Movie of the Week – Public Enemies

This week’s movie: Public Enemies (2009)

John Dillinger is public enemy number one after a string of headline-grabbing bank robberies during the 1930s; however, the Feds are closing in around him and other notable criminals like Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. Melvin Purvis has been tasked with heading up the Chicago office with the specific goal of capturing or killing Dillinger. The two men play a deadly game of cat and mouse.

Public Enemies is the latest film from American auteur Michael Mann (at least until his cyber thriller Blackhat comes out in 2015), master of the sprawling crime drama. Mann worked with a superb group on the film including: composer Elliot Goldenthal, cinematographer Dante Spinotti, and production designer Nathan Crowley.

The film has a phenomenal cast, headlined by Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. The supporting ensemble features David Wenham, Jason Clarke, Stephen Dorff, Channing Tatum, Rory Cochrane, Carey Mulligan (although, she is in it for maybe a second), Branka Katic, Emilie de Ravin, Billy Crudup, Marion Cotillard, Giovanni Ribisi, John Ortiz, Shawn Hatosy, Stephen Graham, Stephen Lang, Lili Taylor, and Leelee Sobieski.

Michael Mann has made a number of fantastic crime dramas – Thief, Heat, Collateral, and Miami Vice (highly underrated). Public Enemies is his first period crime drama, though he has made a few great period dramas (notably The Last of the Mohicans). What works exceptionally well about his films, Public Enemies included, is that he garners wonderful character-driven performances in worlds that feels very gritty and realistic. Some of that has to do with his collaborations with Dante Spinotti, whose photography is stunning and feels naturalistic. He is also the best at shooting gun fights. His staging, photography, and sound design are second to none (Heat probably has the best gun fight ever filmed). In some ways, Public Enemies feels a lot like Heat. The themes are the same in many ways. And, both feature great action set pieces. The film was mildly received upon its release in 2009 and has still not really found an audience, but it is magnificent. Depp and Bale are fantastic and it is visually dazzling. I think it is a must-see for fans of Mann’s work and those who enjoy grand crime dramas. It is probably the best gangster film of the last five years (my three favorite films of 2009 are Inglourious Basterds, Up, and Public Enemies to give you an idea of the esteem I hold for this film).

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) – Review

Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is visually spectacular and Shakespearian in its story construction, but ultimately feels insubstantial and slow.

Following the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes (first Rise and then Dawn, will the next one be called Advent of the Planet of the Apes?), the film takes place ten years later. Most of the Earth’s human population has died out due to a simian flu and civilization has more or less crumbled. Yet, there are a few small communities still trying to survive. One such community exists in San Francisco. There, the people have a plan to turn things around, start over and rebuild – all they need is power as their fuel is about to run out. This leads them into the neighboring forest to find a dam that once powered the northern area of the Bay Area. They stumble upon a startling discovery: an ape village, ruled by Caesar who now has developed the ability to speak. Caesar has created a community as well, seeing the apes thrive. The men and apes make an uneasy truce as Caesar allows the men (lead by Malcolm) to access the dam, but there are combustible elements on both sides which will surely lead to a war between man and ape.

There is a lot to really like about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Visually, it is quite an achievement. Motion capture technology has seemingly completely blurred the line between live-action and computer animated performance. The performance that Andy Serkis gives as Caesar is just as powerful and visceral as any live-action actor – the technology is so precise in its capturing of the subtle elements that it feels just as real. This alone brings a lot to the film and its narrative and emotional weight, and to some extent is enough to make this film something special and groundbreaking (even more so than Rise of the Planet of the Apes or his brilliant work in The Lord of the Rings series).

