Closed Circuit

2.5 Stars (Out of four)

The commercials and reviews for Closed Circuit extol that this is one of those great thrillers that Hollywood just doesn't make anymore.  It's made by the same people who brought us the superior 2011 version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and if you need more proof of its pedigree, it's also British.  Why does that matter, you may ask?  Well, it doesn't really; it just ensures that it will be shown in art house theaters where no one will see it.  "But is it any good?" you may ask, and the answer is a resounding...

...meh.

Closed Circuit follows the exploits of two British barristers (we call them lawyers) who are defending a Turkish man who is being tried as the mastermind of a terrorist cell that set off a truck bomb in a crowded London market, killing hundreds.  Due to a quirk of the British legal system, the circumstances of the accused's arrest are protected under national security.  Because of this, the secret aspects of his trial must be tried without a jury in a closed session with the judge and attorneys. Because the information is of such a sensitive nature, the man's defense attorney cannot attend this closed session.  The accused is defended by an Advocate who only deals with the secret aspects of the case.  The Advocate and defense attorney cannot consult or talk with each other about their respective sides of their cases or they will be disbarred.  As luck would have it, the defense attorney (capably portrayed by Eric Bana in an understated performance) and the Advocate (well-played by the sexy Rebecca Hall) are former adulterous lovers, and the first thing they do is discuss the case.  As it turns out, there are some fishy goings-on surrounding this case that have already led to the death of the former defense attorney for the accused. The rest of the movie is swallowed into an atmosphere of paranoia and suspicion as shadowy government agents plot the death of one or both of them as facts emerge. 

Now, there is nothing explicitly bad about this film.  That's why it gets a better than average rating from me.  The acting is good, but understated.  British actors, as a whole I think, are much more professional and natural than their bombastic American counterparts.  You want a good, solid, dependable performance?  Call Anthony Hopkins or Helen Mirren.  You want over the top?  Call Jack Nicholson or Patricia Arquette.  All kidding aside, it seems to me that British acting and storytelling tend to be more laid-back and subtle, style-wise.  American actors are about the PERFORMANCE!!!  "STELLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!"  The Method really ruined us.  The protagonists are believable, even likable.  The plotline makes sense but has enough holes to drive a small tank through, followed by an earth mover, train and aircraft carrier side-by-side.  It is tense in parts, and takes its time telling the story well, even if the movie is only 1.5 hours long.  The holes are a near-fatal flaw, but the good performances and above-average storytelling save it from descending into a morass of cliches.  But in the end, we have seen this movie before.  Most obviously in The Star Chamber, but also such 70s and 80s fare like The Enforcer, The Thin Blue Line, All The President's Men, even The China Syndrome and Silkwood to The X-Files and Enemy of the State.  Everybody loves the shadowy government conspiracy, both in entertainment and real life (Who really shot Kennedy, 9/11 was an elaborate plot perpetrated by the US Government to get people to support a war, etc, etc, etc).  Exceptional breeding grounds for these types of stories is when a divisive and/or unpopular, usually Republican, President is in office (Nixon, Reagan, George W.). This movie is just like those old movies, with the same plot lines, the same naive assumptions about the darker motives of governments.  It is a fun chestnut to revisit every now and then; but ultimately feels like wearing that old, favorite sweatshirt; it's comfortable, but also lazy.

Insidious

2 Stars (out of four)

Insidious is creepy.  It is a boo! film.  And it does not live up to the hype.  Insidious is about a family who move into a new house and start experiencing disturbances.  They start out benign at first but get gradually more intense.  Then, the oldest boy, 8-year-old Dalton, falls into a mysterious coma.  We find he can project his body astrally and a malignant demon is trying to take over his physical body while Dalton is trapped In the astral universe.  His father, who can also travel astrally goes to rescue him, a conflict in the astral and real worlds ensues.

