Capsule Review: "Children of Men"

Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men” begins with a bang, grabbing its audience by the collar and dragging it through a disturbingly resonant dystopia. Like the best of science fiction, “Children of Men” draws upon that which is familiar and relevant. Much of the film’s imagery seems to have been lifted from our real-world headlines. The year is 2027, and women are no longer able to give birth. The world has fallen into disarray – stricken by nuclear war, terrorism, and warring factions. Theo (Clive Owen), a former activist, is approached by his revolutionary ex-lover (Julianne Moore) with a favor: he is to help the first pregnant woman in nearly twenty years navigate the dangers of England to reach a rumored safe haven known as the Human Project.

Director Alfonso Cuarón, with the help of Director of Photography Emmanuel Lubezki, creates a completely immersive and frighteningly real vision of the future. Several long takes (some bordering 10 minutes) occupy the film’s running time. The camera acrobatics are at once dazzling, a 360-degree turn inside a car or weaving through a combat zone, but they also clearly define the space of England in 2027 and thereby enforce the urgency of the parable. Cuarón’s insistence on letting the shots linger allows the viewer to enter a fully-realized universe of broken glass, rubble, and violence. Very few close-ups are used in “Children of Men”. As a result, the audience can’t help but view the characters in the context of their environment.

Cuarón and Lubezki are aided by a fine collection of talent. Clive Owen channels Humphrey Bogart as the reluctant hero – a man so disillusioned by the state of the world that, initially, he has only enough time and energy to look out for himself. Superlative set design strikes a balance between the contemporary and the fantastical cityscapes of other seminal science fiction films such as “Metropolis” and “Blade Runner”. The rich sound design is ever present. It features sirens, gun shots, human and animal screams and serves as a constant reminder as to the state of this world.

Amidst the impending doom of “Children of Men”, Alfonso Cuarón has injected a strong current of unadulterated hope. Though the film parallels the Christian nativity, Cuarón achieves a great deal of spirituality without beating the religious nail over the head. His is a message of faith, not necessarily in a higher power, but in a better tomorrow.

**** / ****

Capsule Review: "The Insider"

Despite seven Oscar nominations (including Best Picture), Michael Mann’s “The Insider” may be one of the most under-appreciatd and under-seen films of the last 15 years or so. It tells the true story of Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe) and Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino). The former is a recently fired tobacco executive who’s compelled to reveal inside information on tobacco products that could be crushing for his former bosses, and the latter is a producer for 60 Minutes who must navigate treacherous corporate and legal waters in order to air Wigand’s story.

Mann’s film runs 157 minutes, yet it’s positively riveting from start to finish, despite a complete absence of gunfire, explosions and car chases. It imparts a great deal of complex information pertaining to law, corporate affairs and media dealings. However, Mann’s direction is so sure-footed and the script, written by Mann and Eric Roth, is so thoroughly researched and dramatically competent that the potentially cumbersome material is engaging and easy to follow.

Mann creates a palpable sense of drama, as Wigand’s struggle isn’t without a sense of loss. A minor spoiler follows, so skip to the last paragraph if you want a totally fresh viewing experience. Wigand’s wife leaves Jeffrey, after he persists in blowing the whistle on big tobacco despite threats on his family. To draw a comparison, Ron Howard’s “A Beautiful Mind” maintains that its protagonist, a man named John Nash who suffered from schizophrenia, stayed with his wife. In reality, Nash’s wife succumbed to the pressure of her husband’s condition and left him. Mann doesn’t pull any such punches, and his film remains true to the events that transpired. His willingness to resist temptations that might comfort mainstream viewers results in a more compelling journey for his main character.

In a robust career, Jeffrey Wigand is Russell Crowe’s strongest piece of acting. From the ground and up, Crowe’s performance is a full-bodied portrayal. His Wigand moves differently from Russell Crowe or other Crowe characters. Wigand has a stilted walk, befitting a man who strains to keep hold of his emotions. Indeed, Wigand is said to have emotional problems in the film, and Crowe offers a few volcanic glimpses. The Australian actor, 35 years old at the time of the film’s release, successfully plays a 48-year-old man and all the emotional and physical baggage that comes with it. Al Pacino offers a later-career best as the determined producer from 60 Minutes. It’s the pairing of these two acting titans, one newly minted and the other a Hollywood veteran, along with Mann’s exceptional talent that makes “The Insider” such a gripping drama.

