The film is a fictionalized account of one family’s struggle to survive and reunite after the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.  The parents, Maria and Henry start off bickering here and there with a humdrum life, but when the disaster hits, those issues disappear.  She is severely wounded in the tsunami, so one of their sons Lucas must help care for her as they seek higher ground and medical attention.  Her health rapidly deteriorates (particularly from a gruesome leg injury) while Lucas looks to help others in need.  Henry and their other two sons Thomas and Simon are spared severe injuries but are hurt and separated nonetheless; he sends them off for help while he stays behind to look for Lucas and Maria.

Some people will be upset that the filmmakers made the family a privileged British one instead of sticking to the family the screenplay was based on (a Spanish one).  Nevertheless, this was simply a window into the story, and the fact it was based on a true one is sufficient detail to help audiences connect to the film and its characters.  If this were a totally fictional depiction, viewers would not be so quick to suspend their disbelief when overly-sentimental plot points occur through manipulative techniques (i.e. hospital scene near the end).

With such amazingly grounded performances, audiences have more reason to relate to the characters and their situation(s).  Naomi Watts’ Oscar nomination is warranted with her raw, vulnerable performance as Maria.  Ewan McGregor is great as Henry as well, particularly in a scene where he breaks down in a call to relatives at home.  The real find of the film, though, is young Tom Holland who makes his feature-film debut as Lucas; he totally carries the film and conveys all the necessary emotions that sweep the audience away.  Samuel Joslin and Oaklee Pendergast give admirable turns as younger sons/brothers Thomas and Simon.

Of course, the massive production and set design alongside a solid special effects team makes for an impressive scale and harrowing viewing experience.  This could have easily been bumped up to an R-rating for the intensity during the tsunami scenes and brief bursts of violent injuries.  Furthermore, the desperation after the initial waves makes for an even more sobering viewing experience, but it is an inspirational tale of survival and love.  Still, it is not as rosy-cheeked as many other disaster movies that come out of Hollywood; the film never forgets that despite this family’s impossible struggle to survive is fairly happy, many families have forever been destroyed and still feel broken to this day – centering the story of the tsunami on one family’s account is a brave choice for a production company but a wise one as it grounds the incredible reality of the situation and relates it to the audience.

Director Juan Antonio Bayona (The Orphanage) has indeed crafted a worthwhile film regarding the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that is equal parts thrilling and emotional.  Although it can be a bit too sentimental at times, it has its heart in the right place as it conveys the complexity of the situation in a tasteful manner.  Furthermore, Watts, McGregor and especially Holland really help to bring the audience into the incredible story.  The Impossible is not for the faint of heart but it is a solid, life-affirming account of the devastating tsunami that has claimed the lives of almost a quarter of a million and untold millions of those unborn.

The Impossible – 8/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: The Impossible (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory

you do not despise musicals and can enjoy a good piece of filmmaking, you will at the very least appreciate if not love Les Misérables for its grand ambition, impressive technical artistry (i.e. striking imagery), marvelous performances and the story’s emotional resonance.

This adaptation covers all the major beats of Hugo’s novel and the musical that inspired the production.  As such, it is briskly-moving, even at a bloated runtime – as such, it will simultaneously feel a bit overlong (unless you love every second of the singing and want more of it) and too short as it skims over many parts of the story, hitting primarily only the main parts instead.  With so many musical numbers and a decade-spanning story, the stripped-down narrative is a necessity and one that Hugo purists may be upset by.  Nonetheless, with such an elegantly crafted translation to the big-screen, such viewers can still find many things to like about the film.

For the uninitiated, the story follows convict Jean Valjean as he is freed (on parole) and seeking redemption all his life while evading capture from his obsessed adversary Officer/Inspector Javert. – (For the sake of brevity and hiding spoilers from those unaware of the story’s many twists and turns, I will keep the rest of the synopsis brief and broadly described) – He comes across Fantine, a single mother working as a prostitute to send child support to the innkeepers looking after her daughter Cosette.  He promises to care for her.  After raising her into a young adult, she becomes in love with a young revolutionary boy, all the while Valjean must repeatedly evade Javert.

