"What Did You Put in This?": Review of THE MASTER

As most of you know, I'm in Oxford study at one of the colleges that make up Oxford University. As such, my ability to complete PTA Fest 2012 was a bust (I will pick up the remaining films once I return to the States and to my dvd collection). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's newest feature, THE MASTER. 

Starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, THE MASTER tells the story of Freddie Quell (Phoenix), an alcoholic World War II navy veteran with post traumatic stress disorder, and his struggles to adjust to postwar society. Eventually he meets the mysterious author, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, man, and leader of a philosophical movement known simply as The Cause, Lancaster Dodd, an inevitably change each other's lives forever. 

Now, if that seems like a vague, almost rudimentary plot, that's because it kind of is. And that's okay, because the plot of the film has to take a back seat in order to tackle the two most important elements of the work, those being the two main characters. Freddi Quell and Lancaster Dodd are two sides of the same coin. Both so completely different, but on such a scale that it makes them almost the same person. Freddie Quell is controlled exclusively by his Id. Whether it be drinking fuel from a bomb on a battleship or attempting to have sex with everyone women he comes in contact with, no matter how old or young, big or small, his only need is to satisfy the animalistic nature inside him. Lancaster Dodd on the otherhand is completely controlled by his Ego. Unable to take criticism or questioning without becoming defensive to the point of verbal, and near physical abuse, his need to be the smartest person in the room, to be the center of attention and the man with all the answers controls his every whim. 

But both men are so controlled by these opposite parts of the human psyche that they are unable to change, whatsoever. Even though Lancaster takes Freddie under his wing, by the end Freddie is in the exact same dark place that he was when he originally got off the boat. And Lancaster, through all his trials and tribulations, though seeing first hand the inability of his philosophy to really change anyone, continues to speechify and profess the great powers that come from reading his work. 

As such, THE MASTER becomes a fascinating look into the human psyche, the powers of cult-like organizations, the master and disciple dynamics, the idea of how perhaps who we are at our core is unchangeable even if we sincerely believe we want to change, and the overall American personality. It's an incredibly ambitious, breathtakingly gorgeous (I can't imagine what it looks like in 70mm) film with an amazing score (by Jonny Greenwood) and two of the best performances by leading actors that I've seen in quite sometime. Admittedly it's not for everyone. And if you don't invest deeply in the two characters then the film could probably begin  to feel like quite a slog. It's purposefully opaque and mysterious, and the performances (and the film as a whole) are incredibly unnerving, but in the best way possible. It's not my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson film of all time (that's not a knock at all), but it is most certainly a worthy addition into the portfolio of one of the most gifted and important filmmakers in America today. 

Can I Buy You a Cup of Coffee?: Thoughts on HARD EIGHT

So, I was hoping this event would start a lot sooner and that I could complete it a lot faster than it appears is possible. At this point, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to actually watch all 6 movies and give my thoughts on them before I leave the country, but I'll get as many as I can done (THE MASTER is the only other I know for sure). That being said, I did get to watch Anderson's first ever feature film, HARD EIGHT. 

And it's an interesting little film. Made in 1996, it tells the story of John (John C. Reilly), a down on his luck schlub sitting outside of a diner who is confronted by a mysterious, middle-aged stranger offering to him a cigarette and to buy him a cup of coffee. As we come to find out, the stranger is Sydney (Phillip Baker Hall), a professional gambler, who asks John what he would do if he were to be given 50 dollars. Turns out John is just looking to make 6000 dollars to pay for his mother's funeral. Though Sydney says it won't net him the 6 grand, he offers to show John a few tricks that might net him a room and some food. John obliges and they set off for Vegas. 

