Silver Linings Playbook: 3 stars

Silver Linings Playbook (SLP) is a good movie, but not award winning. In fact, I wouldn't have nominated any of the actors for awards, Academy or otherwise. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I just didn't understand all the hype a perfectly fine movie received. 

SLP is the sixth full length feature film from writer/director David O. Russell. It's the story of Pat (Bradley Cooper), a patient recently released from a mental institution looking to get his life back on track. He lives with his parents, goes running, and reads books from the syllabus of his wife's class hoping it will help bring them back together. He meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) who is also dealing with her own issues and possible mental illness. They grow closer and events lead to Pat agreeing to enter a dance competition with Tiffany. Oh yeah, everyone in his life is obsessed with the Philadelphia Eagles. It gets more complicated than that, but you know me, I'd rather you find out the details on your own. 

 I guess I should admit that I've only really loved one of Russel's films; Flirting With Disaster. The Fighter was good too, but Russell made the mistake of miscasting Mark Wahlberg, allowing him to be completely overshadowed by Christian Bale, and Amy Adams and Melissa Leo. With SLP he makes the mistake of not staying true to the characters or the authenticity that put him on the map with Flirting With Disaster. 

Rotten Tomatoes states, "Silver Linings Playbook walks a tricky thematic tightrope, but David O. Russel's sensitive direction and some sharp work from a talented cast gives it true balance." I guess the theme this quote refers to is mental illness? I'm not quite sure why we're acting like this is either a tricky or new subject. I believe Ordinary People proved the theme to be manageable and a also a great example of a much more authentic and award worthy film than SLP. You're probably thinking that this is an awfully negative three-star review thus far. So, let me back up a bit and start with the positives. 

Bradley Cooper is indeed great. He handles the manic episodes with great calmness and restraint avoiding the usual pitfalls of playing a character with mental illness. I guess I would call it the "OH MY GOD I'M CRAZY LOOK AT ME!" syndrome. Unfortunately, there is one scene where the character of Tiffany dips a toe into that pool (the diner scene). Luckily for us Tiffany is played by Jennifer Lawrence who oozes an incredible amount of likability and charm even when she's being kind of a jerk.  The film runs 122 minutes but it barely felt like I was watching it for 90. It's an immersive, touching and sometimes funny story played by seasoned actors (and one budding one) who are a joy to watch. The climax of the dance scene even delivers as we hoped it would for the first 110 minutes. So what's my beef?

In one of the special features Bradley Cooper is being interviewed and talks about how "real" these characters are. He states they're real people with real problems, or something close to that. My issue is that these characters may mirror real people, but the film is not an authentic reflection. Russell tries so very hard to create a real family, real interaction, real family rooms and real outfits that he forgets to help the actors portray them authentically by reminding them that they don't always have to be yelling or talking very very loudly. I brought up Flirting With Disaster earlier with good reason. That film is the complete opposite of SLP in this regard; it has a completely unrealistic and oddball premise but fully authentic characters. I don't want to get into a double review so I hope you've seen that film as and know what I'm referring to. There are definite moments of tenderness and authenticity in SLP, but I feel they're a bit overshadowed by the scenes that are not (like the diner/movie theater scene). 

So that's my beef. I disagree that Russell found true balance, but this is still a positive review. I enjoyed the movie, loved Jennifer Lawrence and definitely think you should check it out. Maybe you'll think it's award worthy as well. 

2012: Patrick's Year In Review

Sometimes, this is how reviewing movies makes me feel. 

You probably didn't miss me and didn't really notice, but I haven't reviewed many films this year. In writing the critiques I have completed so far, I have gained a great respect for those who write them as an occupation. I just can't seem to muster up the energy it takes me to analyze a film in full, nor the discipline it takes to really WATCH a film with the goal of critiquing it. The viewing just isn't the same as plopping down with some snacks to loose yourself in a movie. I could write like Peter Travers, but that just isn't my style. (honestly, what is the point of him "writing" a review besides the tagline?) So I'll instead summarize everything for you in a neat little package below. I really enjoy the discussion much more than my sole point of view and hope to possibly continue this blog in 2013, with more frequent entries and a different approach. Where have I heard that before? Anyway...

