Modern Classics: Twelve Monkeys

Warning: Spoilers

Terry Gilliam has always been an intriguing director, and while some of his films have been accused of being inaccessible, one of his most successful and mainstream films to date is without a doubt 1995’s Twelve Monkeys.  Starring Bruce Willis in a role perfectly tailored to his strengths, as well as Madeleine Stowe and Brad Pitt, Twelve Monkeys was inspired by 1962 French short “La Jetée” (which incidentally can be found online here). The story may appear to be conventional sci-fi fare at first glance, but Gilliam’s take on the script by David Webb Peoples and Janet Peoples is as un-Hollywood as a big Hollywood movie can get.

In a post-apocalyptic world set in 2035, human beings have been forced to live underground after a terrible and mysterious virus killed 5 billion people, leaving only 1% of the world’s population to continue on in a dystopian future where we meet our protagonist, James Cole (Willis). Cole, imprisoned for various violent criminal activities, becomes one of the reluctant “volunteers” of The Scientists, a peculiar group of intellectuals attempting to piece together the origins of the virus in the hopes of finding a cure. Desperate to find out more about the mysterious “Army of the Twelve Monkeys” whom they believe released the virus, the scientists attempt to send Cole back in time to 1996 to gather more information. Time travel, however, is apparently not an exact science and Cole finds himself in 1990, trading one prison for another as he is placed in the care of Dr. Kathryn Railly (Stowe), a psychiatrist at a disturbing mental institution, where his ramblings about being sent to the wrong year and a deadly virus get him in hot water.

Now, the problem with movies involving time travel is they tend to be very confusing and are usually not very impervious to any close inspection, and more often than not, gaping plot holes soon emerge. Twelve Monkeys keeps the rules simpler than most. You can’t change the future; nothing you do will change the original trajectory that time is passing through. Cole’s mission isn’t to try and save the world, but to obtain information about the virus to help the scientists from his present figure out a cure without causing too much of a ripple in the time continuum. It quickly becomes apparent to Cole that the human mind finds it difficult processing being in different times, and he soon becomes very disoriented and confused, in addition to being drugged by the orderlies in the mental asylum.

The film draws many interesting parallels between the past and the present worlds that only seem to exacerbate Cole’s confusion in what is perhaps a subtle indicator of how the two worlds aren’t that very different. Cole is brought before a panel of scientists in his present and he is interrogated by an eerily similar panel of psychiatrists in the past. He is also scrubbed and cleaned by orderlies and guards in both time periods in a similar fashion. The rooms that he is placed in solitary confinement in during both times are virtually identical. Cole eventually gets sent to the correct year of 1996, and it is hinted throughout the film that countless “volunteers” have been sent back throughout the years to all kinds of different times and places by The Scientists. Cole also begins to frequently have run-ins (or hallucinations, it’s not always explicitly clear) with other people from his present in the past; things for Cole become very muddled to say the very least. In steps in Dr. Railly.

We are introduced to her character at a poetry recital, with the poem “The Rubaiyat” by Omar Khayyam echoing the themes of the film:

Yesterday This Day's Madness did prepare;
To-morrow's Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! For you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! For you know not why you go, nor where.

In a lecture on madness and apocalyptic visions she gives later on, she references Cassandra, a mortal from Greek mythology who is given the gift of being able to foresee the future along with the curse of having no one believe her prophecies of impending doom.  Partly because of the nature of her work, Railly feels drawn to Cole for reasons that she cannot fully explain (until later on), and although she is initially fearful and lacking in faith, she soon begins to believe Cole’s story. And in turn, Cole begins to fall in love with Railly and the life that he could never have, an escape from the harsh reality of his present, where everything to be seen is assembled wreckage from a past he wants to stay in.