When you compare HARD EIGHT to some of Anderson's later work, it seems much smaller in scale, story and it's overall ambition (that's not a knock). The 20 minute prologue (stated above) takes place 2 years before everything else and is remarkably subdued. It's pretty much exactly what I've described, two men sitting in a diner and talking about themselves and what the future might hold. And even when the film picks up after the introduction of Gwyneth Paltrow's (dimwitted waitress and occasional prostitute, Clementine) and Samuel L. Jackson's (sleazy "security guard" for a local casino, Jimmy), it is still very intimate. But I think that's the point. I don't think it is surprising that Anderson chose Reno for his setting instead of opting for the larger, more glitzy Las Vegas. 

Like other PTA films that would follow, HARD EIGHT isn't really about the plot per se. It's about the characters. Paul Thomas Anderson cares immensely about his characters; perhaps more than any other director working today. Every single character in his films is treated with respect in the way he or she is presented. It doesn't hurt when you have actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman who can come in and do a quick 2 minute bit part, but with the attention Anderson pays to his characters, it would be this way no matter who was playing them (Kristen Stewart and Cody Horn notwithstanding). But as superb as the minor cast is, it's the film's stars who really deserve the attention.

All four of the main actors give amazing performances. Gwyneth Paltrow is great, as is Sam Jackson. But those two are also only supporting characters. The core of HARD EIGHT (and the main reason to see it), however, is the dynamic relationship between John C. Reilly and Phillip Baker Hall. Hall as the titular character (the film is also known as SYDNEY is some areas) is especially noteworthy. Played pitch-perfectly, Sydney exudes an old school confidence and his assured manner and calmness in all situations makes it easy to see why John looks up to him, wants to be just like him. But it's not long before we start seeing the deep-seated desperation and loneliness eating away at Sydney. Phillip Baker Hall portrays this subtlety through a carefully modulated performance that is masterful and is the main thing that sticks with you once the credits roll. 

HARD EIGHT is not Anderson's best, not that that's something you should expect from a director's first offering. The film does however demonstrate the assured filmmaking, strong dramatic characterization, and unconventional plot that would become PTA staples. Admittedly the film does become slow at times, but it evokes a particular mood so vividly while managing to avoid all the cliches of the Vegas/casino genre that even it's slowest parts have this inexplicable magnetism that is almost hypnotic. 

Thoughts on the First Behind the Scenes Look at LES MIS

Wow. Just wow. It's not often that I get chills from a behind the scenes feature. Yesterday Universal moved the release date of Tom Hooper's (THE KING'S SPEECH) take on the classic musical to Christmas, and today it released this nice extended clip. And while not as epic as the first trailer for CLOUD ATLAS, there is some really great stuff here. 

Most of the clip focuses on the fact that every take was sung live during filming. Seeing how much emotion it empowers each performance with is just amazing. One of the most fascinating pieces is seeing Hugh Jackman's various takes on one of Jean Valjean's key soliloquies. And while all the actors offer really great insight, it's Jackman's demonstration that really shows what this particular way of shooting can do for performances. It gives them so many outlets and different paths to explore, while bringing a much needed component of realism and pure emotion. It's such a wonderful idea that really seems like it's going to bring something truly amazing to the adaptation. It makes you wonder why every musical doesn't do this, though I'm sure it's because of the extreme length of time it must have taken to film each scene. It's a truly groundbreaking idea, and if Tom Hooper pulls it off I would not be surprised one bit if he received an Oscar nomination. 

My only complaint would have to be that we don't get a sneak peak (or listen) of Russell Crowe's Inspector Javert. I know for a fact that Crowe is a very talented singer and I am very anxious to hear and see his take on the character. We also don't get a glimpse of Helena Bonham Carter or Sacha Baron Cohen which is regrettable. However, the cast is stunning (especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine, WOW) and the film looks like it has the real chance at being something very special. 

PTA FEST 2012

If you'll apologize the weird picture format (Blogger refuses to allow me to do what I want with photos), I'd like to share in a little endeavor with all of you. For those of you who don’t know, my favorite director today (perhaps of all time) is Paul Thomas Anderson. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the opening weekend screenings of his newest film (and my most anticipated film of the year), THE MASTER. As such, I will have to wait until the beginning of next week to actually see it. Because of this, I have decided to partake in a little event I’m dubbing PTA FEST 2012. Starting either tomorrow night, I will be watching each of Anderson’s first five films in order and presenting my thoughts here afterward, eventually leading to my review of THE MASTER early next week.

