Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

SIDE NOTE:

The review below was published in January of 2013 for my local online newspaper, the Skokie Patch.  I realized today that I forgot to post it here.  What makes it relevant is my final paper in melodrama will focus on this film and its underlying moral structure and ambiguous ending.  Funny thing is I am arguing against the very thing I said the film was about, a man hunt.  But besides that, I stand by everything I wrote here.  Enjoy!

 

It’s not about politics.  It’s not about racism.  And it definitely is not about justice for all.  Zero Dark Thirty is about one thing – a man hunt – and that man is Osama bin Laden.  Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker) successfully took nearly a decade of research and whittled it down to give viewers, in my opinion, an authentic portrayal of the greatest man hunt in American history.   

The film wastes no time in getting to the nitty-gritty.  Opening in Pakistan at a Black Site, Dan (Jason Clarke), a CIA agent, introduces Maya (Jessica Chastain), a newly-assigned CIA Agent, to the interrogation process.  It only takes a few minutes before Dan water boards a detainee and later pulls his pants down, displaying the fecal stains on his buttocks.  It is these “enhanced interrogation techniques” that the CIA and lawmakers criticize the film as being inaccurate and misleading.  

What I like to remember when watching a film that is “based on real events” is that it is only “based” on those events, not a totally factual representation.  Most people, Americans especially, have no idea what went into finding bin Laden.  The media was the only source of information, offering minor details generally centered on the political elements.  

Zero Dark Thirty offers the audience a chance to understand the efforts taken to find bin Laden and honors those who spent years doing just that.  As Bigelow states, her goal was to, “capture the essence of the underlying reality,” not make a documentary of it.  

The film’s first 30 minutes are filled with CIA jargon and a mess of words that I had a hard time following.  I feared being incapable of understanding what was going on throughout the film, but at the same time I enjoyed that Bigelow and Boal did not “dumb down” the film for the average American.  The scenes depicted felt true and as close to reality as possible.  

The majority of the film follows Maya as she hunts for bin Laden and fights to prove that he is holed up in a compound in Pakistan.  Chastain offers an honest portrayal of a woman dedicated solely to her job, lacking certain social skills and any real happiness.  In one scene, Maya is out with a female coworker who must remind her that they are at the restaurant to relax, not work.  It is only a few seconds later that the restaurant is bombed and the audience is reminded that nothing about the hunt is relaxing.    

The climax of the film reaches its peak in the final 30 minutes, aka the raid on bin Laden.  Maya is given the go-ahead to follow her instinct.  We are introduced to the Navy SEALs sent out to do the job.  It all feels rather Hollywood with the helicopters swooping in on the compound and an unexpected crash landing, but the mood changes when the raid begins.

Most of the raid is shot through night vision goggles, which all the SEALs are wearing.  It is hard to make out faces and images, just as it should be because what really went on in the compound can not be factually restaged.  But the idea, the feeling, the fear are all there and that is what matters.  I surprised myself in reaction to bin Laden’s death as I am not a fan of murder, regardless of the person.  Yet the minute he was killed, the American in me breathed a sigh of relief and glory.  I am not sure if it was for America or for Maya.  

Zero Dark Thirty is an impressive and extremely well made film based on real events.  It is not intended to be a history lesson.  No one knows every detail of what occurred in the decade following the 9/11 attacks.  Boal’s screenplay offers a respectful view of what may have happened and invites the audience to take what they like and leave the rest.  

Fruitvale Station (2013)

Fruitvale Station is the story of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old man who was killed by a Bay Area Rapid Transit cop in the early morning hours of January 1, 2009.   Based on a true story, the film depicts Oscar’s last day of life leading up to the shooting, which occurred on the platform of the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland, California. Police were responding to a fight on the train and while trying to restrain Oscar, Officer Johannes Mehserle shot the unarmed man in the back.

The dictionary defines ‘awe’ as, “an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like.”  I am in awe of this film, but not in the way I expected to be or in the sense I have read the critics to be.  My awe comes from fear.  The moment the credits started playing, I looked around and thought, “How many of these people are going to leave the theater with an intense hatred for the police?”  I fear a large percent will and did.

This extremely powerful film, mainly due to the phenomenal acting performances of Michael B. Jordan (as Oscar Grant) and Octavia Spencer (as Wanda Grant, Oscar’s mother), portrays Grant, a two-time felon, as a family man on the up and up.  Despite learning that he was in prison one-year prior, that he sells drugs, and that he has a slight anger problem, all signs point to a pleasant portrayal.

