2019 Blind Spot Series: The 39 Steps

White Bird in a Blizzard

Enemy

Stranger by the Lake

2015 Blind Spot Series: They Call Me Mister Tibbs!

Mulholland Drive

 

Directed by David Lynch. 

2001. Rated R, 147 minutes.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts 

Laura Harring 

Justin Theroux 

Dan Hedaya

Brent Briscoe

Robert Forster

Katharine Towne

Billy Ray Cyrus

Chad Everett

After a horrendous car accident, a young woman suffers from amnesia. She stumbles into a nearby apartment and forms a friendship with Betty, the actual occupant's niece. Together, they try to figure out who she is.

It's a movie with so many metaphors and symbols it's near impossible to figure them all out, especially when some of them seem to change in meaning. The film-making technique is masterful and helps pull you along for a strange ride. However, the writing of this tale, also handled by director David Lynch, is cryptic at best. The dialogue purposely vacillates between pretty good and pretty awful. After it finishes winding itself into a knot, we find it's essentially plotless. To top it all off, it ends in a baffling manner, complete with an homage to Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, no less.

When the credits started rolling, my general feeling can be summed up by the question "What the hell did I just watch?" However, I was prepared for this by the warnings that many fans of the movie and its director gave me. So I said to myself "I'll bite." I waited a day or two and sat through it again. Some things became clearer upon second viewing. In particular, the ending became transparent. This time, when the credits rolled, so did my eyes.

Lynch fans and their warnings came to mind again: "You might not get it the first few times you watch." That's troublesome for me. It's like foods that people say are "an acquired taste." When someone says that, I hear "it doesn't really taste that good but since we're convinced it's a delicacy I just kept eating it until I convinced myself I like it." Maybe by my fifth or sixth viewing I'll swear by this movie like lots of other folks. However, I must apologize to all David Lynch fans out there. The fact is, I just don't want to keep watching it until I like it. And I'm not going to be one of those people who says it's great just because everyone else does.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Prisoners

Morgan Freeman Week: Now You See Me

Morgan Freeman Week continues...

Directed by Louis Letterier.

2013. Rated PG-13, 115 minutes.

Cast:

Jesse Eisenberg

Mark Ruffalo

Morgan Freeman

Woody Harrelson

Isla Fisher

Dave Franco

Melanie Laurent

Michael Caine

Common

Michael Kelly

Elias Koteas

A quartet of magicians manages to really do the impossible. Daniel (Eisenberg), Henley (Fisher), Merritt (Harrelson), and Jack (Franco) are putting on a huge Las Vegas magic show. They pluck an unsuspecting man from the audience and make him disappear. That's not the trick. The trick is that the man reappears in a bank vault in Paris. When they zap him back to Vegas, all the money in the vault comes with him. Both the FBI and Interpol are quite interested in figuring out how they really robbed a bank on another continent. Working the case are Agent Rhodes (Ruffalo) for the former and Agent Dray (Laurent) for the latter. Also after our heroes is Thaddeus Bradley (Freeman), a former magician who now makes a living exposing trade secrets.

Now You See Me is an insanely watchable movie. It captures our interest early and clinches it tight. Truth is, whether we admit it or not, all of us like to see a good magic trick. When we see one, we immediately try to figure out how it was done. This is the key to the film's intrigue. It repeatedly puts us in the position of bewildered yet fascinated spectator. This spills over from the stage show of our would be heroes into their cat-and-mouse with the law. As a result, the plot moves at a brisk pace while we try to keep up. It's not that the plot is terribly intricate or complex in any way. Our minds are just pre-occupied with the 'how' of what we just saw.

Eventually, the movie has to give us some answers. This is where the problems start. The process of elimination will likely give you the answer to the most pressing question. That question is not how, but who. You can follow that up with why. The answer is unsatisfactory in either case. Scrutinizing things only makes it fall apart even more. Still other things can only be explained by the term "movie magic." We get the same feeling of disappointment Dorothy had after her first peek at the man behind the curtain in the land of Oz.

Of course, if all the big reveals work for you then just ignore the entire previous paragraph. You'll sing its praises and possibly fling around words like 'brilliant' and 'genius.' Though I disagree, I wouldn't even dream of trying to dissuade you. It does take some serious ingenuity to keep up the various ruses as long as it does. And like I said, it is fun to watch as it rolls along. If you haven't seen it, be prepared. The movie may make or break itself during those last few scenes.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Click here to see more Morgan Freeman related treats!

Morgan Freeman Week: Se7en

Morgan Freeman Week Continues...

Directed by David Fincher.

