Somewhere Alongside the Moonrise: The Grand Budapest Hotel

I still think Moonrise Kingdom should have been nominated for Best Picture.

Wes Anderson's 2012 nostalgic comedy was one of many casualties that Oscar season, which also saw Kathryn Bigelow and Ben Affleck (whose Argo took Best Picture) miss out on Best Director nominations. That year was... kind of a mess. It's almost as if people are ignoring little gems like this while overindulging on and celebrating David O. Russell and his admittedly good - but by no means groundbreaking or original - fare. Not that Anderson, the Texan director whose movies seem to run on whimsy and charm, is lacking in public attention. Though he's had a few bombs, Anderson has reached that point in his career where not only does the mere mention of his name elicit squeals of glee from fanboys and fangirls, but his films have also proven good, quirky and unique enough to draw in more mainstream audiences. And Moonrise Kingdom is one of his most inclusive, with all the nuttiness of Rushmore but more approachable at the same time.

Ralph Fiennes: one less great actor who hasn't worked with Anderson.

So can The Grand Budapest Hotel capitalize on that and become Wes Anderson's greatest work yet? Well, yes and no. Budapest is arguably one of Anderson's most artistic efforts, as his distinct style is all over the German locations and sets in which the film was shot. Whether it's opulently-colored models, creative camera techniques or unique character models, Anderson is at his glee-inducing best. His story of a legendary hotel concierge (Ralph Fiennes) falsely accused of murder and on the run from the law with his loyal lobby boy Zero (newcomer Tony Revolori) would make for a great thriller, if the screenplay (also written by Anderson) wasn't content to throw every humorous anecdote and amusing situation along the way to lighten the mood. The fact that Fiennes can talk about sleeping with older women in the same nonchalant tone in which he tells of the violent passing of a fellow prison escapee proves that he belongs in this director's pantheon of recurring performers, many of whom make their presences known.

I even liked Jude Law in this! Truly this Anderson is sacred!

And it's a great cast that the director has assembled here. Though there are a few returning actors that could have done more (no more than a small cameo for Bill Murray?), The Grand Budapest Hotel is surprisingly built upon its new talent, with the Anderson regulars filling out the smaller support roles. Fortunately, that new talent is headlined by Fiennes, who is simply put on of the best actors working today. Revolori also impresses, and the two make for an excellent pair, as the younger actor's innocent and eminently loyal sidekick plays beautifully against Fiennes' haughty, confident and charismatic leading man. And the cast is littered with excellence, Saoirse Ronan as Zero's dutiful but independent fiance to Tilda Swinton as a wealthy hotel patron, to Adrien Brody as her inheritance-seeking son to Willem DaFoe as his thinly-veiled violent sociopath of a lackey. Returning actors Edward Norton and Jeff Goldblum also find their marks as a police inspector and a by-the-book lawyer, respectively.

No, really, there's a funny story in here.

Budapest also carries an extra dose of the zaniness that makes Wes Anderson more than just a standard filmmaker, from his use of four distinct narrators (F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Tom Wilkinson, and yes, I'm including the girl with the book at the beginning) to the Mexico-shaped birthmark on one character's face to having a man named "Monsieur Chuck" (Owen Wilson) to the beautiful cakes designed so that the prison would not want to disturb them looking for concealed escape tools. The atmosphere that the director creates never feels stale, and while there are times that a scene feels a tad overlong, it's a rare occurrence, and usually is made up for by the kind of irreverent humor and witty dialogue that feels reminiscent of the golden age of spoken comedy.

That's a lot of flattened cakes.

Unfortunately, The Grand Budapest Hotel is SO MUCH like a Wes Anderson comedy that.... it never really takes that next step you might have been expecting after the magic that was Moonrise Kingdom. Much like how Django Unchained was Tarantino's sideways step from Inglorious Basterds, Budapest just doesn't feel that different from Moonrise, not in locale or story (which are obviously differing) but in tone and pacing. The humor is the same, and the character archetypes just FEEL as though they've got Anderson's hands all over them. Keep in mind, that's not a bad thing. I mentioned before how the story would make for a great thriller, and another director would have done just that. By subverting that story and combining it with his style of moviemaking, however, Anderson makes something undeniably, indelibly his. And like the excellent Django, that identifiabe voice is what makes The Grand Budapest Hotel the wonderful experience that it is.