Suffice to say, the story is quite extensive, but the film manages to strip it down and successfully bring it to life.  The production design is incredible.  Danny Cohen, who worked with Hooper on 2010’s Best Picture The King’s Speech, captures the heart of the story with impressive set pieces as well as many intimate close-ups.  However, one major gripe is the choppy editing at times and always-moving camera, particularly during the scenes in which the entire cast (of that particular scene) sings – while it adds energy to the film, it may take viewers out of the story.  Thankfully, the camera rests and editing slows when individuals sing, in order to paint a more personal picture.  Overall, the pacing of the story may be inconsistent, but the rest of the production is rather impressive.

Of course, the musical numbers are fantastic.  Hooper employed the fresh technique of live, on-set singing instead of in-studio recordings and lip-syncing (this means the actors would lead the piano or instrument on-set).  Its effect is by and large a big success as the actors have the opportunity/ability to act during their singing instead of trying to keep up with a recording.  Not all of the stage musical’s pieces are used here, but the highlights are.  Again, if musicals are not your thing, then I’d advise you prepare yourself to be open-minded if you want to see this movie – it rarely has even a simple line of dialogue that isn’t sung or recited to a tone or swelling music in the background.

As mentioned before, Jackman and Hathaway are excellent.  He is an ideal choice to play the long-suffering Valjean.  Better yet, he is more than capable of belting out the many songs his part requires of him.  The sole original song of the production (not from the musical) “Suddenly” will likely garner an Oscar nomination for Best Song – a testament to Jackman’s singing ability.  And then there is Hathaway, who gives the performance of her career despite being relegated to a surprisingly short, albeit significant, supporting role as Fantine.  She seriously elevates the film to soaring heights whenever she is on-screen.  Her performance of “I Dreamed a Dream” is absolutely breathtaking in how much raw emotion comes through – it is her Oscar-defining moment and makes the entire film worth seeing.  If you cannot connect to all of the emotional beats of this production, this scene is one sure to capture everyone’s heart.

The rest of the cast is also quite good, to varying degrees.  Many people have criticized Russell Crowe’s singing ability, and while it is not on par with the others or this production he still does an admirable job (in fact, I personally felt it was pretty good overall). 

Moreover, he does a dependable job making Javert antagonizing without turning him into a truly despicable and cartoonish villain (indeed, it is an understated, non-flashy role).  Amanda Seyfried turns in a serviceable performance as a grown-up Cosette, a character who is less inherently less interesting than those around her, such as Eddie Redmayne’s revolutionary leader Marius.  He makes a big jump in status and rises to the occasion and production with a very good performance.  Samantha Barks, who appeared in the London stage musical, reprises her role as Éponine, the daughter of the innkeepers.  She smoothly transitions from stage to the screen with perhaps the second best female performance of the film; her voice is expectedly beautiful, but her acting ability is likewise remarkable.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter add a great amount of levity as her dirty and cunning innkeeper parents Thenardier and his wife.  While their singing abilities are not the best of the bunch, they do their best and do not really take away from the film given their cheeky characters’ behaviors anyway.  Child actors Daniel Huttlestone and Isabelle Allen are great finds as Gavroche and young Cosette, both quite capable of acting and singing their parts.  Aaron Tveit is solid as Marius’ fellow revolutionary Enjolras.  Numerous actors who played parts in previous stage and filmic versions appear here and there, including Colm Wilkinson as the Bishop (he played Valjean in the “original” version).

In short, Les Misérables is a fantastic musical production with wonderful performances, striking cinematography, and a huge heart.  Occasionally it becomes too bombastic for its own good, and the sentimental nature seeps in too much.  Also, the choppy, brisk editing may take viewers out of the intimate moments.  Nonetheless, the story and message(s) are worthwhile and impressively captured.  It is definitely an emotional ride, at least for those who can accept the musical aspect.  In all, Les Misérables is one of the most impressive productions of 2012 and a worthy adaptation of the beloved novel and musical.  Whether or not this is the definitive adaptation of Hugo’s novel is another question (the 1998 non-musical version starring Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush is quite good as well), but one worth discovering for yourself by seeing it on the big-screen with great audio.

