The Odds Are Ever In Its Favor

Why do the most powerful themes always resonate from the most impossible choices?  I'm not just talking about sacrifice; but sacrifice laced with love, honor, ethical and moral aptitude, and the will to survive.  I believe "The Hunger Games" conveys every possible moral dilemma that can weigh on the human condition, and then some.  It is also a motion picture of exquisite detail punctuated by beats of unbearable tension.  How some of these characters don't die from tension-induced cardiac arrest, I'm not sure.

Gary Ross has directed exactly two feature films before "The Hunger Games."  Whatever you do, don't disregard this movie based on his relatively short resume.  I would wager that few directors would have been able to understand this world as Ross seems to.  Consider his "Pleasantville," about a brother and sister transported into the surreal world of a 1950's sitcom.  No explanation is ever given for this miraculous event, but none is needed.  Gary Ross goes full-stop into the fantasy realm and allows his characters to transform, along with the entire world around them.  For something like "The Hunger Games," his previous film is a good one to have on his track record because whatever explanation is needed for the audience (mostly for those who have not read the novels, like myself) comes through the vibrant detail and by watching how the characters perceive this world.  After a helpful set of opening titles explaining in broad strokes what the ground rules are for this distopian existence, the characters immediately serve as the reference point for our understanding.

In a future America, society has rebuilt itself from ashes after war ravaged, well...everything, I guess.  At some point, a rebellion took place and as punishment, the country was divided into twelve districts, all in various states of wealth, poverty and privilege.  Each year, a male and female between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen from each district to compete in the cruelest reality television show imaginable.  24 "tributes" are put into a wildlife preserve style arena and must fight, kill, or survive until only one is left.  This is dubbed "The Hunger Games" because I suppose that sounds better than "poignant satire of the kind of crap we watch on t.v. already."  It is explained that this began as punishment for the rebellion, but has now evolved into a "unifying" event that is symbolic of the hope and triumph that came out of the war.  Watching the scenes of Game Master Seneca (Wes Bentley) explain this is strangely reminiscent of current political PR hogwash.  The games are monitered, and sometimes omnisciently controlled by "the Captiol," which itself is controlled by President Snow (Donald Sutherland, unfortunately phoning in).

That's another thing; just over a week ago, in my review of "John Carter," I lamented all the names I couldn't pronounce from that film.  I spoke too soon.  Here there are people like Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), whose name sounds like an adjective.  She volunteers to be the female tribute from district 12 (the poorest) because her younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), was chosen from the lottery.  In these districts, to buy simple amenities like food and wares, one must submit their name to the lottery.  In any given year, this could mean they might have their name submitted many times, such as Katniss' friend Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), who has 42 entries this year.  He gets a free pass, however, because Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is chosen as the male tribute from the 12th district.  Peeta and Katniss have no doubt met before, in a misunderstanding neither of them has ever spoken of.  Yet here they are, on a train traveling 200 mph toward the Capitol and escorted by chaperone Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks, unrecognizeable).  Anyone else think her name conjurs images of a vulgar garage sale item?  Katniss and Peeta also meet Haymitch Abernathy, a former champion of the Hunger Games who will serve as their trainer and mentor.  As played by Woody Harrelson, Haymitch is one of the two characters I was interested in most.  He advises the new tributes well, but seems to regard them each as a tragedy doomed to fail.  Oh he may have his hopes for who might come out of the arena alive, but he also seems to convey that no matter what the outcome, there is no real "winner."  That's the tragedy.

All 24 tributes are groomed, pampered, catered to and trained for battle in a series of sequences that prove to be the film's most intriguing.  Stanley Tucci plays a vivacious talk show host named Caesar Flickerman and it is through him that much of the exposition exists in the form of commentary, keeping the audience up to par on who is dead, etc.  During his interviews of the tributes, we realize that Caesar is exactly the kind of man to thrive in this society because self-interest is a constant motivation, whether by choice or desperation.  Flickerman's wardrobe and hair might suggest a bit of both.  If anything, I'd say "The Hunger Games" is a sure-fire nominee for best hair and make-up design, and perhaps art direction as well.  The costumes, hair colors, props and lunacy of luxury that exists in the captiol is strangley similar to the style of "A Clockwork Orange."  The style actually figures prominently into the plot, because the tributes must get the audience to like them if they want to earn sponsors, who may send in valuable tools or weapons to their favorite competitor.   Another person of interest is Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), who helps assist Katniss with being herself and the two form a touching and believable relationship.  It's a shame when he is side-lined in the movie's last act.

