Australian stuntman turned director, Nash Edgerton, treats his characters with the mischievous control of a malevolent puppet master. He likes to make his audiences uncomfortable. His new film, The Square, stars David Roberts as Raymond Yale, the pawn in Edgerton’s hands, whose life reaches a pit of such calculated loss and despair, that it is an added tragedy for the story to close without relieving Yale through death. This slight is the protagonist’s final penalty for the actions initiated by his younger mistress, Carla Smith (Claire Van der Bloom), whose simple plan of robbing ill-gotten money from her husband, and running, is botched in the lovers’ criminally-amateur hands. The pacing of the story is a slow unraveling of grave consequences– reminiscent of other dark films, like In The Bedroom– pitching the wills of its characters against the impervious tenacity of a larger fate. The feeling of dread builds, crescendos, and ends with an air of theatric and hopeless indeterminability. Nothing is finally resolved; it is merely ended. Depending on your empathetic receptors, you may feel that justice has been wrought; or, you might finish on an existential path of concern over the lack of control our lives can hold.

Here’s the trailer for Noah Baumbach’s new film, Greenberg. The sketchy thing is that it starts Ben Stiller. Baumbach made a similar move employing Jack Black into Margot at the Wedding and it failed somewhat miserably. However, look at the last 15 seconds of the film. It looks like Stiller is able to pull off Baumbach’s chatty dialogue pretty well. Also, you can check out Fantastic Mr. Fox (co-written by Wes Anderson and Baumbach)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GRuxkHriA8&NR=1

I’ve been waiting for a film like this for a long, long time. Incredible, passionate, and contemplative; The Messenger is the kind of film you go to see when you haven’t seen a good one in a very long time. It’s more than worth you money, it’s worth    Everything about this film radiates professionalism and quality; from the acting to the direction and writing. And, you know, there are films on the outside and then there are outsider films. This film has the qualities of both without sacrificing integrity. It reminds me of  a time when seeing a film that was ‘independent’ was truly just that. They were films made by fringe craftsmen to tell stories that otherwise wouldn’t have been told. Each story accompanied with powerful and intimate acting, a director with a keen eye for balance and aesthetic, and  The Messenger is that kind of a film.

The film’s ambiance is similar to that of a documentary. But what could be more fitting a style then that of a fly on the wall for a movie that has its man characters delivery notices of death to unaware and hopeful family members of fallen soldiers? And it’s not just a fly on the wall perspective.The camera itself is alive. It lives and breathes within the immediate sphere of the soldiers. It never moves passed them and keeps an awkward distance after emotional epiphany of the family; much like the characters. The sense of forced alienation is just as evident in the camera as it is in the shot.

Ben Foster is an incredibly talented young actor and watching this film it is not very hard to imagine him as being the first in the next generation of Oscar generating performers (the present being those like Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc.). The performance here is not that obvious. In fact, I dare to say that it’s not even a performance. It’s a portrayal. There wasn’t a single moment in this film that I doubted the authenticity of his character. However, it’s the contrast Woody Harrelson’s ‘performance’ as an Army Sargeant whose been around the block more than once that gives the movie most of its dynamic.  And while each character has a real sense of sincerity, there are moments where you realize that both characters are in need of something that the other has. That they are not as whole as they carry themselves to do. And that sort of struggle not to unveil that something (in much the way that military men do) reveals the depth of each individual in such a simple tone that it hits.

The script for this film is extremely solid. The characters are well fleshed out and fully developed throughout the film. However, the strong points stand out in one of the last scenes as Ben Foster’s character tells Harrelson his experience in the hospital after saving his platoon and being received as a hero. The words probably could have possibly stood alone as powerful and passionate without Foster’s incredible performance, but thank god this film was made. And we’ll never know the difference.

Many questions come to mind upon viewing the latest remake of A Christmas Carol. Why have a release date so far from the holiday season? Why decide to use motion capture technology? Why cast Jim Carrey as not only Scrooge but also as two of the ghosts who visit him?

The odd release date works in the movies favor. In a time where many people are longing for the breaks that come along with Thanksgiving and Christmas, this movie acts as a simple and joyous treat that will undoubtedly leave you with a sense of holiday merriment. Most audience members will be familiar with Charles Dickinson’s classic tale, and if you have no previous knowledge of the story, I would strongly recommend seeing this film, because despite it’s shortcomings, the narrative at the core of the A Christmas Carol is heartfelt and brilliant.

That being said, for those who have seen a version of this story before, there will indeed be some problem areas. The motion capture technology, paired with 3D does indeed look majestic however, the director, Robert Zemeckis, is obviously a little too fascinated by the technology and proceeds to add countless scenes of Scrooge flying hastily through nineteenth century London. These over the top high-speed sequences serve little purpose and overall detract from the fluidity of the story telling.

Another big issue is Jim Carrey constant presence in the film. His Scrooge seems a bit forced, and I can’t see why a man closer in age to the Scrooge character could not have fulfilled this role. (Michael Kane had once done a fantastic job in this roll, where Muppets surrounded him instead of animation).  The ghost of Christmas past is played by Carrey, and instead of the endearing character usually seen, Carrey plays the ghost as an odd quirky half man half candlestick, and takes away from the enjoyment of revisiting fond moments of the past. Carrey’s best performance comes as the ghost of Christmas present, who appears in his massive form and is as joyous as ever.  However it is the death of the ghost of Christmas present and the arrival of the ghost of Christmas yet to come that sees this film take a turn for the better. The whole sequence is eerie, and slightly terrifying, but gives the audience the most real depiction of the book and the most creatively magnificent sequence of the entire film.

A big problem with this film, and a reason why it’s box office returns have been slightly disappointing, is that it is marketed to kids. It lacks the constant humor that most children’s movies offer, and it provides some truly terrifying themes and imagery. I would recommend watching the aforementioned Muppets Christmas Carol if I was to be with anyone under the age of 6.

A Christmas Carol is a treat for anyone who is a fan of the 3D format, and it will suffice for die-hard lovers of the story. However, if you have a chance to see the play on stage in the months to come, I would save my money for that occasion.

A movie of pure power, raw and effective, Precious will take you on a journey that will affect you, undoubtedly. Director Lee Daniels, with a cast ranging from huge stand-out names to literal no-bodies, and the financial and spiritual backings of Oprah and Tyler Perry, conducts a masterpiece of emotion and earth-shattering reality.
First, let me tell you about the cast. Precious herself is played by one Gabourey ‘Gabby’ Sidibe, the aforementioned no-body. With not a single film, television or commercial credit to her name, Sidibe shocks the audience with a painful portrayal of perhaps the most tragic story you could see in your cinema life. Mo’Nique, a bawdy comic by trade, lost incredible amounts of weight to play the abusive mother of Precious and is spot on in her performance. Each time the name ‘Precious’ falls from her lips your heart feels pain; look for her mood shifts, the sudden explosions, these things create in the viewer a level of discord that can only be settled by the implacable nature of Sidibe’s performance. Mariah Carey makes an appearance as a social worker of truly meager appearance and wows the audience even in the subdued role.
The script shines straight through the mainly female cast. Very real, never pandering to the audience, vulgar, visceral and direct. The inner monologue of precious that pervades the story is dark, humorous at times, and deepens the pain felt by the audience in its exposition. You could not have asked for a more compelling script to accompany such a painful story. The script writer holds nothing back from the audience, racial slurs are thrown about, the stereotypes that are seen are spoken. The shock value in this movie is the mechanics of playwright looking for attention, but intentionally used to prove to the audience the horrors of the world they are faced with.
The movie’s cinematography is gritty, almost as if it were a documentary, hard zooms and shaky angles follow precious through her trials, adding an element of attachment that overly dramatic angles might not. The coloring was bleak, with Precious’ dream sequences being done in bright flashy colors and high resolution.
As a viewer I will admit to being entirely taken aback by the movie. It hits, and it hits hard. There is not a 5 minute period in the movie where you are comfortable. There is hardly a minute that passes that does not take you to a new level of emotion. This constant sadness makes the happiest moments of the movie tragic and makes the laughs that the movie steals from you (and there are a good number) bittersweet. The movie is hard to watch at times but you will never want to take your eyes away.
Precious is a must see movie. An excellent performance by all cast members combined with a compelling script and excellent direction makes this the movie to see if you want to experience a true piece of cinema. Precious goes so far as to show us, on a technical side, how movies can effectively convey incredible power, and irrefutably grabs at your heart and will twist.

If you’re like me, there’s a possibility that Paranormal Activity didn’t live up to all of its hype. Yes, there were some moments that showed great ingenuity. Yes, it did genuinely care quite a few people. But some of us are those people that felt nothing. Another disappointment for the hard-hearted horror fans who can remember watching the Exorcist at a very young age. Well, there’s a possibility for a film to genuinely spook you and while it might not be getting all the hype that Paranormal is getting it certainly may be more worth the money.

In what essentially is another film that uses the Blair Witch marketing system, The Fourth Kind is a tale of a psychiatrist (Dr. Abigail Tyler, played by Milla Jovavich and a woman claiming to be the real life Abigail Tyler) who travels to the small town of Nome, Alaska to research the numerous claims of abductions and disappearances. What happens after is a spooky and genuinely chilling event that takes place during the film. Some are claiming that the stock footage in this video is true, but I’m having a hard time believing it. Alaska? Maybe the aliens are really into bear hunting? Or perhaps they came to pick up the former Republican Vice presidential candidate that they left behind (a much more scary concept than any film)? Who knows? After you wikipedia this, check out the feature the History channel ran on the authenticity of the film, here:

[Insert Video Gallery outsidevids]

Life comes at you fast. So fast, we tend to forget what it was to be a child. And then we forget that we forgot. As I sat in the theater watching the opening 30 min. or so, with its child ramblings that are incoherent but make complete sense to you when you’re a kid, I remembered. It was like looking through one of those viewmasters (remember the chunk plastic thing you would look into and click to see pictures like a little slideshow). Little snippets of childhood fantasy slowly coming to life click by click until each frame blended in; coming at me faster and faster. Spike Jonze has managed to stretched the original 10 sentences into a vast and mesmerizing space for the young at heart to re enter that phase in their life when the world seemed more carefree. And for $10, for two hours you can get the chance to do so.

Let’s get it out of the way: Spike Jonze didn’t make this for kids. At least not in the sense that you think.For that reason, along with some sincerely frightening moments of violence, are what makes Where the wild Things Are much more likely to hit with the 18-24 crowd than what may seem like it’s target audiences. The movie has an honest and clear message that it sends to kids: “The world is scary”. Though the message is clear, the morals are not laid out in front of you so you could pick them up on a whim. When you first watch it, you find the behavior of the characters intriguing, if not completely surprising. None of them are the oh-so-friendly or only-slightly-apprehensive-but eventually-completely-trustworthy characters you see in other kids movies. The characters are somewhat scary from first appearance and remain that way throughout. Even as you get to know the characters, you find that the ‘quirks’ in their personality, much like in real life, are more flaws. The monsters are mean and melancholy, but they mean the best.

The monsters in this film have taken shape on their own outside of the book. Each character is picked from the personalities in and around Max’s world in the outside world and are all extremes in their emotional behavior. From neurosis and anxiety to docile to damn near bipolar, each emotion is meant to display to Max how to handle the real world. And can’t help, but feel sad for him as soon as he begins to realize that even his imaginary kingdom is plagued with reality. Even still, the fights and quarrels are much more to akin to children’s playground quarrels, but it affected me. I saw how we still act that way as adults, but as Max can simply apologize and then jump on one of the creatures, we tend to carry more weight in our arguments. This is one of the few instances of moral upheaval that the film offers. As I said, it doesn’t shove it in your face. So, you’re allowed to interpret in any way you see fit. Then again, you can actually just see the film and enjoy it for what it is.

If you’re doing that, then you have to know a few things. The film is gorgeous. Not just in its aesthetics, but in its energy. It is actually written in the spirit of a child; like someone recited their childhood from a memory but with precision. The beginning of the film explores the ordinary world of Max. A young boy living with a teenage sister in a single parent home. He’s ignored by his sister and pining for the constant attention he seeks from his mother. These both lead him to the Land of the Wild Things, where he meets creatures that are reminiscent of his subconscious and those of the people in his life. What follows is a funny and terrifying experience. Speaking of funny, it’s very funny. but sort of that cute and innocent funny. Light hints at sarcasm, cute one liners, and hearing a little kid make up extravagant lies. But the same cannot be said of the more terrifying aspect. There are points in the film where you are genuinely worried for the safety of Max. There’s a sort of raw emotion that comes from these creatures and it’s because they are wild; much like a child. A kid is not afraid of holding back what they say, sometimes to the point of being hurtful and these creatures are exactly that. In that sense, Where the Wild Things Are could just as easily be the playground next to you. It depends on how much imagination you have.

