Review: Where the Wild Things Are

Wild at Heart

This film probably has the second greatest magic trick seen in film this year, right next to The Hangover's ability to make people believe that it was a successful comedy. Upon the very first glance, there's an assumption that a film based on a literally paper-thin source material might not meet the challenge of offering a film that is stimulating to the adult mind. Then, when you actually dive into the film itself, there's an uneasy pace about it that shifts dramatically from scene to scene, and it is a mystery if the film will ever find the right tone of consistency. But then, with a slight of hand and a bit of flash, the trick is pulled off. You suddenly start being pulled into this emotionally rich world that offers a buffet of topics to invest in. All this is done without you realizing what has happened, and you fall in love with ever second of the piece. It's perhaps one of the greatest tricks a film can pull off, and I'm glad to say that it has been successfully done here.

Maurice Sendak's uber-classic 1963 children's story has now become basic reading in almost every young child's library. There's hardly a person I know that isn't aware of the young, restless boy named Max, whose naughty behavior sent him to a fantastical island where giant creatures roamed. That incredibly simple story is the premise for this more complex storyline, which finds Max (played by the aptly named Max Records), the youngest sibling in what appears to be a divorced home. After a huge spat with his Mother (Catherine Keener), he runs away and finds a boat. That boats takes him across huge ocean waves and eventually to the island filled with those monsters. But here, they have personalities, like the ostracized little goat Alexander (voiced by Paul Dano), the couple in love Ira (Forest Whitaker) and Judith (Catherine O'Hara), the collective second-in-command Douglas (Chris Cooper) and the de facto leader Carol (James Gandolfini), who proclaims Max their king.

The question has been asked whether or not this is a children's film. I'd say yes and no, but that is a brilliant line that Spike Jonze walks on. It is true that the rather dark presentation of the monsters at times, particularly their very expressive faces, and the fact that most of the book's readers are adults now suggest that this is meant more for nostalgia. Jonze delivers well on that note. However, he also creates a world that seems through a child's gaze: most of the shots are at Max's eye level, and the sometimes erratic pace gives a parallel to a child's own ever changing emotions. The balance is well found through Jonze's direction.

It's particularly amazing how Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers have managed to take a sort of nothing story and turned it into a rich piece. The answer to that is they have not dumbed down their film to make it overly simple. Every emotional peak that appears within those few sentences of the story are revealed here, but they carry so much more emotional weight because the story has allowed the time and personalities to flourish. Jonze and Eggers have done the greatest service: paying respect to the source without being shackled by it.

Max is a very difficult character to try and pull off, and there are times in the beginning when it doesn't seem like Records lives all the way up to that challenge. Then, when he arrives at the island, he pulls you into a strong emotional core, made all the more impressive because he is conversing with creatures that physically cannot converse back. It's one of the few remarkable child performances that doesn't feel gimmicky. Also, every voice actor is perfectly cast here, and I wouldn't change any one of them. Dano's trademark shy voice works perfect for Alexander, Cooper's authoritative tone compliments Douglas's organized personality, and Gandolfini breathes every emotion he can into Carol and makes us care for him. Every outburst feels genuine, and the amazingly subtle visual effects for facial movements on large monster suits add to the wonderment.

I admit that I was a little weary in that first part, and I'm still not convinced it all works there. However, once the film gets going, it completely pulled me in, and before I knew it, I was laughing, happy, and depressed at all the right moments, and it all felt genuine to the film. Spike Jonze and his company should receive high praises for their work here (are you listening, Oscar?). They have taken a work that's as bare as bone and used it to create a world that I found just as complex as the so-called "real one" outside. Mr. Jonze continues to show that he is one of the industry's best magicians, and his latest effort, I think, is his best trick yet. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: A Serious Man

Chosen Cones

In my humble opinion, I do not believe the Coen brothers can make bad very often. In fact, there's only one film of theirs that is fundamentally bad, and that would be The Ladykillers. Even one of their least involving films for me, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, still manages to impress at the very least on a technical scale. Lately the Coens struck gold, literally, with their 2007 Oscar guzzler No Country for Old Men and reclaimed their status as ace filmmakers after getting a little shaky post-The Big Lebowski. Even Burn After Reading is an underrated gem that makes a great companion piece to their greatest film Fargo. While thematically this film and that other masterpiece don't have that much in common, they do go together well because this film is the best since Fargo, and I'm well aware that glosses over the so-called Best Picture.

