The Impossible (2012) Review

“The Impossible”

Disaster movies are more than often treated as giant spectacles made to show off groundbreaking special effects and large star-studded casts. When people think of a disaster movie, I would assume that images of “The Day After Tomorrow,” “2012,” and “The Poseidon Adventure” are the first that come to mind. The recent, Oscar-nominated film, “The Impossible,” provides a counterpoint to those massive productions, favoring the intimacy of a single family over creating an ensemble of megastars.

The year is 2004, and the Bennett family is trying to spend their Christmas vacation at a tropical resort in Thailand. However, while enjoying a day at the pool, a massive tsunami sweeps over the area, splitting mother Maria and son Lucas from father Henry and younger sons Thomas and Simon. In the aftermath of the tsunami, Maria and Lucas try to help some people along the way while Henry searches for them amongst the crowds and wreckage.

As you may have gathered, “The Impossible” uses the real life Thailand tsunami as its backdrop, and in fact the central family here is based on a real one that was vacationing. Qualms over the whitewashing of them in the film (the real family is Spanish) are certainly understandable, but the harrowing performances by Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor work hard to forgive that creative decision. With the painful ordeals that Maria goes through, it is no surprise that Watts has been nominated for the Best Actress Oscar, and her chemistry with first-time actor Tom Holland carries the first half of the film. Despite being only 16 years old, Holland nearly steals the film from his seasoned co-stars as Lucas learns the importance of human connections over the course of the film.

Speaking of those painful ordeals, this is a disaster that doesn’t shy away from the little details that many forget to show. In a less distinguished film, the tsunami may have been shown as just a sweeping wave of destruction in wide shots, but director J.A. Bayona (“The Orphanage”) blends those with up-close-and-personal moments that will have some viewers cringing. A tsunami is not merely a wave of water, and will carry along anything it has hit previously such as branches, glass, and other sharp objects, meaning our protagonists do not walk away unscathed. The lack of extras diminishes the horror and scale of the main flood sequence, however I appreciate Bayona’s commitment to using practical effects whenever possible.

The film just about makes up for this by showing the enormity of the impact that the tsunami had on the residents and other vacationers. The family may have survived together (hard to spoil a true story), and yet the film does not forget the countless numbers of other families that were less fortunate. The story of one father that Henry comes across has a bittersweet vibe as he helps Henry locate his family, but at the same time is no closer to finding his own. This is counterbalanced by a subplot of Lucas bringing a father and son back together, showing that there is hope around all the distress.

As a film of this type, there are inevitably many scenes that try to work the tear ducts, and this film was less overwrought with those than most others although their was one particular sequence that felt too contrived. It is a classic case of camera positioning where characters looking for each other pass by without noticing them, and at first it works wonders at boiling your anxiety. But a couple of the character’s actions felt forced just to keep the scenario going, and it stood out after the more natural and reserved previous 90 minutes.

Even with those caveats, “The Impossible” is ultimately a better than average disaster film that does not resort to the preposterous and overblown idiocy that is usually associated with these films. I appreciated this immensely, and the raw, affecting performances from Watts, McGregor, and Holland are worth the price of admission alone. Compared to the buzz on many of the other Oscar-nominated films, “The Impossible” has been going under the radar, but it is worth checking out just like the rest of them.

3.5/4

Life of Pi (2012) Review

“Life of Pi”

“Life of Pi” is a hard film to pin down in one concrete category. Is it an adventure, an emotional drama, a fantasy epic, or a claustrophobic thriller? In the grand scheme of things, it’s all of those things rolled into one, coming together to present a story that is unlike the majority of mainstream cinema out there. Less complex (at least in plot) than “Cloud Atlas” but almost as ambitious in scope, I feel that “Life of Pi” could also be just as divisive with audiences, with hard cynics possibly scoffing at the faith-based storytelling and more fantastical elements on display. Allow yourself to become absorbed in the story though, and “Pi” could end up being very rewarding.