So, as I said before, Insidious is a boo! film.  A bunch of things jump out and say "Boo!". There is nothing particularly terrifying about it.  The quote from a critic on the poster says it is the scariest film since The Exorcist.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Either he is a grade-A wuss or just has not seen that many horror films.  Now don't misunderstand.  There is nothing wrong with the film.  If you want some quick shocks, it is perfectly fine.  The film is creepy, atmospheric, and will make you jump.  But real terror?  It would be like comparing Wolfgang Puck's finest feast to a Happy Meal.  Insidious is satisfying and great for a quick fix of shocks.  There is nothing particularly wrong with the story, the monsters, and the family is quite likable.  But it doesn't truly terrify as a movie like The Exorcist or The Omen has the power to do.  Like its PG-13 rating, Insidious is trying to be a grown-up like its superior cousins and falls way short of the mark.  And by the way, when did horror films become PG-13?  The fact that the filmmakers (or studio) felt they had to compromise the horrors to make it more inclusive to a larger audience (and therefore, more profitable), should be a huge clue as to how strong they thought the material stands on its own. Horror is not meant for younger audiences.  Let's stop trying to make it so.

Real horror is usually steeped in something we do not know, ie the unknown.  New ground, themes, etc, is what makes a truly unforgettable horror film.  Insidious certainly had its share of scary imagery and surprises, but there is nothing really new about them.  Now, while astral projection has been used as a plot device before in superior movies like Poltergeist, this movie did add one new wrinkle.  That is, we finally get to see the other side of the universe.  While movies like Pan's Labyrinth, Hellraiser, and The Cell have attempted to portray this, it is fertile ground for exploitation and I would like to see more attempts because there, anything goes.

So, see this film if you want to have a quickie scare, but don't expect much more than that.

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas

2.5 Stars (Out of four)

The Boy In The Striped Pajamas is a very good movie, but is the most twisted funhouse mirror of To Kill A Mockingbird.  It is always interesting to highlight great injustice by showing it through the eyes of children, to show the hypocrisies through a child's innocence.  This is not right, and it becomes personalized through their eyes and feelings.  The movie starts with a quote, " Childhood is measured out by sounds and smells and sights, before the dark hour of reason grows," by John Betjeman.  It focuses on Bruno, an eight-year-old boy in Nazi Germany.  While living in Berlin, his father is promoted to commandant of a concentration camp and they have to move to the country.  Bruno is bored in the new house with no friends and is confined to the grounds by guarded fences.  One day, from his window, he sees what he thinks is a farm with people wearing funny pajamas.  He goes out exploring, goes to the camp and meets Schmuel, a young Jewish boy his age and they strike up a friendship.  Over several weeks, Bruno begins to see clues of horrible events he doesn't understand.  Schmuel says his father disappeared from a new work crew and Bruno hatches a plan to sneak into the camp to help Schmuel find his father.  Once Bruno gets in, the guards begin to clear the camp and Bruno is accidentally gassed with the Jews.

Now, there have been many Holocaust movies from the truly great (Schindler's List), to dull (The Pianist), to insulting (Life Is Beautiful), to outright obscene and repellant (Salon Kitty or Ilsa, She-Wolf Of The SS).  This movie is quite a downer, and rightfully so, considering the subject matter.  But what really sets a great story like Schindler's List apart from spectacle like The Pianist, is the uplifting aspect of the perseverance and ultimate triumph of the survivors.  Maybe it is a uniquely American trait to want a happy ending, but when I see horror after horror, it only smothers me rather than uplift.  When I see this type of blackness, it doesn't impact me, just depresses me.  It leaves me with the feeling that evil triumphs over good, and I see enough horror in real life.  The biggest message the Holocaust gives to us is that hope and perseverance will eventually overcome evil.  Maybe I'm naïve to think that things should work out in the end.  Ultimately, the Holocaust serves two purposes.  The first and foremost is a warning to never let something like it happen again.  But the second is a message is to persevere, to rise above adversity no matter what the odds.  Movies like this one ultimately fall flat to me.  While I do like to see injustice portrayed through the innocence of children's eyes to highlight that this is not how things should be, there ultimately has to be a payoff.  In the end of To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus Finch loses the case, but we know the outcome is wrong and will be remedied.  Schindler's List, we see that not only did all of the people he saved survived, but flourished after three generations.  On this movie, two cute kids get gassed and the Nazi dad gets his comeuppance.  Ultimately, all it is is death and pain.  It is well-told and worth a watch, but ultimately does not stand with its superior cousins.  Watch Schindler's List or the superior Polish In Darkness instead.

