Category Archives: Movie Reviews – S

“Side Effects” – 3 STARS

by

21

SIDE EFFECTS Poster

Steven Soderbergh has always been a hit or miss filmmaker in my book. He has an impressive resume but the two movies of his that I truly love are more recent efforts, “The Informant” from 2009 and “Contagion” from 2011. His new film “Side Effects” looked like the new “Contagion”, that is if you went by the trailers and TV spots. But other than the small medical connection, these two films couldn’t be more different. At its core “Side Effects” is a straight up modern day thriller. It’s the first of two Soderbergh movies in 2013 which will lead into what the director is calling his filmmaking “sabbatical”.

“Side Effects” is really broken into two halves. The first half of the movie focuses on a young woman named Emily (Rooney Mara). Her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) is released from prison after serving a 4-year sentence for insider trading. It seems like it would be a good time for the couple but Emily begins showing signs of depression. Martin tries to help her but things only seem to get worse leading to her attempting suicide by driving her speeding car into a wall. At the hospital she is examined by a psychiatrist named Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). She convinces him to let her go home as long as she agrees to regular counseling sessions with him.

Side Effects 2

The movie moves along like a clinical procedural throughout the first half. We watch Emily’s struggles with depression and we sit in on her meetings with Jonathan. We watch as he prescribes numerous medications, none of which work for her. We find out she has a history with depression and once saw another doctor named Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Jonathan meets with Victoria who recommends a drug called Ablixa. Jonathan finally agrees to give it a try and prescribes it for Emily. Things seem to get better for her except for the one side effect – sleepwalking. It’s during one of her sleepwalking episodes that she takes a knife and commits a shocking murder.

The second half of the film focuses more on Jonathan and the fallout from the murder and the court case that followed. It takes a heavy toll on Jonathan’s career and home life so he sets out to clear his name. It’s here where the movie finally starts to feel like a thriller. Soderbergh starts leading us in several different directions and causes us to question and reflect back on things we’ve already seen. At some point you’ll have suspicions of every character and their motivations. These are all things that you want and expect from a good thriller.

So considering all of these things, why didn’t I have a stronger response to “Side Effects”? It’s certainly not the acting. Everyone gives strong performances even the usually stone-faced Channing Tatum. Rooney Mara certainly answered my question of whether she could handle the lead role. But I thought it was Jude Law who was the real standout. He’s really, really good here. It’s also not the visual presentation that’s the problem. Soderbergh knows how to shoot a picture and his particular visual style of camera cuts and closeups works nicely here.

SIDEEFFECTS1

I think my problems lie in the way the story itself is structured. As I hinted at, this never feels like a thriller until well over halfway through the film. It’s only then that different threads of plot begin to branch out. But by that time the movie has but a little time to put all the pieces together. Soderbergh certainly manages to do this competently. I don’t remember there being any gaping plot holes or oversights. But I also don’t feel his ending is all that satisfying and the catalyst behind the big twist feels a little out-of-the-blue. For me the best thrillers are able to put the truth out there while causing the audience to look at it in a different and wrong way. At the end of “Side Effects” I didn’t feel it accomplished that at all.

I don’t want to be too hard on the movie because it’s a good watchable film that’s easy to digest. The performances are strong and Soderbergh has a visual style that perfectly fits this type of film. But underneath the veneer of clinical depression, pharmaceutical lingo, and legal proceedings lies a movie that never reaches its full potential. Its buildup is slow, its surprises feel arbitrary, and overall it’s underwhelming. It’s unfortunate and I still feel that somewhere offscreen lies an ending with more power and punch than the one we’re given – an ending that would give me the satisfaction I hoped for from “Side Effects”.

“Snow White and the Huntsman” – 4 STARS

by

29

Call me a sucker for fantasy pictures, but I really enjoyed “Snow White and the Huntsman”. In fact, I would go as far as to call this movie one of the biggest surprises of the year. In cinematic terms, this darker retelling of the classic Snow White fairy tale is pure fantasy through and through. We get trolls, dwarves, fairies, and magic but there is nothing lighthearted about it. Unlike the other Snow White movie of 2012 “Mirror Mirror”, “Snow White and the Huntsman” aims for a broader audience by creating a dark and often times creepy fantasy world that doesn’t shy away from cool horror elements and death. In the end, it was an effective approach that completely caught me by surprise.