Nope, nothing suspicious going on here!

And while that means that The Grand Budapest Hotel ultimately appeals a little more to diehard Anderson fans than the average moviegoing audience, it's still one of the best movies released so far in 2014. You never know where the story will go next, and it makes for an excellent quirky, lo-fi option if you're already tired out from the big-budget tentpoles films that are starting to make their way into theaters. If you haven't already gone out of your way to see this, now is the best time to make it happen. Just don't expect anything truly groundbreaking - by Anderson's standards, anyway - and you'll enjoy your time at the movies very, very much.

Please Consult a Physician

So this is Steven Soderbergh's last film, huh?

Meh, I've seen better.

Don't take that as grim satisfaction, those of you who avoided Side Effects this past week purely based on the HORRIBLE trailer that made the rounds before its recent release in theaters. Despite the silliness and melodrama you might have thought would be the backbone of an overly exaggerated caution tale, Soderbergh's drug-popping thriller surpasses expectations and turns out to be much better than you might have initially imagined.

Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns (who penned the director's disease drama Contagion) decides to focus his efforts on the pharmaceutical industry in this claustrophobic drama about young New Yorker Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), accused of a serious crime. The trick is that Emily was on medication for depression at the time of the incident and claims that she was sleepwalking (an effect of the drug) when she committed the deed. Soon the focus of the investigation turns to her psychologist, Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who prescribed the medication to her. As Jonathan's private life rapidly falls apart over the fallout, he frantically obsesses over his search for the truth: is Emily a victim of his malpractice, or is something far more sinister going on?

Maybe she'll feel better. Maybe not...

Soderbergh reminds us once again why he's one of the more renowned directors in Hollywood by presenting us a film that is undeniably different from anything else out there while still appealing to our mainstream sensibilities. The first two thirds of the movie are taut with suspense, fraught with drama, and manage to maintain focus on his message. In that regard, it's positively terrifying to see into a world where prescription and nonprescription drugs are not only quickly handed out for any condition, but are in fact the subject of everyday conversations between the people of this universe, while we in the real world can only respond with: "Yeah, that actually happens." That's what makes Side Effects so... effective; the world and situations  presented to us could easily happen in real life. Emphasizing that point are excellent performances by Mara and Law (that's right, I'm praising a Jude Law performance). Mara, in the followup to her excellent portrayal of Lisbeth Salander in 2011's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, threads the needle of emotion in a role that requires a ton of flexibility to work. Mara might still look like she's still a teenager, but her maturity shines through brightly, and if anybody was paying attention they might be looking at this young woman as a future Oscar candidate. Law meanwhile manages to turn a typically smarmy performance to his benefit, toning it down and managing to play an effective protagonist and sympathetic character. Even Channing Tatum, who has a small but important role, carries his load admirably, continuing to show the improvement he's taken from his excellent 2012.

Same actor as Contagion; not so much of an ass.

But where Soderbergh and Burns put together an effective story for much of the film, it's the end game of Side Effects where they nearly drop the ball. While you can't deny the haunting twists and turns the screenplay takes, there's one thing the movie cannot avoid, and that's spoiling itself. When the climax finally comes around, not only is it plainly explained as though it were the blue of the sky, but it's largely PREDICTABLE. That's a huge letdown after the pair had been so effective at trickling out limited clues beforehand. Another disappointment? The casting of Catherine Zeta-Jones as a Emily's previous psychologist, Dr. Siebert. I'm not sure if the part was lazily written (I'm not ruling it out) or if the Academy Award-winning actress was simply miscast, but her eyebrow-raising (not in a good way) work was part of the reason I was able to sort-of predict the finale. Still, the director does an excellent technical job, and his ability behind the camera almost completely makes up for the few missteps he actually makes.

What a waste.

