The Quick and Dirties: Prepping for the 2015 Dellies

Ain't Them Bodies Saints

Directed by David Lowery.

2013. Rated R, 96 minutes.

Cast:

Rooney Mara

Casey Affleck

Ben Foster

Nate Parker

Rami Malek

Keith Carradine

Charles Baker

Will Beinbrink

Annalee Jefferies

Ruth (Mara) and Bob (Affleck) are a modern day Bonnie and Clyde. They find themselves trapped in a house with one other guy who won't make it past this scene and engaged in a shootout with the law. Before going out in a hail of bullets, they decide to surrender. Since, Ruth is pregnant with their child, they agree that Bob will take all the blame. He goes off to jail and she starts living clean so she can raise their daughter. Fast-forward five years. Ruth and the child, now a little over four, have settled into a nice, quiet life. Every now and again, Bob's arresting officer Patrick (Foster) comes around to check on her. He seems to have taken a shine to her, but doesn't push the issue. The entire world is flipped upside down when news hits that Bob has escaped from prison. Thanks to the million and one love letters he wrote while incarcerated, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that he's going to try and reunite his family. The manhunt to keep that from happening ensues.

After opening with a burst of action, the movie settles into a languid pace. The idea is for us to see the growth in the relationship between Ruth and Patrick while reminding us she still loves Bob, thus creating an emotional dilemma. Unfortunately, the movie has serious problems on both fronts of its effort. On one hand, Patrick never really gets around to admitting the feelings that are apparent to us. He just keeps popping up on Ruth's doorstep and says very little. I get he's trying to maintain at least a modicum of professionalism, but at some point just doing his job feels like stalking. On the other hand, while Bob has very good reason for wanting to get back to Ruth, he's never presented as anything other than a bad guy. He feels like someone obsessed rather than thinking rationally. So now the poor girl has two stalkers, one with a badge, one without.

To combat these problems, the movie is atmospheric and its leading lady is incessantly contemplative. Everything is said in a somber tone, often while melancholy music scores the scene. Ain't Them Bodies Saints wants to be a deep, lyrical movie. It's got the lyrical part down pat, thanks to that marvelous pacing. It's slow, but as I hope I implied earlier, that's on purpose. We're not rushed from one thing to the next, but ushered there in a smooth, fluid manner. this is the biggest thing the movie has going for it.

If I'm being fair, then I'll have to give kudos to the cast, as well. Both Affleck and Foster play their roles well. Affleck, one of the more underrated actors, conveys his character's feelings without a showy moment. Foster gets a couple of those and brings his usual wide-eyed intensity. However, that might be part of the reason we're never as sympathetic toward Patrick as we should be. In the lead, Mara does what she can to save the material. Sadly, she has the same problem everyone else has. The material isn't that good. It's certainly not anywhere near as compelling as it thinks it is. Instead, it just barrels toward a conclusion that feels inevitable as soon as we understand what each our three main players want.

Her

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 Social Network

Directed by David Fincher.
2010. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg
Andrew Garfield
Justin Timberlake
Armie Hammer
Brenda Song
Bryan Barter
Rooney Mara
Rashida Jones
Joseph Mazzello

“If you could’ve invented Facebook then, you would’ve invented Facebook,” Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) coldly says to one of the people suing him for allegedly stealing their idea. That statement is at the heart of all matters in The Social Network.. The movie never doubts Zuckerberg’s genius. It never suggest that Facebook could ever have come into existence without him. The question becomes how much did others contribute to making his vision a reality and whether or not they should be compensated.

Technically, the entire movie takes place inside a hearing room where three sides battle back and forth with flashbacks fleshing out the proceedings. Of course, there’s Zuckerberg. Then there is his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Garfield) suing Mark for pretty much muscling him out of the company. Finally, there’s the Winklevoss twins (Hammer in a dual role) who claim to have come up with the idea for Facebook.

Through it all, we see Zuckerberg’s not-so-humble beginnings as a drunken young man, bitter about just being dumped, venomously blogging about his now ex-girl while simultaneously hacking into much of the school’s online network to create an instant rate-a-girl site called FaceSmash. Eventually, we arrive at the point where Facebook is a worldwide phenomenon and Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world. We already know that. Many of you reading this not only have a Facebook page, but have children, parents and even grandparents that their own Facebook pages. This more about trust and what people do with it when they’ve earnied it. Trust is abused so often, we eventualyy have decide when that abuse is justified and when it is not.

