2013: The Year in Film: "Prisoners" Review

Late late late. I know, you know, we all know. I'm catching up, you guys! First, a disclaimer... I secretly love neo-noir crime/mystery stories of the Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, James Ellroy variety. You know the ones, where no one is what they seem, everyone is a shade of grey, and red herrings abound. "The Killing" tried to be this in a television format, but that's a tale for another day. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that my opinion for this flick was directly influenced by my general affection for the genre, read on with that in mind.

From a new writer (his only other credit is "Contraband" starring Mark freaking Walhberg) and a director making his first English-language film, and not adapted from any source material that I could find (rare in a world so chock full of mystery/crime novels), the flick features a great cast. Hugh Jackman, Terrance Howard, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis and Maria Bello all exist in various states of being underrated, and Gyllenhall has proven that given the right material, he can be more than a pretty face. This story of a Thanksgiving kidnapping of two young girls promises to bring a small town to its knees and push two families to the edge.

So how is it?

The Good: The cast, as mentioned above, is stellar. Jackman is tremendous, and far more savage in this role than he ever was as Wolverine. (Seriously) Dano does "creepy" as well as anyone in Hollywood, and brings a sense of unsettled malaise to every scene he's in. Gyllenhall is great. He manages to bring a quiet intensity and quirky believability to a character who very easily could have been one-note. The atmosphere in this flick is top-notch as well, as the flick is extremely intense and effective, despite a long running time. The fact that this flick doesn't seem as long as, say, Zodiac (sorry, Jake!) is a testament to the effectiveness of the filmmaking and cast. Despite a number of Red Herrings, the plot never seems to be wandering for wandering's sake, and the resolution was a surprise, which is always the point of a mystery, isn't it? The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it feels like a good book of this genre, despite being a wholly original story. That's hard to pull off. Kudos.



The Bad: Gyllenhall's character suffers from a lack of characterization, which is a shame given the strength of his performance and the fact that on the surface, his character may well have been the most interesting in the whole movie if given a chance to be fleshed out. I think a few more Gyllenhall-centric scenes at the expense of the plot could have made his Detective Loki into a legitimately great movie cop. Additionally, the crushing dread and despair of the movie, which jumps right into the mystery with very little set up or framing, is really a grind, given the long runtime. You'll feel taxed at the end of this movie, and while it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is on the edge of being too much. This maybe would have been even better as a TV miniseries on premium cable?

All in all this is a bleak, intense mystery that stands up as a solid example of the genre. It's not SAYING anything that hasn't been said, but what it is doing is letting some great performers work on some meaty material and putting together an all around movie experience that pretty effectively duplicates the experience of reading a novel. That's not easy to do. The performances are the main draw here, but the atmosphere is pretty damn effective as well.

8/10. A very good, if not great flick for grown ups. If you haven't noticed, those are kind of rare, you guys.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Butler" Review

Late, yep. I'm not even going to talk about it. Sometimes there are movies that are so clearly just award bait that you almost want to deduct them points for being SO clearly desperate. But then again, surely there must be a reason for this film to exist beyond "AWARDS", right? In this case, the true story of Eugene Allen, an African-American White House butler who served 8 Presidents, inspired a work of fiction to provide a Forrest Gump-ian trek through the Civil Rights era and the evolution of race relations throughout the turbulent decades of the postwar era. I'll discuss whether this is a good idea later on.

The always great Forrest Whitaker plays Cecil Gaines, the fictional version of the actual butler. In a surprising return to acting (she's actually a talented actress, guys!) Oprah Winfrey plays Cecil's wife. The main draw of this one was the bevy of A-listers brought in to portray the various Presidents, though: with a nearly unrecognizable Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower, James Mardsen as JFK, John Cusack as a surprisingly convincing Nixon, Liev Schrieber as LBJ and Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan. For some reason the film skips completely over the Ford and Carter administrations. Gaines sits as a literal witness to history, rising from sharecroppers son to the White House and dutifully filling his responsibilities at the White House as his family and the world convulse with the social upheaval of the times.

The Good: The leads are, in a word, great. Whitaker is a shoo-in for a best actor nomination and Winfrey turns in an inspired performance. Terrance Howard is always likable, and Lenny Kravitz and Cuba Gooding, Jr. are strong as other White House butlers. The other supporting players are more or less effective, but Schrieber, Mardsen and Richman stood out for me. Additionally, the story is moving (if occasionally emotionally manipulative) and the main characters at least are well-drawn and complete.



The Bad: Let me start by saying that I don't have an issue with fictionalizing history in and of itself.  What I do have an issue with is presenting something as a true story and focusing on authentic-feeling depictions of real historical figures while inventing a story wholesale. I don't understand the motivation there. There was a REAL butler who served American Presidents for decades, surely his life was interesting enough to make a movie of, right? If you want to make a Forrest Gump-type movie about the Civil Rights movement, by all means, do so, but I don't understand the motivation of fictionalizing things that took place in living memory when a real story is available. Maybe that's a hang-up that I shouldn't hold against the movie, but I really felt cheated when I found out that most of the narrative is completely made up. It feels false, lazy, emotionally manipulative, cheap and forced. History is interesting enough, we don't need to make it up, do we? Why make up a son who was personally close with MLK, Jr. and have him elected to congress when one didn't exist? That's about as subtle as shouting CIVIL RIGHTS HERE, and really cheapens the real people, Presidents included, who were part of that time.

In all, despite a manipulative narrative and some questionable decisions, this flick is worthwhile because of the performances at its center. Whitaker and Winfrey really create a believable, loving couple through two fleshed out and powerfully played characters. This flick is worth watching for their performances, but ultimately falls short of what it intended to do, by virtue of being misleading and overly broad. Sorry guys, I just couldn't overlook it.

6/10.