REVIEW: “The Babadook”

BABDOOK POSTER

You could say there are two very different stories being told in “The Babadook”. But over time you’ll notice that the two are cleverly and shrewdly interwoven giving us something well beyond a run-of-the-mill horror film. It’s an intelligent film made with a tiny $2 million budget and actually completed thanks to a Kickstarter campaign. The end result turned heads at Sundance and it is finally getting deserved respect from a wider audience.

The film was written and directed by Jennifer Kent and found its roots in a short film Kent made in 2005. The story follows a widowed single mother named Amelia (Essie Davis) and her young son Samuel (Noah Wiseman). The two have been alone since the death of her husband and his father. Samuel hasn’t adapted well to his fatherless home. He’s a lonely boy with a number of behavioral issues which cause problems at school and home. On top of that Samuel is haunted by dreams of a terrifying monster and his belief in it causes his behavior to be even more erratic and troubling.

BABA1

But it could be said the film is more about Amelia. She is an earnest and loving mother who struggles to conceal her own sorrows and burdens for the sake of her son. Kent’s vision and Davis’ performance create a disconsolate portrayal of a woman drowning in her circumstances. We get close looks at how her situation effects every social and potentially romantic relationship she has. We easily sympathize with Amelia which makes the sharp turns in the second half of the film all the more devastating.

One night things take an even worse turn. Samuel asks Amelia to read him a pop-up children’s book titled “Mr. Babadook”. It’s a grisly story about a creature who consumes those made aware of his existence. Samuel is convinced Babadook is real leading to even more troubling behavior. A series of creepy events begin happening around their house which Amelia first attributes to her son. But soon she too comes face-to-face with the question of Babadook’s existence. It’s here that the lines between reality and the supernatural are blurred.

“The Babadook” is a creepy movie but not in the conventional sense. Jennifer Kent pointed to movies like “The Shining”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, and even “Nosferatu” as influences and you can see them in her technique and presentation. And “The Babadook” does indeed employ several familiar horror film devices. But she uses such a careful and strategic blend of classic haunted house scares, boogie man frights, and the film’s most potent element – psychological horror. It all works to near perfection. Adding to the movie’s uniqueness is the wonderfully eerie use of sound and the minimalist approach to special effects. These things are vital to giving the film its own satisfying aesthetic.

BABA2

But the main reason that the horror works is because of the characters. The first half of the film sets them up and connects them to the audience. By the second half we are so invested in Amelia and Samuel and their deteriorating circumstances that we are desperately rooting for a happy resolution. It’s this connection with the characters that so many horror films fail to establish. Davis gives an inspired performance and conveys such motherly authenticity through her character. Young Noah Wiseman is heartbreaking and deserves a lot of credit. His character transforms over time and he manages it so well in his performance. These two are the lifeblood of the film.

In the end I found myself smitten with “The Babadook’s” smarts and craftiness. The story is rich with raw emotion and a genuine eeriness. There is always a tinge of uncertainty which constantly has you questioning what you’re seeing. I like that kind of interpretive challenge. This isn’t the type of film that will ever be considered a classic, but it’s well written and well made which I believe earns Jennifer Kent attention as a filmmaker to keep your eye on. She certainly has a winner with this film.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Boyhood”

BOYHOOD POSTER

“Ambitious” is an adjective that is probably overused by many when reviewing movies. As a result many well-known and prominent movie critics steer clear of the word and often view it as a negative description of the film. Their idea is that many people excuse a film’s faults by hiding them under ambition. That may sometimes be true, but I’ve never prescribed to that reasoning nor do I avoid using the word when it accurately describes a film. There are plenty of examples of movies that have combined great ambition and great storytelling. “Boyhood” is one such example.

