JUMPER (2008)

Jumper Review

Matt:

Length: 90 min

Tagline:
Anywhere is possible.
Anywhere. Anything. Instantly.

Précis: Shallow sci-fi/action tale about a guy who can teleport and the ridiculously-hair-styled religious nut who wants to eliminate him.

Review by Matt:

David Rice (Hayden Christensen) is a ‘jumper’. That means he is a special - and lucky - type of person who is able to ‘jump’ instantly to any place in the world just by willing it. Teleportation. A nice science-fiction premise. The slick new action film Jumper, directed by Doug Liman (who previously directed Mr & Mrs Smith and The Bourne Identity) tells David’s story, provoking fascinating thoughts in its audience like “Wouldn’t it be cool to be able to teleport?” and… no. Wait. Actually, that’s as thought provoking as Jumper gets. It’s one of the weakest and woolliest films around, barely managing to articulate even its simple plot. Nope, teleportation is all you get. Fortunately, this is an inherently interesting concept, so with a bit of action jumbled around it, you might forgive Jumper as a semi-interesting piece of escapist nonsense. I can be no more generous than that, because films like Jumper keep making me have to try and defend science-fiction as a good and thoughtful genre (it’s true - just read some novels, ok?).

Just like Gyges, Plato’s original super-powered everyman, once David discovers his god-like power he cannot resist temptation. He lifts money from bank vaults and quickly sets himself up as an emperor of decadence. He spends his time ‘jumping’ from his flashy apartment to the world’s most exotic locations, drinking life’s nectar like a selfish jerk. This is problem one with Jumper - our lead man is thoroughly unlikeable. Hayden Christensen’s acting certainly doesn’t bring any charisma to his flawed character. To begin with, you think maybe he is portraying omnipotent ennui. You later realise that it is just dull acting. So why should we care when amoral Mr Jumper is suddenly threatened by a fanatic jumper-hating group called “Paladins”, led by the hilariously coiffured Samuel L Jackson? We don’t care really. But it’s a little exciting at least to watch David fill out the rest of the plot by jumping away from these pursuers, along the way getting a little help from Griffin (Jamie Bell), another jumper. David also has some time to try wooing his equally bland love interest, Millie (Rachel Bilson), and to try and protect her when she becomes entangled in the Paladin-pursuit.

Nevertheless, there are a few thrills and curiosities. It’s actually nice to see that Millie’s character is appropriately scared and angry at this crazy jumper’s unexplained behaviour - as anyone would be. Too many film heroines are unrealistically trusting of the outlandish behaviour of their protagonist friends. Secondly, Samuel L Jackson’s ridiculous snow-white hair is like a free trip to the freak show. And, of course, if you’re interested in sci-fi concepts such as teleportation, it is at least nice to see it manifested on screen with some fine special effects and some frenetic, nicely-styled action.

I’m stretching, of course, because Jumper is so shallow it’s almost empty. Morality is always the most interesting theme when it comes to human superpowers. Naturally there’s no attention given to it in Jumper. The deepest it gets is the reasoning of the boss-Paladin as he eviscerates his captured jumpers: “Only God should have this power!” The actual plot - when it finally appears - is simply this: will he escape? And there’s no embellishment of that simple story. Where does David even get his superpower? Who knows? A slight effort is made to introduce some themes about parental abandonment, but this ends up being one of the most underdone plots imaginable. Ditto to the film’s sloppy ending, which does not exactly give us a sensible resolution. Presumably, Jumper 2 will clean up the mess, but I wouldn’t put any faith in it.

I admit to experiencing some guilty pleasure watching this film. But you should know that I have not read the book by Steven Gould on which the film is based, so I didn’t have a pre-conception that could be sullied. You should know also that I took very low expectations to Jumper, so the mildly entertaining result was a pleasant surprise.

SMART PEOPLE (2008)

Smart People Review

Matt:
Tracy:

Length: 95 min

Tagline:
Sometimes the smartest people have the most to learn.

Précis: Dull romantic comedy about a grouchy widower’s new relationship, and his smart but slightly strange family.

Review by Matt:

If you’re going to do a dysfunctional-family comedy, you’d better make it sharp. Dysfunctional families have remained the rage, especially since The Simpsons took the Cosby-family-backlash and really made it supreme. Arrested Development, Little Miss Sunshine, Wes Anderson films… there’s a lot of sophisticated dysfunctional-family comedy out there. Sadly, Smart People is a forgettable addition to the genre. It flutters blandly around the theme of “smart but dysfunctional” and sketches out a few ideas that don’t go anywhere interesting. Worse, despite its “alternative” pretensions, it succumbs to romantic comedy conventions in a cloyingly contrived fashion.

