Open Letters Monthly Review: Lawless

As movie watchers, we're always on the look for the Next Big Thing. With former box office guarantees dropping the ball left and right and no longer appealing to mainstream audiences, Hollywood is trying to determine who of the new generation of movie stars will lead them into the next era of blockbuster success. Who will be the next superstars? Fassbender? Lawrence? Hemsworth? Worthington? Saldana? Sure, they seem to be doing fine now, but with so many young faces waiting in the wings, how long will they actually last before someone else gets a shot? Lawless uses some of that newly-discovered talent and takes it for a ride. Will the latest movie from the director of The Road be a proper showcase of their talents?

In the county of Franklin, Virginia, the Bondurant brothers run a moonshining operation at the height of Prohibition. Life is good, as nobody bothers them or tries to shake them down. That changes when corrupt politicians attempt to take over, sending the particularly ruthless Charlie Rakes to commit violence against anybody who doesn't fall in line. The Bondurants don't bow down to anybody, however, and now it's a battle between the corrupt law and the honorable lawless to determine who will ultimately control Franklin.

Lawless is directed by John Hillcoat, from a screenplay written by Nick Cave. It stars Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce.

Click here for the whole review at Open Letters Monthly.

Darkness Falls

I've been on more or less a hiatus the past two  weeks. A busy work schedule, not to mention plain old fatigue, has been gnawing on me, and between that and the string of blah releases recently the result I'm afraid has been me been neglecting Hello Mr. Anderson and my readers. Still, I couldn't imagine a better return to the site than reviewing possibly the most anticipated movie of the summer, The Dark Knight Rises. The finale to Christopher Nolan's take on the caped crusader has certainly earned it's "epic" label: at 165 minutes, it is the longest of his Batman trilogy, and borrows extensively from the comic book character's mythology in the formation of its story. In this third installment, the director took pages from one of the Batman's all-time great stories, 'Knightfall', which chronicled a hero driven to the point of both physical and mental exhaustion before being broken entirely. With Marvel having dominated the comic book film wars the past few years - Iron Man, Thor and of course The Avengers performing more impressively than DC's Superman Returns, Jonah Hex and Green Lantern - Nolan's films have been a light of hope for the company to somehow find their way back to the quality of storytelling for which they were once known. We're a long way from the "Bat-Nipple" sham that was Batman & Robin, and I was certainly of a mood to see this movie after spending this last weekend in the REAL inspiration for Gotham City, good old NYC.

You guessed it: he's Batman.

Set eight years after accepting the blame for the death of District Attorney Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, Batman has retired his cape and cowl. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has lived in seclusion, avoiding any public appearances both due to the physical trauma his body endured in his battle with Two Face and the Joker and his emotional instability following the death of childhood friend and former romantic interest Rachel Dawes. Gotham has enjoyed a modern Renaissance, with Dent's legacy ensuring that the city is free of the organized crime that had crippled its peace and prosperity in the previous decades. That all begins to change with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy), a brilliant, mysterious and deadly mercenary who has Gotham set in his sights, to bring chaos in his wake. What is Bane after? Why has cat burgler Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) targeted Bruce Wayne? And how are Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows involved? It's no wonder the thing stretches out to nearly three hours, as Nolan definitely needed that time to tell the whole story.

You'll wake up to an empty apartment... but it will be worth it.

This was to be the big one. The Dark Knight Rises was going to be bigger, more explosive and exciting than Marvel's The Avengers, being the end of Nolan and Bale's involvement with the storied franchise. It was far and away the most anticipated movie of the year for most people. Naturally this is where you start to pick up that The Dark Knight fails to live up to those impossibly high standards you have set. It's not so much that Nolan does anything particularly WRONG, not really. But there were several curious decisions made that - while not making TDKR as disappointing as Prometheus - seriously hinder the film's narrative flow. The movie starts off exciting with the introductions of Hardy's Bane and Hathaway's Catwoman, two major characters in the Batman universe who benefit from the amazingly talented actors who portray them. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable, has turned himself into a force of nature, and Hathaway masters all the angles of Selina Kyle, from her natural seductiveness to her brilliant strategic mind to her physical prowess. We even get to see a different side of Bruce Wayne, one that has been seriously affected by the battles and losses in his life. For Bale, it might not be as impressive as his turn in The Fighter, but his ability to invest himself fully into a role is nothing if not impeccable. And Nolan has always had a talent for drawing a lot of emotion out of his audiences with stellar visuals and explosive action.

