foamhands713 Reviews

The Ledge (2011)

A Food-Processor turnout of Romance, Religion and Gay Rights

[5/10 · 28 June 2011]

Earlier this year I absolutely fell in love with HBO's made-for-TV movie The Sunset Limited and so when I heard of a film purporting a similar premise - a disillusioned, intellectual white man (Sons of Anarchy's Charlie Hunham) attempts suicide only to be stopped by a flawed, religious African-American (Terence Howard) with whom he discusses life, the universe and everything - I jumped at the opportunity, never expecting it to match the former's quality but hoping that it would be enjoyable enough in its own right.

I was surprised then when barely five minutes into the movie that premise is thrown aside. No longer am I watching a philosophical dialogue but an edge-of-your seat thriller in the vein of Phone Booth, because it turns out that the man is only on the titular ledge because a mysterious and malevolent force has made threats against someone he loves, threats they will make a reality lest he not stay up there for an hour and lest he not then jump. Well, it's not what I ordered but it looks tasty none-the-less so I'm in: I wonder if its a terrorism thing, if luring the cops and crowds is all a part of it, if ... but the plot twists again and apparently we are now jumping back a few months to hear the story of how the man met his soul-mate, so ... I guess that its a romance now? I have nothing against ambition in movies - in fact I actively support it - nor do I have any intrinsic issue with genre-swapping or subverting my expectations, these are all good things in theory but here? Here they are just kind of a mess. There are a lot of good ideas underlying this film's story (Don't worry, I haven't ruined the plot for you, that is literally only the opening section) and this is its major fault; there is simply no possible way for any of them to shine bright enough to burn an imprint, its all quick exposures and done. Though they do get to the philosophical debates they are overly abridged so all that is left standing are the shallow clichés. There is some action in the form of gun-play and hostage-taking but we are so constantly lost in the narrative that none of it can evoke any tension. Then we have the character work, which is given the longest shrift of the storyline and at times shines accordingly but also occasionally falls into Mater territory.

Patrick Wilson and Liv Tyler play a hard-line Christian couple who move into the man's neighborhood and it is their relationship that the flashback section of the film centers on. Unfortunately though the film doesn't quite know how to handle their religiosity; Wilson's zealot will some times be enforcing dogmatic law, reducing his wife to servitude, but at others he is shown holding the hands of dying orphan boys in what I presume is some heavy-handed attempt at remaining unbiased. Wilson really works the role, trying to find both sides but the script bashes him so heavily, and then attempts to hid that fact so shamefully, that watching him is just made awkward.

Perhaps then it is for the best that the film moves so quickly, because were it to focus solely on any one of these points it likely couldn't produce anything better, in which case it would just be made more boring. So if you desperately want to see a movie about a man on a ledge, don't see this one; but if you desperately need to see three movies in the time it usually takes one then this may be a go for you, also if you are unaware of the concept of Christianity this will catch you right up. Other than that though I'd wait until I've seen near everything else worth watching in the world.

Meek's Cutoff (2010)

A movie of moments: at once as intimate as any real-life journey and as alienated as any Beckett-esque purgatory

[7/10 · 28 June 2011]

This film is best summed up by its opening titles. We are not introduced to the experience by a swooping virtual camera, flashy computer generated imagery or a booming, bombastic score; it is instead cross-stitch that greets us. A static shot of a hand-sewn sign, rough and low-key but authentic because of this; It is also a touch of distinctly feminine film-making. That taut tapestry is Meek's Cutoff.

After this title card we are thrown right into the action, so much as the term is applicable as a small three wagon line attempts a river cross. The people are silent and more shockingly still they are successful without reservation; they simply go from one side to the other, it 'aint no thing, just another day in a journey that has already cost them five weeks of hard living.

It is an unspoken rule of storytelling that you show only the scenes that further the plot and/or characters; it can be assumed that every protagonist eats three square meals each day but you need only show the one that is poisoned or interrupted by intimate revelations. Meek's breaks this rule by consisting entire of uneventful moments such as this river crossing; otherwise banal, everyday activities that are made interesting by their contextually alien nature.

These moments don't simply tell the story, they are the story. There is no life on the trail besides the now, nothing worth thinking on besides your responsibilities.Don't fret though, the film is not as boring as all that may sound. Drama is introduced as it is revealed that the Mountain man the group had hired as their guide appears to have gotten them lost in the still uncharted center of the then untied state of America.

This storyline is subtly introduced though, as are all the films ideas, because we are forced into watching on from afar as all the women are. When the film does deliver its few pieces of exposition they come from a distance and so we are only able to make out every second word. Even if we were given a voice or a valid vote we simply wouldn't have the knowledge necessary to use it. This, at its core, is what Meek's appears to be about, though it is unique in that its feminism is entirely unforced; scenes are not played for any particular point, they are simply played with the hope that the point will come to you.

This same approach is taken when the film later deals lightly with the concept of colonization as a sort of re-enforcement of its mediation on subjugation. The caravan captures an Indian and despite Meek's desire to see him dead they use him to guide them towards water. Though there is a deep conflict as to whether this captive native has their best interests at heart we are never given any clear revelation; he doesn't slowly learn their language and become accepted into the group, though nor does he show himself to be an out-and-out savage. We are simply asked to question our own loyalties and wonder on which side we would place our wager. Are we, the modern audience, so enlightened that we can see him as an equal or are we still inclined to side with the cowboy even when all illusion of the mythological Old West is gone? This is then a film that lets its lacks tell a tale; it's what isn't there that informs us and this is a somewhat shocking approach for an audience so accustomed to being spoon-fed their stories. The film is simply a series of scenes set in the 'now' and it is this immediacy that makes the mundane mesmerizing. I do wish that the film had utilized its hypnotic nature a little better, perhaps following through with a knock-out punch, as its minimalism is almost too efficient to be entirely effective; though I do understand, and appreciate, why this is not the case and why we are instead left with a relatively empty ending.

Unlike something like Somewhere though this emptiness has a meaning beyond the literal, it is through this quality that the whole journey becomes an existential affair. We are not given character depth because these people are not want to discuss the past in this situation and because there is no past. There is no narrative arc because life has no narrative arc and because there can be no progress here, once you reach the top the rock simply rolls back down to the bottom of the hill so that you may start again. Thus the film is at once as intimate as any real-life journey and as alienated as any Beckett-esque purgatory; you are there in the scene with these immigrants, but lord only knows where that puts you. So it is that you simply have to deal with the day-to-day, make your way and leave asking 'Why?' for the dead.

Trust (I) (2010)

An authentic and insightful look into the lives left behind after an Internet Predator strikes.

[9/10 · 28 June 2011]

David Schwimmer is not a man that I have a lot of faith in, not even to make a decent soft-comedy, so he is perhaps one of the last people that I would trust to properly make a movie about sexual abuse. Yet with Trust he has not only proved himself unfairly maligned by such low expectations but has also shown himself to be a director deserving of only the highest. This is not just an improvement on his previous effort, or a shaky, potential-filled first-step into the realm of serious film-making. It is, at this point, one of the strongest dramas of the year (It is billed as a 2010 production but didn't release anywhere until late April this year).

To synopsise the film's story is to do the film a drastic dis-service, not because of any great twists or revelations that it may contain (though I found that there was a great sense of intrigue involved in the experience; seeing just how far and in what direction the film would go), but simply because on the surface it seems like such a bleak and yet strangely banal premise: Girl meets Internet and the two fall quickly in love, it is a symbiotic relationship and each builds the other up to higher and higher points when, one day, her Internet meets his and she is blinded by the bright, stunning storm that unfolds when their new information hits her own, blinded until it is too late, blinded until at last and unfortunately Girl meets Boy and everything goes dark. In other, more straightforward terms, it is the same story that we hear again and again on the news each night, that of the young girls that fall prey to the planets new predators, the virtual wolves, the pedophiles.

And yet this is exactly what sets this film apart from the other examples of 'techno-terror' that are shooting up, now more rapidly than ever. There is no attempt to dress the premise up like I did then, no false poetics and no twist-of-genre. It is instead a straightforward examination of what actually occurs inside the houses and minds of these victims and, to my mind, it is baffling that this 'real' look is the unique approach but not that it is also the most effecting by far.

A lot of the films emotion stems from a foundation laid in the opening act; we are given a glimpse into the life of this family before the incident and they are us. There is a very strong sense of verisimilitude present in almost every scene; it would have been easy for the film to stray into cliché movie-family territory or fall into the oh so prevalent trap of mishandling contemporary technology but thankfully Schwimmer not only avoids these pitfalls but leaps them in a single bound.

Even though it is Clive Owen and Catherine Keener that are on our screen we just see 'the parents'; in Clive we see a father who loves his kids and not an amalgam of starring roles (though I do have to admit that I did think at times, 'Is Schwimmer using Owen as a kind of sexier simulacrum of himself,' but perhaps that is just me). As stunning as those two are in their roles, and I would say that it is likely Owen's best, it is Liana Liberato's portrayal of central-teen Annie that truly steals the show. Again, given the material, her role could so easily have been played with an alloy of equal parts evocation and exploitation but she really humanizes the character; we understand her thinking and feel for her even if what we feel isn't always positive. To think that this is virtually a debut performance is amazing (she has only otherwise done small roles in straight-faced TV procedurals to date) and I would not be surprised to see a lot more of her in the future.

Though I would be surprised, and somewhat disappointed, to see more of Schwimmer because he is just so damn good behind the camera that any time spent in front from now on will seem as if a waste. His direction excels on every level; not only does he show a lot of creativity in his approach to the material - All SMS's and IM's appear on screen in pop-up, colour-coded font which not only relieves us of the very tired ' Dictate everything you type' approach favored by the industry so far, but it also provides a stunning layered effect to a lot of scenes, where-in what the character is writing either adds to or spins the on-screen action in a new direction - but he also manages to deliver the base emotions with a certain kind of ease: when the characters are nervous you bite your nails, when they are angry you steam, when they're devastated you feel just as cold and alienated and when they cry so do you. It sounds like such a simple and obvious thing when you put it down on paper and yet there are few films that truly achieve it like this one does.

It is then an entirely devastating ride, one behest of even the whimsical visuals of Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones, and one not recommended for the squeamish of soul, but it is also a great one and one that I would whole-heartedly recommend to those who are up to it. If movies are about escapism then this one delivers and if they are about getting you to feel something, doubly so. Who knew Ross had it in him all these years? O me of little faith.

Monsters (2010)

Less like a geographical reboot of D-9 and more like an art-house Cloverfield or a blockbuster Stalker

[9/10 · 8 August 2010]

While there have been plenty of valid comparisons made between this film and last year's sci-fi hit District - 9 (due solely to the fact that the two films share an admittedly similar global concept; that of aliens landing and being contained within a restricted zone as a forced but entertaining allegory for racial disharmony. There the zone was in central South Africa and here it is the northernmost section of Mexico, the borderlands.) I think the media have missed the much more obvious filmic connections. To my mind this film is in fact less like a geographical reboot of D-9 and more like an art-house Cloverfield or perhaps a blockbuster Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky's epically sparse sci-fi classic). While the concept and metaphor certainly match that of District – 9 the closest the execution sways it further towards a combination of the latter two examples.

Instead of attempting to tell the story of a fictional universe using a number of cipher characters like D-9, this film instead tells the story of its two leads by way of its alien infestation. The titular monsters certainly are an integral force in crafting and driving the films narrative but they are not its real focus, this is where the two films differ. Instead we are made to follow American investigate journalist Colbert who is tasked by his employer to find and then accompany his daughter through the infected zone and into the United States before the beginning of the creature's active season.

It's a sparse plot and one that leads to a lot less action than you would expect, but it does work as the spinal centre of the film. Instead of confronting the creatures at every turn, discovering their origin, their weakness, their queen and then eventually using their knowledge to develop a dues ex machina and save the day like the big damn heroes of every similar film, these two simply exist in the universe like we do ours; as everyday citizens living their everyday lives. That's not to say though that the film is in any way banal; in fact their journey through the zone allows for a lot of stunning shots, shocking stories and silent terror, it's just that these occur in a different tense then we are used to. We are, like the protagonist Colbert, journalists in this world; we follow in the wake of the story, catching occasional glimpses of it from afar but mainly focusing on who and what it leaves behind.

The monsters, their destruction and the alternate world that they destroy are all filtered through the protagonists before they reach us upon the screen. It is their reactions to the events that elicit responses in us and their responses that in turn become our emotions. It is essential that the two leads be well crafted in order for this method to work. Thankfully then, they are; Hitting that perfect ratio of realism, stereotype, flaw and likability. They are the kind of characters that you would happily follow within the comparatively banal confines of a drama and so here, in this realm of heightened stakes, they become doubly interesting. The real surprise of the film for me was just how enjoyable, and oftentimes moving, it was to take this trip with the leads; to the point that by the time the ending rolled around I almost echoed their calls of 'I don't want to go home'. That dreaded disillusionment, the return to drudgery after a distinctly powerful event is something I can really understand but it is something uncommon to see in cinemas. Edwards isn't the only person to be thanked for this though; while his writing is great it's the two lead performances that are really essential and I think these two will be ones too watch in the future.

While I've made it quite clear that personally I preferred the human side of the story - that I could take or leave the monsters in comparison – i know there are many others around here who will not feel the same, others that are in it for the monsters (Spaulds certainly comes to mind). While I wouldn't advise taking that particular approach with this particular film, I don't think any of you creature features that do will be disappointed with what you see – and yes, you do see. The creatures are as well designed and animated as the characters. They feel totally alien to this world yet retain a certain sense of plausibility, as if they could feasibly belong to some other. Their power is also very well handled, being threatening enough in every situation but invincible in none. There is then a consistency to them that doesn't exist in a lot of other creatures, which sometimes feel like they are acting in accordance with the plot rather than their own rules or reality. While this may get some of you salivating I have to say again that well designed or no these creatures are little more than an external force, they exist off screen much more than on.

It is then, an ironically titled film I guess because the Monsters of the title are anything but central. I think the real test should be whether or not you would go and see this film were it called 'Humans'. Those that do, more specifically those that make their way all the way through to the final act, will be in for a treat as the film has a handful of utterly sublime moments. The ending itself was a little abrupt but I think it's pretty clever, probably warranting a second watch. Definitely warranting a first watch.