Willis is in very good form throughout the film and he lends the story a grounded emotional center. Despite possessing an unsettlingly violent temperament that is always bubbling just under the surface, Cole is a character we empathize with almost instantly. Haunted by a confusing dream of a man getting shot in an airport ever since he was a child, Cole is a reluctant anti-hero desperate to escape a bleak decayed future, and his journey reaches him to the point where he begins to seriously question his own sanity. Used and abused throughout the film by external forces, Cole's suffering is a reminder that in the face of an increasingly technological society, our detachment from the world and each other has only increased even further. More than anything else, Cole desires to be free from control, to be able to live his own unfettered life.

These are themes that Twelve Monkeys has in common with Gilliam’s Brazil, a dystopian work that is more farcical and darkly comedic in tone.  Gilliam has always created uniquely fantastical worlds, and the two films share many stylistic characteristics as he takes us from the seedy graffiti-ridden underbelly of modern day Philadelphia to a desolate future assembled from the crumbling remnants of our present. Twelve Monkeys is a much more serious and somber film however, although outlandishly comedic moments are interspersed throughout. These mainly involve Jeffrey Goines (Pitt), a mental patient who becomes acquainted with Cole in the asylum, an unbalanced character who Cole eventually connects with the Army of the Twelve Monkeys.

Ultimately, the film questions the meaning of sanity and reality, and explores their relative and subjective nature. The inevitability of fate is also an important theme, as throughout Cole’s journey in attempting to discover those behind unleashing the virus, he frequently appears to influence the very events that caused him to come to the past.  A potent sadness permeates the entire film as Cole begins to see his old dream in a new light but too late for Cole to realize that, in a sense, he is helplessly stuck in an unavoidable loop.  In the end, it is somehow fitting that much of the film’s narrative regarding the army of twelve monkeys ends up being nothing more than a red herring, and the research scientist who turns out to be behind the release of the virus engenders an apocalyptic philosophy that echoes the worries of our time, especially with the continually escalating concerns about over-population and global warming.

Verdict: A unique film coming from the unconventional mind of Monty Python alum Terry Gilliam, Twelve Monkeys is an entertaining and engaging journey with rich symbolism and important themes that remain relevant 17 years later.

Movie info:

Runtime: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

Cast: Bruce Willis, Madeleine Stowe, Brad Pitt, Christopher Plummer

Director: Terry Gilliam

Screenplay: David Webb Peoples, Janet Peoples

Cinematography: Roger Pratt

Distributed by: Universal Pictures

Thor Review

Thor, the latest Marvel Comics adaption, is a big-budget film feature that has blockbuster hit written all over it, but ultimately, it fails to stand out of the crowd. Helmed by Kenneth Branagh, whose efforts of note include Shakespeare adaptations Henry V and Hamlet, one would expect a film with more focus on plot and character development, but sadly, both are lacking in Thor. The latest of the Avengers to have his own film, Thor joins Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and the upcoming Captain America: The First Avenger in a series of films that will culminate with the release of The Avengers in the summer of 2012. Taking most of its inspiration from Norse mythology, the source material is not as widely known or well-read as Spiderman and X-Men or other Marvel Comics, and that could play to this film’s advantage as an entirely new mythology can be introduced to an audience unfamiliar with the story. 

The basic storyline is simple enough: The young and impulsive Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to be crowned the new King of Asgard in place of his aging father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), but the coronation is interrupted after the realm is infiltrated by Frost Giants. Thor decides to retaliate, but his actions upset the fragile state of affairs between the realms of Asgard and Jutunheim, home of the Frost Giants. Odin decides to teach his son a lesson and banishes Thor to Earth while also taking away his hammer “Mjolnir”, the source of all of his powers. Odin then decrees that only the worthy can possess the powers of the hammer. There are a number of differences from the comic book origin story and the one in the film. In the comic book, Thor is banished to Earth without the knowledge of his origin as a God or of the powers of the hammer he once possessed, but for the film’s purposes, this plot point was not retained. Forsaken and abandoned, Thor embarks on a journey to get his powers back and he immediately finds himself crossing paths with scientist and researcher Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and sure enough, they immediately become smitten with each other. Clark Gregg reprises his role as Agent Coulson from the Iron Man movies and he initially stands in the way of Thor’s attempts to reprise his hammer. Thor’s younger brother Loki, whose maneuverings behind the scenes may have had more than a small part in influencing those events, immediately begins to take advantage of the situation, but Thor’s trusty band of warriors begin to suspect foul play.

