Only Lovers Left Alive

Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

2013. Rated R, 123 minutes.

Cast:

Tom Hiddleston

Tilda Swinton

Mia Wasikowska

John Hurt

Anton Yelchin

Jeffrey Wright

Adam (Hiddleston) and Eve (Swinton) are a married couple who, for some unexplained reason, are named Adam and Eve and live on opposite ends of the Earth. She tools about Tangier while he's holed himself up in his cluttered Detroit apartment. Dude is definitely a hoarder. Eve's thing is apparently listening to men speak. Like, I'm not even joking about that. After speaking to him on the phone, Eve decides she misses her hubby and hops a flight to Motown. Oh, I forgot to mention that they happen to be vampires. However, they no longer go around biting people. Instead, they get their food from blood banks and black market dealers. Mostly, they lounge around and talk art and science. Things change when Eve's sister Ava (Wasikowska) comes around. She's more of a free spirit. Understandably, she turns their world upside down. Something artsy ensues.

Every now and then, a movie comes along that just makes me admit defeat. It makes me confess that there are people in the world smarter than myself. There has to be because they're all seeing something that, for the life of me, I can't. Only Lovers Left Alive is one such film. However, before completely giving up, I try my damndest to find it. And since I don't know any better, I'll start looking in the places where I always look.

This means that the plot is the first place I check. There really isn't one to speak of. We find out some vaguely interesting things about the people involved, though. Adam is apparently responsible for much of the great music of centuries' past, I think. However, other than showing that he's a total recluse who occasionally releases his new material through 'a guy' named Ian (Yelchin). We also see he's a technological genius of some sort. He must be. He rigged a cell phone to connect to a TV from I don't know how many decades ago and uses it like Skype. Let's be honest, if you or I were alive for a couple hundred years we still couldn't figure out how to do that. Despite all this, dude is definitely depressed. He's been contemplating suicide hard...HARD. About Eve, well, she...um...she really loves Adam and...uh...she loves hearing men speak. Didn't I say that, already? Sorry, folks. That's all I got on her. Oh, wait. There is one other thing about her. She can tell exactly how old something is just by putting her hands on it. It's a cute trick, but fairly useless in everyday life. As for Ava, she likes to party and well, occasionally she drinks too much. Yup, she's a vampire so it's possible I've just spoiled the only thing that actually happens in the entire damn movie. Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's just say that I looked at the plot and found nothing.

My next logical step is to examine the characters. Of course, if you've been paying any attention at all then you know that I've already done that because the plot was missing from its normal spot. If we're keeping count then you know we have a grand total of one mildly interesting character. That's it. Hell, the only other character who matters at all in the whole movie is Marlowe (Hurt), an old dude that, yes, Eve loves listening to. His claim to fame is that he is evidently the one and only Christopher Marlowe that some people allege to have faked his own death and assumed the name William Shakespeare and penned all of those classics. And, of course, he's been around ever since and knew every dead writer you ever read in high school personally. The most interesting thing about him is something that perpetuates the Marlowe/Shakespeare myth. It is implied that, like the real Christopher Marlowe, his human life ended at age 29. However, this Marlowe is an old man and vampires don't age once they've been turned. Hmmm...very clever. Still, that's not quite enough to really give a crap about him. So, yeah, we're still at one mildly interesting character.

Well, what about what these people have to say? You know, dialogue. I'll start by saying this, I generally do not read reviews of movies I haven't seen, if I plan on seeing them in the near future. So even as a lot of my blogging buddies were posting their reviews, possibly including yours, I either clicked off that page or just looked at whatever score you gave and then clicked off. Now that I've watched it, I've gone back and read a number of reviews on it. The dialogue of this movie is getting lots of praise. I'll say this for it, it takes someone with a brain to keep up. That much is for sure. For comparison's sake, I'd say imagine a Quentin Tarantino script that instead of referencing all sorts of pop culture, references historical figures in music and literature. By historical, I mean people who died before the twentieth century. Now strip away all of QT's snark and most of his humor of any sort, and voila, you have Only Lovers Left Alive. Well, that's actually dialogue from Adam and Marlowe. The only other thing Adam really says is "Get off my lawn!" He doesn't use those words, but the sentiment is definitely there. He peeks out of his window and sees a couple of youngsters hanging around and then calls Ian, or wait until he sees him, and orders him to keep those "rock and roll kids" away from his house. Eve mostly just says, "Tell me about ___, darling." Seriously. She does go ape shit when she finds out about teeny tiny thing Adam was hiding from her, but that lasts all of a minute and then its' back to sitting around with her listening ears on until very late in the movie when she finally has to do something. Ian just basically says "Dude, you should get out more." Later, Ava shows up and says "Wooohhh, let's go out!" And, when they get out, she switches over to "Wooohhh, Paaarrrr-tay!" Again, not in those words. Sentiment, people. To sum up the dialogue, we'll say Adam's and Marlowe's is creative, but not riveting and everyone else's is repetitive.

