Woman In Gold

3.5 Stars (out of four)

I love a movie because there is more than what is on the surface.  As I went into Woman In Gold, I was filled with trepidation because I had certain expectations for it.  It looked good by the trailers, but there was a nagging doubt in my head this would fall flat like another Monuments Men because of the similar material.  Turns out I needn't had worried.

Woman In Gold starts off with an older Jewish lady, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), an Austrian woman who was forced to flee her country and everything she owned when the Nazis marched into Austria in March 1938 during the Anshluss.  Among the many things stolen from her family were five paintings by the art nouveau master Gustav Klimpt, including a magnificent portrait of Maria's aunt.  It is now 1999 in Los Angeles, and after Maria's sister's funeral, she discovers some papers that reminded her of this painting. Since WWII, it had been hanging in the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna, obtained by the gallery through some very dubious legal means.  The Woman In Gold has since become the pride of Austria, its Mona Lisa.  She contacts Randol Schonenberg (Ryan Reynolds), a lawyer friend of the family and grandson to the great Austrian composer Arnold Sconenberg.  Together, they set out on a multi year quest to get the paintings rightfully restored to her, vaulting over every legal hurdle the Austrian Government can erect, despite its stated desire to return stolen art back to their rightful owners.

I half expected this to be a so-so movie like The Monuments Men.  This movie is saved by two factors: the likability of the two leads, and the greater theme of the picture.  Mirren's Altmann, in particular, is stunning.  She comes across as a bit of a stereotypical uptight German, but with just the right amount of mischievous glint in her eye.  She could have come across as a very unlikable character, but instead, you get to love her very quickly.  This identification with her is critical if you are to get invested in the story.  Reynolds' Schonenberg is the perfect mix of earnestnestness and snarkiness, and their personalities blend beautifully to make a thoroughly lovable couple of people you want to know more about.

But more important, and what the film is really about, is coming to terms with the past.  As Altmann faces her painful past and Schonenberg gets an appreciation for what his recent ancestors went through, the bigger question is what happens when a nation doesn't want to face it's embarrassing mistakes.  Austria, in this case, cannot admit to the crime of not only stealing the paintings, but also upholding a will of dubious legal stature as their chief argument.  An Austrian ally to Altmann tells her frankly that Austria will never part with the paintings; partly because of the social significance to Austria, but, more importantly, if they were to own this particular mistake, they would have to own it all.  That is, Austria did not really resist the Anschluss very much, despite what The Sound of Music would have us believe.  No, Austrians, for the most part, welcomed the Nazis in with open arms as liberators.  They also allowed the systematic robbery and killing of its Jewish population with approving hearts.  It is not easy to have brutal self-awareness of your faults, especially collectively as a nation, and what the implications of those faults may bring.  It also points out that anti-Semitism is still very much alive and well in Europe, despite what many believe is real progress to reconciliation of its shameful past.  This movie looks at that age-old prejudice and lays it bare through Maria Altmann's story.  A great film with a lot to chew on.

The Internship

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Comedies are dangerous things.  What is funny?  That's the problem with having a sense of humor, it's a sense. It can't be pinned down or quantified.  What may be funny for one situation is death for another.  While the scene may be funny, the timing may ruin it.  In today's comedies, they run the gamut, but I get the feeling we have actually regressed to a more coarse time where the audience is stupider. Subtlety is a dying art.  It seems comedies today are flailing their arms in the air screaming, "Look at us!  We're being funny!"  Almost any Will Farrell movie is like this. Luckily, The Internship doesn't really subscribe to this type of humor, but yet still falls a little flat.

The movie stars that very good comedy duo Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson from Wedding Crashers. The movie is fairly straightforward.  Two watch salesmen (Vaughn and Wison) find themselves out of a job when the company they work for goes bankrupt.  They quickly realize they have no usable skills in the high-tech world of the Internet, where personal touches no longer matter.  They decide to try for an internship at Google.  The internship is essentially one big competition over the summer for just a few jobs.  They quickly find themselves too old and untech savvy, but give it the old college try.  They are paired with a group of cast off misfits that no one will work with.  But in the tradition of all underdog movies from The Bad News Bears to Hoosiers, they find a perfect combination between the old and the new to SPOILER ALERT win the competition.

