Revenge Served Too Cold

"Coriolanus"

Actor Ralph Fiennes has a great pair of eyes.  They can be incredibly expressive and completely covey what his character is feeling during a scene.  There's a scene in Coriolanus that illustrates the power of his piercing icy blue pupils.  Rome General Caius Maritus Coriolanus (Fiennes) is engaged in battle with a soldier from the Volscian army.  After finishing off the combatant with a knife, Coriolanus's face is drenched in blood.  But we are still able to see those intense blue eyes of his showing that his character is a force to be reckoned with to anyone who happens to cross his path.  Unfortunately that ferociousness that is so pervasive from Coriolanus through about the first hour of the film dissipates quite quickly in the second hour making for an uneven cinematic experience.

In an alternate modern day Rome the city is in the middle of a terrible food shortage.  Rome's citizens are in a state of unrest and are looking to their government for answers.  Rome is at war with the neighboring city of Volsci.  Volsci's army is led by Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler,) sworn enemy of Rome and Coriolanus.  After a brutal skirmish Coriolanus and Aufidius both return to their homes.  Rome's senate further honors and decorates Coriolanus for his achievements on the battlefield.  Coriolanus is then poised to run for an advisory position in the senate much to the delight of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave.)

Despite Coriolanus's militaristic accomplishments there are a couple of senators who do not care much for his demeanor and question his love for the citizens that he has sworn to protect.  These two senators go on to prompt the masses to provoke exile to their power hungry general.  Much to Coriolanus's great disliking he is cast out of the city.  Months pass and Coriolanus makes his way to the city of his enemies and decides to join forces with Aufidius and exact his revenge upon the city that turned its back on him.

Coriolanus is adapted from one of the many works of the great William Shakespeare.  I generally prefer Shakespeare's tragedies to his comedies.  For instance, I think the stage and film versions of Titus Andronicus are both fantastic in their own right.  Coriolanus must have been one of Shakespeare's lesser known and respected works because before this film I had never heard of it.  There's probably a reason why Coriolanus is not talked about when discussing the works of the master playwright.  This tale of revenge loses much of its momentum after the first act.  The tone of the film almost entirely changes.  Very little character development is further expanded upon and we left to just sort of wait around for a hopefully exciting third act.  To much disappoint the conclusion is a major letdown to its plot and characters.  Patience does not payoff in this picture. 

In regards to the performances I was only impressed with about half of the cast.  Despite its modern day setting, Coriolanus leaves its original language intact.  One reason I did not care much for Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet was because Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio seemed to not have any understanding of what they were saying to each other.  That is a huge problem when your actors do not have comprehension of the poetic language which they are speaking to one another.  Fiennes, Redgrave, and Brain Cox I believe possessed that ability to deliver their lines with much believability and conviction.  All of their scenes were solid.  While Butler, Jessica Chastain, and the two actors playing the pair of senators just sort of flounder about through their dialogue.       

Coriolanus was Fiennes's first time at being behind the camera.  Why he chose to do this as his rookie directorial debut I have no idea.  Why Shakespeare?  Better yet, why mediocre Shakespeare?  He does get a powerful performance from Redgrave and of course himself as well.  In the storytelling department though, that is another matter entirely.  There are glimpses of Fiennes's cinematic eye which I am sure will further develop with more practice.  Coriolanus does have a few high points but they are mired due to an unlikable main character and unbalanced pacing.  The tone of revenge gets lost along the way and is unable to redeem itself.  I know revenge is dish best served cold, but this tastes like it has freezer burn.

Personal and Confidential

"J. Edgar"

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a very talented and extremely lucky guy.  At the age of only 37, he has been able to propel himself into a household name.  DiCaprio is arguably one of the most sought after actors right now in Hollywood.  Here is a list of directors he has worked with:  Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Steven Speilberg, Baz Luhrmann, Christopher Nolan, Sam Mendes, Danny Boyle, and James Cameron.  That is an incredibly impressive list of elite directors.  All of them must have seen something in DiCaprio and wanted to work with him.  Now Leo can add director Clint Eastwood to his list.  Over the past fifteen years DiCaprio's performances have varied but that is also due in part to the overall strength of the films.  Eastwood's J. Edgar had all the right ingredients to be a good film, but unfortunately left a bland after taste.