Part semi-autobiography, part reinterpretation of the Bible's Book of Job, the film circles around Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg). He's a normal man trying to deal with some abnormal circumstances happening in his life. His wife (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce and a spiritual divorce so she can remarry a family friend, so he moves out to a second rate motel. His application for tenure as a college professor is in jeopardy. A Korean student (David Kang) who attempted to bribe Larry for a passing grade is potentially suing him for defamation. Larry eccentric relative (Richard Kind) refuses to get his life together and stays in his home. All in the days leading up to his son's bar mitzvah. To try to cope with all of these escalating problems, Larry tries to seek out a trio of mysterious rabbis.

As good as a film No Country for Old Men is, I have to admit that it does not have a great amount of re-watch value. It's a style you get used to after a while, and the power of the filmmaking isn't retained. This film feels so packed with subtle plot points and nuanced character moments that there feels like there's a treasure trove of elements to discover. The Coen brothers set up the framework quite well, and their inventiveness with the camera continually draws the audience in. They perfectly capture the mid '60s feel, and their world is completely believable and credible, and that is an appreciative effort.

What also tends to happen in some Coen brothers films is that there is an accusation of them looking down at their characters and mocking them. That can be true to an extent, but on the whole, the characters that populate the film feel fleshed out and never exist solely on a caricature level. Also, in order to really appreciate the story, a basic knowledge of the story of Job's terrible plight. Having that in the back of your mind allows you to see some of the strong and subtle parallels to such a famous tale, and it is intriguing to see how the Coens transform the story and take it to interesting areas. On a note about the story, this does have an abrupt ending like No Country, but having the knowledge about Job gives you a better appreciation about that where the story ends and a realization that anymore would be overindulgent.

Stuhlbarg doesn't give a mind-blowing performance, but he fortunately doesn't sleepwalk through this role either. He presents a grounded character who feels believable enough for us to become invested in his struggles. Other members of the ensemble also deliver, like Lennick's deadpan aggressiveness and Kang's monotone aura. Kind is an endearing character, but I will lament that his character feels so limited that I would either have preferred him to have a more prominent role or be eliminated completely. Also, Kind is an actor who portrays the slightly different variations on the same character. However, he does it very well.

There are small quibbles I have with the film, such as Kind's character and the story meandering at some points, but they really shy in comparison to the many great things about this film. It is one in which the Coens put the ultimate faith in their characters, and it has a nice payoff. The story is fascinating, the execution is flawless and the ensemble truly delivers. I am of the honest opinion that this is the Coens' best film since Fargo, and I'm not ashamed to say that it is better than No Country. Unlike that film, this is one I want to watch many times over. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: Capitalism & Bright Star

Capital Punishment

There are some figures throughout the world where the simplest way to describe them is their own name. Nothing seems to better sum up Michael Moore than the statement, "Michael Moore is Michael Moore." With that, you already know all the baggage that comes with that name: all the controversy, criticism, genius, entertainment and all the mixed emotions you can handle fall squarely in front of Moore's doorstep. His latest film is no different, and it is like most of his others. There's always some things you have to take with a grain of salt, but overall, Moore creates another compelling documentary that if any is bound to stir the conversation.

After tackling such big subjects as the GM Corporation, gun control, healthcare, and the entire Bush Administration, Moore now goes after a pretty broad topic, that of what the title blatantly tells is capitalism. Moore's thesis is that capitalism is an economic system that invites greed and corruption so easily that it is inherently evil and must be removed. What it is to be replaced with, Moore never really says, but gives examples such as numerous banking methods such as foreclosing on the homes of those barley making ends meet by jacking up monthly payments, taking life insurances out on employees so that when they die the bank inherits the payment, and cutting off final paychecks from a Chicago window making company that led to a famous sit-in and reversal of decision.

The one thing that has always clouded Moore throughout his career is that his documentaries have a difficult time being sincere, which is where they are the most effective. His first film, Roger & Me, still remains his best film because it wasn't about attacking partisan issues but more so about distinguishing between the social problems dealing with what is right and what is wrong. After getting muddled a bit with Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 (my least favorite of his documentaries), he seems to be getting back to that. Moore goes for more of a mouthpiece of mostly the poor, nearly bypassing the middle class. It is a move that shows a lot more compassion and credibility for Moore's arguments, and he continually presents thought provoking ideas usually dressed with really great comedic set ups (there's one involving Ronald Regan early in the film that is really funny).

