to spare, but I've never seen him commit to a role like this one. His Paul Doyle is a happy idiot, a zealot with a naive heart and a talent for beating the crap out of people. Dwayne Johnson embraces the role with exuberance, allowing himself to look like a fool, even as he remains the only lead with some semblance of a conscience. In some ways, just as the lead characters are big brutish characters of American ego and empty strength, I think Johnson is a satire of the religious right in particular, muscle and righteousness that is all too easily twisted towards sick ends--and is too stupid to realize it. 

That sort of commentary is all through the film, and it disguises it in the trappings of a typical Michael Bay popcorn movie. It's a good trick, and if Bay were willing to use his slick visuals to more thought-provoking material like this, I would be excited to see more movies from him. 

Let's see, according to IMDB, up next he has . . . another Transformers movie. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Alternate Film Title: "The Adventures of El-dad and Pepe."

Film: The Conjuring

Director: James Wan
Genre: Horror
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Raleigh Theaters
Grade: C-

This is pretty standard haunted house fare. I have to say, I'm not sure why it's getting all the love it is. Perhaps I'm not enough of a connoisseur of the genre, but it seems to hit pretty standard notes, though granted at times it does so quite effectively. I almost feel like director James Wan is trying to do a horror movie infomercial, trying to throw everything he can into the mix: "You want witches? We got 'em. How about possessions and exorcisms? Why not? Sinister kids? Absolutely. Psychics? Couldn't make a haunted house movie without 'em. Throngs of birds? Docu-style footage? Pale ghostly figures? Yes, yes, and yes! Act now and we'll even throw in a creepy-ass doll for free!"

Granted, I did spend enough time looking slightly off-center, and I did see it at 1 in the afternoon, but I just didn't see it breaking much new ground, other than the ground of saying it's based on a true story and then totally giving Vera Farmiga absolute psychic powers. That was a bit silly.

On the other hand, though. That doll. That was pretty terrifying.

This was fine, but it wasn't "Has to Be Rated R Scary" as its being advertised. Both The Ring and Wan's own Insidious still top it in my book.

Alternate Film Title: "Troubled by Ghosts? You Should Be Catholic"

Film: Only God Forgives

Director: Nicholas Winding Refn
Genre: Drama
Source: France ? (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Raleigh Theaters
Grade: B

Only God Forgives is a difficult film to process, and, I think, an even more difficult film to like. I left the theater feeling as though I'd been hit repeatedly with a hammer, but it's the kind of film that hasn't left me since. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. All I know is that for a film with so few words, there is a lot to work through in this movie.

Visually the film is stunning, in many senses. It's beautifully shot, full of shadows, deep reds, and careful composition. One fight scene 2/3 of the way through the film is absolutely breathtaking, full of bird's eye view angles that highlight the ballet of the battle. Yet what Refn is composing in other shots is often so disturbing as to be off-putting: bodies sliced or smashed open, horrible people acting horribly, karaoke. It's a deliberately unnerving exploration of the darkness within (significantly Ryan Gosling in at least two shots stares into the blackness behind an open door, evoking Nietzsche's famous quote about staring into the abyss, which itself could be the theme of the movie). Gosling repeatedly looks at and obsesses over his hands--significant, we learn later, for what those hands have done at his mother's bidding prior to the movie's beginning--and we have to ask what we ourselves might be capable of, and at what cost.

Of course, the film also draws much of its dramatic arc from Jacobean revenge dramas, as more and more characters decide to take revenge for a perceived (or real) wrong done to them. There are lots of reasons behind Gosling's character's apathy towards avenge (not least of which is the ability he has to actually have some empathy for other people), but Refn seems uninterested in really fleshing out those details, allowing a few symbolic actions, elliptical conversations, and soulful Ryan-Gosling-looks to do the work of psychological development. Can a person show mercy? Should he/she? And what does mercy look like?