Leading the tedium is Dennis Quaid who plays an irritable, widowed University professor called Lawrence Wetherhold (a professor’s name if ever I’ve heard one). Lawrence has the book-smarts, but is totally insensitive when it comes to people. He’s raising a similar little misanthrope in his teenage daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page), a success-obsessed Republican, who goes around fussing, achieving, and lambasting any non-achievement-focussed decision (hello to Michael J Fox in Family Ties). Evidently, Lawrence is also alienating his son James (Ashton Homes), a character revelation announced by James whenever his Dad drops by his college dorm. Lowest ranked in the family is incorrigible slacker Chuck (Thomas Hayden Church), Lawrence’s adoped brother. Chuck has come to stay with the family, seemingly to chauffer Lawrence, who is unable to drive, but in reality he’s there for some mooching. The plot of Smart People looks briefly at all of these characters. Primarily though it follows Lawrence’s fumbling foray into romance with his emergency room doctor, Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker), and the necessary redesigning of Lawrence’s cranky character so that the relationship can work.

It’s this undeveloped romance that is the killer blow to Smart People’s appeal. It goes through the holy trinity of weakly written romance. Firstly, the romance seems baseless. Why do they like each other? Nobody knows. Secondly, the couple sort of share a moment and then bam! - straight into bed together. Thirdly, there’s a halfway-point squabble to overcome. Even the squabble seems unnatural and unjustified. This trite trifecta all seems a lazy cheat because it was too difficult to write an honest path from friendship to love. To top it off, the characters are unlikeable. Dennis Quaid at least plays his moody intellectual well. But Sarah Jessica Parker is a flimsy piece of tissue paper, occasionally pulling coy looks, but giving nothing else to her already empty character.

The film’s other main characters, Vanessa and Chuck, are much more interesting. Ellen Page is lippy but damaged as Vanessa, like a reconfiguration of her character in Juno. The interesting subplot looking at her relationship with Chuck, her exact opposite, is only given a cursory treatment. Chuck alone is one of the best parts of the film, taking most of the good lines - but he only pops in occasionally like a comic-relief clown. Other comedy potential is also washed away in the tide of the predictable romance plot. Humorous avenues entice you, but then are quickly closed again.

Obviously it’s a frustrating result. There’s potential, but all the interesting characters and plot pieces have just been loosely sketched. Engaging ideas surface but float away to drown in the miserable romance and the “lessons in life”. Smart people will probably skip this film and watch something smarter.

THE DARJEELING LIMITED (2007)

The Darjeeling Limited Review

Matt:

Length: 91 min

Précis: Typically stylish and eccentric Wes Anderson affair, but its faster, funnier and more engaging than previous efforts.

Review by Matt:

The Darjeeling Limited is the latest comedy/drama film from director Wes Anderson, an idiosyncratic American auteur whose previous films include The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Neither of those films appealed much to me, and I especially found The Life Aquatic tedious and distancing. The Darjeeling Limited is redolent of those films in its themes, style and cast (estranged family + deadpan tragi-comedy + Owen Wilson/Bill Murray = Wes Anderson) but it is a better film and much easier to enjoy. It’s helped especially by a fast-paced first half and an irreverent wit. It’s an unusual and original (apart from other Wes Anderson films) look at familial relations.

The plot is a wandering affair following three American brothers’ reunion on an Indian train. The eldest, Francis (Owen Wilson), is a micromanager who has suckered his younger siblings Peter (Adrian Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman) into joining him for a trip of spiritual and fraternal healing. Squashed for a large part of the film inside busy carriages, the brothers pinball off each other with a humorous mix of familial love and violence, fuelled mostly by the recent death of their father and the manifestation of various afflictions. These include broken hearts, suicidal tendencies, prescription Indian drug abuse, fear of commitment and, in the case of Francis, a comically bandaged body due to injuries suffered in a recent motorcycle accident. The brothers hop on and off the train, bicker, reminisce, and eventually trek out into the Indian countryside in search of a mystical experience and for their estranged mother who is now a Himalayan nun.

The joy of this film is in its beautiful and fussy detail. The screen bustles with both random and revealing accoutrements and the characters are spontaneous and full of quirks. Francis lugs around a mountain of luggage and hobbles on his cane, Peter squints through his father’s prescription glasses, and Jack won’t wear shoes. Odd encounters drive the plot. For the film’s first half these are all strangely funny and there is a great sense of chaotic energy. An interesting array of side characters supports the trio of tragi-comics, most sharing the same aloof Bill-Murray-style persona.

