Dark Skies tells the story of Lacy (Keri Russell) and Daniel Barrett (Josh Hamilton), a typical American couple living in the suburbs with their kids, Jesse (Dakota Goyo) and Sam (Kadan Rockett). But things begin to turn quite atypical for them when strange disturbances in the middle of the night quickly begin to escalate – from signs of an animal getting into their fridge, to their furniture being bizarrely arranged into an unbelievably balanced tower to family photos vanishing from inside frames. Is it a stalker? Is one of the children disturbed? Or, could it be… aliens?
Writer/director Scott Stewart (Legion, Priest) gives the film a recession-era bent by introducing us to the Barretts in the midst of some hard times. Daniel has been laid off and can’t seem to find a new job, leading to growing tension between him and Lacy. Russell (currently kicking ass, both dramatically and physically, on The Americans) and Hamilton (Louie fans may remember him as the obnoxious neighbor Louie got high with) are both very good here creating a believable relationship and the strain the two are already under before things get freaky.
But Dark Skies falters when it moves beyond that family unit. There are some notably cheesy moments involving the requisite skeptics in stories like this – the local cop or guy from the alarm company who are there to roll their eyes and give the “well, it must have been this” explanation for the crazy-ass stuff happening in this house. It doesn’t help matters that some of these peripheral characters are performed in particularly hammy ways.
It’s hard not to feel Stewart was heavily influenced by early Spielberg here, as Dark Skies feels very much like Close Encounters of the Third Kind meets Poltergeist – taking the former’s possible alien arrival and the latter’s suburban home setting, complete with the youngest member of the family the one to have the most direct early contact with the presence among them. (Yes, I know that, rumors aside, Spielberg, according to the credits, was “only” a writer and producer on Poltergeist, but still…)
The film often walks a very fine line as far as what is creepy and what is campy are concerned, especially as pretty much each family member begins to take a turn going to some very odd places and acting extremely strange – including making some uncharacteristic noises. I suspect mileage will vary among audiences as far as those who outright laugh at some of this and those who find it suitably unsettling. Ultimately, the creepy side slightly “wins,” but Stewart is unable to sustain Dark Skies’ tension for as long as he’s attempting.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Beautiful creatures
It is possible that I enjoyed Beautiful Creatures a great deal more than the film actually deserves. After half a decade of sitting through the insufferable Twilight franchise, really the last thing I wanted was to be subjected to the first instalment of what is promised to be ''the next Twilight''.
So I kind of trudged into Beautiful Creatures in that way that people trudge into the dentist's surgery: I don't want to be here, but it is necessary, and it'll all be over in an hour or two.
And then, the oddest thing happened. Up on screen, a watchable and enjoyable film began to play out.
Beautiful Creatures, though it might be touted as not much more than a shameless Twilight cash-in, is - as far as I'm concerned - superior in every possible way.
In small-town South Carolina, a couple of high school students meet and fall in love. Only trouble is, she's a witch, and she's about to face the biggest day of her life. On her 16th birthday, Lena will be chosen to represent either the dark or the light side of witchery.
If it's the former, then she's in for a life of deceit and cruelty. If it's the latter, then Lena might just be the saviour of the world. Or something. But whichever way it goes, there is no room in Lena's life for the normal, mortal, but drop-dead adorable young Ethan.
But, teenage love is one of the universe's more implacable forces, and so Ethan and Lena fly in the face of her family, and persist with their relationship.
So far, so what? Put like that, Beautiful Creatures sounds pretty bloody awful. But, god is in the details, and this film - and, I suspect, the novel it is based on - get the details refreshingly right. Firstly, Lena is in charge. She carries the responsibility, she makes the decisions, and she solves the problems. The relief after Twilight's moping nonentity of a female lead could not be more acute.
Secondly, these kids talk in a way that sounded to me like fairly authentic dialogue. A conversation early on about banned books and moral censorship in America today struck me as subversive and timely.
And any film that's quoting Bukowski and invoking Kurt Vonnegut in its first 10 minutes is always going to score some very non-objective brownie points from me.
Mix those sort of agreeable smarts with some excellent casting - young leads Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert (daughter of Jane Campion) are both very good, while Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson are both clearly enjoying camping and vamping it up in the grown-up support roles - and Beautiful Creatures turns out to be my pleasant surprise of the year so far.
So I kind of trudged into Beautiful Creatures in that way that people trudge into the dentist's surgery: I don't want to be here, but it is necessary, and it'll all be over in an hour or two.
