Review: "The Imitation Game"

Director: Morten Tyldum
Runtime: 114 minutes

British mathematician Alan Turing completed a Herculean task at the height of World War II as multiple opposing forces closed in on him. Time was of the essence when it came to breaking the Nazi Enigma encoding device. At one point, MI6 operative Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong) tells Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) that in the time they've had to introduce themselves, three British soldiers have been killed thanks to messages sent using Enigma's seemingly impossible encryption codes. 

And yet despite the massive looming threat of the Third Reich in the background, the story of Turing's crowning achievement has surprisingly little urgency. Director Morten Tyldum and writer Graham Moore rely on too many weary storytelling tropes and framing devices. The Imitation Game is solid, quietly rousing entertainment, but it lacks the sort of polarizing intellectual dynamism that made its subject such a visionary in his field.

Hopping from 1951 (the year of Turing's arrest for homosexual acts) to the early 40s, and even back to Turing's school days, The Imitation Game has quite a bit to juggle in under two hours. To their credit, Tyldum and Moore tell their story smoothly, ensuring that one never gets lost amid the jumps in time. Tyldum's direction is polished, and opens up the scenes so as to keep the film from looking either stagey or like a generic TV movie. Moore's screenplay, adapted from Andrew Hodges' book, has its share of witty exchanges and carefully timed emotional outbursts. To an extent, the Norwegian Mr. Tyldum deserves credit for directing the most downright British movie of the year, with its restrained emotions and real-life-period-piece narrative. 

Everything in The Imitation Game, for better or for worse, has been calibrated to make the film both important and widely accessible. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this approach, the execution here - however pleasurable - is what gets in the way of the film leaving a lasting mark. The scenes set at boarding school and in 1951 each have their own internal arcs, yet by stringing them along with the WW2 story, their impact is muted. They feel like optional subplots even though both (especially the latter) have direct connections to the middle timeline. Rather than work in harmony, the subplots leech off of the WW2 story to the detriment of the entire film. The danger of the war and the possibility that Turing's sexuality may be exposed never feel like terribly pressing matters. There is only one sequence, in which Turing and his team must decide whether to warn a British ship about a U-boat attack, where the required urgency actually materializes. Breaking the Enigma code was not a tidy solution, but the film barely gives one a taste of this crucial and fascinating angle.

The cast is the real draw here, and even the actors with underwritten roles are at least fully engaged with the material. Cumberbatch is an ideal fit for Turing's isolated, anti-social genius mindset. Though there are similarities with his character on Sherlock, the actor's work here is characterized by an understated wit and a less abrasive frankness in his dealings with co-workers. When Turing tells his commanding office that his teammates will only slow him down, it comes from a place of cold objectivity, rather than malice or derision. Cumberbatch's cast members, though often relegated to playing simple types, turn in solid work, with Matthew Goode doing some fine work as Turing's confrontational adversary. Breaking up the boys' club is Keira Knightley as fellow decoder Joan Clarke, who forms the most in depth bond with Turing. Clarke is the one person who sees and understands who Turing is beyond his brilliant mind, and Knightley's scenes with Cumberbatch are easily among the film's best, even if her character doesn't really have her own arc. 

Behind the scenes contributions are all quite strong without overwhelming the story or the actors. Production designer Maria Djurkovic (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) varies the decor of the film's many interiors to lend the imagery subtle, unobtrusive distinctions. The film looks simple, yet elegant, and Alexandre Desplat's understated score gives the story an extra boost of energy. Costumes, meanwhile, communicate the time period without being distracting.

There's no doubt that everything in The Imitation Game looks and sounds right. The underlying problems with structure certainly don't hold the film back as an accessible crowd-pleaser. Instead, the frustration with The Imitation Game isn't that it does something horribly wrong, but that it - like a few other recent films - takes its real life story and turns it into something so by-the-numbers. Tyldum and Moore may have told Turing's story, but in their approach they have failed to capture his spirit.

