Review: "Still Alice"

Director(s): Wash Westmoreland & Richard Glatzer
Runtime: 101 minutes

The cruel irony of Still Alice, a sensitive and efficient drama about Alzheimer's, is that it's largely forgettable. This fourth collaboration between directors Wash Westmoreland and Richard Glatzer benefits from a handful of beautiful performances and a restrained approach to the subject matter. However, by the time it's over, Still Alice has barely had a chance to address the dynamics of the story that could have distinguished the film from similar narratives. 

The most interesting part of Still Alice comes quite early, when linguistics professor Alice Howland (Julianne Moore) learns that she has Alzheimer's. The diagnosis is frightening on its own, but there's more: Alice's Alzheimer's is a rare type that is passed down genetically, thus putting her three children at risk. This angle is skillfully introduced, especially in the scene where Alice and her husband John (Alec Baldwin) break the news to the kids. But it doesn't take long for this side of the story to evaporate. Westmoreland and Glatzer seemingly stumble upon a land mine of an issue (the guilt and grief of passing down something that's out of your control) and then run away from it. 

Whether it's Alzheimer's or cancer, illness narratives always walk a fine line when it comes to how they deal with the situation. To their credit, the directors avoid cheap sentimentality or emotional manipulation. Unfortunately, they do this by acting timid, rather than economical. Still Alice is a tasteful movie, but that refinement isn't enough to mask the weaknesses of the writing.

The actual portrayal of the disease is far better, in no small part thanks to Moore's lovely work. The script carefully introduces and accelerates Alice's failing memory, giving the aggressive disease a natural progression rather than confining it to dramatically convenient bursts. Moore does her best to add extra heft to a screenplay that is often too safe for its own good. She is often heartbreaking in the role without begging for one's sympathy. Really, the only reason this isn't one of her absolute best performances is due to the limitations of the writing, which relies more on basic details than identifiable character traits to earn sympathy (she has Alzheimer's...doesn't that suck?).

Even though the writing leaves quite a bit to be desired, Still Alice avoids falling flat on its face. The performances are all quite good, with Kristen Stewart turning in the best work of the supporting cast as Lydia, Alice's daughter and a struggling actress. The pacing is quite taut, never leaving one in a fog the way Alice often wanders through the movie. 

Unfortunately, nothing captures Still Alice better than its final scene. The moment is quite moving, but then the film simply ends. Still Alice appears to exist in a cinematic vacuum which doesn't serve it well from any angle. As a study of Alzheimer's, it brings nothing new to its story, and as a character piece it never pushes beyond the fundamentals required to make us feel sad for a little bit. In telling the story of a woman losing touch with her life, Westmoreland and Glatzer have forgotten to give Still Alice any personality or greater point. It's impossible to have an identity crisis when there's no identity to begin with.

Grade: C+

Review: "Maps to the Stars"

Director: David Cronenberg

Runtime: 111 minutes

There's quite a bit of talk about fires and burns in Maps to the Stars, yet precious little actual heat. The latest from David Cronenberg sees him taking a knife to the squishy, slimy underbelly of Hollywood, with results that are more likely to induce shrugs than gasps of horror or outrage. Maps is something of a companion piece to Cronenberg's last film, 2012's Cosmopolis, tackling a different sort of elitist American culture, albeit with drastically different tones. The iciness of Cronenberg's approach in Cosmopolis was off-putting at first, yet gradually became an effective choice before making a gripping hard left turn into fire and brimstone condemnation. Unfortunately, the director isn't able to bring even a small fraction of Cosmopolis' concluding fire to Maps. Despite scenes that are, on paper, stomach-churning, Cronenberg's latest is ultimately a lukewarm stab at cutting satire.

Hollywood has always provided multiple angles for satirization, and Cronenberg and writer Bruce Wagner have at least assembled a good host of targets. There's fading star Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), trying to revitalize her career in the shadow of her dead mother (Sarah Gadon), and her new assistant Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), who happens to be a burn victim. Then there's Agatha's possible boyfriend Jerome (Robert Pattinson, now at the front of the limo), a limo driver who really wants to be a writer and actor. And then, of course, there's the screwed up child star Benjie Weiss (Evan Bird) and his vaguely creepy parents (John Cusack and Olivia Williams). All good ingredients to have for an expansive satire of the entertainment industry's vanity, misplaced priorities, and closets stuffed full of skeletons.