First let me point out that these lists are missing many of the top films from the year because I haven't seen them yet. I'm sure I'll treat you to an updated list once I see them all. The films from 2012 I hope to view shortly in 2013 are The Dark Knight Rises, ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, Sleepwalk With Me, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, The Amazing Spiderman, Brave, Kill List, Argo & Django Unchained. I expect a few of those to bump other titles from my current list, while the others just look like fun and I want to see them. 

First up: 

THE BAD

The Woman In Black, 21 Jump Street, Wanderlust, Underworld: Awakening,  Hugo(2011), Horrible Bosses(2011) and Don't be Afraid of the Dark(2011)

Your first thought was probably, "Hugo? Really?" Yes. Hugo. I guess my section titles don't allow for any leeway as I don't think Hugo is a bad film by any stretch of the word. It falls into a yet to be named category that Rango fell in last year; it just didn't grab me. It's an epic film from one of the best directors of all time and I just didn't care what was happening on the screen. If I was an older movie goer, or knew who Georges Melies was, I suspect I may have been more easily swept off my feet. I definitely appreciate the effort and sentiment, but Hugo was a huge disappointment for me.

21 Jump Street was a cute try with some funny moments but just didn't do it for me. Wanderlust was simply unfunny, but that's how it is with David Wain and friends; when you swing so wildly the misses are bad but the connections are home runs. The first two films of the Underworld series are one of my guilty pleasures. This one was completely forgettable. I literally couldn't tell you what happened. Horrible Bosses has it's moments, but...EH. That leaves the two horror movies, which I'll say up front are still worth renting if you like horror movies. The Woman In Black and Don't Be Afraid of The Dark both have great atmosphere and ideas but just don't execute the scares. I'd definitely rate The Woman In Black above the other. Side note: if you like horror movies (especially vampire ones) check out Stakeland from 2010. One of the best movies I've watched this year, but I didn't feel right including it since it was from 2010. It's not award winning in any way, but it is everything you would ever hope for in a low budget vampire flick. 

Next:

THE GOOD (2011)

Moneyball, 50/50, Hanna, Midnight in Paris, Young Adult, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Source Code, X-Men: First Class, The Muppets and Fright Night. 

There aren't any surprises here except maybe Fright Night so I'm not going to waste too much of your time. Fright Night is a fun popcorn movie for you vampire fans. This is 100% a remake. If you're a fan of the original, don't go expecting any miracles.  Colin Farrell is pretty funny as the vamp.

I started writing a full review for Moneyball but never got to it. It's a beautiful film and it's about baseball. More specifically it takes a specific moment in baseball history and illustrates why competitive sports are fascinating and loved. I adored how Bennett Miller handled the relationship between Billy Beane and his daughter. Those scenes really make the movie. I would love to be Scott Hatteburg.

I also want to focus on Source Code. This is a film I had zero desire to see. The only thing that made me hit play was that it was Duncan Jones' follow up to Moon, which was fantastic. I have a hunch that Mr. Jones was subject to creative and casting restrictions that come with having a big studio/big budget release. I think Source Code would have a completely different feel if it was done on the same budget as Moon. However, the story itself and execution of that story is what drew me into Source code and if you had no desire to see it either I hope you reconsider.

Finally:

THE GOOD (2012)

Looper, Prometheus, Safety Not Guaranteed, Jeff Who Lives at Home, The Grey, Goon, Haywire, The Avengers, Les Miserables, Moonrise Kingdom, The Cabin In The Woods and The Innkeepers

The above list is ascending from favorite to least favorite of the favorites. 

