Cannes Review Round-up: "The Tree of Life"

Arguably the most anticipated title at this year's auteur-filled Cannes line-up, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life finally received its official premiere. Ever since that stunning trailer was released in December, this has been at the top of my list not just for the summer, but for the whole year. I may not be a complete Malick fan (I love Badlands and The Thin Red Line, but feel pretty 'meh' towards Days of Heaven and The New World), but I certainly respect him as a film maker, and can't wait to see what The Tree of Life holds in store (only two more weeks!). However, Malick's last two films (Line and The New World) have seen the director immerse himself more in his signature style, provoking more divided reactions to his films. If Cannes is any indication, The Tree of Life continues, rather than reverses, this trend:

Rope of Silicon - Brad Brevet: (B) "Just as this film to 40 years took make, it may be another 40 years before I'm ever able to come to a final conclusion on what it entirely means to me."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy: (N/A) "But there are great, heady things here, both obvious and evanescent, more than enough to qualify this as an exceptional and major film." "Emmanuel Lubezki outdoes himself with cinematography of almost unimaginable crispness and luminosity."

Movie Line - Stephanie Zacharek: (N/A) "...strong visuals don't necessarily equal strong visual storytelling. If Malick could tell a story mostly with pictures - and faces - why would he need so many voice-overs?"

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw: (5/5 stars) "This film is not for everyone, and I will admit I am agnostic about the final sequence..." "...this is visionary cinema on an unashamedly huge scale: cinema that's thinking big."

The Wrap - Sasha Stone: (N/A) "The Tree of Life is saturated with beauty, inside and out."

Indie Wire - Eric Kohn: (A-) "If Lubezki treats his job like a painter, Malick uses his magic to make the artwork come to life."

The Playlist - Kevin Jagernauth: (B) "...the director has once again created a cinematic experience that is uniquely his own, often powerful and mesmerizing, at times overreaching and overbearing, but never forgettable."

Film School Rejects - Simon Gallagher: (C) "Aiming for an experience is one thing, but presenting an intentionally obtuse, impenetrable thing like this is something else entirely."

The Telegraph - Sukhdev Sandhu: (2/4 stars) "Brad Pitt gives the strongest performance of his career, but The Tree of Life is by far the weakest film Terrence Malick has ever made."

InContention.com - Guy Lodge: (3/4 stars) "His most open-armed and structurally undisciplined film to date, it might yet prove his least rewarding."

Variety - Justin Chang: (N/A) "Few American filmmakers are as alive to the splendor of the natural world as Terrence Malick, but even by his standards, The Tree of Life represents something extraordinary."

Additional Comments: Some critics aren't entirely sold on the ending, and feel that it's a bit too literal considering what comes before. Brad Pitt receives almost unanimous praise for his performance, with solid mentions for Jessica Chastain and young actor Hunter McCracken. Even among mixed or negative reviews, critics feel that The Tree of Life is the sort of movie that needs to be seen, if only to determine which side of the debate you fall on.

Cannes Verdict: Undeniably beautiful and complex, and filled with brilliant filmmaking, The Tree of Life is likely to inspire highly divisive reactions, despite its status as a must-see.

Review: "Fast Five"

The Fast and Furious series, for all of its diversions in sequel nomenclature, deserves credit for its consistency. It is consistently loud, consistently dumb, consistently fast, and consistently unassuming. It's also, despite the series' considerable ups and downs, consistently fun. The series' fifth entry, Fast Five, has earned the only positive consensus in the F+F catalog, and in some ways, it's easy to see why the critical community has decided to embrace this film. It's a silly and barely memorable film, but it's also down to earth, in the sense that it never aspires to be an ounce more than what it is (unlike, say, Sucker Punch).

Opening with a brief catch-up, we see that Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) has been sent to prison, much to the dismay of Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster). In the film's opening action sequence, the pair intercept Dom's prison transport bus, sending the thing flipping down the desert road. A news report then tells us that only one prisoner was missing when police arrived on the scene, and that there were no injuries. Yes, you heard that right. Not even 'no fatalities,' no injuries. Barely 20 minutes later, Diesel and Walker survive a massive fall from a bridge into a river. So while there are no elves or dragons in Fast Five, director Justin Lin and screenwriter Chris Morgan quickly establish that this all takes place in fantasy-land.

From there, we get a relatively standard heist set-up, although this time OMG we're in RIO you guys! The movie never lets us forget either (at least two overhead shots of the Christ the Redeemer statue, pans along the coast/beaches, etc...). The bad guy sets off the good guys, who plan monetary revenge, all while forced to evade US law enforcement, led by agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson's ginormous biceps). Pic's middle mostly consists of piecing together the plan, trial and error tests runs, and scattered encounters with Hobbs and his ilk. There's a pregnancy subplot too, although I could've sworn that at some point Ms. Brewster can briefly be seen toasting with a beer bottle (root beer, perhaps?).

And yet for all that's ordinary (especially the barely-there performances), there's still an undeniable sense of fun about the whole thing. Is it dumb? Of course it is. But it's so sincere in its stupidity, and so completely without pretension in regards to its "emotional" moments that the movie never gets weighed down. And even though the film may hold off longer on vehicular chases (a chance for a race involving a blue Porsche is skipped for time), the movie delivers when it wants to. Lin and cinematographer Stephen Windon do a nice job of showing us what's actually going on in the action, whether on foot or in cars. The film's trio of editors keep things moving fast, but never over-cut to the point of making action scenes incomprehensible or jumbled. It's a nice change of pace from the wannabe-cinema-verite-shaky-handheld that pervades so many action scenes these days.

And even though there's nothing resembling actual character development, I suspect longtime fans of the series already have fond enough associations with the main characters. For the rest of us, there's a clear enough of a line between good and bad that it doesn't really matter how one-note these people are. They're buff and beautiful, so it goes without saying that we're supposed to root for them. Somehow, that feels OK here. Fast Five may be dumb, but as stated above, it's inoffensively dumb, and it's also a great deal of fun. In other words it's the epitome of the lowest tier of big-budget summer entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with any of that.

Grade: C+

Cannes Review Round-Up Redux: "We Need to Talk About Kevin"

With the maintenance that took place on Blogger yesterday, I seem to have lost my most recent post (and also a comment posted on my CRR for Midnight in Paris). Blogger says that it plans to restore the removed posts, but seeing as I have yet to have mine returned, I'd rather just go and do the damn thing all over again as best I can.

One of the films I've been looking forward to the most from this year's Cannes line-up comes from Scottish director Lynne Ramsay, whose last feature film - Movern Callar - hit theaters back in 2002. She returns this year with We Need to Talk About Kevin, an adaptation of Lionel Shriver's acclaimed novel about a woman dealing with the aftermath when her son goes on a Columbine-style rampage. It's the sort of subject matter that doesn't promise easy viewing, or easy answers, as issues of parenting undoubtedly come into play (along with the ever-tricky nature vs. nurture debate). However, by shedding large chunks of the text in favor of her more impressionistic style, Ramsay's film was received as a most welcome return after nearly 10 years:

**A good number of these will be different reviews that those cited in the original post.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw: (4/5 stars) "...a skin-peelingly intimate character study and a brilliantly nihilist, feminist parable." "Producer-star Tilda Swinton brings her A-game to the role of Eva."

Salon.com - Andrew O'Hehir: (N/A) "Indeed, there are so many great things happening on almost every level of this movie, from Swinton's haunting, magnetic, and tremendously vulnerable performance...to the many unsettling individual moments."

The London Evening Standard - Derek Malcolm: (N/A) "Without Swinton, often seen in close-up, the film might have sunk without trace under the weight of its morbid subject matter."

Movie Line - Stephanie Zacharek: (N/A) "The filmmaking is extraordinary; it's the story that gets in the way." "Swinton is terrific - this is one of her less mannered performances."

Variety - Leslie Felperin: (N/A) "...Swinton delivers a concrete-hard central perf that's up there with her best work."

The Telegraph - Sukhdev Sandhu: (4/4 stars) "...with no resolution or redemption on offer, it's remarkable how easily Ramsay sustains our interest right to the very end."

Digital Spy - Simon Reynolds: (N/A) "This is a bleak and traumatic drama marked by a blistering performance from Swinton."

Rope of Silicon - Brad Brevet: (B+) "Haunting, sophisticated, and rippling with tension." "Once it begins, you're in Ramsay's hands, and it doesn't take more than a minute for her to gain a tight grip."

InContention.com - Guy Lodge: (4/4 stars) "If We Need to Talk About Kevin is to be labeled any one person's triumph, however, it must be Lynne Ramsay's."

Additional Comments: Critics praise the craft of the film, with standouts going to Seamus McGarvey's cinemtography and the sound design. Ezra Miller and the two other actors who play Kevin all earn praise, and are compared to non-supernatural Damiens. Some are unsure about some of the soundtrack choices and/or parts of Jonny Greenwood's score. John C. Reilly's limited role is given generally positive, but slight, notices.

Cannes Verdict: A harrowing and mature drama with an excellent performance from Tilda Swinton that marks a welcome return for Lynne Ramsay.

Cannes Review Round-Up: "Midnight in Paris"

Over France, the Cannes Film Festival is finally underway. And with the opening night selection screening complete, reviews are starting to pour in for Midnight in Paris, the latest from the uber-prolific Woody Allen. A few weeks ago I read one or two lines of buzz that hinted that the director's latest Paris-set effort was actually one of his best in the past decade. And if early remarks are any indication, those two sentences of hype were right:

Living in Cinema - Craig Kennedy: (4.5/5 stars) "Consistently amusing yet never straining for a big laugh, it feels effortless yet never lazy." Kennedy also praises the whole cast, especially Wilson, Sheen, and Cotillard.

Thompson on Hollywood - Anne Thompson: (N/A) "Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen's best movie since Deconstructing Harry in 1997." "[The film] has long term Oscar potential."

Hollywood Elsewhere - Jeffrey Wells: (N/A) "The advance buzz was correct: Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris is a goodie." "It is time well spent, and a time-trip worth taking."

Entertainment Weekly - Dave Karger: (N/A) "...I'd say the consensus will be that Midnight is easily his best film since Vicky Cristina." "The movie really belongs to Owen Wilson, who gives a droll and charming performance."

Rope of Silicon - Brad Brevet: (B+) "...inventive, imaginative, and charming." "...Sheen absolutely crushes the part." "As Adriana, Cotillard again brings a performance you can't help but be entranced by." "Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy of the sort you wish Hollywood would aspire to."

Screen Daily - Mark Adams: (N/A) "...an amusing and elegantly constructed love letter to Paris, rich on romance, humour, and culture, and driven by a nicely pitched performance by Owen Wilson."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy: (N/A) "As beguiling as a stroll around Paris on a warm spring evening."

Guy Lodge (on Twitter): (B-/C+) "Sprightly and choux-sweet first half, gradually bogged down in skit-sized conceit and Woody's binary view of women."

Foundas on Film - Scott Foundas: (N/A) "...Allen has, I think, delivered one of his masterpieces - a movie about the romantic pull of yesteryear."

The Telegraph - Sukhdev Sandhu: (2/4 stars) "Some of its conceits are funny...[but] it devolves into a sweaty, over-crowded cocktail party."

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw: (3/5 stars) "...a shallow examination of nostalgia with endearing performances by Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard."

Cannes Verdict: A thoroughly charming and engaging romantic comedy led by strong work from Owen Wilson and a lively supporting cast.

Review: "Thor"

It's not an easy thing to convincingly portray one of Norse mythology's most important figures. In spite of this obstacle, relative newcomer Chris Hemsworth does an admirable and thoroughly convincing job as the Marvel-ized version of the haughty God of Thunder. It's a good thing too, because he's one of the few aspects of Thor, the latest set-up film for 2012's The Avengers, that comes close to godliness.

Opening with prologue that feels straight out of The Lord of the Rings, Kenneth Branagh's adaptation sets up the film's multiverse efficiently. Years ago, the terrifying Frost Giants threatened to plunge Earth into an eternal ice age, only to be stopped by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and his army of gods (demi gods? super beings?). Now, in the present, Odin's son Thor (Hemsworth), in an act of foolhardy bravery slyly suggested by his trickster brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has torn apart the centuries-old truce. When Odin learns of his son's actions, he strips Thor of his power (including the ability to wield his mighty hammer) and banishes him to Earth. It's here when he - quite literally - runs into a trio of scientists, played by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings.

And it's here, in the Earth-bound section of the story, that everything that's best about Thor comes together, even if the end result feels a bit slight. Whereas the opening is filled with portentous shouting matches, the Earth scenes introduce a vital sense of humor that very clearly lets us know that Branagh and crew aren't taking the whole thing too seriously. Thor's fish-out-of-water angle is executed with surprisingly fun results, thanks in large part to Hemsworth's completely convincing portrayal of a god completely out of his element. Along with Tom Hiddleston as the scheming Loki, Hemsworth's work is what makes the film the lightweight fun that it is.

Other performances aren't quite so entertaining. Natalie Portman gives minimal effort as scientist Jane Foster, while Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings make for charming, yet inconsistent comic relief. A handful of minor characters from Thor's realm are played with nice effort, but feel like afterthoughts. Action sequences are iffy as well. While they aren't incomprehensibly edited, Branagh shoots them in close-up, resulting in fights that are loud, but somewhat hard to decipher, and rarely engaging. Credit should go, however, to the marvelous (albeit campy) costume and set design; Thor's home realm of Asgard is rich and fully realized. Yet unlike, say, the first Iron Man, Thor never reaches a point where it completely immerses you in its mythos. Despite a good-hearted nature, and some charming, earnest work from its cast, the whole effort feels minor, rather than godly.

Grade: C+/C

Almodovar teases "The Skin I Live In"

Last seen in 2008 with Broken Embraces, Pedro Almodovar returns this year with The Skin I Live In, described as a plastic surgery horror/thriller revenge tale. The considerably darker tone is noticeable all over this, especially the visuals. The black and white of the main room showcased in this clip is certainly toned down. Still, it's stylish, and like any Almodovar film, the color red sneaks its way into any major set or scene. The film will reportedly play rather early in this year's Cannes Film Festival (which starts on the 11th), so expect to hear reviews within the next week or week and a half. For now, enjoy the incredibly brief, eerie, and enticing teaser.

Review: "La Doppia Ora (The Double Hour)"

Used in the right (or wrong) places, a twist can make or break a film. Those sudden shocks, those revelations that transform our perspective of what previously occurred, can take a brilliant film to new heights, temporarily elevate an adequate one, or wreck whatever goodwill was built up prior. Keeping twists a secret is also key. Ads for Neil Jordan's The Crying Game literally advised people, "Don't Let Anyone Tell You the Twist." It's all of this that makes the key twist in Giuseppe Capotondi's The Double Hour so fascinating, and so difficult, to discuss.

Originally released in 2009 in its homeland of Italy, Capotondi's debut received acclaim and scooped up awards for Best Italian Film, and Lead Actor/Actress at the 09 Venice Film Festival. Upon finally landing in the US, it's easy to see what most of the fuss was about. After an abrupt opening in which hotel cleaning woman Sonia (Kseniya Rappoport) receives a nasty jolt at work, we're thrown into a speed dating set up. There, the shy Sonia meets the introverted ex-cop Guido (Vincere's Filippo Timi). The two strike up a brief relationship, before chaos and tragedy strike.

Unfortunately, to go into greater detail would spoil the fun of Capotondi's sly little thriller. 'Sly,' to some, that is. If there's one twist worth talking about (without revealing), it's the big one, and it happens smack dab in the middle of the film's 1 hr. 45 min. run time. Why? Because it's so thoroughly disruptive and game-changing, that once the initial shock wears off, it will either keep you further hooked through the film's conclusion, or leave you shaking your head in disappointment. The film's main strength, and therefore its main failing, is how severely the twist is likely to divide viewers. Consider me a member of the twist fan club. While my initial reaction was a mix of shock and "uh oh, did the movie just fly off of the rails?" I've come to appreciate the risk Capotondi took by taking such a big leap. How the twist alters the previous hour or so is significant enough to make detractors see it as an invalidation. I see it as a risk that pays off, in that it brings to life the subtle oddities of the first hour's cinematic construction. The script's level of subtle and overt detailing is impressive. It gives us glimpses, and never defaults to pieces of exposition in anything bigger than bite-size form.

As for other twists, I can't say as much, good or bad. Its elegant construction and careful dispensation of information and twists are reminiscent of Guillaume Canet's Tell No One (2006/08). The film's first half hour almost convinced me that Capotondi was ripping off of Canet's work. And, like Tell No One, I suspect that not all of Capotondi's twists and turns completely hold up to scrutiny. Both are films that, especially in Capotondi's case, succeed because of their directors' abilities to fully immerse the audience and allow them to suspend their senses of disbelief. And whatever its twists may be, the script does deserve credit for balance of character and thrills, and Capotondi, in turn, deserves credit for bringing this facet to life so effectively. The intrigue and tension comes entirely from revelations relayed via dialogue, not from car chases, shoot outs, or hidden bombs. The closest thing the film has to a typical thriller scenario is actually the least engaging part of the story. Capotondi's film is able to transform into a very different sort of film at the halfway point, with surprisingly satisfying results despite an ending that hits too soon.

Lending the film an extra air of believability are the two leads. Now, despite the acclaim, I'm not quite sold on Rappoport and Timi's work here as award worthy. That said, they're certainly intriguing and well-played, Rappoport especially. But this is a film where characters come second to plot construction. The leads emote with conviction and restraint, but as written Sonia and Guido aren't quite as deep as Capotondi and the writers would like us to believe. Some have labeled the film as a film about loss and redemption disguised as a thriller; I'm tempted to say it's the reverse. Its lack of more traditional thrills, not to mention the back story that unfolds throughout, suggests a slightly lightweight drama about loss and redemption that gains its heft by adding a heavy dose of twisty narrative structure.

In the end, none of this is entirely a bad thing. Like Joe Wright's Hanna, or the aforementioned Tell No One, the eventual victory of style (and story) over substance actually works in the film's favor. It doesn't mean that there aren't flaws, and it doesn't mean that the film shouldn't have aspired higher. What it means is that style (namely some brief-but-killer first person and rack focus work) over substance doesn't have to be a bad thing. Sure, The Double Hour could have been a full-fledged meditation on coping with the past and present, but that would have robbed it of its ability to truly thrill, despite richer characterization and stronger performances. By melding the two, and leaning in favor of mystery/thriller elements, The Double Hour is able to posses an elegantly quiet and somber air, all while trapping viewers who succumb to its wiles in a dizzying story. In embracing the elements of both sides at this particular balance, Capotondi's debut entertains without feeling ludicrous or silly (as opposed to, say, Fast Five), even if parts of it may very well be those things deep down.

Grade: B/B+