Double Feature: Stoker & 21 and Over

There are two reasons I haven't really been writing lately. Two weeks ago it was because I was vacationing in Florida and did not see a single film in that time. Last week it was because this is March, and there's hardly anything worth watching, let alone writing about. I WAS looking forward to The Croods (look for my Open Letters review soon), but other than that I've been massively let down by most of the titles early this year. The big ones have either been disappointing or outright bad, and I admit it's been a struggle to look ahead and see the potentially great movies releasing in the next few months, from Iron Man 3 to Star Trek Into Darkness to Elysium. But the idea of gems hidden in the rough compels me to go back to the theater, and I'm going to tell you about two such titles, with the psychological thriller Stoker and the raucous comedy 21 and Over.

In the first, Mia Wasikowska plays India Stoker, a quiet, somewhat creepy 18 year-old whose mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) doesn't understand her and whose father Richard has just died in a car crash. While the two women try to recover from their family tragedy, they are visited by Richard's distant brother Charlie (Matthew Goode), who stays in their home in an effort to help them cope. But when people close to the family start disappearing, India wonders where Charlie has been her entire life, and how he will affect both her and her mother. Soon a new side to India opens, one hidden long away. She has to decide whether she wants the potentially-harmful Charlie gone from her life, or whether she wants him all to herself.

I've learned never to trust anyone with a Green Thumb.

Stoker is most notable for being the American debut of South Korean director Park Chan-wook, best known for the classic Oldboy. His movies are generally very adult matters, and this film earns its R rating not through graphic depictions of violence and sex (those are there too) but through the kind of psychological horror that not many modern filmmakers would touch. Chan-wok follows in the footsteps of Hitchcock, not just in content but creatively, as well. He creates perfect camera angles many couldn't copy and features exquisite scenes such as an erotic piano duet (yup, never thought I'd put those words together) and one bit in particular that focuses exclusively on Kidman's face and showcases her amazing talent. Speaking of the actors, Wasikowska and Goode play up the creepy to a perfect degree, though I doubt anybody would have expected otherwise. While Stoker also has a talented supporting cast, it's the trio of leads who really keep your attention and never allow you to grow bored.

Seriously. Wow.

Unfortunately, these are the best parts of Stoker, which opens up the floor to the worst as well. The story isn't properly fleshed out, with the narrative swerving into completely unnecessary territory all the time. It also takes its sweet time finding a rhythm, and while it does eventually settle into a groove that finishes out the final act, there was all this setup that you almost wish you hadn't had to sit through; if a movie is better when you've shown up twenty minutes late, then it's doing it wrong. There are also some serious logic problems that never get explained, character motivations that remain obscured to ridiculous degrees, and no real sense of urgency or responsibility for their actions. This is a good screenplay by Wentworth Miller (yes, the Prison Break actor), but it could have used a ton of polishing before shooting began.

The creepiest eyes in Hollywood.

I did like Stoker, but if I'm being fair this a movie with a hell of a lot of problems. It has a bunch of Hitchcock's flair but almost none of his dedication to quality, though at least it is a better debut for a Korean director than Kim Ji-woon's The Last Stand. Stoker has a few a surprises, mixing it's psychological thrills with erotic noire, and the result is a decent - if far from perfect - place to start. Still, this might be better off as a rental, as I'm not sure the experience from watching this can be appreciated in a movie theater when sitting in a dark home theater wrapped in a blanket is DEFINITELY the way to go.

Far less original (but almost certainly more irreverent) is 21 and Over, directed by the writers of The Hangover, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. In it, former high school best friends Casey (Skylar Astin) and Miller (Miles Teller) surprise their Straight-A bestie Jeff Chang (Justin Chon) on his 21'st birthday, with the intent of giving him a night of drunkenness and debauchery. But troubles arise in the form of Jeff's strict father, who has scheduled a Medical School interview for him early the next morning. What start off as "just one drink" quickly becomes more than a dozen, and when Casey and Miller have an unconscious Jeff and no idea where they are, it's a race against time to get him into bed and somewhere on the way to sobriety before morning, whether that means infiltrating a sorority, escaping angry mobs, or outrunning the cops. They've got until 7 a.m. to set things right. Until then, everything that can go wrong, WILL go wrong.

Please leave your air horns at home.