Between Soderbergh's excellent direction, the outstanding acting of his leads, and his easily-understood but still-terrifying look at the world of psychiatric medicine, Side Effects is a much better movie than you would ever expect. It does manage to become the #3 movie of 2013, though that's almost more a testament to quality of the competition as it is to the Hitchcock-like quality of Side Effects itself. Still, I don't doubt that this is a movie that will take you by surprise should you actually give it the time of day. This might be Soderbergh's last major motion picture, and while I wish he had gone out on a higher note (this is the man who brought us Erin Brockovich, Oceans 11 and Magic Mike, after all), it's not the worst place to end the journey, either. But while Steven Soderbergh will be likely be remembered for his unique style of storytelling and ability to make just about anything interesting, Side Effects seems destined to finish up in the "forgotten" pile.

Open Letters Monthly: Rise of the Guardians

Dreamworks finally makes their presence felt in the 2012 Oscar race for best Animated Feature with the release of Rise of the Guardians, the folk-tale inspired film based on the Guardians of Childhood series of books by William Joyce. Though Dreamworks has often lived in the shadow of Pixar as far as their animated features have gone, they are always capable of putting out something extraordinary, such as the original Shrek or How to Train Your Dragon. Likely to be nominated, and with Pixar putting out a great-but-not-Pixar-level product in Brave, and Dreamworks might actually have a shot at the big prize this season.

Jack Frost doesn't know why he suddenly came into existence almost 300 years ago. All he knows is that he controls the cold weather, isn't seen by anybody, and wants to live without rules and restrictions that would compromise the fun he has every day. But when the Boogeyman returns from centuries of isolation in an attempt to rule the world with fear, Jack finds himself summoned to join the Guardians of Childhood, led by the legendary Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Sandman. Together, they have a chance to fight back, and Jack may just discover the person he was meant to be.

Rise of the Guardians is directed by Peter Ramsey and features the voices of Chris Pine, Alec Baldwin, Jude Law, Isla Fisher and Hugh Jackman.

Click here for the complete review at Open Letters Monthly.

A Game Afoot

Well, not EVERY December film release aspires to be a major award winner. While studios DO release what they consider to be the best of the best at this time of the year in anticipation for the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, SAG awards et al, they still need to make money for their efforts. With so many nominated films being limited released, niche affairs, it only makes sense to put out a few serious moneymakers to distract those who might not have (or don't wish to see) The Artist or Shame playing at a theater near them just yet. That's why I saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows this past weekend. The sequel to the Guy Richie-directed 2009 Sherlock Holmes, this film brings back not only the visually prolific director, but arguably the best duo to have ever played the incomparable Sherlock Holmes and his loyal assistant Dr. John Watson. I'm the first to admit that I didn't think much of the casting choices when they were laid out two years ago, as Robert Downey Jr. had only recently proven his value and drug rehabilitation with 2008's superhero flick Iron Man, and I've tended to dislike Jude Law in whatever film he appeared (a trend that still continues today, mind you). When I did get around to seeing the new interpretation of the master detective, what stuck me most was the ability of the lead actors to play perfectly off of one another, which was more than enough to make up for the film's most acute flaws. This playful character interaction was what made me so excited to see the newly-released A Game of Shadows, as well as the addition of Swedish actress Noomi Rapace to the cast. Rapace made a name for herself playing Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish film adaptation of the Millennium series by Stieg Larsson (Rooney Mara, you have a lot to live up to), and I was excited to see what she could bring to her first English language film.

And THAT'S what happens when you cross the streams, Venkman

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows begins not long after the revelations at the end of its predecessor. Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr) is hunting down proof that renowned Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) is responsible for bombings and murders across Europe, tensing the major nations for a potential war across the continent. Moriarty is very good at covering his tracks however, and Holmes can find no immediate proof to substantiate his claims. Meanwhile, Watson (Law) is preparing to marry his love interest from the first film, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), and has stepped away from assisting Holmes in his investigations. However, when Moriarty sends his goons to kill the newlyweds as they travel to their Honeymoon, Sherlock whisks them to safety. The legendary mystery solvers pair up for one last mission, alongside a fortune-telling gypsy with a personal stake in the story (Rapace), to take down one of the era's (and classic literature's) most brilliant criminal masterminds.

