Driving Force

What a mess last weekend was, huh? With three brand new cinema releases vying to make a big payday, none of the big three managed to take the crown. In fact, the film that ended up at number one in the country wasn't even a film initially released THIS YEAR. With the 3D release of popular Disney film The Lion King cleaning house and flexing it's still-potent drawing power, it cut a swath through the latest pretenders, including a remake of an obscure Dustin Hoffman film and a stunted attempt to reignite Sarah Jessica Parker's acting career. But the biggest tragedy of that September weekend is that Drive, a special highlight of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, suffered somewhat at the hands of an elderly animated carnivore. Granted, Drive and Lion King have different audiences. But for a movie that has so far garnered much praise from critics and screening audiences to finish second at the box office to a title that was first released in June of 1994 is never a good thing, and already interest in this Internet-hyped title has begun to dwindle. This is yet another speed bump in the recent push of actor Ryan Gosling's career, following an Academy Award snub for his lower-class romantic in Blue Valentine (granted, it was a packed field, but I would have at least nominated him). Put together by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive only recently appeared on my radar, but quickly became one of my more anticipated September releases thanks to its amazing visuals, unique and talented cast, and its not-so-subtle portrayal of Gosling as the nouveau Steve McQueen.

At least he's not driving angry...

Based on the 2005 James Sallis novel, Drive centers around an unnamed protagonist (Gosling) who works as a mechanic and Hollywood stunt driver by day and moonlights as a freelance getaway driver after the sun goes down. His boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) wants to expand into stock car racing, and approaches underworld Don Bernie Ross (Albert Brooks) for an investment, convincing him that he has the best driver available. Meanwhile, the driver's potential romance with neighbor and single mother Irene (Carey Mulligan) is cut short when Standard (Oscar Isaac), her husband and the father of her child, returns home from prison. Agreeing to help Standard settle prison debts, our hero is the victim of a deal gone bad, and a life of relative anonymity collapses as he finds himself with many enemies and precious few friends while he tries to right the wrongs that have been committed.

Let's see: guy with the shotgun vs. the big name actor? As if there's any doubt

While the story itself isn't much to speak of, the way it is told is almost masterful. You likely haven't heard of Refn, whose films haven't made much of a name for themselves on this side of the Atlantic. Arguably his biggest film, Bronson, isn't much known outside of breaking in future Hollywood "It" performer Tom Hardy, and that made more impact on DVD than it had in the theater. It must have caught the eye of Gosling however, who was given the chance to name Drive's director when he joined the film. Even early on, you can tell that Refn is a visually-talented director, with many of his camera shots eloquent and beautiful in their execution. He makes every shot perfect, whether framing wide to see an entire scene play out, or closing in on someone's face at the PERFECT angle, not unlike the 2010 Anton Corbijn film The American. While he does some very close shots during car chase scenes, it never serves to confuse the audience as to what is happening on screen, and that is important because I've never seen a director who take that level of responsibility and handle it so smoothly.

Okay, she even LOOKS a little like Michelle Williams...

Refn's talent is such that when he suddenly turns into something of a European Robert Rodriguez, it is so surprising. With a first half of a film that is almost violence free, you don't expect it when the whole thing turns unabashedly bloody. All of the sudden we're subjected to shotgun blasts, exploding heads, stabbings, drownings, crushed skulls, sliced wrists, and just about anything remotely uncomfortable to watch in one setting. I mean, I knew there had to be a reason for the film's R rating, but for the film to take such a turn was so completely unpredictable and speaks to the director's tact and balance. That Refn even makes the violence watchable (albeit through the gaps in your fingers) is stellar, as it is not detracting at all from his amazing camerawork.

Despite his preparation, he never saw Simba coming.

Once again we have another stellar lead role for Gosling, who is destined to become the next big thing in Hollywood, even if audiences aren't completely behind him. Definitely composing an old-school vibe that's  reminiscent of McQueen while still very much being his own artist, Gosling is a force from beginning to end, as he threads those narrow routes from icy emotionless driver to reluctantly warm human being and back again. He is the best part of Drive by a good margin, and continues to be a joy to watch in any medium. It can't be long before he becomes the favorite in a Best Actor race, and who knows, he might just win. Sadly, Carey Mulligan is a mere victim/love interest, although she is at least believable as such. While it may not be as dull as he role in the Wall Street sequel, she's still a far way away from showing the initiative that made her breakout role in 2009's An Education such a novelty. There are some brave casting choices here, but picking Albert Brooks as the film's heavy was one of pure genius. More known for his comedies, Brooks manages to actually steal some of Gosling's limelight (not too much, mind you) with his smarmy crime lord. Bryan Cranston continues to do great work in small roles, a nice side gig to his successful television career. There are some very good smaller parts on the menu, with talented actors taking their share. Between Ron Perlman's menacing gangster and Christina Hendricks as an icy stick-up artist Refn seems to choose the perfect embodiment of his characters. And that doesn't even account for Oscar Isaac, who we should hate because he was in prison and rivals the Driver for Irene's affections but is really a pretty good guy. Most of the film roles aren't cliches, and even those that are get some extra credit from the viability of those playing them, a rare sight indeed.

