To contrast the incredibly large legacy that Abraham Lincoln has on our country’s history, Steven Spielberg’s biopic about the signing of the emancipation proclamation is considerably small. Not only does the film focus on a small portion of Lincoln’s attributes to society, but also the screenplay and acting inhibit this film from becoming an epic retelling of a crucial historical landmark. This is not necessarily a bad thing; the limited timeframe of Lincoln’s political career presented in this film gives room for accentuated acting performances and intimacy between the characters. That being said, it is Spielberg himself that is unable to handle the smaller scale atmosphere required for this movie to thrive, and therefore causing Lincoln to lose its full potential as one of this year’s best.

Lincoln recounts the president’s effort to establish the Emancipation Proclamation that would eventually free all slaves in the United States, and aid in the ending of the thriving Civil War. Tension within the country continues to rise during his presidential term, and the president becomes deeply conflicted as whether to push forward his dedication to the signing of his proposed thirteenth amendment, or halt his insistence until the Congress seats are filled with mostly republican thinkers. Lincoln is both aided and harmed in his efforts to get his amendment passed by Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, who not only believes that slavery should be abolished, but that slaves should also have equal rights. Lincoln turns to Thaddeus in hopes that he can convince him to speak for just the abolishment of slavery, knowing that if Congress thinks the passing of the amendment will be the first step towards full equality for all blacks then the bill won’t be passed. Until his untimely death, Lincoln stands firmly behind his committed beliefs in order to repair the state of the country. 

Despite the abundant historical opportunity available to create a film about one of our highest regarded presidents, Tony Kushner’s screenplay only covers a a few points on Lincoln’s timeline. The film is so small that it might have worked better as a play or live performance. Very few scene changes take place that could easily be mapped out on a stage, and the story is mostly told through dialogue. After all, Kushner is a renowned playwright capable of tackling large subjects for the stage as best exhibited in Angels in America, so Lincoln as a live performance only makes sense in my eyes when looking at who was chosen to write the screenplay. Kusher’s script combined with Spielberg’s directorial storytelling don’t fit together, and the uneven collaboration is the downfall of the film. While watching the movie, it is clear that Spielberg might not have been the man for the job. The film’s focus on emotionally raw dialogue sequences is compromised by Spielberg’s inability to successfully handle visually detailing intimate sequences necessary according to the screenplay. Often in this film, especially during tense exchanges between Lincoln and his family, the characters will be pouring their hearts out with the intensity and energy needed to evoke a reaction within the audience, but Spielberg takes us out of the moment due to a chosen camera angle that should only be meant for war sequences. In fact, little of what Spielberg is best at is incorporated into this film. From a director who famously spawned Hollywood classics such as E.T., Jurassic Park, and War of the Worlds, astounding landscapes and battlefront shots are neglected from this picture, leaving me to question what Spielberg wanted to accomplish with this film, or better yet, what he wanted to prove about himself. Lincoln’s content is nothing that we would typically expect from a director , giving him an opportunity to show that he is capable of telling a story without firing cannons or larger than life animatronics. Unfortunately, Lincoln further shows that intimacy is out of Spielberg’s natural element. 

As everybody critic has mentioned, the primary reason to see Lincoln is for the performances, which I could not downplay even if my life depended on it. All three leads take this film by storm by fearlessly launching themselves into these historical figures both physically and emotionally. Daniel Day Lewis is the only man capable of portraying Abraham Lincoln. He does not only too closely physically resemble the president, but he is able to believably capture Lincoln’s intelligence and sincerity, as well as his inner conflicts such as his fears and weaknesses. While Daniel Day Lewis doesn’t offer anything new with this role, he revives the president from his grave to a shocking extent. This is why I firmly believe Lincoln would have been an unbelievably captivating and revolutionary play. The immediacy and presence of Daniel Day Lewis on stage would have sent shivers through any live audiences’ spines. Both Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones give rousing performances just as worthy of Academy nominations as Lewis, especially coming from stars that seemingly were on their way, if not already, out of the spotlight. Joseph Gordon Levitt supports as Lincoln’s son passionate about fighting in the war, but offers nothing to the film and distracts from the larger purpose of the story. 

While I will always prefer imagining it in front of my eyes as opposed to on a screen, Lincoln successfully revitalizes a historically significant event in our history due to unbelievably crafted acting from the groundbreaking principles. Tony Kushner handles the biopic with both sensitivity and unabashed truthful storytelling, and keenly recounts Lincoln’s personal and societal pressures. However, the direction of Lincoln is less than satisfactory, and in some ways unacceptable from a director that is somewhat dubbed one of the best of our time. While Lincoln makes me grateful to live in a country founded by extraordinary figures, intellectual idealists, and courageous heroes, the film also has confirmed for me that Spielberg’s cinematic successes and visionary wit are just as much in the past as the subject of his most recent attempt.

7/10

You may have heard something about Killing Them Softly. Most likely though, however, you haven’t. Besides Brad Pitt carrying the film as leading man, the film was considerably under the radar this year to the general public, excluding fans of director Andrew Dominik’s The Assassination of Jesse James who all seemed anxious to see his next endeavor. Having not seen Jesse James, it is impossible for me to compare his latest with his fans’ favorite, as well as his other works. That being said, Killing Them Softly might not have been the best introduction. 

Killing Them Softly incorporates many film elements reminiscent of neo-noir and crime thriller genres, as well as a sharp political twist that seems to bring the foundations of the movie together. In the midst of an inside job gone wrong, hitman Jackie Cogan is hired to kill those responsible for the dilapidation of a poker ring heist. He is in search of two men hired to rob several members playing cards in a seedy New Orleans hideout. After they split the money with their boss, they head out on the road to law undercover. However, they accidentally slip and tell an associate of the man who hired Jackie their identities, and Jackie is sent on a chase to slaughter the runaways. Jackie soon realizes that he can’t handle killing all responsible at once, and decides to enlist in the help of fellow assassin Mickey Fallon to take down their targets. Once the guns are loaded, Killing Them Softly unravels a haywire cat and mouse chase quite contradictory to the nature of the film’s title.

This film asks a lot out of its audience. Viewers must be prepared to stomach harsh violence sequences that cut to the literal core of the victims being dismembered by loaded weaponry. Dominik doesn’t want those who see this film to miss a drop of blood spewing out of those assassinated, and especially the sound of bullets piercing through human skulls. These sequences of coarse violence are accompanied by blood curdling and distinct sound effects meant to heighten the intensity of the killings. Also, elegant music often backdrops these death sequences to further add an element of style. The choice to heighten the already visually graphic nature of these sequences by inserting audio enhancements could potentially add to a film, but in this case it is too much. It is already enough to capture a bullet driving with force through a human brain in slow motion; adding what that sounds like was off-putting for my standards. Some will be thrilled by these sequences but most will be disturbed, depending on what individuals viewers find tasteful. However, these sequences could have been easier to digest had it not been for the additional neck breaking and skin piercing sound effects.

It is clear that Dominik’s directorial choices are bold choices. His bravery is commendable, considering many directors have difficulty making committed decisions in terms of filmmaking. However, Dominik makes several strong visual and storytelling decisions that seemingly clash when pieced together. Some of the film resembles that of Tarantino’s work, specifically Pulp Fiction which was noted for its harsh violence when released as well as its drawn out dialogue sequences that have made Tarantino so recognizable. Many of the films scenes use similarly heavy dialogue as its structure, and many of the opening scenes continue to the point where viewers are taken out of the film and wondering how long the individual scenes will last. The neo-noir introduction to the film deeply contrasts the visually light nature of the ending and violent sequences described above, which is made evident as the film progresses. While many of his ideas are thorough and intended to enhance the film, the incorporation of completely different styles makes the film less focused and more of a showing of visual flare as opposed to the telling of a story.

While Andrew Dominik has film ideas, too many made the final cut of the film. It is as if one is watching a mixture of ideas as opposed to a film with a concrete theme or founding principle. The one exception to this is the film’s overlying political commentary on modern capitalism, the Bush and Obama administrations, and our country’s faltering economy.  The appearence of these references at first are subtly placed, and offer a witty symbolism for the picture and offers a refreshing time period for the film to take place. However by the end of the film this idea quickly becomes tired due to overuse, so much so that this idea is drilled into our heads. A smart choice but an overused one, much like many of the other thematic and visual elements used by Dominik in this film.

While Killing Them Softly might be flashy and semi-sophisticated, director Andrew Dominik’s clashing intentions fog the film’s vivaciously course visuals. The script is well written but an underlying factor of the film’s storytelling, as the violence, cast, and mix of visual styles take the forefront of the picture. Killing Them Softly is unforgettable for those who see it, but not necessarily in a good way.

6/10

As the apocalypse draws nearer, it seems that nothing can withstand the end of the world; not even Stephanie Meyer’s vegetarian vampires. As we prepare to die, we can breathe a sigh of relief that the Twilight franchise is going down with us. Our society has grown so accustomed to the exorbitant exposure to commercial vampire culture that it’s hard to imagine a world without women fantasizing over fictional and feminine undead creatures fighting for their undying love. Speaking for the common male and those who are no longer fascinated by glittering zombies, it is comforting to know that the vampire craze might be coming to a close. That being said, Breaking Dawn Part 2 wasn’t as preposterous as its predecessors. It will satisfy those remaining fans who still hold on to their love for sparkling immortals, and will be hilarious as opposed to dull for everybody else.

When we last left our struggling souls, the central conflict was whether to transform Bella into a vampire or not in order to save her life during vampchild birth. Part 2 picks up just where the action left off: Bella opening her eyes for the first time as an undead being, and being forced to control her new thirst for human flesh. This proves to be difficult for her, especially because she becomes attracted to the idea of eating her own newborn. Meanwhile, while training to become civilized by releasing her energy on innocent deer in the woods, the Cullens are greeted with immense problems when one of their relatives mistakes Bella’s new daughter, Renesme, for a human child. This is considered to be unacceptable in the vampire world, and the Volturi are sent from Italy to finally punish the Cullens for their lack of responsibility to keep the vampire society a secret. The Cullens ask their family and friends to assist them in convincing the Volturi that they misunderstand the state of Renesme, and that the family has broken no such rules. The warewolves help join the army against the Italian elites because of Jacob’s long lasting adoration for the girl of his dreams, of whom he feels betrayed him due to her new immortal state. When faced with adversity, the family and associates of the Cullens stand proudly together as one to protect their loved ones, and inevitably live happily ever after.

To no surprise, many factors that made most of the other preceding movies in the series lose value in terms of quality carry over in the final film of the saga. The visual characteristics that define the physical make up of the vampires and warewolves remains inconsistent throughout the movies, the special effects are cheesy, and the acting is contrived and lackluster. However, there is something to be said about the surprising presentation of this film’s finale that will undeniably hold all viewers’ attention. As opposed to follow through with a predictable telling of the story from beginning to end, director Bill Condon decided to confuse fans alike with his double ending. Many audience members were at first outraged by this decision, feeling as if Condon failed to accurately adapt Meyer’s novel to the screen. However, fans will find themselves delighted with the unexpected turn around just in time for the credits to roll. 

