Review: "The Girl on the Train"

Director: Tate Taylor
Runtime: 112 minutes


Sometimes book adaptations get the filmmakers they deserve, and sometimes they don't. Unfortunately, for The Girl on the Train, aka Gone Girl: Gaslighting Edition, the film adaptation has fallen into the latter camp. Roughly two years ago, David Fincher's twisty, black-hearted Gone Girl showcased a filmmaker capable of handling (and cinematically elevating) juicy source material. Train director Tate Taylor (The Help), on the other hand, can barely keep up with Hawkins' novel or Erin Cressida Wilson's adaptation. Even an ensemble of reliable actors can't give this one the consistent spark (and malicious allure) it desperately needs.

Chief among the actors trying to hold Taylor's film together is a terrifically committed Emily Blunt, as the story's less-than-reliable narrator. Blunt's Rachel used to have it all, but an ugly divorce has caused her to implode. Now, she's an unemployed alcoholic mess who's only stability in life comes from her commute to and from Manhattan each day. Left alone with her thoughts on the train, she develops an obsession with a seemingly perfect couple (Luke Evans and Hayley Bennett) living in the house next door to her ex-husband and his new wife (Justin Theroux and Rebecca Ferguson). One night, Rachel's evening commute, combined with a convenient blackout after a heavy bout of drinking, ends with her covered in blood, some of which may not be hers. And then Bennett's Megan is reported missing.

Rachel is a fantastically set-up character, and Blunt dives headfirst into the unstable messiness inherent in the role. If only Taylor were more adept at capturing and maintaining control of her performance. Despite the visible effort Blunt exerts, Taylor has a habit of filming his leading lady in ways that threaten to work against the performance. In her moments of black-out drunkness, Blunt looks less like a mentally unstable alcoholic, and more like a woman experience a light bout of demonic possession. These extreme pieces of Rachel's personality are hammered home so clumsily at the outset, that after the first 20 minutes or so, Blunt runs out of nuances to dig up. 

Taylor's odd ability to direct the film on autopilot while still making the proceedings overwrought is fascinating in all the wrong ways, and that applies to the way he handles the rest of his cast. Evans, Theroux, and Edgar Ramirez (as Megan's therapist) are given little to do (even when playing out the fantasies in Rachel's head), while Laura Prepon and Allison Janney are utterly wasted in throwaway roles. Of the three central women, Bennett largely gets by unscathed, seeing as her role is basically just a rehash of Rosamund Pike's flashback scenes in Gone Girl. Also, Lisa Kudrow stops by for two (two and a half?) scenes that - a ha! - wind up being the key turning point of the mystery.

Poor Rebecca Ferguson (and her wig), on the other hand, is completely let down on all fronts. After being such a delight in last summer's Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Ferguson is oddly cast as the blindly loyal Emma. And though Ferguson tries her best to make the most of the part, she can't quite overcome the character's near-total uselessness, even during the story's most critical scenes. Ferguson and Blunt wind up as opposing extremes, the former wasting away with nothing to do, while the latter is forced to go full-throttle from the opening scene and never let up.

Below the line credits do little to help create a sustained sense of narrative intrigue. The visuals range from competent to ugly (when in doubt, avoid Dead Leaf Brown for your color scheme), while the great Danny Elfman turns in one of the most mechanical, anonymous scores of his career. There's some minor elegance to the film's jumbling of perspectives and timelines, but there are times when you may groan and wonder why the whole thing couldn't have been assembled more linearly.

Yet even Taylor's clammy grip on the story isn't enough to dilute a few of the film's twists and revelations. By the time Kudrow inadvertently steers the film towards its conclusion, it's hard not to be minimally engaged as the various lies and manipulations finally wash away. But a few nifty shocks and some paper-thin commentary on abusive relationships aren't enough to justify either the overheated opening or the punishingly mundane middle acts. When The Girl on the Train was initially published, it (and the instantly greenlit adaptation) was hyped as the next Gone Girl. But I get the sense that, if either David Fincher or Gillian Flynn see Taylor's film, they won't be losing any sleep.