Where Maps to the Stars veers of course starts with Wagner's screenplay, which spreads the screen time around so much that all the plot lines feel half baked. The most compelling part of Maps is Havana's story - in no small part thanks to Moore's Cannes-winning performance - yet Wagner spends so much time with the rest of his Hollyweridos that her story comes off as pointless by the time the credits roll. In Havana, Wagner is able to tackle issues such as celebrity status, aging, Hollywood's standards for women, and the trauma of childhood abuse, yet he refuses to fully engage with Havana's mindset. During the first hour or so of the film, Gadon pops up as the ghost of Havana's mother (a famous actress who died young in a fire), presumably to torment her struggling daughter. 

Yet as Wasikowska's own story starts to move independently, Havana's hallucinations cease and her mental strain is washed completely away. Gadon and Moore play off of each other well, and their casting taps into some interesting notions about age and talent, but every scene they have together is exactly the same. Havana asks what Gadon's Clarice wants, and by the end of Maps to the Stars, you'll neither know nor care (Havana seems to forget about her as well).

This is made even more frustrating because of how much fun Moore is having sinking her teeth into a role like this. She alone seems to understand what Cronenberg and Wagner are trying (and failing) to accomplish. She is constantly on edge, even when trying to meditate her way through receiving bad news, which enlivens Cronenberg's otherwise staid atmosphere. The biggest crime of the film is that Moore is a member of an ensemble cast, and not a definitive lead. With her at the center, Maps would have had a infinitely stronger foundation. 

Only Wasikowska comes close to Moore's understanding of the film's aims, even as she's saddled with an underwritten character. Though Moore dominates the scenes with Havana and Agatha, Wasikowska is able to effectively hold her own as a sounding board for Havana's histrionics. And when facing off against other cast members, Wasikowska is really able to shine, giving careful hints about Agatha's damaged psyche and doing her best to fill in the gaps of Wagner's writing. 

The rest of the main cast, however, look as though they've been directed into comatose submission. Bird has the looks to play a royally messed up Bieber-esque child star, but he's never given the room to truly dig into the character's excessive lifestyle and increasingly erratic mindset. Cusack, meanwhile, is unable to lend a spark to what should be a juicy role: a classic puffed-up Hollywood life coach/guru. Yet rather than inflate himself to fit the role, the actor shrinks and goes through the motions. As for Pattinson, he's only got a handful of scenes, and they're all of the sort that really don't require a name actor at all. The exception, and not in a good way, is Olivia Williams, who - perhaps because of the editing - appears to be giving two performances at once. One minute she's a domineering stage mother, and the next she's falling apart and weeping over a past trauma. There's no in between, and the shifts feel completely forced. 

Though Cronenberg knows how to direct freakish madness on screen (Videodrome, Naked Lunch, The Fly, etc etc etc), his forays into psychological dramas over the past decade have largely proven to be stillborn. Cosmopolis and Spider had some effective moments and ideas, yet films like A Dangerous Method were often just sluggish and hollow. Maps to the Stars presents the best opportunity for Cronenberg to use his gifts as a director of nightmares, yet those nightmares never come. Even with the ghosts, different forms of incest, burning bodies, and three dead children, nothing about Maps to the Stars resonates. The visuals are flat, the production design passable, and the music barely notable. The content on page is so scattered that it can't really work without a strong atmosphere to heighten to horror of what it depicts, and Cronenberg and his collaborators never supply it.

One can't blame the director for trying to branch outside of his body horror roots, but you'd think by now he'd have seen that films like Maps to the Stars really don't fit his skill set at all. I have no doubt that he has some genuine contempt for the seedier aspects of Hollywood, but Maps to the Stars ultimately gives the impression that he's just indifferent towards it. Were this his first foray into this sort of satire, it would be easy enough to lay most of the blame at Wagner's feet. Yet even though Wagner's script is heavily flawed, Cronenberg's directorial choices (or lack thereof) are equally lackluster. There is so much bark in what Maps to the Stars wants to say, but when it comes to bite, the film has forgotten to put its dentures in. 

Grade: C

Review: "Non-Stop"

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Runtime: 106 minutes

It seemed only natural that Liam Neeson thrillers would eventually grow wings and take to the skies. Yet who would have thought that the result would be so engaging, despite the increasing levels of preposterousness? After several misses (Taken 2, Unknown), Mr. Neeson's stock as an action hero gets a boost in this Hitchcock-lite bottle movie, thanks to some dynamic directing and effectively managed suspense. 