1995. Rated R, 126 minutes.

Cast:

Brad Pitt

Morgan Freeman

Gwyneth Paltrow

Kevin Spacey

R. Lee Ermey

John C. McGinley

Richard Roundtree

Daniel Zacapa

Mark Boone Junior

Hawthorne James

Richard Schiff

Reg E. Cathey

Like The Shawshank Redemption, which kicked off Morgan Freeman Week, Se7en is not only considered a classic, it's a revisit for me, as well. My first encounter with this film was during its initial theater run. I remember being fascinated all the way through, thoroughly enjoying myself. Then the finale came. My jaw hit the floor. I took a few moments to assess what I had just seen and immediately crowned it on of the best movies I've ever seen. I have watched well over a thousand movies since. Still, it remains one of my all-time favorites. I'm just glad that first viewing took place during my adult years. Had the teenage me been watching this, my head may have literally exploded as I tried to reconcile it with my Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jason Vorhees world. Piecing it all together might have proven difficult. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's not nearly as complex as I am making it seem. However, it's still light years away from the movies I usually watched, even as I entered the theater to see Se7en, mostly action and slasher flicks with some comedies mixed in.

Unlike a lot of my other faves, I didn't return to this film very often. In fact, I hardly watched it again at all. I've caught bits and pieces of it on TV a few times over the years, but I don't remember sitting down to watch it in its entirety again. Until now. It was finally time to put this movie to the test. The climactic scene was truly an indelible moment in my movie watching life. With full knowledge of the surprise awaiting me, how would it hold up? Quite well, thank you very much.

As far as plots go, Se7en has a fairly simple one. Detective William Somerset (Freeman) is a genius, but weary cop a week away from retirement. In a bucking of Hollywood law, he doesn't die once we receive this information. He does, however, have to give Det. David Mills the lay of the wasteland where they work. Mills is a young hotshot whose just moved to town with his wife Tracy (Paltrow). He worked homicide in a nicer part of the world. Strangely, he begged to be transferred here, to one of the most hellish parts of Chicago. The first case they come upon is one in which the victim appears to have eaten himself to death, upon initial inspection. A little more looking around reveals the man was forced to do this. As more facts are learned, Somerset believes this murder is only the first of what someone plans to be many more. When a second body is found, it becomes apparent the two are related and that our killer is using The Seven Deadly Sins as inspiration.

Even without the mystery it holds for first time viewers, Se7en is still a movie that draws you in. It does this by keeping not just the police a step or two behind the bad guy, but the audience, too. In a lot of films, even those that conceal its villain like this one, we get to see the crimes in progress. We have more knowledge than the hero and we know where they are going wrong. Here, all we get is the grisly aftermath. We arrive upon it with the cops and don't have any more tools than they to put this puzzle together. For someone who has seen it, this automatically makes us scout the crime scene closer than we did that first time around. We desperately look for clues we and/or the detectives may have missed that would lead to the villain more quickly. We are not just watching this film. We are studying it.

The relationship between our two heroes is also a major factor in our continuing enjoyment. At first, the men try to size each other up. It's plain to see they don't really click. Freeman's Somerset takes the far more cerebral approach to everything. It is no surprise he is divorced and still alone. He seems to have trouble dealing with us mental midgets. If there is one scene that perfectly sums up who he is, it's our first trip with him to the library. Before getting there, he hops into the back of a cab. When the driver asks where he is going, he laments "Far away from here." He is a man who despises his surroundings, but understands that this is the place where he is needed. Once arriving, he spots a group of security guards playing poker. Never mind it seems to be an excessive amount of guards for a library. It is more important that other than those guys, he is alone (it is at night), which appears to be how he likes things. It's also important to show just how different he is from other law-enforcement folk. Who goes to a library to research the possible motives of a serial killer? Regardless of his differentness, though, he is well respected. This is evidenced by the guards seemingly trying to impress him by cranking up the classical music to show off their own "culture." Their display is a reaction to the one line that most explicitly shows us Somerset's outlook on things. To them, he says "I'll never understand. All these books, a world of knowledge at your fingertips. What do you do? You play poker all night."

Pitt's David is much more the cop we're used to seeing, nearer the every man for us to identify with. He shares our frustration with both the case and with the things his partner does that appear almost completely dissimilar to police work as he knows it. He is also not afraid to cut corners. Occasionally, it's to keep up with the old man. We see this in his acquiring of the Cliff Notes version of the texts that Somerset painstakingly researched. Other times, it is a way to cover his tracks after making a rash decision. However, what really endears him to us is that he's hilarious. I'd forgotten how funny he is. He isn't doing slapstick and pratfalls. He just makes us laugh by his delivery of some sharp dialogue and his reactions to the situations in which he finds himself. And given the fact he's married, his wife also plays an important role. In one of Gwyneth Paltrow's best performances, she gives us a woman distraught and conflicted by her choice to support her man's career choices and where it has taken them. The matter seems to be destroying her even as she seeks, in her own way, to protect her husband.

As good as its actors are, the real star of Se7en is director David Fincher. He packs every frame with symbolism and/or mystery. The library scene I described earlier is just one of many examples. Another involving Freeman is when he destroys the metronome by his bed. The case he is working is about rules, yet it's creating chaos all around him. This is a man who thrives on order. What's more orderly than a metronome? As far as mystery goes, Fincher reveals our killer at precisely the right time, but we still feel lost. We don't see his endgame. Us repeat watchers don't see a way we could have seen his endgame. Then, there are those amazingly unsettling visuals. Each corpse is a true depiction of someone dying by the sin of which they've been deemed guilty. It's a remarkable feat by a remarkable film maker.