Les Misérables – 8.5/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: Les Misérables (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory

The film opens with events that occur just before the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring as Bilbo begins writing his tale, which begins with Gandalf asking/coercing him to join him on an adventure.  Pretty soon he is off on a journey with the Grey wizard and thirteen dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (heir to the dwarf kingdom), in order to reclaim their fallen kingdom and its vast riches deep inside the Lonely Mountain, which is guarded by the terrible dragon known as Smaug (a short prologue recounts the fateful desolation of Smaug).  Bilbo is the company’s burglar; he will sneak into the mountain and hopefully steal the prized riches out from underneath Smaug’s fiery nose, if the dragon is still alive as he has not been seen for many years.  Bilbo is quite hesitant to go on and continue with the adventure, but he must go forward confidently if he ever hopes to return to the Shire again, as they face many perils ahead.

The studio/filmmakers’ decision to split the roughly 270-page book into three (originally just two) parts is a blessing to some but a curse to many others.  This installment covers only about 100 pages, yet it is still almost three hours long.  As a result, Tolkien’s story is almost fully fleshed out (and then some), but the pacing is long-winded, especially early on.  Indeed, as many critics have pointed out, the theatrical version actually feels more like an extended edition with many scenes lingering too long or even extraneous to the plot.  Even with adding in other material from Tolkien’s other books and appendices, the story feels stretched and neuters some of the magic.  Sure, it does justice to the source material, but doing so does not automatically justify a swollen runtime.

Take The Fellowship of the Ring for contrasts sake – it is 400 pages but they fit all of it into one three-hour (and solid four-hour extended edition) film without upsetting too many Tolkien purists, as the movie is absolutely spectacular (and they only got better in the LOTR trilogy).  Thus, splitting The Hobbit into two films seemed like an acceptable choice as we all cherish the LOTR and don’t mind spending more time in Middle-Earth, but by splitting it into three-films the studio has limited the film’s chances of being as great.  Even some more prudent trimming of this nearly three-hour installment would have helped a great deal.  Nevertheless, fans of the first trilogy and most moviegoers won’t complain too much while watching this still rather enjoyable blockbuster.

However, it is subject to the prequel curse – because we already know that Biblo and Gandalf live to tell the tale, some of the suspense disappears.  We definitely get caught up in the moment of fast-paced action, but we know he must find the ring and carry it home so he can pass it on to Frodo.  Nevertheless, with such great imagery and a well-crafted production, going along for the journey is still a joy, despite knowing its basic end as far as characters go.

The other major problem is not from the film, per se – rather, it is the audience’s expectations.  This is by no means on the same level as the LOTR trilogy; the source material itself is more flawed and less engaging.  Instead of a plot to save the world from evil, it is about Bilbo helping the dwarves gain riches and reclaim their homeland.  While the latter is admirable and the stakes are high as they try to accomplish such goals, the world is largely unaffected.  On the other hand, many viewers will wholeheartedly relate to their troubles and root for them, as the nostalgia kicks in and the spectacle overwhelms.  Yet, investing in this particular plight is not as an immediate and relevant one.  Besides, The Hobbit is more like children’s fare than it is serious and adult-oriented, as the LOTR seems to be in contrast (though this film has its moments and hints at an approaching doom with an “ancient enemy”).  It is quite cheeky at times with more slapstick and silly humor than perhaps the entire LOTR combined, but by the end the film does manage to build a breakneck pace with more gravitas.  In short, managing one’s expectations going into the movie is essential, unless you are a diehard LOTR/Tolkien fanatic in which you will most likely love it – for the rest of us and probably the majority of moviegoers, it is simply a good film with a few great moments.