Director Matt Reeves structures the narrative in a very interesting manner. First, it draws parallels between the apes and humans, seemingly blending them into a single entity by the end. Apes and humans are both capable of being good and evil; there is not one side that is wholly in the right. Reeves presents Caesar and Malcolm as being the good characters from their respective groups (driven by sound morals and honor), while Carver and Koba are the evil characters (driven by hate). The true leader of the humans, Dreyfus, is a bit harder to pin down (mostly due to his character being minimally explored). His actions seem to be in the service of human preservation and not especially driven by hate or anger – maybe fear. This somewhat mirrors Caesar’s son Blue Eyes as well (mixed with typical teenage angst: wanting to be treated like an adult before it is earned). He fears the humans, and thus he acts in a manner to preserve what he thinks is best for the apes. Reeves does not favor either side, as the parallels show that in many ways they are the same. Yet, the narrative is mostly told from Caesar’s perspective (which sees the human characters fall secondary in terms of character development).

The narrative also feels very Shakespearian as Caesar is betrayed by his trusted friend and number two Koba, who wants to seize control (something that he has always secretly wanted, even when following Caesar he was just always weaker until humans and their guns gave him an opportunity). Caesar is dethroned (and somewhat banished) only to make his triumphant return to try and reclaim the throne. Like most narratives that share story elements with Shakespeare’s work, viewers are very familiar with all the dramatic and narrative beats of these types of narratives. While the emotions and drama of Reeves’s staging of the action and theatrics are seemingly amplified by their basis in classical grand style (there is an added weight to the drama when it plays out in a manner that resembles the classic works because they are ingrained in our collective subconscious), they also run the risk of feeling a bit tired and played out. This is the case with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

In many ways it is miles ahead of the typical summer movie blockbusters we put up with in the name of entertainment (2014 has been especially weak in terms of high quality big films), but as dramatically ambitious as it is the film is lacking in a few key elements. Chiefly, the narrative is wholly unoriginal, which leads to it feeling incredibly slow at times, and it is not helped out by its deficiency of well-drawn characters (outside of Caesar and Koba). It also seemingly fails to really entertain as well, again the main culprits being its slow pacing and many meaningless characters the audience is not invested in.

Maybe it is just that I have seen too many films and television series. Maybe there are just no more innovative ways to tell the same stories over and over again, but I found myself disinterested in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes almost throughout. I recognized the story structure and thus the whole film was laid out, hitting each telegraphed narrative beat; any yet, this is not something new. Almost all films, especially big budget Hollywood films, are this way. The real reasons that this film seemed to lose me stem much more from its characters and maybe its tone, in the face of having poorly drawn characters overall.

In a medium in which all the stories have seemingly been told (at least in their main structural form), characters and/or spectacle are the main elements that make them interesting on a deeper level. From a spectacle and aesthetic standpoint, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is top notch, and thus really it is characters that are the main draw (this could just be for me). Caesar and Koba are strong characters, each with a fluid and satisfying arc; however, there are no other good ape characters (even Blue Eyes is mostly marginalized). Maybe it is greedy to want more. The problem is that Reeves structures the film to split time between the apes and humans (though, overall, the film is mostly Caesar’s); however, the humans are incredibly bland and really have no defining character moments or elements to make the audience care about them (probably because none of them will make it into the sequel – this is not confirmed, but this feels true, and thus why waist the time developing them in a film that is already too long). All the time spent with the humans alone is time wasted, slowing down the narrative momentum substantially. It would be fine for them to be one note characters if they only served the role of being a plot accelerator for Caesar and the apes (that is essentially the purpose they serve anyway), but why waste time with them if there is no intention of drawing them as full characters? Is it because, regardless of how strong a character as Caesar is and how well Serkis’s performance comes through, Reeves and the studio just did not fully believe that the apes alone could engage a human audience – that humans need human characters in live-action films to be fully engaged (forgetting that there have been good live-action films without humans in the past, things like Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, The Adventures of Milo and Otis, and Babe – we can anthropomorphize just about anything if we care about the characters)? I do not know.

