PaleyFilms

In a dissection of his life, Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor) explores different segments of his childhood, family life, and love life. Just like memories, these snapshots are not in any particular order; rather, they are told as very loosely-related flashbacks. They primarily explore two of the protagonist’s relationships. The first is with Oliver’s dad, Hal (Christopher Plummer), a gay man who comes out of the closet at age 75. The second is Anna (Melanie Laurent), a French actress whom Oliver meets at a party and falls in love with, shortly after his father’s death. Through these episodes, he conveys complex emotions, both happy and sad ones.

Whether or not the viewer knows that Beginners is semi-autobiographical, the fact is that writer-director Mike Mills has achieved something very special. This is a tremendous screenplay, full of sincerity and wit, that presents its characters in an extremely human way. The film manages to be consistently bittersweet throughout; it never dips into sentimental happiness, nor is it wholly bitter. Rather, it effectively shows the way its protagonist thinks, feels, and acts, when faced with both love and loss, happiness and tragedy. Much of the movie is quite funny, but rarely in a laugh-out-loud way. It radiates sadness while still bringing genuine smiles, and therefore ends up feeling achingly nostalgic.

This film is clearly very close to Mills’ heart, and his decision to direct the picture in addition to writing its screenplay, is a brilliant one. His stylistic choices are very important here, such as the out-of-order narrative. By choosing a seemingly random order of events, Mills spins an intricate web of memories, each one bringing to light something about the characters. The pacing is very slow, but never makes the movie boring; rather, it adds to its overarching melancholic tone. Here the audience is treated with some of the best uses of photo montages I have ever seen. The montages comment on life and love through the ages, and reveal how things have changed so much, yet also remain so similar. In the vein of vintage Woody Allen, golden era musical artists such as Hoagy Carmichael and Gene Austin compose a good portion of the soundtrack, fitting into the film’s overall nostalgia.

It is rare for a film to have a truly great performance, yet this one has three of them. McGregor, Plummer, and Laurent are all in tip-top shape here, giving their best to three excellently written roles. McGregor has believable chemistry with the other actors; Oliver’s relationship with his father is complicated yet loving, while his romance with Anna is sweet and sincere. These very satisfying performances match the equally satisfying material, to create a picture that moves in more than one way.

Beginners respects its characters’ emotions, just as much as Mills’ material respects the actors. This is a terrific movie, one that is  humble in size, but emotionally vast. Humor and sadness are layered together in a near-perfect blend, drawing a portrait of not only the characters, but of humanity itself. It is a personal and observant film, one that nails a whole bevy of feelings.

The titular character of this Martin Scorsese film is an orphan who lives in a Paris train station. Once the son of an experienced clockmaker, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) spends most of his time roaming the station, and repairing an automaton that his late father found in a museum. One day, he is caught stealing from a toy store, whose owner is later revealed to be the French filmmaker, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). When he makes friends with Melies’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), they embark on a path, where they try to discover more about Melies’ history, and learn about the magic of cinema.

Hugo feels like a very personal outing for Scorsese. The director has long been associated with a passion for film preservation, so it comes as no surprise, that this movie deals with the importance of remembering cinematic innovation. Some of the best sequences involve characters watching scenes from other films, and it would not shock me if Scorsese is commenting on the power of cinema, with his own entry into it. After all, Melies was a pioneer of special effects, and Scorsese uses quite a few of them here: most notably, 3-D. It is essentially a film about gadgets that employs gadgets.

The visuals here are highly impressive, with beautiful 3-D cinematography, and flawless art direction and costume design. In fact, for the first time ever, I cannot imagine the film being as enjoyable without its added dimension. This is something that truly has to be experienced either in the theater, or at home with a 3-D television (preferably the former). It is a stunning delight, watching Hugo navigate the labyrinthine maze of a train station, as he attempts to stay out of the reaches of the orphan-catching Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Visually, the movie fits in perfectly with its story about creativity and craft, two things that clearly went into the making of this. One jaw-dropping sequence involves a montage of several silent films, including ones by legends Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Scorsese effectively shows why these relics remain enchanting, by letting the the images speak for themselves.

Admittedly, a few of the characters could have been stronger. Butterfield and Moretz do their best, but do not bring much to the “so-so” screenplay. Many situations and character moments feel contrived, taking away from some of the genuine emotion buried in the story. I say “emotion,” referring to the excellent performance by Kingsley. The best parts of the film are not ones that feature its namesake; rather, a complex, worn down Melies steals the show here. Single-handedly, Kingsley makes up for most of the movie’s poor character choices, with his on-screen achievement.

Even with some acting and script choices that should say otherwise, this is an emotionally rich, and captivating experience. The fact that Scorsese uses the power of film to make a powerful film, is commendable in its own right, and proves that the director is still on top of his game. When people in 1902 watched the spaceship from Melies’ movie, crash into the Moon, they probably smiled. After finishing Scorsese’s Hugo in 2011, I definitely did.

A puppet name Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), has always been one of The Muppets franchise’s biggest fans. One day, his human brother, Gary (Jason Segel), plans an anniversary vacation in Los Angeles, with his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). When Walter realizes that Gary intends to take him along for the ride, he is ecstatic; after all, Los Angeles is where The Muppets are! After happily approaching the Muppet Theater, Walter is devastated to not only learn that it is in bad shape, but that oilman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) intends to tear the building down in order to drill underneath for oil. Since thes only way to stop Richman is to raise $10 million and re-buy the theater, Walter begins rounding up Kermit the Frog, Fozzie Bear, and the rest of the Muppet gang. Although they have split up some time ago, it is time for The Muppets to rejoin in the form of a telethon, in order to save their beloved establishment.

The first 30 minutes of The Muppets is nearly perfect, and contains some of the best filmmaking of the year. Director James Bobin, and writers Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller get the comedic tone just right. Much of the humor is witty and creative, and often, wickedly self-referential. This is not the kind of material that one usually sees in children’s movies; it is quite smart, and is perhaps suited to be more appealing to parents, than it is to their kids. Following the wonderfully funny opening, comes the music, a staple in the Muppets universe. The first tune “Life’s a Happy Song,” is unbelievably catchy and is the film’s best melody. Familiar characters are eventually introduced in ways that evoke both music and humor, setting this up to be a truly great movie.

It is really a shame that the film begins to taper off in quality after the first half-hour or so. Though it never becomes unenjoyable, everything that makes the first third of the movie so special, begins to weaken. The songs are not as good as those played early on (“Me Party” is a particularly grating example). Unlike, say 1979′s The Muppet Movie, the cameos are fairly weak and not very surprising. The entire romantic and dramatic aspects between Gary and Mary are lame and contrived. Characters are given unearned moments, and the film’s finale is never as loud and rousing as it wants to be.

Nevertheless, this is still a very strong movie, and one that would have made Jim Henson proud. It is often meta to such an extent, that it comments on its own importance. This is the first Muppet movie in years; it is essentially about making the franchise relevant again, while actually doing so itself. There are many small joys to be found here, in a film where flaws do not stop it from being extraordinarily charming and refreshing.

The Muppets could have been one of the strongest children’s films we have seen in a while, but unfortunately, its script contains too many problems to be considered “great.” Regardless, spending time with this colorful cast of characters, is overall a tremendously fun experience. 2011 is a ripe time to meet The Muppets again, indeed.

The fantastic opening scene of Halloween depicts a young Michael Myers, as he brutally stabs his sister to death. Flash forward fifteen years to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), a high school girl living in Haddonfield, Illinois. Laurie and her friends are calmly anticipating the arrival of what is to be a quiet Halloween, but unbeknownst to them, the psychopathic Myers has recently broken out of Smith’s Grove Sanitarium, where he has been held for the last decade and a half. Upon discovering the escape, Myers’ psychiatrist, Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence), heads toward Haddonfield, where he believes the murderer is headed. Sure enough, Loomis’ hunch is correct. Myers’ return to his home town beckons a deadly and terrifying holiday, one that neither Laurie, nor the town of Haddonfield is likely to forget.

Ok, so the film has mostly poor acting, and a mediocre screenplay. One never buys the fact that any of the girls are actually in high school, as they all look to be in their 20s. Though Pleasence gives one of the only good performances, his subplot is pretty unnecessary, and could have easily been excised from the story. Overall, there a number of faults present, yet Halloween is still a truly great horror movie. How can a fundamentally flawed film still be really good? Easy, just have a brilliant director at the helm.

John Carpenter, the mastermind behind movies such as The Thing and Escape from New York, turns what could have been an utterly campy film, into a horror classic. His direction here is wonderfully unsettling, by showing the audience only what it needs to see. Right from the opening scene, we get a point-of-view murder, shot from Myers’ perspective. However, the camera does not tell us who is climbing up the stairs with a knife; it is only at the end of the sequence, that the audience realizes what has actually happened. Much of the film is directed as such, to create bristling suspense. One of Carpenter’s best decisions is to keep Myers hidden, far more often than he is shown. This makes for a slasher movie that relies more on atmosphere and creepiness, than it does on cheap scares.

Other frightening highlights of the film include the piano score, and the open-ended finale. The score contributes to the movie’s overall eeriness, quite a bit; this is perhaps, due in part to the fact that it was written by Carpenter, himself. Likewise, the ending amps up the scare factor to eleven, by adding an additional layer of horror to the story. I will not give the final series of events away, but rest assured, it will make you want to cover your eyes.

This is an enduring film, not because of originality or great screenwriting; rather it is an accomplishment for being greater than the sum of its parts. Carpenter, who is as good here as he has ever been, propels the narrative forward with his very strong directing. What could have been a forgettable film, is now a holiday horror movie, one that ranks among the best of its kind.

After finding an online invitation for sex, a group of teenagers drives into the country to meet up with a woman (Melissa Leo). They drink some beer that she gives them, then suddenly pass out. When they awake, the group finds itself tied up and gagged in a church, whose homosexual-hating congregation is led by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks). Cooper begins a series of extreme acts, starting with a hate-filled sermon, and continuing with murder. Pretty soon the authorities get involved, led by Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman), and a high-stakes bloodbath ensues.

Generally associated with raunchy comedies, such as the Clerks movies, or seriocomedies, like Chasing Amy, Red State is an enormous departure for director Kevin Smith. Besides for the new stylistic choices he employs (which I will explore in a bit) the film’s subject material is very surprising. The movie is essentially an exercise in subverting genre and narrative conventions. It cannot be expressly classified as a thriller, horror movie, action movie, or drama, yet contains elements of each. Instead of following a standard and predictable narrative, events happen that the viewer would never expect. Seemingly important characters are killed off without a second thought. We are presented with an overtly vicious church community, and listen to a sermon from hell. This is not just unconventional ground for the director, it is unconventional, period.

Smith, whose films tend to be nearly completely dialogue driven, has never shown his directing hand as much as he does here. There is real action: chases, guns drawn, and bloody shootouts. Surprisingly, the direction is very solid, and the visual style creates a frenetic feel that suits the tone of the movie. Whatever project Smith does next, he should keep experimenting with his directorial skills, sorely neglected skills that are finally being put to good use.

While Red State‘s large ensemble of actors is nothing special, there are a few notable standouts. Leo and Goodman are both terrific, and give memorable supporting turns. Parks, who gives the film’s best performance, is great here. His preacher character is both scary and disturbing, as he leads the community like sheep following a shepherd. While the film is not particularly deep, it does bring some insight into the psyches of mob mentality, brainwashing, and organized religion. Much of this is due to Parks’ charismatic performance, coupled with Smith’s blatant social commentary.

Whereas most of the film is very good, the ending is a huge disappointment. Smith’s script ends on a whimper, rather than a bang, which is a shame because it has been kinetic throughout. The ride of a movie comes to a sudden halt, turning an electric story into a slog. This is the screenplay’s biggest mistake, and the film’s overall worst detriment.

Problems aside, there is enough adeptly made film here to make this an interesting, albeit flawed, exercise in “anti-genre.” It is the director’s boldest move as a filmmaker, yet, and perhaps the strangest movie he will ever make. A perfect way to sum up Smith’s directorial departure is to ask, “where the hell did he pull this one out of?”

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a quiet and reserved 27-year-old man who loves to jog, spend time with his girlfriend, and hang out with his raunchy friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen). Nothing could ever prepare him for the fact that his life is about to turn nearly 360 degrees. When he is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer, Adam discovers that his chances of survival equal those of a figurative coin toss, a distressing and sad change for someone once so strong and fit. While Adam is on chemotherapy, Kyle encourages him to shave his head, then uses his friend’s cancer as a catalyst to try to get both of them laid. While going through the stages of chemotherapy and general life struggles, Adam also begins developing a bond with his inexperienced therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick).

The supporting cast of 50/50 ranges from strong to under-used. Rogen is as good here as he has ever been, and it is nice to see the great character actor Philip Baker Hall, who plays an older cancer patient. Kendrick is okay, but gives essentially the same performance as she does in Up in the Air, as an amateur, somewhat bumbling character. Nevertheless, she is given much more of an emotional arc in this picture, and is therefore adequate. Anjelica Huston is decent as Adam’s worrisome, overbearing mother, while the only shortchanged actress is Bryce Dallas Howard. In a one-note, difficult-to-sympathize-with performance, she plays Adam’s girlfriend, Rachael, who pretty much treats her sick boyfriend despicably. More emphasis on humanity would perhaps have made her as realistic as the other characters are; however, she ends up being a villainous stereotype whom the audience is meant to scoff at.

As good as most of the supporting cast is, Levitt is the real revelation here. He manages to handle the quiet scenes perfectly, while still bringing heart-wrenching emotion when necessary. This is such a wonderfully restrained performance, that any time scenes get loud and emotional, they stand out and are all the more sad and painful.

Unlike many films about the tragedy of cancer, 50/50 is never manipulative. Rather than sadness coming from a big emotional crying scene, the audience is guaranteed to simply feel bad for the protagonist by the situation playing out. The movie is deeply affecting on a human and realistic level. It never handles its material in an offensive way—in fact, it deals with the issue on hand with much caution—yet does not chicken out either. Mostly, this is due to Will Reiser’s top-shelf writing, which merges humor and misfortune perfectly into a well-blended, emotionally satisfying film.

Jonathan Levine’s direction is often clever, and is especially noticeable during the scene where Adam first learns that he has the dreaded disease. The doctor’s voice suddenly sounds far away, and the camera focuses only on the victim’s face. This moment is one of several intense moments throughout the film, that affects the viewer like a blow to the chest. Near the movie’s end, the story goes to some unexpectedly weighty and suspenseful places, places that take boldness to traverse.

50/50 is the type of emotional film that works well because it does not try too hard to assault the audience’s tear ducts. The story progresses naturally, as does Levitt’s tour-de-force performance. If by the end of the film you are not in tears, at least expect to feel some dryness in your throat.

Based on the James Sallis novel of the same name, and drawing influence from a conglomerate of film genres, Drive is an experience. Besides for its excellent filmmaking, the movie is unique in the way it pays tribute to such aesthetic choices as film-noir and the B-action film, yet refuses to become a genre picture itself. Combining audience-unfriendly pacing and art-house style, it is hard to imagine the film having much mainstream appeal. Nevertheless, for the moviegoers looking for material that strays off the beaten path, this movie delivers in spades.

Ryan Gosling is billed only as the “Driver,” a movie stuntman who moonlights as a getaway driver for heists. The Driver is the silent type, rarely speaking, and rigidly following the rules he has set in place for his illicit profession. When he meets his neighbor, Irene, the two begin a wonderful relationship, which is destined to be cut short. Irene’s husband, Standard has just been released from prison, and pretty soon a bunch of criminals come seeking retribution from the ex-con. Faced with the complexities of his dual life, as well as a desire to protect Irene and her family, the Driver embarks on a menacing, and often, bloody series of events that will change his life.

Gosling’s excellent performance holds much of the film together. Because he barely speaks, we get many lingering shots of his face, effectively conveying emotion, desire, and hatred, without a word ever being uttered. While there are glimpses here and there of the Driver’s past, nothing is ever said outright. The film’s lack of exposition turns its main character into a mysterious, deeply troubled man with an ambiguous history. Yes, Gosling gets many badass moments; however, many of them quickly become downright scary and disturbing.

Shout-outs must also go to the essentially perfect supporting cast, consisting of Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks. The actors not only bring something to the film as a whole, but complement the Driver’s character, as threads in his complex web of relations and enemies.

What holds the rest of the film together is Nicolas Winding Refn’s artful, often brilliant, direction. From the opening scene—one of the year’s tensest and best-directed sequences—Refn brings a cool, slick feel to his picture. Aided by excellent visuals and an interesting choice of soundtrack, the film is a slow burn, more of an existential drama than a mainstream action flick. The movie’s graphically violent scenes tend to come suddenly after little to no buildup, causing them to be extremely shocking. In fact, while the screenplay’s dialogue is kind of mediocre, and Drive‘s only real detractor, the film still maintains an ability to surprise. I never knew what the Driver was going to do next, where he would end up, or how his enemies would be dealt with.

Drive makes ample use of all its characters and actors, and is chock-full of wonderfully cinematic techniques. The direction is more than competent here, using pacing and style in both pleasing and shocking ways. Gosling and Refn make up most of the film’s excellence, and go together like bread and butter.

Average high school student Scott Howard (Michael J. Fox), as you can guess by the film’s title, is a teen wolf. After noticing some bodily changes, Scott learns that he is genetically predisposed to a condition that turns him into a humanoid wolf on a regular basis. At first, the transformations are random and imposing; eventually, though, he begins turning into “The Wolf” by choice, using his newfound physical stature to his advantage. Pretty soon, Scott becomes the star of his school’s basketball team, and earns a celebrity status. Girls want him, his friends bask in the glow of popularity, and everyone cheers him on at the basketball games. As Scott’s stature rises, however, so does his ego. After alienating friends and love interests alike, he must learn to deal with the beast within.

Teen Wolf works best when its namesake is not onscreen. Without the fur and fangs, this is a very funny movie, with enough wit and memorable characters to spare. Although Michael J. Fox is really fun to watch here, it is the supporting cast members who are the most entertaining. Jay Tarses, who plays Scott’s basketball coach, is subtly hilarious, and is my favorite character in the film. Jerry Levine and Mark Holton, who play two of Scott’s high-school friends, bring quirks and laughs to each scene they appear in. For approximately half of the movie, the viewer can almost forget about the plot’s ridiculous premise, and enjoy a decent comedy.

Unfortunately, the film goes downhill once Scott begins his recurrent transformations. Where to start? Well, for one thing, the makeup and costumes are as laughable as the events which they incur. Without any administrative or government interference, students nonchalantly welcome a new (very hairy) celebrity into their ranks. Let us pretend for a second that people would actually accept the fact that a human wolf is parading around their school. Why on earth would Scott accrue an unlimited amount of female attention? As The Wolf, he looks horrible, whereas Michael J. Fox is a good looking chap! The getup makes him look dumb as a barrel of nails, and I mean that in the most horrid way possible. Sure, campy comedies deserve an above average level of  suspension of disbelief, but parts of this movie are embarrassing to watch.

At the film’s midpoint, the mildly interesting (albeit silly) premise gives way to convention. Emotional beats feel forced and cliche. Scott’s main love interest, Lisa “Boof” Marconi (Susan Ursitti) has zero chemistry with Fox, and the movie’s climactic ballgame begs audience members to roll their eyes over and over again.

From a purely objective standpoint, Teen Wolf is not particularly good. Nevertheless, its campiness does provide a high level of fun and charm. Intentionally funny or not, the film works as a comedy most of the time, and its coming of age story is universal (basic as it may be). Though one can do a whole lot worse for an 80s comedy, you might want to watch Back to the Future for the umpteenth time instead. Oh, and stay away from Teen Wolf Too, the atrocious 1987 sequel starring Jason Bateman.