And then, the oddest thing happened. Up on screen, a watchable and enjoyable film began to play out.
Beautiful Creatures, though it might be touted as not much more than a shameless Twilight cash-in, is - as far as I'm concerned - superior in every possible way.
In small-town South Carolina, a couple of high school students meet and fall in love. Only trouble is, she's a witch, and she's about to face the biggest day of her life. On her 16th birthday, Lena will be chosen to represent either the dark or the light side of witchery.
If it's the former, then she's in for a life of deceit and cruelty. If it's the latter, then Lena might just be the saviour of the world. Or something. But whichever way it goes, there is no room in Lena's life for the normal, mortal, but drop-dead adorable young Ethan.
But, teenage love is one of the universe's more implacable forces, and so Ethan and Lena fly in the face of her family, and persist with their relationship.
So far, so what? Put like that, Beautiful Creatures sounds pretty bloody awful. But, god is in the details, and this film - and, I suspect, the novel it is based on - get the details refreshingly right. Firstly, Lena is in charge. She carries the responsibility, she makes the decisions, and she solves the problems. The relief after Twilight's moping nonentity of a female lead could not be more acute.
Secondly, these kids talk in a way that sounded to me like fairly authentic dialogue. A conversation early on about banned books and moral censorship in America today struck me as subversive and timely.
And any film that's quoting Bukowski and invoking Kurt Vonnegut in its first 10 minutes is always going to score some very non-objective brownie points from me.
Mix those sort of agreeable smarts with some excellent casting - young leads Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert (daughter of Jane Campion) are both very good, while Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson are both clearly enjoying camping and vamping it up in the grown-up support roles - and Beautiful Creatures turns out to be my pleasant surprise of the year so far.
Snitch
In Snitch, Dwayne Johnson -- still probably better known as The Rock -- plays a normal guy pressed into action to help save his son from a 10-year stretch in prison because of the mandatory-minimum sentencing drug laws in Missouri, where the film is set.
And that injustice -- the kid was a dupe, caught in a situation with the drugs in his possession by a hard-charging prosecutor - is the rather flimsy hook on which the entire movie hangs.
While this could nominally be considered an action film -- because of a couple of shoot-outs and car chases -- Snitch is more a dramatic thriller with violence thrown in.
The story of a straight-arrow businessman forced to think like a criminal to rescue his offspring, from whom he's been estranged since he divorced and remarried, the film is a a semi-daring move for Johnson, with its focus on the dramatic rather than the action. He's shown more layers as an actor than you might expect in the past. But this role seems underwritten, for him to rely on his acting chops (and a padded, overly talkative script by Justin Haythe) to get by.
Here, he's the angry father, then the anguished parent, then the expedient businessman forced to live by his wits and rapidly acquire some street smarts. Johnson does make us believe this John Matthews is someone who can talk the cops -- specifically, a politically ambitious U.S. attorney played by an under-used Susan Sarandon -- into letting him go undercover to trap a drug dealer, in exchange for shortening his son's sentence. But he's also someone who can maintain his cool when dealing with a gun-happy inner-city dealer named Malik (Michael K. Williams) or with his supplier, the silkily threatening El Topo (Benjamin Bratt).
But the script, while advertised as "inspired by real events," doesn't find many places to go, which is surprising, given the level of double-cross and infiltration implied. Since they were fictionalizing it anyway, why not give it a little life?
Yet Johnson makes the most of his scenes; he apparently can shed tears on cue, though he still can't transcend weak writing. There's a difference between intensity and emotional intensity, something Johnson has problems navigating and calibrating.
Snitch is competent but uninspired, and uninspiring. I'm still waiting for Johnson to be teamed with a script as good as the one he had in, say, The Rundown. Until then, he's not really making movies -- just cranking out product.
And that injustice -- the kid was a dupe, caught in a situation with the drugs in his possession by a hard-charging prosecutor - is the rather flimsy hook on which the entire movie hangs.
While this could nominally be considered an action film -- because of a couple of shoot-outs and car chases -- Snitch is more a dramatic thriller with violence thrown in.
The story of a straight-arrow businessman forced to think like a criminal to rescue his offspring, from whom he's been estranged since he divorced and remarried, the film is a a semi-daring move for Johnson, with its focus on the dramatic rather than the action. He's shown more layers as an actor than you might expect in the past. But this role seems underwritten, for him to rely on his acting chops (and a padded, overly talkative script by Justin Haythe) to get by.