J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) has led a long and supposedly interesting life.  He decides to tell us his life story by dictating it to a typist who is writing up his manuscript.  The film shows us more of what kind of man he was in his personal life.  The relationship with his mother (Judi Dench) and the intimate affair he had with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) take up good chunks of the film.  J. Edgar also addresses Hoover's need to crack down on all the greed and corruption stemming from America's most wanted gangsters.  The formation of the F.B.I., the technique of finger printing, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and the growing threat of the communism are key events that are played out during the film. 

The screenplay was written by Dustin Lance Black who received an Oscar for his work on Milk.  There are some similarities between Milk and J. Edgar particularly with how each film opens.  They both have the main character dictating to us their life story.  I didn't have a problem with Harvey Milk retelling us his life story in that particular manner.  However, the fact that Black starts this screenplay essentially the same way makes me question his ability to write bio pics.  Also, Milk was an openly gay man whereas Hoover was most likely a closeted homosexual, although it was never proven.  J. Edgar though flings those closet doors wide open making it blatantly clear that it is of the opinion of Mr. Black that Mr. Hoover was a homosexual.  Black himself is gay.  One thing I liked about Milk was that it was written with such a clear and passionate message about societal issues that we are still battling today.  I didn't feel that Black had anything to say though when writing about Hoover.  It felt as though one of the few reasons Black wanted to write a bio pic about this guy was because of sexual orientation.   

The film’s biggest flaw lies within the character of J. Edgar Hoover himself.  The man's self-inflated power hungry egotistical mind is too big and unlikeable for this picture.  Never was I able to grow attached and really get behind his causes.  Clearly Hoover is responsible for some truly monumental achievements in recent American history but that doesn't mean that I respect him and what he stood for given his attitude toward so many people.  The film comes off as too dry and uninteresting.  It’s overly long in in what it wants to accomplish.  The content of J. Edgar feels like a film that could be shown in a classroom setting.

I can't understand why Eastwood would sign on to do something like this.  He definitely makes films for a more mature crowd.  But even if I were around during Hoover's time I think this film would still miss the mark.  It is nowhere near as enjoyable as some of the more recent bio pics that we have seen like Ray or Walk the Line.  If Eastwood really wanted to work with DiCaprio than he should have waited and cast him in a different project.  I thought that he was quite effective in his portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator.  With J. Edgar though, DiCaprio seems too young to take on such a role even with fairy convincing old age make up.  His interpretation and understanding of the character seems stilted.  The film does have a few good scenes which are mostly the ones with Hammer.  It's too bad that this collaboration between Eastwood and DiCaprio turned out to be so tepid and flavorless.  The film doesn't add anything to what kind of person actually was because not much is known about him to begin with.  All his personal and confidential files were shredded.  If Black, DiCaprio, and Eastwood wanted to shed light on this historical American figure, I certainly was still left in the dark. 

What a Bargain

"Everything Must Go"

It is said by actors that doing comedy is much harder than drama.  It takes real talent to make an audience laugh.  For an actor like Will Ferrel, I'd like think it's the complete opposite.  I quite enjoyed his performance in Stranger Than Fiction because he wasn't acting like his usual zany self.  Ferrel showed me his serious side and it paid off.  He was able to convey a range of emotions as an actor that was not of his usual shtick.  In Everything Must Go he once again takes on a serious role that may not bring in the big box office grosses but more importantly expands his résumé and shows us that he is challenging himself as an actor.

Nick Halsey's (Ferrel) alcoholic relapse ends up costing him his job as a well-respected and highly paid salesman at the company he's been with for over fifteen years.  To add to Nick's woes he comes home to find that all his personal belongings have been thrown out on the front lawn by his wife who is no longer living at their home.  What a bummer.  Detective Frank Garcia (Michael Pena,) who happens to be Nick's Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor gives him an ultimatum.  He has three days to sober up and sell off all his stuff because living on the lawn forever is not a legal option.  Nick enlists the help of neighborhood teen, Kenny (Christopher C.J. Wallace,) to help set up and organize a yard sale.

