Movie Review: "The World's Word" (Edgar Wright, 2013)

APOCALYPSE NAH: WRIGHT'S "WORLD'S" FALLS FLAT
by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 Above: Nick Frost fights for survial in this sci-fi comedy extravaganza

 

A potent and disappointing film.  Director Edgar Wright (whose last venture was “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” a masterful satire of geek romance) reteams with muse and co-writer Simon Pegg, who stars as a drunken half-wit named Gary King.  As a teen, Gary once attempted to consume a pint at twelve different pubs in one night…but didn’t make it.  Now, reunited with his boyhood friends, he’s determined to finish the job and bring some “meaning” to his life.

            This sounds like a perfect set up for a “men behaving badly”/“The Hangover”-esque comedy.  And while there are some shenanigans of that nature, the movie is a strange mix—it combines crude humor with midlife male melodrama (in a climactic scene, Gary sobs sincerely about his suicide counseling) and bizarrely, violent scenes involving murderous alien robots.  The result is a movie that is startlingly unfunny and off-kilter—proof that it may be too early to hail Mr. Wright as a genius.  But the conclusion (which suggests that a world in which humanity is stripped down to its basest instincts might be a healthier, happier one) is intriguing and if the movie never solicits a laugh, it does summon forth the slightest, smallest tear.

Movie Review: "Prisoners" (Denis Villeneuve, 2013)

SICKENING MISERY: "PRISONERS" IS AWFUL TO BEHOLD

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 Above: Paul Dano is interrogated by Jake Gyllenhaal in Mr. Villeneuve's horrifying film

 

When it comes to violence in movies, how much is too much?  That’s the question on my mind as I write this review of “Prisoners,” the new kidnapping drama from Canadian director Denis Villeneuve.  For I long time now, I have bought tickets to awards season films that test your tolerance for watching the unwatchable.  In the case of a powerfully poetic work like “Drive,” that journey is often as rewarding as it is painful.  But “Prisoners” is another matter.  To be blunt, it is the first film in a long time that I found too disturbing to bear.

            The film starts out harmlessly enough.  We meet two couples—Keller and Grace Dover (Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello) and Franklin and Nancy Birch (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis)—who are celebrating Thanksgiving together with their young children.  Several facts things are established in this scene, mainly that the Dovers are affable, a little obnoxious, and thoroughly ordinary (“That’s enough,” Grace tells their daughter Anna when she rings the Birches doorbell multiple times).  But all that is overshadowed when suddenly, the daughters of both families disappear.

            To say the least, this is a horrifying scenario, all the more because Mr. Villeneuve and his editors (Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach, who frequently collaborate with Clint Eastwood) don’t gloss over the disappearance with adrenaline-fueled quick cutting.  Instead, they drag the revelation out, with the parents gradually growing more concerned as they don’t find their daughters in front of the TV, don’t find them out in the yard, and finally don’t find them in the neighborhood at all.  But at this early point, the film doesn’t feel too sickening.

            The main reason for this is that a policeman known only as “Detective Loki” (Jake Gyllenhaal) is quick to arrive on the scene and offer hope for the daughters’ safe return.  And while I can’t fathom why writer Aaron Guzikowski insisted that the character bear the name of Marvel Comics’ most famous villain, I’m glad Mr. Gyllenhaal was cast in the role because for a time, his performance makes the film tolerable, even enjoyable.  As “Proof” showed, Mr. Gyllenhaal makes a superbly affable nerd, but here he creates a character that is almost the opposite—a man who’s inarticulate in normal conversations but cold and shrewd on the job (even though his rage against suspects provides a satisfying outlet for our own horror at the proceedings).  When we first meet Loki, he’s making awkwardly banal chit chat with a waitress but as soon as he gets the call about the abduction of the Birch and Dover children, he seals himself up for a long hunt.

