Showing posts with label Ryan Gosling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ryan Gosling. Show all posts

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Double Feature: 'The Place Beyond the Pines' and 'Mud'

Today's double feature films actually share common themes! Usually, I just lump two movies together no matter their content in order to rush along and catch up on my backlog of film-going exploits. But today's features carry two very universal and very emotional themes that should be appreciated by all viewers: Love and Family.

The first of these releases, The Place Beyond the Pines, is director Derek Cianfrance's dramatic followup to his excellent (and under-appreciated) 2010 indie Blue Valentine. It's three tales of fathers and sons, the first focusing on traveling stuntman Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling) returning home to Schenectady, New York (from where the film gets its name) and discovering that an old girlfriend has given birth to a baby boy. His baby boy. Giving up his stunt gig, he struggles to find a living wage while trying to be there for the son he didn't know he had, eventually robbing banks to try and support his estranged family. That leads him into conflict with police officer Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper), who is also balancing his love of being a police officer with his disdain for the rampant corruption in the department. Each man tries to provide for the futures of their infant sons, and their decisions will have dramatic repercussions in their childrens' lives.
Besides a full, enthralling story that keeps you glued to your seat, the big showstoppers here are definitely Gosling and Cooper. For those of you who failed to witness his worthy performance in Valentine, Gosling once again thrives under Cianfrance's direction, flawlessly walking that fine line between his good man persona and a dark, desperate edge driven by his desire to provide for his family. If anything, it's a harder role than that of Valentine, which had him play two sides of a coin but in two different times. Here he's doing it all at once, an amazing effort that ought to be applauded. And for those who thought Bradley Cooper's performance in Silver Linings Playbook was impressive, he completely blows that showing out of the water here. In a performance worthy of the nomination he got for last year's decent romantic comedy, Cooper really commands the camera. Whether that's due to his natural talent coming to a head or his working under an actor's director like Cianfrance is unknown, but he's definitely puts in one of the better performances this year. Backing them up are solid showings from veteran actors Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelsohn and Rose Byrne, each adding just enough to make their roles memorable.
The film does have a few surprises, most notably the curious final act featuring Glanton and Cross' grown children, but for the most part the surprises work better than you might have expected. It's not too often that you get a movie that is tailor-made for fathers and sons (in fact, it's surprising that this wasn't released closer to Father's Day), but The Place Beyond the Pines is a brilliant piece of artistic filmmaking that caters to that specific demographic. If you're a fan of Cianfrance's previous works or either of the film's principal actors, this is definitely a film you shouldn't miss.


Mud isn't far behind it, though the pedigree of writer/director Jeff Nichols certainly isn't as renowned as that of Cianfrance. Fans at least will point to 2011's apocalyptic thriller Take Shelter as proof of his talent, though I admit I have yet to see that particular film. But if Nichols' talent is anything close to what he displays here, that film may be due for a rental. Mud is the story of two Arkansas youths (Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland) who investigate an empty island looking for a small boat that supposedly washed up in the last flood. What they find instead is Mud (Matthew McConaughey), a man on the run from the law and awaiting the arrival of his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). Running low on food and supplies, Mud asks the boys for assistance in getting things he cannot go into town to get and to reconnect with Juniper. Meanwhile, both the law and a gang of vigilantes hunting Mud are moving in, and the two boys might be getting in way over their heads.