After dialogue, it only makes sense to talk about the acting. Finally, we've reached a strong point. Scroll back to the top and look at that cast again. I don't think anyone of them could be accused of phoning it in. In fact, they are selling it for all they're worth. Tilda Swinton is a phenomenal actress. I've no choice but to give her credit for never seeming bored with her role. She seems genuinely interested in what her mate has to say, even though she's probably heard it all literally a million times before. After all, some of her lines begin with "Tell me again about..." Sigh. Tom Hiddleston gives us his emo-hipster best. We really feel like this is a guy that is more than ready to check out. John Hurt's role is small, but he makes it work. Wasikowska adds what little energy this film has.

The next thing I have to ask myself is what does the movie say? Is there any sort of social commentary or insight into the human condition? Maybe. As far as commentary, we get a drive around a barren Detroit landscape and some lamenting the plight of a once great city. There's also some mumbo-jumbo about it coming back because it's near water. The human condition? There is a nod to the dangers of us constantly consuming junk, the way that we do, and what it's doing to our bodies. I guess you can also say it's a testament to the enduring power of love. Or, whatever the hell else you want. I am so tired of playing this game.

Before I quit, I at least should take a look at more superficial things. I mean, this is a movie about vampires, right? Well, alrighty then. Is it scary? No. Gory? No. Romantic? I guess we can give it that one, begrudgingly on my part, though. Are the action scenes fun? They might be, if there were any. In short, I was bored as shit and struggled mightily to make it through this thing. Going back to our lovebirds, they really started to annoy me, quickly. To make matters worse, I put my finger on the pulse of my dislike for these people. With Adam's rather Cullen...er...sullen attitude and Eve's (I think) misplaced giddiness over just being in his presence really made me feel like I was watching another Twilight sequel, this one set years after the last. Since she's long over Jacob, Charlie has probably collapsed and died beneath the weight of his own mustache, and the Volturi are no longer chasing them, nothing happens. Nothing at all.

Immortals

Directed by Tarsem Singh.

2011. Rated R, 110 minutes.

Cast:

Henry Cavill

Freida Pinto

Mickey Rourke

Stephen Dorff

Luke Evans

Isabel Lucas

John Hurt

Kellan Lutz

Joseph Morgan

Ann Day-Jones

Peter Stebbings

Where there are swords, there must also be sandals. Not really, but they do enjoy each other’s company quite often. In Immortals they not only hang out together once again, they have many more of the usual suspects with them: chain mail, oracles, prophecies, and of course, immortals. Oh, I almost forgot there has to be a magical weapon. In this case it is The Epirus Bow.

Let’s back up a bit. Many moons ago, the gods defeated the titans at war. Instead of killing their enemies, the gods banished the titans to a special cage deep within the bowels of a Greek village where they are to spend eternity in a state of suspended animation. Sigh. This is where The Epirus Bow comes in. Whoever possesses it can use it to free the titans and wreak havoc on the world. Inexplicably, the gods don’t keep nor attempt to destroy this bow. The gods must be crazy.

Fast forward a few years. Unsurprisingly, the tyrannical King Hyperion (Rourke) is busy turning over every stone he comes across looking for said bow as part of his master plan…wait for it…wait for it…to rule the world! Muahahaha…ahem, sorry. In the process, he kills lots of people just to make sure we know how evil he is. Many of these are his own soldiers and mostly for no more reason than I’ve already given. That’s got to be bad for the troops’ morale, no?