In time, all of the tributes are released into the arena.  I suppose I will spare the details of what happens to save the, er, pleasures of watching it unfold for the audience.  Needless to say it lives up to its premise and tributes start getting sliced, diced and variously killed in increasingly brutal fashion.  Some of the deaths are more poignant than others because of the ages of certain characters and also because of the relationships that inevitably have time to form.  This is where the most cruel moral dilemmas come into play.  What can motivate a person when their only two choices are to either be killed, or to kill everyone else, including those they may love?  How do they have conversations when the pink elephant in the room is that they'd both rather keep their lives?  Do they shamefully feel deep down that they'd prefer the other be killed or rather sacrifice their own life to save another?  It is in these questions that "The Hunger Games" is the most effective.  The tension comes from the fragile emotions just under the surface that could burst at any moment and destroy someone's entire  existence; not just literally.  The action and physical fights that occur are just the vehicle for the real fight for survival, which is the endless mental torment perpetuated by these circumstances.  If such a society did ever exist, how could anyone live with themselves?

Despite its great strengths, "The Hunger Games" could use more room to breathe, even at 142 minutes.  There are characters that seem to be forgotten and awkward moments of random commentary that are surely for the viewers' benefit rather that the in-film television program, which itself is never really fleshed out all that well.  There is also a crucial moment late in the third act where two tributes' actions defy everything they've demonstrated up to that point, and it serves as a deus ex machina for Katniss, allowing her to get out of a situation that she wouldn't otherwise be able to reasonably get out of.  It's a moment that belongs in a lesser movie, and because Katniss is such a compelling heroine, she deserves more.  A director's cut for the blu-ray might be in order to see how much further this world can go.  Although, with two sequels that are certain to follow, I'm sure many of these issues resolve themselves.

"The Hunger Games" may look on the surface like yet another franchise based off some wildly popular series of fiction novels (it is) but it is perhaps the most culturally relevant example yet.  "Harry Potter" is certainly timeless in its own way, and the battle of good vs. evil has always been compelling.  What "The Hunger Games" provides transcends the simple concept of good vs. evil because it exists in a time when good and evil are defined by no clear terms; the lines are blurred.  For this reason, it is also relevant to a much wider and diverse audience, unlike another popular fantasy series that restricts itself by limiting its ideas to the 'impossible' fantasies of a young woman's mind.  The scary thing is, I'm not convinced a society like the one in "The Hunger Games" is impossible.  Society has long been at the crux of distasteful entertainment and should we ever find ourselves existing in Panem, it would not surprise me what we find ourselves capable of doing; whether by choice or desperation.

**I saw "The Hunger Games" at a midnight showing at the Grand Meridian Cinemas.  Their new digital projection and sorround sound is astonishing.  It rivals the over-priced AMC experience and is an impressive experience for any local resident.  Save your money and go with the high def picture provided at the Grand Meridian.  This movie is well worth full admission.

A Tale of Two Planets

Now here is a movie with cowboys and aliens that mostly works.  After only one viewing of "John Carter," I'll be darned if I could follow exactly what is happening every step of the way, but it's so visually stunning that it hardly matters.  This is perhaps the movie that "Prince of Persia" should have been.  While it may not succeed at telling a completely coherent story for its entire two hour, twelve minute run time, it provides an experience that is far and away more vibrant than any of those "Star Wars" prequels.  Director Andrew Stanton is a veteran of Disney and Pixar and with his first live action motion picture, we sense a familiar visual flare, and it is because of this that "John Carter" does so much so well.

Did you catch all the comparisons to other films in the first paragraph?  At first glance, "John Carter" would appear to be inspired by the design and feel of those features, but when you consider that it is based off a series of novels from the beginning of the last century, perhaps it is the other way around.  Not being familiar with the source material by Edgar Rice Burroughs, I can't say how faithful this Disney adventure is to his novels, but if it comes close, then I envy that man's imagination.  Granted, I'm not sure I could tell you precisely what this film is about, but it sure has a good time getting where it's going.  As far as I could surmise, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a confederate soldier searching for a cave of gold marked by a spider symbol.  We follow John as he rebels his way toward his goal, only to be captured by some fellow confederates (I think).  We are treated to a pretty darned funny series of escapes attempts, that climaxes with a traditional chase on horse back.  These early passages rival much of what we'd find in a traditional western and also set a specific pace for what's to come. 

Wouldn't you know it, John stumbles upon his cave quite by accident, and before long is whisked away across space and time to "Barsoom" (Mars).  Here he discovers the pleasures of a less-restrictive gravity, as he jumps leaps and bounds above what any other life form on this planet is capable of.  This ability assists him when he gets into trouble with a race of green, husked creatures called the "Tharks."  One of the leader Tharks, Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) is captivated by John Carter, and subsequently dubs him "Virginia" afer mistakenly assuming that John's state of origin is his namesake.  Pretty soon, John Carter of Earth discovers that the Tharks share Barsoom with many other races of Martians, some of them more human than others.  The various races also seem to be at war with one another and I am afraid I must concede my plot description with that.

