Double Feature: Silver Linings Playbook and Red Dawn

I've been having major problems with the Internet at my place lately, to the tune of days at a time without service on the network. That's mainly what caused my recent difficulties with posting, so hopefully the new cable modem and the threatening letters to my service provider means I'll be posting with regularity for the extended future. Of course, that also means I'm catching up on some serious movie reviewing, so today will be another double feature from flicks I've seen recently.

I've been looking forward to Silver Linings Playbook for a while now, for a number of reasons. For one, it's director David O. Russell's much-anticipated follow-up to his excellent The Fighter. Second, it carries a talented cast including Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro. Third, it featured what appeared to be a unique and somewhat comedic look at the world of mental illness, a move that is either very brave or very, very foolhardy. The story focuses on bipolar sufferer Pat Solitano (Cooper), who returns to his parents' home after eight months in a mental health facility and the violent outburst that landed him there in the first place. As he struggles to cope with his illness and tries to win back his wife, he meets Tiffany (Lawrence), the widowed sister-in-law of one of his friends. Tiffany suffers from issues stemming from her late husband's death, and soon the pair strike up a somewhat antagonistic friendship in preparing for a local dance competition. But while Pat still pines after his departed wife, does Tiffany hold a torch for Pat?

They agreed to never speak of that photo again.

Silver Linings Playbook is definitely an actor's dream, and its performers are probably the reason it has received such universal acclaim. Russell did an amazing job putting together his cast, who carry the story on their immensely-talented shoulders. Cooper continues to grow as an actor, showing even more depth here than he did in September's The Words, and continues to look like the next generation's superstar. But it's Lawrence who commands the screen, and not just because of her looks. It's easy to forget how young she was when this film was made, as her performance makes her look decades more experienced. It's almost a shame she's locked up for three more Hunger Games sequels, as she really should focus on this side of herself as an actress; more mature performances and a strong presence will not go unnoticed. De Niro and Jacki Weaver do good work as Pat's parents, and their additions create one of film's better family dynamics. Together, their highly dysfunctional family will speak to those who come from similar circumstances, funny and sad all at once. It certainly hearkens back to the familial struggles of The Fighter, and Russell definitely takes advantage of the chaos of an arguing family to make for some singularly impressive scenes.

Scenes with just the two of them are fine, as well.

Unfortunately, the film has a few problems. One is that despite immense acting talents, very few of the character are likable at all. You don't find yourself rooting for them to recover so much as you hope the redemption angle makes its way about so you CAN root for someone.The characters are so mired in their issues that they somehow forget that we have to like them for the story to have any meaning. Also, for all the use of mental illness as a twist on the usual romantic comedy genre, that's the extent of the differences between Russell's film and everything else. Behind the mental illness smokescreen, this is just another romantic film, complete with the usual tropes. The result is that Silver Linings Playbook is not nearly as original as it would have you believe. If you're okay with a slightly upgraded romantic comedy and can sit through some completely unlikable bits, Silver Linings Playbook is worth your time. But it's just not the awards darling critics are making it out to be, and you might be happier waiting for DVD than catching this in the theater.

I actually enjoyed the delayed remake of Red Dawn better than the romantic comedy, surprisingly. I was introduced to the 1984 original while at a friend's house just a few years ago, as we played a drinking game based on the DVD's oughta-be-classic "Carnage Counter", which kept track of deaths, explosions and other gooey occurrences. As you can imagine with a movie based on the idea of a Russian military invasion of the United States, the counter climbed quickly, and the group of us proceeded to get drunk off of our asses. The 2012 version, which sat on a shelf for two years thanks to MGM's bankruptcy problems, features a bevy of young actors, and Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson have turned themselves into genuine stars in the years since its filming. So it's nice to see early, rough performances from them in a remake that replaces Russians with Chinese, and then digitally into North Koreans to avoid pissing on the Chinese box office.

In Spokane, Washington, the world is just as it should be. Jed Eckert (Hemsworth) is home from a tour of duty in the Middle East. His younger brother Matt (Josh Peck) is a young school football star with loving girlfriend (Isabel Lucas). Jed and Matt have always had issues with one another, but when the North Korean military suddenly and violently invades the country, they must put that aside and escape capture. Teaming up with other teens who managed to evade the army, they dub themselves Wolverines, and under Jed's leadership wage a guerrilla war against the occupying force.