When we first meet Air Marshal Bill Marks (Neeson), he's drinking whiskey in his car at an airport parking lot. As director Jaume Collet-Serra quickly sketches out with visual cues, Bill isn't doing so hot at the moment, what with the drinking problem and the estranged daughter. The rest of the work is simply up to Neeson, who, at 61, is still capable of effortlessly commanding the screen with all of his 6'4 frame. 

A good thing, too, seeing as much of the movie's first half is comprised of Marks facing off against some anonymous text messages. Aboard a flight to London, Marks learns that someone plans to kill off a passenger every 20 minutes until $150 million is transferred into an account (almost as frightening as actual online banking transfers). 

Rather than immediately go into action, Non-Stop decides to have fun with the mystery portion of its story. Collet-Serra and his cast (including Julianne Moore and Downton Abbey's Michelle Dockery) are all incredibly game in their approach to such middle of the road material. Non-Stop won't go down as one of the great modern thrillers, but it has enough fun with its concept to ensure that the ride is involving, rather than tedious. 

While not oppressively dark, Non-Stop's willingness to keep itself largely grounded is part of what makes it so easy to engage with. Even the more ludicrous elements of the story, which only rear their heads near the very end, are kept to a minimum. Instead of a bevy of over-the-top stunts, Non-Stop has only one, and Collet-Serra hardly drags it out or indulges the moment. 

Perhaps the lone disappointment is the eventual revelation of the killer's identity. Though the grandstanding and monologuing is kept in check, the killer's motivation is almost staggeringly stupid, and undermines the tension that should have driven the climactic action sequences. Had the whole movie been of drastically lower quality, the insanity of the villain's motivation could have provided some level of nonsensical cinematic glee. Instead, it puts a bit of a damper on a otherwise solidly assembled, B-level thriller. 

Yet, by the time the final moments, which don't overstay their welcome, roll around, it's difficult to be too angry about Non-Stop's flaws. Suspension of disbelief is key to a movie like Non-Stop, and thankfully everyone involved has largely done their best to make this an accommodating vehicle for that suspension. No one will care about the film in a a matter of weeks, but as movie-of-the-week escapism, Non-Stop gets more than enough right at the surface level to be worth the time. 

Grade: B-/C+

Review: "Game Change" [TV]

Though not a theatrical release, HBO's Game Change, an adaptation of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's novel about the 2008 presidential election, ranks up there with some of the best behind-the-scenes political thrillers. Though some (on sides left and right) will balk at the film's portrayal of political lightning rod Sarah Palin (Julianne Moore), Game Change does, in all honesty, deserve quite a bit of credit for tackling such a highly divisive figure and coming out with effective results.

The film beings with John McCain's (Ed Harris) campaign on a downward slide, and unfortunately this is mirrored in the quality of the opening scenes. As a whole, Danny Strong's screenplay is quick and sharp, but before Sarah Palin's introduction into the mix, Game Change feels slightly off, and at times weirdly on the nose (particularly in a scene where McCain's advisors inform him of the need for a "game changer"). Yet once Julianne Moore's Palin picks up her cell at an amusement park and says, "This is Sarah..." Game Change does a complete 180. Palin herself had plenty of incredible highs and shocking lows during the '08 campaign, but Jay Roach's film captures the good and the bad with a fierce intelligence.

And even though Tina Fey has already created her own landmark portrayal of the former VP hopeful, Moore's performance is richer by virtue of not being a parody. Palin certainly isn't lionized, and there are times when she is drawn as an expert of image maneuvering, but she isn't thrown under the bus for the campaign's loss, nor is she portrayed as a villain. Whether Palin is eagerly taking down notes, or slouched in a chair in a catatonic stupor, Moore keeps the portrayal grounded, never once veering into broad-strokes territory. Yes, she has her vocal tics, accent, and even her walk down, but thanks to Moore's commitment to the turn and the sharp script, the surface details don't end up controlling the performance. What the film does best, with the benefits being tremendous, is present Palin with as many facets as it can, all underlined by one crucial idea: regardless of her intentions, or her ability to function as a political celebrity, she was simply not prepared for the chaos of the national stage.

