Double Feature: The Counselor and All Is Lost

With Halloween past us and more and more titles hitting local theaters, there are a lot of options from which to choose. Adults especially have no end of options, as only a few releases in the coming months will be even remotely geared towards kids (Free Birds, anyone?). So which ones are worth your ten (or more) bucks? Here are a couple of considerations.

Ridley Scott... what the heck happened? I mean, I know a ton of folk were disappointed with the renowned director's return to both science fiction and the Alien universe in last year's underwhelming and confusing Prometheus, but I never imagined it might actually get worse. There, his confused storytelling was at least partially made up for by his technical wizardry. In The Counselor, an all-star cast cannot make up for that that aforementioned poor plotting and an editing process that is as uneven as such ventures can ever get.

Michael Fassbender plays the titular character, a lawyer who gets involved in shady business dealings with the Mexican cartel due to money problems. But when an expected (and lucrative) shipment is hijacked en route, the criminal organization comes to believe that he is involved, putting any and all of his friends in immediate danger at the same time.

You will learn absolutely nothing about these people.

If The Counselor has one strength, it's the outstanding cast. Besides the always-strong Fassbender, Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem also put in noteworthy performances, really putting some personality into this crime thriller. Cameron Diaz also surprises in a role that is both her best performance in years, and her most shocking (unlike Bad Teacher, which was just shockingly bad). Diaz will do things as an actress here that you've never seen before, and come off as the best part of the movie. Only Penelope Cruz appears completely wasted as a casting choice, given little to do and bad dialogue to do it with. Actually, this is a problem with all the actors, as characters are barely fleshed out and motivations are all but unexplored. What you're left with is an aimless cast reciting endless repetitive monologues explaining the nature of the story, instead of actually showing us any of the interesting bits.

Cameron goes after that Oscar.

This is largely the fault of screenwriter Cormac McCarthy. In his first screenplay since 1976 (and the first to be given feature film treatment), the novelist fails to reign in his enthusiasm for the complex story and the result just isn't pretty. It would be easier to blame Scott, but it's obvious the director did absolutely everything he could with a screenplay that treats little things like the passage of time as an inconvenience. Scott captures the beauty of sweeping landscapes with his camera, and captures the gritty underworld in which our characters find themselves. Another issue he has to deal with as a director however is that there are far too many players in the game. Scott is forced to weave a narrative that is constantly weighed down by about a half-dozen side characters - each with their own arc - with each absolutely necessary to the overly-complicated plot. That wouldn't even be so bad if the leads had anything noteworthy to do; they absolutely do not.

Stetsons are cool, now.

If there's any consolation for Scott, it's that - unlike Prometheus - there really wasn't anything he could DO to make The Counselor good. This kind of high-concept story definitely would have worked better as a novel, and McCarthy should not give up his (undoubtedly lucrative) day job. This film is about as far from a must-see as you can get, and while it's not quite as bad as last year's Killing Them Softly, it runs that same vein of slow-paced, violent crime thrillers, and may appeal to fans of that set. But when a cast and director this good are wasted on a screenplay this bad, nobody is walking away clean.

There's a small, but still decent chance you realized that All is Lost existed. Starring resurgent Oscar winner Robert Redford (after a break, he appeared earlier this year in The Company You Keep and will have a big role in 2014's Captain America: Winter Soldier) and captained by Margin Call (I haven't seen it yet but hear wonderful things) director J.C. Chandor, this is the survival-against-all-odds movie everybody would be talking about if it weren't for the mere existence of Gravity.

Redford plays a nameless sailor, whose private ship "The Virginia Jean" undergoes some of the worst luck you can have when in the middle of the Indian Ocean. First, the boat is struck by a lost shipping container, which rips a hole out of the hull and fries all the electronics in one fell swoop (including the navigational equipment, radio and all wireless communication). Then, after our hero manages to patch up the hole, a storm hits that finishes the cargo container's job. Adrift and with little chance of rescue, Redford's character must do everything in his power to make it back home.

He's looking a little rough around the gills, there.

All is Lost is unlike any similar film you've seen before, with the first divergence being the complete lack of character backstory. As I mentioned before, Redford's character doesn't have a name. We also learn nothing about his family, friends, or reasons for being all alone on that side of the planet. Most movies would attend to those aspects with multiple voice-overs, something All is Lost proudly does not provide. In fact, with the exception of a couple of sentences spoken at the very beginning of the film (and a few incidental outbursts), there's really no dialogue at all. All by his lonesome, Redford's character speaks so infrequently that when he does he usually has to clear his vocal chords from inactivity (I can just imagine Redford refusing to speak on the set in preparation for the role). There is no CGI tiger, nor a volleyball named Wilson, to keep him company, and I'm certain a lesser actor would not have been able to put together such a brilliant silent performance as we see here. Even at 77, Redford reminds us why he's such a renowned actor, as he not only does most of his own stunts but carries an entire film without the need to even open his mouth.