Now, while I can’t promise these posts will be as in depth as I might like, I will do my best to provide at least a little of my “insight” in each. I hope this exercise will not only further my already immense appreciation and love of PTA’s films, but also inspire some of you to check out his work if you are unfamiliar or just haven’t seen it in a while. Either way, let’s get to watching!

Pandamiglio's Pizza: Review of SLEEPWALK WITH ME

I love little independent releases as much as anyone I know. So, you can imagine my delight when I found out that one of my local theaters (the lovely and charming Kentucky Theatre) was one of the only 75 theaters in the country that would be getting comedian/monologist Mike Birbiglia's SLEEPWALK WITH ME. And as I sat down, realizing that the film was being played using a Blu-ray disc and a Playstation 3 (which I applaud the Theatre's expert use of, including playing trailers), I knew this film was going to really fit that bill. And it did, though not to perfection. 

The latest adaptation of Birbiglia's real-life experiences (after an off-Broadway show, memoir, and episode of THIS AMERICAN LIFE), SLEEPWALK WITH ME tells the story of thinly-veiled Birbiglia avatar, Matt Pandamiglio (see?) as he tends a New York City bar and occasionally works on his fledgling comic career, spinning his wheels and having no idea where his life is going. He has parents (Carol Kane, James Rebhorn), who are relatively understanding but still concerned with their son's ambivalence and lack of career momentum, a sister (Cristin Milioti) who is getting married and has her life together, though still makes time to listen to Matt's problems, and a girlfriend. Played by the beautiful and incredibly charming Lauren Ambrose, Abby is pretty much the perfect girlfriend. She's attractive, funny, talented (she's a former band frontwoman and now successful vocal coach), and most of all she's understanding. She and Matt have been together for 8 years, and is only now starting to hint at her want for marriage and children. Seemingly out of nowhere, Matt finds himself an agent and starts performing out of town gigs. Initially his standup is failing, until finally a conversation with another comedian (Marc Maron) convinces him to start putting his own life into his standup (most notably about his relationship with Abby and his sleepwalking). As his standup career begins to take off, his relationship begins to deteriorate and Matt begins to discover who he truly is. 

Similar to Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL, a lot of the film is spent with Pandamiglio talking to the camera about (SPOILERS) the one that got away. Perhaps not surprising to anyone who's seen (and especially those who like) Birbiglia's standup, these moments along with when he's actually on stage are when the film is most enjoyable. Birbiglia is, in my opinion, a fantastic comedian. What he isn't, is a fantastic actor. And when the film begins to move into more classic cinema mode, it really comes out just how much Birbiglia isn't a leading man. In the moments when he's not on stage, everything he does makes him feel very stilted and awkward. And not stilted and awkward like his character might be in the actual film, but stilted and awkward like an actor who really doesn't know how to act with other actors performing with him. 

For someone who really loves standup comedy, I found that the jokes and Birbiglia/Pandamiglio's standup in the film were enough to allow me to enjoy the film. That being said, besides ANNIE HALL, one other property that the film draws comparisons to is LOUIE, Louis C.K.'s groundbreaking TV show also about the everyday neuroses of a working comedian. And while it's not fair to compare Birbiglia to Louis C.K., it's hard not to see how much more effort C.K. puts into the acting and filmmaking portions of his art. On the whole, though really funny, the things attempted by SLEEPWALK WITH ME have all been done, and at a much high level on LOUIE. 

And that's kind of what really bummed me out about the entire movie. Though it was this really independent release, if you replaced Birbiglia with a big name, Seth Rogen type and changed nothing else, I feel like you would have a standard Judd Apatow comedy. I get excited by independent films because they usually try to bring something really fresh and interesting to the table. And while Birbiglia's standup is hilarious and I laughed a ton throughout, there just isn't really anything terribly new and exciting here. Except the idea of pizza-flavored ice cream. I really gotta get me some of that. 

