Just Another Y.A. Blockbuster

Thanks to the box office success of Twilight and The Hunger Games, we can pretty much expect every semi-popular young adult novel to get big screen treatment in the near future. Every studio of worth out there will spend the next few years purchasing filming rights, throwing them at audiences, and seeing what sticks. We've already seen several examples of failures ranging from I am Number Four to Beautiful Creatures, and if there's something to be said for the adaptation of Veronica Roth's Divergent, it's that it stuck. Not "great" or "wonderful," or even "unique."That's because the story is so derivative of other, better material that it's bound to appeal to not only fans of the novels but any similar moviegoer curious enough to check it out.

The movie follows The Descendants star Shailene Woodley as Tris (God, it even rhymes with "Katniss"), as she navigates the trials of growing up in the ruins of a futuristic, post-war Chicago. Society in this world has been divided into five factions to maintain peace, and Tris is of the age where she can decide whether to stay with her family in the kind and selfless Abnegation faction, or join one of the other four groups, which pride themselves on traits like intelligence, honesty, and peacefulness. This is complicated when the test that helps students decide to what faction they "belong" fails to work on Tris, categorizing her as "Divergent" and unlikely to fit in anywhere. Naturally, Divergents are treated as enemies of the system, and our heroine tries to hide her nature by joining up with the brave, kinda-crazy faction "Dauntless", where she falls for the hunky instructor known as "Four" (Theo James). But when Divergent-hunters come calling... you know what? Forget it, I'm just going to stop right there.

She got tattoos! So you know she has an edge now.

There is barely a single word or sentence in that previous paragraph that could not be used to describe countless titles that have come out just in the past decade (except perhaps Abnegation... learn something new every day!), and that's Divergent's biggest, BIGGEST problem. Whether it's due to the direction of Neil Burger (Limitless), the screenplay by Evan Daugherty (Snow White and the Huntsman) and Vanessa Taylor (Hope Springs), or even Roth's novel itself (Or, most likely, a combination of all three), the biggest sin is that there is barely anything noteworthy or original to grasp onto and declare "Yes, this is why it's special!" For all the crap I give it, Twilight took a familiar concept (supernatural) and put a unique twist on creating its universe. The Hunger Games, while ostensibly a copy of the Japanese book/movie Battle Royale, still made itself original enough to stand alone (not to mention the casting of Jennifer Lawrence). Beautiful Creatures had an amazing and appropriate setting. I am Number Four and the Harry Potter franchise had excellent lore. Divergent DOES have an interesting premise, with the factions and the disparity between them, but barely touches on it in what amounts to a rote, romance/action story. Well, to be fair, it also has... umm... wait a moment... it has... ergh... well, no... I guess... excellent acting?

Why hast thou forsaken us, Kate?

Yes, Divergent is fortunate to have such an amazing cast assembled, because they absolutely needed the best. The characters are so one-dimensional that only someone with the chops of Ashley Judd, or Kate Winslett, or Maggie Q, or Mekhi Phifer, or Ray Stevenson could make it work. When Miles Teller shows up as the generic bully, he actually brings some gravitas to the role. When Tony Goldwyn appears on screen, he isn't just a blank slate as Tris' father, but actually shows some magnetism, through his voice if not in his poorly-written words (one character ironically wonders why people keep asking her the same question; it's because of the inept dialogue, dear). And it's a good thing Shailene Woodley and Theo James are such excellent performers; Woodley plays the worst kind of female heroine, whose actions are entirely based on what is done to her and not on any driving force behind her vanilla temperament; while James' character development begins and ends with "brooding hottie". And yet, both actors make the material work through sheer force of personality. The romance between them, while basic, predictable and cliched, ends up working by virtue of their great chemistry, and they do the absolute most they can with the material. If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't much of a film. Yes, there are a few legitimate duds in Jai Courtney and Zoe Kravitz (sheez, Divergent even has a Kravitz in the cast), but even they don't detract from the story too much when all is said and done.

