left-of-center Reviews

Gone Girl (2014)

Another Tense, Finely Crafted Effort from Fincher

[9/10 · 19 April 2015]

"Gone Girl" is yet another gripping, tense, carefully crafted film from the one and only David Fincher. He's one of my favorite directors and like most of our modern-day Greats, you know when you're watching one of his movies. You know it's a Fincher movie when you get a dense, slow-burning, meticulous effort that stuns you with it's growing sense of dread. You get the same thing with "Gone Girl", which is the adaptation of Gillian Flynn's bestselling novel (Flynn also wrote the screenplay) about the media circus Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) goes through once his enigmatic wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike), disappears and he becomes more and more of a suspect.

Now, let's get to the story. I just need to say that some of these one-star reviews really miss the point. I don't want to spoil this thing too much for you. I didn't read the book before I saw the film and it's better to remain surprised. All I will say is that Amy is certainly not as innocent as she appears to be. And all of the so-called "plot holes" are intentional. Even a few of the characters in the film point out that "things don't add up." That's the point! That this woman's story is full of holes YET the media and the police are all willing to overlook that because this whole fiasco has become an incredible story. It harks back to the Scott and Lacey Peterson case; one of those national-news dramas that everyone's talking about and everyone has an opinion on. The media and the police have invested too much into this whole thing for them to not get the story they want. So, they overlook the holes, highlighted in a very telling scene near the end that also shows just how differently this all could've progressed if Amy was a man (something that Pike herself interestingly pointed out in an interview).

Basically, the Internet is full of people who love to complain and trash what's popular. A lot of it is just unimaginative nitpicking. So, don't let the negative reviews disparage you. Fincher is still at the top of his game. It might not be on a "Seven" or "Fight Club" level of resonance. But, I found it incredibly entertaining, from beginning to end. Flynn stays true to her novel, retaining a cynical and disturbingly realistic ending that matches perfectly with Fincher's nihilistic outlook as a filmmaker.

The performances are uniformly excellent. Affleck has never been the greatest of actors. Yet, he seems tailor-made for the role of Nick. Effectively callow, distant, and fumbling, you don't know exactly what to think of him until the halfway mark. Carrie Coon is a lively, relatable presence as Nick's frustrated yet loyal twin sister, Margo, and provides some comic relief. As does Tyler Perry, who surprises by breaking away from his usual Madea shtick to deliver a straight-on, confident, coolly composed portrayal of a slick lawyer, Tanner Bolt, who Nick enlists for help. Neil Patrick Harris is mostly believable as Amy's creepy, obsessive ex-boyfriend, Desi Collings, but you can sometimes feel his comic archness slipping through a bit too much. And Kim Dickens rounds out the supporting cast as Detective Boney, who alternates between doubting Nick and wanting to trust him.

But, make no mistake: this is Rosamund Pike's film. Though, at first, she seems to have a bit less screen time, you eventually realize how she's always controlling this entire show, whether she's on-camera or not. After years of noticeable supporting parts, Amy Dunne was Pike's leading-lady coming-out party, nabbing her a much-deserved Best Actress Oscar nod. She is downright chilling in this role. Not only does she nail the stone-cold calculation and focus of Amy but she understands the range that is required to play this role. Amy is so manipulative and such a role-player that Pike is called on to be charmingly sophisticated, laidback, and vulnerable, as well. And, looking back, we realize the insincerity of such moments. And then there are times where she's flat-out dangerous and unsettling, revealing the depths of her psychopathy. Pike's voiceovers, narrated through her so-called diary, will also get in your head and stay there. An extended montage where she reveals her entire plan, set to the haunting score of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (working with Fincher for the third time), stopped me in my tracks and is bound to become a classic.

Pike alone makes this film worth a watch. She's like a female Hannibal Lector or a new-millennium version of Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction"; a very memorable movie psychopath. But, in my eyes, this is also a very solid, gripping film with some interesting things to say about our media-driven, image-obsessed culture.

