Review: "Wild"

Director: Jean-Marc Vallee
Runtime: 120 minutes

By the time Cheryl Strayed reaches the end of her 1100 mile journey in Wild, she has undergone a radical transformation. The experience is full of hardship, exhaustion, and pain, as it forces Strayed to combat not only nature, but her own traumatic past. Wild, based on Strayed's memoir about her journey up the Pacific Crest Trail, is a story of accepting the past and pushing onwards into the uncharted future. Yet by the time Jean-Marc Vallee (Dallas Buyers Club) has finished telling Strayed's story, very little of the subject's emotional journey actually registers. 

Wild arrives in theaters only three months after Tracks, another story of a woman coping with trauma by setting out onto miles of unforgiving terrain. Yet where John Curran's film found a slow-burning, poetic grace in its story, Wild's conclusions are purely prosaic. The most. Nature is rarely a generous scene partner, but when properly utilized it can accentuate (and even mirror) the internal evolution of a character. Vallee never fully taps into the rugged beauty of his surroundings so that one feels how they wear away at Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) over time, despite the blisters and cuts and bloodied toe nails. 

One of the most interesting aspects of Wild, its editing, may also be the thing that's holding it back. Vallee, working with Martin Pensa, moves seamlessly strings together moments of Strayed's hike, her recent past, and her childhood as if to create a cinematic mosaic. Unfortunately, once all of the pieces of glass have been set down and one steps back, the end result isn't terribly convincing or satisfying. Wild's flashbacks and dreams cover quite a bit of ground - most notably time with Strayed's mother Bobbi (Laura Dern) - and nothing really has time to stick. Though this structure neutralizes the threat of goopy sentimentality, it goes too far in the opposite direction. Wild is not a cold film, but it does feel like it lacks passion, despite the efforts of its protagonist.

Performances built around an actor interacting with nature can be hit or miss, but at least Witherspoon is enough to keep one invested as Vallee goes through the motions. In tiny moments where the script actually allows its several layers to fuse together, Witherspoon shows us glimpses of the heart-wrenching performance that almost was. Yet, too often, she's tasked with bland voice over and wading through shots that require nothing more than looking around and squinting. Wild is about Strayed coming to terms with her past, but Witherspoon doesn't have many opportunities to work that struggle into Strayed's actual travels. Instead, Vallee is content to piece together her psyche through visual juxtapositions that make sense on a symbolic level yet never connect emotionally.

Despite running just under two hours, Wild is often too efficient for its own good. Strayed finally has her eureka moment, only for the film to jump into a final bit of rambling voice over. The film's would-be moment of tremendous catharsis is unceremoniously discarded before it even has the chance to sink in. Wild's biggest sin isn't that it butchers Strayed's epic personal odyssey, but that it reduces it to something so ordinary. It's telling that the most insightful thoughts the film offers come from authors like Dickinson and Whitman, instead of Strayed's own head. Strayed's journey must have been quite something to go through, but Vallee has transformed it into something totally tame. 

Grade: C+ 

Review: "Mud"

Director: Jeff Nichols
Runtime: 130 minutes

*This review is an updated version of my original review from May 2012 during the Cannes Film Festival.

Jeff Nichols' Southern-fried coming-of-age tale Mud first premiered at last year's Cannes Film Festival. Shockingly, it wasn't immediately snatched up for American distribution, despite being both accessible and generally well-received. It's been nearly a year, but those eagerly following Nichols' career (which should be any movie enthusiast) can finally experience the writer/director's third film. Though Mud feels decidedly broader and more commercial than the incredible Take Shelter (2011), it's a touching and effective story that should open the talented director up to a wider art house audience. It could even open Nichols up to the mainstream in future endeavors (much like Rian Johnson). Regardless of where Nichols' career goes, I hope that Mud becomes a gateway film for those not acquainted with his films, rather than an indicator of where his career is headed. 

Set in Mississippi, two young friends, Ellis (Tye Sheridan of The Tree of Life) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), discover a fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) living in their favorite secret hangout. The hangout in question is a small boat that has, somehow, wound up lodged in a tree, and the image brings to mind the whimsy of films like Tim Burton's Big Fish, as well as classic stories like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." This is a film predominantly focused on one boy's experiences with love and betrayal, and all of the right ingredients are there on paper.

 What Mud is lacking, however, is a sense of surprise. Nichols feels comfortable with the material, but it doesn't feel like he's really pushing himself. It's good to know he can write this sort of indie crowd pleaser, but also disappointing in terms of how unremarkable (and occasionally repetitive) the plotting is. At 130 minutes, the film certainly isn't dull, but there are times when the nature of the story keeps it from being as taut or compelling as it could be. 