Looper is fantastic and in ten to fifteen years will be looked back on as a classic. I wouldn't call it EPIC like many wanted Prometheus to be, or Blade Runner ended up being, but it's hard to deny how well made it is on all levels in addition to being wholly unique.

Oh Prometheus, how polarizing you are. This film floored me from start to finish. I loved it. However, after further discussion with friends and reading other points of view, I can see how some might find parts "ridiculous" and as a whole not the classic that fans of Alien and Ridley Scott hoped it would be. However, this brings me to my point of getting some snacks and loosing yourself in a film. All expectations aside I was completely lost in it,  I loved the new world that Scott and Co. created and it left me immediately looking forward to seeing the next installment (hoping that everyone is still on board). 

I suppose Safety Not Guaranteed and Jeff Who Lives at Home are both what would be called "Indie Darlings". Interestingly they each have one or both of the Duplass brothers involved. Jeff Who Lives at Home is directed by The Duplass Brothers and Safety Not Guaranteed stars Mark Duplass. They both have very endearing leads, wonderful acting and great stories. Check them out. 

The Grey completely caught me off guard. Not that I wasn't expecting it to be good, as I read in more than one place on the Internet that it was more than the trailer suggested, but I definitely wasn't expecting a Liam Neeson action movie about escaping wolves in Alaska to make me cry like a baby at the end. I don't what it is with these nature films that explore the human condition (see Into the Wild) but they get to me. So if you weren't into seeing this film because you didn't really care about watching some guys fight CGI wolves, I urge you to reconsider. 

Goon is a good hockey flick about enforcers. It has a great performance from Sean William Scott as the lovable main character which really makes me love it the way I do. 

Haywire is a badass spy movie from Steven Soderbergh. The fight scenes are worth it alone. 

I don't think I really need to go into detail about The Avengers. ASSEMBLE!

Les Miserables was really good. Not great, not mind blowing, not a classic, but just good. Anne Hathaway's performance of I Dreamed a Dream is pretty intense. Tom Hooper's director of photography is fantastic. 

I write about Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom knowing that when I saw Wes Anderson's Life Aquatic in theaters I walked about really disappointed. I think at that time I was hoping for some sort of development or progress from Anderson as a director. I know now that he is what he is and is probably at the top of his game. Life Aquatic is probably now my second or third favorite Wes Anderson film. Moonrise Kingdom is no let down, but it is more of the same. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. 

The Cabin In The Woods and The Innkeepers are probably the first two off my list if any of the unseen films of 2012 rise to the top. However, that doesn't mean they're not great. They're both horror movies, but at completely different ends of the spectrum. The Innkeepers is a throwback to classic psychological horror and The Cabin In the Woods is a critique on horror films as a whole. If you're a fan of the genre I hope you get to see both. 

That's it. Discuss. 

Young Adult: 3.5 Stars

Soon after her divorce, the ghost-writer of a popular fiction series returns to her hometown with plans of winning back her Highschool love who is now happily married with a newborn. 
**note, there are very slight spoilers in this review

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) has issues. This is brought to our attention in the very first scenes of Young Adult. Before the open credits roll we already know that she most likely has a drinking problem, is lonely and starved for attention, has writers block and that all signs point to her dealing with a serious bout of depression. The birth announcement received from an old Highschool love doesn't help the situation.  It does, however, serve as motivation for her to go back to her hometown to visit her old flame Buddy (Patrick Wilson) and try to rekindle their love.

Young Adult is directed by Jason Reitman who at only 35 years of age is proving to be one of the brightest young directors in Hollywood. He brought us Thank You For Smoking, Juno, Up In The Air and now Young Adult in which he re-teams with Juno writer Diablo Cody. That's a pretty damn impressive first four movies. For those turned off by the dialogue in Juno can rest assured that Cody pulls in the reigns and delivers a sharp and witty script without all the "honest to blog" distractions. With Young Adult Reitman is as confident and precise as ever, and he has to be because his main character is pretty detestable. Since watching the film I've been asking myself why it exists. Going by the trailer you might think this is a comedy. It's funny but in an uncomfortable way. Your laughs will more than likely be defense mechanisms (I hope) to deal with the actions and words of the main characters. So, what is the point of this story? Why should I tell other people to watch such a detestable main character? 