Typically, Hollywood spectacle films with bland or thinly drawn characters rely on a lighter tone and comedy to increase the overall entertainment value of their product (mixing comedy and high violence seems to have worked out pretty well for the Transformers series). Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is tonally very dark, which too adds to the film feeling slow because the audience does not have moments of relief from the dramatic strife. This means that the characters need to be all the more interesting or the pacing needs to be tight. Again, the human-centric narrative elements fail utterly in this respect. The tone remains bleak and heavy and the pacing is maybe even slower (but it probably feels that way because the audience is being sidelined from the characters and narrative that they actually care about, instead having enduring characters they do not).

The film also seems to somewhat marginalize its female characters (which is nothing new in big Hollywood films; it is just disappointing). Human or ape, women are only caretakers and followers while men are warriors, leaders, and heroes/villains. Caesar’s wife Cornelia might as well not even be in the film (let alone played by the very talented Judy Greer). Her role is basically to give birth to his sons and be sick, needing human medicine which in turn garners Caesar’s trust of the humans. The film misses a real opportunity to showcase her character and strength once Koba takes Caesar’s throne, expelling him from the ape community. She could have been a voice of descent, loyal to Caesar, but is left out completely. Similarly, the only female human character is Ellie, Malcolm’s friend and love interest. She is never involved the decision-making, aside from wanting to come with Malcolm because she is the only one that has medical expertise (and thus is necessary for a future plot point). She too is primarily solely a caregiver. Thus, females in the film are only shown in their classic gender roles, completely sidelined from the action and dramatic meat of the film, making the film feel a bit narratively archaic (and wasting the talent of the good actresses playing the roles).

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a fantastic film and a disappointing film at the same time. It has wonderful visuals and its use of motion capture technology is astonishing, but its characters outside Caesar and Koba are incredibly boring and seemingly pointless. This very well could have been a two character piece based on ancient Rome’s Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus. The utter lack of strong supporting characters (or leading characters when the narrative switches to the humans) ultimately leaves the film feeling very slow, which is only amplified by its dark and weighty tone. Despite Caesar’s strong and classically-based character arc, the film just cannot invest its viewers fully because its pacing and lack of other good characters loses them along the way.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Matt Reeves with Let Me In and now Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has shown his talent for great aesthetics and capable directing. It is too bad that the script has let him down a bit (though, it is ultimately his responsibility in editing to create a film that works; it is clear that this is paced far too slowly). I look forward to seeing what he does next (which sounds like another Apes film, which he directly has a hand in scripting this time – so that is good).

The aesthetics of the film are phenomenal across the board. Michael Giacchino’s score is a highlight, providing an extra layer of gravitas and excitement to many of the scenes. I loved the little flourishes he adds in key dramatic moments. Michael Seresin’s cinematography is tonally just right for a film set in a post-apocalyptic world. Everything is very bleak and gloomy; yet, Seresin still allows for the actors and animated creations to be fully visible so that the audience can see their full emotional performances play out on their faces. James Chinlund’s production design is also great. I particularly found the central ape dwelling (Caesar’s home) to be aesthetically very interesting. I also think simple things like the overgrown 76 Station are nice touches in creating a world long forgotten by modern civilization.