One of my main concerns about the movie centered around Kristen Stewart in the lead role. After seeing her previous work I was never convinced she was a good actress. “Snow White and the Huntsman” does nothing to change that. But the writers seem aware of that and the script cleverly limits what Stewart is required to do. Much of her story unfolds through the words of other characters so Stewart isn’t asked to do much. It was a smart approach and I can’t help but think the movie benefits from it. For the most part Stewart is a good Snow White. She runs, rides horses, and innocently looks in wonder at the new world around her. It’s only when Stewart is asked to rouse the crowds in the third act that you’re reminded of her past work.

The movie takes the key ingredients from the popular fairy tale and mixes them with several unique twists. As a child Snow White witnesses the murder of her father the king at the hands of her wicked stepmother Ravenna (Chalize Theron). Queen Ravenna takes over the entire kingdom and throws Snow White into a tower prison cell. Ravenna is dependent on dark magic for her power thanks to a spell cast on her by her wicked mother. She maintains that power by draining the lifeforce of the young girls from the nearby villages. Years pass and Snow White has grown up yet is still confined to the tower. Queen Ravenna learns from her magic mirror that Snow White is destined to topple her so she figures it’s time to suck the life right out of her competition. Snow White escapes into a dark and marshy forest where the Queen’s powers can’t reach. The queen bribes a drunken widower (Chris Hemsworth) who has survived the forest to lead her forces in order to capture the princess.

While Hemsworth seems to be falling into the same type roles for each of his films, I still really like him. Once again he plays the tough and rugged sort and once again he’s very good. It’s a pretty simple role that fits the fantasy character model well. He has a decent chemistry with Stewart which is helped by the fact that the script doesn’t force anything on their character’s relationships. And what is Snow White without dwarves, right? Several fantastic actors played the dwarves, or at least had their faces placed on different, smaller bodies. It’s a remarkable bit of animation. Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, and Toby Jones are a blast to watch in the roles. But it’s Theron who steals the show as the wicked queen. She sells each calculated expression and devious grin and she opens up a fairly layered character. Theron has a lot of fun and it shows.

Another standout component to the movie’s success are the wonderful special effects and cinematography. The fantasy environments are well done and often times stunning. There are several cool creatures, beautiful landscapes, and some really slick magical effects. As alluded to, “Snow White and the Huntsman” isn’t necessarily a kid’s movie and some of the effects attest to that. Maybe that’s one reason it worked so well for me. It helps make the movie more closely resemble “Lord of the Rings” than the Brothers Grimm classic fairy tale. And as a fantasy fan, that’s a really good ingredient to this incredibly surprising movie.

“SKYFALL” – 4.5 STARS

by

32

Skyfall” may be the best James Bond movie ever. Better yet, Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. Now before the Bond diehards come at me with torches and pitchforks let me make something abundantly clear. I am not the biggest Bond guy. I haven’t seen even half of the Bond movies. So I certainly don’t consider myself a Bond expert. In fact I may not even qualify as a true Bond fan by some. I’m not well versed on Bond lore, the Bond girls, or the history that has surrounded this universally loved character for the last 50 years. So I don’t live under the false assumption that I’m an expert when it comes to the James Bond franchise. But I like to think that I know a good movie when I see one and “Skyfall” is a very good movie.

My Bond apathy changed in 2006 with the release of “Casino Royal”. It introduced a grittier, more grounded Bond in the form of Daniel Craig. He wasn’t as prim and polished and a sense of reality was brought to the character that I had never seen before. It was also a fantastic movie that I thoroughly enjoy. The Bond appeal grew for me in 2008 with the lesser but equally entertaining “Quantum of Solace”. And now he’s back with “Skyfall”, a 007 film that’s every bit as good as “Casino Royale” and for my money even a bit better. Sam Mendes directs the film, the 23rd installment of the franchise. Mendes tips his hat to several of the previous 007 films and has fun with many things that Bond fans should love. But he also maintains the emotional edge to Bond that has made Daniel Craig’s run so effective for me.

The film starts with a jaw-dropping opening chase sequence that uses cars, motorcycles, trains, and cranes. It moves through market streets, on rooftops, through tunnels, and finally on a huge bridge where Bond is inadvertently shot off of a speeding train by a fellow agent at M’s command. Believed dead, Bond goes off the grid and submerges himself in a life of anonymity and alcohol. Now the movie never gives a satisfying reason as to why Bond became a closed off boozer. We get a few hints of it later but it seemed pretty drastic and off-the-wall. But we wouldn’t have a Bond movie if 007 wasn’t spoiling evil plots with his well-pressed suits and assorted gadgetry. He makes his return after MI6 is devastated by terrorist attack with M seeming to be the main target. Judi Dench returns to the role that she first played in 1995’s “GoldenEye”. This time she’s not only a terrorist’s target but she’s facing heavy political pressure concerning her handling of MI6. As with each of her other performances in the series, Dench is marvelous and here we get to see a different side of her and her relationship to 007.