'Stage' is a particularly appropriate word, because in fits in with the film's larger idea, one that's bigger than McCain, Palin, and Obama combined: the transformation of the politics - specifically, elections - in the age of social media and the 24 hour news cycle. As Palin becomes more prominent, McCain all but vanishes as the campaign's focal point. Palin is the GOP's Obama, an appealing politician who has the energy to also function as a celebrity. This notion plays out beautifully over the film's 2 hour run time, namely in scenes involving campaign manager Steve Schmidt, and senior campaign advisor Nicolle Wallace (Woody Harrelson and Sarah Paulson, both excellent).

Yet what Game Change ultimately does best, which is high praise considering the strong individual pieces, is recreate the twists, turns, and thrills of the 2008 election, although here it's been condensed into 2 hours, and not painfully dragged out over 3 months with endless coverage. In fact, Roach's film almost makes the race more exciting, because of all of the glimpses, some developed, some fleeting, we are afforded of the campaign's behind-the-scenes activities. Occasionally it becomes overwritten - listening to characters issue commentary while Palin delivers her famed RNC address disrupts the flow somewhat - but on the whole it's a riveting piece of political story-telling that, thanks to its real-life basis, avoids sensationalism. Every once and a while, I thought Roach and company were about to take things into the full-on thriller genre, but nothing ever materialized. There is no Chekhov's gun, and the script feels no need to contrive one. There was never an intention of making this a thriller, rather, Game Change's story is simply thrilling in its own right: thrilling written, thrillingly acted, and thrillingly constructed, even though it's ultimately just a string of conversations among a group of conflicted individuals.

Grade: B+

[Short] Review: "Crazy, Stupid, Love"

There's plenty of love and craziness involved in Crazy, Stupid, Love, the latest from directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (I Love You, Phillip Morris). And, thankfully, there's also not much that's stupid, even though it awkwardly flirts with cliches in the last scene. Despite its plain set-up (ladies man helps divorced man get his mojo back), Crazy, Stupid, Love rises above the increasingly awful pack of romantic comedies hitting theaters by assembling a fantastic cast (led by Steve Carrell and Ryan Gosling). The script itself, while avoiding the obnoxious characters or plotting tedium so many other rom-coms, is not brilliant, or filled with non-stop laughs.

It is, however, filled with sincere charm, and enough funny moments thanks to the excellent ensemble (rounded out by Julianne Moore, Emma Stone, Kevin Bacon, and Marisa Tomei's perfectly timed laughs). Carrell finally gets to play a role that uses his likability, without resorting to any Michael Scott-isms, and Gosling exudes sexiness in spades, all while pulling off his character's snarky side with ease. The trio of women, each wildly different, all have their moments to shine as well, though it's a shame that Moore isn't given much to do comedy-wise aside from her excellent delivery on that Twlight joke. And even though it's a bit long for a romantic comedy, it doesn't feel nearly as drawn out as, say, a Judd Apatow comedy (*whew*). If it does need some trimming though, it's in a subplot involving Carrell and Moore's son (Jonah Bobo) and his crush on his babysitter (Analeigh Tipton). The adult relationships are handled so well, that inclusion of this plot thread feels like an extra. It's not that it isn't funny, it's just that it detracts from the stronger portions of the film, which are what make the movie such a pleasure to watch (including, but not limited to, Ryan Gosling's near-nudity in several scenes).

Grade: B/B-

Awards Season notables: Kings, co-leads, and James Franco [updated]

A significant amount of info has recently been released regarding the oh-god-it's-almost-time awards season mania about to descend upon us. First up, and somewhat late on my part, is news of The King's Speech's triumph in Toronto. Tom Hooper's film about the stuttering King George VI took the People's Choice Award at the now-concluded film festival. In recent years, winners of this award have gone on to rather strong success, including a little film called Slumdog Millionaire. And speaking of that film, Danny Boyle's current leading man James Franco led the way in the festival's critics poll over stiff competition from the likes of 'King's's Colin Firth. As of now, the Best Actor race really is down to these exceptionally well-received performances. Not to worry for The King's Speech; it also took home the award for Best Supporting Actor for leading Oscar contender (for now) Geoffrey Rush.

