Movie of the Week – Revolutionary Road

This week’s movie: Revolutionary Road (2008).

Frank and April Wheeler have the life they thought they always wanted – a beautiful family, a nice suburban home, and a good job in the city. But each feels lost, the abyss of mundane life has swallowed them up. They desperately need a change. This story takes place in 1950s Connecticut.

Director Sam Mendes made what is probably his best film to date with Revolutionary Road. It is a scouring look at the myth of the 1950s’ ideal American family. Mendes is one of the great directors working today to come out of theatre – his other notably films include: American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and Skyfall. Mendes worked with a brilliant group of technicians on the film. Thomas Newman provides a strong score, while Roger Deakins delivers his patented wonderful photography (both are frequent collaborators of Mendes). Kristi Zea’s production designer is good as well.

The film stars Kate Winslet (who was Mendes’s wife at the time) and Leonardo DiCaprio each giving one of their career best performances. The film marks their on-screen reunion following Titanic. David Harbour, Kathy Bates, Kathryn Hahn, Zoe Kazan, Dylan Baker, and Michael Shannon (who is also electric) feature in support. Revolutionary Road is quietly one of the best acted films of the last decade, and yet only saw one Oscar nomination for acting (for Shannon, who lost to Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, who gave maybe the best performance of the decade; meanwhile Winslet was nominated and won that year for The Reader, but I would argue that she is even better in this).

Revolutionary Road is emotionally draining and deeply affecting, but it is also a must-see for fans of brilliantly directed and acted dramas.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Movie of the Week – The Shawshank Redemption

This week’s movie is: The Shawshank Redemption (1994).

Andy Dufresne is imprisoned after being convicted of murdering his wife. He struggles at first, but soon finds his place making friends with Red and a few other prisoners. While he is exposed to inhuman indecency, he is able to occupy himself with other pursuits to pass the time and not completely lose his humanity or hope.

The film, based on a Stephen King short story (I know, I am surprised by this every time too), is written and directed by Frank Darabont. He is also responsible for Buried Alive (not well known, or particularly great, but a lot fun), The Green Mile, The Mist (both of which are also based on King’s writings), and season one of The Walking Dead. He worked with a great crew on the film, including: composer Thomas Newman, cinematographer Roger Deakins, and production designer Terence Marsh.

The film stars Tim Robbins and co-stars Morgan Freeman. Bob Gunton, William Sadler, Clancy Brown, and Gil Bellows feature in support.

While The Shawshank Redemption is undoubtedly a fantastic Hollywood style drama, it is also probably the most overrated film in cinema history (the same can be said for The Green Mile as well, which is also highly overrated on IMDb). It currently sits at number one on IMDb’s Top 250 user rated films of all-time, yet it is not even on 2013’s Critics List of the Top 250 Films of all-time. That said, it is a highly enjoyable drama that pulls the viewer in with its almost tall-tale narrative of Andy’s time in prison. It is a must-see for fans of 1990s’ Hollywood style films. It was nominated for seven Oscars including Best Picture, but it lost in every category. Forrest Gump won Best Picture that year (to continue the trend of overrated films).

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video-On-Demand

Side Effects (2013) – Review

Review: Side Effects is a thriller that constantly manipulates audience expectations with each twist. The film is about Emily Taylor, a young woman that seems to be suffering from depression. Her husband Martin has just been released from prison. After an apparent suicide attempt, Emily is treated by Dr. Jonathan Banks who tries her on a number of medications before finding one that seems to work, however Emily begins to sleepwalk as a side effect. One evening Martin comes home to find Emily in the kitchen making dinner, but she is asleep. When he tries to wake her, she stabs him to death with a cutting knife. Who is to blame? Emily? Dr. Banks for keeping her on the medication? The drug company? But not all is as it seems. There are some spoilers in this review, best if you see the film first.

Director Steven Soderbergh is an intelligent filmmaker who understands storytelling, and what the audience expects given what a certain kind of narrative tells them – what they pick up consciously and subconsciously. With Side Effects, Soderbergh seems to be playing a game with the audience, constantly managing their expectations and changing their perception of the characters – which is really what the best ‘twist’ thrillers do: you think you know who the characters are and what is going on, but then everything changes.