On its own merits, An Unexpected Journey is a mighty accomplishment in production terms.  Once again, Jackson and his sleep-deprived cast and crew have crafted an almost unparalleled immersive experience, at least in terms of technical details.  The production design, cinematography (apart from the new format and use of 3D), score and so forth are largely consistent with that of the LOTR trilogy, meaning the production value is excellent.  In particular, Andrew Lesnie’s visuals are colorful and beautifully rendered (though personally it seems a bit too colorful and “clean” at times as I prefer the dirty look of LOTR), and Howard Shore reprises his role as composer with yet another first-rate original score, though it may not be as unforgettable as the pieces from LOTR (parts of which are hinted at or re-used at times here).  Also, as a side note, the score is a bit too reminiscent of his one for Hugo (2011) and threw me off at times, but the casual viewer should not have problem and ought to enjoy the quality musical composition.

Speaking of technical aspects, the issue of the new high frame rate (HFR) of 48 frames-per-second (FPS) is a debate worth discussing.  The new format, in which Jackson filmed in, certainly aids the 3D, as it helps to limit the motion-blur and brightens the picture with a hyper-real look.  However, in “quieter” scenes, the look is a bit distracting; it looks like one is watching a sports game on an HDTV or some BBC television show – the soap opera effect occurs at times (it is less noticeable in the bigger scenes).  After a while, though, one adjusts to the HFR.  However, whether one wants to is another question – it simply does not look/feel as cinematic and hopefully will not catch on with every film.  In fact, I saw this in the old-fashioned “2D”/regular 24fps format, and it looked just as grand if not a bit more realistic, as our eyes more closely match this format.  Besides, the LOTR did not have this at its disposal, and yet it was amazing anyway.  Then again, the advancements in technology have allowed viewers to feel “closer” to the characters on-screen with clearer images and crisper special effects; indeed, the film is a joy to watch.

Although the cast is not as filled with recognizable faces as the LOTR trilogy, it still features solid performances all-around.  Martin Freeman is an ideal choice to play the swashbuckling yet quietly heroic Bilbo Baggins; he does a fair job carrying the film here and will likely only become stronger as this new trilogy continues on.  Richard Armitage is stellar as the brooding and brave Thorin Oakenshield, even if he is a notch less charismatic than Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn; viewers will invest in Thorin’s plight as they discover more about his past and true, upstanding self despite the cold exterior.  Unfortunately, the rest of the dwarves do not have enough time to fully distinguish themselves, but each actor puts forth earnest performances.  Sylvester McCoy puts in a decent turn as the loopy Radagast the Brown, one of the other wizards of Middle-Earth.  Lee Pace very briefly appears as the self-serving elf king Thranduil, whom we shall see much of in the next two installments.  Barry Humphries “plays” the Great Goblin, or at least voices him; his character epitomizes the inconsistent tone of the film that somewhat threw me off – his lines are goofy at times which lessens the direness of the situation.

Several notable members of the original LOTR trilogy reprise their roles to varying capacities.  Ian McKellen has immortalized the Gandalf role, in which he seems to be having a blast and it shows for the better.  Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee all make short cameos as old Bilbo, Frodo, Lord Elrond, Lady Galadriel, and Saruman the White, all of whom put forth quality turns in such small roles; (however, it is sad to see a now 90-year-old Lee continue acting as his age clearly has caught up with him).

It is Andy Serkis who steals the entire show, reprising his role as Gollum.  First, the updated special effects have made the lovably pitiful character even more realistic; he looks awesome. Serkis is fantastic to watch as Gollum/Smeagol, though Gollum is clearly the dominating one here.  This “riddles in the dark” set piece is perhaps the best part of the film, as Bilbo and Gollum battle each other with riddles.

Tolkien’s works in Middle-Earth are thinly veiled, exaggerated tales of good vs. evil (LOTR more so than this).  In An Unexpected Journey, the themes are obviously still present, such as Gandalf’s assertion that “true courage is not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare it” (in reference to Gollum, whom we know is essential to Frodo’s journey in LOTR).  However, the messages become a bit preachy at times, such as the scene in which he speaks with Lady Galadriel – Gandalf virtually stares into the camera as he gives his sermon about what staves off evil.  While these messages are worthwhile, this film

is less clever in conveying them.