Here, he's the angry father, then the anguished parent, then the expedient businessman forced to live by his wits and rapidly acquire some street smarts. Johnson does make us believe this John Matthews is someone who can talk the cops -- specifically, a politically ambitious U.S. attorney played by an under-used Susan Sarandon -- into letting him go undercover to trap a drug dealer, in exchange for shortening his son's sentence. But he's also someone who can maintain his cool when dealing with a gun-happy inner-city dealer named Malik (Michael K. Williams) or with his supplier, the silkily threatening El Topo (Benjamin Bratt).
But the script, while advertised as "inspired by real events," doesn't find many places to go, which is surprising, given the level of double-cross and infiltration implied. Since they were fictionalizing it anyway, why not give it a little life?
Yet Johnson makes the most of his scenes; he apparently can shed tears on cue, though he still can't transcend weak writing. There's a difference between intensity and emotional intensity, something Johnson has problems navigating and calibrating.
Snitch is competent but uninspired, and uninspiring. I'm still waiting for Johnson to be teamed with a script as good as the one he had in, say, The Rundown. Until then, he's not really making movies -- just cranking out product.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Safe Haven
Safe Haven, based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks, is a romance film directed by Lasse Hallström. The film stars Julianne Hough as Katie, a young woman looking for a new life; Josh Duhamel as Alex, a widowed father and shop owner struggling to move foward; and Cobie Smulders as Jo, a woman stuck in a place she longs to leave.
Since Safe Haven is part of Nicholas Sparks book-to-film collection, while watching the film, I compared Safe Haven to other Nicholas Sparks films. Unfortunately, I found Safe Haven to not reach the romantic appeal of The Notebook or Dear John, and it does not make me swoon for the love portrayed. Safe Haven is not a magnificent romance film, it will not have you dreaming about true love, but it is a heart-warming film to watch.
The film’s main stars act well, but the scene-stealer award must go to Mimi Kirkland, who plays Alex’s daughter Lexie. Kirkland’s cuteness shines in this film as she plays the joyous and upbeat Lexie. Whenever Lexie worked as her father’s cashier, aiding costumers with a mature attitude, the theater audience chuckled in adoration.
Aside from the acting, the film scenery was beautiful, but simple. The film was shot mainly in a forest, a beach, and a couple buildings. Yet, the simple scenery juxtaposed with Katie’s daunting past nicely.
Katie’s past presented the only action/suspense aspect of the film. This made the first half of the film dependent on building a romantic relationship between Katie and Alex, and while watching the relationship between the characters grow was entertaining, the lack of action made the first half of the film slow. The slow beginning caused me to not become completely engrossed in the film until more dramatic aspects were introduced.
The film’s soundtrack paralleled the film’s slow first half. The film did not have a memorable soundtrack in the film, and there wasn’t a soundtrack that made the film memorable. Therefore, in relation to the film’s score, nothing special arose.
All in all, while the film did not reach the romantic depths and cinematic complexity of other Nicholas Sparks or romance films, Safe Haven was enjoyable to watch, especially if you are looking for a romantic story for a simple smile.
Since Safe Haven is part of Nicholas Sparks book-to-film collection, while watching the film, I compared Safe Haven to other Nicholas Sparks films. Unfortunately, I found Safe Haven to not reach the romantic appeal of The Notebook or Dear John, and it does not make me swoon for the love portrayed. Safe Haven is not a magnificent romance film, it will not have you dreaming about true love, but it is a heart-warming film to watch.
The film’s main stars act well, but the scene-stealer award must go to Mimi Kirkland, who plays Alex’s daughter Lexie. Kirkland’s cuteness shines in this film as she plays the joyous and upbeat Lexie. Whenever Lexie worked as her father’s cashier, aiding costumers with a mature attitude, the theater audience chuckled in adoration.
Aside from the acting, the film scenery was beautiful, but simple. The film was shot mainly in a forest, a beach, and a couple buildings. Yet, the simple scenery juxtaposed with Katie’s daunting past nicely.
Katie’s past presented the only action/suspense aspect of the film. This made the first half of the film dependent on building a romantic relationship between Katie and Alex, and while watching the relationship between the characters grow was entertaining, the lack of action made the first half of the film slow. The slow beginning caused me to not become completely engrossed in the film until more dramatic aspects were introduced.
The film’s soundtrack paralleled the film’s slow first half. The film did not have a memorable soundtrack in the film, and there wasn’t a soundtrack that made the film memorable. Therefore, in relation to the film’s score, nothing special arose.