Soderbergh also seems interested in raising concerns or questions about how depression is dealt with by the healthcare system in America (which is likely corporate run at this stage). Before the film starts to throw out plot and character twists, it seems to be a subtle (or maybe passively aggressive) attack on this system. Healthcare professionals just seem to drug their patients with whatever the latest pill is (or whichever they are being paid to promote) without really addressing the root cause of the depression. Just about every character in the film seems to be on something to help them manage (be it beta-blockers, anti-depressants, or sedatives). Emily experiencing grave side effects leading to a tragic death seems to call into question the whole system and who is at fault. Each participant in the system seems to be shifting the blame. While Soderbergh does not clearly attack the drug companies, doctors, or our society in which pill-taking is commonplace, the whole system and cycle feels dubious at best.

However, the film then shifts as Dr. Banks’s life falls apart, as he is left holding the short stick in the blame game. He desperately wants to find out what happened, feeling like he did not make a mistake. Soderbergh sets his struggle to find the truth up as a man driven mad by loss, grasping at straws, driving away the people in his life even more. His claims seem baseless and are getting more and more outlandish, as he thinks there is a conspiracy against him. The audience believes that Emily is the victim and Dr. Banks very well could be to blame (he seems like a corporate stooge at one point, taking money to peddle their drugs). Soderbergh has done something interesting here. The film begins and Emily is the protagonist. The audience connects with her struggle with depression, trying to cope with her life and the pressure of her husband’s return. Thus, Dr. Banks to some extent feels like the villain. He is too busy with his own life to really pay enough attention to his patient Emily, and thus made a mistake that cost her dearly. Then, he begins to make claims against her, naming her as the chief architect in the conspiracy against him. This turns him into even more of a villain, as again the audience is behind Emily. However, Soderbergh then starts to introduce cracks in Emily’s story and Dr. Banks seems like he might be making sense – maybe he is on to something. Suddenly, Soderbergh has changed the audience’s expectations. At first the film was a drama about Emily dealing with a tragic event and maybe and raising social issues about the pharmaceutical company/healthcare system relationship, and now it is a mystery that Dr. Banks is trying to solve with Emily as maybe the villain. It is not often that a film can have its protagonist and antagonist switch places without missing a beat.

Soderbergh continues to play with the audience as the film develops and their perception of the characters changes. The characters and what the audience thought the film was are completely different by the end. Ultimately the film plays as a thriller, as the narrative becomes a cat and mouse game between Emily and Dr. Banks. Soderbergh’s mastery of narrative filmmaking is essential to the film being fluid amidst all the plot twists and narrative tone changes. He structures the narrative to build, as more information is told to the audience.

However, this is a thriller without much action – setting it apart from a genre that seems to have become an offshoot of the action genre – in terms of explosions, gunplay, and physical altercations (as there are none, which I found refreshing). This is a thriller of wits (like the classic thrillers of old – The Third Man and Notorious to a couple from the 1940s). But, for some, it may play a little slow due to the lack of action (especially in the first half before things start to pick up with the plot twists).

Side Effects sees Soderbergh doing a lot with one film. It is somewhat a psychological thriller (as Dr. Banks feels his world slipping away), a drama about depression, a questioning look at the healthcare system (in regards to their management of patients with social issues and pharmaceutical companies’ role in the system), a character drama (as Emily and Dr. Banks are both well-conceived and developed), and a plot twist driven thriller. It is an entertaining film that engages the viewer’s mind as well. And, as it develops, Soderbergh’s storytelling ability reveals itself to be quite marvelous.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Soderbergh has announced that Side Effects will be his last film (at least for the next few years), as he plans to focus on television. It is a fitting way for him to go out, as it is one of his best films (especially from a narrative standpoint).

Soderbergh also shot the film, something he often does. The cinematography has a very stylized look, with soft focus and haloing lights. Matched with Howard Cummings’s production design, which is very much grounded in reality, it gives the film sort of a heighted sense (like not everything is as it seems). Thomas Newman’s score is also very good, perfectly fitting the tone shifts.

Like most of Soderbergh’s films, the cast is very good, giving very naturalistic performances. Channing Tatum has a small role as Martin (and used as a bit of a red herring), but it is important as his performance brings a lot of credibility to Emily (setting her up initially as the protagonist and victim). Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Emily’s former doctor. She plays her character to be seemingly powerful and confident, but really out of her depth and insecure. Jude Law is great in the film (Soderbergh gets very good work out of him – see Contagion). Law plays Dr. Banks and has a range of emotions he must go through over the course of the film. But what he does very well is make the audience believe that he is both the villain and the hero at different moments (which is vital to the film’s success). Rooney Mara continues to show herself as one of the great young talents in Hollywood right now. She is fantastic in the film. Emily seems initially completely vulnerable and weak, but as the film goes on it is all just a measured act (it reminds me of Edward Norton’s brilliant work in Primal Fear, though the revelation is not so grandiose in this film).