We watch as Oscar throws his marijuana into the river, vowing never to sell again.  We watch as he calls his mom on her birthday, promising to bring her crab for dinner (which he does do, though I think he stole it).  We watch as he calls his grandma to get her advice, displaying the loving relationship he has with her.  We watch as he interacts with people of all races, white, Hispanic, etc and treats everyone as equals.  We watch him with this daughter, the loving, devoted, doting father who three months prior had been sitting in a jail cell for 16 months for possession of a loaded pistol (I learned that on Wikipedia, not through the movie).

The latter half of the movie includes Wanda Grant’s birthday celebration and Oscar’s final hours celebrating the New Year with his friends and girlfriend.  The mood is happy and if anything, Oscar is shown in an even brighter, more appealing light.  It creates this whole air of peace and love, as if setting the viewer up to be even more upset with the police officers.  The police in this film are the enemy, the bad guys.

I am really not sure what filmmaker Ryan Coogler was trying to illustrate by making this film.  There is no doubt that the killing of Oscar Grant was unjust and the riots in the Bay Area following that shooting prove how upset and angry it made people.  So, why the hell did Coogler feel the need to revisit all those emotions and exaggerate the qualities of each character to make the emotion even stronger?  I literally feared my safety as I walked out of the movie on Saturday afternoon, scared that fellow movie goers were emotionally riled up and seeking some sort of outlet for that anger.

In this instance, the word ‘based’ when used in the phrase ‘based on a true story,’ really needs to be examined.  Was Oscar Grant really on the up and up?  Did he truly have such a strong bond with his family?  What about the ‘cheating’ incident his girlfriend keeps bringing up?  How often was he unfaithful?  Were the police officers really acting like assholes?  There is real footage shown in the beginning of the film, but it is hard to tell.  Plus, Oscar has this jovial meeting with a young woman earlier in the day at the supermarket where he helps her determine which fish to buy for a fish fry (or actually he calls his grandma to help her).  Then later at night on the train, she just happens to be there. And she happens to be the one who shouts his name and arouses the attention of the man who starts the fight.  Oh, and she is also the one who captures the entire thing on her phone.  Fact or fiction?  I have no clue.

The more I continue writing about this film, the more upset it makes me.  It is just a highly dramatized effort to cause an emotional impact on audiences.  And again, if it were not for the unbelievable performances of Jordan and Spencer, I would advise movie goers to stay away.  It is bad enough that this event happened and caused violent riots afterwards.  Why one man felt the need to “Hollywood” the situation and skew events to resuscitate that anger is beyond me.      

De rouille et d’os (Rust and Bone) (2012)

After being put in charge of his young son, Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts) leaves Belgium to live with his sister and her husband in Antibes, France.  Though good-hearted, he is immature and lacks direction. Working as a bouncer, he meets Stéphanie (Marion Cotillard), a killer whale trainer.  After a tragic accident ends her career, Ali and Stéphanie form a deep bond, one that neither imagined could help with their individual struggles as much as it does.

I had to write a review on this film as I have read some rather negative reviews and could not let it suffer such demoralization. We are all entitled to our own opinion, so allow me to express mine.

Rust and Bone is a beautifully spiritual and unbelievably artistic piece of work. I was blown away by how much I enjoyed it and how much it had me in its grasp for hours after viewing it. I watched it for a second time no more than 48 hours after I initially watched it.

Let me begin with the acting.  That is where I apply the words “unbelievably artistic.” Cotillard and Schoenaerts portray their characters with such talent, stability, and raw emotion.  Stéphanie realizes her legs have been bitten off when she wakes up alone in a hospital bed.  Thanks to Cotillard and her heart-wrenching reaction, I felt Stéphanie’s pain. I felt disgusted that the hospital staff would allow a patient to wake up and find out on his or her own that their legs had been amputated.  It has been a long time since an actor/actress touched my nerve in that way.

The actor’s ability to stay in character throughout the film, which is not something I would tend to think about or notice, was perfect. I found every word, every reaction, and every movement to be just what I imagined their character to be and do.  I also imagined it to be what men and women in their situation would do typically.  To contemplate suicide after losing two legs; to be a 25-year-old male who has never raised a child and have no skills whatsoever to do it; or to be in the company of an attractive man or woman who makes you feel good for the first time in a long time and have it lead to sex – it all appeared very real to me.