To attempt a plot synopsis of "John Carter" would confound my mind.  There are so many characters whose names I can't pronounce and so many threads of plot that I found many of the goings on hard to follow.  However, know this: there is eventually a prominant Martian Princess who inspires John Carter's, uh...talents and recruits him to fight a war that, by all rights, galactic or otherwise, is not his to fight.  That he will do it anyway is a given of stories like this.  Among the proceedings are multiple captures and escapes from each of the Martian races, some intriguing creatures and a whole lot of shooting and sword play.  I realize that these faint descriptions may imply that I didn't enjoy the film, but by golly, I did.  While it may be a mixed bag as far as plot and character development, the sheer scope and stunning visuals are so deceptively distracting that it elevates the film to a great entertainment.  If you need a comparison, look at the merciless creative theft commited by "Avatar" and how even that film was lifted solely by its marvelous visuals.

If anything, I think what Andrew Stanton proves with "John Carter" is that he is a competent live action filmmaker.  He may have a hard time juggling so many characters and plot politics, but that may also be a reflection of the source material.  Again, never having read the novels, I can't say.  Thing is, I'm not sure "John Carter" could be any longer or shorter than it is.  If it went longer, the audience might lose patience and if it went shorter, the movie would be a mess.  Early reactions were mixed and if you scrutinize it enough, it wouldn't be hard to see why.  I just found the bombastic nature to be so enthralling that I was engaged for the entire movie.  Even with all the familiar elements we've seen in other motion pictures, here I found them to be superior, especially considering they come from such an old source of inspiration.

There is plenty to take away from "John Carter" if you go in with the proper mindset.  It is certainly better than its lackluster marketing campaign made it look and if you're willing to give it shot, it may just exceed your expectations.  There is a lot of creative talent apparent on the screen and it would be a shame if it went unappreciated.  I can tell you it is certainly more friendly to family values when compared to something like "Immortals" or "300."  Disney does not have the best track record when it comes to their live action entertainments, but "John Carter" is a step in the right direction even if it falls just short.  Perhaps the early scene showing John trying to gain his footing for those miraculous jumps is somewhat symbolic of what Disney is experiencing trying to sell this movie.  Once he's able to get the hang of it, though, it's pretty awesome to behold.  And those Tharks, they just keep asking for it.

A Chronicle of What and for Whom?

The "found footage" style of filmmaking has arguably grown tired among movie goers.  The complaints range from too much queasy-cam to low budget production value.  Oh, I suppose it had its place at one time.  "The Blair Witch Project," for instance used the ingenious tactic of marketing the film as actual recovered footage.  Because the actors were unknown, it worked.  Each subsequent attempt has had varying levels of success, but am I the only one who thinks employing this technique for "Chronicle" was unnecessary?  Oh, it tries to be clever and sidestep the usual question of plausibility by having a central character state his reasoning for filming everything toward the beginning of the film.  He has an abusive father and says he will be documenting everything from now on.  Whether he means the abuse or literally everything is unclear.  Cruel school mates also inquire about the camera.  "I'm just filming things" he says.  Well, okay.

"Chronicle" is the first feature film from 26 year-old director Josh Trank.  It isn't hard to surmise his love of comic book movies because in its relatively brief 84 minutes, "Chronicle" has a surprisingly strong narrative and well-developed characters.  The script by Max Landis is even up to par, serving up a well-balanced tone.  These are good starting points for a film that, throughout its first act, has a lot of fun developing an original mythology for a "real world" superhero tale, although none of the characters ever refer to themselves as such.  The first act also features some really nice pacing, with one sequence in particular that is creepy and unsettling. 

"Chronicle" introduces us to Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a lanky kid who has problems at home.  His mother is dying of cancer, his father is a former firefighter and now a professional drinker.  It seems the abuse has been going on for awhile, so Andrew decides to capture some of his torment on camera.  There is also abuse at school, with the traditional bullies of teenage cinema tripping, pushing, slapping, and name calling.  The only thing I didn't see the bullies do was give Andrew a swirly or stuff him in a locker, but maybe the camera was off for that.  Andrew's cousin Matt (Alex Russell) is a fairly popular kid with good looks and he hangs out with Steve (Michael B. Jordan), who is running for class president and is surprisingly charasmatic for the most popular kid in school.

There is a rave at an abandoned warehouse in the middle of the woods (aren't they always) and Matt figures Andrew needs to get out more and invites him along, but requests that he not bring that pesky camera.  Of course Andrew does anyway, because without it, we wouldn't have a movie.  Steve notices Andrew on the grass and introduces himself, and then promptly invites him to come check out a hole that he and Matt have found.  The hole is the stuff of sci-fi legend; it is perfectly round, appears to be endless and emits an ominous hum that should disturb them.  Before you can say "Vote for Steve," he is ninja jumping into the abyss, closely followed by Matt and Andrew, camera in tow.  What they find is slightly obscurred but appears to be a large, crystaline object that has the remarkable ability to change colors and make Andrew's camera act goofy.  Whatever else happens the audience doesn't get to find out, because the next bit of footage we see is what the boys call "the baseball test," where they throw a baseball at one another until Andrew is able to stop it inches from his face using only his mind.  Woah.