On a cross-oceanic trip from India with all their zoo animals in storage, Pi and his family are moving to Canada because of the political climate. On the way there, a strong storm manages to throw Pi overboard while the ship sinks with his family and the other sailors still inside. He manages to bring himself back to the lifeboat and gather some supplies, but he is not alone as multiple animals fight for space on the boat too. Eventually, only Pi’s Bengal tiger named Richard Parker is left on the boat, and Pi now has to deal with survival in the middle of the ocean while contending with the wild tiger trying to get at him.

It would be impossible to start a talk about “Life of Pi” without discussing the stunning visuals created by director Ang Lee (“Brokeback Mountain”) and the 3D cinematography by Claudio Miranda. This is, I would say, the absolute best 3D I have ever seen, even more so than “Hugo” and “Avatar.” There are some parallels to “Avatar” with the often hallucinogenic imagery created here, most notably in a nighttime scene where a school of luminescent jellyfish cover the ocean surface around the boat, but these sequences are played more as heightened reality instead of outright fantasy. Breathtaking shots such as the one where Pi is floating underwater as the lighted ship slowly sinks are the reasons we go to see movies on the big screen.

Rather than leaning on them as pure eye candy, Lee utilizes the visuals in ways that augment the story and the characters’ struggle. The scene of the boat resting in perfectly still and flat water, looking like a desert of the sea, enhances the sense of isolation Pi (and Richard) is going through. I must also commend Lee for having the stones to craft a $100 million budget film where not much happens, without any big stars, and the two leads are an Indian actor making his debut along with a digitally created tiger. As the only (human) actor with any substantial screen time, Suraj Sharma handles himself incredibly well, nailing both the intense determination Pi has to keep up with and the occasional comedic moment for levity in an otherwise somber film. I am also in awe at how the film was able to convince me that an entirely computer-generated tiger was interacting with a flesh and blood human. Richard Parker doesn’t have the subtle facial expressions of other digital characters like Gollum and Caesar, but then again he doesn’t have to talk anyway. He’s a bloodthirsty tiger through and through that wants to eat Pi the first chance he gets, but the special effects artists are able to form Richard into a fleshed out character as strong and memorable as Pi himself.

The adventures of Pi and Richard aren’t the only things going on here, as an older Pi (played by Irrfan Khan of “Slumdog Millionaire” fame) is narrating this entire story to a writer looking to turn it into a novel. This is where the aspects of faith are introduced into the story, with Pi telling the writer, “This is a story that will make you believe in God.” In his early years, Pi would practice multiple religions at the same time, so it’s unclear exactly which God he is referring too. I wouldn’t call myself an expert on religion, although there are many scenes and other aspects of the plot definitely meant to be symbols/metaphors for the various religions at play.  The only issue I have with these scenes with old Pi is that they tend to over-explain themselves too much, as the film already did a fine job of establishing its more ambiguous qualities. It just felt a little frustrating to see a film that had greatly kept to the “show don’t tell” adage of film storytelling throughout only to take a step too far into spelling things out for confused viewers. The most egregious example of this is where the writer character pieces together a story Pi told the fishermen who eventually found him, leaving me to say to myself, “Yes I know I think we could put two and two together ourselves thank you very much.”

I won’t say “Life of Pi” is a film for everyone, although my screening was pretty packed the day after Thanksgiving. The deliberate pacing could turn away some and I can understand why others would be apprehensive about a film so upfront about religion, but I think the film goes beyond that. It’s the experience of going along with Pi on this existential journey and watching the relationship between him and Richard Parker mutually develop that gives “Life of Pi” its backbone, and at the very least you’ll be able to see some cool and astounding images to keep your senses alert.

3.5/4

Skyfall (2012) Review

“Skyfall”

Russian spies and soldiers aside, who doesn’t love James Bond? As the old saying goes, “Men want to be him and women want to be with him.” Even as the quality of the movies varied, the formula stayed the same: beautiful women, diabolical villains, cool gadgets, etc. Well, 2006’s “Casino Royale” threw a wrench in that formula by keeping many of those elements but tweaking them in ways that felt fresh. “Royale” was the adrenaline shot in the arm that the franchise needed, and it’s a shame that “Quantum of Solace,” which I still enjoyed, wasn’t nearly on the same level. With “Skyfall,” it looks like everyone involved has put their all into it, and as a result puts the film toe-to-toe with both “Royale” and the best of the Original 20, as I refer to them.