This is largely present in the middle of the story. Where Take Shelter's middle occasionally bordered on meandering, Nichols managed to hold it all together. With Mud, however, he seems to have become a little too relaxed with the plotting, and the pacing of the midsection suffers as a result. Some moments feel like padding, even as they seem relevant (and even necessary). Part of the blame probably has to do with the split between scenes focusing on Ellis' internal and external journeys. The attempt to split the two is admirable, yet it causes the film to feel unfocused, rather than well-rounded. Then there's the climax, which, though handled well on its own, begins so abruptly that it feels like a deus ex machina of sorts.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to like about Mud. From the opening shots, including some lovely images of the Mississippi River, the nostalgic (but never sappy) tone comes through beautifully, thanks to Adam Stone's richly textured cinematography and David Wingo's lush, ambient score. And, just like in Take Shelter, Nichols has managed to bring out strong work from his main actors. McConaughey turns in his best performance in quite some time, devoid of his usual acting tics. He brings the sort of charming (but not smug) quality to Mud that makes you understand why people would be drawn to him, even if he might have ulterior motives. The timing of Mud's release couldn't be any more perfect for the actor, as it reenergizes the actor's stellar comeback that began last year. Reese Witherspoon is solid as well in a small role as the love interest Mud is hoping to reconnect with. Even smaller players like Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulson, as Ellis' parents, deliver effective work, even though some of their material is among the weakest (one big fight scene turns uncomfortably on the nose). 

The standout, however, is young Mr. Sheridan, who carries the film with his presence. He's an inherently watchable, likable screen presence, and Nichols extracts a performance from him that doesn't feel overly mannered or coached. When he finally gets his big moment, an outburst at Mud, he knocks it out of the park, and cements himself as a tiny powerhouse. He captures Ellis' journey through romantic and idealistic disappointment with such naturalism, that I think it must be one of the best child performances to grace the screen in some time. For all its imperfections that keep it from greatness, Sheridan is excellent and, above all else, the best reason to stick with Mud all the way through its predictable, yet still touching finale.

Grade: B/B-

Cannes '12 Review(s): "Cosmopolis" and "Mud"

 Cosmopolis dir. David Cronenberg [Competition]
A strong match of director and material, David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, an adaptation of Don Delilo's novel, is an odd, icy film that remains compelling despite some intentionally brittle performances. Set over the course of a single day, we follows Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson), a 28 year old executive who wants to travel across town to get a haircut. For various reasons, the trip is delayed, and over the course of the day, Packer's life undergoes enormous personal and financial changes.


From the outset, Cosmopolis seems to be split in two. One half, the atmosphere, is quietly compelling, drawing you in even as the other half, the performances, seem designed to keep us at bay. The dialogue feels rigid, and the performers generally go along with the withdrawn oddity of the general tone. Trapped mostly in Packer's luxurious limousine, this is a surprisingly quiet film, one that mimics the protagonist's state of mind. Packer is part of the 1%, a man so dedicated to empty pleasure and wealth, that he pays almost no attention when he sees riots going on just outside of his car. The same is true of those who visit him, whether it's friend with benefits/art collector Didi (Juliette Binoche), or financial philosopher Vija (Samantha Morton). It's starts off oddly distancing, yet as it progresses, Cosmopolis' tone comes to the foreground, and the performances, appropriately, warm up. The non-1% characters, played by Mathieu Amalric and Paul Giamatti liven the film up considerably, knocking both Eric and the audience out of the stifling stillness of the limo. 


Pattinson, known mostly for the Twilight films, finally has his moment to prove himself, and he acquits himself adequately. At times he seems too hindered by the tone at the start, yet he really does improve as the character gets drawn out of his catatonic state. The show, however, belongs to Giamatti, who delivers a lived-in performance as a man filled with bitterness and philosophical resentment. Just as the movie starts to flag, Giamatti comes in and helps drive Cosmopolis through to its finish. Bolstered by Howard Shore's subtly mixed-in electronic score, there remains a quiet, pulsating energy throughout, although I suspect many will be left completely turned off by the chilliness of the entire enterprise. For those with whom the film actually connects, however, there exists a very good, perhaps not quite great deconstruction of the financial elite, as only David Cronenberg could present it.


Grade: B/B+

Mud dir. Jeff Nichols [Competition]
Thought it feels decidedly broader and more commercial than the incredible Take Shelter (2011), Jeff Nichols' Mud is a touching and effective coming-of-age story that should open the talented director up to a wider art house (and possible mainstream) audience. Set in Mississippi, two young friends, Ellis (Tye Sheridan of The Tree of Life) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), discover a fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) living in their favorite secret hangout. 


The hangout in question is a small boat that has, somehow, wound up lodged in a tree, and the image brings to mind the whimsy of films like Tim Burton's Big Fish, as well as classic stories like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." This is a film predominantly focused on one boy's experiences with love and betrayal, and all of the right ingredients are there on paper. What Mud is lacking, however, is a sense of surprise. Nichols feels comfortable with the material, but it doesn't feel like he's really pushing himself. It's good to know he can write this sort of indie crowd pleaser, but also disappointing in terms of how unremarkable (and occasionally repetitive) the plotting is. At 130 minutes, the film certainly isn't dull, but there are times when the nature of the story keeps it from being as taut or compelling as it could be. Then there's the climax, which, though handled well on its own, starts a little too abruptly, and borders on deus ex machina. 


That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to like about Mud, because there really is. From the opening shots, including some lovely overhead shots of the Mississippi River, the nostalgic (but never sappy) tone comes through beautifully, thanks to Adam Stone's richly textured cinematography and David Wingo's lush, ambient score. The performances also help drive the story. McConaughey turns in his best performance in quite some time, devoid of his usual acting tics. He brings the sort of charming (but not smug) quality to Mud that makes you understand why people would be drawn to him, even if he might have ulterior motives. Reese Witherspoon is solid as well in a small role as the love interest Mud is hoping to reconnect with. Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulson deliver strong turns as Ellis' parents, even though some of their material is among the weakest (one big fight scene turns uncomfortably on the nose). 


The standout, however, is young Mr. Sheridan, who really carries the film with his presence. He's an inherently watchable, likable screen presence, and Nichols extracts a performance from him that doesn't feel overly mannered or coached. When he finally gets his big moment, an outburst at Mud, he brings it home, cementing himself as a powerhouse. He captures Ellis' journey through romantic and idealistic disappointment with such naturalism, that I think it must be one of the best child performances to grace the screen in some time. For all its imperfections that keep it from greatness, Sheridan is excellent and, above all else, the best reason to stick through Mud all the way through its predictable, yet still touching finale.


Grade: B

"Water for Elephants" - REVIEW

What is it that makes the circus so appealing? The clowns? The high-wire acts? The colorful costumes and slapstick humor? Probably all of them, to varying degrees. Variety is the key to a circus' success. And, when successful, the circus can be a captivating experience, even in the age of streaming films online; the connection that circus performers have with their live audiences is difficult to replicate, let alone capture. I say all of this because the following film, Water for Elephants, which has a great deal to do with the circus, mostly left me wishing that I was at one instead of in the movie theater.

This isn't to say that Francis Lawrence's film, an adaptation of Sara Gruen's acclaimed best-seller, is a bad one. It's simply a middling effort, one that fails to become truly involving or capture the magic. On the day of his final exam at Cornell, Jacob Jankowski, son of two Polish immigrants, learns that his parents have been killed in a car accident. He soon discovers that their home was mortgaged for his education, leaving him without a place to stay. Distraught and confused, he packs up some belongings and begins wandering along a train track, where he jumps aboard a late-night train. The train, as it turns out, houses the Benzini Brothers circus, run by August (Christoph Waltz) and headlined by star performer - and August's wife - Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). With his skills from veterinary school, Jacob slowly but surely becomes accepted into the circus by everyone from the crewmen to August.

Of course, at this point we know what's coming: the inevitable love affair/demonization of the 'other man.' Granted, Water for Elephants earns points for at least giving some context to August's dark nature, but as the film chugs ahead, it can't help but feel a bit too tidy and shallow. The film wants to look more at its characters lives and the dire situation of circuses in the Depression Era, but it all feels a bit thin. The standouts of the film are in the artistic and technical departments, with strong costume work really bringing the era alive. If only if the same amount of skill and passion had gone into the performances and writing. As characters, the one we best understand eventually becomes our domineering antagonist. Meanwhile, Pattison and Witherspoon's lovers have only middling chemistry. In the story department, there are vague hints of subplots that would better flesh out the hardships of the time period, which seem to have been either left on the cutting room floor, or left out from the script altogether. From what I can gather from friends who have read the source material, the film is a severely watered down version of the novel, to rather startling detriment. There are moments of uncertainty, but nothing that isn't resolved in an unsurprising way.

Weakest of all is how the story begins to lurch forward towards its conclusion in the last act. To his credit, Lawrence keeps the transitions between these lurches stable enough so that they aren't awkward or amateurish. Still, the final half hour leaves a lot to be desired, and concludes with an annoying neat and tidy ending. To be fair, the film is sporadically involving, and it's never offensively bad in any regard. It's just all too safe, tepid, and uninspired to be anything worthy of mention. The poster for Water for Elephants proclaims that "Life is the Most Spectacular Show on Earth." I entirely agree, because this film is anything but.

Grade: C+

A few points on "How Do You Know?"

• I really hate this type of romantic comedy. The awkwardly put together empty scenes, the obnoxious stalling of the inevitable ending, the painfully dragged out comic relief from a random supporting character, etc...
• This is hands down the worst character of Reese Witherspoon's career. She's unbearable, and her need to vocalize canned motivational/inspirational sayings is painful.
• Paul Rudd is the only thing worth a damn in this movie, and he's the only person who ever generates a decent laugh.
• Jack Nicholson and Owen Wilson are completely wasted.
• The script is as indecisive as Witherspoon's character. It's also equally insufferable.
• This was written by the same man who gave us Broadcast News. That's just tragic.

Grade: D-/F