Review: "Labor Day"

Director: Jason Reitman
Runtime: 111 minutes

While Jason Reitman deserves credit for branching out with his latest film, he's hardly deserving of praise for the final product this time around. A mishmash of poor decisions and shoddy story telling, Labor Day comes across more as a polished Lifetime movie, rather than the latest work from an exciting young director. In venturing outside of his comfort zone, Reitman has made the mistake of indulging in all of the worst tendencies of his new chosen genre. The result is awkward, boring, and fatally unconvincing.

Set over Labor Day weekend in 1987, Reitman's adaptation of Joyce Maynard's novel centers on Henry (Gattlin Griffith) and Adele Wheeler (Kate Winslet). The latter is a shut in of a single mom, unable to rebound from her divorce to Henry's father (Clark Gregg). On her monthly sojourn to the local convenience store, however, Adele's life changes with the introduction of Frank (Josh Brolin), an escaped convict who inserts himself into Adele and Henry's life. 

Right off of the bat, the set up is unconvincing. The level of contrivance present, which rests upon Henry's gullibility and naiveté, isn't the sort of flaw the film is able to make up for over time. Instead, it undermines everything that follows. The psychological tension inherent to the set up never materializes, which leaves Labor Day as a goopy slog of a romantic drama. 

Reitman approaches the material by throwing every trick in the book at it, and it's rather depressing to watch. Voice over pervades the entire film, spelling out even the most obvious details. Meanwhile, Rofle Kent's score, though fine on its own, is overused to the point of self-parody. Rather than compliment the footage, Kent's music strains the create an atmosphere that the writing and direction are laughably incapably of conjuring. Reitman also tries, unsuccessfully, to build Frank and Adele's backstories through laughably "arty" flashback sequences that do little to truly get under the skin. If anything, they only make the whole project seem even more worthless.   

Even the two stars seem unable to fully connect with their characters. Though Winslet and Brolin are perfectly suited to their respective roles, the material they're given is so thoroughly lacking that its no wonder their performances suffer. Winslet, in the more emotive role, is particularly disappointing as the damaged Adele. All of the nervousness and wariness Winslet communicates feels halfhearted at best. Though it's hard to pinpoint whether the fault lies more with the writing and directing or the actress can be difficult. Either way, it's sorely lacking work from an actress who is capable of so much more. Brolin, meanwhile, is effective enough without having to really do anything that requires true effort. His character almost never seems to be in any true danger, which leaves the actor with little to work with, given that his main conflict revolves around whether or not he'll be captured by the authorities. 

The biggest disappointment in the whole mess, though, is Reitman's direction. The director made a name for himself with sharply observant comedies like Juno, Up in the Air, and Young Adult. His transition to full blown drama, however lacks any of the success of his previous work. His indulgence in tired techniques (heavy-handed music, voice over) feels desperate. There's no intelligence behind any of it, and it all grows old far too quickly. His adaptation surrenders to the dramatic contrivances of its source material, rendering it all painfully trite. Labor Day isn't an intriguing new direction for a rising filmmaker. It's a numbingly bad misfire that ought to be stricken from the resumes of everyone involved. 

Grade: D+

Review: "Carnage" (2011)

The final shot of Roman Polanski's Carnage, an adaptation of Yasmina Reza's acclaimed play "God of Carnage," doesn't feature anything wrong in and of itself. The composition, framing, lighting, etc... are all perfectly fine, crisply and cleanly captured by cinematographer Pawel Edelman. Yet when one takes into account everything that came before it, along with its supposed meaning, this final shot is a head-bangingly obvious piece of symbolism that does nothing but add an abrupt end to a fast-moving but ultimately tepid piece of satire and social commentary.

Opening with a shot of a park (one of only two exteriors in the whole film), we witness one boy (Zachary) strike another boy (Ethan) with a large stick. Next thing we know, we're in a Manhattan apartment with the parents of the aggressor (Kate Winslet's Nancy and Christoph Waltz's Alan) and the victim (Jodie Foster's Penelope and John C. Reilly's Michael). What starts as a simple conversation among the four of them to come to terms with the bit of violence between their children quickly devolves into a savage verbal battle.