Let’s talk about the film’s ambition. Writer and director Richard Linklater has shown himself to be one of the great modern American filmmakers. In “Boyhood” he gives us a coming-of-age drama unlike any you’ve seen before. Filming spanned twelve years starting in 2002 and the same cast was used the entire time. They were brought back to shoot scenes periodically throughout those twelve years in hopes of capturing an accurate physical representation of aging. It also allowed the cast to grow with their characters making the film’s time transitions all the more realistic. This is an extremely ambitious project.

 

BOYHOOD1

But it isn’t just the clever and innovative approach that makes this a good film. It’s Linklater’s simple but beautifully conceptualized vision for presenting a young boy’s life from preadolescence to early adulthood. There is no distinct streamlined plot. Instead we are introduced to a young boy named Mason and we experience his complicated, topsy-turvy boyhood with him. Linklater doesn’t ask us to dissect or wrestle with the material. Instead he seeks to show us the complexities and minutia of real life. He wants us to invest in Mason and let his circumstances strike an emotional chord. We laugh with him. We fear for him. We worry about him. Essentially we grow up with him.

Mason is played by Ellar Coltrane, a relatively unknown actor who was 7-years old when filming began. Coltrane has a quiet reservation about him that we consistently see in every stage of Mason’s life. It’s an acting quality that gels nicely with Linklater’s vision for the character. When we first meet young Mason he is living in Texas with his older sister Samantha (played by Richard Linklater’s own daughter Lorelei) and his single mother Olivia (Patricia Arquette). His father Mason, Sr. (Ethan Hawke) reappears after over a year doing his own thing in Alaska.

Mason’s life has its share of obstacles and it starts with his parents. His mother works hard to provide for Mason and Samantha. She moves them to Houston where she finishes her degree and gets a good job. But her loneliness leads to bad choices which effect her children. Mason, Sr. is a flaky and irresponsible father who won’t get a job and doesn’t always provide a mature fatherly influence during his time with his kids. In a sense Mason and Samantha’s time with their father is an escape. Mason, Sr. clearly hasn’t been a good father, but he loves his kids and they recognize his good intentions. As the film harmoniously moves along we learn more and more about these characters and we watch them and their circumstances evolve.

BOYHOOD2

At times “Boyhood” feels like a series of random moments sewn together to form a beautiful whole. We often move from scene to scene without any narrative connection between them. But that’s okay because the film is about the journey. We literally watch Mason (and Coltrane) grow up before our eyes. One minute we see a young boy laying on the couch asking his father about the existence of magic and elves. An hour later we watch a 16-year old get into his Toyota pickup. It’s such a visually satisfying trip through time brought to life through Linklater’s brilliant approach, Sandra Adair’s impeccable editing, and the cast’s unquestioned commitment.

Speaking of the cast, I’ve talked about Coltrane being a great fit as Mason and he only gets better as he transforms from a first-grader to a college freshman. But Patricia Arquette is the one getting a ton of attention and rightly so. This is a such a strong and honest performance , significantly better than when I first saw her years ago in “A Nightmare on Elm Street 3”. She doesn’t offer an ounce of pretense and she never overplays her scenes. And as you would expect Ethan Hawke is really good and you never doubt the truth he brings to his character.

BOYHOOD3

The only performance I struggled with came from Lorelei Linklater. In her defense she is considerably better by the end of the film but by that time we rarely see her. Prior to that I felt she was forcing her performance and she looked like a young actress who was having every line, every look, and every expression drawn out by the director. I also struggled with these odd and sometimes clunky political sequences that pop up several times. At first they feel like a natural extension of a particular character. Later the politics and characterizations seem forced and very heavy-handed. This stands out mainly because Linklater is such an instinctive and precise writer.