All in all, while the film did not reach the romantic depths and cinematic complexity of other Nicholas Sparks or romance films, Safe Haven was enjoyable to watch, especially if you are looking for a romantic story for a simple smile.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Michael Vick
In 2012, Michael Vick had the look of a fading quarterback. Plagued by injuries and inconsistencies at age 32, he had his worst full season since signing with Philadelphia in 2009.
The six-year, $100 million extension he’d signed in 2011 was looking shaky. In the quirky contract world of the NFL, only about a third of that deal was fully guaranteed, little of which was left on the remaining four years. Set to make $15.5 million in 2013, Vick, who no longer has a firm hold on the Eagles starting job, may well have been cut in a cost savings move.
So Vick did the smart thing. He agreed to tear up the deal in favor of a one-year contract worth up to $10 million. The move salvages a big chunk of what he stood (but wasn’t guaranteed) to make next season, while opening the door to early free agency. It’s a gambit, but a good performance in 2013 would likely get him at least one more nice long-term deal , especially with a weak field to compete with after next season.
“Sense Vick and his agent surveyed the potential free agent landscape, saw it lacking and moved forward with the Eagles deal,” tweeted Andrew Brandt, an NFL contract expert and former Green Bay Packers executive who now works at ESPN.
Could Vick kick things back into high gear? Sure. New Eagles’ coach Chip Kelly employed the speed game to build the University of Oregon into a college football powerhouse. His fast break style figures to agree with Vick, still quick after more than a decade in the league (with a two-year time out for legal issues, hence fewer miles on the body).
For Vick, Kelly might be the gift sent to restore big numbers to his stat line, and by extension his wallet. At the least, it gives quarterback and coach a one-year window to see if they ‘re right for each other.
The six-year, $100 million extension he’d signed in 2011 was looking shaky. In the quirky contract world of the NFL, only about a third of that deal was fully guaranteed, little of which was left on the remaining four years. Set to make $15.5 million in 2013, Vick, who no longer has a firm hold on the Eagles starting job, may well have been cut in a cost savings move.
So Vick did the smart thing. He agreed to tear up the deal in favor of a one-year contract worth up to $10 million. The move salvages a big chunk of what he stood (but wasn’t guaranteed) to make next season, while opening the door to early free agency. It’s a gambit, but a good performance in 2013 would likely get him at least one more nice long-term deal , especially with a weak field to compete with after next season.
“Sense Vick and his agent surveyed the potential free agent landscape, saw it lacking and moved forward with the Eagles deal,” tweeted Andrew Brandt, an NFL contract expert and former Green Bay Packers executive who now works at ESPN.
Could Vick kick things back into high gear? Sure. New Eagles’ coach Chip Kelly employed the speed game to build the University of Oregon into a college football powerhouse. His fast break style figures to agree with Vick, still quick after more than a decade in the league (with a two-year time out for legal issues, hence fewer miles on the body).
For Vick, Kelly might be the gift sent to restore big numbers to his stat line, and by extension his wallet. At the least, it gives quarterback and coach a one-year window to see if they ‘re right for each other.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Side Effects
I walked out of Steven Soderbergh’s “Side Effects’’ thinking to myself, “Finally, a mainstream 2013 movie I can whole-heartedly recommend’’ — then quickly added, “well, except that it will probably piss off a sizeable portion of the target audience.’’
Moviegoers, including those who’ve seen the deliberately misleading trailer — and especially including all those who fell for Channing Tatum in “Magic Mike” — may well feel they’ve been sucker-punched for their $12, buying tickets to a pill-popping drama that suddenly turns into something entirely different.
At first, it seems like the film’s protagonist is 20-something Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), whose husband, Martin (Tatum), has just been released from prison after serving four years for insider trading.
His absence — and her relocation from a palatial Connecticut home to an Upper Manhattan apartment appear to have taken quite a psychic toll on poor Emily.
Martin is concerned his listless spouse is seriously depressed even before Emily drives her car into a wall.
In the emergency room, she meets Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a psychiatrist who takes her on as a private patient and tries to treat Emily with a menu of psychotropic drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft.
Nothing seems to work until Emily’s former therapist, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) helpfully suggests to Banks that he try a new wonder drug, the fictional Ablixa.
“Side Effects’’ appears initially to be a mordant satire of America’s prescription-drug culture — everybody’s taking some sort of mood stabilizer, and Banks himself is being wined and dined by the makers of another fictional drug who recruit him to conduct paid tests.
