Transcendence (2014) – Review

Review: Transcendence is an interesting sci-fi film that works more as a philosophical debate on whether technology’s progression is a benefit or hindrance to man than an action thriller. The film is about scientists Will and Evelyn Caster and their work on artificial intelligence. On the verge of a breakthrough, Will is mortally poisoned with radiation by a revolutionary (terrorist) organization ‘RIFT’. In an effort to save his mind, Evelyn with the help from another scientist, Max Waters, conceives of the idea to upload Will’s consciousness on their AI interface. RIFT tries to stop them, fearing what a machine with this much power could mean and do (having watched The Terminator presumably thousands of times, or maybe they are just creeped-out by The Brave Little Toaster, i.e. self-aware, talking machines). Evelyn, however, succeeds and gives Will’s now upload consciousness access to the internet. Will quickly sets in motion a plan for his eventual takeover of the world. RIFT and US Government join forces to try and stop him.

Transcendence is marketed as a big action thriller with sci-fi inclinations – something big and ambitious similar to the films of Christopher Nolan (who executively produces the film); however, first-time director Wally Pfister (who previously shot seven Nolan’s films) has created a film that is not an action thriller, and really does not feature much action at all. Pfister is much more interested in digging deeper into the question of what advancing technology means for humanity than seeing engrossing action set pieces. He wants Transcendence to engage its audience on a higher level than purely entertainment. For those willing to accept the film as such, it is intellectually and philosophically fascinating.

One of the main moral question is seems to ask is what is the importance of freedom to humanity? If the world can be made a better place with a future than is truly superior in comparison to today, is it worthwhile if we must sacrifice some of our freedoms? This is a question that is very much relevant today socially and politically. Our national security is always seemingly brought up when the government wishes to infringe upon our freedoms (our privacy, freedom of speech, and so on). Is our supposed safety a priority above these freedoms? This is a question also asked in this month’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Transcendence, however, takes it a bit further. Humans by nature seem to not know what is really best for themselves, others, the Planet, or really anything else, as we are all of us ruled by our own self-interest – what we believe is right for us in any given moment. What we think is right is often incorrect in the grand scheme; thus, should we surrender a portion or even all of our free will in order to support a system (political, social, ecological, and so on) that functions ubiquitously in the benefit of everyone? We would be better off, but we would not be in charge of our own lives, and would we even be human anymore without choice? This is a theme explored in countless utopian/dystopian sci-fi films (and books).

Pfister also delves into the question of man’s soul both in terms of what makes a person himself and what actually constitutes a soul. The soul is often recognized as the thing that defines each of us as ourselves. It encompasses our collective experiences and memories – our hopes, dreams, fears. In many religions, it is the soul that passes on to the next realm, leaving our decaying body behind. Yet, if our consciousness (which is essentially our soul) can be uploaded from our brain onto a new platform, specifically a processing interface, what does that mean for the soul? This is something somewhat catastrophic for religious views as if our consciousness can be transferred (or copied) by encoding the electrical impulses within our brain then the soul is no longer a valid idea as being an entity that exists within but also separate to our body. If consciousness is merely a product of our brain chemistry then when our brain dies so do we as beings (not just our body with our consciousness passing on). But this then asks the question: what is the soul? Is our soul our consciousness or is it something more intangible? If our consciousness can be copied or transferred to a different platform, what does that mean for our soul? Is our soul separate from our consciousness? Is what makes us who we are more than just our collective experiences and memories? Does the soul add something more, making us human? But if the soul is separate from our consciousness, what happens to that part of us when we die? Pfister does not want to answer these questions with his film; rather, he merely wants to engage his audience by asking these questions, as really there are not tangible answers.

Technology’s advancement is also explored in an interesting duality. The film seemingly makes Will the villain once his consciousness is given the computational power of an advanced AI system. He seemingly wants to enslave humanity so that everyone and everything will serve his end. As humans, we are seemingly biologically conditioned to fight for our freedoms. Will taking them away is what makes him the villain in our eyes – even if his endgame is in the benefit of all mankind. But Pfister takes it a step farther as well. At what point does technology infringe upon the laws of nature? The idea of a god has always held power because we are limited – we live, we die, we cannot create on the same grand level, we cannot give life to the same extent. But what if these truths are no longer true? To some extent, the advancement in technology and medicine that we have seen has already given us the power to create and extent life outside of what our biology would allow (and we have always had the power to take life). Yet, our mortality will always set us apart from the gods. But what if technology gave us the ability to be immortal? Are we then too not gods ourselves? We can create. We can destroy. And now too, we are eternal. Thus, is there a point at which humanity should no longer allow technology to progress? To keep gods and man separate. To preserve nature’s laws.