With the Bond origin and Vesper Lynd story wrapped up by the end of “Quantum,” “Skyfall” is free to run wild and combine the modern seriousness of Daniel Craig’s portrayal of the character with the more flamboyant aspects of old. The scope of the story is bigger and the villain more colorful, but the key here is balance. The best of the over-the-top Bond movies (“Goldfinger” and “GoldenEye” for me) achieve a great amount of fun fantasy while reigning in the crazier parts, and “Skyfall” achieves a similar tonal balance. The old fashioned and new freshness is blended to great effect here, leaving us with a Bond movie that is full of pure fun excitement as well as letting us know that the stakes are high on this mission.

Craig himself remains as compelling and charismatic as ever, a Bond who is headstrong, intimidating, and vulnerable at the same time and continues with each film to inch closer and closer to Sean Connery’s iconic version. Berenice Marlohe and Naomie Harris fill their roles as “Bond Girls” more than adequately, but Judi Dench’s M is the true Bond girl here, though not in the literal sense. With the villain’s scheme directed at MI6 and M herself, it gives the prickly boss her biggest role yet. One of the best accomplishments of the Craig films has been the more prominent relationship between Bond and M, and “Skyfall” puts that front and center in a way that is more affective and meaningful than ever.

That villain in question in Raoul Silva, played with fervent glee by Javier Bardem. Adorned with the blond hair of Christopher Walken’s Max Zorin (“A View to a Kill”) and the effeminate nature of the henchmen duo Wint and Kidd (“Diamonds are Forever”), Bardem is a menacing, and in one scene very creepy, villain in the classical sense. Complete with a personal vendetta, an island lair, and a requisite facial deformity, Silva pushes Bond (and M as well) to his physical limit.

What sets “Skyfall” apart from the majority of the series is that it the script by John Logan and franchise regulars Neal Purvis and Robert Wade really digs into the essence of the character. The final act brings Bond (literally and figuratively) back to his roots and the start of the plot sets out to bring Bond down to his lowest point before “resurrecting” him. Bringing “American Beauty” director Sam Mendes, someone who hadn’t made a big budget action picture before, was a gamble that paid off incredibly well. With Mendes at the helm, there’s a heightened sense of drama that brings the story to life in between the action scenes.

Any complaints I have about “Skyfall” are really only nitpicks in the long run, mostly boiling down to things “I would have done” and the like. I can see others taking issue with the middle section though, which hues really close to another insanely popular movie where a crazy villain dupes the heroes. I can’t jump to the conclusion that it is the best of the series as many are claiming, as I’ve only seen the film once and my top three are ones that I have seen too many times to count, but it’s right outside of them. Those who jumped into the series with Daniel Craig should find “Skyfall” to be a tightly wound and highly entertaining spy thriller, but fans who heartily consume the classic entries and are familiar with Ian Fleming’s Bond novels will find even more to savor and love here.

4/4

Sinister (2012) Review

“Sinister”

Found footage horror movies are all the rage these days. “Paranormal Activity 4” just started its inevitably profitable run almost a week ago, and there have been several others released earlier in the year. One that slipped under the radar, which came out a few weeks back, was “Sinister,” although possibly that’s because it’s not your typical found footage movie. It has long sections of grainy home video playing out with creepy imagery, but that’s because the true main character is watching them, and the real story is about him and his family.

Ellison is a true crime writer who had his big break years ago with his first book, where he tracked down the real killer in a case and saved the innocent suspect being held accountable. However, in one of his follow-up books, he attempted a similar investigation, except in this case got the innocent man killed and the real killer set free. With his name disgraced and on the bad side of cops in local towns, he needs another hit bad in order to redeem himself. An opportunity comes up when an entire family is murdered and their daughter goes missing, so Ellison moves his family into their house and begins his research. Once he finds a box full of home videos with the murders on them though, weird things start happening around the house.

