BLACK BEAR Review

Black Bear may as well have been called Bat Shit because that's how crazy it is. Everything worthwhile that could be said about Lawrence Michael Levine's film almost can't be discussed for fear of spoiling any aspect of what lies beyond the title screen, but I'll do my best. For starters, Black Bear is seemingly about the creative process with the question of, "how far is too far?" looming over every facet. Levine is an actor, director, and writer himself as well as being married to fellow multi-hyphenate Sophia Takal which undoubtedly inspired certain details of the film if not having been based outright on actual conversations the couple has had. Add to the mix Aubrey Plaza who not only takes the lead role here, but the role of producer as her relationship with writer/director Jeff Baena (Life After Beth, The Little Hours) no doubt assisted in her understanding of if not being completely empathetic to the material and her character of Allison. What is then immediately fascinating about Black Bear is that despite the large possibility of self-indulgence or - as Sarah Gadon's Blair might say, "the large possibility of solipsism" - Black Bear somehow manages to steer clear of its own self-satisfaction by essentially becoming something of a satire not necessarily of the people, but more of the circumstances they've driven themselves to in pursuit of this creative endeavor they've put so much stock in. What's curious is that said creative endeavors and the process such require in order to fully produce them are, by virtue of the fact they're existence is only justified by an individual's existential need create them, essentially exercises in some form of narcissism themselves. Does that then make Black Bear Levine's attempt to try and suss out his own level of self-awareness and assure those in the audience that no matter the level of commitment and passion poured into his projects that at the end of the day he's blatantly aware his work could have as little an impact as it could a large one? It kind of feels that way as everything about Levine's third narrative feature would seemingly mark it as your standard indie hipster typically found at Sundance, but by nature of the exploration taking place Black Bear more intends to dissect what it means to exist as someone that constantly tries to subvert the mainstream while still appealing to it in real-life situations. How do we best embody and represent our beliefs through our actions? Why do we always want what we don't have? How far is too far? Levine asks a lot of questions (many more than he answers) with Black Bear and though the ultimate theme, intention, and even point of the film isn't all that clear it still makes for a fascinating experiment in introspection nonetheless.             

MAPS TO THE STARS Review

I don't understand the intent of satire if not to criticize and expose the stupidity of others with the inflicted idea of how to correct such stupidity. I'm not saying everyone who pokes fun of something has to have a solution for how it shouldn't be funny, but while director David Cronenberg's latest, Maps to the Stars, is most definitely intended to be satire it certainly has no intention of being funny and with that one would expect it to have something more to say than the comments it hands out. If you've been watching movies for any amount of time you will come to realize the one thing Hollywood loves more than money is itself and so the indie kings, the rebellious filmmakers and those who generally defy the system consistently mock it for never allowing them the artistic expression to do as they please. To this point, I'm not one who is overly-keen on Cronenberg's work (though I admittedly haven't seen much) and so before you read any further know there is a bit of a grudge present because despite hearing promising things from the time I really began investing critical thinking in films (A History of Violence) I have come to be slightly disappointed with the results of what has been praised. Again, his last couple efforts (Cosmopolis and A Dangerous Method) have admittedly not been his most well-received, but while I knew I was experiencing something different with both Violence and Eastern Promises I didn't necessarily dig what I was seeing either. Maybe I didn't "get" what Cronenberg was going for, it's easy to dismiss it as such, but in giving a valid effort to want to like every film I watch I typically come away with something whether I feel a movie is good or bad, but the majority of the time I walk away from a Cronenberg picture I simply feel frustrated. I know there is plenty more to see between what I've heard about Scanners and The Fly, but why should I feel intrigued when the other products this company has produced haven't been satisfactory? Maps to the Stars is no different in that it features a singular style and voice, but more disappointing here is the fact we've seen this kind of satire before and so this typically unique perspective doesn't even feel fresh.