The cast in the film is good overall, although many have to make the most out of weak characters. Kirk Acevedo plays the caricature “evil human”, personified by Carver (the role embodied by Draco Malfoy in Rise of the Planet of the Apes). He hates the apes, unabated by the reality of the world he lives in. For him it is not fear but unbridled hate and Acevedo does a great job portraying that (giving what is probably the best performance among the human characters).  Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Malcolm’s son but really does not have much to do, but he brings a certain grace to the role (reuniting with Reeves, having appeared as a lead in Let Me In). Keri Russell too does not have much to do playing Ellie. She is not much more than a plot device, and yet she too brings something extra to the role (as well as reuniting with Reeves as well; Reeves was on the main creative people on Felicity). Gary Oldman plays Dreyfus, the leader of the humans. He is an ex-military man who lost his whole family to the simian flu. Oldman like every human character does not have much to do aside from push the plot forward, but as an excellent character actor he still conveys the weight and pain of his decisions. Jason Clarke plays Malcolm, the human who befriends Caesar. He is the main human character and thus for many viewers is more or less the linchpin to whether the film works or not. If he can pull the audience in and make them care about him then the film will play infinitely better, but if he succumbs to the weak writing handicapping his character then the narrative will feel incredibly slow and lose its viewers. While Clarke does his best, I do not think that the writing and narrative structure/pacing could be overcome regardless of how good he is in the film. Toby Kebbell plays Koba and is excellent. He is consumed by hate and envy and his performance is only amplified by the scares and scary visual appearance of Koba. He is always going to be a villain, just look at that face. Andy Serkis is also brilliant as Caesar. He is the master of the motion capture performance (his Gollum is among my favorite performances from the last decade). Caesar, through the animators and Serkis’s work, is able to showcase a full range of emotion, including the nuances of Serkis’s performance. He is also able to emotionally engage the audience to a much greater extent than any of the human-character actors’ performances. It is fine work.

Summary & score: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes should be praised for its storytelling ambition and visual/technological execution; it is just too bad that it is so let down by its weak narrative structure. 6/10

White House Down (2013) – Review

Review: White House Down is quite entertaining, but its overall quality is greatly undermined by a predictable and overly ridiculous third act. The film is about DC cop John Cale – a man trying to put his life back together and again cultivate a relationship with his daughter, Emily, after being away for most of her life (three tours in the Middle East). She is highly interested in politics and especially the current U.S. President James Sawyer. To get back in Emily’s good graces, Cale decides to take her along with him to the White House where he is interviewing to become a member of the Secret Service. The interview does not go well, as Cale is not nearly qualified enough, but to make the most of it Cale and Emily stay for a tour. Suddenly, a paramilitary group seizes control of the premises, killing all of the President’s protective detail. Now, it is up to Cale to not only keep his daughter safe but also protect the President.

Director Roland Emmerich sure seems to enjoy reigning wanton destruction upon the White House – he even pokes fun at himself with a great reference to Independence Day. With White House Down, Emmerich still maintains the big, entertaining action but with a smaller scope, as all of the action in the film (more or less) takes place on the grounds of the White House. This is really its best aspect. Sticking with his protagonists in a confined space escalates the stakes and pulls the audience in.

Emmerich also does a good job creating character moments for Cale and his daughter in the first act, as well as for President Sawyer, which provides dramatic reference points for the audience, allowing them to relate to the characters. White House Down, despite the cartoon-like violence, still is dramatically engaging because the audience does have a stake in the characters (and really this is what saves the film from ruination). However, for all the good work Emmerich does with the protagonists, the villains are completely generic and seem to only exist to cause trouble, thus they are nothing more than a plot device (their rational is so tired and cliché that it is laughable). Having villains this shallowly written greatly takes away from both the overall dramatic impact of the film (leaving it to purely play as spectacle, which is never as satisfying) and the emotional journey of the protagonists. The villains here might as well have just been inanimate objects.

Also, the film basically turns into Die Hard once the narrative gets going. John Cale even starts to look just like John McClane by the end. Rehashing and borrowing from past films is nothing new (far from it), but this almost feels like it is a reboot of the Die Hard franchise. And as it is basically the same movie (a movie every action fan has seen no less), White House Down becomes very predictable – which is not a terrible thing if the characters are strong, but they are fairly weak here leaving the film to be plot driven and action based. But, the audience already knows the plot, so that just leaves the action, which is entertaining but again cartoonish (and thusly is in desperate need of strong characters to help ground it emotionally and dramatically). Therefore, while there are good moments and aspects of the film, as the narrative progresses the flaws become more and more noticeable and egregious.

This all leads into the third act. For the first two acts, Emmerich holds everything together with some good character moments, quick pacing, and entertaining action with a lighter/fun tone. Suddenly, with the third act, the motivations of the villains and the specifics of the story become important components to the film. The heroes (and the audience) need to know the stakes – why is it so important for them to stop the villains, but the villains are basically cardboard cutouts who have preposterous tacked on tales of woe to motivate them who suddenly amplify the stakes to world wide catastrophe levels (somewhat ruining the more intimate drama that had worked so well for the first two acts). The film turns from what seems like a personal vendetta to some crazed whacko out to blow up the world (which is much less interesting). Also, Emmerich tries to come up with some mind-blowing twist that is telegraphed (and boring) and falls flat (ultimately seeming just silly). Everything that was good in the first two acts is essentially trashed in favor of something stupid and bloated.

White House Down does have its merits. It works somewhat well in the Die Hard mold and is for the most part entertaining (with fun action and protagonists). However, for anyone taking more than a superficial interesting the narrative, the third act’s lazy absurdity (from a character and narrative standpoint) is offensive.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Roland Emmerich does make grand action films that really are not meant to be much more than escapist action movies, and to this end White House Down is a suitable addition to his filmography, and probably one of his better films (that said, and despite its historical inaccuracies, The Patriot is still my favorite of his work).

Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker’s score does not standout, but nor does it take away from the dramatic impact of the film. It does its job, reinforcing the tone and dramatic moments. Anna Foerster’s cinematographer also fits the tone of the film well. The lighting is on the brighter side, as Emmerich does not what the film to feel overly dark or intense emotionally. Kirk Petruccelli’s production design is fantastic. The whole White House feels authentic, allowing the audience to focus on the characters and action. If anything, it is Petruccelli’s sets that do the best job of grounding the action in reality.

The film has a strong cast, but not all the characters are given much to do. James Woods and Jason Clarke have a lot to offer as actors, but the film asks them to create villain performances out of nothing. In this light, they do an adequate job (especially Clarke who almost seems menacing). Richard Jenkins and Maggie Gyllenhaal elevate their characters due to their own acting ability, but are both also not given much to do. Nicolas Wright is great in a small (and sort of silly) comic relief role. Much like she did with Oz the Great and Powerful, Joey King turns in a strong performance in support. If the audience relates to John Cale on any level, it is thanks in most part to her good work. Jamie Foxx at first seemed like a surprising choice to play President Sawyer as he does not immediately strike one as being Presidential, but he is very good in the role. As the film’s tone dictates, he still keeps it light, but there is also a weight to his performance and internal decision-making as the character. Channing Tatum is also good as John Cale (basically doing his impression of John McClane – but it works). Physically, he fits the part and he does a good job mixing comedy and drama in his performance.

Summary & score: White House Down is entertaining, but ultimately feels like a disappointing remake of Die Hard. 5/10