The Darjeeling Limited puts us on a pretty bumpy ride. Even when you think you know where you’re going, you’re likely to smack into a glass door. It has a freeform plot and, like its titular train that inexplicably loses its way in the Indian wilderness, it takes the viewers seemingly in random directions. Its structure reflects a journey rather than a neat narrative. Thus we suddenly find the brothers crashing from comic to tragic territory and the film’s second half becomes slow and meditative. It makes the film seem longer than its 90 minutes. Some viewers could feel disgruntled at the clashing tones and sprawling plot. But there’s plenty to appreciate in the film’s looseness.

What is most admirable is the meaning that slowly emerges as you weave together a thousand scraggly threads of detail. Little things the brothers do, say to each other, and encounters they have, blend together with a nice mix of intrigue and revelation. The film is also smashingly designed, with its classy framing and tracking shots, a colourful set, and the occasional enjoyable intrusion of turbulent Indian life. Add in the atmospheric soundtrack and you’ve a stylishness that really coats on a bonus layer of pleasure,

Like other Wes Anderson films, The Darjeeling Limited remains a potential audience divider, but it’s the best of his films for showcasing his sense of stylish melancholy, and probably the film with the most accessible characters (though they still mostly remain ponderous). It may not be totally emotionally satisfying, but you’ll at least see an individual style in action, and it could be the style that tickles you just right. Or it could annoy you. I found it a funny and fascinating ride.

SHARKWATER (2006)

Sharkwater Review

Matt:

Length: 89 min

Taglines:
The Truth Will Surface.
You’ll never look at sharks the same way again.

Précis: Exciting ‘grass-roots’ documentary about sharks and the profit-hungry world that is destroying marine ecosystems.

Review by Matt:

Beware of sharks! But not because they’re looking to take a chomp out of you. They’re not. Beware of sharks because they’re under threat and they’re a key part of our crucial ocean ecosystems. In fact our entire oceans - which feed people, balance our climate, and support Earth’s beautiful marine biodiversity - are in serious trouble. In the documentary Sharkwater (which debuted in 2006 but has since been touring in limited release around the world), Canadian underwater photographer and self confessed shark-lover Rob Stewart takes a passionate look at these issues, with a particular focus on illegal and unsustainable fishing practices. Stewart spent eight years making his film, starting out with a simple project documenting sharks in their habitat. But as he discovered more about the “illegal fishing mafia” and the criminal trade in shark fins, his film unexpectedly took a turn. Soon he had gone from filming underwater, to filming the underworld. Stewart’s conservationist ethic also led him to team up with Paul Watson and his rebel environmentalist group “Sea Shepherd” - who gained particular notoriety in Australia in 2008 following clashes in the Southern Ocean with Japanese whalers (activists boarded a Japanese vessel and Paul Watson also claimed to have been shot by the Japanese coastguard). Stewart’s Sharkwater is both a tale of adventures and clashes on the high seas, as well as an educative picture about sharks and the oceans.

Sharkwater begins by dispelling some myths about sharks, the so-called “monsters of the deep”. Stewart’s narration tells us that death-by-shark is actually very rare compared to humans dying from skirmishes with other beasts, such as tigers, elephants and soda machines. Throughout the film, Stewart validates this by constantly swimming with - and occasionally hugging - his shark friends. Beautiful footage of sharks and other rich marine ecosystems is juxtaposed with disturbing facts about humankind’s efforts to destroy them as fast as possible with practices such as long-line fishing and “shark finning - a brutal and wasteful practice in which the fins are cut from a shark and it is dumped, often alive, back into the ocean. Sharkwater swells in act two as Stewart’s project collides with the perpetrators of these marine crimes. Literally - for he tours with Sea Shepherd and their “can opener”-equipped battle ship off the coast of Costa Rica, where he clashes with illegal fishers, authorities, and even the frightening “shark fin mafia”.

Sharkwater is a luscious spectacle, taking us to exotic locations such as the Galapagos and Cocos Islands to see the beautiful and rare creatures there. Unfortunately, this is also a film about irresponsible greed, so sensitive viewers be warned that it has a “wildlife warning”: it shows these beautiful creatures suffering as well. Our filmmaker’s adventures are also interspersed with other bits and pieces about sharks and fishing, such as interviews with eco-activists and a Chinese shark fin distributor. Technically, Sharkwater is not brilliantly made. It is a bit fragmentary, occasionally repetitive, and it could have been more lucid in parts. But this hardly detracts from the experience of the film; there is a lot of great stuff to see and learn in there.