Those things aside, what is it that great movies do? They challenge us. They cause us to reflect. They cause us to appreciate. They cause us to feel. “Boyhood” did all of that for me but not in a casual sense. It is a coming-of-age story but it also looks at other things like parenting – the sacrifices of good parenting and the consequences of bad parenting. As a father, that hit home for me. The film had me looking back on my own childhood, but also thinking about my 13-year old son and the life he is living. Walking out of the theater I wanted to hurry home, give him a hug, and tell him that I loved him. Some may call that corny. I call it being moved by a very good movie.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

(Fun observation for “Dazed and Confused” fans: Pay close attention to the brief scene in the liquor store. The clerk is played by none other than David Blackwell. He played a very similar convenience store clerk in “Dazed”)

K&M Commentary: “The Interview” Controversy

Commentary

Full disclaimer: For those who don’t know, I am not a fan of Seth Rogen or his brand of humor. As I’ve stated ad nauseam, I am so tired of the raunchy comedy, and Hollywood (as it so often does) drowns us with anything that tastes slightly successful. The vast majority of comedies these days fit into this category. The genre has become a dead zone for people who don’t find humor in the antics of Rogen and company. This is why I won’t miss “The Interview” from an entertainment perspective. But what about the precedent set by Sony’s recent actions.

For those who don’t know, Sony has decided not to screen Rogen and James Franco’s movie about assassinating North Korea’s leader. This comes after information which seems to indicate North Korea was behind the Sony hackings which released tons of personal information, emails, upcoming projects, full-length movies, and more. More serious threats surfaced, major theater chains withdrew the film, and soon Sony pulled the plug. Naturally this has drawn all kinds of reactions. But is there a clear-cut answer to who’s right and who’s wrong in this controversy?

The main player under the public microscope is Sony. Was their act spineless and cowardly? Is this some backhanded way to get more attention for the film? These are just some of the questions being asked and I tend to think it’s a little of both. In some ways Sony has modeled this climate of appeasement that we often see in our government today. It’s caving in to a threat without weighing the repercussions. But on the other hand we live in a different world. In this day and age retaliation can go well beyond hacking into a database and stealing some movies. Was this on Sony’s mind when they made this decision?

Or could it be that Sony was embracing the old adage “there is no bad press”. Is it beyond reason to think that this may have played a role in Sony’s decision? I mean look around on blogs, websites, and news shows. Everyone’s talking about “The Interview”. And how do Sony’s financial woes fit into the equation? Are they drawing attention to the film because they need it to bring in a lot of money? Are they pulling the film in hopes of not potentially losing more money?

But Rogen and Franco shouldn’t escape the microscope. They have a significant role to play in this as well. Look, I get the whole idea about creative expression and the freedoms of an ‘artist’. I’m thankful for that ideal, otherwise we would have missed out on a number of great films throughout the years. But I can’t help questioning the wisdom behind making “The Interview”. I mean we aren’t just talking about mocking a nation’s sitting leader. We’re talking about assassinating him. Regardless of how bad the leader may be or how threatening his policies are, you’re obviously pushing boundaries that are going to elicit responses, some a lot more severe than hacking a computer.

But then I think about their freedoms to creatively express themselves. Does this send the ball rolling down a hill that could squash any future project which might be deemed dangerous or controversial? And isn’t it good that this precedent hasn’t already existed? I automatically think back to “The Great Dictator”, a film by Charlie Chaplin poking fun at and critiquing the fascist and antisemitic regime of Adolf Hitler. It’s a great movie and it is rightly viewed as a classic. But there were concerns about the adverse effects of “The Great Dictator”, and it didn’t push things as far as “The Interview”. In fact, several years after its release Charlie Chaplin said he never would have made the film had he known more at the time.

So is there a cut-and-dry right answer to this? Is Sony cowardly for giving in to the pressures? Was it wise for Rogen and Franco to make a movie that could have serious repercussions for many people other than themselves? Is this one of the most shrewd and shameless marketing ploys ever used for a movie? Is the creative license subject to any boundaries? Personally I think this controversy has asked more compelling questions worthy of conversation than most people think.

REVIEW: “Gone Girl”

GONE GIRL POSTER

There are a number of popular modern filmmakers who are beloved by their devoted fans. Interestingly enough, I often find myself a little more mixed when it comes to these directors. David Fincher is a good example. I didn’t like two of his more popular films “Fight Club” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”. But I’ve found that Fincher has made more good films that I have appreciated such as “Se7en”, “Zodiac”, and “The Social Network”. His latest film is “Gone Girl” and it can definitely be grouped in with Fincher’s better projects.

