Lawless

The line-up for Lawless drove expectations way up; with a star studded cast including Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Guy Pearce, Gary Oldman, Mia Wasikowska, and Shia LeBeouf (maybe not so much Shia) and Aussie director John Hillcoat (The Road, The Proposition).  The end result, failed to live up to such great expectations.  

Lawless follows the stories of the Bondurants of Franklin County; brothers running a successful liquor business in the times of prohibition. Between Forrest’s (Hardy, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises) legend status and Jack (LeBeouf, Transformers franchise)’s budding love the brothers must navigate the new pressure of Special Detective Charlie Rakes (Pearce, The Hurt Locker, Memento).

In a rather mediocre film, there are still dazzling aspects.  Hillcoat certainly knows how to shoot a film; seamlessly navigating between the misty country roads (take me home) and the luminous, rustic summers.  The way he plays with shadows sculpts scenes of beauty reminiscent of noir films, drawing both complex and enticing set pieces.  The cast gives strong performances; from the solemnly brutal Tom Hardy to the vivacious and mysterious Jessica Chastain.  Even Shia holds his own on the screen against such high caliber talent, and makes for a sympathetic protagonist.

That’s where the film’s exceptionality ends.  The plot is muddled and mundane, being carried by narration that doesn’t mind dragging it’s feet.  There are many sequences that seem so extraneous and unnecessary it becomes difficult to focus on aspects pertinent to the main plot. Characterization in this film do nothing to help a rather sluggish and heavy script; each character is very one-note, lacking any sort of complex dimension.  The only two women in the film were completely expendable as characters. They serve only as obligatory love interests for their male counterparts.  It all makes for rather standard and boring fare; in a film that dares to be landmark and modern classic, it doesn’t live up to its name and sure doesn’t break any laws.            

The Dark Knight Rises

I think we can all say we were looking forward to this one. A lot. We tried not to; we really tried to stay wary of all summer blockbusters, but I think deep down we knew this would be fan-fucking-tastic. Nolan never flops, right? Well yes and no.  

All of the Batman films in the Nolanverse have a tone reflecting the villain of the film.  Psychological and demented for Begins; calculating and cunning for The Dark Knight; and brutal and physical for Rises.  This works for and against the film itself.  While we see gorgeous cinematography and visceral performances by the entire cast, the movie itself was bogged down by plot holes and an overwritten script.   
The film moves pretty smoothly for a 2 hour and 45 minute film, but the overall pacing of the film felt too clunky; it overwhelmed itself with the wrong aspects of the plot.  The overly ambitious story made it too busy to build to a true climax. Reflecting the difference in villains, it doesn’t quite maintain the controlled chaos executed so well in The Dark Knight. The action is kind of everywhere, but also kind of nowhere.
Here’s the weird thing: The movie has this huge anti-occupy/anti-communist feel to it. While we get that Nolan has no stake in these and wasn’t trying to use Rises to discuss any of these politics, it’s hard to ignore some of the imagery that drips with relevance to the last year.

All in all, it seems a little careless to raise such burning questions and not give it the respect it deserves.
Watching the film, we had a good time. Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy both  capture and redefine the original comic book villains. Hathaway oozes with sensuality, and her minute mannerisms demonstrates the crafty mind and agile body of Catwoman. On the other end of the spectrum, Tom Hardy gives a brute and physical performance to an otherwise one-note character.  

Nolan is no slouch with the camera as well, capturing the melancholy of Gotham as a majestic city landscape of haunting beauty. The action sequences were also memorable; Bane and Batman face-off in a gritty and carnal scene which is reminiscent of a boxer in a bout way past his prime.

Will you see Rises? Yes.  Will you have a good time in the theater? Probably.  Does it bring a satisfying conclusion? Sure. But it is nowhere near the magnum opus we were expecting from Christopher Nolan.

Well that was disappointing. (Hey! That’s the theme of this post!!!)

Let’s just start ourselves off with…. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!

To be fair: we had already seen Girl with the Dragon Tattoo earlier in the day (a 3 hour endeavor) and waited around for 3 hours after missing the 7 o’clock show. So we were not in the best of spirits coming in.

That said; this movie was slow. Made by Tomas Alfredson, (Let the Right One In) you could definitely feel his stamp on this film. It was slow and methodical; held together by potently gruesome images. However, there was not enough compelling build-up to the man behind the mystery. The film circulates around the retired Agent Smiley (Gary Oldman) trying to find the mole in the British secret service. The rest of the cast is rounded out by many other English superstars such as Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, and William Hurt. While it was well acted, all in all, we found it to lack any sense of tempo or rhythm. The climax never gave us any resolution because nothing seemed to build to it. Instead of dancing across the floor, it walked. Like Annabelle from Arrested Development. To us it was just Tinker Tailor Soldier Snooooore.

And now, we move on to one of our most anticipated films of the year: A Dangerous Method. From critically acclaimed, Canadian auteur, David Cronenberg; A Dangerous Method depicts the story between the strange relationship between Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortenson) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) at the birth of psychoanalysis.

That said: MAJOR disappointment. Unlike most of Cronenberg’s canon (Eastern Promises, A History of Violence, Shivers, and The Fly (remake)) A Dangerous Method lacked any sort of logical pacing or innovative writing. Most disappointing: there seemed to be a lack of subtext and complexity to the story he was telling. It was a very talky film; it obviously never paid attention in high school when they tell you to “show” not “tell”.  No scene was longer than 3 minutes, unless there was a cheesy, “reading this letter” voiceover, montage happening. It seemed so conventional, which is the last thing you want from a Cronenberg movie. Unlike the challenging narratives Cronenberg poses to his audience, this film falls into an attempt at a tragic love story between Jung and his mistress, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly). We consider this A Dangerous Disappointment.