The Tree of Life - Review

Terence Malick’s work is already synonymous with art house films at this point, so The Tree of Life being what is comes as no surprise to me. You’ve probably already heard about the beauty and the scope from the positive crowd, and the pretense and tedium from the other end. If you follow Brad Jones’s vlogs at all, you’ll know he doesn’t much care for films like this. I on the other hand, am neither for nor against them. If it does it well, I commend it and if it doesn’t then I don’t, simple.  The Tree of Life begins with a mysterious and mesmerizing light resembling a flame with Mrs. O’Brien debating two paths in life, that of grace and that of nature, we see her in the 1960s (played by the stunning Jessica Chastain) receiving a telegram informing her of the death of her nineteen year old son, R.L. Soon after, Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt) receives a call from his wife who notifies him of the recent tragedy. The family is now disheveled, and Jack O’Brien (Sean Penn) is lost in thought and internal debate between his mother and father’s paralleled but dissimilar philosophies: grace and nature.

In the midst of his inner disorder, Jack eyes a newly planted tree outside of his work place; he looks back at his childhood and family life. His father is strict, abrasive, and harsh while his mother is understanding and nurturing. We see life through the eyes of a child, and therefore empathize with Jack’s confusion and grudge toward his father and when he later goes through a rebellious phase. When Mr. O’Brien is away on business, it’s happy days for the children, they frolic, they play, and they make fun of their father’s authority like any group of kids would. As we progress through Jack’s experiences we as an audience are taken through a cosmic journey of life, including the formation of the universe and the transition from the molten and barren Earth to the evolution of sea life and the end of dinosaurs.

However, this trip is not completely devoted towards scientific fact, as the film also explores religious perception and the like. Perception is the operative word. We are not bound to a single way of thinking, for life in and of itself is a strange and interstellar series of events to which we are still learning so much about. It’s not about the ideals of an agnostic or a scientist or a priest, it’s about the mystery, and it’s about faith in the simplest sense, without obligation. You can debate the necessity of abundant symbolism until your blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that we ponder these mysteries every day, even when we’ve matured and seasoned after many a decade we still have questions unanswered.

On a technical standpoint, I’m surprised a film like this wasn’t shot or presented in 3-D, because the cinematography and craft are stunning, coupled by spectacular visuals and some mesmerizing choice of music pieces, one example being the best iteration of Lacrimosa I’ve ever heard, Lacrimosa 2 by Zbigniew Preisner, it’s so beautiful it almost haunts me. This is less a film and more an orchestra, an abundance of scenery that has continuously echoed throughout every corner of my mind. This must have been quite a theater experience. The performances are commendable, thankfully not being overshadowed by the aesthetic or point (for the most part). I praise Jessica Chastain for her angelic portrayal and Brad Pitt for his seamless model of the times. With respect to the late Stanley Kubrick, The Tree of Life is a film much like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but handled better. 8 out of 10.

Safe House - Review

Is it too late for Ryan Reynolds to go back to comedies? Honestly, I can never take him seriously in other roles. I don’t know if it’s his voice, or if I just find him so funny in his comic schtick. While he may have been an alright Hal Jordan (still holding out for Nathan Fillion in the inevitable reboot), Ryan Reynolds is just not an action star to me. Denzel Washington on the other hand, is a jack of all trades. Safe House chronicles Matt Weston (Reynolds) on his chase to turn Tobin Frost (Washington) into the authorities. Frost is an ex-CIA operative who has acquired classified files and has been labeled a traitor to the U.S. government. Frost is detained in a safe house where Weston acts as his guardian until the base is attacked and Frost is able to escape from Weston’s custody, and the film progresses into textbook clichés, predictable revelations, and plenty of eye-rolling from myself.

An unfortunate but abundant gimmick in action films from recent memory is the use of shaky-cam to express spectacle or urgency; I don’t mind utilizing it as a technique as long as it doesn’t become excessive. In this particular case, ungodly excessive would be an understatement. I find it funny that directors like Rob Cohen are subtler than this. A person sitting in a car giving exposition does NOT advocate the use of obnoxious camerawork trying to pass for dramatic conveyance. Say whatever you want about the Bourne Trilogy, those three films have more merit than most action films released in the last decade. Also on the technical side, this film has an obsession with focus reveals and unneeded zooms. This is the first time I have heard of Daniel Espinosa, he hasn’t been around for long and I feel like I need to donate him a tripod like he was a hobo who desperately needed a sandwich.

The story is a mess, going off in all directions, not settling on what it wants to be. The initial premise was intriguing but the strongest aspects of it are already shown in both the trailer and very beginning of the film. The script is so stale and lifeless that I give praise for Washington for actually bringing much appreciated gravitas to and otherwise forgettable role. Reynolds on the other hand is just as bland and stilted here as Sam Worthington in well... anything but Avatar. Believe it or not there are other characters woven into the narrative but they’re so forgettable they’re not worth a mention, including a generic subplot involving Weston’s girlfriend.

It’s honestly kind of hard to continue talking about a title like this. It’s so empty and run-of-the-mill it’s like trying to review a bottle of water, it’s wet, and it doesn’t have a distinctive taste to commend, it’s just water. Water is water, action schlock is action schlock. It’s not offensive, it’s just completely boring. 4.5 out of 10.

