Joseph Doherty

Since a young age, Joseph Doherty has appreciated films for their entertainment value and cultural impact. Some of his favorites include Boogie Nights, Back to the Future (Parts I & II), and This is Spinal Tap. He dreams one day of relocating to California and becoming a screenwriter. In the meantime, Doherty is doing his best to educate himself on the technical aspects of filmmaking by reading books, watching behind the scenes documentaries, and listening to director commentaries on DVD's. Joseph Doherty is a 2011 graduate of Bridgewater State University and lives in Bridgewater, MA.

Film Review: Behind Your Eyes

It seems that thriller/horror films have experienced something of a renaissance in the last decade or so, just based on the immense number of releases. Unfortunately, with their shoddy production design, clumsy direction, and poor acting, very few of them are any good. While Behind Your Eyes suffers from most of these problems, the film has a certain low-budget, independent charm that makes it somewhat enjoyable. Just remember to check your brain at the door.

In the beginning of Behind Your Eyes we are introduced to Steven and Erika (Tom Sandoval and Frida Farrell), a young, attractive couple who are planning a weekend trip to visit Steven's parents. While Erika is excited to finally meet them, Steven is dreading the trip for some reason. Everything goes along fine until they are confronted by Mark Balentine (Daniel Fanaberia) at a service station. Balentine takes the couple to a remote cabin in the woods and proceeds to torture them. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that this is no random act of violence. Balentine is on a vendetta against Steven, but why?

The acting in Behind Your Eyes is about what you would expect from a low-budget, indie thriller. Despite being given the most screen time, Frida Farrell is given little to do but scream, sob, and look petrified. While Daniel Fanaberia, who also penned the script, has an intense physical presence, any trace of menace disappears whenever he opens his mouth. (To all screenwriters, having your villain say the "F word" twice in every sentence does not make him tough or intimidating.) However, with his flat delivery and complete lack of charisma, Tom Sandoval comes off the worst. Fortunately, his character disappears for long stretches during the film. Really, the only actor that leaves any kind of impact is Arthur Roberts as a stern, Bible-thumping psychotic who turns Erika's life into a nightmare. His performance alone enlivens the film's increasingly absurd final act.

Horror/thrillers live or die on the director's ability to create a certain atmosphere. Despite working with a very low budget, director Clint Lien does an adequate job of setting the film's strange and creepy tone. In keeping the light levels low and placing his camera at unique angles within the small sets, Lien gives Behind Your Eyes a very gloomy and claustrophobic feeling. While he isn't always successful at generating suspense, with far too many scenes of the actors lying around in silence, Lien's direction masks the film's banal dialogue and acting to a certain extent. While Behind Your Eyes is not a great thriller, or even a remotely good one, there are certainly worse ways to spend 90 minutes.

Film Review: NONAMES

Sometimes a film can have everything going for it except a compelling story line. This is certainly the case with writer/director Kathy Lindboe's film NONAMES. Despite featuring a highly capable star, snappy dialogue, and surprisingly good production values (considering it is an independent film), Lindboe's film ultimately gets weighed down by its relentlessly downbeat tone and flat characters that simply do not elicit sympathy or interest from the audience.

Based on a true story, NONAMES tells the story of Kevin (James Badge Dale), a man whose life spirals out of control at the age of nine when his mother passes away. Lost and confused, Kevin begins hanging around with a small band of misfits and miscreants who seek out trouble in their small town of Dexter, Wisconsin. Several years later, Kevin's family decides that the only way they can truly move on from their painful past is to move out of Dexter. Kevin refuses to leave the only home he has ever known, despite everyone telling him it is a dead-end. Instead, Kevin uses the money he inherited from his mother to buy a house for he and his girlfriend, CJ (Gillian Jacobs), and it looks as though the pair may finally settle down. However, just like his family said, the pressures of Kevin's lifestyle in Dexter soon threaten to derail everything he has built up.

There is no question that the production values and performance from its star elevates NONAMES substantially. James Badge Dale is definitely one of those actors who does not get the recognition he deserves. Despite turning in solid supporting work on shows like 24 and having a prominent role in HBO's epic series The Pacific, Dale has generally flown under the radar for most of his career. This is a shame given his acting talents. In NONAMES, Dale works very hard to turn the generally unlikeable Kevin into a compassionate and tragic figure. While he is not totally successful, Dale is still a compelling presence on screen. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is given little to do, especially those playing Kevin's buddies who just have to act like overgrown children. In terms of craftsmanship, director Lindboe does a credible job behind the camera and her dialogue is both hard-hitting and authentic. She is supported by Kenneth Wilson's lush cinematography and an emotional score from Takeshi Furukawa.

From what I read, NONAMES was based on the troubled life of writer/director Kathy Lindboe's brother. While I certainly admire Lindboe for being able to open up the way she did, her personal account just does not translate well to the screen. The film is populated by a bunch of "no-name" characters, but they are perfectly content with being just that in their small, forgotten town. These people have no interest in bettering themselves and display few regrets for their past mistakes. That lack of internal conflict, makes it very difficult to relate to or feel for any of these characters. If anything, it is their families who suffer the most, but Lindboe does not touch on that nearly enough. Ultimately, NONAMES is one of those soul-bearing stories that probably works better on paper than it does on film.

Film Review: The Grey

The month of January is not the best time for any movie fan as it is a dumping ground for all the forgettable films that couldn't make release the previous year. However, occasionally there is a film released during this season that noticeably rises above the rest of the pack. This year, The Grey is that film.