Sure, he's not quite like the comic character, but Hardy's Bane is one of the best villains this year.

Unfortunately, even Nolan can't keep it up in a three-hour film, and when the film inevitably slows down for excessive plot exposition, you start to notice all the things that are wrong with The Dark Knight Rises. Like how Catwoman, despite her and Hathaway's many talents, still turns out to be kind of a one-dimensional character. Or Bane's ending, which is about as anti-climactic as one can get. Or Alfred's (Michael Caine) actions, which would never have happened in the comics. Or how Nolan ceases to focus on Batman for stretches at a time, turning the movie into the John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) show. They're great actors and do wonderful jobs, but the last time I checked the protagonist was supposed to be Bruce Wayne, not some orphan cop. Or hey, remember when the villain conspired to use a Waynetech invention to actually destroy Gotham City in Batman Begins? Well, expect to see that again! Or Batman's steadfast refusal to use guns, while having no qualms about using the machine guns and missiles on his new "Bat" flyer late in the film. Or how there's no reference to the Joker, who contrary to the first law of Batman movies did NOT die at the end of The Dark Knight? I understand that nobody can replace Heath Ledger's Joker at this point but I don't need an actor in makeup, just some sort of sign that he was loose in Gotham as all the craziness was going down. Or the film's surprising predictability. Don't even get me STARTED on Marion Cotillard's character. And that ENDING...!

This guy gets more attention than Batman...

One of the biggest complaints you will hear about films based on comic book characters is that you can't fully get into the story unless you already know all about the character in question. That has at least been partially true of Marvel's recent efforts, especially for The Avengers, which did have some moments that might have been confusing if you hadn't seen any of its predecessors. The irony of The Dark Knight Rises is that newcomers to the franchise will handily be able to follow along whether or not they've read the comic, so long as they've at least seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Even marginal Batman fans, however, may find themselves frothing at the mouth with all the liberties Christopher Nolan has taken with Gotham's favored son. At it's best, The Dark Knight Rises is a fun, exciting and entertaining thrill-ride with enough action, character development and intrigue to overcome its most glaring faults. It's the little things that will dig into your fun at the theater however, and there is no moment like that one Avengers scene of the collected heroes preparing for battle that will make you cheer and clap your hands in pure joy and exhilaration. TDKR is not that kind of movie, and doesn't try to be. Nolan's Batman is a character mired in darkness, ultimately alone in the battle against injustice. It's unquestionably his creation, and I'll say it's good enough to be the #9 film of 2012. That it could have - and perhaps SHOULD HAVE - been so much better is a shame, but Nolan's successes far outweigh his failures. His Batman epic, though now over, will be remembered as one of the best superhero series of all time, if not THE best. It's too bad it didn't finish better, but perhaps this was the ending Nolan's trilogy needed, if not necessarily the one it deserved.

Dancing lessons have since been cancelled.

Tinker Tailor on Mr. Anderson

When British author John le Carre released his fifth novel featuring Secret Intelligence Agent George Smiley in 1974, he can be forgiven perhaps for not realizing what he had on his hands at the time. The first novel in what became known as his Cold War-set "Karla Trilogy" went on to become a bestseller of international proportions, had radio and television adaptations made, and remains one of the best known British novels to date, completely revolutionizing the spy drama in the process. So when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy finally was given the cinematic treatment by director Tomas Alfredson (who made the original Swedish Let the Right One In), there were those fans of the book whose response was “it’s about time!” It helped that the cast brought in was chock full of talent, from standouts like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth to perhaps lesser known Tom Hardy and Toby Jones. Would any of these stellar abilities get any lasting recognition for such a renowned title? And how does this well-anticipated film fare over the course of a two hour movie when both previous adaptations had to be slotted into seven-part miniseries? My trek to the theater to add this to my yearly film allowance would hopefully answer that.