In the end, An Unexpected Journey may feel more accomplished when the Hobbit trilogy is complete (Desolation of Smaug in Dec. 2013 and There and Back Again in July 2014), but for now it is incomplete and feels a bit overstuffed.  Of course, it is an enjoyable adventure to go on, despite its slower pace, thanks to wonderfully artistry, committed performances and the most powerful tool at Jackson’s disposal: nostalgia.  Beyond the feeling of “seeing an old friend again,” this film is not nearly as emotionally-involving as the roller-coaster rides of LOTR are; it’s not hard to imagine many viewers hoped to feel a bit more from this movie.  While it is not exactly fair to compare it to the LOTR trilogy, it is inevitable and the expectations are not exceeded, which leads to some disappointment; at best, they are satisfied but not overwhelmed (indeed, this is not even close to Fellowship, which now seems like the weakest of the LOTR, the whole of which is greatly elevated by the slight disappointment here; re-watch LOTR after this and you will be astonished all over again) – hopefully the new trilogy raises the stakes and becomes great, but for now it is merely good and for many that may not be quite enough.  Still, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is definitely worth seeing in theaters and on multiple formats (at least for the experience), as it is one of the better productions and more enjoyable films of 2012.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – 8/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory

The film does not involve the leads from Knocked Up in any way; instead, it centers on Pete and Debbie’s family as they both approach age 40.  Everything seems perfect; they live in a fabulous home, both work in their passion fields, and they have two beautiful young daughters – yet, trouble boils beneath the surface.  With the recession and some poor business choices, they have slowly fallen into financial trouble and their kids are entering hormonal stages and start to fight, almost as much as Pete and Debbie themselves do lately as their marital issues rise to the surface and test their relationship.

One of the main criticisms targeted at the film is in the form of a rhetorical question: “How can we, the audience, care about these fairly rich, upper-middle class people when all they do is bicker about how their lives are falling apart?”  Indeed, millions of other Americans are suffering far worse than these characters do.  However, if viewers can get past the inherent issue of limited sympathy, they will find many of the issues that the family goes through are pretty universal, regardless of financial status.  You will find something in these people’s lives that you can relate to and can feel the honesty and truths that which Apatow and his cast and crew imbue onto/through the film.

Then again, this is Apatow, king of vulgar comedies.  The film is littered with profanity, occasional nudity and so forth.  It can be off-putting to some, though those willing to watch the film will likely not care too much and even find the crudeness hilarious.  Still, it puts up a sort of mean-spirit that does not help the already restrained sympathy for the characters; it feels self-indulgent at times with what appears to be a lot of crude (in both senses) improvisation to elicit laughter.

Furthermore, the movie needed to be trimmed for a tighter, more effective storyline.  Several subplots misfire, though they are humorous.  For example, the cat and mouse game of who stole from Debbie’s boutique shop takes up too much screen time and amounts to little, other than the fact that her business lost some money, which further strains her and Pete’s marriage (though his failing record label and lending of money to his father is probably more to blame).  Several scenes felt more like skits that, while funny and somewhat useful to the story, should have been trimmed, such as the run-in with one of their daughter’s classmates and his feisty mother Catherine (played quite humorously by Melissa McCarthy, who elicits even funnier reactions from Pete and Debbie).  

Indeed, the entire story is a bit episodic.  Nonetheless, this is a slice-of-life kind of film that does not have a major plot.  It shows how one family deals with issues ranging from the everyday kind to some more serious ones.  Some have criticized the fathers’ subplot(s), but they are emotionally involving by the end and important at least to show how the characters came to be – then again, the end does lose its momentum a bit with so many subplots.  The film would have benefited from judicious trimming so it could have focused more fully on just Pete, Debbie, and their two daughters Sadie and Charlotte.

Thus far in the review, This Is 40 seems like a downer and major disappointment rife with problems.  Although it is flawed, it is still rather entertaining, particularly for Apatow’s biting banter and humor, as well as poignant at times with honest truths about troubled familial life and marriage.  Apatow definitely appears to have grown up some as a writer-director, as this is his most personal project; one could easily surmise Paul Rudd is a stand-in for him as Pete, especially considering Apatow’s wife is Leslie Mann who plays Debbie and the characters’ daughters are played by Apatow and Mann’s real-life daughters Maude and Iris.  Likely drawing from he and Mann’s marriage, this film contains many well-drawn scenes that seem realistic oftentimes in a humorously crude way to deal with issues of aging, parenthood, generational

differences (i.e. hilarious debate about Mad Men and Lost, as well as music tastes), etc.  It may be rough in terms of material and somewhat flawed in terms of execution, but the film is still a solid, above-average dramedy with very good writing and earnest performances.