Sharkwater does get out its key ecological message clearly. Shark populations have been depleted by 90%, marine ecosystems are under threat, and destructive fishing continues. There’s a legitimate debate to be had about whether the tactics of Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd are the best way to combat these ecological crimes (the magnificent ocean-defenders Greenpeace, for example, don’t condone Sea Shepherd’s tactics, themselves committed to non-violent direct action only), but there’s no doubting that we need to take some serious action. There’s also no doubting the passion and commitment of Rob Stewart, who gave so much time and braved a lot of danger (the poachers, not just the sharks!) to bring us this exciting and revealing documentary. It is basically a one-man, grassroots documentary and it would be better if more films like this were distributed. Sharkwater is definitely worth seeing, both for those who are interested in ocean ecology and especially for those who need some inspiration to get out and do something for our planet.

LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (2007)

Lars and the Real Girl Review

Matt:

Length: 106 min

Tagline:
The search for true love begins outside the box.

Précis: Sweet and gently funny film about a man who believes his doll is real, and his friends’ efforts to support him.

Review by Matt:

Lars and the Real Girl takes a fairly eccentric premise - man treats sex-doll as if it is a real woman - and turns it into a touching film about a damaged man’s battle to face up to life’s difficulties and embrace adult responsibilities. If you’re after American Pie style jokes about sex-dolls: wrong film. In fact if you’re a teenager looking at all for a juvenile guffaw: wrong film. From a distance, Lars and the Real Girl probably looks like it could have been all smutty chuckles, possibly featuring an oily Rob Schneider. But Australian director Craig Gillespie and writer Nancy Oliver (writer of TV’s Six-Feet Under) haven’t been tempted by the potential for vulgar laughs. Instead they’ve created something much more sensitive. Lars and the Real Girl still has a humorous touch, but it’s primarily a sweet and feel-good film that is much more about people and community than it is about sex dolls.

It must have been hard to nail down the right tone in a film where a man sits at dinner with his brother, sister-in-law, and “Bianca”, a life-size, anatomically-complete female doll. Indeed Lars and the Real Girl walks a fairly thin line between lovely and preposterous. But generally it keeps its balance and it’s quite easy to be drawn into the film’s sentimental mood. Much of the credit for this goes to the splendid Ryan Gosling, who plays the pathologically nervous Lars. He gives Lars a likeable sincerity and transforms most of the potential for creepiness into a childish naivety. The nuanced performance intimates at traumatic scars that might lurk behind Lars’ delusion.

So, when Lars’ brother Gus (Paul Schneider) and Gus’s wife Karin (Emily Mortimer) stare with sadness and disbelief at Lars and his silicone sweetheart, we mostly share their stress and concern. It’s a concern ultimately shared by the entire hamlet where Lars lives, because the family doctor (Patricia Clarkson) explains that Bianca appears completely real to Lars and that the best way to help him is to indulge his delusion. “What would Jesus do?” asks the town priest when presented with the problem. Evidently Jesus’s compassion extends to man, beast and sex-doll, because soon all of the friendly townsfolk are going out of their way to entertain Lars and his mate. Although the film isn’t noisy about it, it sure is nice to see the church accepting of this unconventional couple. The rest of the story follows the town’s efforts to be accommodating and Lars’ own efforts to emerge into life as a functioning adult without the support of his artificial crotch - ahem - crutch.

It’s entertaining to watch the townsfolk react to the predicament. Lars’ brother is understandably mortified and disbelieving, channeling some of our own feelings. Others are more laid back and lighthearted about it. The remaining entertainment comes from watching Lars’ doctor and others try to unravel the psychological complexities behind poor Lars’ condition. It’s all a little bit like a warped It’s a Wonderful Life. You know inside that the outpouring of empathy isn’t quite realistic (how many strangers and their sex-dolls have you entertained recently?), and you can quickly see why the film had to be set in a tiny close-knit community. But, gosh, you also know inside that this is how people should treat each other.  It’s best not to think about it harder than that. If you begin to imagine that this is a film that is seriously examining mental illness, its light-on approach is potentially offensive. Best just to look at it as promoting a general message of tolerance.

Even within this model of unreality, some elements of the film still stretch reality a bit too far, particularly  the part of Margo (Kelli Garner), Lars’ saccharine work colleague. She’s Lars’ real real girl; Margo is not just understanding, she also has an inexplicable romantic interest in Lars. What’s annoying is that she really has no reason to desire Lars - he’s unkind to her and, of course, he’s a bit freaky. It’s one of those all-too-common movie conceits that we’re supposed to accept that Margo seems to have psychically absorbed all the privileged insights about Lars that we’ve been shown as an audience. The Margo on screen is actually distanced from Lars, and it would have been nicer to see her discover a magic in Lars for herself.

