GREEN BOOK Review

There isn't a person you wouldn't love if you could read their story. I tend to try and not speak in absolutes and there may or may not be some exceptions to this rule, but the point is an obvious one: all the races and people with different sexual orientations or different religious beliefs can get along once we really get to know one another; that we're not really all that different after all. That's all well and good, but it's also a tried and true formula that at least one Hollywood production trots out every awards season to try and make us all feel better about ourselves. One might think, given the current cultural climate, that any movie attempting to bring people together might immediately be dismissed as one party's agenda to corrupt another into actually having a conversation with a person of opposing views, but maybe that's ultimately why Green Book feels so good right now and ironically, so needed. There isn't a damn thing here you haven't heard or seen before and director Peter Farrelly (one half of the brother directing duo who brought us comedy classics like Dumb & Dumber and There's Something About Mary, but also brought us Dumb & Dumber To and The Heartbreak Kid) directs with the eye of about as mainstream a filmmaker as it gets meaning there is nothing glaringly unique or interesting about the way in which he captures these events, but this does mean it will undoubtedly speak to a very large audience. There was some slight hope that Farrelly might utilize his experience in his years of making broad studio comedies to infuse the many predictable formulas this movie utilizes with a more striking tone or presence, but while taking on a project like this might have been a bold thing for the filmmaker to do given his past credits he alas decides to do nothing bold in the execution of this change in pace, but instead plays it right down the middle. Fortunately for Farrelly, the story has such a great inherent hook and given he's hired two more than capable talents to lead his film it hardly matters how he's saying what he wants to say as long as it's competent enough to capture how Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen are saying what they want to say. It's largely through these two performers that Green Book transcends the calculations of a movie such as itself, eclipsing every predictable note it plays that could have so easily rung false to become something genuinely endearing; a true crowd-pleaser in the least cynical and most delightful of ways.

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC Review

Captain Fantastic director Matt Ross sure seems to have a grudge against Christianity. Or organized religion in general (which doesn't include Buddhism despite the fact there is a degree of organization that ensures rituals take place and dates are observed) as his directorial debut takes large aim at the followers of Jesus Christ and more or less insults them to a degree that doesn't offer enlightening or insightful reasons as to why these characters think a certain way nor does it provide a compelling alternative, but rather sticks to calling out an entire group of people without stepping back to recognize its own shortcomings. It is understandable given there are plenty of Christians who give what is intended to be a religion based on love above everything else a bad name with hateful words and actions just as I assume there are atheists or followers of other faiths that aren't exactly representative of the best of those organizations or groups core values. Still, as the largest religion in the world by a large margin it is understandable why Christianity takes most of the heat. It has the most variations thus numerous perspectives from which it can be criticized. As a practicing Christian I don't tend to get offended by those who hurl insults for if I'm wrong then so be it, but if I'm right then even better. Why wouldn't we want there to be something more to this life, though? Don't we all need something to look forward to? Isn't that how we continue to thrive and push on in our current lives? Looking forward to what's next? It's a question I find myself considering often when it seems those opposed to the existence of God seem to want to be right more than they want to actually consider the alternative. There is a difference in insulting a religion or system of beliefs in and of itself and insulting the people who decide to base their lives on those beliefs. Often, films with an agenda to oppose organized religion will call out the many available flaws and lack of proof such beliefs are based on rather than the intelligence of those who believe, but Captain Fantastic clearly has a vendetta against those who find comfort in their faith-even if that ends up being all it is. As human beings we need a little assurance, we need something to sometimes make our existence bearable and if religion or faith does that for someone, why should it bother those who don't need it? I don't have the answer to that question and the problem with Captain Fantastic is that it doesn't either.

THE TWO FACES OF JANUARY Review

There is nothing particularly groundbreaking about The Two Faces of January, but that doesn't make it a pointless experience. In fact, it is rather refreshing in the sense that it knows what it is and takes pride in accomplishing what it sets out to do fairly well. It is a film set in the early 1960's that doesn't overly glorify the day and age it takes place, but rather insists on the time period for the aura though the tone of the film feels closer to that of a 40's drama/romance. Everything we see unfold here is standard within that type of film and within the genre we know we are nestling into, yet the inherent excitement that comes with the engaging premise consistently manages to entertain. It is when watching a movie such as this that one begins to take into consideration how well a film works within the restrictions of its classification and judge its success on that and not simply on what statement it might be trying to make. In talking specifically about The Two Faces of January we are taken into a world of yesteryear where the politics weren't politics, but agendas disguised by adventure and if you don't know any better that's all you have to take it as. Though I'm sure Patricia Highsmith's 1964 novel from which this is adapted has a level of deeper meaning akin to the time in which she wrote it as well as alluding to possible themes someone such as myself, raised in the modern world with little reference to older lifestyles, will not pick up on I was still able to have a fun time watching things unfold. This is a thriller in the most stylish sense of the word and despite the fact that by the time the conclusion comes around we will feel it was all vaguely familiar one can still appreciate it for what it brought to the table while it was on. Like I said, this isn't necessarily anything new or refreshing in any sense, but it is comforting in that it is reliable and is constructed beautifully with top notch performances from some of today's more serious-minded actors elevating the material to even more efficient enjoyment.      