Jacques Audiard, director and screenwriter, naturally shares in the artistic element too. The story was adapted from Craig Davidson’s short story collection, but to put it on screen with such an exquisite flow and keep my attention from start to finish is a talent in its own right. I am always scared to watch foreign films as I do not like reading subtitles while watching and worry it will get distracted. That was never an issue with Rust and Bone. I was captivated from the opening scene and it felt natural reading the subtitles, which stay on the screen for the perfect amount of time.

The spiritual aspect of this film is probably what kept me in its grasp for hours afterward.  The relationship Ali and Stéphanie form is spellbinding. She is ready to shut herself out of the world, living with her drapes closed to block out the world.  She finds Ali’s number from the night she met him and calls him. Something inside of her, which I like to call God, inspires her to call him despite her wanting to block herself off.  He gives her the encouragement she needs to get out and get back in the water, which is another profoundly spiritual experience we get to witness.  He also gives her a new purpose in life – boxing coordinator.  It probably sounds nuts if you have not seen the film, but Ali gets into boxing and through a series of events, she comes to help him out by organizing the events.  She gets some sort of charge out of watching the fights and helping, which is yet another thing that gets her out of her depression, gets her out in the world, and helps her proudly display the new woman she has physically become.

What does Stéphanie do for Ali? It is not as apparent until the end.  Like I said, he is immature and thinks more with his penis than his brain, but we do see a transformation at the end.  He shows his ability to feel love, to be a father, and to care for someone other than himself.

Speaking of the end, it does kind of just seem to all fall in to place rather quickly, but I enjoyed it because it did not leave me feeling depressed or saddened.  I found the film to agree with my core belief – that everything happens in this world for a reason and every person we meet in our lives is there to help us grow. There are no mistakes in God’s world and it was so obvious in this film.  I highly recommend it to anyone and everyone.  If you don’t agree with or dislike the spirituality aspect, then bask in the actor’s performances.  To quote Time’s Mary Corliss, “Schoenaerts exudes masculinity that is both effortless and troubled” while “Cotillard demonstrates again her eerie ability to write complex feelings on her face, as if from the inside, without grandstanding her emotions.”  If there was an award for most overlooked actors at the 2013 Academy Awards, there would be nobody worthy of competing with this duo.

Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

“This, in it’s own terrifying way, is a love story.” That was the tagline used to market this film about alcoholism. San Francisco publicist Joe Clay (Jack Lemmon) meets secretary Kirsten Arnesen (Lee Remick) through work. He introduces her to alcohol, they eventually get married and have a child, and both drink to excess. After a horrible bender, Joe ends up in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), while Kirsten refuses to admit she has a problem. It is a very sad, very real look into the lives of alcoholics and speaks loudly to the fact, as stated in the AA book, that “no human power can relieve us of our alcoholism.”

I was curious what AA thought of this film, which now I realize would never be displayed as “AA has no opinion on outside issues” (Tradition 10), but I did read some interesting facts on wikipedia.  Director Blake Edwards and Lemmon both drank like fish while filming this movie. A year after filming, Edwards sought help for substance abuse. Most of his movies revolve around substance abuse. Lemmon and Remnick also both eventually sought the help of AA and many alcohol and drug rehab centers show this film to those in rehab. 

I should say the film mentions the organization several times – the AA preamble is read, Joe gets a sponsor (played by Jack Klugman), and Joe attends a meeting. Plus, the relationship between Joe and Kirsten resembles such a typical alcoholic relationship throughout all the stages – when both drink, when one stops and the other won’t, and what sobriety can do to a relationship. 

When I first found out about this film, I thought it would be like Leaving Las Vegas – dark, depressing, and where only the man was a heavy drinker. However, it reminded me more of When a Man Loves a Woman, starring Meg Ryan and Andy Garcia. She drinks, he does not, she gets sober, and he has to learn to live with a new, sober wife. It is serious stuff, but I did not walk away feeling depressed. 

Days of Wine and Roses does not have a chipper ending. Kirsten walks away, refusing to get sober with help and still thinking she can do it alone. Joe is left to parent his daughter alone. And the image at the end is magnificent. Joe stares out the window with a sign flashing next to his head that says “Bar.” To me, it symbolizes his sobriety and that it really is just one day at a time. At any moment, that sign could call to him because he will always be an alcoholic.  