            It is during this hunt that “Prisoners” is at its best.  The mess of red herrings that infest the film’s black and gray shadows reel you in, making you wonder if there’s an answer in the mess.  Indeed, if the film had stuck to the thread of Loki’s search while letting us peer into his firmly controlled psyche, it might have worked.  But it’s not to be.  As soon as Loki fails to press charges against suspect Alex Jones (Paul Dano), Keller Dover decides to go after Jones himself.  Soon, not only has Keller stumbled down a horribly brutal path, but he has plunged the entire film into misery as well.

            You may ask—what kind of misery?  In the main, torture.  Before long, Alex is chained up in an abandoned bathroom with his face covered in blood.  But it keeps getting worse.  Loki is almost certain that Alex is innocent but Keller isn’t convinced.  So he keeps on punching until finally, Alex’s face is so red and swollen that you barely see his eyes under his bloated, brutalized skin.

            Beholding this image in a dark theater, I felt for the first time that “Prisoners” might lose me.  I did hope that there might be some redemptive idea or scene to alleviate the horror of seeing a helpless and harmless young man nearly beaten to death, but it never comes.  Mr. Villeneuve does try a last ditch attempt to reengineer the film as an entertaining suspense thriller (mainly by inserting a sleekly rainy car chase and an evil grandma so demonic that she’s almost a cartoon), but perversely these attempts at cinematic artifice mixed with ugly realism make the film even more sickening.  Somehow, even the story's almost-happy ending doesn’t feel like enough to dullthe pain.

            For all that, it is hard to deny the few merits of “Prisoners.”  After all it is an intelligently crafted piece of work, a film that not only offers many answers to its mystery (at one point, Loki believes Keller might be the kidnapper) while carefully suggesting provocative moral ambiguities, particularly in the discomfortingly believable scenes when the Birches condemn but accept Keller’s torture of Alex in the hope of finding their daughter.  And indeed, in the vein of a film like “Requiem for a Dream,” the movie leaves you almost awestruck at its brutality, even if you can’t withstand it.  On some level, it’s hard not to feel overpowered and even a little impressed.

            But if that doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement, it’s because it’s not.  There are moments in “Prisoners” that are worth watching, like the scene where Loki sits with his hands buried in his greasy hair, convinced he’s failed to find the kids.  But the bottom line is that the level of human to human cruelty on display hear is just too awful to bear.  Watching the film’s depiction of children being tortured and traumatized, I began to hate “Prisoners” just as much as its awful characters.  For at a certain point, they become indistinguishable because the movie is a traumatic experience in itself.

            Despite this, I know there are still those who will defend “Prisoners.”  They might say that the film is superior to run of the mill torture porn because it condemns torture; they might even assert that the film’s target audience—which is likely middle class, college-educated moviegoers with a taste for art cinema—need to have their senses rattled a bit.  But as a college educated middle class moviegoer with a taste for art cinema I say this: I don’t need a morbidly violent film to tell me that horrific things happen.  Living in a world where children get beaten and kidnapped is bad enough without having to watch it happen in a horrible movie as well.

Editorial: The Future of "Star Trek"

“MISSION TO WHERE?” : MUSINGS ON “STAR TREK”’S NEXT VOYAGE

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

“What’s next?”  That was one of the first things I thought as I finished watching “Star Trek Into Darkness” (which was just released on DVD) for the third time.  Indeed, while I enjoyed the movie more than I had previously, it was hard not to wonder what might befall the adventuring crew of the starship Enterprise in the future.  What new adversaries might they encounter?  What new planets might they next explore?  And of course, what new hookups might cause emotional strife throughout the crew?

            We won’t know the answer to any of these questions until the next film’s rumored 2016 release date.  But for now, there are plenty of intriguing hints and setups in “Into Darkness” to begin pondering the possibilities.  So here, for your pleasure, is analysis of what might be next for the heroes of the twenty-third century.

EXPLORATION In the first two films, the Enterprise crew (including Chris Pine’s reckless Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto’s coolly logical Commander Spock) spent most of their time fighting vengeful maniacs with a taste incinerating everything from San Francisco skyscrapers to entire planets.  But that’s likely to change in the next film.  At the end of “Into Darkness,” Kirk announced that he would be leading his crew on a five-year mission into uncharted space to seek out new life and new civilizations (just as he did in the original “Star Trek” television series in the 1960s).  

Considering this new mandate, it seems likely that the new film will be less focused on war and more on the exploration of the unknown.  Of course, all of the “Star Trek” films have focused on action, but Kirk’s new mission opens up the possibility that the crew’s next trek could be a blockbuster in the vein of “Inception”—violent but philosophically complex.  Keep your fingers crossed.

THE RETURN OF KHAN “My name…is Khan!”  With those words, actor Benedict Cumberbatch sent a chill through Kirk and company as he revealed his character’s true identity in “Into Darkness.”  Khan, it turned out, was not a mere terrorist as Kirk initially thought, but a genocidal supremacist hell bent on exterminating anyone he believed to be “less than superior.”  Indeed, Khan turned out to be so clever and powerful that it was only through sheer determination and luck that Kirk and Spock managed to defeat him.

            That’s when things got interesting.  Unlike most “Trek” villains, Khan did not perish in the film’s climax.  Instead, he was taken into custody by the authorities and cryogenically frozen to prevent him from doing anymore damage.  Unfortunately for Kirk and Spock (but fortunately for us), this left the door wide open for Khan to return and resume his role as “Star Trek” villain in chief in future films. 

If we’re lucky, the next “Trek” (or potentially the one after that), could involve Khan’s untimely escape to wreak further havoc, with the help of his followers (who have remained mostly off screen thus far).  This is the most interesting possibility of all.  “Into Darkness” stressed Khan’s emotional attachment to his people heavily, leaving us to wonder what the nature of their relationship with Khan might be like and how they will affect the course of future events.

KIRK AND CAROL MARCUS It’s no secret that in the original series that Kirk had a child with his colleague, Dr. Carol Marcus.  Considering that history and Carol’s presence in “Into Darkness,” the prospect of entwining the lives of the good captain and doctor once more seems too good to resist. 

Perhaps the most enticing thing about this potential romance is the fact that the new “Star Trek” movies do not follow the storylines of the original TV series.  In that version of events, Carol concealed her pregnancy from Kirk and as a result, the captain didn’t meet his son for some time.  But with a clean slate, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (who are reprising their duties as “Star”-scribes for the next film) could change things drastically.  They could even have Kirk and Carol get married if they wanted. 

If anything, the future of Kirk and Carol is what excites me most about the continuation of “Star Trek.”  The idea of an explorer/action hero who is in a serious relationship (or even married with a child) while on a five-year mission through deep space could shake up the series’ status quo and that of blockbuster cinema itself, as our beloved heroes and heroines trek further and further into the unknown. 

Retrospective: Summer 2013

CONFESSIONS AND DISAPPOINTMENTS: SUMMER 2013 IN REVIEW

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson 

“I confess myself…disappointed.”  So said one of the greatest movie villains of all time in a thoroughly memorable film.  But whereas Ralph Fiennes’ Voldemort spoke those words in reference to his treacherous followers, I write them now because they are the only ones I can think of to properly sum of the summer movie season of 2013. 

I know what you’re thinking—was it really that bad?  And the answer is yes.  Oh sure, maybe people who saw different films than I did felt otherwise, but for me the summer’s movies were finely-tuned best and brutally bludgeoning at their worst.  There may have been films I admired, but there were precious few that I passionately loved.

            Still, I wanted to take time to reflect on the season.  And since I haven’t seen enough satisfactory films for a top ten list (or even a top five), I chose to create the following—a best-to-worst list of the past summer’s movies.  It may make for a retrospective tainted by negativity, but in reality it gives me an opportunity to call your attention not only to extremely worthwhile movies like “Blue Jasmine” and “Fruitvale Station,” but flawed films like “The Lone Ranger” and “Star Trek Into Darkness” that didn’t quite work but still spewed some strikingly powerful scenes. 