I found Transcendence to be very interesting in regards to its ability to explore big philosophical ideas and questions. Yet, there are some issues that do hold it back. Chiefly, it is structured as almost a sci-fi horror/thriller, but it lacks a thrilling payoff that we are conditioned by our knowledge of narratives to expect. The film, thusly, feels slow and lacks a satisfying punch. To some extent, the film is Invasion of the Body Snatchers for the first two acts (or for fans of Angel, Will is seemingly a version of season four’s big bad Jasmine), but then retreats from that narrative vehicle to solely ask bigger intellectual questions – which is fine; but as the marketing has billed it as something of an event blockbuster, there is a disconnect in expectations versus reality, which will leave many disappointed.

On a side note, Pfister is one of the staunchest advocates for film stock over digital (as is Christopher Nolan). He shot the film on 35mm film and finished the film photochemically without a digital intermediate (which is very rare these days – on both accounts). Transcendence, then, can be maybe read as a struggle between film stock and digital. Yes, digital can do all these great things, but it still seems to lack the wonder and magic of film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Making his feature directing debut, it is clear that Wally Pfister is very influenced by Christopher Nolan. Transcendence was even a project Nolan was considering before beginning work on Interstellar, giving it to Pfister thinking that it would be a good fit. The film is beautifully shot and designed, and Pfister gets good performances from his cast. The narrative too is very ambitious for a first time director, as it tries to balance the scale of a blockbuster with its intellectual, philosophical aspirations. Pfister does a fine job, but he does not quite get the balance and pacing right, as again the film does feel a bit slow and ultimately not as satisfying as it could (should). That said, I do look forward to his next project as a director. I also wonder if he will shoot anymore films in the future as he is one of the best.

Mychael Danna’s score is fantastic. It is inquisitive, booming, and above all very captivating. It gives the film an additional layer of emotional gravitas. Jess Hall’s cinematography is also very good. It must be difficult to shoot a film for one of the very best former directors of photography, but Hall delivers work that is probably his best to date. The lighting gives the film such a wonderful and fitting ambiance. Chris Seagers’s production design is top notch as well. The film feels a little bit like science fiction, especially with his wonderful lab sets that are classically very white, clean, sterile; but, his work also grounds the film in reality with other sets that feel very rooted in today’s world (the set for the old, dilapidated town even seems to create the sense that humanity’s present has eroded away, giving way to the future – making it a great backdrop to Will’s main lab).

The acting in the film is solid throughout, even faced with many underwritten characters. Morgan Freeman, Kate Mara, and Cillian Murphy all have smaller roles in Transcendence, but each brings something. Freeman does a version of his typical character – the man who to some extent explains things to another character (and subsequently to the audience); but even so, he does it with such skill and class that it works every time. Mara plays Bree, the head of RIFT. She is somewhat of an ambiguous, under-developed character (in terms of being someone who exists to a greater extent than merely serving a plot point), but Mara nonetheless brings a nice edge to the character and an emotional sincerity. Murphy too is under-developed as FBI Agent Buchanan, charged with stopping Will. Yet, like Freeman and Mara, he brings enough to the role to overcome the overall lack of character above moving the plot forward. Paul Bettany plays Max Waters, a scientist and friend who helps Evelyn Caster upload Will’s consciousness. Bettany is very good in the film as he struggles with the moral questions of what they are really doing. It is easy to get lost in science, forgetting the wonder and meaning of life and the world around us. Bettany is very good in being a relatable anchor for the audience amidst all the technical jargon and lofty ideas. Rebecca Hall is in some ways the film’s main character, as it is her struggle to first save Will and then later her realization that maybe Will is not acting in a manner that benefits humanity, rather he is trying to enslave the world. Her scenes inside the lab with Will are fantastic and play like those of a horror film, as Will’s disembodied voice and a computer rendered image of his face follower her around, always watching. Hall is very good in the film, and pulls the audience in emotionally. Her performance is a big reason the film works (in addition to its outstanding aesthetics). Johnny Depp has the difficult role of playing a character who is mostly not seen but heard (although, I think that he is not nearly as good as Scarlett Johansson was in Her, and he has the benefit really giving a more physical performance in many ways). Depp walks the line between sincerity and creepy as a face on a monitor, while in life he plays Will as higher-level intellectual – not bothered by such mundane things as money or matters of everyday life, wholly confident in his academic life, but also completely physically and emotionally dependent, almost childlike, as well.