Grade: C

Review: "Sicario"

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Runtime: 121 minutes

The prevailing notion is that once foreign-born filmmakers make the leap to English-language filmmaking, they get lost in the great big American studio machine. As prevalent as this issue remains, look to French-Canadian helmer Denis Villeneuve as an all-too rare exception to the rule. In 2013, he made his English debut with back to back successes in Prisoners and Enemy (the latter of which was released last year). Enemy was the artier and more thematically ambitious of the pair, but it's in Prisoners that one sees Villeneuve's potential. The man is poised to evolve into a reliable commander of mid-budget studio fare aimed at a more sophisticated base. In an age where mid-budget (let's call that between $20 and 60 million) films are increasingly difficult to finance, Villeneuve's recent hot streak is nothing to sniff at. 

Issues of financing special significance for Mr. Villeneuve's latest, the drug war drama Sicario. Despite the attachment of Emily Blunt in the lead role, the filmmakers were repeatedly told that they would get more money if Ms. Blunt's protagonist was switched to a male. So even though Sicario does little to break ground with its character archetypes or its plotting, it remains something of a marvel amid the slowly-evolving mindsets of the major studios.  

All of this would mean precious little if the film in question was a failure. Thankfully, Sicario - though not the action-thriller its marketing promises - is another victory for Villeneuve and company. Though the film, written by first-timer Taylor Sheridan, favors mood over pointed commentary, it still works rather effortlessly on its own harshly beautiful terms. 

That harsh beauty is apparent from the opening sequence, in which FBI Agent Kate Macer (Blunt) leads a raid on a drug compound that quickly spirals into tragedy. As lensed by the legendary Roger Deakins (re-teaming with Villeneuve after Prisoners), the opening is harrowing because of the way Deakins blends naturalistic images with those meant to come laced with menace. Sicario takes place in the sun-baked terrain of Arizona, Texas, and Mexico, yet its cumulative effect is to leave one shuddering. Villeneuve, Deakins, and the rest of the behind-the-camera workers get the job done with haunting results. 

So much work goes into the look and feel of Sicario, that it's understandable that the characters may prove too simple and too distant to connect with at all. Blunt and her co-stars (Josh Brolin's smarmy black-ops leader and Benicio Del Toro's gun for hire) have been given relatively simple roles that don't really demand emotional fireworks. But as Sicario winds towards its conclusion, and the focus shifts in surprising directions, the coldness of the protagonists emerges as a deliberate and intelligent choice. 

Despite taking place in a completely different world, what Sicario most strongly resembles is Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty. Sicario leans heavier on terse dialogue and ominous music cues, but there's an unsettling distance from the weightier emotional components that ultimately works in the film's favor. The War on Drugs, like the War on Terror, is filled with queasy ambiguities and moral grey zones that push people like Kate (and the audience) to question the methods and end goals of such broadly-defined, jingoistic labels. 

The journey from blunt determination to moral quagmire is superbly embodied in Blunt's performance, and comes closest to giving Sicario a heart (albeit a dark one). The British actress - seamlessly blending in with her American and Mexican co-stars, maintains a poker face early on, but doesn't fall into the trap of appearing blank. Her expression may be flat, but Kate's face is one that remains alert to the vagueness of her mission. When time comes for the steely facade to crack, Blunt keeps emotions in check, never mugging even when her character is at her most vulnerable. 

Mr. Brolin and Mr. Del Toro, meanwhile, have considerably fewer quiet notes to play, though both are convincing and have strong chemistry with Blunt. A third act shift in focus does open up more room for Del Toro, to the film's benefit. The actor's performance does not change, but the added context given to his demeanor acquires new heft, and further plunges Sicario's morality into the mud. Though I longed for more scenes between Blunt and Del Toro like the one found in the final frames, the questions left at the end prove more satisfying than additional answers. 

Because even Sicario is not a film with a big Message, what little it does whisper to the audience proves valuable, if not terribly surprising. Drug violence is bad, and people in power do shady things. Not exactly shocking in this, the year 2015. But Villeneuve and Sheridan have nonetheless created a brooding pseudo-thriller that captures the human cost of the drug war, as well as the futility of fighting it with such simplistic and aggressive means. Some films tackling contemporary issues overstate their cases and wind up saying less. Sicario, meanwhile, says very little, yet its impact lingers because of its brevity. It's a work of level-headed and purposefully de-sensationalized violence, and that's exactly why the images of dry, sun-scorched earth do nothing to counteract Sicario's blood-chilling jolts.


