The Lookout

As a bank heist story, The Lookout is suspenseful and well made, albeit predictable and boring. As a story of depression and rehabilitation, it's an absorbing character study. Directed by Scott Frank, it stars (the best actor under 30) Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Chris, a rock-star like hockey player who is a bit reckless on prom night and gets into a car accident that leaves two passengers dead, his girlfriend disabled and him impaired emotionally and physically. Chris tries heroically to perform actions that we deem simple, like listing his day-to-day activities in logical sequence. Even his family, especially his father, is impatient with his arrested development. He needs to write everything in a little notebook and relies heavily on his roommate to cook for him even though his roommate Lewis (Jeff Daniels) is blind. So, he's easy prey for a group of wannabe bank robbers who try to entice him into helping them rob the rural Kansas bank where he is the night janitor.

The movie may seem straightforward, but it's more than meets the eye. If you are going to the movie and expecting a bank heist film then netflix Dog Day Afternoon instead. This movie is about Chris and his decent from popular jock to innocent, hard working janitor, to confused, misled and frustrated individual. There is a huge lack of effort being put into films these days. It seems there are less and less films worth seeing, in comparison to movies from the 70s. This is a movie that is well structured, well written, well performed and well directed. How could you possibly complain about something like that? It's a refreshing change of pace from the recent explosion of brainless action and horror films like Ghost Rider and Dead Silence. This movie veers away from Hollywood and lingers in indie territory (even though it's a studio film). The dialogue is crisp, the violence exists but is not overused, the characters are fully fleshed and well developed. Scott Frank really does deserve a round of applause for his lack of fear in really giving the audience some exposition and background to his main character. We really get a glimpse into the life of Chris and really become invested in his decisions and the repercusions they may have. However, for all the energy Frank spends letting us get to know Chris, he leaves the others behind. The supporting characters become like pawns thrown away once their utility has run out. The prime example of that is Isla Fisher and her character Luvlee who seduces Chris and then... just leaves. Is it because she really doesn't care at all or because she cares too much? And what about Ms. Lang, the helpful bank teller who ends up having no bearing whatsoever on the film? Or what about the wonderful Carlo Gugino's blink and you miss it social worker? All these women are thrown into the mix to serve as Chris' background and mindset, but are never fleshed out enough to stand on their own. Even the role of Bone, while creepy and effective enough as the silent and sadistic muscle of the team, is so out of place that it almost becomes laughable. But I'll stop complaining there. Gordon-Levitt doesn't carry the film entirely on his own. He gets some good back up from Daniels and Matthew Goode (who I loved so much in Match Point) as the charming and cocky brains behind the bank robbery plan.

While Frank may misfire a bit on the background players, he gets the plot progression and lead performances down to perfection. I am constantly waiting for a new Gordon-Levitt film (Stop Loss, anyone?) and he never ceases to impress with his film choices and his performances. There's a lot of wit in this film, a lot of zingy one liners and an absolutely breathtaking opening sequence that includes the car crash scene showing the sublime beauty of fireflies that leads to the tragedy which puts into motion the story that follows. It may not be exactly what you are expecting but it's so well done and has such great performances from Gordon-Levitt, Goode and Daniels that it doesn't really matter.