There are no memorable performances in Thor, but the cast is adequate enough for what the film requires. Chris Hemsworth is a good casting choice and looks the part as Thor, and he possesses the raw volatility and charisma that perfectly capture the essence of the character.  Natalie Portman, coming off her Oscar-winning performance in Black Swan, is disappointingly unexciting and uninspired as scientist Jane Foster in a role without a hint of originality. Anthony Hopkins has perfected the role of the aging mentor in recent years, and is fitting in his small yet important role as Odin, King of Asgard and Loki and Thor’s father. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is one of the more interesting characters in this film. Playing second fiddle to Thor his entire life, Loki struggles to find his own purpose and is troubled with feelings of being different for as long as he can remember.

Thor is essentially a story of self-discovery and the journey into manhood. Stuck on Earth without his powers, Thor must learn to abandon the recklessness and arrogance of his former self and assume the responsibilities required to become King of Asgard and protector of the well-being of the nine realms. Along the way, he begins to fall in love with Foster, and by the end, he begins to understand the sacrifices he must make as King. The sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki is the key central relationship in this film, and in the end, all that they both strive for is their father’s approval. Both brothers choose drastically divergent paths to do so, and those two paths collide numerous times throughout the movie. There are humorous moments interspersed throughout that keep the general tone light-hearted, with characters such as Darcy (Kat Dennings), Foster’s research assistant, primarily hanging around for comic relief. The plot itself has many interesting Shakespearean elements to it but that remains more or less unexplored and unexamined with action and explosions ruling the day. There actually is very little eye popping action in the film and besides one or two major sequences, that element is surprisingly relatively low key.

All in all, Thor is a satisfactory crowd-pleaser designed to entertain at a superficial level but the strength of the back story makes one wonder what could have been done if a darker and more mature approach had been applied.

B-

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 115 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne

Cinematography: Haris Zambarloukos

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Hobo with a Shotgun Review

WARNING: SPOILERS

Originally conceived in 2007 by Canadian filmmaker Jason Eisener as a two minute long entry for a “Grindhouse” trailer contest, Hobo with a Shotgun is a reminder of what a movie should be: entertaining. It’s definitely not going to win any awards and it’s definitely not for everyone, but for those looking for over the top action and tongue in cheek humour, the ludicrous and violent world of Hobo with a Shotgun is the perfect example of cinematic escapism. 

Starring Dutch actor Rutger Hauer (of Blade Runner fame), we find him here as an old, slightly senile, slightly unhinged homeless person who’s been downtrodden and disrespected his entire life. We witness the horrors of Hope Town through the eyes of the Hobo, and we are introduced to the main villains of the film early on, and they are all suitably twisted and evil. The Drake (Brian Downey) and his two sons Ivan (Nick Bateman) and Slick (Gregory Smith) are all murderous sociopaths, and together, they control Hope Town with fear and intimidation, and when that isn’t enough, with violence. The imagery in this movie is, as expected, graphic, and to viewers unaccustomed to such fare, quite shocking. Some of the foul people the Hobo runs into include a rapist police officer, a man who pays homeless people to fight each other and torture themselves in front of a camera, and a paedophile in a Santa Claus costume. Rip and Grinder, henchmen of Drake’s who are collectively known as the Plague, are two of the most violent and sadistic characters ever conceived on film. Nothing appears to be taboo in this film and no one is safe, not even women or school buses full of children.