Ghost Dog-Way Of The Samurai

1.5 Stars (out of four)

Ghost Dog is one of those movies that is universally hailed by critics as being one of those once-in-a-long-time flicks that transcends genre and is a truly original.  However, that is not always a good thing. This is one of those flicks I have wanted to see for a long time because of the non-stop praise for it.  Many lists put it in one of the best films of the 90's.  I also like Forest Whittaker, despite the fact he is now one of those really pompous actor-artistes.  My first clue about this film, though, should have been that it was written and directed by Jim Jarmusch, who has made some of the strangest damn films, period.  This is, after all, the same guy who wrote Dead Man, Coffee and Cigarettes, and Broken Flowers.  And he is another one of the most pompous director-artistes out there.

The story is really not all that complicated.  Ghost Dog is a gritty, urban drama where Forest Whittaker plays Ghost Dog, an inner-city assassin who lives by the code of the samurai.  He was saved as a younger man when a mafioso saw some toughs beating on him.  The mafioso saw what was going on and saved him by killing his attackers.  Ghost Dog then offers his services to the mafioso as payment for his debt.  The film opens when he is on a contract.  After he kills his target, the mob bosses for some reason feel they have to kill him.  This isn't explained why.  They fail, and Ghost Dog goes on a killing spree to kill all those responsible for trying to kill him.  It ends up with a showdown where Ghost Dog is killed.  The end.

The movie is well-shot and does have great atmosphere.  But that is not reason enough to like a film.  The film is also a very interesting genre mishmash of the gritty urban drama, the samurai film, the revenge drama, and the western.  It is a beautiful film, invocative of a time and place, and I think they really had something in mind when they made it, but damned if I can figure out what it is.  So if you want to see a well-crafted film (the ONLY reason I gave this 1.5 stars), it really is worth a look.  But otherwise, I thinks it's a waste of time.  It is interesting, but in the end, not that good.

Snitch

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Snitch is the type of movie that I want to see Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) as the star.  Since Schwarzeneggar became the governor of California, there was not really a true action star in the movies until Johnson came along.  While there were some exciting actors, none of them had the real charisma and screen presence that Johnson has up to his ears.  Maybe it was because of all his wrestling and the drama that goes with it, Johnson is the perfect choice for an action hero.  He has to be larger than life, which he is, but his secret weapon is that he can actually act, which, as most fans of WWE realize, a lot of these wrestling stars can't.  Unfortunately, after some great starter films like The Scorpion King, The Rundown and Be Cool, he was banished to vacuous, family-friendly pandering roles like The Tooth Fairy, Race To Witch Mountain and The Game Plan.  But he appears to be on a comeback and that can only be a good thing.

Snitch starts as a film where a prosperous Missouri businesman's son gets arrested by the DEA in a large drug bust.  His son makes a stupid decision to take delivery of a package containing a lot of Ecstasy.  It turns out this kid's best friend was a drug dealer and set him up to lighten his sentence.  When Johnson's kid is faced with the same deal, he refuses to snitch on his friends.  Faced with the possibility of his son doing ten years in prison because of mandatory sentencing laws, Johnson sets a plan in motion with the US Attorney to catch a drug dealer.  Because of his construction business, he has access to trucks to move drugs.  He finds an employee in his business who was arrested for drug distribution in the past.  He convinces his employee to provide an introduction to a local heavy-hitter.  He makes a successful first drug run which brings him to the attention of the Mexican Drug Cartel who wants him to do another run, this time to bring their money to Mexico.  Johnson realizes he will never come back from this alive.  He finds himself getting deeper and deeper and feels he has to get out.  He sets up a scheme to get the Cartel members arrested.  What follows is a great closing action scene and denouement.