I could go on praising this movie forever. From the time it starts, I am intrigued by it. I am trying to crack its code. More accurately, I'm trying to see where I should have been able to crack it before, and failing. I am also enjoying the fantastic acting taking place across the board. And I haven't even mentioned the person who is causing all the fuss. Because of that person, Freeman's scholarly approach, Pitt's levity, and top notch story telling, to name a few things, we always have a marvelous movie watching experience. Yes, even if we already know what's in the box.

Click here for at least Se7en more Freeman related posts!

The Wicker Man (2006)

Directed by Neil LaBute.

2006. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.

Cast:

Nicolas Cage

Ellen Burstyn

Kate Beahan

Frances Conroy

Molly Parker

Leelee Sobieski

Diane Delano

Police officer Edward Malus (Cage) witnesses a mother and daughter get killed when an out of control eighteen-wheeler smashes into their vehicle during a traffic stop. While on leave following this traumatic event, he receives a letter from his former fiancée Willow (Beahan) letting him know that her daughter is missing somewhere on the Summersisle, where they live. It seems to be a largely self-sufficient and private farming community. Sensing that he may be Willow’s only hope to find her little girl, Edward travels to the island in hopes of saving the day. This is even harder than he imagines because when he gets there no on will admit to having even heard of her. They’re also a really tight-knit cult under the rule of Sister Summersisle (Burstyn). To say Malus is given the run-around is putting it lightly.

The plot’s skeleton is the same as the 1973 original. The flesh surrounding it is something else entirely. In lieu of the wacky approach to story-telling taken by its predecessor, this one favors more conventional methods. It settles into being rather run of the mill with no sense of wonder or fun. Many of the original’s outrageous elements are completely stripped away. The rest is put through a strainer until we’re left with the dried meat of a PG-13 thriller designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

The point of our story is also different. Whereas the original tests our notions of right and wrong, of religion itself, and seems to sling its ending at us from deep left field, the remake narrows its focus and telegraphs its conclusion. By narrowing the focus, I mean things are much more personal for our hero this time around. True, in the older flick his sensibilities are offended by the locals and he searches diligently for answers to his philosophical questions and the whereabouts of the girl. This time, however, he’s connected to the case in such a way that it is simply all about him. This ties into the finale because we can plainly see that all of the goings on are concentrated on his actions and we are occasionally shown women having conversations that spell out their ill will. What happens is that even though the ending plays out similarly in both movies they feel markedly different. As mentioned, the original tackles some rather large and possibly magnanimous themes. This one seems born of a misogyny fueled paranoia about man’s lessening stature in the world, the increasing power of women and the feeling of emasculation it gives to those suffering from its grips.

I’m not one to automatically disparage remakes, but this one really does pale in comparison to the original. That, however, is not its biggest problem. The most pressing issue is that as a standalone film it’s a rather hum-drum experience. It can be easily filed away as yet another picture in which Nicolas Cage is kind of quirky and a bit of a smart-alec. Nothing it does separates it from his rather large pack of terrible movies. You know what? I’m not even blaming him, nor anyone else involved in making this. I’m beyond that, for now. I’m blaming you John or Jane American. That’s right. You. Why? It’s simple. All of the unique qualities of the original were ripped from its predecessor because the powers that be think you can’t handle it and won’t fork over your hard earned bucks to see something that takes the less beaten path. Therefore, instead of something that embraces the oddity that is the first movie, we get this.

Side Effects

Directed by Steven Soderbergh.

2013. Rated R, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Rooney Mara

Jude Law

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Channing Tatum

Vinessa Shaw

Ann Dowd

Polly Draper

David Costabile

Mamie Gummer

Having most recently tackled the super secret agent flick (Haywire) and the stripper movie (Magic Mike), director Steven Soderbergh now wrestles with the psychological/medical thriller. That means someone ends up dead fairly early. We know who did it. We just have to figure out the how, the why and if the person who did it is ultimately responsible. That who is Emily (Mara). She has been holding down the fort while waiting for her husband Martin (Tatum) to come home from prison after being convicted of insider trading. For her, this is even tougher than it is most in a similar situation because she suffers from severe depression. As one person puts it, she’s been putting on a brave face. However, shortly after Martin gets out she starts having dangerous episodes. The first of which, purposely ramming her car into a brick wall, puts her under the care of Dr. Jonathan Banks (Law). He prescribes her some medication and that’s when all the fun begins: more suicide attempts, some hardcore sleepwalking and, ultimately, murder.