At 5'11, Palicki makes Hemsworth not seem quite as tall.

One distinct advantage Red Dawn has over its progenitor is that even if you've seen the original, you won't be able to predict the outcome of the remake. Sure, the overarching storyline is more or less the same, but the way former stunt coordinator and first-time director Dan Bradley uses his cast and story is so far removed from its inspiration that they barely resemble one another. While the script uses the usual action cliches, the young cast that also includes Connor Cruise and the perpetually up-and-coming Adrianne Palicki make it work for them. Bradley shows a real know-how for the action genre, quickly establishing himself as a potential go-to for future projects. His film features the right amount of drama, action and humor, and while the characters aren't especially deep, they are typically likable for a number of reasons. Peck is also surprisingly strong in a co-lead role, an unexpected development when he's surrounded by many more talented performers (and as he's one of the few actors not to have broken out since its filming).

A new take on Gladiator?

Bradley's film does have a few hiccups; in one scene a couple of teens die rather unceremoniously and without actual certainty that it happened until much later, and the entire concept of a North Korean invasion is way more far-fetched than 1984's Russian/Cuban attack. As I mentioned before, it was supposed to be the Chinese invading our shores, but with China's box office now being one of the top moneymakers on the international scene, it's seen by many as foolish to make China seem aggressive in movies. And so MGM made some changes to avoid being blacklisted completely. The problem is that what would have made China more believable was it's massive population. North Korea can't make that same claim, and the idea of their military managing a successful invasion of our home is so ridiculous that it makes Red Dawn feel more like the blatantly 2'nd Amendment-thumping piece I thought it would be. The movie does its best to make up for that issue, but leaves it an obvious play for Chinese dollars. Still, Red Dawn is a pleasant surprise from a first-time director, and if MGM had managed to stick it out for another year, I wonder what this, Cabin in the Woods and Skyfall could have done to reverse its financial windfall. It's a moot point, and those films all eventually got their time in the sun. If you're hankering for a good action flick, you can safely nab a ticket to this and enjoy the experience.

Too Long a Wait

Last weekend, the much-awaited (by yours truly, at least) comedy The Five-Year Engagement was released to theaters. With only one week before the rise of eventual juggernaut The Avengers, the film's producers obviously thought they could make a quick cash grab with a strong romantic comedy and make out like thieves before the Marvel Comics' movie could simply take everybody's money. On paper, everything looked more than solid. Judd Apatow was producing, and Apatow's career seemed to be going upwards after he bankrolled a little film last summer called Bridesmaids. The film also reunited director Nicholas Stoller and star Jason Segel, whose former collaborations were the popular and successful Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Add rising star Emily Blunt to the mix, and what you should have is a hilarious romantic comedy that excels on all levels.

Well, let that be a lesson as to just how unpredictable this industry really is.

Audiences largely ignored The Five-Year Engagement, and in hindsight it's easy to see why. Its attempts to cling to the Bridesmaids's coattails were obvious ploys, as nothing in the trailer indicated that there was anything connecting Engagement to the 2011 box office giant whose popularity alone caused it to flirt with Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards. Secondly, there was already plenty of romance in theaters when the film released, especially two titles released the previous weekend (the Nicholas Sparks adaptation The Lucky One and surprise hit Think Like a Man both dominated Engagement at the box office in their second weekend), and nobody really cared that a new romance film was available to see. What at first glance seemed like a slam dunk became anything but, and to add insult to injury, critics seemed to agree with our collective apathy. Were they right? Is The Five-Year Engagement deserving of its failures? I was still too intrigued by the title's premise to completely ignore it.

Look at the happy couple. What can we do to change that?