Based on Ian Mackenzie Jeffers short story Ghost Walker, the film's plot is remarkably simple and straightforward. In opening scenes we are introduced to Ottway (Liam Neeson), a suicidal wolf hunter who protects oiler drillers from attacks in the field. After a particularly harsh trip in Alaska, a blizzard takes down the crew's plane leaving Ottway and seven other men trapped with precious few supplies in the middle of nowhere. There they are forced to fight through frigid temperatures, rough terrain, starvation, and, not to mention, a pack of vicious wolves. Given this premise, The Grey could have easily come off as another run-of-the-mill man vs. nature tale if put in the hands of lesser filmmakers. Fortunately, director Joe Carnahan and star Liam Neeson were clearly aiming to produce something much deeper and philosophical with the material. Though the film is slightly bloated and, at times, preachy, there are enough thrills and moments of dramatic intensity to keep even the most hardened cynics glued to their seats.

Even though The Grey is an ensemble film populated with many character actors like Dermot Mulroney and Frank Grillo, this is, without question, Liam Neeson's show. Despite being a classically trained actor, Neeson has made quite a name for himself as an action star in the past four years or so. While most of these films have certainly not been worthy of his talents (i.e. Clash of the Titans, The A-Team), The Grey offers Neeson a wonderfully dark and complex character in Ottway to work with. Carnahan and the writers are very smart by not revealing much about Ottway or his past. His pain, guilt, and courage are all expressed in his eyes and body language. Through Liam Neeson's fiercely intense, yet subdued, performance, we see that the demons inside Ottway are just as destructive than anything the Alaskan wilderness can dish out. That makes his fight for survival all the more compelling.

I had high hopes for director Joe Carnahan based on the strength of his second feature, the gritty and haunting cop drama Narc. However, fame went to Carnahan's head which led him to be fired from his next high-profile project, Mission Impossible III, during pre-production. Carnahan has spent the better part of the last decade building his credit up by helming B-grade, action films like Smokin' Aces and The A-Team. In many respects, The Grey marks a return to form for Carnahan in terms of the film's look and tone. Much like he did with the mean streets of Detroit in Narc, Carnahan turns the back woods of British Columbia, Canada (sitting in for Alaska) into a truly ominous and punishing atmosphere. With that, Carnahan is able to generate spine-tingling suspense even in the film's most quiet and reflective moments. Though the action sequences come in sudden and forceful snippets, they are highly effective and shot in a way that doesn't make them seem hokey and out of place in what is really an intimate character study. Those cinema fans who become depressed by the weak films released during the winter season can breathe a sigh of relief. The Grey is a winner.

Film Review: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Let me start this review by saying that going in to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I had not read the novel or seen the acclaimed Swedish film adaptation. Therefore, I am judging the anticipated film solely on its own merits, which is probably a good thing. The ff one of the biggest hype surrounding The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo's release has been massive, not only because of the source material's popularity, but because it's the new film from acclaimed director David Fincher. Coming osuccesses of his career with last year's The Social Network, David Fincher is riding high in Hollywood. So, does the film live up to expectations? Well, not really. Despite featuring some beautiful photography, intense performances, and a couple of suspenseful sequences, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a rather generic whodunit that attempts to mask its shortcomings with all the frills big budgets can buy. While the film won't knock Fincher off his perch, it will certainly do little to elevate his status as one of Tinseltown's true auteurs.

Star Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist, publisher of the popular Millennium magazine. In the opening scenes, Blomkvist loses his job and savings attempting to defend himself in a libel case brought on by a powerful and corrupt executive whom he exposed. With nothing left, Blomkvist takes a job writing the memoir of a an elderly millionaire, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer). However, once he arrives at his lavish estate, Vanger informs Blomkvist that he wants him to investigate a 40 year old murder case involving his niece. Vanger believes his eccentric, vengeful family members are all prime suspects. Though he is initially hesitant, Blomkvist takes the job and recruits an emotionally tortured computer hacker, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), to aid in the investigation.

Though Daniel Craig gets top-billing and the most screentime, virtually all of the attention has been centered around co-star Rooney Mara and her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. There is no question that Salander is the heart and soul of the movie, but that is more a credit to how well crafted the character is than Mara's performance. Salander has all the characteristics of those great screen anti-heroes of the 1970's. She is the ultimate outcast, a forgotten soul who is hardened, vulnerable, sadistic, and calculating. While many actors spend a career looking for this kind of showy, multifaceted role, Mara got it with just a few credits to her name. This is not to disparage her in anyway, in fact, she gives a powerful, layered performance. However, this meaty role could have made many actresses look just as good. What surprised me more, was the sensitive, subdued performance given by Daniel Craig. Looking at the advertisements, you might be fooled into thinking Mikael Blomkvist is yet another tough, stoic superhero that Daniel Craig seems to play in every film. In reality, Blomkvist is an intelligent, dignified, and docile man who always seems to be in over his head. Despite having a superior intellect , he is certainly no James Bond in terms of physical and mental toughness. It was refreshing to see Craig let his guard down a bit playing the sensitive Blomkvist and I hope he continues to seek out more diverse roles.

In terms of direction, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo represents both the best and worst of David Fincher. As always, Fincher's tremendous eye for visuals is present right from the first frame. In fact, featuring a lush array of computer generated figures set to "Immigrant Song", the opening credits are worth the price of admission alone. Choosing to shoot a majority of the film on location in Sweden not only adds an element of authenticity but helps facilitate the film's eerie tone. Shot during a particularly harsh winter, Fincher goes all out in capturing some of the most frigid, barren, and foreboding environments since Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. Though the film is flawless technically, it is in the narrative where Fincher comes up short once again. Along with Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is yet another Fincher film to suffer because of a needlessly bloated running time. Clocking in just shy of three hours, the film starts to lose momentum just before the 3/4 mark. To make matters worse, after the main story ends, the filmmakers decide to tack on the books epilogue, which drags on for 25 minutes. Though obviously meant to neatly tie up loose ends and add character depth, all the epilogue does is kill off any remaining momentum and it nearly sinks the entire film. If only Fincher knew when to quit. In addition to its over length, Fincher's rapid-fire, electric editing style can, at times, make for a very confusing viewing experience. At its core, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a murder mystery, but Fincher seems so concerned with capturing atmosphere and setting the tone that he loses sight of that very mystery. The investigation conducted by Blomkvist and Salander is extremely disjointed and hard to follow. In the end, it is wrapped up far too quickly with a flashy montage sequence, almost as if Fincher just wanted to get it out of the way and jump into the juicy finale. In the future, it would be wise if David Fincher steered clear of such plot-heavy material, because all it does is highlight his weaknesses as a filmmaker.