Since every villain must contend with a hero, we have Theseus (Cavill). He’s a peasant who takes care of his mom and pals around with an old man (Hurt) whom he doesn’t realize is Zeus (Evans) in disguise. Pretty early on, Zeus comes right out and tells us Theseus is the only person who can stop King Hyperion. Of course, the gods could but Zeus forbids them from getting involved in human affairs. That whole thing gets darn messy, but I digress. The virgin oracle we can’t believe is a virgin is played by the almost impossibly beautiful (in my opinion) Freida Pinto.  Also early on, she “sees” that Theseus will indeed get his hands on The Epirus Bow. So there, now you don’t have to watch this crap. Hmmm. Since we are in Ancient Greece I’ll say it Olde English (wait…what?). This crap, thou mustn’t watcheth.

If you couldn’t tell already, I hateth this movie. Immortals is aggressively dumb without the good sense to not take itself so seriously. Nearly every action any character makes can be summed up by one word: stupid. It also breaks its own rules several times. This is noticeable mostly because the film itself makes a big deal out of these rules. Save for a couple of brief instances, it lacks the visual splendor of 300 or even the Clash of the Titans remake so we can’t even distract ourselves with shiny objects other than Mickey Rourke’s ridiculous looking headgear. The final, meant to be spectacular, battle involving the cgi titans is underwhelming. The Epirus Bow isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either. It’s a bow that supplies its own arrows which is nice, but after taking the one shot to free the titans, it’s still just a bow and arrow.

Immortals wants to an epic but just comes across as hokey. Despite his helmets, Mickey Rourke is awesome as always and does all he can with a role requiring little more of him than being sweaty and stomping around the set. John Hurt also fares well. As our hero, Henry Cavill is just ho-hum, though he certainly looks the part (or for Superman, the part which he’ll use to soar into theaters next summer). Freida Pinto is absolutely drop dead gorgeous, just in case I didn’t make that clear. Unfortunately, the amount of drool that escapes my hanging bottom lip whenever she is on screen isn’t nearly enough for me to recommend this.

Melancholia

Directed by Lars von Trier.

2011. Rated R, 135 minutes.
Cast:
Kirsten Dunst
Charlotte Gainsbourg
Keifer Sutherland
Stellan Skarsgard
Alexander Skarsgard
Brady Corbet
John Hurt
Charlotte Rampling

Justine (Dunst) and Claire (Gainsbourg) are a pair of emotionally unstable sisters with a half of the movie Melancholia devoted to each of them. I mean this literally. It’s divided pretty much down the middle. Part 1 is called “Justine”, part 2 “Claire”. For what it’s worth, Justine is the more damaged of the two. Her problems play out across both chapters. She suffers from severe depression. At times it cripples her to the point she can’t even will herself out of bed for days on end. Though married with her own family, Claire spends lots of time tending to Justine. Perhaps she also suffers from depression. She’s prone to break down and cry when things get to be overwhelming. This seems to be at least once a day. She’s also freaked out by our pending doom. More on that, later.

As part 1 opens, Justine has just gotten married. We go on to witness one of the most bizarre wedding receptions in the history of mankind. It’s held at the luxurious estate, golf course included, by Claire and her husband John (Sutherland). The location is the only thing luxurious about this reception, though. Justine’s mom announces to everyone that she doesn’t believe in marriage and, I’m paraphrasing here, “all you people suck.” Her boss sends his newly hired nephew to follow her around to bug her about the ad campaign they’re working on. Justine herself disappears for long stretches to have weepy conversations with Claire, who’s often sent to fetch her, or one of their parents whom she seeks out. All the while she alternately teases and gives the cold shoulder to her new hubby. None of it makes a whole lot of sense except to show that Justine is indeed depressed. And trust me, I’m leaving out some of the more colorful moments.

For part 2, we switch from disheartening drama to bleak science-fiction. Sorta. This is where that pending doom thing comes in. We see the extent to which Claire goes for her sister. It’s a tiresome job that strains her marriage. Justine eventually snaps out of her funk, somewhat. Once she’s up and about she exudes the kind of attitude that makes us want to smack her. Regardless, we shift our focus to Claire who is understandably freaked out by the heavy-handedly named Melancholia, a planet suddenly very visible in our sky. It’s visible because it is racing towards us. The question is will it actually hit us and end it all. John thinks it will not. Everything on Google says it will. So essentially, this becomes a movie about whether or not you can trust what you read online. OK, maybe not, but the subtext is there. Unlike more standard sci-fi, we don’t see armies of scientists trying desperately to come up with a solution. Bruce Willis and a rag-tag bunch of drillers turned astronauts aren’t sent up to deploy a nuke. Instead, we get Claire hoping against hope that things will turn out for the best.

On its own, each part is an interesting character study. More accurately, one and a half of the two parts is an interesting character study of Justine. Up to that point, everything we see of Claire is merely a reaction to her sister. The portion dedicated to Claire is not as complex and therefore less compelling. Of course, it’s saddled with the urgency of another planet possibly slamming into Earth. The problem is, especially with the dearth of characters in part 2, it’s less an apocalyptic event than an overwrought metaphor that overwhelms the story of the two sisters rather than aid in its telling. The fate of the world is clearly less important than the sanity of these two women. The planet merely succeeds in making a film that’s already a downer even more of one. That said, Melancholia is a mixed bag for me. It’s artistic and well-made but pessimistic without even a hint of humor. It’s interesting and different, yet relentlessly dreary. In other words, just forget about feeling good for a while after watching it.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Directed by Tomas Alfredson.

2011. Rated R, 127 minutes.
Cast:
Gary Oldman
Colin Firth
Tom Hardy

Mark Strong
Benedict Cumberbatch
Toby Jones
John Hurt
David Dencik
Ciarán Hinds
Kathy Burke

In October of 1973, a British Intelligence operation goes terribly wrong and one of its operatives, Jim Prideaux (Strong), is shot and captured. In the aftermath, George Smiley (Oldman) is among the people forced into retirement. At about the same time, a few others are promoted to prominent postions due to them getting their hands on some high grade Soviet intelligence. Fast forward a bit and Smiley is dragged out of retirement to perform a sensitive investigation. It is suspected that one of the men who have risen through the ranks is actually a mole. This is a remake of the 1979 film which starred Alec Guinness.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is indeed a spy movie through and through. However, it’s concerned with the drama of real people who are spies, not the stereotypical action heroes we’ve come to believe them all to be. The effort is placed on trying to figure out where the secret rooms are, who’s meeting there and what they’re saying, not in trying to dazzle us with our hero’s death defying feats. To this end, it sets a deliberate pace that will admittedly feel slow to some. For others, it will leisurely suck us in as we come to understand there is nothing leisurely about the situation at hand. We’ll grow more fascinated as the twists and turns mount. We may even feel we need a tour guide to help navigate the course.

This is where Gary Oldman comes in. Basically, he holds our hand through the maze. He doesn’t have all the answers but he’s darned good at looking for them. Since he is holding our hand, we can’t help but get to know him. What sticks with us most is how unhappy he seems. True, he makes Smiley a stoic chap, but that just seems to be how the man operates in his professional life. Beyond that, there is a deeper sadness to him. Obviously, part of it is because he was unceremoniously dumped when stuff hit the fan. There’s more to it than that due to some other things we find out over the course of our time with him. Even when he should be happy, he appears unsure that it’s alright to feel that way. Oldman conveys all of this perfectly in one of his most subtle portrayals.

All of the things that make TTSS wonderful can work against it, as well. As mentioned, it can drag at times. During this time, it’s possible to get a little lost. As great as the acting is there really isn’t much character development. The situation develops, the people do not. Finally, part of its charm is that it’s a period piece. Since the Cold War has been over for quite some time now, it can feel dated. Certainly, there is some relevance to today’s world but it may not be so easy to pick up. In the end, it’s an excellent spy flick that isn’t for everyone.

