REVIEW: “Act of Valor” (2012)

“Act of Valor” is a tough movie to judge. I’ve always taken into consideration what a movie is trying to be when reviewing it. I look at the intentions of the filmmakers and the target audience to better understand if they accomplished their goal. But there are also certain elements to a film that should be consistent in every good picture. “Act of Valor” is a straightforward and unashamed action picture. It’s one point of uniqueness is that it stars real-life active duty Navy SEALs. In fact, none of they SEAL’s real names were mentioned in the film or featured in the credits. At first I wondered if this was strictly a gimmick to draw action lovers to the film. But the very first action sequence showed me that they really brought something to the movie. Unfortunately there are other areas where the picture falls short and even the fantastic action scenes can’t totally overcome these flaws.

Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh produced and directed “Act of Valor”. They gained permission from the United States Navy to use real SEALs and received access to training areas and equipment to give the film a heightened sense of realism. The Navy’s involvement certainly is effective and the action scenes are brimming with grit and intensity. The SEALs legitimately give the military styled action an adrenaline shot that many of these films don’t have. Their familiarity with the missions and the process is evident and when they start speaking the special forces lingo I was completely involved. There is also a genuine sense of patriotism in these men that you can’t help but be impressed by.

McCoy and Waugh use several camera techniques to give the movie more grit and energy. Some work and some don’t. There are some scenes, especially earlier in the film, where we get shifts of focus that are really distracting. There are also some moments where the herky-jerky shots make deciphering the action almost impossible. But thankfully the erratic handheld technique is used sparingly. We also get several action shots from the first-person perspective that closer resembled a Call of Duty video game than a movie. But I grew to like those instances regardless of its obvious gimmickry.

While the action scenes clearly show the movie’s strengths, the attempts at drama and character development are definitely weaknesses. The biggest problem is with the acting. Look, I completely understand that these aren’t professional actors. But most of their non-action line-reading is cringe-worthy. They really give no life to these characters and the movie suffers for it. The character-driven moments seem false and the guys just don’t have the skills to sell them. The story also suffers from a fairly generic and painfully predictable script. There’s one key moment in the film that you see coming 10 clicks away.

“Act of Valor” is sure to get its share of criticism and it’s hard to argue for its shortcomings. But when the night vision popped on and the bullets began to fly, I found myself enthralled. This is a movie that at times feels like an obvious recruiting tool and at other times a hard-core military action movie. The filmmakers do get several things right. When the SEALs are in their element I was completely drawn in. But when it comes to simple everyday things like…well…carrying on a conversation, the movie goes limp. I think “Act of Valor” does enough of what it’s aiming for to offer some entertainment. I’m actually anxious to see the action scenes again. Too bad I’ll probably have to forward through everything else to get there.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

Review: “A Separation”

“A Separation” is the 2012 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film and the first win for a movie from Iran. Written, produced, and directed by Asghar Fahadi, “A Separation” is a carefully structured and nuanced story that is at times painful and tragic but always mesmerizing. Set in modern-day Iran, the film is a devastating look at divorce through the cultural lens of a very complex country. Fahadi uses an almost methodical approach to storytelling yet his film is brimming with intensity and true human emotions. It touches on a reality of life that transcends any political or cultural barrier while also offering some thought-provoking insight into the religious laws and social structure of that part of the world.

“A Separation” opens with a well conceived scene that sets the stage for larger story. The scene shows Nader and Simin petitioning a judge for a divorce after 14 years of marriage. Simin is spearheading the separation because she wants to leave the country due to its current state of affairs. She is concerned with how it will effect the future of their 11-year-old daughter Termeh. Nader has no desire to leave mainly because he takes care of his father who is in the advance stages of Alzheimer’s. The judge rules their complaints to be petty and not warranting a divorce. With no divorce granted Simin still moves out leaving Nader to take care of his father and Termeh.

It’s here where we begin to see the many layers of Fahadi’s story. He examines a variety of social issues while offering a subtle but clear critique of Iranian culture. Yet nothing here feels forced or contrived. He looks at these things through the eyes of his characters in a true and organic way. Plus we learn more about the characters as they’re faced with things such as elderly care, school pressure, and rigid orthodoxy. But the biggest dissection of the characters comes through an intense court battle between Nader and a caretaker he hired to look after his father. It’s here that we see each character struggle with a variety of difficult choices and moral quandaries. It becomes a true character study that reveals a side of people that we can recognize as wrong while also understanding the root cause of their moral compromises. This is where the story could have evolved into a convoluted and self-indulgent mess. But Fahadi’s razor-sharp screenplay never misses a step and the film moves with a fluid yet painful grace.