Gary Oldman: classic curmudgeon

In the wake of a blown operation in which British spy Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is shot and captured by Russian intelligence operatives, a shakedown is performed at the top of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, forcing out "Control" (John Hurt), the SIS’s director, and his right hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Control is convinced however that one of the four men left in charge of the SIS in his departure is in fact a mole, funneling secrets to Russian Intelligence. When Control, already ill, passes away, it is left to Smiley to ferret out what few clues can be found and to see which of the four operatives, code-named Tinker (Toby Jones), Tailor (Colin Firth), Soldier (Ciaran Hinds) and Poorman (David Dencik), is the culprit, and whether the mole has anything to do with the top secret source of intelligence from Russia, known only as “Witchcraft”.

Yes, books... you might have heard of them

As I mentioned before, the exhaustive cast is one of the major draws if Tinker Tailor appeals to you. Gary Oldman reminds us of what a star he used to be in the nineties, as recent years have seen him starring in less-than-reputable titles or tagging on side roles in big series' like The Dark Knight or Harry Potter. Given center stage, however, he cuts a swath through the material in front of him, with every deliberate motion and dour grimace given for a very good reason, with no wasted energy to muddy up his delivery beyond exactly what is needed. It doesn’t hurt that he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, most notably Colin Firth as a rival Intelligence head and one of those suspected to be a mole. Firth plays up the clichéd British arrogance for the role, but because he’s Colin fricking Firth his performance doesn’t come off as trite or silly. Other standouts include Toby Jones as the smug new head of the SIS, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s confidante and overly cautious agent, and Mark Strong in a relatively small role as Jim Prideaux, the agent (and Firth’s character’s best friend)  whose capture sets off the whole mess. Kathy Burke impresses in one scene as a foul-mouthed source of information (I guess her character had a larger role in the book), vacillating between helpful and flirty with Smiley. Unfortunately, crushing the story of the book down to a two-hour film means a whole got left out, including a lot of back-story for suspects played by Ciaran Hinds and David Denick. It’s a shame as both are well-regarded actors who would have benefited from a little more screen time. Also impressive is rising Hollywood star Tom Hardy as young agent Ricki Tarr, whose appearance in London allows Smiley clues to the mole in his midst. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable with a shaggy head of hair, shows that no matter the role, no matter how out of place it might seem for him, he can do it. It’ll be a shame to see his career go mainstream (such as in the upcoming This Means War), but if there’s any justice in the world, his name atop billboards will inspire people to see his films sooner rather than later.

What's more ridiculous; his career ascension, or his hair?

The aforementioned plot compressions create other problems besides just glossed-over characters. On one hand, the story feels told as if no crucial details are left out, and the tension the film bears throughout feels completely natural to a spy thriller like this. On the other hand, the tension is born from square one, with little downtime for the viewers to stop and catch their breath amid all the potential treason. While no major details feel left out, the same cannot be said for minor, clarifying ones, and some narrative miscues will throw the viewer off for whole scenes at a time, especially some featuring Mark Strong early on. Overall, the whole thing feels as though you need to have read the book to fully appreciate the experience of seeing this film. This is unfortunately the byproduct of plot shrink, and thankfully it’s no more than a minor nuisance on the film as a whole. Sure, some characters and plot points would have made far more sense with a bit more prodding, but for the most part such details would have been nice additions, not necessary exposition.

He may not get an Academy Award, but he's still Colin Firth!

For a film based on a beloved novel, there were certainly plenty of places where a lesser filmmaker would have screwed up. Thankfully, Alfredson did his source material due diligence and brought together the perfect cast, melding them into a story that would have devolved into drawn-out mumbo-jumbo without a strong hand to guide them. This is one of the few times I will argue that a film should have been LONGER, but thankfully this is no reason not to see what amounts overall to a very good film. While perhaps not reaching “Must See” status, it’s just a rung below, and even if you don’t see this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in the theaters, I hope you’ll at least consider it a serious rental in a few month’s time. More importantly, I hope the Academy will show the film and especially lead Gary Oldman more love than the Golden Globes have. Oldman deserves a Best Actor nomination for his efforts, as much for how he has been ignored in today’s Hollywood as he has been vindicated in this international thrill ride.

Everybody's Still Kung-Fu Fighting

Okay, today's post SHOULD have been about the new Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris, starring Owen Wilson as a man who falls in love with the French capital. It's been critically hailed as Allen's best directorial effort in years. So how did I go from that to seeing Kung Fu Panda 2? Sigh. I really have nobody to blame but myself. On Tuesday, when I had the choice of seeing either Paris or The Tree of Life, I chose the latter. My reasoning was that Allen's film had been enjoying some success; with Tree likely relegated to the limited release and indie theater circuit for the time being, and Paris getting more or less a wide release treatment, there was a better chance of Tree's showings winding down quickly, while Paris would get a little more time in the spotlight. So I decided to drag myself through Tree, thinking full well that a viewing of Midnight in Paris would be readily available only two days later, which was the next time I'd get the chance to head in town to the theater.

Whoops.

Turns out that in only two days everything changed. With my daily schedule only allowing me to see something in the mornings, I was upset to discover that the theater, which had been showing daily matinees of Midnight in Paris for the past couple of weeks, had NO morning showings on this particular Thursday. Dammit. So I was left with a conundrum. No backup plan, no interest in the latest rentals (heck, I saw most of them in the theater anyway), and very few options. Well, I did have one BIG option, but there was a reason I had been avoiding it. When the original Kung Fu Panda came out in June of 2008, it was critically acclaimed and exceeded all expectations when it came to the box office. It even broke box office records in China, becoming the first American-produced film to make over 100 million Yuan. Yet I ignored the film when it came out for two reasons; one, it looked like a kid movie, and not one that adults could really get into as well; the second reason is that I've never been a big fan of Jack Black, and anything featuring him in more than a supporting role I usually can write off completely. Still, an awards pedigree (the original was nominated for both the Golden Globe and Academy Award) plus a lack of real alternatives forced my hand, and for the second time this year (the first was Rango) I ventured into a theater where the median audience member age was less than would be legal to consume alcohol in Massachusetts.

Oh, that panda! He's so CRAZY!

The film begins with an opening montage that describes the backstory for the film's villain, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen, an heir to the throne who was exiled due to some shockingly not-for-kids genocidal acts committed in the quest for power, has returned to his family's throne bearing a new weapon, one that threatens to destroy all of Kung Fu. Meanwhile, Dragon Warrior Po (Black) and his allies the Furious Five are asked to investigate the death of one of the greatest martial arts masters, and Shen and his secret weapon may be somehow involved. Additionally, Po learns that the goose Mr. Ping (James Hong) is not his biological father and searches for the answer to who he really is and who his parents were.

Semblematic to the amount of plot they tried to cram in there

It's this last part that actually generates the most interest for this film. While it was odd enough to think that a goose would have a panda son in the first film, this idea was mostly ignored, with the anthropomorphic element so in play that the question didn't even follow. With the revelation that Po was discovered and adopted, the story turns in parts to Po's identity and where he comes from, a sweet and subtle story that has him remembering bits and pieces of his childhood before he ended up in his adopted father's care, and seeking his original family out. While adoption stories are not infrequent plot threads, the execution here is one of the few shows of perfection the film possesses.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. The panda is crazy.

With that exception however, the rest of the film proves to be almost an almost complete mediocrity. Although there is one inventive fight scene early on that has the heroes battling in a village of musicians (and has some of the background music performed by a direct result of the action), much of the settings and story feel unoriginal and uninspired. The setup for the story is rushed and without surprise, and the whole thing would have benefited if we HADN'T been told the entire backstory up front. Even worse, the jokes fall flat, and most of the film slips between unfunny comedy and too-serious drama. Tack on less than spectacular visuals and you don't come up with a very entertained viewer.

About to take this franchise behind the shed to hide it from the children

One of the worst things an animated feature film can do is load itself down with celebrity voices, because hey, who cares if they'll never actually see the actors on screen? Sure, you can argue that you're getting the best people for the job by hiring Hollywood's elite, but your argument goes down the tubes when that "elite" talent does very little over the course of the film. Black is better than expected in a leading role, with Po easily being one of his deepest performances while still allowing him to retain his usual brand of laid-back enjoyment. And Gary Oldman is wonderfully malicious as Lord Shen, his presence perfectly voiced for the role. It's the rest of the cast that is either misused or overpaid, as Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, David Cross, Seth Rogen, and Dustin Hoffman having little to no character development, meaningless and unfunny dialogue, and more or less being paid top dollar for replacement level jobs. Michelle Yeoh, Danny McBride, Dennis Haysbert and Jean-Claude Van Damme are other big names brought in whose talents are unrecognizable on screen and therefore unnecessary. Essentially it's money thrown out the window, and doesn't do the film any favors.

Those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses never learn...

Despite authentic appreciation for ancient Chinese customs and kung fu action films, there's not a whole lot to invest yourself in when it comes to Kung Fu Panda 2. Cheesy and unfunny dialogue and an average story mean that your first impression upon seeing trailers for this film were most likely spot on. Kids might get some fun out of it, thanks to second-grade physical humor, but rationally-thinking adults would probably be better off with a good book. Unless your children are begging, skip it.

The Red Cloak of Shame

Ah, progress. Progress is the method by which we don't have to suffer the same things over and over again until the end of time. Progress means that what bores us can be replaced with something new and exciting. Progress means that we can ditch same-old, same-old for new, fresh, product. Movie monsters are no different; Frankenstein wore out his welcome decades ago, mummies died out sometime around the turn of the century, and the Swamp Thing never was as popular as some would have you believe. These days vampires are the cream of the crop, what with their outstanding popularity through widely differing sources including RPG games like White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade, television shows like The Vampire Diaries, and the books and movies of the Twilight series. As a result, blood-sucking leeches have never been more popular, nor nearly as sexually attractive. That can't last forever, of course, and studios are hard at work trying to figure out which mysterious creatures will climb the box office charts next. Trying to perhaps spin off some of the popularity of Twilight's character Jacob Black, werewolves seem to be Hollywood's new pet project. The going has been rough, however, especially the abject failure of last year's remake of The Wolfman, which starred Benicio del Toro and Sir Anthony Hopkins. Werewolves might not be ready to usurp Dracula's crown, as the newest attempt is the retelling of the popular folk tale Little Red Riding Hood. Called simply Red Riding Hood, the film was directed by Catherine Hardwicke (who also directed Twilight) and obviously re-geared to appeal to the same teen audience that enjoy the vampire films with such gusto.

"Got any Lycanthopic-brand condoms?"

In an unnamed village in the middle of nowhere, villagers have kept an uneasy truce with a local werewolf, leaving sacrifices - often small animals - to protect the people. It's the only life Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) has known. The daughter of a woodcutter (Billy Burke) and his wife (Virginia Madsen), Seyfried has lived in this place in relative peace, though the fear is always there. When her family arranges a marriage to have her married to Henry Lazar (Max Irons), scion of one of the richer families around, she conspires to run away with her secret love Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but is halted when the werewolf attacks and kills her sister. It is the first time a human has been attacked by the wolf in recent memory. This results in the town's priest (Lukas Haas) summoning legendary werewolf hunter Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) to hunt and kill the beast. Solomon brings news that is hard for many to admit and causes consternation in the remote place: the werewolf is in fact not some beast confined to the wilds but in fact one of them.

Sure, it's a deep, dark cave. What's the worst that could happen?