Through this bloody story--and often the source of the blood--walks Vithaya Pansringarm's silent and dangerous police officer. "Do you know who he is?" one character asks one of Pansringarm's potential victims, and the answer is obvious: if not God himself, he is at least an agent of justice, supernatural in his powers (such as the sword he pulls seemingly from his spine) and cleansing himself after acts of violence by singing haunting karaoke songs to his fellow officers. His stoic face is disturbing in its lack of emotion, and it is this figure Gosling must ultimately confront, no matter what his fate may be.

There's so much more to analyze here: the oedipal complex, Gosling's character's sexual fantasies and dysfunctions (probably related to the oedipal issues), the lack of affect among most of the characters. Certainly it's not a film for everyone--at the showing I attended, one older couple walked out around the time Gosling screamed at a prostitute to take off a dress he had bought her, and things got darker from there. And I don't think it's a perfect film by any stretch--the editing, while purposeful, is at times a little too obtuse for its own good, and I don't know what exactly Refn was doing with the two masturbation scenes, unless they have something to do with Gosling's final interaction with his mother. But it is a film that has stuck with me. The brief review on Filmspotting did help me put it in another framework by calling it "nightmarish" and Lynchian, and those elements are there as well. But it is one more film that suggests Refn is a craftsman of the cinematic art, and one to keep watching. 

Alternate Film Title: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

Film: Pacific Rim

Director: Guillermo del Toro
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: IMAX 3D
Grade: A

While far from the best movie I've seen this year, Pacific Rim may be the most fun I've had at the movies in quite some time. It's got a silly concept, a joke of a script (I can't explain how much the line "Let's do this . . . Together!" made me laugh given the pains they take in the film to explain the necessity of the two-pilot system), and ludicrous technology. But damn if it wasn't entertaining.

Guillermo del Toro is the fanboy's director for a lot of reasons, but one of them is that he knows how to take the weird and wacky worlds of comic books and the like and turn them into entertaining screen fodder--just out of the mainstream enough to be weird, but in it enough to be massively appealing. Pacific Rim isn't based on any particular pre-existing property, but in a way it's a melding of tropes that have been around for a while: Giant monsters a la Godzilla. Giant robots fighting monsters a la Ultraman/ etc. International team of heroes a la a ton of different anime franchises. And so on and so forth. del Toro doesn't just use these archetypes, he embraces them. The Russians couldn't look more Cold War-era soviets if they had actual hammers in their hands and bearskins on their backs. There's a character named Hercules Hansen. And of course there are speeches and story beats straight out of every World War II and summer movie flick (think Independence Day) ever. 

Again, these aren't bad things. This is del Toro's geeked out nod to what a popcorn movie should be. Comic relief here is not Adam Sandler (whose Grown Ups 2 apparently slaughtered Pacific Rim at the box office) but Charlie Day from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Ron Perlman from being awesome. There's mass appeal here, but there's also a subversion and a nod to the absurdity of the whole thing. And I dug it completely.

Perhaps what made this film stand out most to me was the fact that del Toro pulls a neat trick by actually making the action of giant robots fighting giant monsters decipherable. Comparisons must be made to Transformers, and while in that film Bay seemed to completely lose all sense of point of view in the action, turning sequences into the indecipherable spinning of gears and shots of metal, Pacific Rim uses color, long shots, and gravity (a sense that these things are heavy and thus cannot move at super speeds) to allow us to actually follow what's going on. That is essential to the joy of the movie. Now, at times the action is hilarious ("We're out of options!" "No we're not!" <Presses SWORD buton>) but it goes a long way to realize that you can actually make sense of what's happening on screen. More movies would do well to take a lesson from del Toro on this point.

I realize this is a high grade for a bit of summer movie fluff, and the grade is not because it's the height of quality filmmaking, but because del Toro left me walking out of the theater like a little kid, pumped and enthralled by what he had just seen. In a world where superhero movies have become commonplace, that's a pretty neat trick. Well done.

Alternate Film Title: "Giant Damn Robots Punching Giant Damn Monsters: What More Do You Want?"