The film starts with lovebirds Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Blunt) in San Francisco on New Years Eve, the night Tom proposes, and Violet of course says yes. While the pair are planning their upcoming nuptials, Violet, a psychology PHD graduate, gets a job offer for a post-doctorate program. The problem is that she did not get into a California program, but one at the University of Michigan, which puts the couple's plans on hold since they want to marry in California with their families present. Because the program lasts two years, Tom moves up with Violet, leaving his sous chef position at a popular restaurant and confident that he can "cook anywhere". Things get complicated in Michigan however, and as Violet's career surges forward, Tom is left behind, and the prospective wedding date gets further and further away. Soon it becomes a question of if, not when, the pair will ever tie the knot.

Tom just realized he's not wearing any pants. Violet just realized the same.

If there's one thing The Five-Year Engagement does well, it's that it establishes right from the beginning that these two people are absolutely perfect for one another. From the start, this is a couple that remember the moment they met one another, make each other laugh, and genuinely love one another in a way that communicates to every character in the film and every member of the audience that these two are meant to be together. It was a good call then to bring together Segel and Blunt, as the two share a chemistry that by itself nearly carries the whole movie. Segel is of course in his usual teddy-bear adorable mode, the one that makes women love him and men wish they were him. Segel defies the romantic lead stereotype in such a refreshing everyman way that it almost seems as though he can do no wrong. Blunt is also a hit, and her demeanor is more relaxed (and less "British") than I've seen in any of her other work. The pair obviously work hard to make this film a hit, but sadly it's due to forces outside their control as actors that hamper the title's effectiveness.

What they never say about weddings: all that free cake!

As you can probably guess, it's the story that is the main culprit in Engagement, and the blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Segel and Stoller. Yes, I did say that Segel was blameless, but only in an acting capacity. Unlike The Muppets, which the duo previously penned, this script has none of the wry wit and bursting humor that made Kermit and crew's return such a fun time. It would be easy to blame this on simply not having a female perspective, but it's plainly obvious that these men cannot describe exactly what it is that makes relationships work. As a movie, Engagement lacks subtlety, and the film's funniest moments are when the scenes are almost trying too hard to stand out. Too often does the movie rely on the comedic talents of its actors to make something much funnier than it actually is, and the result is a mishmash of drama and occasional spurts of laughter that doesn't quite pay off.

The couple we wish the movie had been about.

The film is not without its charms, but most belonging to Tom and Violet burns out quickly. Eventually a shitty situation turns the happy couple against one another, and as the audience we just wish that we could stop focusing on this pair until they can get their act together. Best friends to the rescue! Community's Alison Brie and Parks and Recreations' Chris Pratt are easily the best parts of the film as Violet's sister and Tom's best buddy, respectively. Besides being the funniest actors in this comedy (no, I agree that's not saying much), Brie and Pratt act as a calendar of the world outside our main pairing, and their development as characters is the one thing that works amid a sea of poor film pacing. Also standing out is Animal Kingdom's Jacki Weaver as Violet's wickedly fun mother, who says what's on her mind and to hell with the consequences. I really wish Weaver had been used more, but her effectiveness is sadly restricted to the film's opening half-hour. The cast is rounded out by Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart, and if the talent here doesn't prove to you just how poorly the script fails the movie, nothing will.

Don't worry, big guy... you know you're getting the happy ending.

What we are left with at the end is a barely funny, overly-long (at two hours, I shouldn't believe that) movie that wraps itself up way too quickly to be believable. While the film does have a few funny bits, I'm hard-pressed to remember any single one. It DOES however contain one of the more memorable wedding scenes in cinema in recent memory. The Bridesmaids comparisons may ultimately have been what killed this film, as it was probably impossible for most people to imagine this title one-upping that modern classic. It's a shame, as with a few changes behind the scenes The Five-Year Engagement could easily have been a funny, competent and engaging romantic comedy. Instead it's barely humorous, and there can be no doubt that it deserved all those empty seats opening weekend. This might seem like small fries after I watched The Avengers twice in the past three days, but Engagement was one of more looked-towards titles this past spring, and I can't help but feel a moderate level of disappointment in its failure.

Dog Eat Dog

So imagine you have less than twenty-four hours to watch a movie and review it for your blog. No problem, right? Well, except when you take eight hours out of that for your day job, two hours travel time, two for a seriously overdue laundry run, not to mention at least six hours of sleep, the time left begins to look a bit leery, doesn't it? Needing to see a film on short notice, I hauled ass down to the local Redbox to check out the latest releases, finally settling on two: the nearly forgotten George Cloony thriller The American and the Australian Oscar nominee Animal Kingdom. I'll admit that The American appealed to me more for that particular viewing, but my roommate took over the main room's entertainment center for the evening. Frankly I didn't mind (especially since I got to see her freak out to the tune of giant spiders in Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles) but the main room is the home of our lone blu-ray player, and I'd picked up The American in that format. This left normal DVD Animal Kingdom as the default choice, and I was hoping that the title didn't leave me feeling I had been stuck with second best.

I think Pearce won an AFI award for "Best 'Stache"

Animal Kingdom calls itself a crime story, and to that effect the film's protagonists are what most people would call the bad guys. Joshua "J" Cody (James Frecheville) is a teen whose mother tried to keep far from her criminal family. When she dies, however, he's brought back into the fold of his grandmother Janine (Jacki Weaver), who is the matriarch of a crime family that includes J's three uncles. J just tries to get along, but while his family can protect him, they're just as scary as the police, led my Officer Nathan Leckie (Guy Pearce). Leckie has the family in his crosshairs, and he may have no hesitation in using the young J to take the whole operation down.

Weaver = Wow

As the directorial debut of David Michod, this film is a good mix of high tension and wonderful acting. There's nothing mysterious about the plot, no secrets to uncover and you are given just about every detail you need to follow the story with ease. This is almost a revelation in modern film, where so many people like to whack you over the head with a surprise and watch you squirm. Everything becomes about the next big scare, or an unnecessarily confusing ending, or a major actor's cameo for little reason more than the director can do it. That's not to say that these things can't be good, just that they so rarely are effective anymore. Shyamalan and ilk, take note: if you have a well-told story and a competent cast and crew, good things will happen naturally.

Special appearance by Coco?

When you think of Australian actors, a lot of names come to mind: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Hugo Weaving, Portia de Rossi, Mel Gibson, Naomi Watts and Geoffrey Rush are but a small sample of the industry's more successful Aussies. One name you might neglect to remember is that of former LA Confidential star Guy Pearce, who makes an appearance here. Pearce plays a police officer who is hard-nosed, but fair as well, making him probably the most sympathetic character outside of J himself. Frecheville by the way seems to be a talented actor, but the role doesn't give him a lot of room to play around, with a lot of moody sullenness that is perfect for the kind of downtrodden character he is. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to say whether he'll make it as a performer or if he'll be typecast in this same type of role for years to come. Jacki Weaver has gotten both attention and awards for her portrayal of the maternal crime lord, and while I wasn't sure at first if she was going to have deserved them, she proved me wrong with a scarily charismatic performance that really put her head and shoulders over the rest of the cast. She was almost worth seeing this film on the basis of her talent alone, and she's the main reason I'd see it again given the chance. Another strong performance belongs to the role of J's uncle Andrew "Pope" Cody, Ben Mendelsohn. Pope is by far the creepiest, scariest character on both sides of the legal divide, and Mendelsohn makes you cringe with his every appearance on screen. I thought he was almost as compelling as Weaver, and while he'll never be a big star, his ability to create such vivid characters is deserving of more praise than he gets. Other good performances belong to Joel Edgerton, Luke Ford and Sullivan Stapleton as others in the crime family, and rookie actress Laura Wheelwright as J's unknowing girlfriend Nicky. There isn't a weak actor in the house, and the ensemble cast mesh well enough to make the tale realistic and honest.

You'll see that blank stare a lot in Australia (I'm kidding, don't sic the Koalas on me!)

The film does have a few faults. The pacing isn't perfect, though there aren't many dull moments at all. The biggest problem I had was with some of the minor character introductions. There were some, like Nicky and a few others, who simply appear from thin air without pretense of an introduction. While some summary descriptors for their history are announced, it still makes those few scenes a bit shaky. Still,.this isn't enough to derail what is actually a solid crime film with plenty going for it. With a stellar cast and a good directing job by the talented Michod, Animal Kingdom misses that intangible to be an excellent film but does enough right to be a very, very good one. This is a title I recommend if you want something a little different than the slick, hyper-produced gimmicky fare currently available.