The Hobo is torn between staying uninvolved and pursuing his dream of mowing lawns one day and standing up and fighting back to avenge all the citizens whose lives the Drake and his sons have destroyed. Eventually, the Hobo can’t just stand aside and watch, and with his shotgun and prostitute Abby along for the ride, he embarks on a bloody journey of retribution that can only end in one way. There is some basic social commentary on the pros and cons of vigilantism and the necessity to stand up for what’s right when no one else will that manifests itself throughout  the film, but there’s always a self-parodying undertone throughout; this movie clearly does not take itself too seriously. There are also a number of intentionally hilarious scenes and lines from this film that bring another layer of entertainment to the viewer, most of them playing on the clichés and stereotypes of the genre and B-movies in general.

The main cast of Hobo with a Shotgun does its job well for the most part. Rutger Hauer is simply excellent in a surprisingly emotional performance as a Hobo whose experiences have forced him to become cynical and disillusioned with the cruelty of the world. His naive attempts to hold on to hope and save Abby and himself from their harsh realities are oddly touching. All the villains are appropriately sinister and demented, and Gregory Smith, who some might  recognize as the former star of teen drama Everwood, impresses the most as Slick, the favourite and heir of the Drake’s two sons, as he takes on a surprisingly different role for someone with his track record. There is also a brief cameo appearance of George Stroumboulopoulos, a well known Canadian TV personality, as a news anchor who meets his demise at the hands of Ivan and Slick.

Although the film begins to drag and wear out its welcome towards the end, it does a better job than most in toeing the line between graphic absurdity and valid entertainment. For what it is, the low budget Hobo with a Shotgun is a surprisingly well done homage that perfectly captures the outrageous camp style and over the top melodrama of the genre, and Jason Eisener displays potential of a bright future with this film.

B-

Trailer:

Original Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 86 minutes

Certification: R

Cast: Rutger Hauer, Brian Downey, Molly Dunsworth, Gregory Smith, Nick Bateman

Director: Jason Eisener

Screenplay: John Davies, Jason Eisener, Rob Cotterill

Cinematography: Karim Hussain

Distributed by: Alliance Films (Canada), Magnet Releasing (USA)

Belated Sucker Punch Review

WARNING: SPOILERS

One of the most highly anticipated films of 2011, Zak Snyder’s Sucker Punch is a complete and utter dud. Zack Snyder, of “300” and “Watchmen” fame, has created a film that is the perfect example of when style detrimentally trumps substance. Sucker Punch is the latest entry in a sub-genre of typically R-rated films where CGI and green screens are extensively used and the plot is a combination of graphic edginess, violence, sexuality and certain other film noir sensibilities. The trend unofficially began with “Sin City” in 2005, and the sub-genre enjoyed continued success with Snyder’s 2007 film “300”. Snyder gets that combination to work in “300” and the narrative’s origins as a graphic novel makes it perfectly appropriate for Snyder’s unique and adventurous style. But in Snyder’s original work of Sucker Punch, that style fails tremendously. Sucker Punch’s multi-layered world of realities appears inspired in part by Inception, but unfortunately, it’s completely devoid of the excitement and strong narrative that Inception possesses. The basic problem here is that Sucker Punch is not particularly graphic, edgy, or sexy. The decision to release it with a PG-13 rating boggles the mind for me, and it goes completely against what made “300” so successful. “300” is one of the highest grossing R rated films of all time which shows that the formula can be applied successfully, and I believe that the lack of subsequent success with Watchmen has some role behind the PG-13 rating. While Watchmen did do reasonably alright in the box office, it was not the cash cow that the studios envisioned it would be, and movie executives, perhaps afraid of a repeated failure, may have neutered Sucker Punch’s potential by trying to make the movie more accessible to younger audiences. The hope may have been that teens would be so enamoured by the film that they would come back in droves for multiple viewings. 