In short, while The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a solid gothic thriller, it lacks the focus and originality to be put in the ranks of real shockers like Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs. Make no mistake, there are certainly sequences in this film that could make the faint-hearted squeamish, but even they come off as being more exploitative than genuinely terrifying. One should expect more given the time, money, and talent that was invested in this film.

Film Review: Hugo

I do not understand what all the glowing reviews are about because, to be frank, this is one strange movie. A lot has been made about legendary director Martin Scorsese's foray into family entertainment with his new film, the 3-D adventure Hugo. For a director who has made a career out of making raw, brutal, and uncompromising films like "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", and "Goodfellas", it seemed like an odd fit. For the most part, it is. Despite featuring some stunning visuals and one or two spirited chases, there is not much in this dark, contorted tale that will appeal to any child under the age of 13. With its bloated runtime and erratic narrative, there is little for anyone over that age as well.

The film begins with a long, indulgent tracking shot (reminiscent of Robert Zemeckis' opening to "A Christmas Carol") through 1930's Paris into a sprawling railroad station. There, we are introduced to Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), a young orphan who lives in the walls of the railroad station. Despite his loneliness, Hugo is driven by his passion to fix a broken automaton left to him by his father (Jude Law). Thinking the machine might hold a message from his late father, Hugo spends his day stealing and collecting parts to fix it. Unfortunately, he is caught by a crusty old shop owner, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), who takes his notebook filled with detailed descriptions on the automaton. Hugo's determination to retrieve his notebook and repair the automaton leads him on an adventure where he uncovers a great secret about the mysterious Melies.

Though marketed as a kid's film, Hugo deals with some pretty heavy issues including death, loss, and abandonment. While the sugary atmosphere occasionally masks it, the film is rather bleak at its core. This makes for a very polarizing viewing experience. The actors too seem lost in the mix. Some, like Sacha Baron Cohen as the evil Station Inspector and Helen McCrory as Melies devoted wife, ham it up for the camera as if they are playing characters in a fairy tale. Others, like Kingsley and Butterfield, give very subdued, dramatic performances. All this leads to a film that has serious trouble maintaining a consistent tone.

Since 3-D has slowly been dying since exploding onto the screen with the hugely overrated "Avatar", those who support the format have been desperately looking for a film to legitimize it. With Hugo, they think they have it. Well, I am here to tell you that they don't. The success of Hugo on a visual level has absolutely nothing to do with its 3-D format. Like all Martin Scorsese films, Hugo is gorgeously shot with lush cinematography, grand production design, and some truly mesmerizing special effects. All the 3-D does is provide a distraction away from these things. It doesn't do anything to enhance the viewing experience or advance the narrative. If anything, it hurts the narrative. While Hugo's story is relatively simply, it is frequently broken up with needless chases, flashbacks, and dream sequences, all of which feature a heavy 3-D component. Never before has Martin Scorsese's storytelling felt so forced and disjointed. This is exactly why Hugo cannot hold a candle to the legendary director's finer efforts.

Film Review: The Descendants

Since premiering at the Toronto International Film Festival, Alexander Payne's The Descendants has been getting an enormous amount of buzz, with many proclaiming it has a legitimate shot to take home the Best Picture award at this year's Oscars. With that, expectations were high going in. While the film is well written and impeccably acted, it is not quite bold enough to earn the label of modern masterpiece that has been bestowed upon it.

The story begins with our narrator and protagonist, Matt King (George Clooney), a successful lawyer and land baron whose life begins to unravel after his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) becomes comatose after a serious boating accident. In addition to this, Matt is also being pressured by his extended family to sign off on a deal to sell the last piece of prime land left to them by their ancestors. To clear his mind, Matt attempts to heal the distant relationship he has with his two daughters (Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller). However, everything comes to a head when Matt finds out that his wife was having an affair with a local real estate agent (Matthew Lillard), sending him deeper into a state of confusion and panic.

There has been a lot of hype about the fantastic performances given by the film's ensemble and much of it is warranted. Playing Clooney's rebellious teenage daughter, Alexandra, young TV actress Shailene Woodley emits grace and spirit, providing a great foil to the frazzled Clooney. The same can be said for newcomer Amara Miller, who gets some of the film's biggest laughs as Woodley's precocious younger sister. Robert Forster and Beau Bridges are also given opportunities to shine as members of Clooney's headache-inducing family. However, special attention should be paid to the wonderful Judy Greer, who manages to capture moments of genuine humor and heartache with her small role as Lillard's sincere wife. While the supporting cast is note-perfect, ultimately it is George Clooney's show. For years, Clooney has enjoyed the coveted position as one of Hollywood's most likeable and charismatic leading men. In recent years, Clooney has used his clout to branch off into more diverse projects like the Edward R. Murrow story "Good Night, and Good Luck" and this fall's political thriller "The Ides of March". With the character Matt King, Clooney is given his most challenging role yet and the ambitious actor pulls it off beautifully. Pained, self-loathing, and defeated Matt could have easily come off as some insufferable, dramatic pity case. However, Clooney keeps his emotions in check, turning the flawed father into a profound and dignified figure that never seeks our sympathy even though he deserves it.