He's just about ready for his Oscar, America

In this age of 3D shark-jumping, plot-less scripts, and billion dollar motion pictures, a beautifully-shot and remarkably intelligent film is difficult enough to immediately find, let alone one that is successful. While the film sometimes slows down to a point where you could call it more patient than its audience, Drive overcomes this by making even these slow moments worth watching with enough eye-candy to make it one of the most visually appealing movies of the year. Opulence alone would be enough to place it among the year's best, but the excellent direction and amazing acting propel it to the top of my Top 10 list, square at #1. When you put this much talent together, good things can happen. And when that talent successfully puts something together with out-of-the-box thinking, it can only get better.

Fail Fatale

From the moment the trailer for Sucker Punch debuted at 2010's Comic-Con, it had become my most anticipated film of 2011. More than Thor. More than Captain America. More than just about any theatrical release you can imagine scheduled for this year. With it's engaging special effects, talented cast and explosive action, Sucker Punch looked like a crazy three-way love child borne of Kill Bill, 300 and The Pussycat Dolls. There was only one major obstacle between this film and guaranteed awesomeness: director Zack Snyder. While I (among others) loved his directorial debut in 2004's Dawn of the Dead, the remake of George Romero's classic zombie-ocalypse, his films have since been known more for style rather than substance. 300 (which I admit I haven't seen) has been described as a generally brainless film with beautiful sets, and Watchmen would have been unwatchable if not for the same style of visual splendor. Even his animated feature Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Houle was criticized for it's lack of character development and predictable story, while any who see it might "ooh" and "aah" the ocular stimuli. Simply put, Snyder is good at making things on screen look good, but that alone doesn't make for a good director. He was the main reason for any scenario in which Sucker Punch would not live up to its full potential, and that's a shame, as going in I (and my friend The Opinioness, who ventured with me) was worried that without Snyder this film might actually have had a chance of surprising us.

Yes, yes I think I will follow you into battle

After the death of her mother, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is sent to an insane asylum for violent girls by her evil and lecherous stepfather. That same evil bastard wants to have Baby Doll lobotomized to prevent her from talking about his transgressions, and an orderly named Blue (Oscar Isaac) assures him that an expert is coming in a few days to carry out the procedure. With only days before completely losing her identity, Baby Doll hatches a plan to escape along with several other inmates: diva Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), her sister Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). Sneaking behind the backs of Blue and the asylums' doctor Madam Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino), the five follow their plan via highly-exciting imagination-action music videos, and attempt to overcome the many obstacles in their path to gather what they need to escape.

Sorry Gugino, your Polish accent doesn't make up for your lack of necessity

The film's best achievement is by far the visuals. Yes, I know, stop your vigorous head-nodding, we all knew this was going to be the case. The film has a very Inception-esque vibe, not only in the amount of imagery used but in the story's concept as well: the young women live in an asylum, but create an image in their minds of a Roaring 20's-era brothel, because the real world is too painful. From there, Baby Doll imagines this whole other world in which she and her friends battle dragons, robots and monsters to obtain the real-world items they need. So Sucker Punch can be described as a dream within a dream, just like last year's summer blockbuster. However, while the theme worked for Inception because it was an integral part of the story, these overly-designed sets act with no real purpose to the plot of Sucker Punch, serving as merely an alternative telling of the far more mundane events; apparently Baby Doll has a hypnotic dance that immobilizes her target while the other girls simply steal what they need to escape, THAT'S IT. And I'm sorry, but after a completely gonzo first action scene in which Baby Doll takes on a trio of vicious giant Gollems, the rest of film's like scene feels remarkably similar, never growing in spectacle or explosiveness. Instead, they are just one steady hum, like that of a dead man's pulse.

Worse, the film's story is so dry and uninteresting that it's filled with miniature music videos of random stuff happening, mostly the transition from the first dream to the second. While the film's opening is an amazing feat, mixing tragic storytelling and amazing imagery (Snyder did a similar opener for Watchmen), the musical montages that follow are obvious filler for having nothing else to do while the film moves to the next major plot point. At least Snyder is the master of the film soundtrack, from the haunting tones of "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" in the opener to Emiliana Torrini's "White Rabbit" and a Queen hip-hop mash-up and Bjork's "Army of Me" (proving perhaps that Bjork appeals to all the people some of the time). It's only the excellence of the soundtrack that makes these scenes even remotely entertaining, as even what we can see on the screen doesn't always make up for just how lousy the storytelling gets.