While Fahadi takes his characters through various moral gray areas, he never labels one the hero and one the villain. There are no white or blacks hats in this story. In fact, one of the most compelling things about the film is trying to figure out who to sympathize with between Nader and Simin. I was constantly going back and both between them as things unfolded. But that’s just another reflection of the tremendous screenplay. Fahadi engages the audience and encourages them to make their own conclusions about his characters. And while his story does examine social and cultural issues, “A Separation” is a film about a divorce that’s happening right before our eyes. But as I was watching this husband and wife I realized that the heart of this story was young Termeh. Like a tennis ball she is bounced back and forth in the background of the film until everything reaches it’s breaking point. She’s simply heart-breaking.

Another reason the movie works so well are the performances. Everyone across the board is fantastic and no one buckles under the weighty material. The performances flow perfectly together with such ease. They nicely handle a script that can sometimes pack more intensity in an on-screen conversation than most action films. I remember several scenes that had me on the edge of my seat just by its searing dialogue. But while the story is very well written, there is one problem I had. There’s a pivotal moment close to the end of the film where key information is revealed in what feels like the most convenient way imaginable. It’s the only time in the entire film where something didn’t feel authentic.

“A Separation” is a fantastic movie that does more to prove the broad range of global talent in filmmaking. It’s a fascinating look at the cultural inner-workings of a complex society yet the main thrust of the story goes well beyond that. It examines the horrible effects of divorce by looking at it through a very clear lens. Fahadi doesn’t try to take sides even if it appears so at first. Instead he exposes what drives some people to end their marriage. It’s an honest and often times crushing picture but one that is incredibly well crafted. It does have a minor hiccup or two but these minor flaws do nothing to spoil what a fine accomplishment this is. “A Separation” should cause the serious viewer to think and to ask ourselves questions. For me, that’s just a reflection on how good this movie is.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

“LAST NIGHT” – 2 1/2 STARS

“Last Night” is more of a relationship drama than a romance movie. First time director Massy Tadjedin also wrote this story of a seemingly happily married couple whose relationship will be tested during a 24 hour period apart. It’s a story that does supply some good moments and asks some good questions. But it also lacks the life and energy needed to sell these characters and it’s never quite as provocative as it tries to be.

Keira Knightley and Sam Worthington play Joanna and Michael Reed. The couple are working on their third year of marriage and seem to have found their place in New York City. But Joanna becomes jealous when she sees Michael spending a suspiciously large amount of time with a beautiful colleague of his (Eva Mendes) at a company party. At home, later that night, we see the couple argue over this but make up in time for Michael to head off on a brief business trip in Philadelphia. While he’s gone Joanna runs into old flame Alex (Guillaume Canet) who she agrees to meet for a drink later. Meanwhile Michael finds himself tempted in Philly by the same colleague that stirred his wife’s jealousy.

The movie evolves into a will-they-or-won’t-they-cheat narrative driven by the lead characters’ insistence on putting themselves into the worst possible situations. Granted, we the audience are meant to suspect that this allegedly happy marriage is really built on a weak foundation which is exposed by their behavior. But I kept shaking my head wondering why anyone would continue to put themselves in such positions to fall unless they just weren’t very nice people. And that’s an issue I had with “Last Night”, none of the main characters are all that likeable and in a story like this it’s nice to have someone to root for.

The film does keep a certain level of intrigue as both Joanna and Michael repel the temptations they face only to put themselves back in the line of fire. I was genuinely interested in whether or not the couple could weather the storm and resist what could potentially destroy their marriage. But my interest wasn’t sparked by any direct connection to the characters. In fact, it’s really hard to connect to these characters. Knightley certainly gives the best performance in the film but even she is let down in spots by the material most notably with this past relationship with Alex. It just doesn’t sell. I actually like Sam Worthington but he seems out of his element here. He sometimes comes across as wooden and emotionless which can hinder a story like this..