The big baddie this time is none other than Javier Bardem. He plays Raoul Silva, a psycho former MI6 agent with a rather large grudge against M. Bardem is deliciously villainous and once he makes his appearance the movie’s intensity amps up. Unfortunately he doesn’t show up until well into the film. Now that’s not a knock on the first part of the movie. But I wanted more of Bardem and I couldn’t help but feel that they could have built up the character and his motivations more in the early parts of the movie. Some of the movie’s best moments feature Bardem. There is a tense first meeting between Bond and Silva that you can’t take your eyes off of. There’s also a fantastic “Silence of the Lambs” styled exchange between Silva and M that sets the table for what’s to come later in the movie. It’s one of my favorite exchanges in cinema this year.

Another new addition to the cast is Ralph Fiennes. He places an ex-military man and current government intelligence official who regulates MI6. Fiennes is rock solid, as you would expect. Albert Finney also has a fun role as an old family friend of Bond’s and Ben Whishaw steals several scenes as Q, the gadget granting quartermaster. All the performances are good and this is probably the best overall cast in a Bond movie yet. They are helped by a crisp, intelligent, and perfectly paced script that pulls absolutely everything out of these characters. And the screenplay knows how to be respectful of the franchise while also having fun with it as well. There are several good laughs but for the most part this is the same serious, no-nonsense Bond that we got in the last two films and I’m thankful for that.

There are several other things that worked incredibly well that I could mention, most notably Roger Deakins brilliant camera work, the wonderful editing by Stuart and Kate Baird, and Thomas Newman’s perfect score. But not everything worked that well. The Bond girls have become almost as popular as 007 himself. But with the exception of the unconventional M, these Bond girls are bland and for the most part forgettable. Now Naomie Harris is fine as a fellow MI6 field agent who holds her own with 007. She has some really good scenes when working in the field, but she also has a couple of almost obligatory flirt scenes with Bond that didn’t work as well for me. Then you have Bérénice Marlohe who certainly looks the part but disappears almost as soon as she arrives. Also, I know Bond is a ladies man. But there are a couple of scenes featuring out-of-the-blue “romance” that are thrown in just because its expected from the character. Never mind that they clash with the tone and pacing of the story. Both are scenes that were poorly conceived and I could have done without them.

While these few flaws may keep “Skyfall” from being a perfect movie, they don’t stop it from being great movie. More importantly, the Daniel Craig era of 007 movies has won me over to the point that I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment. There has been a lot of internet buzz lately over who may be the next 007. But for my money Craig has earned the position for as long as he’s willing to take it. And as long as the studio is willing to surround him with a fine supporting cast, intelligent writers, and sharp directors, the possibilities are endless for this iconic character. One thing is for certain, I’m now officially a Bond fan and “Skyfall” only cemented that. Bring on oo7 #24!

“Silent House” – 3 STARS

by

4

“Silent House” is a challenging horror thriller. It isn’t challenging in terms of thematic meaning, narrative structure, or emotional punch. No, the challenge is in sticking with “Silent House” through its occasional lulls in order to appreciate what the filmmakers are trying to do. The movie was co-directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau. You may remember them from the 2003 psychological horror flick “Open Water”. With this film they go in an entirely different direction and they succeed even though they hit a few speed bumps along the way.

Narratively speaking “Simple House” is pretty simple stuff. In fact, the finished script was only 55 pages and there was concern as to whether or not they had the material for a full movie. They ended up with a compact 87 minute movie but it took some stretching to get that. On the other hand, they employed a clever technique to try to give the movie the illusion of being one long continuous take. Obviously that would’ve been impossible to do yet amazingly they did the entire film in twelve takes. It’s an interesting visual approach and I was surprised at just how well it worked.

“Silent House” has a whopping cast of four (Not counting the two brief visions that we see later in the film). Rising film star Elizabeth Olsen plays Sarah, a young woman who comes to help her father and uncle fix up an old Victorian home in order to resell it. The house is a wreck and the filmmakers take advantage of the poor condition to give us the perfect horror movie atmosphere. For example, all the windows were busted out by a group of mischievous kids so it’s completely boarded up. And there’s no electricity because of rats chewing through the wiring. Dark and closed off – sounds like the perfect horror movie house, doesn’t it?