By blending elements of found footage, the supernatural, and even dashes of slasher movies sprinkled throughout, “Sinister” takes familiar facets of the genre and makes them work without feeling derivative. It even smartly sidesteps some of the frustrations that people have with horror genre (“Leave the house,” “Call the cops,” etc.) by providing rational explanations for why the family wouldn’t do these things. If anything, the family drama scenes are arguably the best ingredients in the plot. Too often, horror movies let the stock stereotypes define the characters and cost by on the throwaway banter between them, but “Sinister” manages to make you legitimately care about these people. The relationships between Ellison and his wife and kids are palpable, and the flawed characterization of Ellison makes him a much more interesting character to watch than most horror characters.

This strong characterizations and acting (courtesy of Ethan Hawke and Juliet Rylance) is important because they are able to sustain the film’s plot even when the horror parts don’t work as well as they could. Director Scott Derrickson, who also wrote the script with C. Robert Cargill (former film critic of Aint It Cool News and Spill.com), has created a whole mythology for the demon at the center of the film, Bughuul, a terrifying creation with his dark, angled eyes and pale visage. His appearances are very effective, lending an air of menace to the video footage, on top of the already chilling imagery of watching the original families being murdered. Derrickson understands the simple creepiness of little movements and sounds, establishing a strong sense of mood and atmosphere, as well as dolling out gruesome and disturbing blood moments without being gratuitous.

Where Derrickson stumbles is keeping the momentum and pace at the right pitch. The majority of the first two acts is Ellison watching the video footage; creepy enough on its own but less so in creating an air of danger to the main characters. To counteract this, jump scares are often applied to break up the tension, and some are well used while others are there just to give the audience a cheap jolt. At nearly two hours, the film could have used some editing trims and maybe even some script polish to compress events to create a more fluid plot momentum, as well as dialing back the cheaper scares that aren’t necessary.

Even with this overstretched buildup, by the time the final stretch rolls along, Derrickson and Cargill have concocted some clever tricks up their sleeve to make the experience worthwhile with a proper payoff. The climax isn’t a clichéd chase and fight for survival, but conceived as an event with more subtle and, yes, sinister intentions. I won’t be surprised if this ending polarizes audiences, as some will love it (as I do) while others will probably not jive well with it. For myself, even with the somewhat repetitive and slow beginning and middle (at least in terms of the horror), the outcome was worth it and because I cared about these characters, I remained invested in the story all throughout. For those that are perhaps tired of the “Paranormal Activity” franchise (of which I still haven’t seen the new one), “Sinister” is a worthwhile and very recommended horror alternative for Halloween time.

3/4

Frankenweenie (2012) Review

“Frankenweenie”

Tim Burton’s career is a story of contradictions. When he attempts adapting other people’s material (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Batman,” “Planet of the Apes”) he consistently finds immense financial success, although considerably less on the critical front. His more personal and original material (“Edward Scissorhands,” “Beetlejuice,” “Ed Wood”) find much more love in the people that see them, but are also less commercially popular than the adaptations. This is a shame, as these movies display his clear passion for filmmaking and the story that most of the adaptations don’t always show. “Frankenweenie” joins those movies of his that I will gladly encourage others to see because few seem to be taking notice of it.

The film is actually an animated, feature length remake of a live action short that Burton created before his filmic career took off. Science whiz Victor Frankenstein (the film is unashamed about taking names from classic horror characters) is a bit of a loner boy at his school whose best friend is his dog Sparky. When Sparky is accidently run over by a car, it deals a heavy blow to Victor. While watching his science teacher perform an experiment at school, Victor gets the idea to perform the same experiment on Sparky and bring him back to life. The procedure works and the two reunite, but now Victor has to deal with hiding his reanimated pet from jealous students and others who “wouldn’t understand.”