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

Lawless (2012) – Review

Review: Lawless is an engaging gritty crime drama wrapped up in an American tall-tale. The film is about three Bondurant brothers, bootleggers in Great Depression era Virginia, who find themselves in a fight for survival when a government agent, Charlie Rakes, comes to eradicate them from their way of life. Director John Hillcoat does a great job with the crime drama aspect of the film. It is appropriately violent, while also including the iconic character archetypes and imagery of the era – particularly: gangsters using tommy guns (as seen in visually splendid scene of local gangster Floyd Banner laying waste to a rival). Hillcoat gets the tone and the grittiness of the era just right. Throughout, the film is visually brilliant, as the greatest care has been given to the set design, costume design and the perfect locations for the story. However, where the narrative goes a bit off track is between whether this is a gritty crime drama about bootleggers or an American legend about a family of brothers who seem to be immortal. The ton is conflicting between these two elements (which both play large roles in the narrative). The legend about the brothers, specifically Forrest, being invincible works within the construct of the crime drama to an extent, but Hillcoat takes it a bit too far leaving the film feeling a bit hokey. Almost as if Hillcoat is portraying the story of the Bondurants (a true story) as one of America’s tall-tales (like John Casey or Paul Bunyan). Jack’s voiceover narration mixed with the (all wrapped up in a nice bow) epilogue clashes with the meat of the narrative, being the gritty struggle for survival. Hillcoat has folklore slamming up against realism mixing messages and confusing how the audience should feel about the narrative and the characters. The performances are very strong, and Hillcoat gives the characters lots of moments allowing the audience to connect with them and take a stake in the outcome, but all this seems to be devalued by the narrative not having a fluid constant tone. Plus, the epilogue sort of flies in the face of classic gangster narratives (which following Jack the youngest Bondurant, who is the story’s lead character, is otherwise similar to classic gangster narratives detailing his rise and fall), pandering to focus groups who want everything to be okay in the end. Again, it is based on a true story, and thus certain facts (though, often changed in film adaptations) seemingly need to be preserved. Thus, if the Bondurants are that of legend and folklore, why not keep the tone lighter and completely buy into this as being like a tall-tale instead of making it very violent and steeped in realism only to have that sort of be thrown into question in the minds of the audience by a varying tone. All that said, Lawless is still a good drama, with the shifting tone really only serving as a minor issue (holding it back from being great), built on almost complete brilliance from the cast and crew.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: John Hillcoat, while clearly very gifted visually and in his ability to get great performances from his actors, seems to still struggle with aspects of his narrative’s structure. The Road has poor pacing (for example) and this has contradictory elements keeping his films from being great, instead of merely just being good. Composers Nick Cave (who also wrote the film) and Warren Ellis provide a score that both enriches the visual environment and extenuates the emotional depth of the film. Cinematographer Benoit Delhomme does fantastic work as well, visually capturing the era beautifully while also both paying homage to classic gangster films with his imagery and giving the film its own visual identity (often using darkness juxtaposed to daylight to create menace – like the shootout in the bridge or Howard coming from inside the house to attack the sheriffs). Production designer Chris Kennedy, however, does probably the film’s best work, as his overall design and especially his sets are so richly textured. The cast is very good overall, drawing the audience in. Dane DeHaan, Mia Wasikowska and Gary Oldman (who selfishly I wish was in more of the film) are all wonderful in support. Jessica Chastain is very good, playing a Chicago floosy of sorts looking for a different life. Guy Pierce is creepy and strange as Charlie Rakes (he has become one of the great current character actors). Jason Clarke is brutish and simple as Howard Bondurant. Tom Hardy steals every scene he is in (and the film) as Forrest. His presence commands attention. Shia LaBeouf is decent in the film (though maybe slightly miscast). He is eager and naïve at first but weighs the consequences of his actions.

Summary & score: As a big fan of gangster films, I was not disappointed in Lawless, as it is a solid crime drama with great performances and visuals, but it also a tad corny. 7/10

TV Series of the Week – Brotherhood

This month’s TV series is Brotherhood (2006-2008).

The crime drama is about two brothers, Michael and Tommy Caffee, who grew up and live in an Irish neighborhood in Providence. Michael is a local gangster recently out of jail and Tommy is a state representative causing constant confrontation between the two. Its creator Blake Masters went on to develop Law & Order: LA. The series stars Jason Isaacs, Jason Clarke, Annabeth Gish, Kevin Chapman, Fionnula Flanagan, Fiona Erickson, Madison Garland, Kailey Gilbert, Ethan Embry, Kerry O”Malley, Tina Benko, Matt Servitto, Len Cariou, and Brian F. O’Bryrne. The show ran for three seasons before being cancelled by Showtime; however it does have a suitable ending. The first two seasons are fantastic, making it one of the best crime dramas in 2006-2007 (probably only second to The Sopranos), while the third season is good but not quite as strong. The cast is wonderful as well, especially Isaacs and Clarke. It is well worth checking out for fans of great crime dramas.

Available on DVD and Streaming