Grade: B+

Review: "Edge of Tomorrow"

Director: Doug Liman
Runtime: 113 minutes

Throughout the course of Edge of Tomorrow, Tom Cruise's William Cage relives the same few hours an exhausting number of times. The character's physical and emotional exhaustion, however, likely won't be mirrored by audiences. Though perhaps not quite the standout of the summer it's been hailed as, Edge of Tomorrow takes its Groundhog Day-meets-any-alien-invasion-movie-ever premise and turns it into a dynamic adventure that places just enough emphasis on character while never going overboard with the VFX-driven spectacle. 

If, after seeing the trailer(s), you've been wondering why someone of Tom Cruise's age is being shipped off to war with an alien force along with the young recruits, Edge of Tomorrow (thankfully) has an answer. As we learn in an early scene, William Cage is a media personality for the global forces that have united to wipe out the invading Mimics. He has no combat training, at least at the start of the whole mess. This makes his position - on the front lines of an assault that makes D-Day look like a cake walk - especially nerve wracking. Yet after an encounter with a rare form of Mimic soldier, Cage meets certain death...only to wake up again on the afternoon before the battle. 

Rather than milk the time-loop scenario for attempts at tension, Edge of Tomorrow smoothly moves along to its next stage. Enter blade-wielding badass Rita (Emily Blunt), who, in one of Cage's episodes, reveals that she may know the key to breaking out of the loop.

From this point, the plot takes on a 50 First Dates sort of structure, albeit from a platonic standpoint. Rather than waste time constantly reestablishing the same details, director Doug Liman and editor James Herbert have a great deal of fun jumping forward through time. Once it becomes known that the only way for Cage's time loop to reset is for him to die, the film even works in some comedy that adds a welcome dose of levity to the convoluted sci-fi set-up. 

And, by making the character a reluctant soldier, the film outfits Cruise with a role that suits him rather perfectly. No one is going to mistake this for career-best work, but the 51-year-old actor proves he can still carry this sort of high-concept, big-budget tentpole on his relatively small frame. Matching him move for move is Blunt. Thankfully refraining from a romantic subplot (what with the age difference....not to mention the aliens), Edge of Tomorrow allows its female lead to take charge. She may be subject to Cage's ability to rewind time, but Rita is not without her own agency. On paper, pairing Cruise and Blunt together seems like head-scratching casting, but the two actually have a genuinely interesting student/teacher dynamic that serves the film well.

In fact, one of the most surprising aspects of Edge of Tomorrow is just how much time it devotes to Rita training Cage, rather than indulging in the flashy action. Many of the repeated action scenes, which involve our heroes figuring out movements on a step-by-step basis, are skillfully strung together as montages. For all of the visual chaos happening on the main battlefield, the camera remains focused more on human faces and bodies, rather than on explosions and wild stunts (that said, watching Rita spin through the air with her massive blade is pretty cool). 

With so much of the story focused directly on two people, Edge of Tomorrow makes up for the ways in which its own structure occasionally undermines narrative suspense. Cage's ability to reset time gives the story flow a bit of a video-game feel, where surprises can happen, yet not with actual or immediate consequences. Yet even as Cage and Rita inch forward into the future to wipe out the Mimic menace, the film peels back emotional layers in a surprisingly effective way, without getting bogged down in the drama. By keeping one character's memory aware of every time reset, Edge of Tomorrow ensures that there's a legitimate investment in both the central relationship, as well as the eventual epic quest to end the war. 

The film is also a technical triumph, albeit in a less obvious way than many similar sci-fi adventures. The color palette is limited, yet never dull, and the visual effects are slickly integrated. Especially impressive are the Mimics, which move in freakishly fast leaps and bounds, their metallic bodies constantly shifting in proportion. 

Yet even in the more effects-heavy finale, Edge of Tomorrow never shifts focus away from its characters. Though the sense of permanent consequences may never quite settle, the attention to Cage and Rita's relationship anchors the film in an unexpectedly touching way. Limon and co. obviously understand this quite well. Rather than get lost in the spectacle, Edge of Tomorrow stays grounded in the intimate side of its epic story. It's a testament to how a summer tentpole can succeed when it knows what aspects of the story to emphasize.

Grade: B/B-

Review: "Looper"

Director: Rian Johnson
Runtime: 118 minutes

Introduce time travel into a narrative, and a suddenly a whole can of worms breaks open. No matter how hard a writer tries, there are issues involving time travel that are difficult to avoid. All movies, even character-centric indie dramas, tend to have at least one plot hole or element that requires suspension of disbelief. With time travel narratives, the opportunities only multiply. So it stands to its credit that Looper, the big (ish) budget breakout film from director Rian Johnson, succeeds as a compelling piece of entertainment, even if it still has some elements that, upon further thought, might possibly invalidate the entire narrative.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who starred in Johnson's debut, Brick (2005), plays Joe, a looper for crime lords. Loopers are recruited in the film's present of 2044, to take out targets zapped back from 30 years in the future. As established via some voice over from Joe and some tight editing, Joe is quite good at his job, and enjoys a life of sex, drugs, and possibly rock 'n' roll (the jury is still out on that last one). Things get messy, however, when Joe's unseen bosses decide to close his loop, which means that Joe's future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back as Joe's target, along with a severance payment for his remaining 30 years of life. As established earlier in a stunning sequence involving fellow looper Seth (Paul Dano), it's not exactly a good idea to let your future self go. Yet future Joe gets a jump on his younger self and escapes, and sets Joe off on a chase to capture his future self and evade his boss' hit men.

One immediate problem that comes up is why would crime lords send a looper's future self back to that looper? Why not just send it to someone else so there wouldn't be any chance for hesitation or doubt? That's the sort of thing that happens when you mess with time travel and co-existing realities. But even though Johnson, smart writer that he is, falls into some time travel traps, his direction does an impeccable job of smoothing things over for the ride. Most impressive is the long stretch involving Gordon-Levitt and Willis' first encounter, shown multiple times to the point where it almost becomes intentionally comical. And, despite the script's use of voice over narration throughout, Johnson does give himself moments to simply let the visuals carry the narrative with compelling results.

Better yet is that Johnson hasn't forgotten how to write characters in his transition to more mainstream filmmaking. The roles filled out by Gordon-Levitt, Willis, and Emily Blunt (as a farmer who shelters an injured younger Joe) all have room to breathe as real characters despite the complex sci-fi premise. Despite the film providing an opportunity for Gordon-Levitt to be the true star, it's his two main co-stars who end up running away with the film. Willis moves just far enough outside of his star persona to deliver a performance laced with fear, anger, and regret, all fueled by injustices in his past and present. Just as surprising is Blunt, who is thankfully given much more to work with than 'love interest sucked into the chaos.' Her relationships with her son (Pierce Gagnon), and Gordon-Levitt give the actress the sort of range she hasn't had room to display in quite some time. Gordon-Levitt gives a solid turn, but he's ultimately the least interesting, as his stakes feel the most basic and least layered. Still, the actions between and among the leads, along with their individual moments, provide enough genuine emotion to make these people worth following. 

This is crucial, because after its more typical first half or so, Looper settles down into the more gradual build up for its hectic (but never rushed) finale. Yet with the characters and environment so smoothly set up, this doesn't become a problem. What could have become a dragging attempt at character development instead enriches the narrative and provides its own gunshot-free moments of intensity. If Looper's screenplay is held back by issues from the time travel conceit, it benefits immensely from Johnson's ability to tell the story and build the characters in such an engaging way without disrupting the pacing. Johnson also isn't afraid to make his world full of real consequences. Without spoiling anything, let's just say that Looper's gunplay doesn't come blood-free (the R-rating is certainly earned).

From a filmmaking standpoint, Looper is certainly aces. The editing (especially in the scenes driven strictly by visuals) is tight and controlled and stitches together the narrative with an intelligence that overrides the time travel conceit. Visuals and effects are nicely handled as well. Despite the $30 million budget, nothing in Looper ever looks less than seamless, whether it's the hover bikes or the futuristic skylines. Nathan Johnson's score also contributes nice touches here and there, and manages to stand out (in a good way) in the last few minutes. And, despite the presence of gunplay, the sound design makes sure than any bit of violence has impact, and that the film never descends into a muddled cacophony of gunfire and shouting. Regardless of conceptual issues, Johnson can pride himself on the overall package here.

It is only in the final seconds that Looper's spell starts to weaken. As nicely drawn as the characters are, the the film does occasionally surrender to the circumstances. The ending is nice enough as it is, but it does come with the catch of presenting a thorny puzzle that doesn't quite add up. For all of the time spent with the characters, the ends of their arcs are surprisingly not as gripping as all of the build up. It's a classic case of the journey, and not the destination, being the selling point of the narrative. But what a well-made journey it is. If Johnson continues on the path to more mainstream filmmaking, let's hope that he strives to keep making films at this level or higher. The worlds of indie, arthouse, and foreign films have plenty of interesting voices, but mainstream cinema is desperately in need of more. Hopefully Johnson takes up the mantle.

Grade: B/B+

"The Adjustment Bureau" - REVIEW

When The Adjustment Bureau's release date was pushed back not once, but twice, it brought to mind memories of The Wolfman (which coincidentally also starred Emily Blunt). Yet upon release, I have to wonder what all of the fuss was about. While it's no masterpiece, it's far from being a dog. It's actually a rather solid, entertaining, and even thought-provoking film about fate and free will.

Opening in the final stages of an election year, the film opens with Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) running for Senator of New York. After a silly scandal basically destroys his chances of winning, he steps into a bathroom to prepare his speech, where he runs into Elise (Emily Blunt). The two strike up a conversation and click immediately, before Elise leaves. Three years pass, and the pair meet again on a bus. This, however, was not according to plan. An agent (Anthony Mackie), having fallen asleep, misses his orders to spill coffee on David's shirt (which would cause him to go home, change, and miss the bus with Elise on it). And as we can tell by the cryptic shifting book that the agent has, this isn't what someone/something wants.

It has all the makings of a dizzying conspiracy thriller, and I have no doubt that conspiracy nut jobs will go insane over the movie. But George Nolfi's adaptation of Philip K. Dick's short story takes a surprising turn. David and Elise aren't merely thrown together for the sake of having conflict. The characters (and the actors playing them) have real chemistry together. So while the presence of the titular Bureau is almost always felt (David alone knows that they're out there and can't tell anyone), the love story at the center never becomes a simple plot device. It's not perfectly executed, but it works because the film is able to balance it with the more thriller-ish aspects of the story. Still, there are a few bumps in the script. David's reaction to news of Elise after an 11-month gap sounds more like it's only been a few days since they've seen each other. The two never get to spend enough time together to make you believe that they're truly in love; it's more that they appear to have good chemistry and a strong initial attraction.

As for the thriller/supernatural side of the story, Nolfi and crew bring it to life with a minimum of special effects, which actually makes it all the more believable. There's lots of running through magic doors, and Thomas Newman's energetic score helps keep the (remarkably clutter-free) chases lively. The simplicity of it all actually works in the film's favor, even if certain rules seem to be there for the sake of aiding the plot's limitations (water hinders the agent's ability to track people...just because). And while the script does raise questions of free will, control, and chance, it doesn't always answer them completely. Were the film more one-sided and focused the agents at work, it might have allowed for more complete answers, but as it is, The Adjustment Bureau is generally more content to answer questions only pertaining to David and Elise, and how their being together will destroy both of their career paths.

But even though the film may not live entirely up to its ambitions, it's not entirely without success. With the exception of a few too-quick jumps in story, it flows well and the romance aspect never bogs down the "bigger" story, rather it enriches it. Despite the potential for earth-shattering revelations, the film stays grounded in its central story, and resists the urge to go all-out with effects. It's not out to be an entirely foreboding story, but is instead examining two sides (though not exactly evenly) of a weighty idea: total free will vs. necessary control. It's no philosophical masterpiece, but as a entertaining romantic thriller with some heart and some brains, it's a thoroughly engaging film, albeit a bit minor.

Grade: B-

"The Adjustment Bureau" trailer

On the upside, these sorts of stories are always interesting, but the way the trailer is put together isn't entirely enticing. The cast is great and the use of John Murphy's "The Surface of the Sun/Adagio" from Sunshine is awesome (is there any thriller-ish film that that song doesn't work with?), but I'm not entirely sold on this yet. Originally slated for the end of July, it's now being released in September, which may not be the best sign...