DRACULA UNTOLD Review

First time feature writers Burk Sharpless and Matt Sazama have traced the root of the Dracula name back to the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia or "Vlad the Impaler" and told his story as a point of origin for the Dracula myth that was popularized by Bram Stoker in his 1897 horror novel. While this may seem like an interesting take on an age old tale it speaks volumes that it arrives at a time in the cinematic landscape when Universal wants to create a universe akin to Marvel's with their classic monster line-up as well as being on the back end of the vampire craze. It was evident from the first trailers of Dracula Untold that everything this film had to offer was already being shown. Strangely enough though, the trailers implied a large-scale film; one with sweeping locations and handsome costume design that would span possible centuries while rooting this origin story in an environment we might want to come to better know given the chance. In actuality the final product feels very small, a film akin to that of January's I, Frankenstein which results in nothing more than an ugly step-sister to the summer blockbusters that have equally silly stories or premises, but real vision and money behind them. To come down even harder on Dracula Untold is to take into consideration this is director Gary Shore's feature directorial debut (working from a screenplay by two rookie writers) and every ounce of that inexperience shows on the screen. To keep it simple, this is as by the numbers as you could ask for which I'm sure Shore was happy about because he'd managed to make something that looks and feels like everything else does at the moment, but it does nothing to set itself apart as an introduction to a world where great things could possibly happen. It is even somewhat unfair Universal would strap that responsibility on Shore and his crew in the first place. From the first 300-inspired frames of the film one can see where this is going, one can tell the type of tone that will be used simply by the dim aesthetic and bland dialogue that comes from every other film set in the 1400's. Dracula Untold is a mess, a film with some clear ambition (which is actually saying something), but one that can't seem to summon that ambition either on the page or in its visuals resulting in a film that is little more than recycled rubbish.

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 Review

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy set a high standard for comic book films. Not only did they have ambitions to be the best of their kind, but the best kind of film period. They looked to transcend the genre and that is more than well and good because I am a huge fan of Nolan and what he did for Batman, but in many ways that can only be the right approach for so many comic book heroes. Not every super hero benefits from being dark, brooding and grounded in reality. This idea of grounding everything from these fantastical, imaginary worlds into the reality that surrounds us will not always be possible and that is what director Marc Webb seems to have tapped into with his re-booted Spider-Man series that looks to fully embrace the world of the comics. Unlike many I was a big fan of the 2012 re-boot starring Andrew Garfield as the masked webslinger for despite the fact it lacked credible or sometimes even remotely intelligent dialogue (an issue that continues here) as well as relying too heavily on special effects in its clumsy action sequences (an issue both improved upon while still heavily leaning on the computer generated crutch) it was a Spider-Man film, that for the first time felt like it captured the spirit of the comics. I'll be the first to admit I am not a big comic book reader, but Spider-Man is an exception and was always a personal favorite of mine growing up. Not only for the little bit of comic reading that I dabbled in, but like Batman and the X-Men it was for the 90's animated series that pulled me into these worlds in the first place. What I enjoyed about 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was that it seemed to fully immerse itself in the world of its relatable protagonist and was unafraid to try and bring to the screen the more ridiculous of Spider-Man's villains which included a giant lizard in a lab coat. Seeing these actual worlds jump off the pages and onto the screen is what comic book fans have presumably wanted for years yet now that Nolan's Batman films have re-defined what a credible super hero movie is it is easy to look at those that don't adhere to the same rules as something of a lesser accomplishment. It is by the fact fans should come to the realization that this may be the closest in regards to all aspects of the way a movie can be made that a motion picture has captured the essence of what makes a comic so entertaining and endearing through its world building, its dramatic beats, its character development and most of all, its silliness. In short, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 really bowled me over.