What follows is a series of teenage adventures where the boys use their newly discovered powers to goof around.  This is all a bit refreshing because how often do we recall Clark Kent lamenting his desire throughout his teenage years to use his powers just once to score a touchdown?  Andrew, Matt and Steve discover that trying to do too much too soon causes them to have severe nosebleeds.  Matt theorises that the powers are "like a muscle; if we stretch them too far, we'll strain them."  Sounds reasonable to me.  They start off small, levitating teddy bears through the toy aisle, yanking gum out of a hapless dope's mouth, etc.  Of course this inspires laughs, because in a sadistic way, we understand that if given the same powers, we might do the same types of things.  Before long, however, Andrew unwisely uses his powers in a supernatural form of road rage, with disastrous results.  Upset by his thoughtless misuse, Steve and Matt rightly concede that there must be some rules when it comes to using their abilities.  Not the way Andrew sees it.

Enough of the plot.  There are many great discoveries in the second half of "Chronicle," with some truly astonishing action sequences.  Josh Trank has concocted a surprisingly dark tale and some of the scenes of peril rival much of what we see in the end of the world blockbusters.  This would all be truly effective but for the implausibility of Andrew's jarring shift of attitude.  His development throughout the first half is pretty touching, we feel for him and hope that he will see better days.  Just when he begins to and has some really nice things happening in his life, the plot requires him to be bad and he descends too quickly into the tired cliche that is every tormented high school boy we see on the news.  He listens to nobody, monologues on video diaries about obscure theories of the animal kingdom, and screams at the very people he should not be screaming at.  His solution in responding to his father's cruelty is far and away more cruel than anything he has ever endured.  That's too bad, because he deserves better than to be downgraded to the token villain of the movie.  It also lessens the impact of one of Matt's vital decisions late in the film.

I mentioned before the "found footage" method and I must say it is a gimmick that wears thin.  How can you respect cinematography in a film that is meant to appear like it was shot on home video?  Oh, Andrew uses his powers to float the camera around, and this provides steady shots of vital scenes, but what of the other footage?  We see events from the perspective of security cameras, police dash cams, news reels, cell phones, and even Matt's girlfriend Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) seems to be inexplicably recording everything in her life.  It all appears assembled into a conveniently cohesive narrative structure, but we are never told why.  If you want to present these events as real-life, why not go full-tilt and provide them a context?  Otherwise, we're left to guess why the footage wasn't just shot the traditional way.  I can only imagine how "Chronicle" would look on an IMAX screen, projected in High Definition.

These qualms aside, "Chronicle" provides a great deal of entertainment in its brisk run time.  Josh Trank certainly infuses a great sensibility for action, effects and a good story into a complex and compelling mythos.  While the ending leaves room for it, I'm not sure there would be much point in a sequel.  "Chronicle" is too smart to be resigned to becoming a franchise.  Although perhaps someone could follow the new Hollywood trend and remake it in five years and scrap the "found footage" aspect.  That might be interesting.  As it is, "Chronicle" would be better served by simply providing the excuse that 'Hud' gives in "Cloverfield."  A character in that movie asks him why he keeps recording.  "People are going to want to see this" he says.  Exactly.

Come To Think of it, Everyone is Wearing Black

                                  

With one of the most gripping and horrifying opening scenes in recent memory, I suppose "The Woman in Black" would earn the distinction of being an 'atmospheric' horror film that relies on mood and starkness to inspire a sense of fear rather than gore and human cruelty.  This is an elegant period film that some have mistakenly set in the Victorian era, but I believe is more correctly placed in the Edwardian era, circa 1910, or thereabouts.  It stars Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-'Harry Potter' outing as Arthur Kipps, a young solicitor (Lawyer) sent to settle the estate of a recently deceased woman.  I was surprised to find that I didn't really think of the boy wizard once while watching the procedings here and for a movie that doesn't require much of its young lead, you'd think that would be easy to do.  My focus instead was on the mounting dread and mystery surrounding the titular woman in black, and when a horror film with a thin story is capable of drawing my attention so deeply, you know it has done something right.

Apparently "The Woman in Black" is a remake of a 1989 TV movie of the same title, itself based on the novel by Susan Hill.  I never saw that one, but this version, just as british, has been directed by James Watkins, whose only previous feature was the exceptional "Eden Lake."  He expertly sets a mood here not only with a grim color palate and lots of mist,  but with a relentless build-up puncuated by cleverly placed jump scares.  Jump scares are the oldest trick in the book for horror features, but Watkins gets around the commonality by putting them precisely where you'd expect, and then ruthlessly placing one or two more right after it.  In the film's most antagonizing sequence, I counted at least three that I did not see coming.