Where Hollywood thinks women should be: out of sight and silent.

But the acting can't fully save a story that borrows from literally every genre and trope in existence, from The Matrix (one person throwing a system out of whack), to Logan's Run ("I'm hiding my secret from the ruling government!") to Starship Troopers ("Let's get tattoos!"). Seriously, if the villains were as smart as they are supposed to be, they'd have realized that their plot to take over the city has been done a million times before, and BETTER. It's almost as if Roth cobbled together this tale from all the pop culture references and Young Adult novels she had accumulated in her young life, with nary an original thought or idea. To be fair, that might be over-simplifying things a bit; I have yet to read the book, so I can't say how many of Divergent's problems stem from her writing and how much from the adaptation process itself. But if she had ONE original thought when she compiled her novel, it never make its way to the big screen. Even the faction system is not a truly original concept, and that's the closest Divergent ever gets to declaring its independence from standard YA fare. The story is so reliant on coincidence - from Maggie Q's first appearance to just about EVERY major twist and turn - that it defies all expectation for the audience to accept the plot as it develops. And I'd even go so far as to say that wouldn't necessarily a BAD thing, as long as the story itself is told competently and the actors do a good job with the material. In fact, Burger is a pretty good, if not great, director, especially suited to this type of non-risky script, as he proved in 2011's Limitless. Even though the script is the kind of hackery that would demand multiple rewrites if it not for the film's brand recognition, Divergent turns into a competent, if not standout, filmmaking product.

Get it? It's "Red pill, Blue pill!"

Divergent tries to push a moral of anti-conformity and self-identification, but ironically does it in the most conformist fashion possible, stealing from everything that has come before and not standing out even remotely on its way to box office success. Naturally, every YA movie adaptation wants to see the same kind of success as The Hunger Games, but Divergent could only WISH that it was as interesting, compelling and urgent as the movie whose success it would wish to emulate. It's definitely a BAD movie, and yet also a WELL-MADE bad movie that overcomes many of its narrative obstacles through heart and sheer force of will. If only the filmmakers had taken more risks, as the movie does nothing to differentiate itself from the bland, predictable tropes and cliches that have never been so transparently on display as they are here. If it had attempted to deviate from the terrifyingly dull norm it had set for itself, it might have turned into something great. As it stands, Divergent is just okay, and I think we'll see subsequent sequels Insurgent and Allegiant justifiably fall off in audiences as a result. Teen girls (and anyone who identifies with teen girls) will watch and enjoy anyway, but anyone else can steer clear.

Thor 2: Electric Boogaloo

The original Thor was released just two years ago, as a precursor to arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time, The Avengers. Taking Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby's conception of a living god existing among humans and his journey to learn from and help them, and cultivating it into an excellent space opera featuring fantastic action, humor and storytelling, director Kenneth Branagh and an all-star cast put forth an amazing production, handily among the best of its kind, besting all but The Avengers and perhaps the original Iron Man (and a few of the X-Men movies if you really want to count the Marvel properties owned and operated by other studios). And so, between the film's relative success (for a B-list character) and the insane popularity of it's 2012 mash-up pseudo-sequel, there was bound to be another entry to the franchise, in this case Thor: The Dark World. But with new director Alan Taylor (a longtime small-screen filmmaker best known these days for his work on Game of Thrones) behind the lens, how much difference should we expect from this sequel, an might that in fact be a good thing?

Whatever you do, don't tell him to put the hammer down.

After the destruction of the Rainbow Bridge at the end of Thor and after being subsequently being cut off from Midgard (that's planet Earth, for those unawares), our titular hero (Chris Hemsworth) and his fellow warriors have been correcting the damage done to the galaxy, traveling between the Nine Realms and putting down the uprisings that have been occurring outside of the reach of the Asgardian warriors until now. When peace is finally achieved, Thor returns home with grief in his heart, still pining for Earth and his true love, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), who has been searching the stars for the slightest sign of his arrival. But even as he does return to visit her, he finds the planet in crisis, as a rare planetary alignment has blurred the barrier between worlds. Soon the Nine Realms will find themselves in danger once again, and it's up to Thor and his villainous half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to protect the known and unknown universe from a dire threat, as the Dark Elves and their malevolent leader Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) search for a secret weapon to enact their ultimate plan for conquest.

