FRANK Review

At the beginning of Lenny Abrahamson's self-proclaimed quirky indie Frank there is a series of scenes in which Jon (Domhnall Gleeson) attempts to come up with an idea for an original song. He stands, making observations, trying to put melody to descriptive words that paint a picture of what he is saying and deeper than this he is trying to find some type of depth, some kind of weight to what he is experiencing that might translate and be appreciated in song. The thing is, Jon isn't very good at capturing what his ambition tells him he is capable of. This is not only depressing and a slap in the face for anyone too self-conscious to believe they would actually ever make a good entertainer who really only wants to create music, but it is also a promising start to a film that offered insight into the mind of someone who creates what we all find catchy. Music, no matter the genre, is universally loved and related to-hell, it is looked to in order to heal scars, to uplift souls and to affirm our belief that there is something worth living for or that there is hope for the human race indeed. Music is a way of expressing what can't be felt through words alone by putting sound behind them that emphasizes the emotions intended. It seemed from the get-go that Frank would indeed cover the gamut of human emotion and investment involved in creating a collection of songs that represent something of meaning to those behind them and become significant to those who hear them and connect them with their lives. Instead, what the film turns out to be is a strange critique of the quest for fame and how that quest is flawed when recognition is the only goal rather than the simple satisfaction of creating art and basking in it. It is acceptability vs. eccentricity in Abrahamson's film and it is an interesting debate for sure, but ultimately you question our surrogates entire purpose for even continuing on this journey after realizing not only that Frank and his band mates are going nowhere fast, but also that they don't take him seriously. The following statement sounds shallow and close-minded yet I believe it can be rightly justified given the subject of critique here, but if there doesn't seem reason for our main character to take this journey-why should we?

WHITE HOUSE DOWN Review

At this point I can't even recall much from the White House under attack movie that appeared in theaters earlier this year, Olympus Has Fallen. I remember it being a rather care free, brainless piece of fun with a surprisingly brutal aspect to it while more than anything being a tribute to those 90's action flicks of yesteryear that had now been replaced by superheroes and sequels. While I always expected Roland Emmerich's version of this similar story, White House Down, to be the clear victor in terms of quality it turns out they are neck and neck as far as pure entertainment value goes, but with the more pedigreed cast, the bigger budget and a director more adept at handling large scale action sequences Emmerich's version of Die Hard in the White House seems as if it will have the repeatability factor moreso than the Gerard Butler redux that will no doubt still go down as the lesser of the two. Though I'll have to wait and see if anything about White House Down remains ingrained in my mind come September as of now it is certainly the film I enjoyed more. The comparison between these two films is inevitable as it has been lurking over both releases since word came out two movies with the same premise were being released within months of one another. This didn't seem to hurt the second one out of the gate last year in the same situation (Snow White & the Huntsmen easily trounced Mirror, Mirror) but these two movies are much more similar in tone and it's clear that despite Channing Tatum's mass appeal to the ladies they don't necessarily care to see him in a straight up action flick. It is his charisma and the chemistry that exists between he and co-star Jamie Foxx that makes the film so endearing and in turn makes this film the experience I took more fun away from. That could be a good or bad thing depending on what you're expecting or what you were looking for, but Emmerich has always had a way about making his films self-aware while still executing action set pieces with seamless transitions between the tones. He does the same here balancing the ridiculous with the tongue-in-cheek that allows the audience to realize the majority of whats happening on screen is in fact ridiculous, but brushing it off as nothing more than exhilarating, B-movie fun which is exactly what this is supposed to be.

First Trailer for WHITE HOUSE DOWN

Just a few days after Olympus Has Fallen surprised the box office by being the best received action flick of the year so far (in a year full of countless action movies) we have now received the first trailer for the similarly-themed White House Down. While Olympus Has Fallen was good fun and popcorn entertainment with B-movie thrills director Roland Emmerich (Independece Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012) seems to have crafted something a bit more serious here. Naturally, comparisons will be made (I even brought this unavoidable fact up in my Olympus Has Fallen review) but there does seem to be one major difference here in the fact that the threat seems to be coming from within rather than an outside source. The trailer is a mere two minutes but feels shorter as the first half is completely made up of media reports giving us a sense of atmosphere. It is at the mid-way point that we get our first glimpse of Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx attempting to escape from the Oval Office. When hearing there were going to be two movies about the white house under attack my interest initially went to this film first. Emmerich has more experience than Antoine Fuqua in the genre and the cast feels more impressive (though don't get me wrong, I love Morgan Freeman) but with Tatum coming off the year he had in 2012 and Foxx still riding high from the success of Django Unchained it seems unlikely this film will suffer from a case of deja vu. The film also stars Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Woods, Richard Jenkins, Jason Clarke, Jake Weber, Lance Reddick and Joey King. White House Down opens on June 28th, 2013. Hit the jump to check out the trailer.