P.S. Really, though. Even though this movie isn't amazing, you should go out and support it and awesome places, like the Kentucky Theatre, that actually get these small indie joints for crazy film nerds like me that desperately want to see them. 

Holy Expressionism Batman!: Thoughts on BATMAN RETURNS

Over this past weekend, I was in serious need of a Batman fix. Seeing as I had seen each film in the Nolan trilogy multiple times over the past few months and I don't own either of Joel Schumacher's abominations, I decided to revisit Tim Burton's BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS (sorry, Adam West). Now, don't get me wrong, the first film is great and I still enjoyed it immensely. I had forgotten how much I like Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader and Jack Nicholson's performance of the Joker is, although very different from Heath Ledger's, really fantastic. But I didn't really get anything new out of it. It wasn't until I watched BATMAN RETURNS that I discovered something I had never realized before.

Strewn about the entire 1992 work are countless references to German Expressionistic cinema from the silent era. Compared to BATMAN (1989), RETURNS is shot in very dark, muted tones, primarily in nothing nothing black, white and grey. Not just the colors of the film give off an Expressionist vibe, however. Besides the overall color saturation and stylized shots, Danny Elfman's score of classical music powered by strong organ parts throughout paired with Burton's overly built, twisted sets and out of date costumes are all referential to classic German silent films of the 1920s.

What originally set off this line of thinking, however, was Christopher Walken as Max Shreck. Now, I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about the Batman franchise and I had never heard of a character called Max Shreck, though the name seemed incredibly familiar. It seems interesting that Burton would make on of the main characters of the film (and arguably the film's main antagonist) someone who never appeared in the comics, right? Burton making this completely new character such a major player in the film must have a major point. Finally taking the time to look up the name, I realized why it seemed so familiar. The real Max Schreck (notice the subtle "c" at the beginning of his surname) was a German actor in the 1920s, most famous for playing the famous vampire Orlok in the German Expressionist classic NOSFERATU (1922). Maybe the reason Walken's character plays such a major role is because he plays a major part in Burton's loving tribute to one of his major influences. And while this would sufficient to make obvious connections, Burton takes it one step further.

You see, Christopher Walken's makeup and fantastic fright wig in the film were not chosen simply to make him seem more menacing and bizarre (though they totally work on that level too). No, he also bears a striking resemblance to the mad scientist Rotwang (please hold all snickering until the end of the post) in Fritz Lang's 1927 sci-fi Expressionist film, METROPOLIS (1927).

 Though my presentation of the pictures are as off kilter as the characters themselves, I think it's easy to see the clear intention behind Christopher Walken's look in RETURNS. But in case you weren't convinced (but wait! There's more!), Burton makes sure you know that these two films are connected with one mirroring shot of the structures that loom over each respective film.

Above are picture Max Shrek's skyscraper headquarters for his multi-million dollar department store from RETURNS and the Tower of Babel from METROPOLIS. Though not completely identical shots, I believe the fact that Burton chose this particular way of depicting the skyscraper (and the fact that the two buildings have a very similar architectural structure) is extremely intentional. But Shreck isn't the only villain that gets the Expressionist treatment.

Danny DeVito's portrayal of the Penguin, while disgustingly amazing in its own right, also has its roots in another classic silent era German film, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. 

Though not always as clear as pictured above, I think it is pretty obvious that the Penguin character is modeled after the character of Dr. Caligari. Not only are they both portrayed as completely reviling creatures, their senses of style (including glorious top hats and accentuating walking devices) and overall builds are identical. Still not convinced? Take a look at these shots:

For those of you who haven't seen THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI and/or BATMAN RETURNS (though shame on you if you haven't!), in both films, the characters of Penguin and Dr. Caligari are found out to not be who they are claiming. After this revelation, they are both chased by the townspeople over highly stylized bridges and eventually make their escape. Surely this cannot be mere coincidence. It seems clear that Burton went to great lengths to reenact some of the most iconic scenes and characters from a time period that he clearly loves and cherishes. 