While the film is not laugh out loud funny, it really is hard to resist.  This is due totally to the incredible chemistry that Vaughn and Wilson have together.  They have obviously played in a lot of other movies, but when they get together, they have an unmistakeable charm that is impossible to resist.  There are some movies that work solely because of who's in them and the way they work together (The Hangover, 48 Hours, A Mighty Wind, Young Frankenstein, Lethal Weapon, Coming To America, Silver Streak).  The movie just would not work with anyone else because the stars aligned just right to bring that magic together.  And while The Internship is by no means a comedic classic, it has just enough humor and heart to keep you invested and the story going.  This was a movie made by the sheer will of the leads, and it works because of them. It is not rip roaringly funny or filled with enough pathos, but works just enough to make this a cut above average, and a perfect example of why some people are movie stars.

The Babadook

4 Stars (out of four)

What makes a good horror movie?  I have been trying to answer that for many years now.  A few common elements for me include: an atmosphere of increasing surreal dread, believable and empathetic protagonists, deeply disturbing themes that shred our psyches, originality, and a touch of nihilistic inevitability.  Note I don't say anything about gore, sex, thrills, laughs or a happy ending.  I'm not saying a good horror movie can't have those other elements, but for the last 30-35 years, filmmakers, especially American ones, have been ever falling back to the lazy, sexed-up, gore-filled excesses of the formulaic slasher film.  I also don't mean to infer slashers are inherently bad, far from it.  Some have been quite good, but they are inherently lazy.  But the good news, for those who love horror, is that there has been a resurgence of great horror-telling in recent years, most notably from Asia  Such directors as Japan's Takashi Miike or Korea's Chan-wook Park, or even America's Rob Zombie have been pushing out quality and unnerving in equal measure.  Now, another writer/director can rightfully take a place alongside such luminaries as Argento, Romero, Hooper, Raimi and Fincher, and that is Australian first-time director Jennifer Kent with her singularly disturbing movie, The Babadook.

The movie is about a young, widowed mother Amelia (Essie Davis), and her troubled, seven-year-old son, Samuel (Noah Wiseman).  Samuel was born during a horrific car crash that killed Amelia's husband as he was driving her to the hospital.  Since then, Amelia has tried to move on, but is in a perpetual state of melancholy.  Samuel, for his part, is acting out in other ways, obsessively seeing monsters everyone and lashing out physically.  He is not particularly liked by his friends, and Amelia is similarly ostracized by her peers.  One night, a mysterious children's book appears on the shelf called Mr. Babadook, a story about a monster who will eventually kill the people who let it into their lives.  Samuel immediately sees the Babadook everywhere, day and night, and his personality problems worsen because of it.  Amelia is convinced it is all in his troubled mind, but soon she begins to feel a terrible presence in the house with them.  Is the Babadook real, or just all in their heads?

I hope this is not the only idea in writer/director Jennifer Kent's head.  This movie was so singularly terrifying, it will haunt you for days afterward.  It is extremely disturbing, mostly because of the underlying themes in the story.  In an interview, Jennifer Kent said her hope was, in the end, to deal with what happens when people don't face and resolve traumatic events in their lives, and the cumulative effect that can have on their psyches.  In this case, that stress comes to life through the Babadook, but Kent actually does something very sneaky.  She leaves it up to us, the audience, to decide whether the Babadook is real or not, similar to the ambiguous ending of The Lady or the Tiger? which asks you, the reader, to finish the story.

Various troublesome themes persist throughout the film that are, at the very least unpleasant and unsettling: paranoia, isolation, physical/emotional abuse, fear, distrust.  All these elements are expertly crafted by Kent into a slowly seething stew of insecurity that is unrelenting throughout.  Kent said she was highly influenced by old silent horror movies.  These films were especially notable for their surrealism, most notably in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligary or Nosferat.  Kent deftly weaves these surreal into the tone of her film. It's subtle, but gives the film a slightly stylized look, creating a world that just does not quite feel right or comfortable.  This, combined with the unpleasant themes, push a palpable sense of dread and anxiety throughout the movie.  Rarely have I been so moved and/or disturbed by a movie like this.  But the biggest surprise is that the movie is ultimately about the power of love.  But don't let that fool you into thinking it has a happy ending...or does it?  You have to decide for yourself.