The good doctor seems most affected by all the goings on. Since the case involves a brand spanking new and very high profile drug, he’s constantly hounded by the media. He loses his practice and is in the midst of losing his family as some very ugly things about his past begin to surface. Maintaining they’re not true, he sets out to expose the truth. Jude Law handles the role solidly, if unspectacularly. Of similar caliber in performance is Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr. Victoria Siebert, Emily’s former shrink. She lets her ‘look at me, I’m smart’ glasses and vividly painted lips do most of the heavy lifting. Tatum, now a Soderbergh regular, doesn’t have much to do until it’s decided he can’t have anything to do at all. Hint.

The shining star is leading lady Rooney Mara. As with her outstanding turn in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, she gives us a thoroughly damaged young woman. Like the people in the movie, it takes a long while to figure out if she’s a victim or creator of her circumstances. Is she possibly both? Mara wrings every ounce of emotion she can from the character keeping us on our toes.

Of course, Mara is greatly aided by Soderbergh. The man simply makes beautiful looking movies. Side Effects is no exception. It’s filled with both subtle and bold touches that congeal into exquisite frames. Unfortunately, the story eventually reveals itself to be too generic for him to elevate to greatness. We figure things out too soon because it feels like any number of Basic Instinct clones. The two things that might be considered twists are hardly unexpected. Still, the director’s craftsmanship and the star turn by Mara make for a good first hour or so. After that it devolves into too familiar territory.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Directed by David Fincher.

2011. Rated R, 158 minutes.
Cast:
Rooney Mara
Daniel Craig
Christopher Plummer

Stellan Skarsgard
Robin Wright
Yarick von Wageningen
Joely Richardson
Geraldine James
Donald Sumpter
Julian Sands
Ulf Friberg
Alan Dale

Lisbeth Salander (Mara) isn’t your typical girl. She generally doesn’t like people and they generally don’t like her. She works for a company tthat does extensive background checks and is only used on “interesting” cases. In other words, she’s a very talented computer hacker. Despite being an adult, she’s also a ward of the state whom we’ll see jump through some very interesting hoops to get control of her own affairs. Oh, almost forgot, she has a tattoo of a dragon on her back.

Back to Lisbeth’s job as a hacker. That’s her entry point into the main plot. She’s been keeping close tabs on Mikael Blomkvist (Craig). He’s a disgraced journalist, having just been successfully sued for libel by a very powerful and high profile businessman. Lisbeth was hired by another rich and powerful guy, Henrik Vanger (Plummer). After being satisfied with what she’s found, Vanger hires Mikael to solve a mystery. Over 40 years ago, Henrik’s niece Harriet disappeared. Even though this happened on the secluded island the entire Vanger family lives on, she was never found and no one has ever been held responsible. Henrik believes someone in the family is her killer. Mikael takes on the project, but obviously can’t make any promises on such a cold case. Eventually, he decides he needs some help and hires Lisbeth, himself.

Truthfully, it takes a while for our two main characters to actually meet one another. Until then, each is embroiled in their own fascinating drama filled with twists and turns. Mikael’s whodunit progresses not unlike many others, but it’s still well done and maintains suspense. Lisbeth’s life saga is brutal, yet compelling. The warning here is that there are some difficult scenes to sit through. After they meet, the twists keep coming and our intrigue is piqued.

In the two lead roles, both Mara and Craig perform excellently. Mara’s Lisbeth appears fragile but is really calloused from the many blows life has dealt, and keeps dealing her. She doesn’t believe in self-pity, only penance. She takes the philosophy of “an eye for an eye” to a whole new level. On the other hand, Craig plays Mikael as the complete opposite of James Bond whom most of us will think of when he first shows up on the screen. Mikael’s a cerebral and emotional guy that’s not used to being in physical danger. Like Bond, women seem drawn to him but it has nothing to do with machismo or suaveness like it does for the super agent. Mikael also doesn’t seem to deal with pain, too well. He’s pretty much the inverse of not only Bond, but also of Lisbeth. Mikael has a tough looking exterior with a soft middle. She’s far more action hero than he.

Don’t get the wrong idea. Though there is action, an action flick this is not. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is part murder mystery, part character study. It’s not only a study of Lisbeth, but of Mikael, too. A large part of this is how their relationship evolves. It’s interesting to note how, as a pair, they function in ways opposite of traditional gender roles. Seeing them interact not-so-subtly lets us know what we should expect when things get tense.

TGwtDT is an excellent movie. However, it can’t be reviewed without comparing it to the Swedish original from 2009. To be fair, director David Fincher’s American version is not a remake, even though it bears a strong resemblance to its predecessor. Both are adaptations of the Stieg Larsson novel of the same name and the first of a trilogy. Without having read it, I’ve heard that this version is slightly more faithful to the book.

I have seen the Swedish film, though. There are some differences. Some work better in this movie while others favor the original. Two main ones stick out. Lisbeth’s guardian is one of the movie’s villains. I feel this character was better done, more thoroughly evil in the Swedish movie. This makes certain events that much sweeter in their brutality. The other is multi-faceted. It starts with the various relaitionships of Mikael. This version explores them more deeply by making the editor of his magazine much more of a factor. This leads us to an ending that better sets up the sequel. Of course, this presumes the entire trilogy will be adapted as they were in Sweden. If you put a gun to my head and force me to choose which I like better, I’ll say this one by a very slim margin.