Sucker Punch, at first glance, appears to offer so much, but it lets the audience down on multiple counts, especially by the twist we are subjected to at the unsatisfying end. The characters are uninteresting and cardboard thin and they are never fully or properly developed.  The cast is bland and unexceptional, but they do what is expected of them, which isn't much. The main lead is Baby Doll (Emily Browning), who finds herself placed in an insane asylum by her evil step-father. He schedules her to have a lobotomy and pays off one of the orderlies (Oscar Isaac), who becomes the chief villain in the film. To escape that harsh reality, she imagines herself in an alternate reality where she becomes a dancer at a brothel. In this alternate reality, she must escape before a high roller arrives at the brothel and takes her away and she recruits fellow dancers Blondie and Amber as well as sisters Sweet Pea and Rocket to join her. Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) is the overprotective older sister and the leader of the group, and is initially unwilling to take part in the risky escape attempt. An underdeveloped sub-plot of discord between the two sisters is occasionally touched upon throughout the film, and Sweet Pea is threatened by Baby Doll’s risky actions that could potentially put her and Rocket (Jena Malone) in jeopardy. We never get to really know these characters or care for them. Here, it’s all about the visuals of the CGI rendered variety, whether it’s seeing a hot blonde in a school girl uniform acrobatically dodging massive Samurai armed with machine guns or seeing the girls fight in World War I trenches against undead German soldiers.

On a basic level, the film is reasonably entertaining but it quickly falls into a predictable formulaic and repetitive pattern in which Baby Doll must obtain a number of items on a list to help her escape. Baby Doll loses herself in other alternate realities to get those items, each of which has to be obtained in that different fictionalized setting. In these other alternate realities, Baby Doll and the other girls become gun wielding heroines with super human strength. There are blatant influences from “Lord of the Rings” and “I, Robot” amongst other movies in the various action packed segments, and people familiar with those films will definitely notice this. Although the CGI scenes are visually stunning, they aren’t particularly inspired or engrossing, and the movie falters for those very reasons. It isn’t engaging because we know there isn’t any tangible danger, there is no real threat, and we don’t care for any of the characters in the first place, and all of it is happening in someone’s mind anyway. What many filmmakers appear to not realize nowadays is that you can have all the explosions and cool stunts and effects you want but if there is no purpose or point behind it, it seems to be done just for its own self-masturbatory sake. Eventually, it leaves you bored and impatiently thinking: “Just get on with it already!”

There is a small group of hardcore fans of this film who will defend it with a passion on forums and who claim that a large degree of subtlety in the film has been lost on many people but those fans are looking for a transcendent quality in Sucker Punch that is deceptive and lacking. The main problem with this movie is that is tries to be something more than it actually is. This film doesn’t know what it wants to be or what age group it should appeal to; Sucker Punch tries to appeal to teenage boys at times, to teenage girls at other times, and at other times it becomes quite adult-oriented. There are few genuine shocks or surprises, but in the end, the film confusedly tries to add another layer in a twist of sorts. The big reveal is that Baby Doll is never the star of the story but rather, we were following Sweet Pea’s story all along. From the very start, we were apparently witnessing events from Sweet Pea’s eyes and all of the imaginings occur in her mind. The exact details of this are never really explained and we are supposed to just accept it in the end and think:  Wow, this movie is so clever! It all makes sense now! What exactly happens in the asylum and the imagined world of the brothel now becomes very muddled and unclear, but apparently, that doesn’t matter as we are forced to accept it with no questions asked. The film tries to leave you with a message that champions the power of the mind and its ability to overcome adversity. In this way, Sucker Punch poses as a movie about self-empowerment, or more specifically, female empowerment, but in reality, all these themes are just tacked on to a narrative that is utterly lacking and paper thin for all intents and purposes. There are those who claim that the film is an interesting look at how the mind copes with stressful and traumatic situations, but the psychological aspect is completely devoid of purpose or depth in this film. The only reason the various settings utilized in the film are chosen is because they are supposed to be cool and this is a movie full of hot girls so obviously the filmmakers give them guns and sexy outfits and have them work as dancers in a brothel; there’s no subtle rationale for it at all.

On paper, Sucker Punch seemed like a cool concept that would bring thrills with a dash of outlandishness and exciting escapism, but in practice, it all melds together into an unsatisfying and uneasy concoction that is a complete waste of time.

C

Trailer: 

Movie info:

Runtime: 110 minutes

MPAA rating: PG-13

Cast: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Oscar Isaac, Carla Gugino, Vanessa Hudgens

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: Zack Snyder & Steve Shibuya

Cinematography: Larry Fong

I Am Number Four Review

There’s always a shortage of good films this time of year, and February and March are typically the dumping ground for films that distributors may not have high hopes for. A movie like I Am Number Four would seem to belong in the summer season when teen-oriented blockbusters are usually released, but the lack of star power and lack of familiarity with the origin material, as well as the overall poor expectations of the studio for the film may have resulted in a February release to avoid the bigger summer movies. I wasn’t surprised to find out that I Am Number Four is adapted from a teen novel as everything in movie theatres lately seems to be adapted or based on something from another medium. Clearly, hopes were that this would be the beginning of a successful movie franchise, a new hybrid of superhero films and Twilight, and a series of books have apparently already been proposed. 

The basic plotline is clearly and blatantly derivative of the basic Superman story, and unsurprisingly, two of the writers of this film are Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, the creators of teen TV series “Smallville”. The parallels between the film and Smallville are there for all to see for people familiar with the show and its equally bland lead. Taking a cue from the unimaginative and uninspired title, the film’s narrative continues in the same vein. A young teenage alien with the alias of John Smith possesses supernatural powers he doesn’t fully understand or comprehend, and is one of the last survivors from the planet Lorien. A story like this needs its villains, and a ridiculous race of evil aliens named the Mogodorians fill that role. They have ambitions to rule Earth, but before they can do so, they must eliminate John and several other fellow Loriens. The film begins with John enjoying himself at the beach when he experiences things he has never felt before as he senses the death of Number Three. Why the Loriens have to be killed in a certain order is not really explained in the film itself, neither is the back story of the Loriens explained in any way beyond a very brief summary of events in the beginning of the film. One gets the impression that the filmmakers were banking on the film perhaps garnering enough interest for filmgoers to buy the book or for filmgoers to already be fans of the book.

John and his guardian Henri live a life on the run, and they must keep a low profile at all costs. They move to the peaceful town of Paradise, Ohio, and Henri doesn’t even want John to go to school at first. But all John wants is to have a normal teenage life and because he realizes he’s next on the Mogodorians’ list, this desire for normalcy increases even more as he begins to establish friendships and experience love for the first time. The film’s last half is action packed and is suitably fast paced enough and laden with enough special effects and giant CGI monsters that it will satisfy the target audience. This film is clearly oriented for young teenagers, and based on the casting of the lead, for teenage girls in particular. Clearly, something had to be made to fill the void that Twilight has left before it returns to movie theatres.

D.J. Caruso’s latest directing effort is nowhere near as entertaining or engaging as Disturbia or Eagle Eye, and both those movies have fared considerably better in the box office.  And while Shia La Beouf (star of the two aforementioned movies) is not my favourite actor, he does have a certain charisma and affability to him that is completely lacking in Alex Pettyfer, and this film may have stood a chance if it had an engaging and interesting lead. Stone-faced and callow in his performance, Pettyfer maintains the same demeanour and facial expression throughout the film, with the appropriately and perfectly placed grime and blood on his face being the only changing constant in his performance throughout the film. The under-used and underrated Timothy Olyphant was the only positive I could take from this film, and he is perfect in the role of the aging guardian and acts as good counterbalance to the impetuous and stereotypical rebellious teen played by Pettyfer.   The rest of the cast consists of typical stock characters, the nerdy fellow social outcast and only friend who he must protect, the blonde love interest who’s the only one who understands him, the jock bully ex-boyfriend...you get it. It’s all been done to death before and a lot better than it’s done here.  

Nothing could save this movie from its completely lack of originality or spontaneity, and we all know exactly what’s going to happen well before the end credits. This isn’t always necessarily a failing of a film, but it is in this case where the journey to that end is definitely not worth the watch or the wait. Devoid of any kind of originality, I Am Number Four is a simple crowd pleaser that brings nothing new to the table and will be quickly forgotten long before the big summer blockbusters come out.

C

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 109 minutes

MPAA rating: PG-13

Cast: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Kevin Durand, Teresa Palmer, Dianna Agron

Director: D.J. Caruso

Screenplay: Alfred Gough, Miles Millar & Marti Noxon

Cinematography: Guillermo Navarro

Incendies Review

Incendies is an ambitious Canadian Quebec-made film with major aspirations that tries to do a lot, and for the most part it is an admirable success. Adapted from “Scorched”, a 2005 play written by Lebanese-born Wajdi Mouawad, the French language film is the complicated and intricate story of two twins living in Canada who receive some shocking news in their recently deceased mother’s will. The twins, Jeanne and Simon, are surprised to find out that their father, unbeknownst to them, is still alive, and that they have an older brother still living somewhere in their mother’s country of origin, Lebanon.

One of the twins, Jeanne, is determined to unravel the secrets of her family history, and Simon, desperate to rid himself of his mother’s past and move on with his life, wants nothing to do with it. We experience most of the movie through Jeanne in the present and her mother Nawal in lengthy flashbacks during the 1970s, and it is through their eyes that we witness the terrible bitterness and hatred that swallowed up Lebanon. To those unfamiliar with the violent history of war torn Lebanon, the movie recounts the evils perpetrated there by both the Muslim and Christian sides. As the movie progresses, one begins to understand the terrible events that transpired in that country, the sacrifices people made, and how even something as important as the bond between family can be tragically lost and twisted. The movie is unflinchingly violent and graphic at times, and events that transpire will shock some people, but it is in these moments that one can witness the irrational and inexplicable things war does to a country, and understand how love and family is the important link that transcends it.

The low profile cast and director would be completely unknown to people accustomed to Hollywood movies, and their work here is exceptional. Never once do you doubt the integrity of the movie and never once does director Denis Villeneuve lose focus on the driving force of the narrative in this film, and Incendies is a more powerful experience because of it. Its roots as a play are very apparent here, and the movie wouldn’t be quite as effective and challenging without the great performances of the actors. Lubna Azabal plays the part of Nawal Marwan and she has the most demanding role in this movie. Her experience as a young Christian woman in a country swallowed up by Muslim-Christian hatred and violence, where reprisal killings of men, women, and children were common and people on both sides were shockingly unremorseful and merciless, shows the divide in that country that continues to prevail to this day.

The movie has an unusual but low key soundtrack that includes a number of songs by Radiohead, and their unique brand of music works well in this movie. “You and Whose Army” and “Like Spinning Plates” are utilized exceptionally well and the harrowing music instantly puts you in the setting and mood of this movie. The film has a runtime of 130 minutes and its theatrical origins are noticeable as its slow pacing makes the viewing experience a little cumbersome at times but besides that, Incendies is well told and a number of key scenes keep the narrative flowing and strong. Incendies may meet criticism from some circles for what they may consider a shallow and contrived melodramatic attempt to tell the story of Lebanon through the story of the Marwan family.  The key difference however, is that this story is not sensationalized in any way and things that occur in this movie have happened and could very possibly have happened in many war torn countries. Authenticity is paramount here, and the fact that it was written by someone of Lebanese origin gives credence to this, and there is clearly a great deal of personal pain and anguish in this story. Incendies is ultimately a tale of secrets, suffering, family and how the truth should never be buried or concealed. Hopefully, its nomination for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language film will give this impressive movie the exposure and attention it deserves.