Rudd and Mann reprise their roles from Knocked Up.  This time around, though, they are a bit more jaded and troubled, though they can still show love and affection toward one another on occasion (i.e. hilarious hotel getaway sequence).  Maude and Iris Apatow are capable young actresses playing the hormonal Sadie and affable Charlotte.  Jason Segel also returns as Jason, but his role is merely there for comedic sake (of which he does a reliable job).  Megan Fox has grown up since Transformers but her purpose is mainly for sex-appeal as Desi.  Charlyne Yi plays Fox’s fellow boutique shop worker, the mentally unstable Jodi – a character who is superfluous to the story but ends up giving a rather humorous, albeit over-the-top, looped-out scene (one that may have better fit on a director’s cut).  Albert Brooks and John Lithgow turn in quality performances as Pete and Debbie’s initially unlikable fathers Larry and Oliver (respectively); the former is a mooch, especially since he and his wife have young triplets, and the latter has been absent from Debbie’s entire life basically.  Several other recognizable faces appear, such as rising Apatow stars Chris O’Dowd and Annie Mumolo as Ronnie and Barb.  While the cast is full of veteran comedic actors and then some, a few characters could have been cut from the theatrical version to create a more focused narrative, though each actor

puts forth sincere and/or enjoyable/humorous performances.

Somehow, This Is 40 is for both a limited and wide audience.  It is a bit more serious than most of Apatow’s work, produced or directed, yet it still contains plenty of his trademark humor.  Also, it deals with fairly universal issues any family can relate to, but this particular family is pretty well off and their complaining can seem obnoxious (especially in comparison to tougher struggles many families face today).  Still, it is life and marriage affirming in the end.  It is not a total crowd-pleaser, as the conclusion is a tenuously happy one, but this is simply a window into these people’s lives and not meant to be a tightly-wrapped, plot-driven story; it is a well-written, well-acted character study that fairly blends humor with honest drama.

This Is 40 – 7.5/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: This Is 40 (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory

of if not the best all-around ensemble cast of 2012, with each actor putting forth their best effort in years or ever.  Silver Linings Playbook is an edgy, captivating and truthful adult romantic dramedy that will charm its way into your heart; indeed, it is one of my favorite films from 2012.

It begins with undiagnosed bi-polar Pat Solitano coming home from an eighth month stint in a mental hospital after he viciously assaulted the man sleeping with his estranged wife Nikki, who since then has moved out, sold their home and put a restraining order on him.  Despite the obvious signs and a host of family members telling him their relationship is over, he is fully convinced he can win her back.  Along comes Tiffany, a sultry, clever and mentally volatile widow whom he meets through his best friend Ronnie and his bossy wife Veronica.  She agrees to help him sneak a letter to Nikki, so long as he becomes her dance partner in a big competition coming up.  They quickly form a close rapport, one that oftentimes borders on romantic, but make no mistake about Pat’s clear, albeit stubborn, intentions to reunite with his wife (i.e. working out and reading her classroom syllabus so they have more to talk about).  First and foremost, if he wants to reach the silver lining he so often talks about, he must cope with his inner demons, something easier said than done considering so many “crazy” people live around him, particularly his OCD, occasionally temper-bursting sports bookie father Pat Sr. who depends on him for good luck (among other, deeper feelings).

For a film centering around basically two lead characters with mental problems, Silver Linings Playbook is graceful without glossing over harsh truths.  It never feels disingenuous to the subject matter, though towards the end it could have gone a bit darker but opts to turn slightly conventional with tying up the romantic aspect of the story (though it hardly feels cliché or worn-out).  Instead, it manages to poignantly balance the serious drama of mental illness with the romance and comedy, largely thanks to Russell’s biting dialogue and two outstanding lead performances in

a great ensemble cast.

Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence show their wide-ranging talents here.  He inhabits Pat perfectly with all of his idiosyncratic ticks and penchant for having no filter as he is often direct to the point of being inconsiderate and rude.  Nevertheless, the audience still sympathizes with him, for the most part.  Likewise, Lawrence rises above her X-Men and Hunger Games blockbuster appeal and once again proves her remarkable acting abilities first seen in Winter’s Bone (2010).  For a 22-year old, she plays the part much older, and thus she never seems out of place as a widow.  She nails Tiffany’s sharply intelligent wit/biting humor and volatile vulnerability, not to mention the character’s sensual nature.  Indeed, she is certain to garner an Oscar nomination and possibly win Best Actress, so long as Jessica Chastain doesn’t take it for Zero Dark Thirty.

The supporting cast is in top form as well.  Robert De Niro gives his best performance in at least a decade or two, reminding audiences he was one considered the best actor ever.  He rocks the part of Pat Sr., with all the character’s OCD mannerisms and even showing great vulnerability and care as a father to a troubled son.  Similarly, Jacki Weaver turns in a very good, earnest performance in a motherly role quite unlike her Oscar-nominated one for Animal Kingdom (2010); she is much more supportive and loving, rather than coldly manipulative.  You really feel for both Pat Sr. and Dolores as they watch their son implode.

Other, smaller but still important and well-drawn supporting characters appear as well.  John Ortiz and Julia Stiles are a hoot as Pat’s equally troubled best friend Ronnie and his controlling wife Veronica.  Chris Tucker makes a rare appearance, his first in over a decade that is not dealing with the Rush Hour franchise – he plays Pat’s friend Danny, whom he met in the mental hospital and throughout the film seeks to get out of it.  Tucker is an absolute joy to see back on the big-screen; he is perfect as the quirky friend looking to always help out Pat.  Also, Pat’s seemingly stoic psychiatrist Anupam Kher adds deadpan humor to the proceedings.  Shea Whigham makes a solid appearance as Pat’s older, somewhat more stable brother Jake.  Paul Herman plays another bookie, who is “friends” with the Solitano family insofar as they have opposing favorite teams and are competitive.  Lastly, Pat’s wife Nikki does appear late in the story, and she is played by Brea Bee in a thankless, virtually dialogue-free role.

Russell has made a smooth, largely upbeat and stylish little flick that has great widespread appeal as a crowd-pleaser, though it remains in limited release over its (thus far) two month run.  The combination of Danny Elfman’s tender original musical score and a number of popular song titles, most significantly Stevie Wonder’s “My Cherie Amour,” makes for a fun, emotionally-involving time.  Masanobu Takayangi’s cinematography is not flashy but still engaging and immerses the audience into the story.  Russell is an eclectic but strong director, and this film feels like a mixture of other great indie-based directors, such as Cameron Crowe’s rom-com sincerity, Jason Reitman’s detailed direction, and Alexander Payne’s sharp dialogue – yet this is entirely a Russell film, one that harkens back to his older days rather than The Fighter.  Nonetheless, it might be one of his best and certainly more accessible productions.  Silver Linings Playbook delicately balances the drama with the romantic comedy conventions to provide a truly fresh entry into that genre, thanks in large part to the impressive acting from its leads and notable ensemble cast.  Seek it out, and you won’t be disappointed with this massively entertaining and surprisingly meaningful crowd-pleaser.

Silver Linings Playbook – 9/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: Silver Linings Playbook (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory

After a quirkily charming introduction, a la Alfred Hitchcock Presents, regarding the true story that inspired Psycho, the movie opens with the highly successful release of North by Northwest (1959), Hitchcock’s arguably most accessible and entertaining feature film.  However, not all is well with the famed director’s life as he nears age sixty – he worries that his best years have passed him by and struggles to find his next project, as his fans and the studio hound him as to what that will be.  Eventually, he reads Robert Bloch’s novel Psycho, which catches his imagination and attention enough to pursue the basic story for his next film.

Unfortunately, almost no one is behind Hitchcock making Psycho.  The studio and censorship board want a more box-office and family-friendly product, specifically one without so much violence, sensuality, toilet imagery and other lewd behavior or visuals (at least for that era).  Even his agent questions the choice before trying to support and market his choice.  As a result, he must finance the film himself, mortgaging the house and paying out of his pocket.  This brings considerable strain on his personal life with his long-suffering wife Alma Reville, who was apparently as smart and commanding as Hitchcock himself but lived in his shadow.  Besides, she had to constantly put up with his passion for blonde leading ladies, an issue Psycho star Janet Leigh aggravates but does not explode.  Consequently, writer friend Whitfield is able to tempt and flirt more easily with her, given her problems at home (all the while struggling with binge-eating and drinking at times, something hinted at in the movie).

The film recounts how Hitchcock managed to make Psycho, his most successful film, despite the numerous on-set problems and issues at home.  It may not provide much new insight for film buffs and academics, but it is still fascinating and entertaining, particularly for the casual moviegoer who might not know much about the man behind the myths or the making of Psycho.  It is briskly-paced with nary a moment to feel bored.  Indeed, it is a bit lightweight with a cheekily humorous and fun tone, similar to My Week with Marilyn (2011) both in plot and pacing/tone.

One issue critics have laid on the film is its inconsistent tone, as several scenes involve Hitchcock dreaming or imagining interactions with Ed Gein, the killer who inspired Norman Bates (the killer in Psycho).  These scenes may not amount to much or add a ton to the character, apart from the fact he is under a lot of stress and shows that he, like anyone, has darker sides.  However, they are taut little scenes that keep the audience on its toes, much like Hitchcock’s films.  Overall, though, the feel of the film is an enjoyable one, with numerous in-jokes and references that filmmakers and movie buffs will delight in as well as simply entertaining humor and drama any casual moviegoer can enjoy.

Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren are excellent in the leading roles as Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville.  Both should be in consideration for award nominations, though that is the most one expects given the crowded competition.  Hopkins embodies the character/man, literally; he all but disappears into the role and turns in his best performance in several years.  Mirren is as reliable as ever, in that she puts forth yet another first-class performance.  Furthermore, their chemistry works as they often banter back and forth.  The two stellar actors make Hitchcock worth seeing, amongst and perhaps above all else in the production.

The supporting, ensemble cast also makes for an enjoyable ride.  Scarlett Johansson turns in one of her quality performances here as Janet Leigh, though she feels slightly underused

still.  Danny Huston seems to be typecast in either an outright villainous or at the very least somewhat antagonizing roles, as he dependably plays Alma’s flirtatious friend Whitfield Cook.  Michael Stuhlbarg, Kurtwood Smith, and Michael Wincott give solid turns as Hitchcock’s agent Lew Wasserman, Motion Picture Production Code leader Geoffrey Sherlock, and the vicious Ed Gein.  Jessica Biel is far underutilized in a small part as Vera Miles, an actress tormented by Hitchcock in the past.  James D’Arcy has the pleasure of playing Anthony Perkins, who played the titular character Norman Bates; he is spot-on in his impersonation of the idiosyncratic actor.

For a film regarding somewhat grim subject matter, director Sacha Gervasi keeps Hitchcock fairly upbeat.  With very good leading performances, a fun script, engaging original musical score by master composer Danny Elfman, and an intriguing topic, the film succeeds in entertaining and informing, though it is lighter fare than one may expect from just reading the plot synopsis.  As such, it is not a major work of drama, but a very enjoyable one with a good bit of humor, charm and sufficient drama.  Best of all, it shows Hitchcock the man and not just the legendary director, such as the scene where he delights in an audience’s terrified reaction

to Psycho by dancing along with the screams.  Also, it presents a case for a place for women in the industry and any field really (then and still today to an extent) with Alma’s side of the story.  The ending is also quite funny, with a suitably cheeky epilogue akin to an ending to an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.  This one is well worth watching for a fun and informative time.

Hitchcock – 7.5/10

———————-

Thanks for reading. Film Review: Hitchcock (2012) is a post from The Modern Allegory