Snitch is a great action-drama, but what really sets it above most action flicks is the motivation of the hero.  That motivation is a love of a father for his kids.  There have been more than enough movies that show moms and their love for their kids, but it is rare that there is a movie that portrays a dad in a good light, especially when the family is divorced like this one.  Usually, in these types of films, dads or portrayed as deadbeats, or, at the very least, neglectful.  The last film that put this relationship in such a center stage was Finding Nemo.  This is a much smarter film than the average actioneer.  It is worth seeing and I recommend it highly.

The Last Stand

2.5 Stars (Out of four)

Well, the governator finally got his day job back.  I finally got a chance to see Arnold Schwarzeneggar's most recent action opus.  And I must say, what started out as a dumb, brainless, imitation of a bad action film ends up being a dumb, brainless bad action film, but boy, is it a fun ride.

The movie starts in a sleepy little Arizona border town where our hero Arnold is the town sheriff.  Not much happens there, which is exactly how he likes it.  Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, the most "violent drug dealer since Pablo Escobar" is secretly being transferred to death row.  I guess Las Vegas, a major metropolitan city, doesn't have an electric chair.  Anyway, you see where this is going. Little Escobar escapes, gets in a stolen Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) and hottails it to the border.  The only thing standing in the way of the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) is our sheriff and his delightfully kooky posse of sidekicks.  As the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) speeds down the highway, the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) has an army of men who are dedicated to get the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) across the border.  After a brief firefight in the town, the army is killed and then Arnold jumps into the mayor's Camaro (TM) and chases after the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) through an impressive pursuit through a cornfield, pitting the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) against the Camaro (TM).  After a brief battle of the super cars where it seems the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) just may triumph over the Camaro (TM), the Camaro (TM) finally beats the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM).  The Chevy (TM) symbol brightly glinting in the sun, as the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) is smoking and dead.  (This car chase, cough! movie!  brought to you by General Motors.  Buy American!  (Did you get the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) logo in the shot?))

So, the movie is fun, and brings us an older, wiser Arnold who's not yet ready to bow out.  Nor should he.  If the posters aren't enough to tell you what to expect from this fare and you were disappointed, you are probably the wrong demographic for this film.  Surprisingly though, it IS entertaining.  It takes awhile to get started, but once the action gets going, it doesn't slow down. It seems they shot the first forty minutes in two days and spent the next four months filming the action stuff.  Whatever.  It's very well done and choreographed, expertly shot by director Kim Jee-Woon.  The script even has some really good jokes.  My favorites: Bad Guy (after his Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) is totaled) "You f@cked up my car."  Arnold "You f@cked up my day off."  And just before the final showdown, Arnold stares down the driver of the Corvette C6 ZR1 (TM) as only he can and says, "You give us immigrants a bad name."  Despite that most of the movie is a long commercial for General Motors (TM), it is fun, dumb and will leave your brain numb, kind of like eating your favorite ice cream flavor a little too fast.  A little painful, but in the end, satisfying.

Sinister

3.5 Stars (Out of four)

I am really torn about Sinister.  On the one hand, it is an incredibly scary film.  I recognize it for how good it really is.  But on the other hand, I'm not sure people should watch it.  This is one of those horror films that transcends its lesser cousins and stands head and shoulders above the rest to occupy rarified air saved for films like Psycho, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en.  Dictionary.com defines horror as "...an overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear...a strong aversion; abhorrence."  The movie is rated R for shocking images.  This is not false or sensationalized advertising.  The definition and rating fits the film perfectly.  I caution you before you go see it.  There are images in this film you can't unsee.  But if genuine terror is what you're looking for, this movie has it in spades,