Grade: B+

The Hills Have Eyes II

Last year's The Hills Have Eyes remake accomplished what very few remakes manage to do : it took the best parts of the original and then made everything else even better, scarier and gorier and bloodier. I credit most of this to director Alexandre Aja who is a brilliant man working within the horror genre (netflix his High Tension right now!). Aja's remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film was the best horror remake ever. But, a sequel to a remake? Sure, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Prequel wasn't so bad but I wasn't excited about this idea. Still, I'll check it out because the only thing better than a good horror movie is a bad one so I can complain about how they don't make them like they used to. I can tell you this however - this film is much better than the 1986 sequel to the original (now that was a bad, bad movie). This film was written by Wes Craven and his son and, luckily, doesn't follow the story of the original sequel at all.
This sequel follows a group of National Guard trainees. The main people to watch are Napoleon (Michael McMillian), Amber (Jessica Stroup), Missy (Danielle Alonso) and Delmar (Lee Thompson Young), who may just be the smartest person in a modern horror film. On their last day of training, they are sent to stop by a base camp of scientists doing research in the New Mexico desert to drop off equipment and when they get there, they find it empty. After hearing cries of help on a radio and seeing a flashing signal coming from the hills, they decide to climb up there, assuming it is a scientist in need of help. This is how it all begins.
The same creepy music remains but gone are the fascinating opening credits the remake employed (however, this movie opens up with the most disgusting birthing scene you could ever imagine). That movie had me from the beginning... this movie takes a little longer to grow on you. In the beginning, I thought for sure I was going to hate this movie so much but it turns out to be not so bad. It is, at the very least, entertaining. The scenes in the latter part of the film in the mine tunnels were well done and became a perfect creepy setting for the battles to play out. The acting was good enough. None of the cast are stars but their performances were average and they played their characters believably enough. The thing that lacks most is how severly underdeveloped the characters are. This is something I loved so, so much about the 2006 remake. That was a slow burner that took a while to get to the action, but wasn't boring because you spent the first thirty mintues getting to know the characters and getting to care about their fate. You don't really care about any of these people.
The bloodshed and gore are all there... it's a huge part of the movie (as it should be) and it doesn't let up. There are severed limbs, stabbings, shootings, impalements, and heads being smashed into mush galore. If you are expecting a blood-soaked movie, you're going to get one. It may even go a step further on the violence and the gore than did the remake although that was gory enough. One major, major problems I had with this movie was the cannibals. The cannibals in the 2006 remake were much nastier and inhuman than those in the Craven film and they were creepy and scary. In this movie, the cannibals are so disgusting and so over the top that they border on campy. They shouldn't look like normal people, but they just over do it a little bit with the make-up effects in this film. They should have stuck with the same make-up they used in the remake, but I assume they were just trying to go nastier for the shock value. Too bad it didn't work. Another thing that just didn't work was the ending. I won't ruin anything for you when I say it ends much like the remake although here it is much too abrupt and fast. It leaves it wide open for another sequel (which I think they should pass on... people need to know when to quit).
Overall, The Hills Have Eyes II is pretty decent, although it's much more violent than scary. I prefer Craven's original and definitely Aja's remake to this any day, but it's worth seeing if you enjoy those. It's a bit bland at times and could use some improvements (and I think Aja could have done wonders with this) but it wasn't a bad way for a horror fan to spend an hour and a half.
Grade: C+

The Ballad of Jack and Rose / A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints (DVD)

The Ballad of Jack and Rose - Daniel Day-Lewis has never been better as an idealized hippie who lives with his tween daughter Rose (bewitching Camilla Belle) in their abandoned commune he created with her mother (who left them when Rose was very young) on a small remote island off the East Coast of the United States. These two share a very close bond (very close) and have kept pretty much to themselves for years and years... except that Jack has been sneaking into town to see a woman named Kathleen (Catherine Keener). When Jack learns he has a serious heart condition, he invites Kathleen and her two sons from previous relationships - bad boy Thaddius (Paul Dano) and introverted Rodney (Ryan McDonald) - to move in with him and Rose. Naturally, this sudden invite causes some alarm for all involved, shaking up the ecosystem he has preserved and rattling the fragile yet rebellious Rose to no end (she pulls a shotgun on the sleeping bodies of her father and his new lover, for example). Written and directed by Rebecca Miller (daughter of Arthur), the film has a leisurely pace and is lovely to look at (sun dappling water, twinkling of an electric storm in a blue-violet twilight, dazzling full moon on a clear night). There is also a literate outlook on her characters and their interlocking, both sutble (a painful look by Day-Lewis to his daughter's deliberate display of losing her viriginty to Thaddius) and not-so (a snake slithering loose under the bed during the deflowering representing a loss of innocence). While this is well-acted across the board - including a small role by the usually laid-back Jason Lee - it is a showcase for Belle whose got dark quasi-exotic/girl next door/angelic looks who walks a tightrope of madness and a desire for normalcy. There is a magical sort of charm that works between her and Day-Lewis that is both tragic and inspiring. The weakness? A tad self-righteous, a bit tedious at times, a bit preaching of a message. But it's still a wonderful, gorgeous and tender film.
Grade: B+