Everything Must Go is an incredibly strong character driven piece featuring a fantastic performance from Ferrel.  I did not feel as though he was forcing something that was not there.  Everything that he was doing as an actor came off as genuine and believable.  My sympathies were with his character all the way.  Nick is not a mean drunk, although he does moments of anger.  There are several good scenes between him and Kenny as well as Samantha (Rebecca Hall,) a neighbor from across the street.  Ferrel's emotions are heartfelt and honest.  I knew there had to be more to the actor than what I usually saw from him.  

Even though there really isn't much story to the film it does come off as a good reflective piece.  Nick is able to look back on his life and see the man used to be, where he is now, and what needs to happen in his future.  Again, all of this is being portrayed by Ferrel beautifully.  This is a character that is relatable in one way or another because even though he has made some mistakes and has his share of problems, in no way is Nick a bad guy.  I've always found it difficult to feel sympathy for characters who are alcoholics.  With this film I didn’t feel that way towards Nick.  I wanted him to succeed and turn his life around because he conveyed a sense of urgency to me.

Well-acted and sufficiently written, Everything Must Go comes off as the perfect film for Ferrel.  He meets the challenge of showing us that he does have some real acting chops when it comes to doing a dramatic role.  Despite what the box office may reflect I would like him to continue to keep adding more serious roles to his résumé.  I'm not however saying that's all he should do from now on.  Every once in a while would be nice though.  If you enjoyed Ferrel's performance in Stranger Than Fiction then this is the right film for you.  If your vision is limited to Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Step Brothers, that’s too bad.  Don't discount Everything Must Go just because all the other Will Ferrel flicks are gone from the shelf.  Pick this one up, it's quite the bargain.     

Batteries and Brains Not Included

"Hysteria"

The premise of Hysteria sounded pretty funny to me.  I was lead to believe that this was going to be a film about the invention of the first electric vibrator.  To my surprise and great disappoint the film touches on that subject matter only but for a brief ten minute sequence.  I got the feeling that the screenwriters came up with that humorous portion first and then realized that they needed to build characters and plot around that concept.  The end result of this 100 minute feature is quite a mess.  I felt unfulfilled having just watched something that should have taken advantage of such a humorous idea.  Instead the film came off as a complete waste of time.

In late 1800's London Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) has just been fired from his position at a local hospital because he was of the rare breed of doctor who believed in the concept of germs.  After several rejections from other medical institutions he is finally hired on as an assistant to Dr. Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce.)  Dr. Dalrymple is in the business of treating women who suffer from hysteria.  The explanation I got from this film about the illness of hysteria is that it makes women all hot and bothered because they are feeling sexually repressed in their boring everyday lives while they sit around at home.  Have no fear; the cure is physical stimulation to the female genitalia that can only be administered from a doctor with the steadiest of hands.  It's hard to believe that back then there was a procedure commonly practiced on women without the notion of what was being performed on them was actually considered the least bit sexually intrusive and done purely for pleasure.  

Dr. Dalrymple has two lovely daughters, Emily (Felicity Jones) and Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who catches the eye of Granville.  Emily is much more reserved and tends to take after her father, while Charlotte is a real wild child.  She is of the free thinking, progressive, feminist types.  Charlotte works at a shelter/school for women and children of the lower class.  A kind of forbidden love is formed between her and Granville.  Can the two put their societal ideals aside so that their true can blossom?

Whoops, I forgot to mention the part about the invention of the personal electric massager.  That's because the film almost forgets to mention that part too.  Hysteria doesn't address the "conflict" until about the one hour mark.  Everything leading up to that aforementioned ten minutes is a ton of unnecessary character development between Dancy's and Gyllenhaal's characters.  Characters that we don't seem to care about at all take up far too much time.  "When are they going to get to vibrators," I kept thinking to myself.  I wanted this film to start moving along.

After a few chuckles from the stimulating scenes showing us the creation of device that Granville and his friend (Rupert Everett) invent, it's then quickly back to the Charlotte dreck which consumes the rest of the film.  There is a big difference between slow films and boring films.  I don't have a problem with slow films.  Patience is a virtue which in turn pays off sometimes in slow films.  It's when a film becomes boring and neither the characters nor the plot are progressed; that's when I start constantly looking at my wrist watch.  None of the scenes carry any sort of interest or weight to them.  The plot and characters meander about giving us the impression that what we're watching is supposed to be entertaining and engaging.  Seriously though, nothing happens in this film.