Drive - Review

Imagine if someone like Michael Mann directed movies like The Transporter or The Fast and the Furious, and then imagine if the production began and ended in the 80s. Bearing those two prerequisites in mind, you could imagine that films in that spirit would be much different than what we’re already associated with. Now if you can picture an interesting result from the aforesaid scenario, then you are more ready for Drive than you would be from its trailer alone.

Drive is a film that chronicles the nameless driver-for-hire played by Ryan Gosling. He’s a man of few words, speaking only when necessary; he is calm, and hard to read. He brings memories of The Man with No Name though without the less than subtle scowl and glare. Gosling invokes a sense of mystery and depth extremely simply but to great effect. I have honestly known people with similar personalities, and Gosling mirrors seamlessly from the voice, the inflections, his smile and the timing and context of all three. As his days go on, he becomes involved with his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, forming a bond with the both of them. Shannon (Bryan Cranston), his daytime boss borrows money from mob boss Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) to buy a stock car and back The Driver as well... his driver. But, when an operation involving Irene’s husband goes south, The Driver runs into trouble with both Bernie and Nino (Ron Perlman). Believe it or not, the plot is not the main crux or pull of the film, at least in a basic sense.

Generally speaking, I don’t get overhyped for productions aside from those that may apply to my personal preference or pleasure, such as comic book films. However, even at that it’s more overexcitement than ridiculous expectations. Prior to watching the film, I had little to expect. I just knew it was a new film with Ryan Gosling, who has been garnering progressively more publicity, and that apparently the trailer was slightly misleading, and it was actually an art picture. Drive is an art house film, and as such, has a sense of atmosphere and gravitas not (at least not usually) found in general blockbusters. Although the trailer may be misleading, Drive is by no means another Gone in 60 Seconds or The Fast and the Furious, unless you added the restrictions I mentioned before. Nicolas Winding Refn directs this project with subtlety and grit, and Newton Thomas Sigel provides us with stunning, emotional cinematography reflecting The Driver’s earnest persona.

Albert Brooks, typically known for his comic ingenuity, instead shocks viewers with a very dark but very nonchalant portrayal of Bernie, and does so without missing a beat. Carey Mulligan is far from deep but she works for the film’s narrative, which goes the same for Ron Perlman, who I felt was just going through the motions. Christina Hendricks has a minor role as Blanche, and does well despite a small part. Overall it’s a solid cast, my critique of Irene is not meant to be interpreted as a cliché female romantic interest. She is humble, kind, and lights up a scene, but in the same “spinning straw into gold” manner as The Driver. From this, their chemistry feels natural, and their interactions are handled realistically. A strong point for me was Irene’s husband, written as a man who fell from grace and legitimately wants to atone for it, as opposed to an abusive, throwaway device to further glorify The Driver and justify a relationship between him and Irene.

Less in the spirit of modern action and more in the spirit of 80s crime and neo-noir, Drive is a breath of fresh air for American cinema, not to say that I think the entire industry is lackluster. The film is slow, powerful, and elegant, and I am ashamed that Sound Mixing is the only Oscar nomination it received. Although I’ve only seen The Artist out of the Oscar nominees, Drive is my best film of 2011. The fact that Gosling and Brooks were snubbed for Best Actor and Sigel for Best Cinematography saddens me. But hey, at least the YOUReviewers awards acknowledge it. Hell, I didn't even talk about the soundtrack. Oh boy. 9 out of 10.

J. Edgar - Review

Being a person who has written film reviews before, I have to admit that biopics are a little more difficult to write about. However, I do feel that a biopic should succeed in three areas. First off, it should be relatively accurate (dramatic license withstanding of course). Second, casting the right actor or actress is essential to portray the person in question correctly. Third, the narrative should not be one-sided, no exceeding glorification and no overabundance of ridicule or disdain, I would say that J. Edgar fulfills the aforementioned prerequisites, but everything else is up for debate.

J. Edgar is a biographical feature about J. Edgar Hoover, the man who brought the “F” to the FBI. The film is directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Leonardo DiCaprio in the titular role. The first thing I noticed when the film began was its detached, gray-toned cinematography, extremely similar to Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby, also directed by Eastwood. I was sure that all three films had the same Director of Photography, and after checking IMDb, it seems I was correct. Reception for the film has been mixed, and I can understand why, it’s a perplexing piece.

To get some of the history out of the way, J. Edgar Hoover was a man of controversy. He frequently fired agents on appearance alone, he was outspoken, openly abrasive, and an alleged homosexual, things all touched upon in the film’s narrative. The man was also jealous to the point of irrationality; one of his better-known displays of said bitterness was his hand in progressively ending Melvin Purvis’s career solely because of his success and public recognition, also touched upon. What the film did right was cast DiCaprio as Hoover, who brings his A-game to the production, and may very well dishearten anyone who doubted his abilities before. I believe this performance completely solidifies him as an actor, and that microscopic bit of superficial pretty boy persona from Romeo + Juliet and Titanic has finally been washed away. From a writing perspective, it’s well conceived, though the final product is a bit jumbled in its execution.

The atmosphere was too melodramatic for its own good, and while I never felt confused at any point in the plot, the poor transtions through time were conspicuous enough for me to sympathize with general audiences. Thankfully, the homosexuality aspect is handled with a lot more subtlety than you may expect, but it doesn’t come full circle as much as it could due to Clyde Tolson’s very transparent portrayal. Coupled with less than stellar make-up and a cringe-worthy, bittersweet conclusion, J. Edgar in and of itself is a mixed bag. It’s not a bad film, but not a great one. It’s flawed. 6.5 out of 10.