21 and Over is a combination of The Hangover, Project X and any college antics movie from the 70's. In fact, despite the multitude of offensive statements, excessive cursing and insane situations depicted in the movie, there's very little in this film that could possibly shock its potential - and very forgiving - audience. Lucas and Moore are definitely following a path laid forth by their predecessors, blissfully ignoring minute complications like idiotic characters, offensive stereotypes and bad examples, thanks to the people watching that simply don't care about those things. Sure, ignore the fact that the next morning these guys are going to be suffering from some severe alcohol poisoning, and the rest of the film STILL doesn't make any reasonable sense.

This would have been a much shorter movie if they'd just had the one drink.

And yet 21 and Over's egregious sense of ego is actually what makes it so charming. See, the filmmakers realize and then explore exactly what guy friendships are all about. Best friends come back together after long periods apart and instantly remember what they loved about hanging out. Guys will eternally have their friends backs, even faced with long odds and impossibilities. Even when they fight, it's bare-knuckled brawling one minute and all-forgiven back-slapping the next. While Casey and Miller definitely have their issues with one another (like the guys from The Hangover), they don't hold back and keep their mouths shut, because that's not what guy friends do. But neither do they let it get in the way of their mission, and the pair never lose focus on what's important: getting Jeff Chang home and ready for his appointment before his father finds out.

It doesn't hurt that despite its sameness, 21 and Over is still a very funny, occasionally shocking good time at the theater. Is it better than Revenge of the Nerds or Animal House? No, but it hangs on nicely with the drug and alcohol-infused comedies of the modern era, and the cast of Astin, Teller, Chon and Sarah Wright make for a charismatic group of young actors worthy of your ticket purchases. Unapolagetically rude and crude, you can't get much funnier at the movies right now.

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.

Plain Jane Reigns

Today I've got a special treat for you. Once again I'm teaming up with my good friend Steve, whose Stevereads blog can be found on the web magazine Open Letters Monthly. Once more we share a topic, as he delves into the literary classic by Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre, while I tackle in my own way the 2011 film adaptation that is already setting some film attendance records around the country. I honestly don't recall reading Jane Eyre in high school. I remember that we had to read it for English class, but much of the required reading from that time has faded somewhat into background static for me; if it wasn't Shakespeare, I didn't much care for it, and this particular Bronte book stuck less with me than most. It's odd to think of it this way, for when I first saw this film's trailers a few months ago, my first thought was: "Why didn't the book seem this AWESOME when I first read it??" Getting me suitably intrigued, I was then forced to wait weeks after the film's official release for it to make its way to my favored theater. I was certainly excited, but for all I knew the trailers may have been apart from the story's true narrative, and fears of being bored to tears by a traditional period piece were not unheard in my mind.

 The film opens with namesake Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) sneaking out of Thornfield Hall with her meager belongings and running for the hills. Before the wild elements can cause her to perish alone, she is taken in by a kind young holy man, St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. Recovering her strength, we are soon told the fascinating tale of Jane's past, from a neglected and abusive childhood at the hands of her wicked step-family to an equally traumatic education at a penny-pinching boarding house, to her employment at Thornfield Hall and the irregular romance the rather plain Jane shares with the master of the house, the sullen and eccentric Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

One of the first things I noticed watching this film was something I was certain would never happen: there's not one iota of voice-over narrative anywhere in this film. There is the occasional line of dialogue that overlaps scenes, but not once is Bronte's descriptive word spoken out loud so that the audience can easily follow along with the film's tale. By removing this potentially distracting staple of modern film, director Cary Fukunaga risked losing his audience in the mix and forces them to focus on every detail they are presented with, making this latest rendition of Jane Eyre a show for the true thinking viewer. The dialogue is smart enough and the characters complex enough to make sure you can't just sit back and turn off your brain; the patron who invests himself in this title will surely be rewarded with a richer understanding and appreciation for the narrative they just witnessed.

And what an outstanding narrative it is! Love, lies, betrayal, and mystery are ever-present in this tale, one much darker than most classic period pieces. Fukunaga, who had only directed the Spanish-language film Sin Nombre before tackling this project, has a great eye for detail, and has the ability to instill the bleak and heavy atmosphere where most would fail to tread. This results in Jane Eyre being fundamentally different not only from the countless prior adaptations but also makes for a much more groundbreaking film than one would initially think. Fukanaga's supposed inexperience is nowhere to be seen here, and its almost scary to think that he might have out-directed most of his more renowned predecessors when it comes to adapting this Bronte classic. Though it does feel as if some story elements were left out (and since I'm not Steve, I wouldn't know where to seek them), it doesn't detract at all from the film's composure.