Notes on a Scandal (2006)

Juicy, Thrilling, and Complex, All in One

[10/10 · 10 April 2015]

"Notes on a Scandal" is one of my all-time favorite films. In my mind, it's perfection. Directed by Richard Eyre, and adapted by Patrick Marber from the novel by Zoe Heller, it's a film that I can never get enough of. It's as sensational and (pun intended) scandalous as a soap opera but is written with great intelligence and nuance, as well as features first-class acting. This London-set story of a lonely, bitter high-school history teacher, Barbara Covett (Judi Dench), and her twisted friendship with the school's fragile yet deviant new art teacher, Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett), has all sorts of layers to plumb.

It was nominated for four Oscars, after its 2006 release, and one of them was for Marber's Adapted Screenplay. It was very well-deserved and he probably should've won. Eyre directs the film well, striking a balance between a minimalism that shows his theatre roots and a subtle gift for keeping the pacing alive. Yet, the true foundation of the film is the script. "Notes on a Scandal" is not only wildly entertaining and gripping but full of classic dialogue. Marber is, after all, the same man who gave us the line "Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but it's better if you do" from his play/film "Closer." So, there's not only zingers here, mostly through Dench's impeccably delivered, acerbic voiceovers, that will make you howl but evocative lines that will make you think. For example: "It takes courage to recognize the real from the convenient."

It's quite rare to see a story that is not only woman-centered but so unsentimental and brutally honest in its depiction of said women. In this, Marber sticks faithfully to Heller's novel. Barbara and Sheba are both fleshed out in three-dimensional ways, given sympathetic qualities at the same time that their unlikable, appalling, or absurd traits aren't glossed over. Some reviewers seem to have taken issue with Sheba, in particular, and why we aren't given a clear answer as to why this bright, attractive, happily married woman would sleep with her 15-year-old student, Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson). But, I think that's the essential point. It's all too complicated to sum up so neatly and logically.

Blanchett, who was Oscar-nominated for her performance, does a fantastic job at playing Sheba's ambiguity and complexity. She is full of yearning, vulnerability, and confusion, while also keeping us guessing, as well. Sheba has to be as much of a mystery as she is a bleeding heart and Blanchett nails this balance very well. Bill Nighy shines in his smaller role as Sheba's husband and Simpson brings a roguish, boyish charm that makes him dangerously appealing.

And then there's Dench. The Great Dame received an Oscar nod for this role and many would agree that she should have won (no offense Helen Mirren). She does so much with Barbara. First off, she's utterly hilarious, dishing out dry English wit like nobody's business. Second off, she's appropriately unsettling and horrifying, not holding back from the character's creepy, controlling nature. Yet, she is also deeply empathetic. The more the film progresses, the more you forget Barbara is such a "monster". The loneliness and need that Dench grounds her in is superb.

Now, Philip Glass was also Oscar-nominated for his Original Score, which I have to mention, as it seems to be quite polarizing. I personally loved it. A bit over-the-top? Yes. But, it adds to the juiciness of the movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat, in certain moments, especially during a climactic showdown between Barbara and Sheba. It helped make the film seem like an actual psychological thriller, not just a drama.

"Notes on a Scandal" is a movie you truly experience. One minute you're laughing, the next you're gasping, and the next you're feeling deeply for two people who you might otherwise simply judge.

Foxcatcher (2014)

Missing a True Emotional Core

[5/10 · 1 April 2015]

I'm usually on the same page as movie critics and fans when it comes to awards season flicks. But, I just don't get the massive acclaim for "Foxcatcher", Bennett Miller's based-on-a-true-story drama about the fractured relationships between two Olympic wrestling brothers, Mark and Dave Schultz (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo), and their mentally disturbed benefactor, John du Pont (Steve Carell). Do I think it's a terrible film? I won't go that far. But, nothing about it emotionally moved me or made me think too much. I think it's just one of those movies that come off as so "serious" that the knee-jerk reaction is praise.

Here's my main problem: the storytelling and characters are so hollow. I don't know if this was Miller's point but there's a way to depict emptiness and hollowness without the film feeling empty and hollow itself. Many people describe this as a "slow burn" that requires patience and concentration from a viewer. I have plenty of both and tend to usually enjoy slower films. But, it's not the slowness that some people are reacting to. It's the deadness at the center.

We get no deep insight into any of the characters, except for John in rare moments, besides what they say superficially. What was it that really ruined the relationship between Mark and John? Jealousy, insecurity, betrayal, suppressed homoeroticism? What did Dave really think of John? And why exactly did Mark spiral so dramatically?

Now, I do appreciate ambiguity in characters and film very much. Not everything has to be obvious, cut-and-dry. But, if you're going to make the characters an enigma, at least give us more to work with to be able to figure them out. Instead, "Foxcatcher" disappointingly stays on the surface, making us guess way too much instead of diving deep into these people, who, given the fact that they're real, leave plenty of room to explore.

Because of this, the tragic ending left me pretty cold. John is such an empty shell throughout that we're never fully let into his inner world. We never get to completely understand his insanity. We're always on the outside of this character, looking in. As a result, his actions just feel disconnected and unexplainable. And the fact that the film ends so abruptly, without making us fully feel the impact of this horrible event, makes it even odder to digest.

Luckily, the performances of Carell and Ruffalo save the show and made it somewhat watchable. Carell joins the lengthy list of hilarious comedians capable of moving dramatic work. Known to audiences as a lovable, heart-warming goofball, he totally transforms and channels a still, unsettling intensity. I squirmed watching some of his scenes, as he was so palpably awkward and in pain, while making the aloof way the character was written work. Ruffalo is a great character actor yet always brings his own brand of sweetness and groundedness to every role. He has a way of making his characters seem totally real and recognizable. Here, he stands out as the most relatable, appealing member of the bunch. Their Oscar nominations were well-deserved.

Now, as far as Tatum goes, I did not see the brilliant, career-changing performance many were raving about. He was more or less his same one-note, depthless self, except he was given a few ridiculously showy scenes here. But, he still underwhelmed me. This part is really the central role and a truly gifted actor could've done so much with it. Mark is naive, ambitious, intense, obsessive, immature, and vulnerable. Yet, in Tatum's hands, who seems to be under the impression that stone-faced staring is great acting, he generally just comes off as dim and foolish, missing all of the emotional layers that should've been there (which could be another reason why it just failed to resonate with me).

If I had to recommend this, it'd only be for Carell and Ruffalo, who both act circles around Tatum. I can understand what Miller was trying to do with the film. Yet, I don't feel compelled to revisit.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

It's Not A Pretentious Film; It's A Film About Pretense

[8/10 · 1 April 2015]

I can understand why the immediate reaction to a film like Alejandro Innaritu's "Birdman", a comedy-drama about a has-been film actor, Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton), trying to be taken seriously with his Broadway debut, could be to label it "pretentious." Making the film look like it was shot in one take? All the actory talk about acting, truth, selling out, etc.? So, unsurprisingly, it's turned some moviegoers off while being embraced fully by Hollywood, winning the Best Picture Oscar, among others.

But, in my eyes, it's not a pretentious film. It's a film about the pretenses that can drive the entertainment industry, in one way or another, leading to both the success and the breakdown of its stars.

Riggan is pretentious for thinking going to Broadway is his shot at being a legimitate actor, a claim he's taken to task for by his recovering drug-addict daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), who's now his assistant. For many actors, the theatre is true art, not Hollywood movies. Consider the pretentiousness of Riggan's co-star, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), a dedicated Broadway actor who is a little too Method for the rest of the cast's sake and spouts off phrases like "Popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige." Consider the snobbishness of the theatre critic (who is purposely the biggest caricature in the film) who tells Riggan she'll rip his play to pieces in her review, just because he's a movie star, famous for playing the hero Birdman in a comic-book franchise decades ago because, you know, she's such a theatre purist.

Innaritu is not praising actors and kissing their you-know-what through this film. I don't see this as a shrine to the entertainment industry. It's a savage satire, with Innaritu directing his same brutality and fierce honesty toward the genre of comedy. The actors in this film (not the actual actors, but the characters) are full of insecurity, veering from self-regard to self-deprecation in equal measure. I think it would be a mistake to say that Innaritu believes that ALL actors and artists are this way. But, this is the psyche of the archetypal artist: tortured, driven, self-absorbed, desperate for approval. And it's all of this desperation that drives the conflict of the story.

No one embodies that more than Keaton in this film. Riggan is narcissistic, for sure. But, a pathetic narcissist instead of a rude, mean-spirited one. Keaton navigates his way through all of Riggan's humilitation, doubt, fear, and false pride with great skill and fearlessness. In my mind, he should've won the Oscar.

Norton and Stone also received Oscar nominations for their work. Norton is as impressive as Keaton, to a scene-stealing degree, which is appropriate for his character. Mike is much more unpalatable, but often to a hilarious degree, yet Norton also shines in the moments where his guard comes down. Stone effectively drops her usual bouncy, cute-girl charm, turning in a tough, fierce performance, as probably the only grounded character in the film (besides her mother and Riggan's ex-wife, well-played by Amy Ryan). It's a true ensemble, with Zach Galifinafikis, Naomi Watts, and Andrea Riseborough all shining in their roles.

You stop noticing the visual tricks of the film after awhile. You enjoy it on more of a subliminal, subconscious level, especially as the film starts becoming increasingly dream-like and surreal. As the film builds to its climax, it leaves you on edge, questioning what's real and what's not. Riggan loses himself deeply in the process of trying to become great to a disturbing level.

It's certainly not a film for everyone but shouldn't simply be dismissed as pretentious crap, either. I think, if you have experience in the arts, you're much more likely to enjoy it.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

A Sad, Shocking, Witty Night of Fun and Games

[10/10 · 22 March 2015]

They sure don't make 'em like this anymore. Released in 1966, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is a film adaptation of the Edward Albee play, which debuted four years earlier, about a sadistic, wickedly humorous married couple, George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), who draw a younger husband and wife (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) into their twisted dynamic throughout a very late night. Once considered so shocking because of its language and themes, which was relatively profane and outrageous for the time, it's now jarring to see a film explore the dynamics of human relationships with such well-observed intelligence, wit, candor, and complexity. It's sheer perfection and one of my all-time favorite films.

Directed by then first-timer Mike Nichols, and adapted by Ernest Lehman, it stays wonderfully faithful to the play, even though some minor things are cut and added for the film medium and length. Albee sees people with an x-ray vision and gives George and Marta this ruthless sense of honesty. Not only do they strip the people around them bare, but they can turn the same fierce insight back on themselves. It has a devastating effect, like a car crash you have to watch, but it can also turn a dime and be absolutely funny.

It's a highly dialogue-driven affair, with lots of long takes. You've got to be able to pay attention to get into this movie. And unlike some contemporary and rather self-indulgent dialogue-heavy writers like Tarantino or Sorkin, the dialogue never seems arch or self-conscious or unnecessary. Every conversation is very natural and has a deeper meaning, especially when you dive further into the film and discover just how self-constructed George and Martha's lives are. Their lies, fantasies, and fictions are ironic considering how brutally truthful they are in other moments. But, it goes to show just how honest and how dishonest people can be, at the same time. Even the most straightforward people lie to themselves and to others, at times, to be protected from the harsh reality of frustrations, doubts, failures, or unhappiness. And when this all emerges during the climax, it's totally heartbreaking.

The writing is genius but the performances are really what seal the deal. In my opinion, there's not a link weak in the bunch. Everyone adds something different and distinctive to the film.

Elizabeth Taylor rightfully won an Oscar for Best Actress for her hurricane of a performance as Martha. It might seem a bit overplayed, at moments, but that element completely works when you consider how overplayed Martha is, as a person. She is intentionally loud, obnoxious, rude, and vulgar. But, Taylor adds such soul, heartbreak and humanity to her that you can't help but feel for her and even see some of yourself or someone you know in her mean-spirited streak.

Her then husband Richard Burton has, in some ways, the less showy role. George holds back quite a bit in the first act, seeming simply like Martha's sharp-witted yet castrated husband. But, when he lets loose, watch out. The passivity drops and he is totally ferocious. You see the anger that's been brewing inside of him for years with Martha, as well as the disappointment and emptiness. He should've won the Oscar.

George Segal has the most thankless role of the quartet, having to basically be the "sane" one throughout the film. But, he also acts as our moral compass. You can relate to Nick's horror and discomfort at everything that's happening, as well as the way he's eventually roped into all of the games and how that's even more horrifying to him.

Sandy Dennis gives an Oscar-winning performance full of unusual yet spot-on choices. She plays dumb very well, especially since Honey is playing dumb herself. She's just so awkward and out-of-place in the midst of everything that she has to act stupid and oblivious, as well as getting hysterically drunk, just to survive.

This is a true acting masterclass and one of the most moving, layered, and truthful films I've ever seen.

Blue Jasmine (2013)

A Hilarious yet Harrowing Character Study

[8/10 · 22 March 2015]

I've read some reviews that seem to miss some of the amazing humor in "Blue Jasmine". I don't know if it was intentional on Woody Allen's part (who writes and directs the film, per usual) or if it was because of Cate Blanchett's genius lead performance or both. But, I found myself laughing as consistently as I felt sympathy, horror, and sadness for the central character.

As Jasmine, a pampered New York socialite who has crashed down from the top of her social ladder, Blanchett is a complete force of nature and the role made her one of the most deserved winners of the Best Actress Oscar I've ever seen. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is one of the best performances of my lifetime. Years from now, people will be talking about Blanchett in "Blue Jasmine" like they do Meryl Streep in "Sophie's Choice" or Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" It's a destined to be legendary portrayal, spilling over with vulnerability, ugliness, self-mocking wit, frustration, and desperation. Cate brilliantly understands that the thing that is funniest about Jasmine - her utter delusion and self-absorbed sense of importance - is also the saddest, most unlikable, and (scarily) the most recognizable thing about her, as well. Rarely will you see a character who is so dimensional.

Sally Hawkins doesn't slack off, either, which is amazing considering that Cate could've just swallowed her whole. But, as Jasmine's caring, patient yet no-nonsense adopted sister Ginger, she is marvelous. She keeps both of her feet planted in her scenes with Blanchett, acting as an appealing, relatable voice of reason. But, Ginger isn't a saint, either, and Hawkins fleshes her out with complexity. Her Supporting Actress nomination was well-deserved.

Andrew Dice Clay is probably the most memorable male out of the equation, as Jasmine's salt-of-the-earth former brother-in-law, Augie, whose life her deceitful husband ruined. Some rightly pointed out that the men weren't as fleshed out here as Jasmine and Ginger. But, that's a rather minor complaint. Alec Baldwin, Peter Sarsgaard, and Bobby Cannavale are fine enough in their roles. They're not supposed to be the most compelling elements of the show. Jasmine is.

While Allen writes his protagonist with multiple layers and shades, as well as a lack of fear about her charming the audience, the prime weakness I would give the screenplay is that it hammers things home a bit too much. How often do we have to hear, from Augie or Chili, that Jasmine's "a phony" and that her ex-husband was a crook? A couple of scenes of this kind of dialogue would've sufficed because the repetition gets a bit tiresome, after a while.

However, all in all, this is a wonderfully written film that doesn't serve up its character in a nice, easy fashion. The ending, in particular, is one of those open-ended ones that I love so much. It keeps you thinking about Jasmine long after the credits roll.