This is one hell of a ride that I cannot recommend more highly, but be forewarned.  It is hard and even cruel at times, and may not be for the taste of people who can't deal with horror, facing the fear of the unknown.  This is the kind of horror film that I dream of, one that sufficiently creeps me by touching on some of my deepest held fears without cheating with piled-on gore.  The promise showed by Jennifer Kent here makes me pray that she doesn't peak early like the great M. Night Shymalan.  I hope she can continue to deliver, because if this is just the intro to her mind, I shudder to think what else could be in there. But I tell you this, I can't wait for it.

HIDDEN GEMS SERIES #2-The Raid: Redemption (aka The Raid)

4 Stars (out of four)

I have already been hearing some people divide the era of action movies pre- and post-Raid.  Now, while it may be a little too early to tell if this admittedly excellent 2011 Indonesian action flick is THAT good,I must say, it has more energy and vitality than any action film I have seen for a LONG time.  Unfortunately, this gem was in and out of American cinemas in the blink of an eye, and it didn't deserve to be.

The plot, like most action films, is not very involved.  A group of 20 elite SWAT police raid a ruthless crime lord's headquarters in Jakharta.  It is a 15-story tenement that is the home to what appears to be every scumbag with a gun or knife in Indonesia, as well as some scattered poor families.  Once the team gets inside the building, all hell breaks loose as just about every tenant in the building is gunning to kill them.

Wow!  What can I say?  Asia has been pumping out some of the most refreshing and exciting action films in recent memory from China (Jackie Chan, John Woo, Chow Yun Fat and Jet Li, need I say more?) to Korea (Tae Guk Gi-The Brotherhood of War) to Indonesia (Ong Bak, Chocolate).  I don't know if it has to do with the fact there aren't as many safety rules for stuntmen in these countries or what, but some of the most mind-blowing and exciting action sequences have come from there.  While all of these films tend to be over the top, especially with the wire work, The Raid strips the action film to its essence; that is, pure, kinetic havok.  I couldn't see a lot of the wire work in the film like the sort seen in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  The Raid offers just good, old-fashioned, amazing fight choreography.  As corny as it may sound, a well-choreographed fight scene takes on the same asthetic grandeur that the most expressive ballet can provide.  They are basically the same thing, after all.  Talented partners moving each other through a tight pattern of moves to produce a thrilling spectacle.

Now, for me, the great dividing point in action was undoubtedly Die Hard, although I could also argue the same for Raiders of the Lost Ark.  In both, there was just the right amount of humor juxtaposed with white knuckle action that produced spectacles that had never been attempted before.  But The Raid is a different animal.  This is not mayhem and killing for laughs; this is pure action for its own sake.  The movie spends very little setup time before it explodes into action.  That action is relentless and does not let up.  And while American audiences usually hate subtitles, which is probably why they stayed away from this incredible gem, don't let that deter you.  This is one of the most exciting and ruthless action movies I have ever seen.  What's interesting is that the movie Dredd came out a year after this, and is essentially the same plot.  But as good as Dredd is, it doesn't hold a candle to the brutal action scenes of The Raid, and they are brutal.  This movie is a pretty hard R with its violent content, but don't let that deter you. If you like action films, this is the one to see.  While it may not be as satisfyingly entertaining as Die Hard with the added humor, The Raid is a movie that will leave you amped up, breathless, and full of adrenaline, like any exciting action film should be.  It doesn't get much better than this.

Other similar suggested action films in this vein (some of which will also be in the HIDDEN GEMS series):

The Killer

Hard Boiled

A Bullet In The Head

Full Contact

Chocolate

Ong Bak

Police Story 1-3

Drunken Master 1-2

Dragons Forever

Once Upon A Time In China 1-3

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War

It Follows

3 Stars (out of four)

I have been ranting for some time now about how lazy horror filmmakers have become lately.  It comes down to shock (Boo! Movies) and sustained dread.  Anyone can make a "Boo!" film.  You just need some halfway convincing prosthetic makeup and for a killer to jump out at an opportune moment.  Thrilling, to be sure, but not very scary.  Now, sustaining an atmosphere of dread, that takes real talent because it forces you to do more with less.  Hitchcock once said the scariest thing in the world is an open door, because your mind can make up a thousand things more scary than any filmmaker can conjur.  It is this sustained dread that It Follows is trying to tap.

The plot is fairly straightforward.  There is a ghost following a specific person that can take the shape of anyone.  It will continually walk toward its intended victim and eventually kill him or her.  The only way to get rid of the ghost is to have sex with another person and pass it on to them.  The problem is that if that person dies before passing it on, the ghost will return to the previous person, killing all down the line until it gets to the source.

I have actually been waiting for this film for some time now.  It has been making its way through the festivals, gathering kudos wherever it goes.  The most common description I have heard is "freaky," and it does live up to that.  It relies on the eerie image to produce its frights, not blood.  This is much harder to do, especially with today's "seen it all" audience.  Some have said due to the sexual nature of the film, it is a thinly veiled metaphor for venereal disease, particularly AIDS or HPV, since you have to "pass it on."  Now, I don't know if that is the case.  It would be an interesting question for the director or screenwriter.  I think it may be stretching the metaphor too much.  I think it was just supposed to be a scary flick.

Films like this give me hope for horror, because it shows there are people still willing to work at it, to make something genuinely scary.  It Follows takes its cues from other great atmospheric horror movies from: I Walked With A Zombie, Night of the Hunter, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Psycho, Halloween (both of them), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Silence of the Lambs, Suspiria, Night of the Living Dead, Assault on Precinct 13, The Exorcist, Signs, Poltergeist, to Se7en.  While some are bloodier than others, they all share the trait of increasing dread and paranoia throughout the film.  A good horror movie should make you feel more and more uncomfortable without necessarily ending on a high note.  It Follows tries to follow in these footsteps pretty successfully.  And while I did find some scenes pretty creepy, I was a bit let down.  Now this could be because I've seen a lot of these films and have become a bit inured to their effects, but I have to give credit where credit is due, and this is a superior film.  One of the things I particularly liked about it was it conjured up older, better horror flicks for me with the storytelling, down to the synthesizer soundtrack.  All of it conjures up those great films from the late 70's-early 80's.  It made me a bit nostalgic.  I applaud it simply because it tries to be better, and not just some cynical cash grab for a quick buck.  This film is worth your while if you want to be creeped out.

The General's Daughter

2 Stars (out of four)

So this was one of those films I have been meaning to see for a long time, and after I finished, I asked myself, "why?"  It was not horrible, but not very good either.   I am also still trying to understand what exactly what truths or messages it was promoting.

The movie starts with John Travolta playing an undercover Criminal Investigative Division (CID) agent in the Army, Warrant Officer Cage.  He is called to investigate a gruesome rape/murder of a very popular 3-Star general's (James Cromwell) daughter.  Along with a CID rape investigator and former flame (Madeline Stowe), they uncover a sordid underworld of sex that the general's daughter was involved which may or may not have had something to do with her death.

So, without getting too much into the plot-spoilers, let's just say no one comes out clean.  The 90's were a time when it became kind of fashionable to do really edgy or nihilistic dramas, like: 8mm, Leaving Las Vegas, Se7en, Pulp Fiction, Crash, Fight Club, Trainspotting, Donnie Darko, even Showgirls; with varying levels of success in getting their points across.  It was actually a bit of a heady time, especially for independent films, documented in the amazing book Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance and the Rise of Independent Film by Pete Biskind.  There wasn't an explosion of great flicks like this since the 70's with young, hungry directors like Tarantino, Van Sant, Aronofsky, Soderberg, Lee, Singleton, the Hughes and the Coen brothers and others who wanted to make their mark.  Some of the films were truly visionary or mind blowing, and almost all independently made, with the majors trying to compete.  And when the major studios tried to compete, the result was usually something like The General's Daughter.

I'm not exactly sure what the movie was about.  The movie seemed to be commenting on the changing role of women in the military similar to G.I. Jane, and the issues of sexual harassment and assault that were coming to light with those changes.  The tailhook scandal was in 1991, 8 years before, and The General's Daughter was probably written in response to the reports of ugly and shameful behavior that many women face (and still face today) in the military.  But by personalizing it in such a brutal way, it comes off as hamhanded and hokey.  The issue of sexual harassment in the workplace was handled much better in North Country, made six years later and with the added benefit that it was a true story.  While the filmmakers' hearts may have been in the right place on exposing the plight of women in the military at the time, the extra sordidness of the story cheapens the message, or at least seemed that way to me.  In any case, it was marginally interesting, but a little confusing in the end as to who did what to whom and why.  Watch with caution.