The Not-So-Great Gatsby

If you went to high school in the United States, chances are you had to read F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel 'The Great Gatsby.' And if you did, you likely realize that better perhaps than any other work of fiction, Fitzgerald captured the essence and spirit of what we call the "Roaring Twenties", with the freely available liquor and cares hidden so far below the surface they're practically unrecognizable. It was the party after allied victory in The Great War, and before we would realize the devastation that was the Great Depression. On the cinematic front, there are now five adaptations of Gatsby, ranging from Herbert Brenon's original 1926 entry to the classic 1974 film scripted by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Robert Redford and Sam Waterston. But Baz Lurhmann's latest rendition of Fitzgerald's seminal work looks to change the entire look and feel we've been accustomed to in 2013's The Great Gatsby. For one thing, it's Baz frickin' Lerhmann, the man whose modernist film adaptation of Romeo + Juliet has become easily the most popular cinematic version of Shakespeare's most famous play. This is a man who has become known for his visual splendor, a la Moulin Rouge and Australia. Even if you're not a fan of his work, you have to admit that he takes an artistic effort to make his movies as visually arresting as possible. Looking at the early trailers for his Gatsby, it's easy to see how his ocular voluminosity could work wonders with the age of excess that was the 1920's.

When the bowtie was king.

For those of you who still haven't read 'Gatsby' (or if you're like me and have forgotten most of it), it's the story of nouveau riche millionaire Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man known for his extravagant all-night parties and his mysterious anonymity. He takes interest in young neighbor Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), and pines after the love of his life, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). But Daisy is married to philandering Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), and until now didn't even realize that Gatsby was still alive. In the chaos that follows, friendships are tried and tested, and in the end, we learn just who the cryptic Jay Gatsby really is.

Wish I could see what was so interesting.

The good news is that Luhrmann's vision of the world Fitzgerald originally created is largely fitting. Gatsby's parties are full of pomp and circumstance, and the showy decorations, ginormous and elaborate mansions and the outrageous dresses looking both perfectly modern and eminently appropriate for the time. The director also has a flair for cinematography, capturing shots beautiful to the naked eye. The special effects work is unfortunately hit-or-miss; while his shots of the majestic (but still under construction) New York City are gorgeous, some of his more action-oriented visuals - most notably Gatsby driving his gold-tinted car though the city - have enough twinges of falsity to their animation that it's unfortunately noticeable. A few other visuals don't exactly work (makeup effects create some very cartoonish characters, for instance), but for the most part Luhrmann's efforts are successful. Far more likable is the soundtrack, compiled by Jay-Z, which includes the hip-hot artist alongside pop artists Lana Del Ray, Florence and the Machines and a host of others current-day performers. While the soundtrack is very much modern, Jay-Z's talents combined with Lurhmann's modernist touches never lets the anachronistic soundtrack feel out of place in the ninety year-old setting.

Daisy could use these flowers as camouflage.

The Great Gatsby is also another step on the great career that is Leonardo DiCaprio stardom. For the longest time DiCaprio was the epitome of unfulfilled potential, often performing well enough but not at the level of excellence many had predicted for him (and in the case of Titanic, sometimes less than that). That abruptly changed in 2004 with The Aviator, with such a mature performance that rose above almost everything else that year. He proved that year was no fluke by following it up by great performance after great performance, starring in The Departed, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island, Inception, J. Edgar, and Django Unchained. In Gatsby, he once again puts forth a dominating effort, perhaps the greatest characterization of the suave and emotional Jay Gatsby to date. One of the rumors for why this film was pushed back was so that DiCaprio would not have to lobby for two award nominations at once (along with Django, which sadly saw him left off the Oscar ballot), and if true his showing here definitely gives the theory some merit. Still, it's not entirely his show, and Luhrmann does a decent job surrounding him with great actors like Mulligan, Edgerton, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke and Australian newcomer Elizabeth Debicki, all of whom meld into their characters and provide their much-appreciated talents.

One of the bigger talents in the movie. No, I don't mean Tobey.

Sadly, the acting is also largely where Gatsby goes wrong, most decisively with Tobey Maguire, who trounces everybody's combined good efforts with a performance worthy of the Razzies. Maguire is so completely miscast for the role that it almost seems silly to criticize his performance, but since he was the man Luhrmann chose to narrate his tale, I'm going to do so anyway. Maguire varies between trite, boring voice-overs and overly emotive dialogue, and never succeeds at drawing any interest from his audience. It's bad enough that Nick Carraway is a boring side character in the life of Jay Gatsby, but as we're supposed to be seeing all of the action through Nick's perspective, it would have been nice to actually want to give a damn about him. Instead we're forced to suffer through some of the worst dramatic acting this year, and all because Luhrmann wouldn't realize that Maguire had been regressing talent-wise since he peaked almost a decade ago. Nick Carraway CAN be interesting (Watterston did it in the seventies!), but Maguire absolutely sinks any good his character might have achieved.

"A toast to forget the last two hours."

Maguire is not the lone problem with Gatsby (how did Luhrmann not learn how to cut and edit a film by now?), but he is the most obvious and offensive flaw within it. While it's visually splendid, does have a few good moments and is largely well-acted, this Great Gatsby is a drab, soulless, BORING recitation that almost put me to sleep on more than one occasion. There's just nothing going on behind the scenes, and the director does little to make Fitzgerald's creation relevant beyond his cosmetic touch-ups. Luhrmann's work is all sound and fury, and while he definitely makes the film all his own, it remains one of the more disappointing of the year, and perhaps will even be remembered as one of the year's worst. Fans of the director and Fitzgerald fanatics might get what they want out of this, but everybody else should stay far, far away.

Open Letters Monthly: Zero Dark Thirty

One of the most important moments of our generation is easily the attack by extremists on September 11, 2001. If you were to ask ten people on the street, nine would be able to tell you exactly where they were when news of the first plane crashing into Tower One. Since then, we as a nation have been subjected t constant conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries around the globe in what has become known as "The War on Terror." While it has yet to come to a close, 2011 saw an end of sorts when a covert task group succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda and the man responsible for organizing attacks on our home soil.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has been trying to make this film since the success of her last Middle East war tale The Hurt Locker, and what she succeeds in bringing to the big screen takes everything you thought you knew about the War on Terror and turns it on its ear. Maya is a CIA operative newly stationed in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks. She single-mindedly dedicates herself to finding and eliminating her country's greatest threat, and sees many friends come and go for almost a decade. Finally, when all hope seems lost, one tiny lead will finally lead her to the end of her mission and the safety of her country.

Zero Dark Thirty is directed by Kathryn Bigelow and stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle, Edgar Ramirez, Mark Duplass and James Gandolfini. It is the #1 movie of 2012.

Click here to read the full review on Open Letters Monthly.

A Disney Oddity

When I first saw promotional material for The Odd Life of Timothy Green, I was still dating former "loyal sidekick" Anne. That was over a year ago - well before Todd and I met - and illustrates just how long parent company Disney has been pushing this feel-good family release. It seems like an odd decision to do so; in the time since, similar film We Bought a Zoo released its trailers, got into theaters in December, banked its profits and released on DVD. For such a title as Odd Life to promote itself a year in advance seems like either shoddy marketing or a failure in the making. In fact, after seeing that trailer for the first time, I didn't see a single follow-up until just this past spring, causing me to believe that the movie had been delayed due to negative feedback. But no, August 15'th was always meant to be the film's release date, and The Odd Life of Timothy Green, with midcard performers Jennifer Garner and Joel Edgerton at the forefront, finally hit theaters a couple of weeks ago. Worth the extensive wait? I suppose it depends how much saccharine you like in your coffee.

Parents without a clue.

When married couple Cindy (Garner) and Jim (Edgerton) Green discover that they cannot conceive a child, they are understandably crushed. Cindy desires that same proud feeling her sister expresses about her "gifted" children, while Jim desperately wants to be the attentive, loving father he never had. Spending every dime they had on medical treatments and examinations, they are at the end of their rope. Finally, in an attempt to move on, they take down all the ideas of what their perfect child would be, lock those written notes in a box, and bury it in the garden. That night, they are shocked to discover a young boy (CJ Adams) appear in their home, a boy who apparently dug himself out of the garden. Calling himself Timothy, the naive and earnest boy sets about changing the lives of the Greens and their friends and family, in many unexpected ways. But what nobody but Timothy knows is that he only has a limited amount of time on this Earth...

The "Family Talent Show" did not go as well as planned...

I admit that there were some notions of the trailers that had sparked my interest, from the magical appearance of Timothy to the leaves that are seen on his legs from the get-go. But beyond that, the idea that this movie could be anything beyond its "miraculous" lead character didn't seem possible, and director Peter Hedges doesn't do anything to prove me wrong. It's all Timothy, all the time, and between his parents' shock at everything he does and says to people alternating between thinking he's weird and genuinely liking him, his presence gets very tired VERY fast. It doesn't help that CJ Adams is just one in a long line of annoying kid actors whose earnestness and energy become a major liability the more the audience is exposed to them. And despite the fact that both Garner and Edgerton are quality talents, neither is at the top of their respective games. We've seen the pensive mother-type from Garner before, but she was so much better in Juno. And for Edgerton, going from dark, gritty roles in Animal Kingdom, The Thing and Warrior to a more family-friendly movie doesn't feel as genuine as he and I had hoped.

How does this end? He leaves her.

 This means that The Odd Life of Timothy Green must live or die by the strength of its supporting characters, a varied bunch limited by the cliched similarities inherent in small-town American towns. Rosemarie Dewitt (who has appeared in a lot this year), Dianne Wiest, M. Emmet Walsh, David Morse, Ron Livingston and Common play normal people in normal ways and don't really do anything special outside of being very talented, which is fine but not great. There are a few standouts, however. Playing Timothy's best friend, Odeya Rush makes a wonderful splash as the reserved, artistic Joni. And Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo carries the small role of a representative for an adoption firm that the Greens are in contact with. Both actresses put on great performances, but are sadly underused and could have done much more to liven up the story.

The whole thing is about as exciting as this screenshot

Because despite the talent of the people onscreen, it is the story that sinks Timothy Green. The plot feels incredibly thin, as Timothy's journey to impact lives over and over again and help Cindy and Jim overcome their parenting hiccups stops being charming after the first hour. What follows is boredom: lots and LOTS of boredom as you wait for something (Anything!) fun to happen. There's no way small children will be able to maintain their attention throughout this movie, which is weird since this IS supposed to be a family film. While it does keep the sugar factor going strong and wrap up things in a happy fashion, it doesn't make the boring interludes forgivable, nor does it manage to carry the script beyond the interesting idea that it once was.

"Hello, I must be going."

It's that lack of follow through that makes The Odd Life of Timothy Green one of this year's lesser films. It's not horrible, but much more needed to be done to make this a film a classic children's film, and it ends up in the lower half of 2012's mid-range pack. This is Disney playing it safe, while ParaNorman does a much better job entertaining kids in its own charmingly subversive way. Wholly uninteresting and not worth the ticket price, you can save Timothy Green for a final-option DVD rental.

All Good Things

There are some things that don't appear to be completely thought out when it comes to Hollywood business ideas. Horror films set in space. Films based on obscure teen novels. Tom Cruise. All of these things are poor, poor concepts that continue to thrive in cinema thanks to the misguided notions of not very bright people; they continue to exist because the people in charge simply don't know any better. Possibly the worst of these offenders is the remake, long reviled by movie purists who use it as an argument that the film industry is all out of good ideas. That isn't to say that there haven't been good - or even great - remakes in the history of Hollywood. Between Oceans Eleven, 3:10 to Yuma, and Let Me In, Hollywood has had its fair share of successes in that particular department. One of the better remakes in history was one of the 1951 science fiction film The Thing from Another World. Though initially failing at the box office, John Carpenter's The Thing would eventually became a cult classic. While 2011's new entry The Thing is in fact a prequel of that title and not a true remake, not many people seem to have noticed this and the fact that it features the same shape-changing creature, Antarctic locale and "who can you trust" storyline doesn't help its cause. Still, it was for me a more compelling a theatrical visit than the new Footloose, so there was no question that I would see this over the weekend.

"We'll blind it... with science!"

In 1982, University of Colombia geologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is invited to visit a science camp in Antarctica which has made a groundbreaking discovery. Deep beneath the ice, an alien spacecraft has been discovered after 100,000 years of solitude alongside an ancient intergalactic passenger frozen completely solid. Sure that they have made the discovery of the century, Kate and the science team are making preparations to take the creature home when the unthinkable happens, as the monster escapes and begins hunting the members of the team. With an ability to shapeshift into any human form and assume the identities of those it kills, it is not long before the survivors find themselves unsure who they can trust and whether they will be able to escape this nightmare scenario.

Winstead doing her best Ellen Ripley impression

When you're making a horror film, even one with sci-fi basis, there's nothing more cliche than the ragtag science team that can't understand what is happening to them. It doesn't help when the people you cast in these roles are so similar-looking as to completely blend into one another save for singular glaring differences. Still, there are a few standouts among them, allowing most of the cannon fodder to be killed off with little to no hard feelings. Mary Elizabeth Winstead proves herself a solid scream queen after impressing me with her perpetually-amused Ramona Flowers in 2010's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Here she plays much more serious a part but doesn't hesitate to carry the film's load squarely on her shoulders when needed. Winstead may not be a household name but with more solid outings like this she may soon be. Joel Edgerton is in just about everything these days. He became known to most American audiences though his small role in last year's Australian crime drama Animal Kingdom, though he had been making random appearances for years in film, including the much-maligned Star Wars prequels. But now he's making a name for himself, and even if his films aren't getting much attention (including the overlooked gem Warrior), Edgerton has succeeded in simply making people pay attention to him. Sure, here he plays the gung-ho American pilot (the Kurt Russell role, I call it), but he manages to take that role and make it his, which is a talent you can't teach. Ulrich Thomsen does his best Kenneth Brannagh impression as the antagonistic lead scientist who puts his own glory ahead of the common good. After that if you can recognize anyone not the black guy (Lost's Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) you've earned yourself a gold star. Most of the rest are a faceless pack, and don't do much to differentiate themselves before they are killed or transformed, which apparently happens whenever they leave our line of sight.

There's a lot of gun pointing going on

One thing to be said about advancements in technology is that what was impossible two decades ago can be reborn quite easily in this day and age. Of course, this also allows for you to get into more trouble if you have little idea what you are actually doing, and both sides of the puzzle are hit upon when it comes to The Thing's special effects department. Certainly the 1982 film built the perfect atmosphere that made the entire Antarctic environs so frightening - it was a classic Carpenter film, after all - but director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr manages to create a world arguably as stimulating if not more so thanks to today's leaps and bounds in technology and set design. Though some scenes, such as one in which Kate views the stars through the clear Southern sky, are beautiful to behold as can be, there are still a few flaws that haven't quite worked their way out. This was a criticism I had with 2010's top Oscar contender The Social Network, but the digitally-rendered frozen breath is more than a little distracting, as it looks no more real than the animated critters in the latest Indiana Jones flick did. Instead of trying too hard with the imagery, the budget for which was obviously heavily invested in the design and implementation of the monsters, perhaps turning down a thermostat would have been easier, cheaper, and more realistic. I have no complaints about the monster itself, which in many forms is rendered with amazing clarity, suffering not one whit when we see it in detail up close. Overall, the fog breath is a relatively minor quibble when the rest is almost masterfully pulled off by an obviously talented team.

In war films, they always run towards the enemy. This isn't a war movie.

Of course, if you've seen the classic John Carpenter thriller, there's little reason that this would need to be on your must-see list in 2011. With remarkably fewer scares, it's essentially the same tale presented here, with some additional back story for the creature and obviously different characters doing little to change the basic themes and ideas that the classic horror film instituted. This is an especially frustrating concept when your title in question is a prequel that feels more like a simple retread than it really should. Winstead and Edgerton may be stars on the rise, but they would have to be the MAIN reasons you want to see this movie, as a simple trip to the video store will gain you the same overall experience without paying out the nose for popcorn and a soda. Still, getting out to see The Thing proved to be an overall good time, so if you really do need an immediate horror experience and since there is literally NOTHING in that genre to see in the theaters right now, this should be right up your alley.

Fighting Chance

There are some things that no matter how you suggest, advertise or promote, many people simply won't or can't change their mindset about. Professional wrestling will always be called a "fake" sport with soap opera dramatics. NASCAR will always be seen as entertainment for rednecks and a tactic to keep the South from rising again. Video games rot your brains. Baseball is slow and boring. The Twilight series is poorly written (or poorly put on the screen, take your pick). It doesn't matter how you argue against these statements, there are some people who simply will not be swayed no matter no intelligent or passionate your stance. Mixed Martial Arts is another in that long line, a sport that can trace its roots back to the ancient Olympic sport of pankration, in which men would fight one another using several methods to strike down their opponent or grapple him into submission. Criticized for being brutal and ultra-violent, MMA has gained a bad rap with many people, despite being much more civilized than Professional Boxing was in its heyday. As a relatively new sport, it's still fighting for recognition and respect from potential audiences. That's part of the reason Warrior, the MMA-inspired drama by Miracle director Gavin O'Connor, faltered severely when it went head to head with Contagion last weekend. The film seemed to have a strong stance going into the weekend, with many trailers and previews making it look like a blend of Rocky, The Fighter, and Miracle. It also headlined up-and-coming performers Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton, not to mention the the comeback of former Academy Award nominee Nick Nolte. In the end however, it was the MMA tag that likely drove most of the prospective audience members away, as too many people who would have enjoyed this title were apathetic about giving this young sport any more attention than they thought it deserved.

Stop calling him Rocky!

When war hero Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy) returns to his hometown of Pittsburgh, it is surprising that his first stop is the home of his father Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte), who was a drunk and abusive husband and father when Tommy was young. Despite Paddy having been sober for almost a thousand days, Tommy isn't home to build bridges and catch up. Paddy was a skilled fight coach, and Tommy wants his father to help him train for an upcoming MMA tournament featuring the top sixteen middleweights in the world, with a five million dollar prize the largest purse the sport has ever seen. Meanwhile, Tommy's estranged brother Brendan Conlon (Joel Edgerton) is trying to raise a family on a meager teacher's salary that he has had to supplement by fighting competitively at bars, much to the chagrin of his wife Tess (Jennifer Morrison). Having been a former MMA fighter, Brendan has little problem handling small-timers with no experience, but he needs a ton of money to keep his house from being foreclosed, and therefore needs to improve his skills in the cage. With a lot of hard work (and a little luck) he manages to find himself in the same exclusive tournament. Eventually it comes down to brother vs. brother, and Tommy and Brendan must solve their differences both physically and emotionally before they can accept one another again.

"Warrior is a knockout!" Anybody use that tag line yet?

Ignore for a second the fact that this film is entirely predictable and smarmy to almost a fault. The story of a fractured family and a sport of violence somehow bringing it back together is so expertly told that  even though you know what is coming, the tale is rarely boring and never frustrates you with its overly convenient plot turns. With the exception of a brief midway collage of imagery of the two brothers training, the precision of the narrative is razor sharp, and the focus on each character is starkly different so as to make each feel remarkably unique. You want to root for Brendan because he's a dedicated family man and you think hard work should pay off in the end, but Emo Tommy is so full of ANGER that you just want to give him a hug and make his pain go away, before he puts the pain on someone else. That both heroes are likable for completely different reasons is a genuine feat, one that makes the finale that much more difficult to anticipate. That's right, you don't know who will come out on top in the end, but you DO know that you don't want either of them to lose.

The obligatory late night scene

This is in large thanks to the superlative cast that was put on full display. Hardy and Edgerton are two future superstars, and both are at the beginning of major career pushes that should see them become household names not too far in the future. Hardy is especially effective here as the soft-spoken but clearly enraged Tommy, looking for any outlet for his aggression and a cause to call his own. He steadily controls almost every scene, and one look at his body speaks epics about his commitment to the project. It's almost unfair to compare Edgerton to his cinematic brother, but the Australian actor does prove himself a top tier talent, successfully balancing between determined combatant and loving family man with ease. He also works well with Morrison, who gets a few chances to make herself known in the obligatory "suffering wife" role. It's Nolte though who will be absorbing the affection of voters come this award season. Playing a recovering alcoholic, Nolte is strong in his nuanced performance, which features him barely raising his voice but still being able to wring just about every emotion out of his wheezes. Even though he is rudely ousted by the film's end, if there's anybody here courting awards, it's Nolte; only the film's poor box office performance could deter that.

"Just don't maim too many people today, honey"

If there's one thing truly wrong with Warrior, it's the film packing so much into one standalone story. There is a TON of setup throughout the film in preparation for the finale, and even with the truncated training compendium I mentioned earlier this title still comes in at 140 minutes, almost a quarter of which is the climactic tournament. Fortunately much of the time goes smoothly and this extended playtime passes without any real issues. The narrative paces itself nicely, and the story is like a well-cultivated meal for the senses in the way it is told. It helps that there are the strong characters on which the tale can fall back, and that helps the time pass without any dull stretches. There are also a few cliches that could have been bypassed, such as a pointless secondary feud between Tommy and another fighter (Strikeforce star Erik Apple), or the unbeatable Russian (a call back to Miracle) fighter Koba, played by American former gold medalist Kurt Angle. These minor problems are made up for by the footage of the tournament, which plays out like a Greek tragedy on steroids. Even non-fans should be able to get into the struggle of each fight leading to the brothers' final encounter.

It's Cain and Abel with brass knuckles

For a moment I want you to put your MMA biases aside. Can you do that? Thank you. Warrior is so far the most ignored great movie of 2011. If you look at it objectively, you can see why I have it set at #6 for 2011. Excellent direction? Check. Great characters that draw you into the story? Check. Emotional baggage that ties it all together in a convincing manner? SUPER check. Even if the film's irregular vehicle of Mixed Martial Arts isn't your cup of tea, that shouldn't deter you from catching this film in theaters, where it is struggling without your help. Just because you're like me and not a fan of the sport doesn't mean you should allow yourself to miss out. Do yourself a favor and see it while it's still there.

Dog Eat Dog

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

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

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

Weaver = Wow

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

Special appearance by Coco?

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

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

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