So, as we set a course for the awards season and begin salivating films as different as Kenneth Branagh’s “Jack Ryan” and James Gray’s “The Immigrant,” don’t forget to glance over your shoulder.  Because for all the flaws in this summer’s movies, there were some wondrous moments, even if they found themselves struggling through fields of rubble, fighting to be seen.

 

Summer 2013: The Films I Saw, From Best To Worst

1.       “In a World…” (Lake Bell)

2.       “Blue Jasmine” (Woody Allen)

3.      “Fruitvale Station” (Ryan Coogler)

4.       “Pacific Rim” (Guillermo Del Toro)

5.       “Much Ado About Nothing” (Joss Whedon)

6.      “Star Trek Into Darkness” (J.J. Abrams)

7.      “The Lone Ranger” (Gore Verbinski)

8.      “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters” (Thor Freudenthal)

9.      “Iron Man 3” (Shane Black)

10.    “The Wolverine” (James Mangold)

11.   “The World’s End” (Edgar Wright)

12.   “The Bling Ring” (Sofia Coppola)

13.   “Only God Forgives” (Nicolas Winding Refn)

14.   “Elysium” (Neill Blomkamp)

15.   “Man of Steel” (Zack Snyder)

See you at the movies this fall!

Ben :)

Movie Review: "In a World..." (Lake Bell, 2013)

A BETTER "WORLD": LAKE BELL'S PASSION PROJECT PREVAILS

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 If you saw Lake Bell’s performance as a betrayed wife in “It’s Complicated” four years ago, you doubtless gathered that she’s a skilled and sympathetic actress.  What you probably didn’t realize is that she is, in the best way possible, insane.  In the new comedy “In a World…,” Ms. Bell not only stars as a burgeoning voiceover artist, but as the film’s writer and director, she suffuses the whole piece with wild eccentricity.  Indeed, by the end of the film you feel as if you’ve taken a crash course in work, life, dating, and to a certain degree, fashion design.

            But I’m getting ahead of myself.  What binds all of this craziness together is Carol Soloman (Ms. Bell), a vocal coach whose career is running out of momentum, a fact that seems to please her sexist, self-satisfied father (Fred Melamed).  But Carol, with a knack for being in the right place at the right time, gradually begins to make a name for herself recording voiceovers for commercials, which makes her a front runner for the job that has everyone in the industry buzzing: voicing the trailer for the forthcoming YA trilogy (excuse me, quadrilogy) “The Amazon Games.”  Now, she’ll have to face down a number of industry big shots (including her own father) in a battle that becomes not only about Carol’s career, but about her having the chance to inspire other women to become voiceover artists.

            With its rhythms of failure and success, it’s easy to imagine another director playing “In a World…” like a sports film, with a disheartened Carol gradually finding the strength to achieve her dreams with a few ups and downs along the way.  But Ms. Bell pursues a stranger and in some ways more enjoyable direction.  For one thing, she makes Carol utterly unflappable—even though she’s often unemployed and reduced to living with her sister, she never seems concerned about her status or her future.  What’s more, the film is not only concerned with Carol’s journey, but with the lives of the myriad of characters around her.  From her tortured sister to her lovelorn co-worker Louis (Demetri Martin), all of Carol’s friends and frenemies receive their due screen time.

            There’s a caveat to this strategy though.  By focusing on so many disparate storylines, the film pulls the plot away from Carol’s career as a voiceover artist.  This may not seem problematic, but what was so enticing about “In a World…” to begin with is that in the trailer it looked like a hilarious peak into an ever present universe that we know little of but secretly love.  Trailer voiceover taglines like, “This summer!” are a huge part of the movie-going experience and I’d hoped that “In a World…” would riff hilariously on the process of creating such iconic sounds.  The romantic and family complications that the film focuses on instead are interesting and often very entertaining, but in some ways their familiar from other films.

            Still, it seems like poor sportsmanship to criticize “In a World…” for what it doesn’t do because what it does do is amiably wonderful.  In particular, the film is a terrific showcase for Ms. Bell.  As Carol, she creates a character with a hilariously one track mind, a woman who subtly slips her tape recorder out of her purse whenever she hears an interesting voice or accent.  Carol’s also a bit of a slob—she spends a lot of the movie lying in bed and wearing overalls.  But that only makes her all the more charming which is why it’s a joy to see her rocking out with Louis towards the film’s end, when the two spend a long night doing karaoke and playing air hockey.  It’s a surreal montage you don’t see coming, but it feels so right that in its insanity, it seems completely and beautifully perfect.  With all its jokes about gargling and (in once case)lemon water, “In a World…” is like that in itself—offbeat yet wonderfully on the mark.

Movie Review: "Short Term 12" (Destin Daniel Cretton, 2013)

HOPE, BUT THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY:

"SHORT TERM 12" IS PAINFUL BUT TRUE by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

As some of you probably know, I’ve worked as a camp counselor for about a decade.  I’ve spent time helping kids with art projects, playing with them at recess, and on one occasion, even teaching the rules of Chess.  It’s something I love to do, so much that when I’m on the job, I can easily imagine it being a full-time career.  What I find a little harder is imagining myself doing the same job as the main characters in Destin Daniel Cretton’s new film “Short Term 12”—working at a home for kids who are troubled, abused, and constantly on the brink of self destruction.

            This may not sound like material for a watchable film and I won’t deny that “Short Term 12” is extremely painful.  But it’s also a worthwhile journey.  It’s elegantly written and executed, but it’s not an artful product made to gush over.  Instead, it’s a piece that brings you in close contact with a group of people whose compassion for one another is matched only by the agony they feel inside.

            Chief among that group is Grace (Brie Larson), whose smooth competence at work hides any trace of inner turmoil (though not for long).  As the main person in charge of working personally with the kids at the home, she knows the rules better than anyone.  “You have to be an asshole before you can be their friend,” she tells a new recruit in the opening scene.  There’s truth to that but it’s still hard to imagine anyone being a better friend to the kids then Grace.  She listens to them, talks to them, draws with them.  She even shares stories from her own life with them, which allows them to open up and grow.

            Ultimately, all of the kids are uniquely pained, from Sammy (Alex Calloway), who suffers from violent outbursts, to Marcus (Keith Stanfield), who is burdened by crippling depression.  But the true crux of the film is Jayden (Kaitlyn Dever), an abused girl who Grace comes to identify and care about deeply.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t help Jayden much.  Even on her birthday, she’s miserable, exploding with such violent force that Grace has to break down her bedroom door and restrain her while she screams, “Why?”

            As I watched this scene, I felt “Short Term 12” hitting a new chord of unbearable sadness.  A part of me wondered if this one excruciating moment would stand alone, but it soon gathers company.  Marcus cutting himself; Grace panicking when she learns her abusive father is about to be released from prison…all of these scenes take you into a world where everybody seems to be hurting.  At first, the whole film seems based around the question of whether or not Grace can help the kids survive, but it soon becomes clear that the traumas she’s suffered have left her just as vulnerable.  She may not be trying to kill herself like Marcus, but she’s just as angry and scared as Jayden, maybe even more so.

            I know what you’re thinking—if “Short Term 12” is so painful, why should I watch it?  Well, I have an answer to that and I hope it will convince you to seek out Mr. Cretton’s movie as soon as possible.  Without doubt, this director has crafted a movie that is sometimes hard to bear.  But despite their horrible circumstances, there’s goodness in all of the characters.  Grace and the other people who work at the home are certainly capable of true generosity that we see throughout the film, but the kids are as well.  Even Marcus, who’s almost completely lost in his own pain, cares about everyone else.  When Jayden runs to her room, it’s Marcus who gets out the construction paper and tells everyone to get started on a fresh batch of birthday cards. 

            So—“Short Term 12” is not blind to the perils of recovery.  But as much as it emphasizes trauma and abuse, it emphasizes the hope beyond them.  The film may paint Grace’s job as a hellish experience that can consume you, but she truly is making the world a better place with each conversation with the kids, with each moment.  Her job is in some ways an awful one, but above all completely worthwhile and the same is true of “Short Term 12.”

Movie Review: "Blue Jasmine" (Woody Allen, 2013)

TRUE BLUE: ALLEN'S LATEST IS A MELANCHOLY GIFT
by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

There is a moment at the end of Woody Allen’s “Blue Jasmine” where the titular heroine (played by Cate Blanchett) sits on a park bench, her wet hair and washed out face perfectly matched by the fact that she’s talking to herself.  Anyone would say that she’s crazy.  And yet she’s not quite the Jasmine we know from the rest of the film.  That Jasmine is cocky, stylish, twitchy, obnoxious, and, above all, loveable. 

It may seem impossible that such dissimilar traits could exist within one person, but “Blue Jasmine” is not an ordinary film.  It is more melancholy and conventional than Mr. Allen’s most recent efforts and it contains a truly abnormal performance by Ms. Blanchett.  While she is usually stiff and charismatically mannered (as in “The Aviator” and “I’m Not There”), as Jasmine she comes to life as full-blooded human being who is guilty not of doing anything particularly wrong, but of looking the other way when others do.

            In this case, “others” refers to her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin) a philanthropist living off a stolen fortune.  He’s a notably despicable character, but Jasmine loves him and loves the lifestyle that his affluence offers even more.  She thrives at elegant dinner parties and in expensive shops where she flouts her prestige and good taste over her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins).  Indeed, Jasmine is so immersed in this lush existence that she never seems to emerge, even when Hal is arrested and breaks his own neck while in jail.  So deluded is our heroine that on a plane ride to San Francisco, she chats easily about Hal’s finesse between the sheets, as if nothing has changed.

            Nothing could be further from the truth.  When Jasmine arrives in San Francisco, she moves in with Ginger and has to face not only living with a sibling with whom she has nothing in common, but the reality of having to make money and find a job.  It is here in these early scenes of adjustment that the movie feels most queasy.  Jasmine is not just any “fallen woman”—she’s the wife of a criminal, a criminal’s whose actions she casually condoned.  In San Francisco, she meets some of Hal’s victims and the way their anger seems to press against Jasmine’s perfectly groomed façade is frighteningly invasive, even if it is justified.

            You may ask: what’s the point of all this?  I wish I had a satisfying answer.  But “Blue Jasmine” is not about answers—it’s about anger and messiness.  There are moments when Jasmine seems triumphant, like when she imperiously lectures her two nephews about life (“Always tip big, boys”).  But those scenes usually fade into fits of comedic despair, wherein Ms. Blanchett usually storms from the room, washing down pills with water and vodka.  Between her disdain for Ginger and her friends and her penchant for lying, there are moments when I wondered if Jasmine is any better than Hal.

            And yet, I wanted her to succeed.  I won’t deny that my crush on a certain actress was part of the reason for that—Ms. Blanchett looks breathtakingly beautiful throughout the whole movie, even when her smooth features are torn by mascara stains.  But it’s also that Mr. Allen and Ms. Blanchett make you understand her.  Jasmine's desire to be swept back into the comfortable, leisurely world of the wealthy might be shallow, but who could resist the same?  After all, the movie makes the Upper East Side world of red dresses and silver earrings look mightily seductive.  And by the same count it’s hard to blame Jasmine for concealing her criminal history once she arrives in SF.  She seems to think that by pretending none of it happened, she can contain her despair.  Of course such a notion is ridiculous, but who among us could do any better?

            In some ways, I think Mr. Allen could have.  His writing and direction seem faultless until the final scene when the film abruptly cuts to the credits, leaving us to wonder what fate might have in store for Jasmine.  It’s a cruel trick, making us care about such a character and then refusing to tell us whether she sinks even lower or rallies.  Yet it’s hard to feel much enmity towards the movie.  “Blue Jasmine” has its share of villains, from Mr. Baldwin’s casually cruel entrepreneur to Louis C.K.’s demonically deceitful lothario.  But Mr. Allen has sympathy for all of his other characters, especially the ones who are hurt by others and flail, like battered swimmers, to reach the surface once more.