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Elephant Man

Directed by David Lynch.
1980. Rated PG, 124 minutes.
Cast:
John Hurt
Anthony Hopkins
Anne Bancroft
John Gielgud
Wendy Hiller
Freddie Jones
Michael Elphick
Hannah Gordon
Dexter Fletcher

John Merrick (Hurt) has been massively deformed all his life. He has been dubbed “The Elephant Man” and is forced to put himself on display as a freak at a carnival sideshow. He is such the draw, the carnival’s owner Mr. Bytes (Jones) calls him “my treasure”. Dr. Treves (Hopkins) is a well respected surgeon who wishes to study “the creature”. After John suffers a beating at the hands of Bytes the doctor takes him in, giving him a room in an isolated part of the hospital where the doc works. As word spreads about the institution’s newest resident, curiosity rises. Once again, people are flocking to see “The Elephant Man. Is Dr. Treves really any better than a sideshow proprietor? The good doctor eventually questions his own motives. The agendas of most others is painfully obvious. They either fear John’s grotesqueness or seek to profit from it by exploiting him. Those who do neither brazenly point and stare. Thus, the movie becomes an exploration of bigotry and the courage some will show in the face of it. We think the lines between good and evil are clearly drawn. However, we’re made to wonder if even the good guys are causing harm. Based on a true story.

Director David Lynch never lets us off the hook by skimming portions of the story. He paces his movie very deliberately, painstakingly so, at some points. This lets us know John intimately. We learn that despite his deformities and the way he’s been treated there is no bitterness in him. There is only his need to be accepted as a man. This makes him a completely sympathetic character.

There are no subplots to speak of. The movie focuses solely on the plight of Mr. Merrick. This tunnel-vision approach gives the film something I find lacking in other work by Lynch: coherence. It is not some cryptic mass of celluloid you have to wade through seventeen times before deciding you finally get it. It’s easily accessible without being easily formulated. Within its rather normal frame many of the director’s nuances and idiosyncracies are contained. However, he never lets them overwhelm the movie. Instead, they flesh it out.

The duty of fleshing out John only falls partly on the man who plays him, John Hurt. To his credit, Hurt plays the role with a perfect naivete and timidness. He wears the latter as a shield. It often fails him, but nonetheless comforts him by its presence. Like Frankenstein’s monster would eventually come to be played for laughs, it would’ve been easy to have Merrick be a bumbling fool, gaining our affections through laughter. Hurt plays him as a man keenly aware that his life is no laughing matter. The rest of the responsibility for making John whole belongs to Dr. Treves. Through an excellent performance by Anthony Hopkins, he draws the man out of the freak.

When its all said and done, we’ve gone on a tumultuous journey with a man that took no easy steps. We root for him not just because we want him to do well, but because we need him to. If he does, it reaffirms our belief that enough of us human beings are decent people. If he doesn’t he will not have failed, we will. In either case, it begs us to reevaluate how we treat those who are different from ourselves.

Hellboy

2004. Rated PG-13, 132 minutes.
Director: Guillermo Del Toro.
Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor.

Plot: After coming through a portal opened by the bad guys, Hellboy (Perlman) is adopted by the good guys and becomes the main guy on a team of paranormal heroes that fight paranormal villains. Sixty years have past and the original baddies are not only back, they're after Hellboy to help them destroy Earth.

The Good: One drawback to being the first movie in a comic book franchise is you have to back to the source's humble beginnings and provide virgins to the character an origin story. This movie dispenses with that bit of business in a thankfully quick and exciting manner. Once done with that, it spends the majority of it's time on action scenes of some sort. Occasionally, it pauses for "Red," as he's called by his friends, to deal with his love life and the increasingly strenuous relationship with his "father" (Hurt). Luckily, its effective at weaving those things in rather than dawdling on them for the most part.

The Bad: There are a few plotholes, which is to be expected, so they're there but not deal breakers. What nearly is a deal breaker is the idiocy of our main villain's (Rasputin played by Karel Roden) plan. It follows the well-worn and even more stupid movie logic of really bad guy wants to unleash a far more powerful and even worse being upon the world. It stands to reason there's not really anything to do after you destroy the world, now is there? Anyhoo, there is one other aspect that bugged me. It seems as if Wolverine of the X-Men simply had his personality and some other traits transplanted to a red body with a stone hand instead of claws, giving us Hellboy. It got to the point where everytime he spoke I couldn't help but think "that's exactly what Wolverine would say."

The Ugly: The very cool Karl Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) without a mask.

Recommendation: Comic book fans and fans of comic book movies should have at it. Its heavy on the action and has enough light humor to keep it moving at brisk pace. It is certainly not the best the genre has to offer but since its thoroughly "okay," its far from the worse.

The Opposite View: Maitland McDonagh, TV Guide

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (6/29/09), 80% on rottentomatoes.com, 72/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10