Grade: B-

Review: "Anna Karenina"

Director: Joe Wright
Runtime: 130 minutes

Shakespeare's immortal line "All the world's a stage..." has never applied to a film so literally as it does to Joe Wright's Anna Karenina, the latest adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's classic novel. Filmed almost entirely inside of a dilapidated theater, the film's characters walk across stages, climb through rafters, and move seamlessly from place to place as sets transform around them in real-time. It is, as the marketing has billed it, a bold new vision of Tolstoy's work. Yet is there a price to pay for such heavy artifice? The film runs a little over 2 hours, and Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard have obviously omitted or streamlined parts of the 1000 page novel. Yet do these changes, combined with the stylistic conceit, detract from the overall quality and impact? It's hard to say, as Wright's film is the rare sort of classic literary adaptation that is likely to inspire extreme division, between those swept up by the execution, and those turned off by what could be seen as a nuance-free adaptation.

For those not terribly familiar with the story, Anna is set in Imperial Russia in the 1870s, and charts the fall of the distinguished titular character (played by Keira Knightley) in high society after a passionate affair. Yet Anna's infidelity towards her husband (Jude Law) is not the story's first bit of romantic betrayal. We're first introduced to Anna's brother Oblonsky (Matthew MacFadyen), a husband and father who engages in a brief affair of his own. It is in Anna's journey to smooth over the relationship between Oblonsky and his wife Dolly (Kelly MacDonald) that she first meets the dashing Count Vronsky (Aaron Johnson), who inspires actual feelings of attraction in Anna, as opposed to her respectful but love-less marriage to Karenin. 

And now is as good a time as ever to admit that, outside of a few chapters, I have not read Tolstoy's novel. As such, I can't tell you how Anna Karenina "should" be played on screen, and if the character offers room for different interpretations. What I can say is that Ms. Knightley, in her third collaboration with Wright, presents her as a woman forced too early into maturity. Anna can be coy, flirty, or petulant at a moment's notice. As best as she tries to maintain the steely composure of a dignified member of the upper class, the facade cracks often as she struggles to reconcile her choices with the effects they have on her social life. She is, whether by choice or not, beyond being a girl, yet still not quite comfortable as a woman (I promise that this isn't a reference to that Britney Spears song). Where she stacks up against other big screen incarnations of the character, I can't say. However, despite the odd bump or two, Knightley and Wright's interpretation of the character is a success on its own terms, even if she is rendered less complex that she likely was on page. 

Yet even though Anna's troubled romance with Vronsky is the story's focus, it is the supporting cast who dominate the film. That is, when they're given enough to do, and have scenes that allow them to breathe. MacFadyen is particularly lively, with his portly joviality and walrus mustache accompanying his grandiose swaggering. It is thanks to MacFadyen (and Stoppard's script), that the film generates a surprising amount of laughs. Even though these lighter moments are mostly confined to the film's opening (which has fun sending up the performative nature of upper class rules and rituals), they lend Wright's film a liveliness and an energy that is then carefully slowed down as emotions deepen.

If MacFadyen is the comedic king of the supporting cast, it's Law who reigns on the dramatic end of the spectrum. Kept out of sight early on, the actor - severely de-glammed with a horrible hairdo - brings a sophisticated toughness to Karenin that refrains from making him a simple antagonist. Karenin is stern and abides by his moral code, yet he remains understandable, even though his attitude towards Anna can easily be seen as cruel.

But then there are those who move outside of the grand artifice of the theater. Levin (Domnhall Gleeson), a young man seeking Oblonsky's romantic assistance, rejects high society, and takes the story to a series of naturalistic settings. While the others fret about morals and manners, Levin makes his living out in the wheat fields, free from gossip and constricting social identities. As a result, Levin's relationship with young socialite Kitty (Alicia Vikander) feels, appropriately, more honest and heartfelt, whereas other relationships veer toward heightened melodrama. 