The Lincoln Lawyer

Directed by Brad Furman.
2011. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Matthew McConaughey
Marisa Tomei
Ryan Phillippe
William H. Macy
Frances Fisher
Josh Lucas
John Leguizamo
Michael Pena
Bob Gunton
Laurence Mason
Trace Adkins
Bryan Cranston

Mick (McConaughey) is a defense attorney with a street hustler’s swag. He uses the backseat of his Lincoln for an office. His big break seems to have come when he’s hand-picked by real estate empire heir Louis Roulet (Phillippe) to defend him against sexual assault charges. The girl he allegedly assaulted is a prostitute. There is video evidence of her approaching him at a bar and offering her services. This should be a walk in the park for a savvy guy like Mick, right? You should already know things are never that easy. Soon, our hero comes to the realization that his client might be guilty and even has ulterior motives beyond getting acquitted.

Though our protagonist is a lawyer, this is no courtroom drama. This is a procedural. We watch Mick prepare for the case. We also watch him agonize over the mess he’s gotten himself into and try to strategize his way out. Even with very little in terms of action, it’s riveting stuff. It’s a sharply written tale that refuses to be a mystery. It’s not at all a whodunit. We know precisely who did. Still, there are several questions. What’s our hero going to do about this? How does he do the right thing without breaking any rules himself? Is that even possible? Most importantly, if it’s possible will it work?

Also in the mix is the on again, off again romance between Mick and prosecutor Maggie (Tomei). She gladly passes this case along once she finds out that Mick is on the other side. However, there is one cas she can’t pass on. They have a daughter together. She has custody while Mick usually gets her on Saturdays. Once in a while they’ll all go for ice cream together. Mom and dad refuse to be a traditional family, though. Apparently, they’ve already tried with disasterous results, save for the birth of their little girl. For them, the occasional night of passion will do. Don’t worry, this will eventually figure into the case.

Matthew McConaughey is unquestionably the star of the show. He lights up the screen with a performance that sizzles. It’s one of his best and a jolting reminder of what he can do when he’s not constantly forcing his pretty smile on us in some lame rom-com or pretending to be an action hero. He takes material that’s already good and makes it even better. There is certainly some excellent talent in the cast. They all turn in solid work. However, they’re really just along for the ride he’s taking us on. It is a very fun ride with just a bit of a twist at the end.

Source Code

Directed by Duncan Jones.
2011. Rated PG-13, 93 minutes.
Cast:
Jake Gyllenhaal
Michelle Monaghan
Vera Farmiga
Jeffrey Wright
Michael Arden
Cas Anvar
Max Denoff
Brent Skagford
Gordon Masten

Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) finds himself aboard a commuter train in Chicago and he has no idea how he got there. He really freaks out when he makes his way to the restroom and sees a face different from his own in the mirror. He returns to his seat where his behavior disturbs Christina (Monaghan), whom he doesn’t know but who appears to be his traveling companion. Of course, she thinks he’s whoever that was in the mirror and has no clue about what’s happening. In a few minutes, the train explodes, he blacks out and wakes up in a capsule talking to Cpt. Goodwin (Farmiga) through a monitor. By the way, he doesn’t know her, either. Shortly, we’re let in on the plan. Through an invention/discovery called Source Code the last eight minutes of a person’s life can be retrieved to be relived by someone who is a close enough match. Our soldier is a match for the man in the mirror. His mission is to find out who blew up the train. He can go back into the matrix…er…Source Code numerous times, but he always only has eight minutes before he’s kicked out. Back and forth Colter is tossed apparently through time and/or space to conduct his investigation 480 seconds at a time. He also pursues other curiosities on his own since it seems he was volunteered for this mission without his knowledge or consent.

Source Code lost me pretty quickly. Though the movie tries its best to confuse you early on, that wasn’t it at all. I followed just fine. Perhaps I followed too well. I say this because the one thing that ruins a movie built on suspense happened. I knew who the bad guy was within eight minutes of being told what our hero was supposed to do. That’s roughly fifteen minutes of real time. It was pretty simple, actually. I looked at the only person who struck me as a viable candidate, said to myself “That’s who did it,” and waited to be proven right. Unfortunately, I was. There was no mystery for me. Watching him accost person after person in hopes of hitting the jackpot felt like a pointless exercise. It was similar in feel to an episode of CSI. Yes, what’s going on is vaguely interesting but I know the person they bring in at 15 after the hour and 30 after aren’t the killer. It’s always the one they start chasing at 45 after.