Loki is the one who knocks.

If there's one advantage that Taylor brings to the table over that of the much more renowned Branagh, it's that the former knows his way through a fair share of action scenes. Where Branagh - like many modern directors - did not fully understand how to bring compelling action to the big screen, Taylor brings a whole new skill to the table. This new Thor is chock full of action, from a land and air battle between the Dark Elves and the Asgardians to a portal-jumping fight that travels all over London, Taylor and his crew prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can create wonderful, intelligent and thoroughly thought-out action that is easy for the audience to follow without diminishing its visual wonder. Battles have a meaty weight to them, and while perhaps not as exciting overall as in The Avengers or adopting the humorous overtones of Iron Man 3, they still fit in nicely with the family-friendly tone that Marvel has become known for the past few years. The CGI in Thor: The Dark World also looks far more seamless than in its predecessor, with Taylor making excellent use of what must have been his largest budget to date. There is a much larger range of environments than before, each with its own personality and culture that the director and his team ultimately respect.

Twoo Wuv!

The narrative is also very strong, though perhaps not spelled out as thoroughly as it could have been. Rather than a story about actions, The Dark World focuses on relationships as its main current. At the forefront is the relationship between Thor and Jane, but there is also the complicated brotherhood of Thor and Loki, and the differing relationships between each brother and their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and mother Frigga (Rene Russo). To a lesser extent, we see connections between Thor and his fellow warriors, between Odin and Frigga, and even the chaotic connections between Malekith's Dark Elves and the Asgardians. Even though the plot itself is a bit ragged, with motivations often lost or never fully realized, these connections are expertly explored, and by top-notch actors, as it stands. Hemsworth continues his streak of strong performances in his return to the role that made him a star. Showing a more mature, demure and contemplative side to the what was largely a brash and impulsive character throughout two films, the actor fully embraces his leading man status AND firmly takes the reigns of his franchise, recognizing that it brought him to where he is today. Hiddleston also stands tall, thanks to both an excellent role and a legion of fans who have been clamoring for more Loki since his now-legendary breakout two years prior. Hiddleston is definitely playing a villain, but seems to have garnered such a mass following of those who want to see the character as more of a reformed anti-hero than a straight bad guy. Taylor and his screenwriters (Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, alongside legendary comic writer Christopher Yost) give the fans just that, with a character that is equal party sympathetic and evil, with plenty of room to grow.

No Sif for you!

It's a shame the rest of the characters don't get quite as much development, and as a result their performances as a whole suffer. There are a lot of roles strewn throughout the movie of differing levels of importance, and even the biggest parts sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Though they're often given moments to shine, both Portman and Hopkins are much, MUCH weaker here than they were in Thor. Portman does the best she can with the material she's given, and is still quite good, while Hopkins definitely seems to chafe in his reduced position of importance, as his showing is as bare an effort as is necessary. Eccleston's main antagonist is bereft of depth, though the benefit from deriving material from so talented an actor is that it gives Loki the attention he deserves. Stellan Sarsgard and Kat Dennings both return, but both have reduced character and end up being reduced to mere humorous extras. To add insult to injury some of the gags aren't even funny, though thankfully those moments are few and far between. Rene Russo is one of the few talents to get more to do in the sequel than the original, and her bad-ass take on the Asgardian queen is a welcome addition to the mythos. It's sad she still has a relatively small part in the movie, however. And Idris Elba, who was such a universal delight in the original, returns with more variety to his overall performance. It's too bad Elba seems stuck in supporting roles, as he naturally has the talent to lead his own franchise, given half the chance.

Women might just be the true strength of Asgard.