The plot itself is no great shakes.  Arthur Kipps is dispatched by his firm to settle the estate of Ill-Marsh house, a forboding mansion only accesible by timing the tide that washes over the single road to the front door.  Arthur has lost his wife to childbirth, and cares for his young son Joseph (Misha Handley, interestingly enough, Radcliffe's godson).  Arthur's firm has been displeased at his despondent nature and makes clear that this assignment is his last chance.  Leaving behind Joseph with the promise that they will be reunited in three days' time, Arthur takes a train to the village.  At first he finds hostile locals, and a couple none to eager to offer him a room at the local inn.  Perhaps they know something of Ill-Marsh house.  Perhaps they have good reason to fear meddlesome outsiders. 

Arthur finds one friendly local named Daily (Ciaran Hinds), who happens to be the only villager with an automobile.  Daily offers to drive the young solicitor to and from the isolated marsh house on the condition that Arthur join him and his wife for dinner.  This dinner is perhaps one of the most bizarre and eventful dinners in the history of cinema, but perhaps the 'twins' would have been better suited to a comedy.  Turning down their offer for a room, Arthur contends that he'd rather work through the night sorting through endless documents looking for the last will and testament of one Mrs. Drablow (Alisa Khazanova).  What Arthur begins to uncover in the mess of papers is an even messier history involving the Drablow's deceased son, whose body was never recovered from the depths of the muddy marsh.

The rest of the details are your pleasure to discover.  Details involving the identity and motivations of the Woman in Black, the reasons for the hostile villagers and a context for that frightening and mysterious opening scene.  This is all played out in a seething, ghostly atmosphere complete with the sounds of creaking, pounding, rocking, crying children and even a barking dog.  Come to that, Kipps is actually the most silent entity in the film.  Daniel Radcliffe's performance is subdued and understated; a far cry from his Harry Potter role to be sure, but what is there for him to do, really?  He plays Arthur as a grieving man not much given to spiritual mumbo jumbo.  He does not scare easily, and seems to persue each new development with the expectation that he will find a logical explanation.  When things turn out to be more than he bargained for, his thoughts turn to his son and deceased wife.

In an age where people seem to only want to see blood spilling and heads rolling, it is nice to see a horror feature that relies on atmosphere and creaky old houses.  Although, the theatre in which I saw "The Woman in Black" was fairly full, so maybe there is still an audience for this sort of film.  While thin on plot and long passages where nothing is said at all, it is a credit to director James Watkins that this movie serves as many scares as it does.  Danielle Radcliffe also deserves credit for carrying a feature with just grim stares and an occasional wordless jolt.  If anything, it shows that he has roles waiting outside of Hogwarts School.  It'll be interesting to see his career develop.  In any case, "The Woman in Black" is an effective, chilling feature.  The ending provides enough mystery to inspire interpretive conversation.  I think my feeling on it would be similar to Arthur's.  Wherever those train tracks lead, he doesn't much care; he has what he needs and so do we. 

If This Plot Were On A Ledge, I'd Tell It To Jump

The best parts of "Man on a Ledge" play sort of like the best parts of "The Negotiator" or "Phone Booth." However, what all three of the films have in common is that there aren't very many best parts. "Man on a Ledge" works as a fairly entertaining example of strict genre convention on auto pilot and has one of those cockamamie plots that only works off sheer luck and plot devices. As with "The Negotiator," there is a strong cast here trying their darndest to sell a bill of goods in a movie that doesn't quite know what it wants to sell until the last few minutes; but by then it's too late.


Sam Worthington is one of the more sought after young hollywood stars from Australia. Nobody knew his name until "Avatar" and that should tell you all you need to know. I would argue that he hasn't quite yet found his niche in the movies and "Man on a Ledge" won't do him any favors. Here he plays Nick Cassidy, a former police officer who was apparently working a case to uncover some police corruption somehow connected to a rich diamond dealer named David Englander (Ed Harris). Englander and a couple mystery cops frame Cassidy for stealing something called the "Monarch diamond" which for all we care could have been called the MacGuffin diamond. If you don't know what a MacGuffin is, look it up.


The first mistake "Man on a Ledge" makes is trying to make us believe that a well-liked police officer with no prior criminal history would get 25 years in prison for stealing. This Englander guy must know some important people to be sure, but I don't think I can quite believe he is one of those guys who gets to say to people "I own the cops in this town." Anyway, Cassidy knows he is innocent, and so must we if we understand how these cookie cutter plots work. Nick is given news that his father has died and is being escorted to the funeral, where he must remain in his prison oranges to mourn. Here, he gets into a fight with his brother Joey (Jamie Bell) and in the scuffle is able to break free. The way he breaks free is not advisable, least of all for a cop, but like everything else with this movie, the means which he employs were probably chosen based off how cool it would look. Lucky us.


This is where the cockamamie plot takes over because it doesn't take much to understand that in movies like this, the only way to prove your innocence is to concoct some elaborate scheme. Without going into too much detail, I will just say that this elaborate scheme involves Nick checking into a hotel, ordering some expensive room service, and stepping out of his 21st floor window and onto the ledge. Pretty soon, spectators below take notice and this stirs up quite a crowd, as well as a significant amount of what I can only assume is the entire NYPD. Pretty soon, Nick is demanding to Detective Jack Dougherty (Edward Burns) that he will only speak to negotiator Lydia Mercer, played by Elizabeth Banks. If I remember correctly, Cassidy picks her because she negotiated with a fellow officer on the Brooklyn bridge and he ended up jumping. Nick relies on her reputation to convince people that he means business and will jump off any second. No, seriously, he means it.


Meanwhile, Nick's brother Joey and his girlfriend Angie (Genesis Rodriguez), who looks and acts like she's taking time off from 'The Jersey Shore,' are across the street at Englander's high-security diamond exchange. By this point, we understand that Nick's whole purpose for being a man on a ledge is to distract the police and perhaps Mr. Englander from catching onto what Joey is up to. Things get complicated because the top cop on the scene is Dante Marcus (Titus Weliver), whose name alone seems to implcate him in any number of police corruptions. Nick's friend and former partner Mike Ackerman (Anthony Mackie) also figures into the scheme, although their relationship may not be quite the same when all is said and done.


I will say no more of the plot except to give it one bit of praise. The vital pieces of information in the story are revealed at a good pace, not giving away too much too soon, although sometimes too little too late. It's too bad the actors weren't given a better script to work with because some of the twists and plot reveals might work better with more convincing dialogue. Instead, we're treated to Ed Harris throwing temper tantrums, and Elizabeth Banks uttering such eloquence as "this is MY crime scene, get out." The only actor we're not really surprised by is Sam Worthington, because I guess anything is a step up from "Clash of the Titans." Jamie Bell turned in some incredible performances early in his career with "Billy Elliot" and David Gordon Green's "Undertow" but lately has found himself in ho-hum supporting parts.


Given its many weaknesses, "Man on a Ledge" isn't a complete failure. I've never heard of director Asger Leth before, but he gives the proceedings a shot or two of suspense and energy. The climax is surprisingly brisk and exciting. Usually in pictures like this the pay-off isn't worth the build-up but here we have a pay-off that deserves to be in a better movie. Considering how much we have to suspend our disbelief to enjoy "Man on a Ledge" I was willing to recommend it for anyone willing to shut of their brain for an hour and half. Yet, I knew early in the film when I saw a familiar character actor as a bellhop that the movie had something up its sleeve. Then, after all the silliness of the plot and the all the nonsense we're expected to buy, it reveals one last surprise and I felt like I had been jerked around. I don't mind cleverness in movies this absurd but it comes off as sheer cheek and that's where I draw the line. Or where I come down off the ledge.

My Top Ten Films Of 2011

With the Academy Awards right around the corner and the announcement of the Nominees this morning, I feel compelled to give you my list for the Best Films of 2011.  These are in no particular order per se, just the order that I prefered them in, I guess.

1. "Warrior"- While it is not nominated for it, in my review, I lauded "Warrior" as the best picture of the year and I cannot sway from my opinion.  This is a harrowing film from beginning to end with three of the finest performances of the year.  Nick Nolte has rightly been nominated for best supporting actor for his turn here as a recovering alcoholic trying to atone for a lifetime of ill-treating his sons.  It is a brave performance worthy of its nomination and deserves to be won.  "Warrior" is not a conventional fight movie, but a sweeping drama about wounded relationships and the strength of family.  It was the best time I had in a theatre all year.

2. "Midnight In Paris" - Too bad I saw Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" after I saw "Warrior" because it certainly gives my opinion on best picture a run for its money.  However, since this is actually nominated for best picture, it would be my pick to win even though I doubt it will.  That's too bad, because Woody Allen has crafted not only one of the finest films of the year, but one of his finest films to date.  Good old fashioned filmmaking at its best, "Midnight in Paris" has a witty screenplay, elegant performances and is filled with a romanticism that transcends its time.  This is a new age classic and deserves multiple viewings to appreciate its layers of complexity.

3. "The Help" - It isn't hard to see why "The Help" has been nominated for best picture, and has three actresses nominated for their performances here.  This is one of the boldest, fiercest screenplays of the year by writer-director Tate Taylor.  A young, white man has crafted a marvelous adaptation of the best selling novel about race relations in the south during the tumultuous Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Easily a front-runner for the best actress win, Viola Davis is nominated for her performance as Aibileen Clark, a wounded but dutiful woman consigned to work for an obnoxious family.  Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer are nominated for the best supporting actress statue for their performances as Celia Foote and Minny Jackson, respectively.  Both women deserve the award, so this will be a tough call come awards time.

4. "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" - What it lacks in good writing and dimensional performances, it makes up for in sheer spectacle.  Rupert Wyatt has delivered an astonishing blockbuster that was the surprise hit of summer.  Expert pacing, eye-popping digital effects and a revolutionary performance by Andy Serkis as the central protagonist Caesar elevate "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" to something much greater than the sum of its parts.  Somewhat hampered by a less-than stellar screenplay and a few cookie-cutter performances, the rest of what is offered here provides for an excellent time at the movies.  The lack of nomination for Andy Serkis as best actor is regrettable but this was a satisfying end to a summer full of impressive blockbusters.