Fincher is no stranger to dark and uncomfortable subject matter. It’s a trait of many of his films that sometimes works but other times turns me off. “Gone Girl” has a bit of both, but for the most part the dark material is very effective. It feels like about three movies put into one and the film ends in a very different place than where it began. I can’t honestly say I found each ‘segment’ of the film to be equally compelling, but I can say the movie never flattens.

GONE1

The story begins on the day of Nick and Amy Dunne’s 5th wedding anniversary. Nick (Ben Affleck) returns to his Missouri home to find Amy (Rosamund Pike) is missing. Signs indicate a struggle and soon Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) is leading the investigation. Amy’s disappearance attracts a media frenzy and people become obsessed with the never ending cycle of news about the case. As Detective Boney digs deeper she uncovers inconsistencies and holes in Nick’s story. This combined with the media hype ends up making Nick a key person of interest.

To go into any further detail would be doing a huge disservice to the movie. It’s based on Gillian Flynn’s popular 2012 novel so many people will know how it plays out. But lets just say that the narrative takes a significant shift in the second act and an even bigger one in the final act. As I mentioned above these shifts never flatten the film. It maintains its intensity and intrigue throughout. But I do think the movie starts off incredibly strong only to slowly and slightly step away from what I enjoyed most about it. It’s not that the ending isn’t satisfying. In fact I like the way it ended quite a bit. It just seemed like the story strayed a bit in getting there.

GONE2

But I don’t want to cut this film short because it does so many things well. Fincher employs a fractured style of storytelling similar to several of his past films. Carefully crafted and well placed flashbacks are sprinkled in to give us nuggets of information about Amy’s disappearance. But to make things more complicated the audience is frequently fed small bits of unreliable information. Misdirections and red herrings conflict with the truth and muddy any insight into what actually happened. I loved that. I found myself hanging on every exchange and flashback trying to determine fact from fiction.

“Gone Girl” also dabbles in a number of different themes, some more intriguing than others. One such theme is economic hardship and particularly its effects on a marriage. In fact “Gone Girl” seems to project a very cynical view of marriage as a whole. It seems to be constantly nipping at the concept of a happy and stable marriage. Or is it indicting us for our self-centeredness which often destroys marriages? Perhaps its most effective examination is of the media and the sensationalism that seems to follow these events. Tabloid journalism and the predatory tactics of reporters play key roles in the film. And Nick is shown how to use and manipulate the media and their willingness to exaggerate or stretch facts.

GONE3

And then you have the performances. I like Ben Affleck even though I understand some of the criticisms thrown his way. He is often dry and seemingly emotionless. But I find that his acting style often fits the characters he is portraying. That’s definitely the case in “Gone Girl”. Affleck offers the right tone and demeanor and he constantly has us trying to figure him out. But the real star is Rosamund Pike. She is an actress that I have always loved and have wanted to see get bigger roles. Hopefully this will be the performance that finally gets her the attention she deserves.

“Gone Girl” has many of the signature trademarks of a David Fincher film. And the visual presentation is moody and comfortless yet perfectly appropriate. The music from Fincher favorites Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor creates atmospheres of tension. Also the film sometimes turns me off by pushing its desired edginess a little too far. All of these things scream Fincher. But where some of his other films in the past squander their potential “Gone Girl” capitalizes on it, at least for the most part.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

THE GREATEST SERIES: The 10 Greatest Actresses of All-Time

 

GREATEST ACTRESS

Tackling a definitive list like this is something I’ve generally avoided in the past, but for a while I’ve felt drawn to this project. Several months back I entered the first installment to what I’m simply calling “The Greatest” series. This time I’ve went through the grueling task of putting together a list of who I think are the 10 greatest actresses of all time. This is the second installment of a series that I hope to branch out in a number of interesting directions. I hope you enjoy it and take time to share you’re thoughts below.