The acting here is top of the line, and a mix of obvious choices and curious talents littering the mix. Mia Wasikowska proves that her 2010 breakthrough performances in the films Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right were no flukes with her commanding portrayal of the titular heroine. Wasikowska shows a variety of sides in this character, and Eyre might end up being her signature role when all is said and done. Michael Fassbender is another rising star; his parts in films like Inglourious Basterds and Centurion roaming enough to make him not an obvious choice for this classic role. He makes it his own however, and you can't deny his multitude of talents. The only real question is how he hasn't been noticed by now, as his lead role is his best yet. It's almost a shame he'll be slumming it up this summer in X-Men First Class, but as long as he's able to get those roles he should be able to sign on for any script he wants. For the safe casting decisions, Jamie Bell is good in the relatively small role of secondary love interest, though it's too bad that it doesn't live up to his abilities. He probably could have done so much more with his acting talents, given the chance. Judi Dench also has a minor part as Mrs Fairfax, Thornton Hall's housekeeper; it's a tiny part, and she goes above and beyond in making it hers. It almost doesn't matter who fills these roles, as most of the film is either just Wasikowska, or Wasikowska and Fassbender together. I do have to give some kudos to Amelia Clarkson, who played Jane as a young girl in the early scenes. She was such a treat that I was almost sad when Wasikowska took over the role full-time. Like much of the rest of the movie, the cast comes together perfectly, and made the entire experience the best it could be.

It seems impossible to say it, but Fukanaga might have created the greatest film version of Jane Eyre of all time. There are a few dull bits, especially early on when the plot is still growing and things haven't yet reached their apex. Some of the dialogue is a bit too mouthy, and though most people can follow the general gist of the conversation, some sentences will doubtlessly end with audience members scratching their heads. But these are mere nitpicks. Jane Eyre easily matched my expectations and threw a few curves for good measure. For that it becomes 2011's new #3 film, and certainly encourages me to pick up this literary classic and re-read it for the first time in nearly fifteen years. But don't worry, I won't be taking notes on that event; writing about books is Steve's job, and you won't find me encroaching on his territory anytime soon.

Heeeeeeeere's Johnny!

There is a scene early on in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in which a young Alice (Mairi Ella Challen) confesses to her father (Marton Csokas) about her strange dreams and wonders aloud if she's crazy. Like a good father, he presses his hand to her forehead, takes it away, and morosely tells her that yes, she is quite bonkers. "But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are."

And so there's the ultimate message of this movie, delivered in the first five minutes. It's actually not a bad message; How obvious is it that the greatest minds of any generation - Galileo, Einstein - often spurned social convention because they were so sure they were right? Alice's father Charles Kingsleigh is portrayed as such a person, one who wanted to reroute English trade routes around the world in such a way that defied logic, or at least the logic of his possible investors, who were sure he was mad. And so many years later after her father's death and when she's come of age, Alice (In Treatment's Mia Wasikowska) becomes one as well. Brought to a party to be proposed to by a charming if dunderheaded lord, Alice steals away from the party chasing a white rabbit that she recognizes from her dreams, only to fall down the rabbit hole and into the place she used to go where she dreamed, a place she called Wonderland.

Tim Burton may not ever have been a great director, but usually he's at least solid. However, he hasn't had a good film since the largely underrated Big Fish in 2003, and his last film, Sweeney Todd, was surprisingly uninspired. For the man who brought us Edward Scissorhands, the quality of his films has been surprisingly shaky. But one thing has always been consistent: his image. There's a dark moodiness to vision that's in all his films, and it's perfectly situated in this film in the place of Wonderland. For every dark, creepy forest, or the zaniness of the rabbit hole Alice falls into, there's just as much in the bright false-happiness of the Red Queen's (Helena Bonham Carter) castle, or the striking brightness of the castle of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). It's that visual element that Burton revels in, which is what made Scissorhands and others of his films such modern classics.

I'll talk about the special effects, first. Alice in Wonderland was advertised as being in available in 3D in most theaters but the DVD version was only in 2D. It's an odd choice by the industry to have these recent movies that succeeded in large part in the theaters to their 3D promotions (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) to not release them in 3D for home consumption. Is it the technology? Coraline was released last year on DVD in 3D but it was not exactly a bright success in that medium. Perhaps they're taking the "special edition" route. In six months 3D versions of these movies will be made available on DVD, when you're not even watching the edition you already OWN. Regardless, you can pretty much tell by watching the movie where the 3D is SUPPOSED to be. Am I relieved that I haven't seen the 3D edition? Yes. Unlike the story-lite Avatar, we don't need the 3D in Alice to distract us from the fact that there's no unreasonable plot to follow. We can enjoy the movie for what it is, not what it wants us to see.