In a way, I don’t blame people who may have become weary of Burton. As a director with a career that spans over 25 years, he has never really stepped too far out of his bag of gothic tricks. The majority of his films have displayed a similar and consistent (some would say tired) visual style with dark art direction and actors often caked in white makeup. “Frankenweenie” most likely won’t deter the naysayers, as anyone who has seen “Corpse Bride” or the Burton-produced “Nightmare Before Christmas” will be familiar with the stop-motion animation being employed here. As someone who hasn’t become fatigued with his work (even though his recent work can be uneven in quality,) I thoroughly enjoyed “Frankenweenie” a lot. Much like the recent “Paranorman,” it is an animated film with an obvious love for the horror genre. But while “Paranorman” was an adoration for the zombie and slasher movies, “Frankenweenie” is more concerned with the lore of the more classic horror monsters. Much of the plot mirrors that of “Frankenstein,” and there are many other elements and nods throughout to “Dracula,” “The Mummy,” and “The Invisible Man.”

Not to be limited to just the old fashioned creatures, Burton goes all out in the finale and envisions a climax worthy of the giant monster movies like “Godzilla,” and he even sneaks in a “Gremlins” bit that had me cackling with laughter. The stop-motion work is absolutely stellar in this sequence with its flawlessly smooth movement and creative designs, and the fact that it’s done in black and white further fits it in with the old-school atmosphere that Burton wants to recreate.

All that technical work would be all for naught though if we didn’t feel attached the characters, and Burton’s care for them shines throughout. A criticism I often have of Burton’s adaptations is that his heart doesn’t seem all that in them (“Planet of the Apes” and “Alice in Wonderland” especially), and this is thankfully not the case here. The relationship between Victor and Sparky is heartfelt and genuine, and even the scenes with just Sparky wandering around on his own are effective thanks to the subtle animation expressions on his face and the playful sense of mischievous humor that Burton fans should be familiar with.

While I like “Frankenweenie” a great deal and think it’s really good, I think it just stops short of true greatness due to a couple factors. The biggest issue is the middle section of the story after Sparky is revived, where Burton and writer John August seem unsure of where to take the plot and let it meander around for a while until we build to the climatic confrontations. Also, and this isn’t so much of an issue with the film on its own as it is with comparisons to another, after seeing “Paranorman” be able to achieve so many creative avenues with its story and homages to horror, “Frankenweenie” plays it rather safe for the majority of the time until the last act arrives. Again, these comparisons are inevitable when two films with similar goals come out at the same time, so don’t take that last one too harshly. “Frankenweenie” is certainly a quality movie to check out for fans of dark family fare, and even more so if you’re a dog lover or enjoy Tim Burton’s unique vision.

3/4

The Loved Ones (2012) Review

“The Loved Ones”

Horror is a tough genre to work within. It’s hard just to make a good horror movie, and it seems like it’s even harder to get the good ones released. With the exceptions of “The Woman in Black” (which I thought was decent, not great) and “The Cabin in the Woods” (fantastic) this year, we have seen the releases of such lackluster efforts as “Chernobyl Diaries,” “The Devil Inside” and “The Silent House.” As those lesser ones were being put into theaters, I kept hearing word that “The Loved Ones,” which had been getting great reviews, wasn’t getting a theatrical showing. Now that I’ve had the chance to catch the movie on DVD, it’s even more maddening that such an effective thriller was dumped while studios thought something like the awful, generic “The Apparition” was worthy of a thousand theater screens.

The main story is rather simple. Prom is very near, and students are getting excited for the event. Lola asks Brent, our protagonist, to the prom, but he is already going with his girlfriend Holly. Lola doesn’t take too kindly to this, and she and her father kidnap Brent so they can have a prom of their own at her house. Beyond that, there are more character developments that come into play later on, so it’s best just to go in knowing only the basic premise. There’s no final twist or game-changing revelations, but there is more going on under-the-surface that enriches the plot.

What sets “The Loved Ones” apart from the usual horror crop is its relative avoidance of the clichés of the genre. Apart from a dumb decision or two on the part of the main character, the film doesn’t rely on unlikable stereotypes, predictable beats, or overplayed jump scares to carry itself along. The best of the genre doesn’t merely show horrific acts or calculate it’s suspenseful moments; it gets under your skin, finding the sweet spots that unnerve rather than disgust. Brent, acted by Xavier Samuel, earns a lot of sympathy from the audience early on, meaning that the ordeals he goes through later are even more effective and hard to watch.