“Last Night” has good intentions. Massy Tadjedin does ask good questions about jealousy, devotion, and marriage. It’s seems to make the good point that strong marriages aren’t built on weak foundations and even what looks like a good relationship can crumble if it’s not intended to be. But unfortunately the movie doesn’t give us the characters we need to really emotionally invest in this type of story. We get hints of genuineness and there are some scenes that feel true. But it also sometimes feels lifeless and mundane. “Last Night” is a nice first effort from Tadjedin who gets some things right. But a character-driven film requires characters and we just don’t get consistent ones here.

REVIEW: “The Thing” (2011)

While I would hardly call 2011’s “The Thing” necessary, this prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 horror classic manages to capture enough of the shocks and paranoia of its predecessor to be successful. While it is indeed a prequel, in many ways it’s a remake borrowing more from Carpenter’s version than offering much new. But trying to recreate a tried-and-true formula isn’t a bad thing and “The Thing” almost nails it. It works more often times than not but it does fall victim to its own poor choices.

The film sets the table for the 1982 picture by detailing the discovery and unleashing of the deadly shape-shifting extraterrestrial by a Norwegian research team in Antarctica. One of the film’s biggest strengths is its desire for a fluid continuity between the two movies. Everything is connected nicely and any fan of the earlier film will appreciate the effort. Here the Norwegian team has found a UFO and a life form buried under the ice. Against wiser suggestions, the head of the group orders the creature be brought back to their base for research. After the creature reveals it’s still alive and escapes, the team learns that the alien assimilates its victims and then imitates them both physically and verbally. Soon everyone is suspected of being a host which leads to fear and panic throughout the base.

Sound familiar? Like I said, the film borrows a lot from its predecessor. It’s moody and creepy and the isolated Antarctic setting still works really well. But it never lives up to Carpenter’s version. One of the problems is the overloaded cast of characters, most of which we never connect to. Only a few characters really stand out while others feel like token kills for the alien. You could have easily cut out about five meaningless characters. They would have never been missed and the others would have benefited from it. Also while the movie does finally start to capture some of the intense paranoia of the earlier film, it seems to come and go. Carpenter’s film was driven by the paranoia and unnerving suspicions of his characters. I also thought this movie got a little off track close to the end. There’s an out-of-place sequence in the underground UFO that felt completely disconnected from the rest of the film. That was one attempt at originality that really fell flat.

On the flip side, Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. does effectively employ several of the techniques used by Carpenter. And while I wouldn’t call the special effects better, the availability of CGI does give this creature much more fluid motions and his assimilations are pretty grotesque. Of course I mean that in a good way. The film is also helped by some really good acting throughout. Mary Elizabeth Winstead as especially impressive as a paleontologist who becomes the lead character. The wonderful Australian actor Joel Edgerton is also quite good as an American helicopter pilot who tends to sit on the outside of the largely scientific group. Both performances are natural and true even when the material let’s them down a bit.

“The Thing” is a film that will largely appeal to a small audience. Fans of the 1982 classic will want to see it and should find a lot to like. While it trips itself up with an overloaded cast and a few scenes which feel like they belong in another film, it does deliver that almost old-school sci-fi monster movie feel. It captures some of the paranoia that I keep harping on and it’s connection to the previous picture is very well done.  Top it off with some nice performances and you have a film that is very watchable. Oh, and did I mention they have flamethrowers???

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “BEAUTIFUL BOY” (2010)

It’s hard to know how to take some movies inspired by real-life tragic events ripped from the newspaper headlines. They can sometimes be sobering and enlightening while others can be exploitative and irreverent. “Beautiful Boy” is a crushing drama that deals with the agony of a school shooting but from a different point of view. It’s obvious similarity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre is not by accident. Director and co-writer Shawn Ku’s connection to the college not only helped inspire the story but is one reason this intense subject matter is handled with such care and respect. The thrust of story doesn’t center on the horrible event itself. Instead its focus is on the devastating effects the massacre has on the shooter’s parents.

Maria Bello and Michael Sheen play Kate and Bill, a disconnected married couple on the road to separation. The one single thread holding them together is their son Sam (Kyle Gallner). Sam is a college freshman who has struggled adjusting to campus life. Sam calls home one night trying to hide his despondency from his parents. Bill and Kate attribute his emotion to the pressures of college life. But the next morning police arrive at their home to inform them that Sam has opened fire at his school killing 17 people before taking his own life. This all happens early in the movie while the rest of the film explores the brutal effects it has on Bill and Kate’s already strained relationship.