But the biggest misstep might be the treatment of Jaimie Alexander's Sif and the Warriors Three, played by Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, and Tadanobu Asano. The trailers all tease of a love triangle between Thor, Jane, and Sif, who in the comics has a long relationship with the God of Thunder. But that's all Taylor does with the material; he teases, never going any deeper into the idea. There are two reasons for this. One is that the The Dark World is fairly packed with sub-plots, side characters and quite a bit of action. That leave much less for character development, and Sif's apparent affection for her fellow warrior had to take a backseat to other, more important scenes. The second was an incident early in production, where an on-set accident caused Alexander to suffer a spinal injury, no doubt resulting in a reduced role. Perhaps this will be revisited in Thor 3, but for now it's mere window dressing. As for the other uses of the characters, Taylor generally keeps them for comic relief, and for one major sequence towards the end of the second act, they actually have a bit of importance. Still, Marvel fans no doubt hope that these four - such an integral part of the history of Thor himself - will have more to add in future sequels.

Thor and Loki: Brothers in arms.

There are definitely issues that plague Thor: The Dark World, though despite these missteps, Alan Taylor excels in bringing us the latest chapter in the the character's ongoing epic tale. Even better, he gives his entry to the franchise a personality all its own, borrowing a bit from Branagh's original while adding his own distinctive flare to the final product. While the there are obviously some major differences between the two, the overall quality of The Dark World is just about on par with the original, placing it near the top of Marvel's greatest movie releases. Even if you're not a fan of the superhero genre, I urge you to go out and see this gem, as it's one of those fun epics that doesn't NEED prior knowledge of the series to get by. However, it is true scions of Kevin Feige (the guy who organizes all these movies) who get the best out of this film, and those who live for Stan Lee cameos, post-and-mid-credit scenes, and fun action meeting even more fun humor as our heroes fight to save the day will find little to nothing wrong with this, another successful step on the way to 2015's Avengers sequel.

Wow, Loki really let himself go.

All for One, One for the Junk Pile

Like most people, I have a day job. It’s not my first love, but it IS how I pay the bills. There are days where I love my day job, with my daily interaction with co-workers, employees and managers keeping me fresh and on my toes. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes my day job can beat me down so badly that I’m desperate for any respite, any calm in the storm. This past Friday was one such day, on which I left work frazzled, tired and just a little out of my mind. On days like this, I feel that a good dumb movie can help to raise beleaguered spirits and help one feel better by forgetting all the stresses of the day. On this particular Friday, I went to see The Three Musketeers, in 3D.

“But, Mr. Anderson,” you’re saying with polite reverence, “You said GOOD dumb movies. The Three Musketeers looks like utter crap! And you hate 3D, you complain about it all the time!”

You’re not half wrong there. From my first viewing of the film’s trailer, I was quite certain that there would be little to no redeeming value left in the finished product. The title, the third major film based on the novel by French author Alexandre Dumas in the past two decades, looked to incorporate style over substance, with little explanation as to not only why a new adaptation was ever needed, but why on Earth It would need to be shown in 3D. As many of my readers already know, I abhor most 3D films with VERY few exceptions, as often the overhyped technology is too much money spent to far little effect. But, lately I admit that for several reasons I have developed a soft spot for this obvious car wreck. The first was director Paul W. S. Anderson (no relation), whose 2010 franchise sequel Resident Evil: Afterlife was one of the few 3D movies I absolutely loved. The reason for my appreciation was that Anderson actually filmed using the same technology that pioneer James Cameron did in Avatar, the title that reinvigorated the 3D discussion. Using Cameron’s RealD 3D technology, Anderson created the perfect comeback to a franchise that had struggled creatively in its previous outings. As such, this is a man who obviously knows how 3D technology is supposed to work in this day and age of modern wonders. Another reason was the casting. Unknown Musketeers aside, the care in choosing several secondary roles was key. Between the obvious casting decisions (Christoph Waltz as the evil Cardinal Richelieu) and those strangely against type (Orlando Bloom as a heavy), Three Musketeers hosted a surprising bevy of talent on its roster. And don’t forget Anderson’s wife Milla Jovovich as turncoat Millady de Winter. Sure, Jovovich isn’t the best actress out there, but she’s a gamer who does all that is asked of her and appeals to the audiences of her films thanks to her professionalism and obvious sex appeal. For these reasons I was willing to offer the film a mulligan, hoping for something that would outshine its obvious flaws.

Well, one of you is going to have to go

When Musketeer hopeful D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) travels to Paris to join the King’s elite soldiers, the events that follow are very similar to that of the novel, as he makes early enemies of former Musketeers Athos (Matthew MacFayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), only to team up with the trio against the soldiers of Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz), the man secretly ruling France while misleading the young King Louis XIII into believing he is in full control. Athos, Porthos and Aramis were removed from the Musketeers after being betrayed by Athos’ lover Milady (Jovovich), a double agent for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Soon the four become privy to the plots of Richelieu, who has devised a plan to send France and England towards war, with the ultimate end of him in total command of the country. It is up to the four warriors to take up the challenge and fight soldiers on both sides to save France and their King.

Shouldn't have brought a cutlass to a flintlock pistol fight

Of course, that spectacle I mentioned earlier never really comes to pass. The Three Musketeers is about as far from a great movie as you can get without being downright horrible, but Anderson does manage to make it a close call as he tries to create an adaptation of the classic tale with as much spectacle and fury as he can muster while failing on just about every conceivable level. It doesn’t help that Anderson feels out of his element when taking on this classic novel, incorporating steampunk elements (such as airships) where none were really should have been needed. For the most part the implementation of 3D was wasted, surprising and disappointing considering Anderson’s previous experience with the technology. Anyone who has seen the shower scene in Resident Evil: Afterlife knows how amazing 3D could actually look (get your minds out of the gutter), and I was expecting more of that ingenuity here. Unfortunately, that doesn’t show itself except for a brief instance towards the end featuring dueling airships. Worse, it’s nowhere near as entertaining, as there is very little that could excite small children, let alone the young adults that are the film’s target audience.

Kissing the hand was scandalous ENOUGH

At least the film has solid acting, which was much more than I could have expected. The Musketeers themselves are all standouts, as MacFayden, Stevenson and Evans proudly play their roles to great effectiveness. Between the dour Athos, the proud and Strong Porthos, and the pious Aramis, the tiny shred of personality that the film possesses shines brightly. It’s a shame then that the three get relatively little face time, especially Porthos and Aramis, who get a few moments to impress but not nearly enough. Instead we see others pushed to the forefront, and those are unfortunately nowhere near as artistically stimulating. Despite his talents and seemingly a natural choice for the role, Waltz’s Richelieu is a disappointment, too campy and unthreatening even to adequately chew scenery. Despite being the film’s central antagonist, he gives far too much ground to his underlings, especially Mads Mikkelsen as the petty and cruel Captain Rochefort. Logan Lerman has no business headlining ANY film, let alone a potential blockbuster. His bland recitation of dialogue is one of the film’s main flaws, and with too much attention on him this is far too noticeable a one. Jovovich was in fact a mixed bag, with Milady’s impressive… um… “talents” often overshadowed by not even an attempt at actual acting. However, one that surprisingly stood out to me was Orlando Bloom, playing the snide and clever Duke of Buckingham. Bloom, who usually plays upstanding and generally friendly characters, is so out of place here that it gives the film a new lift whenever he is on screen. Sadly, whereas The Three Musketeers has only one Orlando Bloom, it could have used three or four more. He’s on screen far too little as a secondary villain to be a serious nuisance, though he comes off as more diabolical than Richelieu when given the chance.

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was staring at your chest

Despite some clever jabs that catch you off guard and tickle your funny bone, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend in seeing The Three Musketeers in the theater. The film’s saving grace was supposed to be Anderson’s 3D implementation, but with that being less than stellar, the title had to actually rely on the script and its performers to get by. The result is an un-clever stupid movie that might be decent for mindless fun, if your definition of “fun” is far more subjective than mine. A few good moments do not a movie make, and so I can’t bring myself to actually recommend this title to anyone. If you decide to ignore me and DO go to see The Three Musketeers, at least do yourself the favor of skipping the 3D showings. They, like another Musketeers adaptation, are thoroughly unneeded.

A New Year Doth Beckon... But 2010's Films Ain't Done Yet

2010 is coming to a close. In less than two weeks we'll be smack dab in 2011, with a whole new release list of films to watch. January isn't known for it's great film releases; In fact, it would probably be safe to say that Hollywood tends to save its weaker films for this time, since they figure they won't have an impact come next award season. Then again, there's always something to watch, even if the ones I'm truly interested in (The Mechanic, maybe something else) are far outnumbered by ones I'll only see if I have to (Green Hornet, Season of the Witch, The Company Men). At worst, I can always go revisit 2010 for any films I missed (odds of seeing Blue Valentine when it releases on December 31'st are slim) but I'm truly excited to enter the new year with the same goal: to see and review these films for you my readers. So since I'm running out of time in 2010, I decided to quick review a couple of films I didn't see in the theaters this year but kind of wish I had: the comedy The Other Guys and the indie drama Winter's Bone.

 For me, this was an easy choice. I missed the theatrical run of The Other Guys because, while I WANTED to see the film, there kept springing up films that I wanted to see MORE. Some were good, some were bad, but either way this comedy directed by Adam McKay (The man who brought you Anchorman) ran under my radar without comment. Despite being told on multiple occasions that it was a good film, I simply never got around to it. Despite this, I still remembered several jokes from the trailer while watching it, and I STILL enjoyed every moment.

You smell that? Someone had the bean burrito...

The Other Guys stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg as New York City police detectives Gamble and Holtz. After the city's two most decorated and reckless cops (Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson) are killed in the line of duty in tragic and hilariously stupid fashion, Holtz decides that he wants to be the new top cop in town, dragging his partner Gamble, a transfer from police accounting, along for the ride.

Holtz and Gamble don't exac... OOH, spider solitaire!

The film would be for naught if they didn't have the right cast delivering the funny. Ferrell is a blend of conservative nerd with a spot of renegade as Gamble, a man who got into police accounting because it was a safe way to serve his country while somehow being quite successful with the ladies, especially his ultra-hot wife (Eva Mendes). Wahlberg plays Holtz as a cop trying to earn his redemption from an incident earlier in his career that had him accidentally shoot Yankees star Derek Jeter. Holtz learned a number of odd things growing up (ballet, for instance) for the expressed purpose of teasing and bullying the kids who actually studied those things. He's also fierce in his attempts to prove himself, to the point where he goes into almost pointless rages because he doesn't have a suitable outlet for his frustration. Steve Coogan plays one of the film's antagonists, a corporate big-wig whose Ponzi scheme is the focal point of the story, and is being hunted by the film's other antagonist, a security contractor played by Ray Stevenson. Michael Keaton makes a random appearance as Gamble and Holtz's police Captain, who does work on the side at Bed Bath and Beyond. All these actors have great lines and never miss a beat, and the film's humor is much better for having them than it would be otherwise.

Here Coogan attempts to deflect bullets with his teeth, with hilarious consequences

 The great thing about The Other Guys is that you can pretty much take it out and watch it anytime you want. Whether you want to be in a good mood or already are, this film never drops the ball and delivers an entertaining experience with its viewing. Of course, if you could do with less of Marky Mark, Anchorman is probably still the penultimate film for Ferrell and director McKay, and with even better dialogue and a better supporting cast. But The Other Guys gives a rare opportunity to see Wahlberg in a comedic role, and he does so well with it you wish he would do more. Then again, when The Fighter is as good as it is, you can understand why he might stick with more dramatic roles. Either way, The Other Guys is one film you should see if you want to laugh.

From The Other Guys to the other film, Winter's Bone was a film whose existence I had knowledge of before I decided to watch it, but mainly as an icon on my local Redbox machine. I think I remotely remember the film's theatrical release in June only because of the mention of co-star Garret Dillahunt, who I loved on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Then actress Jennifer Lawrence goes and gets a nomination for best actress at this year's Golden Globes, and suddenly Winter's Bone goes from an indie hit and critics' darling to a must-see film with upset potential at the upcoming award shows. I had to see what all the praise was about..

Just realized her film is stuck in a dual review

Winter's Bone stars Lawrence as Ree Dolly, seventeen years old and already thrust into a large amount of responsibility with a sick and mentally disabled mother and two younger siblings to care for in their impoverished Missouri Ozarks shack. Her father, a long-time cooker of crystal meth, had been arrested by the local law but now has disappeared, and had put the house up for his bail. Soon, Ree must find her father and bring him back so that her family will not lose what little home they have left.

Remember, pull this trigger when you see Gianni pop around...

To get to the point, all the praise for Jennifer Lawrence is completely justified. An amazing actress, Lawrence shows amazing range for someone young. Ree practically runs the film by herself, between caring for her two siblings and fearlessly facing her extended family, who may or may not know what happened to her father. In all this Lawrence is truly a fearless performer, mastering the screen and we are unable to take our eyes off her as she undertakes this potentially dangerous journey. When she's not running the show, co-star John Hawkes is equally as compelling as Ree's uncle Teardrop, a drug addict who takes up the reigns at times on the hunt for his brother. He's amazing in the role, and if it wasn't for Lawrence he would probably be the one everybody remembers from this film. It's certainly a huge leap from the last role most people remember him from, that of the Other Lennon in the final season of Lost. I was hoping for more screen time for Dillahunt, as he does a good job but ultimately has a small role as the local sheriff that gets slightly bigger towards the end of the film. And characters played by Lauren Sweetser, Dale Dickey, and Shelley Waggoner do a great job as neighbors with their own motivations to help or hinder the search for Ree's father. Director Debra Granik did a great job putting this cast together, and the Cambridge, MA native also did a good job recruiting locally for talent, as the regular folks who appear in the film are all solid performers. Nobody slacked off in making this film, and that's half the reason that it's as good as it is.

Just in case this film wasn't dark enough, here's a graveyard scene

The film follows themes of family ties, both close and distant. Almost every major character, and many of the minor characters, are related in some way to Ree and her family, which makes their unwillingness to help her more tragic. Other themes include self-sufficiency, the power and speed of gossip, and rural poverty, all of which are well-covered over the course of the film, and the dark themes are enhanced by what seems like an endless overcast, the skies constantly gray and dark. Throughout her journey, Ree is confronted with obstacle after obstacle, each more impassable than the last. Yet it's her strength and determination that lets her overcome these problems en route to her final goal.

An audition for Secretariat fortunately didn't work out

I really liked Winter's Bone, though I wish I could say I loved it. I didn't have any problem with the film, per se. I loved Jennifer Lawrence in the lead and could rarely take my eyes from the screen for the entire film's 100-minute run. I just felt that the film didn't live up to it's Sundance-winning pedigree, and especially that the film left a lot out that might have enhanced the story at parts. Still, it does paint a harrowing picture of everyday life in the Ozarks region, when there's often little chance of opportunity to change your fortunes, when you often are forced not by people but by circumstances to do things you never thought you'd do before. That alone would be enough to recommend this film, but the strong performances put the cap on top, and I definitely recommend this title to anyone with a pulse. It's certainly more important to see this film than the overrated Social Network, and the fact that more people have seen the latter is a terrible shame.

So what's next for The Latest Issue? We'll be busy wrapping up 2010 soon, with The King's Speech, Tron Legacy, True Grit, Somewhere and The Tempest getting reviewed or making their debuts soon, and of course my Worst Films of 2010 compilation. Can't wait to share all those with you soon!