5. "Moneyball" - Another film worthy of its best picture nomination, "Moneyball" is so much more than a 'baseball' movie.  The sport and occupation of baseball are just the setting of a smartly crafted story about taking risks, living with regrets and overcoming the odds.  Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill both turn in masterful performances, relying on a brilliant script by Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian.  Directed with precision by Bennett Miller, a relative rookie, "Moneyball" is a thinking person's underdog story with subtle pacing and thematic resonance.

6. "The Conspirator" - A prime example of the quintessential courtroom drama and of expert filmmaking by veteran actor-director Robert Redford, "The Conspirator" chronicles the events following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and does so with fervant accuracy.  Robin Wright is gripping as Mary Surratt, the conspirator of the title.  The story follows her trial and the complicated relationship with conflicted attorney Frederick Aiken, played by James McAvoy.  The wisest decision of "The Conspirator" is that it leaves any assumptions and conclusions up to the audience.  It is a gripping chronicle of one of the most controversial cases in American history.

7. "X-Men: First Class" - A somewhat surprising film, "X-Men: First Class" takes a slight edge over "Captain America" as the best comic book movie of the year.  Matthew Vaughn took risks reinvigorating a stale franchise,  partly casting aside what didn't work earlier in the series and embracing most of what Bryan Singer brought to the table.  What we're left with is a confident blockbuster filled with impressive visuals, precise staging and strong performances by James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence.  Kevin Bacon even makes for a convincing and sinister villain.  "X-Men: First Class" didn't perform well at the box office, but those of us who saw it were treated to a grand spectacle of the highest order.  This was a great way to start the summer.

8. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2" - This was the most anticipated blockbuster event of the last few summers.  A grand finale to the 12-year franchise adaptation of J.K Rowling's beloved novels, this was an excellent way to send off the series.  What is so impressive about "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2" is the way it balances all of the visual effects and unavoidable action while still respecting the character and story arcs.  This is the end of an era for a much-loved literary legend, and David Yates has provided an end that wonderfully and respectfully captures the magic and excitement of the books.

9. "Contagion" - A startling multiple-narrative motion picture about a virus posing a global threat, this is one of Steven Soderbergh's most deliberately paced thrillers.  While not every member of the ensemble cast is given an equal amount of screen time, each is talented enough to make their respective appearances effective.  Worth mention are Matt Damon in yet another role highlighting his considerable range, and an expertly cast Laurence Fishburne as a CDC official.  "Contagion" may not balance the cast perfectly, but it succeeds in frightening the audiences who have seen it.

10. "Kung Fu Panda 2" - My pick for best animated feature of the year, "Kung Fu Panda 2" builds and improves upon the success of its predecessor.  Whereas "Cars 2" felt like a greedy Disney cash grab, this animated sequel has a  story to tell.  With incredible voice work by Gary Oldman and a tolerable Jack Black reprising his role as Po, this is a sure-fire family entertainment with something to please everyone.  Dreamworks Studios is on course to match and sometimes exceed what Pixar has to offer, and with vibrant animation and exceptional choreography, 'Kung Fu Panda 2" is definitely the stand-out animated sequel of 2011.

Just What Did They Feed This Horse?

Several times throughout Steven Spielberg's "War Horse," Brittish and German soldiers alike refer to Joey, the horse of the title, as remarkable.  Yes, but perhaps a bit too remarkable.  Oh, I have seen some remarkable horses do some remarkable things, and nobody who has spent time training them would doubt their intelligence and stalwart independence.  But when a horse can pummel through almost unthinkably violent events and take them all in stride with no more than a scratch on the leg, my plausability meter tips just this side of raising my eyebrow and saying "mmmhmm." 

"War Horse" starts as a marvelous frontier epic that brings to mind the vast landscapes of "Legends of the Fall" or the scope and feel of "Far and Away."  There is even a noble Irish family trying to make their way with humble crops and hard work.  Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) seems to have an unusual fascination with horses for a boy of his age.  He gazes longingly at a neighbor's beautiful mare producing an even more majestic colt and while this is all well and good, I couldn't help but compare him to myself at age 17, gazing longingly at a lot of beautiful things, none of which were horses.  Meanwhile, Albert's father Ted (Peter Mullan) has concerns of his own.  He and his wife, Rose (Emily Watson), are under the watchful eye of an uncompassionate landlord named Lyons (David Thewlis) who wants his rent and wants it now.  Problem is, Ted needs to plough a field full of rocks in order to produce enough crop to sell at market.  He visits the local auction and low and behold, there is the very colt his son has been so fond of.  Certainly not a working horse, Ted chooses this magnificant animal over a strapping Clydesdale.  This decision may be more informed by alcohol than by fascination, however.  In any case, it pleases Albert, and it is left to the boy to train his new horse "Joey" for the ploughing of the field.