Huh. That doesn't look encouraging.

Unfortunately, that brings with it its own set of problems. As I stated earlier, I never saw Chandor's rookie effort Margin Call, so I have little experience (like most) with his style of directing. And to his credit, he certainly does a great job capturing shots and helping his lone actor maintain that image of the bleak atmosphere of being lost at sea. But without character interaction, we're left with only character activity, and half of this film follows the actor performing acts that may confuse and bore anybody who does not sail on a regular basis. Chandor does a little bit to help, making sure we see the clearly printed signs on things like the "Life Raft" and "Survival Supplies", but those moments are inconsistent with the vast majority of the film, where we're shown things that MIGHT be important, but we're unsure why.

He ain't singin' in the rain.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that - sight unseen - you might have already seen all that All is Lost has to offer. You'd be wrong, however, as the tandem of Chandor and Redford make for an impressive movie, if not necessarily one you NEED to see in theaters. This is a brave production, one that really takes a good, long look at the human spirit and leaves you hanging until the very last moment to see whether it is found lacking. Thematically, it is very similar to Gravity (if a bit in reverse), and since Alfonso Cuaron's drama is DEFINITELY a must-see on the big screen, this being in theaters so soon after seems like a bit of a scheduling misstep. Redford is certainly enough reason to check it out (though Oscar predictions might be a bit out of reach), and Chandor does a good enough job, despite his inexperience as a filmmaker. But if it comes down to this or Gravity (and really, why haven't you seen it yet?), the choice is glaringly obvious. Check out All is Lost only after you first surpass that hurdle.

Movie Monday: Prometheus

On this Movie Monday, we look at what is one of the most anticipated films of 2012. Can Prometheus possibly live up to the hype it's been getting since the trailers first aired?

When archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover evidence that life on Earth was manufactured by a race of alien "Engineers", the powerful Weyland Corporation funds an expedition to what they believe to be the Engineer's home, a distant moon known only as LV-233. When their ship arrives, however, they find only a lifeless planetoid and an abandoned installation as the only signs of their previous tenants. While exploring the ruins, the team inadvertently makes a discovery that is not only the greatest find in the history of mankind, but on that could lead to its extinction should it ever return to Earth.

Prometheus is directed by Ridley Scott and also stars Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Charlize Theron, Rafe Spall and Sean Harris.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

A Good Film

Yes, this is another romantic comedy. With my current travels to see family in Florida this week, I'm dipping into the film reserve I've gathered on DVD of late, the same batch from which last week's You've Got Mail was a part. Once again I can thank my friend Anne for her suggestions, though I'm sure my readers will like me to move onto more varied fare, such as the R-rated comedy Horrible Bosses or the final Harry Potter film. There is no time to see new movies this week, however, so for now I'm afraid you'll have to settle for me lecturing you on a film you perhaps should have seen but didn't. This is hardly a surprise; despite his name recognition, Russell Crowe has never been the box office hero you might have imagined. In reality, he's much more well known for his quick temper and bad-boy attitude than his actual acting talent, which is unfortunate since he has in my eye proven himself to be quite the strong performer. With the notable exceptions of titles Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind (and maybe LA Confidential), Crowe's films can be categorized two ways: either they are so costly that they fail to recoup expenses despite good efforts (Robin Hood, Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World), or they are inexpensive flops that limp out of the gate. A Good Year was Crowe's first collaboration with director Ridley Scott after the cinema juggernaut that was 2000's Gladiator, a pairing that has often been spoken among the more legendary actor/director partnerships in Hollywood history (whether deservedly or not). Based on the bestselling novel by Peter Mayle, A Good Year should have garnered some support from audiences, but for whatever reason they were absent, leading insiders to call it a flop mere days after the film's release. It was an unfortunate failure for Scott and Crowe, but one that might have been simply undervalued not only by audiences, but by the very production studios that pushed this film.

I'm not sure you should be trusting your money with this man...