Despite Clooney's huge star power, arguably the film's biggest draw is the fact that it marks the return of writer/director Alexander Payne. In the seven years since the release of his last feature Payne has remained relatively quiet, bopping up occasionally for a producing or screenwriting credit in films like "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" and "The Savages". Here, Payne largely picks up where he left off with his previous two efforts, "About Schmidt" and "Sideways", which were intimate dramas sprinkled with light, quirky comedic undertones. Payne is a master of blending the two genres, and never once does a moment feel forced or out of place. However, his mastery may eventually lead to his downfall. With "About Schmidt", "Sideways", and now The Descendants, a pattern is emerging that extends far beyond their similar tones. Plot devices like the down-and-out everyman, extramarital affairs, road trips to self discovery, and one dimensional caricatures to provide comedic relief are quickly becoming staples of Payne. While he always manages to craft a compelling narrative, it is starting to feel a bit repetitive. This is especially disheartening because Payne tackled such bold and eccentric material in his first two features, "Citizen Ruth" and the deliciously cynical satire "Election". Alexander Payne is an enormously gifted storyteller, but he is going to have to start taking some risks if he wants to be viewed as one of the greats. In the end, The Descendants comes off as yet another rock solid, yet safe, entry in the talented director's resume.

Film Review: J. Edgar

Brace yourselves because the Oscar season is coming! For film buffs, this truly is the most wonderful time of year because it is when studios unleash their highest-profile projects so they will be fresh in the minds of Academy voters. With such acclaimed directors as Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and David Fincher all slated to release their latest features in the upcoming weeks, you cannot help but feel excited. In many respects, the season kicked off this past week with Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood's latest film J. Edgar. With Eastwood at the helm and a star-studded cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench, and Armie Hammer, you would think the film would clean house come Oscar night. Unfortunately, what could have been a lively, forceful biopic ends up being a rather tedious, predictable affair destined to be forgotten far sooner than predicted.

In classic episodic fashion, the story is told via flashbacks, with the elder Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) dictating the events of his life to a series of biographers in his final years. Beginning in the 1920's with his investigations on Communist radicals and later moving on to his war against the Mafia, Hoover is shown to be a man completely devoted to the ideals of law, order, innovation, and efficiency, at times to a fault. While Hoover is a proven leader professionally, his personal life is anything but structured. Hounded by his traditional, domineering mother (Judi Dench) and tortured by his repressed feelings for his second in command, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), Hoover struggles to come to grips with his own identity while maintaining his mythic public image.

While J. Edgar has many faults, its cast is not one of them. After the box-office disaster of his follow-up to Titanic, The Beach, many predicted that Leonardo DiCaprio would fade away. However, the release of Gangs of New York in 2002, really represented the birth of his career as a serious actor. Since then, DiCaprio has turned out a steady stream of strong performances in quality films, working with such directors as Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Sam Mendes, and Christopher Nolan. As Hoover, DiCaprio manages to rise above the disjointed screenplay and give a layered, heartfelt performance that should be awarded with an Oscar nomination. Hoover is man of many faces: hardened, focused, self-conscious, vulnerable, and needy. DiCaprio, showing great poise and control, masterfully captures all of these emotions, giving the film a much needed boost. While Judi Dench has nothing more than an extended cameo as Hoover's mother, she adds weight to the character by giving her an aura that is both icy and loving. The same goes for the radiant Naomi Watts, who is shamefully saddled with a one-note role as Hoover's long-suffering, yet eternally loyal, secretary Helen Gandy. As Hoover's companion, rising star Armie Hammer is at least given some room to excel. Showcasing not only his natural wit and confidence, but a deep rooted sense of pain and anguish, Hammer effortlessly matches DiCaprio in terms of screen presence and the two easily walk away with the picture.

Personally, I have always found Clint Eastwood to be a little overrated as a filmmaker. You need not look further than his lengthy resume as a director, which contains far more misfires than hits, to see this. Don't get me wrong, when given strong material Eastwood can soar (i.e Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby), but generally I find his films to be a bit dry and plodding. J. Edgar seems to fall somewhere in the middle for Eastwood in terms of quality. It is neither a rousing success nor a worthless dud. In fact, the first half of the film is, at times, compelling as we see the young Hoover rise to power in the Bureau and take on such high profile cases as the Lindbergh kidnapping. However, J. Edgar eventually begins to get bogged down with too many loose ends and false conclusions in its final quarter. This, coupled with Eastwood's now trademark muted color palettes and subdued musical score, makes for a rather lifeless biography on one of the 20th century's most towering figures.

Ultimately, what hurts J. Edgar the most is that it doesn't know what film it wants to be. The fault of this lies with Dustin Lance Black's hollow, paint-by-numbers screenplay. Spanning nearly 50 years, it attempts to present a well rounded portrait of the man by delving into his professional and private life. However, with the Hoover we are presented, the two facets are mutually exclusive leading to a spotty narrative that raises more questions than it answers. Subplots like Hoover's complex relationship with his mother and secretary are grossly under developed. Even more time should have been spent delving into his union with Tolson. Shockingly, there are really only two scenes where the men come to grips with their feelings for each other. This is pretty sad given that Tolson was supposedly such a force in Hoover's life. At the end of the day, my only hope is that this will not be the final screen version of J. Edgar Hoover's life because walking out of the theater I felt as though we had just scratched the surface.

Film Review: In Time

After the one-two punch of 2009's Star Trek and Avatar, both of which were critical and box-office smashes, there has been a resurgence with the sci-fi genre in Hollywood. Unfortunately, for us, most of the films produced have been contrived and poorly constructed. For every Inception there is a Tron: Legacy, Battle: Los Angeles, Predators, Clash of the Titans, etc. However, few films have traveled so far into the artistic wastelands as Andrew Niccol's In Time. Starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, the film's intriguing premise is buried under a pile of dim production designs, flat performances, and a hammy message, meant to be more thought-provoking than it really is.

Set in an urban city sometime in the distant future, society is literally divided into two categories, the "haves" and the "have-nots". In this case, it is time. Once people reach the age of 25, they stop aging and are given one year to live as indicated by the time clocks encoded in their forearms. However, like paper money before it, time can be purchased, traded, or stolen. The city is separated into time zones, ranging from the ghetto to New Greenwich, where the wealthy hoard their time. Unfortunately, for those living in the ghetto, there is very little upward mobility because the government keeps raising their rates. Among those living in the ghetto are Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) and mother (Olivia Wilde), who survive on minutes a day. However, after encountering a mysterious stranger, Will comes into possession of a century's worth of time. Using it to pay his way into New Greenwich, Will teams up with Sylvia Weiss (Amanda Seyfried), the rebellious daughter of a powerful businessman, and the Robin Hood-like pair begin pulling off a series of heists meant to bring the unfair system down.