This isn’t to say that “The Loved Ones” is light on the red stuff. There are certainly choice moments that are pretty gross, but director Sean Byrne doesn’t dwell on them longer than they need to be. While looking at the trailer gives the suggestion of a “Saw”-like series of tortures (which isn’t entirely untrue,) Byrne understands that the scariest parts are the ones we don’t see. Unlike other horror directors that try this but often feel like they’re holding back, Byrne knows precisely what to obscure and when to cut away at the right times.

In addition to that, there are some creepy elements to the life of Lola (played by Robin McLeavy, who is frighteningly effective at switching between sweet and menacing) that are insinuated to the audience. John Brumpton’s weird performance as her father suggests there’s something “more” between them just from the subtle facial expressions he shows, as well as there being a bizarre character named Bright Eyes, who may or may not be Lola’s mom (the movie only hints at who she is, rather than plainly stating.)

I don’t typically review video releases, although “The Loved Ones” is too good to ignore in light of the fact that it was denied a theatrical release and wasn’t paid the attention it so rightly deserves. While “Cabin in the Woods” was a creative and totally unique shot-in-the-arm to the horror genre, it was more of a “fun” type of horror movie. “The Loved Ones” is the flip side of that, satisfying audiences who crave for “pure” frights and scares rather than meta-jokes and gimmicks.

3.5/4

End of Watch (2012) Review

“End of Watch”

Cop movies, in general, especially the highly acclaimed ones, are much more predominantly about corruption in the police force. While there is of course truth in the major presence of corrupt officers, there is also a large amount of them who aren’t so, and do the job because they believe in the ideals it stands for. Buddy cop movies aside, the subgenre is notable more for the likes of “Serpico,” “The Departed,” and most notably “L.A. Confidential” than for movies such as the new “End of Watch.” Although our heroes in this movie aren’t portrayed as saints, it’s refreshing to be able to enjoy a cop movie where I don’t have to knock it down for not presenting the seedier side of them, particularly for the L.A.P.D.

“Watch” is a blend of conventionally shot scenes and the found footage style typically found in the horror genre.  Officer Brian Taylor (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) is taking a film course at a local college, and he’s filming his experiences out in the wild with his partner Mike Zavala (Michael Pena.) Through the use of a handheld camcorder, the hood mounted camera, and hidden cameras on their lapels, director David Ayer (who wrote the Denzel classic “Training Day”) find all kinds of vantage points to really put the audience in the perspective of this duo out on the gritty streets.

Ayer’s not entirely successful in his implementation of the shaky camera stuff. Often times, it’s much too chaotic and incomprehensible to follow, especially during close encounters like a fight in a criminal’s apartment. It was a grievance during the first half of the film, although Ayer’s hand becomes steadier and more coherent as it proceeds forward. The climatic firefight is intense and turbulent in all the right ways, with many close calls and nail-biting moments to put you on the edge of your seat. To emphasize the terror of the situation, I believe Ayer should have kept our perspective completely focused on Brian and Mike instead of occasionally cutting to scenes of the gang members plotting their revenge on our duo. The film would have attained a greater sensation of suspense and unpredictability, as well as editing out scenes with cartoonish acting from the gang members.

The heart of the movie is truly with the pairing of Gyllenhaal and Pena, who have remarkable chemistry together. From their first scenes together, the film immediately conveys their friendship genuinely and the playful bickering naturally. Improv must surely have been used for many of the “riding in the car” scenes, as the pairing doesn’t feel scripted and forced, but believable and organic. Their girlfriends, played by Anna Kendrick and Natalie Martinez, also do a great service to humanize and relate the pair to the viewer, even if they don’t have much effect on the plot.

By the end, regardless of those flaws, “End of Watch” successfully manages to hit its emotional beats and leave its imprint. This would not have been possible without the two incredible lead performances, as well as Ayer’s immediate and personal approach to the material. With its in-your-face style, “End of Watch” captures the chaos and grit that television shows such as “Cops” achieve on a weekly basis, and then one-ups them by personifying the officers behind the camera and creating an emotional connection that those shows haven’t really achieved.

3/4