Her hair moves more than in a Japanese anime, and the audience gets about as many nosebleeds

The acting is at least solid throughout, though by no means special. I have to imagine this is more due to the especially weak characters, not the actual talent involved (okay, it doesn't hurt that I'm convinced everyone on the cast minus Vanessa Hudgens could beat the crap out of me). Browning doesn't have a whole lot to do besides stare blankly and speak dry, unoriginal dialogue. She does get some juicy scenes (including being the star of the film's opening) but otherwise her biggest contribution to the film might be in the form of three musical tracks. Cornish is the best of the ladies, but also is limited by poor repartee and no character growth. Malone and Chung appear also to be talented while delivering their cliched lines with as much emotion as they can convey. Hudgens is the worst of the bunch by a long shot, so it's good that she doesn't really do much besides smirk and cry, given the context of whatever scene she's in. Oscar Isaac chews scenery as the film's main antagonist but was much better in 2010's Robin Hood, and Carla Gugino is merely a cypher when it comes to being the closest thing to a maternal character seen in the film. Serving no purpose, it's hard to imagine what Gugino was thinking when she took this part, especially as her tole in Snyder's Watchmen did her no favors. Finally Sean Glenn emulates a Carradine to great effect as Baby Doll's guardian angel, who guides her to the tools she needs.

By far The Real World's greatest contribution to society

Once again, we're left with the idea that Zack Snyder should probably stick to visual artistry. I could forgive him not being able to set up the audience for the meat and potatoes that is his amazing effects, but the film's sheer inability to produce anything original or noteworthy is inexcusable. It's as if the large number of possible inspirations for the strong female roles (Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, The Bride, and Thelma and Louise) didn't exist in creating characters so anti-feminist. While they fight against injustice and sacrifice for one another, any considering these emotionally-stunted girls as "strong" female roles doesn't really know what they're talking about. Under another director, perhaps a woman who could more empathise with the themes Snyder fails in properly understanding (Kathryn Bigelow, Lexi Alexander or Karen Kusama, to perhaps name a few), would have been more successful. I do applaud Snyder's attempt to tackle something new and different, but the film's lack of originality and his failure to capitalize on the great ideas he himself put forth are the main reason Sucker Punch will be in contention for 2011's worst movie of the year. As it stands, the film barely cracks the Top 10 films of the year, coming in square at #10. Fans of DC's Superman beware, you will be unprepared when Snyder takes on your beloved hero next in the franchise's upcoming reboot, called for now Man of Steel. It will most likely make Superman Returns look like a masterpiece in comparison.

Bullseye

What is it these days with the movie industry trying their hardest to portray things "accurately"? It seems every filmmaker who once contented themselves with dreaming up original ideas before immortalizing them without needless speculation about exactly how things should be, now go the extra mile to make things as accurate as they possibly can. Medically accurate. Historically accurate. Scale accuracy. Hollywood is slowly becoming so obsessed with how things need to appear that I fear someday soon these same film legends will forget that they're trying to ENTERTAIN an audience. Ridley Scott I fear is strolling down that road. The director, whose sci-fi films Alien and Blade Runner were among the best of their genre, seems to be on a permanent accuracy-high since his good but over-hyped Gladiator won Best Picture in 2000. Since then, he's produced a number of films that have been lauded for their "historical accuracy" and while some, like Black Hawk Down or American Gangster, were fairly well received and made gobs of moolah, Kingdom of Heaven's lack of audience is a perfect example of what can happen if you too overly rely on such semantics. At least, these thoughts are what I had after seeing Scott's latest directorial effort, Robin Hood.

Russel Crowe and other people

In his take on the fabled hero who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, Scott has attempted to draw upon the true happenings in England during the year 1199. Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard's Crusades and the war against Philip II of France. Along with his fellow archers Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle) and Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and another soldier called Little John (Kevin Durand), Robin leaves the King's army and journeys home to England, where the men want to live in peace. Richard the Lionheart is killed in battle, and when news reaches England of the King's death, John (Oscar Isaac) is immediately anointed the new King of England. However, all is not well, as John's childhood friend and knight Godfrey (Mark Strong) secretly plots with the the French King to invade England, and John's rise to power facilitates the Barons of England-ruled territories to rebel against him, fracturing John's rule. Robin and his (not yet merry) men, meanwhile, have found themselves in Nottingham, a village where Robin is asked to fill in for a deceased knight, Robert Loxley, and meets Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett). Over the course of the film, Robin also learns much about his past, which had been a mystery to him for most of his life.

So tell me, why will a spoon hurt more?

This particular adaptation of the Robin Hood legend actually plays out more as a prequel to the more popularly known stories such as the one depicted by Disney. Starting not all that differently than the Kevin Costner variation, this new telling puts aside much of the feuds with King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham to focus more on the traitor Godfrey and the impending French invasion. In this way we actually get something different than we're used to, while also being exposed to enough familiar territory to be comfortable. It's a delicate balance, and this level of storytelling is one that Scott does well. As for the "historical accuracy" aspect, there are plenty of spots in the tale that Scott either glosses over or just plain gets wrong. I'm fairly certain the French never used a rowing variation of the Higgins boat made popular during the invasion of Normandy in WWII when invading England. Many bits, such as the details of King Richard's death or the inaccuracy of the French invasion, happen nothing like what appears in historical texts. In all, the "historical accuracy" claim seems to be unfounded and unnecessarily rolled out.

Marian wishes for more historical accuracy

This in itself isn't too bad when you consider the interesting characters and the actors who portray them. Though Crowe is a talented performer, he's really not suited to the role of hero. His best performance to date is of Officer Bud White in LA Confidential, a complete and unrepentant asshole, yet he keeps trying to play these noble roles of characters who are put under the thumb of oppression and lead those like him out of it. Robin is a capable, strong, and charismatic individual who for much of the film is just a common soldier. Yet by the end he's practically commanding the British army to victory. This is mostly the script's fault, but Crowe is not infallible, especially when his accent (which I guess is Scottish, but who can really tell?) changes constantly over the course of the film. He's also not quite so convincing when he's trying to be more suave. It's obvious he was cast in an attempt to recapture the glory of the Gladiator days, and here it just doesn't work. Blanchett is also talented as the Lady Marion, but she's another performer who had one major role and has been trying to duplicate it's success ever since. Her dialogue is mostly empty and voicing thoughts for the audience's consumption, and her eventual romance with Robin is not a little contrived. And of course Scott couldn't resist plugging her into soldier's garb when given the opportunity She's talented enough to pull it off, but there's only so much she can do. Imagine if she'd gotten a REAL role, what she could do with it. The standouts of the film are by far Mark Strong as Godfrey and Oscar Isaac as King John, Strong has been in a lot of good films lately, with Sunshine, Kick Ass and Sherlock Holmes painting the canvas with talent and believability. As the traitorous Godfrey he is charismatic in a deadly sense; he can convince you he's your best friend while sticking a blade in your spine. Isaac is more of a campy performance, but make no mistake: This is no Alan Rickman "spoon" stint. John is an unloved King, full of the things that make you hate even his appearance when he's on screen. He's everything Robin isn't, and it's a shame they don't spend more time together on screen, as that might have brought the film to another level.

They would settle for TARGET accuracy

The Merry Men get much less attention than they usually would, and that's a shame. Kevin Durand actually puts on what I think is his strongest show to date as Little John, the playful but dangerous second-in-command to Robin. The only non-archer in the group, Durand plays to his physicality the best of any role he's had since Lost. Mark Addy makes a fun Friar Tuck, recently taking over Nottingham's Abbey. With the odd habit of beekeeping (to make Mead, of course), Addy is fun in the little bit he's allowed to perform. Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle are fine if underused in their supporting roles. Grimes, best known for his work on Band of Brothers and ER, is charming but doesn't do too much else besides fire arrows. Doyle uses his musical talents as a member of the Celtic band Great Big Sea to play the minstrel A'Dale, but when he's not making music he's pretty much a side note. A little more attention to these men, as well as the professional William Hurt as Earl William Marshall would have helped expand the story and take a little away from focusing on Crowe's foibles.

William Hurt is better than this

Taken with a grain of salt (and avoiding talk of historical inaccuracies), I enjoyed Robin Hood in spite of it's problems. It's an overwrought mess, obviously bucking for awards but not good enough in any capacity to be deserving of them. It is however a fun viewing if you don't focus on how good it SHOULD have been. It's about on the same level of Hereafter: Interesting story with talent in both the director's and actor's chairs and yet somehow lacking in what makes a wonderful movie-going experience. Not equal to the sum of it's parts, I'd still recommend seeing this if you want to take in a fantastical action film with good acting, and it certainly was better than the movie you PROBABLY saw when it was in theaters, the disappointingly mediocre Iron Man 2. A word of warning to historical scholars, however: YOU won't be able to sit through this film.