ENEMY Review

I'm not sure what to make of Enemy. It is unclear what exactly I'm meant to take away from the picture, but what is clear to me is that I can't stop going over certain scenes and trying to put together the significance of the actions of the characters, of the shot choices, the color palette, the deeply intentional mood and score and why it builds at certain points and simply sits and broods at others. I want to understand it completely, but I don't and I know even if I offered up a theory of what I thought the final scene means it would likely be completely different from the person who was sitting next to me in the same theater. It is a film and a story meant to elicit conversation, meant to stir up academic-like discussion and it is clear from the opening moments we are in for something extremely meditative that while equally as stark and emotionally haunting (if not more so) than director Denis Villeneuve's previous effort, Prisoners, is much more in tune with its scale and its compact story. Where Prisoners was a sweeping epic of large themes Enemy plays its hand close to the chest and is all the more intriguing for it. As each new scene plays out I couldn't help but to wonder what each little thing meant, what I was intended to take away and if it would result in some revelation I'd already imagined in my mind or if it might come completely out of left field and take me with real surprise. The film opens with a quote simply stating that "chaos is order yet to be deciphered" and as we watch the strange story unravel I couldn't help but to keep repeating this little phrase in my mind and wonder in what sense it was meant to apply to our main characters. The same could be said about any number of things that different people will pick out to latch onto, what is the deeper psychological meaning of the constant references to hands? I'm not sure still, but one thing that remains clear is that I found the film to be completely fascinating and I can't wait to watch it again, to dissect it further and to see just how many different conversations I can have about it.

COSMOPOLIS Review

There is likely not enough pages in the world that could ever wrap themselves around the multiple ideas and theories that are tossed out in David Cronenberg's latest Cosmopolis. The film is based on a 2003 novel by Don DeLillo that wasn't all that well received itself but clearly sparked some kind of intrigue in the director as he's developed the story into an hour and forty-five minute feature film full of thoughts but lacking a main idea. Like its main character played by the surprisingly commanding Robert Pattinson the film believes itself to be smarter than everyone else. This plan of keeping the basic plot so simple that the overall story can seemingly go anywhere seems to backfire on the director and everyone involved as the film generally doesn't consist of much at all and it feels like it. There are those slickly made films every now and then that are so simple they are fascinating in their execution but Cosmopolis can't slip under the radar no matter how many big words it tries to throw at its audience. As I walked out of the theater I was still puzzled as to what I'd just experienced and couldn't really comprehend if any of it really meant anything to me, if any of it left an impression on me. Sure, there were certain pieces of dialogue, theories even that I found interesting and would liked to have seen explored further, but when it all comes down to that final (and only) tension filled scene we realize that nothing has built to this point. Not even the self discovery of Pattinson's asset manager Eric Packer can rescue the film from its dialogue and metaphoric heavy messages. There is something to the film that is strangely engaging, I'll give it that, but not enough to warrant the idea of translating these words to the screen.

Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) and his security guard
Torval (Kevin Durand) wait for the limo.

In essence the film can be summed up in one sentence. Packer, a 28 year-old asset manager in the not too distant future rides in his stretch limo across New York City for a haircut. That is the basis for what inspires several interactions throughout his trip that include discussions about his business, his status and the state of that power he holds over the Wall Street arena. The film is so precisely directed that we cannot help but to marvel at the genuine care that seems to have been taken to manufacture such a world, but unfortunately that is the only thing about this world that feels the least bit genuine. Pattinson, despite his bread and butter franchise is at least trying to break the mold and avoid falling into the trappings of mainstream studio films. Bucking the system by doing obscure and limit-pushing material such as this, but his character for all the danger and excess he likes to indulge in speaks in a monotone voice and conveys little emotion for us to understand his goals much less him as a human being. We watch and discover more and more about the character but become less enthralled with him. He is a kind of golden boy in the finance industry and is betting his company's future against the value of the yen as he fights the traffic of a pop stars funeral, a presidential visit, and an ongoing riot that seems strangely similar to an exaggerated Occupy Wall Street movement. In the process of getting to the barber he speaks with young, smart associates who always seem one step ahead of the average human being in their conversation guessing what their boss is thinking of them, how he is judging them. Packer will exit the vehicle occasionally mainly to eat with his new bride who seems to exist in a world completely opposite his own.

Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti) faces off against Packer
in the final act of Cosmopolis.