Summary & score: Transcendence asks big questions, and to this regard it is intellectually and philosophically interesting and engaging; but it terms of being an entertaining blockbuster, it is a bit lacking. 6/10

Iron Man 3 (2013) – Review

Review: Iron Man 3 is a different sort of Marvel film. It is about Tony Stark dealing with the world in the wake of the events of The Avengers and the toll it is taking on him personally. He cannot sleep. He is obsessed with what the next threat could be. He wants to be the old Tony Stark, but something within him has changed. He may no longer be up to the challenge of protecting the things he cares about (like Pepper Potts). Yet, he must face his latest villain, The Mandarin (a terrorist who is setting off bombs across America) because he still feels that it is his duty. Thus, more so than before, he may fail.

From the beginning moments of Iron Man 3, it is clear that the Marvel Universe has shifted.  Throughout Phase One, the Marvel films were light and fun (for the most part), but Iron Man 3 begins with Tony Stark (via voiceover narration) regretfully owning up to his mistakes. No longer is he the arrogant selfish showoff, but a man who has clearly seen his world view shaken to the extent that he has doubts about who he is going forward. Something has definitely changed in him. The bravado and wit are still there, but now they mask his self-doubt.

Writer-director Shane Black has created a superhero event film that does indeed have the required prerequisite big action scenes and villain who is evil and powerful enough to call to arms a superhero to defeat him, but all that is secondary to his main focus: Tony Stark’s own internal struggle. This is a personal character story, which means that Black has Stark out of the Iron Man armor for most of the film. There are already three films in which Iron Man defeats his adversaries in the suit. Now, it is time to see Stark truly address his own issues. And yet, the fact that the film is a superhero blockbuster does demand villains. Black uses his villains more as foils for Stark’s own deficiencies to by reflected, rather than fully fleshed out characters with origin stories and tons of character development – again, this is a personal narrative about Stark, the rest is secondary to the story Black wants to tell.

Stark not being in the suit is in a way refreshing, and it gives the audience the ability to connect with the character on a deeper level. He is much more vulnerable when he is not Iron Man and the action feels much more immediate because Stark could actually be killed at any moment (or at least that illusion is enhanced). Being stripped of his armor also allows Stark to fully lose everything. He has two passions (or loves) in his life: Pepper and his suits of armor. Black takes both away. The audience sees Stark at his lowest point, which makes his inevitable rebirth all the more satisfying.

However, some will take issue with these narrative choices as well. There is still a lot of action involving the Iron Man suit, but much more with Stark out of it, which changes the tone of the series considerably. The first two films are mostly driven by big action set pieces in which Iron Man battles stuff in his suit – there are lots of explosions and heavy metal music; it is a lot of fun. This film is character driven. The action, while still big and exciting, is narratively secondary. It could be greatly reduced and the film’s overall narrative would not be hurt, in a sense the action scenes do not matter.

Not developing strong villains in terms of them being full characters also seems to diminish the stakes of the action scenes. The Mandarin is evil and has a grand evil plan in a very generic 1980s Euro-villain sort of way. Black does give his villains some backstory and motivation, but mostly they just serve as plot points along Stark’s journey – because, again, this is a character piece focused wholly on Stark. Thus, while Stark defeating The Mandarin does not feel as satisfying as it maybe should, Stark growing as a person is much more gratifying on a character level for the audience, as Black has done great work creating a deeper connection between Stark and the audience (deeper than just: Iron Man is cool and Tony is funny). The audience cares about whether or not Stark finds himself, not just about whether or not he blows stuff up with his armor suit. Maybe that should not be the goal of a blockbuster film, but it makes for a much more engaging and interesting film overall (than the past two). Black also includes a fantastic twist in the film, which works incredibly well as a satire (to say more would encourage many spoilers). 

Black also puts his mark all over the film. To some extent, it very much feels like his first directorial film Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (but with a lot more action). Stark engages the audience and brings them into the narrative with his voiceover narration (that seems to mirror Harry Lockhart’s in tone and style). Black also does a brilliant job with Stark’s wit. This is probably the cleverest and deviously funny of the Iron Man films. The best moments in the film are those in which Stark is just engaged in banter (I particularly liked the scene in which he tries to intimidate two minions that are standing guard while he is held captive). And like many of Black’s films, this is set at Christmas.

Black’s Iron Man 3 ushers in a new era for Marvel produced films, one that is more character driven and personal. The success of this film, however, somewhat depends on the viewer’s expectations. Do they want an Iron Man or a Tony Stark film? After Iron Man and Iron Man 2, it seems like it is about time for a Tony Stark film, and Black has done a fantastic job with the character.