There are some brilliant actresses who are favorites of mine but who don’t yet have the body of work to be considered a member of THE GREATEST. I’m talking about talents such as Jessica Chastain, Emily Blunt, Carey Mulligan, Elizabeth Olsen just to name a few. I love these ladies and with a few more great performances under their belts they could join this list. But for now let’s get started by listing #11 – #20:

#20 – Jodie Foster
#19 – Rachel Weisz
#18 – Helen Mirren
#17 – Maureen O’Hara
#16 – Kate Winslet
#15 – Nicole Kidman
#14 – Vivian Leigh
#13 – Deborah Kerr
#12 – Meryl Streep
#11 – Bette Davis

Now let me introduce my 10 Greatest Film Actresses of All Time:

#10 – Juliette Binoche

L Juliette BinocheIt may surprise some people to see Juliette Binoche in such a prominent spot on this list, especially those unfamiliar with her body of work. For me few actresses can give a more deeply personal and emotionally committed performance than this immensely talented French actress. Her abilities speak for themselves, but you gain a better understanding of her appreciation by simply looking at the great filmmakers who have put her in their films: Jean-Luc Godard, Krzysztof Kieślowski, Michael Haneke, and Abbas Kiarostami just to name a few. Binoche has an amazing knack of versatility. I don’t know if a role exists that she can’t play. There are certainly some bigger names behind her on this list, but for my money any movie with Juliette Binoche attached to it is automatically interesting.

#9 – Grace Kelly

L Grace KellySome may cry foul and say that Grace Kelly lacks the body of work to be considered one of the greatest actresses of all time. I can certainly understand that sentiment. At the same time I believe Kelly’s beauty, elegance, sincerity, and natural abilities helped her portray some truly magical characters. Grace Kelly was an profoundly talented actress and she had an effortless grace. And she could hold her on with any of the big named actors she worked with whether it was James Stewart, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, or Bing Crosby. In fact, Grant would later call Grace Kelly his favorite actress. Kelly starred in one of my favorite westerns “High Noon” and in two of my very favorite Alfred Hitchcock pictures “Rear Window” and “Dial M for Murder”. She was an Academy Award winner and beloved by the entire industry.

#8 – Cate Blanchett

L Cate BlanchettIn the world of modern moviemaking few actresses can consistently amaze me like Cate Blanchett does. There are so many things about her acting that I appreciate. One of the things I love are the old-school sensibilities you see in various degrees in all of her work. But Blanchett has also shown a willingness to branch out of her comfort zone and she has always excelled. She’s played in small intimate independent films and huge grand-scaled blockbusters. But the unbelievable consistency of quality that she brings to each project is a testament to her amazing range and impeccable talent. She has been nominated for six Academy Awards and has won two all by the age of 45. It’s hard to argue against Cate Blanchett’s place on this list and she is one of those rare performers who truly makes whatever film they are in better.

#7 – Elizabeth Taylor

ElizabethTaylorMany people will remember Elizabeth Taylor for a number of reasons. It may be her very unusual friendship with Michael Jackson. Or it could be for her seven marriages and numerous other romances. What she should be remembered for is being one of the most emotional and dynamic actresses ever to grace the big screen. Taylor was successful at an early age. She started as a child star and reluctantly moved to adult roles. It was there where her career skyrocketed. Taylor was not only a tremendous actress, but she was also one of the most beautiful women ever in the business. She often used these two gifts to create some of the most sultry, sexy and provocative characters you’ll find. She would go on to earn six Oscar nominations winning two of them and cementing her name among the greatest actresses of all time.