TSN is also about the decade we’ve just lived through. It’s about how technology in general, and Facebook in particular, alters our world in increasingly rapid ways. It’s about how prepared or unprepared we are for those instantaneous changes. Can anyone really be prepared to go from average joe to king of all he surveys in just a few years? Strangely enough, though Zuckerberg is the focal point, the movie is not necessarily on his side. Through an excellent performance by Eisenberg he comes across as arrogant, aloof, vindictive, selfish and overly envious of others. He’s the modern day mad scientist who has succeeded in taking over the world, but found it’s not all its cracked up to be. We don’t root for him.

The person we root for is Eduardo Saverin, who put up the initial $1000 to fund the site’s development. We like him. His position seems undeniable so we sympathize with him. We desperately want Zuckerberg to come down from Mount Olympus and show gratitude to the little person that helped him get there.

This movie works because no matter how unlikeable our protagonist might be, we can see his side on a lot of things. Simultaneously, we can understand other viewpoints, as well. This keeps us locked in along with sharp dialogue in which characters rarely mince words. What also engages us is how relationships disintegrate. We’re intrigued to see if anything can be salvaged. However, the winds of sudden success has wreaked havoc on these people. Essentially, we’re watching a divorce procedure. At stake, the custody of their 500 million “kids” worldwide.

A Nightmare of Elm Street (2010)

Directed by Samuel Bayer.
2010. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Jackie Earle Haley
Rooney Mara
Kyle Gallner
Katie Cassidy
Thomas Dekker
Clancy Brown
Connie Britton

The kids from Elm Street aren’t sleeping because of the horrifically realistic nightmares they’re having. Soon enough, they discover their bad dreams are all of the same man trying kill them. He even succeeds on a number of occasions. Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last quarter-century, you know that this guy is Freddy Krueger.

Yup, this is merely a remake of Wes Craven’s 1984 horror classic, with the master’s blessings, of course. It’s not a prequel or sequel or even a re-imagining, no matter what you’ve heard. Therein, lies the problem. A sequel attempts to extend a story we already know. A prequel tries to do the same, just in the other direction on the timeline, showing us what got characters we already know to the spot where we first met them. Even a re-imagining extends the story by fleshing out details its predecessor glossed over, or maybe not even mentioned. This is pure remake, doing none of those things. It tries to add in some stuff about Nancy being Freddy’s favorite and expands on Freddy’s torching at the hands of an angry mob of parents. Still, we’re simply watching the same movie, with different people playing the roles and nothing of their own to add.

Like most such films, where it loses to the original is in the intangibles. It’s tale is no longer fresh. In 1984, plenty of slasher flicks had already been made, but none quite like the original Nightmare. In 2010, many of us have seen all of the movies in the franchise and/or a countless number of movies influenced by it. We've moved on to torture porn and 3D gore. We know what to expect. Any fears we may have had with regards to sleeping are checked at the door. While the original was a visual spectacle, psychological attack and a watershed moment for the genre, this is only a movie.

Since it is only a movie, the tension never feels quite high enough. The death scenes are mostly altered or updated versions of what happened in it’s predecessor, but neither better nor worse. Freddy isn't quite menacing enough, either. Thankfully, he’s far from the stand-up comedian version of later Freddy movies, but not quite up to snuff with what the character is in the original. Jackie Earle Haley, who handles the role, is a fine actor. He’s had an excellent career, to this point. I still expect him to at least be nominated for a major award, someday. However, no matter how good he is, he’s simply playing Freddy Krueger. On the other hand, Robert Englund, never before or since better than a B-grade performer in B-grade horror movies, caught lightning in a bottle. He seems to actually be Freddy Krueger.

To be quite honest, the remake is perfectly adequate in every way. It is good enough not to be an abomination, like the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. And if, by some chance, you haven’t seen its predecessor or are new to horror flicks, it might be an excellent thrill ride. There is just nothing here that should cause you to hate it, except for the fact that it isn't the original.

MY SCORE: 6/10