One of the most talked about film’s at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival was Arbitrage.  If you know the definition of the title, then you know this is a finance movie, but the title transcends finance in this film.  Arbitrage, a Sundance spotlight starring Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, is the story of a corrupt hedge fund titan on the verge of selling his empire while trying to manage his extra marital affairs and a bunch of other problems he caused. A very relevant topic in today’s world (thanks, Bernie!), sleazy finance guys still frolic through the streets of NY.  Writer/Director Nick Jarecki really does an amazing job of capturing New York has a feature character to the film. To put it simply, this film is SOOOO New York.

Gere’s Robert Miller is not your everyday sleaze-ball, and through that you find yourself in a quandary. On one hand he is cheating on his wife with french bombshell artist, played by Laetitia Casta, while trying to cover up  a $400 million hole on his balance sheet, but on the other hand he is a loving father, protects his kids and does actually love his wife (or pretends to do so) when he’s around her.  So I will leave it to you to make up your own decision. Was Gere too nice or too “soft” in this role?  The finance sleaze-balls that CNBC does such a great job at demonizing are likely a lot more aggressive, vile, and soulless.  However, I don’t think Jarecki wanted Gere to play a completely disgusting person.

Gere, in his Q&A after the screening, mentioned that he thinks these guys live off these non-drug highs as part of just day-to-day living.  Playing with astronomical sums of money, putting your family’s credibility on the line, and gambling with relationships is just part of the job.  Not healthy, right? In the movie, Miller’s two strongest relationships are with his daughter Brooke Miller, and heiress, played by the talented Brit Marling, and Jimmy Grant played by the very talented Nate Parker (Red Tails), a black kid from Harlem who we don’t know much about until the very end.

The most dynamic edge to the film is the way both Grant and Brooke Miller preserve their integrity while witnessing Robert Miller slowly crumble. Nate Parker actually stole the show in this movie.  A guy who’s been around for a little bit but mostly unknown, Parker was able to keep up with Gere every step of the way. It was really amazing to see Miller’s power completely stripped when in the face of Grant.  In Grant’s world, loyalty is currency, not the dollar.  The amazing dynamic between the two drove this movie – ‘electric’ is a word that comes to mind.

Arbitrage is not a great movie, but definitely a good one.  I’d imagine the distributors will make Jarecki take it back to the cutting room and trim some of the unneeded fat for a theatrical release. Also, Susan Sarandon did not need to be in this movie. I’m surprised she even took the role knowing that her character had such little onscreen presence.

While this movie is a ‘finance’ movie, I’d say its more of a ‘relationship’ movie circled around the uncertainty of being a major player in the hedge fund world. I think Jarecki wants us to like Gere’s Miller, despite the fact that he cheats on his wife, and does some other pretty messed up stuff along the way.

Gere, Marling and Parker dominated this movie.  Parker has a promising career ahead of him and so does Marling. He has action star written all over him.  In addition to acting, she also writes and produces, and ironically enough turned down a job on Wall Street after college to come do the Hollywood thing.  Gere is Gere, a Hollywood legend who can add another impressive role to his resume.

Arbitrage is a fast paced thrill ride that is as uncertain as a typical day in New York.

The film will likely be released in the Fall, to which we will repost our review

SEE IT

Was it everything I expected this movie to be? Well, I must be honest: it managed to beat my expectations. Now, to be fair, my expectations were low, very low. The trailer just did not look good, I can admit it. But that bad trailer obviously had no effect on my penchant for Drew, the life aquatic, and happy-go-lucky films.

And so, what is there to report? Well, the movie is pretty much what you expect from a family movie. There were some exciting moments, some tears, and some joyful outbursts. For a family film, it did have a credible list of actors: aside from Drew Barrymore, John Krasinski, Ted Danson, Kristin Bell, and Dermot Mulroney all made appearances, and definitely to the benefit of the movie.

While the cast list alone turns this run-of-the-mill family fun movie into something worth shelling out the six dollars for the matinee ticket, the real hands down stars of this movie were the whales. Big and majestic, the whales managed to hark on every viewer’s emotions. Through good times and bad, I was right there with those whales. Very Homeward Bound-esque if you ask me.

Now this movie wasn’t great. It wasn’t even a good movie. I will probably not see this movie again. But it did serve its purpose in the grand scheme of movies.

RENT IT, if you are so inclined.

Chronicle is the latest film employing the ‘found-footage’ style of filmmaking. 3 high school kids in Seattle encounter this giant supernatural ball, that’s really the only way to say it, and walk away with super powers. This is Fox’s desperate move to encourage the teen mob to put down their Playstation controller and head on over to the cinema.  If you are prone to headaches or nausea, I would encourage you stay away from this film.  For those who enjoyed Cloverfield, this film is definitely for you. If you took Hancock and Cloverfield and sandwiched them together you’d get CHRONICLE.

The film is written and directed by first time filmmaker, Josh Trank, and stars the relatively unknown trio of Dane DeHaan, Alex Russel, and Michael B. Jordan. No relation to Michael J. Jordan, also known as the greatest basketball player of who ever lived.  Thus far, it look likes Fox’s aggressive marketing stunt in New York is paying off as the film did very well at the Friday night box office with an estimated $8.65 million.  Carry that through Sunday, adjusting for a major Sunday drop due to the Superbowl, and Fox should be looking at something around $21 million. Not bad for a movie expected to be in the high single digits. But let’s actually talk about the movie.

For me, there was something missing from this film. Dane DeHann’s Andrew, the film’s main character and eventual antagonist, was more annoying than evil/interesting. His character very much played the nobody-likes-me card despite his much more popular cuz, Alex Russel’s Matt, continuing to coddle his self-esteem.  Fuming with anger over his mom’s terminal illness and his abusive father, Andrew gets increasingly more dark while maintaining his non-likeness.  A lead character getting more annoying does not bode well for a film. But I know, and you know, that you go to this film for it’s special effects and in that department the film does not disappoint.

About 40 minutes into this short 83 minute film, the three horny teenagers start experimenting with their powers.  From flying scenes to outright duels in downtown Seattle, the effects are pretty darn cool. One scene in particular, a first-person view of Matt and his main squeeze getting launched at the Space Needle and falling off it, makes you feel like you’re on Universal Studio’s Back to the Future ride.  Another scene, at the school talent show, has Andrew exploiting his powers to essentially be the world’s most impressive magician.  That scene, I have to say, was pretty awesome. Sexually frustrated 16 year-old boys fantasizing over the ability to fight back, get laid, and get revenge on high school bully’s could get the Facebooking world of high school America loving this movie.

It was mostly the slowness of the first half of the movie, the simply not-likable Andrew, and the overall style of the film that did not do it for me. Not to mention, the characters, except for Steve, were very difficult to connect with.  If Matt said the name “Andrew” one more time I might have lost it.  For most of the movie I was asking myself where it was going, and it was not until maybe the final 20 minutes did things start to heat up.  The concept was fresh, but delivery could really use more work.  I get that it was a ‘found-footage’ style movie that Blair Witch put on the radar, but too much shakiness just doesn’t work.

Overall, CHRONICLE left me with “you know what I didn’t like about that movie” instead of “wow, those special effects were great.”

RENT IT

Apparently I was not the only person to feel this way, as the theater was jammed pack for an early Tuesday evening. This made for a more valid (for the sake of reviewing) movie-watching experience as I was able to gauge the reactions of my fellow viewers in addition to my own.

Well, did Lynne Ramsay’s film-adaption of Lionel Shriver’s 2003 novel of the same name live up to my all my anticipation and hope? You bet it did!

Rather expectedly, probably the best part of We Need to Talk About Kevin took the form of Tilda Swinton’s fantastic performance. Swinton took a role, one that could have been so easily made trite or one-dimensional, and brought so much life and realism to it, that at times it was easy to get lost in her performance. John C. Reilly as well as Ezra Miller, who played teenage Kevin, should also not be overlooked as they both gave very strong performances.

Stylistically, the film boasted beautiful shots as well as a top-rate soundtrack–by far the best movie soundtrack of this year– which featured songs by The Beach Boys, Wham!, and Buddy Holly. The dialogue and effective use of flashbacks, which took place throughout the entire movie, were also note-worthy.

My only complaint lies in the characterization of Kevin. At times the character-development felt a little flat and any sort of ending revelation he had, however small, felt forced and out of character. That aside, We Need to Talk About Kevin, is a great example of mastery when it comes to good filmmaking. Well, done Ramsay! While I will forever lament the film’s lack of Oscar recognition, I remain strong in my beliefs that this was one of the better movies of this year.

SEE IT.

Day 2 in Park City started with an 8:30am screening of the much talked about West of Memphis. Produced by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh and written and directed by Amy Berg, West of Memphis is a documentary that followed the lives of the three wrongfully imprisoned teenagers, Damien Nichols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly who were convicted of brutally murdering the 8 year old’s Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore in May 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas.  The incarcerated teens were known as the West Memphis 3, and you may know their story from the three popular documentaries Paradise Lost (1-3). West of Memphis offers more evidence and testimony on the case, pointing a strong finger at one person as the assailant.  Nichols himself was much involved on the production of this film, and comes across as quite an intelligent and articulate person.

Berg introduces us to the situation by taking us back to 1993 and through the actual trial. We get a sense of a lock-the-door-and-throw-away-the-key tone to paint an accurate portrayal of those times in the small poor town of West Memphis.   A metaphor for the way the Arkansas state justice department desperately looked for a person (s) to blame and slamdunk guilty verdict combined with a public thirst for blood, the poor boys stood no chance.

However, this film takes a quick turn towards the road to redemption. Testimony from family, friends, the prosecution, the defense, the judge and other involved people, Berg tells the story from all those involves. Though we see opinions from all sides, it is a complete shame and embarrassment that a state department was able to try a case the way it did.  With a complete disregard for evidence and proper procedure, the judge and prosecution essentially abused their power for personal gain, costing these boys their freedom. As most of you know this story itself, let’s go into the new things ‘West of Memphis’ brings to the story.

In 2005, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, aware of the mishaps during the case, were stunned that the case had not progressed.  They began a close relationship with Lorri Davis, Nichols’ wife (whom he married during his jail time), to finance a private investigation into the case. There was also support from the likes of Johnny Depp, Eddie Vetters, and Henry Rollins, among many others.  With the added assistance, the case finally started to move along, although very slowly.

Berg brings a ton of things to light all the while showing how poorly the original case was handled.  Terry Hobbs, the step-father of Steve Branch, one of the victims of the tragedy, is clearly the focal point of this private investigation.  Beyond DNA evidence and a new deposition about that fateful day in May, 1993, the filmmaker obtained testimony one week ago. That is not a typo. The nephew of Terry Hobbs said that his father told him Terry killed the kids and that the crime is known as the “Hobbs family secret.” Berg quickly took the footage to the edit room and managed to get it into the film, premiering a mere one week later.

This sad story is important to watch. Berg eloquently captures the amazing turnaround in public perception for the three, getting Steve Branch’s mother to admit she thinks that Nichols, Baldwin and Misskelly are likely innocent while her former Husband, Terry Hobbs, could be guilty. The public outcry and change in perception is an amazing thing to see.

The West Memphis 3 were recently released on an odd plea called an “alford plea’ that required them to admit guilt but be set free at the same time.  They proclaim their innocence and are free men today.

This frustrating story will leave you questioning whether justice was served. And honestly, it just wasn’t. Amy Berg has put together one truely riveting documentary.

SEE IT

Well, let me tell you (or rather, implore in you) that this huge cast of movie stars was the only good thing this film has to offer. Too harsh? Well, unless it was Lonergan’s goal to create a movie which analyzes the depths of my personal agony, I’d say this was one big miss. Margaret, which centers on Lisa Cohen (Anna Paquin), a teenage girl living in New York City, as she deals with the emotional repercussions after accidentally helping cause a bus accident that killed one pedestrian (Allison Janney), was a two and a half-hour quest of emotional pain, depression and solitude on the viewer’s part.

How so? Well, to start, the movie was incredibly unfocused. In the New York Times Movie Review of the same film, A.O. Scott claims that despite the actual filming of Margaret taking place in 2005 (made especially clear by Matt Damon’s svelte figure), editing problems were the cause of the six-year release delay. And, proving that there is a first time for everything, I one-hundred percent agree with Scott when he claims that these editing issues were not solved even six years later. The movie so eagerly jumps from tangental plot point to its next tangental plot point that at the end of the movie when it has hit so many unnecessary things, it prompted chuckles of disbelief from the audience, as if we were all harmoniously thinking, “Okay, what now?”

Moreover, while Lonergan was praised in 2000 for creating such believably complex characters in You Can Count on Me, the multi-dimensions of these previous characters did not seem to carry over into this film. Rather, these characters– all of these characters– were so unlikable that they were not only flat characters, but also severely unbelievable. Where did the redeeming qualities of the prodigal, unreliable brother go in You Can Count on Me? Perhaps, like Janney, they were run over by the bus in Margaret.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the film tried so hard to hark on a post-9/11 New York– tackling such controversial issues in Lisa’s Upper West Side high school classroom as well as at dinner parties Lisa’s mother attends, that not only do these issues seem much less relevant six years later, but also it presented an even more unfocused movie. What happened to the bus accident?!

What the viewer was left with is a movie which tried so hard to do something new and innovative in a see of Hollywood blockbusters that it failed the actual test of being a good movie.

SKIP IT, I beg of you.

The opportunity to see both of them in a new Mark Wahlberg flick seemed like an ideal opportunity. Good guy Wahlberg vs. two nasty villains. I actually had no idea what Contraband was about only thinking it strange that Kate Beckinsale had second billing. (It’s not that I don’t think she’s worth that; it just seemed weird for a movie like this.) Needless to say, all-star caliber.

It’s too bad Contraband couldn’t have been better. Every actor is under utilized. Personally, I’m a Mark Wahlberg fan but haven’t been this disappointed in him since The Happening. Beckinsale doesn’t have much to do here but look pretty. She’s great at that, but is also a fine actor. Still, the biggest letdown is the evil: Foster and Ribisi. In the beginning, there’s promise. Ribisi as the bad guy threatening Wahlberg’s brother and family. But slowly, he and Foster fade into stock characters, something neither of them were meant to play.

The story is basic, but gets convoluted with too many unneeded subplots and lack of consistency. Why was there a police shootout? How much do we need to know about the boat? A Pollack? Really? Things that may seem like they pay off on paper really provide unnecessary resolution to the extra problems.

In a sense, dumbing down the plot and structuring it around the characters would have been the best remedy for Contraband. No one was expecting Drive, but these throwaway star studded action flicks have been fun to watch the last year or so (Limitless, Source Code, etc.) It would have been nice for Contraband to continue the trend. It doesn’t and disgraces it’s talent in the process.

RENT IT

‘Pariah’ tells the story of a Brooklyn teenager Alike (Adepero Oduye) as she juggles conflicting identities and risks friendship, heartbreak, and family in a desperate search for sexual expression. Alike is a young black girl growing up in a tough area and an even tougher family. Her father is supportive but in denial and her mother is extremely religious. Make no mistake, this film should not be regarded as another coming out film. Yes, Alike deals with being a lesbian, but to me this film was about a lot more. This character spends so much time introverted and closed in, she just wants to be free.

I want to talk about the cinematography for a minute because the film won this award at the Sundance Film Festival and it whole-heartedly deserved it. I truly felt like I was inside the film, and not in a 3D technology way. During certain scenes the camera is placed far away, sometimes there are people or doors blocking your view. I really felt that I was involved in Alike’s life, at her school, in her home, on the streets. While so many characters never get to know her because she is so closed off, we get a front row seat to it all.

Alike is a frustrating character. She is extremely standoffish to characters and quite rude to almost everyone. Portrayed by the wrong actress, this film could have been a disaster. But Adepero Oduye shines in a breakthrough role. This didn’t even seem like acting to me. Like I said earlier, because of the great cinematography the audience feels like they are really in Alike’s life, and this is strengthened when combined with Oduye’s convincing portrayal.

Other noteable standouts for me were best friend Laura (Pernell Walker) and Alike’s mother Audrey (Kim Wayans). Wayans especially, her character easily could’ve just been viewed as a villain but really becomes a sympathetic character thanks to the actress’ vulnerability.

However, this film was not entirely perfect. There is a subplot involving the parents’ marriage that added more depth to their characters but was somewhat confusing to me and became an overall distraction from the story of Alike. Also, the character of Bina (Aasha Davis) when first introduced is extremely likeable but later acts so completely out of character that it kind of took me out of the film for a moment. However, these issues with the film are really minor and didn’t affect the overall quality of the film.

I’m actually surprised it hasn’t received any awards buzz from the Oscars/Golden Globes/SAG because I found it to be much more entertaining than 2009’s ‘Precious.’  In a year filled with some pretty mediocre films, ‘Pariah’ is quite magnificent; hopefully it receives a wider theater release in the future.

SEE IT.

Well I caved: I saw The Artist. It is a good movie. I was not worried about that.

What scares me, once again, is the idea of a silent film winning the Oscar for Best Picture this year. A lot of people have asked me why I feel this way. Because that means, in 2011, we had nothing new to bring to the table. What we can do is stylishly show what the 1920’s and 30’s were like with a bigger budget. But what if we can add something in 2011 that makes it a bit different? We can. The Artist doesn’t. It sets itself up but doesn’t deliver on that promise.

The Artist is about an older actor struggling to deal with sound in motion pictures. The other story line involves a woman’s rise to success during the same time. Naturally, the two stories are intersected and provide an endearing and interesting movie. The performances from Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo were phenomenal as well, and in such a weak year, I’d be surprised if Dujardin doesn’t take home his own statue on Oscar night. But I think it’s being judged from an unfair angle.

It seems the reason the film is getting so much attention is due to its silent nature. Yes, it’s quite impressive that anyone even attempted that in a year that featured a sequel from every franchise ever made (almost). But this viewpoint does nothing to acknowledge the film itself. Because while it’s good, good is not great. Good is not Oscar worthy. Apparently, though, silence trumps that logic.

All that being said, I don’t know there is any other movie that handles itself as well as The Artist. I guess it’s not the fault of the film that nothing this year could compete. In a stronger year (last year), it would have been considered, but eventually lost.

To be clear, I am a fan of silent films. I’m a fan of creativity and originality. The Artist gets so close to bringing a fresh look at the transition from silent to color. But, in the end, left nothing necessarily new.

SEE IT/RENT IT

If David Fincher’s auteurism doesn’t normally intrigue you, there are many other things this film gets right. First, the plot, filled with many twists and a lot of action, remains an intelligent plot throughout the film, a quality hard to find in many of today’s action/thriller crossovers. Secondly (and quite relatedly), the film’s dialogue is realistic and believable. In such films where over-the-top dialogue tends to give away just how bad a film is, this movie gets it right. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is blessed by a range of good acting: Daniel Craig, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgaard, and Yorick van Wageningen all did great jobs within their roles (even if they struggled a bit with unifying accents). And most central of all, relative newcomer Rooney Mara did a truly fantastic job. I cannot stress enough just how much Mara transformed for this role, believably becoming the girl with the dragon tattoo. If there is only one reason to see this movie, it should be Mara’s performance.

I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the excellent soundtrack and score in the film, most perfectly summed up by Karen O and Trent Reznor’s cover of Led Zepplin’s “Immigrant Song,” which first premiered in the teaser for the film oh so long ago. Well, it was perfectly used and worked to encapsulate the film, the characters, and the plot as a whole.

After a long wait, I’m happy to report that David Fincher does live up to his promise and achieves the perfect “Feel Bad Movie of Christmas.”

SEE IT.