However, the film isn't without the usual "Michael-Mooreisms" that detract from some of the film's credibility. Moore still paints his canvass with a far left brush, and his imbalanced attacks on Republicans versus Democrats don't give the biggest and fairest picture. Moore continues to be very manipulative in this piece, as his trademark moves of being shunned by security guards and getting close-ups on crying family members start popping up within the first ten minutes of the film. Also, Moore's coverage of that famous Chicago sit-in also has some shaky credibility because it seems a little too coincidental that Moore and his camera crew just happened to have insider access to this group just before they decided to protest. The film is still filled with Moore's usual tactics that often make him one of the most despised filmmakers working today, and sometimes this is justified.

Still, in the end, this is a wonderfully put together film that I would argue is Moore's best since his debut feature. The reason isn't really because of his message because, in the end, Moore doesn't really have a clear one to begin with. Eliminating capitalism won't solve what Moore's discussing, but that's a political conversation not needed here. What the film does offer is a plea that seems to be limited on partisan bias and even asks its own audience to join the revolution while more depressing economic tidbits run across the ending credits. It is true that, whether you love him or hate him, Michael Moore is Michael Moore. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Dead Poet's Society

I’ll admit that there are a few genres out there that I’m not the biggest fan of. The most notable for me is the modern romantic comedy, for which very few films have been made an exception. However, another genre that has difficulty in getting me invested would be the period piece, specifically the one set in Victoria England. There aren’t many films that take place during this time that I find fascinating or even willing to have be believe in their hollow characters that fill out the fluffy costumes. Even last year’s The Duchess had only one believable character (Ralph Fiennes). When it comes to this film, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the characters, which is a huge plus concerning this often pretentious genre.

This is a tale of famous romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), who like all poets of his time was critically panned in life, but is now almost universally praised years after his death at the untimely age of twenty-five of tuberculosis. During his short time, he worked alongside a fellow poet named Brown (Paul Schneider) and struck a passionate love affair with an admirer, his neighbor Faye Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Their affair would last the final three years of Keats’s life.

What normally happens in these types of films is that there is more of an emphasis on the art design of the film and that leads to the films having very weakly developed characters that only pad the space between the sets and costumes. However, writer-director Jane Campion does something very different here. She keeps the scope rather limited and maintains a strong focus on Keats and Brawn. Because of this, there is time to flesh out the qualities of these characters, and they think and behave in believable ways. Campion’s script is witty, enthralling and passionate. While her direction is not quite as tight as her screenplay, she still does an admirable job at creating a world that feels real and credible enough for us to seek out the emotions in.

Whishaw is good enough in his part, although I do admit that it does seem like he’s striking the same chord with this character scene after scene. His speech or ideas never change and he seems like the caricature of the thin, pale, sickly looking writer. Still, he does present a charming character that we feel like is very easy to fall in love with. Beautifully opposite him, Schneider’s poet is crass and rude, but never feels forced to do so. His performance strikes all the right enough notes of a man frustrated with the conditions around him and the happier life that has been bestowed on his friend that has eluded him. He’s never totally nice, but you never believe him to be a cartoonish bully.

However, this movie really belongs to Cornish. She always presents a delicate amount of energy and passion when she moves across the screen. There is never a sense of overindulgence in her character, and she always strikes the right balance of forceful independence, love struck schoolgirl, and wildly depressed faux widow in equal proportion. Cornish is the key to the film’s success; she’s endearing and passionate, and hopefully that will translate into an Oscar nomination.

While there are many things to admire about this film, I would still point out some flaws that do hinder the picture a bit. Not every character is realized quite as well as Keats, Brawne and Brown. Faye’s younger sister, in particular, never quite seems necessary beyond her role as a comedic annoyance for Faye. I also think this movie on more than one occasion believes the word’s from Keats’s poetry are more powerful than the images, and a lingering shot of Faye’s funeral march for Keats loses some power when it drags for what seems to be as long as the third act itself is.

Still, this is a really remarkable film that genuinely surprised me at how much I ended up enjoying it. Cornish’s beautiful performance is the key ingredient here, but most of her co-stars and a very compassionate execution from Campion add to her contributions. I know there are many out there who have the same reservations toward this genre that I do. However, I urge you to take the chance because you’ll be pleasantly pleased. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: Zombieland & Paranormal Activity

Land of the Lost

To be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of the zombie movie, whether that be the serious or comedic genre. I admit that George Romero's original 1968 Night of the Living Dead is a very chilling film that was effective at striking a very disturbing nerve. But aside from that, the genre has never quite hooked me because eventually, you figure out the formula and it all becomes quite predictable. To try and combat that, movies today have to turn that idea on its head in order to seem relevant. For me, Shawn of the Dead is a slightly overrated work and if you go back and look at 28 Days Later, it's not technically a zombie movie. Movies like the former are now a common method to make a current zombie movie, and it sometimes is hit or miss. That certainly sums up this film which has some good things clashing with some not so good things.