Hysteria feels like it was originally a sketch on Saturday Night Live and then unfortunately turned into a feature length film.  The premise is almost entirely squandered.  Gyllenhaal is completely miscast and does a poor English accent against an entirely British cast.  It makes me think that the studio needed her as star power to sell this movie to American audiences.  I wouldn't say that this is a completely unwatchable film considering there are worse pieces of cinema out there.  It's just immensely disappointing.  One of the opening shots of the film is a character stepping in a pile of horse feces.  That is certainly how I felt while watching Hysteria, unable to scrape it from the sole of my shoe.

Mind and Body Games

"The Game"

Piecing together a jigsaw puzzle can be a fun activity to do by one's self.  All the pieces have to fit one way or the other to form something bigger.  After you dump all the fragments of cardboard out on the table the pile appears monstrous, overwhelming, and confusing.  How are they all supposed connect to one another?  The idea behind a puzzle first and foremost should be enjoyment.  However, a puzzle can become frustrating to the point where you want to just give up.  You know you have to finish it though because in the end you can look back and have a feeling of accomplishment.  This is pretty much how I felt while watching David Fincher's The Game.

It's investment banker Nicholas Van Orton's (Michael Douglas) birthday.  A big house and fancy car are just some of the perks of being an incredibly successful business man living in San Francisco.  But what present would be fitting to get for the man who has everything?  Sure the man has his wealth, but where's all the fun and excitement in his life?  Conrad (Sean Penn,) Nicholas's brother, thinks he knows a way to cheer him up.  Conrad gives Nicholas the gift of Consumer Recreation Services (CRS.)  CRS is a company that tailors games to fit the specific needs of any individual.    While at their facilities, Nicholas is subjected to a bunch of physical and mental tests which are supposedly collecting data that will be used in his game.  But when will the game commence?  After a creepy clown doll shows up at his house and broadcasters on the nightly news start directly talking to him; that's how Nicholas knows his game has started.  From there our protagonist is put through a series of events, some that are even near death experiences. Soon the game starts to consume his life.  Is this really all part of the game designed by CRS? 

The Game came out after Fincher's Se7en but before Fight Club.  I have to say that I felt fairly pleased with this film.  It has none of the grotesqueness of Se7en or overrated hype of Fight Club.  Don't get me wrong, both are good films in their own right.  Given the choice though I think I would re-watch The Game before the two formally mentioned films.  The Game came off as being a decent psychological thriller.  For the first hour of the film the screenplay is confusing, misleading, and most of all puzzling.  All of this is intentional though because I want to be on the same knowledge level as Nicholas.  I want to feel everything that he is feeling.  Fincher and the screenwriters do a fine job of this.  

The plot has its twists and turns along the way which come off as somewhat unbelievable at times, but not as clichéd as I was expecting because at no point did I feel I knew more than Nicholas.  It certainly is a guessing game because paranoia begins to set in.  How much of what we are seeing is actually part of the game?  I liked that element of being overly suspicious of everything and everyone.  It subtly works its way into the picture.  This is a smart thriller that knows how to push its audience.  

I guess my main complaint would be the ending.  I wouldn't characterize it as being problematic.  That seems too harsh.  Improbable is more like it.  I'm not going to fault the film for that though.  The Game is such a tangled web of deceit that even though it is overreaching its boundaries, that level of extremity had to be obtained.  I accept the conclusion in all its craziness.

The immaculate production design by Jeffrey Beecroft and handsome photography by Harris Savides further accentuate the mood and tone of this film.  The Game is an intriguing and subtle psychological thriller that invites us to play along in game that is not what it appears to be.  This is a worthy entry in Fincher's career.  I think his direction is somewhat more restrained in this picture than his other works but that's because the screenplay doing most of the work.  The Game is a tense and exciting piece of cinema.  Jefferson Airplane’s White Rabbit is used in one scene during the film.  As the lyrics suggest, “Feed your head, feed your head,” and give your brain some stimulation with this above average thriller.