Nichols does a great job crafting his story, and the main reason this coming-of-age tale works so well is because the director doesn't treat it like it's any old reworked classic. Nichols' story is deliberately paced, parceling out morsels of information in easily digestible pieces. Though Mud's background isn't as deep or mysterious (or unpredictable) as similar characters throughout cinema history, Nichols' effortless ability to keep the story suspenseful is a major asset in keeping his audience focused on the task at hand. Mud if nothing else is exceedingly well-told, presenting the rural south in a way not seen since Mark Twain was at his literary height. This isn't a surprise; the director has claimed Twain as an influence on his work, and that type of narration definitely helps his movie achieve greatness.
The acting corps also doesn't have many lightweights, as everybody here is a seriously-talented performer vying for recognition. The cast is filled with the likes of Sarah Paulson, Ray McKinnon, Michael Shannon and Sam Shepard, putting on strong performances in small roles. Witherspoon shows what she can do outside of her romcom element, reminding everybody of just how good she can be in dramatic stories. And McConaughey is definitely looking for Best Actor awards, his smoothly demure fugitive one of the absolute best performances he's made to date. But surprisingly the movie actually belongs to Sheridan and Lofland. Lofland, a newcomer with no prior film experience, works well in the sidekick role, playing a sounding board for Sheridan and providing a bit of comic relief as well. Sheridan is both a surprising and excellent lead, however, adopting those Tom Sawyer-esque mannerisms of the character while feeling still unique and individual. His ability to narrate a film without saying much is something to be celebrated in a Hollywood where too many filmmakers believe that audiences need things spelled out for them.
What we have here in The Place Beyond the Pines and Mud are two excellent independent films. If they're playing anywhere near you (both were playing at over 600 US theaters this past weekend), then you should do yourself a favor and check them out. One is a fantastic drama which adult fathers ought to attend with their adult sons, the other a mystical and yet utterly modern romance that ultimately manages to feel wholly unlike anything you've seen before. Both ought to be worthwhile whether seen on the big or small screens, but I definitely encourage the theatrical route, as while there's been the occasional great reason to go the movies lately, these are the types of films smart film-goers should be fully supporting.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Return of Ryan Gosling

This is actually a flick I've been waiting quite a while to see. Gangster Squad was originally supposed to hit theaters in September, but met with controversy over the summer. See, the original trailer, which first aired back in May, featured a scene in which Los Angeles gangsters opened fire in a crowded movie theater in what was surely meant to be an ambush on the film's heroes. That's fine enough, but with the similar and tragic real-life Aurora, Colorado shootings, it wasn't exactly something they could include in the final cut. And so the trailer and the scene were dropped, the scene was relocated and re-shot, and in January we finally get to see Ruben Fleischer's noir cop drama, based on the crime reign of mobster Mickey Cohen.

In the late 1940's, Los Angeles is as corrupt as any city can get. Mafia boss Cohen (Sean Penn) rules ruthlessly, buying off the law and eliminating both those who oppose and fail him. When the chief of police Bill Parker (Nick Nolte) calls upon the likes of honest cops and WWII vets O'Mara (Josh Brolin) and Wooters (Ryan Gosling) to assemble an "off the books" squad to wage a guerrilla war against Cohen's operations, it's more an act of desperation as anything else. Cohen has such a stranglehold on the city that nobody else wants to even try to fight his criminal empire. O'Mara and his men have some initial success, but to truly end Cohen's reign, it might take more effort than six men are able to handle.

Be cool guys, be cool.
If you're like me, the words "Based on a true story" have little meaning in a Hollywood that doesn't hesitate to bend our outright twist the truth to benefit their narratives. Though several characters in the story - from Cohen to Parker to gangster Jack Dragna - are based on real-life counterparts, the film doesn't bother sticking to all but the basic truths about them. Even if I hadn't fact-checked a number of egregious falsehoods that the story presents, I still wouldn't have bought it; the action scenes - while mostly beautifully shot - feel too much like a video game, as heroes and villains alike fire endless bullets unless the lack of ammunition could be used as a quick plot device. This would have been welcome had this been a fantastical action piece a la The Avengers and not a gritty crime drama supposedly in the vein of LA Confidential. There are also major logic holes in the story, moments that make no sense in the sense of what we have followed, leading to confusion among the audience. Fleischer, who is better known for his comedies Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less, is a bit out of his element here, opting to go for the classy visuals but not adding any real meat to the imaginative script.

Worse makeup than Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Looper.
Fleischer at least puts a competent cast in front of the camera, but he then wraps them around stock characters and so perfectly wastes their potential. Rising stars Anthony Mackie and Michael Pena are the Gangster Squad's requisite minority members. Robert Patrick is literally a cowboy, complete with duster and matching mustache. Giovanni Ribisi is the lone family man whose death is all but guaranteed. Nolte is the quintessential grizzled Police Chief. Ryan Gosling (returning after not appearing all of last year) and Emma Stone reunite for the first time since Crazy Stupid Love, and while they're hardly original as a smooth-talking Vice cop and a good bad-girl, respectively, they at least have the chemistry to make their on-screen romance work. The film ends up being owned by Brolin and Penn, though it's not easy. Brolin is a solid force, lacking in anything that makes him excellent or even charismatic, but maintaining his stoic leadership throughout his scenes. He's too used to performing dramas; Men In Black 3 perfectly exhibited his comedic abilities, and he'd be wise to pursue that vein. Penn meanwhile has to overcome horrible prosthetic makeup and a hammily-written caricature, but still manages to tap into the essence of the deeper character, brilliantly stealing more than his share of moments.

This one's for the ladies (and select gentlemen) in the house.
Still, despite Gangster Squad's liberal interpretation of history, quarrelsome script, boring title, uneven direction, dependence on style over substance, massive plot holes and wasted acting, I was found to be actually enjoying myself overall. Why? Fleischer keeps the story (as poor as it is) moving forward, and as cardboard cutouts go, the heroes were actually root-able to sufficient a degree. And in most cases, the director's manic action sequences are exciting enough if you keep expectations reasonable. It's not all that much of a movie, but at least for 2013 it's a step up from Texas Chainsaw 3D, and sits prettily at #1 for the year. Sure, I know Ryan Gosling fans were hoping for more from their hero after his star-turning 2010-11, but for that they may have to await the upcoming The Place Beyond the Pines or Only God Forgives, both slated for later this year. Gangster Squad is good for a bit of fun, but be sure to lower your expectations at the door.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Electoral Foul-Up


To hear the industry tell it, Ryan Gosling is the hottest actor in Hollywood as you read this. While much consternation was raised earlier this year over Gosling’s apparent Oscar snub for his role in the indie drama Blue Valentine nobody can doubt the attention he has earned in 2011, in which he has had arguably his biggest year to date. In fact, today marks the third review I’ve written in three months that has starred the young actor, the first two being the romantic comedy Crazy Stupid Love with Steve Carell and the noir crime drama Drive. With The Ides of March, Gosling takes on the world of political intrigue in a film directed by co-star George Clooney. Clooney knows what it’s like to be the hot hand of Hollywood, as he has managed to build a strong career based especially on his charisma and excellent acting. Clooney has had twenty-five years to ascend to that status, with his starring turn in the CBS medical drama E.R. and a robust film resume that has seen plenty of misses but even more hits, and he was a huge reason films like Out of Sight, Michael Clayton and the Oceans trilogy were so well received. His directing career, however, has been a different story. While 2005’s Good Night and Good Luck was a true gem (and probably would have won its best picture nomination had Crash not come out the same year), other films directed by Clooney have been far from well received. Still, the good will Clooney has generated from audiences goes a long way, and his latest attempt behind the camera takes one of the more talented young men in Hollywood to see what he can do with Mr. Gosling.
Wait, does that sign say George Clooney is Evil? Blasphemy!
Based on Beau Willimon’s play Farragut North, the story follows Stephen Meyers (Gosling), the junior campaign manager for Democratic Presidential hopeful Mike Morris (Clooney). Having served on more electoral campaigns than most have by the time they are forty, Stephen is a true believer in the Governor of Pennsylvania. He believes that Morris is not only the best candidate for whom he has worked, but the only one who can and will actually make a change for the good of the country. Currently they are campaigning alongside senior campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in Ohio, hoping for a victory in the Primaries here that will easily secure the Democratic nomination. But while this is going on, Stephen discovers a secret that not only throws his confidence in Morris in doubt, but could officially end the Governor’s political career. Now he must determine which is the better option: making sure his flawed man reaches the White House, or throwing in with the competition and rival Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) to make sure that Morris doesn’t reach that goal.

Sadly, Clooney's inspiration did not help "Bring the Sexy Back" to the campaign trail
If you want to enjoy The Ides of March, you might have to love politics. I’m not saying this because the film is unapproachable to those who don’t, but the learning curve is certainly steep enough for the uninitiated. The actors involved toss out factoids concerning political history almost at random, and though they are no doubt at least somewhat essential to understanding the scene they are almost completely forgotten by the time the closing credits rolled. You can either take in these random bits of information as a pure sideline entertainment and by turn having a leg up on your fellow movie watchers, or you can ignore them completely and try to just follow the mood of the story as it goes along. The latter is certainly where most would tread, but unfortunately you can’t get the full campaign experience without trying to understand why the characters act the way they do. Thankfully the major themes are ones that EVERYONE should be able to understand, and that the film succeeds in not completely alienating its audience it a minor victory.

Presidential jaw, Presidential hair... you sure he's not a Republican?
Unfortunately, that’s about all this film can say went right, as even those political aficionados would have little reason to sit through The Ides of March’s entire 101 minutes. Doubtless there are any large number of conflicts in a Presidential campaign, but why on Earth did Clooney and company have to make the entire thing so DULL? Perhaps it’s not entirely his fault, and the Willimon play is at least part of the problem. That still doesn’t excuse the fact that a film full to the brim with devious schemes, political intrigue, scandals, deception, blackmail and revenge is so utterly uninteresting to watch. What should have been keeping me riveted to my seat instead kept me waiting for something, ANYTHING to happen. With surprisingly horrid pacing, I simply didn’t care about this candidate, this election or any of the underpinning issues that went into it, and that is certainly the fault of the filmmakers.

Some people will just never be happy
At least an excellent cast has been brought in to somewhat raise the level of the tepid script. Gosling once again argues that he belongs in Hollywood’s upper echelon. While not near as memorable as his previous starring roles, he is still perfectly cast as the closest thing the audience has to a hero. Stephen is smart, talented, charming and experienced, and should be easy to root for. Even when his character’s morals and methods change, Gosling is entirely in control. Easily the rising star of 2011, his dedication to roles like this should cement his future superstardom. Clooney as a Presidential candidate is not all that different from Clooney in the public eye: he’s charming, looks the part and can speak publicly with the best of them. In short, Clooney carries the perfect political persona. His performance might be a little on the nose (and therefore lacking the diversity to be interesting) but since many celebrity hounds already see him as a potential Presidential front runner, he was in fact the best choice for the role. Philip Seymour Hoffman has always been a strong character actor. Once again however he is an actor straining to be free from the confines of a singularly rote character, even one with some devious methods all his own. Hoffman is most certainly too much actor for the part he plays, but he still brings a ton of professionalism and talent to the cast. Possibly shining most brightly is Paul Giamatti as an unscrupulous campaign manager who tries to tempt Stephen to joining the other side. Smarmy and duplicitous, it’s easy to pin the main antagonist tag on his head, and it’s difficult to believe that this is the same guy who was the hero of this year’s indie dramedy Win Win. Like Hoffman, he’s one of the most talented character actors in Hollywood today. Others who contribute are The Wrestler actresses Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood. Tomei is a political journalist for the New York Times, while Wood plays an intern and romantic interest for Stephen. Both have their roles to play, and while Tomei is limited in scope for her character, Wood turns out to be almost a kindred spirit to Gosling, and the attention that gets focused on her is not put to waste in even the slightest fashion. Jeffrey Wright is another talented performer, but unfortunately his character – an Ohio politician whose endorsement would be essential to Morris’ victory – harbors too much of a vibe copied from baseball Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson (right down to the facial hair), with his own aspirations above that of the people he represents.

Sadly, Morris' other slogan "Hope" was already taken
Clooney might be responding somewhat to much of the populace thinking he’d be a great political frontrunner (and he might at that), but in The Ides of March he presents so jaded and dark a vision of the American political system that there is really no cause for even the smallest hopes of purity to arise. Between that, the bland dullness of a script, too many cliched characters and sheer lack of imagination (they reuse a famous scandal to try and move the story forward) take this film from being one of the big contenders of 2011 to somewhere amidst the pack of wannabes. When a political thriller doesn’t particularly THRILL, it’s a cause for serious concern, and this title has the feel of a half-baked drama that was rushed out the door. Sadly, this might even be the wrong time for The Ides of March to be released, as the demonstrations occurring across the country suggests that people have had their fill of corruption for the time being. The Ides of March is not Oscar worthy, but it does have enough going for it to perhaps fool many into thinking otherwise. If you’re big into politics and want to see a bunch of talented actors do what they do so well, this film will whet your palate nicely. If not, then when I see you next we can move on.

Monday, September 26, 2011

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.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Clever, Smart, Love

I'm still finishing up the last of the July film releases as we finish the first week of August. Now that I'm back on track with the new films, and this month has some of the less anticipated titles for the summer, I considered this an opportune time to catch up on one of my must-sees. In this case, it was the romantic comedy Crazy, Stupid, Love starring Steve Carell alongside an ensemble cast that simply oozes talent and charisma. The film was also directed by Glenn Ficara and John Requea, whose debut 2010 Jim Carrey project I Love You Phillip Morris was an under-appreciated gem. These contributing factors, not to mention a hip and fun trailer (about divorce, no less) that ironically inspired love at first sight, made me very excited for this summer release. Sure, I've seen a large number of romantic comedies this year, but most of them have either been bad beyond comprehension or entertaining but with completely derivative plots and storylines. One look at Crazy, Stupid, Love seems to dissolve all those fears, and now that I had time to visit theaters, my friend - the Rom-Com expert Anne - and I checked out a show this past week. Despite the trailers being fairly clear on what story to look forward to, it was the breakdown of said plot that would most determine whether this film would stand atop the year's best or wallow in the mess that has consumed most of Hollywood's 2011.