Now, I'm sure there are tons of other subtle references to various German Expressionist films in BATMAN RETURNS, but admittedly I am not expert. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't just mention my assumptions that Catwoman, notably her costume/makeup and her fall/death scene, has her own set of references. That being said, I think it's definitely an interesting narrative to explore, not only in BATMAN RETURNS, but any work in which Tim Burton was not restricted and allowed to make the film he wanted to make with all his influences intact (the character of Edward Scissorhands comes to mind as a reference to another CALIGARI character, Cesare). BATMAN RETURNS is strikingly different in style from BATMAN, and I think it has a lot to do with Warner Brothers' unwillingness to let Burton off the leash initially. I also believe it's clear that Tim Burton has extremely strong German Expressionist influences and I think that recognizing this allows for a new and interesting perspective from which to view and enjoy some of his earlier work. 

Style Without Substance: Review of LAWLESS

As LAWLESS opens, we are greeted by stunning landscapes and narration by one Jack Bondurant, played by Shia LaBeouf. And while unintentional, this opening scene becomes a microcosm of the film that is about to unfold.

Based on Matt Bondurant's dramatized family history, THE WETTEST COUNTY IN THE WORLD, about his grandfather and two great uncles, the film has a lot on its side going in. From director John Hillcoat's (THE ROAD) impeccable, high-toned visual style that fans of his come to expect, to Tom Hardy, fresh off his portrayal of Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, who can be seen, if not completely heard as the monosyllabic leader of a band of moonshinin' brothers. While, to the film's detriment I believe, his dialogue is limited to a series of nearly incomprehensible growls and grunts, he still demonstrates why he's one of the best onscreen presences working in Hollywood today.

And on that note, there is also Guy Pearce (THE HURT LOCKER, PROMETHEUS), who consistently puts out some of the most indelible, pungent supporting performances in film. Here, playing a slimy outsider and deputy sheriff with a perverse streak as long as the Appalachian Mountains, he again makes the most out of what he's given. 

All that being said, the entire film is overcast with a sense of pointlessness. From LaBeouf's opening narration, a feeling of "So what?" sets in and the film never manages to work itself out of it. Set in the early 30s in rural Virginia, LAWLESS tells the story of the Bondurant boys, Jack (LaBeouf) and his two brothers Howard (Jason Clarke) and Forrest (Hardy). Dividing their time between operating their family's general store and running their lucrative "white lightnin'" operation, the boys are living the life and making good money while doing it. However, all good things must come to an end and their business is threatened by the arrival of Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Pearce), a sleaze from Chicago partial to designer gloves, bow ties, and a maniacal, high-pitched laugh. Rakes' polar opposite, infamous gangster Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman) is also an ever-present, machine gun toting specter hovering over all the proceedings, the idol and eventual business associate of young Jack and his budding empire. 

If it seems like you've already seen this movie, it's because if you've ever seen any gangster/mob movie then you have. Though it looks incredible behind John Hillcoat's brilliant eye, LAWLESS seems to be a Frankenstein's monster, cut and paste recreation of all those films preceding it. From the ritualistic brutality to the unbreakable bond between brothers, it has all the gangster film tropes at their most action-packed, bloody, and romantic. It tries to introduce a new(ish) element, that being the folk-legendary immortality of the Brothers Bondurant, but that story line goes nowhere apart from one truly brutal (and AWESOME) "near-death" scene. 

LAWLESS just treads on such traveled paths that it becomes boring. The shootouts and fight scenes, which become predictable, always end up being lackluster letdowns. And despite such a seemingly colorful backstory, none of the Bondurant boys ever emerges past genre stock characters. Not to mention that of the TWO women in the film (played by the talented actresses Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska), neither are given much of anything to do. Wasikowska's character at least has a visible arc as the innocent churchgoing Bertha who is charmed away from her quiet life of religion by Jack's courtin'. Jessica Chastain on the other hand is given little to do, other than pouring coffee and staring meaningfully at Tom Hardy (though, honestly, there could be worse jobs). 