The passages on the farm are the film's shining moments.  I was swept along with the family's plight as they overcome various odds to remain on their land in spite of the landlord's sniveling.  There is even an angry goose to chase off troublemakers and honk boisterously to state his opinion on matters.  Watching Albert attempt a relationship with the horse has a certain charm and mystery to it.  I have long wondered how horses regard the beings that mount them, whip them and order them along; considering their intelligence, I feel they must instinctively know the order of things.  Albert loves this horse, but by golly, he just is not a plough horse, and Ted in another drunken stooper tries to rectify his mistake at the auction with a 12 gauge.  Albert convinces him to give Joey a chance and sure enough, in the film's most empowering scene, the  horse is able to struggle through and prepare that field for harvest.

Farmers often find great success mixed with unforseen failure.  A good horse can plough the field, but it can't stop it being destroyed by the weather.  With all other options exhausted, Ted takes the only course of action he can and sells the horse to the British Army.  In his eyes, his family must come before a boy's relationship with his horse, but the way he makes this decision is cruel.  The Officer who purchases Joey is Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston in an unfortunately brief role).  He is not dismissive of the boy's protestations, but he needs a horse for war and assures Albert that Joey will be under his personal care and returned should the horse survive.  Captain Nicholls is honorable and even sends Albert drawings of his pal Joey crafted by his own hand.  Indeed, when the good Captain rides valiantly toward his final battle, I believe his look of concern is for the boy and his horse rather than for himself; you don't become a Captain with the allusion that you will always make it out of battle alive.

One of the things I admire most about "War Horse" is how it portrays death, always obscured or off-camera. Rather than show graphic depictions of violent death, Spielberg gives us images to cue us that it has occured.  A twirling windmill, or a horse galloping without its rider.  It is a stark contrast to his "Saving Private Ryan" and is a wise choice for this type of feature.  However, the scenes of battle are also where the movie strains credibility; not in its portrayal of World War I, but in the way that the soldiers behave in relation to this horse.  Joey begins changing sides as German soldiers collect him after a great battle.  Attached to Joey throughout the film is a regimental penant owned by Albert's father.  This penant must surely mean something to Albert, but how and why would it ever mean anything to two young German soldiers?  Each character that encounters Joey ascribes great meaning and regard to, not only Joey, but to the penant as well.  Its payoff at the end is obvious and contrived because it is an unnecessary emotional through line that is already served by the horse himself.

Another issue is the way that the British and German soliders risk their lives for Joey, but only when the plot requires it.  We see horses being shot for not being able to drag artillery up a hill and we see them shot for being in surplus after a great battle.  Yet, when Joey becomes hopelessly entangled in barbed wire between the trenches, a British and German soldier lay aside their qualms and work together to try and save him.  As Joey races tragically into this predicament, I raised my hand to my mouth and cringed, mostly because of what I know must certainly happen after a horse becomes entangled this badly.  When horses are shot earlier in the film for far less, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to save a horse that is not likely to live?  They wouldn't.  The scene struck me as manipulative because it is staged purposely for an emotional reaction rather than being played out honestly.  What if, for instance, the horse struggled and died and we were shown images of both the British and German soldiers reacting the same way?  It would be more effective because it is exactly what the audience would feel and we'd be right there with them.

There is a nice middle-act sub plot where Joey finds refuge on a French farm with an old man and his granddaughter, Emilie (Celine Buckens).  This mirrors the life Joey had back home but also provides a grim look at the way war can shatter a peaceful existence quite suddenly.  So touched by this horse are the old man and his granddaughter that he comes back late in the film to provide a last ditch attempt at a moral conflict for Albert and Joey.  This also doesn't work because there is no conflict, the horse belongs to Albert; we know it and so does the old man.  The forced sentimentality is overkill at a point when some movie goers will already be exhausted emotionally.  I suppose part of the issue is that the vast majority of the conflict and its consequences rest on our ability to comprehend the way Joey might feel about all this.  But since Joey is a horse, where does that leave us?

'War Horse" is a fine film but it is not a great one.  Steven Spielberg has long been a wonderful director and he provides elements here that really work.  The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is gorgeous, depicting the beauty of Europe's landscapes and the alternate destruction of it by war.  The camera work is nearly flawless, providing sybolism that fits the sentimental nature of the film.  Sentiment can work, to be sure, but it is in recent years that Steven Spielberg has seemed overly sentimental and heavy handed in his approach.  That seems to be the case here as well.  "War Horse" stretches for greatness and does so valiantly; alas, it stretches itself too far.  Horses are indeed remarkable creatures and I believe this story respects that, but it does so to unrealistic levels.  It might have been neat to see that goose go off to war with Joey and see which of them fared better.  At least you can't accuse Joey of not being willing to die for his country.  My money is on the goose.