The answer to that question starts (after the previously mentioned direction of Reitman) with Charlize Theron. It can be argued that this role is the best of her career.  She is a master of the body language and facial twitches/distortions of the severely cynical and emotionally damaged Gary. She is controlled and never over the top. From the opening credits where she is singing along to the mix tape Buddy gave her (the same song over and over; you know you've done it too), to scoffing at a blind date's humanitarian efforts before realizing it may have hurt her chances at sleeping with him, to pretending she remembers who Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt) is when she really doesn't; she is absolutely perfect and painfully joyous to watch. 

The answer continues with Patton Oswalt as Freehauf and the relationship his character develops with Theron's Gary. They meet early on at a local watering hole and become partners in cynicism and self destruction. While they appear to be polar opposites, the parallels found between the two characters are fascinating. He is constantly trying to keep her from tearing a marriage apart, and appears to be the voice of reason, but it slowly becomes more and more apparent that he has more in common with Gary then he chooses to admit. 

The issues arise as the climax is reached and the viewer realizes that no one has learned anything. Its a really tough story to sell as filmmakers. There is no one to root for. Moviegoers usually want some hope, some growth in the characters, some sort of cathartic realization or at the very least a resolution. Unfortunately, you're not going to get that with Young Adult. It's a story about a damaged person, who finds someone else damaged and they stew in each others bad attitudes. However, people like this exist and I think their stories are interesting and deserve to be told. They may have been better people earlier in their lives, they have excuses for their issues (questionable parenting, divorce, a  traumatic beating), and it's possible that they might change in the future, however in the running time of this film they are who they are. I think there are redeeming aspects in the actions of the other character's in the film, mainly Buddy and his wife Beth, who are more aware of Mavis' issues then she is herself. I also have no doubt that there are people out there who will relate to Mavis Gary and Matt Freehauf and while the character's don't resolve anything by the end of the film, the viewers who relate to them may learn a little about themselves.

So why should you watch Young Adult? It's a wonderfully crafted film with outstanding performances by Theron and Oswalt that challenges you to find joy in watching two people stumble through a short period in their lives.

A Look Back at 2011 (insert sigh here)

That's me, looking back at 2011. Get it?

At the conclusion of the most recent episode of Ebert Presents: At the Movies Roger and Chaz Ebert took the time to thank the supporters of the series and hinted at yet another end to the series due to financial reasons. During the statement Roger Ebert said something that made me take a step back. I don't want to misquote him so I'll just say it was something to the effect of how the interest in the show showed there is still a place for serious film criticism on television. It's that one word choice, criticism, which speaks volumes about Ebert himself, about the public and artist's view of critics (art, film, food etc.) and also opened my eyes as to why I really don't like writing "serious criticisms" of film. I come from the practice of fine art where I would constantly have my work critiqued. As an art student, part of your studies is to learn how to properly critique something, not criticize. We critique not only to help the artist grow, but the viewer as well. Criticism helps no one and does nothing but boost the ego of the criticizer. I'm quite sure Roger Ebert's Ego is humungous. Filmmakers are artists, just as painters and sculptors are, and their work should be critiqued not criticized (Limitless doesn't qualify as art). So when I (insert sigh here) convey my disappointment with the fact that yet again in 2011 I have only watched twelve films from the year, it's not because I'm saddened that I couldn't criticize them but rather because I love the medium and everything about it and wish I could have seen more. When you sit down to watch a movie with the goal of writing a review, the fun is sucked out of the experience. I found myself pre-occupied and not enjoying the experience as much. Therefore, I now decide to write a review afterwards only if the mood strikes me. I love watching, critiquing & discussing films and more importantly I'm fascinated with how the art form can affect me emotionally and on a personal level. Overall, the twelve movies I was able to catch from 2011 were excellent.

I started out 2011 catching up on titles I missed in 2010. I've already posted my reviews (or critiques) of Humpday, The Social Network and The Town, but I also viewed The Kids Are All Right, Cyrus, It's Kind of a Funny Story, 127 Hours, The American, Despicable Me, Machete, Hereafter, Going the Distance, Due Date, Black Swan and The King's Speech. I also completed the "Dragon Tattoo" series with The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest and finally watched Guillermo Del Toro's debut full length Cronos. Out of the 2010 movies, my top three would be The American, 127 Hours and Hereafter. Going the Distance would be a close fourth, but only because it's just not in the same category of the other three and had a weak ending (it is hilarious though). The King's Speech was good, Colin Firth was outstanding, however I didn't get all the hype. It was just good. I guess I just wasn't as uplifted as everyone else. Black Swan was also excellent but after letting it sit for a while I became more aware of it's simplicity and hokeyness. Natalie Portman's searing performance and Aronofsky's visuals were really the only reasons it was so successful, but as a whole it was lacking something. I think it may have benefited from being more grounded and aware of itself. I'd have to post full reviews to deliver my full opinions, however I can't say enough about 127 Hours, The American and Hereafter. If you don't like long melodrama's with spiritual undertones, then definitely stay away from Hereafter. If you liked What Dreams May Come, I think you'll appreciate Hereafter. I was captivated by it. The American is a classic slow burn thriller from the great Aton Corbijn (Control and many Depeche Mode videos) and features George Clooney at his finest as well as beautiful cinematography. 127 Hours is just amazing and worth all the praise it received. Machete was awful and a huge disappointment from Robert Rodriguez who seems content in fulfilling everyone's criticisms instead of blossoming all of his great qualities as a writer/director/editor. Despicable Me was also somewhat disappointing and another that didn't live up to the hype. I just simply didn't respond to it as much as other people seemed to (kind of like The Incredibles). It's Kind of a Funny Story has a lot of unfulfilled potential but is still worth renting. Due Date was also disappointing but still worth a few laughs. As for the rest, I would give The Kids Are All Right, Cronos, The Girl Who... and Cyrus three star, maybe three and a half, positive critiques. Now that I have lost your attention, on to 2011!

Here are the twelve films of 2011 I had the pleasure of watching in order from my favorite to least favorite: Drive, The Tree of Life, Bridesmaids (three times), The Interrupters, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Super8, Attack the Block, Captain America, The Green Hornet, The Adjustment Bureau, Rango and Limitless. There is a steep drop off in quality from Attack the Block to Captain America (although I still really enjoyed that as a fun superhero summer flick and would give it three stars) and then again from The Adjustment Bureau to Rango. As beautiful as Rango was to look at I was just not into it AT ALL. I'm not quite sure why, but while I was watching it I just couldn't care less about what happened. It could have been my mood but it also could have been the writing. It is NOWHERE near as bad as Limitless, but ranking from an enjoyment point of view it unfortunately lands here.  Visually it is definitely something to behold. We all know what I thought of Limitless from my full review, and we don't need to revisit that one. I think The Adjustment Bureau is summed up nicely by a statement from my friend Teresa who said, "The hats were cool." Yep, the hat device was very cool. Matt Damon was good (duh), the story had potential, but yet again something was missing and the movie as a whole didn't live up to the original material from Philip K. Dick. I think it was the fact that it is a Sci-fi movie without enough Sci-fi. Still worth renting though. I had positive reactions to the rest of the pack and obviously some more positive than others. I completely don't understand the horribly negative feedback that the Green Hornet received. I thought it was a lot of fun and the chemistry of Seth Rogen and Jay Chou was great. It was funny, action packed and entertaining. I can see a luke warm or disappointed reaction, but critics tore it apart which was not deserved at all. Captain America and Attack the Block represent the middle of the pack. I was pleasantly surprised by Captain America. I saw it in the theatre and had a blast. It's no comic book film masterpiece like Batman Begins, but it is a solid adaptation and well crafted all around. I absolutely loved the retro visuals.  There are a lot of Chris Evans haters out there, which is understandable, but I've been converted since his appearance in Scott Pilgrim and now after seeing him in this. I highly recommend Attack the Block as it is a refreshing take on an alien invasion flick and you might respond even more positively than I did. I enjoyed it, but wasn't blown away. Super8 is exactly what I thought it would be; an excellent Spielbergian alien adventure film with J.J. Abrams' fingerprints. It didn't rise to the heights I had hoped, which is to be a classic, but it is really really good. Unfortunately, I am still processing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. There is a lot to process. I know it's great, I'm pretty sure it's excellent, I know Rooney Mara should be nominated for an Oscar but it's the comparisons to the original I'm still wrestling with. See my previous review for my take on The Interrupters. I've watched Bridesmaids three times, two times in theaters, which speaks for how much I enjoyed it. It's really really really funny and Kristen Wiig is the best. Which leaves us with Drive and The Tree of Life. I'm going to have to say that these are interchangeable in the top spot. Drive has more repeat viewing value, but when looking at them as works of art The Tree of Life rises slightly above Drive and heads and shoulders above the rest. However, Drive was just so unbelievably badass, in addition to being artfully crafted, that I would say it is my outright favorite of 2011. The point of movies is to enjoy yourself and while The Tree of Life is amazing, I enjoyed myself more with Drive. Word of warning for The Tree of Life; it's not for everyone. If you aren't already aware of how people walked out on it at Cannes and how split critics are on it, then this is your warning. It is a film that is better suited for the corner video installation room of an art museum then your local cineplex. I think it's a great sign that this had such a huge release from a major studio as it's very very unconventional and doesn't really contain any obvious narrative. There are definitive themes and subjects, but no narrative. Just open yourself to the film, let it wash over you and it may be a really moving experience. You could also hate it, and that's cool.

So, that wraps it up. I Hope I gave you some reminders of some movies to check out if you haven't already and some insight into which ones may be more for you. I hope 2012 brings even more masterpieces and progress in the medium and that I can watch more than twelve 2012 films. Thanks for reading.

Limitless: 1 star

*this will be a humorous review because this movie is awful

"A writer discovers a top-secret drug which bestows him with super human abilities." This is from IMDB and a horrible summary. I guess who ever updates IMDB didn't think this movie deserved the time it takes to write a proper summary. He doesn't discover it, someone he knows gives it to him. It doesn't' make him super human; that makes it sound like he can fly and shoot webs from his wrists. It just makes him smart, which last time I checked wasn't super human. However, the people involved in this film's production may think otherwise. 

Seriously, I went into this film with absolutely no expectations. I just wanted to have fun with it. I knew it wasn't Shawshank Redemption. I just wanted to turn my brain off and watch Bradley Cooper be cool. Unfortunately this film hurt my brain. I had to turn it off. That's right, please welcome Limitless to the very small group of films (three I think) that Patrick Mooney couldn't finish watching. I guess these days I just don't have the time to waste. I'm 30, I have things to do...like sit on the couch and watch anything but this. I gave Limitless one star instead of zero because it does have Bradley Cooper in it, and Bradley Cooper was in Wet Hot American Summer (which looks like Hamlet next to Limitless) therefore Limitless gets one star. 