Where the Wild Things Are is an honest and slightly disturbing look at childhood through the eyes of a child, but in reality is much pertinent to the life of a young adult. In it’s originality and sincerity, it doesn’t falter to any cliche, but it doesn’t go out of its way escape any either. Like any good children’s book (and like the giant fort made of twigs and stones in the film), the film speaks to children at their height instead of talking down at them. It works together to create a valuable lesson a lot of people my age can learn to create an original and sincere adaptation filled with enough energy and heart to grab anyone.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and admit that this review likely won’t stop you from going to see this movie. A movie, in Philly, starring Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx is going to undoubtedly sell out to everyone man, woman, and irresponsible men and women who bring their children to see this surprisingly violent film. If you’d like to see a lot of blowing things up, people dying, puzzle solving, Jamie Foxx screaming, guy-from-300 naked, and action, then this is a pretty straight forward film and you probably won’t feel your money was wasted. But for those of us who like to enjoy our films we must avoid this movie at all costs. Here’s why:

Ever look at the trailer of this film, surmise the premise, and wonder “How are they gonna balance the differences between good and evil?”. Short answer: they don’t. It’s one of the many things that this film holds back on. It’s hard to dwell on the matter without divulging intimate details of the film’s climax, but suffice it to say this film is like sandpaper in the mouth of an audience member salivating for a reasonable resolution. **POSSIBLE SPOILER**

Not only that, but you feel a bit cheated. Instead of rounding out the characters and coming to a sound resolve of the situation, one ends up staring at a really pretty special effect. It’s like exchanging sugar for water.

Next up, is the writing. Most thrillers include unrealistic chases, convenient plot devices, and shallow character depth. Law Abiding Citizen switches the game up by doing all of these things when it had a good chance to avoid them easily. It relies pretty heavily on the change of Gerard Butler’s character from family man to killer, but when it bothers to tell us how he became such a proficient killer it fumbles. Time lines don’t add up and are not fully explained, the character’s morality (the basis of the entire plot) is never once questioned fully. It seems ironic that a story based around so much character change and development completely lacks in it. It actually works in a good way for part of the film in a sort of: “Real life doesn’t give way to moral affirmation at every turn” kind of way, but the situation is so extreme one may find it ridiculous for some of these characters not to have some cathartic moment. Something that can be looked at as both a fault and a positive thing within the film is that the audience will find itself either rooting for Butler or Foxx (most likely Butler) and will do so throughout the entire film. Sometimes, even when it’s obviously leaning toward one more than the other. Some audience members are gonna love this, some will be too busy rooting for their favorite character,  and others will be frustrated at the flip flopping; seeing it more as an “on the whim” use of plot than the carefully calculated plot device it was.

The last thing that I found curious is the dynamic between Butler and Foxx. It will become obvious pretty early on in the film that the roles should have been reversed, maybe Foxx should have been replaced by someone with a little more enthusiasm for the project. But this likely would have caused a problem with race that would precede the film and hurt it in the box office. Well, without giving too much away, I can definitely see that. But, to be honest, it was a sacrifice that should have been made. It’s another case of this film holding back on being something potentially greater than the product we have today.

The bottom line is that this is a run of the mill, well paced, somewhat cookie cutter film. It does a good job of confusing the audience of who is right or wrong and keeping suspense, but without a conclusion that feels a bit compromised leaves the audience feeling empty. And, though it offers nothing new and tends to shoot itself in the foot in its narrative, it still managed to capture some of the audience members around me. Most of the acting is solid, the direction is great, and the technical aspect doesn’t rise over the bar but it also doesn’t go under. I’m not going to recommend going to see this film because I know you will anyway. As a word of advice: If you’re broke and have to choose between eating popcorn at this movie or eating a real meal, I’d choose dinner. Because there’s a 49% chance that, even though you’ll get a good jolt from a few of the scenes, you may not like this movie or you’ll at least feel like it wasn’t worth the money.