Film: Saints and Soldiers

Director: Ryan Little
Genre: Drama/War
Source: USA (2003)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: B

In the very niche market of Mormon filmmaking, Saints and Soldiers stands above the rest for being more interested in character than religion, more focused on dramatic art than conversion stories. That's a good thing. Often LDS filmmakers are interested in making films about their own spiritual passions and feelings--as many filmmakers seem to be--but they don't have the technical skill or light touch required to make such stories seem authentic, and so they come off as heavy handed, preachy, and generally unrelatable, if not downright unwatchable.

Saints and Solders avoids these pitfalls by minimizing the specifics of the Mormon religious experience and trying to focus more on the common spiritual crisis that war can create. There are plenty of elements here that indicate the religion of the main character for those paying attention--talk of a mission, the little book he always carries with him, etc. But Little knows enough not to shove those elements to the forefront, opting instead to focus on the trials--spiritual and physical--that a number of different characters experience. The main character's dilemma is not a crisis of faith, for example, but a crisis of conscience, as he finds himself trapped by guilt for some of his wartime actions. There is a spiritual element to it more than a particularly religious element, and that distinction can be enough to go beyond the immediate framework that so many Mormon films get stuck in.  It works, and it allows the film (I would imagine) the opportunity to approach a wider audience. 

What Little does once he's got that wider audience is solid but far from perfect. With a reported budget of about three quarters of a million, Little gets surprising mileage, and the film's look is generally authentic, if at times a little too clean. Many of the characters are war archetypes--the haunted soldier, the friendly galoot, the strong captain, etc., and Little doesn't always give them opportunities to go beyond those narrow confines. But overall there is still a nice effort at focusing on the dynamics of characters who need but don't necessarily like each other.

Generally there's enough to like here--and enough I see Little trying to do--that I can't help but enjoy the film. There's a sincerity to it that doesn't feel artificial, even when it borders on the overly sentimental. That's nice to see from a religious filmmaker.

Alternate Film Title: "Every German Farmhouse Looks the Same"

Film: Dream House

Director: Jim Sheridan
Genre: Drama/Thriller
Source: USA (2011)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: HBO
Grade: D

Jim Sheridan, what the heck happened? 

The silliness of this movie made me do minimal amounts of research in order to discover how the same guy who made My Left Foot could turn out this bit of junk. Turns out he hated it too! Apparently he clashed with producers, was dissatisfied with the script, and hated the final cut of the movie so much that he tried to get his name taken off the film and refused to do press.

So, hope restored.

Anyway, Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz are trying, and they're good enough actors that they elevate the material a bit, but honestly it's just not very good. Things that shouldn't be telegraphed are telegraphed pretty early on, and the climax is just laughable. 

On the other hand, it's always nice to see these actors, even if they don't have anything interesting to do in this one. Here's hoping they get a chance to work together in something better.

Alternate Film Title: "All the Elements You've Seen in Better Movies, Now in This Movie!"

Film: PS I Love You

Director: Richard LaGravenese
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Source: USA (2007)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: DVD
Grade: C-

Sometimes on your anniversary your wife wants to watch a romantic comedy, and sometimes you're in a cabin with a very small selection of DVDs. And sometimes you start a movie and think it's going to be pretty solid, maybe a nice twist on the usual formulaic genre, and then the characters take a trip to Ireland and the movie goes off the rails.

Hilary Swank is pretty good here, and Gerard Butler plays, well, Gerard Butler, but a version of Gerard Butler that sings and tries to transform his Scottish accent into an Irish accent to varying degrees of success. There are lots of enjoyable supporting performances--particularly Kathy Bates, who manages to be real in pretty much everything she does. And Harry Connick! I went through a HUGE Harry Connick music phase when I was in high school.

So seriously, there's a lot to like here. But three people lose their oars in a boat and can think of NO WAY to propel the boat? There's NOTHING to use as a paddle? They just have to SIT there and wait for someone to come save them? Because they're GIRLS? No. I was liking the movie until that point, and then it's like someone pushed a button and turned it into dumb. Just went off the rails for the rest of the film.

My wife thought so too. She's pretty smart like that. And she has great taste. So it turns out it did make me feel romantic after all.

Alternate Film Title: "Creating Unreasonable Romantic Expectations for Terminally Ill People"

Film: Anna Karenina

Director: Joe Wright
Genre: Drama
Source: UK (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Blu-Ray
Grade: B

A few things I've learned about Joe Wright: He likes adapting classic literature, he likes visual flair, and he likes Keira Knightley. Those three things all come together in his visually lush adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. The film doesn't always work, but I admire Wright's ambition and the creativity of the approach.

Wright approaches the film with one central conceit culled from the novel: Russian society is like a performance, whereas the country life is "real." He presents this idea in a visually rich but slightly heavy-handed metaphor. Certainly this undercurrent is running all through the book, but I think Wright doesn't realize that for it to fully work he has to allow our "country" people to be developed a little more. Levin, our point of entrance into the agrarian lifestyle is a central figure in the novel, probably taking up as much book space as the titular character herself. In Wright's version, however, Levin is barely present for more than a few scenes. I can make sense of the choice--Anna's story is not only much better known, but much sexier as well: romance, infidelity, tortured soul--that's the soap opera and the bang, and so Wright understandably focuses his energy in trying to make Anna a three-dimesnional figure. He is moderately successful, but he does so at the expense of the other characters. So much is cut from the novel that, though the story holds together, it doesn't have the depth or richness of Tolstoy's epic work.

Visually, the film is pretty stunning. The drama of high society literally becomes a stage show, with actors moving between the cramped backstage and the lush, visually elaborate stage itself. It mostly works, though at times one wonders whether it's worth the effort and choreography such a choice requires. Wright does well with it, but one almost senses that he's reaching into Baz Luhrmann's bag of tricks a little too often, as though he doesn't trust the material itself to tell a compelling story. That's silly, of course.

Still, it's fun to watch. Knightley is always fairly strong with Wright, and Jude Law and the supporting cast is equally capable. It's not the best adaptation I've seen in the past few months, but it's certainly the most ambitious, and for that I can't help but applaud. The film is visually overwhelming--sometimes too cluttered--but it also presents the material in a way the stage or the page could not. And that's pretty cool. 

Alternate Film Title: "In Pre-Soviet Russia, Train Rides You!"

Book: Anna Karenina

I struggle to critique a book like Anna Karenina because I don't feel like I have much of anything to add to the conversation. Is the book a fascinating (if soap opera-esque) exploration of the psychology of love and relationships, the role of faith and morality in life, the synthetic culture of "high society" contrasted with the attempt at authenticity in a rural life? Yes, it's all of that? Does it get too bogged down in Russian agricultural practices, political conflicts, and that kind of stuff? Well, a little (at least when I'm attempting to read it fairly quickly; I'm sure there's lots of great symbolism to explore if I had a greater understanding of Russian history). But that doesn't stop it from being a fascinating look into marriage and relationships--and the myriad ways we can undermine or sabotage them.

The novel examines the interconnections, relationships, and loves between seven people who pair off in a variety of ways--friends, in laws, married couples, courting couples, extramarital couples, etc.--which gives Tolstoy ample room to explore a variety of attitudes towards love and marriage. Some of the characters view those two concepts as inseparably connected, while others see them as discrete concerns. It is this multitude of relationships and perspectives that allows the book to feel so rich and multifaceted. Even when two characters have a fight, Tolstoy will often devote a chapter to each character's point of view. That he can do so with so much empathy and clarity--even when one would suspect he disagrees with the characters' views--is part of what brings the book to life. He also follows these characters for an etended period of time, so we see them all grow (or at least change) over time. Kitty stands out to me as a particularly strong example, going from naive and coquettish flirt who could have her pick of the men to heartbroken girl who imagines her life as a spinster to mature and married wife and mother. Because Tolstoy gives us so much depth with each character, these developments feel earned and worthwhile. While several characters meet tragic fates, the novel also provides a measure of hope in the human ability to love and to connect. I like that.

Unfortunately, there were just sections that dragged as well. Sometimes the level of detail Tolstoy provides really enriches the story (Kitty's marriage, for example, was detailed and comical, but it still managed to be meaningful and sweet as well) but at other times it drags. I really do think I see part of what Tolstoy's doing with Levin repeatedly contemplating the merits of an agricultural lifestyle, but I'm not sure every passage of comparing farm practices is wholly necessary--at least to my ADD-infected 21st century mind. Still, by going onto the tangents and details he does, Tolstoy really does provide a panoramic picture of 1875ish Russian life, in all its variety. Such elaboration does provide plenty of food for thought.

Of the eponymous character, I have mixed feelings. Anna is certainly complex and multifaceted, but (as I think Tolstoy intended) my patience with her wears thin as the novel goes on. Her increasing selfishness and egotism do make her harder to empathize with. But Tolstoy does not leave her out in the cold completely, and he does show the value of finding real love, even as he doesn't shy away from the potential cost of such a selfish pursuit.

Because I think that's one of Tolstoy's themes here--that love is inherently selfish, and the only way we can prevent it from destroying us is by reining in such selfish tendencies and see a deeper level of love that can be selfless.

I mean, that's just one idea. But there are so many themes it would be silly to try and elaborate them here. I enjoyed Anna Karenina more than I expected, though it's still far behind Moby Dick for best of the year. A fascinating--if at times exhausting--read.

Grade: B+

Video Game: The Last of Us

I've had a pretty good year for video games so far. The games have either been addictive in their mechanics (XCOM and Sleeping Dogs) or really compelling story-wise (Bioshock Infinite and Heavy Rain). Now comes The Last of Us, a game that really has fun combat (though I think if I were playing it again I might try it on a harder difficulty setting) and one of the best video game stories I've played in ages.

The story hits all the basic zombie survival archetypes and tropes, so I feel like it shouldn't be as addictive as it is. It starts out with an attack, a flee to safety, and a significant death. Then we jump forward twenty years to find our main character, Joel, has become hardened, angry, and a loner. Well, not a loner exactly. He has a partner, and the two work as petty criminals. The United States has fallen, and though a group called the Fireflies is seeking to restore order and democracy, most of the country has splintered into safe zones controlled by various militant factions. The threat that all are working against? A fungus that causes the infected to turn into raging, face-eating monsters. Of course there are variations on this basic type--clickers, who use echolocation to locate prey, and blowers, on whom the fungus has transformed into a protective covering. At times you fight these, but just as often you defend yourself against other humans whose focus on survival has driven them to deep levels of brutality.

As the story progresses, Joel (through a series of plot twists) is left to take care of a fourteen-year-old girl named Ellie who may be the savior of humanity. The real power of this game is the relationship between Joel and Ellie. The game makers (Naughty Dog, who previously made the Uncharted franchise) have a real penchant for dialogue and for the beats of a compelling story, and the slow blossoming of friendship between Joel and Ellie plays out in a truly engaging way. Joel is not interested in taking care of this girl--it's just a job--and Ellie assumes she will be abandoned again, just as everyone in her life has abandoned her. But as the two get to know each other a bond begins to form that feels real and deep. The voice actors in this game are excellent, and the game has a few little tricks to make YOU care for Ellie as well--the way she hums a little tune behind you, or the way she tells jokes, or swears like a sailor as she gets into tense situations. It all feels believable, and the way the story is always developing (not only in cut scenes but also in minor dialogue as you search through overgrown and dilapidated environments) means that as a player you're always engaged. Because of Joel's personality and the world, I didn't get tired of searching every nook and cranny for supplies, because it seemed like someone as survival-focused as Joel would actually do. 

The game has a few crafting and upgrade mechanics that are really fun as well, as you have to consider where to spend your points in upgrading weapons and supplies. And while some of the weapons are bland, a few really stand out as fun. I loved Molotov cocktails and bow and arrow myself, as well as sneaking around trying to take out as many bad guys as possible. The combat works well in that sense. You can sneak or blast your way through, but with limited supplies and large numbers of enemies (at times), usually you end up doing a combination of both--sneaking to take out as many as you can, and then blasting your way through the rest. Like in Bioshock Infinite, you don't really have to worry too much about Ellie or your other companions. They can typically fend for themselves. That's good, because constantly trying to protect your partner in a game this intense could really be too much.

And the game is intense. I hesitate a little to call it "fun" because it's so dark and bleak. And violent. The game doesn't shy away from the blood this world demands or the viciousness not only the enemies but that Joel and Ellie must develop as well. It's shocking at times, but unlike most games I didn't feel like the violence was used casually. A few moments really stand out in that regard, as a character will just use brutal violence to protect him or herself, and the other can do nothing but stand in horror and watch.

It really is a fantastic game. I haven't been this drawn into a game in a long time. Even though I've played some great games this year, The Last of Us currently has my top spot for game of the year. An unforgettable experience.

Film: Lake Placid

Director: Steve Miner
Genre: Action Comedy
Source: USA (1999)
Rating: R
Location/Format: HBO
Grade: C+

Solid B-grade Jaws comedy knock-off with a likable cast, a silly premise, and Betty White swearing. If the synopsis (giant crocodile terrorizes a lake in Maine) sounds like something you might enjoy, you probably will. Add to that good character actors like Brendan Gleeson and Oliver Platt just having a good time, and it's a great Saturday afternoon movie. 

Nothing profound here, just a giant crocodile.

Alternate Film Title: "Betty White Still Steals the Show"

Film: Adam's Rib

Director: George Cukor
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (1949)
Rating: Unrated (probably PG)
Location/Format: TCM
Grade: A

What a delightful movie. It's easy to see both the spark and the fire between Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as married lawyers who take the opposite sides of a case. The trial and their marriage become the proving ground in a battle of the sexes that is a little half baked but mostly entertaining. Was this progressive in 1949? Standard? I'm not sure. There are some nice reversals of gender expectations (such as Adam's schemes to reconcile in the last 20 minutes of the film) and some silliness that has nothing to do with anything (circus strong lady, why are you here again?) but the overall message of equality between the sexes is explored pretty well in both public and private spheres. I'm not sure how radical the film's message is, but that's not even the point.

Because what I am sure of is that Hepburn and Tracy are just fun to watch. Their obvious affection for each other and their playful banter is really electric here, and though I haven't seen them in other movies besides Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, it's easy to see why they would be in more and more movies together. It's the little throwaway lines of dialogue and the throwaway gestures that make the movie work--a wink under the table, a playful kiss in the shadows, the cute nicknames they have for each other (Pinky: "a -y for him, -ie for me") that are so likable. You can't help but fall for their relationship, and the crackerjack dialogue and courtroom shenanigans are all secondary to their pleasure in being together and our pleasure in watching them together. After watching a few Thin Man movies, the two leads here form a nice contrast. They really are equally matched, they don't look down at each other--even when they're exasperated with one another--and they genuinely like being together. I like the Thin Man films quite a bit, but at times it's hard not to feel like William Powell kind of talks down to Myrna Loy. You don't get that here at all.

Not everything works here--David Wayne has a thankless job playing the world's most obnoxious neighbor--but it doesn't really matter, nor does the outcome of the trial (though I have to admit the unexpected cross-dressing fantasy during the closing arguments surprised me). What matters is that Spencer and Tracy are in fine form here--a little bit sexy, a little bit silly, and a whole lot likable. With those two at their best, how can the film help but be enjoyable?

Alternate Film Title: "Yep, I Can Totally See the Wires"