Lars and the Real Girl is a decent film and an enjoyable watch. It’s a fairly mild experience, but it’s quirky with some scattered laughs and it is pleasantly life-affirming. It’s commendable that it achieved this through such an unusual avenue and that’s due to a strong, consistent vision, realized with thoughtful acting, writing and direction.

HORTON HEARS A WHO! (2008)

Horton Hears a Who! Review


Matt:

Length: 88 min

Taglines:
One Elephant One World One Story.
Who-mongous!
The Next Big Comedy Event.
A person’s a person no matter how small!

Précis: Charming and clever adaptation of Dr Seuss’s story that is actually a great laugh for adults too.

Review by Matt:

Horton Hears a Who! is another big budget, star-ridden, animated kids’ blockbuster. As an embellished adaptation of Dr Seuss’s famous children’s rhyme of the same name, Horton Hears a Who! has really got it going on for the kids. It’s imaginative, colourful, funny and friendly. But whether a film like this is truly high quality or not, it sometimes seems its target age group will always scream with delight, do some cartwheels, eat the happy meal, and then fall asleep on the way home. The true contest is: can it also appeal to you, the more discerning adult viewer?

The answer is a joyous ‘yes’. And unexpectedly so. I saw Horton Hears a Who! with some trepidation. Firstly, I’m not a kid. But secondly, I’m also not really a fan of Twentieth Century Fox Animations’ previous efforts, Robots and the Ice Age films. They seemed to lack the clever sparkle that made some of the Pixar hits - such as The Incredibles and Ratatouille - a hoot for adults as well. But, with Horton Hears a Who!, Fox found the sparkle. It is a frenzied delight, both clever and slapstick-funny, resulting in one of the most entertaining movies around at the moment for viewers of all ages.

Horton (voiced by Jim Carrey) is an affable jungle elephant who one day hears tiny voices emanating from a speck of dust. He’s not crazy - his elephant ears have detected the sounds of an infinitesimal, fun-loving civilization called “Whos”. The Whos, led by their loveable Mayor (voiced by Steve Carrell), are cheerful oddballs and they love “Whoville”, a place of curves and contraptions that is quintessentially Seussian (and that could lead to a whole new wave of ’sea-monkey’ sales). But in the world outside their world, the Whos’ speck-sized planet has been dislodged. Lucky thing Horton has nestled it safely in a flower so that he can find a place for safe resettlement. Unfortunately, Horton’s mission is impeded by the Jungle’s waspish matriarch (voiced by Carol Burnett), a kangaroo who surely would be out of a job if her name didn’t rhyme with “who”. Unable to hear the tiny Whos, Kangaroo is incensed at Horton’s imagination, insisting (rather fanatically) that imagination leads to rebellion and rebellion to anarchy. Meanwhile down in Whoville, the poor Mayor is the only one who can hear Horton, and he struggles to convince the inhabitants of a world where nothing has ever gone wrong, that something is about to go spectacularly wrong.

Horton Hears a Who! is tightly packed with action and movement - there are things flying around all over the place. As you’d expect, the animation is top-quality, but it is also directed smartly and a couple of the elaborate action sequences are great. But best of all, the film has a sense of humour with a taste for the absurd (the sudden ridiculous pop-song tickled me just right) and it is often, surprisingly, uproarious. Like many modern animations, it is also self-aware, which allows for a few smart anti‑climax jokes and a great parody sequence of the animated style. Maybe kids these days are getting used to post-modern animations (is post-post-modern on the way?) but I still love it when cartoons make jokes by defying genre conventions.

Using quality comedic actors for the voices also pays off. Steve Carrell plays a combination of his other “loveable doofus” characters, giving the Mayor a klutzy charm. Jim Carey uses just about the right balance of comedic wackiness for Horton, keeping the volume well below his maximum setting of “Ace Ventura”. Will Arnett gives an amusing exaggerated evil to Vlad, a vampiric vulture who sounds exactly as you would expect an evil character called Vlad to sound. With two evil vulture roles in a row (he was also the evil vulture in Ice Age 2) Will Arnett also cements himself as the number one vulture-voice guy in town.

Inside its zany shell, Horton Hears a Who! tells a pretty simple moral tale, championing Dr Seuss’s worthy maxim of universal humanity: “a person’s a person, no matter how small.” The characters do seem a bit representational; Kangaroo is especially extreme - and kind of irritating - in all her imagination-crushing authority. The willingness of the jungle folk to be moulded into a lynch mob is also a bit disheartening. The film’s decrying of the “it doesn’t exist if you can’t see it” attitude could easily be interpreted as a religious comment, but thankfully it doesn’t really push this at us. In fact, the only pushing is saved for better messages: that we should stand up to the dream-crushers and that we should care for everyone, even the little folks. It’s a nice message to teach the little folks watching Horton Hears a Who. Of course, it doesn’t go astray on the big folks either (Dr Seuss’s original story was apparently a parable about the US occupation of Japan). But, the best bit of all is that it comes in a consistently hilarious and fun package.

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD (2007)

Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead Review


Matt:

Length: 123 min

Tagline:
No one was supposed to get hurt.
Loyalty. It’s all relative.

Précis: A well-made and thrilling crime drama that is painful and difficult to enjoy.

Review by Matt:

The Irish saying goes: “May you have half an hour in heaven before the Devil knows you’re dead”. If you have such fortune, I urge you not to spend any of that time watching this film; it is the furthest thing from an instructional manual on how to enjoy your precious distracted-Devil minutes. Veteran director Sidney Lumet’s latest thriller is covered with the fingerprints of a filmmaker who knows his craft, but it is bleak, violent and depressing.

The plot centres on the events surrounding a jewellery store heist and the family it affects. The heist is plotted by joyless property accountant Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his craven younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke). Both have their problems and both are desperate for fast cash. Also sucked into the debacle are the brothers’ parents, Charles (Albert Finney) and Nanette (Rosemary Harris), as well as a contested lover (Marisa Tomei). The heist itself is so fleeting it is almost a McGuffin. This is no Ocean’s Eleven. Lumet is not interested in thrilling us with the danger, genius or comedy involved in pulling off a heist. He is instead intent on dredging through the conditions that led to the crime, the motivations of the characters involved, and its messy aftermath.

What a sordid affair it is. Even the opening sex scene, which presumably represents the brief moment of heaven before the Devil cottons on, is graphic and grotty. We start to feel very early that we’re in a quicksand from which there is no escape. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is ultimately concerned with familial relationships. Many clues point at the family’s stack of emotional baggage, but these bags are never opened for us. The film also employs an unconventional narrative style, jumping through time and between the perspectives of the characters. This gives us a wide view of the twists and turns in the heavy plot. But this view doesn’t illuminate the crucial emotional detail that could let us identify with our protagonists. Instead some of their actions seem incredible. We feel distanced, like we’re watching some unknown shapes sinking on the horizon.

I won’t deny that this film is structured well and it grips us firmly. Lumet has also evoked quality performances from his cast. Only, in his service their powers are mainly used to heighten the sense of doom. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliantly sad, sick and manipulative. He bottles up these poisons in his character, with only the occasional judicious release. Check out his muted trashing-the-house ‘tantrum’.

But having acknowledged these strengths, I have to quietly move away from the crowd of critics who laud this film. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead didn’t give me the ‘why’. Why has Lumet drawn us into this wasteland? Scene after scene crashes on us. Characters sink deeper into pain and disgrace. I can see that, ok, bad choices can hurt, plans can unravel terribly, and people can be weak, greedy and selfish. Watching this crumbling family didn’t tell me anything more meaningful than that. If it was supposed to present some original perspective on morality, I think the message sunk in the depressing cesspool. Maybe you’ll enjoy the thrills, the intensity, the performances. These things are great. But to really have an enjoyable time watching this corrosive tale, I needed a payoff that had more subtlety and had some meaning at its heart.

DAN IN REAL LIFE (2007)

Dan in Real Life Review


Matt:

Length: 98 min

Tagline:
Something’s happening to Dan. It’s confusing. It’s awkward. It’s family.

Précis: Likeable, but run-of-the-mill romantic comedy emerges as a puff of family fluff.

Review by Matt:

Poor Dan (Steve Carrell). He’s the protagonist in one of those conventional Hollywood family romantic comedies. That means that he is a good, middleclass, middle-aged father and a nice guy, but he’s a widower raising three young daughters alone. The daughters are typically unimpressed with their Dad - he is embarrassingly overprotective, uncool etc - so when the whole extended family gather for Thanksgiving at the Rhode Island lodge belonging to Dan’s parents (John Mahoney and Dianne Wiest), Dan wanders into town to give them some girl-time. Browsing in a bookshop, Dan miraculously meets, chats to, and *snap* falls in love, with a charming stranger, Marie (Juliette Binoche). She’s in a relationship, but he scores her number anyway. Later back at the lodge, the new girlfriend of Dan’s brother Mitch (Dane Cook) arrives. Oh, guess who it is? Yep. Marie from the bookshop. The sparks in Dan’s heart turn to needles. He’s going to need to keep this whole thing a secret from his large and inquisitional family.