Summary & score: Side Effects is a good thriller, as it constantly changes the audience’s perception as it develops, built on great performances from its leads and nimble storytelling from its director. 8/10

Skyfall (2012) – Review

Review: Skyfall is a great James Bond adventure, filled with strong characters, nostalgic throwbacks and great franchise moments. The film is about a washed-up Bond, severely injured on his last assignment and maybe his heart is just not in it anymore. However, he is called back into action when a man named Silva personally attacks MI6, and M specifically. His loyalty to M is tested both because of her connection to Silva and the role she played in his last assignment.

The Bond franchise has somewhat changed in its fifty years and twenty-three films, but the general idea of what a good Bond film should be has stayed mostly the same: Bond is a cold-blooded spy, who has a way with the ladies and seemingly always gets his man (target). Bond films thusly should be cool, with attractive women, stylish cars and neat gadgets, and action packed – above all very entertaining. Bond films often have huge action set pieces, multiple international locations and impressive sets (innovated and imagined by the great Ken Adam).

With Casino Royale, the franchise was rebooted to reflect a more modern and grittier more realistic Bond (doing away with the pageantry and many of the characters, like Q and Moneypenny; also gone were the gadgets, over-the-top super villains and their lairs, and maybe even some of Bond’s swagger). The film presented Bond as not being completely comfortable in his role (not exactly fitting the lifestyle or being quite as cold-blooded – i.e. being affected by the death of people around him).

Sam Mendes’s Skyfall keeps the same Bond from Casino Royale (and its follow-up) but feels much more like a classic Bond film. It is chock-full of references and homages to past Bond films (especially those in the Sean Connery era). The film even brings back many of the staples of the franchise. Yet, it is again a very personal story (like its two predecessors). Thus, Mendes has created a hybrid of sorts: a more emotionally available Bond that the audience can connect with on a more personal level (rather than merely just being a cool action hero) mixed with the classic conventions that make the series great (especially for its fans). It works very well.

Narratively, the film takes a while to get going. As with the other films in the franchise, Skyfall opens with a big action set piece prologue. However, Mendes wants to also include a lot of character information into this sequence, but without losing all the action. In Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, the openings also had action and character information (which was told particularly efficiently in the former), but in Skyfall the scene just seems to go on too long. The audience is told that Bond does not agree with M’s position on putting the mission ahead of her people and that maybe he is on the back nine of his career (seemingly having lost a step). The best opening sequences have showcased the character in sort of a cinematic vignette – the audience gets a sense of the character (or actor’s style playing Bond) and sees him do something exciting to draw them in and hook them in an efficient manner. With the last two films, these scenes have just felt too long. The audience does not know the stakes (especially in this film – at least with Quantum of Solace it starts right where Casino Royale ends) and thus is not invested (at least more than superficially, as they root for Bond because he is Bond and they know the character going in), leaving the opening to feel boring (even if the action is impressive) because it goes on too long. This is a classic case in modern action films of quantity over quality. This opening could have been much more effective if told more economically. There is plenty of time later in the narrative for showy action. Plus, not only is the scene too long, but then it goes right into the title sequence (dragging out the film even longer before the audience really gets into the story).

However, even with all that said, once Mendes gets into the characters and Bond on his mission, the film becomes quite good. Mendes’s skill as a filmmaker is in getting wonderful performances from his actors and creating dynamic scenes. Many of the most electric moments in this film come from scenes in which two characters are just talking. Bond’s conversation with Severine in the casino or his first meeting with Silva are by far more engaging and thrilling than any action sequence in this film. This is not a knock against the action set pieces. For the most part, they are great. This is more in admiration for what Mendes has brought to the film (and franchise). His characters are utterly compelling and well-drawn (which is usually not the case in action films). Silva is among the best villains in the series as a result of the care taken with his character and the performance Mendes garnered. Story-wise, he is really no different than any other psychotic that Bond is sent after. Silva is truly frightening. It is the approach Mendes takes, treating him as a full character, that makes him great, and really what makes the film great.

The dramatic journeys for the film’s main characters have an emotional resonance to them. M seeks redemption. Silva needs resolution in his twisted relationship with M, who is a mother figure to him (and also to Bond in many ways). And for Bond, he must prove that he not only wants to but also physically can remain a 00-agent, while also working through his own issues with M. The film is so effective, because the audience sees what the characters motivations are and gets to know them on a deeper level (and thereby care about them). More so than other Bond films, the audience has an emotional stake in the characters, which is more effective than the grandest of action set pieces.

Going into the film with Mendes at the helm, there may have been some concern about whether or not he could direct an entertaining action film (due to no prior experience on this scale). The action set pieces are mostly very good (not the best in the franchise, but not the worst). Again, the prologue felt too long and logistically/strategically the finale seemed poorly planned for a top agent (for example: why did Bond not bring more weapons or call for backup on the down-low? – maybe there was not time, even if there seemed to be, and maybe he did not trust anyone; it just felt needlessly reckless). It also has sort of a Straw Dogs/Home Alone vibe to it, which feels odd for a James Bond film. However, the finale works very well from a character and narrative standpoint (which is more important). However, again, the action scenes are really secondary, even in an action film (assuming the film also wants to be actually good), to the characters and Mendes does fantastic work with them.

Skyfall bridges the franchise from (the reboot) Casino Royale (which is Bond’s first mission) to something more along the lines for the classic Bond adventures fans are used to (reestablishing many of the series institutions), while still keeping the character more emotionally accessible to audience. It is among the best in the series.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Sam Mendes’s James Bond film feels like an aesthetically and dramatically more impressive film than most in the franchise. As expressed multiple times in the review above, he does a brilliant job with the characters and performances, but he also gives the film a very dramatically weighty tone. There is a real sense of peril for the characters (and thereby the audience). This is not just a lightweight fun action romp. The drama is powerful and the tension gripping. Probably unlike any Bond film before, Mendes has made a film where the characters and their moments are more thrilling than the action spectacle.

Thomas Newman’s score combines moments from past Bond scores with his own original work. Many of the pieces have sort of an adventure film vibe to them, while other conform more to the typical Bond-style music. It is different than any other Bond score I can remember, but still works well with the film emphasizing the dramatic moments and action/character beats. Dennis Gassner’s production design fits well with Mendes’s blending of the ‘new’ Bond with the classic Bond (much like Newman’s score). The film still has a very realistic look to it, but many of the sets have a great exaggerated and grandiose feel to them (like the awesome abandoned island, which looks a bit like the city Cobb and Mal created in Inception, but after the dream has collapsed). However, Roger Deakins’s cinematography blows everything else away (probably even overshadowing the film). His work is beautiful and rich (from the sci-fi feel of the action scene in Shanghai and the striking colors of the Macau casino to the ghostly and weary glow of the moor in Scotland). It is easily among the best work I have seen this year (if not the best hands down this year).

The cast is excellent. Albert Finney, Naomie Harris and Ralph Fiennes are all good in small supporting roles, while Ben Whishaw and Berenice Marlohe (her conversation with Bond in Macau is magnetic and fantastic) steal scenes (also in support). Judi Dench is given her biggest and most dramatically compelling role in the series, and does wonderfully with it. She appears more vulnerable in this than any other film, but still with an overcurrent of strength and resolve. Javier Bardem is just brilliantly amazing at playing villains and having a blast with them. His Silva far dwarfs any other in the rebooted Bond franchise (and maybe in the whole series) in terms of bringing to life a character that actually seems like a legitimate threat to Bond. Every scene with Bardem is better because he is in it; he is completely captivating. Daniel Craig is again quite good as James Bond. He has a great physicality to him that makes everything feel more realistic, but he also allows the audience to see chinks in his armor, which gives them an in and lets them relate to him. All in all, the performances in this film are top notch and well above what is to be expected.

Summary & score: Yes, Skyfall is the fun and entertaining James Bond film the fans want (full of pithy wit, cool cars, beautiful women, and great action), but it is also so much more. It has remarkably engaging characters and enticing drama as well. 8/10

Sam Mendes – Movies Spotlight – November 2012

Sam Mendes, 47, is probably best known as a great dramatic director, making films that typically compete for Oscars come awards season. This month, Mendes’s new film Skyfall marks a completely different direction for the director – an action spy thriller. Having never made an action movie before, Mendes seems like an odd choice to front the new James Bond adventure. However, given his talent with actors and stage background (plus, he is British), I think the choice is inspired, and Skyfall very well could be the best Bond film yet. It stars Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem, Naomie Harris, and Berenice Marlohe. Watch there trailer here.

