Only Lovers Left Alive

In a time oversaturated with vampire movies, it takes a lot to stand out. No longer is it enough to just humanize the creatures of the night, and vampiric love stories are just so passe. So perhaps it’s strange that “Only Lovers Left Alive” is a breath of fresh air to the vampire canon, when its only real focus is in civilizing its supernatural sweethearts.

Adam (Tom Hiddleston, The Avengers, Thor series, Midnight in Paris) and Eve (Tilda Swinton, Moonrise Kingdom, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe) are modern day bloodsuckers, against the backdrop of a romantically desolate Detroit and Tangier, respectively. Eve travels to visit Adam, a deeply depressed underground musician. Their centuries-old love story is soon interrupted when Eve’s infamous younger sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska, Stoker, Alice in Wonderland) also stops for a visit. 

Its plot is sparse, sauntering in no particular direction and in no hurry, as writer and director Jim Jarmusch is wont to do as he has demonstrated in his past indie darlings like “Ghost Dog.” Its protagonists idle about, lacking a general mission in life aside from worrying about the human race, or “zombies” as they’re called. Where typical vampires spend time establishing cliche rules about what they are able to do, Adam and Eve meander through the plot, basking in an air of pretension that can only come from experiencing thousands of years of artistic opinion.

But what it lacks in motivation it more than makes up for in aesthetics and mood. Adam and Eve lead their lives amid vintage knick-knacks and gorgeous old rock ‘n’ roll equipment with a subdued elegance. It’s hung up in the bleakness of the genre, but that doesn’t let it get in the way of characterization. Their ennui has stretched across multiple decades and they’ve got an amalgam of pop culture knowledge to show for it and shape their worldview.

Considering the film only has six real roles and no straightforward plot to speak of, if any of the characters were to falter or be at odds with the other players “Only Lovers Left Alive” would flounder. Luckily, Swinton and Hiddleston are perfect for the roles of the pallid nightwalkers, and their pale complexion is only the beginning of it. Both actors blossom into their roles, flawlessly bringing Eve and Adam, respectively, to life in their afterlife.

Even as their minimalist brooding sweeps across the screen, Hiddleston and Swinton’s wit and chemistry infects the screen. Their droll and languid cool is so natural that it’s no surprise that Ava and Ian (Anton Yelchin), Adam’s instrumental errand boy, eagerly hope to orbit their lives.

Their existence is as fascinating and enthralling as it is aimless, and the film takes advantage of its gorgeous scenery to speak volumes about the melancholy of its protagonists. The moody atmosphere of “Only Lovers Left Alive” lingers in the air long after the final shot, which is a perfect cherry on top of a blood sundae. 

The verdict: As languorous as it is captivating, Jim Jarmusch brings life to the stale vampire genre with this well-acted and moody drama.

Stoker

Fear for the whole family

Park Chan-wook has never shied away from bizarre, dysfunctional, and often vicious dynamics in his films. The Korean filmmaker rose to prominence with his Vengeance Trilogy and now continues his legacy of twisted relationships with “Stoker.”

Quiet and observant India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska, Jane Eyre, Lawless) has just lost her father, Richard (Dermot Mulroney), in a tragic car accident. As she and her emotionally unstable mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman), prepare for the funeral and life without him, Richard’s brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) shows up to look after India and her mother. 

Although Evelyn quickly welcomes Charlie into their home, India is disturbed by his continual attention and becomes more curious about what lies behind his boyish smile. As time passes, she tries to find out what he’s up to and begins to find herself drawn into Charlie’s web.

There’s no real punch to the final act driving this thriller home, but the simple coming-of-age plot device is easy to pull off. Internationally acclaimed for his impeccable framing and brutal imagery in his native Korea, this is director Park’s first English film, as well as his first film he hasn’t written. 

The plot, however intriguing it ends up being to audiences, is much simpler than the plots of Park’s previous films. It’s not so much a complicated thriller, like “Oldboy,” as it is a ruminating one. “Stoker” certainly has more of an American aesthetic than most of Park’s repertoire. Steeped in a gothic tone and vintage fashion, the movie has a solemn and aged feeling to it, which is perfect for a modern story about a loss of innocence. 

The film’s true triumph is in Park’s direction. Every shot is like a well-framed oil painting, utilizing every inch of the screen to draw in viewers and heighten suspense. From the quiet shift in perspective on a scene to the smooth transition between characters, Park is a master of increasing the tension of any scene. The film draws its sense of intrigue and slow reveal from Alfred Hitchcock’s style. Even Charlie’s unexpected return is straight out of “Shadow of a Doubt,” Hitchcock’s film in which a character called Uncle Charlie returns from “traveling” with a much darker secret.

Goode brings an air of mystery to his role as dark, unnerving, J. Crew model-like Charlie. If he couldn’t simultaneously sell the charm and the gloom that hangs over “Stoker,” then the movie wouldn’t work nearly as well. 

Wasikowska’s ethereal and dreamy nature plays well for India’s character. India becomes a muted but sharp woman, who even in her quietness still presents herself as a curious narrator throughout the film’s twists. Watching her observe and grow into a woman throughout the film is a suspense in itself.

While “Stoker” is stunning to behold in terms of acting and cinematography, it’s even more wonderful to hear. The sound-mixing of the movie helps build suspense with its constant background noise and awkward silences. Between the rustle of the wind, the creak of the house, and the quiet footsteps, this aural landscape is central to the film and to the character of India, who “sees and hears what others cannot.”

Layered on top of the pristine direction, growing suspense, and enigmatic acting is the uncomplicated but eerie soundtrack by Clint Mansell, perfectly laying the groundwork for Park’s suspenseful film. It sets the mood of every chilling moment of the film with simple elegance.

While the script may seem too melodramatic or lacking in proper character motivation at times, it’s easy to forget that in the wake of such a grand project. “Stoker” is meticulous, beautiful, and too captivating to miss. 

The verdict: Not the most surprising thriller, but the details make it alluring. 

 

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.