A-

Trailer:

Movie info:

Runtime: 130 minutes

MPAA rating: R

Cast: Lubna Azabal, Melissa Desormeaux-Poulin, Maxim Gaudette, Remy Girard, Abdelghafour Elaziz

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Screenplay: Denis Villeneuve, Wajdi Mouawad

Cinematography: Andre Turpin

Distributed by: E1 Films Canada

                                                         

Blue Valentine Review

WARNING: SPOILERS

Definitely a movie that went under most cinemagoers’ radar during the awards season of 2010, Blue Valentine was a surprisingly painful and gut-wrenching movie to watch. Only available in limited release in Canada, it was difficult to find a theater near where I live that played the movie but the journey was definitely worth it and I finally got around to seeing it in late January. All in all, Blue Valentine is a movie I found to be one of the more rewarding movie experiences in the past year, and one that challenged the conventions of its genre.

The movie, directed by a relative unknown (Derek Cianfrance), has a poignant resonance that elevates it above the rest of the schlocky romantic dramas that come out every year and the main reason behind that is the riveting performance of its two leads (Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling). What drew me and interested me in watching this film in the first place was the presence of Ryan Gosling as the male lead. Ryan Gosling, an actor who I used to revile and solely associate with “Young Hercules”, a terrible TV show I used to watch as a kid, has completely changed my perception of him in recent years. He impressed me with his performance in the largely ignored “Half Nelson”, a movie that actually got him an Oscar nomination in 2006, and he also had similarly great performances in the otherwise unremarkable “Fracture” and “Lars and the Real Girl”. Playing the role of Dean, this is by far his best and most mature role and he has become one of my favourite young actors working in Hollywood today. Gosling exudes a certain magnetic charm and charisma that makes his character’s decline into a balding, out of shape, and at times violent alcoholic even more difficult to witness. Williams’ performance as Cindy is equally as good as Gosling’s, and she is very convincing as a depressed and sad woman who has fallen out of love and wants more out of life.

The movie, at its core, is beautiful in its simplicity. It tells the sometimes touching, sometimes painful to watch love story between two people who ended up together in less than ideal circumstances and who are ultimately looking for different things in life. The movie adeptly moves back and forth through time from the past to the present as the story of their relationship slowly unfolds and you begin to understand the characters more and more. Parts of the plot do seem to fall into the general clichés of the genre but they are handled with a maturity and at other times with a tragic realism that you would not find in the typical Julia Roberts flick. The movie’s cinematography has a very unique and immersive feel that utilizes extreme close-ups of the leads in certain scenes that some may find awkward and unwieldy at times but it serves the movie’s intense tone well. There are graphic sex scenes in the movie that aren’t easy to watch, and it is during those scenes, at the pinnacle of the problems of the relationship, that you see the worst in both characters during a drunken and regrettable night spent at a seedy motel.

The greatest success of this movie is that it has three dimensional characters that are unique in their depth and true to themselves. Both characters are just looking for happiness in life and strive to achieve it, and both make their mistakes, and in a rare success in a film of this genre, you understand why they make those mistakes. You may not like where the movie takes you or what ultimately ends up happening, but you understand the characters’ motivations behind their decisions and choices.  The movie never gives you one big reason why things go wrong but just shows how things slowly unravel over time. There isn’t some big reveal or some major infidelity that ultimately ends the relationship, but rather, it is the slow and steady realization that the person you are with is not who you are meant to be with; the steady realization that you can’t be happy and there is no way to work things out. You see the good and the bad in both characters, and while there was a time when they were happy, it becomes apparent how nothing in life is clear cut and simple, and how redemption and happy endings aren’t always what lie in store for every relationship.

B+

Trailer:   
    

Movie Info: 

Runtime: 112 min  

MPAA rating: R 

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams, Faith Wladyka, John Doman, Mike Vogel, Ben Shenkman

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Screenplay: Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, Joey Curtis

Cinematography: Andrij Parekh 

Distributed by: The Weinstein Company