Whether it be that our lead character is talking to his mistress/art dealer (Juliette Binoche), his chief of theory as played by the always captivating Samantha Morton or another of his female associates where an intense conversation takes place as Packer gets his rectum examined. As all of these strange goings-on occur though, as we see the slew of people come in and out of the limo we begin to naturally catch on to the idea this is not simply about money for our complicated character but is more about constructing the image, the philosophy of a man who truly is more than the same person we all are at the base level. Packer is trying to be more than a man, he is attempting to represent a certain set of ideas that don't really have representation but are instead hidden from the world because of their shameful truths. He seeks out sexual satisfaction with different partners despite the disconnected marriage he shares with equally wealthy Elise (Sarah Gadon). He is looking to destroy the past to build a new future not only for himself but for this lost generation that have grown up believing their is an American dream they can someday achieve. It is fine enough ideas, and the dialogue is sharply written as it is seemingly translated directly from DeLillo's book but as it is the movie tells more than it shows and in that I can't fully understand the justification for why one would want to watch this film rather than simply read the book. The ideas would likely stick better with the reader than the viewer. Even with the almost Kubrickian style that Cronenberg implies to capture the visuals and direct, emotionless delivery of the dialogue we cannot become fully invested in Pattison's odyssey.

Eric Packer's new wife Elise (Sarah Gadon) is just as
wealthy if not as adventurous as her new husband.

What does stick from the countless conversations held in Cosmopolis is this idea of how we or our world has come to be how it is in its most current form. That idea that Packer is always challenging himself to overcome and to ultimately figure out. How should he know what to do with his future, how does he become the human being he so badly wants to be without knowing if he can rely on what fuels any persons knowledge: their experiences. That theory becomes as close to the main idea of the film as we get. That is fine except for the fact that the film itself is cold and for all the deep and intelligent conversations that are being had it feels empty. In the final act of the film Packer meets a disgruntled past employee (Paul Giamatti) where the limits of who Packer is and what he wants out of this life are put to the test. It is both the most entertaining and intriguing part of the film which could be for many reasons but what it ultimately proves is that a film doesn't have to be so self-serious and restrained to the point it can undoubtedly be considered art but can be as thought provoking as it is interesting and fun to watch. The tension is built perfectly as Pattinson and Giamatti dance around the films best conversations and topics. They are the ones that stick with the audience and not just because they are the last ones we hear in the film. I have never really responded to Cronenberg's work the way some do and I find it hard to see what has garnered him such a fine reputation as a filmmaker. There is an abstraction here that I simply don't understand in terms of filmmaking but I do consider myself more intelligent than to simply buy into rich, powerful, good looking people spouting philosophy at me and for those reasons expecting me to believe every word of it without question. If that is what Cronenberg is doing than there are plenty of logical questions that need to be addressed in his film. Did the guy really need a haircut in the first place? Let's start there.

    
    

COSMOPOLIS Review

There is likely not enough pages in the world that could ever wrap themselves around the multiple ideas and theories that are tossed out in David Cronenberg's latest Cosmopolis. The film is based on a 2003 novel by Don DeLillo that wasn't all that well received itself but clearly sparked some kind of intrigue in the director as he's developed the story into an hour and forty-five minute feature film full of thoughts but lacking a main idea. Like its main character played by the surprisingly commanding Robert Pattinson the film believes itself to be smarter than everyone else. This plan of keeping the basic plot so simple that the overall story can seemingly go anywhere seems to backfire on the director and everyone involved as the film generally doesn't consist of much at all and it feels like it. There are those slickly made films every now and then that are so simple they are fascinating in their execution but Cosmopolis can't slip under the radar no matter how many big words it tries to throw at its audience. As I walked out of the theater I was still puzzled as to what I'd just experienced and couldn't really comprehend if any of it really meant anything to me, if any of it left an impression on me. Sure, there were certain pieces of dialogue, theories even that I found interesting and would liked to have seen explored further, but when it all comes down to that final (and only) tension filled scene we realize that nothing has built to this point. Not even the self discovery of Pattinson's asset manager Eric Packer can rescue the film from its dialogue and metaphoric heavy messages. There is something to the film that is strangely engaging, I'll give it that, but not enough to warrant the idea of translating these words to the screen.