The film starts with a Super 8 short showing four people being hanged on a tree in grainy, slow-motion.  We find out later that this was a family being murdered.  An egotistical true-crime writer (played quite convincingly by Ethan Hawke) wants to write his latest book on this murder.  He moves himself and his family into the very house where it actually happened with the hanging tree in the backyard.  As he begins writing, he starts hearing strange noises in the empty attic.  as he investigates the noises, he finds a box filled with Super 8 movies and a projector to watch them.  The box contains five murders of different families occurring over time from the late 1960s to the present.  We find later that they are all linked to a mysterious figure that appears in each one.  I won't go into great detail describing them, suffice they are horrible and a bit sadistic.  As the movie continues, the writer, Ellison, is becoming more and more unglued when he realizes he may have set loose an ancient evil spirit.  The movie ends on a decidedly unhappy denouement.

So, I have seen many, many horror films in my day, ranging from comedies (Cabin In The Woods,  The Reanimator, Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street) to drama/thrillers (The Hitcher, Cape Fear, Night Of The Hunter), to slashers (Halloween, The Evil Dead, Hostel, Saw), to psychological horror (Repulsion, Henry-Portrait Of A Serial Killer, Alone In The Dark, Kalifornia), to supernatural/monster horror (Dracula, The Exorcist, The Omen, Alien).  Most of them are not worth the celluloid they are printed on.  They tend to go for cheap laughs and shocks, what I call a "Boo!" movie, where something jumps out and says boo!  I have seen so many of these, that most of them barely register a blip except when they make you jump.  But occasionally, once in a blue moon, I see a film that genuinely makes me uncomfortable, one that makes me feel I really should not be watching it.  One that fills me with a sense of real dread, where the atmosphere of the film is suffocating and genuinely terrifying.  Sinister falls into this last category.  When I get suffused by that dread, I know I have seen something of substance, of quality.  It elicited a real reaction from me, a fairly rare occurrence when watching these types of films, and the feeling is one I don't like.  The problem is, when I see these great films, they usually are the signal of a large crop of lesser pretenders that try to capitalize on the same themes.  But since we have already seen it before, these imitators must set the bar even higher to out-excess what was already excessive. Thus, Psycho begets Deranged and Last House On The Left; Halloween begets Friday the Thirteenth and Nightmare On Elm Street; Halloween begets Saw and Hostel.  Not to sound like an old fuddy duddy, but I'm not so sure that is exactly healthy for a society.  We have already surpassed the bounds of simple terror.  Our grandparents shrank from Frankenstein's monster.  Our parents ran from the theater with Psycho.  Our older brothers and sisters cringed to The Exorcist, and so on and so on. Where does it end?  I don't think this is an unfair question.

Now, some of you are reading this and saying, "Come on, Tom.  Lighten up.  It's only a movie."  To that I say, yes, it is only a movie.  But the medium of film is our storytelling mechanism, like the epic poem in Ancient Greece to the plays of Shakespeare to the novels of the Reformation onward.  And the rules of acceptable themes keep changing, the line keeps getting redrawn.  And while that may be the inevitable byproduct of progress, we have to ask ourselves just what are we doing?  Is this really worth going down the path we are going?  I'm not trying to make a judgement for or against this movie or any other.  As I stated before, it is much smarter than your average horror flick.  Everyone is drawn well, fully-developed.  The characters are likable, believable and sympathetic, even the ones who don't seem so in the beginning.  No one is a caricature or over-the-top and act in rational ways.  This makes the ending even more shocking and sad.  This is the horror film I like, one that does not rely on cheap laughs or thrills, but rather depends on sustaining dread, an impending sense of nihilism. These films are, ultimately, much harder to make, and that is why we consider classics like The Sixth Sense great and The Human Centipede unmitigated crap.  Sinister is dark, both literally and figuratively, with most of the scares happening at night, and the movie does not end happily.  While this is the type of horror I like because it stays with me long after I see it on the screen, it is also the type I dread, for exactly the same reason.