Carrell shouldn't have told Gosling about his problems with "Little Stevie"
Carl Weaver (Steve Carell) has just gotten a divorce from his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) in response to her cheating on him with a co-worker, David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon). Naturally this throws the pair and their two children into an emotional tailspin, especially Carl, who had become so ingrained to married life that he has no idea how to re-enter the dating scene. While bemoaning his fate at a local bar, Carl meets Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a smooth-talking ladies man who agrees to help with Carl's physical and emotional makeover. Soon, Carl is entering the wild world of modern dating and casual sex, but Jacob finds his own path diverting when he meets Hannah (Emma Stone), who makes him look at his relationship with women in a whole new light. While both are going through their changes, Carl's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) pines after his babysitter Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who herself has a major crush on Carl.

"If you want them to be President, you have to start them off at an early age"
From what you can see of those intermingled plot points, Crazy, Stupid Love gets very complex very quickly, with a large number of events simultaneously occurring on multiple levels. That said, most of the film focuses on Carl and other characters' actions around him. This makes the most sense, as just about every other character has some sort of connection to him, but it slightly damages the ensemble feel of the cast by focusing so much on Carl and his problems. This is especially true since while he is interesting in his own right, Carl pales in comparison to Jacob, who as a character could easily headline his own film. In fact, the Jacob/Hannah storyline is shunted into the background a bit too much (though there is a reason for this), and Carl gets a little tiring by the time we're not focusing quite as much attention in his direction. These are small missteps and surprising ones considering how strong the storytelling was in I Love You, Phillip Morris, but not so bad as to cause any actual demerits to be dispensed unto this title. The story behind Crazy, Stupid, Love might have been told slightly more in tune, but in the end it's unpredictability works wonders to make up for that offense.

I wasn't kidding. Carell is in every screenshot I could find for this film
Oh, yes, the unpredictability. It would not be uncommon for you (as if was for Anne and me) to place your hand over your eyes and face for much of Crazy, Stupid, Love, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. While I can't (and won't, you'll have to figure it out for yourself) go into too much detail, you will see things go completely out of control, only for it to be compounded by more things going out of control than you had ever anticipated. It's not an entirely comfortable scenario, but one that manages to be a lot of fun nonetheless. The result is you half-hiding your eyes from the screen while witnessing this madness, yet the film never really lets you look away. You're easily compelled to see it through to the end, which is the mark of any good film.

Auditioning for the next "Oceans" movie, are we Ryan?
Of course this movie would have to be populated by interesting characters to be truly good. As you probably gathered from the previews, Ryan Gosling is just amazing as ladies man Jacob, a role that doesn't quite fit with his career thus far. Though he failed to rightfully garner a Best Actor nomination at the last Academy Awards (no offense Jesse Eisenberg, but I would've rather had him over you), Gosling has finally gotten the attention of mainstream Hollywood after building his career on small but well-received films Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, and Blue Valentine. Now that he's getting star treatment, you might think his output would drop right into the deep end like so many others who have made the transition from indie to the big leagues. However, Gosling is a lot of fun and keeps all of his strengths on board while playing Jacob, and never does he do something which isn't completely believable. Carell is the film's star, and he tries his best to give us the same charm he does in just about every Steve Carell movie. Performance-wise, this is probably the closest he's come to his Little Miss Sunshine peak, but still doesn't deviate too far from his usual fare. He's still good, and as a lead he's more than serviceable, but I was hoping for much more from the character we're expected to mainly follow for two hours. Emma Stone is once again a lot of fun, though her character's major decision between sex with the hot bar guy (Jacob) and her boring relationship with boring lawyer Richard (Josh Groban) is hardly the stuff of legends. Her main source of power is her boundless energy, which here she displays in spades. Is Julianne Moore's career going to turn into a revolving door of cheating spouses now? First it was her great work in the widely overrated The Kids are All Right, and now she's doing the same here. Hopefully this is just a glitch in her resume and not full-blown typecasting, but she at least puts on a good show for the audience. She's completely sympathetic, unlike so many similar characters who would be instantly hated by the audience. I will watch Marisa Tomei and Kevin Bacon in just about anything, but while both do great jobs, neither is used to their full advantage in supporting roles. Analeigh Tipton is surprising on two counts. One, far more of the story is dedicated to her point of view than I had anticipated; and two, the young actress is actually quite good as the Weaver's teenage babysitter. She carries a certain innocence to her that isn't apparent in the trailer, and she's easily better than Jonah Bobo, the young Weaver spawn who eventually becomes the film's most annoying character.

Here's looking at you, kid... seriously, you're young enough to be his daughter
Looking at love from too many angles to count, Crazy, Stupid, Love really goes without sleep to deliver a strong narrative that makes you feel every emotion that the filmmakers want of you. Not the least bit subtle, the film makes up for that fact by presenting everything to you on a silver platter of fun, empathy and wisdom that can't help but charm. It's not the best romantic comedy I've seen this year (that would be Woody Allen's  Midnight in Paris) but it's right up there among the year's smartest and most heartfelt releases. To say it's worth seeing would almost seem like a disservice, but then again I would have to worry about anyone who can't get behind the excess of charm and heart that this film delivers to its audience. So go see it; Ryan Gosling deserves your patronage.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Blue Saturday Movie Watching

It's official. Blue Valentine is 2010's #2 film. And I really can't tell you about it. I'll say what I can, of course, but its definitely better for film viewers to go in with no idea what the film is truly about, and for that reason the filmmakers should be pleased that the vast majority of people intending to see this only really know this title for the initial NC-17 rating the MPAA gave it before an appeal brought it down to rated R before release. Frankly, it was kind of silly for the film to get such a rating, and this should mean some success for the simply-made indie film, especially with award season underway.

Blue Valentine is the story of a relationship, in this case between Dean (Ryan Gosling), a painter and sometimes-musician, and Cindy (Michelle Williams), a nurse and medical student. The film follows their life as a couple from just before its initial conception to a modern-day crossroads, and portrays it in an unflinching realism that's much darker than most fans of the trailer might expect.

When you have a film with this low a budget, having strong talent in the acting corps is a must. Gosling, who for years now has played critically-acclaimed roles in largely-unheralded films, may have the role of his life thus far as Dean, a high-school drop-out cursed with "limitless potential" who would rather dedicate his life to his relationship with Cindy than anything else. Gosling approaches the role with an array of talents, including deft subtlety, inescapable charm and an amazing persona that at times soothes the spirit and at other times repulses greatly. I can't go into more detail; you'll understand if you see it. Williams likewise may have her biggest role to date, bigger than Jen Lindley or Alma Beers. As Cindy, she has to undergo emotional transformation that goes from happiest she's ever been to distraught in the range of a scene or two and never once is she unbelievable in doing so. What is even better than their individual performances is how well they work as a couple, their chemistry is so that together they make possibly the most believable film couple of 2010, surpassing many comprised of far more established actors.

As for the "ratings controversy" that probably would have derailed Blue Valentine's chances at commercial success, I can say with certainty that the filmmakers were right to appeal for a lesser rating than the initial NC-17. Though there were many objectionable items throughout the film, the rating was mainly given for one emotionally-charges sex scene at the film's midway point. Frankly, though what actually happens is not something you see in cinema nowadays, it's not pornographic and hardly offensive enough to warrant that kind of rating. Rated R is a much more appropriate and allows the film to actually garner an audience. Sure, there have been successful NC-17 films, most notably Midnight Cowboy and A Clockwork Orange (when it was still referred to as an "X" rating) but these days it carries a more negative connotation than most producers or distributors want to be associated with.

The excellent directing of Derek Cianfrance shows many scenes shot in one take, and the ability to make an excellent film without a dozen takes per scene makes Blue Valentine feel more authentic as a film and the audience more ingrained in the story of this couple. It has several difficult themes that are uncomfortable to watch for many people yet nevertheless are realistically rendered. That the film is so real, so uncomfortable while never allowing me to draw my eyes from the screen is the reason I rate it so highly. 2010 has gotten a rap as being a poor year for films, and while that might be true for the blockbuster giants, it's indubitably allowed the independent films to take over, with films like Blue Valentine getting the big chances they might not have had otherwise. Reward them for that chance.