Two Lovers (2008)

When you are watching a movie, it is so easy to see all of the things that the characters don't see, both in each other and in themselves. You can see the beginning of their mistakes. You can see their flaws. Sometimes you can even see who they really are as well as the masks they put on for those around them. Having this all seeing privilege can be incredibly frustrating and sometimes it's sad. 

Of course, in real life we don't have the benefit of having an audience that sees everything we do and knows everything we feel. This is why it's so much easier to see your friends make mistakes and bad decisions before they do. The viewer has a broader perspective and they aren't clouded by the feelings that drive us to make our decisions. Plus, you draw on your own experiences that tell you, this is not the best idea. It's very hard to get this through to someone else. 

Two Lovers (2008) opens with Leonard (Joaquin Pheonix) at the beginning of a suicide attempt. He falls into the bay in Brooklyn from a pier but he changes his mind and resurfaces. He is spotted by some people passing by and pulled from the water. When he stands up quickly and announces, "I gotta go." One of the people just says, "Aren't you gonna thank this guy? He just saved your life." It is clear right away that Leonard is pretty awkward and stuck inside his head. 

Leonard lives with his parents (Isabella Rossellini and Moni Moshonov). They both love him very much, this is not a guess. It's obvious and I am certain of this. When he comes home wet and doesn't tell them what happened, his mother says to her husband, "I think he tried it again." So we know that he has a history of emotional issues. More of his back story is later revealed and we understand why he the way he is. 

I've spent so much time describing Leonard and his parents, but that is just a small part of the big picture. His dad is in the process of selling the family business, which Leonard works for as a delivery guy. Leonard is introduced to the daughter of the soon-to-be owners. Her name is Sandra. This is such a wonderful performance given by Vinessa Shaw. They hit it off, but Leonard is timid and doesn't make much of the meeting. The next day, he meets Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow) whom he is drawn to immediately.

The title is slightly misleading. I got the feeling that the time frame of the movie wasn't very long. So, he never really had a lot of time to get super close to either of the women. Saying that he has two lovers would imply that he is cheating. I guess this is left up to the viewer. But I don't think that Leonard thinks he's cheating on anyone. If Sandra knew about Michelle, It might be a different matter. Leonard is confused and emotionally broken, this we know. But when he is faced with the excitement of being with Michelle, he likes it. She is unpredictable. She also seems to like drama. She calls him at weird hours and expects him to come take care of her whenever she's feeling needy. On the other hand, Michelle offers stability. She is grounded and a good person. She genuinely wants to take care of Leonard (which he seems to need) and make him happy. 

Director/Writer James Gray has made a very good movie. He could have easily made a typical romantic comedy, but instead he gives us real people struggling to navigate their lives, and the parents who are helpless in making things happen for them. There are no clichés in this film. There is so much insight. If only we could all step back and look at our lives from the outside, all of the answers would probably seem so clear. 

Captivity (2007)

Captivity immediately starts out like it wants to be Irreversible (2002). It has the same warm colors of reds and oranges. It utilizes a soundtrack of pulsating techno music. The sound design combines loud, startling bursts and muffled, far away groans. And the initial attack on the main character takes place in a long hallway. The look of the film is stylish and crisp, with a sort of music video look, but it is absolutely baffling to me that this was directed by Roland Joffé, the man who directed such wonderful films as City of Joy (1992) The Mission (1986) and The Killing Fields (1984). 

Jennifer Tree (Elisha Cuthbert) is a young fashion model. One evening she decides to go out drinking by herself. At the bar, she sees a mysterious video camera in a hallway and is knocked unconscious by someone. When she wakes up she appears to be back in her hotel room. I hesitate to reveal what happens next because it's probably the most effective scene in the entire film. But, if you're smart you will avoid the film altogether. So it really shouldn't matter if I spoil one small surprise, early in the picture. She's not really in her hotel room. Dun dun dun!!! I won't say how they reveal it, but it's pretty inventive. So she is actually in a cold, dark cell. For pretty much the rest of the movie she is brutally tortured. Other people who are also being held in other cells are also tortured. We see everything, it's relentless, and doesn't seem to have much of a point, except to make the viewer squirm. 

Wouldn't you know that a movie like this also has a dumb twist and the standard bit where the dead killer's not actually dead- that we've seen millions of times since Halloween (1978). 

When analyzing literature in an academic setting, you learn to consider the meaning of the names of the characters. Writer Larry Cohen is no dummy. He's been writing a long time and he knows this. The female lead's last name is Tree. This is obviously to suggest her strength. Bad and offensive material cannot be justified just because it has a strong female character. But wouldn't you know that the secret to the whole movie lies in the last name of Gary Dexter (played by Daniel Gillies). For the record the hit cable T.V. series Dexter had it's first season in 2006- the year before this movie was released. I seriously facepalmed when I had this realization.  

The brutality is nowhere near Irreversible. I am actually not a fan of Irriversible or its director Gaspare Noe. Irriversible is the better film. However, Joffe's track record as a filmmaker is much better. But you have to wonder if making a film like this leaves a stain on all of the others. 

As I mentioned, one of the writers of the film is the great Larry Cohen. He is responsible for some great B-movies and horror films of the 70s and 80s. He also wrote the screenplay to one of the only Joel Schumacher films I like, Phone Booth (2002). As great as his writing has been in the past, he really missed the mark here. Instead, opting to only go for what Hollywood seems to think horror fans want- torture porn. The writers were nice enough to give a reason why the killer or killers do what they do. I'd still like to know why this movie was made. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say for money. 

Silent House (2012)

Silent House begins without a sound and with a single shot that lasts the entire movie. This can be perceived as gimmicky. It's been done before and better. Alfred Hitchcock did it with Rope (1948), well sort of. He zoomed in to someone's back or something dark and then panned back out with the camera. This is where he would place the cuts in the film. But the idea was to make it look like one long continuous take, hence the title Rope. Other films, like Goodfellas (1990), are known for a single scene with a long continuous shot. But directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau (Who previously directed the very suspenseful and well-done Open Water in 2003) have gone straight to the master for their inspiration and have attempted to make an entire movie with a single shot. 

I should also mention that Silent House is a remake of a 2010 Uruguayan film La casa muda (The Silent House). That one was directed by Gustavo Hernández and filmed in Spanish, also using a single shot throughout the entire film. 

The plot of Silent House in basically pretty simple, at least the parts that you need to know are. Sarah (Elizabeth Olson), her father (Adam Trese) and her uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) are fixing up a secluded house in the countryside. The house is owned by the two brothers and they intend to get it ready to be sold. Sarah is there to help. The house has no electricity yet and there seem to be a ton of rooms and many many stairs. While they are there, things start to go wrong, just like they would in any horror film or maybe a Chevy Chase movie. Before too long into the movie we realize that there isn't going to be very much working going on. 

Silent House makes some improvements upon the original, but the things that the original got wrong, this one does as well. There are a few very subtle clues that foreshadow the twist ending, but they are so subtle that the outcome still seems completely crazy. The time that is spent leading up to the twist can get very tedious as well. There is a lot of silence, a lot of darkness and a lot of Sarah walking around muttering, "Daddy? Daddy?" Occasionally, the silence is interrupted with a loud bang intended to make the viewer jump out of their skin. This only works a few times. But what I did like about Silent House was Elizabeth Olsen. She is clearly the most talented part of her famous acting family. And she does a wonderful job with the material she is given here. This film also ups the darkness of the subject matter. Think 8mm (1998) dark. 

If this movie sounds like something you might enjoy, I would suggest seeing it over the original. The acting is better, the writing is better and the production values are better. Sure, the former had a Blair Withc kind of vibe to it, but it was a little too dark and too hard to see. This one is easier to follow, but not much. It still leaves a ton of questions and makes a lot of jumps in logic. But it's still fun to watch Olsen and it's the kind of movie that is good for the creepiness. Unfortunately it's only good once. 

Mad Monster Party? (1967)

This is a movie that I saw several times when I was a little kid. I also saw all of the Christmas themed claymation films of the time and I was really into all of them. On top of that, I was obsessed with Universal Pictures monsters from the 30's. So, when Mad Monster Party? came on television, I fell madly in love. 

Seeing it again as an adult is unfortunately a different story. I think the main issue, and it's no fault of the film makers, but simply because The Nightmare Before Christmas exists, it sort of makes Mad Monster Party? unnecessary. But they obviously couldn't have known that in 1967. I've heard that in order to really offer a good critique, you have to approach the material from where and when it was presented. So picture me as a wide eyed six year old reviewing Mad Monster Party? right after seeing it on television, about 15 years after it was made. 

A monster convention is about to take place. Baron Von Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) has decided that it's time to retire. He's had a long and succesful career as a monster maker. But he feels that it's time that his nephew Felix Flankin (Allen Swift) take over the business. At the convention, things digress into sort of a monster reality show. There is bad mouthing, back stabbing, and scene stealing. But there are also puns galore. At the time of production, the most relevant horror publication was Famous Monsters of Filmland. The magazine's editor Forrest J. Ackerman made a career of writing these type of puns. There are rumors that he actually had a hand in writing the script for Mad Monster Party? but he died in 2008 and he never said anything about it. 

Stop motion animation or claymation has definitely come a long way over the years. That's why I said that this is nowhere near Nightmare Before Christmas or even Corpse Bride. But considering that it's about 45 years old, it holds up remarkably well. In a way, it's made even better because of those other films. I would consider this a great companion piece to them...even the Christmas claymation. All families should watch all of them. The subject matter in Mad Monster Party? is not the safe humor that we are used to today. It's slightly more risque and the humor is pretty dark. But a couple of generations of kids grew up watching this and most of them turned out just fine. 

If you have a six to twelve year old, I would highly recommend renting this for them. They would be getting a good horror film history lesson while being entertained for a whole 90 minutes. It's so much better than kids movies being made today. 

Peacock (2010)

Usually if the basic premise of a film cannot be believed, the rest of it completely falls apart. Peacock (2010) is a rare exception for me. The setting, the tone, the cinematography, the acting, and even most of the story comes together nicely to make an entertaining and suspenseful film that is ultimately very satisfying in a Hitchcock meets Malick sort of way. 

Peacock was directed by Michael Lander, written by Lander along with Ryan Roy and features a wonderful cast including Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page and Susan Sarandon. It's also worth noting that it was the last film edited by Sally Menke, a Quentin Tarantino regular. She died five months after the release. The editing, of course, is great, but this is nothing like a Tarantino movie. 

I mentioned both Terrence Malick and Alfred Hitchcock as comparisons for the direction of this film. The establishing shots at the beginning let us know that this film takes place in a small town in the middle of nowhere. There are large fields of tall grass blown by the breeze, which look right out of Days of Heaven or a Kurosawa film. The tone of the film is also very Malickian. Everything is quiet on the surface. If you have ever been to a small town, it really does feel like a Terrence Malick film. Below the surface is more of a David Lynch small town...but really more Hitchcock. Multiple personalities, secrets, double lives, dark histories,...I've probably said too much already. One of the reasons why I think I enjoyed this film so much was because I didn't know anything about it before seeing it. I didn't even know who was in it except for Susan Sarandon. And honestly, I would see anything with her, even Stepmom (1998) which I did see, in the theater, by myself. 

For the sake of writing a thorough and sufficient review, I will now attempt to describe the plot, but not too much. John Skillpa (Cillian Murphy) lives in the small town of Peacock, Nebraska. I checked google maps, there is no Peacock, Nebraska. On the other hand there is a Lumberton, North Carolina, but that is neither here nor there. Skillpa works for a bank. He's very quiet and keeps to himself. If he lived in a large city, we would probably expect him to be a serial killer. We find out early just to what extent his past has shaped who he has become, but it's not a serial killer. It's less obvious than that. John goes through his daily routine with great precision. Everything goes exactly as planned and if he's surprised by the slightest deviation, he becomes sweaty and nervous and looks at the floor a lot. 

Do you think a character in a film like this is going to just continue living a life that is easy and predictable- the way he likes it? Not a chance. There are many other characters who have something to say about it. Not that they know what's up, or even suspect anything out of the ordinary. It's just that small town residents have a way of making everybody else's business their own. To make matters worse, the caboose of a freight train has derailed and ends up in John Skillpa's back yard. Suddenly he is the town celebrity and this means a lot of sweating and looking at the floor. 

Ellen Page plays a young mother who is an inhabitant of Peacock. She really stands out because she plays an adult, and a very convincing one. There are no traces of Juno in this role. Even when I was watching Inception (2010) I couldn't stop thinking about the Juno character. She really shows what she's capable of here and it's wonderful stuff. A small role worth noting is Keith Carradine as Mayor Ray Crill. He is always fun to watch, and since his role on Dexter, his acting has been taken to a whole different level in my eyes. Cillian Murphy has the biggest task in this film and he pulls it off effortlessly. 

If you have the patience to watch this tale slowly unfold while you take in the scenery along with that feeling of dread, then this is your movie. 

Rampage (1987)

Red is a good color for a movie about a serial killer that takes place during the holiday season. There are lots of Poinsettias and there is a lot of blood. When we first see Charles Reece (Alex McArthur) he is bouncing awkwardly but with confidence down the street while wearing a bright red jacket. Not like James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, more like something Travis Bickle would wear on Christmas. 

Early in the film we also meet prosecuting attorney Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn). We find out that he had been against capital punishment, but his views on that are quickly changing due to some personal experiences.  

It is revealed pretty quickly that Reece is a serial killer. We see him murder families in suburban neighborhoods and we see flashes of his face covered in blood. He's caught almost right away by the police. And so begins the long process of deciding what to do with him and at the same time Rampage transforms itself into a courtroom drama with little to offer. 

The first third of the film is quite beautiful to look at. William Friedkin does a wonderful job of filling up the screen with almost a single color. And as I mentioned before, the red that the killer is wearing makes him really pop out of the scenery. As we follow Reece around while he stalks the streets, the camera moves with slow and careful grace. There is a nice combination of suspense and calmness, that surprisingly works remarkably well. 

There are moments in Rampage that remind me of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). While I think that Henry is a much better film, Rampage has a visual style that reminds us that this movie was made by the same guy who made The Exorcist. Unfortunately, when the action moves into the jail and the courtroom, the style starts to fade and nothing that is said, no points that are made are of any earth shattering profundity. To me, this movie didn't bring anything new to the table on the discussion of legal insanity and capital punishment. 

Is it worth watching? I suppose so. It's available on hulu and Netflix, so it sure is easy to access. And at around 90 minutes there are much worse ways to spend your time. Twin Peaks fans will want to see this for Grace Zabriskie's performance as Reece's oblivious, drug addicted mother. Otherwise, if you have never seen John McNaughton's Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, you should probably watch that instead. 

Towelhead (2007)

I can't think of very many movies whose title is a racial slur. The word is used twice in the first 15 minutes and it's slung by a little white kid. I am also amazed that Aaron Eckhart (A Neil LaBute favorite) is so comfortable in uncomfortable roles. But all of that is meaningless, this film is fantastic. There are so many movies about how hard it is to grow up, but this one takes culture into consideration. And it also presents the fact that all of the men in her life are essentially predators.

Jasira (Summer Bishil) is a 13 year old girl. Her mother is American and her father is from Lebanon, this makes her Lebanese-American and she has just gone to live with her Lebanese father (Peter Macdissi). There is a humorous scene where he ad his daughter are hoisting an american flag and he remarks, "It's more patriotic to fly the american flag all the time." 

Aaron Eckhart (whom I mentioned earlier) plays Mr. Vuoso. He is the father of a kid that Jasira babysits. He has an extensive collection of dirty magazines that Jasira finds intriguing. His performance is completely fearless and absolutely despicable all at once. But as an actor he does exactly what he is supposed to in the movie. 

Jasira makes friends with a young African American kid at her school. After she has dinner with his family, her father tells her that she is not to see him again. "Do you understand what I am referring to?" He says. There is racism from all angles in this film. The best line comes from one of Jasira's friends who says, "If you do what a racist tells you, that makes you racist." Makes sense to me. 

One thing I want to point out, is that just because a movie makes you feel terrible, doesn't mean it's bad. Of course it's entirely contingent upon the reason it makes you feel that way. I believe that this film is as truthful as possible. It's a film that could only be made in a post 9/11 and post W. Bush America. In a way it kind of takes a lot of the themes from the television series The Wonder Years and makes them more modern than ever. But there is an undercurrent of humor. 

The absolute best character in Towelhead is played by Toni Collette. On the surface she seems like a stereotypical Texan. But she is smart and knows everything that's going on. Jasira is resistant to her help, but after all she is the child and Collette's character is the adult. 

Jasira reminds me so much of Winnie Cooper from The Wonder Years. She talks the same way and she even looks like Danica McKellar. Her performance is perfect. She's an 18 year old playing a 13 year old. She's very convincing. But somehow seems to have the naivete that a young teenager might have. 

Towelhead isn't easy to watch. It shouldn't be easy to watch. But it's worth watching. Nobody knows what it's like for anybody else. This film is a good reminder of that.