Oldman, Pearce, and Dane Dehaan (CHRONICLE) who plays Jack's crippled friend Cricket, all deliver excellent performances. Unfortunately, their brief moments are the only time in the film where it feels like more than people speechifying and standing around "profoundly," which is unfortunate for a story that, on its surface, seems incredibly interesting. But LAWLESS really is beautiful to look at. But as fun as it is to visually ingest, it just feels like business as usual (which you really don't want when the business is bootlegging). I just wish a movie about moonshiners, gangsters, and all around dirty outlaws didn't play it so safe. 

Thoughts on Steven Spielberg's LINCOLN (Trailer)

The first full trailer for Steven Spielberg's biopic of the 16th president hit the internet yesterday to mixed reviews. Chronicling the last 4 months of the legendary figure, if the trailer is any indication, Spielberg's comments on the film being more about Lincoln the man, than Lincoln the monument seem to spot on. 

The first thing I noticed about the trailer was really how much it's impact depended on how much you know about history. Sure, you can get a lot of Day-Lewis's performance (which I'll get to in a second), but without having at least some historical knowledge, all the characters and their comments really lose a lot of their meaning. This is not a critique of the film, I actually really appreciate. While I myself don't know a ton about history during this time, I will certainly do some research before the film to make sure I get the most out of it. I really respect Spielberg for staying true and not spoon feeding the audience any details. If nothing else, this biopic is going to accurate. 

Speaking of accurate, wow. Does Daniel Day-Lewis look good as Lincoln, or what? Now, most of you probably don't know this, but Day-Lewis is one of my favorite actors of all time. I think his intensity, precision, and commitment are unsurpassed. And this one appears to be no difference. Not only does he (granted, with help from hair and makeup) look uncannily like the Great Emancipator, he embodies the weight that Lincoln had to be feeling during one of the most stressful times in American history. Besides all the political and social issues facing him, Lincoln had already faced many personal tragedies by this point. And you can see this all in Day-Lewis's eyes and the way he carries himself. Even if the film turns out to be a bust, you can be sure Daniel Day-Lewis is getting an Oscar nomination (he will probably be the favorite) for this undoubtedly masterful performance. 

That all being said, the trailer does not leave me feeling great about the film. Though the cast seems fantastic, the cliche John Williams emotional strings really feel manipulative and leave me nervous and hoping this doesn't end up being another WARHORSE. Though I am a huge fan of Williams's music and Spielberg as a director, lately they have a really hard time using music in a way that works (for me, at least). MUNICH was a near perfect film, except for one particular music cue that really turned me off. And I couldn't help be reminded of this, by the clunker intro to Tommy Lee Jones's Thaddeus Stevens. 

Trailer being what it is, I'm still extremely excited to see what Spielberg does with this long-anticipated documentation of an American Icon. The fact that the battle scenes seem to actually be taking a backseat to Lincoln's own personal struggles is something that I'm really looking forward to seeing, and everyone should see it, regardless of how the trailer strikes you.

LINCOLN hits theaters November 9th.

"K Fried C": Review of KILLER JOE

WILLIAM FRIEDKIN'S FILM OF TRACY LETTS' KILLER JOE, is perhaps the strangest, most obnoxious beginning title sequence I've ever seen. It makes it seem like Friedkin is absolutely desperate to make sure we don't forget he's still making movies. I don't know how much you know about director William Friedkin, but he used to make pretty good films. Early in his career he was responsible for some of the most masterfully done, gritty and realistic films of the 1970s (THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, just to name a few). But as time progressed, he became less famous and more infamous for a long string of duds including JADE , RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and most importantly, THE GUARDIAN, about a tree that eats babies (no, for real). 

Recently, however, Friedkin has abandoned herbaceous baby-vores and, instead, has focused his time on directing episodes of CSI and movies based on plays by Tracy Letts (this is their second collaboration after 2006's BUG). And that brings us to the film in question. KILLER JOE, actually Letts' first (and probably worst, ZING!) play, is a southern Gothic tale about a family of trailer park dwellers who do horrible things to each other. The movie itself is really unpleasant and hard to sit through (coming from a guy who sat through both HUMAN CENTIPEDE 1 and 2). Though many people have called it a "dark comedy" it's so dark and nihilistic that the only laughs it produces are those nervous, "This has got to end soon, right?" laughs that make the dark comedy label seem more like the product of studio execs saying, "Jesus, what are we going to say THIS thing is?!" The film would almost be a complete wash, if not for the striking cinematography (by Caleb "Don't Call Me Zooey" Deschanel) and amazing cast. 

For one, I was absolutely enthralled with the performance put in by (my former arch-nemesis) Matthew McConaughey. It's fascinating to watch him tap into this darkness which lay, up until this point, dormant (unless you have some messed up views of DAZED AND CONFUSED).  In the film, McConaughey plays Joe Cooper, a demented small town police detective who hires himself out as hitman. You give him $20,000 dollars (up front, NO EXCEPTIONS... Actually, maybe one exception) and he'll take care of anyone you want out of the picture. And that's the thing. It really feels like Killer Joe can do anything. Never has this likable and funny actor portrayed such intensity and sinister resoluteness. It just seeps out of him, and you feel like no matter what it is, no matter how demented, he's willing to do anything -- and the movie proves it. 

My question to that is: But to what end? Basically the plot of KILLER JOE boils down to Chris (Emile Hirsch) owes some money to the wrong people and decides to hire Killer Joe to kill his mother so that her $50,000 dollar life insurance policy can be had. Chris' dad, Ansel (Thomas Haden Church), who hates his ex-wife and could use some cash of his own, consents. Unfortunately, their murderous scheme, approved by Ansel's brazen new wife (Gina Gershon), doesn't go according to plan (welcome to Understaters Anonymous). 

Now, those of you who know my movie tastes know I am always up for some good, old fashioned pulpy mayhem. And KILLER JOE certainly delivers on that account with continuously doling out touches meant to shock and offend including Gershon's character entering the film naked from the waist down and the turning of Chris' dimwitted 12-year-old sister (Juno Temple) into a potential rape victim. The film (this is my best bet, though THANKFULLY I'm not expert on this topic) earns its NC-17 rating with a nearly unbearable scene involving Gershon's character and a KFC chicken leg (in perhaps the most misguided and baffling product placement in the history of film). And even past all that, KILLER JOE still ladles on the violence and absurdity like gravy on biscuits (seemed like an appropriate, albeit gross analogy). And it would all be passable if this was an exploitation movie. However, in a film that is attempting to explore the moral digressions we are willing to commit to get what we want, it all just comes off feeling cheap and manipulative. By the end of the film you just end up feeling sorry for all the people who were in the movie and had to subject themselves to such embarrassments. Except for Matthew McConaughey, who delivers a savage and hypnotic (maybe because it was so unexpected) performance. 

Between KILLER JOE and MAGIC MIKE (which put together sound like one amazing duet), Matthew McConaughey continues to surprise me. Friedkin, on the other hand, seems content on keeping his current streak alive (as long as you know he's still making movies). 

Time Travel Done Right: Review of SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED

Let me start off by saying that I definitely underestimated how difficult doing a movie review is with nearly a week in between the time you saw the film and the time when you actually sit down to try and write it. What I'm basically saying is that this review might be garbage but just go watch the film anyway! Now that I've threatened you all, SPOILERS FOR SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED probably throughout this, but maybe not at the beginning (navigate that vaguery if you dare!). 

So, anyway, SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED stars Aubrey Plaza (PARKS AND REC) as Darius (not of Hootie fame), a dissatisfied college graduate living at home with her widowed father (Jeff Garlin) and working as an intern at a Seattle-based magazine. Sick of taking all sorts of shit from her employers and changing the toilet paper rolls in the bathrooms (sensing a theme?), she volunteers and is chosen to help one of the magazine's more blasé writers, Jeff Schwensen (Jake M. Johnson) investigate a newspaper classified ad that reads: 

"Wanted: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed." 

I don't know about you, but he had me at BYOWeapons. So, yeah , Jeff and Darius head off, along with studious biology major Arnau (Karan Soni), to see if this guy (or equally insane? lady) is really as mental as he (or equally insane? she) seems, or if there's something behind it. 

So after days of intense investigation (waiting for maybe an hour at the post office until the person checked his/her mail) Darius discovers that the guy (or equally insane...oh, wait) behind the letter is grocery store stock clerk (one of the more exciting clerk positions), Kenneth Calloway (Mark Duplass). And although Jeff's abrasive personality quickly alienates Calloway, Darius's offbeat, Zooey Deschanel except bearable charm and unaffected personality serve her well and Kenneth accepts her as his partner in time. As the film progresses, so does their relationship and Darius is forced to question whether or not they judged Kenneth too soon. Is there something more to him underneath that crazy, semi-mulleted, karate master exterior? Is he really being followed by the FBI? I mean, they do have trench coats. Not to mention his drawings look pretty legit. 

SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED is a spirited little movie that takes the rom-com genre and various time travel tropes and turns them on their heads. Imbued with fantastic geek culture references (Stormtroopers are just blue collar workers!), the film is whimsical and really funny, but there aren't any cheap or easy jokes to be found. 

As the star of the film, Aubrey Plaza really shines in her first starring role. She's smart and funny, but also has to show off some dramatic chutzpah which comes off beautiful and organic. The cast is all around pretty great (Mark Duplass plays a really good kook), each being given their own arcs that focus on each of the characters' personal battles with regret that all tie together rather nicely.   

Like I said, it's not a big block buster sci-fi movie, and that's really to its credit. The dialogue is quick and effective and blends well with the cinematography to give the film an intimate feel which works well and gives weight to what the characters are going through. So many films that involve some sort of time travel try way too hard to make it a huge centerpiece and just end up with confusing logic that melts under scrutiny (MIB III is a recent example). SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED shows wonderfully how you can use time travel effectively without forcing it to do things it can't handle. Unfortunately, it's this idea of needing a big, showy, Hollywood set piece that is almost the film's undoing (what I like to call the "Michael Bay Effect" Patent Pending). 

Up until the last 5 minutes, the film does an amazing job at using the time travel element sparingly as a way propel the film forward. And it works because the time travel isn't as important as the relationships between the characters, how they all deal with regret in their own, unique ways, and the romance that blossoms between Darius and Kenneth (boo! I want to go back and kill Hitler!). But the last five minutes nearly kills it all by forsaking these ideas in favor of a flashy, CGI sequence on what looks like one of those swamp airboats except all tricked-out. Oh, he actually wasn't crazy and they just went back in time! It looks okay, but it doesn't have the intended weight because it didn't matter if he was crazy or not. What mattered was Darius's acceptance of Kenneth regardless. By giving us a concrete answer, the film blows the chance to wrap up their relationship in a satisfying way and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth (it's toothpaste and orange juice, man).

All of my complaining aside, the film has its problems, but it really is intelligent and funny. The acting is on point, especially Aubrey Plaza who makes a legitimate case for future leading roles. The themes are interesting and the way the film uses time travel sans CGI BS (acronyms for everyone!) is really refreshing in a time polluted with gratuitously confusing sci-fi logistics. Some people may find it too quirky, maybe even too nerdy with its fairly esoteric references and soundtrack, but I thought it was fun and charming. 

Plus it teaches a valuable lesson in how to steal secret government materials even if there's an office party going on. And who couldn't afford to be better at that?