Early Career:

Mendes studied at Peterhouse within the University of Cambridge. He got his start when he joined the Marlowe Society at Cambridge, directing several stage plays including Cyrano de Bergerac. From there, he went on the Royal Shakespeare Company where he directed Troilus and Cressida, Richard III and The Tempest. Mendes also directed a few West End plays and worked as an assistant director for the Chichester Festival Theatre.

Mendes continued to have success as a stage director. In 1990, he was appointed the artistic director of the Donmar Warehouse in London. His first production was Stephen Sondheim’s Assassins in 1992. He then did John Kander and Fred Ebb’s Cabaret, which received four Olivier Award nominations (and a couple Tony Award wins). Mendes’s acclaim endured with productions of Lionel Bart’s Oliver!, Tennessee Williams’s The Glass menagerie, Stephen Sondheim’s Company, Alan Bennet’s Habeas Corpus, and his farewell double-feature Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya and Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night.

Having succeeded on stage, Mendes looked to next try his luck at film-directing.

Collaborations with Conrad Hall:

For Mendes’s first film, he teamed up with playwright and TV writer Alan Ball, also looking to make the jump to film. The film was American Beauty. Ball was impressed with Mendes’s revival of Cabaret and wanted him to directed, but Mendes had a tough time convincing DreamWorks’ production executives. Finally, the studio came around and offered Mendes the film (but after Robert Zemeckis and Mike Nichols had already turned it down). His work on the film is top notch (winning an Oscar for Best Director), especially his collaborations with composer Thomas Newman (whose score is fantastic) and particularly cinematographer Conrad Hall (who won an Oscar for the film as well). In addition to Mendes’s directing and Hall’s cinematography Oscar, the film won Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Leading Actor for Kevin Spacy. One film in, and Sam Mendes was already on top in Hollywood.

For his next project, Mendes decided to direct the screen adaptation of Max Allan Collins’s graphic novel Road to Perdition. He liked that the story had no moral absolutes and found it to be the most interesting of the prospects he was exploring (which included A Beautiful Mind, which won Best Picture in 2002). Steven Spielberg had brought the film to DreamWorks, but could not direct it himself due to his full slate; however Tom Hanks and writer David Self had joined the project. With Mendes taking over as director and producer, he brought his American Beauty team of composer Thomas Newman and director of photography Conrad Hall with him. While the film did not achieve quite the same level of acclaim for Mendes as American Beauty, it is still a fascinating film (and maybe even an infuriating one, as it is so close to being amazing but not quite there) – built on great performances (including Paul Newman’s last great role), deft directing and brilliant visuals (Hall’s cinematography is among the decade’s best), but with some narrative issues.

One of the great things to come out of Sam Mendes’s first two films was the resurgence of Conrad Hall. He is one of the great cinematographers in film history (winning three Oscars, two working with Mendes, and seven additional nominations). Mendes’s films, especially Road to Perdition, revitalized Hall allowing his work to reach new heights. Sadly, he died six months after Road to Perdition was released.

Mendes took a break from film following the death of Hall to direct the revival of the musical Gypsy in New York.

Continuing to Make Great Films:

Mendes made his return to film in 2005 to direct Jarhead, his most polarizing film (and my least favorite of his work). It is also his first film to not be nominated for (or win) an Oscar.

Next, Mendes was given the script for Revolutionary Road (and the novel by Richard Yates that it is based on) by his (then) wife Kate Winslet. She wanted to play the lead and the film’s producer Scott Rudin wanted Mendes to direct. It went into production immediately after Winslet got her friend Leonardo DiCaprio to star opposite her (marking their first reunion following Titanic). Mendes again brought Thomas Newman onto the project and cinematographer Roger Deakins (both of whom also worked on Jarhead and are working on Skyfall). The film features some of the best performances of 2008 (I would argue that Michael Shannon’s supporting work is second only to Heath Ledger’s the Joker) and powerful melodrama. It is very underrated.

Mendes’s last film of the decade (and last before Skyfall) saw him make a decidedly different film than his typical Hollywood prestige films. Away We Go is a sparse indie dramedy. Mendes also used an unfamiliar principal crew, when in the past he collaborated with the same people over and over. The film was met with mixed reviews and disappointing box office receipts (though, I think that it is fairly charming – even if the characters are somewhat elitist).