**** / ****

Review: "Where the Wild Things Are"

In short, “Where the Wild Things Are” is as good a movie as can be derived from a 10-sentence children’s book. That’s not necessarily meant to sound like a putdown. Narratively thin, director and co-screenwriter Spike Jonze isn’t interested in structuring his film around standard family film plot points. “Wild Things” is a melancholy character study focused on Max, a rambunctious young boy played astonishingly well by Max Records. After bouts with his sister and single mother, Max runs away from home and escapes to an island where the wild things are. The film presents a series of vignettes between Max and his new friends, and these events clearly mirror his home life with increased levels of despair.

Shot in ruggedly handsome Melbourne, Australia, director of photography Lance Acord imbues breathtaking imagery with an appropriate autumnal color scheme. After all, this is a film about growing up. The wild things, themselves, are seamlessly and beautifully rendered through puppetry, costumes and computer animation. They’re voiced by an all-star cast, which includes: Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano and standout James Gandolfini. Carton Burwell and Karen O., composers with slightly conflicting sensibilities, collaborated on the score. The former lends his traditional sorrowful tone while the latter offers something more celebratory. The result is a soundtrack that’s wholly unique and fitting.

Spike Jonze has made a career on quirky, independent-minded projects, and “Where the Wild Things Are” follows suit. It’s an art house film masquerading as a studio production, backed by Warner Brothers and costing upwards of $80 million. Jonze is to be commended for following through on his convictions. His adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s book is decidedly sad and dreary, and it certainly would have been easier (i.e. more commercially viable) to go another, lighter route. “Where the Wild Things Are” isn’t so much for children as it is about being a child and all the angst, sadness and uncertainty that comes with it. Its lack of a traditional structure is befitting of these whirlwind emotions (if a bit inactive). As an examination of a child’s psyche, it’s very effective and deeply moving. As a palatable family outing that’s based on a cherished children’s book, well, “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” is still in theaters.

*** or ***½ / ****

Review: "Paranormal Activity"

Let me preface by saying that I didn’t think that the "Paranormal Activity" trailer - a mish-mash of film footage and audience reaction - was particularly effective. Although, it does highlight the best reason to see this film in theaters: the audience. There isn't much critical material available on "Paranormal Activity". It's been out for just over a week, but there are only 30 [very positive] reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It's the sort of film that builds momentum through word-of-mouth. Paramount Pictures is well aware of this, which is why their initial distribution strategy is completely dependent upon online demand. I'm willing to bet that this past weekend’s screenings were pretty full as a result.

The film's success, and it is undoubtedly successful, is almost entirely owed to "The Blair Witch Project". The general premise is this: a couple has been experiencing paranormal activity and so the boyfriend has invested in a camera to document the happenings. Produced on a shoestring budget, the film is told entirely from the perspective of the boyfriend's camera, similar to “The Blair Witch”. Also like that late 90’s shocker, the bare-bones budget limits (or perhaps liberates) the filmmakers to base their scares almost solely around things that go bump in the night. The structure of the film is brilliant if simple. During the day, the couple talks about the nocturnal disturbances, conducts paranormal research, consults with a psychic, etc. All of the night scenes begin from the same vantage point: the boyfriend places the camera on a tripod at the foot of their bed, and it surveys the whole room and the dark hallway that stretches beyond. Each night is prefigured by a title card – Night #1, 2, 3 and so on. The structure, like a roller coaster with every subsequent dip (or night scene) being steeper and longer (or more frightening) than its predecessor, had my audience positively writhing. The sound design is likewise wonderfully developed. At the beginning of the film, the soundtrack is sprinkled with bumps and scrapes so indistinguishable and soft as to be almost commonplace or even unnoticeable. As the film progresses, however, those seemingly normal and everyday noises turn into something that is...decidedly not. By the end of my screening, one audience member was audibly whimpering and another was slapping his knee in fits of anxiety.

“Paranormal Activity” is probably a better film than “The Blair Witch Project”, though the latter will always be the innovator and tremendously influential. Still, consider the following. The task before the filmmakers of "The Blair Witch Project" was to derive fear from the forest. Not particularly challenging, as forests are inherently dark, disorienting and filled with strange noises. Oren Peli, the writer and director of "Paranormal Activity", was charged with something much greater and more difficult: filling one's own home (specifically one's bedroom) with terror and menace. He has accomplished just that through a minimalist approach that relies on swinging chandeliers, moving bed sheets, whispering wind [or was it breath] and other things that go bump in the night. Pleasant dreams.

*** / ****