Once you’ve figured out the villain it’s easy to sit around looking for other things. Not one to resist this particular temptation, I mapped out how I thought the story would play out in my mind. Sadly, I got almost all of it right including the emotionally manipulative finale. It’s the type of ending I’d normally be okay with because my energy would’ve been spent guessing the identity of the killer. To make matters worse, it spends its last few minutes of screentime breaking every rule of its own movie science without sufficient explanation.

So far I’ve been relentlessly bashing SC but take it with a grain of salt. The truth is if you don’t know who the terrorist is this is probably highly intriguing sci-fi. Even though the protagonist relives the same eight minutes repeatedly, it manages to not be boring like the similarly styled Vantage Point a few years ago. On top of that, some will fall hook, line and sinker for what’s intended to be a tear-jerker climax. It just failed to grab me. Each time it threatened to do so I dodged it by finding something else to nitpick. If it manages to get a hold of you, you’ll probably enjoy it. If it doesn’t, welcome to my world.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Winter's Bone

Directed by Debra Granik.
2010. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence
John Hawkes
Dale Dickey
Isaiah Stone
Ashlee Thompson
Valerie Richards
Shelley Waggener
Garret Dillahunt
Ronnie Hall

At age seventeen, the weight of the world is already on Ree’s (Lawrence) shoulders. She has to take care of her two younger siblings. Her mom is catatonic, having been driven mad by Jessup, her husband and the father to her children. He, of course, is nowhere to be found. He also happens to be a known cooker of crystal meth. The local lawman stops by the house and informs Ree that Jessup has a court date coming up next week. If he doesn’t show, Ree and the family will lose their home since it was put up as collateral for his bond. She then decides to try and find him in hopes of getting him in front of the judge on time. To do so she has to go all over town, including some scary places and ask questions of some very scary people.

The first place Ree goes is to her uncle Teardrop’s (Hawkes) house. How he got that name is never explained and frankly isn’t important. What is important is that we understand he probably didn’t get it by doing something nice. He’a a tough, grimy type with a reputation that suggests he’s not to be fooled with. When he speaks, you get the unmistakable sense he means what he says. For better or worse, his wife understands this. She promptly backs off her efforts to get him to help Ree after he tells her “I’ve told you to shut up once, with my mouth.” John Hawkes plays the role perfectly, with a quiet power and barely beneath the surface insanity that makes everyone else uncomfortable. He looks every bit like Sam Elliott, only somehow more frayed around the edges and without the smirk. Teardrop is all business.

The next person Ree encounters is perhaps even more frightening than Teardrop. She runs into Merab (Dickey). She’s the wife of Thump (Hall), the local crystal meth kingpin. He sends her out to deal with Ree. Merab tries to be friendly and reason with Ree that this issue should be dropped. When that doesn’t work, things turn ugly. They get uglier when Merab’s sisters are added to the mix. Dickey’s performance is award-worthy. There’s not a moment we don’t believe her. There are plenty of times when she’s unsettling. Part of it is because it seems no matter what the situation, she has no fear and is completely matter of fact about everything. We don’t like her. She’s too strong for us.

Ree has to work with and through these people and several others to complete her mission. Completion comes in a most strange way in a wonderfully horrific scene. To her credit, the young Jennifer Lawrence holds her own in the role, and then some, even against the two powerhouse performances described above. Her portrayal requires more emotional ups, downs and outbursts than anyone else in the film. She handles them all quite well. She appears to have a very bright future. Lawrence, and the rest of the cast is helped along by some brilliant dialogue. It is a terrific blend of colloquialisms and menacing statements that build all sorts of tension. The film is shot in a perfectly bleak manner reminiscent of The Road. This has a similar feel of hopelessness. That feeling also comes through the music. Mostly sang by Marideth Sisco, who appears in one scene, its sadness about the futility of the singer’s efforts mirrors Ree in a manner we can’t deny. We hear it. We feel it. This is an excellent movie experience that is as much about the language we hear and the music we feel as it is about what we see.

Edge of Darkness

Directed by Martin Campbell.
2010. Rated R, 117 minutes.
Cast:
Mel Gibson
Ray Winstone
Danny Huston
Bojana Novakovic
Shawn Roberts
David Aaron Baker
Jay O. Sanders
Dennis O’Hare
Damian Young
Gbenga Akinnagbe

Det. Craven (Gibson) is about to rush his daughter Emma (Novakovic) to the hospital. Just as the two step out the front door, a gunman fires a single shot, kills her and speeds off. It’s assumed the bullet was meant for him. After all, he’s been a cop for long time and has presumably made a number of capable enemies. He’s not so sure. Maybe it was, but she’s been acting awfully strange since he picked her up earlier that evening. She wouldn’t say much about it, but seems to be going through a tough time. Physically, she’s a total wreck. Every so often, she’ll suddenly vomit. The she has a spontaneous nosebleed. That’s when dad tries to get her to the hospital. Then there is that plant she works at that does something or another with nuclear energy. Hmmm.