Technical, aesthetics & acting achievements: Shane Black’s ability to write dialogue is brilliantly on display in Iron Man 3. He is also adept at action too, but as mentioned in the review above the best moments of this film are those in which Stark is engaged in character moments and banter. The Kiss Kiss Bang Bang vibe is also undeniable (for those who have seen it), as this film has a similar style in which the narrator tells a story about how he got himself into a big mess, but how it all worked out in the end and how he grew as a person as a result of the journey. Stark also resembles Harry and to a greater extent another Black protagonist Martin Riggs (from Lethal Weapon, which Black wrote) in that he is psychologically about to crack – a man on the edge (so to speak). Plus, this has a bit of a mystery undertone to it as well. Personally, it is my favorite of the Iron Man films and the second best of the Marvel films so far (behind The Avengers), setting the stage of Phase Two to be quite a bit better than Phase One (which aside from The Avengers was filled with entertaining but mediocre films).

Brian Tyler’s score has a good theme (which is important for superhero movies), but more so than it being particularly memorable it accompanies the dramatic tone of the film well. Black also uses his found-music soundtrack effectively to set the mood (for example: the scene in which Stark is trying his new armor for the first time). John Toll’s cinematography is very strong throughout the film. Visually, Toll and Black seem to want a slightly grittier look than the very clean and glossy style of the earlier films to fit Iron Man 3’s tone (which is darker, as the narrative focuses on Stark essentially losing everything and having to rebuild himself from scratch). Toll’s photography, however, still excels at providing wonderfully grand and heroic images of Stark and Iron Man, during the action sequences. Bill Brzeski’s production design also very much fits the tone as he seems to play with the juxtaposition of the grandeur of Stark’s old persona and the current broken state that he finds himself him (which is also mirrored in the costume and set design). The Mandarin visually has the opposite narrative arc to Stark, starting at the bottom, broken and rising to power (arrogant and self-obsessed), which works well in contrast. It allows to audience to visually see that these men are opposing forces.

As Iron Man 3 is a character piece, the performances are paramount to its success, much more so than in the past two films. The whole narrative hinges on Robert Downey Jr.’s performance essentially. He is fantastic. All of his past performances of Stark have been good too, but he is more or less playing the same character the whole time. He does not change. With this film, Stark undergoes a massive and clear transformation, which Downey Jr. plays wonderfully. He is at his best when he is tearing off one-liners at rapid pace, but more vitally he is excellent in the dramatic moments too. The audience has always liked Stark, been amused by him, and cheered for him, but here Downey Jr. goes deeper and enables them to feel pity when he makes mistakes and ultimately admiration when he picks himself back up a new man. More than ever before, the audience has a stake in the outcome and cares about Stark. Black’s narrative is partially to thank for this, but Downey Jr.’s performance is what makes the film. The supporting cast is also good. James Badge Dale does not have a lot of dialog, but he has a great presence which amplifies what is really nothing more than a henchman role. Ben Kingsley is marvelous in the film. He is clearly having a ton of fun with his character, which translates well for the audience (i.e. they are having a lot of fun with him too). Rebecca Hall is maybe underutilized, but her good work in the early moments of the films pays off well later. Guy Pearce is a great character actor and here again he does a good job creating something out of thinly written character. Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow are also good in support. They bolster Stark, but are also removed so that Stark can find his way alone.

Summary & score: In many ways Iron Man 3 is more a Shane Black film than it is a Marvel film, but that works greatly to its benefit, as this is the best and most personal of the series to date. 8/10 

Movie of the Week - Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This week’s movie is Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008).

The comedy is about two best friends Vicky and Cristina who travel to Barcelona for the summer, each with their own ideas about relationships and love. Those ideas and what they want for their lives are called into question when they meet a handsome painter Juan Antonio, who takes an interest in both of them. The film is written and directed by Woody Allen (and is the final entry in his so-called Scarlett Johansson trilogy, with Match Point and Scoop). Allen’s dialogue, characters and scenes are fabulous and among his best. Working on the film with Allen are Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe and production designer Alain Bainee (both new to Allen’s films).  Their work gives the film a wonderful immersive aesthetic, especially the brilliant shot composition and use of light and locations. There is a beautiful look to the film with messy relationships occupying space in the grand setting – much like the work of the artists in the film. Allen always uses found music to score his films. Here, he uses Spanish guitar music and the song Barcelona to great effect. The cast in the film is excellent – Johansson and Rebecca Hall star (as Cristina and Vicky respectively), while Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz (for which she won an Oscar) co-star. There are also great supporting parts from Patricia Clarkson and Chris Messina, and tying it together is the playful narration of Christopher Evan Welch. The film is a must for fans of Johansson, Hall, Bardem and/or Cruz, and well as Woody Allen fans. His work in Europe (for the most part) continues to be very good (as can be seen with his recent film Midnight in Paris). As one of my favorite films of 2008, I love the dialog and dynamic between the characters. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming, and to Rent