If any of you nodded off after a sentence or two of the previous paragraph, then this film isn't for you. Meant to appeal primarily to teen girls, it's hardly surprising that you wouldn't want to see this particular film. For the rest of you... Red Riding Hood isn't for you either. Unless you're a true masochist, there's very little positive to draw from what amounts to little more than gummed-up drivel. It's geared towards teens but the idea that anyone could believe the foolish, cliched, and preposterous story is time well spent seems like a big, cruel joke. I admit I've never seen one of Hardwicke's films before now but seeing this doesn't exactly make me want to rush out and rent Thirteen or Lords of Dogtown. Her early career as a production designer does come off well here,  as the film uses colors to great effect (especially Valerie's red cloak against white, snowy backgrounds), but her direction style suffers at the hands of her pandering ways. The further you attempt to trudge through the mess that is the plot, the more you simply want all the suffering to stop as there's less and less to give any sense that the film hasn't run away without the director in full control.

One of many confused looks

If there's one bright spot that shines through the film's procession, it's Seyfried, who may be stuck in a limited role but does it well enough to be head and shoulders over the rest of her cast. Seyfried's part might be nowhere close to authentic (what kind of name is Valerie in mythological dark ages? It sounds like a Valley Girl moniker) but at least they cast the right woman for the part. Oldman I hoped would be hammy and entertaining as he was in last year's Book of Eli, but here his particular cut of pork is rump roast as the film's most vocal antagonist. Burke, like his role in Drive Crazy, doesn't quite do enough to justify his casting. Madsen, who has done little since being nominated for an Academy Award for her role in the overrated Sideways, shows either rust or exactly why that hiatus from major films was necessary. Same with Haas, who never has been a standout talent. Julie Christie is downright disappointing as dear old Grandmother, who doesn't have a lot to do besides be another suspect in the mystery of who the wolf might be. But most disappointing are the duo of would-be love interests paired off with Valerie. Max Irons tries to be the rich but sensitive soul, but comes off as bland and unworthy from the start for Valerie's love. He's slightly overshadowed by Shiloh Fernandez, but not by much. Playing the brooding outsider, Fernandez is the one that the few fans of this film will be cheering for, but he takes sullen to another level, completely uninteresting to the rest of us. Hardwicke stated that she cast for chemistry; she sure as hell didn't cast for talent. While it WAS nice to see refugees from famous sci-fi shows as Stargate's Michael Shanks and Battlestar Galactica's Michael Hogan and Jen Halley in small parts, they didn't manage to drag my opinion of the film from the deeper pits.

I'm surprised they kept the cloak red at all

Most insulting is the film's one-note romantic tale. Even with the danger of the wolf all around, the biggest problem would seem to be Valerie's decision between her two lovers. The film couldn't pass a Bechdel Test if it tried (Thanks to The Opinioness for introducing that term to me) and should come off as insulting to any intelligent X-chromosome-wielding individual. Seriously, all the women in this film can seem to talk about are the men. Even when talking about the damn WEREWOLF the conversation turns to men! That any rational, free-thinking person might be suckered into thinking this is high art is a frightening prospect indeed. It's sad how closely the film tried to capture the Edward/Jacob rivalry and make it work in this case, a desperate attempt to drag in that Twilight crowd.

Okay, am I the only one seeing a tampon commercial?

In the end, what remains of folk tale Little Red Riding Hood is merely a large portion of the title, a red cloak and a talking wolf. The film really owes nothing to the source material, using it instead as a means to an end, something familiar to drive people into the theaters. There's just not a lot more to say here. Barring mild brain damage, there is no good reason for you to waste your money on this film. Being the eleventh 2011 film I've seen, Red Riding Hood is the first to completely miss the Top 10 list. Even Drive Angry had campy moments that were fun to witness, but this film is lacking in even that brief humor or excitement. Bad direction, bad cast, bad story, this film indeed has it all. It might even hold out and become this year's worst film, though of course that's too soon to tell. The attempts to reign in the crowds seems to have failed miserably as well, with people seemingly not wanting werewolf films at this time. Perhaps someday that will change, and lycanthropes will occupy the same status currently held by vampires. Perhaps that will NEVER happen, and werewolves will be pushed aside to make room for some newer monster. Loch Ness, perhaps? Progress means things are constantly changing, but there's often no telling what will make us smile until we come across that line. Someday, vamps won't be the talk of Tinseltown. Until then, Edward Cullen - not Lawrence Talbot - reigns.