Yet the problem, which registers fairly early on, is simply that Reza's target - middle class hypocrisy and self-righteousness - feels easy, and as a writer she hasn't said anything truly entertaining, interesting, or insightful. Add to the mix that characters switch sides so frequently that no one feels like they have any structure to them. Though the characters have some distinct traits, they ultimately all feel like limply-constructed mouthpieces for the author. There's no depth to any of the four characters, and it only becomes more apparent the more the script drags out the encounter between the two couples. There are any number of opportunities for Nancy and Alan to leave Penelope and Michael's apartment, but through contrivance after contrivance, they keep going back in the door for more punishment (for themselves, the other couple, and the audience).

It's a shame too, because Polanski's cast is trying their hardest. A pity, then, that they're saddled with such lackluster material. Occasionally their talents overcome the script's deficiencies - Winslet's drunken anger is fun to watch, along with Foster's holier-than-thou attitude and Waltz's general disinterest - but even the film's best lines barely register. Polanski's direction is straightforward and efficient, never getting in the way of his talented cast. Unfortunately, there's not much he, or anyone else can do to overcome the weaknesses of the source material, and therefore the screenplay. Thankfully the actors have plenty of energy, so the film never drags. At the same time, the only reason the pace is a strength is that it makes the film feel like a swift piece of mediocre film making rather than a tortuously drawn-out affair. It's all so surface-oriented, so forced, and so artificial, that even the third act theatrics fail to bring a much-needed spark to the scenes. Throughout the entire ordeal, Waltz's Alan displays a constant attitude of disinterest, remarking at one point that the whole conversation is pointless. As it turns out, he's right, and the result is that the film as a whole feels pointless as well.

Grade: C

Review: "Contagion"

A disease pandemic means zombies. That's what the Hollywood of the past decade or so can't seem to get over. Not that there haven't been some good films to come out of the trend (28 Days Later...), but all in all, the disease-equals-zombies movie has been done enough to last us for a while. A movie strictly about disease, however? That's the sort of thing that hasn't been done in a while, so leave it to chameleonic director Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Ocean's 11, Che) to give us a more grounded take on a viral menace.

Opening on Day 2 of the epidemic, Contagion follows a mysterious viral outbreak whose first victim is Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow). As the virus begins to spread, the film travels across the globe, following everyone from health officials (Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet, Jennifer Ehle, Marion Cotillard), to the possibly infected (Matt Damon), and even a conspiracy theorist/blogger (Jude Law). Some try to find the virus' source, others try to contain its expansion, and some simply try to keep their lives from falling apart.

And, as rendered by Soderbergh and his team, the story is one that keeps its feet firmly on the ground. There are scenes of frustration and panic, even rioting, but Scott Z. Burns' script never gives in to hysteria or melodrama. Contagion isn't concerned with scenes of people becoming violently ill, or gross-out moments (save for maybe one). Instead, it keeps its focus on telling a grounded story about an increasingly aggressive disease. Soderbergh and Burns received cooperation from the CDC, and they've obviously taken the organization's advice seriously; the film feels uncomfortably plausible. Acting as his own cinematographer, Soderbergh captures the surfaces where the virus spreads (or makes contact) with a precision that is uncomfortable, and may very well have you rushing to douse your hands in Purell when the movie is over.

As the film progresses, though, it also starts to run out of steam. The first hour or so, when the disease is still an unknown (and still spreading rapidly) is stronger, but even it has its share of flaws. Though Stephen Mirrione deserves credit for his tight (but not hyper active) editing, he's left trying to cover too many bases. The story of the investigation of the disease, as well as Damon's arc, probably would have been enough to sustain the narrative. Unfortunately, there are two story threads that aren't quite up to snuff.

