Foxcatcher (2014) – Review

Review: Foxcatcher is a dark and intense character study.

The film is about Mark and David Schultz, brothers who both won Gold Olympic Medals for wrestling in 1984. In 1987, Mark is approached by wealthy businessman John du Pont, interested in making his family farm, Foxcatcher, into a wrestling training facility. Mark agrees to join du Pont on his farm, while his brother Dave is hesitant initially, but eventually gives in to du Pont’s financial advances. Mark wants to be the best wrestler in the world, but there is a weird dynamic that starts to develop between him and du Pont that distracts him. Meanwhile, du Pont struggles with feelings of paranoia and jealously, specifically targeted at Mark’s relationship with his brother. As tension mounts, feelings of uneasiness and fear form between each of the men.

Films made as pure character studies are almost unheard of in today’s cinema, as audiences seem to need narrative to direct and engage them. With Foxcatcher, director Bennett Miller seems to have made a pure character study – maybe in the guise of a sports drama. The results of the wrestling matches are meaningless to this film (which seem to be the character’s main focus). Instead, this film is solely focused on the darkness that seems to be brewing in these characters (more specifically John du Pont and Mark Schultz).

John du Pont, as presented, is incredibly powerful, seemingly getting everything he wants. Miller often shows him in meetings with military personnel and surrounded by military hardware (du Pont’s family company is a leader in arms manufacturing). Yet, he grew up friendless and his mother seems to have had a negative impact on his upbringing, creating a man who is very envious of what others have. Maybe deep down, he just wants to be liked, but only on his terms. Growing up in controlled isolation, feeling both powerful and alone, he wants to be respected and have friends, but is jealous of others who garner similar feelings in others.

Meanwhile, Mark Schultz, though an Olympic Gold Medalist, lives in his brother’s shadow. His brother, Dave, is a student of wrestling – competing not only as a world class wrestler but also as an expert coach. Mark has what it takes to be the best, but seemingly only if his brother teaches him and prepares him. In du Pont’s offer to train at Foxcatcher, Mark sees an opportunity to make a name for himself on his own – something he craves; however, without his brother’s positive influence, Mark falls on bad habits and is overconfident. He does not seem to be able to make it on his own, which only feeds into his own negative tendencies.

John du Pont and Mark Schultz form almost a father-son relationship as Mark trains for the World Championships in 1987. At first, everything seems to be going well and they become friends. Yet, Mark finds himself distracted by John’s needs – he wants to be regarded as a good wrestler as well, he introduces Mark to drugs and he is not a real coach even though he likes to think of himself as one and be treated as one. John seems to want all the benefit with none of the work – both in terms of being Mark’s father figure and turning Mark into the best wrestler in the world. The problem is, however, that Mark needs a real mentor and coach, like his brother, to get him ready. Left to his own devises, he is self-destructive. Thus, extreme frustration builds in both men – neither getting exactly what they want out of their relationship in the long-term. John also seems to be emotionally manipulating Mark, making him feel bad much in the same way John’s mother emotionally bullies him.

When Dave joins them at Foxcatcher, it proves to be a recipe for disaster. By this time, Mark is already emotionally finished with John, after failing at the 1988 Olympics and being treated poorly by John. Meanwhile, John, plagued by unfounded feelings of jealously and paranoia, sees Dave as replacing him as the head of Foxcatcher wrestling – as coach – and poisoning his good relationship with Mark.

Miller does not really make big narrative choices with the film in terms of telling a story. The wrestling matches are not really that important (though, they are designed and executed very well and are quite compelling). Instead, he wants the audience to focus solely on the characters – on the anger and madness that seems to grip them. I almost think that the most interesting character is Dave. He seems the most normal and is clearly aware that things are not right with John du Pont and yet he stays and placates him. Is he corrupted by the money that John is offering both him and USA Wrestling? Is he making a personal sacrifice for the greater good of his sport? He also sees the pain and anger in his own brother, who definitely has a hard time in life (for whatever reason). He is very supportive of his brother and does everything for him. Ultimately, he finds himself between these two broken people, and his goodness is eventually enveloped by the darkness that he attempts to take on.

The film is tonally incredibly bleak and intense, and paced quite slow. Miller could have easily staged the narrative as a thriller (as du Pont descends into madness) or given the film more narrative touchstones (or clichés) that the audience recognize in its structure. I call the film a pure character study because Miller simply presents his characters, all narrative elements exist only as background devices to place them in time and space, allowing them to naturally gestate for the audience as complex emotional beings. As a result, the film is very gripping in moments and fairly slow in others. The film is not so much entertainment as it is a deep look into human emotion (focusing more on its darker spectrum: pain, anger, fear, paranoia and so on).

Foxcatcher is brilliant in terms of it character work, exposing its characters’ souls; but it is not an entertaining film and certainly will not work for anyone expecting something light or story-driven. Yet, for those wanting to look deep inside these characters, to explore both the darkness and light of man, it is absorbing.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Bennett Miller is an excellent director, especially when it comes to digging deeper into his characters. His three features, Capote, Moneyball and now Foxcatcher, all have interesting stories that surround the characters, but Miller focuses on his characters, presenting the narrative elements as purely background – elements that merely place his characters in a moment in time but do not define them. Miller is much more interested in their emotional makeup and what elements in their past have contributed to their emotional makeup in the present. He also elicits wonderful performances from his actors – something that would seem essential for a director that is so focused on character. While I think (objectively) Capote is his best film to date, my personal favorite is Moneyball. I very much look forward to what he does next.

Composer Rob Simonsen’s score is understated, almost nonexistent in many instances; yet, it helps establish the tone of the film very well, as it plays on the darker themes. Cinematographer Greig Fraser’s photography as well seems to cast a very dark, bleak hue over the film, as his palate is almost void of color. Really, the film is rather depressing from a visual stand point (although, Fraser’s work is also very good – there is a beauty to his shots of the farm). Jess Gonchor’s production design grounds the film in a very naturalistic, realistic space. The film feels authentic, both in performance and visual aesthetic.

The performances in Foxcatcher are all excellent. Vanessa Redgrave does not have much screen time as John du Pont’s mother Jean, but her presence lingers over him. She is firm and overbearing in her scenes with him, casting down disapproval, which seems to haunt him. Mark Ruffalo is brilliant in the film. His performance as David Schultz feels extraordinarily natural, as if he were born and lived his life as the character. It is quite remarkable. Steve Carell is incredible as well. His performance is so different than anything he has done before. His portrayal of John du Pont is chilling, as he creates an emotional bully (taking out the emotional burden that his mother puts on him on others). The performance, however, does not feel as natural, as Carell is clearly in a lot of make-up that makes du Pont feel somewhat cartoonish at times. Channing Tatum is also great as Mark Schultz. He is able to emote so much pain and anger, as he seems to not be able to cope with his inner demons.

Summary & score: Foxcatcher features many of 2014’s best performances, as the film explores the dark emotional recesses of its dynamic characters. It is a skillfully crafted pure character drama, in the truest sense. 8/10

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 1: Technical Achievements

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 2: Supporting Performances

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Hugh Bateup & Uli Hanisch – Production Design – Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas is insanely ambitious. Most production designers have a difficult enough task creating one narrative world – Hugh Bateup (working with the Wachowskis) and Uli Hanisch (working with Tom Tykwer) each created three (to make up the film’s six different stories). The worlds range from the mid nineteenth century South Pacific to modern day London to far into the future in Seoul to the post-apocalyptic (almost like the rebirth of society) tribesman on the Hawaiian Islands. And yet, even with such a grand undertaking of scale and scope, plus two different crews filming different stories, the film still has a unified feel and look, and a lot of that goes to the absolutely amazing work of Bateup and Hanisch.

Roger Deakins – Cinematography – Skyfall

2012 saw a lot of very good cinematography work, but Roger Deakins’s photography in Skyfall is simply the best of the year. Working with director Sam Mendes (their third collaboration), Deakins delivers aesthetically stunning work – from the gloomy fog covered moors to the crisp sheen of red lights against the night in Macau, or the almost sci-fi feel of Bond’s fight with an assassin in Shanghai. Visually, the film is never content to just be a straight forward action film, or just another entry in the Bond franchise. It completely blew me away.

Alexandre Desplat – Score – Moonrise Kingdom

I often joke about composer Alexandre Desplat being the hardest working man in Hollywood – well, in 2012 he scored eight films, including Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, Rust and Bone, and Moonrise Kingdom. Working with director Wes Anderson, Desplat has created a fun, playful, and charming score for Sam and Suzy’s adventure (in their second collaboration). Like the best pieces of film music, it matches the tone for the film and sets the mood for the audience. Desplat is one of the great composers working in cinema today (or at the very least the most prolific). His work is always brilliant.

Greig Fraser – Cinematography – Killing Them Softly

Director of photography Greig Fraser had three films hit theatres in 2012 – Snow White and the Huntsman, Zero Dark Thirty, and Killing Them Softly. Now while Zero Dark Thirty will likely get more accolades and coverage, it is Killing Them Softy that is far more aesthetically interesting and artistically ambitious. Working with director Andrew Dominik, Fraser’s photography gives the film a sort of a post-apocalyptic feel, with lots of stormy skies, broken down landscapes, and  exaggeration of violence (along with morally corrupt characters populating the narrative). Dominik and Fraser use extreme slow motion to drag out the violence or drug use, making it feel more impactful and poetic (reminding me of the moving stills in Lars von Trier’s Melancholia). It is brilliant and absorbing work.

Jonny Greenwood – Score – The Master

After their fantastic collaboration on There Will Be Blood (creating 2007’s best score along with Dario Marianelli’s score for Atonement), composer Jonny Greenwood and director Paul Thomas Anderson worked together again on The Master. Greenwood’s score both fits the period in places and provides an uneasy and wondrous experience for the viewer, emotionally and psychologically matching the character of Freddie Quell perfectly. The music is unlike anything else in cinematic scores right now, pushing the boundaries artistically.

Sarah Greenwood – Production Design – Anna Karenina

Joe Wright threw everyone involved in the production of Anna Karenina a curveball when for budgetary reasons he decided to shoot most of the film inside a theatre. Production designer Sarah Greenwood rose to the challenge creating the year’s best design work (in her fifth feature collaboration with Wright). Every set is perfectly fitted to match the tone and style of the scene and characters, be it the high society parties (which are marvelously decorated) or the slum back ally-like stage rafters. Visually, the film is unparalleled, and that is thanks to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey, director Joe Wright, and especially production designer Sarah Greenwood.

Claudio Miranda – Cinematography – Life of Pi

Life of Pi is an absolutely beautiful film to watch. The visuals capture the imagination and dazzle with a stunning array of colors and pristine composition. More so than any other of this year’s top films, Life of Pi is very much an emotional and visual experience, and Claudio Miranda’s work is magnificent, to say the least. In my opinion, he is one of the ten best directors of photography working in Hollywood today (along with Wally Pfister and Roger Deakins, both making this Awards list as well). It is impossible to watch this film and not be completely enamored with the photography and use of color.

Wally Pfister – Cinematography – The Dark Knight Rises

The most impressive aspect of Wally Pfister’s cinematography in The Dark Knight Rises is that everything lighting-wise the viewer sees in the final film is done in camera – which means that Pfister and director Christopher Nolan did not color correct in post-production (a very common practice these days, even among the best D.P.s). Pfister’s work with IMAX cameras is also very impressive, as the film has a massive sense of scale – it truly is a phenomenal experience to see in IMAX. Pfister is directing his first film in 2014 with Transcendence, but hopefully his collaboration with Nolan will continue as well – they are one of the best teams working today (if not the best period).

Ed Verreaux – Production Design – Looper

Working with director Rian Johnson, Ed Verreaux creates a wonderful look for Looper. The film mixes genres, feeling like a sci-fi film, a crime drama, and a western in different parts. Verreaux’s production design gives the film a taste of each of these genres. The city is a mix of futuristic technology and sort of a collapsed society feel (most of the vehicles are junk-cars from today adapted to run on a new fuel source). The design work is also very artistically interesting, with aesthetically pleasing patterns and lights. Verreaux’s work may be overlooked given the great action, psychic abilities, and a time-travel plot, but it really grounds everything in a world that feels real and thus is a crucial part of what makes the overall film brilliant.

Hans Zimmer – Score – The Dark Knight Rises

Hans Zimmer’s collaborations with Christopher Nolan have yielded fantastic scores (notably for Inception), including the first two films in The Dark Knight Trilogy. With The Dark Knight Rises, Zimmer gives the film such a brutal and hard hitting accompaniment perfectly matching the film’s main villain Bane. For Selina Kyle his score is sleek, slinky, and refined, but with a touch of immediacy – again matching the character wonderfully. The music grips the audience from the start and matches the tone throughout. Like the film itself, the score is big and masterful.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) – Review

Review: Zero Dark Thirty is a taxing and intense dramatic thriller, ripe with strong performances and sure directing. The film is about the CIA’s operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden, which took over a decade. The story focuses on the efforts of the CIA officer that fronted the team in the field in Pakistan (named Maya in the film).

Zero Dark Thirty presents a difficult narrative challenge, and director Kathryn Bigelow does a magnificent job. The challenge is that the story takes place over a period a bit longer than a decade with multiple characters coming in and out. Plus, the whole third act (practically) does not feature the film’s protagonist, and finally the audience goes into the film already knowing the ending. Bigelow makes a series of good choices with her screenwriter Mark Boal to combat these potential issues.

First, instead of making it completely about the mission Bigelow devises much of the film as a character study centered on Maya – a woman who has devoted her whole life to catching one man. She has no friends, no personal life, and is even not well liked within the CIA for her relentless drive. The film feels so emotionally draining because the audience is completely invested in her, and feels the strain of her tireless work.

Second, Bigelow structures the third act to be utterly gripping as it features the two SEAL team assault on bin Laden’s compound. Not having the protagonist feature heavily in the third act of a narrative film is a huge risk. Most films would flounder or feel incomplete, but the SEAL team assault is done with a perfect mastery of tension that the entire audience is fully enthralled. Bigelow also gives Maya enough moments to still feel like a meaningful part while also giving her narrative a sense of closure.

When making a film with an ending that the audience already knows going in, the film needs to be more about the characters and the journey than the ending. Bigelow does this brilliantly, but again still gives the audience a captivating ending. The narrative has a sense of momentum as the information builds and the audience can feel the ups and downs of Maya’s (et al.) search. Maya’s emotional journey resonates with the audience making the stakes feel heightened, which is great achievement when the audience knows what will eventually happen.

Politically the film has raised some issues as well – namely the use of torture. Torture played a somewhat vital role in extracting information that lead to bin Laden being found – along with a lot of surveillance, ground work, and critical thinking among good CIA field officers. The film would seem to suggest that torture is a necessary evil to combat terrorism. It even goes as far to say that the information started to dry up after President Obama mandated that torture was not to be used by U.S. armed forces and government agencies. Do the ends justify the means, or does evil only beget evil – violence begets more violence? However, the film also shows the cost of torture, both on those that carry it out and on those that it is done too. Nothing is glorified.

Much like Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies, Zero Dark Thirty also seems to take shots at the incompetency and bureaucracy of those in positions of control and power within the CIA. The Pakistan station chief Joseph Bradley does not come out of the film looking too good. Zero Dark Thirty also points out just how much data is gathered and processed and just how difficult it is to analyze it – not to mention the resources it takes to fund all these continuous operations. It is an interesting look behind the curtain, so to speak.

The film is very good alone as an informative look at how the CIA found bin Laden and how the SEAL team infiltrated his compound and killed him. However, this would only serve the film for one or two viewings. What makes this film more than just a dramatization of the real events (to some percentage of accuracy) is its ability to drive deeper into the characters, the people who sacrificed parts of themselves and even their lives to find and kill bin Laden, or more importantly to try and keep America safe. It is this human aspect of the film that resonates with the audience and pulls them in (and makes this more than just a History Channel special).

Bigelow does not treat her characters like heroes. They are real people – flaws and all. The audience can see and feel the toll that the life and work takes on these characters, living in constant danger, working long thankless hours, and being asked to treat other humans as less than human. The film is exhausting, yes, but because Bigelow has done such a fine job with her characters and their relationship to and with the audience. The viewer feels exhausted at the end because they emotionally went on the journey with the characters (particularly Maya, who is exhausted by the end as well).

The film however does feature graphic seasons of violence and torture, and thus many not appeal to all viewers. However, Bigelow does not go overboard. The violence is actually fairly minimal given the graphic nature of the material. It is more emotionally and psychologically unsettling.

Zero Dark Thirty is ambitious in its scope both expertly telling its story and developing strong characters. It is an arduous journey, but one well worth taking.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Kathryn Bigelow has certainly asserted herself as the filmmaking authority of modern American war films with The Hurt Locker and now Zero Dark Thirty (though, I would argue that Generation Kill is a step above – but it is a miniseries). These films not only effectively tell their stories, but they also care about their characters. Her films are more so about her characters than events or action, which is why they work so well dramatically. She also is so adept with tension throughout these films that she never lets the audience’s attention wander (which is also why the experience of these films is so taxing). After The Hurt Locker, Bigelow and Boal seemed like the perfect team to take on Zero Dark Thirty, and I am not sure another filmmaker would have done a better job with the material.

Alexandre Desplat’s score very much sets the mood for the film as it pulses with tension and thriller aspects, ever driving the suspense. It is fantastic work, as always. Greig Fraser’s cinematography is gritty, which fits Bigelow’s realistic style for the film. Yet, he still is able to keep his actors well lit (maintaining the magic of Hollywood filmmaking), but not in a glamorous, glossy, or flashy manner. Jeremy Hindle’s production design also has a very realistic quality to it. Everything looks and feels authentic, which is crucial for a film like this.

The film is mostly filled with small performances as the narrative encompasses tons of characters for short amounts of screen time. Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton are both very good, giving a relatable human face to the SEAL team that takes the lead in the third act. Mark Strong gets to come in and give a strong thunderous monologue that is great. But really, the stars of the film are Jason Clarke and especially the lead Jessica Chastain as Maya. Clarke is tough as nails as CIA interrogator Dan but he eventually is worn down by the stresses of his job, which gives a human quality to these CIA characters the audience is asked to take stock in despite their morally questionable practices (i.e. torture). Chastain is fantastic in the film. She is strong and smart as a whip, and not shy about letting everyone know that she is the smartest person in the room. It is her drive, despite the personal cost, that resonates so effectively with the audience.

Summary & score: Zero Dark Thirty is entirely fascinating, both from a story standpoint and more so its characters. 9/10

Killing Them Softly (2012) – Review

Review: Killing Them Softly is an arty thinking-man’s gangster film. It is about two loser thugs, Frankie and Russell, who knock off a mob-protected card game, and the man sent in to clean up the mess, Jackie.

Right from the start, it is clear that writer-director Andrew Dominik is not interested in making just another crime drama or typical gangster film (though, clearly he is very much influenced by past works in the genre – particularly Goodfellas). Killing Them Softly opens with sort of a sonic barrage – as the titles accompanied by loud ambient noise are cross-cut with a man walking out of a factory or warehouse while political news coverage plays almost like voiceover narration. This opening shot sets up the rest of the film, which plays as sort of a mix between an art film, a satire on the economic crisis and capitalism in general, and a straightforward crime drama.

As a piece of art, Killing Them Softly is brilliant. Dominik and company are not afraid to express the violence and effects of drug use in a visual manner that goes beyond merely showing the audience what it is happening – it tries to illicit an emotional response and put the audience in the position of the characters. Two examples: there is a scene between Frankie and Russell, after they have pulled off the job. Russell has bought some drugs and taken some of them. Frankie is talking to Russell about how well the job went and Russell is going in and out of consciousness, but is still slowly delivering details to Frankie. Russell eventually explains that there is a hit out on them and that the mob bosses know it was them who robbed the card game, and thusly Frankie is desperate to find out more from Russell but he is completely wasted. Yet, Dominik does not just play this out for the audience. He creates the experience for the audience putting them in the place of both characters. The sound slows down and the pitch changes, the screen goes in and out of focus and brightness. All this heightens the anxiety and frustration that Frankie has, trying to get information out of Russell, and so the audience feels it too. Another example: Jackie is told to kill Markie, the man who ran the card game that got held up. Dominik shoots Jackie’s execution of Markie in extreme slow motion, with graphic detail. The audience can practically see each bullet leave Jackie’s gun, fly through the air and enter and destroy Markie. By slowing it down and unflinchingly showcasing the violence, Dominik is again creating an experience for the audience. They do not just see Markie die, they feel it, which is much more profound an experience. These scenes both also have a wonderful artistic flare to them, setting this film apart from what most movies feel like and look like.

The satirical nature of the film is both blatant and also easily missed. In almost every scene, there is a TV or radio playing political news coverage detailing the financial collapse of 2008 and the need for a bailout, seemingly setting the stage. This constant stream of talking heads in the background (seemingly replacing a score) is juxtaposed to both the filming locations of particularly dilapidated and abandoned industrial buildings and slums of New Orleans, along with a few bars and a hotel room, and characters that are almost solely comprised of low lives and criminals. Looking first at the locations used – the talking heads focus on the collapsing economy in the present (2008), but the exterior locations in the film have long been decaying and forgotten, indicating that the true rot that caused the financial collapse has been a long time coming, eating away at America from the inside.

Next, looking at the characters – all of them are selfish, greedy and seemingly void of any kind of real compassion and drive (save for maybe Jackie). It is possible to view these criminals as the proponents of our capitalist system in a way. Take Mickey (the hit man Jackie hires from out of town to help him), all he does is drink, hire prostitutes, spend the mob bosses’ money,  and not accomplish what he was hired to do – he is a complete waste and drain on his employers. Mickey can be viewed as say Wall Street (in today’s times) – he lives well off the good will of Jackie (an entity brought in to help get things going again – get money back on the street and flowing again) and the mob bosses, while not doing what he is hired to do nor contributing anything of use, rather he is wasting their money on himself (and it is no mistake that he is presented as completely unlikable, vulgar and a mess). The mob bosses could be taken as the government unable to come to a decision on anything, just letting the problem(s) compound, or just as the system itself. And finally, Frankie and Russell can be viewed as two people within the system that messed up and caused the money to drive up (like a failed bank), because their backer Johnny Amato thought he could selfishly and greedily beat (or rig) the system. They gambled and lost (like the investment bankers with mortgage backed securities). Everyone in the system (all the characters) come off looking bad, except for maybe Jackie, who in the end turns out to really be no different (as his final lines are: “I’m living in America, and in America you’re on your own. America’s not a country. It’s just a business. Now fuckin’ pay me.”). He is just as firmly rooted in the system as the rest of them. Jackie is the bailout. As a satire, the film takes a very harsh look at America’s current capitalist system.

Now, as a straight-forward crime drama, for those not wanting to look any deeper, it works just as well as its does a satire or an art film. It is built on great characters and strong performance, and not so much on action. Most of the scenes are comprised of characters engaged in conversations, and these series of conversations build until the finale. However, within in each conversation there is a lot of tension and drama built in. Dominik and the actors deliver just as much emotion in these scenes, showcasing the give and take between characters – who has the upper hand in any given scene – as any action scene, though action scenes are probably more appealing for the average viewer. The film does have some action, though it is mostly highly stylized for effect and not entertainment. This crime drama is about the characters, not gangsters shooting at each other and explosions.

While the film is fairly brilliant in its artistry and construction, the pacing can feel a bit slow at times, and this gets back to its structure – being built around multiple conversations between characters, lacking action – and Dominik’s shooting style for the film. The conversations are long and the cuts do not come quickly, rather Dominik allows his actors and their performances to dominate each scene, as the film takes its time. But, for some viewers the net effect of this is going to be a slow film, which is not working for them (as often artier films do not work for average viewers).

Killing Them Softly is unlike most crime dramas and gangster films. It dares to be aesthetically relevant, emotionally compelling and intellectually engaging all at the same time. It is the rare film that strives to be more than just entertainment, but mean something. And, it succeeds fantastically (for those willing to take in the full experience).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Andrew Dominik has now made three films. His last two have been near masterpieces (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of the most impressive films of the last decade, that no one has seen), allowing me to confidently name film as an auteur filmmaker. His work just has too much aesthetic aptitude and emotional/intellectual depth to be denied. He is one of the best filmmakers working right now. I cannot wait to see what he does next.

The film does not have a score; rather it has a background ambiance of talking heads and a great classic rock soundtrack, each serving a specific purpose. The talking heads play into the satire that Dominik is creating, while the soundtrack creates an emotion in the viewer when set against the visuals (much like how The Sopranos often also used classic rock to create a certain mood for the visuals). Greig Fraser’s cinematography is wonderful. Killing Them Softly has such a decrepit look to it. Fraser’s lighting and Patricia Norris’s production design create a world that almost feels post-apocalyptic, filled with old cars, broken down buildings and people, and stormy skies. Fraser’s artistic work with Dominik on a few of the scenes (like those mentioned above) is also top notch. The film has both an emotional and visual edge and splendor to it.

Like with all great dramas, the performances are astonishing. Richard Jenkins is good in his small role as the go-between for Jackie and the mob bosses, playing his character as someone who is fed up but goes along with everything anyway. James Gandolfini is somewhat reminiscent of Tony Soprano at his psychologically and emotionally weakest point. Mickey is a killer, completely emotionally incapacitated by the potential loss of his wife and prospect of jail (but is much more unlikable than Tony – lacking the charisma). Ben Mendelsohn and Scoot McNairy play Russell and Frankie and are both wonderful. They are just losers caught up in the system, they do not really understand how it works or their place in it, and they do not really care to know. (Assuming people actually see this film, which is probably a losing proposition, considering its artistic and narrative ambitions) their performances are strong enough to warrant their casting in many future projects. Brad Pitt is brilliant in the film (and it is probably among his best work to date – I would argue his other collaboration with Dominik yielded his best performance). He plays Jackie to be a gangster seemingly struggling upstream – the only competent operator in the system. He is ruthless, but has a wonderful swagger to him. The audience is not quite sure if what they see in Jackie is his true character (is he really a good guy deep down) or is it merely his skill in manipulating those around him to get the result he wants. It is one of the best performances of 2012.

Summary & score: It is easy to think of movies as purely entertainment, and often that is all they are or strive to be, but from time to time filmmakers shoot for something more. Killing Them Softly is a shining example of a film in which those involved wanted to create a full experience, not only entertaining the audience but also engaging their minds and emotions. 8/10

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) – Review

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman is visually compelling, with some good action moments but lacks great characters and fluid pacing. The film is a new, supposedly darker take on the classic Snow White story – Snow White is a prisoner after Ravenna seduces and kills her father. However, as she comes of age, Snow White is able to escape and takes refuge in the dark forest. The Queen (Ravenna) needs Snow White’s heart to become immortal, so she enlists The Huntsman (who seemingly has no name) for his knowledge of the dark forest to lead her men in finding Snow White. However, once The Huntsman lays eyes on her, he is enchanted by her beauty and rallies to her cause helping her to further escape. But, the Queen will stop at nothing to regain Snow White and consume her heart, while Snow White tries to gather an army of her own and take back her kingdom. Director Rupert Sanders gets a lot of things right, especially the look for this fairytale action adventure. The world of the film is stepped in magic, fantastical creatures, knights, and castles. To some extent, the film at different moments feels like past releases (especially, Willow and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring) and somewhat lacks its own identity (a bit like 2010’s Clash of the Titans which was trying too hard to be a mix of Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers and not its own thing). Sanders does a good job introducing the world and characters and the final battle is well done, but in between the opening and the third act the film drags horribly. Not only does it meander along seemingly wasting time until the final confrontation, but it also does not take the opportunity to flesh out the characters of Snow White, The Huntsman and Ravenna (all three of which are fairly weak, depending solely on the actors’ performances walking, running and yelling – providing only exposition and being almost completely void of real dramatic moments). From the time Snow White escapes the castle in the first act until she encounters the dwarves (who are one of the bright spots in the film), the narrative trudges almost to a complete stop, killing all momentum and interest in the characters and story. Thus, when the third act finally does arrive, as enthralling as it is, the audience no longer cares and there are no real stakes as a result. The relationship between Ravenna and Snow White is ripe with dramatic possibility, but utterly squandered. Though, Ravenna is probably the most interesting character in the film, as she appears at different moments both evil and power hungry and emotionally weathered and even scared and fragile. It is an interesting dichotomy that could have been further explored. As for Snow White, there is no real internal struggle for her, no emotional journey. She is resolute about who she is and what she must do almost right from the get go (which is fine, but does not make for an interesting protagonist). The Huntsman is the only character to go through any kind of emotional change (and even his narrative is not fully exploited or resolved – though, I have read that this is potentially only the first film in a trilogy, which would then makes sense of why the ending is the way it is for the characters). The slow pacing and lack of complexity to the characters greatly detracts from the wonderful visuals, varying locations (the dark forest, a magical fairyland – that seems like something out of an old Disney film, a Lord of the Rings-like mountain side, and castles) and battle scenes. Snow White and the Huntsman is entertaining, visually superb and an almost great retelling for the classic story (and certainly better than Mirror Mirror from earlier in the year), but its major deficiencies overpower what could have been something special (there is probably a great film in there somewhere).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Rupert Sanders makes his feature film debut with Snow White and the Huntsman, having a background in commercials. Unfortunately for this film, great visuals do not trump having interesting fleshed out characters and a tight narrative – both areas Sanders needs to work on for his next feature. James Newton Howard’s score reinforces the visual and narrative tone of the film, but has sort of a generic adventure film feel to it and does not stand out (here is a sample). Greig Fraser’s cinematography does exactly what it needs to do. Snow White and Ravenna project beauty corresponding to their character – Snow White is innocent and pure, while Ravenna is more striking and bold. Fraser also does a great job with the different places the narrative takes the characters. His lighting and photography gives them each a unique tone and feel. Dominic Watkins, along the same lines, does a great job designing the look of the film. His sets have the appropriate level and mix of fairytale fantasy and epicenes, while also keeping the characters grounded in the gritty realism of battle (or at least as realistic as a PG-13 rated battle can be). Personally, I really liked the costumes (especially Ravenna’s wardrobe and Snow White’s armor). Colleen Atwood did a fantastic job. The cast, despite the lack of great character moments, is good. All eight of the dwarves are fantastic with Ian McShane and Bob Hoskins standing out. Sam Spruell is great has Ravenna’s emotionally oppressed brother. He plays him to be quite a tragic character. Sam Claflin (who is given almost nothing dramatic to do really, and thus has no depth) plays Snow White’s childhood friend William all grown up fairly straightforward as a heroic rebel striking out against the Queen’s tyranny. Chris Hemsworth is good as The Huntsman, showing off both brawn and sensitivity. Charlize Theron’s performance is easily the most interesting and compelling, but also not entirely great. While she amply portrays both the strength and terror within Ravenna, her performances is mostly comprised of her screaming at other characters, without tact (and maybe that is what Sanders wanted out of the performance). Kristen Stewart (who gets a bad rap for being a lead in the awful Twilight Saga, despite being good in a number of indie films) does a good job with Snow White. She is strong, but maintains the allure and purity of innocence. If only she was given more dramatic work to do.