Producing Projects:

In addition to producing his own films (Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road), Mendes has also produced a few features: Starter for 10, Things We Lost in the Fire and The Kite Runner, as well as the current British TV miniseries The Hollow Crown.

Upcoming:

Mendes is returning to the stage in 2013 with Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, set to open at the London Palladium in June. Mendes is also working with his Skyfall screenwriter John Logan again, as they are developing a TV series about an 1800s Vampire Hunter. Mendes is apparently considering returning to direct another Bond film as well.

Career Highlights:

1)      American Beauty (1999) – director (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

2)      Road to Perdition (2002) – director, producer (Blu-ray, DVD)

3)      Revolutionary Road (2008)* – director, producer (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

4)      Away We Go (2009) – director (Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming)

*Editor’s picks

The Adjustment Bureau (2011) – Review

The Adjustment Bureau is a good romance with thriller and sci-fi(ish) overtones that succeeds due to wonderful chemistry from its leads and well played scenes. Overall, the narrative structure that writer-director George Nolfi employs in the film drags a bit. The film does not feel as fluid as it should and thus can seem longer than it is (or even boring in the worst case). However, this is really only a minor issue, as the dialogue he writes and performances he garners on a scene-by-scene basis are really good. Stars, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt work incredibly well together, and really drive the film and engage the audience. They feel real and relatable. The audience not only is invested in their romance but wants to see it succeed and is thus enthralled (which is the main reason this film works, I think, despite being structured poorly). The romance is genuine and Nolfi somehow is able to avoid the clichés that plague modern and Hollywood cinema when love as a genre or theme is involved. The thriller and sci-fi aspects of the film also engages the audience, setting up obstacles for the characters. It is not overly suspenseful, giving much more attention to the characters and romance, but the action scenes are staged well. The sci-fi element is a little soft, (for me) it seems to play a lot more whimsical and theological or myth based than (what I would consider) sci-fi, though this does not hurt the film at all – in fact, I think it makes it all the more interesting. The main theme of the film is predetermination versus free will (or chance). The world of the film is made up of both, Adjusters only interfering on selected important people and moments. What Nolfi does really well is not deliver these (seeming theological) overtones in a heavy-handed or forced manner. Nolfi does not have a particular agenda or set of beliefs he is trying to force-feed the audience (which is nice for a change). The world he has created (of course based on that of Philip K. Dick’s short story) feels real, even amidst these extraordinary events (as the audience accepts the world and the revelations that the characters have about whom and what is controlling elements of their lives), because they care about the characters. It is better to let each viewer infer and project what they think things mean than explicitly compel them upon the audience. Altogether, The Adjustment Bureau is a good film, with enough action mixed in to entertain those not looking to watch a pure romance – call it a romantic thriller (and did I mention it is funny too? It is).

Technical and acting achievements: George Nolfi (who wrote The Bourne Ultimatum) makes his directorial debut with this film. He shows a lot of promise as a director with very good performances across his cast and well-staged and played scenes. However, he needs to work on his narrative structure, as it is the weak part of the film (and really the toughest to get right). I look forward to seeing what he does next. Thomas Newman’s score fits the film very well, touching on all three major genres. Cinematographer John Toll (as usual) does fine work, both in making Blunt look amazing and giving the film a crisp and aesthetically interesting look. His work is among the best I have seen so far this year. Editor Jay Rabinowitz also needs to be commended for his work. This film, with its quickly changing landscapes, demanded fantastic editing, and got it. Kevin Thompson’s production design is also good, fitting the narrative well while taking advantage of the NYC local. The cast is small with only a few principal characters, but each actor gives a very good performance. Terence Stamp, Michael Kelly and especially Anthony Mackie deliver in their supporting roles. John Slattery (also in a supporting role) is a standout, however, bringing a seemingly carefree and playful attitude to the role that is a nice touch and refreshing. The film, though, largely succeeds to the extent that it does (i.e. is a great film, vs. the good to decent film it probably otherwise would have been) due primarily to the work of its two leads, Damon and Blunt. They are both perfect in their roles. They feel real and endearing, completely commanding the audience’s attention (and hearts). Their love is natural and certain.

With remarkable performances and chemistry from Damon and Blunt, added to an interesting story, The Adjustment Bureau makes for a great romance that guys will like too. 8/10