The first is Law's, which tracks a conspiracy blogger who simultaneously believes that the CDC is in bed with pharmaceutical companies, while trying to sell his own homeopathic treatment. Even though Elliot Gould has an amusing line about why blogging isn't real journalism, the film's use of Law's character feels too easy and too broad. The more I think about Law's scenes, the less I like them. With the clinical distance that Soderbergh is keeping from his subjects, this particular character is only more difficult to remain interested in as time goes on. But then there's Marion Cotillard's story line, which isn't so much useless as it is short-changed. With the strand already kept seemingly on the back burner, the film simply abandons Cotillard's character at two rather crucial points. There was probably an interesting angle to be mined from the arc, but little to nothing is made of it.

These two strands are part of Contagion's Achilles Heel. In trying to be an anti-disaster movie, and avoid sensationalism, Soderbergh and Burns have perhaps gone too far in the other direction. While I respect the film's attempts to ground itself in procedure and science, I can't help but feel that too much time is spent on characters spouting information, which robs them of the chance to, well, act. The script's fixation on the science of the story drains too much life from the characters for any of them to be worth connecting with, save maybe for Damon, Fishburne, and Winslet. Considering that the film is already jumping between and among characters, the problem only gets worse as it goes on, rendering the film's emotional angle void. So even though there is much to respect within Contagion, which ends on an interestingly simple (albeit unsettling) note, from its grounded story telling to its fine technical aspects (kudos to Cliff Martinez's sinister, pulsating score), the overt lack of emotion renders a potentially groundbreaking thriller little more than an antiseptic piece of low-key thriller entertainment.

Grade: B-

Venice Review Round-Up: "Contagion"

Hollywood loves a good disaster movie. And, thankfully for studios, they come in many variations. Earthquakes, tidal waves, burning skyscrapers, monsters, or simply the end of the world itself. And, when it comes to movies about diseases, Hollywood isn't usually known for being anymore realistic. Whether it's The Crazies or British imports like 28 Days Later (which is, to be fair, excellent), if it starts with a disease, it means one thing: zombies. So, leave it up to Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Ocean's 11) to try something different with the sub-genre. For a while now, there's been buzz that Soderbergh's Contagion was unnervingly graphic and realistic in its treatment of a disease, and early word at Venice, in addition to praising the film, is only reinforcing those early notions.

The Telegraph - David Gritten (N/A): "...a cut above most Hollywood thrillers..." (most of the review was spent on vague plot details, so a big 'booooo' to Mr. Gritten.

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy (N/A): "Director Steven Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns create unease and simmering tension without going over the top into souped-up suspense or gross-out moments..."

The Guardian - Jason Solomons (3/5 stars): "I was shuffling nervously in my seat, edging away from the sniffling man next to me." "...well assembled and propulsive, though like the virus, it loses momentum."

IndieWire - Oliver Lyttelton (A-): "Soderbergh creates a kind of tapestry of illness and panic, and the structure works like a charm..."

Variety - Peter DeBruge (N/A): "Still, without fully rounded characters, it's hard to care who lives or dies..."

Time Out London - Dave Calhoun (3/5 stars): "It's a sober and engrossing dramatic thriller..."

Venice Verdict: Though it may not be entirely personable, Contagion is a major success for Steven Soderberg, and an unusually realistic and unsettling ensemble thriller.

Venice Review Round-Up: "Carnage"

Though it is among my most anticipated for the rest of year, I'm still on the fence about Roman Polanski's Carnage. Adapted from Yasmina Reza's Tony-winning play, the director's latest features an excellent cast (Waltz, Foster, Winslet, Reilly) in a situation that seems rife with possibility for juicy drama and dark comedy. The only problem is that all released info and footage so far has done little to calm my fears about one key aspect: the source material. As I'll probably end up saying every time I discuss Carnage, I was no fan of the stage show, which felt like it thought it was smarter, funnier, and more insightful than it actually was. I was counting on Polanski and his excellent cast to find something in the material that would make it work better. Judging from the first few reviews, I'm still stuck on the damn fence:

InContention - Guy Lodge (2.5/4 stars): "...the film....doesn't give [the subject matter] much resonance beyond the universal fun factor of milquetoasts behaving badly." "Foster is given the play's most garlanded role, and enjoys herself most when the character at last self-immolates." "The men, perhaps surprisingly, fare better."

The Guardian - Xan Brooks (4/5 stars): "...a pitch black farce of unbearable tension." "[Polanski's] direction is precise, unfussy, and utterly fit for purpose..." "It does turn a shade too shrill...in the final stretch..."

IndieWire - Oliver Lyttelton (C+): "...it's pleasurable enough, although anyone hoping for a return to 1970s form for Polanski will be disappointed..." "For this writer, it's Jodie Foster who was the highlight." "...at best Reza's material is targeting some fairly low-hanging fruit (upper-middle class hypocrisy, in the main) without adding much to the discussion..."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy (N/A): "Snappy, nasty, deftly acted...Carnage fully delivers the laughs and savagery of the stage piece..." "Polanski too often abandons group compositions in favor of close-ups..."

Variety - Justin Chang (N/A): "...never shakes off a mannered, hermetic feel that consistently betrays [the film's] theatrical origins."


Venice Verdict: Though it has moments that work, Polanski's adaptation of Yasmina Reza's play is a minor, and flawed, pleasure. Jodie Foster and Christoph Waltz emerge on top, even though the film around them fails to say much that hasn't been said before.

Trailer: "Carnage"

Confession time: I really wasn't a big fan of Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage, a play that that earned raves on Broadway and won Tony Awards for Best Play, Best Actress (Marcia Gay Harden) and Best Actor (James Gandolfini). It's essentially a bottle story, where two couples try and sort out a fight that happened between their children on a playground. The premise is rife with possibilities for explosive drama and comedy, but Reza's script (originally in French) always felt like it lost something in translation. I laughed at the production I saw (which had the second run of cast members, including Christine Lahti and Jimmy Smitts), but I always felt like I was straining. Some exchanges and quips were funny, but they also came off as hollow and unsatisfying. Throw in that ridiculous vomit gag, and I wasn't exactly impressed.

And even though I have hope that Roman Polanski and his amazing cast will be able to create a more satisfying end result, the trailer hasn't boosted my hopes much. Foster, Waltz, and Winslet seem like they're trying their hardest, while poor John C. Reilly is stuck with the story's weakest role. All that Polanski has done, if this trailer is any indication, is give us exactly the same product but with close-ups and more detailed sets. Whatever mix of intensity and pitch-black comedy the footage is trying to get across isn't really coming through. Instead, this looks all too much like the play: an attempt to subvert middle class personalities that isn't nearly as smart or incisive as it wants us to believe.

Two Oscars does not a long-lasting marriage make

It's always the non-gossipy couples that have to go and break up out of nowhere. It's a real shame to see two (allegedly) nice, talented people separate like this.

LONDON – Oscar-winning actress Kate Winslet has split from her film director husband Sam Mendes, a British law firm said Monday.

The 34-year-old star separated from Mendes at an unspecified point earlier this year, Shillings law firm said. It wasn't clear whether divorce proceedings have begun. The pair have been married since 2003 and have two children.

In a statement e-mailed to journalists, the law firm said the split was "entirely amicable and is by mutual agreement."

"Both parties are fully committed to the future joint parenting of their children," the statement said.

A call and an e-mail seeking further comment were not immediately returned.

Winslet won the Academy Award for best actress for her dramatic role in "The Reader" in 2009. It was the first Oscar win for Winslet, who had been nominated five other times for her roles in "Titanic," "Sense and Sensibility," "Iris," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Little Children."

Mendes, an acclaimed stage and film director, won the coveted best director Oscar for "American Beauty."

He directed his wife in "Revolutionary Road," a recent film about a crumbling marriage that reunited Winslet with her "Titanic" co-star Leonardo DiCaprio.

Reviews were largely favorable, but the film failed to set off the same box office fever that made "Titanic" one of the most successful films in history.

In "Revolutionary Road," Winslet portrayed a suburban housewife who became increasingly bored and desperate with her stay-at-home life. The film won Winslet a Golden Globe for best dramatic actress, and in her acceptance speech she thanked her husband for pushing her so hard.

"Thank you for directing this film, babe, and thank you for killing us every single day and really enjoying us actually being in such horrific pain," she said last year.

Mendes said at the time that directing his wife had been one of the best experiences of his life, although he said she liked to discuss the movie 24 hours a day while he preferred to do something else, like watch a baseball game, at night when work was done.

Kate Winslet: This year's award season double threat

EDIT: No, I did not write this. I forgot where I saw it, but if I ever find it, I'll list the source to give credit. Sorry for any confusion.

Kate Winslet Brings Sexy Back — And Reading

I spent the better part of yesterday screening the two Kate Winslet films up for Oscar consideration and ready for holiday release: "The Reader" and "Revolutionary Road."

The good news is: they are each excellent. It’s a total win-win situation for Winslet, who shows such an incredible breadth of talent in these two polar opposite films that critics and fans are going to start calling her "Meryl Streep, Jr."

Stephen Daldry’s "The Reader" has a lot going for it, not the least of which is some sexy material. In a dry season "The Reader" benefits not just a little from Winslet’s cougar-esque Hanna’s many naked tanglings with Michael, played by 18 year old David Kross, a German actor who had to learn English for the movie. (He’s supposed to be 15 on screen.)

The Reader is based on the novel by Bernard Schlink, which was highly praised, a bestseller and a choice of Oprah’s Book Club. The subject is serious, since after Michael’s summer fling with Hanna circa 1964 he discovers that she’s on trial in Berlin as a war criminal. Hanna and several other women are being tried as Nazi guards who caused the particular death of 300 Jewish women.

Winslet and Kross have sizzling chemistry in the film, and Ralph Fiennes—as the adult Michael—could not be better. Daldry is unsparing of Hanna as a villain, and makes no apologies for her participation in the Holocaust. Neither, frankly, does Hanna, and that’s what makes the movie so fascinating. There is no tendency to cliché. Rather, "The Reader" has also the earmarks of a Best Picture nominee, a movie about an intimate relationship set against the backdrop of an Important Issue.

Winslet is a revelation in "The Reader," and quite different than in "Rev Road" (see below). That she could have both movies in one season is really the achievement. In "The Reader" she not only ages drastically, but she manages to convey with depth the emotions of a sexually voracious 40 year old and an embittered, incarcerated 60 year old. And, as it turns out, each of these personas also shares one more: a concentration camp guard with no regrets.

"The Reader" has its own strong foundation in a David Hare screenplay, not to mention a vibrant musical score by Alberto Iglesias and a gorgeous palate supplied by cinematographer Chris Menges. The only problem now is convincing Academy voters that Winslet should be considered ‘supporting’ here instead of lead since she’s on screen most of the time. She will go into competition with Penelope Cruz, Viola Davis, Amy Adams, Marisa Tomei and Rosemarie Dewitt – just to name a few.

One thing about "The Reader"—unlike, say, "Valkyrie" and "Defiance," you will not see any swastikas or Nazi uniforms. You will hear much discussion of the Holocaust, however, which makes it itself the opposite of "Valkyrie" in its subject matter and intentions.

PS The literati-oriented audience at "The Reader" screening last night loved it. Among the fans: famed book agent Lynn Nesbit, journalist Marie Brenner, and novelist Walter Moseley. Daldry took questions from the small group, not one of which was about Hollywood. Everyone wanted to discuss the Holocaust, the characters’ motivations, and the sublime execution of this landmark film...