by Nick Leshi

I finally saw the movie Chronicle. Although it wasn’t perfect, it was still very entertaining. It is another found-footage film, and although it would have probably worked fine (maybe even better) without the gimmick, it managed to use multiple point-of-view cameras to good effect. The story itself was an interesting cinematic take on the superhero genre, more due to the characterization of the villain than any of the “been-there-done-that” plot points.

The villain in this case is actually a troubled teen, Andrew Detmer, with a family life in crisis and bullying at school. Watching his trials and tribulations through the camera lens, sympathy builds as he gets drunk on his new found power and then continues to spiral out of control. Played by Dane DeHaan (who reminds me a lot of a young Leonardo DiCaprio), Andrew’s character arc is compelling and heartbreaking.

Any of the plotholes (and there are a few), can be overlooked or explained away with some forced logic. Why go explore a mysterious hole in the ground in the middle of the night? Because it’s there and the guys doing the exploring are heavily intoxicated. As the teens experiment with their telekinetic powers by doing pranks and testing the limits of what they can now do, why not use their magical minds to pull a car out of the water when Andrew forces it off the road? That’s a little tougher to explain (although I guess it could be argued that they still weren’t strong enough to pull off such a feat), but the scene was so well done and full of dramatic tension, I could forgive the writers for sloppy storytelling.

The other two guys who obtain incredible powers after discovering a mysterious object beneath the earth, popular Steve Montgomery (played very nicely by Michael B. Jordan) who wants to become a politician someday, and Andrew’s cousin Matt Garretty (played by Alex Russell), are not nearly as interesting as the disturbed Andrew.

It is often the case that the bad guy is often much more interesting to follow than the do-gooder. Examples abound, from Lucifer in John Milton’s Paradise Lost to The Joker in both Tim Burton’s Batman and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. When done well, audiences can better relate to the imperfections of the antagonist. It becomes tougher to flesh out a believable hero who avoids temptation, overcomes all the odds in noble fashion, selflessly fights for truth and justice, doing everything that we all wish we ourselves could and should do. The result is often a bland, two-dimensional, unrealistic hero versus a complex, motivated counterpart, whose actions might be despicable, but nevertheless understandable and much more emotionally charged — the kind of stuff that’s fascinating to watch.

Both Steve and Matt have their own great moments, but it is Andrew’s story from beginning to tragic end. Steve has a lot of enjoyable moments, but Matt is the one who becomes the film’s ultimate main hero.  He too has a strong path of growth as we see him forced to step out of his cool-guy persona and make a commitment with his love interest, video blogger Casey Letter, played wonderfully by Ashley Hinshaw. He then is driven by guilt and necessity to reach out even more and try to save Andrew, even if by that time it’s too late.

The final climactic sequence is extremely well-done, and makes me wonder what the big fight in Superman II might have been like if it had been made today. (Maybe we’ll find out in Man of Steel.) The epilogue hints at a sequel in which we might learn from where exactly the source of their powers came, drawing attention to the unanswered question of Chronicle that the writers didn’t care to touch upon in this first film, instead focusing all their efforts on some splashy superpowered special effects and some nicely developed character moments — even if the bulk of those moments were spent on the tragic Andrew.

by William Belle

If somebody says “spy movie” the first thing which comes to mind is James Bond. Yep, car chases, million dollar gambling in Monte Carlo and gadgets that do all sorts of nifty things. But did the movie producers of the Bond films or even Ian Fleming for that matter actually capture the real world of all those anonymous people who live in the shadows? This movie is based on the 1974 book by the same name written by John le Carré and represents the antithesis of everything we the viewing public have come to expect from the cinematic hyperbole of James Bond or as of late, “Mission Impossible.” Like anything connected to the government, the film portrays the protagonist as a dutiful employee who is awash in fatigue, boredom and probably his own fair share of cynicism over the state of affairs.

This movie is the thinking man’s spy film. Someone accustomed to the nonstop thrill ride of an action film will find this film slow, plodding and downright boring. However it is in that very slowness we watch a gem of a mystery unfold as the central character methodically deduces who in the British Secret Service is actually a mole, a double agent working for the Russians. Remember that the year is 1973 well before our modern era of computers, cell phones and PDAs and it is hard to believe that anyone could conduct any business or even live their life without the electronic devices we all now take for granted. Talk about primitive!

John le Carré wrote with a realistic approach to his stories. After all, he spent the 50s and 60s working for the British intelligence services MI5 and MI6. His first big novel, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold became an international best-seller when it was published in 1963 and led to the 1965 film starring Richard Burton. It was here that the author set out a writing style which was anything but flash and glamour. While Ian Fleming, for instance, clearly set up the fight between good and evil, both good and evil being well defined, le Carré described the complexity of the moral dilemma between the West and East. The democratic West was not necessarily the good guys dressed in white and the communist East was not necessarily the bad guys dressed in black. There were many shades of gray in the mix and like today’s on-going debates about the effectiveness and moral questions of water-boarding or the perpetual lock-up at Guantanamo Bay without trial, le Carré is sometimes asking if we are still good if we in turn follow the aphorism “fight fire with fire” and end up being just as evil as our enemies.

Gary Oldman puts in a wonderful performance as George Smiley, brought out of retirement to find out whom amongst the higher-ups at the Circus (British Intelligence) is a long-term mole. The story moves between the current investigation and the past when Smiley was still working for Control, the previous head, played by John Hurt. Oldman and Hurt personify the old, wizen men who have been through it all and seen it all; they were actually there for Genesis chapter 1, verse 1. Unlike our more spectacular detectives (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows comes to mind), this story imparts the sleuthing aspect of uncovering the mole and sleuthing  involves the dull plodding through a ton and a half of documentation trying to piece together the puzzle of how the Russians could have set up a mole so high up in the organisation.

There are several sorrowful side stories which flit by but make you wonder what they may entail. Smiley has an estranged relationship with his wife. She has had an affair and it turns out the affair was with a work colleague of Smiley’s. Smiley tells Peter Guillam, an intelligence officer aiding Smiley in the investigation, to clean up his affairs as they are all going to be scrutinized for their work in trying to uncover the mole. In a short scene, Peter at his flat tells another man he must leave. Little is said; little is shown but it’s 1973 and Peter is a homosexual. It is a truly sad moment as the camera shows the other man dropping his keys on the table as a few tears stream down the Peter’s cheek.

Final Word
Quite simply, I enjoyed the movie. Although to any potential viewer, I would add the caveat that this spy film is anything but the eye-candy you would normally associate with the genre. A number of action films rack up a body count that extends well past your fingers and toes and you would do well to arm yourself with a clicker-counter. Does anybody realize that a mystery by Agatha Christie usually has only one murder per story?

The film is a beautiful period piece and does a wonderful job of capturing the era. It also captures the realism of life and the dullness of a government job. This all provides an excellent backdrop for the out of the ordinary solving of a mystery. While many may find the action as exciting as watching paint dry, I found it all to be absolutely mesmerising. The subtlety of the acting was riveting. I must however add a caveat to the story. It is complex and as such, it is difficult to follow. It has been years since I read the book but I have come to recognise that a film adaptation, any film adaptation suffers from the constraints of its medium. A novel, the written word, has a great deal of freedom in presenting ideas and developing a story; this may entail descriptive passages or the thoughts of the various players. Unfortunately, a film must make trade-offs and sacrifices especially in accounting for running time which sometimes means that what’s good in the book may end up on the cutting room floor. I remember finding the book The Da Vinci Code to be fabulous but the movie to be only so-so.

Nevertheless, this film does manage to stand on its own. Clocking in at 85 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has garnered a lot of praise from the critics which to me is always a sure sign the film is good and worth seeing. Nevertheless, I remind you that this is anything but a James Bond spy flick. This is dark and brooding, very much a reflection of reality with its jadedness about everyday life.

by William Belle

I’m repeating myself. (Repeating yourself is a sign of senility. If I’ve said that once, I’ve said it a thousand times.) The best films I’ve seen do not necessarily involve a car chase scene. The special effects are minimal and the focus is on the story and the characters. Clocking in at 91 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems to me the professional critics agree with this idea. Yes, this is George Clooney at his best, but the story, the cast, and the characters count to no end for what amounts to in the end as an excellent slice of the human experience.

Mr. Clooney plays Matt King, a lawyer in Hawaii who in a side story is involved in a big family real estate deal. The film starts with his wife sustaining injuries in a boating accident that leave her in a coma. While that might be enough of a trauma for any husband and any family to weather, it is only the start as Matt finds out, from his daughter no less, that his wife had been having an affair. How does Matt cope with such a revelation? How does he deal with being a single parent? How does he manage to get a grip on the rest of his life?

Clooney is terrific as the man, as the parent, who suddenly finds himself in uncharted waters without a clue of how to proceed. As he hunts down his wife’s lover, the question is why, what are his intentions? Shoot the guy? Punch him in the nose? Is this some sort of idle curiosity? What would any of us do under such circumstances?

By the way, the eldest daughter has a boyfriend, Sid, who is a bit of a stoner and the character is just hilarious. He has the habit of opening his mouth and saying unfiltered whatever comes to mind. There were a couple of times during the film I was killing myself laughing as Sid with complete naivety or maybe stupidity would say the most indelicate outrageous things. I could feel the entire audience in the theatre gasping then holding their breath as they wondered how those around Sid would react. Very, very funny.

Alexander Payne has three roles in the making of this film as director, co-producer and co-writer of the screenplay. This talented gentleman also has under his belt as both director and co-writer, two other fabulous films: “About Schmidt” and “Sideways.” I have seen them both and would highly recommend them. Rotten Tomatoes gave “About Schmidt” a score of 85 percent and Sideways 97 percent and if you couple those films with this one, is Mr. Payne batting (almost) a thousand or what?

Final Word

This is a great film which deservedly gets its high score from Rotten Tomatoes. The story is funny; it is sad. The wife’s coma is a tragedy but it is a reminder that the living go on, well, living. No matter what the tragedy, we’re all going to have to figure out how to cope and get on with it. I would highly recommend this film. No car chase scenes so be forewarned but a poignant look at the human condition.

by Nick Leshi

Even though they are often fraught with stereotypes, gangster movies are still one of my all-time guilty pleasures.  Some of my favorite films are in that genre: The Godfather, Carlito’s Way, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, TV’s The Sopranos, and countless others.  Hollywood is a slave to trends, and it looks like a swarm of mob movies are coming our way.  Here are a few that grabbed my attention:

Gangster Squad – An all-star cast highlights this period piece set in the 1940s and 1950s about the Los Angeles police trying to deal with East Coast mafia members who are trying to expand their illicit operations to the City of Angels.  It stars Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Giovanni Ribisi, Nick Nolte, Robert Patrick, etc.  It’s directed by Ruben Flescher who previously helmed the crime movie 30 Minutes or Less and the cult action flickZombieland.

Gotti: In the Shadow of My Father – HBO is producing this eagerly anticipated biopic starring John Travolta as John Gotti, Sr., and Ben Foster as John Gotti, Jr.  It also stars the amazing Al Pacino, Chazz Palminteri, Kelly Preston, and Ella Bleu Travolta.  Legendary Barry Levinson (Sleepers, Wag the Dog, Bugsy, Rainman, The Natural, Diner, etc.) is directing, so I have high expectations for this project.

The Iceman – Based on the true story of hitman Richard Kuklinski, it stars Michael Shannon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Ray Liotta.

The Irishman – This adaptation of I Heard You Paint Houses (the new title is much, much bette

r) deals with a guy who has amnesia and is working for a mobster.  It stars the phenomenal Joe Pesci.

J. Edgar – Okay, this technically isn’t a gangster movie, but it’s a biopic of notorious law enforcement icon J. Edgar Hoover, played by Leonardo DeCaprio and directed by the always awesome Clint Eastwood.  I can’t wait to see it.

Looper – Here’s a twist.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt star in this science fiction mob movie — a killer recognizes one of his targets as his future self.  It’s directed by Rian Johnson who gave us the con artist flickThe Brothers Bloom.

Mob Street – Another true story is dramatized for the big screen, this time a look at the mafia’s infiltration of Wall Street.  The cast includes tabloid problem child Lindsay Lohan who could use a hit to keep her entertainment career alive.  Did I mention that Chazz Palminteri wrote the screenplay?

Now You See See Me - It might not really be gangster, but this crime story certainly has the feel — it covers a team of “Robin Hood” bank robber illusionists who give their stolen money to their audiences.  It features another great cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Michael Caine, and others.  The director is Louis Letterier who brought The Transporter, The Incredible Hulk, and the Clash of the Titans remake to life.

Scarface – Diehard fans of the Al Pacino version must be crying “blasphemy” at the news that Universal Pictures plans to remake that iconic Brian DePalma cult classic about mobster Tony Montana. No doubt, it will be tough to beat, but remember, it too was a “sort-of” remake of the Howard Hughes classic about gangster Tony Camonte.  More news as it develops.

Takers – A detective battles a group of bank robbers.  Again, not strictly mafia, but close enough.  The film stars Chris Brown, Hayden Christensen, and Matt Dillon.

As usual, if any of those hit it big, expect to see even more in the pipeline.

by Nick Leshi

The new science fiction movie “In Time” opened and I had high hopes. It was written and directed by Andrew Niccol, the guy responsible for “Gattaca,” one of my favorites, and it stars the multi-talented Justin Timberlake who continues to surprise me, the stunning Amanda Seyfried, and the never-disappointing Cillian Murphy. The film lived up to my expectations, even if it didn’t exceed them.

The production values were excellent, the premise was intriguing, and the performances were genuine, but even though my wife and I enjoyed it, I felt that it tried too hard to hit us over the head with its underlying metaphor (“time is money”). The short blurb description on RottenTomatoes.com sums up the strength and weakness of the film (which most professional critics trashed, according to the review-aggregator site, but most general moviegoers liked): “In Time’s intriguing premise and appealing cast are easily overpowered by the blunt, heavy-handed storytelling.”

As a writer, Niccol has impressed me with the aforementioned Gattaca and the delightful “The Truman Show,” and even his lesser films,” S1M0NE,” “The Terminal,” and “The Lord of War,” had fine moments. Here again he has some good characters and rich subtext, but often kills the momentum of the quick-paced, action-packed plot with simplistic dialogue that states the obvious or, worse, preaches its metaphoric message without letting the story play out and speak for itself.

The movie’s release seems perfectly timed to capitalize (pun intended) on the current headlines — its not-too-subtle moral calls for social change and redistriubtion of resources, using science fiction tropes in a futuristic setting that isn’t too far removed from our familiar modern world. Niccol’s script is sprinkled with preachy lines that often undercut legitimately well-staged dramatic scenes that adequately deliver the point he aims to tell — as if he second-guessed himself as a storyteller and kept forcing himself to repeat what he wanted to say over and over again, even if the first time was sufficient enough.

There is plenty to like about “In Time,” and although the movie has an undeniable thematic bias, it still manages to show the chaos that ensues from its system-shattering ending. The film bravely admits that taking “time” away from the hoarders and distributing it to the oppressed masses will not solve society’s injustices, but makes no pretense in declaring that the existing system is broken and needs to be replaced (if not in our real world, than at least in the fictional world of the story).

In Time ends with the potential for both a sequel to explore what happens next now that the status quo has been shaken up with devastating results, and also a prequel to flesh out some of the questions raised about the past of Cillian Murphy’s driven hunter and his encounters with the dad of Justin Timberlake’s neo-Robin-Hood character.

“In Time” is science fiction at its metaphoric best, using speculative fiction to aim a mirror at our present way of life, and at its mainstream worst, afraid to trust its audience to understand the story and reach its own conclusions.