A DANGEROUS METHOD Review

I will be the first to admit that I am not a David Cronenberg follower. I have seen snippets of his last two films also starring Viggo Mortensen but have either fallen asleep or not been able to finish them. I hear nothing but great things about both and before you cry foul know that it is not because I think his work unworthy. I actually have found most of what I've seen intriguing but more importantly a real craft and passion for the story he is telling. This comes especially in hand with "A Dangerous Method" as Cronenberg delivers a film all about ideas that can hardly go a scene change without documenting some kind of ideological speech that is being given. It is a talky film, but one that is relentlessly engaging. For a film that is essentially discussing the root causes of human behavior and the psychological meanings of it all the film is very matter of fact. Presenting its ideas in a way you don't have to dig to discover meaning in. It is clear the director has a fascination with the mind and Freud's ideas that sexual drives are the primary motivational forces of human life. Which leads me to wonder why, despite this presenting countless interesting theories, that passion that seems to be evident in Cronenberg's desire to tell the story actually ends up delivering a film that feels more cold and distant than any of the bits I have seen from his other films. Don't get wrong, I found "A Dangerous Method" both troubling and complex but in the end it was not exactly entertaining; something that wouldn't factor in if you were writing a research paper, but still counts when you're making a movie.

Freud (Viggo Mortensen) attends to his student Carl
Jung (Michael Fassbender) after he receives a difficult patient.

The film opens on a frantic Keira Knightley as she is taken from a train on her fathers request and put into the care of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Knightley as Sabina Spielrein is what seems to be an impossible case for the young doctor Jung; a student taught in the ways of his mentor Sigmund Freud. I was unfamiliar with the story that is supposed to be based on fact before seeing the film but it can essentially be summed up in a way that makes it sound more like a cliché-laden romance novel than it actually is. The script was adapted by Oscar-winning writer Christopher Hampton from his play, The Talking Cure which certainly suits the film more. The studio no doubt adjusted the title in what both they and I expected to become a more uneasy, S&M film at the hands of Cronenberg but instead the main conflict comes not from the actions on screen, but in the theories and dissections of dreams that are carried out between Jung and Freud. The simplicity of the overall plot is elevated when Jung begins an affair with what the film portrays as his cured patient in Spielrein that has a taste for the rough stuff. Now, clearly this exercise in breaking societal rules has an effect on the discussions Jung and Freud have, but the forward approach to the analytic process hardly compliments the plot. This causes a kind of disbandment in the tone of the film that is only brought together by the period clothes and set dressings.

Sabina Spielrein (Knightley) and Dr. Jung break a few rules
of the doctor/patient agreement. 

What elevated the film for me, besides the fact the debates are extremely interesting, was in fact the great performances. I had heard many complain of Mortensen's casting as Freud before the film debuted but Cronenberg clearly has an affection for Mortensen who is more than a capable actor. He plays Freud with an air of regal arrogance that is justified by his level of intelligence. It is a fine supporting role and one that may not be as influential in the film as you might expect. The real surprise here for me was Knightley, who we've seen in a number of period roles before but here she pours her heart and soul into Spielrein. In the first ten or so minutes of the film after being taken from the train and forced to complete a session with Jung she nearly comes out of her skin with rage and an irritable tick that doesn't sell us short on the fact there is something wrong with the woman. It is in fact almost too much, but thankfully Knightley brings it down a few octaves and by the time her and Jung begin to get it on we see her performance go from showy to down right cunning. In what is a more interesting piece of casting in Fassbender is that in ways Jung compliments his character in the drastically different but similarly themed "Shame". His character in "Shame" could easily have been one of his patients in "A Dangerous Method" and though I haven't seen the Steve McQueen film yet it almost seems Fassbender's character there would resemble Otto Gross (the always appealing Vincent Cassel) another of Jung's patients that opens his eyes to the restrictions of our delusional society. Fassbender has had quite a year with his role as Mr. Rochester in "Jane Eyre" and a young Magneto in "X-Men: First Class" and he continues to deliver excellent work here with a commanding performance that though not as flamboyant as Knightley's keeps up with hers at every turn.

Jung goes from a young idealist to a cynical vet through-
out the course of "A Dangerous Method".

I didn't expect to get your average movie-going experience with "A Dangerous Method" and that certainly came true, but while I did prepare myself for somewhat of a lecture, a discourse of academic thinking spouted by credible actors in fancy costumes, I didn't expect it to be so appealingly forward. Appealing might be the wrong word as the film is pretty open about its discussions and thoughts on sex and its nature, but the fact remains we all have desires and dreams that can be analyzed and interpreted many different ways. What this film does is extend a glimpse into the minds of some of the more famous neurologist's of the late twentieth century. Cronenberg dresses his actors and sets in stark blacks and whites making it a classy but colorless landscape that is also slightly bland, but allows the visual style not to over take the content of the words that are so often expressed. "A Dangerous Method" features some great performances and plenty of interesting ideas but if you're not up for a talky drama you might find yourself more bored than invested.

A DANGEROUS METHOD Review

I will be the first to admit that I am not a David Cronenberg follower. I have seen snippets of his last two films also starring Viggo Mortensen but have either fallen asleep or not been able to finish them. I hear nothing but great things about both and before you cry foul know that it is not because I think his work unworthy. I actually have found most of what I've seen intriguing but more importantly a real craft and passion for the story he is telling. This comes especially in hand with "A Dangerous Method" as Cronenberg delivers a film all about ideas that can hardly go a scene change without documenting some kind of ideological speech that is being given. It is a talky film, but one that is relentlessly engaging. For a film that is essentially discussing the root causes of human behavior and the psychological meanings of it all the film is very matter of fact. Presenting its ideas in a way you don't have to dig to discover meaning in. It is clear the director has a fascination with the mind and Freud's ideas that sexual drives are the primary motivational forces of human life. Which leads me to wonder why, despite this presenting countless interesting theories, that passion that seems to be evident in Cronenberg's desire to tell the story actually ends up delivering a film that feels more cold and distant than any of the bits I have seen from his other films. Don't get wrong, I found "A Dangerous Method" both troubling and complex but in the end it was not exactly entertaining; something that wouldn't factor in if you were writing a research paper, but still counts when you're making a movie.