Sarah’s uncle takes a break and heads into town after a spat with her father. That’s when she starts hearing strange noises upstairs. She convinces her unconcerned father to check it out. With lanterns in hand they search each upstairs room but find nothing. A short time later Sarah hears the sound of her father falling down. It’s here that we get the first of several scenes of Sarah moving room to room in the darkness. The long, fluid, continuous take does create a good sense of tension. But they go to this a few too many times and the sequences can feel long and drawn out. After a search she finds her father knocked out with a severe head wound and quickly realizes that they aren’t alone in the house. This sets up the questions that drive the rest of the movie.

Olsen continues to impress as a young actress. This performance is more about emotion, expression, and body language and the camera never leaves her through the entire film. In perfect Scream Queen fashion she sells her terror through tears, tremors, and some intense close-up shots. It’s really quite convincing. Even when the material drags, it’s fun watching Olsen handle her character and the situation that she’s in. In fact, the entire movie hinges on Olson’s performance. If she doesn’t convince us and persuade us to care about her and her predicament the movie falls apart. Add the difficulty of working in long takes and you can’t help but be impressed with what Olsen’s doing here.

Like many of these films today, “Silent House” tries to throw you a curveball later in the movie. While it’s not completely satisfying it does work reasonably well even though it’s nothing that will catch you completely off guard. Yet, as a whole, this was a movie that I appreciated more after watching it. I did occasionally feel bogged down watching Olsen deliberately creep throughout the house in the darkness. But there were also moments where I was completely wrapped up in the intensity of the scenes. I remember one instance of being so focused on the screen that I jumped out of my chair when my phone vibrated next to me. That’s good stuff.

“Silent House” isn’t a movie that will redefine the horror or psychological thriller genres. In fact, it’s a movie that probably won’t stay with you very long after you see. But I don’t want to overlook or downplay what the film does well. The filmmakers actually pull off their ambitious visual style of storytelling and I can appreciate the work that went into it. Plus we get to enjoy Elizabeth Olsen giving another strong performance. But more importantly the movie works – granted, in a minimal way – but it works.

“Sinister” – 3.5 STARS

by

4

Tis the season for horror movies and this year Hollywood has already given us several underwhelming entries into the genre. So along comes “Sinister”, a new supernatural horror thriller that may not break any new ground but fills the need for a fun horror movie experience during the Halloween season. “Sinister” is a small and relatively straightforward horror picture that uses several familiar devices yet is able to keep you a little uneasy in your seat. And even though I was hoping for more I’ve seen a lot worse efforts than this.

It was a nice surprise to see Ethan Hawke starring in this type of picture. He plays the role of a true-crime author named Ellison who moves his family into a new house in a small rural area. We quickly learn that the family who last owned the home were brutally murdered there. We also learn that one child from the family was never found. The murders were unsolved which serve as Ellison’s inspiration for what he hopes will be a can’t-miss best seller. I love how Hawke handles his character. There are several layers to Ellison. He’s deeply concerned that his 15 minutes of fame is up yet he refuses to accept it. His bullheaded insistence on finishing the book blinds him to the toll it’s taking on his children and marriage even as things begin to get really weird around the house.

The weirdness really begins when Ellison finds a box filled with several reels of Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The films feature several brutal murders of different families in different years including the family killed in his new home. Ellison begins investigating the murders, connecting them In hopes of making a big discovery that would make his book I sure-fire hit. Of course it wouldn’t be a horror movie if everything went as planned. Ellison begins seeing visions, hearing bumps, and grows increasingly unnerved by his findings. But if the current trend in modern horror movies has shown us anything, it’s that you can never assume that things are as they seem.

“Sinister” plays in the sandbox of both psychological and supernatural horror. Even though the trailer gives away too much, there are moments where you wonder if Ellison’s mind is playing tricks on him or if he has unleashed an incredible force of evil. The movie establishes and then keeps the tension amped up as its mystery unfolds. It deals with some tough subject matter and throws some pretty haunting imagery at the audience. Speaking of the imagery, some of the films creepier moments are when Ellison is sitting alone in his home office watching these old films. The darkness, the steady sound of the projector, and the grisly images he’s seeing create a delightfully eerie atmosphere. But this also opens the movie up to some of it’s more conventional approaches.