Mia Wasikowska may be playing the eponymous Alice, but Johnny Depp gets top billing. Why? Name recognition, of course! This is Disney we're talking about, and they know what sells tickets isn't necessarily a great story or groundbreaking effects or even great acting, but in fact the quality of the names you hire. And so we have Depp, champion of both Burton and box office, placed in the relatively small role of Mad Hatter...relatively small until Burton re-sized the Hatter's role to much more than just a tea party. The Hatter is still mad, of course, but lucidly mad, rather than completely, bat-crazy insane. And he's a veritable ally to Alice against the Red Queen, who has taken over Wonderland since Alice last visited (dreamed) it. He used to be quite sane, and a talented dancer to boot (unfortunately, we're subjected to this inane dance by the movie's end). All in all, Depp is perfectly cast, as he creates quite the parallel to Alice's father's statement of the best people being insane. Many things are still kept from the books, for instance the tea party. He also frequently asks Alice how a raven is like a writers desk. In all, Depp is probably the best thing about the movie, and so most deservedly earned that top bill.

Other acting was good, if not as deep as Depp. Carter is very campy as the evil Red Queen, something of a combination of characters from the Lewis Carroll books: The Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland and the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass. Whether screaming to off someone's head or in somewhat a more calm scene, It's difficult to take the Red Queen too seriously, as most of the actual evil is better displayed by her underlings, most notably Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Stayne is properly portrayed by Crispin Glover, and matches a Burton character to a T, complete with heart-shaped eye-patch. Anne Hathaway is actually sort of disappointing as the White Queen, a seemingly air-headed beleaguered monarch who dabbles in something resembling voodoo or necromancy for her powers. Whether the ditziness is real or a show for her supporters is never revealed, but nothing Hathaway does in this film is very important, unfortunate for the actress who garnered such deserved praise in Rachel Getting Married. With so much CGI, there were multiple voice-only roles that were cast, and Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Arkin, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse and Timothy Spall all deserve credit for their excellent contributions, even is Spall's character, a bloodhound named Bayard, doesn't seem to be based on any character from the books. Finally, Wasikowska is charming and elegant as Alice, the straight woman in a bendy world. Alice never fits in in either world, as she's too screwy to fit in the normal standards of the real world, and Wasikowska does a good job of playing that up, consistently expressing confusion and slow understanding up until she has to convincingly play the part of hero and becomes a strong woman of conviction by the end. She's arguably the early break-out female performer of 2010 and we'll see if this translates to her getting promising work in the future, or if she'll be relegated to being one of Burton's "favorites" and only work regularly in his films. She's too good for that, but Depp is too and he went for years before Hollywood took him seriously.

So what's wrong with Alice in Wonderland? Well, it doesn't run overlong, but what ending there is falls flat. It's as if everyone working on the project finished this big elaborate final battle (on a chessboard, no less) and realized: "Oh, crap, we have to end this movie!" And so it's rushed and obvious and not a little silly, including even Depp's little stupid dance. This can be largely credited to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who's resume (consisting of Disney animated films and kid shows) doesn't exactly scream for confidence. To wrap up the bad ending, the closing credits began with this awful song who's singer I thought sounded familiar, but I wasn't sure. Alice was sung by Avril Lavigne, and it's just as bad - worse even - as you would expect from any Avril Lavigne song. I mean, DAMN, that's a bad song. I'd rather listen to Kenny G end this film than ever hear Lavigne again.

For most of it's 108 minutes, Alice in Wonderland is as interesting, thought-provoking and wondrous vision of fantasy as you'll find in the theater these days, but the mediocre ending does all it can to ruin that experience for you. Not even great special effects or a star cast can save it, as it's ultimately another disappointing film for Burton's library. This in itself is hardly a surprise, but would it kill Tim to try an original idea for once, as in the past ten years only Corpse Bride wasn't based on someone else's story. If he's going to keep piggybacking onto other people's works, he needs to figure out a better way of telling it his way without the messes to which that inevitably leads. For the message it pertains and strong feminine lead, another director perhaps would have been better.

But this is Disney, and they need their name recognition.