Our hero tells his bosses that he is going to be involved in the investigation of his little girl’s murder, regardless of policy. Oddly enough, this doesn’t involve any yelling. In fact, he doesn’t get much of a fight at all. After this, he’s got people to see, starting with Emma’s boyfriend. From there, let’s just say he meets some very interesting, wealthy and/or powerful people.

We follow Det. Craven on his crusade to serve justice. In turn, we’re rewarded with a solid thriller/mystery. After a short while, it becomes apparent who killed Emma. The mystery actually lies in figuring out why. When we get the thrills, they often start with a jolt and are pretty brutal.

Mel Gibson plays the lead with a constantly pained look on his face. He ably conveys the emotions of a grieving father, albeit on who is an action hero, but a grieving dad nonetheless. However, his attempt at a Boston area accent doesn’t work too well. Part of the problem is it sounds exaggerated. The rest of the problem is that no one else seems to be doing one at all. This makes his efforting to say things such as “cah” instead of car that much more obvious.

Gibson’s accent, and your personal feelings about him, aside, Edge of Darkness is a solid flick that has some easy answers, but doesn’t necessarily give us the easy ending. Because of the way it’s presented, whether or not it’s a happy one is open to debate. Luckily, even though it’s not an action flick there is just enough of it interspersed to keep us interested until we get that far.

Devil

Directed by John Erick Dowdle.
2010. Rated R, 80 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Messina
Bojana Novakovic
Bokeem Woodbine
Geoffrey Arend
Jenny O’Hara
Jacob Vargas
Joe Codben
Matt Craven
Logan Marshall-Green
Joshua Pearce

One of the elevators gets stuck in a Philadelphia skyscraper and all hell breaks loose, literally. Watching from the viewpoint of the elevator’s camera, one of the security guards figures out for us that one of the stranded passengers is actually the Devil. Woah, let’s back up. The security guard doubles as our narrator. Right off the bat, he tells us that suicide opens the gate for the Devil to take human form and kill up some folks. Of course, the first actual happening is someone presumably jumping to their death from said skyscraper. Just never you mind who that is, or why. All you need to know is this not only lets the Devil in, but also gets Detective Bowden (Messina) into the building. Five years ago, his wife and son were killed in a hit-and-run.

Oh, you wanna know who’s in the elevator? It’s the standard Hollywood rogue’s gallery. We’ll start with the pretty girl (Novakovi), because there’s always a pretty girl. Next is the token black guy (Woodbine) because there’s always a token black guy. Actually, he fulfills both the quotas for a good black person and a bad one. He’s a thuggish security guard. There’s also the creepy guy who talks too much (Arend), the creepy guy who doesn’t talk nearly as much but seems to know way too much about the wrong things and an ornery old woman. Periodically, whichever one of them is Satan makes the lights go out and kills one of the others.

It’s an interesting setup. The execution of it runs on a pretty standard loop. The lights go out, we hear a lot of ruckus. When they come back on, we discover someone’s been hurt or killed. They all yell accusations at each other until the next time it goes dark. Meanwhile, Detective Bowden tries in vain to keep them calm by talking to them through the security system as others try to either get the elevator moving or the people out. Rinse, repeat.

Overall, it is not necessarily a bad watch, just philosophically confusing. Is the devil’s ultimate purpose here to do good? Either way, our fallen angel suffers from movie-villainitis. All movie long, Satan acts swiftly and offers no explanations. However, when we get to the end of our tale it’s suddenly time to talk, hiss, seeth and otherwise try to act all scary. It feels hokey and also leads us back to the question of what the devil is the Devil here for. It only makes sense that M. Night Shyamalan wrote and produced this. Still, while it’s not a bad watch, it’s not a good one, either.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Mother

Directed by Joon-Ho Bong.
2009. Rated R, 128 minutes, Korean.
Cast:
Hye-ja Kim
Bin Won
Ku Jin
Je-mun Yun
Mi-sun Jun
Sae-Byeok Song
Gin-goo Kim

A young woman with a tawdry reputation turns up dead and draped over the edge of a building’s roof. In very short order, the police decide that Do-Joon (Won) is the guilty party. Since we’ve already met him, we don’t think he’s capable of such a thing. He has some undefined mental disability which severely hampers his memory. It also renders him socially immature. Autism, maybe? He appears to be fairly harmless. His mother (Hye-ja Kim), whom he lives with, agrees with this assessment and takes to the streets to do what O. J. Simpson vowed so many years ago: find the real killer.

Mom soon finds herself in all sorts of dangerous positions, dealing with shady characters and getting no cooperation from the cops who insist they have the right person. Regardless of the risks she must take or the potential futility of her quest, she drives on, undeterred.

This sounds like a pretty typical murder mystery where someone close to the accused takes up their cause and tries to find who’s really responsible. It’s more than that. In fact, by the time we reach the end, the crime’s perpertrator is of secondary importance. Of primary concern is the unfolding of a mother’s relationship with her son. A revelation late in the movie surprises, possibly even upsets us. Though its something she already knew, how this is brought to the surface surprises and upsets her, also. An action she takes later not only gives herself those same feelings, it irrevocably changes her. For us, our perception of her changes with the revelation. The question then becomes does the action change it back, or worsen? In answering that question, the movie leads us to an interesting debate. Knowing what we’ve just witnessed, would we be proud to say she were our mother?