You know the set-up: humanity has been obliterated by a widespread disease that turns ordinary people into flesh-eating creatures of the night. As always, there are sparse survivors, and here all given names that describe their destinations. Jesse Eisenberg is Columbus, whose neurotic behavior and detailed checklist of survival tips has led him out of one dangerous situation after another. He meets fellow survivor Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a brass bully-type whose meant to be the foil to Columbus's meekness. They also cross paths with a clever, untrustworthy sister team, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin).

The first half of this film was actually really bothersome to me. The comedy never finds a great beat to follow, and the tone radically bounces back from campy humor to wound up terror. Director Ruben Fleischer and co-writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick have a hard time setting up a world to get invested in even with the surreal circumstances that have already been established. Then at the midpoint, a high profile star is introduced (you can go to the IMDb page if you want to know), and it introduces a deep breath of fresh comedic talent that is really effective. It is also the point where the tones transition more fluidly, and the emotional connections these characters have feel genuine. It's a shame it takes half of the film to get to that point, but once it passes, it really shows.

Eisenberg is sort of a poor man's Michael Cera, which is a label I don't like because he's insanely more talented than him. Here, he doesn't give a tremendous performance, but he possesses enough likable charm to take the lead in this role, and he is a relatable enough character for us to follow. Some of Harrelson's mannerisms seem like broad strokes, but he does deliver enough laughs. Really the best person here is Stone, who always brings charm and energy into every scene she's in, and supporting roles in Superbad and The Rocker.

Even though I didn't love Shaun of the Dead, it is without a doubt a much funnier and smarter film than this is. There are some good laughs, genuine thrills and one or two endearing emotional scenes that try their best to overcompensate for a rocky first half. Without a doubt this is not the zombie film that is going to get me invested in this genre. However, I will lament it is a noble effort. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Ghost Hunters

There's been a lot of buzz building that concerns this film. It's been an interesting process that started with the film being released in select thirteen cities. Then the word of mouth grew to such a positive strength that the studio decided to handle the release of this film a little differently. Regular people go to the film's website and "demand" it come to their cities. After a while, it finally came to Chicago, and I saw this film in a packed midnight showing, no doubt alongside many other patrons who heard the same things about this film. Like most things in life, it is the victim of some overhyping. However, that doesn't mean there are many things to admire here.

In a bare bones approach, the only leads here are Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micha (Micha Sloat). They're a seemingly normal couple who are living together but have been bothered by some unusual goings-on. Katie is convinced that it is part of a long history of disturbing, unnatural occurrences that have been following her throughout her whole life. Micha, being the skeptic, brings out the camera to try and record these events to see if something beyond the ordinary truly is going on. Needless to say, they experience something one more than one occasion.

This is meant to be a minimalist effort, and in today's world of Saw's numerous sequels that rely so heavily on blood and gore, it is really comforting to see a film rely on minor tricks in order to suggest an audience participate in its suspenseful mood. Writer-director Oren Peli does a very good job at creating tension using low rumbling sounds and moving objects, and it's always fun to participate in the collective stress of an audience. The two leads in this film are also grounded enough to seem believable, and their plights do connect.

Even with all those elements that are adding to this film, the entire project itself feels very underdeveloped. This was a film shot for $11,000 and was intended to be remade. I'd actually be in favor of a remake because, as it stands now, it feels more like an outline for a feature film. The night after night presentations, though effective, start to wear out eventually, and the character of Micha especially behaves in a way that is naive and moronic, and is incredibly unlikable. Also, the handheld digital camera look feels less like a mean to be natural to the plot and more an excuse to cover up their tiny budget. I would actually be in favor of a remake because I think it would allow these characters to become more developed and the pacing to become better stated to bring in the suspense.

This isn't a really great horror film, and in fact the amateurish look of the film gets in the way of it becoming that. The characters are only mildly developed and the premise does hold onto enough steam by the end. But it is a really special thing that has been presented here. This is a film that relies a lot on showing very little, and that is an element in horror films that is going away and it should be applauded for that effort alone. I think there's room to develop, but as it stands now, it's a good effort that does part of its job quite well. *** / ****; GRADE: B