When hard-nosed London investment trader Max Skinner (Crowe) learns that his uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away leaving Max the sole beneficiary of a vineyard estate in Provence, his first instinct is to sell the land. After all, Max has no use for a summer home when he hasn't taken day off from work for years, worrying about being usurped in his absence. After all, that's what he did to his predecessor. However, a suspension from his job for shady business practices forces him to at least visit his new property before selling it. While the estate could use a serious makeover, Max ends up nostalgic for the childhood spent there with his uncle, though not enough to reconsider his decision to sell. This creates conflict on several fronts, however; the land's chief winemaker Francis (Didier Bourdon) is adamant that Henry didn't entrust the estate to his nephew just so he could sell it off. And the sudden arrival of Christie (Abbie Cornish), claiming to be Henry's long-lost American daughter, threatens Max's sale of the vineyard by contesting his ownership. Finally, Max falls for a local cafe owner named Fanny (Marion Cotillard), who has supposedly sworn off men while becoming irresistable to Max. The reigning question becomes whether Max will sell the French vineyard, and if so whether he could possibly be redeemable afterwards.

"And if you look even farther, you'll see when Mr. Anderson DOESN'T review RomComs..."

For a film with such a high-profile star and director, problems have no shortage. Flashbacks to a young Max hanging out with his uncle Henry feel almost out of place against the backdrop that is the rest of the film, but unfortunately they are also important to the main tale and therefore cannot be ignored. This means that the scenes in which you are least interested are among the most needed to understanding what exactly is going on, a sad happenstance that reflects poorly on the quality of the script. Humor is also somewhat lacking. While many of the verbal quips are good enough for a nice chuckle, too often does A Good Year rely on slapstick and physical comedy to reach out to the audience, often to little positive effect. The romance itself, necessary for a film claiming to be a romantic comedy, is all but ignored until the film's final act, as the main focus until then seems to be on Max's nostalgia, the least interesting aspect of the entire story.

Apparently this is what passes for extremely funny in France

The film does have numerous strengths to assist in its cause, however. The script does have that charm that truly great actors can take advantage of, and I've seen no better use of Russell Crowe than his transformation from emotionless trader to charming romantic. Crowe's Max plays well through the first two-thirds of the movie in a performance that takes somewhat from earlier work thugs, malcontents and ne'er-do-wells, but with an easy charm that never lets you dislike him as we all did in LA Confidential. That charm really comes out to play when the romance with Fanny is (FINALLY!) explored later on. Until then we're happy to see him frolick verbally with costars Bourdon, Cornish and Archie Punjabi, who plays his personal assistant, matching him word for word. Looking back, it would be easy to say that Crowe is playing against type in A Good Year, but here is one of the few times that I think Crowe was most comfortable in a role, not playing to his usual thuggish ways.

Those Gladiator royalty checks didn't go as far as he thought...

The rest of the cast is also quite good, a sign that Scott had at least an idea what he was doing in that department. Finney is excellent despite being nearly relegated to the duller portions of the film, with Henry's paternal instincts in regards to Max coming through quite nicely. Sure, Finney amounts to little more than a scene-chewer (and with only young Freddie Highmore ever playing against him, he needs to), but he does it extremely well. This was Australian Cornish's first Hollywood role, and though it comes well before her beloved performance in Bright Star or even her mainstream success in this year's Limitless and Sucker Punch, she proves that she can handle working with the big boys as Henry's purported daughter. Witty as Max with little of the humor, Christie is a welcome respite from the bickering between Max and Francis. Bourbon does an okay job, but he's really among the least interesting of the cast, and almost cliched as a surly and dissheveled gardener. Punjabi raises smiles when paired with Crowe but has little overall impact on the story. Cotillard is by far the best, as its easy to fall in love with the woman who only a year later would take the world by storm in La Vie en Rose as singer Edith Pilaf. Here she plays a much more down-to-Earth role, but her beauty and talent combine to make her one of the best international actresses.

Minutes later, the two were at each other's thrats

A Good Year is not a great film. In fact, with director Ridley Scott clearly out of his element, I'm shocked that it was even a reasonably good one. Scott and Crowe have often worked well together, even if the behind-the-scenes arguments have stood out more than the products themselves. It's easy to forget that both are supremely talented, but fortunately it still can come through when you go back and watch what they've done together. A Good Year has a broken story and is extremely predictable, lacking in sufficient levels of romance or comedy. However, it is still talent and charm-packed, making up for much of what is missing from the big picture. You might want to fast-forward through a few bits, but if you check this film out I guarantee you'll be sucked into the Crowe-Cotillard relationship, as it's one of the more understated film romances of the past decade.

Bullseye

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

Russel Crowe and other people

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

So tell me, why will a spoon hurt more?

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

Marian wishes for more historical accuracy

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

They would settle for TARGET accuracy

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

William Hurt is better than this

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