#6 – Barbara Stanwyck

L Barbara StanwyckThis may be a little high on the list for some people, but simply put I think Barbara Stanwyck was a phenomenal actress. In many ways she was an underappreciated performer and you rarely hear her named mentioned by many modern day moviegoers. In fact she is the only actress in my Top 10 to never win an Academy Award. That’s hard to believe. Just think back to some of her great work in movies like the fabulous “Stella Dallas”, the hilarious Howard Hawks comedy “Ball of Fire”, one of the greatest movies ever made “Double Indemnity”, the holiday classic “Christmas in Connecticut”, and the character-driven “Titanic”. These just scratch the surface on what was a brilliant film career. Stanwyck was the consummate professional and was loved by everyone she worked with from her co-stars to the film crew. She was also one of cinema’s truly great actresses.

#5 – Audrey Hepburn

L Audrey HepburnIn so many ways Audrey Hepburn embodied the idea of a big movie star. She had exquisite beauty and an undeniable fashion sense. But Hepburn was much more than that. She was also a fabulous actresses who played several signature roles in films that still stand as classics. Hepburn set the movie world ablaze in the 1950s through the 1960s. Her popularity launched in 1953 with the beautifully romantic “Roman Holiday”. She would go on the win the Best Actress Oscar for that performance. The very next year she would get another Oscar nomination for her work in Billy Wilder’s “Sabrina”. Many other great performances followed in “War and Peace”, “The Nun’s Story”, and of course “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. Audrey Hepburn is a true screen legend, but I often think her great acting gets lost behind her iconic image. That should never be the case.

#4 – Olivia de Havilland

L Olivia de HavillandI’ve always found Olivia de Havilland’s career to be a fascinating one. From her wonderful assortment of movies to the positive impact she has had on the industry, de Havilland has an important place in the history of cinema. She was also an actress who weathered the trials of early studio contract work to blossom into one of the most versatile performers we have ever had. She was always good even during those testy early years. She really became noticed working alongside Errol Flynn. The two would star in eight movies together. But she got a tremendous break when she landed a role in “Gone with the Wind”. This performance lead to the ability to seek more challenging roles. She was tremendous in films like “The Heiress”, “Hold Back the Dawn”, “To Each His Own”, and “The Snake Pit”. Olivia de Havilland is one of the few of that era still with us today – one of the true great actresses.

#3 – Marion Cotillard

L Marion CottilardI always love actors and actresses who don’t allow themselves to be pigeon-holed and who aren’t consistently within their comfort zones. Marion Cotillard is one such actress. Some may scoff at her being so high on this list but I find her to be one of the most captivating actresses working today. I’m always amazed at the sheer heart and emotion that she brings out of her characters. Her career started in France and she earned some much deserved attention. But her big break came when she landed the starring role in the Edith Piaf biopic “La Vie en Rose”. Her performance has been rightly praised and its impression is still felt. She would go on to give a number of challenging performances in the French ensemble film “Little White Lies”, “Rust and Bone”, and most recently “The Immigrant”. And that doesn’t include the perfect touches she brings in her supporting work. “Midnight in Paris”, “Inception”, and “Nine”.

#2 – Katharine Hepburn

L Kate HepburnIt is impossible to even consider the greatest actresses of all time without Katharine Hepburn being mentioned. For over six decades Hepburn entertained audiences with performances that spanned nearly every genre. She worked with some of the best actors including Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, and long time partner Spencer Tracy. She had an equally impressive list of directors who sought her for their roles. Hepburn’s journey wasn’t without its troubles. At one point she earned the reputation of being hard to work with and her career declined. But several big roles and great performances changed that. “The Philadelphia Story” brought her back to prominence and “The African Queen” did the same thing for her several years later. Her success continued into who elder years and by the end she had won an unprecedented four Academy Awards. It was an amazing career.