After its setup, Dan in Real Life carries on in the key of “unrequited love” a bit too long and loudly. For most of its length we watch as Dan pulls his hair out and a waterfall of ironic and frustrating events pour over him: Dan stuck behind jazzercising Marie; Dan trapped in close quarters with Marie; Mitch and Marie crawling over each other in a (poorly executed) yoga pose while Dan looks on. Etc. Dan’s frustration leads to foolish, jealous behaviour which earns the scorn and concern of his omnipresent family and, according to the movie poster, can be relieved by laying one’s head down onto a stack of pancakes. Problem is, we get it after the first ten minutes. Each new frustration doesn’t vary the melody, it just amplifies it.

Perhaps these standard romantic comedy plotlines are revisited so often because they really do echo the trials we all face in real life. But in real life we don’t actually know what is going to happen. Here we do. We’re also catapulted to this ending so suddenly that messy streaks of pretence are left all over. In real life we also don’t speak in Hollywood or sit-com platitudes, as they do in this film. The levels of cliché are occasionally so elevated that you may find yourself cringing and saying out loud “No, don’t say tha - ohh, I can’t believe they just said that.” Screenwriter Peter Hedges was lauded for his earlier work About a Boy. Admittedly I was irked by the trite sentimentality in that film too. Dan in Real Life has about the same level. Just to fully make this point: the romantic compliment “I thought I died because an angel just walked in to the room” is pitched to us as a serious line. Try saying that to someone in real life and see how it goes.

The offset to all this is, of course, that Dan in Real Life is actually a pretty nice and likeable film (in my opinion, a lot more likeable than About a Boy). It has humour and romance and a whole lot of sit-com ‘Christmas-special’ style sentimentality (thoughtless comments from rude uncles, family talent shows etc). It’s a comedy, obviously, but it’s a featherweight one. There are funny moments, but nothing to really surprise you, prick you, or make you laugh too heartily. Steve Carrell is the best part of the film; he has a comic spark that lets him overclock the meagre humour in not-so-funny lines and situations. But inevitably Dan in Real Life resides somewhere in the bland no-man’s land of standard Hollywood fare. It’s not that it’s bad. It’s ok. It’s just that it’s so dulled by convention and niceness that it emerges as a big puff of family fluff.

INTO THE WILD (2007)

Into the Wild Review

Matt:
Tracy:

Length: 148 min

Tagline:
Your great adventure on Alaska.

Précis: Beautiful, thoughtful and intelligent drama about a young man’s rejection of society and the inscrutable motivations driving his journey into the wild.

Review by Matt:

Sean Penn’s adaptation of Jon Krakauer’s novel Into the Wild, tells the real life story of a young idealist called Chris McCandless (played by Emile Hirsch) who, upon finishing college, hands his life savings to a charity and treks out alone into the great wilderness of North America. His journey is a genuine self-imposed exile from what he calls “sick society”, and he authenticates it by renaming himself “Alex Supertramp”, abandoning his car, burning his remaining money and severing all contact with his family. It’s not your usual “gap year”.

It is a journey that takes Alex from the top to the bottom of the continent, and we’re treated to sumptuous scenery from Mexico to the Yukon. It is amazing on the big screen and if you’ve a fondness for America’s national parks, you might watch it simply for that. The vast freedom of the wilderness will remind many of us that we also harbour feelings of wanderlust deep inside. But Alex’s is a notch higher in ascetic intensity than anything most of us would entertain. What drives his unabating need for separation? The caring travellers that Alex meets along his way, including parent-like hippies Jan (Catherine Keener) and Rainey (Brian Dierker), and Grandfather-like Ron (Hal Holbrook), inevitably ask Alex the same question. “The core of mans’ spirit comes from new experiences” Alex gushes, or some other heartfelt quote about freedom or truth said by his idols Tolstoy, London or Thoreau. Touching relationships begin and break as Alex drifts on.

But is there more to it? Deep in Alex’s intelligent mind, what is the real mixture of motivations guiding him to such extremes? The genius of Sean Penn’s screenplay and direction is that it creates an intricate and non-judgmental portrait of Alex with subtlety and sincerity. It gives us freedom to decide whether Alex is a prophet or a fool. But these judgments aren’t made easily. The more you probe, the more you see that Into the Wild has painted the most thoughtful psychological picture of its protagonist.  Sean Penn is a director with rare insight into the depth of the human character and its complexities and contradictions. He knows how to show this to us in film language and he has a remarkable understanding of how an audience will read it. Into the Wild echoes softly of Sean Penn’s last film, The Pledge, which also encouraged us to scrutinize a character’s conflicting motivations. Into the Wild brushes these issues with an even gentler touch, and it feels much more poetic, meditative - and better - than The Pledge.

Everything falls in the right place. Hirsch’s performance is genuine and human, as are those of all the minor characters. Alex’s relationships with them are revealing; they are so tender and hurtful at the same time. The natural scenery is both majestic and frightening. If you’re like me, not all of this will grab you at once. At its conclusion, you might even feel underwhelmed at the plot: disaffected young man tramps across scenic America looking for discovery and meets a range of characters. Its two and a half hours might seem long. But Into the Wild is not one of those films where you “switch off” and let it blast you with entertainment. In fact, you probably won’t be able to switch off. Something will hold onto you. Whether it’s Alex’s words, his interactions, the enormity of the story – something will snag your mind and the deep intelligence inherent in this picture will soak in. There’s so much here to think about: courage and arrogance, freedom and conformity, relationships and isolation, what brings us happiness… For me, this meaning was evoked with beauty and skill, and after the film had finished it just kept on soaking deeper, all the way to five stars.

THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY (LE SCAPHANDRE ET LE PAPILLON) (2007)

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly Review

Matt:

Length: 112 min

Tagline:
Let your imagination set you free.

Précis: This portrait of a completely paralysed yet conscious man is made with great intelligence and is surprisingly uplifting.

Review by Matt:

In 1995, Jean-Dominique Bauby (played here by Mathieu Amalric), the editor of France’s Elle Magazine and a swinging hedonist, suffered a massive stroke that left him almost completely paralysed. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly dramatises this event. As the film begins, Bauby awakens in a Parisian hospital and discovers that the swinging hedonism is well and truly lost. He can only move a single eye. Bauby has what is known as ‘locked in syndrome’. His mind is fully functioning but he is trapped in his paralysed body.

Like Edgar Allan Poe’s nightmarish story The Cask of Amontillado, in which a hapless chap is bricked up alive in a deep unvisited cellar, you would think it would be difficult for this film to overcome the innate horror of its premise. Or at least it might be pretty tedious: body in bed blinks a lot; family watch sadly. It is sad, and slightly horrific, but The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is also fascinating and uplifting. It’s an amazing artistic achievement. The director, New York artist Julian Schnabel, smartly chose to tackle the subject by diving inside the paralysed Bauby and releasing his thoughts and memories. For much of the film we get the unique experience of sharing Bauby’s point of view – the camera is Bauby, and its eyelid flutters as Bauby’s does. This could distract some viewers, but I found it interesting and immersive. In addition we hear Bauby’s inner voice commenting, lamenting, regretting, lusting, wisecracking. The plot is not too linear. Instead we experience episodes involving Bauby’s family, friends and nurses, as well as dramatisations of his fantasies and recollections. Without being insensitive to its subject, the film is often quite funny as we experience Bauby’s lively mind.

But Diving Bell and the Butterfly is also inescapably sad in parts. Max Von Sydow is outstanding and poignant, as he as consistently been ever since he pooh-poohed Death in Ingmar Berman’s famous The Seventh Seal. Here he is Bauby’s ailing father, and his additions to the film’s landscape of emotions are the most touching. Emmanuelle Seigne is also sad and superb as Bauby’s estranged wife, tangled in one of life’s complex knots of love and suffering.

Mathieu Amalric also gives a moving performance as Bauby. There is an extreme contrast between the pathetic and bedridden Bauby and the vibrant pre-stroke Bauby. What quickly becomes evident though is that Bauby’s spark wasn’t crushed with his body. It is now simply trapped inside him like a diver in a sunken diving bell. With the help of a speech therapist (Marie-Josee Croze), Bauby is able to use a system of communication using only his blinking eye. Though agonizingly slow, this method not only allows him to communicate his thoughts, but also to complete the incredible feat of dictating a memoir (which was published in France in 1997). Bauby may have made plenty of mistakes during his man-about-town years but, as the film highlights, like all of us he has an indestructible human essence that is capable of greatness.

Although it’s consistently interesting and has many moments of beauty, this is not an explosive tale so you should be prepared for a longish ride. It occasionally seemed to stretch on just a bit. But that is overshadowed by the film’s great intelligence and originality. Its tapestry of overlapping events and emotions is an honest portrait of life, broaching people’s fallibility as well as the greatness of our humanity. It’s moving and often intense. Possibly you will find parts of it devastating. Yet, despite the considerable restrictions of the subject matter and the story, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is much lighter than you’d imagine. Amazingly, by the end it has formed an elevating picture about the wholeness of life.