Also notable in the results from TIFF's poll is the placement of Kelly Reichardt's Meek's Cutoff, starring Michelle Williams (who has her own Oscar hopeful in the form of Blue Valentine) as the best liked narrative feature, beating out tough competition like Black Swan. Another Year, and Palme D'Or winner Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. Williams landed in 5th in the Lead Performance poll for Meek's Cutoff, right above Rabbit Hole's Nicole Kidman, who tied for sixth. Surprisingly high-ranked is Matt Reeves Let Me In, the American remake/re-adaptation of 2008's critically acclaimed Let the Right One In.

Meanwhile, in campaign news, Best Actress just became a little more crowded. People have been speculating for a while as to which one of the The Kids Are All Right ladies would be relegated to supporting. As it turns out, neither will be. The decision from Focus Features is that both Julianne Moore and Annette Bening will be campaigned as lead. Should they both score nominations in late January, they'll be only the sixth pair to do so, and the first since the 1991 Oscar race:

Thelma and Louise (1991): Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon

Terms of Endearment (1983): Shirley Maclaine (winner) and Debra Winger
The Turning Point (1977): Anne Bancroft and Shirley Maclaine
Suddenly, Last Summer (1959): Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor
All About Eve (1950): Anne Baxter and Bette Davis

"The Kids Are All Right" - REVIEW

I'm having a little trouble processing my thoughts on The Kids Are All Right, not because it's some headache-inducing story or thematic puzzler, but because after all of the acclaim, it just struck me as, well, alright. Well, no, it's significantly above "alright," but it's not the masterpiece some have hailed it as since Sundance. Lisa Cholodenko's exploration of family values in relationships has its shining moments of humor and drama, and its buoyed by work from its cast that ranges from "nice" to "great". The biggest problem, of the two big concerns that I have, is simply that Cholodenko's script feels like a surprisingly good first draft that still has to undergo a fair bit of polishing when it comes to execution.

Nic and Jules (Annette Benning and Julianne Moore - Oscar, please take note), a couple in California, get a bit of a surprise when their two kids (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) track down the sperm donor who made their existence possible. That donor is Paul (Mark Ruffalo), and his involvement (specifically, the fact that both kids want to see him again after their first meeting) is what drives Cholodenko's film. Now, before I start sounding like a nitpicker with a grudge, let me say that I found Cholodenko's presentation of the lesbian family refreshing. This is not a political "issues" movie by any means; it's a matter of fact look at the fact that gay couples with children *gasp* exist and they go through the same highs and lows as everyone else (much like TV's Modern Family). For that, Cholodenko deserves praise. She never condescends to her audience, nor does she go out of her way to make her point. Leading the way (though the emphasis does seem to shift several times) are Benning and Moore, who turn in poignant, heartfelt performances as a normal couple suddenly caught up in an unexpected situation they hoped never to face. I won't play the "who's better" game, as that feels unfair; like Nic and Jules, Benning and Moore balance each other out, even though this results in a few clashes.

And like any normal family, the parents have both chemistry and discordance with their children. Wasikowska, who headlined the unfortunately flat Alice in Wonderland, actually gets to show what she's made of here, and radiates a quiet charm and likability. Hutcherson, unfortunately, is saddled with the less exposed role (for much of the second half he seems to be "there" and not much else), but he shows promise in what he's given. Ruffalo, initially grating, quickly settles into his role, even though it doesn't feel as well defined as the other four characters. In addition to the performances, the soundtrack and Carter Burwell's gentle music add energy to this well edited film.

But like Nic and Jules' family, Cholodenko's film has a few issues that need fixing. In addition to the aforementioned lack of polish (and why does it look slightly dingy on screen in comparison to the trailer?) in the script, there's the climax of Ruffalo's character arc. While I understand it, it does seem a bit frosty and slightly unfair considering the initial forgiveness given to another character. But maybe that's the point, family is family no matter what, and no matter how crucial Ruffalo's role, he'll never be family. Thankfully the film doesn't end there, with the full ending being a much more complete, satisfying one, but the treatment of Ruffalo's character seems a bit much, even considering what happens. Cholodenko's film may treat one character in a questionable manner, but she still treats her audience fairly and the film that unfolds is an insightful look at the ways families are both changing and remaining the same. And, like any family, the film is a little rough around the edges, but at the end of the day, maybe that's alright too.

Grade: B/B+

Trailer for "The Kids Are All Right"

AKA, Julianne and Annette trying once again for an Oscar.