THE DARK KNIGHT Review

If any film in recent memory has approached, if not in many a fans eyes reached, perfection it would be the second entry in Chris Nolan's Batman series, The Dark Knight. Everything about the film contributes to building the tension and every performance is spot on, but what will forever be remembered about the film, what will stand out no matter how great everything else was is the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. When it was announced the actor would be playing the manic and insane criminal there was no shortage of doubt in his abilities but then the teaser trailer premiered and we got our first taste of Ledger's interpretation and how different it would be from Jack Nicholson's. Ledger's Joker was a deranged lunatic of a man who only wanted to watch the world burn and does more than his part to see that ambition become a truth in the city of Gotham. No matter how many times I watch the film I find myself amazed at how much this transcends the super hero/comic book genre to become something entirely different, something more-a crime drama, a mystery, a story of love, loss, and chaos. I become more impressed with how complex the story actually is, the layers with which the Nolan brothers and David Goyer took to make sure every aspect of the story had its motivations set to serve the ultimate theories and themes that Nolan is trying to explore with his films. There was no greater experience than seeing the massive action set pieces, the swelling music, the mastery of the performances come together on the IMAX screen like they did the first time you watched The Dark Knight. There hasn't been one since and likely never will be again, but I'm hoping things come pretty close this week.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) contemplates what it
means to be Batman.

At the end of Batman Begins when Gordon handed over the joker card to Batman we knew what was coming but not necessarily what to expect. Never did I imagine the film that would follow would be the defining moment of my movie going experiences. I literally felt privileged to be alive during the theatrical release of such a film and have the opportunity to see it as many times as I wanted to in the format it was meant to be seen in. For two and a half hours I was on the edge of seat in pure escapism and overtaken by the scope with which the film was operating. Nearly every scene has am iconic shot, or moment, or piece of dialogue to it. The opening bank heist scene, the "hockey pants" fight scene where a director finally acknowledged issues with the batsuit and made the change to best one yet for the most practical of reasons. There is the introduction of the "white knight" Harvey Dent and how he has come to the aid of Batman yet Bruce Wayne can't help but to dislike him because he takes the affections of Rachel away. Aaron Eckhart likely had one of the more difficult arcs to pull off but it was always destined to be overshadowed by Ledger's insane villain. Still, the Harvey Dent/Two-face transition for me is what helped the story match the visuals and the music in scope. The sequence where Batman kidnaps Lau from his secure office building in Hong Kong by plane or the one where the Joker crashes the fundraiser or when he blows up a hospital. The car chase where the batpod is first revealed and that moment when the 18-wheeler flipped. It was astonishing, mesmerizing, it had a power over you as a viewer. The freakish and disturbing antics of the Joker keeping us guessing as the plot thickens and comes to an unconventional climax that left your mind lingering with thoughts and questions that were a chilling surprise to how much a man in a bat suit could resonate with you.

The Joker was Heath Ledger's finest performance.

I saw the film no less than six times in its theatrical run and though I try my hardest not to allow my excitement and anticipation blind me from seeing any issues the film might have, it was truly hard for me to find any kind of major fault with the movie. Sure, it had a few issues in the second act, it might have drug a time or two, but it picked itself back up and Nolan understood his project so well that he never allowed the bleakness of the whole thing to outweigh the fact that it was entertainment or the fact that it was entertainment to outweigh what he wanted to explore in the Batman mythology. What he set out to make with the first film carries over in that every aspect was grounded in reality. This is a completely plausible story where a man makes himself more than a human being in the eyes of his enemies to scare them into seclusion. Christian Bale dug even deeper into his role the second time around, he became Bruce Wayne and in doing that was able to become the true identity of the man in Batman. Maggie Gyllenhaal took over duties for Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in a move I usually don't like at all, but Gyllenhaal left me wishing she had played the role in the first place. I look back, trying to imagine Holmes delivering the dialogue and the performance needed to make Rachel as great of an emotional pull as Gyllenhaal did in The Dark Knight and it just isn't possible. Then you have the trio of support for Wayne/Batman in the form of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Oldman truly inhabits the skin of Gordon in this film and Caine, in his somewhat limited screen time, delivered a nuanced and emotional performance that is strong when it needs to be and light only when necessary. Freeman does his thing, but adds an extra bit of charm in a few key scenes early on that allow us to look past his persona and buy into him in this world. Regardless of how good anyone else was in the film though it all comes back around to Ledger. That first real introduction to the Joker where he crashes the mob boss meeting and makes a real impression on everyone by inserting a pencil into a mans head is one of the greatest introductions to a character ever put to film.

Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Harvey Dent
(Aaron Eckhart) attend a fundraiser for Harvey. 

What would the film have been had Ledger not died months before its release? Did his death make the Joker he portrayed on screen all the more scary? Likely, a bit, yes. Still, four years later his performance sends chills down my spine. I don't know that the film would have been as massively successful money-wise and that will be a debate that goes on forever, but regardless of the loss of Ledger, the film is and would have been considered the pinnacle of comic book adaptations and left its audience anxiously awaiting what would come next. We have almost reached the point of seeing what that follow up will be and despite Nolan's efforts nothing he could have done would have been able to top what he made here. It is clear he put everything he had into The Dark Knight and with his third and final installment he will no doubt bring what will no doubt go down in history as one of the greatest trilogies of all time to a fitting close. There is something to be said for a film that did what The Dark Knight did but it is hard to put into words what a huge impression this movie left on me. I love the film to the point I could watch it with my eyes closed and still find it beautiful due to the soaring and grim soundtrack that evolved from the first film. It is a gorgeous movie in every demented sense of the word. It is an emotional rollercoaster, an exquisite film that demonstrates the kind of chaos and terrorism a truly disturbed individual can bring to the forefront of society. It is a mirror to society, a political commentary with hints of understanding to public perceptions and terrorism that gave it a more urgent cover to the psycho crime drama that its presented as. It is a masterpiece.

THE DARK KNIGHT Review

If any film in recent memory has approached, if not in many a fans eyes reached, perfection it would be the second entry in Chris Nolan's Batman series, The Dark Knight. Everything about the film contributes to building the tension and every performance is spot on, but what will forever be remembered about the film, what will stand out no matter how great everything else was is the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. When it was announced the actor would be playing the manic and insane criminal there was no shortage of doubt in his abilities but then the teaser trailer premiered and we got our first taste of Ledger's interpretation and how different it would be from Jack Nicholson's. Ledger's Joker was a deranged lunatic of a man who only wanted to watch the world burn and does more than his part to see that ambition become a truth in the city of Gotham. No matter how many times I watch the film I find myself amazed at how much this transcends the super hero/comic book genre to become something entirely different, something more-a crime drama, a mystery, a story of love, loss, and chaos. I become more impressed with how complex the story actually is, the layers with which the Nolan brothers and David Goyer took to make sure every aspect of the story had its motivations set to serve the ultimate theories and themes that Nolan is trying to explore with his films. There was no greater experience than seeing the massive action set pieces, the swelling music, the mastery of the performances come together on the IMAX screen like they did the first time you watched The Dark Knight. There hasn't been one since and likely never will be again, but I'm hoping things come pretty close this week.

HYSTERIA Review

Movies like Hysteria seem to always surprise me. This conclusion is based on nothing more than the time period in which the story is set. I always assume that anything having to do with the late 1800's or so will be terribly boring (see, it has even affected the way I describe the era) and that a story being told from this time can only be equally as exciting. Excitement, for lack of a better term, is exactly what Hysteria intends to induce though, if not in its audience at least in its characters which in turn relays some pretty good laughs to those of us unsure about what we were walking into in the first place. While the hook here is that the movie tells a story more appropriate to what might be featured on an MTV show today it places these actions in that time period when everything was supposedly so prim and proper. That time where everything private was actually kept that way and an individual prided themselves on their public image. It is funny to watch this, especially in the early scenes where our main character Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is exposed to the practices of his new employer and how they attempt to cover up what they are really doing with fancy medical talk. While it is entertaining to a point the joke quickly wears pretty slim and what we are left with is a pretty standard romantic comedy that is clearly trying to be something more by adding in the restrictions and conventions of the 1880's but instead gives us a few good laughs, a typical Maggie Gyllenhaal character, and a lovely little romance to tie everything up in the end.

Edmund St. John-Smythe (Rupert Everett) and Dr.
Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) are the creators
of the modern vibrator.