One of the aspects of the film that was a huge turn off was it's treatment of women, or lack thereof. Limitless could be used to teach a college level film studies/media course on the treatment of women in modern society; specifically in media and film. If anyone still thinks women are now treated as equals and sexism is over then please watch this movie. Example: Eddie Mora's (Cooper) girlfriend breaks up with him at the start of the movie. Eddie is failing as a writer, doesn't take care of himself anymore and is a horrible boyfriend. He's no longer the man she fell in love with.  She delivers a very well thought out reason for her decision and they part amicably. Eddie obtains the magic pills and becomes smart and successful. He then bumps into his ex on the street and says some stuff that is really smart. He's also no longer dressed like a homeless person. She immediately (give or take a few hours) disrobes and has sex with him. Only after a few weeks does she realize that he still isn't the guy she fell in love with years ago. Oh, and prior to his ex, he met a few other women along the way who reacted the same way. Apparently you gals only care about suits and money and absolutely love New York club bathrooms; so romantic. I guess her previous reasoning for leaving him was a lie and she really only cared that he looked gross and had writers block (remember: he wasn't dumb, he just had writers block). 

Another turnoff was the direction. Director Neil Burger uses an absolutely nauseating effect to portray passage of time while Eddie is on the "medication". It's kind of hard to explain, but it's basically blocks and blocks of city streets collapsing into the 2D plane of the TV. It's meant to seem like you are travelling quickly down these streets, but since the images are coming towards you while you stay still it feels more like everything is collapsing into the viewers brain instead of the viewer moving forward. It's awful. Other than that, nothing really impressive to report artistically. 

Basically Limitless is a waste of your time. Unless you want to have an "objectifying women" drinking game I would stay away from this one.

Drive: 4 stars

A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheel man discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

Drive is nothing like Fast and the Furious. Lets get that straight out of the way. Apparently I missed something in the advertising, but I'll assume more than one person thought that Drive was going to be a gear head action movie since the studio was sued by a woman who felt she was led astray by the trailers. When there was little to no dialogue for the first twenty minutes and an 80's synth soundtrack she probably realized The Driver (Ryan Gosling) wasn't going to be anything like Paul Walker. 

Drive is directed by Nicolas Winding Refn who brought us Valhalla Rising, Bronson and the Pusher series. While I haven't seen any of those films (except the first 10 minutes of Valhalla Rising) I certainly do know a little about them and that was enough to know Drive wasn't going to be what it seemed. No matter what impression the trailer left on me I figured I'd be in for a surprise; and what a giddy surprise it was. Drive is, simply put, an extremely badass art house flick. It's hard to call it action because the action is sparse and brief. It's not really a chase film because there are only a few. The best way to describe it is a modern and twisted Bullitt, but even that doesn't really work. Drive stands alone and while the story isn't that original the delivery of that story certainly is. 

Drive works well on many levels. It's beautifully shot, has solid acting (some great), gritty violence and a good story. However, what makes it excellent is the mysterious main character. The Driver is known as just that, or Kid as his boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) calls him, and that's what he does; he drives. He is a stunt driver part time in movies, a mechanic at Shannon's body shop, and he moonlights as a nameless getaway driver whose rules you must abide by if you want to get away. He knows cars and can do anything behind the wheel. We don't know his name, where he came from, who his family is or how he got where he is; we just know he's been there a few years. It's this mystery that makes his actions so fascinating and we realize we're watching the origin story of a legend. Shannon has a business partner Bernie (a fantastic Albert Brooks) who agrees to front Shannon money to invest in a stock car that The Driver will drive (duh). Let's just say we get the impression that Bernie isn't a legitimate businessman. The Driver has a neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) who cares for her young son while her husband is in jail. The Driver helps her out for a few weeks, bonds with her and her son and then her husband Standard gets out of jail. The story then kicks into full gear with The Driver agreeing to help Standard with a heist that goes wrong. It gets complicated, but as always I'll let you discover the important parts on your own. 

There are a few scenes that are there to simply illustrate that The Driver, while the hero of this story, is not a very nice man. We don't know much about him and we probably don't want to or need to. The important thing is that this time all of The Driver's actions and decisions are based in the desire to help Irene and her son in anyway he can. 

By the end of the film we can see someone in our minds, two years later, telling the story of the The Driver. He knows somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody who knew him. He doesn't have all the details of his life, but what he does for Irene and her son are bigger than life. Isn't that what legends are all about? It's not necessarily what they do, but why they do it. Life isn't black and white and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to be a real human being; to be a real hero.

http://youtu.be/-DSVDcw6iW8

The Interrupters: 4 stars

Shot over a year during the time Chicago became a national symbol of urban violence, The Interrupters is shot from the point of view of three "Interrupters" who work with the organization Cease Fire to stop the cycle of violent culture in the city. 

I will try to stay un-biased in this review as my love for Steve James is no secret. I saw Hoop Dreams three times in the theater (at 3 hours long, I deserve to brag) , I've watched Stevie multiple times on DVD and couldn't wait to check out The Interrupters after seeing the trailer. While I feel that The Interrupters is his third best film (Reel Paradise comes in last) that makes it no less worth seeing as they're all amazing documentaries. The Interrupters feels to me like James had a little less invested personally, but his at arms length documentarian style is a perfect fit for this material. 


Anyone from a big city knows when the most violence occurs; Summertime. Something about the heat makes people go crazy. The Interrupters is broken up into four segments by season and drops us right into the thick of things during a hot Summer day argument. It is interesting to watch because while it is a documentary the film still follows the formula of any well paced film; start off strong and get people hooked, lay out the story structure, dig deeper into the characters while letting the story unfold and finish as strong as you started (this can be either a positive or negative outcome). First we are introduced to Ameena Matthews as she attempts to mediate the above mentioned argument. While it ended with some bruises and missing teeth, it could have ended in death if she wasn't there. She's the daughter of Jeff Fort who is one of Chicago's most notorious gangsters. He is currently serving a life sentence for conspiring with Libya to commit domestic acts of terrorism. She wasn't always the woman we're introduced to either. Through interviews with other employees and founders of Cease Fire we are then brought up to speed with their goal; to stop the spread of violence through interrupting it. Of course they go into more theory then that, but I don't want to spoil everything for you. Then we meet Cobe Williams and Eddie Bocanegra who are the two other interrupters whom the film focuses on. Both have spent time in jail and are dealing with their own demons. The film jumps back and forth between these three subjects. In addition to their normal everyday mediations each has their own special case. Sometimes it isn't enough to just intervene; you have to help a person grow to keep them from succumbing to the virus that is taking over their neighborhood. 


What makes The Interrupters so powerful is how close the filmmakers are able to get to their subjects. These people are in areas of Chicago where I, as a Chicagoan by proximity and association, would never set foot in voluntarily. They get footage that is everything the cliche quotations from the trailers suggest; gut wrenching and raw. We are exposed to situations, conversations and locations that without this film many of us would never be able to experience. With that sentence the beauty of the documentary is explained. We are given a window into the subjects' world and the subjects are given a voice they didn't previously have. It's documentary filmmaking 101 really. They chose a great subject, got great footage of amazing people and edited it together to tell their story well. What sets James and his films apart from the material of documentarians such as Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore is that James' only desire is to tell someone else's story and not his own. That's a beautiful thing and something Michael Moore should think about. James finds beauty and knowledge in the world around him and wants to share that with you. Im so happy he does as his small canon of work is something to behold. 


You may wonder why I ranked The Interrupters third amongst James' films and not higher. Well for me it was the smaller amount of footage. Hoop dreams and Stevie were both shot over much longer periods of time and had longer running times. They just felt more dense. I felt like we could have been given more with The Interrupters. By choosing to shoot for only a year we don't get the character growth we get in his other films. Considering the power of the footage they do have, it really is a small complaint. There is plenty of conversation to be had over what we are given and there is no question it is good enough to earn four stars. 


Go see The Interrupters as soon as you can. Then, if you haven't yet, watch Hoop Dreams and Stevie. If things get a little heavy feel free to slip Reel Paradise in there to take a break from the weight of the  other three.