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints - This movie goes to show that you can keep everything inside and think you will never have to think about it again... but the truth of the matter is that no matter what, your past is something you just can't escape. You almost have to see the movie to understand it in the least. This is a staggering, powerfully moving film with performances that are nothing short of brilliant. It's the sort of drama that explodes off the screen. All the elements are at such full potential that you have no choice but to become fully immersed in the story. It's so visually stunning that it reminds us what cinema is all about. You can easily compare this film to the best films from John Cassavetes and even compare it to Larry Clark's brilliant Kids, but this is the sort of movie that will challenge you relentlessy and honestly. It has an aesthetic creativity that is not manipulated or affected in any way. Plot? Dito Montiel (who also wrote and directed) is a poor Italian kid growing up in Queens. He meets a new kid from Scotland (Ireland, whatever) and the more he hangs out with him, the more he realizes how much he needs to get out of Queens. This is told mostly through flashbacks as the older Dito prepares to return home to visit his ill father who refuses to go to the hospital. The cast is nothing less than brilliant. Robert Downey Jr. and Shia LeBeouf (as the older and younger Dito) are stunning with the right amount of dangerous swagger, charm and innocence. Chazz Palminteri, Dianne Wiest, Eric Roberts (in a very, very small part), Rosario Dawson - everyone is wonderful. But the biggest surprise for me was Channing Tatum. I always thought he was a pretty face and a bad actor. Well, I was wrong and I will freely admit that after seeing what he's truly capable of with his angry tough guy work in this movie. He easily steals the movie from everyone else with his charimsa and talent. Watching this film is rewarding for anyone who craves more depth and complexity than is found in the typical Hollywood movie.

Grade: A-

300

Let's start with the good points: 300 is a visual orgasm, wonderfully imagined and perfectly executed with loud colors and bloody, gory battle scenes. But, as a movie that tries to be innovative, you need to be unique in more than just the visual aspect. You also need to create an original screenplay. 300 does a marvelous job with the visuals but fails with the written word (which is undeniably the most important step to film making). As you see the story unfold, you are taken into a world that somewhat wants to express an idea of honor, courage and glory, but you don't sense that within the characters. Yes, a certain passion is seen and heard but the connection and attachment of the actors with the audience is just not at the level of the artistic work that was put behind this film.

Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller, 300 tells the story of a battle that occurred more than two thousand years ago which we know mostly through Herodotus, whose histories have been scrutinized for centuries. History buffs should not be offended. This is the kind of film that causes serious geeking out. And the film is deliciously excessive. There's just something about bodies being used to build a wall that is so utterly wonderful. The crimson capes of the Spartans are electric and shimmering. The gore gets a wonderful spin, splashing against the background like messy paint strokes (which must have kept the special effects department busy because there's tons of it!). The battles and the camera work can easily be compared to The Matrix but it seems the only thing it really has in common with that film is the appeal to the visual sense. Director Zack Snyder utilizes the slow-motion/fast-motion editing that became wildly popular thanks to The Matrix but the similiarities end there. The fighting formations, the wild villains and especially the battle rhinos and elephants would be ridiculous by any standards except that this is 300 and this is based on a graphic comic and so they are delightful.

But still, this is Frank Miller and if we are to believe his interpretation then Xerxes was a nine foot tall, golden hued androgen with pierced flesh. The dialogue is peppered with lines that you'll love ("This is Sparta!") although at times it is hilariously pompous. It's all wonderful to a certain extent: the sadistic violence, debauchery, crunching metal mixed with Gregorian chanting and ridiculous imagery (and I use the word ridiculous in the best possible sense of the word). Still, the weakness is in the writing, not just int he dialouge but also in the fact that for a group of people that supposedly treat all people as equal, it just seems wrong that they would kill unwanted babies, something explicitly expounded upon in the films prologue. Though the characters talk about the wonders of democracy and freedom, everything about the film actually makes a case for military fascism.

Still, take all of this with a grain of salt. Don't take the movie too seriously, maybe. The imagery is astounding, the cinematography is a dream and the acting is powerful (especially from Gerard Butler and Michael Fassbender). It's gritty and raw and isn't afraid to throw body parts and limbs at you. As much as the movie is enjoyable, it's also a tad disappointing. It's surely a pleasure for your eyes but not necessarily for your heart.

Grade: B

Black Snake Moan

If you have been looking for a film where an out of control nympho gets chained to a radiator by an extremely religious southern man, then look no further than Black Snake Moan, the new film from Hustle & Flow director Craig Brewer. Not exactly what you're looking for? Well, go see it anyway. As long as you are open minded and don't take everything too seriously, there's no reason you won't leave the theater glad you saw this movie.

Brewer, who, as I said, is repsonsible for my very favorite movie of 2005, takes the audience to the deep south where, as the tagline claims, everything is hotter. And, indeed it is. We are introduced to the God-fearing bluseman, Lazarus played by Samuel L. Jackson and the almost always half naked Rae; a role bravely taken on by Christina Ricci (and, I mean, who else could possibly play this role? Who else would even consider taking this role? I know Ricci has had her share of missteps but she sure is much more fearless than the likes of Natalie Portman and Kirsten Dunst... anyone can play Marie Antoinette. No one else could have played Rae). After Rae's military bound boyfriend leaves for duty, Rae partakes in some drinking, drugs and sex then gets beat up by his best friend and left on the side of the road wearing a half shirt and some underwear. This is how Lazarus comes to meet Rae, take her in, care for her and... chain her to his radiator. The unlikely pair cross paths just long enough for their characters to learn a lesson from one another. Both lessons ultimately convey the message that, no matter what, we are all human. No one is perfect, we're all a little fucked up, as Rae says, and, if everyone would just realize that, then we'd be a lot better off. The question is, however, if this message will be accepted, or even understood, by all who see the film. That's another story.

One thing not up for debate is how great Jackson and Ricci both are here. You'd think with the role of a sex-crazed woman, overacting would be a given but not here and not in the least. Ricci is astounding and demonstrates her true talent with a raw performance that, despite being in dozens of films, is her best to date. Then there is Jackson who, for the first time in a long time, makes us forget who he even is. He's done the Samuel L. Jackson shtick so much lately that it's truly great to be reminded of what a wonderful actor he really is. Justin Timberlake is solid as well. He didn't reach the same level that he did in January's Alpha Dog, but this is still a strong outing from an actor who is just starting out.

The efforts of Craig Brewer can not go without mention. His last film was Hustle & Flow - a film that had such low expectations and surpassed them all gaining critical acclaim and putting him, and Terrence Howard, on the map. What he has done with Black Snake Moan will be what sets him apart from other new directors in the industry. He wrote and directed Moan and the end result is a story that is surprising and clever. As you watch you feel lik you know exactly where it is headed despite its valiant composure. Just as you think you've predicted the next move, Brewer shifts gears and takes an entirely different route. In an industry where everything is predictible, it's nice to see this in a film. There are just two problems that I can think of: the background characters are drab and uninteresting and the ending may disappoint some (although I actually really liked it) who are looking for something more exciting. While Ricci and Jackson should be praised for their fearless work, the absolute best thing about the movie has got to be the music. It's a Southern folk and rock and blues soundtrack that hits all the right notes.

Grade: A-

10 Best Movies About Serial Killers

In honor of Zodiac (read yesterdays review), I have compiled a list of the greatest movies about serial killers. I did not include any movie that may be considered a slasher/horror film. So, while movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween may be constrewed as being about serial killers, I did not include them on this list!

10. Dahmer (2002) - The movie may get a little bogged down with all the flashbacks (and even flashbacks-within-flashbacks), Dahmer is still a compelling, and terribly underrated, piece of cinema. Jeremy Renner plays the title character with the perfect amount of creepiness. It's a fascinating film that does not glamorize Dahmer nor portray him as a villain. He's merely presented as a human being.

09. Sin City (2005) - Sin City is a lot of things: beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted and pretty much one of the coolest movies in recent years. But it also presents not one but two wonderfully imagined and executed serial killers in the form of creepier than creepy cannibal Elijah Wood and child rapist Nick Stahl (as the Yellow Bastard). While none of the characters in Sin City are likeable, per say, these two are the sleaziest and creepiest.

08. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) - Based on real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, the film follows the exploits of Henry (played by Michael Rooker) in a realistic and utterly frightening way. You don't even see Henry actually killing anyone, but the movie still sends chills down your spine. This is an all around creepy, disturbing movie presented in such a cold and calculating way.

07. M (1931) - M is about the search for a child murderer in Berlin and as the story progresses, the high profile murders begin to inhabit the lives of everyone from the police to the criminals to the innocent bystanders to the accused. This film uses a lot of the tricks that would come to be considered film noir such as the use of shadows to create a dark and intense mood. Without this film, we probably wouldn't have the modern psyhological crime thrillers that top my list.

06. Manhunter (1986) - Sure, this film has fallen by the waste side because of it's relationship to the utterly masterful The Silence of the Lambs, but at the time this fiml was wonderful. The way Will goes about catching the killer is every bit as clever as Starling's methods in the latter film, if not more so. In addition, we are treated to the thoughts, the inner monologue, the frustration and the triumph of a hunter. The movie is very dated and stylised but it's still a wonderful entry into the the story of Hannibal Lector.

05. American Psycho (2000) - Maybe I'm a little bias because of my feelings for Christian Bale, but American Psycho is so much more than the exploitative slasher flick it appears to be on the surface. It's really something unique and intriguing, a brilliant, throught-provoking social commentary and thriller. The movie really requires more than one viewing in order to experience fully the surreal visual arena and to justify what we think actually happened. The masterful and perplexing ending is perhaps the best part of the film.

04. Dirty Harry (1971) - Diry Harry was widely accepted to be based on the Zodiac murders that were happening at the time and the movie has become a classic not to be missed. Clint Eastwood goes from cowboy to hit man, mountain terrain to urban metropolis. He shifts into a gear where society is run by the evil acts of people. Dirty Harry is one of the most iconic characters of all time and the film is much more about him than the "Scorpio" killer but it's still a wonderful film driven by fear and anxiety and anger and tension.

03. Psycho (1960) - Psycho may seem hokey now but at the time it was surely a terrifying film. Anthony Perkins plays the ulimate mamma's boy and avoids turning Norman Bates into a ranting, raving, drooling, murder-happy, manic characterization. Instead, his performance is subtle, creepy, cool, unsettling and utterly brilliant. From his quiet conversations with Marion Crane amidst the stuffed birds, to his weasling wimpiness when confronted by Arbogast, his performance is so exact that it chills the viewer to the bone.

02. Se7en (1995) - Zodiac isn't David Fincher's first brilliantly done serial killer flick. His first was the gothic, shocking, suspenseful, disturbing and clever Se7en, the dark tale of murder and crime the revolves around Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman's detectives who try to piece together a series of murders based on the seven deadly sins. Se7en is a step into the harsh realities of life, showing a realistic portrayal of two detectives investigation into the undescribable horrific world of murder and the darkest realms of mankind.

01. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - Hannibal Lector is the greatest serial killer in the history of literature and film. Played so perfectly by Anthony Hopkins, the film is an intelligent, tightly controlled, intense character study and look into a psychotic mind. This is the kind of film that will wrap itself around you and you will likely never shake some of the key elements of the film. This movie is in a class by itself.

Zodiac

When Zodiac, the new serial killer thriller from diretor David Fincher, is at it's best, it's reminiscent of The Silence of the Lambs and other classic taut thrillers. When it's at it's worst, it's still interesting, well acted, well directed and just altogether well done.

Since the movie is based on the book written by Robert Graysmith (portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal in the movie), then it's smart to assume that the facts are as accurate as possible. The film starts with a few scary scenes of a man killing couples in the middle of the night. The killer begins to call himself the Zodiac and starts sending letters to various newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle which is the main focus of the film since that is where Graysmith worked as a cartoonist. At first, he really has nothing to do with the case. He's merely interested in the codes the Zodiac sends to the paper. Instead, it's reporter Paul Avery, played wonderfully by Robert Downey Jr. who is ordered to cover the case. On the cop side of the issue, two cops, Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards, become involved in the case once the killer moves out of the suburbs and into the city. The story follows the murder and the suspects and the investigation for a good chunk of time, but once you begin to accept the film as a sort of ensemble piece, it takes off in a different direction and follows Gyllenhaal as he becomes more and more obsessed with the story. After so many years of not solving the murders, he just can't let it go. He gets involved under the guise that he's writing a book about the murders but really he just wants to solve them for some inexplicable reasons. He even jeopardizes his marriage in order to have a resolution to the murders. It's debatable about whether that resolution ever really comes. They never arrested anyone for the murders although the movie (and the book) finger one particular suspect very heavily and makes it difficult to dispute his involvment in the murders.

This movie is close to 3 hours long but it doesn't really feel like it. I read an interview with David Fincher in which he said that it was impossible to cut anything from the movie. He said in order to tell the story completely, it had to be 2 hours and 50 minutes long. I agree. The movie sticks so closely to the book and it covers every angle very well. In order to tell a story that covers nearly two decades, it's necessary to be a little on the long side (but, then, I'm a fan of long movies in general).

The filming techniques aren't as flashy as Fincher's earlier works (Seven, Fight Club) but that actually works for the film and lends it more of a documentary feel. The clothes and the surroundings are so authentic to the late 60s, 70s and early 80s, that the movie just feels real. The screenplay is wonderful and the characters are compelling and interesting. All of the performances are wonderful, down to all the supporting players, but Gyllenhaal, Downey Jr., and Ruffalo are all really wonderful in the starring roles. Gyllenhaal and Downey work well off each other and have a really great chemistry. The movie even has that witty, darkly humerous charm that most Fincher movies have. There are a few particular scenes that are downright scary, including a cat and mouse scene with Gyllenhaal's character in the home of someone who turns out to be a suspect that had me barely breathing. The outdoor shots of San Francisco make artistic use of vibrant dark colors at night, and glowing pastels during the day. The interiors capture the maze-like atmosphere that cops and reporters must navigate daily. The news room scenes bustle and explode with loudness. The murder scenes remind me of Bonnie and Clyde.

Zodiac is the kind of movie that sticks with you. For an unsolved case, it's terrifying to think that the killer is still out there somewhere (although it's widely accepted that the killer died int he 90s). But, still, this is the kind of movie that instills a realistic dread inside of you. It has an ending that is ambiguous and perfect for the film. Zodiac is an excellent combination of nerve-racking suspense and police procedural work. If you have any interest in murders or serial killers (or great film) then you should be riveted. If you have a small attention span then you should probably stick to Wild Hogs instead.

Grade: A-