Everything Must Go (2011) – Review

Review: Everything Must Go is sad and depressing, yet somewhat hopeful. It is a story of a life mired in destructive tendencies, but with the longing for redemption. First time writer-director Dan Rush approaches the disheartening story with a heavy tone (maybe too heavy), but the subject matter – a man whose life is crumbling around him due to his drinking – is burdensome and deserves a serious take. Rush uses humor (I mean, he has the talents of Will Ferrell after all), but there is not enough to dissipate the overall feeling of depression that accompanies the piece – which would be fine, though this is not a full on tragedy and not quite a comedy either. It fits in the indie film notch of being more like real life than typical Hollywood fair. The ending is fairly open ended; the individual viewer can take what they want from it, pinning a happy or unhappy ending on (beyond the narrative’s ending, which nicely closes the character’s journey for this story). Rush does a good job with his characters, as we get a sense of who all these people are (even with limited screen time, something that has been lacking in other films I have seen lately). And, the narrative structure is sound. The problem of the film arises from its tone. It is just slightly too melancholy for a dramedy (that having Farrell suggests the film to be). There are not enough light moments; and though there is a sense that the character is on the right path, the viewer is left with a sense that maybe it will not be ok (again playing into the indie realism style for narrative films). Having Farrell (with his strong comedy background) as the protagonist aligns the viewer’s expectations for a lighter tone, with funny moments. And while there is some humor, the film is not light. It tackles the topic and is unflinchingly honest about it, but Rush and Farrell approach the character of Nick from a non-violent angle (which is not common with alcoholics, and works well for this film). His behavior is just as destructive, but it is more heartbreaking, as he seems like an otherwise nice guy who has just been put upon. But Rush is wise not to let excuses overshadow and justify Nick’s behavior. All in all, Rush has made a good film – the tone is just too bleak given the lead and audience expectations that arise from the lead. A little more humor and a slightly lighter tone would have helped this film immensely. As it is, the tone slows down the narrative and seriousness of the story (which it probably needed to be despite what I think) detracts from the overall enjoyment of the film. Everything Must Go has just enough hope to let the audience off the hook and allow them to leave the film with some potential happiness, but not a lot.

Technical and acting achievements: Dan Rush shows with this film that he has the potential to be a very good director. He has the narrative storytelling tools. Everything Must Go is just a difficult first film tonally to get right. Aesthetically, the film has a very naturalistic look and feel to it, which goes hand-in-hand with the story and character’s realism. Cinematographer Michael Barrett uses natural light almost exclusively (and does very good work) and production designer Kara Lindstrom’s sets and design take advantage of the film’s locations (I also like the fact that the set design and props used in the scenes on Nick’s lawn tell a story about who he is).Composer David Torn’s score is low key and reinforces the disparaging tone. The cast is very good – each buying into the naturalist approach. No one is over acting or exaggerating their characters, even Will Farrell. Laura Dern and Michael Pena have small roles, but their good work helps shape the narrative. Christopher Jordan Wallace is very good in his first big role. His even and restrained manner and delivery play well off Ferrell. Rebecca Hall is a wonderful actress, and she continues to be amazing in almost everything she is in, including this. She is vulnerable, yet strong; funny, yet serious. She is able to engage the audience completely. Farrell does good work. He is fun at times, but is able to pull in his typical over the top hijinks and deliver a very believable performance, with just enough man-child to remind the viewer that it is still him.

Summary & score: Everything Must Go is maybe too real and too depressing, given that it stars Will Farrell, and thus lacking some entertainment, but it is still a good film. 6/10

Movie of the Week - The Prestige

This week’s movie is The Prestige (2006).

The drama mystery based on the novel by Christopher Priest is about two feuding magicians, Alfred Borden and Robert Angier – their rivalry extents past just who is the better illusionist but into an obsession. Each must to not only be more prominent but also to destroy the other, which has lasting and devastating consequences for both men. The film is directed by Christopher Nolan, who utilizes his frequent collaborators (composer David Julyan, cinematographer Wally Pfister, editor Lee Smith, and production designer Nathan Crowley) to craft an excellent narrative both tonally and stylistically. The film also has a fantastic cast with superb leading performances from Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman, and fine supporting work from Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, David Bowie, Andy Serkis, Piper Perabo, and Roger Rees. What makes the film great is Nolan’s narrative structure – the film is about magicians and magic tricks, and the film itself is a magic trick in a sense (the opening line is “Are you watching closely?”). It is also a period drama, but feels modern and unlike any Victorian era piece. Bale and Jackman are also in top form, anything less would have hurt this film’s ability to draw the viewer in to the extent that it does. While it tells you to pay attention and watch closely, and explains how tricks work, it is still able to pull one over on the audience. It is just a brilliant film and a must see. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and to Rent

LeapBackBlog 2010 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2010 was fantastic, full of great performances, great directing and great work behind the camera (or in post-production). More so than the last few years, 2010 had a greater number of excellent films, which made choosing the best films, performances, directors, and technical achievements very difficult. 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, and 2010 features a lot of amazing breakthrough performances), 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 1: Technical Achievements
Part 3: Directors
Part 4: Leading Performances
Part 5: Films

Supporting Performances:

Christian Bale – The Fighter

Bale is a fantastic actor, becoming the characters he portrays. In The Fighter he does not so much play a role or portray a character, rather he is Dickie Eklund. It is the performance of the year (along with Claire Danes in Temple Grandin). What makes it so good, aside from Bale’s uncanny ability to transform himself completely into each character, is that we sort of root for Dickie even though he can be thought of as one of the film’s villains (in a sense). Dickie sort of becomes the hero of the piece due directly to Bale’s brilliance and the empathy he elicits.

Helena Bonham Carter – The King’s Speech

Carter is known for her whimsical and dark characters. She is, however, very versatile. In The King’s Speech, she is very restrained and modest, but still inserts a bit of her mischievousness into the character, though subtly. It is my favorite supporting actress performance of the year. Carter had a good year, also giving great performances in Harry Potter in the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Alice in Wonderland.

Marion Cotillard – Inception

Cotillard is beautiful, and she uses her allure well in her performances. In Inception, she plays the villain, but a sympathetic one – her performances plays as tragic and powerful, a difficult mix. The film has wonderful performances and characters throughout, but her performance is the most important as it is the emotional core driving Cobb’s decisions, and Cotillard plays it amazingly well.

Andrew Garfield – The Social Network

What a year for Garfield! He starred in two of the best films (The Social Network and Never Let Me Go), was amazing as the lead in Red Riding: 1974 and won the role of Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man film. But it is his performance in The Social Network as Eduardo Saverin that stands out. The character is an unfortunate one, getting betrayed and left behind. Garfield plays the role as soft and heartfelt, a real likable guy, making the deception and villainy of Sean Parker and Zuckerberg all the more powerful. He, along with the amazing performance by Rooney Mara in the opening scene, provides the catalyst for all the other performances, especially Jessie Eisenberg’s, to build off of, resulting in it being a great film (and I have to say Armie Hammer was fantastic in the film too).

Rebecca Hall – The Town

Hall plays her characters to be sweet and loving, but there is still a strong woman in there too. This comes out in The Town. She is traumatized by what happens to her in the beginning, but is strong enough to not only overcome it, but actively stand up to other strong characters and performances in the film. Hall has the brunt of the emotional work to do in the film, while also needing to have the audience fall in love with her, as the main character does. She does all these things flawlessly, making the film all the more better and emotionally impactful.

Tom Hardy – Inception

Hardy has a breakout performance in Inception. He plays his role as Eames, the forger, as if he was James Bond, and it is brilliant. His bravado mixed well with the array of characters and acting talent. The interplay between his character and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Arthur is funny and a bonus to a great action-thriller. Director Christopher Nolan must have thought his performance was great too, casting him in his next film: The Dark Knight Rises.

Sean Harris – Red Reding: 1980

Harris is deranged and downright scary in Red Reding: 1980. This is the kind of role he plays exceptionally well (as can also be seen in Harry Brown). His Bob Craven is a crooked cop that is slimy, squirrely and just despicable. Yet, he commands the attention of the viewer, as he is like lit dynamite – you are nervous and anxious watching, but cannot look away as the devastation it will leave in its wake fascinates you.

Melissa Leo – The Fighter

Leo completely transforms into her character in The Fighter. She is strong and sort of awful, yet still emits compassion and love. She will make the viewer hate her and in the next moment symphonize and then hate her again. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that she holds her own against very strong performances from Christian Bale and Amy Adams. Just like with Frozen River, Leo distinguishes herself as one of the top actresses in Hollywood (though, she typically sticks to indy films).

Jeremy Renner – The Town

Renner has been acting in tons of stuff for years, but it was 2009’s The Hurt Locker that put him on the radar of movie-goers and industry professionals. In The Town, he is excellent. He has such an edge to him in the film that anything seems possible at any moment. His performance alone will keep the audience enthralled and on pins and needles. Many who saw the film complained that there was not enough of him in it – certainly a complement to his talent.

Ellen Wong – Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Wong probably is not going to make too many 2010 “best of the year” lists I suspect, but she should. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World represents her first major acting role and she is simply brilliant as Knives Chau. Her spunk and adorableness make every scene she is in better. The film features great work from an ensemble cast, but Wong and Kieran Culkin are the standouts. Director Edgar Wright liked her performance so much he adapted the ending of the movie as to not leave her character hurt (emotionally). Personally, I look forward to her future work.

The Town (2010) – Review

The Town is a heist film more concerned with its characters than the action or crime aspects, but this is a good thing. The film does have well shot and exciting action scenes (the end reminded me a lot of Heat). But it is clear that director Ben Affleck did not set out to make a film about larceny or about the robbers that commit them – he made a film about people that happen to be criminals and those that interact with them (the film is about the characters, not what they do). And while the action scenes are good and play well, it is the scenes that delve into the characters and their emotions that are the most engaging and ultimately elevate the film. In particular the scene between main character, Doug MacRay, and his father is expertly executed further connecting the audience with MacRay and thus making his actions and outcome matter. The scenes between Doug and Claire (his romantic interest) are also very good. Their relationship is really the crux of the narrative, and it is beautifully done. It is interesting that a film seemingly sold on its heist and action features would be more about the relationships between the characters with everything else merely just being the world and lives they inhabit. Affleck loves all his characters; and the viewer can see that in how the camera is used – Affleck seems to place his camera in a grey area. It is neither too close to the action to make the audience feel involved or too far to be fully detached and voyeuristic. Affleck creates an intimate feel, but at a slight and safe distance. He employed the same style with his first film, Gone Baby Gone, but here since the film was sold on action (to some extent) the audience is not sure what to feel during the down time. They came in amped, but most of the film is paced slowly with a building tension as MacRay and Claire’s relationship is plainly doomed. Everyone knows there is going to be a big action set piece at the end – the Hollywood system deems it so – but the narrative structure that Affleck utilizes, one of a character drama explored through budding and conflicting relationships, clashes a bit with audience expectations. Affleck also uses a lot of shots of the city to transition between scenes (a common practice in film and especially TV) seemingly to give pause and perspective both on the narrative and to physically see the neighborhood that the characters are from, which again goes back to the film being about these people, and where they are from. However, the net effect of these transitions and the structure and shooting style of the film is that it plays a bit flat at times. It would be interesting to see how it would play if the audience went in expecting a serious character drama. Overall, The Town is both a very good character piece and a good heist film (though the former is given much more attention than the later).

On to the technical achievements: Ben Affleck again reminds everyone that he is both a very talented actor, but also an adept writer and director (not that he needed to as Gone Baby Gone is a good film too). The film served as a coming out party a bit for Affleck as a director, as his first film was not widely seen due to its limited release and low profile for the general movie-going audience.  He is at his best as a director in capturing intimate and wonderful performances. His collaboration with cinematographer Robert Elswit (check out LeapBackBlog’s feature on him) is interesting as it is subdued a bit. Elswit does not go for too gritty a look, but it is not glossy either. Much like the camera placement, the look of the film finds a place in-between (though, closer to gritty) and the characters are lighted expertly by Elswit –they do not appear so much as actors, but as real people, while still looking good. The norm, it seems, for these types of films is for them to be shot in a gritty Greengrass-esque style, but Affleck stays true to his style, and the film benefits greatly as a result. Sharon Seymour’s production design and the score by David Buckley and Harry Gregson-Williams compliment the tone and feel authentic to the film. The Town needed to have fantastic performances to work. Affleck turns in his best work, possibly of his career, but certainly in a long time. He has always been a good dramatic actor (Hollywood just wanted him to be an action star). Rebecca Hall, as usual, is also very good, playing her role with fragility masking true strength within. She is good enough to turn action seekers into viewers ready for a character drama. Jeremy Renner, coming off an Oscar nod, is lush with emotion and range. He commands the screen and attention as he is ripe with tension inducing spontaneity. Chris Cooper, while not having much screen-time, makes a huge impact in the narrative. Jon Hamm and Blake Lively seem out of place, based solely on associating them with their respective TV shows, but like the rest of the cast are good and fit in well. Pete Postlethwaite somehow makes himself seem tough and scary despite being a flouriest and an older man. Affleck assembled one of the best cast and crew of any film this year, and that translates to a fantastically well made film full of excellent performances.

The Town has great heist-action, but it is the character relationships that make it impressive. 8/10

Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 (2010) – Review

Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 (from now on being referred to as Red Riding: 1974) is the first in the Red Riding Trilogy (based on the book by David Peace). The film is dark, cryptic and unflinching – yet beautifully shot, directed and acted. Director Julian Jarrold’s narrative does not seem reliable throughout, as it jumps around in time, between dream, perception and reality. The viewer is not quite sure what they are seeing. But by the end of the film, everything comes together and the journey feels satisfying – albeit emotionally draining. The film is structured as a mystery following an investigator, Eddie Dunford, as he looks into the disappearance of a young girl, but this is only the surface of the narrative. It delves deep into the emotions of persecution, love, anguish – human tragedy in different forms is always at the core. Devastatingly bleak and violent imagery is juxtaposed to rays of light breaking through gloomy clouds. This is a motif that Jarrold uses many times in the film, and it is quite striking and beautiful. As if, this one reporter, trying to uncover the truth, even at the highest cost, delivers humanity from the corruption that plagues it – the devil triumphs when good men do nowt. The transformation of Eddie is profound – is it love and loss that compels him, or is it finding the truth – probably a bit of both. He is a character defined by love and loss, but thought of by his friend as a good person. Naivety, ambition and inexperience may have led him to his journey, but these petty characteristics fade as deeper emotions take hold.  As a viewer, Eddie does not make decisions that we understand or would replicate – and what does that say about us. When façade is stripped away, all we have left is base instinct dictated not by social laws but by internal (call it spiritual or core) moral personal laws that bind us to do what we must, and for Eddie, above all else, the truth will out – at any cost. And this, like the depravity juxtaposed to beams of light erupting from dark clouds, is cut against seemingly absolute corruption. While Eddie does what he believes to be his highest moral calling, when all other avenues are closed, society and those set in place to govern and protect us reject truth utterly. Jarrold’s film looks at evil in society as almost the crushing and overwhelming norm; something that cannot be overcome and thus excepted for what it is, and while serial murderers may seem out of the norm to us, does police and government corruption?  Why is it that those that strive to be good and fight the evil that surrounds them find that they are not championed by society, rather they are wilted and restrained. The film starts and ends in seemingly the same place, society unaffected, unmoved – but good striking out does not go unnoticed on a more personal and specific level. Slowly others take notice. And as this is only the first film in the trilogy – good has taken a foothold, evil not as steady as it was – and much like the light punching through, this story of struggle shows that while we cannot eradicate evil in one fell swoop, evil can be defeated slowly step by step. And once in motion, truth will come to light. Red Riding: 1974 is visually uncompromising, both in its beauty and in its gritty and stark look at the corruption of humanity.

On to the technical achievements: Julian Jarrold has made his best directorial effort with this film – his use of the camera is profound, focusing the attention of the viewer on very specific elements, both visually and thematically. He pulls focus on the foreground and background, fixates on emotional visual clues rather than just straightforward convergence on the characters’ faces. He wants to tell the narrative in a precise manner, only giving visuals that will forward the journey that he wants the viewer to take, both from a story and emotional standpoint. Chief in his success is the astounding work of cinematographer Rob Hardy, whose other work is not well known or seen, especially for those outside the UK (I hope that this film gets him lots of work on good projects in the future, because he is clearly a rare and gifted talent). Their collaboration is along the same vein as French director Jacques Audiard and his cinematographer Stephane Fontaine stylistically. Production designer Cristina Casali and composer Adrian Johnston both do very good work on the film, capturing the world and atmosphere of the film. Red Riding: 1974 also serves as a breakout/take notice film for actor Andrew Garfield, who is brilliant. His work carries a seemingly convoluted narrative, anchoring it and giving it a moral core. The film is designed to center around his performance, and he does not let it down. Sean Bean and Rebecca Hall are also standouts among a cast that is good across the board. This is a film that tackles a difficult subject and comes at it through a complicated narrative structure, yet the quality of all those involved see it succeed in being a very aesthetically interesting and emotional provocative film.

Red Riding: 1974 sets the bar high for the rest of the series, as it is a visually remarkable and intensely engaging work. 8/10

The series is available on Blu-ray and DVD at Amazon.com and currently streaming on Netflix.