While Sam’s actions play a key role in the story they serve more as a backdrop. We don’t get inside Sam’s head and really examine his motives and some may have a problem with that. But it’s no problem for me since the movie’s intention is to look at a marriage on the brink of dissolution. Both Bello and Sheen deliver grounded performances that often times result in scenes driven by realistic, raw emotion. Their son’s acts cause them to face issues simmering beneath the surface of their marriage and their reactions feel natural and true. You watch as the chasm between them grows wider yet no one understands what they’re going through except each other. It’s an interesting dynamic that works more often times than not.

The movie does require the audience to automatically connect with Bill and Kate. We never get much insight into their relationship prior to the shooting. We see their relationship is strained but it’s hard to connect with them other than through their emotional devastation brought on by the loss of their son and the horrible circumstances surrounding it. I really felt for them especially as we see them deal with things such as the media camped out on their lawn, having to issue a public statement, and the stares of curious neighbors and co-workers all on top of their personal loss. But their relationship could have been easier to invest in if we were given more early in the film.

The movie also has an inconsistent visual style. At times it seems to be intentionally striving for a more artsy look with quick camera sweeps and strategic camera angles. Other times it looks very generic and by-the-book. I also wasn’t a big fan of the rather drab color palette. The movie seems soaked in blues and grays. Obviously this was intentional and I’m sure it was meant to convey the overall mood of the picture. But it was a little too much for me.

Even with its flaws “Beautiful Boy” can be a powerful film that handles some tricky and weighty subject matter with care and compassion. It was certainly a different approach seeing this type of horrifying event through the eyes of the parents and while their marriage isn’t opened as much as I wished, it’s impossible not to moved by the emotional distress this couple faces. Shawn Ku handles the material seriously and truthfully and some fine performances from Sheen and Bello help make up for the film’s shortcomings.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Safe House”

Safe House

The 2012 movie year has offered several pleasant surprises at the local cineplex. “Safe House” is a high-octane action picture that keeps this trend going. While I can’t say there is anything particularly fresh or profound about “Safe House”, what it does it does well. It offers plenty of gunfire, car chases, and fist fights while employing several familiar elements into its story. But it never goes beyond it’s intentions and for my money “Safe House” entertains.

Denzel Washington plays Tobin Frost and ex-CIA operative who is now wanted by several international organizations including the CIA and MI6. After being leaked secret documents from an MI6 agent in South Africa, Frost finds himself on the run from a group of heavily armed contract killers. He flees to the American Embassy, a last resort, and is immediately taken into custody. He’s moved to a local safe house ran by a disgruntled Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds). Weston has seen no action and has petitioned for a transfer from his boring position. As you can guess, that changes once Frost is brought into his facility. The mercenaries arrive instantly leaving Weston to take Frost and run.

Safe House 1

Most of the film focuses on the pair as they try to escape their pursuers while also toying with the question of “Is Frost a good guy or is he a bad guy”? As usual Washington nails his character and often times carries some of the scenes that would have otherwise fell flat. He also relays his character’s moral gray area with the perfect amount of ambiguity. He’s hard to read and I loved watching him and his story unfold. Washington never shortchanges his character whether it be Frost’s grit or his personal affections. Reynolds is also quite good and shows again that he is capable of handling better material (sorry Green Lantern). He lays it all out during the action sequences and He and Washington have a good chemistry. There is also a fantastic supporting cast including Vera Farmiga, Sam Shepard, and Brendan Gleeson.

“Safe House” uses a grainy, gritty visual style throughout the movie and while it did take me a minute to get used to it, I found it really worked. The film features a lot of herky jerky camera work and is frantically edited which I’m sure is meant to capture the chaos and intensity of the action sequences. This works more often times than not but I can see where it may be a bit disorienting for some. There are a few instances where it tries to get too clever with the camera but not enough to hurt the movie. Overall it’s visually impressive and the sound design is stellar.

“Safe House” could be considered your standard action/chase picture and there is a good argument there. But I found myself interested in the international aspect as well as the “who can you trust” question that shows itself as the story unfolds. Washington has been consistently good in his career and he delivers a strong performance here as well. He can carry films like this but here he doesn’t have to. Reynolds holds his own and the strong supporting work helps make up for when the plot may not be as sharp. But I had a great time with “Safe House” and I don’t penalize it for aiming at a specific mark and hitting it. Sometimes a straightforward action picture is all I need.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS