Review: "The Revenant"

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Runtime: 156 minutes

So much for levity. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, fresh off an Oscar win for Best Director is back, and unlike Birdman, his new project is very, very serious. And yet, after the emotional and technical highwire act of Birdman, something seems to have shaken loose in the director's approach to darker material. The Revenant, despite its share of heavy going and brutal events, may mark a return to expected territory for Inarritu, but it does so in a way that suggests the director's approach to straight drama may finally be evolving. By turns plodding and powerful, this bleak anti-Western has enough going for it that it manages to overcome several gaping weaknesses.

Those weaknesses take some time to become apparent, as Inarritu and co-writer Mark L. Smith waste no time in plunging the viewer into an intense, visceral story. After a quick, Malick-esque opener, The Revenant kicks off with a stunning battle made all the more immersive by Emmanuel Lubezki's roving, deep-focus photography (it plays out like a Herzog movie on steroids). As in Birdman (albeit to a lesser degree), The Revenant is mostly comprised of lengthy, unbroken shots. And, perhaps to better effect here than in Inarritu's showbiz black comedy, the camera work feels more purposeful in terms of drawing one in to a different place and time. 

Set in the first half of the 1800s, The Revenant's eventual plot concerns Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio, playing a fictionalized version of a real frontiersman), a fur trapper with some of the worst luck imaginable. The opening confrontation with a Pawnee tribe sends Glass' expedition scrambling for a new route home, and it doesn't get much better from there. Though most in the crew (including characters played by Domhnall Gleeson and Will Poulter) respect Glass' knowledge of the local terrain, there is understandable division in how to proceed. Leading the opposition is John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), driven purely by a desire to get to a trading post ASAP and collect their earnings. Everything goes (further) south when Glass has an absolutely horrific encounter with a grizzly bear, which is - like most of the setpieces in the film - presented in an unflinching shot that represents a visual endurance test. Soon Glass, with no help from Fitzgerald, is left for dead, which of course he isn't. 

It takes close to an hour for this first leg of the journey to transpire, though the constant sense of movement prevents the film from drowning in its own dour atmosphere. Inarritu's previous dramas have often been met with criticism for either being overbearingly heavy or obnoxiously contrived. With The Revenant, based in part on true events, at least now the director has found a story where his tendency towards self-important dramatics actually fits the material. 

So much of The Revenant works so well that it's not until near the finale that one of the biggest issues with the script rears its head: DiCaprio's Glass is not a terribly well-formed character. While the film's other roles allow for (admittedly straightforward) characterization, Glass himself remains a bit vacant. The decision to shoot just about the entire film on location pays off in spades from a filmmaking standpoint, but this has somehow happened at the expense of the writing. Aside from grunting in pain, DiCaprio spends most of the movie doing stunts, rather than building a character. Physicality can a be powerful component of a performance, but when the entire role is built around strenuous activity, it's hard to feel even a passing intellectual connection or sense of empathy. DiCaprio does at least get one strong moment before the final showdown, but with so much time spent just watching him survive, it feels a bit thin in retrospect. 

With Glass' characterization left out in the wilderness, the emotional core of the film resembles the frozen-over quality of the visuals. The other actors, at least, get to do something other than function as human rag dolls. Gleeson does some fine work as a co-leader of the expedition convinced that Glass is dead, while Will Poulter is excellent in his limited scenes as a crew member concealing the ugly truth. The film's emotional high points arise not from Glass' arc, but from interactions between other characters about Glass' fate. Hardy, trading in the scorched earth of Mad Max for the snow-covered American frontier, is a solid villain as well, even though much of his dialogue is difficult to decipher. 

What The Revenant lacks in in-depth character development, it oddly makes up for with broad-strokes symbolism. Inarritu's hand can be a bit too heavy to create something truly transcedant, but he manages to extract some striking moments of poetry out of all of the chaos. Dreams and flashbacks play a key role in giving the film a broader historical context, and are often more informative than what takes place in the present. Glimpses of Glass' Native American wife, as well as the rampant decimation of Native tribes at the hands of white colonizers, do a compelling job of subverting the traditional cowboys-and-indians notion of classic Westerns. 

Bridging the gap between dream and reality is a subplot centered on a group of Pawnee warriors going after a missing woman from their tribe. This narrative thread, a head-scratcher at first, ends up working in the film's favor as an inverted parallel of the central plot. Glass seeks revenge for being left for dead (as well as the murder of his mixed-race son) to try, now that he has nothing left to live for despite living in land taken by force by his fellow white explorers. The Pawnee tribe, meanwhile, is out to reclaim one of their own, taken by the same white explorers, so that they can do their best to stay united as their numbers dwindle as a result of the bloody path cut by "Manifest Destiny." Whether or not Glass gets revenge, he has the option of continuing to build a life for himself. The Pawnee, however, are faced with literal extinction. The film's final scene merges these two angles together for a disquieting end. It positions the The Revenant not as a heroic tribute to human endurance, but rather a bitter and mournful condemnation of the whitewashed, not to mention hideous, violence that formed modern America, and continues to poison its collective moral conscience to this day.

Is this slow-building symbolism enough to justify the lack of development for DiCaprio's role? Well...kind of. Actual investment in Glass as an individual would have only heightened the film's eventual message. Juxtaposing one man's suffering against the destruction of entire races is a smart idea, but it requires more than a noteworthy face to make such a conceit hit home beyond intellectual understanding. The Revenant does so much right, however, that the thinly sketched ideology is elevated above being merely serviceable. It's a oddball case of style emphasizing and fleshing out substance in ways the source can't quite grasp. It's in the periphery, not the central journey, where the The Revenant starts to thaw out and push beyond its immaculate surface. 

Grade: B+

Review: "Mad Max: Fury Road"

Director: George Miller
Runtime: 120 minutes

For a movie franchise that has lain dormant for 30 years, George Miller's Mad Max saga has never looked or sounded better. Both a sequel to and a reimagining of Miller's original trilogy, this long-in-the-works film is an exhilarating, exhausting, and loopy adventure that has what so many blockbusters lack: a personality. For better and for worse (mostly for better), Fury Road is undeniably an un-compromised work from a singular vision that has clearly stayed limber. 

That singular vision is amplified, not restricted, by the limitations of the story. Despite several well-chosen lulls across the film's two hours, Fury Road boils down to one big chase. With this straightforward template laid out, Miller is able to stuff each scene to the gills with visual and sonic flourishes. Frankly, a more complex plot would have only gotten in the way of Fury Road's blunt visceral impact. 

For even though this tale of Max (Tom Hardy) and Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) on the run from a psychotic warlord touches on some important issues, it does so through the lens of an adventure. Imagine if Wagner had composed "The Ride of the Valkyries" while snorting cocaine, and you'll have a decent idea of what to expect from this cinematic circus maximus.

Like Max, the viewer is thrust into a post-apocalyptic nightmare with little time to fully understand the specifics. After Max's initial remarks (via voiceover), he is immediately captured by a group of thugs for the warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), a bloated mass of a man with a shock of white-blonde hair and eye make-up that would send the Devil packing. Joe's citadel contains many luxuries, but only for the chosen few. The huddled masses are at Joe's mercy, and their desperation comes through not just in their screams, but in the lifetime of trauma shown on their bodies. Fury Road takes the pop-punk dystopia elements of its predecessors and turns them up to 11. The scars and deformities are unlike anything you've ever seen, and that's just touching the surface of the warped imagination on display.

Since Miller's story and his characters' goals are so minimal, it comes down to these world-building details to make it all somewhat convincing. In that regard, Fury Road is a downright masterclass. Between 80 and 85% of the stunts that occur (and 100% of the vehicles used) are real, and it shows. There are cars stacked on top of oil tankers, and old-fashioned buggys covered in nasty metal spikes. There's a mega-truck that has a damn tractor mounted on the back. And, yes, there is a vehicle whose sole purpose is to blast screeching death metal, led by a demonic musician with an electric guitar that shoots fire. And yet, for all of the bombast on display, Miller refuses to become indulgent when showing off the madcap stunts of his ensemble. Fury Road is as subtle as a scream and has all the blunt force of a hurricane, but it's also an exercise in understanding when to give the audience a break. 

Had Miller kept up the pace of the first half hour for the remaining 90 minutes, Fury Road's simplicity would have quickly become its undoing. Instead, Miller weaves in a string of moments that either greatly reduce the action, or stop it all together. Yet in these spaces that allow the eyes and ears to recover, Miller never loses control of his story's momentum. There are no expository flashbacks or longwinded speeches that threaten to grind the narrative to a halt. There is great seriousness amid Fury Road's chaos, but Miller never pushes it to the point of dour pretension. 

The simplicity of the story is reflected in the simplicity of the characters, and that includes Hardy's Max. Max is, if anything, no more than a gateway character. His manic grunts and twitchy head movements (he spends a quarter of the film acting as a living IV bag, after all) show that he is a man pushed far over the edge. And yet Hardy never goes out of his way to steal the show. Max is the outlier of the story, and a surprisingly good fit to play second fiddle. 

The first chair, quite clearly, belongs to Theron's bald, bionic woman, and Fury Road is all the better because of this. Max's motivation can be reduced to mere survival, but Furiosa is out for something that cuts deeper: redemption. In the bright orange wastelands of a world gone horrifically insane, she seeks asylum not just for herself, but for the living cargo she carries with her: five slave brides married to Joe for the purpose of breeding and producing milk. 

Despite the muscle cars, explosions, and outlandishly macho cries for a glorious death, Mad Max might just be one of the most unabashedly feminist blockbusters in recent memory. Though Joe's slave brides spend most of the film in skimpy white bikinis, they prove to be more than damsels in distress. And, later on, Miller introduces an entire clan of warrior women of all ages, who prove up to the task of going toe-to-toe with Joe's horde of male soldiers. There are characters in Fury Road who exploit women, but Miller himself does all he can to empower them. Fury Road is about fighting against the odds, not post-apocalyptic love, and the dedication to life-or-death stakes leaves the film refreshingly asexual.   

With only a few notable instances of visual effects (the most obvious being an overwhelming sandstorm), Mad Max stays relatively grounded (yes, even with the flame-spewing guitar) compared to contemporary blockbuster fare. It's a chase movie that lives and dies by the success of its vehicular carnage, and not by how many fantastical digital creations it can force onto the screen. There is madness aplenty, but it is sweaty, tear-streaked, gnarly madness rooted in a self-contained story. This isn't a tale about cataclysmic events that changed the world, but rather a story of survival long after the dust has settled, and there's nothing to do but charge forward. As Furiosa herself puts it, "You wanna get through this? Do as I say. Now pick up what you can, and run."

Grade: B+

Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

Director: Christopher Nolan
Runtime: 165 minutes

To say that expectations have been high for The Dark Knight Rises would be a monumental understatement. Christopher Nolan certainly got off on the right foot with the 2005 reboot Batman Begins, bringing a brooding and gritty vibe to Gotham's Caped Crusader. With Nolan at the helm, the story of Bruce Wayne took on a newfound sense of darkness and dread, devoid of the campy sensibility that so pervaded Tim Burton's two late 80s/early 90s films and the much-maligned Joel Schumacher films (Batsuit nipples; never forget). Here was a superhero movie that stood, more than any before it, as a testament to the post-9/11 mindset of America, and the world at large. 

Now, I'll admit, I've avoided using the term "post-9/11" to describe Nolan's bat-flicks until just now. Yes, the two (now three) films exist in a darker and more realistic world, but the thematic connection to 9/11 seemed not to click. But the mind has a way of working these things out when we least expect it. Nolan's films show realistically rendered depictions of attacks on American soil in so many ways that have otherwise been absent in comic book adaptations. 

Violence, even for superheroes, was now capable of achieving a rather chilling resonance, whether it was watching Ra's Al Ghul try to launch a biological attack on Gotham in Begins, or watching the Joker's attempts to instigate anarchy across the city, the threats felt more powerful because we lived in an age where A) these things were eerily possible and B) we knew there were people out there who wanted to hurt us. If Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman films (and to a lesser extent, the first two X-Men films) took comic book movies into late adolescence, Batman Begins took them into full-blown adulthood.

Yet it was 2008's The Dark Knight, with a large debt owed to a certain Mr. Ledger, that turned Nolan's series into a critical and financial mega hit. In addition to the gushing praise for Ledger's turn as the Joker, Nolan's film also became labeled as the best comic book movie of all time. And, among certain segments of the population, it has even been hailed as one of the best movies of all time. Period. As in, people were prepared to compare it to The Godfather (let's not go there).

The big question for Nolan and company, of course, then became "how do we finish this trilogy without letting people down?" And when it comes to answering that question on paper, The Dark Knight Rises seems firmly headed in the right direction. Instead of trying to repeat the success of The Dark Knight's iconic villain - a lone figure who essentially defined the film - Nolan has split villain duties (sort of) between Tom Hardy's hulking Bane and Anne Hathaway's slippery Selina Kyle (Catwoman, sans moniker). Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, and Nolan was smart to try and spread the role of antagonist among multiple characters.

Yet for all that seems okay on paper, there are equally as many missteps in the writing and in the execution on-screen. There are many individual aspects to pick apart, but it all fits under one giant umbrella: Nolan (and co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan) have simply tried to cram in too much, despite the 2 hr 45 min duration. Batman Begins contained itself with ease, and The Dark Knight, despite sometimes bursting at the seams, managed to hold all of its pieces together, if just barely. Yet the pressure to create an epic and satisfying ending has, unfortunately, blasted a massive crater in the franchise's armor. The characters and subplots are many, yet even with nearly three hours, there's barely room for any of it to breathe. Combine these problems with the serious tone and massive expectations, The Dark Knight Rises often buckles under its own weight.

Nolan has never made a film that I've found dull, but here he's finally made one where I was actively distracted by the pacing issues. The scenes don't drag so much as they feel like Nolan has misplaced the emphasis. After a fun, Bond-style opening introducing Bane, the movie settles in for quite a bit of set up, which involves everything from a cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) trying to help a boys' shelter, to a Wayne Industries board member who won't stop inquiring about an abandoned clean energy project (Marion Cotillard), to Bruce Wayne's physical and emotional recovery after eight years away from his alter ego. Nolan has so many dots to connect that he often races things along. It gives one the feeling that the writer/director simply expects us to just go with each development without daring to question it. The film may never become stagnant (thanks again, Lee Smith), but so often it feels, well, off. As lovely as Ms. Cotillard is, the romance that develops between her and Bruce comes right the hell out of nowhere, only so that it can be used later for a BIG moment that ultimately rings hollow and completely wastes the actress.

All of this is compounded by two big issues: dialogue and narrative structure. Nolan's tendency to have his characters spell out themes and motivations has, sadly only become a bigger problem since Inception. Sometimes it feels entirely appropriate (variations of Begins' "Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves up again" line), yet often it’s just unnecessary. The personalities of the characters struggle to shine through because they're burdened with such heavy dialogue and thin characterization (as such, the series' returning players achieve the strongest emotional resonance). As for the structure, Nolan falls into an odd cycle of repetition. I'll avoid the details, but the film essentially puts Bruce Wayne through an arc of physical and emotional recovery twice during the film, when all it does is eat up time. It's the second arc that really deserves the time, yet a period of nearly half a year ends up flashing by so the film can charge into its conclusion. Not only does the second arc have the potential for more resonance, but it's also more interesting in what it reveals about Bane, and how it brings the trilogy full circle.

And so when all hell breaks loose in the finale, Nolan is stuck making a bunch of revelations and cutting among a bunch of threads so that they can reach their conclusions. On their own, any one of them could have worked, but in trying to be so epic in scope, the film accomplishes the plots with most of them not coming off as meaning much. In the end, only Wayne and Batman's story, though it has its share of rushed moments and implausibility, resonates. Against all odds its ending provides a lump-in-the-throat moment amid an otherwise emotionally-distant film.

That's not to say that the film is a complete loss, by any means. There's quite a bit that's well done, once one looks past the flaws. The performers, at least those with something to work with (sorry Ms. Cotillard, Ben Mendelsohn, Matthew Modine...) are all perfectly engaging. Bale does nice work in his last run as Wayne/Batman, adding an extra amount of pain and exhaustion where the script fails him. Hardy's Bane is also enjoyable, and his oddly suave and cheeky tone make him a compelling presence, even though he lacks the Joker's overt psychotic tendencies. The film's biggest and best surprise, however, is Hathaway, who manages to make Selina teasingly sexy without making her ludicrously sexual. Watching her switch her personality on and off with an effortless snappiness is one of the film's strongest elements, even though Nolan saddles her with a strange subplot in which she's looking for a powerful computer program.

On the production front the film is also aces, with nice cinematography and art direction. The only puzzling exception is that, for the first time, Gotham actually looks like it's made up of multiple cities (scenes were shot in New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh), instead of a cohesive metropolis. Hans Zimmer's kettle drum-heavy score, despite being repetitive, is used nicely to either enhance the tension and momentum, or add them when the film can't quite generate them on its own. And, as much as Nolan is to blame for the film's flaws, he also deserves credit for some of its successes. As a director, he remains capable of moving an audience through a dense narrative with surprising ease, despite the problems that pop up along the way. And, when it comes to pulling out show stopping moments that actually carry weight, his skills remain firmly intact. A massive attack at a football stadium is, besides massive in scale, truly stomach-churning, and the aforementioned finale is nicely handled despite the borderline ridiculous circumstances.

How it ends, I won't say, but at the very least Nolan ends with his best foot forward, more or less. The journey can be rough and overcrowded, but at the very least the ambition deserves some level of admiration, even when the execution sometimes falls short. Unfortunately, it's not just a case of expectations. The film is easily the weakest of Nolan's trilogy, despite some compelling stretches and decent acting. It may improve with time, once the disappointment has worn off and the flaws accepted, but it's a shame that such an adult-minded trilogy had to start tripping over itself as it crossed the finish line. As far as its craftsmanship and ambition, however, The Dark Knight Rises is still more successful than your average summer blockbuster. But in trying to cover so many bases instead of just cutting to the core narrative, this franchise's epic final chapter struggles to stay afloat. It doesn't sink, but only by a hair's breadth, thanks to its conviction and the goodwill built up from its two vastly superior predecessors.

Grade: B-

The straggler - Cannes '12 Review: "Lawless" [Competition]

A solid piece of film making that marks its director's most commercial outing to date, Lawless may not wind up a major awards contender come year's end, but it does provide an engaging ride through bootlegging in the Prohibition Era. Directed by John Hillcoat (The Proposition, The Road) with a nice sense of narrative momentum, this is a sturdy, entertaining, nicely acted film, even though it represents a less original, independent point of view than his previous films. Gone is the harsh poetic tone, replaced by lots of talk and lots of shooting.

Based on the, allegedly, true story of the Bondurant brothers, the film charts their run-ins with a dandified new officer (an eerily commanding Guy Pearce) as they attempt to maintain their bootlegging enterprise in Virginia. The plot is straightforward, yet right from the outset, Hillcoat and his collaborators create a palpable atmosphere and a sense of pacing that keeps things moving, without ever rushing. It may not really dwell on character the way Hillcoat's previous films did, but the characters come across nicely. Shia LaBeouf and Tom Hardy deliver nice work as the film's leads, with LaBeouf proving surprisingly charismatic. The characters may not be strongly fleshed out, but the actors at least inhabit them comfortably. The scene-stealer is easily Pearce, in a broadly played yet still scary-as-hell role. Less successful, through no fault of their own, are the film's two female roles, played by Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska. They're mostly used as objects of potential romantic affection for the men, and little else, although Chastain does get one nice, complicated scene toward the end. From a technical standpoint, everything looks and sounds nice, save for a moment or two where Nick Cave's score comes in far too loud. Not the sort of film that will truly amaze you, but it will hold your attention and remain engaging, even when the epilogue hangs on just a hair too long.

Grade: B

Trailer: John Hillcoat's "Lawless"

Now that the Cannes Film Festival lineup for 2012 has been unveiled, the countdown begins to see which competition entries will release trailers and clips first. Near the front of the pack is John Hillcoat's Lawless (formerly known as The Wettest County until Terrence Malick gave up the title from his forthcoming film), which looks like a shot of gangster-ized adrenaline.


With a stellar cast (...and Shia LaBeouf) and a fun setting/subject matter (Depression Era bootleggers), Lawless always held a lot of appeal for me. What really caught my eye, however, was director John Hillcoat, whose two previous films (The Road and The Proposition) were simultaneously elegant and brutal. So, knowing Hillcoat's previous work, I thought I had an idea of how Lawless would look and feel. If the trailer is indication, I'm completely wrong. Lawless looks both talky and fast paced, and marks a major departure from the director's previous work. Granted, part of being an artist is the chance to explore new styles, but I can't help feel that some of Lawless looks a little ordinary, and that we're losing a chance to see what his previous style could have had on this sort of story. Granted, the cast looks to be in fine form, and Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce look like excellent villains, but as much as there is to like here, I can't help but feel that we might be headed for something of a missed opportunity.


Trailer Grade: B-

Review: "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (2011)

"There is a mole, right at the top of the Circus." So goes one of the more straightforward lines of dialogue in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Tomas Alfredson's chilly telling of the classic John Le Carre novel. Yet despite that seemingly clean cut line, nothing is quite as it seems in this tale of espionage and betrayal. Though previously adapted as an acclaimed miniseries starring Alec Guiness, Le Carre's novel has never made it to the big screen until now. It's quite the dense tale (despite not being terribly long), and to tackle it in 2 hours is quite the challenge. Despite the doubts, Alfredson and company manage to effectively condense the story without resorting to an over-reliance on exposition. The end result is a thinking person's espionage thriller, one more content to focus on the intricate and subtle, rather than the bombastic and sensationalistic.

On paper, the narrative is straightforward. An ex-spy named George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is recruited to help find a mole hidden somewhere in MI6. Yet how the story is told is where Tinker Tailor makes its beautiful, icy mark. Right from the beginning it's clear that Alfredson (whose last film was the excellent vampire film Let the Right One In (2008)) knows how to both build and maintain an atmosphere. Though there are moments that could have been executed to create an overblown sense of tension, Alfredson keeps things rather grounded. Moving with the story's back-and-forth jumps to gradually reveal information, the level of tension is quite low. Yet it's precisely this slow burn that allows the film to work. It is maintained non-stop throughout the 2 hour run time, which makes those more eventful moments create their own sense of suspense naturally.

So even though screenwriters Peter Straughan and Bridget O'Connor have to deal with quite a bit of information, they manage to convey it all through just the right amount of dialogue. So even though this means that there are scenes of telling, they never weigh the film down. And Mr. Alfredson, ever the capable visual stylist that he is, has plenty of room to show, which he and cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema do marvelously. Along with production designer Maria Djurkovic, Alfredson and Hoytema have fashioned a dark and dingy world that comes to life, albeit from a distance. This isn't a film that wants to spell things out. It gives you just enough to make the connections, and then moves on. And thanks to Mr. Alfredson's eye and the excellent cast, that's never an issue.

For though Gary Oldman has been marked as the lead of the story, Tinker Tailor is very much an ensemble piece. But even though this means that the wealth of screen time is spread quite far, the performers all get their chance to make an impression, and no one misses. In addition to his eye for atmosphere, Alfredson knows how to maximize his performers' abilities, even when they have precious little screen time. Even Kathy Burke, as a former member of the MI6 staff, who has but one scene to really act as a character, makes a nice impression. And things only get better for the more prominent characters. There are no acting fireworks here, but that's not to say that there isn't impressive work. One of the film's best moments comes very early on. It's nothing more than a shot of Smiley after his name has been mentioned by Control (John Hurt), yet the movement on his face and in his eyes says quite a bit, even though we don't have a full understanding of what that is at this point.

For even though this is a film about finding a traitor, it is also a film about change. Oldman's Smiley is technically retired when he's called back into service, and the film makes subtle references to the group of MI6 members who have been pushed out and left behind. In one scene, Oldman and Burke sit together on a couch sharing a drink and jokingly lamenting the lack of sex in their lives. Meanwhile, an oblivious teenage couple on the other side of the room sits, passionately kissing each other. One pair has their lives and their purpose ahead of them, the other has already expired. It's a significant moment, though its importance doesn't become quite full until after, when those little moments have time to sink in and add to the richness of what could have been just another spy tale.

Let's not forget about the other members of the ensemble, however. Oldman may be first billed among the cast, but it's some of his cast members who are in contention for MVP. First is Colin Firth as the womanizing Bill Haydon, whose full connection to Smiley is only revealed quite late in the game. Rivaling him for best in show are Tom Hardy as a field agent fearing for his safety, and Mark Strong who - no spoilers - gets to deliver some beautiful expressions of haunted pain that reveal the actor to be worth much more than simply the go-to man for stock villain roles. Other roles, like those filled out by Toby Jones, Hurt, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Ciaran Hinds, also have their moments to shine, especially Jones in a scene where he blows up at a co-worker. Ultimately, however, no one is allowed to hog the spotlight, which is good because there are no weak links, and the ensemble as a whole is an understated marvel.

So even though Alfredson's approach may have a bit of Scandinavian chill to it, this is still an effective journey through the dark corridors of Cold War espionage. From the performances to the direction to the meticulous production values (excluding Alberto Iglesias' score, which is fine, but pales in comparison to his work on The Skin I Live In), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a first class, atmospheric tale of intrigue and deception. Before the lights fully dimmed and the film started, my friend and I were treated to a series of previews, each louder and more chaotic than the next. In the aftermath, I now appreciate Tinker Tailor even more, because it may be the last intelligent movie of its kind for quite a while. All the more reason to make the trip to the theater, then.

Grade: A-

The Netflix Files: September 5-11

Bronson (2008/9) dir. Nicholas Winding Refn:

Though it doesn't lack for style, I'm not really sure whether Bronson is fascinating, or merely dressed up exploitation. Starring Tom Hardy as the U.K.'s most notorious criminal, Refn's film, much like A Clockwork Orange, does not have a likable protagonist. Bronson is deranged, for reasons never really explained. Instead, we're treated to scenes of Bronson's years in and out of prison, framed with the character talking directly to the camera, and to an audience as he stands on a stage in white make-up. Refn certainly has a panache that elevates the execution above the ordinary; it's theatrical, but still grounded in gritty details. Unfortunately, Refn and Brock Norman Brock's (yes, that's really his name) screenplay is much too thin to completely sustain viewer interest, even though the film is only 1 hr 25 minutes. And as for Tom Hardy, as much as the story provides ample opportunity as an acting showcase, there's little that the actor brings to the role other than dedication. With such superficial direction and writing, Hardy can't overcome the film's shortcomings. He's certainly dynamic, and he burrows into the character's physicality quite effectively, but at the end of the day it's not enough to pick up the slack. Bronson isn't a failure, but it is a missed opportunity, devoid of entertainment value and/or character study.

Grade: The Movie: C+/Tom Hardy: B-/Style: A

Venice Review Round-Up: "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Ever since its brilliant first trailer, Tomas Alfredson's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, an adaptation of John Le Carre's spy novel, has been at the top of my most anticipated list for the rest of the year. In addition to Alfredson himself, whose last film was the excellent Let the Right One In (2008), the film boasts an incredible ensemble led by Gary Oldman. The vibe given off by the promotional materials is filled with a quiet sense of dread, menace, and paranoia, which fits perfectly with the story's Cold War setting. So, needless to say, I was both excited and nervous about the film's world premiere at Venice. Thankfully, Alfredson's film, his first English-language feature, is getting off to an excellent start, one that positions the film as one of the top contenders for The Golden Lion:

The London Evening Standard - Derek Malcolm (4/5 stars): "...an effective celebration of Le Carre's artful story-telling, acted by one and all with with a quiet panache that strikes home."

The Telegraph - David Gritten (5/5 stars): "[Alfredson] captures scenes with silky fluidity...finding a visual equivalent to the story's hunt for complex solutions." "...it makes your heart pound, gets your pulses racing, and sends your brain cells into overdrive."

Variety - Leslie Felperin (N/A): "An inventive, meaty distillation of Le Carre's 1974 novel...an incisive examination of Cold War ethics, rich in both contempo resonance and elegiac melancholy."

Thompson on Hollywood - Matt Mueller (N/A): "...contains a clutch of nail-biting sequences and features a razor-sharp turn from Gary Oldman..." "...settles for being a very good as opposed to a superb spy thriller."

The Guardian - Xan Brooks (4/5 stars): "Oldman gives a deliciously delicate, shaded performance..." "If there is any flaw to the film, it is that the whistle is blown too soon..." "...[the film] is more about the journey than the destination; more fascinated with detail than the denouement."

Time Out London - Dave Calhoun (4/5 stars): "...Alfredson ('Let the Right One In') blows a fresh air of continental style into Le Carre's story without harming the 1970s British period feel of his source material." "The new script...is a marvel of wise and respectful adaptation."

The Hollywood Reporter - Deborah Young (N/A): "...so visually absorbing, felicitous shot after shot, that its emotional coldness is noticed only at the end..."

IndieWire - Oliver Lyttelton (A): "...incredibly rich and perfectly constructed..."

Venice Verdict: A slick, well-acted, and intellectually stimulating Cold War thriller, as well as a successful adaptation of Le Carre's labyrinthine novel.

Teaser Trailer: "The Dark Knight Rises" [Fixed/New link]

**Click HERE to find a different version of the teaser (the player can be odd when embedded, so it's easier to simply link to it). The TrailerAddict embed doesn't always want to work for some reason...

Topping The Dark Knight isn't going to be an easy feat, but that hasn't stopped Christopher Nolan from aiming big. Even with the minimal footage (I'm surprised there's any; the first teaser for The Dark Knight was merely a logo with voice over), this teaser gives off a feeling of something big. Nolan has said that The Dark Knight Rises will bring his Batman trilogy full circle, though he hasn't clarified whether that's in a narrative or thematic sense (both?). Either way, this trailer, which contains a brief glimpse of Tom Hardy as Bane, is certainly exciting. That said, however, I get the feeling that, based on the shots of Gary Oldman in the hospital bed, we're headed for even darker territory than The Dark Knight, which is no small feat, especially in a big budget blockbuster.

Trailer: "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" [music found!]

One of the much buzzed about, but little-exposed films of the year is Tomas Alfredson's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, an adaptation of the John Le Carre novel of the same name. Boasting a dynamite all-male cast, promotional material has been scant until this trailer. Judging by the Youtube video's title, it looks like another trailer will hit soon for US audiences. That seems like a shame, though, seeing as this 80 second look already has me saying YES to everything. I love the aesthetic of Cold War Era thrillers, where suspense is built more on character interactions (and globe-trotting) that shoot outs or chases. There's also the director, Mr. Alfredson, whose last film was the excellent Let the Right One In (the Swedish original). Then there's that outstanding cast of talented actors. Barring that this is some surprise fiasco, Alfredson and co. can count me as sold on this one.

**Also: Special credit should go to the people who put this trailer together. The clips are well chosen, and let us in on the story without taking us through big sections of the plot. The editing and music are pretty fabulous as well, building a nice little knot of tension in a short amount of time. Bravo.

Villains revealed for "The Dark Knight Rises"

After months of waiting, Christopher Nolan has finally given us his villains for his third (and final) Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, due out in July 2012. Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle, who traditionally becomes Catwoman, and Inception and Bronson star Tom Hardy will play Bane. Hardy's casting as Bane makes sense enough; he has the right look to play someone frighteningly equipped with brawn and brains in equal measure. According to Wikipedia, the character is even considered one of Batman's greatest powerful foes; apparently in one comic book storyline, he even manages to break Batman's spinal cord. Ouch.

Hathaway, on the other hand, is more of a question mark. She's certainly a talented actress, but she has a certain joy about her that makes it difficult for me to picture the future Oscar co-host as the classic villain/love interest. After all, Hathaway is nearly a decade younger than Christian Bale, which has the potential to cause chemistry issues. Then again, the character could simply be more Selina Kyle, and less Catwoman. She could start off as another love interest, and the film could set up for her transformation, either within the film or as an incomplete subplot (though that would be odd, considering that Nolan isn't returning after TDKR).

To be fair, many of us had similar thoughts when Ledger was cast as the Joker ("how on earth is that guy going to become the Joker!?!?!"). And of course, we aren't even remotely close to knowing what the Nolan brothers' (plus David S. Goyer) vision/design is for the character. It's safe to assume that she'll be scaled down somewhat in terms of flamboyance (Nolan's bat-verse is pretty free of camp). And I doubt that we'll be seeing anything like this:

All in all, the pair of Hathaway and Hardy make for an interesting pair of casting choices. The film doesn't begin shooting until April or May, which means we won't get any grainy on-set photos from afar for quite a while now. Hopefully Nolan and co. will give out a costume sketch or something along the way, but if not, we'll simply have to play the waiting game.