The Secret in Their Eyes

Directed by Juan José Campanella.
2009. Rated R, 129 minutes, Spanish.
Cast:
Ricardo Darín
Soledad Villamil
Guillermo Francella
Pablo Rago
Javier Godino
Carla Quevedo
Rudy Romano
José Luis Gioia

Esposito (Darín) is a retired cop and an aspiring novelist. He wants his first book to be based on a case he worked 25 years ago, but still haunts him. Shortly, we find out why. He caught the killer and there was even a conviction. However, the bad guy weasled his way out of jail time and no one has spoken of the case ever since. What happened?

In trying to figure things out, Esposito goes to see Irene Hastings (Villamil), his long-time friend and colleague and one of the people that worked with him on the case. It was the rape and murder of a pretty and recently married young young woman. Esposito and Hastings also seem to have a thing for one another. Through numerous flashbacks, the two reminisce about the case and their uncomfortable, unpursued relationship. She is married.

Back and forth, we effortlessly jump through time. There’s never any need to inform us where or when we are, we intuitively know. The outstanding makeup jobs feel so natural that the actors don’t have to work very hard to pull off their roles at either end of a quarter century. Though I will say, the costuming and an overall better sense of time for the portion of the film set in 1974 would be welcome. The difference between the two eras is generally boiled down to not having a cell phone back then.

Makeup jobs and costuming aside, the actors turn in fine work. Our two leads are excellent. Still, they’re outdone by Guillermo Francella who plays Esposito’s almost constantly drunk partner Sandoval. He manages to give the movie both wisdom and comic relief. When doing either he’s as brilliant as he is at the other. It’s a terrific performance.

Most of the movie plays like a mixture between a whodunit murder mystery mixed with a story of a love affair that never actually happened. Ostensibly, the reason is those are the two subjects on which Esposito seems hellbent on writing about. What elevates this from being a routine movie of either genre is first how the two topics are woven together. Second, and more importantly, it’s where our tale ends. The finale involves two people, Esposito and one other I won’t reveal. Actually, there is a third party involved but that person, though an integral part of the final scene, has no say so in the matter.

That last scene creates one of those ambiguous endings I’m such a fan of. The question here: did either person do the right thing? Another question that begs to be asked is what would you have done? In discussing those, more questions may arise. The case that has haunted Esposito for 25 years, now haunts us.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Directed by Niels Arden Oplev.
2009. Rated R, 152 minutes.
Cast:
Noomi Rapace
Michael Nyqvist
Sven-Bertil Taube
Peter Haber
Lena Endre
Ingvar Hirdwall
Peter Andersson
Tomas Köhler

Plot: Journalist/corporate watchdog Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist) is hired by ultra wealthy Henrik Vanger (Taube) to investigate the 40 year old murder of Vanger’s then 16 year old niece. Along the way, Blomkvist enlists the help of Lisbeth (Rapace) a hacker who had been hired to investigate him. Based on the novel by Stieg Larsson.

The Good: With any Cold Case style murder mystery, the twists and turns have to be interesting and here, they’re very much so. Trying to guess “whodunit” is a task you’re likely to fail. On top of that, our title character is infinitely mysterious and intriguing in her own right. As our heroine, Noomi Rapace gives a fantastic performance of an amazingly written role. She exudes attitude and a tough exterior but we can tell it hides deep scars and vulnerability even before we’re shown this. This is key because without it, she’d be totally unlikeable. We might even think she deserves some of the things that happen to her. Instead, we root for her even though we really don’t know her. She, and the movie itself through Oplev’s excellent direction, puts up a tough front but only reveals the soft core very late in the proceedings.

The Bad: The story surrounding Mikael’s problems outside of this investigation could’ve been much more interesting. It’s there at the beginning and mentioned a coupled times in the middle and resolved at the end, but fails to grab us. As a whole, the movie runs a bit long. The actual length isn’t the problem. I’ve watched plenty of great movies longer than this. The problem is it’s ending could’ve been more concise instead of lingering the way it does. Finally, there’s the question of Lisbeth’s love life. In the end, we’re not sure whether she’s in a love triangle or not. This is a minor detail in the grand scheme. However, since this is the first of a proposed trilogy, it’s something I’d like to see addressed.

The Ugly: Everything involving Lisbeth’s new probation officer.

Recommendation: If mystery is your thing run, don’t walk, to get your hands on this movie. It’s got all the key ingredients: murder, suspense, sex and violence somehow mixed in to a pretty unique dish. Oh yeah, subtitleophobes beware: we’re speaking Swedish.

The Opposite View: Manohla Dargis, The New York Times

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (8/25/10), 86% on rottentomatoes.com, 76/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 9/10