Justin Timberlake's cinematic stock rose big time after appearing in David Fincher's fantastic drama The Social Network last year. To his credit, Timberlake delivered a competent performance as Napster founder Sean Parker, but it was a role that played to his strengths. Suave, confident, and ambitious, Timberlake was essentially playing a variation of himself with Parker. As the vengeful Will Salas, Timberlake is forced to dig deeper dramatically and the results are nowhere near as successful. While he can wield a pistol with the best of today's hip action stars, Timberlake lacks the range to pull off a character who is equal parts tough and vulnerable. Equally disappointing is the uninspired performance given by co-star Amanda Seyfried. Unlike Timberlake, Seyfried has proven herself to be a talented and versatile performer with her work in films like Dear John and the television series Big Love. Though she is not given much to work with, Seyfried is strictly on autopilot here, chasing Timberlake around with a static, wide-eyed expression on her face. The only actor who manages to acquit himself well is Cillian Murphy as the icy timekeeper determined to bring Timberlake to justice.

Ultimately, In Time's prime fault lies in its banal script written by director Andrew Niccol. While I have no problem with sci-fi films containing an underlying message, there are times when it is so blatant that it undermines the entire film. Here, Niccol uses time exchange as a tool to speak out against capitalism. While great films like Planet of the Apes where able to make subtle statements on racism and discrimination, In Time hammers it home again and again and again. Yes, Mr. Niccol, we get the point that you feel capitalism is an unfair system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Unfortunately, in deciding to wear the film's message on his sleeve, Niccol sacrifices both plot and character development. This is most evident with the love affair between Timberlake and Seyfried's characters, which consists of them knocking over banks and making out. After viewing this waste of celluloid, it is hard to believe that Niccol was capable of writing something so beautiful and elegant as 1998's The Truman Show. My, how the mighty have fallen.

Film Review: What's Your Number?

After reviewing some pretty heavy-handed fare over the past few weeks, I decided to lighten it up a bit with Anna Faris's new vehicle What's Your Number?. Going in, two things appealed to me with this film, the Boston setting and star Anna Faris. For years, Hollywood has being grooming Faris for a stardom which hasn't quite come as her talents have been exploited in a series of lazy, light-weight films. It is too bad because Faris is a remarkable comedic actress, known to go all out in order to sell a zinger or pitfall. Even on the rare occasion when she is allowed to tone it down, Faris has displayed dramatic chops that rival 90% of the so-called "serious" actresses of her generation. Unfortunately, What's Your Number? does little to highlight her abilities with its tired premise that lacks both spark and smarts.

Faris portrays Ally Darling, an immature slacker whose personal and professional life is D.O.A.. With her younger sister's wedding fast approaching, Ally begins to reevaluate some of the choices she has made. One day on the subway, Ally comes across an article saying that women who have had more than 20 partners are likely to remain single for life. With her number at 20, Ally decides to look up all her ex's with the hope that one of them will be Mr. Right. Along with her playboy neighbor (Chris Evans), Ally goes on a kind of half-baked, romantic odyssey where she reunites with her eccentric beaus.

I was on the verge of walking out of the theater after enduring an opening 20 minutes filled with flat one-liners, a meandering narrative, and recycled psychical gags which even the talented Faris appeared to sleepwalk through. Fortunately, the film began to find it's groove with the introduction of the Chris Evans character. Like Faris, Evans has a spotty film resume, despite being a highly charismatic and likeable presence on screen. With this, it is no surprise that the pairing of these two actors is the best, if not only, thing What's Your Number? has going for it. Showcasing an amazing sense of comedic timing, both Faris and Evans effortlessly bounce lines off one another. Like all marvelous screen unions, they complement each other for the greater good of the film. However, it is Evans who is awarded the film's strongest joke (without spoiling the surprise, it revolves around Katherine and Audrey Hepburn). The rest of the cast, though solid, fails to make any kind of impression, with the exception of the always charming Blythe Danner and Ed Begley Jr. as Faris's parents, who are about as compatible as oil and water.

Despite capturing the city of Boston quite beautifully at times, Mark Mylod's work behind the camera is generally uninspired. However, virtually no one is given a chance to shine with Jennifer Crittenden and Gabrielle Allan's lifeless script which packs in virtually every romantic comedy cliché going. This is especially disappointing given the film's R-rating which gives screenwriters free reign to push boundaries and delve into racy topics that, when handled right, can be extremely funny. Unfortunately, Crittenden and Allan were either unwilling or unable to do this and What's Your Number? comes off as another rancid, by-the-book date flick that does nothing but diminish the stature of its gifted stars.

Film Review: The Ides of March

Traditionally, political films have not done well at the box office, and for good reason. As the years have gone on, Hollywood's use of the genre to promote its overt liberal bias has become more and more apparent. While entertainers are certainly entitled to those views, at times it feels like they are more concerned with lecturing rather than entertaining us. That is inexcusable. With George Clooney being one of the more politically outspoken actors in Hollywood, I was understandably skeptical going in to his latest film, The Ides of March, which he directed, co-wrote, and co-starred. However, what I thought would be a bland, preachy endorsement of the Democratic party turned into a surprisingly solid thriller about the quest for power in the lawless world of politics. This is all because Clooney made the smart decision to center the film around campaign strategy instead of policy.

Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, a young, ambitious consultant working for the presidential campaign of Ohio Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney). Along with campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Meyers pours his heart and soul into winning the Ohio Primary because he genuinely feels Morris is the man who could turn the country around for the better. However, Meyers makes a fatal mistake when he haphazardly agrees to meet with Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), the campaign manager for Morris's political rival. Though Meyers immediately turns down Duffy's request to work for them, he soon finds himself in hot water when an opportunistic reporter (Marisa Tomei) threatens to release the story. To make matters worse, Meyers also has to wrestle with his own conscience after discovering a dark secret that could potentially derail Governor Morris's campaign.

Despite an absolutely extraordinary cast that includes George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Evan Rachel Wood, Marisa Tomei, and Jeffrey Wright, The Ides of March's success really rests on the shoulders of leading man Ryan Gosling. Appearing in almost every scene, Gosling in forced to go toe to toe with these hard-hitting thespians and, to his credit, he acquits himself quite well. Never missing a beat, Gosling's transformation from a warm, hopeful rookie into a cold, jaded professional in the political arena is as fascinating as it is tragic to see. It is a remarkably bold and believable performance that is miles above his rather artificial turn in this fall's Drive. Naturally, Gosling's A-list co-stars are rock solid, with Clooney coming off particularly well as the polished, messianic politician with a hidden dark side.

Adapted from Beau Willimon's play Farragut North, the script (penned by Willimon, Clooney, and Grant Heslov) is well structured and offers a few nice twists. While the trio's dialogue lacks the sharpness of an Aaron Sorkin or David Mamet, it still crackles with wit and intelligence. This, coupled with Clooney's sure-handed direction, elevates the film over its rather routine premise. In the end, given how disenchanted everyone seems to be with Washington D.C. these day, The Ides of March is not quite as profound and revelatory as it strives to be. Nevertheless, the film still manages to provide an engrossing insight into this country's most divisive subject.

Film Review: Drive

There is nothing wrong with directors taking risks. In fact, I think Hollywood would be much better off if they did so more often. With this, I admire what Nicolas Winding Refn attempted to do with Drive. Taking a B-grade, turbo-charged premise and turning it on its head with sly visuals and a distinct European flair, Winding Refn wanted to craft a thinking man's action film. As a result, Drive is essentially a strange hybrid of Igmar Bergman and Michael Bay. As intriguing as that may sound, ultimately the film fails because it gets so wrapped up in that very idea.

Like Clint Eastwood in the Dollars trilogy, Ryan Gosling portrays an unnamed character simply listed as Driver in the credits. Living life on the edge, he works as a Hollywood stunt man, mechanic, stock car racer, and occasional getaway driver for thieves. Though independent and solitary in nature, Driver does let his guard down to some extent when he meets his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), a single mother whose husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), is doing time in prison. Driver begins helping Irene out and builds a relationship with her young son. However, their serene life is interrupted once Standard is released from prison. Finding himself in debt to a low level enforcer, Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks), Standard is forced into a dangerous heist. Knowing that failure could mean death for Irene and her son, Driver offers his services as the getaway driver. Needless to say, things spiral out of control.

One thing this film has going for it is a solid cast. Unfortunately, they are wasted in stiff roles that are ill-suited for their talents. Carey Mulligan, a wonderful young actress, is the glorified damsel in distress. While her scenes with Gosling are tender and believable, her character lacks purpose other than to look sweet and innocent. To a certain extent the same goes for Gosling. While the filmmakers may have thought they were adding dimensions to the character by giving Gosling no name and little dialogue, Driver is still a contrived character. He is the hardened, mysterious stranger with a heart of gold. How many times have we seen this before? (i.e. The Man with No Name, Mad Max, etc.) . In addition to this, though Gosling is certainly a competent actor, he lacks the screen presence to pull off a character that speaks through body language. Throughout most of the movie Gosling just stares blank faced at the camera, almost as if he is trying to hypnotize the audience into thinking he is cool. The only actor who is given any red meat to chew on is Albert Brooks, in a refreshing, against-type role as the mobster. After a career of brilliantly playing obnoxious, neurotic types, Brooks is entirely convincing as the smarmy, short-fused enforcer who kills just to make a point. Brooks gives the film an added spark, which is sourly missing when he is not on screen.

When thinking about it, Drive does for action films what Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's Twelve did for crime thrillers. Like Steven Soderbergh, Nicolas Winding Refn attempts to take a well-worn, seldom praised genre and transform it into Oscar bait strictly through visuals. Unfortunately, with his use of slow-motion pans, neon colors, graphic violence, and exceptionally annoying, 80's inspired soundtrack, all Winding Refn does is call attention to himself. This is about the worst sin any director can commit.

Film Review: Warrior

Let me start off this review by saying that I hate sports underdog stories. The only one I somewhat enjoy is Hoosiers, but only because of the fine performances delivered by stars Gene Hackman and Dennis Hopper. It is not so much that I find the subject matter insufferable. They have just become so predictable. Over the years, Hollywood has drowned the genre in a pool of cardboard characters, sappy speeches, and exaggerated situations. The previews for Warrior did little to inspire any confidence. Following two estranged brothers as they duke it out in the world of Mixed Martial Arts, it just looked like your average testosterone fueled, crowd-pleasing fare. However, after viewing the movie, it reminded me to never judge a film by its trailer. Helmed by director Gavin O'Connor and supported by an impeccable cast, Warrior is an emotionally arresting tale that goes straight for the jugular and never lets go. It is truly a wonder how the filmmakers managed to craft such an elegant film around one of today's most brutal of sports.

The film begins with Iraqi War veteran Tommy Conlon (Tom Hardy) coming back home to stay with his father Paddy (Nick Nolte), a recovering alcoholic. Tommy is not the least bit interested in repairing their damaged relationship. He wants his father to train him for SPARTA, a Mixed Martial Arts tournament where some of the best fighters in the world square off for a $5,000,000 prize. However, to complicate matters, Tommy is soon forced to confront a mysterious past which he ran away from. Across town, Tommy's brother, Brendan (Joel Edgerton), is also facing hard times. A devoted family man and ex-UFC fighter, Brendan works very hard to ensure that his children are given every opportunity to succeed. However, the medical expenses from his daughter's heart ailment left the family in a mound debt. Facing foreclosure on his home, Brendan begins taking amateur MMA fights to pay the bills. As time goes on, he too become enticed by the opportunity to enter SPARTA. With that, it is only a matter of time before the brothers meet up again.

The film's strongest asset is its treatment of the two brothers. The writers go out of their way to craft two unique, emotionally complex individuals. Aside for a love of Mixed Martial Arts and complex relationship with their father, Tommy and Brendan are on completely different wave lengths socially. Where Brendan is reserved and docile, Tommy is volatile and fierce. The two men differ as much inside the ring as they do outside. While Brendan slowly picks apart his opponents by exploiting their weaknesses, Tommy goes for the quick kill without a trace of hesitation or remorse. However, the movie is not so much about fighting as it is about redemption. Both Brendan and Tommy are two men who have been beaten down life's challenges, despite playing by all the rules. The ring is the one outlet where they are in complete control and can prove their self worth. The only thing standing in their way is each other. It is an irony that makes for great drama.

The one word that comes to mind when describing the performances in the film is "electric". Despite being cast as the everyman, Edgerton plays his role with grace and dignity. In a sense, his character is the film's solid core that all the madness revolves around. With his gravelly voice and worn features, Nick Nolte excels as the broken down bum trying to make up for his past sins. It is a remarkably controlled performance, completely free of the excesses so present with his turn in Ang Lee's Hulk. However, Warrior's true revelation comes in Tom Hardy. Hardy's stock rose significantly after his standout supporting performance as a charismatic con man in last year's Inception. Warrior allows him to display his tremendous dramatic chops. Despite being one of the film's protagonists, Hardy does something extremely daring by playing him almost completely cold, without ever trying to draw sympathy from the audience. Tommy is a hardened, compassionless soldier who is being torn apart by his own guilt and regret. In the process, he takes out his pain on everyone else both physically and emotionally. However, Hardy's performance is so raw and truthful that it is impossible to view him as a monster, no matter how much he dares you to.

Like with his previous feature, Pride and Glory, director Gavin O'Connor opts to shoot the film mostly hand-held with low lit, grainy cinematography. All this adds to film's rough, independent edge. Though the film is overlong, particularly in its second half, the fight sequences are shot with such vigor and the build up to the brothers inevitable showdown is so compelling that you cannot help but be glued to your seat. Warrior is bold, tragic, and undeniably powerful film that deserves to find more of an audience than it will. SEE IT.

Film Review: Contagion

I have always been a bit of a hypochondriac when it comes to germs. All those years of being exposed to God knows what while sitting in overcrowded classrooms with sick kids in school led to many doctors visits. As a result, I am very conscious of what is going around and how I can prevent myself from getting it. It is because of this that watching Contagion was like a test of courage. Telling the story of a highly contagious virus that spreads world-wide in a matter of days, I could not help but squirm throughout. Despite the unsettling subject matter, the film proves to be an entertaining and surprisingly insightful thriller that will leave you thinking long after it is over.

The film begins with a businesswoman, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow), returning home after a trip to Hong Kong. Suffering from what she thinks is jetlag, Emhoff collapses and is rushed to the hospital by her concerned husband Mitch (Matt Damon). She is soon pronounced dead. Beth's autopsy reveals that she died from an extremely virulent disease the like of which have never been seen before. When reports of more outbreaks come flooding in, the CDC jumps into action to try and find a cure. However, their efforts appear all the more futile as the deadly virus begins spreading at a rapid pace.

Though the film is populated by an all-star cast which includes Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Marion Cotillard, the real star of Contagion is the virus itself. This proves to be both a blessing and a curse. The film works best when we see the officials at the CDC chasing their own tails looking for answers. As they race against the clock, the virus, and the bureaucracy preventing them from finding an efficient cure, there is a building panic that is undeniably compelling. No matter how fast they move, the virus is always two steps ahead of them. It is shocking to see how ill prepared we would be if in fact a virus of this magnitude struck. The film also succeeds in highlighting all the little known professionals who are put to work in the event of an outbreak. For example, after seeing the character played by Kate Winslet go into the infected area to collect data on the virus and its rate of transmission, I have a newfound respect for these field epidemiologists who put their lives on the line in times of great fear and uncertainty. In fact, Dr. Mears (Kate Winslet) is one of the few characters in the film to leave some sort of emotional impact given her tragic story. Matt Damon also stands out as a grieving father struggling to protect his only surviving child as their suburban town erupts into chaos. The remainder of the cast is hampered by limited screen time and rather lifeless characters, however none so much a Jude Law. Law gives it his best as the wormy, opportunistic blogger trying to cash in on the mayhem, but the role is hopelessly narrow.

I am the first to admit that I have never been a big fan of Steven Soderbergh as a director. Though he has had his share of strong work (most notably Sex, Lies, and Videotape and Out of Sight), Soderbergh has shifted to style over substance in recent years with his harsh, distracting color palettes and methodic pacing. With that, his films have become far more pretentious than artistic. However, Contagion is one of the director's strongest efforts in the last ten years. This is because the story actually serves is visuals. With its globe-trotting narrative and shallow characters, Soderbergh is allowed to tell his story through images. As a result, we are left with a cold, striking, and suspenseful thriller that will make you want to go out and get a flu shot immediately.

Film Review: Warrior

Film Review: Our Idiot Brother

As the summer comes to a close, we find ourselves in the doldrums of the cinematic year. However, I am pleased to report that in all the doom and gloom comes a flicker of light in Our Idiot Brother, a warm, feel-good comedy that is sure to please almost anyone who has grown tired of the loud, artificial blockbusters of the summer. Though small in scale and somewhat forgettable, the film is definitely a notch above the average fare that seeps its way into theaters this time of year.

After being arrested for selling drugs to a uniformed cop, a dim-witted slacker, Ned (Paul Rudd), decides to move on with his life. However, with no job and few prospects, Ned finds himself at the mercy of his three high-strung sisters (Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and Zooey Deschanel), all of whom are in the midst of a personal crisis. Naturally, Ned's antics throw each of his sister's lives further into chaos much to the delight of the audience.

As you can probably see there is nothing especially original about David Schisgall and Evgenia Peretz's screenplay in terms of plot and structure. Unlike most of the comedies that came out this summer, Our Idiot Brother does not rely on gross-out humor and tasteless gags to generate cheap laughs. The humor comes in the more subtle moments, when the misfit characters find themselves at odds with each other and their surroundings. Unfortunately, big laughs come few and far between because the script lacks both scope and sureness. It is screenwriting on autopilot. Though Schisgall and Peretz attempt to add further dimensions to the story with some dramatic subplots, the movie is still episodic in nature with very few surprises. If anything the emotional moments do little but throw the film's light comedic tone off kilter by being so poorly developed. However, apart from the inert script, is a bunch of lively performances from the film's stars. Mortimer, Banks, and Deschanel certainly make the most out of their rather one note roles, with each displaying their own unique brand of wit and charm. Even Steve Coogan and T.J. Miller deliver a few good one-liners despite limited screen time.

Despite the fact that the film is filled with some very talented supporting actors, Our Idiot Brother would be nothing without Paul Rudd. Finding a good comedic performance is becoming exceedingly difficult. These days, so many actors seem to take the easy way out by dropping obscenities, shouting their lines, and mugging for the camera. Paul Rudd has always put character first, exploiting their quirks at every turn but never forcing laughs. Unfortunately, Rudd has still not been able to find a special role that utilizes all of his talents and truly defines who he is as a performer. Though the script ultimately lets Rudd down yet again, at least Our Idiot Brother provides him with an outlet to stretch his wings a bit. The hapless stoner routine has been played to death in movies over the years but Rudd brings an added level of warmth to the role of Ned, elevating him above the ranks of a mere caricature. Like some of the great comics of the past, including Gene Wilder and Phil Hartman, Rudd's comedic timing is simply impeccable. There are times in this movie where he leaps over the mundane screenwriting and garners solid laughs simply through a glance. Comedic chops like that are hard to come by and Rudd gives the film far more than it gives him in return. Had the material been put in the hands of more able writers there is no telling what soaring comedic heights Rudd could have reached with Ned. However, beggars can't be choosers.

Bottom line, Our Idiot Brother makes for decent viewing at summers end. The movie is very much in the same vain as Little Miss Sunshine, which was released this exact same time of year in 2006. They are independent, low key, gentle comedies that push few boundaries and end up offending no one. In fact, if not for the salty language and nudity, both films probably would have made for passable family fare. Though sure to garner no attention come awards season, Our Idiot Brother provides a good counter-balance to those obnoxious, raunchy comedies which left audiences squirming this summer (i.e. The Hangover Part II). It also showcases Paul Rudd in peak form. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Film Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

We are beginning to approach the time of year that I find to be the most depressing in the cinematic calendar. Traditionally, as the summer begins to wind down theater attendance drops. As a result, studios slowly begin releasing a lot of left over garbage with the hope of generating some menial profit. I find myself even more disconcerted than usual because of the bevy of weak films that have flooded theaters over the past two and a half months. If that was the best the summer had to offer, I don't even want to think of what is coming down the pike in the next four or so weeks. However, in all the doom and gloom, there is a shining light with the arrival of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Though Tim Burton's dull Planet of the Apes remake seemed like the series death knell when it was released ten years ago, director Rupert Wyatt and the wizards at WETA Digital have crafted a truly thrilling and heartfelt motion picture that breathes new life into the franchise.

Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) devotes almost all of his time and resources to his pet project: a cure for Alzheimer's, the dreaded disease which his father is suffering from. After his project is shut down, Rodman brings a baby chimpanzee, Caesar (Andy Serkis), home and continues his research. As the years pass, Caesar beings showing tremendous cognitive development, so much so that Rodman's project is not only reinstated, but fast-tracked. After a domestic incident, Caesar is confined to a shelter, which ends up being a glorified ape prison. Subjected to brutal forms of mistreatment, Caesar gathers a coalition of fellow apes and the seeds for revolution are planted.

A lot has been made about Andy Serkis's portrayal as Caesar and he deserves every single one of those accolades. Serkis had the Herculean task of delivering a silent performance through performance capture. While an actor of lesser ability would have failed miserably, Serkis delivers one of the finest performances of the year. Caesar has all the attributes of a great cinematic hero. He is wise, courageous, vulnerable, compassionate, and conflicted. It is astounding to see Serkis convey this wide spectrum of emotions with his eyes and body language. In an era were films seem to be relying so heavily on dialogue, this throw back to silent film acting was very refreshing and the scenes where Caesar rises to power among the other apes are the most effective in the movie. Though Serkis is brilliant, the supporting actors do little to complement him. James Franco dials in another lifeless performance, making his Academy Award nominated turn in last year's 127 Hours seem like even more of a fluke. Freida Pinto is given virtually nothing to work with in her throwaway role as Franco's love interest. As one would expect, Brian Cox and Tom Felton make for decent villains, but their characters are stereotypical and over the top. The only spark from the human actors comes from the wonderful John Lithgow as Franco's ailing father. Those quiet, albeit all too brief, moments where he bonds with Caesar genuinely pull at the heartstrings.

One of the more surprising elements of Rise of the Planet of the Apes is how well directed it is by newcomer Rupert Wyatt. Although his resume is brief, Wyatt displays tremendous skill behind the camera, effortlessly balancing small, intimate scenes with large scale set pieces. In fact, his deft direction actually helps in hiding the scripts numerous clichés. While the climactic battle between the apes and humans on the Golden Gate Bridge is probably the most conventional sequence in the movie, it is so brilliantly choreographed and energetic that you cannot help but be amazed. In fact, this air of amazement actually permeates through the entire movie. Who would have thought that apes could rule again?!

Home