Summary & score: Snow White and the Huntsman is a spectacle of a film with great battles and visuals, but with weak characters and horrid pacing it is not much more. 6/10

Let Me In (2010) – Review

Let Me In is a tonally rewarding experience encompassing elements of romance and horror (and let me just get this out of the way now: yes, I know it is a remake of Let the Right One In, and yes I have also seen that film, but no this review will not be about which is better or comparing the two – each is its own thing). This film succeeds mainly due to two key decisions that director Matt Reeves makes – 1) he does not shy away from the true nature of what Abby is (a vampire) and 2) he is not afraid to play scenes to be lighthearted and fun in what most would consider a horror film. Overall, the tone of the film is utterly bleak, and yet despite the fact that she is a killer, a monster or whatever scary thing that can be applied, the audience roots for her and the relationship that develops between Owen and her. In society she surely should be an antagonist, but she is not due to Reeves structuring the narrative to play like a romance film with terror, rather than a horror film that happens to also have some romance in it. The relationship between Owen and Abby is what the audience ultimately cares about and what makes everything in the film more powerful and meaningful to them, as they care about these characters and the outcome. The scenes in which Abby and Owen are just two kids experiencing young love are really what sets this film aparts and makes the viewer take a deeper more rooted interest in these characters. These scenes allow them to become real, as the audience can relate. Plus the genius of this is that the viewer forgets for a moment that Abby is a killer and that their relationship is doomed. The film is very violent and is not bashful about it. The juxtaposition between the romance scenes (especially those just referenced) between Abby and Owen and the scenes of Abby feeding and killing is intense and emotionally striking. But something sort of interesting happens in the film – the abuse that Owen receives at school from the bully becomes more personal and extreme for the viewer than the stylized vampire violence. The truly scary part of the film is watching how mean and brutal these kids are to one and other. Abby does not seem evil to Owen, because he is alone in the world and the bullies are really his true perception of evil. He is traumatized by them, and not by her or what he sees her do. Abby takes an interest in him when no one else does. His parents are disconnected from him, he has no friends; he is completely detached from humanity, craving connection. Thus, it only makes sense that he would be attracted to Abby, she talks to him, cares about him – and this translates directly to why the audience roots for them and why the film works overall. The most blaring issue with the film is that the effects are not that great. They were probably stylized by Reeves to look the way they do – disjointed and strange. However, they are too odd and thus pull the viewer out of the narrative for a moment. But the rest of the film is solid and thus this is a minor complaint (at least for me). Let Me In is seemingly a tragic love story, but even so it  draws us in and makes us care about these two characters despite the malice that surrounds them, making for an enthralling cinema experience full of tension (and I also love the fact that it is set in the 80’s and all the goodness that comes from that).

Technical achievements: Matt Reeves proves himself a fine writer-director with this film, as he is able to structure and pace the film in such a way to fully affect the audience and engross them in the story. Director of photography Greig Fraser does a good job matching the look of the film to the tone – it is cold and comfortless. All the color seems to be gone from the world, and yet the scenes between Abby and Owen seem brighter. Ford Wheeler’s production design is also a contributing factor to the feel of the film as well (I love his set for Abby’s apartment). But it is Michael Giacchino’s excellent score (one of my favorites of the year) that gives the film the perfect emotional backdrop to fully engage the audience. Reeves also did a fantastic job of casting the film. Adults were very much secondary – and it is clear that this was conscious choice made. Richard Jenkins (as usual) was good but in limited work – which could be said for all the adult actors. The young cast was also quite good, but three stood out: Dylan Minnette’s school bully was maybe the most terrifying thing in a movie about a vampire. Kodi Smit-McPhee is able to utterly capture Owen and portray his sadness and loneliness. And, Chloe Grace Moretz is perfect as Abby (her second great performance of the year), a monster but sweet and caring (and also scary). This film easily could have just been another unneeded remake or shoddy horror film that pollute Hollywood cinema, but due to the skill and care of the cast and crew the film is a well made horror romance that is among the best of the year.

Let Me In has the violence, the scares and the mood of a great horror movie, but its structure and performances distinguish it as a fine film. 8/10