But when a major character dies half an hour in — I’m not giving away anything that isn’t in the trailer or a flash-forward in the opening scene — Soderbergh shifts gears to the tune of a Hitchcockian thriller. (“Psycho’’ and “Vertigo’’ being the most obvious classics being riffed upon.)
There’s a good reason that Law, and not Mara, gets top billing here. The focus shifts to the good Dr. Banks, who loses his practice, and his unemployed wife (Vinessa Shaw), as he becomes obsessed with clearing his name after the death gets him labeled “PILL KILLER’’ on the front page of The Post.
Insufferably callow in his leading-man period, Law has become a fascinating actor in middle age, especially playing weaselly but not wholly unsympathetic characters like he does here and in Soderberg’s “Contagion’’ (which, like “Side Effects,’’ was written by Scott Z. Burns).
Mara gives an appropriately enigmatic performance in a film that’s also been immaculately photographed and edited by Soderbergh, with Thomas Newman contributing the highly effective score.
Tatum has basically repaid Soderbergh here for his breakthrough performance in “Magic Mike’’ — a surprise hit — by serving the eye-candy function generally reserved for actresses. (What the two films — and the director’s “The Girlfriend Experience’’ — have in common is a lively interest, rare in American movies, about people’s struggles during an economic downturn.)
And fourth-billed Zeta-Jones? If you surrender to the chilly, cerebral jape that is “Side Effects,’’ she delivers a great campy jolt at the end. If not, she’ll likely have you demanding your money back.
What Soderbergh claims will be his last theatrical feature for “a long time’’ is the sort of movie best appreciated by us jaded movie critics — and those Soderbergh fans who share our fascination with his daring, sometimes perverse, experiments with film.
Moviegoers, including those who’ve seen the deliberately misleading trailer — and especially including all those who fell for Channing Tatum in “Magic Mike” — may well feel they’ve been sucker-punched for their $12, buying tickets to a pill-popping drama that suddenly turns into something entirely different.
At first, it seems like the film’s protagonist is 20-something Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), whose husband, Martin (Tatum), has just been released from prison after serving four years for insider trading.
His absence — and her relocation from a palatial Connecticut home to an Upper Manhattan apartment appear to have taken quite a psychic toll on poor Emily.
Martin is concerned his listless spouse is seriously depressed even before Emily drives her car into a wall.
In the emergency room, she meets Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a psychiatrist who takes her on as a private patient and tries to treat Emily with a menu of psychotropic drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft.
Nothing seems to work until Emily’s former therapist, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) helpfully suggests to Banks that he try a new wonder drug, the fictional Ablixa.
“Side Effects’’ appears initially to be a mordant satire of America’s prescription-drug culture — everybody’s taking some sort of mood stabilizer, and Banks himself is being wined and dined by the makers of another fictional drug who recruit him to conduct paid tests.
But when a major character dies half an hour in — I’m not giving away anything that isn’t in the trailer or a flash-forward in the opening scene — Soderbergh shifts gears to the tune of a Hitchcockian thriller. (“Psycho’’ and “Vertigo’’ being the most obvious classics being riffed upon.)
There’s a good reason that Law, and not Mara, gets top billing here. The focus shifts to the good Dr. Banks, who loses his practice, and his unemployed wife (Vinessa Shaw), as he becomes obsessed with clearing his name after the death gets him labeled “PILL KILLER’’ on the front page of The Post.
Insufferably callow in his leading-man period, Law has become a fascinating actor in middle age, especially playing weaselly but not wholly unsympathetic characters like he does here and in Soderberg’s “Contagion’’ (which, like “Side Effects,’’ was written by Scott Z. Burns).
Mara gives an appropriately enigmatic performance in a film that’s also been immaculately photographed and edited by Soderbergh, with Thomas Newman contributing the highly effective score.
Tatum has basically repaid Soderbergh here for his breakthrough performance in “Magic Mike’’ — a surprise hit — by serving the eye-candy function generally reserved for actresses. (What the two films — and the director’s “The Girlfriend Experience’’ — have in common is a lively interest, rare in American movies, about people’s struggles during an economic downturn.)
And fourth-billed Zeta-Jones? If you surrender to the chilly, cerebral jape that is “Side Effects,’’ she delivers a great campy jolt at the end. If not, she’ll likely have you demanding your money back.
What Soderbergh claims will be his last theatrical feature for “a long time’’ is the sort of movie best appreciated by us jaded movie critics — and those Soderbergh fans who share our fascination with his daring, sometimes perverse, experiments with film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)