There's a story here; I just know it

The story behind the film is of course based on the extensive works of Sherlock's creator, the great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. More to the point, it is loosely based on his story The Final Problem, as pivotal a Holmes tale as you can have. Much of what made Sherlock Holmes so much fun two years ago is still here: visual appealing direction, properly-distributed spoken humor, gratuitous action sequences that are actually well-thought out; it's this last part that really makes Sherlock Holmes stand out among the glut of brainless action-oriented movies every year. Thanks to Holmes as a character being able to anticipate and adapt to any fighting situation, some of the film's best moments include the precursor to Downy Jr.'s battles, in which we see inside his mind and watch him plot out and choreograph every major moment in the upcoming brawl. From an aesthetic standpoint it's spotless, and the final product is often made all the better by seeing beforehand what will come. Director Guy Ritchie has become an expert on the different visual styles necessary to make these sequences stand out, and under his plan the whole thing feels organic and without error.

Oh, the happy memories...

The film also stands a head over its predecessor by skewing much more closely to its source material, and by sating Holmes' greatest fans' desires by pitting him against his most renowned villain, Professor Moriarty. In the former, several minor characters from Doyle's stories, including retired Colonel Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson) and Sherlock's own brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry), are brought in to provide more character interaction. Ritchie not only introduces these characters, but presents them in the same or remarkably similar fashion as Doyle intended, a move that seems odd in this day and age of adaptations that barely resemble the material on which they were based. In the latter, bringing Moriarty into the picture could have been disastrous if done incorrectly. Fortunately, the man is in almost every way portrayed as Holmes' equal, and superior in the few moments when he is not. Ruthless, conniving, and altogether just a bad guy, he is infinitely more memorable than the original film's adversary (bonus points for those who can give me his full name and title without looking up on Wikipedia), who was by no means memorable or important in comparison.

Yes, run FROM the explosions!

As before, the witty banter between Holmes and Watson is the main source of enjoyment that the film provides, and thankfully Downey Jr. and Law are still at top form when playing off of one another. As Holmes, Downey Jr. continues to shatter all those old images of the master detective as a stuffy know-it-all. Instead, Downey continues to play him as a stuffy know-it-all who can also throw a punch when needed. In a way, Downey's Sherlock Holmes is like a nineteenth century Batman, self-taught to be the best at everything. Downey also plays for laughs when needed, both as a master of disguise and with his mannerisms and wit. Law plays Watson as the straight man to Downey's madman perfectly, and as I've mentioned this is one of the few roles I've ever liked for him as an actor. His constant frustrations with Holmes are tempered by the respect of Sherlock's skills and their lifelong friendship, and that he can convey it so easily is a point in his favor. While the pair at the top of the cast are of course wonderful, a good core of support characters makes the real difference when it comes to how the tale moves forward. Jared Harris is perfect as the evil genius Moriarty, his piercing gaze and subtle ferocity making him the perfect cerebral enemy for Holmes. He is by far the best addition to the series, and if the franchise continues I would love to see more from his corner. On a more practical villainy front, Paul Anderson is menacing and effective as Moran, Moriarty's sharpshooting second in command. I don't know where Anderson has been all these years, but he gets plenty of chances to shine in this film and doesn't pass on any opportunities. Though Mycroft Holmes is largely played to comedic effect, Stephen Fry is up to the task, and he does a good job when asked to do something other than drop some funny dialogue. The only real disappointment in the cast is Rapace, though this is by no means her fault. While her rendition of a knife-throwing gypsy fortune-teller with a connection to Moriarty's network is well-played, and it was nice to not stick her in a cliched love-interest role, I can't help but feel that she is sorely underutilized. This came as something of a surprise, as the ads and trailers made such a big deal about her involvement, only for her to be moved to the side at most opportunities.

He'll kill you with kindness... Ha ha, no, he'll just kill you

So what is it I like the most about Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? Is it the wonderful visual effects? The compelling storytelling that misses no details? The ability to drop hints at the beginning that you completely forget until Holmes reintroduces it in solving his case? The wonderful acting, led by Downey Jr. and Law? The broad mix of humor and adventure? How about the exciting, climactic final battle between Holmes and Moriarty that is both a literal and figurative chess match? Presented with these options, I'm going to have to go with "all of the above", as Sherlock Holmes stands a good head over most movies released this year. It's not good enough for Top 10 status, but it holds place among other highly watchable and enjoyable fare with few flaws, among titles like The Muppets, Footloose and Crazy Stupid Love. Better than the original, and arguably better than any Sherlock Holmes film you can name, I can't recommend this title highly enough. Since The Artist isn't playing anywhere near you, try the next best thing: a smart, funny, highly engrossing title that won't make you feel stupid for having paid full price to see it.

"Hugo", not Weaving

There might not be a more celebrated director in Hollywood today than Martin Scorcese. The artist, who has been making groundbreaking films since the seventies, is renowned not only for his ability to create great cinema, but for also building a fundamentally different experience every time out, a skill not many of his peers can claim. For all that however, Scorcese has never made a film like Hugo until now. It must have surprised some when he announced he was going to make a PG-rated film in 3D (two firsts for the director) based on the not-exceptionally-well-known children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick. I mean, this is the guy who made serious adult fare like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull; Goodfellas and Casino; Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed. Compared to these awe-inducing titles, at first glance Hugo feels grossly out of place; a rogue family film hanging with the big boys.

We needn't have worried, however. After seeing Hugo, I'm quite happy naming it one of 2011's best films, and possibly one of Scorcese's best works in recent years. The story follows young orphan Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who lives within the walls of a Parisian rail station, maintaining the building's clocks without anyone knowing. While trying to stay out of the way of the station's security inspector Gustav (Sasha Baron Cohen), Hugo attempts to fix an old automaton, or wind-up machine, that he used to work on with his father, a deceased clockmaker (Jude Law). This eventually gets him into trouble, but a chance encounter and budding friendship with the curious Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) helps him put together the final pieces of the puzzle and try to find his purpose in the world.

Yes, Ben Kingsley is in this film. No, that doesn't automatically mean it's bad

Because this film is based on a book that's not mainstream enough to be common knowledge, most viewers probably won't and can't automatically assume what is going to happen as the story is presented to them. Unlike the Twilight or Harry Potter set, Hugo won't be seen almost entirely by fans of the intellectual property, and that's good because Hugo is one of the more original titles to arrive in theaters in 2011. With an unusual setting (post-Great War Paris), interesting characters, and a multitude of plot twists, turning points, and unique messages, prediction of what comes next is an exercise in futility. You simply don't know what's happening until it passed, and the fact that you can't predict the future means that each moment is a treasure, unwrapped and beloved for every moment you remain in the theater.

Personally, I want to remain on THIS side of the clock, thank you

Another Scorcese strength is in the characters he brings to the screen, and on that front, he brings in some of the best cast members for any title this year. Staying away from his usual casts of De Niro's and DiCaprio's, he surrounds young Asa Butterfield with a shockingly deep core of actors that do everything asked of them and more. Butterfield, best known for his role in 2008's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,  is himself compelling and exceedingly talented, more than a match for the many paths the script takes young Hugo Cabret. Despite not having to carry the film on his shoulders, Butterfield carries what he can, and often his performance is the best on screen. Still, if he were all that the title offered, it wouldn't have been enough, and thankfully for that he's not alone. Ben Kingsley surprises in a comeback role of sorts, when you consider just how many horrid movies he's appeared in over the years. Playing a toy merchant at the train station, Kingsley doesn't disappoint and for the first time in years shows the versatility for which he was once cheered. Chloe Grace Moretz also impresses; the former Kick-Ass and Let Me In actress is even good in relatively "normal" roles, in this case as an adventure-craving, book-loving young woman. While Butterfield is good, Moretz makes a perfect pairing, as the two play well with their character's differences and make each other more interesting. Jude Law appears only briefly in flashbacks but actually comes off well in the only role in which I've really liked him that wasn't Sherlock Holmes. And Sasha Baron Cohen is humorous and impressive as the station's crippled Inspector, thankfully not as evil as we're at first led to believe. In fact, many of the film's supporting characters are made more interesting when we look over Hugo's shoulder in seeing their daily lives sort out, especially the budding romances in the most romantic city on Earth.

He's very... European...

The three-dimensional character development is somewhat better than the actual three-dimensional effects, of course. This doesn't really come as a surprise since Scorcese has no real experience in the medium. Of course, his first try is better than most people's, and if you can get past the visual distractions it really isn't much of a problem. There are some establishing shots that try to take advantage of the 3D early on, but to be frank they're impressive enough without the added technology brought to bear. Still, it is an impressive first take for Scorcese, who doesn't usually get kudos for his special effects use.

Yes, Jude Law is there too. No, I really DID love this movie!

Martin Scorcese has made a large number of treasured films. I don't think I've ever seen a release from him that I DIDN'T like, and Hugo is no different; at least not in that regard. While on the surface different from anything the director has achieved before, Hugo is always as good as his previous efforts, and at time even better. It's for that reason and more that it knocks just about everything else down a notch, coming in as the #4 film of 2011. You might have no idea what this film is about going in, but that's no reason not to go. If you haven't caught this unexpected gem, take a moment to check it out with your younger family members, as children and adults of all ages should get more than enough entertainment out of this strong presentation..

Sick Day

Trusty film sidekick Anne and I have had a running joke in recent weeks. On the days or nights when we would go to the theater, we would inevitably see a trailer for the new Steven Soderbergh thriller Contagion. No matter how many times we came across it, our thoughts were the same: "It's the film that stars EVERYONE!" This isn't a generalization on our parts, either; besides the big-name stars like Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard and Laurence Fishburne, the trailer alone was full of recognizable actors from Just Shoot Me's Enrico Colantoni to Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston to Winter's Bone's Acadamy Award nominee John Hawkes. Despite the topical deadly virus story being sold, it was obvious in just under three minutes what the problem with Contagion would be, as the only reason so many big names actors would be rolled out was to camouflage a story that itself was not worth the paper on which it was written. Still, it had an enormously successful opening weekend, and you just can't ignore a film with such a huge pedigree behind it. While Anne hung back in the Reel Cave with a plate of fruit and a looping BSG marathon running, I braved the crowds and elements to find out whether Contagion was SARS come to invade our cinema or a mere throat bug.

Rule #1 of surviving a virus outbreak: avoid hospitals

While returning home from a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes down with what she and everyone else assumes is jet lag. The next day, when she collapses at home, a visit to the hospital eventually confirms that it is not jet lag, but an advanced variation on bird flu that has contaminated her body. Highly infectious, this soon becomes a global epidemic, with cities all over the world suffering the deadly effects of this new disease. The Center for Disease Control, led by Dr. Ellis Cheever (Fishburne), attempt to isolate, contain and cure the outbreak, and the Department of Homeland Security is worried that the virus is the product of a terrorist attack. The race is on to save humanity as a whole, but the question is not whether the mysteries of the virus will be solved, but how much politics and red tape will prevent that from happening.

The least-sexy plastic suit of all time

This is definitely as talented a group of actors as you can expect to find attached to any movie title. With legitimate stars like Damon, Kate Winslet et al, you expect that they'll be at the top of their game. This is true in almost every instance, but the problem with Contagion is that the characters these big stars are hired to play are barely people at all, only suits and skirts designed to fulfill narrative obligations. Each person barely display more than one motivation, and often if they change their minds it is in the most inane way possible. For all the hard work Damon and Fishburne pour into their performances, their characters are remarkably one-noted and interesting only in their intensity. Jude Law taps into his asshole quotient nicely, though his independent reporter making a name (and more than a few bucks) on the back of this epidemic is not a stretch from his usual boring roles. I've only ever liked Law in Sherlock Holmes, and I think he needs to work across from superior actors to force him to raise his game to their level. That isn't present here, and he never really shares the screen with the more talented members of the cast. Paltrow and Winslet are completely wasted in bit parts with no lasting impact on the main story, and I was speaking of Cotillard's character when I was complaining of inane character choices. Some of the smaller roles actually work out well, as Colantoni, Cranston, Hawkes and Elliott Gould do some good in a small amount of time. While there are several talented actors in this film, the best character belonged to somebody you may not recognize, as Jennifer Ehle runs away from the pack as a risk-taking lab doctor who kicks ass in just about every imaginable way.

As if things weren't bad enough, Winslet just learned about the Netflix price restructuring

Of course, Soderbergh only intended one character to be multifaceted, and that was the virus itself. Learning, mutating, growing; this virus did more than any single character in the entire film could claim to have accomplished. In reality, Soderbergh's story can be simply described as dropping the virus in amongst a group and studying what happened. In this you can see the best of his work, as its obvious he left no stone unturned in determining what would happen if person A became sick but did this, this and this before meeting person B. It's almost like looking back at Soderbergh's earlier career when similar films Traffic and Erin Brockovich were mega-hits following other topical situations, garnering critical acclaim and box office records in the process. Since that time Soderbergh hasn't exactly had a lot of success getting either of those, with only the Oceans 11 remake and its subsequent sequels being the obvious exceptions. If Contagion is successful, that might be more remembered than any actual detail of the story herein.

At the Apocalypse, don't worry! Cell reception will be as strong as ever

That's because unfortunately the story tends to get as flat as its characters. For the entirety of the film we're being told that this is a bad thing, and to make sure you are careful with what you interact, otherwise there could be deadly consequences. Reasonable enough, but that this message goes on uninterrupted for just under two hours gets quite a bit boring, and since the film portrays an extreme case situation this message probably won't be heeded by most viewers anyway. Sure there's a little bit in there about the evils and flaws of man in a time of crisis, but that is almost glossed over under the seemingly mistaken impression that these are not problems we can fix. On top of that, after going the entire film without having it revealed what caused the virus in the first place, the finale features Soderbergh going right back to day one to spell out exactly how it happened, making borderline racist commentary in the process. It was a completely unnecessary gesture, one which was probably suggested by brain dead test audiences or confused studio executives rather than anything resembling a logical process.

Well, what can I say? Jude Law isn't a great actor

In the end, I managed to make it through almost the entire screening without being too bothered by the flaws, which was far better than I had expected. Only the ending and the poor character design were serious bummers, though the story as a whole wasn't helped much otherwise. A merely okay film, this is hardly the stellar Soderbergh many people seem to think it is. Instead of a riveting biological drama, it's a political and societal statement, one barely interesting or even intellectually argued. I'm not sure I can recommend Contagion to anyone to see in the theater, though it certainly deserves more attention than the latest entries in the Scream, Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers franchises, all of which I enjoyed to some degree. Contagion carries itself firmly to the middle of the pack as far as 2011 goes, another forgettable film in a year of epically forgettable films.

Should've Been Recalled

Sometimes an interesting idea alone isn't enough. When author Eric Garcia began co-writing a screenplay based on his in-progress novel Reposession Mambo, he must have thought it was pretty cool. When the film was released a scant year after his book, he must have thought, "wow". After the movie got mostly negative reviews and made back only a fraction of the money it cost to make it, his response was probably something like "oops".

Repo Men takes place in 2025, where a corporation called The Union has made quite a fortune for itself by selling replacement organs, joints and other body parts to those that need or want them. The dark side of this is that if the recipient can't make their regular (and expensive) payments, the organs are default and The Union sends one of it's "Repo Men" to reclaim the part by breaking into your home, incapacitating you, and cutting you open to remove the part, presumably leaving you to die on the floor of your abode. It's in this act where we meet Remy, a Repo Man played by Jude Law. He's worked as a Repo Man for years alongside his best friend Jake, played by Forest Whitaker. He has a good life, makes good money, and is slowly being pulled in two directions. His wife Carol (Carice Van Houten) wants him to step away from the repo aspect of his job, and instead transfer to a job in sales, while Jake wants him to remain in Repo, to remain his best friend, which he doesn't see happening if he goes to sales. Deciding to honor the wishes of his family, Remy goes on one last job...

Law (L), and Whitaker

This futuristic setting is at first rendered in a fashion that I think was meant to be like Blade Runner, but that analogy quickly falls apart as we see less and less city as the movie progresses, taking place many times either in the unchanged suburbs or the decrepit and seedy junktown on the outskirts of the city where people are fleeing repossession. It's this mishmash of settings that is the most distracting aspect of the film, as the moviemakers don't seem to know exactly what kind of future they want to create, or even more criminally, how to use setting to emphasize the mood of a film. Night and day are used intermittantly, and while there is the obvious difference between the stark, uniform city of The Union and the pleasant, innocent aspect of the suburbs, there's little to no connection between the two, no reason to think these places would exist simultaneously in the same universe, let alone the same city.

The acting here is good, though not great. I've always thought that Jude Law was an overrated actor, with over-hyped performances in films like The Talented Mister Ripley and Cold Mountain the result more of Hollywood's search for a new Clark Gable rather than any actual talent on his part. He redeemed himself in my eyes more recently in films like My Blueberry Nights and Sherlock Holmes, and even in this piteously bad film he is in fact excellent, conveying mood in his eyes and visually believing the dialogue coming from his lips. He easily outpaces Whitaker, who seems to be once again playing a variation of himself, with little range between goofy happiness and psychotic anger. Whitaker, who teased audiences with his charismatic performance in The Last King of Scotland, seems to be constantly proving that his performance in the fictional story of Uganda's Idi Amin was a fluke rather than a process of growing talent. In smaller roles are Liev Schreiber and Alice Braga, but both were in better films this year (Salt and Predators, respectively), while cameo roles by John Leguizamo and hip-hop artist and producer RZA are surprisingly good, though Leguizamo's role appears only when the audience has lost all interest in what's happening. Van Houten hasn't exactly lit up the sky with her American film appearances since 2006's Black Book, as Valkyrie and this film hardly do her justice after being nominated for so many awards based on her role as a Jewish spy in WWII. She's underused and overqualified, and surprisingly has not gotten the same respect that has been bestowed upon a different international actress that had her big break only one year later, Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose.

The film starts off strong before dawdling and dwindling in interest about half an hour in, and abhorred pacing means that we're never sure what part of the narrative we're actually in. At least half a dozen times I found myself muttering to myself, asking why the movie was not yet over, why it was still going on. At that point I didn't need a real conclusion, I would have settled for a half-assed setup to an inevitable sequel just to see the film end. There was so much exposition, thinly-veiled plot-points and clues to how the movie would actually end, and frankly it was simply bogging down my viewing experience, a movie that played like a no-think action/thriller attempting to make me think about it's stupid ideas more than I need to. The film does finally ramp up in a final, bloody, sequence that actually brought my interest back to the film, even if it was highly predictable.

The idea of a big corporation being the blank-faced bad-guy is nothing new. I can think of at least a half-dozen titles off the top of my head that use that same theme (including one of my favorite all-time films, Alien), and seeing it here again only fills me with a ho-hum feeling, even if we actually see into the evil machinations of this particular corporation. What bothers me the most is the public aspect of it's evil. The movie states that The Union actually makes most of it's money from re-selling reposessed organs, so they sell an organ, the customer fails to make payments, they repossess the organ, repeat. That makes sense. It even makes sense that there would be people running from repossession who couldn't pay, an underground. The problem I have is that the public seems to know about these Repo Men, and they are easily recognizable by The Union tattoos printed on their necks. So that raises the question: why would people buy organs from The Union if they know there's a chance they might be repossessed? Even if they were desperate, there couldn't be THAT many desperate people out there to keep such a company afloat, let alone with a choke-hold on the government to overlook such things. Perhaps I'm simply being naive, but it simply doesn't seem feasable to me.

If there's one thing redeeming the film (besides it's ending), it's the soundtrack. Though track from the likes of RZA and Beck are not stellar, it's when the music takes a step into the far past that we get a real feeling for the film, as songs by Nina Simone and Rosemary Clooney take center stage. It's flashback music more than makes up for the more contemporary duds, and like Simone we are "Feeling Good" when they're playing in the background.

Let's be honest here, Repo Men is a bad movie. It starts quick, gets bogged down by clutter and mess in the middle, before finishing off in an exciting but highly predictable ending. The film is only 111 minutes but feels twice as long, and I wouldn't be surprised if anyone started watching this movie stood up, turned off the TV, and went into the other room to do something else. The film does have an interesting premise, but it's not nearly enough to keep the audience watching. It doesn't come close to being one of this year's Top 10 Films, as the only movie worse than Repo Men this year would have to be Legion, and that's saying something profound. Certainly more profound than anything Repo Men had to tell us.