#1 – Ingrid Bergman

L Ingrid BergmanNarrowing down such a list has proved to be an almost impossible task, but from the very beginning I knew who would occupy my top spot. For me it has to be the Swedish beauty Ingrid Bergman. She was an actress always known for her innate natural looks and abilities when it comes to acting. In fact her first American movie role (“Intermezzo: A Love Story”) made her an instant star. Through the years that followed her roles would garner more attention and her performances only got better. Perhaps her most recognized role is Ilsa from the classic “Casablanca”. But who can forget her Oscar-winning work in “Gaslight” or her collaborations with Alfred Hitchcock “Spellbound” and “Notorious”? There was “The Bells of St. Mary’s”, “Joan of Arc”, “Anastasia” and so many more. She continued to shine on through the late 1970s even winning her third Oscar for “Murder on the Orient Express”. It was a magical life and career that has left us with so many wonderful cinematic treasures.

REVIEW: “Blue Ruin”

BLUE RUIN POSTER

I’ve come to realize that I’m attracted to movies that employ a more visual form of filmmaking. By that I mean movies that rely heavily on the camera to tell their stories. These types of films often feature sparse dialogue, revealing imagery, and very unique performances from their leads. They tend to speak to many of our senses as an audience and I like that. We get a lot of this in “Blue Ruin’, a deeply engrossing revenge thriller from Jeremy Saulnier. Revenge movies are a dime a dozen which is why “Blue Ruin” is so refreshing and satisfying.

Saulnier is a cinematographer at heart, but he has one other feature film to his credit – 2007’s casually titled “Murder Party”. In “Blue Ruin” he takes a much different approach and the result is a film worthy of attention and consideration. Saulnier serves as writer, director, and cinematographer, and he gained funding after a successful Kickstarter campaign. The movie turned some heads at the Cannes Film Festival and soon found a distributor and a limited theatrical release. Thank goodness for that because “Blue Ruin” is a fantastic film.

BLUE RUIN1

The story centers around a man named Dwight (Macon Blair). He’s a vagrant living out of his beat-up Pontiac Bonneville in a northeastern beach town. Through a series of informative scenes we see him finding meals out of dumpsters and breaking into homes to bathe. But sprinkled in are tiny clues that seem to indicate that Dwight’s situation wasn’t always this bad. Things take a dramatic turn when he learns that a double murderer is being released from prison as part of a plea deal. There are clear connections between the two which sends the movie down a tense, violent, revenge-fueled path.

To reveal anything more about the story would be to strip it of one of its greatest assets – unpredictability. One of the best things about “Blue Ruin” is that you never know where things are heading. Dwight isn’t a tough guy by any stretch and most of his actions seem spontaneous and compulsive. And since we literally spend the entire movie with him, we’re always uncertain and constantly on edge. You never get a sense that Dwight has thought beyond the moment and the film never tips its hand to the audience. Therefore our journey is dictated by every action the capricious lead character makes.

Another of the film’s strengths is the unquenchable tension and suspense. Much of it is credited to the above mentioned air of uncertainty that permeates the entire story. It is also due to Saulnier’s great work with the camera. When watching the film there is no doubt that he is a filmmaker who knows the artistry behind good cinematography. His strategic handling of imagery, the use of northeastern landscapes, and the framing of numerous shots not only serves his visual style, but it amps up the suspense. Regardless of whether he is shooting a closeup of an expressive face or one of the film’s few sudden bursts of violence, the movie looks great.

Blue-Ruin2

Then there is the performance from Macon Blair, an actor with only a handful of credits to his name. I recently listened to a discussion about whether a better known and more experienced actor could have added to this character and movie. Personally I think that would have overthrown everything the film was going for. Blair’s tepid and reserved performance is an absolute perfect fit for what the character needs. The supporting cast is small but very good. Even Jan Brady herself, Eve Plumb makes an almost unrecognizable appearance.

“Blue Ruin” is a small-budget film that does more things on the screen to enthrall an audience than most blockbusters. Jeremy Saulnier is a revelation as both a filmmaker and storytelling, and Macon Blair has me interested in what he will do next. I love being taken for a ride and not knowing what lies ahead, especially in a movie centered around deep, moody suspense. “Blue Ruin” took me for that ride and I was completely invested until the very end.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS