Category: Announcement

J. Edgar, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, tells us the story of J. Edgar Hoover through his nearly 50-year career of building and leading the FBI.  With a script from Dustin Lance Black (Milk), J. Edgar doesn’t give a thoroughly detailed history, but more takes the route of a complex character study.  For the most part, it’s a pretty darn good movie, though it does have it’s flaws.

The framework used involves Hoover dictating his memoirs using various FBI agents through the 60s and early 70s.  Within this, the narrative jumps around through time starting with Hoover’s beginnings with the Justice Department all the way up through his time as FBI director under president Richard Nixon.

Throughout this, we see Hoover defined through his relationships with three people- his right-hand man at the FBI, Clyde Tolson, his mother, Annie Hoover and his personal secretary, Helen Gandy.  The most defining moments occur with Tolson and Hoover’s mother.  These moments are also the ones that most define Hoover’s repressed homosexuality, and show how that repression gave him his drive for power using questionable methods.  The relationships with his mother and Tolson are very strong and defining, but they don’t show a complete picture.  Where it falls short is with Hoover’s relationship with his secretary, who in the end does the most to preserve Hoover’s legacy.

Helen Gandy starts off as an object of desire for a young Hoover before he’s been made the head of the FBI.  She rebuffs his advancements and prefers to keep their relationship on a professional level.  Hoover makes her his personal secretary.  Gandy stays with him up to his death, being (as shown in the movie) the only person who knows what’s in all of the personal files that Hoover kept on people like Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.  She’s loyal to him to the end, but the reason why for that extreme loyalty is never really touched upon and to me anyway makes this a huge fault in the film.  Hoover commanded respect for more than just intimidation with his power, and Helen Gandy would’ve been the ideal way to show that.  Now this can be easily explained away that there just wasn’t too much source material on Gandy to make these speculations and that’s certainly understandable, but without this, this portrait just isn’t as complete as it should be.

The movie covers Hoover’s accomplishments in broad strokes primarily focusing on Hoover’s early days of busting Communists and tracking down the suspect in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindburgh baby.  Little is said of Hoover during the McCarthy era of hunting Communists other than Hoover calling McCarthy an opportunist.  Involvement with John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King is touched upon, but with little depth, with his dealings with Robert Kennedy being the biggest exception.  Thanks to what’s shown around the Lindburgh kidnapping, we are shown the major advancements of the use of forensic evidence in crime investigation and I certainly appreciated that aspect of Hoover’s career being shown.  This is a long movie, weighing in at 137 minutes and even at that length, Eastwood and Black bit off a little more than they could chew.  I’m not necessarily expecting this to be a total history of the FBI, but I would expect that other key historical events would’ve had more to say about Hoover’s character, beyond just his personal relationships.

Now with that said, J. Edgar is still very much recommended to see.  The reason for that is in it’s tour-de-force performance from Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role.  For a time after Titanic I used to roll my eyes whenever I saw DiCaprio in something that had him as a more mature character, but after he made The Aviator with Martin Scorsese that all started to change.  Now, I think DiCaprio’s one of the very best actors out there thanks to movies like The Departed and Inception. His portrayal as J. Edgar Hoover is the driving force of this film and it’s just spectacular.  With deliberate and careful vocal intonation and an intensity in his eyes, DiCaprio’s Hoover isn’t just a man to be extremely despised or thoroughly celebrated.  In my eyes, it might be his best performance yet.

Armie Hammer plays Clyde Tolson and it’s certainly a far cry from his performance as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. He’s way more obvious about his homosexuality in comparison to DiCaprio’s Hoover and he’s the conscience of the film.  Where Hammer’s performance falls a little short is in scenes with him playing an older Tolson.  It’s not so much Hammer’s performance as it’s more with the make-up used to age him, it’s just not as convincing as that used with DiCaprio, and thus weakens the performance.

Dame Judi Dench plays Annie Hoover and next to DiCaprio’s performance, it’s the next best in the film.  Hoover’s drive is certainly well represented thanks to what Dench does with the part.  Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy and because of what I talked about above, she’s the least of our main cast.  It’s no fault of her own, she just doesn’t not have the meat that everyone else has to work with and it’s not only a shame for her, but also for the movie as a whole.

J. Edgar is a complex character study that’s worth seeing for Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance alone.  I came away from this film with more respect for Hoover than I had before even though he had some despicable methods for getting what he wanted.  That respect comes from what Leonardo DiCaprio brought to the table.  There is a man there that thoroughly believed what he was doing was the right thing and the way DiCaprio plays it, you just can’t quantify it as being completely good or evil, but necessary for how J. Edgar Hoover saw that the job needed to be done.

#1 Immortals from Relativity debuts at #1 with an opening weekend gross of $32.2 million in 3112 theaters. Budget was $75 million.

#2 Jack and Jill from Sony debuts at #2 with an opening weekend gross of $25.0 million in 3438 theaters. Budget is unknown.

#3 Puss in Boots from Paramount/Dream Works drops from #1 to #3 with a weekend gross of $24.7 million (-25.2%) in 3903 theaters (-60). Total gross to date is $108.0 million. Budget was $130 million.

#4 Tower Heist from Universal drops from #2 to #4 with a weekend gross of $12.7 million (-46.8%)in 3370 theaters (+3). Total gross to date is $43.4 million. Budget was $75 million.

#5 J. Edgar from Warner Brothers debuts at #5 with an opening weekend gross of $11.2 million in 1910 theaters. Budget is unknown.

#6 A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas from Warner Brothers drops from #3 to #6 with a weekend gross of $5.9 million (-54.3%) in 2875 theaters (no change). Total gross to date is $23.2 million. Budget was $19 million.

Rounding out the top 12 are:

#7 In Time drops from #5 to #7 with a weekend gross of $4.0 million (-45.4%) in 2591 theaters (-536). Total gross to date is $30.5 million. Budget was $40 million.

#8 Paranormal Activity 3 drops from #4 to #8 with a weekend gross of $3.6 million (-56.7%) in 2776 theaters (-510). Total gross to date is $100.8 million. Budget was $5 million.

#9 Footloose (2011) drops from #6 to #9 with a weekend gross of $2.7 million (-39.0%) in 2215 theaters (-596). Total gross to date is $48.7 million. Budget was $24 million.

#10 Real Steel drops from #7 to #10 with a weekend gross of $1.8 million (-45.7%) in 1758 theaters (-680). Total gross to date is $81.6 million. Budget is unknown.

#11 Moneyball drops from #10 to #11 with a weekend gross of $1.0 million (-40.3%) in 813 theaters (-465). Total gross to date is $71.8 million. Budget was $50 million.

#12 Courageous holds at #12 with a weekend gross of $1.0 million (-34.3%) in 905 theaters (-233). Total gross to date is $31.5 million. Budget was $2 million.

The combined gross of the top 12 movies this weekend was $126.2 million (+21.8%).

New movies debuting in wide release this weekend are Happy Feet Two and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (Part One).

A note on “Gross”: On average, studios will earn approximately 55 percent of the final gross.

Sources:
Box Office Mojo

The evil king, Hyperion of Crete seeks to invade Greece and conquer the Gods of Olympus by using the fabled Epirus Bow to unleash the Titans from their imprisonment in the bowels of Mount Tartarus.  Planning for this moment, a disguised Zeus has been giving guidance to Theseus since his boyhood and now hopes for Theseus to inspire the Grecians to thwart the king.

That’s the basic premise of the latest movie from director Tarsem Singh, Immortals. Tarsem’s past movies have included the serial killer movie The Cell (which I really enjoyed) and The Fall (which I haven’t seen, but I’ll have to rectify that), and are both marked by his unique visual style.  That unique visual style is also the real star of Immortals.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t more at work here, there certainly is.  I know liberties have been taken with Theseus’ story for this film which I’m sure will upset the purists.  The myth gets translated into a new version that has a real emphasis on bloody pulp adventure more than anything else.  As I said in my review for The Three Musketeers, I’m a big comic book fan and I’m used to seeing classic characters get new translations, and that’s certainly at play here.  I’m open to this, but can certainly understand that others might be upset by it.  If you’re thinking about seeing this and you absolutely have to see the pure story of Theseus, you’re probably going to be disappointed.

I wasn’t and just had a real ball with this movie.  Oh, I’ll certainly grant that it has it’s holes and that it’s characters are somewhat limited, but for this film, that just didn’t bother me.  As I said above, Tarsem’s visual style is the big star here and oh… this film just revels in it.

There is an artificiality in the look of the film that I just find really appealing and gives the film more the sense of watching it play out on a really big and elaborate stage more than being filmed on live locations.  Last year’s The Warrior’s Way did this with spectacular results and it’s also in evidence on Starz’s terrific Spartacus TV series.  Of course, many comparisons are being drawn to what Zack Snyder did with 300 which is inevitable, but Tarsem steps that up a bit with a few of his own tricks, in particular a little twist on the slow-motion fight sequences that occur at the end of the film between the Gods and the Titans.  These sequences have the Titans falling in battle in slow-motion while simultaneously having the Gods continue their fight in a sped up way.  It’s absolutely stunning watching these play out, even moreso considering the color palette used in the scenes and having the Gods stand out in their gleaming golden attire.

Now that’s not to say that the cast doesn’t do a good job, they certainly do, but they take a back seat to the visuals.  Henry Cavill (the new Superman for Zack Snyder’s upcoming movie) plays the part of Theseus and certainly has conviction to the role, though the character doesn’t have any real complexity, but then for this type of movie, I thought that was just fine.  He absolutely looks the part and after this, I’m even more enthusiastic to see what he’ll do as Superman.  Frieda Pinto (last seen in one of the big surprise hits of the year, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) plays Phaedra, the oracle who sees what’s to come.  She certainly has more to do here than she did in Rise and she’s an stunning beauty.  Luke Evans (last seen as Aramis in The Three Musketeers and John Hurt share the role of Zeus with Hurt playing Zeus as he appears to the mortals and Evans as Zeus appears to the Gods.  Both are a lot of fun to watch, though Evans gets the best of it by being showcased in some of the spectacular end fight scenes.  Steven Dorff (who I wouldn’t have expected to see in a movie like this) plays Stavros, a thief turned sidekick to Theseus, and while he doesn’t quite shine as brightly as others, he stills looks like he’s having a ball with the part.

The real standout in the cast though is Mickey Rourke as King Hyperion.  Rourke is at the top of his game here, not just physically but really giving out this whole atmosphere of threat and sadism.  He’s just magnetic in the part and shines every time he’s on screen.

I saw this in 3D and I thought it was really well done, though not necessarily for in-your-face effects.  Opinions vary wildly on 3D and certainly with good reason, though now I’m becoming more and more convinced that it really does depend on where you see it.  At the theatre that I regularly attend, Immortals was being shown in their newest and most state-of-the-art presentation.  The picture was bright and detailed with the 3D really highlighted things like planes in faces and subtle differences in character placement.  As I said above, Immortals has an artificial look that looks like it’s being played out on a huge stage and for me, the 3D heightened that effect.  I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to see this in 3D, but if you’re still supportive of the gimmick and have access to a room with primo presentation, I’d certainly recommend seeing Immortals that way.

I saw Immortals with 3 other friends and we all came away with this just having a fantastic time with it.  It certainly does have it’s shortcomings with some aspects of it’s story and characters.  But, it’s stunning visuals and pure bloody pulp presentation drive it in such a way that at least for me was just electric.  I’d very much recommend seeing it, though I suspect I’m going to be in the minority for my enjoyment.

That suave and adventurous feline, Puss In Boots has returned to the village of San Ricardo to make one more big score, even though he has a price on his head.  Puss learns of a treasure held by the thieving couple Jack and Jill; magic beans that will grow a giant beanstalk leading him to the goose that lays the golden eggs. But Puss isn’t the only one after the magic beans and now he must contend with another pair also seeking the beans, Kitty Softpaws and Puss’ childhood friend, Humpty Dumpty.

That’s the premise of Puss In Boots, a spin-off of Dreamworks’ popular Shrek movies.  I really enjoyed the first two Shrek films, got sort of burned out by the third and never saw the fourth.  But, I absolutely loved the trailer for Puss In Boots, I thought it was hilarious and so I marked this one down as one to see (even though I’m running a week behind with it).

For the most part, Puss In Boots is pretty enjoyable.  It not only has it’s main heist, but it also delves into the origins of the devil-may-care cat.  It’s certainly technically proficient with terrific animation all throughout and it certainly makes great use of 3D, in particular with a few chase sequences and a terrific bit of business when the beanstalk grows.  For me anyway, it falls just a little short with it’s humor with many of the best gags being in the trailer (pretty much par for the course for most theatrical comedies today).  Now that’s not to say that there aren’t any more funny moments after that, there certainly are.  But considering how funny I thought the trailer was, I was hoping to see that brand of humor sustained entirely throughout the film.  Instead, this takes more time to focus on the past friendship of Humpy Dumpty and Puss and I think a little less of that would’ve been more than enough and a little more cat and egg humor would’ve been more pleasing.  Again, that’s not to say that those moments aren’t in there, there’s just not enough for my own total satisfaction.

Antonio Banderas returns to voice Puss and you can really tell that he has a lot of fun with this.  Puss is totally designed to play off of Banderas’ identity and he certainly plays it to the hilt.  He’s at his best though when this goes for the cat humor, and as I said above, I just wish there’s been more of that throughout the film.  Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Dumpty), Billy Bob Thornton (Jack) and Amy Sedaris (Jill) all fill out the rest of the main voice cast and do respectable jobs, but really this is Banderas’ movie.

Even with my complaint, I had a pretty good time with this, and certainly more fun than I had with Shrek The Third. I just wish that all of the best gags weren’t just seen in the trailer.  Younger children will probably have a terrific time with this, but for adults, this doesn’t quite pack the same punch that you’d get with a Pixar film (the Cars series withstanding).  Puss In Boots is fun, but just not as funny as it could be.

Let’s just get this out of the way; if you’re looking for a faithful adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ classic, you should look elsewhere.  It’s pretty evident seeing the trailer for this latest version of The Three Musketeers that this wasn’t going to be like any past filmed adaptation.

On the other hand, if you’re looking to see something that’s just pure balls-out fun, then you might want to give director Paul W. S. Anderson’s version of The Three Musketeers a chance.  I know just saying the name “Paul W. S. Anderson” to some will automatically make them quiver.  I don’t get it, I’ve always had a good time with his movies and I did with this one as well.

As we get started, it’s 17th century France and the familiar Musketeers (Athos, Porthos and Aramis) have had better days.  They now find themselves obsolete with Cardinal Richelieu’s and Captain Rochefort’s guard replacing them as defenders of the king, though they still hold some favor with the very young and foppish King Louis XIII.  Enter a an eager D’Artagnan, ready to make a name for himself as a Musketeer.  D’Artagnan soon comes into contact with the Three Musketeers and through a conflict with Rochefort’s men, they soon come back into greater favor with the young king and eventually get involved to stop a plan that threatens to plunge England and France into war.

That’s a very broad description of the premise which I think is best said as “loosely” based on Alexandre Dumas’ story and as I said at the top, if you’re a purist and that’s what you want to see then don’t even bother.  I’m a big comic book fan and I’m used to seeing creators come in and give new takes on classic characters.  Some of them take, some don’t and I think the essential successful ingredient is at least maintaining some sort of flavor of the original.  Well, the original Three Musketeers always hit me as being a tale of swashbuckling derring-do with a sense of fun and I think that that’s what Paul W. S. Anderson has achieved here.  He’s taken this classic and given it a facelift as a Jules Verne-ish, steampunk-ish comic book that doesn’t take itself too seriously and I thought it was engaging as hell.  Oh, I won’t deny that it has it’s moments of clunky dialogue and borrowing from other movies (an airship battle that borrows heavily from Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan comes immediately to mind), but it’s mixed together with a great cast, a truly spectacular look and a satisfying fast pace.

The Three Musketeers has a terrific look with lavish production and costume design, and well-shot fight scenes and effects sequences.  I saw the movie in 3D, and personally, I think Anderson’s style is perfect for 3D.  While this isn’t the best 3D I’ve seen this year (that still goes to Final Destination 5), it’s still very well done especially with background depth and how the detailed design stands out.

No actor will win an Oscar for this film, but still I think the cast gives it it’s all in just presenting this in a fun way.  On the Good Guys side, we’ve got Matthew Macfadyen (Athos), Luke Evans (Aramis), Ray Stevenson (Porthos) and Logan Lerman (D’Artagnan).  These four just look cool together and I think they all play off of each other nicely.  James Corden plays Planchet, their servant and offers up moments of comic relief without getting obnoxious.  Freddie Fox as the young King Louis XIII also offers up comic moments that are a little more broad, but he still comes off essentially as a sweet character.  Juno Temple plays his equally young Queen and does a good job of giving off an air of regality.

On our villain side, we’ve got Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz (Cardinal Richelieu), the great Mads Mikkleson (Rochefort), Orlando Bloom (Duke of Buckingham) and Milla Jovovich (Milady de Winter).  I think all of them do a fine job with standout’s being Waltz and Mikkleson.  I have to say I was surprised to see Jovovich play a more villainous part, and pleased as well.  She has some great action moments and of course, she’s just absolutely gorgeous in every scene she’s in.

I had a ball with The Three Musketeers. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, yet it doesn’t laugh at the material either.  It really does have an awesome look that I think works well in 3D, but it’s not essential to your end enjoyment.  Last year, I saw Ridley Scott’s take on Robin Hood and just didn’t like it because it took itself way too seriously and gave off the sense that Scott just wasn’t interested in making something that was remotely fun or inventive.  Paul W. S. Anderson approaches The Three Musketeers in a way that I wish had been done with Robin Hood. The Three Musketeers ends with the promise of an inevitable sequel, though due to it’s poor domestic box office performance I doubt we’ll get to see it.  And that’s a shame, I’d love to see Anderson re-visit this again.  I certainly do recommend this if you’re looking for a fun ride, but if you’re looking for something that’s way more faithful, look elsewhere.

It’s 1981 and Danny Bryce, an ex-special ops agent believes he’s finally out of the game and has retired for good.  That retirement is relatively short-lived when he discovers that his long time friend, partner and mentor, Hunter is being held against his will by a wealthy oil sheik in Oman.  The sheik will free Hunter only after Danny performs a specific task: killing three British soldiers who were responsible for the murder of the sheik’s sons. Bryce begins the job successfully, but soon catches the attention of Spike Logan, the enforcer of a secret British watchdog society.

That’s the premise to Killer Elite which is not a re-make of the Sam Peckinpah film, but is inspired by the true story told in Ranulph Fiennes book The Feather Men. It’s also the first big screen feature for director Gary McKendry who was previously nominated for an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film in 2005 ( a film called Everything In This Country Must).  Now, I’ve not read The Feather Men and I’ve not seen McKendry’s short film, but from the moment that I saw the trailer for Killer Elite the first time, I pretty much knew that I had to see the movie on release.

What this movie puts me in the mind of is what you might get if you crossed the late John Frankenheimer’s film Ronin with Steven Spielberg’s Munich and I consider that high praise.  McKendry really knows how to make an action movie and there is a lot here that puts me right in the mind of John Frankenheimer’s films in particular.

Killer Elite stars Jason Statham, Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen.  Jason Statham plays Danny Bryce. Now I am a big fan of Statham’s and I think consistently he’s one of the best in action films today.  His characters may not vary that widely, but he always seems authentic like he really could do a lot of the things that he does in these films.  This isn’t as over-the-top as say the Crank films or The Transporter movies.  I’d actually put Statham’s work in Killer Elite more in line with his work in The Bank Job or The Mechanic. Regardless, he’s always fun to watch and he doesn’t disappoint in this movie.

Robert DeNiro is more support than anything else in this film and I think he’s pretty good here.  I wouldn’t necessarily ever imagine him working with Statham in anything and yet, he does look like he’s having fun here.  DeNiro plays Hunter and he and Statham really do have some good chemistry together, so much so that you actually wish  they could’ve been paired together for more of the film.

Clive Owen plays Spike Logan and it’s easily one of his more threatening roles.  Like Statham, Clive Owen is money in the bank for this type of movie.  One of the better action scenes in the film involves a brutal hand-to-hand fight between Bryce and Logan and to both Statham’s and Owen’s credit it damn near seems like they did the whole thing themselves.

These three are terrific and I’d expect them to be, but the real standout of the cast for me had to be Dominic Purcell.  Purcell plays Davies a Welsh associate of Bryce’s and Hunter’s who’s just a little more headstrong than those two.  Purcell is better known for his work on Prison Break and I have to admit, when I first saw him here, I honestly did not recognize him.  It wasn’t until after the credits rolled that I realized who this actor was who was playing this character.  Now, a lot of that is due to a really good make-up job that basically portrays Purcell in a way we haven’t seen him before, but… it’s also a really good performance on his part and he certainly does stand toe-to-toe with the three leads.

Killer Elite is really more of a throwback tough guy film more than anything else.  It doesn’t go for some of the more over-the-top action that’s atypical of today’s action movies and it’s tightly and intricately paced.  I don’t know how true it is to it’s source, but it certainly does seem like there’s been a lot of attention to detail here.  It’s very well cast and director Gary McKendry is certainly a guy that I’ll be watching in the future.

The Driver is a solitary man.  By day, he works in an auto shop and does part-time work for film industry as a stunt driver.  His boss and handler, Shannon, has a dream to put The Driver on the stock car racing circuit, but lacks the finances to do so.  Occasionally, through Shannon, The Driver takes the odd illegal job as a getaway driver.  He doesn’t want to know the people or the entire plan and offers his services up during a five-minute window of opportunity.  The Driver is very good at what he does, not only being an expert driver, but also having an intricate knowledge of the streets of Los Angeles.  This is what he does and who he is, nothing else seems to matter.  Then one day he meets Irene and Benecio, the mother and son who lives next door to him and his world is about to change dramatically.

That’s the basic premise to Drive, the latest film from star Ryan Gosling and Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn.  Until this very weekend, I was unfamiliar with the films of Refn, but thanks to Netflix Instant Play, I watched two of his prior films in anticipation of Drive. The two movies I watched were Bronson and Valhalla Rising and to say that I was impressed is mildly stating the claim.  Bronson tells the story of the UK’s most violent criminal Charley Bronson and thanks to Refn’s skillful direction and a tour-de-force performance from actor Tom Hardy, it is an extremely impressive movie.  Valhalla Rising set during 1000 AD, tells the story of the mute warrior One Eye and the journey he takes aboard a Viking vessel to an unknown land where he discovers his true self.  It’s an incredibly strong visual sensation with a terrific performance from Mads Mikkelsen as One Eye.  I’d handily recommend Bronson immediately and I’d also recommend Valhalla Rising though mass opinion on the latter is pretty sharply divided.  It’s a movie that demands patience from it’s viewer and some might not be ready to give it.  Regardless, after seeing both, and seeing the initial trailer to Drive, I honestly couldn’t wait to see this film.

While I enjoyed Drive quite a bit, I think I got my expectations up a little too high.  Now that’s no knock on the film by any means, but after what I saw with both Bronson and Valhalla Rising I was expecting to see something a little more “out there” with Drive just based on those two movies.  Drive is more conventional than what I thought it would be at least on it’s initial viewing, though I expect that to change for me when I see it again down the road.  Even though I’ve labelled it as “conventional” that’s not to say that it isn’t engaging in the slightest, it really is a good movie.

Refn has said that he saw his and Gosling’s pairing in this to sort of be like the pairings of Peter Yates and Steve McQueen in Bullitt or Lee Marvin and John Boorman in Point Blank. Those two movies are certainly high marks to shoot for and yes, there’s certainly echoes of both in Drive. To me though, I saw more similarities with Michael Mann’s Thief and William Friedkin’s To Live And Die in L.A. and there’s nothing wrong with that at all, those are two terrific films.

Drive essentially takes Refn’s style and mixes it with Hollywood convention, and I’d hoped it would’ve ventured further into the art house than what it did, though for some viewers, it still might be going to far.  This is a slow burn noir thriller mixed with complex character study. It’s deliberately paced to take the time to let us get to know The Driver so that it’s moments of action and violence really do stand out.  They certainly do, in particular with two sequences:  one after a job gone wrong and another with The Driver and Irene in an elevator.  These are real turning points in the film where are main character’s world has literally turned upside down and he uses extreme methods to try and set them right.  They’re real telling moments for the character of The Driver as they basically say that this character can’t possibly ever have the moments of peace and change that he thought he might get from meeting Irene and Benecio.

Drive certainly has a great look to it, reveling in it’s 80s homage, and Refn certainly shows great restraint with a lot of his choices.  He doesn’t go overboard with excessive sound or overly flashy visuals, except for those few moments when The Driver’s world explodes.  Last week, I praised the work of composer Cliff Martinez in the movie Contagion. Martinez is back again as the composer for Drive and he does an equally exceptional job here as well, coming close to bringing a feel of having Tangerine Dream doing the music for the movie.

Ryan Gosling (simply credited as Driver) isn’t exactly the actor that I’d picture making a movie like this, but he certainly does do a fine job.  Conscious choices were made with having The Driver have little dialogue and letting Gosling’s face tell the story.  It’s very effective with one moment going from a look of tranquility that he didn’t think he could ever have and then going to another scene with his face soaked in blood that really does show the true nature of the character.  To me, it’s obvious that he really enjoyed working with Refn, so much so that they’re already set to do another film together and reportedly both are talking about a re-imaging of the 70s science fiction film Logan’s Run (and personally, I hope they get the chance to do it). It’s a strong performance from Gosling and he certainly does carry the movie.

Gosling’s got a lot of great support.  Carey Mulligan plays Irene and she and Gosling have some very nice chemistry together.  Her innocent features just furthers the notion that she is the ideal that The Driver is searching for.  The great Bryan Cranston plays The Driver’s handler, Shannon and he’s terrific here with a lot of body language to his character that almost suggests that he’s channeling the late, great Jack Lemmon to some respect.  Oscar Isaac plays Standard, Irene’s husband who’s just been released from prison and still finds himself in a lot of trouble.  While Isaac is only in the movie for a short period, he has quite a difficult job and that’s establishing himself as this important figure in Irene and Benecio’s lives, making himself sympathetic to the audience, and then building a friendship of sorts with The Driver.  He does a great job and I’d only wished that there might’ve been at least one more scene for him to help him more further things along.

Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks play the villains of the piece, NIno and Bernie Rose respectively.  Perlman’s menacing enough, but don’t go into this expecting the same sort of gravity that he has with Sons of Anarchy. At first he seems as though he’s going to be the real villainous force here, but he’s not.  That’s reserved for Albert Brooks.  As we’re first introduced to Bernie, this almost seems as though it’s going to be a sort of “by-the-numbers” bit of business from Brooks, but as we get further along, he reveals a real venality and that was exciting to see.

I certainly do recommend Drive though I have to admit my expectations were quite a bit higher than they should’ve been. After having been so struck by his other films, I was hoping for more of the same with Drive. Still, it’s a great, more mainstream introduction for a mass audience to director Nicolas Winding Refn who to me anyway, is one of those directors to watch in the future.  From his past work, Refn has shown that he has moments that can certainly be compared to directors like Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch and Lars von Trier.  With Drive I can now add Michael Mann and William Friedkin to that list.  There’s a lot of style to Drive but it’s also balanced with a great deal of substance and while I wasn’t as struck by it as I thought I would be, I still think it’s well worth seeing.

Beth Emhoff is returning home to Minneapolis from a business trip to Hong Kong.  She’s feeling sick, but doesn’t really chalk it up to much than being a bad case of the flu.  Soon though, things go from bad to worse, as Beth (and others she had been in contact with) start to drop dead from their disease.  As more cases come forward, it becomes clear that a major pandemic is occurring and now it’s up to official government agencies to determine both the cause and a cure.

That is a real nutshell premise to the latest movie from director Steven Soderbergh, Contagion. Soderbergh is best known for his work with George Clooney in movies like the Ocean’s Eleven series of films and other films like Traffic and his breakthrough movie Sex, Lies and Videotape. I’m an absolutely huge fan of Soderbergh’s work and so I was very much looking forward to this movie.  While the trailers for this seem to suggest something that’s going to be a little more kinetic, the final film is much, much more clinical in it’s presentation, but still a very effective scientific thriller.

If there’s any of his past movies that Contagion most resembles, it’s probably Traffic. Both movies take a “big picture” look at their problems (for those that haven’t seen Traffic, it covered the problem of illegal drugs).  Contagion is spread over a four-month period showing everything from the rise of the problem, it’s personal effects, containment, and possible cures.  It’s a pretty realistic presentation of what would actually happen if a totally unknown virus got out of control that doesn’t go for heavy melodrama in the slightest.

There is no fantasy element present in this film; if you’re expecting zombies or some heavy duty Hollywood action to get to the bottom of the problem, then you’re best bet is to look elsewhere.  That’s not Soderbergh’s interest here.  As I said above, this is almost clinical in it’s presentation, but that doesn’t mean that’s it’s pure documentary. There is subtle drama here, though that drama is underscored by the big picture.  It’s a fascinating look at seeing true professionals carrying out their duties during a major crisis with what seems like no hope in sight.

Some of the criticisms that I’ve read about this mentions that the film is poorly paced and that characters are underdeveloped.  I couldn’t disagree more.  Soderbergh is juggling  a number of characters and events while trying to present this big picture and I thought he never lost sight of that.  It’s just that these aren’t Hollywood “big” characters and events.  To present this as a Hollywood “big” movie would undermine the true horror of what could happen in this situation. I thought this was evenly paced and that the characters felt “lived in.”  There are character arcs, but they are extremely subtle (in particular those involving Matt Damon’s and Marion Cotilliard’s characters).  While the presentation of events certainly does jump around, it’s in a logical and subtly escalating manner.

As I’d expect from Soderbergh, Contagion is extremely well made.  It’s a very good-looking film, very crisp and clear in it’s presentation.  There’s some very nice bits of editing for effect with standout moments being showing how the disease is spread near the start of the film and moments when Marion Cotilliard’s character is tracing the origin of the spread.  Cliff Martinez provides a terrific score for the film that really punches up everything, but again not in a big Hollywood way.

Contagion features a star-studded cast and I think they all do a nice job.  Gwyneth Paltrow plays Beth Emhoff who (and I don’t think I’m really spoiling anything by saying this) meets her end very early in the film.  I have to give her high points though for allowing Soderbergh to use her in some pretty interesting ways.  Beth may meet her end early, but it’s not the last that we see of her and her presence is felt throughout the movie.  Matt Damon plays her husband Mitch and he’s the everyman of the film.  Like he did in Soderbergh’s The Informant! Damon looks like he put on a few pounds in this movie (which I think actually adds to the reason for an act of indiscretion on Beth’s part, but it’s subtle) which I think actually helps his performance.  He probably has the biggest emotional moments in the movie, but they’re not overblown at all.

Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play Drs. Ellis Cheever and Erin Mears, employees of the Center for Disease Control.  Winslet gets the showier part, actually playing a field agent who has to get a handle on the situation in Minneapolis.  Fishburne has to maintain the professional “face” of the CDC and he does a good job, but also has a nice (but subtle) character turn as well.

Marion Cotilliard plays Dr. Leonora Orantes who’s part of the World Health Organization and she’s given the task of traveling to Hong Kong to trace the origin of the disease.  She gets involved in something that’s pretty unexpected there and has a great character turn as her story concludes.  Jude Law plays Alan Krumwiede, a blogger/journalist who seeks to get the “sinister” truth out about what’s going on.  It’s also a pretty showy part for the film and while at first he certainly does seem to be this crusader there’s also some shadiness there as well.  It’s never quite resolved, but then that’s not the film’s point either.  What you think about Krumwiede is basically you’re own conclusion, but his use here certainly helps show Soderbergh’s big picture, especially with how new media is used to lay out the story.

Other cast notables include Jennifer Ehle, Elliot Gould and Bryan Cranston.  Ehle plays Dr. Ally Hextall, another employee of CDC who is fervently looking to discover a cure.  Gould plays Dr. Ian Sussman, an independent researcher who defies CDC orders in his investigation and recreation of the virus.  Cranston plays Lyle Haggerty, the military liason with the CDC and he certainly brings the right air of authority to the part.  As huge Breaking Bad fan, I really enjoyed seeing Cranston being a part of this, even if it was a small part, and I look forward to seeing him in next week’s Drive as well.

I think Contagion is an exceptional film. Director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns deliver an effective thriller that doesn’t play to huge melodrama and instead plays to a realistic unfolding of events.  The ensemble cast are all quite good and totally in service to the story.  While I mentioned above that this reminded me of Soderbergh’s previous film Traffic, it also puts me in the mind of what you’d get if someone took a big Irwin Allen 70s disaster film and made it with an art house touch, and I don’t think that’s a bad combination at all.  If you’re looking for something that’s Hollywood “big” well then you might want to look elsewhere, but for me, Contagion was very satisfying.  Highly recommended.