In many ways, the Twilight series ends just as expectedly cliche as imaginable. The script and acting are unbelievable, the central conflicts are overdramatic, and the stellar landscapes of the state of Washington that were once influential in the visual presentation of the story have been replaced by green screens and embarrassingly obvious computer generated wolves. That being said, as predictable as Breaking Dawn Part 2 is, the film’s ending will surprise all of those who have anticipated the viewing of this movie ever since they turned the last page of the novel, and hold the attention of men dreading sitting through two hours of undead romance with their spouse or girlfriend. While the cinematic closing of the Twilight franchise doesn’t make the series as a whole more redeemable, it certainly ends on an entertaining note. Regardless of how poorly executed the films were, they were fun while they lasted. 

3/10

For history teachers looking to replace their outdated and mundane VHS tapes that monotonously document The Iranian Revolution, Argo might be what they’re looking for. While Argo is definitely not formatted to be a history lesson, it would certainly appeal to students more so than a National Geographic Documentary. Argo is a fresh glimpse of the 70’s revolution in Iran told with controlled style and fluidity, as well as a sharp narrative on the Hollywood film industry. 

The film is set up through a rapid sequence depicting Iranian protesters storming the US Embassy. While most of the staff are taken hostage, six of the ambassadors escape the building and are forced into hiding. Back in the United States, the CIA are left with the burden of figuring out how to safely bring the six escapees back to the United States without the interference of the Iranian government. Tony Mendez, played by Ben Afflect, is a CIA specialist who when confronted with the question of freeing the ambassadors, addresses to the State Department the idea of sending a group to Iran and posing as a film crew scouting out locations for a science fiction film. While at first this idea sounds ridiculous to Mendez’s boss due to the high risk it involves, the Department realizes they don’t have many other options and allows Mendez to undertake the mission. Mendez turns to Hollywood producer John Chambers to help him develop his elaborate deceit, and eventually the two travel to Iran with the intent of disguising the six ambassadors as members of their fictional film crew. However, as tension grows between the United States and Iranian government over the whereabouts of the missing group from the Embassy, the  task of safely transporting the group out of the Middle East becomes more daunting. The fate of the group rests in Mendez’s ability to transform the six into new identities and escape the country without being snagged in a mousetrap.

Ben Affleck directs and stars in his film, a complicated task that the filmmaker seems to do extraordinarily well. While Affleck is in front of the camera and apart of a scene, he must also be conscious of the productional values of that particular shot, which involves a lot of back and forth mental and physical attention to what is both on and off screen. Therefore, I have complete respect for Affleck’s ability to be apart of his action and simultaneously control it. Just like his 2010 crime thriller The Town, Both Affleck’s direction and acting in Argo are commendable. His vision clearly comes across through the stylized sequences that help move the plot, character development, and screenplay. Affleck has also mastered the pacing of his films, unravelling the plot slowly but surely. Even though Argo is nowhere near a perfect film, and Affleck still has much to develop and learn about himself as a director, he has established himself in Hollywood as one of modern cinema’s most refreshing filmmakers. 

Argo is a well directed film from Ben Affleck that boasts an all-star male dominant cast and a contemporary view of a historic era that could easily be presented as irrelevant in the hands of another director. Argo is not monumental by any means; however, it is a step forward for Affleck’s career, and will entertain and educate audiences due to its captivating plot and characters, as well as its perspective of the era. 

7/10

To those dedicated fans of Stephen Chbosky’s epistolary young adult novel of whom I speak directly to, you know just as well as I how significant of an impact The Perks of Being A Wallflower had on our teenage years. Similar to Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye, Chbosky’s character of Charlie gave teenagers paralyzed with fear and uncertainty, and inevitably those unable to waltz across a high school gymnasium during a dance with ease, somebody to identify with. Even though Charlie only lives and breathes on pages we understand him, and in return Chbosky understands us. However, the film adaptation of Perks doesn’t convey such a bond between storyteller and audience. Rather, The Perks of Being a Wallflower ironically parodies its own name by exploiting its presented social issues through common high school cliches.

It is puzzling to me that a film adaptation of such an acclaimed novel could be so preposterous. In the case of Perks, it is even more difficult to understand how a movie could completely misinterpret the values of the book it is based on when the author is both the director and writer. It only makes sense to me that the author, having completely developed the world of his characters, would be able to successfully convey the ideals of his novel from page to screen. However, the reason that Chbosky missed his mark is due to his changing intentions for the film. His obvious decision to make the story more marketable for a profit overshadowed his goals to revitalize his story for a modern audience, bring to life the protagonist, and explore social contexts and themes without giving into stereotypical representation. I am not suggesting that he didn’t have any interest in preserving the nature of his book. I am sure he wanted his loyal fans to appreciate the adaptation. However, he also wanted to make a lot of money, and therefore had to find ways to present his ideas in a way that would appeal to viewers of all ages and social demographics. The most obvious examples of this decision to make the film more financially successful is the PG-13 rating and the casting choices. When one is watching the film, they will be subjected to countless high school scenarios borrowed from John Hughes films. In this way, Perks doesn’t accurately portray the high school experiences of outcasts, or even stay true to the genuine nature of the book. Instead, its desire to be a box office blockbuster diminishes the realistic qualities the book effortlessly possesses.

There are several minor problems with the Perks adaptation that contributes the films overly apparent low quality. One of which is the setting, which takes place in a distinctly suburban American town during the early 90’s. Naturally, because the book takes place in 1991, our society hadn’t completely transitioned out of the previous decade yet. Mustard colored wallpaper still lingered on the walls of 1980’s American homes, large hair and quirky outfit combinations were still abundant, etc. However, the film seems to struggle to fully immerse itself in its chosen decade. While many painfully obvious props and costume pieces are placed on the actor’s bodies and set to represent the time period, the characters still dwell in many obvious current conventions. Characters have piercings and hair styles not found in the early 90’s, and live in homes too modern in decor and style to be convincing of homes from twenty years ago. In short, never could I be completely convinced that I was watching scenes from decades past because the present lingers in every scene of the film.

The film inhibits its ability to bring the novel to life due to the casting choices and acting from the principles. While all of the actors are more than capable of playing these characters, few bring the roles to justice. Logan Lerman, of whom is fortunate enough to be given a role that helped place him in the Hollywood spotlight, plays the subtext throughout his entire performance. Lerman reinacts Charlie’s internal struggles in all of his public interactions as opposed to how Charlie would truly act in social situations. What makes the character of Charlie so beautiful is that he wants to fit in, but struggles to find a way into a friend group. Therefore, even though he clearly possesses and sheds small light on his introverted and insecure personality traits, he still desires to overcome his social flaws in order to better his connections with people. Lerman is unable to balance both Charlie’s desire and struggle to be accepted throughout his performance. Emma Watson’s portrayal was also less than convincing. Not only do I believe that she is too beautiful for the role, her dialogue came off as contrite. Her performance is hurt also by the fact that this character is shoved down our throats. Rather than giving us time to fall in love with Sam just as much as Charlie did over the course of their relationship, we are immediately told to care about her, and therefore are only bound to her because we are expected to be. The only actor of which completely became his character in a convincing way was Ezra Miller as Patrick. Miller clearly understood this character and played him believably. Patrick is not as crucial of a character in the film as much as Sam is, which is unfortunate because Patrick offers a lot to the dynamics of the three protagonists. The presentation of his character suffers throughout the film because he is not considered to be as important to Charlie as Sam is, but Ezra Miller expanded past what was offered to him through the script with clear and effective intent.

There is much more I could complain about The Perks of Being A Wallflower. The abundance of errors within the 102 minutes of the adaptation briefly diminished my affectionate opinion of the book, forcing me to go home and reread sections to assure myself that the film didn’t distort my perception of the novel. The book is a painstakingly real, and beautifully crafted novel for teenagers struggling through adolescent transitions and high school adversity to admire and interpret for themselves. The powerful connection between the reader and Charlie is what makes the book unmistakably iconic and joins outcasts together with the uniform knowledge and compassion for one fictional individual. However, the film could never dream of forming such a connection between Charlie and the audience. In fact, it doesn’t come remotely close. Rather than focus on presenting Charlie’s character in a realistic manner so that he is identifiable, he is exploited as a high school stereotype. Rather than developing the relationship between Charlie and the audience internally through his letters to his anonymous friend, the film focuses on the romance between himself and Sam without stepping into cliches. The Perks of Being a Wallflower had obvious potential, but tragically fails to truly capture what makes the book so unique and unforgettable.

2/10

“The captain never leaves his ship.”

As a new college student, it has become increasingly more difficult to make time to get to the movies, let alone write film reviews. Many times my ability to acutely analyze a film after seeing it in theatres is not impacted by my inability to make time to write until weeks after. Unfortunately, The Master is the last I would choose to review on delay, considering the film is entirely complex and asks viewers for their full attention due to the films length, aesthetic visual detail, and in-depth character analysis. The Master is a small epic conceived and entirely envisioned from a film master himself.

The opening scenes of The Master perfectly set the tone of the film, as well as introduce us to Freddie Quell. From first sight, it becomes clear that the protagonist of the story is far from stable. Freddie is a tortured war veteran in need of an income after combat. He takes a job as a photographer, but his post-traumatic stress and alcoholism prevents him from returning to normalcy. He drunkenly stumbles upon a beautiful yacht beaming with activity and vibrance, and decides to sneak on because it sets sail. During the night he is soon discovered by Lancaster Dodd, who sympathetically and selfishly decides to take Freddie under his wing and allows him to stay on board if he joins The Cause. Freddie quickly becomes immersed in the culture of The Cause, which is the name of Doctor Lancaster’s psychological movement that preaches questionable techniques to treat those with emotional trauma. Freddie becomes one of Lancaster’s subjects and participates in what Lancaster calls Processing, which are exercises designed to crack those being tested in order for them to progress towards a balanced mental state. Freddie soon becomes dedicated to Lancaster, his family and his associates, blessed that they were able to save him from mental deterioration and providing him with a community. However, Freddie doesn’t become aware of what he is clinging on to until it is too late. Lancaster’s methods soon destroy Freddie’s foundation, and make him dependent on Lancaster’s teachings rather than free from his apparent psychological stress.

The conflict between Freddie and the members of The Cause is detailed through elaborate storytelling and intricate scenes. All of the scenes which involve interactions with Freddie and Lancaster or Lancaster and his wife provide imperative insight into the hidden tension between the characters. Each scene is loaded with underlying intensity and could easily be dissected due to the complexity of the presented characters, who seem to always be internally conflicted. This conflict is beautifully crafted due to Paul Thomas Anderson’s strong writing and development. Each character has layers that slowly peel off to reveal small glimpses of their true nature and intentions. This is particularly true about Freddie, Lancaster, and Mrs. Dodd. As the film progresses we witness small but sudden moments of these characters’ hidden insanity, forcing us to question who is truly maniacal and who is stable. It also provides the audience with an opportunity to ponder the exact definition of insanity, and how we can cure such a mental state, if it is possible to treat insanity at all. It is possible that insanity is prescribed by society as opposed to being an actual condition. It is also possible that those who teach the methods of curing insanity might need to practice what they preach, as shown through the fictional career of Lancaster Dodd, an individual more interested with serving his ego as opposed to helping his patients. Without such complex character development, the film would neglect an opportunity to provoke thought in the audience, as well as destroy its exciting and constantly intensified nature.

Often when tackling ambitious topics or telling a story set during wartime, directors become lost in developing the visuals that the meat of the story is never cooked. Fortunately, Paul Thomas Anderson uses his vibrant visual imagery to help aid the telling of his tale, as well as make the film more aesthetically appealing. The visuals of the film are just as layered as the plot and characters, successfully executed through the use of contrasting colors, shape, and texture. Through all of the scenes that take place on the water, the light colors of the white yacht, the cerulean sky, and the flowing sand distinctly contrast the disturbing ripple of coarse waves that spew from the boat, the object that moves Freddie through much of his daunting journey. In many interior films, the beautifully designed rooms are contrasted by cutting camera angles and transitions to put viewers on edge. It is in this way that The Master serves as a visual dream with daringly nightmarish undercurrents. 

The characters are further brought to life by all of the principle actors. While Joaquin Phoenix fully delivered himself through Freddie Quell, I initially had difficulty believing his character. However, soon after he was introduced and began Processing, both Phoenix and Quell became one raw being. I have never been particularly compelled by any of Amy Adams’ roles, and she inconsistently interested me in The Master. Adams had moments of which she shined as Peggy Dodd and gave another dimension to her character, but only in fleeting moments. Philip Seymour Hoffman took this film by storm. His performance was strong, consistent, and impeccable. Once Oscar buzz begins to dominate the internet, Hoffman will be discussed for his role as Lancaster Dodd due to his obvious and admirable understanding of his character.  

The Master is truly a masterwork from gifted and elite film director Paul Thomas Anderson. Both visually and conceptually, the film is layered in seething intensity and moral complexities that makes the movie dynamic. Paul Thomas Anderson boldly creates characters that are beautifully haunted and blend together through uniform internal and psychological strife. Without a doubt, the film will be recognized by the Academy in February, either for Paul Thomas Anderson’s directing, or the performances delivered by Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, and most notably Philip Seymour Hoffman. 

8/10

Looper never seemed very special to me leading up to its release. Sure, it looked polished, flashy, and creative, but the film didn’t seem to possess a special quality that would make it stand out from other films in the genre. Looper boasts a creatively conceived setting and will fascinate viewers due to its elaborate plot, but lacks a heart to make the film human.

The story of Looper is told through an inventive futuristic narrative formulated by director Rian Johnson. Johnson creates an inventive future society that is both unique and believable, and told through a narrative formulated in elaborate detail. Even though his impending era is one of which high fashion is cutting, the preferred drug of choice is absorbed through eye droplets, and telekinesis is diagnosed to those who are able to move objects with their hands, Rian Johnson decides to focus solely on an underground crime organization known only to few in the present, and many in the future. Joe, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, is what is called a Looper; a person who assassinates people sent back into time from the future. Time travel is used as a means to dispose of unwanted souls in the future back in time, and Loopers are rewarded with gold that is hidden in the victim’s shirt. Joe’s complicated world becomes filled with even more intensity when his own older self is sent back in time to be exterminated. He becomes so taken aback from standing in front of his superior self that he can’t pull the trigger. Soon the mafia Joe works for learns of the mishap, and Older Joe is on the hunt for the child version of the man who killed his future wife. Conflicted by the wishes of his older self to trust him, Joe struggles to close his loop and put the future he hasn’t lived yet to rest.

On a surface level, Joseph Gordon Levitt looks and sounds completely different. This is a very quiet role, much like most of his other ones, but one that required a complete physical makeover. Meant to resemble a younger Bruce Willis, Levitt sports piercing green eye contacts, stiff gelled hair, and a futuristically chic wardrobe. The actor looks more like a robot than a being from a later time. This isn’t necessarily a harmful aspect of his character. In fact, he represents Johnson’s innovative future world well. It is Bruce Willis who looks as if his character physically never left 2012. A representation of the future’s trends in the older version of Joe should be more critical than even in his younger self, considering more time has passed; but the two characters appear as if from anachronistic decades. It is possible that during Joe’s old age style ceased to matter, in society or in his personal life. However, Johnson’s future seems to become increasingly more futuristic as Joe grows older. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that Joe’s older self with reflect the this time period unknown to us. 

The reason that Looper seems to be just below the threshold is not that the plot is underdeveloped, or even the characters for the matter. Looper ceases to be a great film because it is unclear what Johnson wants it to be. Rather than incorporate several characteristics of varying genres to make his own unique product, Johnson’s film fails to blend its action, thriller, science fiction, and even romance elements together. Many of the action sequences are ridiculous, but not in a good way. Obviously a science fiction film is based on fiction and physical capabilities that we are unable to access in reality, but we still must believe the action on screen. This is similar to an acting performance. Even though the actor is not experiencing the circumstances he is portraying on screen, he must convince us that he is being the character rather than performing like the character. Some sequences in Looper were bad action performances rather than gripping science fiction sequences, which is a strongly negative aspect of a film that somewhat dwells in that genre.  

Johnson also seems to have difficulty identifying with his own personal directing and visual style. The film is much different than his critically acclaimed neo-noir drama Brick, which also starred Joseph Gordon Levitt as a teenager trying to solve the murder mystery of his friend. These films are vastly unalike, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. A director should grow, develop, and explore themes and contexts for his work. However, there doesn’t seem to be much work in Looper, unlike Brick which was a fast paced and sweeping endeavor. Looper seems slightly lifeless in comparison. Not even the strong and talented actors carry through and make the film more memorable. This is because they aren’t really given the opportunity to. Rian Johnson seems to be on the right track. Through Looper, Johnson shows that he possesses strong developmental qualities that many other directors lack. However, passion is still missing from his latest piece.

Audiences will be thrilled by Looper for the same reasons they adored Inception. It is a film that blends high definition action sequences, science fiction, and mind bending plot twists they are not used to. However, Looper is no stand out in its genre besides Johnson’s interpretation of the future, and suffers slightly due to his uneven execution. Looper will make viewers think on the ride home, but the film will slip from their memories soon there after, especially if they are fans of films told through complicated plot narratives. 

6/10

I have kept my eye on Paranorman for several months. Ever since I saw a trailer for the animated film in which the audio was replaced by a blues folk song, I imagined that the film would have a creative edge to it that many animated pictures lack. Fortunately, Paranorman did not disappoint, and in fact surprised me due to director Chris Butler’s witty incorporation of adult humor and cultural references, as well as sharp and revitalized animation. 

Paranorman’s plot is centered around constant supernatural chaos. Norman, who lives in a seemingly picturesque New England town, is shunned by his classmates and much of the community due to his natural ability to communicate with the dead. Conflicted by his adoration for his immortal friends and wishes to fit in with society, Norman finds himself using his sixth sense as a sense of escapism from his cruel mortal world, but also seeking acceptance from his parents who lack the patience and empathy to understand him. When Norman is contacted by his living uncle who also shares the same paranormal power, Norman learns of the foreboding danger that is headed for his hometown. Norman summons his fellow outcast friend and both of their older siblings in an effort to halt a witch who intends to destroy the quaint village who’s townspeople accused her of being a witch as a little girl. However, things don’t go according to planned once the townspeople become alarmed at the growing rate of zombies entering the town square. With the fate of the community in his hands, Norman must attempt to find a way to calm the witch’s spirit without sending her back to damnation. 

Paranorman is an original children’s animated film in many ways. The animation style is unique and void of appearing gimmicky or too digitalized, and the seasonal orange and brown fall colors clash beautifully with the green overcast of the ghouls and zombies. While many might mistake it for a Tim Burton or Henry Sellick knock-off, directors Sam Fell and Chris Butler clearly don’t attempt to linger in the shadows of the one of the world’s greatest morbid animators. It is also important to note that Paranorman boasts an unexpectedly distinct and praiseworthy score that carries itself throughout the film. If viewers don’t get a chance to see Paranorman in theaters, they should buy the soundtrack. It would serve well as background music for Halloween party. 

Paranorman must be applauded for its all to clever incorporation of humor that grown ups can chuckle at alongside their kids. Children will be satisfied watching zombies run into walls, but adults will find amusement in the numerous references to the townspeople’s fear of liberalism shaking up their orderly community. In a larger scale, this idea represents what Paranorman is about: how society’s fear of the unknown, whether it be the undead or the fear of new ideas and historical and societal change. Norman’s town of Blithe Hollow hasn’t changed their perception of change too much since the witch trials historically occurred in the adjacent forest and town square. In fact, they feed off of their dark history as a source of tourism. Norman serves as a catalyst for the Blithe Hollow to ease their anxiety. Hopefully he sends a message to viewers who live in communities like Norman’s as well as a suggestion to stray from clinging to tradition out of fear that our society might alter. 

Paranorman possesses a major flaw, which would be its plot arc. It is not worthy to pick a bone with the film’s inevitable predictability, considering most children’s films use a standard story outline so children can easily follow. Paranorman brings about important social issues, but maybe not in the best way plot wise. The invasion of the zombies overshadowed the main conflict in the story, which is the witch resentfully coming back to haunt the town. Even this began and ended on a flat note. Paranorman’s story isn’t necessarily brought about in the most developed way possible. However, it does not eclipse the film’s good qualities, and will entertain children regardless of the weakly developed narration. 

Paranorman is an animated film perfect for the current season, but one that worthy for any occasion with a youngster. While some of Paranorman’s characters and story lines are recycled, the animation style and humor make up for the film’s unfortunately imbalanced plot.  Don’t mistake Paranorman for a conventional children’s film; it is one that is unique in theme and style, but it is also a film that ensures laughs from both children and adults.

8/10

How do I define an independent film? The term can hardly be summarized in a sentence, simply because its definition has changed as cinematic history has progressed. What started as a term to describe movies that were funded without the aid of a major studio is now used to define an entire genre. These films have the tendency to focus on themes such as the human condition by using character studies, and to create realistic and relatable scenarios in order to evoke emotion from the audience. Now that films of this financial level are released just as often, if not more, than big budget blockbusters, it has become harder to find films labeled under such a genre that stand out above the rest. Even though it resembles an average independent film in every way, Your Sister’s Sister’s combination of simplicity and emotional affliction is one of the year’s diamonds in the rough. 

Your Sister’s Sister studies the sort of love triangle relationship between three people connected through grief. While honoring the anniversary of his brother’s death, Jack is realizing that his ongoing depression is keeping him from moving on in his life. His friend Iris is supportive and encouraging, and invites him to spend some time in solitude at her father’s lakeside cabin. When Jack arrives, he unexpectedly meets Iris’ sister, Hannah, who made a last minute decision to go to the cabin after breaking up with her long time girlfriend. Jack and Hannah start talking, which leads to drinking, which leads to irresponsible intimacy that would destroy the relationships they share with Iris if she ever found out. The two think nothing of their actions until Iris decides to  make a surprise visit to the cabin to spend time with Jack, unaware that her sister was staying there too. When the troublesome conflict arise between Jack and Hannah over whether to tell Iris about their secret affair or not, the film reminds audiences that even at rock bottom, we are always responsible for our actions, and the consequences that arise from selfish behavior. 

The script behind Your Sister’s Sister is written unlike most films, independent or not. While I do not know exactly how it was written, or rather how much of it was written, the screenplay seemed largely improvised. The scenes are long, and mostly dialogue based, making the film  However, the words flow from the characters mouth with ease and free from artificiality. The actors help contribute to the realism presented on screen and play their characters remarkably well. All three characters resemble people have distinct characteristics of people who fit into their offbeat archetypes. These are not archetypes in the way that we normally think of them (High school cliques being a good example), but rather characteristics of certain people most of us have come to know very well during our lifetimes. The seemingly stuck up and on edge liberal vegan activist who claims to think of others but focuses solely on herself, the annoyingly awkward guy who obsesses over what people might think about his actions, and the girl who finds her constantly stuck in the middle of everybody else’s problems, all come together as distinctly different characterizations of real types of people, and make the relationships between the characters consistently interesting and dynamic. The characters are all well developed, both through the story told on screen and their past history, making the audience feel as if we have known them their entire lives. The archetypes define the characters in the movie, and help to further the themes presented in Your Sister’s Sister for the audience to understand and relate to. 

However, the seemingly loose script isn’t a miracle for this film. While it gives the movie a more realistic feel, it sometimes makes the action feel pushed towards a certain emotion, and therefore slightly melodramatic. While watching the film, it almost seems as if director Lynn Shelton told the actors what should happen, or how their characters should feel, by the end of the scene. While I am almost certain that the script was not as improvised as I am making it sound, the film feels entirely that way, and therefore sometimes feels as if we are told how we should feel by the end of each scene. The one exception to this is the films final sequence, where the audience gets to decide for themselves how they feel about the final scene, and determines the characters’ outcomes. That being said, the film never loses focus and always remains true to its intentions, regardless of how badly Lynn Shelton wants the audience to react after each scene. 

Your Sister’s Sister is visually simple but emotionally complex, and touches upon themes such as honesty, selfishness, and the importance of strong family ties. While at times the film attempts to be too tense for its own good, the characters create a believable and complicated entanglement of emotional distress due to their eagerness to feed their own desires rather than prioritize the relationship with their loved one. When considering a film to see at the movies that will satisfy a calling hunger for low budget, introspective, character analysis, Your Sister’s Sister is the way to go.

8/10

It is rare that a film comes along that tells a story so well that viewers feels as if they are glimpsing into reality. Beasts of the Southern Wild unexpectedly brought me into a world that I mistook for nonfiction, so much so that through the entire first half hour of the film I was convinced it was a documentary. The film is not based on a real life account, but a realistic and beautifully written tale that possibly attests for people who shares geographic and/or socioeconomic similarities with the characters, as well as addresses social issues worth discussing.

Beasts of the Southern Wild begins beautifully by introducing the landscape and protagonists through a poignant visual montage before the opening credits appear. A young girl, whose name is never mentioned but is called Hushpuppy by everyone in her community, is shown in her daily routine living in an abandoned marsh known as The Bathtub with her father. The area is referred to by this name because it is an island surrounded by water, and will become even more destroyed when the ice caps melt due to global warming. Hushpuppy’s schoolteacher instructs the children in the dilapidated community to be fearless when the storm comes, because they will be left to survive on their own. It is also known by the people living in this village must face giant boar creatures that originate from their history, which are predicted to rise from disaster and destroy all that inhabit the land. With only her father to console her, Hushpuppy must find strength within herself to face the outside dangers of the world around her, as well as stick with her disheveled neighbors and friends in her deserted town. 

While my description makes the film seem diluted in fantasy, Beasts of the Southern Wild’s incorporation of folklore is balanced well with the drama grounded in the character’s daily lives. While the film itself is fanciful, it is unbelievably realistic. The fantasy aspect of the film is used symbolically, and as a storytelling aid to enhance the plot rather than remove the film from its roots in reality. It also provides as a glance into these people’s culture, and the fear they have developed from their own mythology. If the film had been more focused on the fable, the contrast would have been less effective, and even confusing. Fortunately though, director Behn Zeitlin’s story is developed beautifully and creatively without becoming too dull or too imaginary.

Through the fantasy elements of the story, a strong message is conveyed to the audience, which is that inner strength has the potential to be powerful as physical capabilities or appearance. An important dynamic that keeps the film afloat is the relationship between Hushpuppy and her father, as well as her neighbors. Hushpuppy is tough natured and quick witted, both characteristics she evidently learned from her father. The child grew up without a mother, and although she is too tough to show any inner insecurities, it is clear that her absence has affected Hushpuppy greatly. With nobody’s motherly arms to cry into during times of anxiety, she was forced to grow up quickly and dry her tears. As Hushpuppy grows stronger, her father grows weaker due to an unknown illness. The illness can be symbolically looked at as a symptom of the fluctuating relationship between himself and his daughter. Whenever they fought, he fell further into sickness. Whenever they were happy surviving together, he was feeling prosperous. Hushpuppy is able to revive him when he has fallen by giving him a magical potion, and symbolically healing their wounded relationship, but this is only a temporary fixture and Hushpuppy finds trouble saving her only loved one from death’s grasp. At first her father seems cruel and unloving towards Hushpuppy, but as the film grows on and his sickness grows stronger, it becomes obvious that Hushpuppy’s father only intended to prepare the child for the world when he departs, hoping to pass down characteristics from father to daughter such as boldness, determination, and courage. Hushpuppy demonstrates her father’s influence greatly throughout the film, but is still depicted as a child buried in innocence. Benh Zeitlin was smart to create a youth character that wasn’t allowed to cry but couldn’t help it at times, because her emotions reflect a fully developed and sympathetic character lost in a world she barely understands. It also helps that the newcomer actress did a beautiful job portraying her character, with as much understanding of what she was supposed to convey to the audience as a trained adult. 

The film also explores some social concerns long debated in the media over the course of history, but most prominently after Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the city of New Orleans in 2005. After the predicted devastating storm that crushed the Bathtub, the group remaining on the island was forcefully taken to a treatment center for other storm victims and those who are deemed in need of assistance. However, the group from the Bathhouse did not want to be rescued. They preferred to stay on their own territory, make the best of the resources they had left, and survive without an outside influence interfering. The group was entirely miserable while staying in the treatment center. As I watched them start fights, taunt the employees, and eventually break free, I started thinking about the government’s mission to help “those in need” in times of crisis, or simply those who are too poor to support themselves. Do people that are considered living below the poverty line really want to be assisted, or do we just assume that poor living is below society’s standards, and therefore it is our divine right as a nation to provide aid? As for those who are disabled or ridden with illness, is it our right to forcefully treat people with sickness even if they would prefer to live and die a natural life? While I know this does not apply to the majority of Americans (The number of people living off of disability checks and food stamps proves it), it most certainly applied to the people of the Bathtub. They would have preferred to stay on their own turf, even if that meant not getting the highest quality care, shelter, or resources. They could have moved closed to civilization anytime they wanted to, but they chose to stay on the outskirts because they identified with the people who resided in the shacks next to them, and the overall culture that they all shared as one group. 

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a visually and thematically alluring film that incorporates both fantasy and realistic fiction to create a story that is both moving and powerful. The film’s strong sense of realism is due in part to the impressive acting from young actress Quevenzhane Wallis and the rest of the cast, who bring the community together in a way that is more than believable and give the audience something to root for. Beasts of the Southern Wild is one not to be missed for those seeking an original and evocative work, as well as a cinematic adventure. 

8/10

How wonderful would it be to time travel? Anyone who has ever longed to live in a decade they felt a personal connection with, or desired to re-experience an important event or period in their life, has thought this at some point. However, people often don’t realize that although physical time travel is not possible, at least that we know of, a personal excavation through memories is a tool used by many to get through rough times. The effects of nostalgia is one of the elements that makes up Safety Not Guaranteed. The film suggests that although we don’t have the capability to hop into a DeLorean and rely on a flux capacitor to bring us back into times we find more appealing, nostalgia often causes us to drift out of the present and on a mental journey through the past. Not only does the film bring up this intriguing notion to its viewers, but it discusses how time affects people through generations and patterns, as well as our unwillingness to be optimistic due to past traumatic experiences.

Safety Not Guaranteed is very simple in plot. Taking place in the state of Washington, a young twentysomething year old girl named Darius works at a Seattle magazine office, and is struggling to find happiness and excitement in her life. When she is assigned to go on a weekend work trip with an older writer and fellow intern, she embarks on an unexpected adventure. The small group of employees head out of the city to find the person who wrote an ad in the local newspaper searching for an assistant to accompany him on a time traveling journey. The intention of the writer, Jeff, is to get enough information about this man’s quest to write a comedic and ridiculing article about a man lost in mental psychosis. As Darius gets to know the subject of their article, she discovers that he might not be as crazy as they thought. In fact, it is his ability to dream of a way to conquer the impossible that makes his time travel journey reachable. 

At first, the character of Darius’ dissatisfaction with life and pessimism comes off as annoying and helpless rather than sympathetic. Initially also, actress Aubrey Plaza gives off a sense of doom as the lead role, who’s character on NBC’s Parks and Recreation is known for her monotonous and deadpan nature, too closely parallels Darius. However, the audience is fortunately and quickly freed from Darius’ introductory negativity when she meets Kenneth, the time traveling mystery man. She immediately lets loose of her depressed attitude while falling in love with someone who claims he will take her back into time once she is trained, making her transition from cynical to trusting very endearing. The character of Kenneth also brings the audience along with him on his journey. Due to an ample performance by Mark Duplass, it is difficult to decipher throughout whether he his mission is actually plausible, or whether he is mentally ill, and therefore his character is always interesting. In fact, this further entices the audience and draws them into the films plot because they are anxious to discover if Kenneth’s belief that he has the ability to travel is a result of genius or insanity, rather than have nothing to look forward to at the film’s conclusions besides an opportunity to use the bathroom after sitting for 90 minutes.

Safety Not Guaranteed is clearly an independent film. It is made very apparent that it is wants to be regarded in this film category due to the characterizations of the protagonist, music and cinematography choices, and overall desire to maintain a sense of realism. Regardless of how similar the film looks to other independent films released within the past decade, Safety Not Guaranteed stands out due to the thematic content. The film shows characters being swept off of their feet, discovering adventure when they least expected it, and the feeling and benefits of not being personally limited in time. The three employees came to the outer limits of urban life with their own personal apprehensions and problems, but overcame their eternal struggles regarding their places in life by looking past predetermined judgements about their surroundings and discovering new things about themselves. It is revealed that the real reason Jeff wanted to venture out of the city and write about the story was to rekindle a relationship with a long lost lover from adolescence. When he finds her, she physically doesn’t appear as he remembers. But because they welcomed each other back into their lives and Jeff looked past her physical appearance, he found love where he least expected. The same concept also applies to Darius and Ken. Both were skeptical regarding each other’s motives, but fell in love by looking within each other rather than just based on first impressions. 

The film also analyzes how time affects people during different stages in their lifetime. By creating characters with close but different ages, the audience gets a well rounded picture of each character’s role on the life timeline and how they value the the decisions they have made, and the risks they have taken. When Jeff falls back in love with the girl from his childhood, he realizes that is is now too late to be together with the girl of his dreams, and is enraged by Arnau, the other intern assigned to the story, who would rather waste his youth inside than making memories to carry with him throughout his life. Arnau represents a young person who is so caught up in society’s standards of what a college student should do and not do, as well as what they should and should not learn, before they graduate. Jeff wants to save Arnau from taking his position at age 30, which is looking back on his youth and realizing he wasted opportunity. This dynamic raises the question as to whether history repeats itself. Can generations save each other from making the same mistakes as their elders, or are we too ignorant to listen to life advice?

Safety Not Guaranteed is a heartfelt and poignant film. Not because it is simplistic and obviously independent in nature, but rather because of the intriguing and relatable themes it addresses. To a certain extent, the film seems as if one of the main goals was to achieve the notion that a small film could explore such immerse topics. Even though director Colin Trevorrow clearly wants the film to appear entirely independent, it carries substantial weight to make it stand out from many films made on the same budget. Safety Not Guaranteed is a film worth checking out, and one that might spark conversation due to its analysis of time through characters of all stages and walks of life.  

7/10