You can’t help but notice some all-to-familiar devices that “Sinister” milks dry. There are plenty of cheap scares via sudden bursts of loud noises or music. We get the bumps in the attic, the slow walks down long, dark halls, and the very in-fashion creepy kids scenes. In fact, while watching this movie I could’ve kept a checklist of all the things horror fans have seen before. Creepy house with a haunted past? Check! A sometimes head-scratchingly dumb main character? Check! Slamming doors, power outages, a well-timed storm? Check!

But here’s the good news. Despite the well-worn formulas and clichés, “Sinister” still manages to be an entertaining and eventually disturbing horror picture. A large part of it’s success is due to Ethan Hawke’s strong performance and compelling character (despite his sometimes bonehead decisions). I bought into the conflict between his love for his family and his desire to write another bestseller as well as the repercussions that his clouded judgment brings on them all. But more importantly “Sinister” works because there is a genuine sense of unease to everything you’re seeing. And while it does require the audience to wait a while for things to unfold, the ending is frighteningly satisfying.

As I mentioned earlier, “Sinister” doesn’t break any new ground in the horror genre. It depends on several of the same techniques that we’ve seen over and over. But there is some meat to its story and as you get deeper into the film the tension gets higher all the way to the finale which is perfectly fitting for a good horror picture. “Sinister” won’t make anyone’s horror top 10 list. But it maintains its moodiness and delivers in the end. That’s more than I can say about some of Hollywood’s more recent horror efforts.

REVIEW: “Shadow of a Doubt”

by

12

Alfred Hitchcock gets a lot of praise for his classic films such as “Vertigo”, “Psycho”, “Rear Window”, and “The Birds” and rightly so. But for those who aren’t familiar with the director’s full body of work, “Shadow of a Doubt” is one of his movies that may be easily overlooked. But to miss out on this wonderful early Hitchcock classic would be to miss out on one of his very best movies. This 1943 thriller has all of trademarks of a Hitchcock film and one of the strongest stories that he has brought to film.

“Shadow of a Doubt” was shot and set in Santa Rosa, California, a location picked for its picture of small town America. Charlie Oakley (Joseph Cotten) arrives in Santa Rosa to pay a visit to his sister Emma (Patricia Collinge) and her family. He hasn’t seen them in years and they receive him with open arms, especially his niece Charley (Teresa Wright) who was named after him. Charley has become bored with her life in her small town and the arrival of her uncle gives her a spark. But her uncle’s visit isn’t without purpose and Charley soon finds out that he is far from the wonderful man she thinks him to be.

The opening scenes let us know that there’s something mysterious going on with Charlie. Later he arrives in Santa Rosa and is doted on by his enamored family. He also draws the attention of and captivates many of the locals from bankers to widows. But he’s also hiding a very dark secret that eventually becomes a key driving force behind the film. In fact, Hitchcock gives us a compelling look at the dark reality of the real world infecting the innocent, idyllic life of a small town. Young Charley soon learns that the world can be a dangerous place and watching Teresa Wright portray Charley and her emotional transformation is a joy. Wright is brilliant. She’s lovely in her innocence and naivity and heart-breaking as we watch her face terrible things and bear huge burdens. I’m being vague and don’t want to spoil things for those who haven’t seen the film, but Charley is a wonderful character and Wright nails the performance.

I also loved Joseph Cotten as her Uncle Charlie. At first we love him just as much as the family does. He’s like that distant uncle who you haven’t seen in forever but you still think he hung the moon. But the problem is that you haven’t seen him therefore you really don’t know him. I bought into Charlie, the nice compassionate man, and was unnerved as he evolved into an entirely different person. This is due to how wonderfully he is written and to Cotten’s brilliant performance.

The movie also works due to what has come to be recognized as Hitchcock’s unique visual style. As with every Hitchcock picture, the camera is extremely important to his storytelling. We are treated to some slick camera angles and tricks as well as some clever use of lighting and shadows which helps inject the movie with moments of tension and suspense. Some of the best scenes involve moving cameras or perfectly timed close up shots and overall the visual style is vintage Hitchcock.

“Shadow of a Doubt” is an exceptional thriller built upon a very good story, some pitch-perfect performances, and slick direction. It’s not as well-known as some of Hitchcock’s bigger films but it’s just as good as them and it has certainly earned its spot as a true classic. The story moves at a great pace and it keeps you involved all the way to its startling ending. I really like “Shadow of a Doubt” and its one of those movies that I could watch again and again.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS