The Crazies (2010)

Why I saw it? Horror films are a guilty pleasure, remakes of horror films are a vice.

The verdict: 6.5 out of 10/B

Perhaps it's because I wasn't even a twinkle in my parents' eyes when many of the original films debuted, but the remaking of classic - and not-so-classic - horror films does not offend me in the slightest. Sure, the need for remakes could be read as a sign that Hollywood is losing its imagination, but let's be honest, is there really any film made these days that doesn't borrow material? I believe that just because something comes first, does not make it untouchable. However, I also believe the goal of the remake should be to create a film that stands on its own merits, and can be appreciated apart from its relation to the original, eliminating the need to compare. Reality is, a majority of remakes, such as 2009's Friday the 13th remake, have been utter embarrassments. Still, a few, such as 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake, have been notable films that took the original material, and made it something fresh for the modern audience. The Crazies, a remake of the 1973 film, though not flawless, leans heavily toward the latter classification, breathing style and mounds of tension into a story about societal deconstruction and survival.

A military plane, carrying a biological weapon, crashes in the marshes outside a small Iowa farming town, leaking the virus into the town's water supply. The virus, designed to destroy communities, brings out the brutal nature in anyone it infects, turning them into sadistic murderers (Crazies) before it claims their lives. The government swiftly sends in the military to initiate a containment protocol and without remorse, declares martial law upon the clueless town. At the center of the commotion is Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), his pregnant wife Dr. Judy Dutton (Radha Mitchell),  Deputy Russell Clank (Joe Anderson), and friend Becca Darling (Danielle Panabaker) who band together and attempt to survive the government extermination of the town.

Although it contains traces of take it or leave it social commentary, The Crazies is first and foremost a horror film, and Director Breck Eisner squeezes every ounce of tension he can from the film's circumstances. From the get-go, Eisner takes a subtle approach to the Crazies' nature, hiding them in the shadows and backgrounds. These are sneaky little buggers and Eisner quickly convinces us that we are never safe. The creatures may appear at any given moment, and once they do, they are relentless. Although there is a tad bit of inconsistency on this point, Eisner mostly allows the Crazies, whose minds have otherwise been taken hostage, to retain thought process. They calculate their actions and trap their victims.

Eisner also makes superb use of locations in conjunction with his style, effectively cornering the characters into situations that leave very little room for escape. At times, the camera lingers on darkness, follows shadows or shifts to reveal an enemy. At others, the audience is thrown directly into the thick of the action. Too often, many horror films end up using far too many shaky camera motions or quick edits to boost the "scare factor." Eisner, generally, has avoided this  and instead used camera work to create a gritty and edgy style that plays right into the severity of the film's circumstances. He strings together clever, memorable scenes that keep the film energetic and unnerving.

On the downside, the film relies too heavily on two horror genre staples: the jump scene and the last-second save. Jump scenes certainly have their place in scary movies, but the overkill here tip-toes into becoming monotonous. The film contains a few well-placed surprises that do add to the mounting terror, but many of these moments become boring and predictable. The film's heavy use of the last-second save, where another character intervenes just in time to save their fellow man, becomes a tad gimmicky and pretentious. Every horror film contains a moment such as this, but Eisner repeatedly uses this element to free his characters from sticky situations that would otherwise end in their demise.

The film also stands firmly on the shoulders of its leads. Olyphant, Mitchell, Anderson and Panabaker bring familiarity to the characters. They resemble people you know and you want to see them make it to the other side of this nightmare. The film could have spent a bit more time developing its characters, but what we are given is enough to care about them. The film also creates such formidable villains in the Crazies and in the militia sent to quarantine the town that we generally feel for the people who are falling at their hands. This was an innocent and productive community that havoc found.

For its flaws, The Crazies is still a great piece of escapism. It contains thrills, excitement and energy. It may be a derivation of an older film, but it stands firm on its own and doesn't need the existence of the original to define it. This is how any remake should be. While it will always be important to respect film history, film culture has changed and with that change comes different audience expectations and moods. Much of what was deemed quality 20 to 30 years ago is now considered archaic, which is likely what audiences 20 to 30 years from now will think of our modern entertainment. A remake is a worthy cause so long as it is done with the intention to create an entertaining new experience using familiar material. It is safe to say The Crazies has done that.

Shutter Island (2010)

Why I saw it: Psychological thriller + Insane asylum + Mysterious disappearance = Required viewing.

The verdict: 4 out of 10/C

Let it be known that I do not claim allegiance to any particular directors. A select few have certainly earned my admiration for their innovative styles and ability to continuously entertain me (i.e. Tim Burton), but no film earns praise - or disparagement - from me simply because a particular director is at the helm. Thus, I do not buy into the "so and so" can do no wrong mentality that often clouds the viral marketing sphere prior to a major film's release. I wouldn't call Shutter Isalnd a major film save for the fact that it is the follow-up to Martin Scorsese's Oscar winning The Departed (2006). Among those who bow before the Scorsese Shrine, talk of second golden trophy surrounded this film. Not to get ahead of myself, but I think even the Academy is opposed to that amount of ass-kissing.

Scorsese's filmmaking gift is the ability to immerse his audience into the action of the stories he tells. The audience feels what his characters do and become a part of the story being told on screen. Shutter Island seemingly becomes the perfect venue for Scorsese. Within the confines of the Shutter Island compound nothing is ever certain, and as we are forced to live inside the head of protagonist Teddy Daniels, we walk alongside him as he reconciles the truth within his situation. However, Scorsese's adept ability to get our blood rushing only takes Shutter Island so far, as the film becomes rather one-note, and delivers a recycled, uninspired climax that is readily apparent early in the film, and leaves the viewer wanting more.

Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) arrives at Shutter Island, an insane asylum that is as secluded as its name suggests, with his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) to investigate the mysterious disappearance of interned murderess Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer and Patricia Clarkson). Shutter Island's founder and director Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) gives both Officers free range of the island, but he and his staff remain rather hush about the nature of her disappearance and possible escape. As the Officers begin to uncover the secret behind Rachel's disappearance, they - particularly Teddy - find themselves caught in a web of truth, lies, and paranoia that leads them to believe something bigger and possibly more formidable is occurring within this Asylum.

Scorsese has certainly played up all the qualities audiences have come to fear from film-based insane asylums - patients both physically and mentally monstrous, decrepit buildings lined with sunless hallways and prison bars, and an air of insanity that plagues everyone within the asylum's reach. The Asylum is the ultimate in discomfort and Scorsese has achieved an atmosphere that is generally both mentally and visually exhausting - despite creating a visual quality through the contrasting use of both vibrant and bland colors. Additionally, the film's minimalist score, made almost entirely of a few harsh chords struck in repetition, rattles nerves. There is very little easy listening here. It becomes the literal pounding headache one gets when he is overwhelmed by a situation. Indeed, the visual and audio components of the film become grating as we continuously latch onto the paranoia Teddy experiences. Credit should be given where it is due, and Scorsese, along with the multiple composers who created the score, successfully use atmosphere to destabilize our fragile minds.

Discounting the film's technical successes; however, is the fact that the story is also grating, becoming a bore of predictability. Despite the film's polish, it gives itself away within the first half hour, yet plays the remainder of its run as if the audience is still in the dark, as confused as Teddy is about the strange nature of the Asylum. Admittedly, part of the enjoyment of a psychological thriller stems from trying to solve the mystery before the film exposes it, but even the most successful film decoders like a challenge. The truth here is readily apparent to anyone who has seen a psychological thriller or two - or even Shutter Island's trailer. After realizing what is happening, the viewer stays ahead of the film and must endure watching it catch up. Save for filling in a few minor details that explain certain characters' motivations and visions Teddy experiences, the film offers nothing on top of this predictable climax, leaving the viewer disappointed.

This is disheartening as it wastes both the technical efforts, and additionally, the strongest performances of the film from Jackie Earle Hayley (as George Noyce) and Patricia Clarkson (as Rachel II). Both characters are briefly encountered by Teddy during his search for truth, yet provide much of the story's backbone. Their performances are both captivating and disturbing, and both performers affirmatively create what are the film's most memorable and intriguing scenes. Still, the story's bland predictability undermines their screen time and keeps the viewer from fully appreciating their place and purpose in the film.

Other performances given by Ruffalo, Kingsley, and Michelle Williams (as Dolores Chanel, Teddy's deceased wife) remain intentionally downplayed to supplement the mystery clouding their characters. Each performer feels genuine, but really isn't provided ample screen time since they are playing second string to DiCaprio. This brings me to the film's second upset - the miscast of Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio has shown he can act, but, at the age of 35, he still brings a boyish quality to his performances that just doesn't fit here. DiCaprio's performance doesn't capture the maturity that one would expect from a middle-aged federal marshal or from a man who has experienced what we learn Teddy has. Instead, his character comes across as a 19-year-old playing cop with a phony badge who has found more than he bargained for. Even the film's final revelations provide no grounds for DiCaprio's characterization of Teddy.

Shutter Island is based on a book of the same name, which perhaps better sustained the story. On the screen; however, the final product is slow and leaves the viewer hollow. For a film that attempts to dwell in the deepest parts of the subconscious, what actually plays out is rather simple and quite disappointing. In the end, the investment is not worth the return. The interesting facets of our protagonist are never fully exposed and the film actually misses several apparent opportunities to dig a little deeper. Perhaps if it had taken one of these avenues - which wouldn't require much tweaking beyond the third act - it would have provided a bit more substance.

To Scorsese's credit, Shutter Island finds footing on its technical merits, and forces its audience to live in the mind of Teddy. However, all this is bowled over by a story that comes up short, and in the end, just isn't that interesting. Certainly some will call this film perfection or convince themselves there was something more simply because it bears the Scorsese name. The truth remains; however, that once the credits roll, very little is left to ponder except why 2 hours and 20 minutes was needed to unveil what was blatantly obvious in the first act.

Up in the Air (2009)

Why I saw it: This film has won several awards and now Oscar's buzzing. Call me curious, but I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

The verdict: 8 out of 10/A-

Too often, films ignore reality so they can offer the audience a sugar-coated, "goes-down-easy" ending that caters to the fictional idea that everything always works out. Films providing these gift wrapped endings often miss the opportunity to capture the beauty in the trial and error of life experiences. An honest film sticks with you and goes a lot further than one that easily fits all the pieces together. Up in the Air is a film that doesn't gloss over the difficulty in maintaining worthwhile relationships, but still emphasizes that these relationships feed the soul and, in large part, define who you are.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) works for the Career Transition Corporation. He spends 320+ days a year flying the nation, and firing employees when their bosses don't have the guts to do it. Having worked 20+ years for the company, the constant travel, isolation and lack of genuine human interaction has become Bingham's norm and is a life he is very comfortable with. So comfortable and confident in his "life choice", Bingham occasionally speaks at seminars where he espouses that relationships and obligations to others only weigh you down. Passing time at a hotel bar one evening, Bingham crosses paths with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a fellow career traveler. Amidst conversation and comparisons of Frequent Flyer and Preferred Guest accounts, the two establish a connection, share the night, and book their next meeting before parting ways. For Bingham, all is as it should be until he meets Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a recent college graduate and go-getter hired on at CTC several months earlier. Since starting with CTC, Natalie has designed a video-based program that allows firings to be done from one location via a live video feed, eliminating the need for constant travel. Realizing the threat to his existence, Bingham raises hell, but ends up being tasked with taking Natalie along for his last firing tour before being permanently grounded in Omaha, Neb. As the story progresses, the new and old people in Bingham's life force him to confront his loneliness and the isolationist philosophy he calls a "life choice" is challenged.

Up in the Air examines the complexities of relationships - romantic, familial, and work related - with the current reality of increased unemployment serving as a backdrop against which the story is played. Bingham doesn't form relationships. He's never been married and keeps arms-distance from his family, tolerating the occasional phone call from his oldest sister. He ably fires multiple people on a daily basis without batting an eye or mustering much sympathy. What he does is a job, and he chooses to ignore the fact that he significantly alters the courses of these people's lives, initially for the worse. Bingham's emotional bereavement is seen by his capability to endure this daily grind for 20+ years. His emotional IQ is starkly contrasted by Natalie's, who quickly becomes weary of the firings, and doesn't understand how Bingham can only see each person as a name to mark off a list.

However, the film provides well-staged opportunities for Bingham to experience the pros and cons of creating relationships. In Alex, Bingham finds a kindred spirit and begins to understand why people work so hard to find a romantic partner in life. In Natalie, Bingham is forced to reconcile the naivety of youth with the excitement for life that comes with it. In one of the film's more impacting scenes, he gets the chance to reconnect with his sisters at the youngest's wedding. The couple, far more simple-minded than Bingham - a reason he left home and never looked back - exude a passion for each other that Bingham quietly desires. These scenes are so realistically written and acted that a viewer can't help but to do a little personal introspection.

Up in the Air also broadly tackles the notably decreased value of human interaction that is resulting from our expanding technology and overactive lifestyles. In a day and age where people e-mail consistently, apply for jobs online, text more than they talk, and update friends, family and strangers via Facebook statuses and tweets, the film reveals this new form of communication as damaging to the human condition and pleads for us to start turning back to a time when honest face-to-face interaction and respect for your fellow man had its worth.

The performances from the three leads do lend a hefty credibility to the film's premise. As is often noted with Clooney, his performance here contains his usual "Clooneyisms:" a casual smooth-talker with a monotone range. Still, Clooney does well with Bingham, creating a character who is superficially hardened, but likable and relatable at his core. Farmiga brings a subtle charm to her character and she instantly becomes the perfect woman for Bingham. Her performance contains early nuances that, in consideration of her character development, show she is an actress with depth. Kendrick ably takes on the difficult challenge of creating a character who is equal parts real and cartoon, but believable the entire time. Natalie is energetic and uptight at the same time and Kendrick's performance is flawless. All three leads have been nominated to Best Actor/Actress categories, and while all gave strong performances, Kendrick is most deserving of the honor.

The film is also supported by a solid secondary cast. Jason Bateman fans will find his dry-style humor on full display here, and J.K. Simmons, again, makes a small role one of the most memorable. It is also interesting to note that many of the fired employees in the film are not actors, but people who had recently been laid off. They were asked to say to the camera what they had wanted to say to their bosses upon being fired. It turns out to be an effective method and many of these John and Jane Does elicit strong emotion.

Up in the Air is a Best Picture contender this year, and for good reason. It is subtle, funny, dark, emotional, depressing, uplifting, refreshing, and honest. It is slow at times, but this is not detrimental to the experience as the film is generally minimalist in its approach. Bingham's new journey brings him tears and joy. But, that's life and Up in the Air doesn't shy away from that fact. It is this honesty that makes the film one that sticks with you and forces you to appreciate the worthwhile relationships in your life.

It's Complicated (2009)

Why I saw it: I was initially opposed to this one and didn't expect to like it, but sometimes it's good for one friend to do something nice for another friend - especially if said friend agrees to bungee jump in exchange for you seeing the movie.

The verdict: 7 out of 10/B+

If anything is certain these days, it’s that a film written and directed by Nancy Meyers will feature the romantic woes of rich, middle-aged, white people living in suburbian utopias. I'm oversimplifying a little, but that essential concept has been a winner for Meyers since she made What Women Want, (2000), the film starring Mel Gibson as a wealthy playboy who, through an unfortunate hair dryer accident, gained the ability to hear women’s thoughts. She followed up that success with her first writing/directing effort, Something’s Gotta Give, (2003), and then another, The Holiday, (2006), and now, right on the three-year mark, she gives us It’s Complicated. Meyers’ latest, still fitting the mold of her prior films, offers a charming romantic-comedy that boasts humor, sincerity, and a hint of depth.

Divorced for nearly a decade, Jane (Meryl Streep), maintains an awkward relationship with Jake (Alec Baldwin) for the sake of their children. Jake has married the much younger woman who caused their divorce and Jane has accepted loneliness, especially since she just sent her youngest off to college. A series of events find both former spouses stood up in a bar one night; laughs are had, drinks are downed, and cautions heaved to the wind. The night brings back feelings of better times and the two begin a careless affair, wondering if it is possible to revive their past relationship. In the midst of her involvement with Jake, Jane also begins to fall for Adam (Steve Martin), a shy architect working on the additions to her house; and the woman once without prospects becomes the one with options.

Meyers’ pleasant script is sold by excellent performances from the leads. Martin and Baldwin play distinctly different characters that you want to see succeed, even though you know one won’t. Both men have good intentions with Jane, both have their pitfalls, and both have different approaches to handling relationships. Martin and Baldwin have strong chemistry with Streep who, as usual, lures the audience in with her natural screen presence. Streep finds a nice balance of frustration and confidence that allows her to transition as Jane begins to realize the situation she is in is - well - complicated. The supporting characters round out the story just fine, with Harley (John Krasinski), Jake and Jane’s son-in-law who accidentally learns of their secretive affair, standing out. Krasinksi manages to be downright hilarious while keeping his performance under control and at times cleverly subtle.

It’s Complicated contains enough situational humor and laugh-out-loud dialogue to keep the audience interested, but it’s the realism within the script that propels the film forward. Meyers doesn’t pretend that her characters aren’t being a little reckless, and that consequences don’t apply. Amid the humor, her characters encounter moments of excitement, rejection, disappointment, truth, and honesty. The film’s ability to maintain a comedic punch, while still grounding itself in reality, makes it all the more enjoyable.

It’s Complicated surely won't be the last time we see what I am going to call the "Meyers Formula." If trends can be followed, expect her next romantic foray into the WASP-y upper-class by 2012. What's the old saying? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Meyers' films don't escape cliche, but they provide the humor, charm, appeal, and realism that you just don't find in too many "romance"-based films.

Legion (2010)

Why I saw it: I’m a sucker for the supernatural. On film, that is. As often as I am disappointed with the results, within these kinds of films, I generally follow a “if you make it, I will come” policy.

The verdict: 3 out of 10/D

After watching Legion, I couldn’t keep myself from wondering how the pitch for this film went. I can’t imagine everyone present had a total grasp on what director/co-writer Scott Stewart exactly had in mind for this film. I don’t think he ever figured it out. With its absurd theology, incongruent plot, and meaningless contrivances, from the start, Legion must have been destined to appear during the annual horror-slump month better known as January. It’s no secret that Hollywood’s New Years burden is to generally release ill-fated studio efforts from the year before, with hopes to get some financial return on them. Quite often, these come in the form of sloppy horror outings, and Legion certainly fits the bill.

Religious lore makes for good cinema. The inherent good versus evil that headlines Hollywood’s usual religious inspiration, Christianity, provides ample room for protagonists, antagonists, conflict and all the other ingredients needed to make an entertaining film. Getting genre specific, the Bible provides great fodder for supernatural thrillers. With angels and demons, spiritual battles, and Heaven and hell, it provides the prototype for this type of film. Legion makes the fatal error of toying with this structure.

On the surface Legion has the potential to entertain. It contains a few innovative special effects, and it seems at one point there was a more congruous story, but all this is cut at the waist since the final product just doesn’t make the grade. Legion tells us that God is fed up with mankind and has ordered his angels to exterminate us. Michael, standing alone, rebels against God, falls to Earth, and holes up with a ragtag group of people in a Nevada-dessert diner. He is there to protect Charlie, 8 months pregnant with a child that Michael knows will grow to lead mankind in a new direction. Of course, this is news to Charlie. For the majority of the film, the group fends off angels turned nasty, who are bent on possessing mankind so they may kill the unborn baby and anyone else who gets in their way.

That’s right, I said possess; typically something you associate with a demon, no? Therein lays Legion’s biggest problem. The film changes too much of what we believe about angels and demons without an intelligent explanation, making it hard to digest the story and accompanying visuals. As if God’s wish for our demise isn’t enough of a massive theological plot hole, the angels come to mimic their foes and everything we know about them goes out the window. With razor sharp teeth, potty mouths, and a penchant for death, they are essentially demons that the film calls angels. It’s a very conflicting plot device and its careless treatment makes the filmmakers look ignorant. It's no easy task to convince an audience that angels are capable of or prone to such brutality. It’s the equivalent of revealing Santa Claus to be the killer in a slasher flick. I just don’t buy it, and Legion certainly doesn’t sell it. Notwithstanding a last-minute plot twist that sinks the filmmakers intelligence even lower, this film could have saved itself some trouble and identified the villains as demons acting on Lucifer’s behalf.

Allow me to establish that I am not a filmgoer who requires strict compliance with logic or what I perceive as truth. However, a film that knowingly turns convention on its head should provide an explanation or integrate it into the plot in a captivating way. This just isn’t done here, and instead, the story appears to be the brainchild of a videogame nerd who had one too many bong hits.

Legion also fails on a second front that may have resuscitated it in some form: the characters it presents. A good “strangers banding together to fight the bad guy” film has interesting strangers. The different characters color the film and make us hope for the best as they defend themselves and each other. Unfortunately for us, the people who find themselves at the Paradise Falls Diner on this woeful day are boring and generic. Even Charlie, pregnant with the soon-to-be-savior, is hardly likelable. While there really are no awful performances by the cast, save a ridiculous accent from Lucas Black, the actors seem to be painting by the numbers. Truthfully, they exist only to be taken out by the “angels” and they all know it. A little character development would have gone a long way.

I didn’t expect much from Legion. With a poster that displays a ripped Paul Bettany looking to the heavens, how could I? With a little more thought and some deference to its subject matter, it could have been a fun popcorn flick. But, it has far too many plot inconsistencies to mention and leaves many vital questions unanswered. When the credits roll you wonder how many people died in this onslaught? What was God thinking? Will Jeep be able to read the squiggly tattoos that suddenly appear on his arm so he can fulfill the prophecy? What is the prophecy? It is lazy filmmaking at its best, yet still doesn’t qualify for the “So Bad, It’s Good” category. Legion will make its run through theaters, surely surpass its $26M budget, convince a few tortured souls to buy the DVD, and will then be tucked away with its other January brethren. If you want to look it up, find the file labeled “It Was Just Bad.”