This marks, perhaps, the one key drawback to the film's structure and Mr. Stoppard's screenplay. Wright's Anna Karenina has energy, but it can also feel truncated. As well as much of the film flows along, it occasionally lurches forward with emotional developments, particularly when it comes to Anna and Vronsky's affair. And even though Knightley generally holds up her end of the relationship nicely, Johnson's Vronsky comes with a surprisingly lack of allure. The strange blonde dye job is forgivable. The fact that Johnson and Knightley sometimes seem to pretend that they're interacting with someone other than their scene partner? Less so. As such, neither Anna's fall from grace, nor her ultimate fate register as strongly as they could. Though the film descends from its outrageous stylization as it progresses, it can't quite hop off of the pedestal to become fully human. Wright strives for an epic romantic tragedy, yet he doesn't make it all the way there. Consider it a case of landing among the stars after shooting for the moon.

Where the film does fully succeed, to little surprise, is in its visual and sonic departments. The sets, whether realistic or purposefully stagy, are intricate and often create the effect of looking at a series of beautiful moving tableaus. Jacqueline Durran's costumes, with a wide array of colors, head ornaments, veils, and fur-lined garments, constantly top themselves the further the film goes on. Throw in cinematographer Seamus McGarvey to capture it all, and you have a truly sumptuous experience that sweeps your senses off of their feet, even as it sometimes leaves the heart behind. Usual Wright composer Dario Marianelli is also back after skipping out on Hanna, and provides suitably seductive, lush musical accompaniments that transform the story from classic romantic literature to full blown opera. Whatever your thoughts on Wright as a director, there's no doubt the man knows how to create beautiful (and often compelling) images even as he flirts with indulgence. From an aesthetic standpoint, consider Anna Karenina a two hour ride in a Rolls Royce outfitted by Chanel and Swarovski.

How fans of the book will react to this adaptation is, as previously stated, difficult to say. Some may find Wright's streamlined take enthralling. Others may find it to be a garish watering down of one of Russian literatures greatest works. Yet wherever you stand on the film (even if you haven't read the book), it's hard to not be impressed by the daring approach. Many adaptations are sunk by a slavish faithfulness to the source material. At the very least, Wright and his cohorts deserve a degree of admiration for creating such a wholly cinematic vision of a novel that, in its entire complexity, was probably never truly meant for the big screen.

Grade: B/B+

Trailer: Joe Wright's "Anna Karenina"

Teased as being a revolutionary take on Tolstoy's classic novel of forbidden love, Joe Wright's return to highbrow literary adaptations looks as (if not more) gorgeous as his previous films (we'll pretend The Soloist didn't happen). Wright's last outing was the deliciously strange Hanna (2011), a successful deviation that benefited from his lush style. Now that he's back in his comfort zone, expectations will likely be higher, considering both the source material and the execution. Using a series of sound stages, the fill will allow for unique transitions between and among locations, with doors opening out onto fields, trains running through the set, and more. Rumors indicate that the execution is both more and less avant garde than previously stated, but overall, Wright's Anna looks like a truly sumptuous and dazzling film. In addition to Keira Knightley and Jude Law, the film boasts a stellar supporting cast, including Emily Watson, Matthew Macfadyen (from Wright's Pride and Prejudice), and Olivia Williams. The British accents seem a little odd, considering the story's purely Russian identity, although perhaps it's for the best, considering that a film full of poorly executed Russian accents would be even more off-putting. Still, this minor quibble aside, Anna Karenina looks like an energetic and lush period film with the added benefit of its unconventional setting(s). The only question left is, "how many tracking shots will Wright manage to sneak in this time?"


Grade: A-

Review: "A Dangerous Method" (2011)

It would be easy to dismiss A Dangerous Method, the latest from director David Cronenberg, as an overly dry, albeit fleet-footed adaptation of Christopher Hampton's play "The Talking Cure." As an examination of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), there's little that's revelatory or terribly insightful, despite the interesting subject matter. This is Cronenberg at his most calm, free of sensationalism or body trauma. And the film would almost be too calm if it weren't for one element: Keira Knightley's performance.

Tellingly, the film opens not with Jung or Freud (who is very much a supporting character), but with Knightley's Sabina Spielrein, a Russian woman sent for treatment due to "hysteria." And right from the start, Knightley grabs your attention, screaming at the top of her lungs, collapsing into bizarre laughter, and contorting her face in ways I didn't think fully possible without the assistance of CG. It's such a striking performance (I mean that in a neutral sense) that how you feel about the film may ultimately hinge on whether you find the actress' work intensely riveting, or wacky and over the top. That is, unless you're like me, and find that she oscillates wildly between the two non-stop, in which case forming a definitive opinion on Cronenberg's latest becomes somewhat more puzzling.

Covering roughly a decade in time, what's noticeable from early on is that Hampton's play (which he adapted himself for the screen) hasn't made the full transition so that it feels entirely cinematic. Granted, this is a film that revolves around conversation after conversation, and there are plenty of exteriors that help flesh out the locations, but at times it's not enough. In one early scene, Jung sits behind Sabina, with no other decoration in the room. The shot shows only two sides of the square room coming together in a corner, and the angle creates the sensation that we're very much in a set, possibly even on a stage with very convincing lighting. It's odd, because so many of the interior scenes (thankfully) lack this quality, but every now and then the staginess creeps through, whether in the mise-en-scene or the occasional transition that arrives too abruptly. The quickness of the transitions is perhaps the bigger flaw, as it throws off any sense of proper pace, and I counted several times when the film felt like it was ready to conclude, only to see it keep going. Thankfully it's never boring, but it also feels like A Dangerous Method feels content to play out scene after scene and then simply end, rather than reach a proper sort of resolution (which is done through, sigh, title cards detailing various fates).

And while the screenplay has a surprising amount of light humor and some compelling exchanges, it also has moments that are completely dry. These are usually scenes where characters are talking in language so technical, and so devoid of character, that it starts to feel like a lesson. It renders whatever theoretical breakthroughs people have totally unremarkable, when they should be the source of the film's most intriguing exchanges.

It's too bad, because there's really a lot to like, or at least admire, in the film. The production values are quite handsome, and Peter Suschitszky's cinematography is sharp, clean, and bright. Howard Shore's musical contributions, which basically amount to a single theme, are also quite effective. As for the performances, there are moments for everyone to shine, but the script isn't nearly as rich in exploring the conflicts as it ought to be. It all feels too sanitized, to the point where the much talked about spanking scene stirs little emotion. Of Fassbender's many roles this year, this is easily his weakest, by virtue of the academic nature in which Hampton writes the character. Mortensen has fun as Freud, but again, he's treated from an odd distance, and the academic approach hurts his efforts. When it comes to Knightley, I'm at a crossroads. She's either the best or worst of the trio, depending on the scene. Overall, though, it's too uneven of a performance to really exalt, as there are too many moments that feel overwrought that clash with scenes where the actress shines. At the very least, however, it feels like Knightley is really taking a risk, which is more than can be said for just about every other aspect of the film. A little more danger really would have been quite helpful.

Grade: C+

Venice Review Round-Up: "A Dangerous Method"

Another day, another major player making its debut in Venice. The next big one, and a big Oscar hopeful, is David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method, which centers on the relationship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). It's been buzzed about for quite some time, with many thinking/hoping that the film could prove to be Cronenberg's big break into the Oscars. Like many high-profile premieres, however, Method isn't making quite the splash that fans of the director and his cast (which includes Keira Knightley) had predicted.

The Telegraph - David Gritten (3/5 stars): "Much of this material...is frankly uncinematic, and Cronenberg has compensated with sumptuous locations..." "But it's Knightley that one remembers, for a full-on portrayal that is gusty and potentially divisive in equal parts."

The Guardian - Xan Brooks (2/5 stars): "What the spanking [scene] can't do, unfortunately, is knock some life into this heartfelt, well-acted but curiously underwhelming slab of Masterpiece Theatre."

IndieWire - Oliver Lyttelton (B): "Still, if the take off and landing are a bit bumpy, most of A Dangerous Method is fearsomely smart..." "But if anything keeps it from quite hitting the heights that it could, it's Hampton's script."

London Evening Standard - Derek Malcolm (4/5 stars): "...[Knightley] more than holds her own from the moment she arrives on the scene..." "It is a dark, troubling tale...with a calm appreciation of the passions that lay behind the trio's different views of treatment..."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy (N/A): "Precise, lucid, and thrillingly disciplined...brought to vivid life by the outstanding lead performances of Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, and Michael Fassbender."

Variety - Justin Chang (N/A): "...the film's most problematic element is Knightley, whose brave but unskilled depiction of hysteria at times leaves itself open to laughs."

Venice Verdict: It has a cool head, a compelling story, and features a trio of solid performances, but A Dangerous Method may be too cold and distant to consistently connect with audiences.

Trailer: "A Dangerous Method"

Once tipped to open Cannes (it will now open Venice), A Dangerous Method is the latest film from director David Cronenberg (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises). Known for his rather dark, gritty, and intense depictions of physical and emotional violence, the director's latest seems a bit mild in comparison...at least on the surface. The trailer is certainly cut to give the sense that this is a baity period piece with slightly darker subject material (but not too dark, lest it be off-putting to AMPAS' eldest voters). I'm a little put off by the amount of white/beige in the shots, it somehow looks like the post-production team is trying to use white to cover up for budget limitations, but overall this has the potential to be a fascinating look at two of history's most fascinating minds.

That cast certainly doesn't hurt either. Fassbender and Mortensen have both built up impressive resumes of powerful work, and seeing the two play off of each other could prove to be one of the acting highlights of the year. Yet as much as Fassbender and Mortensen have been touted as early awards contenders (the former in lead, the latter in supporting), it's Knightley who really steals the trailer. Granted, the role is engineered to be the most outwardly expressive, but this seems like a nice change of pace for Knightley, despite the film's status as a prestige period piece. Maybe it's finally time for a follow-up nomination to go with her Pride and Prejudice nomination...

UK trailer for "London Boulevard"

While I expected the trailer to have a much darker feel (the music is a little on the "happy" side), I'm excited for this. Monahan's screenplay for The Departed was one that film's stronger elements, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he comes up with as both writer and director. It's also nice to see Colin Farrell in another major leading role; here's hoping the career comeback kickstarted by In Bruges continues. And then there's Keira Knightley, who's always refreshing to see in something that isn't a period piece, even if her role might not be all that large or substantial.

"Never Let Me Go" - REVIEW

At the outset of Never Let Me Go, Mark Romanek and Alex Garland's adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's acclaimed 2005 novel, we're told in title cards that "the breakthrough came in 1952," and that "life expectancy jumped to roughly 100." The story then jumps into the mid 1980s. But make no mistake; you'll find nothing remotely futuristic to look at in this understated tale of love and betrayal. What you'll find instead, is a mostly successful adaptation of a novel that was perhaps not meant entirely for the screen.

Kathy H (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley), and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) spend their child hood years at Hailsham, and elite boarding school for similar special children. As they are told by headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling), "keeping yourselves healthy is of paramount importance." But why? What is so special about these kids? While the fates of the children are described thanks to fellow teacher Miss Lucy's (Sally Hawkins) breakdown, they're never given a special name. You'll also notice, and this isn't a spoiler, that they don't seem to ever give a moment's thought to running away, merely delaying a fate they've been conditioned to accept. Despite the vaguest trapping of science fiction, Ishiguro's work, and Romanek's film in turn, is still very much a romance and a tragedy, one with the stiffest of upper lips.

And it's precisely that stiff upper lip, combined with the aforementioned lack of sci-fi tropes, that seems to have made Never Let Me Go so divisive. Having read the novel, I think it's a good adaptation of the novel, but not a great one, though it does capture the novel's essence and mood. Never Let Me Go may involve a built-in tragic device, but Romanek and writer Alex Garland don't seem concerned with yanking out buckets of our tears, as was the case with the novel. This sort of film belongs in a weird sub-genre of quiet heartbreakers. Those that stir some feeling within, but never with so much attachment or manipulation so as to make you reach that breaking point and feel tears flow freely down your cheeks. That said, I can certainly see where someone would find this style detrimental to the film as a whole. Case in point: the friend I saw the film with, whose first words as the lights went up were, "ugh, really?"

Somewhat more agreeable, though, are the performances. Beautifully cast from its trio of lead young-adults, to the smaller adult roles filling out the periphery, one of Never Let Me Go's strengths comes from its acting. Mulligan, so good last year in An Education, makes another impressive turn here, although I wish she hadn't been tasked with so much narration. Backing her up with surprising strength are Garfield, also enjoying good reviews for The Social Network, and Keira Knightley, in her best performance since her Oscar-nominated turn in Pride and Prejudice (2005). Playing a surprisingly unsympathetic character, Knightley is the movie's biggest surprise, and a standout in the cast. Smaller adult roles, like those played by Rampling and Hawkins, are well handled, although Rampling's "big scene" feels somewhat mishandled in terms of timing. And before I forget, I must give kudos to the casting team for doing a brilliant job of picking counterpart actors to play Mulligan/Knightley/Garfield in their Hailsham days; fabulous casting.

Technically and artistically, the cast are backed up by two standouts. First is Rachel Portman's lovely score, even if it does occasionally start a hint too suddenly or play just a half-notch too loudly. More impressive is Adam Kimmel's lovely cinematography, filled with striking (yet somehow subdued) interiors and landscapes that posses a muted sort of beauty, even if there are a handful too many shots of singular tears rolling down Mulligan's heartbreakingly expressive face.

Obviously it's not for everyone, not even fans of the book. I find it weird that in so many of these divisive films which provoke such strong reactions ("BRILLIANT!" "GOD-AWFUL!"), I usually land in the middle (ex: The Fountain, which I merely liked, not loved or hated), and Never Let Me Go is no exception. It is mostly very true to its source material, brilliantly cast, gorgeously composed, and strongly acted, and yet it carries a most curious level of emotional impact along with it, one that I sometimes feel should have remained on the page, in spite of all of the film's strengths.

Grade: B-

"Never Let Me Go" trailer

Last night was the debut of the trailer for Mark Romanek's adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's (author of Remains of the Day) Never Let Me Go, and it looks like cause for celebration. The story isn't made entirely clear, though it doesn't seem too hard to figure out what the "big reveal" is. That said, what I've heard about the book is that, thankfully, it isn't all about the twist, which should hopefully keep the story from being one-note. Mulligan and Knightley seem really good, as do Charlotte Rampling and Sally Hawkins. The only one I'm not sold on is the only major male cast member: Andrew Garfield. He's got the only worrisome scene, which involves him SCREAMING at the sky. Depending on how it fits into the film, it could either be shamelessly melodramatic, or really compelling, but we can't really tell until the film comes out. Still, this one's on my radar for now, and I'm really tempted to run out and buy the book.

First look at "London Boulevard" and "Thor"

One post; two very different movies. First is London Boulevard, which as of now doesn't have have a release date. I've heard this title thrown around for a few months, and I kept confusing with Last Night, also starring Ms. Knightley. However, that film has the increasingly dull Sam Worthington, whereas Knightley's co-star here is the increasingly awesome Colin Farrell, who made a stellar come-back with 2008's In Bruges. The story, about a released convict who falls in love with a movie star, is definitely an interesting one, with the potential for plenty of strong drama. And wouldn't it be nice to see Keira Knightley give a good performance in a film that isn't a period piece? I think it's about time. The film is still in post-production and has yet to find a distributor, but if it's any good, expect someone to snatch it up and market the hell out of it come awards season. After all, it's directed by William Monahan, who wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for The Departed.

Next is Kenneth Branagh's (yes, that Kenneth Branagh) Thor. I've never been much of a comic book enthusiast, so I can't really give any insight as to whether this brief glimpse of Chris Hemsworth is promising or worrisome. As is the question with these films nowadays, we have to wonder if Branagh will go for the more serious, Dark Knight route, or take a slightly lighter tone a la Iron Man (maybe somewhere in between?). I'm also interested to see what Shakespeare-loving Branagh can bring to the table in what could otherwise be just another comic-book adaptation (albeit one with a Norse mythology angle). The film, which also stars Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman, opens May 6, 2011, though I'm sure it won't be too much longer before we starting getting some teasers.