I did enjoy this film a lot. I think the aspects that deaden the drama (or do not make it as heavy as Leaving Las Vegas) are the soft music playing in the background that is so prevalent in old films and Jack Lemmon. I just could not see him as a serious character, until the end. That final scene with Kirsten, when he begs her to get help, was truly remarkable and I saw what made him a great actor.

I would recommend this film to everyone, especially to those who know anything about alcoholism. Especially to those who have tried to help someone “get over” it. It reminded me how insidious this disease is and that there is no reasoning with it. “No human power can relive us” but “God could and would if he were sought.”

The Great Gatsby (2013)

In dreams, there are hopes, expectations, and anticipation.  The anticipation keeps the excitement alive, just as it did for Jay Gatsby who awaited the reunion with his love, Daisy Buchanan.  And just as it did for me as I waited more than six months for the release of Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby.

But what happens after the dream is realized?  Do we not sometimes discover the dream was better than the reality?

Just as Gatsby’s reality with Daisy did not turn out as expected, my reality with the film did not live up to all I hoped and dreamed.  Maybe I expected too much; maybe Luhrmann waited too long to release his film, creating anticipation impossible to fulfill.  Whatever it may be, Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby took too long to convey a message author F. Scott Fitzgerald got across in fewer than 200 pages.

The story is narrated and authored by Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire).  He recalls the summer of 1922, when he moved to New York’s West Egg district as a bonds salesman.  It was there he met Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a new millionaire whose life remains a mystery for much of the story.

Nick’s cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and her husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), live lavishly in the East Egg district, where those of “old money” reside.  A short while after meeting Gatsby, Nick learns that him and Daisy were in a relationship five years back and ever since it ended, Gatsby has pined for his lost love.  Gatsby has Nick arrange a reunion and the story goes on from there.

It’s not a love story. It is a tale of a dreamer in the 1920s whose dreams get the best of him and lead to his eventual death amongst the strain of social classes and his desire to repeat the past.  For the sake of audience approval and movie magic, I expected Luhrmann to really play up the love story aspect and was pleasantly surprised he did not.

Luhrmann carried Fitzgerald’s message by depicting disgustingly lavish lifestyles, snobbery to the ultimate degree, and a man so set on achieving a dream that he ignores the reality in front of him.  He set the film to modern music, stylized it with extravagant costumes, and demanded over-the-top acting, just as he did with his 1996 version of Romeo + Juliet.  It all worked for The Great Gatsby.  The message was not as strong as the words Fitzgerald wrote, but I don’t expect any Hollywood blockbusters, especially those in 3-D, to be intellectually stimulating or thought invoking.  What did not work in the film was the amount of time Luhrmann took to tell the classic tale.

I got bored in the middle, wondering when oh when the day would come of Myrtle Wilson’s (Isla Fisher) fatal end, whom was Tom’s mistress.  That day would mean Gatsby’s end was near, signifying only a few minutes until the end of the movie.

I don’t blame the acting, which was sensational and worth the 143 minutes I spent in my chair.  DiCaprio provided the hope and charisma Fitzgerald wrote into Gatsby’s character and Maguire put a face to the reflexive and naive spirit of Nick Carraway.  I wanted to hate Mulligan’s character just as I did with Daisy when I read the book and Edgerton played the pompous jerk better than I expected him to.  Plus, as I mentioned earlier, they all brilliantly outdid themselves in true Luhrmann form by drawing out the key aspects of their characters and exaggerating their most despicable, or in some cases lovable, traits.

I just wanted more.  More excitement?  More action?  I am not quite sure myself, but it lacked that special something; that hope and excitement I anticipated just a few months ago.

It happens to me with every trailer that includes stimulating music and exciting scenes.  I put the movie on a pedestal and impatiently wait for its release, never learning from the past that increased expectations lead to major disappointment.  But I beat on, as Nick says, like a boat against the current.  I hope one time my expectations will be met, but am forever borne back ceaselessly into the past.

On The Road (2012)

On The Road, adapted from the novel by Jack Kerouac, chronicles the adventures of Sal Paradise (Sam Riley) in the late 1940’s, along with his friend Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund), whom he meets in the beginning of the film, and several other characters.  It is based on Kerouac’s real life road adventures with Neal Cassady and other friends whom he encounters along the way.  It is a drug-laden, wild, sometimes dangerous, journey that paved the way for the Beat Generation and provided Kerouac with all the meat for one of the greatest novels he ever wrote.

I am not sure if it is because I just found out I got into grad school at New York University or if it is because I just finished reading this book, but I loved the movie.  The inconsistency, the nomadic behavior, the constant movement; I am totally pumped now.  I practically ran from my car, up the stairs to my apartment, and onto my computer.  It could also be the fact that I myself am a “secret” basket case and when I see people in constant motion, always going, going, going, it revs me up.

I praise the movie for following so closely to the book, but not in the sense it sounds.  I honestly can not remember if it went exactly in the same order as the book, though I do believe it followed rather close. And Paradise narrates at points, which are direct quotes from the book.  What I mean is the movie is just as erratic as the book.  It is choppy, jumping from one scene to the next, just as the book is.  One minute, the reader is in a quiet space with Sal and Dean having an intimate one-on-one.  Then you flip the page, or simply move to the next paragraph, and you are back in the car as Dean races down the highway, butt-naked.  The movie played out the same way; scenes jump from one place to the next, never still.  When there was stillness, it felt out of place and I saw several places the director (Walter Salles) could have cut scenes to make the movie a little shorter and add to the spasmodic sensation of the film.  That is not a complaint though, just an observation.

I would not expect much less from an alcoholic writer though, as can also be seen in the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald or Tennessee Williams.  It is all about being elaborate, being off-the-wall, going black and white.  Nothing can be in the middle; it has to be big.  And Dean Moriarty is the big image we see.

The one difference I did see in the movie versus the book was the greater emphasis Sal put on Dean.  I did not feel the idolization Sal had for Dean in the book as much as I felt in the movie.  Yet, at the same time, there was another character by the name of Carlo (played by Tom Sturridge) that was literally in love with Dean and that helped to make Sal’s idolization seem rather miniscule.  I don’t think Jack Kerouac really idolized Neal Cassady, but more so envied his free spirit and insane grasp on life.  I think he had it in him too, just the same way I find myself attracted to lights such as Dean, but something holds it back, sanity really, and it doesn’t come out shooting as it does with people like that.

I can say I do not have one complaint about any of the actors.  Riley and Hedlund were excellent.  May sound weird, but their voices really kept me rapt.  Deep, raspy voices that just are unlike many I usually hear in movies.  Hedlund had the behavior of Dean down to a tee.  It was just as I remember reading.  As did Riley.  I felt like I was witnessing the true adventures of Kerouac and Cassady.

A few other names in the cast are Kristen Stewart, Viggo Mortensen, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams, and Alica Braga.  Each had their own character, their own flair.  Mortensen and Adams play a married couple whom Sal knows.  Him, Dean, and a couple other friends spend some time at their house.  I had not realized how delusional the couple was while reading until seeing the movie.  I loved being able to visualize and see things I had just read.  The only character who did not impress me much was Camille, played by Dunst.  Camille was one of Dean’s love interest.  I don’t find much versatility in her acting.  Camille is one of the saner characters in the book, but Dunst made her even more drab and one-dimensional than ever.  Though I suppose Camille is not really meant to be loved by audience goers, so Dunst made that possible.

I do not know if much of this makes sense to the person who has not seen the film or who does not have the fire inside of them.  The two women who walked out of the movie in front of my friend and I told the theater employee, “Don’t see that movie.”  Maybe they were disturbed, maybe bored.  Whatever the case, I think it is a movie that will either be loved or hated.  I can tell you off the bat, if you don’t like Kerouac’s novels, you won’t like the movie.

I was going to complain about the ending, the parting of Dean and Sal.  Sal, looking fresh and clean in his suit on the way to see Duke Ellington in concert, and Dean, looking doped up and homeless.  I did not remember that part of the book.  I thought they both were on the road to nowhere, though the movie made it look like Dean was the only one going in that direction.  However, I just went back over the book and that is how it ends.  Sal refuses to drive Dean to another part of town, as he will be late for the concert.  And that is where their story ends.  Sadly, the true ending is Cassady died of drug addiction and alcoholism at the age of 41 and Kerouac followed him shortly there after, dying at age 47 of alcoholism.  They both had the fire in them, but only one of them let it be known.

Bottom line, I loved it.  I would see it again.  And yes, I recommend it.  Maybe you’ll get it and maybe you won’t.  It is worth finding out.

Les Miserables (2012)

I left the midnight showing of Les Miserables feeling like Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway, when she sings, “I dreamed a dream in time gone by, when hopes were high and life worth living.”  My hopes were high when I entered the theater and the Oscar hype was worth living, but it proved to be just a dream as I walked out of the film disappointed and unfulfilled.

Based on Victor Hugo’s novel set in 19th century France, former prisoner Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) turns his life around for the good despite having policeman Javert (Russell Crowe) on his tail for breaking parole.  Early on, Valjean promises Fantine, a young, dying factory worker, he will care for her daughter Cosette (Amanda Seyfried).  The story takes off from there, spanning nine years of Javert chasing Valjean, Cosette growing up and finding love, and the Paris rebellion.

This film adaptation had been in the making since 1988.  It took 23 years for it to finally come into fruition, when producer Cameron Mackintosh selected Tom Hooper to direct the film.  With that much pressure riding on him, along with the Academy Awards lurking around the corner, I have no doubt Hooper sought to make the best film musical he could.  Unfortunately, the elements were not in his favor.

In terms of acting, the casting choices were outstanding.  Hathaway gave an exceptional performance as Fantine, vocalizing her hardships with intense emotion.  She excelled as both an actress and a singer; Jackman and Crowe, on the other hand, could have used some help with the latter.  I couldn’t tell whether they were trying to sing their songs or talk through them.  Though I believe them both to be talented and capable singers, they could not hit the tones in the songs and appeared unnatural as they tried to belt them out.

I found the younger actors, especially Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks, delivered the best vocal performances.  They hit their notes, looked comfortable singing in front of the camera, and were made for the stage.  This film didn’t just need great actors, it needed accomplished stage performers.  Jackman and Crowe proved to be anything but and it hurt the film greatly because they were cast in leading roles.

Unlike any other musical film, Hooper had the actors sing live on camera instead of using recordings.  He felt it gave the actors more emotional control.  I am in favor of live performances, but question why they had to sing throughout the entire movie?  I need a little dialogue with my musical numbers and Les Miserables had none.  I found it hard to follow because I was never granted a break from the musical undertone, which could be rather choppy and inharmonious at times.

I also found it hard to relate to the film, not in the sense of events occurring, but on an emotional level.  I have felt love. I have felt heart-break and sadness.  But I did not feel those emotions along with the characters.  My greatest joy took place when Thenardier and Madame Thenardier, played by Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, entered the scene and provided a little comic relief.  Not to mention singing the one song I knew, “Master of the House,” from an episode of ‘Seinfeld.’

However, if happiness is the only emotion I felt watching Les Miserables in its entirety, I am guessing something is wrong with this picture.  I will give credit to the costume and set designers, who provided an appropriate amount of 19th century design and culture without going over the top.  The special effects and choreography as well did not appear too extreme or boisterous, which could have been a factor had Hooper attempted to go over the top for Oscar purposes.  And thank goodness he chose to nix the 3-D option he had been toying with.  Three-D adds an element of immaturity and grandiosity, two conditions that would have only added to Hooper’s list of mistakes.

I have no doubt this film will earn top dollar at the box office and have the audiences singing its praises.  As a film musical lover, I was not impressed.  Talented, small-time stage performers should have been used in place of big-name actors and an even balance of explosive dialogue with the live singing was sorely needed.  I can only hope that the tiny gold man named Oscar agrees with my in late February.

Anna Karenina (2012)

I was an Anna Karenina virgin.  I walked into the theater knowing two things.  One, the film was based on a classic book by Leo Tolstoy.  And two, the book was over 800 pages long and took place in 19th century Russia.  I dreaded the film, I dreaded my decision to write a review on it, and I thought I was about to watch something straight out of PBS’ Masterpiece Theatre.  I was mistaken on all accounts.

For other Karenina virgins like myself, the main story revolves around a young, aristocratic woman named Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) who falls in love and begins an affair with the eligible Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson).  Once pregnant with his child, she comes clean to her husband (Jude Law) and leaves with Vronsky, though shunned upon in Russia.  A secondary plot, more prevalent in Tolstoy’s novel, tells the story of Levin (David Wilmot), a landowner looking to marry Kitty (Alicia Vikander), the sister of Anna’s sister-in-law.  This plot introduces characters seen in both Levin’s and Anna’s lives and it provides relief from the main plot.

As I declared earlier, I was completely off-target in thinking the film would be a bore.  It subtly emulates a play, with transitions involving set and background changes.  Scenes shift so rapidly that it creates a pace making boredom impossible.  After 10 minutes of watching the film, I feared not being able to follow the progression of scenes due to the speed, but that never became an issue.  The cinematography behind the transitions is clever and kept me in anticipation of the next.  For example, in one scene Anna’s son would be playing with his toy train.  The camera then zoomed in on the train and there was Anna traveling in it, headed to Moscow.  It is definitely a movie you do not want to get up and use the bathroom during because you could easily miss two to three key scenes.

Another essential element to any film is the cast and I have one word to describe the casting choices of Anna Karenina: perfect.  Knightley’s portrayal of a selfish, yet loving woman torn between good and bad is exquisite.  Her paranoia around Vronsky’s faithfulness at the end is acted out superbly through erratic dialogue and twitchy, bodily expressions.  And the flirtatious nature between Karenina and Vronsky (Taylor-Johnson) prior to them becoming involved is so believable that I was able to put myself in her shoes.  At age 22, Taylor-Johnson personifies innocence and youth as Vronsky.  Once quite the Casanova, the affair quickly turns his life upside-down.  We watch him go from a care-free existence to an adult world of trials and tribulations, which Taylor-Johnson depicts wonderfully.  Jude Law’s character, Alexei Karenin, remains reserved and patient throughout the entire ordeal, never acting out of anger or mistreating Anna.  Law captures that essence to a tee and does not give the audience any reason to feel badly for him.

It is not only the beautiful cast that kept my eyes locked on the film, but also the sets and costumes.  Director Joe Wright shot most of the film on a single soundstage in a theatre outside of London.  Though the sets are constantly changing, there is never anything too elaborate or unbelievable.  The characters and storyline are always the main focus; the scenery second. However, it caught my eye, especially the ornate furniture and stunning dresses the women wear.  Costume designer Jacqueline Durran mixed 1950s couture with Russian aristocracy, combining architectural elements with elegance.  The dresses accentuate the actresses figures while covering them up so as not to make them look trashy or lose their purity.

Anna Karenina entertains from beginning to end.  I stopped dreading the film from the opening scene.  It is a modern approach to a classic novel, set in the appropriate era.  The fast-paced transitions and exchange between plot lines ensure that there is never a dull moment in the film.  The ending hit me like a lightning bolt and I wanted more.  Maybe it is time for me to finally read an 864-page book that is written by someone other than J.K. Rowling.

The Oranges (2011)

“Sex.  Betrayal.  Scandal.  Make yourself at home.”  That is the tag line on The Oranges film poster.  What it should read is, “Kiss.  Hug.  Makeup.  If affairs were this easy, everyone would be having them.”  I expected a serious, true-to-life indie about relationships and family.  The Oranges is nothing more than a Hollywood comedy with sub-par acting and a story line laden with humor that completely overshadows the serious issues in the film.

The Wallings and Ostroffs have been living next door to one another for years in suburban New Jersey on Orange Drive.  When 24-year-old daughter Nina Ostroff (Leighton Meester) returns home after a five-year absence, she sparks up a relationship with David Walling (Hugh Laurie), her father’s best friend.  It does not take long before they are found out and everyone, including the Walling’s daughter and Nina’s former best friend, Vanessa (Alia Shawkat), is forced to change their lives to accommodate the recent findings.

I left the film feeling like I was walking out of an Adam Sandler comedy.  The characters are unoriginal and standard, especially Nina’s ex-boyfriend Ethan (Sam Rosen) who plays the hippie dippie male that delivers the idiotic comic relief.  The script is filled with nothing but hi-jinks and slapstick comedy.  And there is absolutely no emotion behind any of the characters actions.  The most emotion I saw came at the end when Paige Walling (Catherine Keener), David’s wife, takes her car and destroys all of David’s Christmas lawn decorations.  Her inanity and anger filled the screen.  Unfortunately, it ended shortly there after when the two families came together and opened gifts.

The tone of the film is not seriousness; its lighthearted fun.  Why the film is rated R is beyond me.  The most sex we see is between Terry (Oliver Platt) and Carol (Allison Janney) Ostroff near the end of the film and even then they are covered in a sheet.  Swear words are kept to a minimum, the only violence occurs in a comical cat fight between Nina and Vanessa, and drug use is limited to one hit of marijuana and casual, legal drinking.  The themes involved in the affair may be adult, but the way director Julian Farino handles them is not, making this a “safe for the whole family” type of film.

I read a review on The Oranges before watching the film that raved about the cast.  I am not sure what cast this critic was referring to, but it couldn’t have been the one for The Oranges.  Maybe it is because I am not a House or Gossip Girl fan, but I found nothing appealing about any of the characters.  I don’t blame Laurie and Meester for displaying absolutely zero chemistry on scene, but they could have at least attempted to take their roles more serious.  I felt like they were both going to burst out laughing at any moment and Laurie constantly had a little smirk on his face.  Shawkat played the disgruntled daughter stock character, whom I had to keep reminding myself was not a teenager, and I knew very little about either wife.  What the audience gets is merely surface details, nothing deeper.

I would not even suggest this film as a comedic “filler” in your schedule.  It flowed well and maintained the same lighthearted tone throughout, but it left me with nothing and was a waste of time.  The Oranges is just another film that takes a serious subject, strains it of all depth, and leaves you with the pulp.

Hope Springs (2012)

Can this relationship be saved?  We see this theme everyday whether it be on a movie screen, on a daily talk show, or on the shelves at the local book store.  In “Hope Springs,” we see the theme revisited once more, but this time from an age bracket screenwriters shy away from – the Over 55 group.  And though I have no personal experience in this realm, I am going to bet it is one of the most candid and true-to-life adaptations of marriage ever brought to the big screen.

Kay (Meryl Streep) and Arnold (Tommy Lee Jones) have been married for 31 years.  They don’t sleep in the same bed, their morning routine could be timed to a tee, and the only physical intimacy Arnold seems capable of is his cold, brief kiss goodbye on Kay’s cheek every day.  Craving more from Arnold, Kay signs the couple up for a week of intensive therapy with Dr. Bernie Feld (Steve Carell) in Hope Springs, Maine.  Arnold goes, begrudgingly, and both embark on daily sessions with Dr. Feld.  It is not the couple’s love for one another that is in question, but rather can that love be revived to what it once was, emotionally and physically?  And ultimately, can this marriage be saved?

I thought I was walking into a light-hearted comedy, but it ended up being so much more.  There were several scenes where I did not know whether to laugh or to feel badly for thousands of married couples in the world who could relate to all that Kay and Arnold went through.  It was a roller coaster; one minute I could see that old spark and the very next I was not sure whether Kay could stick it out with Arnold for very much longer.  I enjoyed being kept in suspense and credit writer Vanessa Taylor with doing it in such a realistic and poignant manner.

I also credit the phenomenal cast for really getting into character and maintaining that role throughout the film.  I knew from the opening scene that Arnold had little interest in intimacy and turned a blind eye to Kay’s need for it and to the deterioration of the marriage.  I also knew that though Kay may have wanted it, her timid nature and need to keep the peace kept her from pursuing more.  These traits carried on throughout the film and though changes were made, nothing struck me as being off-character.

Streep and Jones were sensational, both apart and together.  Not once did I doubt their chemistry, though I have to admit the love scenes were a bit hard to watch.  Like I said, Hollywood shies away from the Over 55 because it is not what the public craves to see.  But screenwriter Taylor and director, David Frankel, handle it in such a delicate manner that it works and I feel it finally provides viewers with a thorough picture of love throughout the ages.

Carell starred as a secondary character, playing the mediator and the catalyst for changes we get to see in the couple’s relationship.  Without a Dr. Feld, there would be no movie.  However,  Kay and Arnold are the main attraction and Carell allows it to be so.  We only see him one time at the end of the movie outside of his usual office setting.  While Jones deserves much kudos for superbly playing a role outside of his norm, Carell fit the part of the reserved Dr. Feld just as well as he did when he played Michael on The Office.

Is this movie Oscar-worthy?  Probably not, but it can teach viewers something no matter what age they are or where they are in life.  I saw how hard marriage is and how much work must go into it to prevent a Kay-Arnold situation.  And I learned from Dr. Feld that even the best marriages can have a bad year, a year where both partners want to end it.  Hope Springs reminded me that no situation is impossible and to always ask myself, “Have I done all I could?” before giving up on anything.