That is not to say I didn't enjoy Hysteria for the majority of its running time. I was actually presently surprised by how charming the performances were and how well the film was photographed for such a small, under the radar picture. Director Tanya Wexler has directed two previous features neither of which I'm familiar with, but she shows great flair here for making a light piece with a subject matter that might easily appall yet goes down easy. There is ultimately no real need for fuss around Hysteria as it is a pleasant movie to watch but will likely never be desired as subject matter for day to day conversation. If anything it is an irrelevant film that will be dismissed as quickly as it was consumed. There is an inkling of a great idea here and good measure for plenty of interesting characters, but I have no idea how much of this is actually based on reality or how much has been fictionalized for the film. It is true yes, that Granville invented the electric vibrator but he genuinely seemed to have done this for reasons other than what it has become strictly used for today. You see, in this time period the diagnosis of "hysteria" was pretty much a label that covered all kinds of disorders but when Granville, in desperation to practice real medicine, comes across a job at the practice of Dr. Robert Dalrymple he finds that the good doctor has come up with a way to cure these women of their cravings and desires that they believed they should have been absent of. Granville goes into this believing he is simply relieving such mundane things as muscle aches when in reality he is meeting the sexual desires of hundreds of women that are left unsatisfied at home by their husbands who are either unable or unwilling to meet their needs.

Dr. Granville becomes enchanted by his employer's
daughter, Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal). 

While the premise is rather provocative and the movie itself has a nice tongue-in-cheek attitude about itself, unfortunately for the actors, who really do seem to be enjoying themselves bringing this light romp to the screen, the writing gives them little to do beyond falling into the trappings of those formulaic rom-coms we've all become so accustomed to. Dancy is a wonderful little actor who breathes believability into a man not interested in taking advantage of the women he pleasures daily but is more interested in actually making a difference in peoples lives in a way his schooling has prepared him to do. This regularly puts him out of a job which is how he ends up working under Dalrymple which in turns begins to give him hand cramps because of all the work he is doing. In lieu of this injury the good doctor seeks comfort in one of his friends, the always charmingly reliable Rupert Everett as Edmund St. John Smythe, inventions. Smythe has developed an electrical fan and the vibrations from it give Granville the idea to modify it thus resulting in what we now know as the vibrator. For good measure it is thrown in that Dr. Dalrymple has two lovely daughters in the form of Felecity Jones (Like Crazy) and Gyllenhaal as Charlotte. Granville is naturally attracted to the more reserved and formal Emily (Jones) but I bet you can guess that the more rebellious and strong minded Charlotte will win his heart just from the poster.

Emily (Felecity Jones), Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce),
and Dr. Granville discuss his future with their family.

Gyllenhaal gives a fine performance but really, it feels all the more familiar than it does original these days. She has made a career out of playing the hard-edged, determined woman who will not take no for an answer  and whether it be Stranger Than Fiction, Away We Go, or the upcoming Won't Back Down we feel like we've seen it before and the only saving grace for that upcoming role is the fact she is supported by the likes of Viola Davis. I like Gyllenhaal and think she has serious range as evidenced by the remainder of her resume but she is so drawn to these types of characters that she can't help but be attracted to them and in turn it kind of gives the movie a level of familiarity where it should be an exception to the rule as she is so proclaimed to be in Hysteria. Gyllenhaal is not the overall issue with the film though, it more falls on the fact the idea of the film isn't filled out well enough to support a feature length movie. There is plenty of talent and good performances here though to overcome the issues as I really did have a splendid, care-free time watching the movie, but I was left with little to think about as the credits rolled. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with this but even for a comedy we should be left with some impressions of our favorite jokes or in terms of romantic comedies a longing to know how the lives of our two lovers turned out, but none of that rings true here. I accepted the story for what it was and moved on. Even now, a day later I can hardly remember Gyllenhaal's characters name without having to look it up. It wasn't the intense, personal experience you'd expect from a well-made art house picture but it left me satisfied enough. Which, I guess, works just fine considering its subject matter has the same effect. 

HYSTERIA Review

Movies like Hysteria seem to always surprise me. This conclusion is based on nothing more than the time period in which the story is set. I always assume that anything having to do with the late 1800's or so will be terribly boring (see, it has even affected the way I describe the era) and that a story being told from this time can only be equally as exciting. Excitement, for lack of a better term, is exactly what Hysteria intends to induce though, if not in its audience at least in its characters which in turn relays some pretty good laughs to those of us unsure about what we were walking into in the first place. While the hook here is that the movie tells a story more appropriate to what might be featured on an MTV show today it places these actions in that time period when everything was supposedly so prim and proper. That time where everything private was actually kept that way and an individual prided themselves on their public image. It is funny to watch this, especially in the early scenes where our main character Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is exposed to the practices of his new employer and how they attempt to cover up what they are really doing with fancy medical talk. While it is entertaining to a point the joke quickly wears pretty slim and what we are left with is a pretty standard romantic comedy that is clearly trying to be something more by adding in the restrictions and conventions of the 1880's but instead gives us a few good laughs, a typical Maggie Gyllenhaal character, and a lovely little romance to tie everything up in the end.